Datuk Mustapha Sakmud, chairman of Parti Keadilan Rakyat's Sabah state leadership council, has delivered a pointed critique of identity-based politics, contending that the country's political landscape must mature beyond the divisive rhetoric that has long characterised electoral competition. Speaking after PKR's 2026 National Congress, Mustapha argued that narratives designed to pit communities against one another or weaponise religious differences serve only to fracture national cohesion and distract from the substantive challenges facing Malaysian society.
The Minister in the Prime Minister's Department overseeing Sabah and Sarawak framed the shift toward performance-based governance not merely as an ideological preference but as a reflection of evolving voter consciousness. His intervention suggests that even within the ruling coalition, concerns are mounting about the durability of traditional identity politics and its ability to address tangible economic hardship, healthcare delivery, educational access, and infrastructure deficits that increasingly define electoral calculations across the nation.
Mustapha's position carries particular significance for Sabah, a state whose complex demographic composition—encompassing numerous ethnic groups and religious communities living in relative proximity—has historically made it susceptible to divisive political messaging. Yet he contends that this diversity constitutes an asset rather than a liability, provided political actors focus their energy on problem-solving rather than sectarian distinction-drawing. His argument rests on an empirical observation: that citizens in Sabah, like their counterparts elsewhere, fundamentally care about which leaders demonstrate genuine capacity to ameliorate their circumstances.
Central to Mustapha's prescription is adoption of what he terms the "Needs-Based Economy" framework, a departure from the standardised, race-premised distribution mechanisms that have underpinned Malaysian fiscal policy for decades. Under this approach, government allocation of subsidies, welfare payments, and developmental investment would be determined by objective measures of material deprivation—income thresholds, geographic isolation, development indicators—rather than ethnic or religious classification. This recalibration would theoretically ensure that resources flow to their most productive use and reach those most urgently requiring them.
The practical implications of this philosophy prove substantial for Sabah specifically. Mustapha highlighted fuel subsidies as a case study, noting that both the economics and equity logic of current diesel and petrol quota arrangements merit reconsideration. Remote communities in Borneo, regardless of inhabitant ethnicity, face demonstrable transportation and logistical hardships that standardised national policies frequently fail to address. Similarly, targeted assistance in healthcare, education, water provision, electricity access, broadband connectivity, and road infrastructure should, under his framework, privilege geographic and economic need rather than demographic category.
Mustapha pointed to recent budgetary developments as evidence that needs-based governance can deliver tangible results. The MADANI Government's expansion of the Sabah Special Grant from RM600 million to RM1.5 billion represents, in his view, a policy instrument calibrated to address documented development gaps and regional inequality. This reorientation of federal resources toward Sabah reflects acknowledgment that certain areas have historically absorbed inadequate investment relative to their requirements and population characteristics.
Yet even as Mustapha advocates movement beyond racial politics, he simultaneously insists that another grievance—Sabah's constitutional claim to 40 per cent of net federal revenue derived from the state—remain prominent on the political agenda. This apparent tension merits scrutiny. His position suggests that while day-to-day governance and welfare distribution should transcend ethnic or religious lenses, addressing historical structural inequities between federal and state governments requires sustained advocacy grounded in constitutionally enshrined agreements. The Malaysia Agreement 1963, which formalised Sabah's entry into the federation, established fiscal arrangements that Mustapha contends remain unfulfilled, a matter he frames not as sectional grievance but as constitutional rectification.
The timing of Mustapha's intervention reflects broader currents within Malaysian politics. Economic pressures—persistent inflation, wage stagnation in certain sectors, rising living costs—have begun to erode the efficacy of traditional identity-based appeals. Voters confronting concrete material challenges increasingly demand that political leaders demonstrate capacity to navigate macroeconomic headwinds and deliver improved welfare outcomes. In this environment, parties that continue relying principally on communal mobilisation risk losing ground to those presenting coherent economic and social policy platforms.
Mustapha's call for political maturation also carries implicit criticism of competitors, presumably within the opposition, whom he suggests persist in deploying "racial politics and narrow identity politics." This rhetoric serves multiple functions: it positions his own coalition partner as more progressive and forward-looking, while simultaneously preparing ground for the contention that certain political actors have become obstacles to national progress and must be accordingly punished electorally.
For regional observers, Mustapha's pronouncements hint at the evolving contest shaping Southeast Asian politics more broadly. Malaysia shares with neighbouring societies the challenge of managing plural communities while building inclusive governance structures and institutions. As economic performance becomes an increasingly salient determinant of electoral outcomes across the region, pressure mounts on political leaders to move beyond communal appeals toward demonstrable delivery on material welfare. The question remains whether rhetorical commitments to needs-based governance translate into sustained institutional reform or constitute merely tactical repositioning ahead of electoral cycles.
