Sabah standoff

IN ANOTHER David and Goliath move, a hundred armed Tausugs, led by Rajah Mudah (crown prince) Agbimuddin Kiram are in Lahad Datu, Sabah and have captured the attention of the world to the sovereign and proprietary claims of the Sulu sultanate over Sabah. Datu Agbimuddin and the brother of the Sulu sultan, Jamalul Kiram III, has stated that they are in Lahad Datu on a visit of their "homeland." Since the sultanate is now part of the Philippines, the sovereign rights over Sabah have therefore been assumed by the Philippine government.

Left unresolved, the standoff in Sabah can escalate into an international incident that could create tension between Malaysia and the Philippines. Worse, there may be vested interests that will fuel an escalation into conflict. For instance, how true are the rumors from Malaysia that this incident may be driven by local politicians out to destabilize the ruling party, UMNO, by creating fear among the Sabahans? After all, the Malaysian government, under UMNO leaders, have been fully supporting the peace process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. News from Malaysia surmise that although Prime Minister Najib Razak is popular, the UMNO may be losing support. If this trend continues, then the opposition led by Datuk Anwar Ibrahim may have a stronger hand in challenging the UMNO in the June elections.

The Moro National Liberation Front, under chairman Nur Misuari, has been meeting in Zamboanga City since Wednesday about the situation. I have been informed that the discussions, which involve Muslim religious leaders from the islands, have leaders demanding support for the followers of the Sultan while calling for a peaceful resolution of the impasse.

With the Philippine government engaged in finalizing the peace agreement with the MILF, supported by the Malaysian government as facilitator, the impasse needs to be resolved peacefully. It is unfortunate that the government, under then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, did not consider the Sabah claim as a major issue that could undermine the effectiveness of Malaysia as facilitator. This, in spite of statements issued by Moro leaders in 2001 that questioned the choice of Malaysia as facilitator amid the Sabah claim.

However, the Malaysian government has been effective in facilitating the GPH-MILF peace process since 2001 as well as an ally for security and development. It is therefore in the interest of all concerned that the Sabah stalemate be quickly and peacefully resolved. This close to the last stage of the peace process, we cannot afford a conflagration that could bring us all back to square 1.

Allow me to provide a background on the Sabah issue so that readers may understand the complexity of the situation. The government has been pursuing its claim over Sabah since the administration of President Diosdado Macapagal. The claim emanates from the Sulu sultanate’s sovereign rights over Sabah, which was turned over to the government. The proprietary claim of the heirs to Sabah, however, originates from the decision of a British court when Malaysia was still under British rule.

THE SULU SULTANATE ACQUIRES SABAH

The Genealogy of the Sulu Royal Families, written by Sururul-Ain Ututalum (descendant of Dayang-Dayang Hadja Piandao and, therefore, an heir to Sabah) and Abdul-Karim Hedjazi, traced the close relationship between the royals of Brunei and Sulu. In the 1500s, Brunei Sultan Bolkiah was married to Sulu Princess Putri Laila, granddaughter of Shariful Hashim, first Sultan of Sulu. In the late 1600s, when Sultan Muaddin of Brunei was threatened by rebellion, he turned to his kin in Sulu for help. The rebellion was quelled. As a reward, the Brunei sultan gave resource-rich Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu. The property includes the "mainland of the island of Borneo commencing from the Pandassan River on the north-west coast and extending along the whole east coast as far as the Sibuco River in the south and comprising amongst other the States of Paitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan, Kina Batangan, Mumiang, and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco river with all the islands within three marine leagues of the coast." The territory is defined in the agreement.

