SABAH’S 40% IS NOT A REQUEST — IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT
By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) issues a direct and uncompromising challenge:
Will Putrajaya comply with the Constitution — or continue to violate it?
At the same time, we call upon all 79 Members of the Sabah State Legislative Assembly (ADUN):
Table and pass a binding motion on Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement — without delay, without dilution, and without fear.
This is no longer a matter of negotiation.
This is a matter of constitutional survival.
1. THE LAW IS CLEAR — THE BREACH IS DELIBERATE
Sabah’s entitlement to 40% of net revenue derived from the State is not political rhetoric.
It is expressly guaranteed under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, specifically:
Article 112C
Article 112D
The Tenth Schedule
These provisions establish a mandatory, formula-based entitlement.
There is no ambiguity.
There is no discretion.
There is only one conclusion:
The continued failure to implement this provision is not oversight — it is a breach.
2. THE 40% ENTITLEMENT IS PART OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
BoPiMaFo states this with full legal clarity:
Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement forms part of the Basic Structure of the Federal Constitution.
The Federal Court of Malaysia has affirmed the existence of the Basic Structure Doctrine in landmark cases such as:
Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat
Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak
These decisions confirm that:
certain constitutional features are fundamental
they cannot be removed, undermined, or rendered meaningless
Among these core features are:
the federal balance between the Federation and the States
the constitutional safeguards forming the basis of Malaysia’s formation
Sabah’s revenue entitlement is not incidental.
It is structural.
It is foundational.
It is non-negotiable.
Failure to honour it is therefore not merely administrative delay.
It is a structural violation of the Constitution itself.
3. PUTRAJAYA MUST ACCOUNT — NOT DISTRACT
Putrajaya continues to issue:
multi-billion ringgit “allocations”
development announcements
political narratives designed to create illusion
But one fundamental question remains unanswered:
What is the actual total revenue derived from Sabah — and where is the 40%?
To date:
there is no full public accounting
there is no transparent methodology
there is no verifiable compliance
This is not governance.
This is concealment.
4. THIS IS A CONTINUING CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH
Let it be stated plainly:
Every year Sabah is underpaid:
the Constitution is breached
the obligation is violated
the injustice compounds
This is not a past wrong.
This is an ongoing constitutional violation happening in real time.
5. THE SABAH DUN MUST ACT — OR STAND EXPOSED
The Sabah State Legislative Assembly now faces a defining moment.
It must choose:
to act as the guardian of Sabah’s constitutional rights
or to remain a passive instrument of federal convenience
BoPiMaFo calls for an immediate motion to:
affirm the 40% entitlement as binding constitutional law
expressly recognise it as part of the Basic Structure Doctrine
demand full and transparent disclosure of federal revenue derived from Sabah
establish an independent Sabah Revenue Monitoring Commission
invoke Article 112D mechanisms, including the Independent Assessor
authorise legal proceedings to compel compliance
reserve Sabah’s right to claim arrears
Failure to act is not neutrality.
It is complicity.
6. THIS IS NO LONGER ABOUT POLICY — IT IS ABOUT LEGITIMACY
This issue goes beyond finance.
It goes to the heart of the Federation:
If constitutional guarantees can be ignored
If structural safeguards can be bypassed
If Sabah’s rights can be reduced to discretionary payments
Then one question arises:
What is the legal value of the Constitution itself?
7. A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO PUTRAJAYA
BoPiMaFo now places this on record:
If Putrajaya continues to:
withhold full disclosure
underpay Sabah
ignore constitutional obligations
Then it must answer this directly:
On what legal basis do you justify non-compliance with the Constitution?
Silence is no longer acceptable.
Evasion is no longer sustainable.
Accountability is now unavoidable.
CONCLUSION
Sabah does not lack resources.
Sabah does not lack rights.
Sabah lacks one thing:
Enforcement.
The time for statements is over.
The time for political theatre is over.
The time for constitutional reckoning has arrived.
“40% IS NOT A REQUEST. IT IS A RIGHT.
AND A RIGHT DENIED IS A STRUCTURAL VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.”**
