COMMENT - The Sabah claim will continue to be raised by the Phlippines and Sulu as it is powerful and emotive international issue which many leaders from Manila will find convenient to bleed for political mileage. And the many “sultans” in Sulu will continue to cast their hungry eyes at Sabah, considered to be “the last gold coin” and aspire, albeit hopelessly, to try and achieve the impossible.
But Malaysians, especially Sabahans, should be able to give a cogent argument on the issue of this claim and in favour of Sabah.
All Malaysians and Sabahans need is three or four historical facts, events or political realities to win the argument.
So let’s always keep clear knowledge of the following:
1. The controversy arising from the 1878 treaty between Jamalul Alam and British North Borneo Company.
It can strongly be argued that it was a “cession” and not a “lease” as claimed by Filipinos.
Note that any argument on the matter was decisively clarified and settled when on April 22, 1903, Sultan Jamalul Kiram signed a document known as “Confirmation of cession of certain islands” in which he says the 1878 treaty was a CESSION.
The “confirmation” of the 1878 treaty says specifically that “We, the Sultan of Sulu, state with truth and clearness that we have ceded to the Government of British North Borneo of our own pleasure all the islands that are near the territory of North Borneo… This is done because the names of the islands were not mentioned in the 22nd January, 1878 [treaty]… that the islands were included in the cession…”
2. The purpose of the Madrid Protocol of 1885 was to recognise the sovereignty of Spain in the Sulu Archipelago and also for Spain to relinquish all claims it might have had over North Borneo.
Article III of the protocol states that “The Spanish Government renounces… all claims of sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu [Jolo]….”
3. The signing of the Carpenter Agreement on March 22, 1915 in which Sultan Jamalul Kiram II was stripped off all temporal (worldly) power and retained only the empty title of Sultan. His claimed ownership of North Borneo was of no concern to the American colonists.
4. The Macaskie Dictum (Judgment) of 1939. This judgment doesn’t settle the argument although Macaskie said the annual payment was cession money and not rental money and that the nine plaintiff heirs were entitled to.
These payments, however, in no way had anything to do with territorial property. This is because a later translation by the Filipinos of the original 1878 treaty (written in Malayan Jawi) said the agreement was a “pajak” which they say meant “lease”.
(Today “pajak” can mean “purchase”). But even this judgment was preceded by the addition “cession” of 1903 and the Madrid Protocol of 1885.
Power of attorney questionable
5. The Sulu “sultans” cannot claim Sabah because there is no more a Sulu sultanate and there is no more any real sultan. The only legitimate royal group in Sulu are the descendants of the nine heirs who went to Macaskie in 1939.
6. Sulu (a region of the Philippines without any national sovereignty) cannot claim Sabah which is part of Malaysia – a sovereign nation.
Only a country can claim another country or a part of another country. This therefore means Sulu has no locus standi to claim Sabah. The power of attorney that was given to Macapagal by the Sulu Sultan to give Macapagal the “authority” to claim Sabah on Sulu’s behalf (now withdrawn) has very questionable validity.
Maybe this is one of the reasons why Manila had not really pursued the claim using the so-called power of attorney.
7. Manila had denied and re-recognised the sultanate a number of times, but this does not change the fact that there has been not been any sultanate to speak of since the Carpenter-Kiram Agreement of 1915.
8. By July 15, 1946, the British government had taken over North Borneo when the North Borneo Company could no longer manage it after the devastation of World War II.
The company had the right to hand over North Borneo to whoever it wanted because the country had been ceded to it in 1878 (and confirmed by the confirmation of cession in 1903 and the nullification of Sulu’s ownership of the country by the Madrid Protocol of 1885).
9. Many Brunei historians actually argue that Brunei never gave away any part of North Borneo to Sulu. And there is no document whatsoever to prove this cession.
10. After Sabah became part of Malaysia and Malaysia’s sovereignty was recognised by the United Nation and the world, that had effectively superceded and nullified any claim on Sabah.
