Lahad Datu Incursion: The Philippine’s Sabah Claim resurfaces


March 9, 2013

Lahad Datu Incursion: Sabah Claim resurfaces due to Politics in the Philippines

UPDATED @ 12:30:35 PM 08-03-2013

By Ida Lim@http://www.themalaysianinsider.com
March 08, 2013

Sabah Claim

Proof showing that Sabah “clearly” belongs to the Sultanate of Sulu has caused Malaysia to be fearful of bringing the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or to the table for talks, a columnist for a Manila-based paper has claimed.

In an opinion piece titled “Irony: Malaysian-trained Sulu fighters”, Neal H. Cruz said both the Philippine and Malaysian governments could “persuade” the Filipino Muslim rebels in Sabah to leave the state that is part of Malaysia, by either entering into negotiations or going to the ICJ.

“That is for Malaysia to either agree to take the Sultanate of Sulu’s claim to Sabah to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or to negotiate with the Philippine government and the sultanate, with a definite date for the talks to start,” he wrote yesterday.

But he said Malaysia was fearful of taking either option, adding that the country was holding on to Sabah by “sheer force of arms”, possibly referring to Malaysia’s show of military muscle with its all-out strike on Tuesday against the estimated 200-odd Sulu gunmen who had intruded Sabah’s east coast over three weeks ago to press the Sultanate of Sulu’s claim on the state.

“Why is Malaysia afraid to do either? Because historical and documentary evidence clearly prove that Sabah belongs to the Sultanate of Sulu.

“Malaysia is holding on to it by sheer force of arms, just like Hitler did in annexing neighbouring European countries and Tojo did in annexing neighbouring Southeast Asian countries during World War II,” he claimed in his column “As I See It” on the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s news portal.

Calling Sabah the “homeland of Sulu Muslims”, the columnist said that Malaysia should “return” Sabah to its “rightful ownlers for humanitarian reasons”, adding that the UN should step in before more people die in the clashes in there, which have already left 52 Sulu gunmen and eight Malaysian policemen dead.

Earlier in his column, he said that Sabah is not important to Malaysia, alleging that the federal government in Peninsular Malaysia was neglecting Sabah because of the state’s distance.

“But it is very important to the Filipinos of Sulu, to which it is very close. They need it for trade (there is now a shortage of food in Tawi-Tawi because of the fighting in Sabah) and for jobs and living space,” he said, referring to the Philippine islands Tawi-Tawi, which is near the Sabah east coast and whose residents reportedly buy food from Sabah.

Leila-de-LimaLast Saturday, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima (left)  from the Philippines’ Department of Justice reportedly said the government had not ruled out taking the Sulu group’s claim on Sabah to the ICJ, but was carefully studying the case as it did not want to strain its friendship with Malaysia.

The Sultanate of Sulu has laid claim to Sabah, saying it had merely leased North Borneo in 1878 to the British North Borneo Company for an annual payment of 5,000 Malayan dollars then, which was increased to 5,300 Malayan dollars in 1903.

Sabah, however, joined Malaya, Sarawak and Singapore to form Malaysia in 1963, after which Malaysia continued paying an annual stipend of RM5,300 to the Sulu sultanate on the basis of the sultanate ceding the Borneo state.

Yesterday, the Sultanate of Sulu called for a ceasefire to the month-longNajib in Lahad Datu battle in Sabah, promising to lay down their weapons and take a defensive stance if Malaysian security forces agreed to do the same.

But Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak yesterday rejected the call, saying that the Sulu militants must surrender unconditionally instead. Najib also highlighted the Cobbold Commission’s 1962 referendum in Sabah and Sarawak, where about two-thirds of the people supported the creation of Malaysia, thus exercising their right to self-determination.

_________________

As I See It

Irony: Malaysian-trained Sulu fighters

By

10:49 pm | Thursday, March 7th, 2013

There is a touch of irony in the fighting in Sabah where Malaysian forces, using eight fighter jets, laser-guided bombs, artillery and hundreds of troops, have failed to subdue a handful of Filipino Muslims from Sulu.

