APA kau rasa? Oren. (How do you feel? Bitter.)
On Oct 17, 2025, the Kota Kinabalu High Court ruled that the Federal Government must reinstate Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement under the 1963 Malaysia Agreement (MA63) for each financial year from 1974 to 2021.
The High Court ordered both the federal and state governments to complete a review within 90 days and reach a final agreement within 180 days – which amounted to a April 15 deadline – following a judicial review brought by the Sabah Law Society.
Sabah nominated assemblyman Datuk Roger Chin described the Court of Appeal’s decision on Monday as “deeply disappointing” because it removes the one element that had finally forced this matter forward after decades of inaction: a binding timeline.
Sabahans felt the sharp sting of a fresh wound being rubbed with iodine – a painful reminder that constitutional promises are being treated as optional, leaving the state’s people to taste once again the bitterness of a “final” commitment that never seems to arrive.
There’s no definitive linguistic origin for the Sabahan slang word “oren”. But one of the most popular theories is that it stems from the orange-coloured iodine that was commonly applied to wounds, usually causing a stinging pain. It became a colloquialism used to mock or highlight the “taste” of a painful consequence.
Under MA63, Sabah should receive 40% of the net revenue collected by the Federal Government from the state. But for decades, this 40% payment was frozen or replaced with small, flat-rate payments agreed to between the federal and state governments. Monday’s legal proceedings represented a fight to determine whether the failure to review this 40% rate for almost half a century breaches a constitutional duty.
While the Court of Appeal’s specific ruling involves technicalities (such as “standing” or “justiciability”, referring to whether a court of law can decide on a matter or whether it’s a political issue beyond a court’s ambit), for the average Sabahan, the outcome amounts to a choice between restorative justice and continued neglect.
The decision tasted oren.
Over the decades, the flat rate (known as the Special Grant) ranged from RM26.7mil (the “Lost Years” rate of 1974-2021) to RM600mil in 2025. To Sabahans, those flat rates are “iodine”. They are arbitrary numbers decided by Putrajaya, whereas some experts estimate the 40% constitutional entitlement to be worth billions of ringgit annually, depending on the net revenue collected.
The then state government accepting a flat rate of RM600mil makes Sabahans feel “oren” because it is only a fraction of what is actually owed under the law. The Court of Appeal’s decision to suspend the Kota Kinabalu High Court’s review order means Sabah is once again stuck with whatever “interim” amount the Federal Government chooses to provide, rather than the amount determined by the constitutional formula to which it is entitled.
The sting is felt most sharply when Sabahans compare the inadequate state of their infrastructure – the “three curses of the state”, water, electricity, and roads – with that in Peninsular Malaysia. They feel cheated that development funds have been poured into those states while Sabah has lagged behind.
But sometimes the sting comes from within. You only have to look at the multi-million-ringgit road and water projects in Sabah funded by Putrajaya over the years that somehow still result in moon-crater potholes and salty taps. For decades, the gatekeepers of these contracts have been Sabahan politicians – some of whom are the very same leaders now loudly championing the 40% claim.
Sabahans have held ministerial or deputy ministerial posts in the Rural and Regional Development Ministry, which oversees one of the largest federal infrastructure budgets. Sometimes, as a cynical Sabahan, I do wonder: If we eventually get our 40%, who will truly benefit? Me and ordinary Sabahans, or the elite?
The 40% issue has political implications, obviously.
In November, just before the 2025 Sabah elections, Entrepreneur and Cooperatives Development Minister and Upko president Datuk Ewon Benedick resigned from the federal Cabinet, and his party left the Pakatan Harapan coalition.
Benedick and Upko made the decision because Benedick could no longer remain in a Cabinet whose legal advisor – the Attorney General – took a position directly opposing Sabah’s constitutional rights. For Benedick, remaining would have been a breach of principle.
Pakatan lost two MPs – apart from Benedick of Penampang, Datuk Seri Wilfred Madius Tangau of Tuaran also resigned. In the Sabah polls, Upko championed a “Sabah First” agenda, calling for the immediate execution of the 40% entitlement.
The party won three state seats, tripling its count from the 2020 elections, while Pakatan was nearly wiped out. DAP lost all eight seats it contested, and PKR won only one out of 10. Arguably, the 40% revenue issue was the primary factor in Pakatan’s downfall in the state
While campaigning for the state polls, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim did a walkabout at the famous Gaya Street Sunday Market in Kota Kinabalu. Amid the crowds and the clamouring for selfies, a Sabahan approached him and asked: “Datuk Seri, just want to ask, when is the 40% coming?”
Anwar has since said the Federal Government collects about RM10bil in revenue from Sabah and returns about RM17bil through various budget allocations and operational spending. But most Sabahans feel Anwar is comparing apples and oranges; the 40% is a specific legal right based on net revenue, whereas the RM17bil includes standard federal obligations the government must fulfil regardless of the revenue-sharing claim.
On March 16 in Kota Kinabalu, Anwar categorically committed to the 40% revenue share: “We [the federal government] are not appealing the 40% case, and that is final.... I have declared in the Cabinet and in Parliament, no negotiations. We are committed to honouring our commitment of 40% to the people of Sabah. Period.”
But for Sabahans, the “period” now feels more like a “comma”. While the PM stated the case wasn’t being appealed, the Federal Government did appeal against the Kota Kinabalu High Court’s mandatory timelines. On Monday, the appeal resulted in a stay of execution, effectively killing the April 15 deadline.
To the Federal government, this is a procedural matter. To Sabahans, it’s iodine on a 48-year-old wound.
Apa kau rasa? Oren.
