We are deeply saddened by the deaths of eight Malaysian police personnel, and extend our deepest condolences and heartfelt sympathies to their families and loved ones.
We salute our fallen heroes who have paid the highest price in defence of our nation and territory. Our thoughts and prayers also go to members of our security forces who are now in the frontline of this conflict.
The Malaysian Bar expresses its support for the Malaysian authorities in its continuing efforts to restore law and order in the affected areas.
As an independent nation, Malaysia has a sovereign right to ensure recognition and respect for the territorial integrity of its international borders.
As the conflict continues, we call on all parties to take all necessary action to minimise any further injury and loss of life.
The International Court of Justice, in the course of adjudicating a territorial dispute between the Governments of Malaysia and Indonesia over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan off the coast of Sabah, and in delivering its decision on 17 December 2002, had set out the antecedents and history pertaining to the territory, and which effectively recognised the rights and sovereignty of Malaysia over the state of Sabah and its surrounding islands.
Sultanate had relinquished its rights
In essence, these antecedents show that the Sultanate of Sulu had, by its several actions and by various separate instruments between 19 April 1851 and 26 June 1946, relinquished and ceded all of its rights, interests and dominion over what was previously referred to as North Borneo (now known as the state of Sabah, Malaysia). These various instruments are:
1) The Act of Re-Submission between Spain and the Sultan of Sulu dated 19 April 1851, which was confirmed by the Protocol dated 22 July 1878, whereby the island of Sulu and its dependencies were annexed by the Spanish Crown;
2) The Cession and Agreement dated 22 January 1878 between the Sultan of Sulu, and Mr Alfred Dent and Baron von Overbeck as representatives of a British company, whereby the Sultan of Sulu granted and ceded to the latter all of his rights and powers over the mainland of the island of Borneo;
3) The Commission (report) dated 22 January 1878 whereby the Sultan of Sulu appointed Baron von Overbeck the “Dato Bëndahara and Rajah of Sandakan”, and ceded all of the Sultanate's rights to Baron von Overbeck as the “supreme ruler over the said dominions”;
4) Baron von Overbeck and Mr Alfred Dent in turn relinquished all their rights to a British company, later the British North Borneo Company;
5) The Protocol dated 11 March 1877 between Spain, Germany and Great Britain;
6) The Protocol dated 7 March 1885 between Spain, Germany and Great Britain whereby, inter alia, the Spanish Government relinquished to the British Government all claim of sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo and its islands;
7) The Agreement dated 12 May 1888 between the British Government and the British North Borneo Company for the creation of the State of North Borneo;
8) The Treaty of Peace of Paris dated 10 December 1898 between Spain and the United States of America whereby Spain ceded the Philippine Archipelago to the United States of America;
9) The Confirmation of Cession dated 22 April 1903 between the Sultan of Sulu and the British Government expanding the scope of the Cession and Agreement of 22 January 1878 between the Sultan of Sulu and Mr Alfred Dent and Baron von Overbeck;
10) The Convention dated 2 January 1930 between the United States of America and Great Britain delimiting the boundary between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North Borneo;
11) The Agreement dated 26 June 1946 between the British North Borneo Company and the British Government whereby the British North Borneo Company relinquished and transferred all of its interests, powers and rights in respect of the State of North Borneo to the British Crown, whereby the State of North Borneo became a British colony.
12) The Agreement dated 9 July 1963 between the Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore relating to Malaysia, which entered into force on 16 September 1963, whereby the colony of North Borneo was to be “federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the [State] of Sabah”.
Although the Philippines was not a party to this litigation before the International Court of Justice — it did apply to intervene, but the application was rejected — it is clear from this judgment that the Sultanate of Sulu, even if such an entity were to legally exist today, has no subsisting legitimate claim to Sabah.
In any event, as a matter of post-colonial self-determination, the people of Sabah voted overwhelmingly to join Malaysia in a referendum held in 1962, which was organised by the Cobbold Commission.
Respect human rights
The Malaysian Bar thus calls upon the Malaysian Government to continue its efforts to defend its international borders and territory, protect its citizens, and apprehend the perpetrators of these acts of armed violence.
In doing so, we nonetheless call upon the Malaysian Government to take appropriate and immediate steps to resolve the conflict in a peaceful manner to avoid the further use of arms and loss of limb or life.
Just as Malaysia is insisting on the respect for its sovereign rights under international law, as is proper, it would also be correct for the Malaysian Government to honour and maintain its commitment to international humanitarian law and international human rights standards in its conduct of the conflict and treatment of any persons detained as part of the conflict, and to accord such persons due process of the law.
