By Majangkim Office
KOTA KINABALU: A recent call from a Peninsular-based politician for elected mayors in all major cities has been dismissed in Sabah as a fundamental misunderstanding of the state’s constitutional rights and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
A recent call from a Peninsular-based politician to expand a study on elected mayors to “all major cities” has drawn sharp criticism from Sabah rights advocates, who label it a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate oversight—of the Malaysian constitution and the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
The proposition, made by a DAP municipal councillor in Selangor, argued that the appointment system leads to weak accountability because “residents often did not even know who their mayor or council president is.”
However, this very metric of success is challenged by a competing governance philosophy observed in Sabah. A Sandakan-based community leader, who requested anonymity, offered a contrasting view:
“The true test is not the celebrity of the mayor, but the quality of the service. When garbage is collected on time, potholes are fixed, and the park is clean, people experience good governance.
They may not know the president’s name, but they will tell you ‘our city is improving.’ That is the quiet, effective administration we are seeing here.”
This perspective reframes the debate from one of political visibility to one of administrative results. It questions whether a high-profile, politically elected mayor would deliver better services than the quiet, effective administration credited to officials like Sandakan Municipal Council President, whose tenure is associated with tangible local improvements.
This perspective reframes the debate from one of political visibility to one of administrative results. It has been met with a clear rebuttal from analysts and think tanks in Sabah, who argue that the core issue is not the merit of elected local leaders, but the unassailable right of the Sabah State Government to decide its own governance structures free from federal overreach.
The Constitutional Firewall: Local Government is a State Matter
At the heart of the issue is the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. It places the subject of “Local Government” squarely on the State List, granting exclusive legislative authority to the Sabah State Legislative Assembly.
This power is exercised through Sabah’s Local Government Ordinance 1961, which establishes the framework for city councils and clearly designates the appointment of mayors as a function of the state.
“For advocates of Sabah’s rights, this is a clear-cut issue,” says a legal analyst familiar with the stance of think tanks like the Sabah Action Body Advocating Rights (SABAR).
“The call from a federal politician, however well-intentioned, strikes at the core of our autonomy. It implies a federal right to design local governance in Sabah, which simply does not exist in our constitutional framework.”
The analyst stressed that for Sabah, the conversation must begin from a different premise: “The question is not ‘Will Sabah comply with a federal study?’ The real question is, ‘Will Sabah choose to exercise its own sovereign power to reform its local government?’ The initiative must be ours.”
SABAR’s Stance: Autonomy is Not Negotiable
While SABAR has not issued an official statement on this specific proposal, sources indicate its position would be rooted in a defence of jurisdictional integrity.
“The think tank’s likely argument would be that true reform cannot be imposed from the outside,” the analyst explained. “It must be conceived, debated, and enacted from within the State Assembly.
To accept a federal blueprint, even for a seemingly positive reform, would be to cede a piece of our hard-fought autonomy. It sets a dangerous precedent.”
This perspective frames the mayoral election issue not as a standalone policy, but as the latest litmus test for Sabah’s autonomy in the post-MA63 era.
The fear is that federal encroachment on the State List, even under the banner of “good governance,” erodes the foundational partnership between Sabah and the Federation.
The Road Forward: A State-Led Initiative or None at All
The path for mayoral polls in Kota Kinabalu is therefore not through Putrajaya’s directives, but through the Sabah State Legislative Assembly in Likas.
Should there be political will, the process would be entirely state-driven:
A White Paper or private member’s bill would be tabled in the State Assembly.
The State Attorney-General’s Chambers would draft amendments to the Local Government Ordinance 1961.
A state-level debate would ensue, focusing on Sabah-specific concerns: cost, the mayor’s relationship with appointed councillors and the City Director, and suitability for different municipalities.
The bill would pass into law by a simple majority of Sabah’s own elected representatives.
In this scenario, the federal government’s role would be reduced to that of a potential technical or financial facilitator, only if requested by the state.
Conclusion: The Power to Choose is the Point
The emerging consensus among Sabah’s rights advocates is clear: the substance of mayoral elections is debatable, but the right of Sabah to make that decision for itself is not.
“The discourse should shift,” concludes the analyst. “It should move away from asking if Sabah will follow a federal lead, and toward whether Sabah’s leaders will activate their existing powers to pursue their own vision of governance. That is what genuine autonomy looks like in practice.”
For now, the call from the peninsula has served less as a policy proposal and more as a stark reminder of the vigilance required to safeguard the constitutional boundaries that define Sabah’s place within Malaysia.