When the Moro National Liberation Front was formed to fight the Philippine government years ago, it was Malaysia who trained, in Sabah, MNLF fighters in guerrilla warfare. Now it is veteran MNLF fighters who are leading the Sulu force in fighting the Malaysians. Obviously, they learned their lessons well. In spite of the overwhelming advantage in men and ordnance, the Malaysians could not find the “cornered” followers of the Sultanate of Sulu in the jungles of Sabah which, as one veteran said, they know “like the back of their hands.”

There is one way the Philippine and Malaysian governments can persuade the Filipino Muslims to “go home.” That is for Malaysia to either agree to take the Sultanate of Sulu’s claim to Sabah to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or to negotiate with the Philippine government and the sultanate, with a definite date for the talks to start.

It is because of decades of being ignored by the Malaysian government and neglected by the Philippine government—including the “loss” of letters from the Sultan of Sulu to President Aquino on the Sabah claim—that the sultan was forced to take the drastic step. He wanted to force the issue. He hoped that when fighting erupts and lives are lost, international agencies like the United Nations may intervene and force Malaysia to negotiate or go to the ICJ. The lives of some of his followers lost in the fighting are a sacrifice to regain their homeland.

Why is Malaysia afraid to do either? Because historical and documentary evidence clearly prove that Sabah belongs to the Sultanate of Sulu. Malaysia is holding on to it by sheer force of arms, just like Hitler did in annexing neighboring European countries and Tojo did in annexing neighboring Southeast Asian countries during World War II.

Sabah is not important to Malaysia. In fact, it is being neglected by Kuala Lumpur because of the distance. But it is very important to the Filipinos of Sulu, to which it is very close. They need it for trade (there is now a shortage of food in Tawi-Tawi because of the fighting in Sabah) and for jobs and living space.

Not only because it is the homeland of Sulu Muslims, Malaysia should return it to its rightful owners for humanitarian reasons. The UN should intervene before more lives are lost.

The Jews waged decades of war, including terrorism, to regain their homeland, Israel, and succeeded. The Filipino Muslims hope they will be able to achieve the same feat. Years from now, the struggle of the Filipino Muslims will make good material for stories and movies, just like the struggle of the American Indians and the blacks exploited by the white immigrants from Europe.

My message to Mr. Cruz:

It is time for us in Malaysia to tell Philippine leaders, politicians, journalists, academics, and political analysts in Manila in nodin-merican uncertain terms to stop playing with fire.

Sabahans have chosen to be in Malaysia since 1963. Sabah is certainly a part of Malaysia, and that is not subject to negotiations.Nor should it be a case for the International Court of Justice to adjudicate.

President Ninoy Aquino should formally drop this claim if he values relations with Malaysia. He should not succumb to domestic political pressure. Exercise leadership, and leave us alone. Aquino himself is inundated with internal problems which need his attention. –Din Merican

29 thoughts on “Lahad Datu Incursion: The Philippine’s Sabah Claim resurfaces

  1. i doubt the Phillipine can win in the International Court of Justice, b’coz Sabah has been ceded to Malaysia, by The Royal Charter of Great Britain backed by International communities, chiefly the USA.
    Its not Diplomacy, but sheer Hypocracy that Philippine is only NOW resurfacing this claim, and the irony is that, tacitly it is ‘ recognising ‘ the Sulu people together with their Phillipine Govt to press the issue in the ICJ. This is a game of DUPLICITY ( call it flip-flop if you like ) .
    Before this, all through the Moros & The Sulus were treated like their step-children, marginilised & driven to Poverty.
    Repeat – Aruna Gopinath opines that Poverty is the DRIVING FORCE for the marginalised Moros & Sulus , driven to Desperation, have foolishly mounted the recent ” Incursions/Armed Intrusions ” playing into a ” tricky ” game played by their Govt, b’coz , these Poverty-driven groups have every reason to believe that ” they have been unwanted on the Left, at the same time ‘ played out ‘ on the right ! Sandwiched between no alternatives….

    Muslim nations must realise that the so-called Diplomacy by advanced nations, are playing the Hypocritical game/s in their Conduct of DUPLICITY !

