Article by:

Prof. Dr. Vijay Kumar & Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zarina Amin

Biotechnology Research Institute,

Universiti Malaysia Sabah

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Borneo is a land of breathtaking biodiversity, where lush rainforests, winding rivers, and diverse wildlife have coexisted with human communities for centuries. However, as Sabah continues to develop, we are seeing increasing interactions between humans, livestock and wildlife, raising the risk of zoonotic diseases, where pathogens jump from animals to people.

The COVID-19 pandemic made biosurveillance a global priority, but as we move forward, many of those lessons are being forgotten. In regions like Sabah, where human-wildlife interactions are frequent, biosurveillance needs to remain a priority. The spread of infectious diseases doesn’t just threaten public health as it can impact tourism, agriculture, and even conservation efforts.

The Growing Threat of Zoonotic Diseases in Borneo

One of the most well-documented zoonotic diseases in Borneo is Plasmodium knowlesi malaria, transmitted by mosquitoes from macaques. With Sabah’s rural communities expanding into forested areas, the risk of exposure has increased. Alarmingly, this zoonotic malaria now accounts for the majority of malaria cases in the state.

Beyond malaria, bats in Sabah have been found carrying several previously unknown coronaviruses, similar to the ones responsible for past outbreaks like SARS and COVID-19. These discoveries highlight the risks faced by tourists and locals visiting popular bat-inhabited caves.

Meanwhile, Sabah’s poultry farms have struggled with outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) in 2018. The virus spread rapidly, resulting in the culling of thousands of birds. While no human cases were reported, viral antibodies were detected in some individuals, suggesting previous zoonotic transmission.

In neighbouring Sarawak, rabies remains a major concern, accounting for nearly all cases in Malaysia. With Sabah sharing borders with rabies-endemic regions, ongoing vaccination and surveillance efforts are critical to prevent outbreaks in the state.

Emerging Animal Health Challenges

Diseases affecting livestock and wildlife are also a growing concern. Local strains of Newcastle Disease Virus and Infectious Bronchitis Virus have impacted Sabah’s poultry industry, rendering existing vaccines not as effective as expected. Infected chickens may not pose a direct zoonotic risk, but their decline threatens food security and the livelihoods of farmers.

Marine wildlife isn’t spared either. On Mabul Island and surrounding waters, a rising number of sea turtles are suffering from fibropapillomatosis, a disease caused by a herpesvirus. This condition leads to debilitating tumors, often requiring human intervention for survival. Surveillance is crucial, even in Sabah’s pristine waters, to protect these endangered species.

Additionally, African Swine Fever (ASF) has devastated Sabah’s wild and farmed pig populations. ASF doesn’t infect humans, but its rapid spread among Sus barbatus (bearded pigs) poses a serious ecological and economic challenge. The loss of these animals could disrupt ecosystems and traditional hunting practices in indigenous communities.

Soil, Water, and Rodent-Borne Diseases

Diseases like melioidosis, caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei, thrive in Sabah’s tropical soil and have infected both humans and wildlife, including orangutans and macaques. Another persistent threat is leptospirosis, a bacterial infection spread through contaminated water, often carried by rats. Similarly, Bartonella bacteria, which are linked to rodents, are surprisingly prevalent in urban centers of Borneo. These hidden threats highlight the need for ongoing environmental monitoring.

Human Actions and Disease Spillover

One of the biggest challenges in disease prevention is human activity. Poaching and the illegal wildlife trade continue despite conservation efforts. Wildlife, including pangolins, is still being trafficked, often under the radar at local markets. While no zoonotic viruses have been detected in Sabah’s pangolins so far, the risk remains high. Stricter enforcement is needed to curb these activities.

Looking ahead, it is anticipated that large-scale development projects, such as Indonesia’s new capital Nusantara in East Kalimantan, could significantly disrupt wildlife habitat in Borneo’s ecosystems. Increased deforestation, agricultural expansion, and hydropower projects will likely intensify human-wildlife conflicts and heighten disease spillover risks. These large-scale developments are expected to intensify human-wildlife conflicts, habitat loss and disease spillover.

