Inequality of Opportunity and Access to Basic Services Between Malaysian States: A ComparativeAnalysis of Sabah and Selangor (2021–2024)IntroductionDebates on inequality in Malaysia have traditionally focused on income gaps between households, ethnicgroups and regions. However, contemporary literature in welfare economics and development studiesstresses that inequality of opportunity (IOp) – unequal access to basic services, quality education, health care,infrastructure and digital connectivity – is often a more fundamental concern than income inequality alone(Roemer, 1998; Ferreira & Gignoux, 2011). When opportunities are unequal, income gaps tend to persistacross generations and undermine human capital formation, social mobility and long‑term growth (Marrero& Rodríguez, 2013; World Bank, 2018).This assignment applies the inequality‑of‑opportunity lens to Malaysia’s regional disparities, focusing ontwo contrasting states: Sabah, one of the poorest states with serious infrastructure deficits, and Selangor,the country’s most industrialised and highest‑income state (DOSM, 2022). Using the latest available data forroughly the last three years (2021–2024), it compares access to basic services – education, health, cleanwater and digital facilities – and discusses how structural socioeconomic and public‑policy factors generatepersistent gaps. It then analyses the long‑term implications for human capital development and proposespolicy interventions and regional development models to narrow the opportunity gap.Where state‑level micro‑data are limited, national statistics and documented case studies are used, withexplicit caveats. All data are from official sources (Department of Statistics Malaysia, Ministry of Health,Ministry of Education) or reputable research and news outlets. Graphs are described conceptually, withunderlying data presented in tables to enable replication.1. Conceptualising Inequality of Opportunity versus IncomeInequality1.1 Defining inequality of opportunityRoemer (1998) defines equality of opportunity as a situation where individuals’ life chances (education,earnings, health) depend only on their effort and choices, not on circumstances beyond their control such asfamily background, ethnicity, gender or place of birth. Inequality of opportunity occurs when such morallyarbitrary circumstances shape outcomes.In empirical work, IOp is usually measured as the share of total outcome inequality that can be statisticallyattributed to these exogenous circumstances (Ferreira & Gignoux, 2011; Ferreira & Gignoux, 2013). In theeducation context, for example, test‑score variance that can be explained by parental education, income,rural/urban location or school quality is interpreted as inequality of opportunity for learning.1
Key features of inequality of opportunity:Focuses on inputs and access to capabilities (school quality, health services, basic amenities, digitaltools).Evaluates whether children from different social groups face systematically different constraints before effort is exerted.Has an intergenerational perspective: circumstances today influence not just current outcomes butalso the next generation’s starting point.1.2 Contrast with income inequalityIncome inequality refers to the dispersion of income across individuals or households at a given time,typically summarised by indicators such as the Gini coefficient, income shares or ratios of top to bottomincome groups. While income inequality sometimes reflects differences in effort, skill and risk‑taking, it alsoembeds the cumulative effects of unequal opportunities.Three key contrasts:Outcome vs. opportunity: Income inequality is an outcome measure; IOp is about causes andconstraints. High income inequality can, in theory, coexist with relatively equal opportunities ifdifferences mainly reflect choices or preferences. Conversely, even moderate income inequality canbe ethically problematic if a large part is driven by circumstances.Policy focus: Policies to address income inequality often involve redistribution (taxes, transfers,subsidies). Policies to reduce IOp emphasise pre‑distribution: universal, high‑quality access to basicservices, non‑discriminatory institutions and spatially balanced development.Dynamic implications: Marrero and Rodríguez (2013) show that the “opportunity component” ofincome inequality is negatively related to long‑term growth, while the “effort component” can begrowth‑enhancing. This helps explain why countries with similar income inequality may experiencedifferent growth paths depending on how much of the inequality comes from unequal opportunities.1.3 Illustrative examplesExample 1: Two students in different statesConsider two Form 5 students with similar ability and motivation. One is in an urban school in Selangor withadequate classrooms, laboratories, stable electricity and high‑speed internet. The other attends a ruralschool in Sabah categorised as sekolah daif (dilapidated), with leaking roofs, intermittent electricity and poorinternet connectivity. Even if both study equally hard, their learning environment and exposure to digitalresources differ significantly, leading to unequal SPM performance and tertiary admission prospects. Thegap in outcomes is largely due to circumstances, not effort.Example 2: Health and geographyA pregnant woman living in Klang Valley can typically access a specialist obstetrician within 30–45 minutesat a public or private facility. In contrast, a woman in the interior of Sabah may need to travel several hoursby boat and road to reach the nearest hospital, and may face shortages of doctors due to staffing gaps.• • • 1. 2. 3. 2
