By S. L. Lim, Sabah Political Observer
COMMENT AND ANALYSIS .
(https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2026/10/06/grs-can-win-14-to-15-sabah-parliamentary-seats-says-armizan)
KOTA KINABALU: GRS secretary-general Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali says Gabungan Rakyat Sabah could win 14 to 15 of Sabah’s 25 parliamentary seats in GE16, with the coalition aiming for even more.
The calculation is based on simulations using the November 2025 Sabah state election results.
There is nothing unusual about a political coalition conducting electoral simulations.
But there is a fundamental weakness in projecting yesterday’s political configuration onto tomorrow’s election.
GE16 may be fought under a very different political alignment.
And the development that could change the arithmetic most dramatically is the emerging possibility of cooperation among Warisan, STAR and KDM/PKDM.
THE WARISAN–STAR–KDM FACTOR CHANGES THE EQUATION
In the 2025 state election, Sabah-based parties fought one another in numerous constituencies.
That divided the local vote.
If Warisan, STAR and KDM can reach a genuine electoral understanding for GE16, avoid unnecessary multi-cornered contests and agree to support the strongest candidate in particular constituencies, Armizan’s simulation immediately becomes less reliable.
The issue is not simply whether one can add Warisan votes, STAR votes and KDM votes together mathematically.
Politics does not work quite that neatly.
The real significance is that supporters who previously voted against one another could be asked by their respective parties to support a common candidate.
A STAR supporter in one parliamentary constituency might be asked to vote for an agreed Warisan candidate.
A Warisan supporter elsewhere might be asked to support STAR.
KDM could become decisive in constituencies where several thousand votes determine victory or defeat.
That is how first-past-the-post elections work.
Fragmented political forces lose seats. Coordinated political forces can turn essentially the same pool of voters into victories.
This is why GRS should be extremely careful about assuming that the 2025 state election can simply be converted into 14 or 15 parliamentary seats.
GRS MUST FIRST EXPLAIN WHAT IT HAS DONE WITH THE POWER IT ALREADY HAS
GRS says Sabah needs a stronger bloc in Parliament.
That sounds attractive.
But before Sabahans give GRS even more political power, they are entitled to ask a very simple question:
What has GRS achieved with the political power it already possesses?
GRS controls the Sabah Government.
It has ministers in the Federal Government.
It describes itself as having a close working relationship with Putrajaya.
So voters should judge it not merely by speeches about Sabah rights but by results.
Sabahans continue to live with serious water problems, electricity difficulties, poor rural roads, infrastructure deficiencies, high living costs and widespread poverty.
Sabah recorded the highest incidence of absolute poverty among Malaysian states in 2024, at 17.7 per cent.
For a State blessed with petroleum, gas, timber, palm oil, fisheries, minerals and enormous land resources, that should be regarded as a political and economic failure requiring serious explanation.
WHO REALLY TOOK THE 40 PER CENT FIGHT TO COURT?
GRS leaders frequently speak about defending Sabah’s constitutional rights.
But Sabahans should remember an important historical fact.
The landmark legal action over Sabah’s 40 per cent constitutional revenue entitlement was not initiated by GRS.
It was the Sabah Law Society that filed the judicial review in 2022.
That litigation survived attempts by the Federal Government to stop it and eventually resulted in the landmark High Court ruling of October 17, 2025.
The High Court held that the Federal Government had failed to fulfil Sabah’s 40 per cent entitlement for the “Lost Years” and ordered a review under Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution.
The Federal Government subsequently obtained a stay pending appeal.
GRS can legitimately say that its government has negotiated with Putrajaya and that interim special grants have increased.
But political negotiation and initiating the constitutional court battle are two different things.
When the decisive constitutional challenge had to be brought before the courts, it was the Sabah Law Society that carried that burden.
Sabahans should therefore ask:
If GRS was so determined to enforce the 40 per cent entitlement, why did a professional civil-society body have to initiate the historic judicial review?
THE CONTINENTAL SHELF: AGAIN, CIVIL SOCIETY WENT TO COURT
The same question arises over Sabah’s maritime and continental-shelf rights.
The Sabah Action Body Advocating Rights — SABAR — filed the originating summons in September 2023 challenging the Territorial Sea Act 2012 and seeking declarations concerning Sabah’s territorial waters and continental shelf.