It is clear that there exists a serious threat to national security in the areas of conflict in Sabah, and that there are reports that the authorities have arrested 79 persons under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012.
We expect that the due process of the law shall be observed and accorded to these arrested persons.
We ask the Malaysian authorities to take all necessary measures to protect and provide for the safety and well-being of civilians caught in the conflict zone, bearing in mind that these involve the elderly, women and children.
They should be provided with safe passage to non-conflict zones and be provided with access to adequate food, shelter, medical assistance and protection.
We also call upon the said authorities to ensure that all combatants, friend or foe, are treated humanely, and provided with the necessary medical assistance and treatment.
As we seek to assert our rights and protect our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we must continue to conduct ourselves with a strong sense of dignity and professionalism, with due observance of our own laws as well as international laws and standards.
It is our conduct and observance of the law and human rights in the face of adversity that will differentiate us from those who would seek to threaten us and commit acts of aggression against us.
The writer is the vice-president of the Malaysian Bar.
Christopher Leong, Malaysian Bar
MALAYAN BAR COUNCIL LEGAL BULLSHIT!
ReplyDelete"In any event, as a matter of post-colonial self-determination, the people of Sabah voted overwhelmingly to join Malaysia in a referendum held in 1962, which was organised by the Cobbold Commission".
Who wrote this pure unadulterated nonsense?
The simple fact is that there was never such a mythical “referendum” as claimed by the the learned Malayan Bar Council aka Malaysian Bar Council and also PM Najib, his colleagues and even alleged constitutional “experts”. What a shameful display of ignorance by educated people
The Cobbold Commission as its Report was entitled was no more than an “a Commission of Enquiry” set up to determine whether the people of North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak supported the proposal to create the Malaysia consisting of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak. It was not (repeat “not”) a “referendum” nor did the Commission organised any!
Its findings were based on interviews of some 4,000 people in the colonies. This was only 4% of the population they claimed to have interviewed. How could this be a representative figure?
The Commission noted that only one third of those interviewed unconditionally supported Malaysia. The Bar council imaginatively interpreted this as a overwhelming majority “yes” vote. Some so-called constitutional expert claimed it was 80% “yes” to the non-existent “referendum”. Najib made it more clear by saying Sabah will forever remain in Malaysia!
How can this be a “yes” even if there was a “referendum” when only one third said (not a vote) “yes”? This would be really stretching the imagination. Or may some of us cannot count.
Shortly after the Report was published in August 1962 the first and last Brunei general elections were held with the people overwhelmingly electing the anti-Malaysia Brunei People's Party which won all the seats bar one. The Brunei people effectively rejected Malaysia and the BPP called for formation of the Borneo Federation called North Kalimantan.
An armed uprising broke out following British rejection of the BPP demand. The Cobbold Commission belatedly missed out in interviewing over 4000 soldiers of the TNKU and the 6,000 alleged leftwing supporters in Sarawak arrested and detained without trial in the wake of the uprising. These 10,000 people who opposed Malaysia far exceeded the number interviewed by the Cobbold Commission!
The commission findings formed the basis to justify forming Malaysia. This was hardly a democratic process which a fair and free referendum might have produced. This is why people argued that Malaysia was forced on the North Borneo and Sarawak people.
Read further below polemics on Malaysia formation:
p.s. Also Recommendeded reading for MBC - wikipedia on the Cobbold Commission...pretty straightforward guys! Do your homework and raise the Bar level....
SHAM DEMOCRACY & INDEPENDENCE IN MALAYSIA
ReplyDelete(These points taken from a comment in Hornbill Unleashed will hopefuly fill in the void for the Bar Council, the PM and colleagues with some facts)
Sabah and Sarawak were annexed or taken over in 1963 by Malaya and they asserted their direct political control by the 1970s following the ousting of CM Ningkan and Sabah's CM Donald Stephens.
Sabahans are saying that the Malaysia has failed for a number of reasons-
(A) Malaysia Agreement (and Malaysia) was illegally constituted - it was void from the beginning and not binding on Sabah and Sarawak:
1. Malaysia Agreement was made and Malaysia formed before resolution of Philippines' Sabah claim now highlighted by the Sulu claim.
(Legally how can you get ownership or title to land if there is a caveat giving notice registered of a existing claim in the subject property?- You proceed at your own risk!)
2. Lack of free will in making of Agreement as it was not signed by the 2 colonies as independent countries.
Malaysia Agreement was signed on 9 July 1963- Sarawak re-gained independence on 22 July 1963 (Sarawak was an independent state from 1841 to 1941), Sabah granted nominal independence on 31 August 1963. Malaysia formally declared on 16 September 1963. Neither country had to time to experience real independence.