The Way Forward: Strengthening One Health Biosurveillance

Biosurveillance in Sabah involves government agencies, academic institutions, and conservation organizations, but it faces hurdles like limited funding, outdated equipment, and lack of coordination. Strengthening One Health, a collaborative approach integrating human, animal, and environmental health, is essential to addressing these challenges.

We propose five key strategies:

1. Genomic Surveillance & AI Analytics: Leveraging next-generation sequencing, environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring, and artificial intelligence (AI) to detect emerging pathogens.
2. Community Engagement & Education: Educating rural and indigenous communities about zoonotic risks and prevention strategies.
3. Stronger Enforcement Against Poaching: Strengthening partnerships between government agencies and NGOs to curb wildlife trafficking.
4. Sustainable Land-Use Policies: Promoting conservation-driven development to minimize human-wildlife conflict.
5. Policy Integration & Increased Funding: Securing more resources for biosurveillance and integrating One Health into national policies.

Conclusion

Sabah’s rich biodiversity is a double-edged sword, it is a global treasure but also a hotspot for emerging infectious diseases. As human activity continues to reshape landscapes and ecosystems, proactive biosurveillance and a stronger One Health approach are needed.

We urge the formation of an interdisciplinary task force, bringing together public health experts, conservationists, virologists, AI specialists, and policymakers. By combining expertise and leveraging new technologies, Sabah can safeguard both its people and its incredible biodiversity for future generations.

By: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Caroline Geetha A/P B. Arokiadasan, 

Research Fellow, Centre for Economic Development and Planning,

Faculty of Business, Economics and Accountancy, Universiti Malaysia Sabah

When the United States announced sweeping new tariffs on all imports, including a 24% levy on Malaysian goods, the immediate reaction here was alarm. After all, the U.S. is Malaysia’s third-largest trading partner.

But beneath the fear lies a deeper question, is this just a threat to our economy or a long-overdue wake-up call? The U.S. justifies the new tariffs as a response to unfair trade practices, and Malaysia is in the radar due to various reasons. 

For one, Malaysia has become a popular hub for transshipping Chinese goods to avoid existing U.S. tariffs. Some Chinese companies were caught routing products through Malaysia to dodge duties. While not illegal under local laws, this practice has raised eyebrows in Washington.

Then there’s Malaysia’s booming semiconductor and electronics industry and U.S. is our largest customer in this sector. U.S. officials worry that our exports to China and our role in global supply chains might indirectly support their trade rivals.

Moreover, Malaysia's expanding export market in electronics and electrical goods presents significant competition to U.S. manufacturers. This substantial export volume underscores Malaysia's growing influence in sectors traditionally dominated by U.S. companies. This poses competitive challenges to American manufacturers.

Lastly, the ongoing concerns about environmental and labour practices in the palm oil industry. The U.S. has imposed restrictions and higher tariffs on Malaysian palm oil exports due to alleged human right issues and environmental degradation, leading to increased U.S. restrictions and tariffs on Malaysian exports. This has put Malaysia under pressure.

On paper, the numbers look threatening. Malaysia’s exports to the United States particularly in high-value sectors like semiconductors and electronics are predominantly driven by foreign direct investment (FDI) and multinational corporations (MNCs) operating within the country, rather than by wholly Malaysian-owned companies.

Many of these high-tech exports, including semiconductors, electrical and electronic (E&E) products, and medical devices, are produced by major U.S., Japanese, German, or European MNCs that have established manufacturing bases in Malaysia. Companies such as Intel, AMD, Texas Instruments, and Broadcom have long operated in regions like Penang and Kulim, using Malaysia as a strategic hub for production and assembly to supply their global value chains, including the U.S. market.

In addition, joint ventures between Malaysian firms and foreign partners, especially in the electronics, palm oil, rubber, and automotive sectors, enable local players to ascend the value chain by leveraging foreign technology and market access.

