By DayakDaily Team
KUCHING, Mar 6: If Sarawak and Sabah’s constitutional safeguards require judicial compulsion before they are honoured, it signals a deeper imbalance within the federal system, says Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) president Daniel John Jambun.
In a statement, Daniel questioned whether the constitutional safeguards concerning Sarawak and Sabah are merely symbolic commitments to be negotiated indefinitely, or if they are enforceable legal guarantees capable of judicial protection.
He said this amid the Sarawak government’s petition in the Federal Court to challenge the applicability of key federal laws on oil and gas (O&G) in the State.
This includes the High Court’s decision on Sabah’s 40 per cent entitlement, which he said represents a rare instance where judicial intervention has been required to compel compliance with a constitutional financial safeguard.
Daniel also said this was the first time in many years that the courts are being asked to directly interpret and enforce constitutional provisions that lie at the heart of the federal arrangements affecting Borneo.
“Taken together, these developments represent a constitutional moment. They raise a fundamental issue that has lingered unresolved for more than half a century: Are the constitutional safeguards affecting Sabah and Sarawak merely symbolic commitments to be negotiated indefinitely or are they enforceable legal guarantees capable of judicial protection?” he questioned.
He said that while both cases differed in terms of legal context, they shared a deeper constitutional significance as both involve structural safeguards that were intended to protect the fiscal and resource interests of Sarawak and Sabah when Malaysia was formed.
“For decades, many of these safeguards were discussed primarily through political negotiation under the framework of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MAG3). Progress has often been slow, partial, and dependent on shifting political circumstances.
“What is now happening is different. For the first time in many years, the courts are being asked to directly interpret and enforce constitutional provisions that lie at the heart of the federal arrangements affecting Borneo,” he said.
He stressed that Sarawakians and Sabahans have to understand that the question is not just about revenue calculations or petroleum contracts, as it concerns the broader constitutional balance between the federation and the Borneo States.
Daniel elaborated that a federation functions properly only when the safeguards embedded within its constitutional structure are respected and implemented in good faith.
“This is why the present legal developments should not be viewed as isolated disputes.
“They form part of a wider process in which the constitutional architecture governing Borneo’s position within Malaysia is being examined with increasing legal clarity. At moments such as this, silence would be a mistake,” he said. — DayakDaily