  2. We can clearly detect their Hypocracy. Neal H Cruz should NOT have stated….. ” Because historical and documentary evidence proves clearly that Sabah belongs to Sultanate of Sulu…. ” –
    Instead, he should have forcefully stated with Conviction : :….Because historical and documentary evidence clearly proves Sabah belongs to The Phillipine…..”

  3. China can start to claim the entire arab and almost the entire europe because they clearly belonged to the mongol empire. Sulu sultanate is no less dead than the mongol empire.

    Is this fella for real? Philippines does not recognize the sulu sultanate and msia suppose to talk to this ghost? Why not scrap philipines and revive the sulu sultanate?

  4. If Malaysia is so confident, then let Malaysia allow it to be taken up by the ICJ and have the matter solved once and for all. There was no referendum in Sabah when Malaysia was formed. Let the people of Sabah decide.
    UN can hold a referendum like they did in Papua New Guinea.

  5. In Pehin Jamil Umar’s book, Tarsilah Brunei II: Period of Splendour and Fame (2007), refuted this claim. Pehin Jamil did not deny the fact that the Sulus were invited and promised the northern Brunei territory(Sabah) by Sultan Muhydin (14th Sultan of Brunei), if they helped him win the civil war against Sultan Abdul Mubin (13th Sultan of Brunei). However, 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.

    According 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”.

    The Sulu claim is currently resting on that treaty which was signed by Sultan Jamalalulazam of Sulu appointing Baron de Overbeck as Dato Bendahara and Raja Sandakan on 22nd January 1878. In fact, another treaty which was signed earlier by Sultan Abdul Momin (24th Sultan of Brunei) 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.

    The 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”.

    http://www.bt.com.bn/golden-legacy/2013/03/07/sabah-and-sulu-claims

  6. No referendum?? The Cobbold Commission’s 1962 referendum concluded that more than two-thirds of the people supported the creation of Malaysia.
    ______________

    Halid, there was also a United Nations Mission report. Read below. Salams, Din Merican

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Question_of_Malaysia

    THE QUESTION OF MALAYSIA

    EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE

    The proposal for the formation of Malaysia was first made by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya in May 1961, and a Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee was established at a regional meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in July of the same year. Following a report by a Commission of Enquiry (the Cobbold Commission), which had conducted meetings in Sarawak and North Borneo from February to April 1962, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Federation of Malaya issued a joint statement, on 1 August 1962, that in principle the Federation of Malaysia should be established by 31 August 1963. A formal agreement was prepared and signed in London 9 July 1963 on behalf of the Governments concerned (the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore).

    On 5 August 1963, following a six-day meeting in Manila of the Heads of Government of the Federation of Malaya, Indonesia and the Philippines, the Foreign Ministers of these three States cabled the Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting him to send working teams to Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak in order to ascertain the wishes of these peoples with respect to the proposed Federation. The three Governments would similarly send observers to the two territories to witness the investigations of the working teams and the Federation of Malaya would do its best to ensure the co-operation of the British Government and of the Governments of Sabah and Sarawak.

    The terms of reference of the request to the Secretary-General were set out in paragraph 4 of the Manila Joint Statement as quoted in the request addressed to the Secretary-General by the three Foreign Ministers:

    The Secretary-General or his representative should ascertain, prior to the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, the wishes of the people of Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak within the context of General Assembly resolution 1541(XV), Principle IX of the Annex, by a fresh approach, which in the opinion of the Secretary-General is necessary to ensure complete compliance with the principle of self-determination within the requirements embodied in Principle IX, taking into consideration: (1) The recent elections in Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak but nevertheless further examining, verifying and satisfying himself as to whether: (a) Malaysia was a major issue if not the major issue; (b) electoral registers were properly compiled; (c) elections were free and there was no coercion; and (d) votes were properly polled and properly counted; and (2) the wishes of those who, being qualified to vote, would have exercised their right of self-determination in the recent elections had it not been for their detention for political activities, imprisonment for political offences or absence from Sabah (North Borneo) or Sarawak.

