By Angie S Chin, Lead – The Vote Wisely Project
KOTA KINABALU: For a state that prides itself on identity, autonomy, and resilience, Sabah has an uncanny habit of turning inward at the very moment unity matters most.
The latest trigger is familiar—rumours circulating that Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) may extend its political footprint into Sabah ahead of the next general election.
Reactions have split predictably. Some welcome the possibility, even with quiet relief. Others reject it outright, repeating the now ritual call: “Stick to local Sabah parties.”
But what exactly do we mean by “local Sabah parties”? Because the truth is, Sabahans themselves can’t seem to agree.
THE ILLUSION OF “LOCAL”
On the surface, the idea feels straightforward—Sabah should be governed by Sabahans, for Sabahans. But beneath that simplicity lies a shifting definition. For some, “local” means leadership born and raised in Sabah. For others, it carries unspoken qualifiers—race, region, background, allegiance.
The definition bends depending on perspective—and sometimes, convenience.
So when Sabahans call for unity under “local parties,” what often emerges is not unity, but preference. Not shared principles, but competing interpretations of identity.
And that’s where the fracture begins. And that’s when division quietly thrives.
THE RETURN OF CONVENIENT NARRATIVES
As elections draw near, certain issues resurface with predictable intensity. But the Chief among them: illegal immigrants and the stateless population in Sabah.
The tone sharpens. The rhetoric escalates. The blame circulates.
This is not a new issue. It is decades old, shaped by geography, history, and policy decisions that stretch back generations. Sabah’s proximity to the southern Philippines once made cross-border movement fluid and routine. Later political decisions further complicated the situation, layering it with legal, social, and humanitarian challenges.
Solutions have been proposed over the years—some bold, some practical—but few have been sustained. And so, the cycle continues.
Which raises an uncomfortable question: why does this issue reappear so reliably, yet remain unresolved?
THE REALITY OF POWER
There is also a legitimate concern underlying the resistance to external political influence. When parties are anchored outside Sabah, decision-making inevitably follows the same path.
Power, ultimately, sits where authority resides.
This is where Sarawak offers a contrasting model. Over time, its leadership made a deliberate effort to limit the dominance of Peninsular-based parties within the state. The result has been clearer internal control, stronger negotiating power, and a more unified voice when dealing with federal matters.
Sabah, by comparison, has struggled to sustain that level of cohesion.
A MIRROR, NOT JUST A THREAT
The potential entry of GPS into Sabah should not be viewed solely as a political threat. It is also a mirror.
On one hand, GPS represents a coalition that has demonstrated relative stability and long-term planning in Sarawak. On the other, its possible expansion into Sabah forces a difficult question:
If Sabah truly believes in local leadership, why hasn’t that leadership consolidated itself effectively?
Truth is Sabah does not “need” GPS to define its future. But it also hasn’t consistently demonstrated that it can do so on its own. And that gap is hard to ignore.
THE LEADERSHIP DEFICIT
For decades, Sabah has cycled through leaders, coalitions, and promises. Yet many of its core issues remain unresolved—from MA63 rights to revenue entitlements and territorial disputes.
These are not new challenges. They are inherited ones.
But what’s missing is not awareness. It’s execution.
In the last few years now Sabah’s political landscape produces more announcements than outcomes. Plans are unveiled. Committees are formed. Statements are made.
And then, silence.
NGOs, activists, and ordinary citizens have begun stepping into roles traditionally held by political leaders. They are pushing reforms, raising awareness, even mobilising resources independently.
When the people begin to do the work of those in power, it signals more than a governance issue. It signals a credibility gap.
A TEST OF UNITY
Recent developments in Sarawak, Civil society groups there have recently pushed for electoral reforms and greater representation, reinforcing the idea that unity strengthens negotiating power.
Sabahans have also long voiced similar demands, but not in unison. Often playing silo approach. Apparent with the leaders too.
Question is, what was so difficult that prevented Sabahans from coming together to fight for common mission?
THE RISK OF A SILENT VERDICT
If Sabahans, out of prolonged frustration, begin to embrace an external coalition more readily than their own local parties, it will not just be a political shift.
It will be a statement.
A statement that local leadership has struggled to inspire confidence. That unity was promised, but never realised. That fragmentation ultimately outweighed collective purpose.
And that would be the real embarrassment.
TIME FOR HONEST REFLECTION
Sabah’s challenges are real. Its history is complex. Its realities are unique.
But complexity cannot be an excuse for stagnation.
At some point, the question becomes less about who should lead Sabah—and more about what kind of leadership Sabah is willing to accept.
Leadership is not defined by slogans or affiliations. It is defined by resolve, clarity, and the ability to follow through.
So the question Sabah must confront is simple, but uncomfortable: Do we have leaders with the conviction to act decisively?
Or are we still negotiating identity, revisiting the same narratives, and waiting—for GPS or anyone else—to show us what unity looks like?
