In a statement, Upko secretary-general Nelson Angang said that while it is widely understood that every Cabinet member is bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility, it is both customary and principled for them to step down if they cannot support a government decision.
Nelson noted that such resignations are not unusual in countries that practice the Westminster system, pointing out that many cabinet members have stepped down in the UK when they did not agree with a government decision or policy.
“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,” Nelson said in a statement.
“Being true to one’s principles and political convictions is paramount. How can a minister continue to serve in a Cabinet if the decisions it makes contradict the very causes they have long championed?
“Ewon Benedick’s commitment to the implementation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement is well-documented and widely known.”
In his winding-up speech at the Penampang Upko convention on Sunday, Ewon said he had already informed members of the federal Cabinet of his view that the Attorney-General’s Chambers should not file an appeal.
Ewon, who is the entrepreneur development and cooperatives minister, told the convention that he would formally convey this view at the upcoming Cabinet meeting so that it is recorded in the proceedings.
In a statement yesterday, PKR lawmaker Hassan said such tactics were unprecedented and amounted to “political ransom”.
The Kota Kinabalu High Court ruled on Oct 17 that the federal government had acted unlawfully by failing to honour Sabah’s 40% share of net federal revenue from the state for nearly five decades.
The decision came in judicial review proceedings filed by the Sabah Law Society in 2022, which contended that the federal government had breached the Federal Constitution by failing to conduct a mandatory revenue review every five years since 1974.
The AGC has said it will study the Kota Kinabalu High Court’s written judgment regarding Sabah’s entitlement to 40% of federal revenue derived from the state before taking any further action.
In a statement, the AGC noted that one of the key issues in the dispute was the legal interpretation of Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution.
Article 112C of the Federal Constitution deals with special grants and the assignment of revenue to Sabah and Sarawak, while Article 112D provides for periodic reviews of these grants.