Differences in maternal and child health outcomes result not from different “effort” by mothers, but fromunequal spatial distribution of health infrastructure and personnel.In both examples, income inequality alone would not capture the full ethical concern. Unequal opportunities– shaped by geography and infrastructure – are at the core.2. Comparative Access to Basic Services: Sabah vs. SelangorThis section compares access to education, health, clean water and digital connectivity between Sabah andSelangor, using the latest publicly accessible data and documented case evidence. Where exact state‑levelfigures are unavailable, the analysis uses credible proxies and clearly states limitations.2.1 Education2.1.1 School infrastructure and qualityInfrastructure in rural Sabah remains a major constraint. A 2023 statement by the Sabah EducationDepartment cited by Sabah Media reports that 54.5% of schools in Sabah (704 schools) were categorisedas sekolah daif requiring urgent repair or upgrading (Sabah Media, 2023). These schools often face issuessuch as unsafe wooden structures, poor roofing, limited classroom space and inadequate sanitationfacilities. A separate parliamentary reply identified 289 dilapidated schools in Sabah, with 64 classified asunsafe by the Public Works Department (New Straits Times, 2023).By contrast, Selangor – although it does have some ageing schools – is not among the states with the mostsevere school dilapidation problems. Nationally, the Ministry of Education reported 1,069–1,091 dilapidatedschools, with a majority located in Sabah and Sarawak, and a substantial share already under upgradingprogrammes (Education Ministry, 2024). The concentration of daif schools in Sabah suggests a structurallylower educational infrastructure baseline compared to high‑income, urbanised states such as Selangor.2.1.2 Learning outcomesInfrastructure disparities translate into learning gaps. For SPM 2022, Sabah recorded a State AverageGrade (Gred Purata Negeri, GPN) of 5.22, compared with the national GPN of 4.74, placing Sabah at thebottom among states (Sabah Media, 2023). The best‑performing state, Negeri Sembilan, achieved a GPN of4.50, reflecting better average performance.Although recent SPM data by state for Selangor are not always fully disaggregated in public releases,high‑income states with better school infrastructure typically cluster closer to or above the nationalaverage. Thus, the Sabah–Selangor gap in school quality and performance can be reasonably inferred.2.1.3 Table and suggested graph: education indicatorsTable 1. Selected education indicators, Sabah vs. national benchmark(Values approximate; based on latest publicly reported data)3
Indicator (year) Sabah National / comparatorbenchmark NotesShare of schoolsclassified as daif(2022)54.5% (704schools)n.a. (but 1,069–1,091dilapidated schoolsnationwide)Sabah has one of the highestshares of daif schools.Number ofdilapidated schools(2023)289 1,069 national (all states)Majority of unsafe schoolsconcentrated in Sabah &Sarawak.SPM 2022 StateAverage Grade (GPN) 5.224.74 (national); 4.50(Negeri Sembilan, beststate)Lower GPN = betterperformance; Sabah lags.Suggested Figure 1: Bar chart comparing SPM GPN (2022) for Sabah, national average and thebest‑performing state. This visually highlights Sabah’s learning deficit relative to national andhigh‑performing benchmarks.2.2 Health services2.2.1 Doctors and health facilitiesNationally, the doctor‑to‑population ratio improved from 1:412 in 2022 to 1:406 in 2023, meeting thenational target of 1:425 doctors per person (Ministry of Health, 2023; DOSM, 2024a). However, this averagemasks substantial regional disparities. An Utusan Borneo report, citing Sabah’s Health Department, notesthat Sabah’s doctor‑to‑population ratio in 2022 was 1:872, roughly double the national benchmark,reflecting severe under‑staffing (Utusan Borneo, 2023). Parliamentary debates and media reports continueto describe Sabah’s health facilities as “critical”, with thousands of vacancies for doctors and nurses andpersistent difficulty attracting specialists to rural postings.By contrast, My Local Stats 2023 notes that several Peninsular states – including Melaka, Negeri Sembilanand the Federal Territories – have met or exceeded the 1:400 doctor‑population target (DOSM, 2024a). A2024 article further emphasises that the Klang Valley has the highest concentration of doctors in thecountry (New Straits Times, 2024). Selangor, as part of the Klang Valley and home to large tertiary hospitalsand private healthcare facilities, therefore enjoys substantially better access to medical personnel thanSabah’s rural districts, even if the exact state ratio is not publicly broken down.2.2.2 Table and suggested graph: health indicatorsTable 2. Health access indicators, Sabah vs. MalaysiaIndicator (year) Sabah Malaysia /high‑income regions InterpretationDoctor‑to‑populationratio (2022)1:8721:412 nationalaverageSabah has about half asmany doctors per capitaas the national average.4