    (Principle IX of the Annex of General Assembly resolution 1541(XV) of 15 December 1960 provided that a non-self-governing territory integrating with an independent State should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions. The same principle lays down that integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples, expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. [1]) In his reply to the three Foreign Ministers on 8 August, the Secretary-General made it clear that he could undertake the task proposed only with the consent of the United Kingdom. He believed that the task could be carried out by his representative and proposed to set up two working teams—one to work in Sarawak and the other in Borneo—under the over-all supervision of his representative. The Secretary-General emphasized that the working teams would be responsible directly and exclusively to him and, on the completion of their task, would report through his representative to the Secretary-General himself who, on the basis of this report, would communicate his final conclusions to the three Governments and the Government of the United Kingdom. It was the Secretary-General’s understanding that neither the report of his representative nor his conclusions would be subject in any way to ratification or confirmation by any of the Governments concerned.

    REPORT OF UNITED NATIONS MISSION

    On 12 August, the Secretary-General announced the assignment of eight members of the Secretariat, headed by Laurence V. Michelmore as his representative, to serve on the United Nations Malaysia Mission. The Mission left New York on 13 August 1963 and arrived in Kuching, Sarawak, at noon on 16 August. The Mission was divided into two teams, each comprising four officers, one to remain in Sarawak and the other to work in Sabah (North Borneo). Both teams remained until 5 September. Observers from the Federation of Malaya and the United Kingdom were present throughout all of the hearings conducted by the Mission. Observers from the Republic of Indonesia and from the Philippines arrived only on 1 September and attended hearings in the two territories on 2, 3 and 4 September.

    On 14 September, the final conclusions of the Secretary-General with regard to Malaysia were made public. These conclusions were based upon a report submitted to the Secretary-General by the Mission. This report stated that it had been understood that by the “fresh approach” mentioned in the terms of reference established in the request to the Secretary-General, a referendum, or plebiscite, was not contemplated. The Mission had considered that it would be meaningful to make a “fresh approach” by arranging consultations with the population through elected representatives, leaders and the representatives of political parties as well as non-political groups, and with any other persons showing interest in setting forth their views. During the Mission’s visits to various parts of the two territories, it had been possible to consult with almost all of the “grass roots” elected representatives. Consultations were also held with national and local representatives of each of the major political groups and with national and local representatives of ethnic, religious, social and other groups, as well as organizations of businessmen, employers and workers in various communities and social groups.

    As far as the specific questions which the Secretary-General was asked to take into consideration were concerned, the members of the Mission concluded, after evaluating the evidence available to them, that: (a) in the recent elections Malaysia was a major issue throughout both territories and the vast majority of the electorate understood the significance of this; (b) electoral registers were properly compiled; (c) the elections were freely and impartially conducted with active and vigorous campaigning by groups advocating divergent courses of action; and (d) the votes were properly polled and counted; the number of instances where irregularities were alleged seemed within the normal expectancy of well-ordered elections.

    The Mission came to the conclusion that the number of persons of voting age detained for political offences or absent from the territories when voting took place was not sufficient to have affected the result.

    The Mission also gave careful thought to the reference in the request to the Secretary-General that “he ascertain prior to the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia the wishes of the people of Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak within the context of General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV), Principle IX of the Annex.” After considering the constitutional, electoral and legislative arrangements in Sarawak and Sabah (North Borneo), the Mission came to the conclusion that the territories had “attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions so that its people would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed democratic processes.” Self-government had been further advanced in both territories by the declaration of the respective Governors that, as from 31 August 1963, they would accept unreservedly and automatically the advice of the respective Chief Ministers on all matters within the competence of the State and for which portfolios had been allocated to Ministers. The Mission was further of the opinion that the participation of the two territories in the proposed Federation, having been approved by their legislative bodies, as well as by a large majority of the people through free and impartially conducted elections in which the question of Malaysia was a major issue and fully appreciated as such by the electorate, could be regarded as the “result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage.”