The popular phrase “Independence in Malaysia” is a contradiction in terms. If Sabah and Sarawak were independent before Malaysia was formed how can they be independent when swallowed up by another country? This is a sham independence to cover up Malayan annexation and takeover of the 2 colonies.
3. Even if the Agreement is “legal”, it has been repudiated by Malaya many times in breaking all the terms and conditions.
4. Malaysia was not freely and voluntarily formed. There was no UN referendum to find out the people's real wishes. The Cobbold Commission dubious findings have been fraudulently passed off as the people's wishes to form Malaysia.
5. The proposed Malaysia race-based political structure was in breach of UN human rights principles and the principles of a secular and pluralist society which Sabah and Sarawak were prior to 1963.
(B) FAILURE OF ORIGINAL MALAYSIA CONCEPT & false rationales for federating 5 countries-Malaya, Singapore, Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak.
The original British Malayan bilateral proposal was to include 5 countries and primarily justified by the cold war "security" consideration of joint defence against foreign invasion and the communist threat.
These were in fact scaremongering tactics both to entice and scare the Borneo people into agreeing with their proposal. It should have been an exercise of free will without any scaremongering.
But this Malaysia concept broke down when Brunei did not join the federation and Singapore one of the most enthusiastic proponents of Malaysia, left it soon in 1965. Singapore quickly found out that UMNO did not intend to honour equal partnership principles.
With this break down of original concept the security and racial balance rationales used to justify formation of Malaysia were exposed as false arguments.
Neither Brunei and Singapore were invaded at the height of the Indonesian Ganyang Malaysia Campaign aka “Konfrontasi” and still not invaded by anyone.
UMNO's racial balance was thrown out of kilter and no longer valid. It turned out that new bumiputras were sued to outnumber non-bumiputras. UMNO's argument went haywire...
This left the Borneo people with a different concept which was never the original intention and they were never given the chance to consider the Singapore option.
Comments cont'd next post
(C) Malaysia has also failed as the main justification for formation of Malaysia was based on a guarantee of "security and prosperity" for Sabah and Sarawak were never honoured.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning Malaya betrayed the trust of the Sabah Sarawak people when UMNO aided and provided their 'blood brothers” the Sulus and Moros safe haven in Sabah, trained and armed them and also sponsored the invasion of millions of illegals.
UMNO is responsible for contributing to setting up the conditions for the Sulu invasion of Sabah. All these was against Sabah Sarawak security for 50 year in breach of Malaysia formation justifications.
Neither colonies have prospered but have been made the poorest states in Malaysia by UMNO's pillaging economic policies of stealing our oil and timber wealth and converting both colonies into mono-culture (palm oil plantation) colonial economies.
(D) Malaya also based its Malaysia concept on Melayu Raya and domination of other races- which saw UMNO arguing that the 5 countries would provide a "racial balance" - the greater combined number of Chinese (in Singapore) would be counter-balanced by the "bumiputras" of the 5 countries.
This was a flawed argument as it was simply anti-democratic, discriminatory and opposed to UN declaration of Human Rights as seen in the Malaysian Constitution and actual implementation of an apartheid system under the NEP.
The exclusion of Brunei and Singapore took away any validity for the UMNO racial balance rationale. Brunei was and in mainly Borneo Malay (not Malayan)and Singapore predominantly Chinese.
This means Malaysia was left with a majority of bumiputras. There was not balance. This was not the argument used to justify Malaysia.
The Malaysia Federation if accepted by the people should have been based on the principle of equal rights and opportunities for all races as set out by UN human rights principles. This has never been the case from the beginning.
The Malayan government also refused to review the position of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia after 10 years as specified by the 18 and 20 Points Agreement.
The whole Malaysia concept should have been properly reviewed in 1965 by a referendum. 50 years have passed and a referendum may no longer relevant as Malaysia proved to the opposite of everything it claimed to be.
The only solution is for Sabah and Sarawak to exit Malaysia and regain their independence and control resources. Malaya must complete the de-colonisation process begun in 1963.
Pending our re-gaining our independence, we call upon the Bar Council to respect the independence rights of Sabahans and Sarawak and not twist the facts to suit the situation.