(http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/Lawnet/SabahLaws/Treaties/GrantBySultanOfSuluOfTerritoriesAndLandsOnTheMainlandOfTheIslandOfBorneo.pdf)

SABAH BECOMES PART OF MALAYSIA

In 1763, Sultan Azimuddin signed a treaty allowing the British East Indies Co. to use Sabah and other territories. Tensions later developed between the sultan and the company, which prevented the effective implementation of the treaty until 1878. At this time, Baron Von Overbeck of the British East India Trading Co. entered into a lease agreement or padjak with Sultan Jamalul Alam. This company was later absorbed by the British North Borneo Co. which, in 1946, transferred sovereign rights over Sabah to Britain. When the Federation of Malaya was granted its independence from Britain in 1963, Sabah was one of the territories turned over to the newly established Malaysia.

SOURCE OF DISPUTE

The dispute revolves around the meaning of the term padjak. The Tausug padjak means lease whereas the British version used the term to mean "grant" or "cede." Thus, the sultan’s heirs maintain that Sabah was merely leased to the company while Malaysia states that the Philippines has no claim because Sabah had been sold to British East India Trading.

The Malaysian government continues to pay lease money owed by British North Borneo to the descendants of the sultan to this day. The Malaysian government pays RM5,300 per year as rental for Sabah to the heirs since the formation of the Malaysian federation in 1963.

Today, the sum of RM5,300 -- less than ₱75,000 -- as annual rental barely covers the monthly rent of a house in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The heirs, on their own, have attempted to renegotiate the terms of the padjak with the Malaysian government.

In 1996, Princess Denchurai Kiram, daughter of Princess Tarhata Kiram and administrator of her estate, wrote then Prime Minister Mahathir to raise the rental to $1,000,000. She also stated that she and the other heirs were willing to renounce the claim if Kuala Lumpurt will provide a fair settlement. The letter was ignored by Mr. Mahathir.

In June 2010, the Sulu provincial board passed a resolution supporting the demand of the heirs to increase the yearly payment to at least $500 million.

Weeks earlier, Mr. Misuari issued a statement calling the attention of Malaysia to settle the Sabah issue. Misuari’s first wife, the late Desdemona Tan, and present wife Ruayda, are heirs to Sabah since they are descendants of Dayang-Dayang (Queen) Hadja Piandao, who was acknowledged to have 3/8 share of Sabah.

In January 2001, Sultan Esmail Kiram II, the brother of Jamalul III, also wrote Mr. Mahathir, this time through President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Princess Denchurain’s daughter, Princess Tajmahal, was a co-signatory. According to reports, their demand was for $855 million.

SOVEREIGN RIGHTS

The late Ambassador Abraham Rasul, wazir or prime minister to Sultan Esmail Kiram (and later wazir to Sultan Mahakuttah, son of Esmail), had been authorized by the sultan to discuss the pursuit of the Sabah claim with Mr. Macapagal and, later, President Ferdinand Marcos. (Ambassador Rasul succeeded his father, the first Muslim senator, Hadji Butu, who was wazir to three sultans.)

Esmail Kiram officially transferred the sultanate’s authority and sovereignty to the Philippines on Sept. 12, 1962 through a written instrument signed by himself and Foreign Affairs Secretary Emmanuel Pelaez. The transfer was authorized by a resolution passed by the Ruma Bechara (literally "House of Talk," equivalent to council of advisers/Cabinet). He thus gave up the Sulu sultanate’s sovereign rights to Sabah to the government, but retained proprietary rights over the same.

However, there was a provision in the Ruma Bechara resolution that in the event the government fails or refuses to protect its claim, the Sultanate of Sulu reserves the right to prosecute its claim over Sabah, in whatever manner it can think of. The Kiram family lawyer, Ulka Ulama, and former Senator Santanina Rasul have documents that bear this out. (As a UP political science student, Senator Rasul wrote an award-winning essay on the claim, which was published in the UP Law Journal.)

If the sovereign claim over Sabah is dropped, do we lose all rights? Even if we lose sovereign rights over Sabah, we still have proprietary rights, through the heirs of the Sultan, who personally owned Sabah.