    CONCLUSIONS OF SECRETARY-GENERAL

    In submitting his own conclusions, the Secretary-General said he had given consideration to the circumstances in which the proposals for the Federation of Malaysia had been developed and discussed, and the possibility that people progressing through the stages of self-government might be less able to consider in an entirely free context the implications of such changes in their status than a society which had already experienced full self-government and determination of its own affairs. He had also been aware, he said, that the peoples of the territories concerned were still striving for a more adequate level of educational development. Taking into account the framework within which the Mission’s task had been performed, he had come to the conclusion that the majority of the peoples of Sabah (North Borneo) and of Sarawak had given serious and thoughtful consideration to their future and to the implications for them of participation in a Federation of Malaysia. He believed that the majority of them had concluded that they wished to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region with whom they felt ties of ethnic association, heritage, language, religion, culture, economic relationship, and ideals and objectives. Not all of those considerations were present in equal weight in all minds, but it was his conclusion that the majority of the peoples of the two territories wished to engage, with the peoples of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, in an enlarged Federation of Malaysia through which they could strive together to realize the fulfilment of their destiny.

    The Secretary-General referred to the fundamental agreement of the three participating Governments and the statement by the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of the Philippines that they would welcome the formation of the Federation of Malaysia provided that the support of the people of the territories was ascertained by him, and that, in his opinion, complete compliance with the principle of self-determination within the requirements of General Assembly resolution 1541(XV), Principle IX of the Annex, had been ensured. He had reached the conclusion, based on the findings of the Mission that on both of those counts there was no doubt about the wishes of a sizeable majority of the people of those territories to join in the Federation of Malaysia.

    SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

    The Federation of Malaysia was proclaimed on 16 September 1963. On 17 September, at the opening meeting of the General Assembly’s eighteenth session, the representative of Indonesia took exception to the fact that the seat of the Federation of Malaya in the Assembly Hall was being occupied by the representative of the Federation of Malaysia. Indonesia had withheld recognition of the Federation of Malaysia for very serious reasons and reserved the right to clarify its position on the question of Malaysia at a later stage

    Recognition of Malaysia was also withheld by the Republic of the Philippines. During the general debate at the eighteenth session, both Indonesia and the Philippines expressed their reservations about the findings of the United Nations Malaysia Mission. The representatives of the United Kingdom and of the Federation of Malaysia replied to the Indonesian and Philippine charges and upheld the findings of the United Nations Malaysian Mission. On 12 December, during the meeting of the Credentials Committee, the USSR supported the Indonesian position with regard to the seating of the representatives of Malaysia in the General Assembly. A proposal by the Chairman of the Credentials Committee that the Committee find the credentials of all representatives in order was nonetheless approved.

    DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

    United Nations Malaysia Mission. Report to Secretary-General and related annexes. Final conclusions of Secretary-General.

    GENERAL ASSEMBLY—18TH SESSION Plenary Meetings 1206, 1233, 1234, 1237.

    A/5574. Letter of 15 October 1963 from Chairman of Philippines delegation to President of General Assembly.

    A/5676/Rev.1. Report of Credentials Committee.

  7. If it is this easy to claim a nation based on history, then Malaysia could claim Singapura as part of theirs.

  8. If Malaysia is so confident, then let Malaysia allow it to be taken up by the ICJ and have the matter solved once and for all. There was no referendum in Sabah when Malaysia was formed.AGREE!!!
    ___________________
    No need, if you understand the subject. It was resolved by the Cobbold Mission(1962)and the UN Fact Finding Mission (1963). Malaysia was formed on September 16, 1963 after the UN Secretary General, U Thant, released his report. The ball is in the Philippine court. So far none of the Philippine Presidents were willing to make a decision to drop the matter. –Din Merican

  9. Erik @ 12,55pm, i for one feel greatly obliged for your exhaustive effort in putting forth this Enigmatic background and ‘ history ‘ concerning Sabah, in the period BEFORE Sabah joined Malaysia. Anyway, if (IF) indeed a refferendum was done – which i am not sure about – then ex-post facto Sabah ‘ belongs ‘ to Malaysia by majority consensus through the refferendum pushed by the British : this has indeed become LEGAL, hence the revival of claim by Phillipine at this juncture to the ICJ is not only futile, but NO LOCUS STANDI for them at all.
    From your write-up, Erik , Sabah was under the Sovreignity of The Brunei Sultanate. Since Referrendum has been done & they opted to be within Malaysia by Majority Will, that’s the Finality, and no way ICJ is going to intercede.

