By DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN, President Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) takes note of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s statement that his government has never sidelined the demands of Sabah and Sarawak and that his administration has given serious attention to matters arising from the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
BoPiMaFo welcomes every genuine step taken by any Federal Government to restore Sabah’s constitutional rights.
But the Prime Minister’s statement must ultimately be measured against results, not rhetoric; implementation, not meetings; and constitutional compliance, not political generosity.
The question is not whether Putrajaya has listened to Sabah.
The question is:
What has actually been delivered?
And before we discuss allocations, committees or the latest round of MA63 negotiations, we should return to the fundamental bargain upon which North Borneo agreed to participate in the formation of Malaysia.
SABAH WAS GIVEN FUNDAMENTAL ASSURANCES
The formation of Malaysia was not an unconditional surrender of North Borneo’s rights to Kuala Lumpur.
The Inter-Governmental Committee was specifically tasked with working out constitutional arrangements and safeguards for the special interests of North Borneo and Sarawak. Its report recognised that some requirements of the Borneo territories should be protected through undertakings or assurances, and it specifically provided special arrangements concerning immigration. Defence and internal security, meanwhile, became federal responsibilities.
From Sabah’s historical perspective, two expectations were fundamental:
security and protection;
and
economic advancement within a federation that would not impoverish a resource-rich Borneo territory.
After more than six decades, Sabahans have every right to examine what happened to those expectations.
And the contradictions are profound.
WE WERE PROMISED SECURITY — YET SABAH ENDED UP WITH PROJECT IC
Security was one of the great arguments for federation.
North Borneo was a small territory facing an uncertain regional environment. Defence and internal security became responsibilities of the Federation, while special immigration safeguards were established for the Borneo territories.
Yet Sabah subsequently experienced one of the most disturbing citizenship, immigration and documentation controversies in Malaysian history — the phenomenon widely known as Project IC.
The problem became so serious that the Federal Government established a Royal Commission of Inquiry into immigrants in Sabah and issues surrounding the questionable issuance of Malaysian identity documents. Project IC has commonly been used to describe allegations of systematic granting of citizenship or identity documents to immigrants in Sabah.
That presents an extraordinary contradiction.
Sabah entered Malaysia expecting greater security and protection.
Yet under the Federation Sabah subsequently suffered an immigration and documentation crisis serious enough to require a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
And years after that RCI, Sabahans are still asking what happened to the follow-up action.
BoPiMaFo therefore asks the Prime Minister:
Where is the comprehensive implementation report arising from the Sabah RCI?
Which findings have been acted upon?
Which problems identified by the inquiry have been resolved?
What corrective action has been taken concerning questionable documentation?
What safeguards have been established to ensure that what happened can never happen again?
And what measures have been taken to protect the integrity of Sabah’s citizenship records and electoral roll?
Calls were still being made as recently as 2024 for the RCI report on Project IC to be debated in Parliament.
That hardly suggests a historical issue Sabahans can simply forget.
This is not merely about immigration.
It concerns citizenship, electoral integrity, security, indigenous political representation, land, employment, public services and Sabah’s demographic future.
So when the Prime Minister says Sabah has never been sidelined, BoPiMaFo asks:
If the fundamental security assurance to Sabah was fulfilled, how did Sabah end up confronting Project IC?
That question deserves an answer.
WE EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT — YET SABAH LOST EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER MAJOR RESOURCES
The second fundamental contradiction concerns economic development.
Sabah did not participate in the formation of Malaysia so that, more than six decades later, one of the richest territories in natural resources would still be arguing over basic infrastructure and asking Putrajaya to return constitutional revenue belonging to Sabah.
Sabah possesses enormous natural wealth.
Oil and gas.
Timber.
Forests.
Minerals.
Agricultural land.
Palm oil.
Fisheries.
Tourism resources.
And vast maritime resources.
Yet over the decades, Sabah has repeatedly seen major economic powers and benefits associated with these resources shift away from effective Sabah control.
Oil and gas became subject to the federal Petroleum Development Act 1974 framework.
Questions continue over Sabah’s maritime jurisdiction and federal territorial-sea legislation.
Large areas of Sabah’s productive economy have become increasingly dominated by interests headquartered outside Sabah.
