By Daniel John Jambun, President Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is correct that the Immigration Department must evolve into a professional, technologically advanced and intelligence-led institution capable of safeguarding national security while facilitating legitimate economic growth.
For Sabah, however, immigration cannot be discussed merely in terms of faster border clearance, improved efficiency or economic convenience.
Immigration is inseparable from Sabah’s security, demographic integrity, citizenship system and electoral future.
The protection of Sabah’s security and distinct immigration interests formed part of the fundamental assurances and constitutional arrangements upon which North Borneo agreed to participate in the formation of Malaysia in 1963.
Article V of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 required special legislative provisions governing entry into Sabah and Sarawak. Article VIII further required the governments concerned to take the legislative, executive and other action necessary to implement the assurances, undertakings and recommendations contained in the Inter-Governmental Committee Report.
These were not ceremonial promises. They formed part of the foundational constitutional bargain upon which Malaysia was established.
Yet more than six decades later, the demographic position in Sabah raises questions that can no longer be avoided.
According to the Department of Statistics Malaysia, Sabah’s estimated non-citizen population in 2025 stood at approximately 1,040,200 people. This means that more than one million persons living in Sabah were recorded as non-Malaysian citizens.
At the same time, demographic figures attributed to DOSM place the combined population of the principal Momogun or Orang Asal communities—particularly the Kadazan, Dusun and Murut communities—at approximately 767,345 people, or about 22.4 per cent under the relevant statistical classification.
In simple terms, the estimated non-citizen population in Sabah now exceeds the combined population of these indigenous Momogun communities.
That comparison must shock the conscience of every responsible government.
How did Sabah reach a position where the non-citizen population became larger than a substantial part of its indigenous population?
How did this demographic transformation occur within several decades?
How many entered Sabah lawfully?
How many remained after their permits expired?
How many were born in Sabah without their citizenship status being properly resolved?
How many entered through undocumented routes or organised migrant-smuggling networks?
How many obtained identity documents through fraud, corruption, false declarations or administrative irregularities?
Most importantly, which authorities were responsible for allowing this situation to develop and persist?
It must be made clear that a person classified as a non-citizen is not automatically an illegal immigrant. Sabah has many lawful foreign workers, permanent residents, students, investors, spouses and other persons whose presence is legally authorised.
Nevertheless, when the recorded non-citizen population exceeds one million people, the Government cannot dismiss legitimate questions about border enforcement, overstaying, undocumented migration, document fraud and the long-term demographic consequences for Sabah.
Where is the security that was promised to Sabah?
Where is the effective immigration protection that Sabah was assured when it agreed to form Malaysia?
Where is the accountability for decades of illegal entry, questionable identity documentation and unresolved allegations associated with the issue commonly known as “Project IC”?
A professional immigration system must prevent illegal entry, identify overstayers, dismantle migrant-smuggling and document-fraud syndicates, and ensure that immigration records cannot be manipulated as a pathway to identity documents or citizenship.
The Immigration Department does not itself grant citizenship or register voters. Identity documentation and citizenship administration principally involve the National Registration Department, while electoral registration falls under the Election Commission.
However, these agencies form an interconnected administrative chain.
That chain must never permit any person to move from illegal entry, to questionable documentation, to improperly acquired citizenship and finally into the electoral roll.
This is why professionalism must include a comprehensive and lawful inter-agency audit involving the Immigration Department, National Registration Department, police, security agencies and Election Commission.
Their records should be securely cross-checked, subject to the law and procedural fairness, to identify:
• conflicting or duplicate identities;
• fraudulent or irregular birth and identity documents;
• unexplained changes in citizenship status;
• persons who entered Sabah unlawfully or overstayed;
• identity records associated with findings or evidence examined by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants in Sabah; and
• persons who may have been improperly registered in the electoral roll.
Any person who is a genuine Malaysian citizen must be treated fairly and protected according to law. However, citizenship obtained through fraud, corruption or false documentation cannot be protected merely because the wrongdoing remained undiscovered for many years.
The Government must also explain the historical development of Sabah’s extraordinary demographic position. It is not enough to announce occasional enforcement operations while avoiding the larger question of how the population reached this scale.
Sabahans are entitled to know:
Who failed to protect Sabah’s borders?
Who failed to act against organised documentation syndicates?
Who authorised or facilitated irregular identity documents?
Were public officers involved?
Were political interests involved?
What corrective action has been taken following the Royal Commission of Inquiry?
And why do serious concerns over citizenship and the integrity of Sabah’s electoral roll remain unresolved?
Professionalism means more than speed, uniforms, technology and public-relations announcements.
It means integrity, accountability, transparency and the courage to investigate and correct institutional failures—even where those failures implicate powerful individuals or public authorities.
Economic growth is important, but no economic objective can justify weakening Sabah’s immigration safeguards or ignoring a demographic development that may affect the political voice of its indigenous people.
The security assurances given to Sabah must be honoured in substance, not merely remembered in speeches.
Sabah’s special immigration safeguards cannot be treated as historical decorations while more than one million non-citizens reside in the State and longstanding questions concerning illegal immigration, questionable documentation and electoral integrity remain unanswered.
The Government must tell the people of Sabah plainly:
How did this happen?
Who was responsible?
What has been done to correct it?
And where is the security promised to Sabah in 1963?
The constitutional right of Sabahans—and particularly Sabah’s indigenous peoples—to determine the political future of their own homeland through a lawful citizenship system and a clean, credible electoral roll must never be compromised.
