Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

THE political importance of “Education” being returned to Sabah’s ministerial portfolio after the 17th Sabah State Election means education is again considered a state priority, after Warisan’s first short-term stint at establishing a state education portfolio. 

This is significant because education is no longer seen merely as a federal administrative concern, but also as a state-level political agenda. But symbolism is not to be confused with change of structure. A ministry name change does not automatically change the legal distribution of power.

At this point in time, just to be more pragmatic about it, but not succumbing to defeatist ideas such as “we should not pursue education autonomy because education is already part of the Federal List”, we need to look at which level of the current federal-state structure can be negotiated for the betterment of education in Sabah.

It is worthwhile to clarify the notion of “education autonomy” in the quest for better education governance in the state. The term “autonomy” might be a bit of a catch-all term, somewhat revisiting the historical position we once had and also expressing an aspiration for the state. What I am elaborating on here is important to make a distinction for the purpose of clarity in administrative execution and spending powers.

The pattern currently emerging between the federal and state education ministries, based on what is feasible in the present arrangement between the Ministry of Education and the state, is not full education autonomy in the constitutional sense but it is a stronger language of entitlement, a historical basis for negotiation, and a political platform to raise long-standing education concerns. 

Although main authority over curriculum, teacher service, school registration and national education policy remains federal, Sabah can still fund scholarships, student aid, welfare support, digital access, training, TVET-related programmes, and infrastructure-related initiatives. 

Thus, education is still a federal subject, and the power to act in Sabah largely depends on negotiation, cooperation and administrative space within the current federal framework.

This is also why it is obvious that Sabah does not have a single standalone education blueprint equivalent to the national education blueprint. 

Instead, Sabah’s education governance is shaped by a layered policy framework consisting of national education plans such as the new RPM 2026–2035, Sabah’s broader development framework under Hala Tuju Sabah Maju Jaya / SMJ 2.0, state budget commitments for human capital development, and MA63-related federal-state governance mechanisms.

This is important because through Sabah Maju Jaya 2.0, education is framed not only as schooling, but as part of human capital formation, socioeconomic development, labour market readiness and state competitiveness. For instance, SMJ 2.0 includes education assistance and scholarship expansion. 

The Chief Minister’s Office states that human capital development is a top priority, with RM164.01 million allocated, including scholarships, educational assistance, TVET, STEM, agricultural training and AI literacy. It also states that 14 types of educational aid worth RM203.4 million will continue, and that the Sabah State Government Scholarship increased from RM55 million in 2021 to RM145 million in 2025.

The same pattern can be seen in the recent Sabah Budget. The budget states that developing high-skilled human capital is important for moving Sabah towards high-value and knowledge-driven economic activities. The state allocates RM437.93 million to develop and empower human capital, while RM112.4 million under RMKe-13 is approved to finance 36 projects under the Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Innovation Sabah and Jheains.

The budget also funds training and skills programmes, including language, ICT, TVET, STEM, innovation, digital technology, oil and gas, hospitality, safety and health, agriculture and palm oil sector training. This shows that Sabah’s education-related spending extends beyond formal schooling into workforce preparation and sectoral training.

A major part of the budget also concerns educational assistance. Sabah continues scholarships, bursaries and student assistance under the Sabah Public Service Department. It also continues 13 educational assistance initiatives, including Budi, Baik, Bakti Subfly and Sentosa. 

These are not curriculum policies, but they are important state interventions that reduce financial barriers for Sabah students.

The budget also includes social support for schooling. For example, RM26.06 million is allocated for the School Social Assistance Programme, covering school uniforms, shoes and stationery for 227,660 pupils in national and Chinese vernacular primary schools. This shows Sabah’s role in supporting access and welfare even when the core school system remains federally governed.

This becomes a strong basis to argue that Sabah’s state-level education agenda is developmental rather than jurisdictional. The state cannot fully control education policy, but it can use education-related programmes to support development goals.

That is, state-led education initiatives are additional and supplementary, not constitutional. Therefore, the establishment of KPSTI should be framed as a state-level coordinating, advocacy and supplementary implementation body, not as a ministry with full control over Sabah schools. 

Its existence shows that Sabah is politically prioritising education, but the legal structure still places core schooling powers under the federal framework. In fact, even before KPSTI, KSTI is already working towards implementing state-led education initiatives.

By basing off this present arrangement, it serves as a space that is viable for localising solutions related to educational issues in the state. It provides national cohesion while giving Sabah some space to respond meaningfully to its own realities. The question is not whether Sabah has full education autonomy now. 

The more practical question is what kind of administrative authority, fiscal space and policy-making influence can be negotiated within the existing federal-state structure?

The proof is in the capacity of these mechanisms to provide greater clarity of administrative authority, greater fiscal space and stronger policy-making powers for the state. 

Constitutionally, education is still under federal jurisdiction, but Sabah now has administrative participation through the MA63 technical mechanism. It is a positive development that we have a platform to voice out our demands pertaining to education. 

But since this is not constitutional, and since it depends on negotiation, it requires strategies from policy entrepreneurs, whether ministers or officers, in framing their ideas at the MA63 negotiation table.

So, apart from administrative licence, Sabah must also negotiate for clearer fiscal licence and policy-making space. This means asking not only whether Sabah can speak about education, but whether Sabah can shape implementation, influence priorities, decide on funding flexibility, and respond faster to local needs.

In conclusion, the return of “Education” to Sabah’s ministerial portfolio should be read carefully. It is politically meaningful, but not structurally transformative on its own. It signals stronger state-level attention to education, but it does not automatically alter the constitutional location of education within the Federal List. 

The real issue, therefore, is not merely the name of the ministry, but the extent to which Sabah can convert political symbolism into administrative authority, fiscal capacity and negotiated policy influence.

To pursue education autonomy in Sabah does not mean ignoring the current constitutional framework. It also does not mean accepting that nothing can be done because education is federal.

Rather, it means being clear about which spaces can be negotiated, which powers can be expanded, and which state-level initiatives can meaningfully respond to Sabah’s educational realities. 

At this stage, Sabah’s education governance is best understood as a negotiated space between federal cohesion and state responsiveness. The challenge now is to make that space clearer, stronger and more impactful for Sabah’s students and the state’s development in general. 

Auzellea is a coordinator of HIVE Educators.

The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: Forum@dailyexpress.com.my