And, most remarkably of all, Sabah is still negotiating for the implementation of its 40 per cent constitutional net revenue entitlement.
The question therefore should no longer simply be:
How much money does Putrajaya allocate to Sabah?
The deeper questions are:
How much wealth has Sabah contributed to the Federation?
How much control over its resources has Sabah lost?
How much federal revenue has been derived from Sabah?
How much should Sabah have received under its constitutional arrangements?
And where should Sabah economically be today after more than six decades of Malaysia?
That is the balance sheet Sabahans deserve to see.
WHERE IS SABAH’S FULL 40 PER CENT ENTITLEMENT?
The clearest financial test remains Sabah’s constitutional 40 per cent entitlement.
The Federal Government can announce billions in development expenditure.
It can build roads.
It can finance hospitals.
It can repair schools.
It can provide water projects.
Those expenditures are welcome.
But they are also part of the ordinary responsibilities of a Federal Government towards its citizens.
They cannot simply be substituted for Sabah’s separate constitutional entitlement.
The principle must remain clear:
An allocation is not an entitlement.
A development project is not constitutional revenue sharing.
An interim payment is not the 40 per cent formula.
And political goodwill cannot replace constitutional obligation.
If the Federal Government accepts Sabah’s 40 per cent entitlement, then publish the calculation.
Tell Sabahans the federal revenue derived from Sabah.
Calculate the entitlement.
Show the deductions, if any.
Show the methodology.
Show the amount payable.
And implement it.
After 63 years, Sabah should not still be negotiating the existence or mechanics of a constitutional safeguard intended to protect Sabah’s financial position within Malaysia.
PRIME MINISTER, PUBLISH THE MA63 SCORECARD
If Anwar is confident that his government has never sidelined Sabah, BoPiMaFo proposes a simple test.
Publish a comprehensive public scorecard:
RIGHT → ORIGINAL OBLIGATION → PRESENT STATUS → WHAT HAS BEEN RESTORED → WHAT REMAINS OUTSTANDING → COMPLETION DATE
Let Sabahans judge.
Tell us:
Which MA63 matters are completely resolved?
Which are partially resolved?
Which remain under negotiation?
Which have not been implemented?
And what are the binding deadlines?
There is no reason for this information to remain buried in committees and technical meetings.
Transparency would strengthen the Prime Minister’s case if the Government’s record is as good as claimed.
WHERE IS BORNEONISATION?
The same principle should apply to Borneonisation.
More than six decades after Malaysia was formed, Sabahans should not still need to ask why qualified Sabahans are not adequately represented at the highest levels of federal departments and agencies operating in Sabah.
Publish the statistics.
How many senior federal posts in Sabah are occupied by Sabahans?
Which departments have achieved the original objective?
Which have not?
What is the deadline for completion?
Do not give Sabah another slogan.
Give Sabah the figures.
WHAT ABOUT PETROLEUM AND TERRITORIAL RIGHTS?
Sabah’s petroleum and maritime rights cannot remain permanently parked in political negotiations.
BoPiMaFo believes Sabahans deserve clear answers on:
the operation and constitutional implications of the Petroleum Development Act 1974;
Sabah’s share of petroleum revenue;
the legal basis for federal control over offshore resources;
and the application of the Territorial Sea Act 2012 to Sabah.
These are not minor administrative matters.
They concern territory, natural resources, constitutional power and Sabah’s economic future.
If Putrajaya believes its position is correct, publish the complete legal basis.
If Sabah’s position is correct, restore the rights.
What should no longer be acceptable is permanent ambiguity.
AND WHAT ABOUT CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER IN SABAH?
There is another uncomfortable question.
The Prime Minister has built much of his national reform agenda around governance and the fight against corruption.
Sabah must not be treated as an exception.
The Sabah mineral prospecting controversy resulted in investigations and prosecutions involving political figures, while public questions continued over why others implicated in the broader controversy had not been charged. Those charged are entitled to the presumption of innocence and their guilt must be determined by the courts.
BoPiMaFo will not prejudge anyone.
But neither should Sabahans be expected to stop asking questions.
Where credible evidence exists of corruption, abuse of office, improper licensing, manipulation of state resources or political interference, investigation must be complete, independent and without fear or favour.