Meanwhile, fully Malaysian-owned companies are more dominant in commodities such as palm oil, rubber gloves, furniture, and food products, with firms like Top Glove, Hartalega, Sime Darby, and various furniture exporters from Johor playing key roles. These local companies are more exposed to tariff shocks, as they lack the geographic flexibility of MNCs.

MNCs are drawn to Malaysia for its lower production costs, skilled workforce, mature supply chain infrastructure (particularly in Penang and Selangor), political stability and incentives provided by the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA).

However, the imposition of U.S. tariffs could prompt some of these firms to reconsider their operations in Malaysia, potentially shifting production to other Southeast Asian countries or back to the U.S., while Malaysian exporters may suffer directly due to limited relocation options—ultimately affecting job creation and GDP contributions in Malaysia.

This exposes a long-standing issue that Malaysia has become overly dependent on foreign direct investment (FDI) to drive exports, jobs, and growth. And while FDI creates employment and boosts productivity, the benefits often don’t stick.

Research shows that technology and innovation rarely trickle down. FDI has contributed to labour productivity growth, its impact on Total Factor Productivity (TFP), a better measure of efficiency and technological diffusion by FDI has been limited, particularly in low- and mid-tech sectors. High-value spill overs are largely confined to specific clusters like the E&E sector in Penang, with limited national diffusion.

Furthermore, technology and managerial know-how transfers remain shallow, as most MNCs keep R&D and innovation functions in their home countries, relegating Malaysia to low-to-mid value assembly roles. The situation is compounded by transfer pricing practices that erode Malaysia’s tax base.

Profits are often repatriated. R&D stays offshore. Malaysia does the work—but others reap the rewards. It creates a deficit in the current account in the balance of payment, eventually draining the foreign reserves and weakening the Ringgit.

From a human rights and environmental standpoint, MNCs often relocate polluting industries to developing nations like Malaysia, exploiting weaker labour and environmental regulations, only to later impose ESG-related barriers on Malaysian exports, creating an uneven global playing field.

In this light, rather than fearing U.S. tariffs, Malaysia should treat them as a strategic opportunity to reassess its FDI dependency. It’s tempting to view these tariffs as pure punishment.

But there’s a bigger game at play. Economic tools are used to shape alliances, control technology, and protect strategic industries. If Malaysia remains overly exposed to one or two large markets, it becomes easy prey in such games.

That’s why we must diversify trade relationships, deepening ties within ASEAN, strengthening pacts like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and exploring new markets in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Instead of chasing more FDI at any cost, Malaysia can use this moment to strengthen from within. The government could pivot toward empowering small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially in tech and sustainable industries. Rather than assembling parts for others, we could start building our own.

We should also invest in food and energy security, cutting our reliance on imports of essentials like rice, beef, onions, and fuel. Developing agro-tech and scaling up renewable energy could not only reduce vulnerabilities but create new growth sectors.

Reforming education is another crucial step. A system that encourages creativity, entrepreneurship, and research — not just rote learning — can nurture a generation ready for high-value jobs in green tech, biotech, and AI.

It’s time to move from just producing workers to producing innovators. At the same time, we must meet international expectations. That means cleaning up labour practices in our plantations, enforcing environmental protections, and aligning our industries with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards. This isn’t about pleasing others — it’s about creating an economy that is fair, sustainable, and respected globally.

Malaysia stands at a crossroads. We can resist change, or we can seize this moment to build something better. A more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable economy—one that is less about pleasing global giants and more about protecting national dignity. Instead of fearing tariffs, we can treat them as a signal. A signal that it’s time to invest in ourselves.

By Associate Professor Dr. Jakaria Dasan, Faculty of Business, Economics and Accountancy, Universiti Malaysia Sabah

In every organization, tough decisions must be made at some point. These decisions are usually bold, strategic, and meant for the long term. However, if they seem sudden or confusing, they become unpopular. As the saying goes, “a weapon can turn on its owner.”

Both corporations and governments experience this. It's known as a daring approach in the corporate world. However, it can result in losses if the market is misinterpreted. In politics, it can be risky; a kamikaze’s move in which one wrong move can lead to downfall.