    But the part concerning the Moro people of Mindanoa and the area recognised by the Brunei Sultanate that it was under the Sovreignity of the Sultan of Sulu – the uncertain or the grey area – it is far from clear, WHO or which Govt they are subjected to , are these people Subjects under the Sovreignity of The Phillipine ? If not, then what is all these fuss & clamourings for ” Independence ” and from whom ? ( things don’t seem to add up, for me )

    Anyway, the Referrendum of Sabah had been finalised by the Brits that should be the end of the matter – gratefull, if you could enlighten a little more. Thank you

  10. “Historical and documentary evidence clearly prove that Sabah belongs to the Sultanate of Sulu. Malaysia continued paying an annual stipend of RM5,300 to the Sulu sultanate on the basis of the sultanate ceding the Borneo state”

    If the Philippines and Sultan of Sulu were to to reclaim Sabah, then make a proper claim directly to their past colonial masters: the American and British governments under treaties with the latter.

    Sabah people joined independent Malaysia via the colonial rulers.We have nothing to negotiate with the Philippines or Sultan of Sulu.

    Malaysia has nothing to fear about, repel the invaders resolutely!

  11. Sovereignty of a country is non-negotiable. It is not for any Court of International Justice to adjudicate and decide. it is not some dispute over some uninhabited atoll in the ocean but over a people numbering a few millions. Don’t they have a say? If I remember correctly, they had their say in 1963 or earlier.
    ____________
    I agree, Bean. I was in Wisma Putra when the Question of Malaysia was resolved with the release of UN Secretary-General U Thant’s Report on the Formation of Malaysia on September 14,1963. I was aide to our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, the brilliant lawyer Mr. R. Ramani in his preparation for the UNGA meeting on the subject of the Philippine Claim to Sabah. That assignment involved preparing documents to refute the Sabah claim. That is why I know that the Philippine claim is a non issue, kept alive by the Philippine politicians to irritate us.

    Sabah is part of Malaysia for nearly 50 years. There should be no further discussion on this subject. It is a recalcitrant Philippine that is unwilling to accept this fact. Read my comments in support of Halid’s view.–Din Merican

  12. Why is Philippines so interested in taking Sabah? They can’t even look after their people. 900,000 of their citizens are making a living and calling Sabah their home. Some hundred thousands more are scattered in Peninsular Malaysia. Be thankful they have Malaysia to feed their citizens and give them jobs,.I am sad to read Manila saying thousands have fled home to Philippines and some were barred from leaving. Why not take them back in times of peace? After all many of them are illegals. But now we are in trouble, you insisted we take good care of your citizen and allow those who want to go home to do so.This did not arise when we are in happier times. Malaysia is the choice nation of your citizens.
    ______________
    I agree with your comments, Mak cik. Our national sovereignty should not be questioned. Non-negotiable. The Philippines must now renounce their “Sabah” claim and remove all barriers to better relations with our country.–Din Merican

  13. First I would to advice that stupid moron don’t insult us! Don’t ever link us with Hitler! Go back to school and do some serious study on the history of the formation of Malaysia!!! I feel pity that stupid moron mother to have such a stupid moron as a child!!!

  14. Well said Din, it is ours and we will not negotiate Sabah for anything,!

    Sent from my iPad

  15. OK OK OK… if you want to negotiate, lets do it, give us back our 900,000 blue IC back to us and you take Petron and St Miguel back….

    [I]Eh… there seems to be a common person involved in all these above “negotiables”… ah its Mamakutty a/l Iskandar Kutty…… [/I]

  16. Saya sokong Makchik. Go tell this to your leader Bijan and Co. No more blue i/c for Filipinos. Those with Blue Malaysian i/c must pledge allegiance to Malaysia and disavow any allegiance to any other ruler or head of state except to the Yang DiPertuan Agong. They must also pledge to bear arms in the defense of Malaysia against any external threats.

