From Chin Tek Ming
I refer to the recent commentary and narrative published by the editor of FMT’s Malay news desk regarding Sabah’s constitutional rights and the broader discussion surrounding the implementation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement.
While differing opinions are part of a healthy democracy, it is important that public discourse, especially on constitutional matters affecting Sabah, is grounded in proper historical context and accurate facts.
Certain recent commentaries have, unfortunately, misleadingly and selectively portrayed Warisan’s position and actions without acknowledging the broader constitutional and political developments that took place before and during the Warisan administration.
At the end of the day, regardless of political affiliation, we are Sabahans who want what is best for Sabah and its people. The rakyat are less interested in political rhetoric or competitions over who is “more Sabahan”. What the people truly want are practical solutions, transparent governance, and sincere efforts to defend Sabah’s rights and future.
Constructive opposition is part of democracy
The role of the opposition is not merely to criticise, but also to offer ideas, raise concerns responsibly, and contribute solutions where necessary. The Kapayan assemblyman’s motion was not tabled to create unnecessary conflict, but to encourage transparency, accountability, and a more structured discussion of Sabah’s 40% constitutional rights.
One of the key principles behind the motion is that separating legacy claims from new claims is both a practical and strategic approach.
The motion clearly distinguishes interim special grants from Sabah’s actual 40% constitutional entitlement under the Federal Constitution, so that temporary arrangements are not misconstrued as a final settlement of Sabah’s rights. This distinction is important. An interim payment should not be misunderstood as a final settlement of Sabah’s entitlement.
It further seeks a clear timeline and structured framework to ensure that this issue is resolved with certainty after decades of negotiations and legal processes. The motion is not merely intended to criticise, but to assist the government in identifying practical and lawful pathways to recover what is constitutionally owed to Sabah.
Ultimately, this issue transcends politics. By focusing on claims for the 2022-2025 period, Sabah no longer needs to remain trapped in prolonged delays arising from older disputes that have dragged on for years without resolution.
This approach is not about abandoning historical claims. It is about ensuring that Sabah can move forward strategically and begin securing tangible outcomes instead of remaining stuck in endless procedural and political delays.
However, the real question now is this: who truly has the courage and political will to push until Sabah fully secures what rightfully belongs to it? Questions raised in the Dewan Rakyat should never be viewed negatively. The Dewan Rakyat exists precisely so that matters affecting the people can be debated openly, responsibly, and constructively.
Historical context must be viewed fairly
Recent attempts to place blame solely on Warisan regarding Sabah’s 40% constitutional entitlement issue should be viewed fairly and within the proper historical context.
Warisan governed Sabah for only about two years. Yet within that limited timeframe, the issue of Sabah’s constitutional entitlement became a serious national discussion involving actual payment mechanisms, negotiations, and financial figures.
For many years before 2019, very little visible progress was achieved on this issue despite the previous administration having governed Sabah for a much longer period.
It must also be remembered that prior to the Warisan administration, there were no major visible breakthroughs or concrete outcomes regarding Sabah’s constitutional revenue rights, apart from the establishment of a technical committee relating to MA63 chaired at the time by former foreign minister Anifah Aman. On this note, a great beginning move headed by Anifah.
The issue only began receiving wider national attention and more serious political urgency when the Warisan administration elevated the matter into direct and active state-federal engagement involving actual negotiations, figures, and implementation discussions.
It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to selectively isolate one administrative letter or negotiation point without acknowledging the broader reality that the Warisan administration was among the first to push aggressively for serious financial recognition of Sabah’s constitutional rights.
The RM53.4 million issue must also be understood within the framework of ongoing negotiations and constitutional processes during that period. It was never intended to compromise or abandon Sabah’s constitutional position.
It must also be acknowledged that if not for the pressure generated during the Warisan administration, there might not have been an interim special grant discussion in the first place. The existence of interim grant arrangements itself demonstrates that Sabah’s demands could no longer be ignored once the issue was aggressively brought to the forefront during that period.
I would also like to thank Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) deputy secretary-general Armizan Mohd Ali for reminding the rakyat that 2019 was indeed a significant turning point in the discussion of Sabah’s 40% constitutional rights. 2019 was the year Sabahans finally saw a more concrete and structured starting point on the 40% issue under the Warisan administration.
While the matter remains unresolved today, even in the second term of the GRS-led government, it cannot be denied that important groundwork and formal engagement began during that period. This is not about claiming exclusive credit, but about acknowledging historical facts fairly and ensuring that every genuine effort to defend Sabah’s constitutional rights continues to be strengthened moving forward.
Transparency strengthens public confidence
The recent discussions involving Sabah’s revenue entitlement clearly demonstrate that this issue remains highly important to the people of Sabah. If figures and negotiation updates can be announced publicly, then greater clarity and engagement in the Dewan Rakyat will only strengthen public confidence.
This is not about attacking any individual or party. It is about ensuring that Sabah’s rights are defended in a transparent, united, and credible manner.
Warisan has consistently respected legal and institutional processes relating to Sabah’s constitutional rights, including efforts undertaken by the Sabah Law Society in matters relating to the 40% revenue entitlement. Legal processes and legislative discussions should complement one another, not be treated as mutually exclusive.
Sabah’s constitutional rights require both legal persistence and political courage.
Proposal for a bipartisan Sabah rights task force
Moving forward, I would like to propose that the state government establish a bipartisan special task force focused specifically on Sabah’s 40% constitutional rights and MA63-related financial matters. It should involve government and opposition representatives; legal, constitutional and accounting experts; the relevant stakeholders and civil society.
The issue of Sabah’s constitutional rights requires continuity, unity, and a long-term strategy that goes beyond party lines and election cycles. As the Kapayan assemblyman, I am prepared to be among the first to offer my full cooperation and participation in such a bipartisan effort for the benefit of Sabah.
Sabah’s future cannot be built through division, but through courage, transparency, and cooperation. The people expect both sides to work together in defending Sabah’s rights, strengthening its institutions and securing a better future for the next generation.
Chin Tek Ming is the Warisan assemblyman for Kapayan.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.