STATEMENT BY SARAWAKIANS for AN INDEPENDENT SARAWAK & SABAH- 11/03/13.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteTHE 1968 Programme Book for the Coronation of His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Muizzaddin Waddaulah as the 29th Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, had two interesting documents inserted inside. The documents were reproduction of two treaties taken from microfilm kept at the Public Record Office in London.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteThe first treaty was signed by Brunei's 24th Sultan, Sultan Abdul Momin, appointing Baron de Overbeck as the Maharaja Sabah, Rajah Gaya and Sandakan signed on 29th December 1877. The second treaty was signed by Sultan Jamalalulazam of Sulu appointing Baron de Overbeck as Dato Bendahara and Raja Sandakan on 22nd January 1878, about three weeks after the first treaty was signed.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteThat begs the question: Who was responsible for Sabah or North Borneo as it was known then towards the end of the 19th century? That probably has a bearing on the event now unfolding in Lahad Datu in Sabah, where a group of armed men supposedly from the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo is claiming that they are the rightful owners of Sabah.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteMany of the early modern accounts of written history in Brunei noted that Sulu was given possession of Sabah or parts of Sabah for help rendered to Sultan Muhydin, the 14th Sultan of Brunei who fought a civil war against the 13th Sultan of Brunei, Sultan Abdul Mubin.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteSultan Abdul Mubin usurped the throne after killing Sultan Muhammad Ali when the latter tried to stop Sultan Abdul Mubin from taking his revenge for the death of his son killed by the son of Sultan Muhammad Ali. Sultan Abdul Mubin appointed Sultan Muhydin as Bendahara but eventually Sultan Muhydin tricked Sultan Abdul Mubin into leaving Brunei for Pulau Cermin and appointed himself as the new Sultan of Brunei. The two Sultans fought against each other and Sultan Muhyidin finally triumphed, said to be due to the assistance provided by the Sulu Sultanate.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteSir Hugh Low, writing in the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JSBRAS) published on 5 June 1880 entitled 'Selesilah (Book of Descent) of the Rajas of Bruni', wrote that "by the assistance of a force from the Sultan of Soolok, the forts on the island (Pulau Cermin) were captured".
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteEarlier Sir Hugh Low described the negotiation between Sulu and Brunei: "the Bataraa of Soolok went up to Bruni and met the Sultan Muaddin and having feasted and drank, the Sultan asked the Batara for his assistance to destroy the enemies at the island, promising that if the island should be conquered, the land from the North as far as westward as Kimani should belong to Soolook".
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteHR Hughes-Hallett writing in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society published in August 1940 entitled A Sketch of the History of Brunei wrote: "by the beginning of the 18th century, the kingdom (Brunei) had been territorially diminished by the cession to the Sultan of Sulu in the north".
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteCA Majul in his book Muslims in the Philippines (1973) referred to a letter from Sultan Jamalul Azam of Sulu to the Governor General of Spain on 17 September 1879 that the coast area from Kimanis to Balikpapan was to pay tribute to the Sultan which he said proved that the Brunei territory facing Suluk was ceded to Suluk.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, Pehin Jamil Umar writing in his book, Tarsilah Brunei II: Period of Splendour and Fame (2007), countered all of the above. Pehin Jamil did not deny the fact that the Sulus were invited and promised the northern Brunei territory by Sultan Muhydin if they helped him win the civil war against Sultan Abdul Mubin.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteHowever, during the battle for Pulau Cermin, the Sulu forces who were supposed to attack the island from Pulau Keingaran and from the sea, did not do so. They were terrified by the resistance of Sultan Abdul Mubin's forces in Pulau Cermin. It was only after Sultan Muhydin had won the battle did the Sulu forces landed and took the opportunity to seize a number of war booties.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pehin Jamil, Sultan Muhydin refused to cede the territories claimed by Sulu. Pehin Jamil noted that the area was only "claimed" and not "ceded", as Sir Stamford Raffles, in his book "History of Java" (1830), had noted "on the north-east of Borneo proper (Brunei) lies a very considerable territory (Sabah), the sovereignty of which has long been claimed by Sulu Government".
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeletePehin Jamil further noted that according to the oral tradition, Sulu continued to press their claim. In 1775, one of their chiefs came to Brunei pretending to seek fresh water. What they really wanted was to seek an audience with the Sultan regarding Sabah.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Sultan ordered one of the chief wazirs to see them and he threatened that if they wanted to pursue their intention, he will kill them all. The Sulus immediately left. Despite that setback, the Sulus continue to maintain their claims.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteThe argument that Brunei has not ceded Sabah to Sulu is supported by LR Wright in her book The Origins of British Borneo (1970). She wrote: "indeed, the legitimacy of the Sulu claim to the territory (North Borneo) is in considerable doubt partly because of the unreliability of tarsilas such as 'Selesilah', which in many cases are nothing more than written-down legends to enhance the status of the royal house which produced them. Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim. The weight of Brunei tradition challenges it".
