2 hours ago
5
ADVERTISE HERE
Jeffrey stressed that the PM’s assurances must now be followed through with decisive action. — Malay Mail photo
KOTA KINABALU (March 17): The Prime Minister’s remarks on Sabah’s 40 per cent revenue entitlement is a “golden opportunity” to realise long-standing constitutional rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), said Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Jeffrey Kitingan.
Referring to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s statement at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on Sunday, Jeffrey said the assurance that the federal government would not appeal the court order signalled a potentially historic turning point for Sabah.
“I see this as a golden opportunity for him to create history as the first Prime Minister of Malaysia to truly respect and fully implement MA63, particularly Sabah’s 40 per cent special grant entitlement,” he said in a statement.
Anwar was reported as stating: “We are not appealing the 40 per cent. That is final. Case closed. There is no further discussion.”
Jeffrey, however, stressed that such assurances must now be followed through with decisive action.
“The Prime Minister must act in accordance with his words and take this opportunity to implement Sabah’s rights in full,” he said.
He noted that the 40 per cent formula is clearly provided for in the Federal Constitution, adding that the government should not rely on past administrative practices or historical justifications to delay its implementation.
Jeffrey also raised concerns over what he described as ambiguity in the federal government’s legal position, particularly regarding the appeal linked to the High Court’s ruling.
“There are still unanswered questions. The Prime Minister did not address the fundamental issue of the appeal and this risks confusing the public,” he said.
He pointed out that the Kota Kinabalu High Court had made clear findings, including affirming Sabah’s constitutional right to the 40 per cent grant and mandating a second review under Article 112D, which had not been conducted since 1974.
“The court ordered that the review be carried out within 90 days and that the amount be agreed within 180 days. The failure to meet the 90-day timeline reflects non-compliance with the court’s directive,” he said, warning that such failure could expose parties to contempt of court proceedings.
Jeffrey added that if Putrajaya genuinely had no intention of appealing the entitlement, it should proceed immediately with implementing the court’s orders.
“If there is truly no appeal on the 40 per cent, then the government must carry out the review and determine the amount as directed,” he said.
“If an appeal continues, it suggests the court may have erred, either in finding that no review was conducted or in ordering one. That is the core issue.”
On the role of the Sabah government, Jeffrey said a lack of proactive action could be perceived negatively by the public.
“From the people’s perspective, Sabah leaders appear to be merely following federal direction. This should not be the case,” he said.
While acknowledging the federal government’s decision to maintain diesel subsidies in Sabah and Sarawak, he stressed that such measures must not be conflated with constitutional rights.
“Subsidies are assistance, rights are rights. We cannot allow constitutional rights to be substituted with subsidies,” he said.
He further described interim payments introduced since 2022 as an implicit admission that Sabah’s entitlement had not been fully honoured.
“If there was no issue before, why introduce interim payments? This clearly shows that the right had not been implemented,” he said, calling for a permanent solution.
Dr Jeffrey also criticised the move to seek a stay of execution on the court’s decision shortly before the 180-day deadline.
“Withdraw the appeal, lift the stay, and sit down with the Sabah government to finalise a fair and transparent formula.
“Do not mix historical issues with present rights. The people of Sabah must not be held hostage to the past,” he added.
English (US) ·