If Sulu, by a very long shot, gets back Sabah, will it be able to pay Malaysia all the billions utilised to develop Sabah since 1963?
ICJ confirmed Sabah’s status
Sulu cannot be so arrogant and shameless to think that it can simply and freely take back a piece of land it “owned” 135 years ago after it has been developed by someone else for half a century.
11. The International Court of Justice (which is an arm of the United Nation) had recognised and confirmed Sabah as part of Malaysia when it made a verdict in 2002 that Sipadan and Ligitan islands belonged to Malaysia (and not Indonesia). This confirmation of ownership cannot be reversed in favour of Sulu (judgments of the ICJ cannot be appealed).
12. Whatever the arguments are, all the past agreements and treaties – whether they were valid, arguable or controversial – are now effectively useless historical references because they have been superseded by bigger and more important events.
Therefore the argument by Harry Roque, a law professor at University of the Philippines, who says that a legal principle known as “uti posseditis juris” “accords pre-eminence of legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty” is useless and ineffective due to this superceding by bigger events in history.
Also, this pre-eminence of legal title is a double-edged sword because it can also be applied to Malaysia.
13. Prof Dr Ramlah Adam recently said: “They cannot claim [Sabah] just based on history. For example, the Siam government handed Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu over to the British and [today] cannot claim the states.”
Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim said that if the Philippines’ argument can be accepted, then “Singapore should be returned to Johor and Penang be returned to Kedah”.
And for that matter why does Brunei not claim Sabah as well because there is a Brunei argument that it never gave Sabah to Sulu? Or why doesn’t Indonesia claim Peninsular Malaysia and southern Thailand? After all, weren’t these regions under the Srivijaya Empire in the eighth century?
14. Sabahans do not want to be part of the Philippines, as confirmed by the findings of the Cobbold Commission.
Even today Sabahans feel a lot of trepidation at the mere thought of being under the so-called Sulu sultanate. If a referendum is held to seek Sabahans’ preference between Malaysia and the Philippines, many would dare say the foregone conclusion is for most preferring to stay on in Malaysia.
No referendum
15. There is an argument that Malaysia had agreed in the Manila Accord (signed July 31, 1963) that the formation of Malaysia was subject to the Philippines’ claim over Sabah.
But whatever was agreed in the Manila Accord has been superseded by later events, for example, the formation of Malaysia which included Sabah, two months after the Manila Accord.
In the Bangkok talk of June-July 1968, Malaysia had unilaterally rejected the Manila Accord.
With the benefit of hindsight, wasn’t the Manila Accord an exercise in futility, especially by the Philippines in trying to hang on to something which couldn’t be implemented and solved till the end of time?
If the terms of the Manila Accord were adhered to, there would have been no Malaysia.
Of prime importance was the wishes of Sabahans – two-thirds of whom wanted to join Malaysia as the findings of the Cobbold Commission indicated the year before.
And noteworthy is Article 10 of the accord which says: “The Ministers reaffirmed their countries’ adherence to the principle of self-determination for the people’s of non-governing territories. In this context, Indonesia and the Philippines stated that they would welcome the formation of Malaysia provided the support of the people of the Borneo territories is ascertained by an independent and impartial authority, the Secretary-General of the United Nations or his representatives.”
There was not much time to carry out such a referendum, but wasn’t this condition (to allow Sabah to be part of Malaysia) already fulfilled by the Cobbold Commission the year before?
A virtual paradise
16. Even Sabahan Tausugs do not want to be part of the Philippines.
Ed Lingao, a renowned Filipino author and journalist had on Feb 21, 2013, reported in Minda News that he had undertaken a random survey of the Tausugs in Sabah and found out that even they do not want Sabah to become part of the Philippines.
He wrote: “Many of the Tausugs we encountered detested the idea of the Philippine government reclaiming Sabah. Refugees from war and poverty, many of these Tausugs see little benefit in a Sabah under the Philippine flag; in fact, for them, it is a worrying proposition, not unlike jumping from the clichéd frying pan into an even bigger fire.