Indicator (year) Sabah Malaysia /high‑income regions InterpretationNationaldoctor‑populationtarget–1:425 (MoH StrategicPlan 2021–2025)Target met nationally butnot in Sabah.Qualitative distributionof specialistsShortages in interiorareas; some hospitalslack full specialistcoverageHighestconcentration inKlang Valley (incl.Selangor)Reflects spatialmaldistribution ratherthan absolute nationalshortage.Suggested Figure 2: Clustered bar chart comparing doctor‑population ratios (national average, Sabah, and anillustrative Klang Valley benchmark). A line at the 1:425 target can be added to make under‑ andover‑performance visually clear.2.3 Clean water and basic amenitiesAccess to safely managed drinking water is a core dimension of opportunity. A 2024 analysis of Sabah’swater crisis reports that only about 80.5% of Sabah’s households had access to treated water in 2022,the lowest among Malaysian states. In contrast, 97.1% of households in Peninsular Malaysia and Labuanhad piped water connections (Straits Times, 2024; SCMP, 2024). Another assessment notes that nationally,about 95% of the population had access to safe drinking water, implying that Sabah’s access lags thenational average by roughly 15 percentage points.Selangor, as part of Peninsular Malaysia, benefits from the much higher average coverage, though it stillfaces episodic water cuts due to pollution, ageing pipes and non‑revenue water losses. These servicedisruptions, however, differ qualitatively from the chronic structural shortages in rural Sabah, where somevillages rely on rivers, delivered barrels or gravity‑fed systems (Wiki Impact, 2022).2.3.1 Table and suggested graph: water accessTable 3. Access to piped/treated water, Sabah vs. Peninsular benchmark (2022)Indicator (2022) Sabah Peninsular Malaysia +Labuan Malaysia overallHousehold accessto treated/pipedwater (%)80.5 97.1 ~95Qualitative issuesFrequent water cuts,rationing, low pressure; somevillages without networkconnectionsMainly episodic serviceinterruptions; highnetwork coverageNational averagemasks East–WestdisparitiesSuggested Figure 3: Bar chart showing household access to treated water for Sabah, Peninsular + Labuanand Malaysia overall.5
2.4 Digital connectivityDigital access is now central to educational and economic opportunity. Nationally, the share of householdswith internet access rose from 94.9% in 2021 to 96.0% in 2022, and further to around 96.4% in 2023(DOSM, 2023a, 2024b). Mobile phone access exceeds 99%, while computer ownership is above 90% (DOSM,2023a; Focus Malaysia, 2023).However, state‑level and rural–urban divides persist. A detailed study on the digital divide amongindigenous communities in Sabah notes that, despite official statistics reporting about 91.7% ofhouseholds with internet access in Sabah around 2020, many rural households have unreliableconnections, low bandwidth and limited digital skills, hampering effective utilisation (Minsalan et al., 2022).Field evidence from rural Sabah highlights continuing difficulties in online learning and digital platformusage during and after the COVID‑19 pandemic.While recent ICT surveys confirm near‑universal coverage in urbanised regions like the Klang Valley,including Selangor, the quality and speed of connectivity in interior Sabah remain uneven. Students in ruralSabah often share a single smartphone with limited data, climb hills or walk to community Wi‑Fi points, andmay lose access entirely during bad weather.2.4.1 Table and suggested graph: digital accessTable 4. Digital access indicators, Sabah vs. MalaysiaIndicator (year) Sabah / rural Sabah (where available) Malaysia / Selangor‑dominated urbanbenchmarkHousehold internetaccess (%) (2022,national)n.a. (Sabah‑specific not publiclydisaggregated; prior estimates ~91–92% in 2020)96.0% households with internet(national)Household internetaccess (%) (2023,national)– 96.4% households with internetQualitative digitaldivideCoverage gaps, low bandwidth, highdata costs in interior districts; limiteddevices per householdHigh‑speed broadband widelyavailable; multiple devices; extensive4G/5G rolloutSuggested Figure 4: Two‑panel comparison: (a) line chart showing rising national household internet access2021–2023; (b) schematic bar chart illustrating qualitative gap between rural Sabah and urban Selangor interms of effective digital access (devices, speed, reliability).6
3. Socioeconomic and Public‑Policy Determinants of Differences inAccessThe stark differences in basic service access between Sabah and Selangor are not accidental. They reflectdeeper socioeconomic structures and policy choices.3.1 Historical and structural economic factorsSabah’s economic structure has long been dominated by resource‑based sectors (timber, oil and gas,plantations) with relatively low value added and limited forward linkages into high‑tech manufacturing orknowledge‑intensive services. As a result, Sabah has persistently recorded the highest incidence ofabsolute poverty in Malaysia – about 19.5% of the population, far above the national average (DOSM,2022; SDG‑SDSN, 2023). District‑level data show extreme deprivation in some rural districts; for example,Tongod recorded a poverty rate exceeding 50%, and Kota Belud over 30% (Wiki Impact, 2022).In contrast, Selangor has one of the highest median and mean household incomes in the country, witha monthly mean of about RM12,233 in 2022 and among the fastest income growth rates (DOSM, 2022). Itsdiversified economy spans manufacturing, logistics, finance and knowledge services, attracting investmentand skilled labour.These structural differences influence state governments’ fiscal capacity to invest in infrastructure, andhouseholds’ ability to pay for supplementary private services (e.g., private tuition, private healthcare, homebroadband). In Sabah, high poverty and dispersed settlements make cost‑recovery models challenging,discouraging private sector participation in infrastructure provision.3.2 Geography, settlement patterns and cost of service deliverySabah’s geography – mountainous terrain, scattered coastal and interior villages, and limited roadconnectivity – substantially raises the unit cost of delivering basic services. Providing piped water, reliableelectricity and broadband to small, remote settlements involves long distribution networks with highinstallation and maintenance costs for relatively few households.This geography is frequently cited to explain why only 80.5% of households in Sabah have treated water,versus over 97% in Peninsular Malaysia and Labuan. Similar geographical constraints challenge roadconstruction, school maintenance and the posting of health personnel, especially during monsoon seasonsand landslides.Selangor, located in the Klang Valley with dense urban and suburban development, exhibits economies ofscale in service delivery. Infrastructure networks (roads, water pipes, fibre cables) serve large populationsalong compact corridors, lowering per‑capita costs and enabling faster returns on investment.7
