Security, Politics, and Sabah’s Fragile Governance

The recent shooting of two US National Guard members near the White House has sparked global reflection on the vulnerabilities of modern governance. Reportedly committed by a recently arrived migrant, the incident exposed cracks in institutional coordination, crisis communication, and political responsibility.

While this event unfolded thousands of miles away, it offers lessons that are urgently relevant to Malaysia, especially in light of the upcoming Sabah state election on 29 November 2025 and recent security incidents in the region, including the Lahad Datu intrusion and a spate of kidnappings in eastern Sabah. These developments reveal how intertwined security, political timing, and social cohesion are, and how fragile governance can become if crises are not managed with foresight.

First, the US incident underscores that even the most sophisticated security systems can be breached. High-risk areas are never invulnerable. In Washington DC, the attacker reached one of the most heavily guarded zones, highlighting gaps in surveillance, coordination, and anticipatory threat assessment. Sabah faces analogous vulnerabilities.

The Lahad Datu intrusion, which saw armed individuals enter Malaysian territory from the southern Philippines, and the series of kidnappings targeting both locals and tourists, illustrate that physical security alone is insufficient. Malaysia must combine border vigilance with community intelligence, inter-agency coordination, and continuous evaluation of emerging threats.

For Sabah, this is especially urgent: maritime borders are porous, and local communities can provide early-warning signals if properly engaged. Security strategies should therefore integrate both hard measures - patrols, checkpoints, technology and soft measures such as social cohesion, intelligence-sharing, and community resilience.

Second, institutional clarity during a crisis is critical. In the US, conflicting statements from law enforcement and political actors caused confusion and eroded public trust. Citizens were left uncertain about what measures were being taken or who was in charge.

Malaysia must learn from this example. With the Sabah election imminent, any security incident, be it a kidnapping, maritime intrusion, or public unrest could easily be politicised or mishandled, exacerbating public anxiety.

Clear, fact-based communication from authorities, independent of political motives, is essential to maintain trust. Unified messaging, timely updates, and transparent action plans prevent speculation and panic while reinforcing confidence in governance.

Third, the politicisation of security is a real danger. In the US, political actors quickly leveraged the National Guard shooting to advance partisan agendas. In Sabah, the stakes are equally high: the state election on this Saturday may tempt political figures to frame security incidents in ways that serve electoral objectives rather than public safety.

Security issues should never be treated as political tools. Malaysia must safeguard the independence of law enforcement and ensure emergency powers are exercised judiciously, with clear legal limits and accountability. Politicising crises risks undermining social cohesion, inflaming communal or regional tensions, and weakening institutional legitimacy.

Fourth, leadership during crises requires responsibility and measured action. In Washington DC, the emphasis on performative politics - social-media statements, symbolic gestures which overshadowed concrete action, leaving citizens uncertain and anxious.

Sabah’s leaders must resist similar impulses, particularly with the election approaching. Public reassurance, coherent operational plans, and visible leadership grounded in fact-based decision-making are essential.

Citizens must feel that governance is competent and capable of responding to threats without fear that political gain is taking precedence over safety. Leadership that prioritises calm, clarity, and coordinated action fosters resilience instead of anxiety.

Fifth, social cohesion is especially fragile when fear intersects with political narratives. In the US, the attacker’s migrant status became a flashpoint for division, revealing deep societal fractures. Sabah, too, is a diverse region with a complex ethnic and religious composition, and security incidents can exacerbate existing tensions.

The Lahad Datu intrusion and subsequent kidnappings have the potential to create fear among local communities and tourists alike. Leaders must ensure that security messaging avoids scapegoating or inflaming prejudice.

Building trust among Sabah’s communities is essential, as social cohesion itself becomes a form of security: communities that are informed, engaged, and confident in authorities are less susceptible to panic, misinformation, or radicalisation.

The digital dimension further complicates security. Extremist ideologies and criminal networks increasingly leverage online platforms to recruit, radicalise, and coordinate attacks. Both the US case and Southeast Asian experiences illustrate how vulnerabilities are not only physical but also ideological and psychological.

Malaysia’s counter-radicalisation strategies must integrate online monitoring, public education, and community engagement. Addressing online threats early, especially among youths who are disproportionately exposed to extremist content, is as critical as maritime or border security in Sabah.

Finally, crises tend to expose pre-existing weaknesses rather than create new ones. The US shooting highlighted gaps in institutional coordination, political culture, and the balance between liberty and security.

Sabah, with its upcoming election and recent security incidents, faces similar systemic stresses. Proactive measures such as strengthening crisis-response capacity, safeguarding institutional independence, refining emergency protocols, and integrating digital and physical security strategies, are essential.

Governance that is reactive or politicised will only compound vulnerabilities and erode public trust. Malaysia’s political leaders must demonstrate that safety, stability, and rule of law take precedence over short-term political gains.

In conclusion, the combination of the US National Guard shooting, the upcoming Sabah election on 29 November 2025, and recent security challenges in eastern Sabah provides a compelling case study for fragile governance. Security failures, when coupled with political opportunism and social division, can quickly escalate into crises that challenge institutional legitimacy and public trust.

Malaysia has an opportunity to learn proactively: build robust security systems, ensure independent and accountable institutions, foster social cohesion, and integrate digital vigilance into security frameworks.

For Sabah, this approach is not optional, but it is essential to safeguard lives, maintain public confidence, and strengthen governance in a region facing both political and security pressures.

27.11.2025

Kuala Lumpur.

© All rights reserved.