“One Tausug we encountered outside a mall in Kota Kinabalu bristled at the idea of the Philippines staking a claim on Sabah saying ‘sisirain lang nila ang Sabah. Okay na nga ang Sabah ngayon, guguluhin lang nila,’ (They will just destroy Sabah. Sabah is doing fine right now, they will just mess it up).
“It is hard to blame them for the cynicism. After all, they took great risks and fled their own troubled country in droves for a better life, only to have that same country reach out and stake a claim on what, to them, is already a virtual paradise where one can finally live and work in peace. That, to them, may be the ultimate irony, the ultimate tragedy.”
As such, what we see today is a group of desperate people trying to live in the glory of the distant past, stepping forward with their thick skins with no regard for the truth.
Lingao described the nature of the situation on Feb 19 in an article, “Sabah as the last gold coin”.
In it he notes: “Sabah became their clutch when their own Sulu was sinking, so to speak, from the heavy weight of bloodshed that spiralled into poverty.
“Sabah became the vision of the last gold coin that could win back the possibility of rising again, getting back the worth of a name: the venerable House of Kiram.”
How very sad and tragic indeed. And now more blood is being spilled in the name of a great overstated lie!
(Comment in Sarawak Report by "Patriots")
ReplyDeleteNO ADVANTAGE FOR SABAH SARAWAK IN MALAYSIA FOR ANOTHER 50 YEARS
Sarawak like Sabah were sucked into Malaysia with British Malayan justifications that they would benefit from this federation as it would provide "security from foreign invasion and prosperity".
This year is the 50th anniversary of this new colonisation under Malayan rule and the grinding poverty conditions in both colonies and the Sulu invasion of Sabah illustrate how little have been achieved by way security and prosperity despite Malayan sworn promises.
1. The reality is that as far as prosperity is concerned UMNO had from the beginning torn up the 18/20 Points Agreement and embarked on its Melayu Raya Apartheid agenda and re-colonised the 2 colonies and began an unprecedented pillage of their resources overshadowing the previous colonial plunder. It was no wonder that both countries became the poorest "states" of Malaysia.
2. The second branch of their justification for forming Malaysia was also compromised by UMNO from the beginning when it began to sponsor insurgent movements in the Southern Philippines to de-stabilise that country to counter the Philippines Sabah claim.
So from the start the UMNO created Malaysia never lived up to these justifications.
UMNO's belated response to the Sulu invasion and claim is now being used to dramatise how important it is for Sabah and Sarawak to choose to remain in Malaysia rather than the alternative of being incorporated into the Philippines. This is "no choice" choice.
This is the point which the Dayaks Kadazanduns and all the people of Sabah and Sarawak must reject and see for themselves that they still have the choice and inalienable right to chose self-determination in their own independent states outside Malaysia like Brunei and Singapore.
The right to self-determination and national independence is enshrined as a UN principle of human rights.
It is of the greatest importance that on the 50th year of Malaysia that all we Sabahans and Sarawakians seriously question whether Malaysia has ever been relevant to Sabah and Sarawak and look at the obvious alternative solution.
If we cannot answer this question we need only look at the examples of Brunei and Singapore both intended to be original components of Malaysia.
Brunei made the wise decision not to be a part of Malaysia. Singapore had the choice to leave Malaysia. This changed the original Malaysia concept as proposed by Britain and Malaya. (Any way why should we be asked to become part of another country? Does it make sense?)
Malaysia was therefore not a compulsory association. It was meant to be free and voluntary.
That is why they conducted a bogus Cobbold Commission of Enquiry on whether the Borneo people supported their Malaysia proposal and used the "findings" to legitimise formation of Malaysia. It was a one way proposal dictated to Sabah and Sarawak.
If becoming part of Malaysia was a voluntary act, then the people must wake up and assert their right to independence by taking their countries out of Malaysia.
Brunei and Singapore are shining examples of how not being in Malaysia has ensured their own security and prosperity as independent countries.
This is the only sensible thing to do or otherwise they can look forward to 50 more years of foreign domination and plunder.