THE HEIRS

The legally recognized owners -- members of Sulu royalty and nobility -- were identified in the 1939 ruling of Chief Justice C. F. C. Macaskie of the High Court of North Borneo: Dayang-Dayang (Princess) Hadji Piandao was acknowledged as the major share-holder with 3/8 share. Princess Tarhata Kiram and Princess Sakinur-In Kiram were to each have a 3/16 share. The six other heirs who went to Macaskie’s court were awarded 1/24 share apiece: Mora Napsa, Sultan Esmail Kiram, Datu Punjungan, Sitti Mariam, Sitti Jahara and Sitti Rada.

Princess Denchurain acknowledged the nine heirs specified in the Macaskie decision as the true heirs of Sabah.

All the principal heirs have died. As of today, there are probably a thousand heirs of the heirs. Dayang-Dayang Hadji Piandao Kiram, an only child, was childless. Therefore her cousins, nieces and nephews will divide her 3/8 share. Among her cousins was my grandmother, Hadja Salma, wife of Sen. Hadji Butu. Thus, my father, the late Ambassador Rasul, and his siblings and cousins are heirs. Misuari’s wive (Desdemona and Ruayda), are heirs. Jamalul III and Esmail are the children of Datu Punjungan.

MOVES TO RESOLVE CLAIM

During the term of President Macapagal, the government in 1962 filed a claim over Sabah with the United Nations. A Sabah Division was created in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Marcos had other plans. Parallel to legal maneuverings, he had young Muslims trained in Corregidor to "destabilize" Sabah. The scenario: the Philippines could then come in and take Sabah by force, to "protect" the thousands of Tausugs who lived there or incite them to secede and join the Philippines. The plan went awry, resulting in the massacre of the Muslim trainees. Except for one lone survivor, Jibin Arula. Away from the barracks when he heard gunfire, Arula claimed he saw his comrades mowed down by their military trainors. He ran to the mountains, went over the cliff and into the sea. He was rescued the next day by Cavite fishermen. Somehow, he was brought to then Cavite Gov. Delfin Montano. The governor brought Arula to Senator Benigno Aquino who then exposed the infamous "Jabidah Massacre" of March 18, 1968. Malaysia severed diplomatic ties with the Philippines after the expose. It took the combined efforts of Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand to resolve the situation.

President Corazon C. Aquino wanted to resolve the claim during her term. It seems that Malaysia would only agree to negotiate if all the heirs spoke as one. In 1987, she instructed Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul Manglapus to bring all the heirs together. On Oct. 23, 1987, Mr. Manglapus wrote Ambassador Rasul: "I would like to suggest that the claimants organize themselves so that they may arrive at a common position…. Although yours is a private claim, we have the assurance of the Malaysian government that they are ready and willing to negotiate with the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu in order to settle this matter."

Then Sen. Santanina Rasul was requested to coordinate the unification of the heirs. As her chief of staff, I was tasked to implement the assignment. We managed to bring them all to Malacañang. After hours of deliberation, the heirs appointed their representatives, led by Sec. Manglapus, to negotiate with Malaysia. Unfortunately, the meeting came to a standstill when Jamalul III dissented. Afterward, the heirs of Dayang-Dayang Hadji Piandao Kiram, Sultan Esmail Kiram, Princesses Tarhata, Sakinur-in and Sitti Mariam sought a meeting with Sec. Manglapus. A brief from that meeting held on Dec. 6, 1987, stated: "They were of the opinion that Sultan Mohamad Jamalul Kiram III was expressing his own personal views which contravene the consensus reached at the meeting of the heirs with Secretary… Manglapus at the PICC on Friday, December 4 and at the conference of the heirs held with President Corazon C. Aquino at Malacañang on Saturday, December 5."

President Fidel V. Ramos pursued the attempt to unite the heirs. Upon his suggestion, the representatives of the heirs met on Feb. 10, 1993 to discuss their establishment of the Sulu-Sabah Development Corp., which would be responsible for the economic development and sociocultural advancement of Sulu. It was understood that this entity would be the conduit of the funds from the settlement of the proprietary claim over Sabah. Former Presidential Legal Counsel (now Supreme Court Justice) Antonio Carpio drafted the terms. This corporation would have been powerful if the idea had prospered.

