Benedick’s pledge to resign is based on integrity, not a threat, says Upko sec-gen

KOTA KINABALU: Upko secretary general Senator Datuk Wences Anggang has defended the party president Datuk Ewon Benedick’s stand to resign from the Cabinet if the Federal Government decides to appeal the High Court decision affirming Sabah’s constitutional right to 40% revenue return.

Anggang said that the Entrepreneur Development and Cooperatives Minister’s statement was not a threat but was in line with the practices of parliamentary democracy, where it is customary for a minister to quit if he does not agree with the collective decision of the Cabinet.

“Every Cabinet member is bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility. However, if a minister cannot support a government decision due to principle, resigning is not a form of threat or coercion—it reflects honesty and personal integrity.

“This is the foundation of parliamentary democracy. In the Westminster system, such as in the United Kingdom, many ministers have resigned on principle when they could not support government decisions,” he said in a statement.

Anggang was responding to Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Karim’s statement that Benedick should not threaten over the possibility of the Federal Government appealing the Kota Kinabalu High Court decision affirming the Federal Government’s duties to return Sabah’s 40% net revenue entitlement under the Constitution.

Expressing surprise that Hassan as an experienced politician made the statement, Anggang said that Upko and Benedick remained committed to fully implementing the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and were determined to claim Sabah’s 40% net revenue entitlement as stipulated in the agreement.

“Benedick’s commitment to MA63 has long been publicly known and is enshrined in the party’s constitution as Upko’s core struggle.

“Whether agreed upon or not, democratic principles demand that if a minister cannot support a government decision on principle, the honourable action is to resign.

“Although judicial processes allow for decisions to be appealed, not all Court decisions should be appealed,” he added.

Anggang said that every decision must be evaluated based on legal merit, fairness, and the strength of the arguments presented.

“In many cases, the losing party chooses not to appeal when the decision is deemed fair and legally sound,” he said, urging Hassan to fully understand the true context of MA63 and the struggle of the people of Sabah and Sarawak to see its full implementation.

“It would be better for him to seek direct views from the people of Sabah regarding the Kota Kinabalu High Court’s decision, which recognised the state’s 40% net revenue entitlement and highlighted the Federal Government’s failure to fulfil this obligation since 1973.

“Every political leader must deeply understand an issue before making statements—especially when it involves constitutional matters and state rights rooted in Malaysia’s formation history.

“This court decision presents a major opportunity for us to move forward as a nation that respects the spirit of MA63 and the rights guaranteed to the people of Sabah,” he said.