By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) takes note of the intervention by Roger Chin in the Sabah State Legislative Assembly concerning the implementation of the High Court decision of 17 October 2025 on Sabah’s 40% Special Grant.
His position is both legally sound and constitutionally grounded.
The issue is no longer one of interpretation.
It is now a question of implementation — and of constitutional compliance.
1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IS CLEAR AND BINDING
Sabah’s entitlement to 40% of net revenue derived from the State is expressly provided under:
Article 112C
Article 112D
The Tenth Schedule
The High Court has already affirmed that:
the entitlement is constitutional in nature;
it is not discretionary;
and it remains due and payable.
These are not policy positions.
They are binding legal findings.
2. DELAY AFTER JUDGMENT RAISES A SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
BoPiMaFo concurs with the position raised in the Assembly:
After decades of non-compliance—and following a clear judicial determination—continued reliance on “process”, “discussion”, and “negotiation” is no longer sufficient.
At this stage, delay is no longer administrative.
It raises the question of whether there is a continuing failure to discharge a constitutional duty.
A prolonged pattern of delay, when it concerns a constitutional obligation, cannot be treated as neutral.
It has legal consequences.
3. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-PAYMENT IN CURRENT YEARS
Any argument based on historical complexity cannot apply to recent years.
For 2022 onwards:
revenue has been collected;
the data exists or is readily ascertainable;
the constitutional formula remains operative.
There is therefore no legal or practical barrier to implementation.
At the very least, payment for 2025 can be effected without delay.
4. THIS ENGAGES THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
BoPiMaFo reiterates that Sabah’s 40% entitlement is not merely a financial arrangement.
It forms part of the constitutional structure governing federal–state relations.
In light of the recognition of the Basic Structure Doctrine by the Federal Court, such provisions cannot be rendered ineffective through inaction.
To affirm a constitutional right in court, yet fail to implement it in practice, raises serious concerns regarding:
constitutional supremacy;
the rule of law;
and the integrity of the Federation.
5. NEGOTIATION CANNOT CONTINUE WITHOUT LIMIT
If discussions are ongoing, they must be structured and time-bound.
BoPiMaFo calls for:
a clear and publicly stated timeline for implementation;
transparency on steps already taken;
and clarity on the State Government’s position in safeguarding Sabah’s entitlement.
Without defined timelines, negotiations risk becoming a mechanism of delay rather than resolution.
6. STRUCTURAL REFORM: TOWARD REVENUE CERTAINTY
BoPiMaFo notes the proposal raised on moving toward collection of revenue at source.
This is a significant and necessary structural consideration.
Without transparency, verifiability, and control over revenue data:
disputes will persist;
accountability will remain limited;
and implementation will continue to be contested.
This issue is therefore not only about entitlement.
It is about certainty and governance.
7. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION — IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ONE
This matter transcends political alignment.
It concerns:
whether constitutional provisions are respected;
whether judicial decisions are given effect;
and whether the federal structure operates as intended.
Sabah’s entitlement is not a request.
It is a constitutional obligation.
CONCLUSION: THE QUESTION IS NOW ONE OF WILL
Sabah has waited for decades.
The law is now clear.
The position is no longer disputed.
What remains is a single, unavoidable question:
Will the constitutional obligation be implemented — or will delay continue despite a clear judicial determination?
BoPiMaFo states firmly:
Sabah’s 40% entitlement must be implemented — beginning with current and verifiable years.
A constitutional right cannot remain theoretical after being affirmed in court.
Implementation is no longer optional — it is required.
