Kota Kinabalu: Questions are being raised on whether the State Government’s decision to defer the operations of the new Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS) to ensure it is in line with the Malaysia Agreement (MA63) is being ignored by Federal.
Jaesman Gipin, a former Immigration Officer, said national security operations must be aligned with Sabah’s constitutional autonomy under MA63.
He was commenting on the seizure of 14 containers of frozen chicken at the Sepanggar Port by AKPS. They were reportedly declared as “potatoes” and “peas”.
While acknowledging public approval of the seizure, Jaesman said the manner in which it was conducted raised serious questions about inter-agency coordination and respect for State authority.
“There must be a constructive dialogue to resolve the matter after the AKPS conducted the operation without consulting the Sabah Government which had officially suspended the Federal agency’s policy and activities in the State, as announced by the Chief Minister in a statement on May 15.
“That suspension followed thorough discussions with Sabah’s established enforcement bodies. Hence, the AKPS conducting operations without consultation calls into question inter-agency coordination and respect for State-level decisions,” he said.
He said Sabah already has capable agencies mandated to handle smuggling and border control and that AKPS should have sought dialogue before proceeding.
“To preserve administrative cooperation and the principle of shared powers within Malaysia, the AKPS should engage in dialogue and recognise the Sabah Government’s stance before undertaking any operations,” he added.
Warisan’s Kapayan Assemblyman Chin Tek Ming said the State Government must clarify whether its announced suspension of AKPS carried any legal weight, in the wake of the seizure.
He asked whether the suspension had been formalised through an official communication to Federal, whether any Cabinet decision, gazette notification or administrative moratorium had been issued or whether the announcement was a political statement with no substantive legal or administrative effect.
Chin said he was not opposing the AKPS enforcement action, but questioning the broader constitutional and jurisdictional implications of the agency’s presence in Sabah.
“I have never disputed the need for enforcement against smuggling, false customs declarations, illegal goods or border security threats. Any lawful enforcement action against cross-border criminal activity should rightfully be commended,” he said.
Nevertheless, he noted that the enforcement functions carried out by AKPS were already being performed by a range of existing agencies, including Customs, Marine Police, the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency, the Immigration Department, MAQIS, the Veterinary Services Department and other federal bodies, several of which were reportedly involved in the same Sepanggar Port operation alongside AKPS.
“What is the legal, financial and institutional justification for establishing yet another Federal agency to carry out functions already performed by existing bodies?” he asked, questioning whether the AKPS was created to genuinely improve enforcement effectiveness or to add another layer of federal oversight and coordination over Sabah’s border enforcement structures.
He said Sabah’s rights could be eroded not only through direct legislative amendments, but through administrative and institutional centralisation, a process he described as incremental but consequential.
Sabah’s special position on immigration and entry control is protected under Article 161E of the Federal Constitution and forms part of the guarantees underpinning Malaysia’s formation under MA63.
“That right is not a political concession. It is a binding constitutional right,” Chin said.