In Human Resources (HR), such incidents have the power to alter team spirit, trust, and morale in human resources. These unpopular decisions are often known as restructuring. It brings changes that may cause worry or doubt among employees and the public. However, the choice should be given a fair shot if the modifications attract talented and charismatic individuals.

Understanding Unpopular Decisions in HR. This article looks at how tough decisions affect people in an organization, especially from an HR view. It explores how HR leaders can manage negative reactions and safeguard the culture of the organisation.

Restructuring: Strategy vs. Perception. Restructuring is frequently required for major decisions, such as employing new personnel, reorganising teams, or replacing leaders. To remain competitive, HR might view this as the best course of action. However, workers may believe: "Wrong person, wrong time." Staff feel shocked and trust may drop. If communication is poor, rumors spread. What HR sees as smart may feel like punishment to staff. What matters is how changes are made and how they are felt.

Leadership Lessons: Silent Impact. Consider this scenario: a beloved manager is replaced by a talented but unheard-of leader. It makes strategic sense because the company is looking for new talent. However, there is a significant emotional impact on the team. Faith in the former leader is replaced with mistrust and scepticism. The actual issue? Ineffective communication, or the worst a poor communication. The team was not prepared by management. Thus, the abrupt adjustment was painful and perplexing. The team might stay unstable for a while even if the transition is successful.

The True Price of Unpopular Choices. From an HR perspective, the harm manifests itself in more ways than just numbers. Firstly, low employee engagement: Confusion, mistrust, and even hatred result from a lack of explanation. Secondly, leadership credibility declines: Leaders appear self-centred in the absence of candid discussions. Thirdly, workplace culture suffers: Team ties are weakened by restructuring in the absence of common values. These issues might not be included in reports, but they will be discussed in meetings, office gossip, and watercooler conversation.

HR's Role in the Crisis. One aspect of HR's work is making unpopular decisions. However, the impact can be lessened by taking wise actions: 1. Don't be a surprise by telling the story early. Talk about the "why" before the "what." 2. Involve unofficial leaders: There are influencers on every team. Get their help as soon as possible. 3. Be ready for emotional responses: Denial, rage, or rejection can accompany even positive changes. Plan how to help staff cope.

When Care and Courage Collide. In human resources, we have to balance strategy with people's emotions. Not all decisions that are unpopular are bad. However, they can cause scars if done incorrectly. When made by the wrong person, in the wrong way, or at the wrong moment, even the best choice can backfire.
HR is responsible for managing emotions in addition to systems. When bold moves are needed, HR must translate logic into human stories. Because people remember how something happened, not just what happened.

About the Author:

Dr. Jakaria Dasan is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Business, Economics, and Accountancy, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS). He specializes in Human Resource Management and has experience in both industry and university HR roles.

By: Marja Azlima Omar, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sabah

In April 2025, the Sultanate of Sulu announced its intention to invoke a series of historic treaties, including a 15th-century tributary pact with China and the 1915 Carpenter-Kiram Agreement, as the basis for a $25 billion territorial and damages claim against Malaysia concerning Sabah.

This latest claim undeniably introduces a complex interplay of modern international law, cultural diplomacy and historical legacy.

Thus, this short write-up evaluates the legitimacy of these claims through the perspective of international law, focusing on treaty interpretation, the principle of effective control, and contemporary standards of sovereignty.

Since the Sultanate aims to revive its historical status and sovereignty claims by invoking ancient treaties and fostering alliances among Mindanao Sultanates, such a claim warrants examination of their legitimacy in light of international legal standards and historical accuracy.

By examining the intersection of historical agreements and modern legal frameworks, the brief analysis highlights the symbolic nature of the Sultanate’s position and the disconnect between ancestral narratives and current mechanisms for resolving territorial disputes.

First and foremost, it is essential to note that central to the Sultanate’s argument is the 1405 agreement with the Ming Dynasty. In the said argument, the Sulu Sultanate is presented as evidence of its status as an “independent tributary state.”

While tributary relations were a diplomatic norm in Imperial China, their existence then lacked the sovereign equivalency implied by modern treaty systems.

