Part 2: Sabah Development Bank - When Technicalities Replace Justice

 

This is a continuation of Part one you can read at LINK

In Part 1, I wrote about silence — the long, unbroken quiet that follows when citizens raise legitimate concerns with institutions meant to serve them. Silence itself is damaging, but sometimes it is broken. And when it is, the words that arrive often do not resolve the matter. Instead, they deflect.

 

That is what happened when I raised the issue of a property charge that has remained registered for more than two decades, despite the loan being fully settled in 2004. The reply came not from the Bank itself, but through its solicitors, citing Item 114 of the Sabah Limitation Ordinance: a chargee’s right to foreclose subsists for sixty years.

 

On paper, this may be legally correct. But in substance, it misses the point entirely. When a debt has been fully repaid, no further sums are owing, and no interest has accrued for over twenty years, what purpose is served by continuing to hold the property “hostage” under an unreleased charge?

 

This is where technicalities replace justice. The law provides a maximum period, but the Bank chooses to treat that maximum as its minimum obligation. The result is an indefinite encumbrance on a citizen’s asset — not because money is owed, but because procedure allows it.

 

The contradiction is stark:

 

Purpose of SDB: to promote development and assist Sabahans.

 

Practice of SDB: to rely on limitation law and deny clear title long after repayment.

 

What message does this send to ordinary Sabahans? That repayment does not guarantee freedom? That debts never truly end? That state institutions will cling to technical shields rather than act with fairness and compassion?

 

Public funds established SDB to serve the people. Its role is not merely to operate within the letter of the law, but to embody the spirit of justice and public service. To continue holding charges decades after repayment is not development — it is oppression by inertia.

 

If promises outlast silence, then justice must outlast technicalities. Citizens deserve institutions that act with discretion, fairness, and humanity, not ones that hide behind sixty-year clauses while ignoring the reality that no debt remains.