Response to the Remarks of Pasir Gudang MP, YB Hassan Karim, Regarding the Principle of Cabinet Collective Responsibility and the Issue of Sabah’s 40 Per Cent Entitlement

21 Oktober 2025

1. The recent statement concerning the principle of cabinet collective responsibility is deeply surprising, particularly as it comes from an experienced leader.

2. Malaysia adheres to the Westminster system, under which a minister who cannot agree with a cabinet or government decision on grounds of principle should, as a matter of course, resign.

3. It is widely understood that every cabinet member is bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility. However, if a minister cannot support a government decision, it is both customary and principled for them to step down from the cabinet.

4. Such an action is not a form of threat or an attempt to “bind” the government; rather, it reflects the integrity and adherence to principles that form the foundation of parliamentary democracy.

5. In the Westminster system, such occurrences are not unusual. In the United Kingdom, many cabinet members have resigned on matters of principle when unable to support government decisions.

6. This is the essence of parliamentary democracy, where honesty towards one’s principles and political convictions is paramount. How can a minister continue to serve in a cabinet if the decisions made contradict the very causes they have long championed?

7. In this regard, Datuk Ewon Benedick’s commitment to the implementation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and Sabah’s 40 per cent revenue entitlement is well-documented and widely known.

8. He and the United Kinabalu Progressive Organisation (UPKO) have consistently and vocally advocated for the full implementation of MA63. Indeed, this commitment is enshrined in the party’s constitution as a core pillar of UPKO’s struggle.

9. Datuk Ewon remains steadfast in upholding this principle. Whether one agrees or not, democratic principles dictate that if a minister cannot support a government decision on grounds of principle, the honourable course of action is to resign.

10. It is true that the judicial process allows for appeals. However, not every court decision needs or warrants an appeal. Each decision must be evaluated based on legal merit, justice, and the strength of the arguments presented. In many cases, the losing party opts not to appeal when the decision is deemed fair and legally sound.

11. With all due respect, I would also urge the Pasir Gudang MP, YB Hassan Karim, to thoroughly understand the issue of MA63 and the long-standing struggle of the people of Sabah and Sarawak to see this agreement fully implemented.

12. He would do well to consult the people of Sabah directly about their sentiments regarding the recent Kota Kinabalu High Court decision, which recognised Sabah’s 40 per cent net revenue entitlement and declared that the Federal Government has failed to honour it since 1973.

13. Every political leader has a responsibility to fully grasp an issue before offering comments or opinions. This court decision presents a significant opportunity for us all to move forward together as a nation, respecting the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the enshrined rights of the people of Sabah.

Datuk Nelson W. Angang

Member of Senate

Secretary-General

United Kinabalu Progressive Organisation (UPKO)

21 October 2025