3.3 Institutional and governance factorsWhile geography matters, persistent gaps over decades also reflect institutional and governancedynamics:Centralised planning and fiscal arrangements: Key infrastructure decisions (major roads,hospitals, digital backbone) are often determined at the federal level. Historically, limitedcoordination and fragmented responsibilities between federal ministries, state agencies and localauthorities have slowed implementation in Sabah.Procurement and project management issues: Public Accounts Committee and media reportshave highlighted cost overruns, delays and quality problems in some school and water projects inEast Malaysia. These governance weaknesses reduce the effectiveness of allocated budgets.Human resource policies: Compulsory postings have partially addressed staff shortages, butretention of doctors and teachers in remote Sabah remains weak due to limited career progression,family considerations and perceived quality of life. Without strong incentives, high vacancy ratespersist despite national surpluses in some professions.3.4 Policy design and targeting of national programmesNational development plans – including the 12th Malaysia Plan, the National Fiberisation and ConnectivityPlan (NFCP) and various water and school upgrading initiatives – formally emphasise reducing regionaldisparities. However, several factors influence their effectiveness in practice:Uniform programme design: National programmes sometimes use uniform grant formulas that donot sufficiently account for higher per‑capita costs in Sabah. This can result in under‑investmentrelative to need.Sequential rather than integrated interventions: Upgrading school buildings without resolvingwater supply, roads or internet access produces partial gains. Many rural Sabah schools still facemulti‑dimension deprivation.Limited community participation: Projects designed without deep engagement with localcommunities may fail to reflect actual priorities or maintenance capacities, leading to sustainabilityissues.3.5 Social and demographic factorsSabah’s population includes a high share of indigenous and rural communities, many living in traditionallonghouses or water villages. Cultural and linguistic diversity enriches Malaysia but can also interact withinstitutional barriers:Language and curriculum: Students from non‑Malay or non‑English speaking households mayexperience additional disadvantages if schools lack adequate bridging programmes.Documentation and citizenship issues: Some rural and stateless children face difficulties enrollingin schools or accessing health services, further entrenching exclusion.• • • 1. 2. 3. • • 8
Selangor’s more urban, better‑connected demographic profile reduces many of these barriers andincreases exposure to information about public programmes and social protection schemes.4. Long‑Term Implications of Inequality of Opportunity for HumanCapitalInequality of opportunity in basic services has deep and persistent implications for human capitaldevelopment, intergenerational mobility and economic growth.4.1 Human capital formation over the life cycleEarly childhood and schooling: Poor infrastructure, teacher shortages and inadequate learning resourcesin rural Sabah constrain cognitive development and foundational skills. Children who attend dilapidatedschools with limited internet access are less likely to achieve strong literacy, numeracy and STEMcompetencies. This affects their ability to compete for places in high‑quality secondary schools,matriculation programmes and universities.Health and nutrition: Limited access to doctors, maternal health services and safe water increases risks ofpreventable diseases, malnutrition and stunting. Even moderate health shocks (e.g., dengue, diarrhoealdisease) can cause school absenteeism and long‑term deficits in learning. Over time, this lowers labourproductivity and wages.Youth transition to work: Inequities in education and digital skills translate into segmented labourmarkets. Youth from Selangor can access high‑productivity jobs in manufacturing, logistics, ICT and finance,often requiring strong digital literacy. Youth from rural Sabah, with weaker schooling and connectivity, aremore likely to be confined to low‑paid informal work, agriculture or low‑skill services, often with limitedsocial protection.4.2 Intergenerational mobility and persistence of povertyThe World Bank’s Fair Progress? report shows that where opportunities are highly unequal,intergenerational mobility – the likelihood that children move to higher income or education quintilesthan their parents – tends to be low (World Bank, 2018). Place of birth and parental background becomestrong predictors of life outcomes.In Sabah, high poverty rates, weak basic services and limited access to quality secondary and tertiaryeducation create a “low‑mobility trap” for many rural households. Children from poor families enteradulthood with lower human capital, earning lower incomes and facing credit constraints, which in turnlimit their ability to invest in their own children’s education and health.Selangor, by contrast, offers a thicker ecosystem of quality schools, tertiary institutions, hospitals and digitalinfrastructure. Even low‑income families in Selangor benefit from physical proximity to services, publictransport and job opportunities – increasing the odds that their children can climb the income ladder.9