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteThe Sulu claim is currently resting on that treaty which was mentioned at the beginning of this article signed by Sultan Jamalalulazam of Sulu appointing Baron de Overbeck as Dato Bendahara and Raja Sandakan on 22nd January 1878. But at the beginning of this article, there is, in fact, another treaty which was signed earlier by Sultan Abdul Momin appointing Baron de Overbeck as the Maharaja Sabah, Rajah Gaya and Sandakan signed on 29th December 1877. In 1877, the Brunei Sultanate then still believed and maintained that the territory was in fact still under the control of the Brunei Sultanate.
"Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim"
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting document is the British North Borneo Treaties Protocol of 1885 signed in Madrid, which is also known as the Madrid Protocol of 1885, a copy of which can be found on Sabah State Attorney General's website. It was signed by the British, Germany and Spain who was the predecessor government of the Philippines. The two most important articles are Article I British and Germany recognising the sovereignty of Spain over the Sulu Archipelago and Article III Spain relinquishing all claims to Borneo.
Kesultanan Sulu tidak mempunyai hak untuk menuntut Sabah kerana keputusan dari Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di The Hague, Belanda memihak kepada Putrajaya apabila berlaku pertindihan tuntutan Pulau Sipadan dan Ligitan dengan Jakarta yang diputuskan pada tahun 2002.
ReplyDeleteMenurut naib presiden Majlis Peguam Christopher Leong, keputusan itu sekaligus mengiktiraf Sabah dan pulau-pulau disekitarnya sebagai sebahagian dari Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteJika kita merujuk perkara sebelum ini, Kesultanan Sulu, dalam tindakannya dari 19 April 1851 hingga 26 Jun 1946 telah melepaskan hak, kepentingan dan penguasaannya terhadap Borneo Utara, atau kini dikenali sebagai Sabah," kata Leong dalam sidang media yang ditulis di laman web Majlis Peguam hari ini.
ReplyDeleteMenurut Leong, terdapat banyak perjanjian, di antaranya perjanjian antara Kesultanan Sulu dan Sepanyol pada 19 April 1851, dan disahkan oleh Protokol pada 22 Julai 1878 sebagai menjadi sebahagian dari jajahan Sepanyol.
ReplyDeleteKemudian, British, Sepanyol dan Jerman telah menandatangani satu perjanjian menentukan sempadan masing-masing 7 Mac 1885, di mana Madrid melepaskan semua jajahannya di Borneo kepada London, yang bagaimanapun ditadbir Syarikat Borneo Utara British (SBUB).
ReplyDeleteBorneo Utara, yang kini sebagai Sabah merupakan sebahagian dari Kesultanan Sulu, yang kemudiannya dipajakkan kepada Baron von Overback dan Alfred Dent, yang membentuk SBUB, sehingga 26 Jun 1946, setahun selepas tamat perang dunia kedua, di mana syarikat tidak mampu untuk membangunkan semua prasarana dan diserahkan kepada kerajaan British.
ReplyDeleteBritish, pada 9 Julai 1963 menandatangani perjanjian dengan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu untuk menyerahkan Borneo Utara, Sarawak serta Singapura untuk menyertai Malaysia, selepas Suruhanjaya Cobbold mendapati penduduk di kawasan tersebut mahu menyertai Malaysia, yang kemudiannya dibentuk pada 16 September 1963.
ReplyDeleteDalam masa sama Leong juga mahu anggota keselamatan negara untuk menguruskan keselamatan di samping terus komited dengan hak asasi manusia dalam situasi di Lahad Datu.
ReplyDeleteMajlis Peguam juga mengucapkan takziah kepada keluarga anggota polis yang terkorban dalam menangani penceroboh di Lahad Datu
ReplyDeleteThe joining of Sabah in the formation of Malaysia in 1963 eliminates any claim on the state, previously known as North Borneo, said a professor from Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), Assoc Professor Dr Bilcher Bala. The Social Science School lecturer said as such, any claims made on Sabah today was invalid
ReplyDelete"The formation of Malaysia in 1963 eliminates any claim on Sabah.In 1888 Sabah became a British protectorate and under a 1903 protocol, the Philippines came under the control of the United States, but without Sabah included. In 1946 Sabah was handed over completely to the British and in 1963 it became part of Malaysia," he told.
ReplyDeleteHence, he said, the action by Jamalul Kiram III in attacking Sabah, purportedly to claim the heritage of the Sulu sultanate, was a crime which could be regarded a terrorist attack.
ReplyDeleteOn the payment by the Malaysian government to the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate, he said it was just a compensation payment or gift for a 1787 "lease permanent" agreement.
