The fire that destroyed homes in Sandakan on 19th April 2026  is a devastating tragedy for the communities living in its water villages. Reports indicate that around 1,000 homes were destroyed, affecting more than 9,000 residents, leaving them without shelter overnight. These residents are not temporary occupants—they are natural inhabitants of the sea, with generations of cultural, economic, and social ties rooted in these coastal environments.

I do not wish to speculate on the actual cause of this particular incident or the apparent failure to contain the fire. However, the scale and consequences of the disaster inevitably give rise to a troubling feeling—I cannot help but feel that something is amiss, and there may be unseen or mysterious hands at play. This concern is heightened by the fact that, across Sandakan and other districts, authorities have periodically proposed relocating water village residents to public housing projects and land-based resettlement schemes, often citing fire risk and safety concerns, sanitation and public health, as well as broader urban planning and redevelopment goals without taking into consideration the ancient way of living of these communities.

The convergence of such longstanding relocation pressuresraises difficult questions. While nothing can be asserted without evidence, such incidents can, intentionally or otherwise, be used as an opportunity to justify permanent eviction. This underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and a firm commitment to protecting the rights of the affected communities.

This disaster must not be used as a justification to permanently displace them from their rightful homes. The government has a responsibility to ensure that affected families are allowed to rebuild in the same location, preserving both their way of life and their connection to the sea. Relocation policies that disregard these ties risk erasing entire communities and traditions.

There is also a broader concern that, in the aftermath of such incidents, redevelopment priorities may shift toward commercial interests, including tourism or resort projects, at the expense of local residents. This has been observed in other cases, and it raises legitimate questions about long-term intentions.

Ultimately, recovery efforts should focus on restoring homes, livelihoods, and dignity, not displacing people from the environments they have long called home.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy