As published in The Borneo Post on 25 October 2026 and Oriental Daily News (in Chinese) on 26 October 2026
The prosecution of Datuk Seri Mohd Shuhaily Mohd Zain, Director-General of the Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS), over an incident at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) raises questions that go far beyond an altercation between a senior enforcement officer and two police personnel.
On 21 October 2026, Shuhaily was charged with two counts of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code, relating to an incident at KLIA Terminal 1 on September 28, to which he pleaded not guilty. It is incumbent on the court to adjudicate over the charges fairly for the accused and the complainants alike, without political interference or trial by public opinion.
But while the legal proceedings take their course, Malaysians must not lose sight of the bigger and more troubling issue: what is happening at our country’s principal international gateway, and how deep do the weaknesses in our border enforcement system run?
If the attention of the authorities remains confined to the confrontation between enforcement personnel itself, while the circumstances that provoked it remain unscrutinised, the country risks addressing the symptom while leaving the disease untreated.
A confrontation that demands a closer look
The incident involving Shuhaily reportedly arose in the context of an enforcement operation against a foreign tout syndicate at KLIA. Shuhaily subsequently said the matter had been brought to the attention of the highest levels of government and the Home Ministry.
The public deserves a full and transparent account of what happened.
What was the nature of the operation? What had investigators uncovered about the activities of the syndicate? Were there indications of collusion, abuse of access or interference with enforcement duties? What prompted the confrontation between the director-general and the two police personnel?
These questions should be answered through a proper investigation, supported by CCTV recordings, operational records, witness statements and other relevant evidence.
If Shuhaily committed an offence, the law must take its course. No office-holder, however senior, should be above the law. Equally, if he was attempting to confront serious wrongdoing in the discharge of his official responsibilities, that context must not be ignored.
The public should not be asked to choose between respect for the rule of law and the need to eradicate corruption. Both are indispensable.
‘Counter-setting’ and illegal entries
It was exposed that there were syndicates operating in KLIA which arranged for unlawful entry or exit of undocumented migrants and foreign nationals through immigration counters, bypassing normal verification procedures. In an exclusive report carried by Malaysiakini on July 26, such syndicates are still active at Johor border and KLIA despite crackdown.
If the said report is true, it means that foreigners can simply walk into our country through the front gate unlawfully without proper immigration clearance. This reflects a serious vulnerability in the country’s immigration and border-control system.
An international airport is supposed to be a controlled gateway where a nation’s territorial sovereignty is upheld. Every traveller must be subject to the applicable immigration and security procedures. Those who qualify for entry should be welcomed; those who do not should be dealt with according to law.
If money can buy an exception to these safeguards, the integrity of the entire system is compromised.
The consequences extend well beyond immigration violations. Unauthorised entry can create opportunities for human trafficking, document fraud, organised crime and other offences. Where enforcement personnel or intermediaries abuse their positions for personal gain, the issue is no longer simply about individual misconduct. It becomes a threat to public confidence and national security.
It is almost certain that a syndicate can only facilitate unlawful entry when colluding with the enforcement officers whose responsibility is to, ironically, guard our national gateway!
In September 2024, 49 Immigration officers (including a senior officer who was believed to be the mastermind) were arrested for alleged “counter-setting”. The operations saw MACC making seizures of over RM1 million in cash, along with vehicles, jewellery and gold.
It was reported that this was the syndicate responsible for smuggling foreign nationals from Myanmar, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Nepal into Malaysia. The bribes, ranging from RM200 to RM2,500, would differ based on the nationalities of those foreigners.
In August 2025, when answering a related question in Parliament, Home Minister Saifiddin Nasution Ismail confirmed that 26 enforcement personnel in KLIA were removed from their jobs in 2024.
While hundreds of officers were investigated, some faced disciplinary actions, google search revealed that only three were charged in January 2026.
The Tiong King Sing episode
Malaysia has seen a similarly troubling controversy before.
In June 2023, Tourism, Arts and Culture Minister Tiong King Sing intervened at KLIA over the case of a Chinese national who was allegedly detained without any reason. He claimed that the woman had been improperly detained and asked to pay to secure her release or entry. He publicly alleged that some immigration officers had requested bribes of up to RM3,000 from detained tourists in order to be released.
The allegations were disputed. An immigration officer subsequently maintained that the traveller had failed to satisfy certain entry requirements, including requirements concerning her return ticket and accommodation arrangements.
The episode therefore raised two distinct concerns. Firstly, whether immigration procedures had been properly applied; and secondly, whether allegations of bribery had any foundation.
Upon a probe into the incident, in July 2023, the MACC found no element of bribery, and that the commotion was stemmed from a misunderstanding between the two tourists and an agent who quoted an amount needed to buy their ticket home and to pay the agent’s fees.
It was an opportunity missed. The incident should have prompted a comprehensive examination of the integrity of immigration operations at KLIA.
The lesson was that allegations of extortion at the border are too serious to be dismissed, and that officers accused of corruption must be investigated just as rigorously as officers accused of abusing their authority.