ReplyDeleteHence, the payment had to be made until death (the term used in the agreement is for as long as there is the moon and stars), he added.
ReplyDeleteBilcher said the people of Sabah chose to be with Malaysia as contained in the Cobbold Report.
ReplyDelete"Only the Sulu Sultan regarded the Sabah people as his, but the Sabah people did not recognise the Sultan, except the Governor (now known as the Yang Dipertua Negeri). Therefore, the claim that he is the heir of the Sulu Sultanate, even if the Sultan exists, on Sabah is void because of the various agreements. The fact is, Sulu does not have a government or a country to warrant it the right to make any claim. The claim is just by an individual," he added.
ReplyDeleteIn KUALA LUMPUR, former foreign minister Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar, commenting on the issue, told Bernama that the payment of about RM5,000 a year by the Malaysian government to the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate until today was not lease payment, but cession payment.
ReplyDeleteHe claimed to have seen a cheque for the amount paid to the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate when he was foreign minister from 1999 to 2008.
ReplyDeleteHe also said that the self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan could not bring his claim to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
ReplyDeleteHe said the administration and governance of the Sulu Sultanate ended when Sultan Jamalul Kiram II signed the Carpenter Agreement in 1915 with the United States of America, which controlled the Philippines then. Syed Hamid said the Philippines did make its claim over Sabah at a time when Malaysia and Indonesia were staking their claim over Sipadan and Ligatan at the ICJ in 2001.
ReplyDeleteSyed Hamid said Sabah was a sovereign entity under Malaysia because a report by the Cobbold Commission, set up prior to the formation of Malaysia, stated that the people of Sabah and Sarawak wanted to be independent as part of Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, historian Professor Dr Ramlah Adam expressed confidence of the government having the documents on the agreement on the cession money. She said the agreement stated that the payment was to be made to the heirs and not the Sulu Sultanate.
ReplyDeleteLahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteAt the time of writing, the Malaysian security forces are still hunting down the remaining members of the Sulu group who invaded Sabah with arms almost four weeks ago. Efforts to bring the standoff through negotiation failed resulting in an all-out military attack by the Malaysia government.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons given as to the main motive of the Sulu group. The Sulu group claims that it belongs to the Royal Army of the Sulu Sultanate. The group’s main demand is to claim Sabah from Malaysia. The group also says that it will not leave Sabah even when forced to do so.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteThe questions are: If the Sultan of Sulu is serious in pursuing the Sabah claim, why did he resort to violence? Why did he not go into a peaceful negotiation with the Philippines government? After all, as a Filipino citizen, the Sultan of Sulu cannot pursue a serious international security issue personally without his government’s intervention.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteThe Sultan of Sulu can also initiate a dialogue with the Malaysian government to address the plight of the Sulu Sultanate. There are various channels the Sultan of Sulu can take to make his voice heard. But his use of violence and unwillingness to ask his followers to surrender puts into question his main motive. The way in which the whole incident unfolded warrants that we look into the Lahad Datu standoff with a wider perspective.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteAnalysts have assumed that the Lahad Datu incident may have been triggered by the peace negotiation between the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) and the Philippines government. Malaysia was the broker of the peace plan. The peace agreement will give the autonomous region of Mindanao more freedom in handling local affairs in turn for ceasefire from militants.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteMalaysia’s involvement is purely for economic and security reasons. The region’s growth will not only ensure peace but economic opportunities for Malaysia and the Philippines. Malaysia also hopes that with the peace deal, Filipinos ― especially those without proper documents ― will return to their homeland to start a new life.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, some parties were not happy with the peace deal. At stake is the region’s natural wealth awaiting to be exploited. The parties involved in the peace deal are expected to directly benefit from its spillover economic effects.
The main question is, how best can the economic benefits be distributed fairly among the warring parties? Apart from the wealth-sharing formula discussed in the peace plan, a power-sharing strategy was also laid out to ensure that the people in the Southern Philippines are adequately represented.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteThe Lahad Datu standoff is an attempt by a covert group to sabotage the peace deal and to embarrass Philippine President Benigno Aquino. The Sulu group is using the Philippines claim over Sabah to gain attention and also to help the Sultan of Sulu to resurrect his personal demand. The whole incident in Lahad Datu has nothing to do with the Philippines’ claim over Sabah. The attempt to debate whether Sabah belongs to the Sulu Sultanate or not is just a waste of time.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteThe prospect of peace and security in the Southern Philippines looks gloomy. Without the sincerity and seriousness of the warring parties to end violence and to spare more innocent lives, the Southern Philippines will continue to be plagued by poverty, intermittent wars, and violence.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteThe effects of the conflict can be felt in Sabah ― a state within the federation of Malaysia that has never experienced any major conflict and has been enjoying a remarkable economic growth in the past decades. While it is the responsibility of the Philippine government to ensure that the conflict in its troubled southern territory does not spread to Sabah, the Malaysian government has a duty to protect its border from being intruded in the future.
