“Kedah MB has no constitutional right to demand RM300m ‘honorarium’ from Penang as ex-owner”

 

NOTWITHSTANDING whatever happened during British rule, modern Penang is constitutionally not land rented from Kedah given that Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution (FC) expressly recognises Kedah and Penang as two separate states of the Federation.

Such is the view of political commentator Datuk Dr Sivasampoh Kannikuddy who further pointed to Article 167(7) of the Federal Constitution which only requires the Federation to continue the historical annual payment to Kedah.

“It doesn’t declare that Penang remains leased land, provide any market-value revision formula or entitle Kedah to RM300 mil,” he added in a rebuttal to Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor’s claims that the British deceived the then Kedah Malay ruler and lacked legitimate ownership.

“That colonial history may deserve academic investigation but alleged wrongdoing in 1786 does not automatically invalidate later treaties or override today’s Federal Constitution.”

The original constitutionally continued payment was RM10,000 annually. Nevertheless, the Pakatan Harapan (PH 1.0) Federal government had in 2018 approved an additional RM10 mil annual special contribution to Kedah.

“That was a unilateral federal policy decision – not a court-assessed lease rental,” stressed the governance advocate on X.

“At that time, Kedah itself was governed by the PH coalition under Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir. Therefore, the increased contribution showed federal support for Kedah as opposed to legal proof that Penang remained under lease.”

‘Let the court of law decide’

Sanusi who has helmed he PAS-rule Kedah state government since May 17, 2020 has disclosed no independent valuation, contractual review formula or constitutional provision justifying RM300 mil, according to Sivasampoh.

“He previously demanded RM100 mil but now wants RM300 mil. Where is the calculation and legal basis?” retorted the group CEO of MyOwn Inc, a Delaware, US-based international investment holding company.

Sanusi says previous Kedah leaders were afraid to speak because they belonged to the same party as the Prime Minister.

Yet he admits raising the matter with then eighth premier Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin when Perikatan Nasional (PN) controlled Putrajaya. If Kedah’s case was already so strong, why did that friendly PN government neither pay the demand nor take it to court?

Sivasampoh also chided Sanusi in that he should just let the court of law determine the validity of his RM300 mil price tag.

“Sanusi says he is waiting for a ‘more neutral situation’. Courts exist precisely to decide disputes independently of political convenience,” he jibed.

“If all the documents are ready and the case is solid, file it and allow the evidence to be tested publicly.”

Moreover, even if the Conference of Rulers may discuss or facilitate the matter, “it doesn’t replace the courts in determining constitutional liability”.

To date, no court has ruled that Penang remains leased from Kedah or awarded Kedah RM300 mil annually.

Kedah has every right to negotiate for better federal allocations but Sanusi should not present a political demand as an established constitutional debt.

Instead of spending public time and money pursuing RM300 mil without first proving the legal entitlement, Sanusi should focus on attracting investment, building industries, creating skilled jobs and increasing Kedah’s own revenue.

A state is developed through sound economic management – not by demanding hundreds of millions from Putrajaya without producing anything in return.” –  Focus Malaysia