SABAR is challenging, among other things, the application of the Continental Shelf Act 1966, Petroleum Mining Act 1966 and Territorial Sea Act 2012 to Sabah and relies upon the North Borneo boundary orders predating Malaysia.
The litigation is continuing, and SABAR has had to appeal publicly for hundreds of thousands of ringgit to finance expert evidence and the legal battle.
To be fair, the GRS State Government has publicly rejected the three-nautical-mile limitation under the Territorial Sea Act and has stated its position through the MA63 process.
But again, when it came to bringing the actual constitutional challenge against the Federal Government:
the plaintiff was SABAR, not the GRS Government.
Indeed, when the State Government sought to participate as amicus curiae in SABAR’s case, the High Court declined that application.
So Sabahans should distinguish between political statements supporting Sabah rights and actually taking the financial and legal risk of fighting those rights through the courts.
On two of Sabah’s biggest constitutional issues — the 40 per cent entitlement and the continental shelf — some of the hardest legal work has been carried by Sabah civil society and professional bodies.
That record matters.
WHAT ABOUT GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION?
There is another major problem with presenting GE16 merely as a question of increasing GRS parliamentary numbers.
Sabahans will also judge the Government on governance.
The mineral-licensing controversy has generated serious corruption allegations, investigations, criminal proceedings and questions that have not disappeared simply because time has passed.
Two former Sabah assemblymen and businessman Albert Tei were charged in connection with alleged payments concerning mineral exploration licences, while in September 2026 a senior Lands and Surveys official and a mining executive separately pleaded not guilty to corruption charges involving an alleged RM18,000 in payments connected with gold-mining operations.
Those charged are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
But politically, Sabahans are entitled to ask whether the entire mineral-licensing system was properly governed and whether every relevant allegation has been fully investigated.
MACC itself previously identified governance weaknesses in the prospecting-licence process involving the Lands and Surveys Department and Sabah Mineral Management.
That is not an opposition slogan.
That is a governance issue.
SABAH FOREST INDUSTRIES: HOW DID A STRATEGIC INDUSTRIAL ASSET END THIS WAY?
Then there is Sabah Forest Industries.
SFI was once one of Sabah’s major industrial assets in Sipitang.
In May 2026, the Federal Court refused SFI leave to appeal after the Court of Appeal had affirmed that the company had been lawfully wound up and was hopelessly insolvent.
Sabahans deserve more than a legal explanation of insolvency.
They deserve a political and economic explanation.
How did such an important industrial operation deteriorate to this point?
What happened to the land, timber concessions, industrial assets and employment opportunities?
What lessons have been learned?
And who was accountable for protecting Sabah’s strategic economic interests?
THE PITAS PRAWN FARM: FROM MEGA-PROJECT TO FAILED PROJECT
Sabahans should also remember the Pitas shrimp-farming project.
It was promoted as a RM1.23 billion transformative project designed to create thousands of jobs and alleviate poverty in one of Sabah’s poorest districts.
Large areas of mangrove were cleared.
Communities were promised employment and economic transformation.
Yet the project ultimately closed during the Covid-19 period, leaving communities to deal with the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of what has since been described as a failed shrimp farm.
Earlier official audit material had also identified irregularities concerning a RM268.22 million government contract connected with the project, including the absence at the time of the required delegation of authority for the officer who signed it.
The question is not simply who originally conceived the project.
The question is what happened to public and state-linked investment, what assets remain, what losses were sustained and what was done by successive governments to protect the public interest.
Sabahans deserve a full accounting.
YAYASAN SABAH LAND MUST NEVER BECOME POLITICAL PATRONAGE
The same standard should apply to Yayasan Sabah land.
There have been repeated public controversies and allegations concerning applications involving Yayasan Sabah land and private interests.
The Government has disputed allegations of improper transfers and has previously said certain applications followed legal procedures and that no titles had been issued.
That denial must be acknowledged.
But because Yayasan Sabah was created for the benefit of Sabahans, the appropriate answer is maximum transparency.
Every significant alienation, lease, joint venture or transfer involving Yayasan Sabah land should be capable of public scrutiny.
Who received it?
How much land?
For what consideration?
For what period?
What benefit does Yayasan Sabah receive?
And why was that particular private party selected?