There must be no special protection because someone belongs to the government of the day.
There must be no selective prosecution.
There must be no political immunity.
If the evidence is sufficient, prosecute.
If it is not, explain transparently why.
Sabah’s resources belong to Sabahans.
They must never become private political currency.
And this principle applies equally to the Federal Government and the Sabah Government.
Sabah rights cannot be used as a shield to protect Sabah leaders from accountability.
We cannot fight Putrajaya for billions while remaining silent if Sabah’s own wealth is lost through corruption, wastage or abuse of power.
ESTABLISH A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO SABAH FOREST INDUSTRIES
BoPiMaFo also renews its call for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Sabah Forest Industries — SFI.
SFI was not an insignificant company.
It was one of Sabah’s major industrial enterprises and controlled assets, land, timber resources and economic opportunities of enormous importance to Sabah.
Its decline and eventual fate deserve far more than piecemeal explanations.
An independent RCI should examine:
– how SFI moved from being a major Sabah industrial asset into financial distress and liquidation;
– the decisions made by successive governments, boards, management, financiers and other parties;
– the handling of SFI’s land, timber resources and strategic assets;
– the financial consequences to Sabah;
– what happened to employees and their entitlements;
– whether Sabah lost valuable industrial opportunities;
– whether negligence, mismanagement, conflicts of interest, abuse of authority or other wrongdoing occurred; and
– what reforms are necessary to ensure that no comparable Sabah strategic asset suffers the same fate again.
An RCI does not presume guilt.
It establishes facts.
If everyone acted properly, the inquiry will vindicate them.
If wrongdoing occurred, Sabahans deserve to know.
What is there to fear from the truth?
SABAH NEEDS MORE THAN FEDERAL ALLOCATIONS
The central weakness in the Prime Minister’s argument is that the treatment of Sabah cannot be measured merely by the amount Putrajaya announces every year.
Sabah’s position in Malaysia concerns much more than annual allocations.
It concerns:
security;
constitutional safeguards;
territorial rights;
natural resources;
financial autonomy;
immigration protection;
Borneonisation;
political representation;
and institutional accountability.
A federal road allocation does not answer Project IC.
A school allocation does not answer the 40 per cent entitlement.
A hospital does not answer petroleum rights.
A water project does not answer territorial jurisdiction.
An MA63 committee does not answer Borneonisation.
And another announcement does not answer 63 years of unresolved constitutional questions.
THE TWO FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTIONS CANNOT BE IGNORED
BoPiMaFo therefore returns to two very simple questions.
Sabah expected security and protection — how did Sabah end up with Project IC?
And:
Sabah expected economic advancement — why did a territory blessed with enormous natural resources progressively lose effective control over major sources of wealth while remaining dependent on federal allocations and still fighting for its constitutional revenue entitlement?
These questions go beyond Anwar Ibrahim personally.
They concern the performance of successive Federal Governments since 1963.
But Anwar is Prime Minister today.
He therefore has the opportunity — and responsibility — to correct what previous administrations failed to correct.
BoPiMaFo is not asking Anwar to defend every Prime Minister who came before him.
We are asking him:
Will you finally resolve what they left unresolved?
DO NOT TELL SABAH WE WERE NEVER SIDELINED — SHOW US
If the Prime Minister genuinely believes Sabah has not been sidelined, then BoPiMaFo respectfully challenges him:
Publish the MA63 scorecard.
Publish the 40 per cent calculation.
Implement the constitutional entitlement.
Complete Borneonisation.
Publish the implementation status of the Sabah RCI.
Protect the integrity of Sabah’s citizenship and immigration safeguards.
Resolve Sabah’s petroleum and territorial claims transparently.
Allow every credible corruption allegation in Sabah to be investigated without political interference.
And establish an independent RCI into Sabah Forest Industries.
Then let Sabahans decide.
After 63 years, Sabah’s constitutional rights should no longer arrive disguised as political generosity.
They should arrive as obligations faithfully performed.
The Prime Minister says Sabah has never been sidelined.
Our response is simple:
Prime Minister, prove it with the record.
Because:
An allocation is not an entitlement.
A committee is not implementation.
A negotiation is not restoration.
A promise is not performance.
And recognition without delivery is not justice.