4.3 Aggregate growth and productivityEmpirical work by Marrero and Rodríguez (2013) finds that higher inequality of opportunity is negativelyassociated with long‑run growth, even when controlling for other variables. The mechanism is intuitive:When talented individuals from disadvantaged regions cannot fully develop their human capital, theeconomy loses potential innovators, professionals and entrepreneurs.High IOp can erode social cohesion and trust, undermining collective support for reforms andinvestment.For Malaysia, the opportunity gaps between states like Sabah and Selangor imply that national growth isbelow its potential. If a child’s birthplace (e.g., a water village near Kota Belud) is a strong determinant ofher educational attainment and occupation relative to a child born in Shah Alam, then Malaysia isunder‑utilising its talent pool.4.4 Political economy and social cohesionPersistent regional opportunity gaps also have political economy implications. Perceived neglect of basicservices in Sabah can fuel grievances, distrust in federal institutions and increased salience ofidentity‑based politics. Recent commentaries link high poverty and weak basic services in Sabah tovulnerability to money politics and vote‑buying (Borneo Digest, 2024).In contrast, more inclusive access to quality services across states would strengthen citizens’ sense ofshared nationhood and reduce the risk of polarisation. From a social stability perspective, reducinginequality of opportunity is therefore both an economic and political imperative.5. Policy Interventions and Regional Development Models to Closethe GapAddressing inequality of opportunity between Sabah and Selangor requires a multi‑layered strategyinvolving both targeted regional policies and systemic national reforms.5.1 Strengthening equalising public investmentsEducation infrastructure catch‑up programme for East MalaysiaConsolidate and transparently publish a single, prioritised list of dilapidated schools in Sabah andSarawak with timelines and budgets. Adopt a “design‑and‑build” model with strong technical oversight to accelerate reconstruction ofunsafe schools, prioritising those with structural risk and poor WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene)facilities. Integrate infrastructure upgrades with teacher housing, internet connectivity and maintenancebudgets, rather than treating them as separate projects.Health workforce rebalancing• • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10
Implement differential incentives for doctors and specialists serving in rural Sabah: higher ruralallowances, accelerated promotion tracks, bonded scholarships for Sabah‑born medical students,and better support for spouses’ employment. Expand telemedicine and mobile specialist teams, supported by improved digital backbone, toreduce the need for patients to travel long distances. Invest in upgrading selected district hospitals in Sabah into fully equipped regional referral centres.Water and WASH infrastructureScale up investments in rural water supply schemes (gravity‑fed systems, community‑managedtreatment plants) in interior Sabah, with technical support from federal agencies but strong localparticipation. Reduce non‑revenue water through targeted pipe replacement and leakage detection, freeing fiscalspace for network expansion. Prioritise piped water access in school and clinic upgrading projects, recognising WASH as aprerequisite for effective education and health.5.2 Deepening digital inclusionTargeted rural broadband and device programmesUnder the national fibreisation and 5G plans, prioritise rural Sabah towers and fibre spurs thatconnect schools, clinics and community centres, not only urban commercial areas. Provide means‑tested subsidies or device grants for low‑income students in Sabah to ensure at leastone capable device per secondary‑school student, paired with affordable data packages.Community digital hubsExpand community internet centres (Pusat Internet Komuniti) in rural Sabah, but redesign them as multi‑use digital hubs offering online learning support, e‑government services and digitalentrepreneurship training. Partner with universities and NGOs to deliver blended learning modules that improve digital andlanguage skills among youth and adults.5.3 Territorial and regional development modelsPlace‑based development compactsDevelop district‑level development compacts in high‑poverty Sabah districts (e.g., Tongod, KotaBelud) that bundle infrastructure, human capital and economic interventions. Each compact couldinclude clear 5–10‑year targets for poverty reduction, school and clinic standards, and digitalcoverage.Growth corridor strategies6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 11
