PRESS RELEASE: KOTA KINABALU, 5 May 2026: The Federal Government’s latest suggestion that Sabah’s special grant may be increased in the 2027 Budget once again misses the fundamental issue — Sabah is not asking for discretionary assistance, but demanding the fulfilment of a constitutional right.
Warisan Supreme Council member Chen Ket Chuin said the statement by Mustapha Sakmud reflects a troubling attempt to reframe a legal obligation as a matter of fiscal generosity.
“Please stop pacifying Sabah with promises of a bigger grant.
"Let us be clear — Sabah needs the prompt payment of its 40 per cent revenue entitlement. This is not charity. This is a constitutional obligation,” he asserted.
Chen stressed that the High Court has already affirmed Sabah’s entitlement under Article 112C and the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, making further delays both unjustifiable and unacceptable.
Process Without Timeline Is Delay by Design
He noted that despite decades of audited revenue records held by federal agencies such as LHDN and Customs, the government continues to claim that Sabah’s entitlement is still being “determined”.
“If the Federal Government can compute national revenue every year for its budget, how can it still be unable to compute Sabah’s share after more than 60 years? This is not a data issue — this is a political will issue,” he questioned.
Chen pointed out that repeated references to:
* "ongoing review”
* “technical discussions”
* "Cabinet consideration”
have yet to produce:
* a definitive timeline
* a transparent methodology
* or even an interim payment mechanism
“Process cannot be used as a substitute for action. When there is no timeline, no transparency, and no interim payment, it creates the unavoidable perception that delay is the objective,” he contended.
Substance Must Prevail Over Excuses
He further stressed that ongoing legal or technical processes cannot be used to suspend constitutional obligations.
“The existence of legal proceedings does not nullify a constitutional right. If the entitlement is not disputed in principle, then payments — at least the undisputed portion — must begin immediately,” he said.
Chen warned that continued delay risks eroding public trust and reinforcing longstanding concerns about federal sincerity in honouring the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
Stop Reframing Rights as “Grants”
Chen criticised the narrative of increasing Sabah’s “special grant” as a diversion from the core issue.
“This is precisely the problem — replacing a constitutional entitlement with a discretionary grant. Sabah is not asking for goodwill. Sabah is demanding what is rightfully its own,” he stressed.
A Call for Courage — Not Compliance
Chen also called on Mustapha to rise above bureaucratic positioning and defend Sabah’s interests with conviction.
“Datuk Mustapha must not act as a proxy for federal narratives. He must act as a representative of Sabahans.
This is the moment for courage and political will — to speak firmly, to demand accountability, and to ensure Sabah’s rights are not diluted into negotiable concessions,” he said.
We Want the 40% Entitlement Honoured — Not Special Grants, Not Promises, But Action
Chen concluded with a firm call for immediate action:
“Sabahans have waited for more than half a century. Enough is enough.
"Declare the figure. Commit to a timeline. Begin interim payments.
"We need 40 per cent — not promises, not committees, and certainly not another delayed grant.”
