Statement by Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) believes an important discussion has now been raised concerning the management of Sabah’s fisheries resources.
The issue deserves serious examination because it involves much more than catching fish.
It concerns food security, coastal livelihoods, conservation, economic development, Sabah’s legislative powers and the long-term management of one of the State’s most valuable renewable natural resources.
According to figures stated in the Dewan Rakyat in 2025, Sabah contributed approximately 25 per cent, or 449,778 metric tonnes, of Malaysia’s total fish production of about 1.91 million metric tonnes, making Sabah the largest fish-producing state in the country.
That immediately raises an important question.
If Sabah is responsible for around one-quarter of Malaysia’s fish production, how much legislative and policy control does Sabah itself exercise over its maritime and estuarine fisheries?
This is not merely a political question.
It is a constitutional question.
The federal Fisheries legislation itself acknowledges that while fisheries are generally included in the Federal List, maritime and estuarine fishing and fisheries for Sabah and Sarawak are also expressly included under Item 12 of List IIIA of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution — the Supplement to the Concurrent List applicable to Sabah and Sarawak.
In other words, the Constitution itself recognises a legislative role for Sabah in this field.
Sabah is therefore not simply another Malaysian state when it comes to maritime and estuarine fisheries.
But there is an important distinction which must be understood.
Sabah does already have its own legislation — the Sabah Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Enactment 2003, which came into force on 1 April 2019. Its stated purpose is the sustainable development and management of inland fisheries and aquaculture in Sabah.
The unanswered question concerns Sabah’s enormous marine and estuarine fisheries sector.
Why has Sabah not developed an equally comprehensive State legislative framework specifically addressing the maritime and estuarine field in which the Federal Constitution expressly recognises concurrent legislative competence?
LOOK AT SARAWAK
The comparison with Sarawak is instructive.
Sarawak enacted the State Fisheries Ordinance 2003, which came into force on 1 July 2003. Its long title describes it as legislation to regulate fishing, promote aquaculture and provide for the proper and sustainable management of fisheries in Sarawak.
The Sarawak law establishes a State Fisheries Officer, places responsibility for fisheries and aquaculture with the State Minister, provides State-level powers relating to fishing controls, conservation, aquaculture, fish diseases, fish processing, enforcement and fisheries administration.
We should nevertheless be precise.
The Sarawak Ordinance is not simply a complete replacement for federal marine fisheries legislation. Many of its substantive fishing and conservation provisions are expressly directed at riverine and inland waters. Federal fisheries legislation therefore continues to have an important role.
But the comparison still raises a legitimate question.
Why has Sarawak developed a wider State fisheries legislative and administrative framework, while Sabah’s principal State enactment remains specifically confined to inland fisheries and aquaculture?
That question becomes even more important considering Sabah’s economic contribution to Malaysia’s fisheries sector.
Sabah has approximately 1,600 kilometres of coastline, extensive islands, estuaries and marine ecosystems, and Parliament has itself heard arguments about Sabah’s importance to national food production and fisheries supply.
The discussion therefore should not be reduced to whether Sabah or the Federal Government should “control” fisheries.
That is too simplistic.
The Constitution provides a concurrent framework.
The real policy and legal questions are how that concurrent power should operate, what matters should properly be administered by Sabah, what matters require federal regulation, and how the two levels of government should coordinate without reducing Sabah’s constitutional role to a merely administrative one.
There are obvious areas requiring examination: licensing of local fishing activities, protection of traditional and small-scale fishermen, destructive fishing, fish-breeding grounds, estuarine management, sustainable catch limits, aquaculture, fisheries sanctuaries, fish landing and processing infrastructure, enforcement against illegal fishing and the development of Sabah’s fisheries value chain.
At the same time, matters involving the Exclusive Economic Zone, foreign fishing vessels, international maritime obligations and other federal responsibilities require careful constitutional and legal treatment.
This is why BoPiMaFo believes the discussion should begin with facts rather than slogans.
The facts are these:
Sabah produces roughly one-quarter of Malaysia’s fish.
Sabah already legislates for inland fisheries and aquaculture.
The Constitution expressly recognises maritime and estuarine fishing and fisheries as a Concurrent List matter for Sabah and Sarawak.
Sarawak has enacted a State Fisheries Ordinance establishing a broader State fisheries administrative framework.
Federal fisheries legislation nevertheless continues to operate.
Those facts justify asking a straightforward constitutional and policy question:
Is Sabah making full and effective use of the legislative competence already recognised for it under the Federal Constitution?
And if the present division of functions is considered appropriate, the Sabah Government and Federal Government should be able to explain clearly to Sabahans what powers presently belong to each level, what powers have been delegated, what powers Sabah itself can legislate for, and whether the present arrangements produce the best outcomes for Sabah’s fishermen and fisheries resources.
This should not become a quarrel between Sabah and Putrajaya.
Nor should it become another political slogan attached loosely to MA63.
It should become a serious exercise in constitutional governance, resource management and economic planning.
For BoPiMaFo, the most important question is therefore not simply:
“When will Sabah have its own Fisheries Enactment?”
Sabah already has one for inland fisheries and aquaculture.
The more accurate question is:
“Should Sabah develop a modern and comprehensive legislative framework for the maritime and estuarine fisheries powers expressly recognised to Sabah under the Federal Constitution — and, if so, how should that framework coexist with federal fisheries law?”
That question deserves an informed answer.
Because Sabah’s seas are not merely geographical territory.
They support food security.
They support fishermen and coastal communities.
They support employment and industry.
They support biodiversity.
And they represent an economic resource which must be sustainably managed for generations to come.
