KOTA KINABALU: Kapayan State Assemblyman Chin Tek Ming acknowledged the announcement by Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor that the implementation of the Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency Act 2024 (Act 860 / AKPS) in Sabah has been temporarily deferred pending further assurances regarding Sabah’s immigration autonomy and special rights.
However, according to him, a mere postponement is insufficient because the issue extends far beyond administrative guarantees or operational protections from the Federal Government.
He said the core issue concerns the legal and constitutional validity of implementing Act 860 in Sabah.
He stressed that Act 860 should not merely be deferred but openly rejected because its implementation allegedly conflicts with Sabah’s constitutional safeguards under the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
According to Chin, Sabah’s immigration autonomy is a constitutional guarantee clearly protected under Article 161E(4) of the Federal Constitution read together with Article 9(3).
He said these protections were established to ensure Sabah retains meaningful authority and control over immigration matters, entry control, and the protection of the state’s territorial and demographic integrity.
He added that any Federal law which directly affects Sabah’s special interests or autonomous powers cannot simply be implemented without complying with the constitutional framework that safeguards Sabah’s special position.
In the statement, Chin also questioned the absence of any acceptance, approval, or debate in the Sabah State Legislative Assembly regarding the implementation of Act 860, despite the Act having direct implications on Sabah’s immigration structure and the state’s enforcement powers.
He said this raises serious constitutional issues that cannot be resolved merely through administrative discussions or political assurances.
According to him, the implementation of any law that contradicts the Constitution could be considered “void ab initio,” meaning invalid from the outset.
He stressed that Sabah’s constitutional protections cannot be bypassed through administrative mechanisms, executive arrangements, or federal operational restructuring.
He also raised concerns regarding the operational structure of AKPS, which he claimed creates the risk of Sabah’s powers being gradually absorbed by the Federal Government.
According to him, although the Chief Minister himself acknowledged that the State Authority only exercises control through the Sabah Immigration Director under subsection 6(3) of Act 860, the overall operational structure remains subject to a Federal agency headquartered in Putrajaya.
He said this situation creates risks of overlapping authority, conflicting directives, and the gradual erosion of Sabah’s immigration autonomy through Federal administrative structures.
He further stressed that Sabah cannot rely solely on political promises or goodwill when institutional structures and chains of command remain controlled at the Federal level.
According to Chin, Sabah’s own history demonstrates that the erosion of state powers often occurs gradually through administrative centralisation rather than through open abolition of powers.
At the same time, he said the matter is not about political bargaining but concerns Sabah’s legal rights guaranteed under MA63 and the Federal Constitution.
He stated that Sabah is not asking for charity from the Federal Government, but is defending constitutional rights that formed the foundation of Malaysia’s formation.
Accordingly, he urged the Sabah State Government to take a firm position by rejecting any implementation of Act 860 that undermines Sabah’s immigration autonomy, constitutional protections, and state powers.
He stressed that Sabah’s constitutional rights must not continue to be gradually diluted through Federal administrative mechanisms.
He emphasised that Sabah’s constitutional position must be defended lawfully, firmly, and without compromise.