Why then did the attempts fizzle? During the Ramos years, the heirs still could not unite. By then, the idea to establish the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area had prospered. Rich Malaysia was employing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos as well as investing in Mindanao. Terrorism was sprouting and borders had to be secured. The Sabah claim moved to the back burner. This situation continued through the short-lived Estrada presidency.

The Arroyo administration renewed interest in settling the claim. Some of the heirs were feted at Malacañang in 2002 and Jamalul III was hailed as Sultan of Sulu. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo even gave the letter of Sultan Jamalul and Princess Tajmahal, asking for an adjustment of the rentals, to then Prime Minister Mahathir. The Arroyo administration, however, did not unite all the heirs, as the preceding administrations had done.

THE SULTAN OF SULU

The Sultanate of Sulu has had a tradition of being governed by one Sultan, supported and acknowledged by the citizens of the sultanate. The last to be so proclaimed was Sultan Mahakuttah Kiram, the son of Esmail Kiram. Mahakuttah, was recognized by Mr. Marcos, while his father was recognized by Messrs. Macapagal and Marcos. Jamalul III was recognized by Mrs. Arroyo, and was even included in the administration senatorial slate in 2004. He has been the most forceful and visible sultan.

It is unfortunate that today there are over 10 who are claiming the Sultanship. Among them are Sultan Jamalul III and his brother Sultan Esmail. Jamalul is the eldest son of Datu Punjungan Kiram. Initially, Datu Punjungan was the raja muda or crown prince of Sultan Esmail Kiram. But after Datu Punjungan left the Philippines to reside in Sabah, Sultan Esmail was fearful that Datu Punjungan might sign a quitclaim in favor of Malaysia, so he changed his crown prince, with the consent and authority of his Ruma Bechara. Esmail named his eldest son, Mahakuttah Kiram, as his crown prince. When Esmail passed away, Mahakuttah succeeded and his coronation was ordered by Mr. Marcos to safeguard the Sabah claim. Mahakuttah had anointed his son, Muedzul-Lail as the raja muda. At the time, Muedzul-Lail was in grade school.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The Sabah impasse needs to be resolved peacefully. It is to the interest of the government to ensure that the MNLF, the dominant Moro liberation front in Sulu, supports a peaceful resolution of the situation. Misuari can play a role to de-escalate tensions. Not only is he Tausug and therefore supportive of the sultanate, his late wife Desdemona and present wife Ruayda are heirs. However, Misuari is aggrieved that the MNLF and he himself have been sidelined in the peace process with the MILF. Further, the Arroyo administration had been instrumental in supporting the Council of 15, which removed Misuari from the leadership of the MNLF. He was also incarcerated for over seven years and later released for lack of evidence. Misuari, who is still recognized by the Organization of the Islamic Conference as the chairman of the MNLF, is therefore a key player. Misuari yesterday convened a meeting of the MNLF and island leaders in Zamboanga City on the situation in Sabah and the claim. A statement will be issued calling for support for the Sabah claim.

• The national government should encourage and assist the leading members of the Kirams and the datus of Sulu to come together and choose one Sultan. This will not only re-establish the tradition of one Sultan leading the Sulu sultanate; it will provide a focal point for the nobility and traditional leaders of Sulu to lead in peace and development. At this point, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has established his dominance in the field, particularly after the Lahad Datu incident. Most of the leaders in the island-provinces of Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Basilan -- domain of the Sulu sultanate -- have applauded his action.

As many elected leaders in the island-provinces have not been successful in forging a strong foundation of governance and peace, perhaps strengthening the institution of the sultanate will provide Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Basilan with an institution that can help unite the population behind peace and development, as the sultans of Malaysia are doing.

• The Benigno Aquino administration should follow the initiative began by Presidents Corazon Aquino and Ramos to unite the Sabah heirs and pursue the peaceful and just resolution of the Sabah claim.