Lahad Datu conflict: Claim on Sabah a non-issue
ReplyDeleteThe Lahad Datu standoff is not Malaysia’s problem alone, it is also the Philippines’ and both countries must now work out a long-term solution to ensure that rule of law is restored in the Sulu region.
Tracing the roots of Sabah claim
ReplyDeleteINITIATIVE: Philippine leaders have, since Marcos, taken the effort to resolve the sovereignty issue, writes Dr Paridah Abd Samad
THEN Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos made a dramatic move towards normalisation of bilateral relations in 1976, just prior to an Asean summit meeting, when he stated that the Philippines no longer intended to press its claim to sovereignty over Sabah, though he did not officially drop it. The pronouncement, however, was never followed by any concrete action.
The dispute dragged on into the Corazon Aquino administration, which tried to resolve the problem through revising legal and constitutional provisions to drop the claim. The Philippine Constitution of 1987 no longer includes the phrase "by historical and legal rights" as part of the definition of the national territory. Also, Senate Bill No. 206, redefining the archipelagic boundaries of the Philippines, called for amendments to Republic Acts 5546, and it particularly excluded Sabah from Philippine territory.
Tracing the roots of Sabah claim
ReplyDeleteHowever, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III's denouncement of Aquino's government for endorsing the bill without consulting him and bungling by the newly installed administration kept the bill from getting through the Senate, denying Aquino a diplomatic victory of the Asean summit in December, 1987.
The Philippines cannot just drop its claim to Sabah to patch up differences with Malaysia, as it must first consider the repercussions of such a decision on the politically unstable Sulu Archipelago. Sabah and Moro are interrelated in prolonging settlement of the dispute and in deepening the security concerns of the Philippine government.
The transmigration of mostly Filipino Muslim refugees to Sabah has put the Philippines in a favourable position because this has significantly contributed to reducing the Muslim population ratio and its resistance strength.
Tracing the roots of Sabah claim
ReplyDeleteIn 1970, Tunku Abdul Rahman played an important role in promoting international support for the Moro cause. As secretary-general of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (now Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), he endorsed the Moro case submitted to him in 1972 and asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and (Libyan) president (Muammar) Gaddafi to help in persuading other OIC member states to support it.
But Malaysia's optimism and hope for a new and brighter chapter in Malaysia-Philippines relations remain unfulfilled. While the Aquino administration made the effort and took the initiative to drop the sovereignty claim on Sabah, it was unable to push through its initiative because of stumbling blocks. Senate Bill 206, which excludes Sabah from Philippine territory, remains unenacted.
Since no law has yet been passed on the dropping of Sabah claim, the Philippine government still has the option to actively pursue the claim through internationally accepted norms. By pursuing the claim, the Philippine government could promote the Philippines' historic rights and legal title over Sabah, as well as the proprietary rights of the heirs of sultan of Sulu.
Tracing the roots of Sabah claim
ReplyDeleteHowever, the 1930 treaty between the United States and Great Britain drew a precise boundary to separate their island possessions off the northeast coast of Sabah. The allocation of islands defined in these treaties was enshrined in Article 1 of the Philippine Constitution of 1935.
The Philippine claim has no known international support while Malaysia is morally supported by Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Nations in rejecting this claim. Even the US has assumed a position of neutrality. The other Asean countries, though discreetly distancing themselves form the issue since it involves two of their fellow members, also seem to silently acknowledge Malaysia's right to the disputed territory.
For the Philippines to drop its claim to Sabah without concessions would mean outright recognition of Malaysia's sovereignty over Sabah. Taking this position might also jeopardise the proprietary rights of sultan of Sulu. In general, choosing this option appears to be damaging the national integrity.
Malaysia gave a solemn commitment to satisfactorily resolve the proprietary claim with recognised Sulu heirs once the sovereignty claim is legally and finally dropped. It sees no linkage whatsoever between the two claims. Malaysia has always insisted that sovereignty and proprietary rights over Sabah are two separate questions.
Pertama, keturunan sultan sulu tidak lagi diiktirafkan sebagai sultan lagi di filipina. Maksudnya apa yang tinggal kini ialah waris sultan sulu bukan sistem pemerintahan kesultanan sulu. Sistem itu sudah tidak diiktirafkan oleh mana2 negara sekalipun sekarang.
