A point‑by‑point response to BoPiMaFo
By Majangkim Office
KOTA KINABALU: BoPiMaFo’s statement contains a fundamental misunderstanding of where political power comes from.
They argue that defending Sabah’s rights is the government’s duty—full stop. That asking citizens to contribute is an insult, a failure of leadership, a dangerous precedent.
But they have it backwards.
Governments do not grant rights. People demand them. Governments do not defend sovereignty unless citizens insist. Governments do not act until the people move first.
Let me address their points directly.
1. On Charity vs. Sovereignty
“This is not charity—this is sovereignty.”
Agreed. Sovereignty is not charity.
But sovereignty is also not a gift from the government. It is a right that belongs to the people of Sabah. And when that right is under attack—when the federal government is actively in court arguing against us—it falls to the people to defend it.
SABAR is not asking for charity. They are asking for solidarity. They are asking Sabahans to invest in their own future.
If waiting for the government to act is the standard, we would still be waiting for the 40% revenue. We would still be waiting for our maritime boundaries. We would still be waiting for the Malaysia Agreement 1963 to be honoured.
The government does not wake up one day and decide to defend Sabah. The people make them. And sometimes, when they refuse, the people must lead the fight themselves.
2. On What Insults Sabahans
“This is an insult to Sabahans.”
Here is what actually insults Sabahans:
That our oil and gas have flowed to Putrajaya for decades while our roads crumble
That the federal government spends our money to hire lawyers arguing against our rights
That when citizens finally organize to fight back, they are criticized for how they fund the fight
That is the insult.
Passing the hat is not an insult. It is the opposite. It is Sabahans refusing to be victims. It is Sabahans saying: If the government won’t fight for us, we will fight for ourselves.
3. On Failure of Leadership
“This is a failure of leadership.”
Yes. It is.
But whose leadership?
The federal government’s leadership has failed Sabah for decades. The state government’s leadership has, at times, been too timid to push back. And now, when civil society steps into the void, BoPiMaFo directs its criticism at them?
The failure of leadership is not SABAR passing the hat. The failure of leadership is that passing the hat is necessary at all.
4. On Dangerous Precedent
“Will national security be funded by donations? Will border enforcement be crowd-funded?”
This is a slippery slope argument that ignores the actual situation.
SABAR is not asking the public to replace government functions. They are asking for support in a specific legal case where the government is not merely absent—it is the opponent.
The dangerous precedent is not citizens organizing. The dangerous precedent is citizens not organizing when their rights are being stripped away in court.
What happens if SABAR cannot raise the funds? The federal government’s lawyers argue unopposed. The court hears only one side. And Sabah loses by default.
That is the real danger. And BoPiMaFo’s criticism, however well‑intentioned, moves us closer to that outcome.
5. On Who Should Fund the Fight
BoPiMaFo demands that the government fully fund this case.
Let me ask a simple question: Which government?
The federal government is the defendant. They will not fund the case against themselves.
The state government? Perhaps. But state governments in Malaysia operate within constraints. They must negotiate, balance, survive. Asking them to fund a lawsuit against the federal government is a political calculation they may not be willing to make.
So who is left?
We are.
The people who vote. The people who pay taxes. The people whose resources have been taken for generations. The people who built this country with our hands, our labor, our land.
If not us, who?
If not now, when?
6. On the Legal Merits: The Territorial Sea Act
Let me add something BoPiMaFo’s statement conveniently ignores: SABAR’s case is legally strong.
The Territorial Sea Act 2012 limits Sabah’s maritime boundary to three nautical miles. But the research is clear. The historical documents are clear. The North Borneo (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council 1954, the Convention on Territorial Seas and Contiguous Zone 1958, the annulment of the Proclamation of Emergency in 2012—the dots connect.
Sabah’s rightful boundaries extend to 12 nautical miles. And beyond that, our continental shelf belongs to us.
There is a Latin maxim that applies here: *Nemo dat quod non habet. * No one gives what they do not have.
When the federal government passed the Territorial Sea Act 2012, they presumed to give Sabah a three-mile limit. But the boundaries they were “giving” were never theirs to give. Those boundaries were established long before Malaysia existed — in the 1954 Order in Council, in the 1958 Convention, in the very fabric of North Borneo’s legal identity.
You cannot give away what you do not own. You cannot limit what was never yours to limit.
The federal government’s case rests on an act passed in 2012. SABAR’s case rests on a century of legal history, colonial orders, international conventions, and the fundamental truth that Sabah entered Malaysia with its boundaries intact.
This is not a speculative case. This is not a political stunt. This is the final legal extension of a fight that has been building for decades. The research has been done. The connections have been made. The history has been documented.
What SABAR is doing—with every donation, every meeting, every public statement—is taking that research and turning it into a courtroom reality.
They are not asking Sabahans to fund a gamble. They are asking us to fund the final push toward what is already ours.
*Nemo dat quod non habet. * The federal government cannot give what it does not have. And SABAR is the one reminding the court of that truth.
That is not an insult. That is an opportunity.
7. On MPs and the Freedom to Choose
BoPiMaFo takes particular offense at lawmakers being asked to contribute.
But here is a simple truth: no one is being forced.
SABAR approached MPs because they are public figures, because they represent the people, because they have the means and the platform to support a fight for Sabah’s rights. That is not an insult. It is an invitation.
If an MP chooses not to contribute, that is their right. If they choose to contribute, that is also their right. The same applies to every Sabahan.
The option to donate is entirely yours. You may not like this fight—so do not contribute. Let others who believe in it act. But do not shame them for acting. Do not call their solidarity an insult. Do not stand at a distance and lecture while they carry the burden.
That is not principle. That is watching from the sidelines.
The Deeper Truth
BoPiMaFo’s statement rests on an assumption that governments are the source of action, and citizens are merely recipients.
But in any functioning democracy, the opposite is true.
The people create the government. We vote them in. We pay their salaries. We hold them accountable. And when they fail—when they refuse to act—we do not wait patiently for them to discover their conscience.
We organize. We contribute. We fight.
Every major rights movement in history began with citizens passing the hat. The civil rights movement. The women’s suffrage movement. The movements that won independence from colonial powers—including our own.
Passing the hat is not a sign of failure. It is the first step toward victory.
A Final Word
BoPiMaFo concludes: “Do not ask Sabahans to fund what the government is duty-bound to defend.”
I say: Ask Sabahans. Always ask Sabahans.
Because we are the ones who built this place. We are the ones who will defend it. And when the government stands on the other side of the courtroom, we do not wait for permission.
We pass the hat. We fight. We win.
And when we do—when the court affirms what we already know, when the boundaries are restored, when the 40% flows where it belongs—it will not be because we waited for the government to act.
It will be because Sabahans refused to stay silent.
It will be because Sabahans passed the hat.
It will be because we remembered: rights are not given. They are claimed.
*Nemo dat quod non habet. * No one gives what they do not have.
And no one will give Sabah what is rightfully hers. We must take it. Together.