That is why we must all unite and take back our countries and become master of our own destiny!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBenarlah kata orang, bahawa untuk menilai seseorang kita perlu melihat kepada rakan-rakannya. Maka, tidak hairanlah apabila Nur Misuari, Ketua Barisan Pembebasan Kebangsaan Moro merujuk kepada Anwar Ibrahim sebagai ‘sahabat lama’ kerana ternyata mereka mempunyai perwatakan yang sama iaitu suka berbohong.
ReplyDeleteDi awal kejadian pencerobohan Lahad Datu oleh pengganas Sulu, dan ketika rakyat Malaysia masih terpinga-pinga, media Filipina dan agensi berita antarabangsa pantas melaporkan sumber risikan yang menunjuk kepada pembangkang Malaysia, sebagai dalangnya.
ReplyDeleteBertitik-tolak dari itu, kita menyaksikan bagaimana Anwar Ibrahim yang telah terasa cili begitu ‘bersungguh-sungguh’ menafikan laporan tersebut sehingga membawa kepada ‘parody’ “You ulang, I saman” yang menjadi popular di laman-laman sosial. Pendedahan tersebut dikuatkan dengan laporan risikan termasuk gambar yang menunjukkan Anwar telah membuat pertemuan sulit dengan Nur Misuari beberapa kali.
ReplyDeleteUntuk itu, Anwar menjelaskan bahawa pendedahan itu tidak wajar dianggap bukti kerana bukan MNLF yang menceroboh Lahad Datu tetapi ‘tentera Sulu’. Tidak lama kemudian, Nur Misuari sendiri membuat kenyataan menawarkan bantuan untuk membantu kerajaan Malaysia berunding dengan pihak Sulu dan ditolak oleh Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteNamun, perkembangan seterusnya telah membuktikan bahawa kedua-dua sahabat lama ini telah berbohong apabila ramai di antara pengganas yang ditangkap atau terbunuh telah dikenalpasti sebagai anggota MNLF. Sebenarnya, siapapun mereka tiada bezanya iaitu pengganas kejam yang ingin merampas negeri Sabah.
ReplyDeleteDan hari ini kita melihat bagaimana Nur Misuari menyerlahkan warnanya yang sebenar apabila menuduh Malaysia sebagai memperalatkan Barisan Pembebasan Islam Moro (MILF), menjadi penghalang kepada usaha penyatuan bangsa Moro serta tuntutan kemerdekaan wilayah selatan Filipina. Beliau juga turut menuduh Malaysia sebagai telah menjajah Sabah dan Sarawak.
ReplyDeleteUduhan yang tidak berasas oleh nur misuari. Sabah dan Sarawak adalah sebahagian dari Malaysia.
DeleteBeliau seterusnya mencabar Malaysia membuktikan hak ke atas kedua negeri itu melalui dokumen undang-undang. Justeru, siapakah sebenarnya yang menuntut Sabah? Pihak Sulu atau MNLF? Kenapa Nur Misuari berbohong pada mulanya? Apakah cakap seorang pembohong dan pengganas kejam yang tidak bertamadun perlu dilayan secara diplomasi?
ReplyDeleteSeharusnya, Nur Misuari bersyukur kerana atas usaha Malaysia akhirnya 15 juta penduduk Islam di selatan Filipina kini mampu merasai keamanan dan mendapat hak ke atas bumi yang mereka pijak dan usahakan selama ini iaitu sejak penjajahan Sepanyol pada kurun ke-17. Perjanjian Damai tersebut telah memastikan tiada pihak yang teraniaya dan atau dipinggirkan tanpa menafikan terus kuasa kerajaan Filipina.
ReplyDelete10 prinsip utama telah digariskan dengan intipati penting iaitu mengiktiraf Bangsamoro serta mewujudkan entiti autonomi politik di Mindanao yang membolehkan Bangsamoro mentadbir sendiri melalui sistem demokrasi dengan menggunapakai Undang-undang Asas Bangsamoro seiring dengan undang-undang negeri.
