By Angie S Chin | Lead – The Vote Wisely Project
KOTA KINABALU: Lately, I have been thinking about something that should concern every Sabahan.
In the corporate world, almost everyone has Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Whether you are a CEO, manager or junior executive, somebody measures your performance. There are periodic reviews, targets to achieve, challenges to address and consequences when expectations are not met.
But what about our government?
More specifically, the Sabah State Government.
Who measures its performance? Who evaluates our ministers, department heads and senior civil servants? The Chief Minister? And who, exactly, holds the Chief Minister accountable?
We have state elections, of course. But are we seriously suggesting that Sabahans must wait another five years to decide whether the people entrusted with public money and public services have done their jobs?
In the corporate world, poor performance can cost you your job. In government, does poor performance simply mean waiting for the next election?
WHEN COMPLAINTS NEED TO GO VIRAL.
Today, ordinary citizens have become increasingly dependent on social media to get government agencies to pay attention.
You complain. You tag the relevant minister, department or agency. You explain your frustration. And then what happen?
Pin drop silence.
Unless your complaint gathers hundreds or thousands of shares, good luck getting a meaningful response. It sometimes feels as though virality has become our unofficial public complaints department.
And even then, the person raising the issue risks becoming the target of online ridicule, political attacks or accusations of having a hidden agenda.
Since when did asking public servants to do their jobs become an act of political rebellion?
Many official social media accounts are managed by communications teams rather than the politicians or ministers themselves. That is understandable. But surely someone must be responsible for ensuring legitimate public concerns reach the right people.
My point is – Citizens should not need 1,000 shares to deserve one reply.
WHEN GOVERNMENT WEBSITES TELLS A BIGGER STORY.
Recently, I browsed the websites of Sabah Museum and the Sabah State Railway Department. For now, just these two – I haven’t checked the rest.
It left me wondering whether some of our public institutions truly understand the importance of digital public service.
A review of Malaysia’s state museum websites reveals that Sabah is not alone in facing questions about digital accessibility. Several state museum authorities still publish predominantly Bahasa Malaysia content, while others, including Penang and Sarawak, provide English-language visitor information.
But the real question is not whether a government website has a language button. It is whether a foreign tourist can independently find accurate information, understand exhibitions, plan a visit and contact the museum without unnecessary difficulty. If tourism is an economic priority, shouldn’t that be a basic service standard?
A government website is not merely an online noticeboard. It is the digital front door to an institution.
Imagine being a tourist trying to understand Sabah’s railway services, or a foreign visitor wantingto explore our museums. Information should be accessible, intuitive, current and preferably multilingual.
Instead, too many public-facing government websites still appear designed primarily around administrative convenience rather than the people using them.
Even something as basic as a working telephone number matter. On 22 July 2026, the Sabah State Museum published an official notice announcing that its telephone and fax lines were faulty. More than three months later, that notice remains visible on its website, with mobile numbers provided as alternative contacts.
It may seem like a minor inconvenience, but it raises a much bigger question about public-service accountability. If something as simple as a telephone line cannot be promptly restored, how confident can the public be that more complicated matters are being handled efficiently?
What happens when an email goes unanswered? Who checks whether the contact details work? Who measures the experience of the public?
These are not glamorous issues. But they reveal whether an organisation is genuinely service-oriented.
PUBLIC MONEY, PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.
We often hear how much of the government’s operating budget goes towards salaries and administrative expenditure.
Civil servants deserve fair salaries, job security and retirement benefits. Many work tirelessly, often without recognition. But public employment must also come with public accountability.
Taxpayers are not merely funding positions. We are funding services, competence and outcomes.
If a private company consistently ignores its customers, it eventually loses business. Government departments, however, continue operating regardless of how frustrated their customers become.
And those customers are us.
This is not about attacking every civil servant. It is about challenging a system where good performers and poor performers can appear equally protected from public scrutiny.
MINISTERS COME AND GO. THE MACHINERY REMAINS.
Here lies Sabah’s deeper problem.
Politicians change. Chief Ministers change. Ministers are appointed, reshuffled or replaced.
But much of the administrative machinery remains.
If leadership changes without institutional reform, what really change then?
A new minister can announce ambitious programmes, but if implementation remains slow, communication poor and accountability weak, the public experiences more of the same.
We cannot keep confusing political change with administrative progress.
SABAH NEEDS A PUBLIC PERFORMANCE SCORE CARD
What if every state ministry, department and agency were required to publish an annual performance scorecard accessible to every Sabahan?
Not merely a glossy report celebrating achievements, but measurable results: public complaints received and resolved, average response times, service disruptions, digital accessibility, project delays and public satisfaction.
Give citizens a transparent mechanism to rate public services. Require department heads to explain persistent failures. Publish progress quarterly.
Let the State Assembly scrutinise those results.
And let the Chief Minister’s administration be measured against its own publicly declared commitments.
Accountability should be routine, not a public relations exercise after something goes viral.
Sabah does not lack talented people. We lack enough visible consequences when institutions consistently fail to deliver.
We cannot build a progressive Sabah merely by changing the faces at the top while leaving old habits untouched. The rakyat should not have to beg, plead, tag politicians or manufacture viral outrage just to receive basic public service.
Government is not doing us a favour by responding. It is doing the job we entrusted it to do.
And perhaps the most uncomfortable question is this: If ordinary working Sabahans must answer for their performance every year, why shouldn’t the people running Sabah answer to us?
