ON election night a fortnight ago, as the results were being televised, one thing became clear. The Kadazan-Dusun-Murut (‘KDM’) seats were breaking towards the ruling GRS or GRS-friendly parties/candidates while the Chinese seats broke almost entirely in favour of Warisan.
Traditionally, the Chinese voters were characterised as “king-makers” because whichever side garnered their support would usually go on to form the government. For example, in 1985/1986, the Chinese swung heavily against Berjaya and voted alongside KDM voters to elect a Parti Bersatu Sabah government. Likewise in 2004, 2008 and 2013, Chinese voters sided with the then ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.
However, in 2020 and 2025 the opposite was true. This not only marks a shift in the role of the Chinese in determining the outcome of Sabah’s state elections but, moreover, raises questions about the beliefs, expectations and voting habits of Chinese voters.
This article will discuss, in brief, some themes which are believed to have informed and motivated the Chinese electorate to have voted in the way they did.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗽 – 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗵:
The book, Mein Kampf, first detailed the theory that the ‘bigger the lie the more people will believe it’. What should be added to this is: the more that a lie is repeated the more it seems true over time. This tactic seeks to excite peoples’ emotions and then to eventually reshape their perception of reality. It is effective because people, in general, prefer black and white, yes or no solutions rather than detailed, nuanced or complex answers to questions that affect their lives.
So, for example, in Australia, the increase in housing prices is blamed on immigrants who buy Australian houses, thus creating a housing shortage. During the Brexit campaign, Boris Johnson pedalled the lie on the side of his Brexit Bus that the UK sends £350 million a week to the European Union, a campaign slogan that was seen as highly influential in Brexit ‘s success.
There are many more examples.
In the Sabah electoral landscape, there was no greater, more skilled, proponent of big, audacious and unrealistic claims than the Warisan campaign. In first propagating and then repeating such promises, on a grand scale, Warisan was unmatched.
For example, in the Luyang and Api-Api constituencies, Warisan claimed on their posters and billboards that if elected, they would abolish E-Invoicing. This is in spite of the fact that the power to do so rests with the Federal and not the Sabah legislature.
On the issue of water supply, Warisan claimed that they would be able to resolve supply disruptions and shortages within two years – a claim that is objectively unrealistic. Warisan also made bold claims and promises to develop a high-speed rail system, a deep sea port in Kudat and to create large scale agricultural economic zones all over Sabah, among others. All promises that are big, bold, emotive and objectively unrealistic and unachievable in the short and medium term.
Although presented in the form of political promises and claims, Warisan’s information and propaganda strategy borrowed heavily from the tactics and strategies employed by the Brexit campaign. Essentially, the Warisan campaign presented clear and simple answers and policies to complex questions affecting the lives of Sabahans without detailing how such initiatives can be funded or implemented.
In other words, Warisan’s focus was on selling a big idea and being elected on the same – not on policies that could be realistically implemented.
Whilst promoting such audacious claims, Warisan also propogated – mostly by repetition – the notion that the GRS government is pro-Malaya (and thus anti-MA63), had failed in resolving Sabah’s various infrastructure issues and that Sabah needed, therefore, to “Be Saved.” Again, a simple, albeit, inaccurate message repeated over and over until it seemed true.
Among the Chinese electorate, especially in urban areas, Warisan’s message was persuasive. A review of various WhatsApp Groups and other social media pages reveals a few trends which influenced Chinese voters.
They are, among others: (i) We gave GRS a chance, let’s now give Warisan a chance; (ii) We reject Malayan based parties – we want a local party; (iii) Warisan are fighters against the establishment; (iv) Warisan will appoint a Chinese finance minister; (v) GRS cannot solve the water problem in Sabah; (vi) GRS cannot solve electricity supply problems; (vii) GRS is too slow, I can’t see any progress; (viii) Warisan are more pro-MA63 than GRS; (ix) Warisan has vision while GRS is boring and (x) GRS has corruption issues.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹:
The nett effect of Warisan’s superior propaganda and social media strategies was the death of the electorates’ interest in a detailed and nuanced consideration of the issues.