ReplyDeleteTuntutan ini juga tidak logik kerana (Kedua) ada dua kumpulan yang claim masing2 ialah sultan sulu. Maksudnya sesama mereka berpecah, ada dua kumpulan bertelagah dan up diri masing2 sebagai ketua dan sultan sulu bagi kumpulan dan pengikut masing2.
ReplyDeleteKetiga, paling penting. Ada juga di antara mereka self claim sultan of sabah dan sultan of sabah dan sulu.
ReplyDeleteMemang kerajaan kita bayar mereka tiap2 tahun dalam jumlah tertentu. Atas asas ini mereka menuntut dan menganggap sabah hak milik mereka.Bayaran ini bukan bermaksud bahawa kita iktirafkan mereka adalah pemilik sah di sabah. Ia adalah sebagai satu perjanjian yang telah dimeterai tak berapa lama dahulu. Kesultanan sulu dan sepanyol telahpun sepakat menyerahkan sabah kepada britian [syarikat hindia timur] di atas beberapa perjanjian.
ReplyDeletePerjanjian antaranya ;
ReplyDelete- Melepaskan hak milik ke atas sabah
- Melepaskan tuntutan dan kuasa pentadbiran dan politik ke atas sabah
- Bayaran sebagai sagu hati sampai tempoh tertentu [macam jual beli ansurans]
Malaysia mematuhi pelan perjanjian tersebut sehingga la ke masa akhir. Kita tidak langgar penjanjian tersebut. Yang datang dan langgar perjanjian tersebut ialah waris kesultanan sulu di filipina.
ReplyDeleteTiada peluang untuk mereka menuntut Sabah kerana untuk mereka menang ialah tipis [lebih tepat, tiada, sebab tidak akan dilayan langsung].
ReplyDeleteIni kerana malaysia mempunyai rekod mengenai penyerahan sabah kepada britian. Malaysia juga mempunyai perjanjian, dokumentasi dan segala bukti berkaitan yang menunjukkan sabah ialah negeri merdeka dan berdaulat dan bebas dari mana2 pemerintahan beraja dan sultan dan sebagainya.
ReplyDeleteMalaysia juga mempunyai bukti ketika sabah menuntut kemerdekaan, waris sultan sulu tidak pernah tampil dan mengatakan apa2 mengenai pemilikkan mereka ke atas sabah. Selama malaysia memajukan sabah, bersama2 rakyat sabah bersatu di bawah malaysia, tidak pernah sekalipun mereka tampil dan tuntut bahawa sabah ialah negeri yang tidak mahu menjadi sebahagian dari malaysia. Jadi tuntutan mereka tidak berasas untuk dilayan oleh mahkamah antarabangsa.
ReplyDeleteThey only know how to complain and keep complaining.
ReplyDeleteLaporan Suruhanjaya telah diserahkan kepada kerajaan British dan Malaysia telah ditubuhkan dengan menggabungkan Malaya, Singapura, Brunei, Sarawak dan Sabah (Borneo Utara).
ReplyDeleteada kira-kira 80 peratus daripada rakyat Sabah & Sarawak yang menyokong pembentukan Malaysia semasa Suruhanjaya Cobbold diadakan
ReplyDeleteSabah adalah hak milik Malaysia mengikut undang-undang antarabangsa dan ianya sama sekali tidak boleh dituntut oleh mana-mana pihak.
ReplyDeleteMalaysia adalah sebuah negara berdaulat yang diiktiraf di peringkat antarabangsa. Oleh itu, tuntutan yang dibuat oleh mana-mana pihak adalah tidak berasas...
ReplyDeleteZahid berkata kerajaan tidak akan berkompromi kerana tidak ada tanda-tanda pengganas2 Sulu ini akan membiarkan genjatan senjata berlaku di pihaknya.
ReplyDeleteTalking about 'Lease' Agreement, please read Brunei Grants (compensation $16000/annum for Sabah Regions) on Dec. 29, 1877 and Sulu Grant (compensation $5000/annum for North-East Sabah region) on Jan. 22, 1878. You will notice that both sultanates transmit the sovereignty of those region to Her Majesty's Government thus annulling the claim of it being lease. It is in fact ceded regions.
ReplyDelete"The said territories are hereby declared vested in the said Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent Esquire co-jointly their heirs associates successors or assigns for as long as they choose or desire to hold them. Provided however that the rights and privileges conferred by this grant shall never be transferred to any other nation or company of foreign nationality without the sanction of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government first being obtained."