KUALA LUMPUR – Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor said the Sabah Government has postponed the implementation of the Malaysia Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS) in the state amid concerns that it could undermine Sabah’s special immigration rights.
In a statement on Wednesday, he said the State Cabinet had reviewed issues surrounding AKPS, particularly legal and operational aspects of immigration enforcement, according to the Daily Express.
“The implementation of AKPS was intended to take over the role of the Sabah Immigration Department at the State’s entry points,” Hajiji said. “The State Authority would not have direct powers over AKPS but only through the Sabah Immigration Director as provided under subsection 6(3) of the Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency Act 2024 [Act 860].”
Hajiji highlighted inconsistencies between Act 860 and the Immigration Act 1959/63 [Act 155], which could affect the effectiveness of border enforcement by AKPS in Sabah.
He emphasised that Sabah and Sarawak’s immigration autonomy is non-negotiable, pointing out that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) recognises the constitutional powers of both states over immigration matters. The deferment, he added, would remain until assurances were obtained that Sabah’s special rights and authority would remain protected.
The Borneo Post reported that two Parti Warisan assemblymen have warned that Act 860 could gradually erode Sabah’s guaranteed immigration powers.
Kapayan assemblyman Chin Tek Ming and Tungku assemblyman Assaffal P Alian supported earlier concerns raised by the Sabah Immigration Officers Services Union (KPPIS), which questioned the Act’s impact on state autonomy and border authority.
Chin said, “The concerns raised by Sabah’s own immigration officers could not be dismissed lightly, as they are frontliners who understand the realities of border enforcement operations in the state better than anyone else.”
He added that while AKPS may streamline border enforcement across immigration, customs, quarantine, and security, the greater worry is whether it will centralise federal authority over matters long protected in Sabah.
“This is the real issue. Sabah has a special position in matters concerning immigration and entry control. This authority is not a political courtesy but a constitutional safeguard established during the formation of Malaysia,” Chin said.
Chin also highlighted ongoing challenges including undocumented migrants, cross-border smuggling, and security threats in areas like Sebatik Island, stressing the need for Sabah to retain clear immigration authority.
He noted a historical pattern of power transfers to the federal government, citing the Excise Ordinance 1959 and Petroleum Ordinance 1960, while laws like the Sabah Land Ordinance remained under state jurisdiction.
“The state government cannot remain silent. Sabah is not merely an administrative unit but a founding partner of Malaysia. Sabah’s rights cannot be reduced gradually through new administrative mechanisms without proper scrutiny and consent,” Chin said.
Chin urged the state government to clarify the impact of Act 860 on Sabah’s immigration powers, present its official position in the State Legislative Assembly, and obtain legal clarification on federal and state authority limits.
Separately, Assaffal described Act 860 as more than a border security measure, warning it could subtly undermine Sabah’s immigration autonomy.
“Sabah’s immigration powers were a fundamental condition in the formation of Malaysia and are protected under MA63 as well as the Immigration Act 1963,” he said.
He added that the Borneo states’ original framework recognised Sabah and Sarawak as separate territories with authority over entry control. Act 860, he argued, continues a federal centralisation trend, referencing past amendments that allowed the Home Minister to appoint key immigration officials.
“What we are seeing today through Act 860 is a replay of those amendments, but on a much larger scale through the establishment of a full federal agency,” Assaffal said.
He raised concerns that the new agency could weaken the Sabah chief minister’s authority over immigration on the ground, despite provisions requiring compliance with state directives.
Assaffal also cited “five major loopholes” identified by KPPIS, including Section 8 of Act 860, which could allow Putrajaya to administratively resolve overlapping functions without recognising Sabah’s constitutional rights.
He questioned whether the state government had fully examined Act 860, warning that allowing a federal agency to assume functions that should support the Sabah Immigration Department could amount to surrendering the state’s autonomy to the federal executive. - May 13, 2026
The post Sabah defers federal border agency over autonomy concerns appeared first on Scoop.
.jpg)
