Time to instill discipline while empowering AKPS

 Malaysia needs its border management agency to be more professional not only to ensure its credibility but to also enhance Putrajaya’s position in Asean.

The warning by border control and protection agency (AKPS) director-general Shuhaily Zain against officers abusing medical leave should not be regarded merely as an internal administrative matter.

It goes directly to the credibility of an institution entrusted with protecting Malaysia’s borders.

Shuhaily has warned of disciplinary action against officers and staff who abuse sick leave, while police reports could also be lodged against private clinics found to have illegally issued medical certificates.

His message is simple: officers must accept legitimate reprimands professionally rather than respond by producing questionable medical certificates.

This is fundamentally about discipline. And discipline is indispensable to border security.

Malaysia should nevertheless go further. AKPS should be empowered institutionally because border management is no longer merely an immigration function.

It has become an essential component of national security, economic security and Malaysia’s credibility within Asean.

Malaysia occupies one of Southeast Asia’s most strategically important geographical positions.

Peninsular Malaysia lies beside the Strait of Malacca, while Sabah and Sarawak form a substantial part of northern Borneo.

Malaysia’s land, maritime and aviation gateways connect it directly to the wider Asean economy.

Millions of travellers and vast quantities of goods move through these gateways. Unfortunately, organised criminal networks do too.

Human trafficking, narcotics, contraband, wildlife smuggling, and document fraud exploit the gaps between jurisdictions and enforcement agencies.

Criminal organisations do not respect bureaucratic distinctions between immigration, customs, policing and maritime enforcement.

Malaysia cannot protect a 21st-century border with a 20th-century administrative mentality.

AKPS should therefore develop into a highly professional integrated border institution capable of coordinating intelligence and enforcement across Malaysia’s international gateways.

This requires interoperable databases, biometric verification, modern scanning equipment, risk profiling, secure communication, and significantly better intelligence coordination among Malaysian enforcement agencies.

But technology without integrity achieves little.

The most sophisticated biometric system cannot compensate for an officer who can be bribed.

The best intelligence database cannot protect Malaysia when warnings are deliberately ignored.

Expensive surveillance equipment becomes meaningless if institutional discipline collapses.

Shuhaily’s insistence on discipline should consequently be understood as part of building AKPS’s institutional culture.

That culture must be uncompromising towards corruption and misconduct while remaining fair towards personnel.

Officers should receive proper training, career development, welfare support, and professional recognition.

Border officers are, after all, frontline representatives of Malaysian sovereignty.

This is where AKPS connects directly with Malaysia’s position in Asean.

Asean integration depends increasingly on connectivity. Member states want greater trade, tourism, investment, supply-chain integration, and people-to-people exchanges.

But greater connectivity without effective border governance creates vulnerabilities.

Malaysia should therefore champion stronger Asean cooperation on integrated border management.

This does not require a supranational Asean border force. Member states remain understandably protective of their sovereignty.

Instead, Malaysia can encourage greater interoperability between national agencies.

This could involve faster intelligence exchanges concerning trafficking networks, forged travel documents, suspicious cargo and wanted individuals, alongside joint professional training and closer coordination among immigration, customs, police and maritime authorities.

AKPS could become an important Malaysian institutional node in such an Asean network.

The challenge is increasingly urgent. Southeast Asia’s scam compounds have demonstrated how human trafficking, cybercrime, money laundering and organised criminal networks can converge.

Smuggling routes established for one illegal activity can quickly be adapted for another.

No Asean country can confront these challenges entirely alone.

Malaysia’s domestic institutional strength consequently affects its diplomatic influence.

Putrajaya cannot credibly demand stronger regional enforcement cooperation if its own border institutions remain fragmented or vulnerable to misconduct.

Conversely, a professional AKPS gives Malaysia diplomatic capital.

Malaysia could eventually promote an Asean border management centre of excellence, bringing together enforcement officials, researchers, technology specialists and policymakers for professional training, intelligence cooperation and exchanges of best practices.

There is an economic advantage too. Stronger borders need not mean slower borders.

Better intelligence and risk assessment enable authorities to distinguish legitimate travellers and commerce from higher-risk movements.

Ordinary passengers and goods can move faster while enforcement resources are concentrated where genuinely required.

Malaysia should aim for borders that are simultaneously tough on crime and efficient for legitimate mobility.

AKPS therefore represents more than another federal enforcement body.

Properly developed, it can strengthen Malaysian state capacity while supporting Putrajaya’s leadership within Asean.

But institutional strength begins with discipline.

Officers cannot evade accountability whenever they are reprimanded. Supervisors must exercise authority responsibly.

Clinics cannot become convenient sources of questionable medical certificates. Standards must apply consistently across ranks.

Malaysia should give AKPS the authority, resources, technology, training and intelligence capabilities necessary to become one of Southeast Asia’s leading border-management institutions.

Malaysia’s borders are not merely lines separating the country from its neighbours. They are gateways connecting Malaysia to Asean and Asean to the wider world.

Strengthening AKPS strengthens those gateways — and strengthens Putrajaya’s ability to lead Asean by example. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.