AS the sun rises over Pitas in northern Sabah, the sea is calm and the air smells of salt and woodsmoke. In stilted villages above muddy flats, families start their day with simple meals of rice, wild greens, and dried fish.
The food is modest but sufficient for their daily routines, which depend on the tides, weather, and available resources. Officially, many of these families are considered poor, with almost half of Pitas’ population below Malaysia’s poverty line.
Advertisement
This makes Pitas one of the poorest districts in the country. Still, daily life here is not always marked by total deprivation. Although cash is scarce, people have land, homes, and food sources that provide a stability not shown in income statistics.
This reality reflects a broader pattern across Sabah. Poverty in the state is real and persistent, but also complex. It is not always defined by hunger or homelessness. In many cases, it is marked by isolation, limited access to services, and restricted opportunities rather than total material absence.
In 2024, Sabah recorded a poverty rate of about 17.7 per cent, more than three times the national average. Eight of the ten poorest districts in Malaysia are in the state, most of them rural and remote.
Districts such as Pitas, Tongod, Kota Marudu, Beluran, and Kudat consistently report poverty rates over 30 per cent, with some approaching or surpassing 40 per cent.
In districts such as Pitas, the median monthly household income in 2024 was about RM2,785, well below the state median of RM4,890. Kota Marudu recorded a median income of about RM2,877, while Tongod’s median household income was approximately RM3,470.
These figures contrast sharply with Penampang, where the median household income exceeded RM6,000, and Kota Kinabalu, where it stood at nearly RM5,900.
Despite these income gaps, rural households often possess non-monetary assets that reduce immediate vulnerability.
Land ownership remains common, enabling families to grow food, keep livestock, and maintain housing without rental costs. While these assets do not lift households above the poverty line, they help explain why rural poverty in Sabah often reflects low cash income rather than complete material deprivation.
Districts near the state capital tell a different story. For example, Penampang, located near Kota Kinabalu, has a poverty rate of approximately 5.7 per cent. People there have steady jobs, good schools, and easy access to hospitals, offices, and markets.
These differences highlight a significant gap within Sabah, where development depends heavily on location. Some areas are urban and connected to the national economy, whereas others are rural and constrained by distance and poor infrastructure.
In places such as Tongod, poverty is less visible but remains present. Roads become long stretches of gravel and dirt, and villages are far apart with unreliable transport. Small shops sell only basic items, so many families rely on what they can grow, fish, or gather.
Living off the land is still common. Families plant cassava, vegetables, bananas, and rice on the land they inherit. They also raise poultry and fish and collect food from the forest. These activities do not generate substantial income, but they help provide food and shelter.
Many homes are built on family land and passed down, so people do not have to worry about rent or housing loans. Owning their homes gives families some stability and protects them from sudden hardship.
So, in rural Sabah, poverty does not always mean people are homeless or always hungry. Instead, it often means families cannot move forward. They manage, but their cash income is insufficient to cover education, healthcare, transportation, or emergencies.
When someone falls ill, or when there is a flood or crop failure, their situation quickly worsens. In cities such as Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan, and Tawau, poverty manifests differently. The poverty rate is lower, but the cost of living is much higher. Many low-income families rely on unstable or informal employment, and most of their income is
spent on rent, food, transportation, and utilities.
Urban families do not have land to fall back on. They must purchase all their food, and housing costs never stop. If their income is interrupted, they experience the impact immediately. This is clear in informal settlements and crowded low-cost housing.
While cities offer better access to services, they also bring constant money worries. These differences shape how people experience poverty in Sabah. Rural families might have less cash but more stability in food and housing. Urban families may earn more but are at greater risk if their income declines. Neither situation offers lasting security.
Education is still a key reason why poverty continues in Sabah. Many low-income families are led by individuals with little or no formal schooling, which makes it difficult to obtain skilled jobs or adapt to economic changes.
Even when roads and services improve, opportunities stay out of reach without education and training. Moving from rural to urban areas has not reduced poverty to the same extent as in other parts of Malaysia.
Often, people without skills end up in informal urban employment rather than stable work, so poverty shifts from the countryside to the city without addressing the underlying problems.
Sabah’s geography further complicates matters. The state is large, with mountains and scattered communities, so building roads and other infrastructure is expensive. Many villages still lack adequate roads, electricity, clean water, or internet access.
Without these, farmers cannot easily sell their products, students miss out on online learning, and small businesses cannot grow. Owning land is common in Sabah and helps prevent extreme poverty, but it also keeps families tied to low-earning activities.
Rubber farmers face fluctuating prices; fishermen receive low prices because they cannot store or process their catch; and most crops are sold raw rather than processed into higher-value products.
Land helps people make a living, but without investment, new technology, and better access to markets, it does not help families move up the socioeconomic ladder. To address this, efforts to reduce poverty have increased in recent years.
Projects now focus on building roads, bridges, electricity, and water systems in the poorest areas to help people connect and join the economy.
Programs are designed to provide families with stable incomes rather than short-term assistance.
Community farming projects introduce modern methods and organised markets. Training and job placement programs aim to help low-income families secure employment.
These efforts have led to lower poverty rates in several districts between 2022 and 2024. Some of the poorest areas have seen real improvements. Progress is not uniform across regions, but the trend indicates that targeted, long-term support can reduce poverty.
To truly understand poverty in Sabah, we need to see both sides. Poverty is not just about low income. It is also about having opportunities, being able to use what you have to build a better life and being included in broader development.
Ending poverty in Sabah will take more than one-time projects or cash handouts. It requires sustained investment, sound policies, and solutions that are tailored to Sabah’s unique geography and communities.
Sabah’s story of poverty is about more than what is missing; it is also about what people still have. Land, shelter, community, and resilience are the bases for building a better future.
By strengthening these, poverty reduction can be realised in people’s lives rather than merely in numbers. If Sabah succeeds, progress will show up as more choices, better security, and greater dignity for everyone.
Reducing poverty will mean more than merely surviving; it will entail real opportunities and a future that honours both the state’s struggles and its strengths.