  17. Dato Din, Mr Bean & Halil.
    Thank you for the elaborate explanations, which should give matters the final rest, that without a doubt Sabah is legally within the suzerainty of Malaysia –

    There was indeed the Cobbold resolutions, and a Referendum carried out in 1963 for inclusion of Sabah into Malaysia , by overwhelming majority will of its people. THERE CAN NEVER BE A REPEAT FOR ANOTHER REFERENDUM, because it has been settled once & for all.

    If i may, i remember from student days, a Referendum can only be made if there is a break-down of its system, some form of civil unrest or a breakdown of civil order caused by the various factions, and its leaders AGREE to hold the Referendum….only then a Referendum is held.

    A Referendum cannot happen just by the whims & fancies of individuals. now that Filipinos or certain individuals are trying to press for ANOTHER Referendum, there must occur a situation of ‘ unrest ‘ or breakdown, but not otherwise…
    _______________
    No new referendum on Sabah period.–Din Merican

  18. So these animals were trained by msians and they have returned to roost and mutilate their teachers…mainly thru courtesy of that a/l pendatang kutty of india.

  19. Pendatang a/l kutty from india gave away 7?8?9?00000 mykad to the pino, tutup 1mata to ?00000 illegal pinos & trained ?000s in guerilla warfare. Now they surfaced to claim Sabah as theirs. They turned into animals mutilating the fallrn heroes. Who is the biggest culprit here? Will indonesia be wanting to claim melaka?

  20. Why are all these soft headed Pinoy gorillas from Manila talking about referenda this and that in Sabah – when they have No locus standi to question? Can’t even read history in proper context.. Heck they can’t even carry out a proper referendum in Moro-Land, when they asked for Malaysian help in mediation. Ungrateful brutes. Et tu Brutus?

    The Philippine Government is definitely more sensible that the average emotional yet idiotic, Pinoy subjects. These fellas seem to enjoy being raped by corruption and hubris. The chip on their shoulders is the size of the Universe, without the cerebral connections to match.

    Just admit lah – No One loves the Moros.. and it’s best they be given full autonomy and semi Balkanization. Perhaps they even can partition themselves as per India-Pakistan in the past?

    MILF is at crossroads and i’s time they ask Nur Misuari and his Goons in MNLF, where they are at? The Kirams are a sick joke and should be held wholly responsible for the horrible fate that has befallen their clan of morons.

    If the push comes to a shove, we will kick all these blokes back to the sea. Blue I.C. does not not mean that these clowns are not beaten black and blue. The sure sign of a loser is to complain ad infinitum, after they started provocation. Think before talk, much less criminal acts of murder of our security forces.

  21. Just a thought….If Sabah belongs to Malaysia then why Malaysia Government continues to pay until now an annual stipend of RM5,300 to the Sulu sultanate as a lease fee??? Please enlighten me on the matter. Thank you.

  22. Dear Dakota Fanny,

    I believe that it’s called ‘duit kopi’ or under the counter bakeesh or ‘protection money’ from gangster-ism or in modern business models, gratuity for retirees. Yeah, i too think it’s too little, symbolic and really stupid – and Malaysia ought to stop or just blow the atolls away. It’s getting to the stage of embarrassment, when we follow the Mat Salleh Brits – who have a habit of bakeesh.

  23. Who IS the Sultan of Sulu anyway, rightways?
    That’s the problems ya? There are present 9 claimants or pretenders.
    Perhaps if the Pinoys tok kok too much, we ask taikor PRC tiger general to help ya?
    But Amb Cai say not yet, but watching carefully. Singapore and Thailand very pissed too.