The land belongs, ultimately, to an institution established for the people.
It should never become a vehicle for rewarding political friends, associates or favoured individuals.
SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK: THE NUMBERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
Perhaps one of the most serious governance questions concerns Sabah Development Bank.
The figures are extraordinary.
RAM Ratings reported in July 2026 that SDB had inherited approximately RM5 billion in impaired loans before restructuring began in the second half of 2023.
It had recovered approximately RM1.4 billion, but its gross impaired-loan ratio remained about 80 per cent at the end of June 2026.
SDB recorded a pre-tax loss of approximately RM734 million for 2025, largely because of RM846 million in impairment charges on legacy impaired loans.
SDB’s own published financial highlights record RM846.55 million in allowance for impairment losses on loans, advances and financing in 2025.
These are not small numbers.
They involve billions of ringgit associated with a state development institution.
Sabahans therefore have every right to ask:
Who approved the problematic loans?
What due diligence was undertaken?
What security was obtained?
How much can realistically be recovered?
Were politically connected borrowers involved?
And will there ever be a complete public accounting of how such a large impaired-loan portfolio accumulated?
A government seeking another mandate should welcome those questions rather than regard them as political hostility.
THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER EVERYTHING IS GRS’ FAULT
Fair political analysis requires one important qualification.
Not every failed Sabah project originated during the present GRS administration.
Some problems were inherited from previous governments.
Some loan exposures predated GRS.
Some projects have histories extending over several administrations.
That is precisely why criticism should not be reduced to saying, “GRS caused everything.”
That would be too simplistic.
The proper question is different:
After years in power, what has GRS done to expose the failures, recover the losses, prosecute wrongdoing where evidence exists, reform the institutions and ensure that the same mistakes cannot happen again?
A government cannot indefinitely blame its predecessors while simultaneously asking voters to reward it for governing.
Eventually, ownership of the problem comes with ownership of government.
WARISAN, STAR AND KDM MUST OFFER MORE THAN AN ANTI-GRS PACT
None of this means that a Warisan–STAR–KDM combination automatically deserves Sabah’s votes.
That coalition, if it materialises, must earn public confidence.
It cannot merely say:
“Vote for us because we are not GRS.”
It needs a serious common programme.
At minimum, such a Sabah platform should commit itself to:
the full 40 per cent constitutional entitlement; restoration and protection of Sabah’s territorial and continental-shelf rights; serious action on Project IC and electoral-roll integrity; eradication of poverty; reliable water and electricity; Borneonisation; protection of Sabah’s natural resources; transparent management of GLCs and state assets; and uncompromising action against corruption and abuse of power.
Most importantly, Warisan, STAR and KDM must demonstrate the political maturity to divide parliamentary constituencies intelligently.
If three parties claim to support cooperation but all insist on contesting the same seats, nothing has changed.
Real cooperation requires sacrifice.
SO DO NOT COUNT 14 OR 15 SEATS YET
Armizan may ultimately prove correct.
GRS could perform strongly.
UPKO’s entry into GRS strengthens the coalition in some areas and should not be underestimated.
But neither should GRS assume that Sabah politics will remain frozen in its November 2025 configuration.
If Warisan, STAR and KDM/PKDM reach a serious electoral agreement, avoid splitting the Sabah vote and present credible candidates under a common Sabah agenda, the parliamentary arithmetic could change dramatically.
And Sabahans will not merely be counting party flags.
They will be counting something else:
The unresolved 40 per cent entitlement.
The continental-shelf fight.
Poverty.
Water.
Electricity.
Corruption controversies.
SFI.
The failed Pitas prawn project.
Questions surrounding Yayasan Sabah land.
Billions in SDB impaired loans.
And the continuing gap between Sabah’s enormous natural wealth and the everyday living conditions of its people.
That is the political ledger GRS will have to defend.
So perhaps the question is not whether GRS can calculate 14 or 15 parliamentary seats.
The more important question is:
After examining GRS’ record, how many Sabahans will conclude that it deserves 14 or 15 seats?
And if Warisan, STAR and KDM finally stop dividing one another’s votes and begin fighting together on a coherent Sabah agenda, the answer may be very different from Armizan’s simulation.
Political simulations count yesterday’s votes. Elections are decided by tomorrow’s voters.
