Anthony Loke has done what many politicians promise but rarely follow through on. He has resigned as Transport Minister, standing by his decision to protest the move allowing former prime minister Najib Razak to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest.

The DAP secretary-general first announced his intention to resign in September, following the decision to grant Najib house arrest under his conditional royal pardon.

Although he agreed to remain temporarily at Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s request, Loke made clear that his resignation would take effect when Najib began serving his sentence at home.

On Nov 10, following the Kuala Lumpur High Court order allowing the arrangement, Loke made good on his promise.

He said political positions could come and go, but credibility must be upheld.

It was a statement that deserves attention, particularly within his own party.

But it also raises an uncomfortable question for DAP, especially its Sabah chapter.

Where was the same political resolve when allegations of corruption involving several Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) assemblymen surfaced in the mining licence scandal?

The scandal, first brought into the national spotlight through Malaysiakini’s reporting in November 2024, appears to have originated from what was allegedly a business arrangement that eventually went sour.

Businessman Albert Tei claimed to have channelled money to several politicians, purportedly to secure political assistance for companies seeking mineral exploration licences.

The arrangement allegedly unravelled after problems emerged with the mining concessions, leaving Tei seeking answers over money he claimed to have paid and investments made by his business partners.

Recordings and other material released by Tei, and reported by Malaysiakini, raised questions about whether payments had been made in exchange for political assistance.

The allegations subsequently led to corruption charges against several individuals, including two Sabah assemblymen and Tei himself. All those charged have pleaded not guilty.

The case remains a matter for the courts and investigators to establish.

What is particularly interesting is DAP’s response.

In December 2024, its central executive committee gave Sabah DAP full authority to review its position in the GRS-led state government following the allegations.

Yet, the party did not withdraw from the administration.

Instead, Sabah DAP chairman Phoong Jin Zhe reaffirmed in January 2025 that the party would continue working with GRS, while discussions with its Pakatan Harapan allies remained necessary.

Its eventual decision not to accept government positions after the November 2025 state election came following its electoral setback, rather than a clearly established decision to withdraw over the corruption allegations.

There is another issue that raises questions about the consistency of DAP’s political principles.

In October 2023, Loke publicly reprimanded two Sabah DAP leaders, Phoong and Chan Foong Hin, for accepting Datuk titles while serving as elected representatives.

DAP had maintained a policy against its elected representatives accepting such honours while holding office.

Loke’s position was that elected representatives should concentrate on serving the public and only consider accepting honours after retiring from elected office.

The incident exposed a difference between the party’s national position and the conduct of its Sabah representatives.

Although Loke subsequently announced a review of the restrictions in March 2025, with awards to be considered on a case-by-case basis, the earlier episode remains relevant when examining party discipline.

These incidents raise a bigger question: does Sabah DAP operate according to a different political understanding from its counterparts in Peninsular Malaysia?

There is nothing wrong with a state chapter having room to make political decisions based on local circumstances.

Sabah politics is different, and political cooperation often requires compromises.

But political autonomy should not mean having a different standard of accountability.

DAP has built much of its political identity around integrity, transparency and opposition to corruption.

Anwar, meanwhile, has repeatedly pledged to rid Malaysia of corruption and abuse of power, regardless of political position or influence.

If those principles are to mean anything, they cannot be applied selectively.

Loke has demonstrated that political office is not necessarily more important than credibility.

Sabah DAP has already made its stand to standby GRS. 

Nobody should be presumed guilty before the courts decide. But political parties do not need to wait for convictions before demanding transparency and accountability from their allies.

Fighting corruption should not depend on whether the accused is a political opponent or a government partner.

For DAP, the challenge is no longer simply convincing voters that it stands against corruption.

It must demonstrate that its principles remain intact, even when political convenience suggests otherwise.