By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) refers to the statement by Mustapha Sakmud claiming that the Court of Appeal’s stay order on Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement “will not stop ongoing work.”
Let us be absolutely clear:
This is not reassurance.
This is deflection.
1. A STAY DOES NOT STOP WORK — IT STOPS CONSEQUENCES
Yes, discussions can continue.
Yes, technical work can proceed.
But the critical truth is this:
A stay removes enforcement. And when enforcement is removed, urgency disappears.
Before the stay, the Federal Government was under a binding High Court order to:
conduct a review within 90 days
reach agreement within 180 days
Now?
Those timelines are effectively suspended.
There is no legal pressure.
There is no consequence for delay.
2. FROM OBLIGATION TO OPTION
Let us not mislead Sabahans.
Before the stay:
The Federal Government had to deliver.
After the stay:
The Federal Government only needs to continue talking.
That is not a minor procedural shift.
That is a fundamental downgrade of accountability.
3. “ONGOING WORK” IS NOT PROGRESS
Sabah has heard this before.
For decades, Sabah has been told:
discussions are ongoing
reviews are underway
negotiations are progressing
Yet the constitutional entitlement under Articles 112C and 112D remains unfulfilled.
Let us state this plainly:
Work without deadlines is not progress — it is delay dressed up as effort.
4. THE RIGHT REMAINS — BUT ENFORCEMENT IS FROZEN
The Court of Appeal did not overturn the High Court decision.
Sabah’s constitutional right still stands.
But enforcement has been paused.
Which means:
Sabah has the right
but cannot compel compliance
and the Federal Government faces no immediate legal consequence
This is not justice denied — but it is justice postponed.
5. IF THERE WAS SINCERITY, THERE WOULD BE COMPLIANCE
If the Federal Government was truly committed:
it would not need a stay
it would not resist timelines
it would not seek procedural shelter
A government that is serious about compliance does not ask the court for more time — it delivers.
6. SABAH DOES NOT NEED MORE TALK — SABAH NEEDS DELIVERY
Sabah has had over 60 years of:
negotiations
committees
reviews
promises
Enough.
Sabah does not need “ongoing work.” Sabah needs enforcement of what is already constitutionally due.
CONCLUSION
BoPiMaFo urges all Sabah leaders to stop downplaying the legal reality of the stay order.
Do not confuse the people.
Do not normalise delay.
Do not repackage inaction as progress.
The issue is not whether work continues.
The issue is whether the Federal Government can now delay without consequence.
And the answer, after the stay, is clear:
Yes — unless Sabah insists otherwise.