Instead, those relationships were hierarchical and ritualistic, intended to maintain harmony and commerce rather than establish enforceable rights or territorial claims. Although Chinese President Xi Jinping acknowledged this relationship during the 600th anniversary of the death of the East King of Sulu in 2017, such recognition is merely symbolic in the absence of legal recognition.

It does not equate to legal endorsement of territorial rights under contemporary international law frameworks.

 In other words, the 1405 China-Sulu relationship remains largely as diplomatic symbolism rather than a pursuit of legal sovereignty.

It is also pertinent to note that the Carpenter-Kiram Agreement marked a pivotal shift in the Sultanate’s role, transitioning from a temporal authority to a religious and cultural institution under American colonial protection.

This means that the 1915 Carpenter-Kiram Treaty was nothing more than a colonial transitional arrangement.

While the Sultan retained ceremonial influence, the sovereignty and administrative power were, however, transferred to the United States.

The agreement does not recognise any enforceable territorial claim over Sabah. Notably, the treaty did not include Sabah, which by then was already under the administrative control of the British North Borneo Company.

 The treaty serves as a historical document of imperial consolidation rather than a legal basis for contemporary territorial claims.

The basis of the Sultanate’s renewed claim also emphasises the interconnectedness between sovereignty, effective control and self-determination.

A seminal principle in international law is effective control, and in this regard, Malaysia has administered Sabah continuously since its formation in 1963.

This de facto governance is reinforced by the people of Sabah’s participation in the Malaysian federation through a referendum.

The involvement in question solidifies its sovereignty over the territory.

Since its inception, the United Nations Charter and subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly have consistently and continuously supported the right to self-determination.

The people of Sabah had clearly exercised this right, and their decision to join Malaysia carries substantial legal weight in comparison to historical claims by external entities. The latter claim falls short of modern international law’s jurisdiction or authority.

 Lastly, one must also set the record straight by insisting that the recent unity covenant of the Mindanao Sultanates was, in fact, a cultural revival, not a legal instrument with binding implications.

The Covenant signed by the Sultanates of Sulu, Maguindanao, and the Rajanate of Buayan reflects a pertinent cultural and historical solidarity among Mindanao’s traditional leaders.

While it may carry sociopolitical significance within particular communities, such agreements are not legally binding in international law unless recognised by sovereign states or treaty-based institutions such as the United Nations.

The revival of these royal networks, while notable for heritage preservation, cannot substitute for state-based diplomacy or legal standing at the United Nations or the International Court of Justice.

In sum, the renewed Sultanate of Sulu’s assertion of territorial rights over Sabah was based on pre-colonial and early 20th-century treaties.

Nonetheless, the treaties lack sufficient grounding in modern international law.

The treaties cited either carry symbolic or obsolete colonial implications that do not translate into current legal authority.

In contrast, Malaysia’s longstanding administration of Sabah and the region’s exercise of self-determination represent stronger legal foundations under international norms. Any credible effort to revisit or resolve the Sabah question must engage with contemporary legal mechanisms and geopolitical frameworks rather than relying on antiquated claims rooted in lost sovereignty.

This article presents an academic argument by Marja Azlima Omar a senior lecturer affiliated with the International Relations Programme at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, UMS. She obtained her first law degree (LL.B.) and Master’s in International Trade Law (LL.M.) from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Over the past few years, she has taught several core courses, including Public International Law, Global Environmental Politics, and Asia and International Trade. She has also published several articles in various academic journals as well as co-authored and co-edited a few books. Among others is “Sabah Priority Issues: Setting the Course for Change,” published in 2010. Her recent publications include a book chapter, “Establishing Animus Occupandi for Effective Occupation of Pulau Layang-Layang: Analysis of Past Decided Cases” (2024), and “Empowering Youth: Education for Economic Disadvantage in Sabah, Malaysia” (2025). Her research interests lie in areas concerning Malaysia and issues in international Law and international relations. She is also interested in Sabah’s environmental and developmental problems, as well as indigenous land rights and native title. She can be contacted via email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..