  24. The referendum’s finding was that 2/3rds of Sabahans wanted to join Malaysia. Do you know that this year will be the 50th year since Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia on 16th September 1963? 50 years after Cobbold Commission’s findings that 2/3 of Sabahans are favourable towards joining Malaysia. After 12 General Elections, once every 5 years. Sure, Malaysians in general have issues, but Sabahans prior to this invasion by the Sulu Sultanate was eagerly anticipating the 13th General Elections just like us in Peninsular Malaysia.

    This was what S.O. Franck in the World Court Digest said about Sabah’s self-determination in para 13-15 when the Phillipines applied to intervene in the matter between Indonesia and Malaysia based on ICJ’s Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v. Malaysia) Application by the Philippines for Permission to Intervene Judgment of 23 October 2001

    “13. The independence of North Borneo was brought about as the result of the expressed wish of the majority of the people of the territory in a 1963 election. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was entrusted under the Manila Accord of 31 July 1963 with the task of ascertaining the wishes of the people of North Borneo, and reported that the majority of the peoples of North Borneo had given serious and thoughtful consideration to their future and:

    [had] concluded that they wish to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region with whom they feel ties of ethnic association, heritage, language, religion, culture, economic relationship, and ideals and objectives.” (Quoted by the Representative of Malaysia to the General Assembly, 1219th meeting, 27 September 1963, Official Records of the General Assembly, 18th Session, UN Doc. No. A/PV.1219.)

    14. In 1963, Britain filed its last report to the United Nations on North Borneo as an Article 73 (e) Non-Self-Governing Territory (Note by the Secretary-General, Political and Constitutional Information on Asian Territories under United Kingdom Administration, UN Doc. No. A/5402/Add.4 (4 April 1963)). Thereafter, the United Nations removed North Borneo from the list of colonial territories under its decolonization jurisdiction (see Yearbook of the United Nations, 1964, pp. 411-435, which omits North Borneo from the Committee’s list of territories), thereby accepting that the process of decolonization had been completed by a valid exercise of self-determination.

    15. Accordingly, in light of the clear exercise by the people of North Borneo of their right to self-determination, it cannot matter whether this Court, in any interpretation it might give to any historic instrument or efficacy, sustains or not the Philippines claim to historic title. Modern international law does not recognize the survival of a right of sovereignty based solely on historic title; not, in any event, after an exercise of self-determination conducted in accordance with the requisites of international law, the bona fides of which has received international recognition by the political organs of the United Nations. Against this, historic claims and feudal pre-colonial titles are mere relics of another international legal era, one that ended with the setting of the sun on the age of colonial imperium.”

    The Court further states that if the Philippines stake a claim on Sabah, this is what it is:

    “16. The lands and people claimed by the Philippines formerly constituted most of an integral British dependency. In accordance with the law pertaining to decolonization, its population exercised their right of self-determination. What remains is no mere boundary dispute. It is an attempt to keep alive a right to reverse the free and fair decision taken almost 40 years ago by the people of North Borneo in the exercise of their legal right to self-determination. The Court cannot be a witting party to that.”

  25. Who owns Sabah?

    No one does. Sabah is an independent State. Pre-1963 before the joining of Sabah into Malaysia, a gentleman by the name of Lord Cobbold executed the Cobbold Commission. There were referandums ran in the State, asking the people of Sabah and Sarawak what they wanted. The question then was whether they wanted to join Malaysia.

    At that crucial time in history, Sabahans had many options; they could join Sarawak and build an independent Borneo, they could have joined Brunei, they could have joined Indonesia, or they could have joined the Phillipines, or they could have said, be damned with the whole lot of ye and became the Republic of Sabah if they wanted to.

  26. By the same token of your arguments, nana, from the year 1963, the Federal Govt of Malaysia had to a greater degree, to a smaller degree, to a larger extent, to a smaller extent, put in vast amounts of resources, fiscal & financial commitments or aids, in the development and progress of Sabah – yes, Sabah is an ‘ independant state ‘ within a larger Federal State of Malaysia…..do you mean ‘ totally ‘ independent ?

  27. Brunei has ceded west of Sabah in 1877, Sulu ceded east of Sabah in 1878. The termed ‘ceded’ was used since both sultanates have transmit the sovereignty of those regions to ‘Her Majesty’s Government’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s