Malaysia
Sabah opposition lawmaker slams government over rejected 40pc revenue motion
Kepayan assemblyman Chin Tek Ming. — Picture courtesy of Warisan

KOTA KINABALU, April 30 — The Sabah government’s rejection of a private motion in the State Assembly is evidence of the state’s lack of action on its 40 per cent revenue entitlement, said Kepayan assemblyman Chin Tek Ming.

Chin, whose proposal for a private motion in the final moments of the State Assembly sitting earlier was rejected by the Speaker, accused the administration of avoiding accountability and delaying action.

“This is not about rhetoric or slogans. What was rejected today was a complete action plan — with timelines, accountability and legal implications,” he said to reporters later.

He said the motion he sought was to compel the state government to formally affirm Sabah’s right to 40 per cent of net federal revenue derived from the state, and to demand full payment for the years 2022 to 2025, including arrears amounting to billions of ringgit.

It also proposed a 60-day deadline for negotiations with the federal government, failing which the state would be required to initiate legal action, alongside full public disclosure of revenue figures collected from Sabah.

Chin questioned the government’s justification that the matter was under court consideration and that a letter of demand had already been issued.

“The motion does not interfere with any court process. It simply calls for a clear political stance and binding administrative action,” he said.

“They do not want to be bound by a timeline. They do not want accountability. And they do not want to be compelled to act,” he said.

He also called out inconsistencies in the government’s action as he had submitted the motion earlier on April 2 while the government issued a letter of demand to the federal government on April 10.

“If action has already been taken, why reject a motion intended to strengthen and bind those actions? If this letter is genuine and substantive, it must be made public, including the amount claimed, the legal basis, and the next steps should enforcement be necessary.

“Otherwise, this appears reactive, not strategic, and worse, an excuse to avoid accountability,” he added.

Related Articles

 

You May Also Like