By Majangkim Office
KOTA KINABAlU: A Distinct Political Journey Sabah’s political path since 1963 has always stood apart.
Unlike Malayan states, Sabah and Sarawak entered Malaysia as equal partners, protected by international treaties and constitutional safeguards.
These guarantees were the conditions of Malaysia’s creation. Ignoring them risks political irrelevance.
For the Democratic Action Party (DAP), whose recent wipeout in the Sabah state election exposed deep vulnerabilities, the challenge is clear: respect Sabah’s history or risk permanent decline.
Colonial Past and the Road to Malaysia
Sabah, then North Borneo, was first administered by the British North Borneo Chartered Company before becoming a Crown Colony.
After enduring Japanese occupation during World War II, the territory returned to British administration in 1945. Leaders debated how best to secure development and protection in a rapidly changing region.
The idea of Malaysia emerged from the proposed federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak.
The Cobbold Commission in 1962 consulted local communities, and the British insisted on safeguards to protect Sabah’s identity. These were later enshrined in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) report.
International Oversight:
Global legitimacy was reinforced through the Manila Accord of July 1963, signed by Malaya, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
The Accord recognized that Sabah and Sarawak’s inclusion must be based on self-determination. To ensure this, the United Nations sent a mission to ascertain the wishes of the people, confirming the majority support for joining Malaysia.
The UN affirmed that Sabah and Sarawak’s integration was consistent with Article 1541, Principle 9 of the UN Charter.
This meant Sabah’s entry into Malaysia was not merely domestic politics but part of an internationally acknowledged treaty framework. For Sabahans, it reinforced the idea that their autonomy was guaranteed not only by Malaysia’s constitution but also by international law.
MA63: The Promises Made
On 16 September 1963, Malaysia was formed. MA63 guaranteed Sabah:
• Control over immigration.
• Autonomy in religion, language, and education.
• A 40% revenue entitlement from federal collections.
•
These protections were designed to ensure Sabah stood as an equal partner. Yet over the decades, many promises were eroded. Revenue rights were diluted, autonomy curtailed, and federal policies overshadowed local priorities. Sabahans increasingly felt sidelined, particularly during the dominance of UMNO and Barisan Nasional.
The 2025 Wipeout
In the 2025 Sabah state election, DAP contested eight seats and lost all of them. Pakatan Harapan (PH), its coalition, managed only one seat overall. Local parties like Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) and Warisan dominated.
DAP’s strength in Sabah has historically relied on urban Chinese constituencies, but in 2025 that support shifted decisively. The Chinese community in Sabah tends to be more traditionalist compared to their counterparts in Peninsular Malaysia, often prioritizing stability, local identity, and pragmatic alliances over ideological appeals. This made DAP’s national narratives less persuasive. The result was more than a defeat—it symbolized a collapse of trust.
Why DAP Failed
• Federal Disconnect: Seen as a West Malaysian party out of touch with Sabah’s struggles.
• Autonomy Concerns: Erosion of MA63 promises fueled skepticism.
• Rise of Local Parties: GRS and Warisan offered a “Sabah for Sabahans” & “Unite we must” narrative that resonated.
• Symbolic Collapse: Losing all seats underscored a credibility crisis in Borneo.
Lessons for Rebranding
If DAP wishes to recover, it must adapt rather than impose.
1. Respect MA63 – Commit to full implementation of revenue rights and autonomy safeguards.
2. Work with Local Partners – Collaborate with Sabah-based parties and communities.
3. Deliver Tangible Results – Show quick wins in schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. Policies that succeed in other states must also be made to succeed in Sabah; equal treatment is essential to rebuild trust.
4. Embed Cultural Sensitivity – Highlight Sabah’s diverse ethnic and religious heritage.
Borneo as Kingmaker
Sabah and Sarawak often hold the balance of power in federal politics.
Their seats can determine who governs in Kuala Lumpur. PH’s collapse in Sabah weakens its bargaining position nationally.
For DAP, rebranding in Sabah is not just about local survival; it is about national relevance. Without a foothold in Borneo, PH risks being sidelined in future general elections.
The ripple effect in Sabah affects the whole country’s sentiment, shaping how voters across Malaysia view federal parties and their respect for Borneo’s autonomy.
Conclusion
Sabah’s entry into Malaysia was built on promises of autonomy and equality, reinforced by international treaties and UN oversight.
Those promises have too often been neglected, and the 2025 wipeout of DAP in Sabah is proof that voters will not tolerate federal parties that ignore history or local realities.
For DAP, the lesson is clear: survival in Sabah is not optional, it is essential.
Policies that succeed elsewhere must succeed here too, and respect for MA63 must be more than rhetoric.
The ripple effect in Sabah affects the whole country’s sentiment — when Sabahans lose faith, the federation itself feels the tremor.
If DAP cannot adapt, listen, and deliver, it risks irrelevance not only in Borneo but across the nation.
