Measure Sabah’s development on benefits gained, not paper progress

Analysts argue that Sabah's development should be evaluated based on the benefits delivered to the people, rather than solely the amount allocated or projects completed. Ahmad Zaharuddin Sani Ahmad Sabri, a consultant at Global Asia Consulting, emphasized the importance of matching substantial allocations with effective implementation, while holding others accountable for delays and failures.

The Prime Minister's Department's Mustapha Sakmud stated that larger allocations should lead to faster and more efficient project implementation. For 2027, Sabah and Sarawak each received an additional RM1.1 billion in funding, totaling RM18.7 billion and RM16.2 billion, respectively. Analyst Lai Wei Sieng from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia suggested focusing on improving roads, water, and electricity supplies, as inadequate basic infrastructure hinders both individual well-being and business operations.

He proposed that project funding should consider poverty levels, geographical size, and infrastructure deficiencies, with rural areas receiving higher per capita allocations. Lai also recommended creating a public portal to display project locations, contract values, contractors, implementing agencies, progress, and disbursed funds, allowing residents to verify if completed facilities function properly.

When it comes to addressing project delays, Lai proposed that performance audits should determine the causes, including contractor failures, procurement issues, or overlapping federal and state responsibilities. He suggested that the national audit department oversee the audits while the implementation coordination unit in the PM's Department monitors progress on-site.

Zaharuddin emphasized that those responsible for project implementation and progress must be available to answer public inquiries, and contractors who fail to deliver should face penalties and be subject to a blacklist under existing regulations. He also stressed that the federal and state governments should not attribute failures to each other, as the federal government cannot use state autonomy as an excuse for poor performance, and vice versa.