KOTA KINABALU: N.25 Kapayan Assemblyman Chin Tek Ming questioned the statement by Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali that the GRS government is considering tabling a motion regarding Sabah’s 40% revenue claim during the upcoming Sabah State Legislative Assembly sitting.
According to him, the statement raises fundamental questions that the state government has so far failed to answer honestly and consistently.
He said that if the government truly possesses the political and institutional commitment to defend Sabah’s constitutional rights, why was the Kapayan Motion, which addressed the same matter earlier, rejected from being debated in the Sabah State Legislative Assembly.
He stated that such contradictions cannot simply be erased through political rhetoric, especially when the government’s proposal to table its own motion only surfaced after the Kapayan Motion had been rejected.
According to Chin, if negotiations between the State Government and the Federal Government were genuinely progressing smoothly as claimed by GRS leaders, the government should already be able to present a concrete solution complete with an implementation formula, calculation mechanism, payment timeline, and clear institutional commitments from the Federal Government.
However, he said that Sabahans have so far only been given general statements that are conditional in nature and lack any certainty that can be tested or enforced.
He said the fact that the government now intends to bring another official motion shows that Sabah’s 40% claim has yet to reach a final resolution and remains subject to serious uncertainty.
According to him, the situation also raises questions as to whether the narrative that “negotiations are progressing smoothly” has merely been a form of political perception management intended to ease public pressure over the government’s failure to defend Sabah’s rights openly and firmly.
Chin also stressed that the government cannot continue hiding behind the excuse of “still negotiating” as though the negotiation process itself is sufficient to be considered a success.
He said that if negotiations were truly effective and complied with the Federal Constitution, the dispute would not have needed to be brought before the Kota Kinabalu High Court and is now before the Court of Appeal.
He said this development proves that Sabah’s 40% claim is no longer merely an administrative issue or ordinary political negotiation but has evolved into a serious constitutional dispute concerning the interpretation and compliance with Article 112C and the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
In the same statement, Chin also raised questions regarding the substantive achievements of Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali during his tenure as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Sabah and Sarawak Affairs).
According to him, Sabahans have the right to ask what final formula has been agreed upon, what official calculation mechanism has been successfully established, and whether complete data regarding Federal revenue derived from Sabah has ever been transparently disclosed to the state government.
He also questioned whether Sabah has truly received full implementation of its constitutional rights or merely interim payments accompanied by political statements lacking legal certainty.
To avoid public confusion, Chin clarified that the previously rejected Kapayan Motion was not sub judice in nature and was not intended to interfere with court proceedings.
Instead, he said the motion aimed to establish the official institutional position of the Sabah State Legislative Assembly regarding Sabah’s continuing constitutional rights.
According to him, among the main contents of the motion were affirming that Sabah’s 40% entitlement remains valid after 2021, recognising that the entitlement covers 2022 and subsequent years, and demanding an official, transparent, and auditable mechanism to determine the actual amount of Federal revenue derived from Sabah.
He said the motion also demanded full disclosure of Federal revenue data related to Sabah while ensuring Sabah has a strong institutional basis and Hansard record for future actions including negotiations, future claims, and legal proceedings.
Chin stated that attempts to label the Kapayan Motion as “political” or as “interfering with court proceedings” are inaccurate and defensive portrayals.
He also questioned the actual content of the motion the GRS government intends to table, including whether the government is prepared to clearly affirm that Sabah’s 40% entitlement continues to accrue after 2021, demand full disclosure of Federal revenue from Sabah, and establish a clear resolution timeline.
According to him, Sabahans deserve to know whether the motion truly carries enforceable value or is merely another symbolic political statement.
He stressed that the real issue today is no longer whether Sabah’s 40% entitlement exists, because the right is clearly guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
Instead, he said the main question is whether the government possesses the political courage and institutional firmness to consistently defend and enforce Sabah’s rights against the Federal Government.
He stressed that Sabah’s 40% entitlement is not compassionate assistance, not political funding, and not a voluntary contribution, but rather a constitutional obligation that must be fulfilled and cannot continue to be indefinitely delayed under the excuse of “still negotiating.”