ReplyDeleteJelaslah bahawa Nur Misuari tidak suka kepada keamanan. Maka tidak hairanlah beliau mengkritik perjanjian tersebut dan terus mengasak untuk menimbulkan huru-hara di mana saja peluang yang ada. Dan Sabah adalah peluang yang terbaik baginya.
ReplyDeletePerjanjian British North Borneo 22 Januari 1878, menjelaskan dengan terperinci penyerahan oleh Sultan Sulu iaitu Sri Paduka Maulana Al Sultan Mohamet Jamal Al Alam Bin Sri Paduka Al Marhom Al Sultan Mohamet Fathlon, wilayah dan jajahan di Borneo daripada Sg. Pandassan di pantai barat sehingga ke pantai timur Sibuko di selatan termasuk negeri-negeri seperti Paitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan, Kina Batangan, Mumiang dan semua jajahan dan negeri di selatannya bersempadan dengan Teluk Farvel sehingga Sungai Sibuko dan juga semua pulau-pulau di tiga marina di sepanjang pantai dengan harga RM5,000 setahun, kini ditambah menjadi RM5,300.
ReplyDeletePada 22 Januari 1978, Sultan Sulu telah melepaskan kuasanya ke atas wilayah dan jajahan seperti yang tersebut di atas secara rasmi. Pada 22 April 1903, satu lagi dokumen telah ditandatangani bagi menambahkan beberapa lagi wilayah yang telah tidak disebut atau tertinggal di dalam perjanjian terdahulu.
ReplyDeleteSetelah Sabah dan Sarawak menyertai Malaysia pada 1963, dengan persetujuan rakyatnya, maka Malaysia meneruskan pembayaran wang ‘pajakan’ terhadap Sultan Sulu sepertimana yang termeterai dalam perjanjian-perjanjian dahulu.
ReplyDeleteJusteru, bagi Nur Misuari untuk bersuara bagi pihak Sulu dilihat sebagai sikap seorang yang gila kuasa. Dengan percanggahan kenyataan dari pihak Sulu ditambah dengan kekeliruan mengenai waris sebenar kesultanan tersebut maka, apa yang dituntut atau disuarakan oleh Nur Misuari tidak membawa apa-apa makna kerana beliau bercakap tanpa asas dan tanpa hak yang pasti.
ReplyDeleteApatah lagi dengan terbuktinya kewujudan tangan-tangan asing yang menaja keganasan yang dibawa oleh Nur Misuari ke Sabah. Ini menunjukkan bahawa tuntutan yang dibuat adalah tidak ikhlas dan mempunyai tujuan yang jauh lebih besar dari sekadar ingin merampas kembali Sabah.
ReplyDeleteMalaysia tidak sebodoh itu untuk melihat semua ini sebagai agenda sempit sepasukan pengganas MNLF. Tetapi, kita dapat membaca akan agenda kuasa asing untuk menguasai rantau ini melalui pihak pembangkang sama ada di Filipina mahupun di Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteJika benar, demokrasi yang dijulang maka, pihak yang menaja Nur Misuari pastinya bukanlah pihak yang layak bercakap tentang demokrasi. Dan pihak mana lagi yang mempunyai begitu banyak dana untuk dilabur dan dilebur begitu saja demi cita-cita untuk menakluk dunia, jika bukan pihak yang mempunyai kaitan dengan kuasa besar dunia?
ReplyDeleteOleh itu, kesimpulan yang kita dapati dari episod Lahad Datu ini ialah Nur Misuari adalah alat Amerika, seperti juga sahabatnya, Anwar Ibrahim.
ReplyDeleteHarus tolak pemimpin seperti Anwar sebelum terlambat menerajui putrajaya.
Delete10 sebab Sulu tak layak menuntut Sabah.
ReplyDelete1. Waris Sultan Sulu telah menerima ‘cession money‘ sehingga ke
hari ini. Ini bermakna waris Sultan Sulu mengakui bahawa Sabah telah
diserah (ceded), dan bukannya dipajak (leased), kepada British North
Borneo Company.