It must be put in place an accountable system in which decisions are governed by law, misconduct is investigated independently and no one can exploit an official position for personal gain.
Three years later, the recurrence of serious questions about KLIA’s enforcement environment should prompt us to ask whether the necessary reforms have truly taken root.
The MAS pilot drug case
In August 2026, Malaysian authorities investigated how a Malaysia Airlines pilot, who was subsequently arrested in Jakarta with a large quantity of ecstasy pills, had passed through KLIA’s security screening procedures without his baggage being flagged. Police identified an airport employee as a person of interest in their investigation into the possible failure of the screening process.
This case concerns aviation security and control over movement of goods rather than immigration clearance. Nevertheless, it raises a related and deeply disturbing question viz how can a person carrying suspected contraband pass through multiple security checks at a major international airport without detection?
Was the screening system inadequate? Were standard operating procedures properly followed? Was there a failure of supervision? Or was there insider assistance?
These questions must be answered by investigators.
Airports are complex environments involving immigration officers, police, customs personnel, aviation security staff, airline employees, ground handlers and other service providers. Their responsibilities may differ, but their collective performance determines whether the country’s security perimeter is effective.
A single compromised employee can create a dangerous vulnerability. A network of compromised employees can undermine the entire system.
Malaysia must therefore investigate not only individual failures but also the systems, incentives, supervision and internal controls that make such failures possible.
National security cannot be sacrificed to greed
Taken together, these episodes should serve as a wake-up call.
An airport is not merely a place where passengers arrive and depart. It is the first line of defence against threats entering or leaving the country. Its integrity affects Malaysia’s reputation, economic interests, international obligations and the safety of its people.
In view of the systemic failures and human inflicted vulnerability at our airports, foreign nationals without immigration compliance could enter freely. Criminal networks could exploit weaknesses in the system. Above all, the public could lose faith in the very institutions entrusted with protecting them.
The Madani Government must recognise that the fight against corruption cannot be selective. It cannot be pursued only when politically convenient, nor abandoned when it becomes uncomfortable for those in power.
Shuhaily’s stance deserves scrutiny, but also recognition
Against this background, the prosecution of Shuhaily presents the government with a test of its commitment to both accountability and institutional integrity.
Shuhaily is a former director of the Royal Malaysia Police’s Criminal Investigation Department and subsequently took charge of AKPS. His public stance on strengthening border security, and his willingness to confront problems at the country’s gateways, deserve acclamation.
However, no public servant should be expected to be beyond criticism, and no officer should be exempt from the law simply because he has taken a firm stand against wrongdoing.
Yet there is a distinction between an officer who acts in bad faith and one who may have shortcomings but is prepared to confront serious institutional problems.
Shuhaily has demonstrated a genuine determination to strengthen border security, reject corruption and protect Malaysia’s national interests; those efforts deserve recognition.
Patriotism is not measured by slogans, ceremonial speeches or declarations of loyalty. It is demonstrated by a willingness to protect the country, uphold the law and place the public interest above personal convenience.
Shuhaily’s own conduct must be assessed fairly. At the same time, the government should ensure that any genuine efforts to expose corruption are not undermined by institutional indifference or retaliation.
Is this a prosecution of misconduct, or will it be perceived as a warning to others?
This is the question that makes the case particularly sensitive.
Shuhaily has suggested that the legal proceedings may be the price of his efforts to perform his entrusted duties, a price that he is willing to pay.
The government must recognise the danger of public perception. If enforcement officers come to believe that confronting entrenched wrongdoing may expose them to institutional retaliation, while those who remain silent face fewer risks, the consequences will be disastrous.
Honest officers may retreat into self-preservation. Whistleblowers may decide that silence is safer than disclosure. Supervisors may avoid difficult decisions. Those who benefit from corruption may become more confident that the system will protect them.
The government must therefore make it unmistakably clear that accountability will apply to everyone, but that legitimate efforts to rid the institutional decay will not wane merely because they inconvenience powerful interests.
The public must be able to see that the law is being applied fairly, not selectively.
A test of the Madani Government’s credibility
The Madani administration came to power with a commitment to good governance, integrity and the fight against corruption. Those commitments must now be tested where they matter most viz in the enforcement institutions.
The government must resist the temptation to treat the Shuhaily case merely as a disciplinary or public-relations problem. A thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the KLIA operation, and decisive action against any corruption uncovered.
No one should be permitted to hide behind rank, institutional loyalty or political connections. But neither should Malaysia allow the pursuit of individual accountability to overshadow the larger public interest in securing its borders.
The real test is whether the government is prepared to confront corruption wherever the evidence leads, even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
Malaysia needs officers who are competent, courageous, honest and accountable. It needs institutions that protect those who serve the public faithfully while exposing those who betray that trust.
The front door of Malaysia must never become a marketplace where the law can be negotiated for money.
The government must act decisively, transparently and without political calculation. Otherwise, Malaysians will be left to wonder whether the people who challenge corruption are being given the protection they deserve, or a warning that they should have kept quiet.
That is a question no government committed to reform should allow to linger.
