By Remy Majangkim
KOTA KINABALU: When Minister of Health Datuk Seri Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad recently announced that joint MA63 subcommittees are working to “harmonise” federal health regulations with Sabah’s Public Health Ordinance 1960, it triggered a familiar alarm. In federal vocabulary, “harmonisation” is often a polite euphemism for blanket subsumption.
With the Malaysian Allied Health Professions Council (MAHPC) pushing an uncompromising December 31, 2026 deadline for Act 774, requiring licensed pest control operators (PCOs) to employ resident, degree-holding Public Health Entomologists, Putrajaya is attempting to roll out a “one-size-fits-all” mandate over East Malaysia.
The Borneo Fortress series now moves from critique to an executive roadmap. If Sabah wishes to defend its regional rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the State Cabinet and local authorities must deploy a concrete, four-pillar legal defense.
1. The Constitutional Boundary: Agriculture & Pests Jurisdictions
Under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Agriculture and Forestry sit squarely under List II (State List), Item 3. Furthermore, under historical constitutional arrangements and List III (Concurrent List), pest control and plant protection are shared jurisdictions tied directly to local state land and agricultural governance.
Crucially, Pesticide Applicator Licenses (PAL) and Assistant Pesticide Applicator Licenses (APAL) are statutory credentials issued by the Pesticides Board under the Pesticides Act 1974 (Act 149), an entity under the Ministry of Agriculture, not the Ministry of Health.
The Ministry of Health cannot use a separate health law (Act 774) to override or invalidate statutory operational licenses (PAL/APAL) issued by the Pesticides Board under agricultural legislation. Doing so directly encroaches on Sabah’s exclusive state authority over agricultural oversight and local pest control operations.
2. The Municipal Shield: Nullification via Local Licensing
Commercial premises, trade operations, and vector control within Sabah are governed strictly by local authorities (such as DBKK and District Councils) under the Local Government Ordinance 1961 and the Public Health Ordinance 1960.
This state autonomy was proven during the COVID-19 pandemic when the Sabah State Government routinely exercised its autonomous jurisdiction to adjust operating hours, inter-district movement, and trade SOPs independently of Putrajaya’s centralized MCO rules.
The Action: The Sabah Cabinet must issue a binding directive to all municipal councils confirming that valid PAL/APAL licenses issued by the Pesticides Board under Act 149 and state permits under the 1960 Ordinance remain the sole prerequisite for local business permit renewals. If municipal councils refuse to enforce federal Act 774 conditions for local trade permits, federal inspectors have no legal leverage to close Sabahan businesses.
3. The Fiscal Audit: Conditional Enforcement via Part V
Putrajaya’s demand for high-level compliance standards exposes a severe constitutional hypocrisy. Under Part V, Section 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Sabah is explicitly assigned a standalone revenue stream:
“In the case of Sabah, so long as medicine and health remain an item in the Concurrent List and expenses in respect of that item are borne by the State, 30 per cent of all customs revenue…”
Putrajaya continues to collect millions in custom duties from Sabahan ports while withholding this constitutional revenue assignment earmarked for concurrent state health execution.
The Action: Sabah must enact a Conditional Enforcement Formula. The State Legislative Assembly (DUN) should resolve that no federal health regulation exceeding local statutory requirements will be enforced within Sabah until Putrajaya settles the 30% Customs Tax ledger. These funds must then be directly channeled into a Sabah SME Health Compliance Fund to build degree programs at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and subsidize local testing facilities.
4. Enacting the “Borneo Clause”
Under Article 76(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution, Parliament cannot pass legislation aimed at standardising state laws unless explicitly requested or adopted by the State Legislative Assembly. “Harmonisation” cannot be a top-down federal dictate; it requires formal legislative consent.
The Action: State lawmakers must table a motion to introduce an explicit “Borneo Opt-In Clause” for all incoming federal regulatory frameworks. Under this clause, any federal act touching upon List III (Concurrent List) items, including public health, sanitation, and allied professions, must undergo an impact assessment by the Sabah Cabinet and receive formal endorsement by the Sabah DUN before acquiring legal force on Sabahan soil.
Putting Kota Kinabalu to Task: Where is Sabah’s Health Minister?
Federal overreach only succeeds when state leadership allows it. While Federal Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad speaks openly of “harmonising” federal acts with Sabah’s local laws, Kota Kinabalu’s silence is deafening.
State Minister of Women, Health, and People’s Wellbeing, Datuk Julita Majungki, along with Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor, must step up from passive observers to active constitutional defenders.
The State Ministry cannot treat Act 774 as a purely federal matter. Under the Public Health Ordinance 1960, local public health and business licensing fall squarely under state purview. The Sabah Cabinet possesses the immediate power to issue a binding executive order instructing all municipal councils, including DBKK, to protect local PAL/APAL holders under the Pesticides Board from federal harassment.
If the Sabah State Government refuses to invoke its municipal licensing shield, challenge Putrajaya’s withholding of the Part V 30% Customs Tax, or demand a formal “Borneo Opt-In Clause” in the State Legislative Assembly, then “harmonisation” will not be a negotiation, it will be a surrender.
Sabah’s regional autonomy is not a discretionary gift from Putrajaya to be negotiated over coffee; it is a binding constitutional architecture. By standing behind municipal licensing powers, upholding state agricultural jurisdiction, demanding the Part V 30% Customs revenue assignment, and enforcing legislative opt-in protocols, Sabah can effectively convert its constitutional shield into an unyielding fortress.
