Chin: No meaningful progress on Sabah’s 40pc entitlement at 90-day mark

15 January 2026

KOTA KINABALU: Nominated assemblyman Datuk Roger Chin said the Federal Government has yet to demonstrate meaningful compliance with the High Court decision on the state’s 40 per cent revenue entitlement, despite 90 days having elapsed since the ruling was delivered.

He said that although the review process under Article 112D of the Federal Constitution had formally commenced, it had not translated into the serious, substantive negotiations envisaged by the Court.

“To date, there has been only one meeting. As publicly reported, that meeting was described as being focused on clarifying parameters, methods, amounts, and payment timelines relating to Sabah’s 40 per cent revenue entitlement.

“While such clarification may be a necessary preliminary step, the meeting did not result in substantive engagement or agreement on the core issues required to give effect to the judgment,” he said in a statement today.

Chin said there was no indication that negotiations on the quantum had been undertaken, no agreed methodology established, no disclosure adequate to support a proper accounting exercise, and no concrete timeline aimed at achieving compliance within the period ordered by the Court.

He added that a second meeting scheduled for 19 December 2025, was postponed by the Federal Government and that no new date has been set.

“This postponement, without rescheduling or meaningful follow-up, reinforces concerns over the lack of urgency and seriousness required by the judgment. No explanation consistent with the Court’s directions has been provided,” he said.

Chin noted that at the 90-day mark, half of the 180-day timeframe contemplated by the Court for reaching an agreement had already elapsed, stressing that a single preliminary meeting followed by a postponed engagement could not reasonably be regarded as good-faith compliance with the Court’s orders.

He said the judgment clearly envisaged sustained, active and bona fide engagement between the Federal and State Governments, rather than isolated or intermittent discussions that failed to advance the prospect of agreement.

“The absence of substantive progress at this stage does not bode well for achieving compliance within the 180-day period mandated by the Court,” he said.

Chin further emphasised that a review under Article 112D could not be satisfied through minimal engagement or open-ended postponements, as the judgment imposed binding and enforceable legal obligations rather than discretionary objectives or statements of intent.

He warned that the risk of non-compliance with the judgment would continue to escalate unless there was an immediate and demonstrable shift towards genuine negotiations, including regular meetings, clearly defined substantive positions, timely disclosure of financial data, and a firm commitment to reaching an agreement.

“The continued failure to engage meaningfully not only jeopardises compliance with the 180-day timeline ordered by the Court, but also undermines the review process expressly directed by the judgment, thereby exposing the respondents to a real risk of further legal consequences,” he said.

Chin said the situation must be addressed without further delay.