Strengthen existing growth corridors (e.g., economic clusters around Kota Kinabalu, Sandakan,Tawau) with improved transport links, industrial parks and logistics facilities, ensuring that revenuefrom resource sectors is reinvested into human capital and basic services.Decentralised service delivery with accountabilityIncrease fiscal transfers to Sabah conditional on performance indicators for basic service outcomes(water coverage, school safety, doctor‑population ratios), while granting local authorities greaterautonomy in implementation. Improve data transparency through state‑level dashboards that disaggregate indicators by district,enabling civil society and researchers to monitor progress.5.4 National‑level reforms: towards opportunity‑sensitive budgetingOpportunity‑weighted public spending formulasMove from largely population‑based formulas towards opportunity‑weighted formulas thatallocate more resources per capita to states and districts with higher poverty, poorer basic servicesand more challenging geography. Integrate indicators from My Local Stats (poverty, doctor ratios, water access, school condition) intothese formulas.Strengthening data and research on inequality of opportunityEncourage DOSM and academic institutions to develop formal inequality‑of‑opportunity indicesfor Malaysia, decomposing outcome inequality into effort and circumstance components (followingFerreira & Gignoux, 2011; Ferreira & Gignoux, 2013). Regularly publish state‑level data on educational achievement (e.g., standardised test distributions),health outcomes and digital access to allow rigorous evaluation of policy impacts.Embedding IOp in national development narrativesIntegrate explicit language on equality of opportunity into future Malaysia Plans and sectoralblueprints, positioning it as a central development objective alongside income growth and povertyreduction.ConclusionThe comparison between Sabah and Selangor illustrates how inequality of opportunity manifests throughunequal access to basic services. While Malaysia has made undeniable progress in expanding education,health care, water supply and digital connectivity, substantial state‑level and rural–urban gaps remain.Sabah’s high incidence of poverty, concentration of dilapidated schools, lower doctor‑to‑population ratioand weaker water and digital infrastructure create a structural disadvantage that limits the human capitalof its residents relative to those in richer states such as Selangor.4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 12
From the perspective of modern equality‑of‑opportunity theory, these gaps are ethically problematicbecause they are driven by circumstances beyond individuals’ control – birthplace, geography, familybackground and historical development patterns. Empirical evidence also suggests that such inequalities ofopportunity are economically costly, reducing aggregate productivity and slowing long‑run growth.Closing the opportunity gap requires more than incremental spending. It calls for targeted, place‑basedinvestments in basic services; rebalancing of health and education personnel; deep digital inclusionefforts; and opportunity‑sensitive budgeting and governance reforms. For Malaysia, reducing inequalityof opportunity between states like Sabah and Selangor is central to building a more inclusive, cohesive andprosperous nation.Annex A: Expanded Comparative Access Analysis with Tables and FiguresThis annex deepens Section 2 by bringing key education, health, water and digital indicators together in asingle comparative table, followed by suggested graphs and short illustrative examples.Annex Table A1. Summary of basic service and economic indicators, Sabah vs. Selangor vs. Malaysia(around 2021–2023)Dimension / Indicator Sabah (approx.) Selangor (approx.)Malaysiaoverall(approx.)Main source(s)Monthly meanhousehold income,2022 (RM)~RM5,100–5,300(lowest quartileamong states)RM12,233 (amonghighest inMalaysia)RM8,479DOSM (2022);DOSM, 2024aIncidence of absolutepoverty, 2022 (%)~19.7 (highestamong states)<3 (below nationalaverage)6.2DOSM (2022);OpenDOSMpovertydashboardIncidence of hardcorepoverty, 2022 (%)1.2 ~0.0–0.1 0.2 DOSM (2022)SPM 2022 State AverageGrade (GPN)5.22 (weakestperformingstate)Around or betterthan nationalaverage (4.74)4.74 (national)Sabah Media(2023); MOEdataShare of schoolsclassified as sekolah daif54.5% ofschools (704identified)Very small share;not amongworst‑affected1,069–1,091dilapidatedschoolsnationwideSabah Media(2023);EducationMinistry (2024)Doctor‑to‑populationratio, 2022 (persons/doctor)1:872 (wellbelow nationaltarget)Close to or abovenational average(~1:412–1:425)1:412 (2022national)MOH (2023);DOSM, 2024a13
Dimension / Indicator Sabah (approx.) Selangor (approx.)Malaysiaoverall(approx.)Main source(s)Access to treated/pipedwater, 2022 (%)80.5 (lowestamong states)>95 (Peninsularaverage 97.1)~95Straits Times(2024); DOSM,2023bHousehold internetaccess, 2022 (%)High on paper(~90+), butuneven quality,especially ruralVery high, close tofull coverage inurban areas96.0DOSM, 2023a;DOSM, 2024bNote: State‑level values are rounded for exposition; for formal empirical work, exact values should be drawndirectly from DOSM and ministry datasets.Suggested Figure A1: Radar/Spider chart of opportunity gapsPlot Sabah, Selangor and the Malaysian average on a normalised scale (0–1) for: mean income, poverty rate(reverse), SPM performance (reverse GPN), doctor ratio (reverse), treated water access and internet access.The chart will show Sabah lagging the national average on most indicators, while Selangor exceeds it.Example (education–water interaction): A secondary school in rural Kota Belud, Sabah, might appear instatistics as having “piped water access”, yet water pressure is low and supply is intermittent. Studentsqueue at early hours to store water for washing and toilet use, and lessons are disrupted when water is cut.In contrast, a school in Gombak, Selangor, experiences occasional water cuts but generally enjoys reliabletreated water, modern toilets and stable electricity – contributing to a more conducive learningenvironment.Example (health–income interaction): A household in Sungai Buloh, Selangor, with mean income close tothe state average can choose between