Sultan sulu salah tafsir tentang hal ni.harap2 mereka belajar sejarah kembali dan tinggalkan tuntutan mereka.
Delete2. Kerajaan Filipina telah berhenti mengiktiraf Sultan Sulu sejak kemangkatan Sultan Mohd. Mahakuttah A. Kiram pada tahun 1986.
ReplyDeleteNampaknya sultan sulu palsu ni wujudkan keadaan yang tidak stabil di negara sendiri juga.masakan boleh tadbir negeri orang,negeri sendiri pun tidak terjaga.
Delete3. Geran pajakan yang dijadikan sumber konflik telah ditandatangani
ReplyDeleteoleh Sultan Sulu, Sultan Jamalul A’lam dengan Gustavus Baron de
Overbeck serta Alfred Dent, yang mewakili British North Borneo Company,
pada 22 Januari 1878.
4. Sepanyol, yang menguasai wilayah-wilayah Kesultanan Sulu ketika itu,
ReplyDeletetelah menandatangani perjanjian dengan Jerman dan Great Britain pada 7
Mac 1885 untuk melepaskan segala tuntutan terhadap kedaulatan Sabah.
Ini mesti faham sejarah.kalau tidak jadilah macam sultan sulu palsu ni.
Delete5. Kesultanan Sulu dianggap telah tamat sebaik sahaja Sultan Jamalul
ReplyDeleteKiram II menandatangani Perjanjian Carpenter pada 22 Mac 1915, yang
menyerahkan segala kuasa politik beliau kepada Amerika Syarikat.
6. Malaysia telah mengambil tanggungjawab untuk membangunkan prasarana
ReplyDeletebagi kemudahan para penduduk Sabah sejak 1963 tanpa bantahan Kesultanan
Sulu mahupun kerajaan Filipina. Ini membuktikan pemilikan dan
pentadbiran yang aman secara berterusan oleh kerajaan Malaysia ke atas
Sabah. Mengikut dasar effectivites yang diambil kira oleh Mahkamah
Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ – International Court of Justice), Malaysia
boleh dianugerahkan hak ke atas Sabah, sepertimana yang pernah
diberikan kepada kerajaan Malaysia dalam kes Ligitan-Sipadan.
7. Laporan Suruhanjaya Cobbold yang dikeluarkan pada 1 Ogos 1962
ReplyDeletemendapati bahawa 1/3 penduduk Sabah dan Sarawak menyokong kuat
pembentukan Malaysia, 1/3 lagi menyokong projek Malaysia dengan syarat
hak mereka dilindungi, manakala kumpulan 1/3 yang terakhir terbahagi
antara mereka yang mahukan kemerdekaan dan mereka yang mahukan
pentadbiran British diteruskan
Sepanyol, yang menguasai wilayah-wilayah Kesultanan Sulu ketika itu,
Deletetelah menandatangani perjanjian dengan Jerman dan Great Britain pada 7
Mac 1885 untuk melepaskan segala tuntutan terhadap kedaulatan Sabah
Article 3 The Spanish Government
Deleterelinquishes as far as regards the British Government, all claim of
sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo which
belong, or which have belonged in the past, to the Sultan of Sulu
(Jolo), including therein the neighboring islands of Balambangan,
Banguey and Malawali, as well as all those islands lying within a zone
of three marine leagues along the coasts and which form part of the
territories administered by the Company styled the ‘British North
Borneo Company’. (Kerajaan Sepanyol melepaskan kepada
Kerajaan British, semua tuntutan kedaulatan ke atas wilayah-wilayah
benua Borneo yang dimiliki, atau yang telah dimiliki pada masa lampau,
oleh Sultan Sulu (Jolo), termasuk pulau-pulau Balambangan, Banguey dan
Malawali yang berhampiran, dan semua pulau-pulau yang berada di dalam
zon tiga liga marin di sepanjang pesisir pantai dan membentuk
sebahagian wilayah yang ditadbir oleh Syarikat yang digelar ‘British
North Borneo Company‘.)
