SABAH’S 40% ENTITLEMENT: A
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION, NOT A POLITICAL OPTION
I
express my full support for the motion brought by Kapayan
Assemblyman, Chin Tek Ming, which calls upon the Sabah State
Government to determine, compute, and claim Sabah’s entitlement to
40% of the net revenue derived by the Federation from Sabah for the
years 2022 to 2025 and for all subsequent years.
From
a legal standpoint, the position is clear and unequivocal. This is
not a matter for negotiation, but one of constitutional compliance.
Sabah’s
40% entitlement is a binding constitutional right enshrined under
Article 112C of the Federal Constitution and Article 112D of the
Federal Constitution, read together with the relevant provisions of
the Tenth Schedule. This right is enforceable and cannot be deferred,
diluted, or substituted by any alternative formula without proper
legal basis.
The
motion seeks only three fundamental measures:
-The
accurate determination and computation of Sabah’s entitlement;
-Full
transparency and disclosure of the figures to the State Assembly and
the public;
-Decisive
action to claim the said entitlement from the Federal Government.
Failure
to implement these measures may amount not merely to administrative
inaction, but to a dereliction of constitutional duty.
It
must be emphasised that constitutional rights do not lapse with time.
Any attempt to undermine this entitlement through informal
negotiations or the adoption of a lesser formula is legally untenable
and subject to judicial challenge.
A
Broader Constitutional Issue: Restoration of Sabah’s Legal
Authority
In
this context, I further propose that a corrective constitutional step
be seriously considered — namely, the restoration of Sabah’s
legislative authority over revenue-related laws.
Specifically,
the Federal Government Gazette Vol. IX, No. 10, dated 20 May 1965,
which federalised the Present Law of Sabah No. 29 of 1956 – Income
Tax Ordinance 1956,
No. 18 of 1959 - The Excise Ordinance 1959 and No. 21 of 1960 - The
Petroleum Ordinance - 1960,
ought to be revisited.
There
are legitimate legal grounds to question the validity of this
federalisation, as it appears that it was effected without reference
to, or approval from, the Sabah State Legislative Assembly, as
required under Article 161E of the Federal Constitution and Article
159 of the Federal Constitution.
The
restoration of such legislative authority to Sabah would:
-Facilitate
the proper interpretation and implementation of Articles 112C and
112D;
-Remove
longstanding legal and administrative impediments to Sabah’s
financial rights;
-Restore
public confidence in the fairness of federal-state fiscal
arrangements.
Conclusion
This
motion is not only justified — it is long overdue.
The
law has always been clear.
The
only question that remains is whether the Government will choose to
comply — or continue to evade its constitutional responsibilities.
Support
this motion. Uphold the Constitution. Defend Sabah’s rights.
-END-
YB
Assaffal Hj Panglima Alian
ADUN
N.60 Tungku
21
April 2026