nearby public and private clinics, often within 20–30 minutes’ travel.A similar‑sized household in interior Sabah may have to travel several hours to a Klinik Kesihatan or districthospital, and when serious illness occurs, transport and lodging costs can push the family into debt. Thesame illness thus has very different economic and human capital consequences depending on state ofresidence.Suggested Figure A2: Column chart of poverty and incomeUse a grouped column chart to display, for Sabah, Selangor and Malaysia: (i) monthly mean income (RM) onthe left axis and (ii) absolute poverty rate (%) on the right axis. This visually reinforces the dual reality thatSelangor combines high income with low poverty while Sabah has low income and high poverty.Annex B: Expanded Determinants of Opportunity Gaps – Illustrative CasesThis annex deepens Section 3 by pairing each determinant with a concrete example from Sabah–Selangor.14
B.1 Structural economic base – from resource dependence to diversified industrySabah: Reliance on primary commodities (oil and gas, palm oil, timber) leads to volatile revenue andlimited high‑productivity urban jobs. Districts like Tongod and Pitas report extremely high povertyrates and limited non‑farm employment. When commodity prices fall, local governments struggle tomaintain infrastructure, and households reduce spending on education and health.Selangor: A diversified industrial base – electronics, automotive, logistics, finance – generates stablerevenue and opportunities for skilled and semi‑skilled work. Even during downturns, the presence ofmultiple sectors cushions shocks and sustains tax capacity for education and health spending.Example: During the COVID‑19 pandemic and subsequent recovery, manufacturing and logistics in KlangValley quickly resumed operations under strict SOPs, supporting state revenue and household incomes. Incontrast, tourism‑dependent and resource‑based areas in Sabah recovered more slowly, limiting fiscal roomfor urgent school and clinic upgrades.B.2 Geography and spatial dispersion – cost of reaching the last mileSabah: Interior districts require long, often hazardous journeys by road, river and sometimes sea.Laying water pipes or fibre‑optic cables to scattered hill villages requires heavy upfront capital for asmall number of users.Selangor: High population density in the Klang Valley means that each kilometre of pipe or fibreserves many households, lowering per‑capita costs.Example: Extending broadband from a town in Sabah to a village of 80 households may require dozens ofkilometres of backbone and towers, with low commercial returns unless heavily subsidised. In Selangor, amuch shorter extension can connect thousands of apartments in a high‑rise area, making privateinvestment attractive.B.3 Governance, coordination and project deliverySabah: National audits and media reports have highlighted delays and cost overruns in some schooland water projects. Multiple agencies (federal ministries, state departments, local authorities) shareoverlapping responsibility, and coordination is complex.Selangor: While not free of governance issues, project management capacity, contractor base andmonitoring institutions tend to be more developed, partly due to a long history of large‑scaleinfrastructure projects and proximity to federal ministries.Example: Two school‑repair projects of comparable size – one in rural Sabah and one in urban Selangor –may receive similar budget allocations. However, the Sabah project might face contractor shortages, highermaterial transport costs and weather disruptions, leading to delays that keep students in unsafe buildingsfor years longer than their peers in Selangor.B.4 Human resource policies and incentivesSabah: Despite compulsory postings, young doctors and teachers often request transfers after ashort period due to distance from families, limited professional networks and fewer opportunitiesfor specialisation. This leads to high turnover and a “churn” effect in rural schools and clinics.Selangor: The state hosts teaching hospitals, universities and training institutions, making itattractive for professionals to build careers and access continuing education.• • • • • • • • 15
Example: A doctor posted to a Klinik Kesihatan in Lahad Datu may manage a wide range of cases withlimited specialist support and older equipment; after completing compulsory service, many seek positionsin Klang Valley where subspecialties and career pathways are clearer.B.5 Social and demographic factorsSabah: Some indigenous communities face language and documentation barriers that reduceeffective access to services. Stateless children or those lacking identity documents may struggle toenrol in school or access certain health subsidies, even where facilities exist.Selangor: While pockets of undocumented migrants exist, most local residents possessdocumentation, and proximity to administrative offices eases interactions with governmentprogrammes.Example: In a water village near Semporna, families may prioritise immediate income from informal tourismor fishing over schooling, especially when schools are far and facilities are poor. In contrast, urban Selangorfamilies may see clear returns to education due to visible role models in professional occupations.Annex C: Long‑Term Human Capital Impacts – Life‑Cycle PerspectiveThis annex expands Section 4 by tracing how early gaps in access compound over time.C.1 Conceptual life‑cycle diagram (Suggested Figure C1)Figure C1 could depict a simple life‑cycle from early childhood → primary → secondary → tertiary → labourmarket → parenthood along two parallel paths:Path A (opportunity‑rich, Selangor‑type