Sabah's government is maintaining an uncompromising position regarding how a new federal border control law should operate within the state, signalling it will not accept implementation that diminishes its historically protected immigration jurisdiction. Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Joniston Bangkuai outlined this stance to the state assembly on July 22, emphasising that the Malaysia Border Control and Protection Agency Act 2024 (Act 860) cannot be allowed to chip away at powers the state has held since Malaysia's formation. The declaration comes months after Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor announced in May that Sabah would postpone the law's implementation pending clear assurances from Kuala Lumpur.
The core dispute centres on whether the newly established Malaysia Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS) can operate within Sabah's borders without first obtaining explicit consent to preserve state control over immigration procedures. Joniston confirmed that the state government has already formally communicated its position through written correspondence to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, making clear that the Sabah State Immigration Department must remain the primary authority for managing who enters and exits Sabah. This insistence extends to the power to issue Not-To-Land notices, the administrative tool that prevents individuals from entering the state—a function Sabah views as integral to its sovereignty.
While acknowledging that border and immigration matters generally fall within federal constitutional authority, Joniston drew a distinction between Sabah's case and the rest of Malaysia. He pointed to Article V of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the founding accord that established Malaysia and incorporated Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners rather than subordinate territories. Under this provision, both states negotiated specific exemptions from several federal laws and retained certain autonomous powers, particularly regarding immigration. This constitutional arrangement arose because the two states insisted on safeguards before agreeing to join the federation, recognising that their geographic and demographic circumstances required independent control over population movements.
The statement represents an escalation of Sabah's long-standing vigilance over MA63 protections. In recent years, both Sabah and Sarawak have grown increasingly assertive about defending their constitutional rights, arguing that federal policies and centralising trends have gradually eroded their special status. The immigration autonomy question touches a particularly sensitive nerve because controlling entry has historically been viewed as essential to protecting the states' social fabric, labour markets, and public resources from unmanaged population pressures. For Sabah specifically, concerns about undocumented migration and border security have made immigration control a matter of significant political weight.
Joniston's remarks in the assembly were prompted by questioning from Datuk Seri Wilfred Madius Tangau (GRS-Tamparuli), who asked why the state government chose to delay rather than comply with federal legislation. The response underscores that Sabah does not view this as simple non-compliance with law, but rather as a negotiation over the proper constitutional boundaries between federal and state powers. By framing the Act 860 postponement as a temporary measure pending guarantees, the state government signals willingness to cooperate but only under conditions that preserve its legal standing.
The significance of this dispute extends beyond bureaucratic jurisdiction. Malaysia's federal system has always contained tension between centralising impulses and regional autonomy, and the MA63 protections represent one of the few genuine constitutional constraints on federal expansion. If the AKPS were to assume de facto control over Sabah's entry points without explicit state consent, it could establish a precedent for diminishing other MA63 protections across immigration and other sensitive areas. This concern explains why both Chief Minister Hajiji and Deputy Minister Joniston have repeatedly characterised Sabah's immigration powers as non-negotiable rather than merely important.
The Act 860 was envisioned as a modernisation of Malaysia's border management framework, consolidating various immigration enforcement functions under a single agency. However, its implementation in Sabah and Sarawak raises novel questions that the legislation's framers may not have adequately considered. The states argue that federal border protection objectives can be achieved through cooperative arrangements that respect state immigration authority rather than through federal agency dominance. This suggests a possible compromise path, though negotiations between Kota Kinabalu and Putrajaya remain ongoing.
From a Southeast Asian perspective, Sabah's position reflects broader patterns seen across federal systems in the region, where component states increasingly resist centralisation and assert constitutional protections. The situation also carries implications for how Malaysia manages sensitive bilateral issues with neighbouring countries, since border control effectiveness often depends on coordination and consistent policy frameworks. A compromise that respects both federal coordination needs and state autonomy could serve as a model for federal-state cooperation on security matters.
The postponement of Act 860 implementation in Sabah remains indefinite, pending the outcome of discussions between state and federal authorities. However, Joniston's firmness suggests that Sabah will not simply accept a federal agency takeover of immigration functions. The state government appears prepared to maintain its position through administrative delay if necessary, gambling that federal authorities will eventually agree to framework adjustments rather than force implementation and risk further souring federal-state relations. This confrontation over Act 860 ultimately reflects the continuing salience of MA63 in Sabah politics and the state's determination to prevent what it perceives as constitutional erosion through incremental policy changes.
