It has been more than a month since
the standoff in eastern region of Sabah erupted between the Malaysian military
troops and the Sulu Sultanate militants. Below is some significant information on
the issue:-
11. Under Malaysian Federal Constitution 1963, Sabah is
recognised as one of the 13 states in Malaysia. Sabah and Sarawak, the two
states in the Borneo region together with Malaya (now known as Peninsular
Malaysia) formed the Federation of Malaysia after a specially-enacted Cobbold’s
Commision by the British Empire government released a report indicating that majority of population in Sabah and
Sarawak favoured the formation of Malaysia.
22. Ever since becoming one of the states in Malaysia,
Sabah has been facing multiple challenges pertaining to its sovereignty due to
intrusion and incursion by unwanted foreign parties and entities.
33. The Philippines which believed that it holds legal
rights over the entire state of Sabah, sent its military force to infiltrate
the boundaries of Sabah and seize it during the so-called period of
Confrontations. This was done under the leadership of late President Ferdinand
Marcos.
44. Why is this so???
-
The current
demographical Philippines comprises of once-existing Sulu Sultanate, which
historically held ancestral rights over Sabah. By unfolding the history, the
embedded truth can be realised. In earlier times, Brunei (another sovereign
monarchy in the Borneo region) literally owned Sabah. But, as time flew by, the
monarch of Brunei faced internal power-struggle over the throne and it was when
the help of the Sulu Sultanate was sought in effort of retaining his power. As
a token of gratitude, the Brunei monarch promised the Islamic Sultanate of Sulu
the rights and ownership of Sabah. Eventually, it happened so that with the military
aid by the Sultanate of Sulu, the King of Brunei managed to retain his throne and
Sabah was given to Sulu Sultanate.
55. In 1878, however, an agreement was signed between
the Sultan (the King) of Sulu and the owners of British North Borneo Company,
Gustavous Von Overbeck and Alfred Dent. This mutually-signed agreement between
the two parties indicated that the moment of the agreement, the sovereignty and
jurisdiction of Sabah thereafter, be under the purview of the British North
Borneo Company. In return, Von Overbeck and Alfred Dent promised an annual
cession payment to the Sultanate of Sulu. Cession payment, according to online
research, refers to the payment entitled for formal giving up of rights,
property, or territory, esp. by a state.
Here is the excerpt
from the British version of the 1878 British North Borneo Company agreement:-
“…hereby lease of our own free will and satisfaction…all
the territories and lands…forever and until the end of time, all rights and
powers which we possess over all territories and lands tributary to us…”
66. The cession payment continued until 1936, in which
the British Company stopped from paying the Sulu Sultanate.
77. However in 1938, the High Court of Borneo ruled that
the payment should resume in respect to the prior 1878 agreement. And since the
last recognised Sultan of Sulu, Sultan Jamallul Kiram II did not leave an
apparent heir and relinquished his power to the Philippines colonisers, the
court decided to split the nominal cession payment of $1,700 to his nine next-of-kin.
88. And in 1963 when Sabah joined Malaya, Singapore and
Sarawak to form the Federation of Malaysia, the Federal government of Malaysia
continued this “custom” of cession payment to the non-existing Sultanate of
Sulu.
99. When the self-proclaimed Jamallul Kiram III decided
to pursue for the sovereign rights of Sabah, he failed to realise the
fundamental basis of the agreement signed by his forefathers. In reference to
the 1878 agreement, it is clearly mentioned that all powers of Sulu Sultanate
over the region of Sabah are relinquished until the end of time for cession
payment. And now, he is asking for 50:50 joint-partnership in Sabah’s
development which obviously sounds preposterous!
110. Plus, in modern international law, the idea of
ancestral right over a territory does not hold water. A good example is, in
2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in a legal dispute between
Malaysia and Singapore, that the latter holds the sovereign rights over Pulau
Batu Putih / Pedra Branca, an island-based territory between the two nation
states. ICJ recognises that historically, the Johor Sultanate (the state at the
southernmost Malaysia) owned Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Putih. However, legal
documents produced by Singapore clearly showed that one of the Sultan of Johor
once sold the islands to the British Government of Singapore. Thus, despite
having ancestral relations with Pedra Branca, the International Court of
Justice declared that Johor no longer, has connections to the islands and
Singapore as the legal right holder.
111. This adequately proves that although the Sultanate
of Sulu might have once possessed rights over Sabah, it is no longer relevant
and valid at this period.
My personal advice to Mr Jamallul Kiram III, the
self-proclaimed ruler of Sulu is, a monarch is non-existing if its own subjects
do not recognise the throne and power of their ruler. In Sabah’s case, a
referendum was done to identify the opinions of Sabahans in 1963 for the
formation of Malaysia. A majority of them agreed and only then, Federation of Malaysia
came into the picture. To be honest, no one pursued neo-colonialism as once accused
by certain quarters. The Sabahans made the bright decision for their future and
as Nur Misuari, leader of Moro National Liberation Front said, Sabah could not
be better off in any other nation’s administration if compared to under
Malaysia.
P/S: My deepest condolences to the nine slain
Malaysian soldiers’ families. To Jamullul Kiram III, I truly respect your
intention of claiming Sabah as your own but any action must be carried out
diplomatically and without blood-spill. I heard that there are around 30
claimants of the non-existing Sulu throne. How do the Malaysians know you are
not a fake heir of the Sultanate of Sulu???