GRS, to their credit, were brutally honest about their policies and track record. The problem was that such policies and past achievements seemed dull compared to Warisan’s ‘flashy’ and unrealistic claims. So, for example, the difficulties faced in resolving Sabah’s water supply and electricity deficiencies were outlined clearly by GRS as being generational, systemic and structural.
Such deficiencies and their associated issues will take at least 5 to 10 years to fully resolve and will require consistent and stable government throughout the reform and implementation process. What an unsexy message!!
It was far easier to simply say, as Warisan did, give us 2 years and all will fix everything. Again, there are numerous examples of how GRS’s objectively superior track record in managing Sabah was overshadowed by Warsian’s Brexit style propaganda narrative.
It is observed that Warisan’s message and use of social media to reduce complex issues into simple Boolean alternatives (yes or no / black or white answers) proved critical in persuading Chinese urban voters to back Warisan. However, there were other key aspects to consider.
𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 – 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗹𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗧𝗲𝗵 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁:
One political commentator observed that the Chinese voters swung heavily towards Warisan because they were certain that Warisan would – on its own – form the next Sabah Government. This belief was fueled, in part, by the perception that Albert Teh and his video library would be the downfall of the GRS government. This was not so.
In non-urban constituencies, Albert Teh was seen as just another West Malaysian coming to Sabah to interfere in our politics. There was, with good reason, the belief that the whole drama was orchestrated by a Malayan opposition party to discredit GRS.
This perception, coupled with the fact that the MACC only charged two former GRS Assemblymen, resulted in Albert Teh being a non-issue in rural areas.
This, however, was not the case among Chinese urban voters. There, the Albert Teh matter was seen as a larger-than-life election issue – a smoking gun, so to speak. Many Chinese voters were sure that the combination of Warisan’s bold promises and the Albert Teh’s videos would be enough to bring down the GRS government.
Therefore, many Chinese voted for Warisan because they did not want to be left out, should Warisan take power. This calculation was not only flawed but was actively encouraged by Warisan propaganda.
𝗔 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗹𝗹:
In summary, the Chinese voters in PRN-17 preferred to be persuaded by fiction over facts, by audacious promises over realistic goals, by simple answers over nuanced and detailed analysis and by propaganda over a record of good governance. The result is that the Sabah electorate has once again been divided along ethnic lines.
This is not a healthy state of affairs.
The GRS government must now focus on delivering on its policy agenda regardless of which constituencies benefit – be they Chinese opposition areas or otherwise. The recognition of the UEC at state level was an excellent pre-election move. That must now be followed up with real – tangible – results in the areas of water supply, electricity, drains, roads and infrastructure in general.
On the other side, it is time that voters demonstrate maturity and a higher level of civic engagement. It is better to understand a problem and solve it with the government, rather than perpetually stand on the sidelines criticising every reform put forward.
Sabah needs real policies and real solutions – not Brexit style promises and false claims.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙙 “𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙬𝙪𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙂𝙍𝙎 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝘾𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚, 𝙒𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙣” 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙬𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣 𝙗𝙮 𝙏𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙠𝙪 𝙁𝙪𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝘿𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙮 𝙀𝙭𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨.
𝙁𝙪𝙖𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙮𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙡𝙖𝙬 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙡 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙖𝙗𝙖𝙝 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙭 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨. 𝙄𝙣 2021, 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙁𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩’𝙨 𝙎𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙖𝙨𝙠 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝘽𝙖𝙩𝙪 𝙋𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙝, 𝙈𝙞𝙙𝙙𝙡𝙚 𝙍𝙤𝙘𝙠𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙇𝙚𝙙𝙜𝙚.
𝙄𝙣 2022, 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙁𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩’𝙨 𝙎𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙖𝙨𝙠 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙨 𝙗𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤-𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙖𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙎𝙪𝙡𝙪 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙖. 𝙋𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢, 𝙁𝙪𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘-𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙧.
){kind=link}