Tuaran: Community activist, Jaesman Gipin, has urged the GRS-led State Government to defend Sabah’s existing immigration autonomy powers.
He made the call amid proposed amendments to Act 830 that could see control of Sabah’s border entry points transferred to the Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS).
“This is not a small matter. This is a question of State sovereignty. The Sabah Government must stand firm in defending its existing border entry controls and reject any attempt to place them under AKPS,” the former Immigration Officer said in a statement, here, Sunday.
He said any takeover of Sabah’s border entry functions by the Federal agency risks eroding the State’s constitutionally protected immigration rights, jeopardising powers that are guaranteed under the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
“Sabah’s immigration autonomy is a 1963 mandate, not a privilege and is backed by three key legal instruments that every Sabahan should understand,” he said.
“The first is Paragraph 16 of the 1962 Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report, which explicitly records the agreement that immigration control into Sabah and Sarawak shall remain under State authority,” he added.
He said the provision was designed to protect Sabah from mass influxes from the Peninsular that could alter the State’s population composition and burden its economy.
“This is a written promise made before Malaysia even existed. It is the primary reason Sabah agreed to join the Federation. Surrendering control to AKPS would be a betrayal of the spirit of the IGC,” he said.
Jaesman also cited Article 161E(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that no constitutional amendment affecting Sabah’s and Sarawak’s immigration powers can be made without the consent of the respective Head of State.
“Putrajaya cannot alter Sabah’s immigration powers at will. Even if the AKPS does not formally amend the Constitution, taking over operational functions at entry points is a subtle way of eroding this power.
“If the State Government allows this, it creates a dangerous precedent that Article 161E (4) can be bypassed through an agency,” he said.
The third legal pillar, he said, is Sections 64 and 65 of the Immigration Act 1959/63, which empower the State Immigration Director control the entry of non-Sabah nationals, including Peninsular Malaysians.
“Section 65 further allows the State Government to direct the Immigration Director to bar the entry of anyone deemed an unwelcome person or persona non grata.
“This is Sabah’s veto power. We can bar anyone, including politicians and activists from the Peninsula, if they pose a threat to the State’s interests. If AKPS takes over the entry points, the authority under Section 65 becomes unclear. Who gives the orders, Putrajaya or the State?” Jaesman said.
He urged the Sabah Government not to lose sight of the legal foundations underpinning its immigration autonomy and to make its position unambiguous in any discussions on the proposed amendments to Act 830.