ReplyDelete8. Setiausaha Agung PBB, U Thant, telah melaporkan pada 1963 bahawa
penduduk Sabah “ingin menamatkan status kebergantungan mereka dan
merealisasikan kemerdekaan mereka melalui penyekutuan yang dipilih
secara bebas dengan bangsa lain dalam rantau mereka”
(“wish
to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their
independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in
their region”).
9. Jika Kesultanan Sulu mendakwa bahawa Sabah adalah milik mereka, maka
ReplyDeleteadalah konsisten bagi Kesultanan Sulu untuk tidak sahaja membuat
tuntutan terhadap Sabah semata-mata, malah juga menuntut dan menguasai
pusat pentadbiran mereka sendiri di Jolo, selain wilayah Palawan,
Semenanjung Zamboanga, Basilan dan Tawi-Tawi di Filipina yang juga
mereka dakwa merupakan milik mereka.
Sultan Sulu tiada hak langsung terhadap Sabah.patuhilah undang-undang.janga wujudkan keganasan.
Delete10.Pajakan yang dikurniakan oleh Sultan Sulu dahulu merupakan
ReplyDeletepenyerahan secara kekal sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam perjanjian
tersebut "selagi ada bintang dan cakerawala". Disebabkan itulah,
mana-mana waris Kesultanan Sulu pada hari ini tidak boleh lagi
mempersoalkan apatah lagi menuntut kekuasaan terhadap Negeri Sabah
Sejak Sultan Jamalul Kiram II meninggal dunia pada 7 Jun 1936, semakin ramai yang membuat tuntutan bahawa mereka merupakan pewaris kesultanan Sulu. Masing-masing mereka memiliki keyakinan bahawa mereka pewaris Sultan menyebabkan kini terdapat lebih 300 orang di Filipina mendakwa diri mereka merupakan sultan Sulu yang sebenar.
ReplyDeleteDi Sabah sendiri, setakat ini, terdapat tiga individu yang mengaku bahawa mereka layak ditabalkan sebagai Sultan Sulu. Malah pada 2 Februari 2012, seorang lagi menabalkan dirinya sebagai Sultan Sulu dalam satu majlis di Kampung Likas.
ReplyDeleteBanyak persoalan yang timbul mengenai keabsahan perisytiharan itu. Persoalannya,bagaimana seseorang yang menjadi warganegara Malaysia boleh diisytiharkan sebagai Sultan Sulu ke-33 dan menubuhkan pula kerajaan Sulu dalam buangan di Sabah.
ReplyDeleteSultan Esmail Kiram II dan Sultan Jamalul Kiram III : Kedua-dua mereka ini adalah adik beradik dan anak kepada Sultan Punjungan Kiram. Dikatakan Punjungan ini merupakan anak kepada Sultan Mawallil Wasit.
ReplyDeleteRealiti yang sebenarnya adalah nenek mereka dari Pulau Simunul, Tawi-Tawai, yang bernama Mora Napsa Laga, telah dirampas untuk dijadikan isteri oleh Sultan Mawallil Wasit dalam keadaan telah pun mengandungkan zuriat suaminya yang sebenar, seorang Imam bernama Amil Hamja! Justeru itu, Punjungan ini sebenarnya hanyalah anak tiri kepada Sultan Mawallil Wasit.
ReplyDeleteSelepas kematian Sultan Punjungan Kiram pada tahun 1983, anak sulungnya iaitu Raja Muda Jamalul Kiram III telah ditabalkan oleh para penyokongnya sebagai Sultan Sulu. Walaubagaimanapun, kerana dia tinggal di Manila dan enggan berdiam di Jolo, bertentangan dengan adat Sulu, maka adiknya, Raja Muda Esmail Kiram II kemudian telah dilantik sebagai Sultan pada tahun 2001. Sultan Jamalul Kiram III ini pernah bertanding dalam pilihanraya negara Filipina.
ReplyDelete