environment): Reliable water and sanitation,well‑equipped preschools and primary schools, strong digital access, and nearby clinics supporthealthy development and strong learning. Students are more likely to complete SPM with goodgrades, enrol in tertiary education and secure formal‑sector jobs with social protection.Path B (opportunity‑poor, rural Sabah‑type environment): Repeated disruptions from watershortages, sickness, school dilapidation and digital gaps slow learning, increase dropout risk andpush youth into low‑productivity informal work. Limited savings and credit restrict their ability toinvest in their own children, perpetuating disadvantage.Visually, the diagram can show widening divergence between Path A and Path B at each stage, representingcompounding disadvantage.C.2 Example: Two hypothetical studentsStudent A – Selangor (urban lower‑middle‑income household): Lives in a flat in Shah Alam, withpiped water, stable electricity and fibre broadband. Attends a public school with adequatelaboratories and access to online learning platforms. When ill, she visits a nearby clinic at minimalcost. She scores well in SPM, enters a public university, and later secures a job in logistics or ICT inKlang Valley.• • • • • 16
Student B – Sabah (rural low‑income household): Lives in a village in Kota Marudu withintermittent water supply and weak mobile signal. Attends a school classified as daif, with nocomputer lab and patchy internet. Travel to the nearest clinic is costly and time‑consuming. Duringthe pandemic, he missed many online classes because he had to share one phone with siblings andconnectivity was poor. He obtains weaker SPM results, does not pursue tertiary education, and endsup in low‑paid casual work.Their different trajectories, despite similar ability and effort, illustrate how unequal opportunities in basicservices shape lifetime earnings, health and intergenerational prospects.C.3 Example: Health shocks and lifetime productivityA young worker from Selangor who suffers a bout of dengue fever can quickly access diagnostic tests andtreatment; complications are rare and days lost from work are limited. A similar worker in Sabah who falls illmay delay seeking care due to distance and cost, increasing the risk of severe dengue, hospitalisation andlonger‑term health damage. Repeated health shocks of this sort accumulate, lowering total years ofhealthy, productive life.C.4 Example: Digital skills and future‑ready jobsMalaysia’s shift towards a digital economy means many future jobs will require coding, data literacy or atleast comfort with digital platforms. Students in Selangor with regular exposure to online tools, digitalassignments and e‑learning platforms build these skills organically. In rural Sabah, where connectivity isweak and devices scarce, students struggle to complete even basic online exercises. Over time, this createsa digital opportunity gap in employability, with long‑term consequences for earnings and regionalcompetitiveness.References (APA 7th edition)Borneo Digest. (2024). Who has more money, wins the vote? Assessing the decline of voter quality in Sabah.Borneo Digest.Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2022). Household Income and Expenditure Survey Report 2022. DOSM.Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2023a). ICT use and access by individuals and households survey report2022. DOSM.Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2023b). Basic amenities survey report 2022. DOSM.Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2024a). My Local Stats 2023 (Malaysia, state & administrative district).DOSM.Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2024b). ICT use and access by individuals and households survey report2023. DOSM.• 17
Education Ministry. (2024). Updates on dilapidated schools upgrading projects. Ministry of Education Malaysia.Ferreira, F. H. G., & Gignoux, J. (2011). The measurement of educational inequality: Achievement andopportunity. World Bank Economic Review, 28(2), 210–246.Ferreira, F. H. G., & Gignoux, J. (2013). The measurement of inequality of opportunity: Theory and anapplication to Latin America. Review of Income and Wealth, 59(4), 1–27.Focus Malaysia. (2023). PADU and digital inclusivity. Focus Malaysia.Marrero, G. A., & Rodríguez, J. G. (2013). Inequality of opportunity and growth. Journal of DevelopmentEconomics, 104, 107–122.Minsalan, M., et al. (2022). Digital divide: An inquiry on the native communities of Sabah. Societies, 12(6),148.Ministry of Health Malaysia. (2023). Health indicators 2023. Ministry of Health Malaysia.New Straits Times. (2023, February). 289 dilapidated schools in Sabah, 64 unsafe: MOE. New Straits Times.New Straits Times. (2024, July). 1:400 doctor‑population ratio target reachable, says former deputy healthminister. New Straits Times.Roemer, J. E. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press.Sabah Media. (2023, August). Sekolah daif perlu pembaikan segera, jurang pencapaian pelajar luar bandardan bandar masih ketara. Sabah Media.South China Morning Post. (2024, April). Malaysia’s Sabah water crisis: Don’t blame the weather, time forpoliticians to live up to promises. South China Morning Post.Straits Times. (2024, November). So near yet so far: Sabah grapples with water woes ahead of election. TheStraits Times.Utusan Borneo. (2023, June). Kemudahan kesihatan Sabah kritikal. Utusan Borneo.Wiki Impact. (2022, March). Over 8000 people in rural Sabah tapped into clean water and now they havefarms, livestock and income. Wiki Impact.World Bank. (2018). Fair progress? Economic mobility across generations around the world. World BankPublications.18