- source

Read More

1878 Sabah lease contract very clear: "...rights and powers hereby leased shall not be transferred..."

When the Sabah lease was signed 134 years ago -- on the 22nd of January 1878, between the Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah and two foreign businessmen, the Sultanate ensured that their rights to Sabah ownership were protected with this all encompassing moral and legal clause clearly spelled out in the lease contract, to wit (lease shown, 2nd photo):

"...but the rights and powers hereby leased shall not be transferred to any nation, or a company of other nationality, without the consent of Their Majesties Government."

The whole Mindanao-Moro problem compounded by Malaysia's continuing support for the MILF right in the heart of Philippine Moro 'homeland' is without a shadow of doubt tied to the Philippine Sabah claim.

The Malaysians know it and the Filipinos know it but Kuala Lumpur will do everything in their power to make sure that the Philippines will not have a moment's respite to turn around and raise the Sabah claim. And the problem is being compounded by the fact that successive Chinese communities in Sabah have staged their own claim over Sabah and over the last couple of decades, they have been at it, trying to muster political support from the population of Sabah to claim "independence" from Malaysia.

As years go and while this problem is unsettled, there will be more problems -- political and military, that are bound to arise and could very well bring the Sabah question to the inevitable: armed conflict which it almost did back in the 60s when the Philippines attempted to take physical control of Sabah in a covert operation code-named "Operation Merdeka."

After 134 years, it is time to examine the contents of the lease and to bring them out in the open. The Republic of the Philippines -- and Malaysia, cannot continue to be blind. Sabah is either the Philippines' or it is not -- only a minitious examination of facts done in absolute good faith can determine final legal and moral ownership.

If the parties to the claim or to the counter claim refuse -- and that includes major counter claimant Malaysia, to adhere to the principle of good faith, I'm afraid, the peace and order problem in Mindano will continue as the rebel forces in Mindanao are encouraged, maintained and funded by the the current occupiers of Sabah. And unless we face this extremely sensitive Sabah question head on, there is every chance that we will be encouraging Malaysia to invade Mindanao by proxy.

Read More

DFA ship drops anchor off Sabah

A Philippine vessel dispatched over the weekend to bring back a group of Filipinos holed up in a village in Lahad Datu in Sabah has anchored off Sabah waters, a Malaysian news site reported Monday evening.

The ship was sent to Sabah by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which called its mission "humanitarian."

Group leader Dr. Sangkula Lajali said the ship has food supplies and a medical team on standby, according to a report on Malaysia's The Star online.

"We have a medical team of five on stand-by for any eventuality," it quoted Lajali as saying in a phone interview.

Lajali added they are "awaiting the necessary approval to enter Sabah waters," and could arrive in Lahad Datu “very quickly.”

But also on Monday, members of the Royal Army of the Sultanate of Sulu, who are engaged in the standoff with Malaysian authorities in Sabah, remained adamant that they will not board the ship.

The Star online report said the ship is in a "holding pattern" on the border of the Philippines and Malaysia.

Women and children only

Malacañang, meanwhile, denied that the ship was proof that talks to end the standoff have broken down, but consented to say that, for now, the ship will only deal with women and children who might be sickly or in need of assistance.

“We believe that we need to see the situation on the ground. It was a purely humanitarian effort on the part of the government to ascertain the welfare of those civilians,” presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said at a briefing.

Lacierda added that there were doctors on board who were ready to assist those in need of help.

“We certainly hope that they will think about their women and, if there are any children there or if there are any sickly among them, that they will consider allowing our social workers, our doctors to take care of them,” he said.

Lacierda was evasive, however, when asked if the ship will deal with the 30-odd armed men reportedly involved in the standoff.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen. As far as we’re concerned, we’re trying every possible means to convince them to come home. And, in fact, that has been the consistent plea of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs: for them to come home. So that’s our position right now,” he said.

He declined to comment further how the Philippine government will deal with those armed.

“Pardon me if I will not be able to give you any answer to that point. We don’t want to also discuss what further steps the government will be taking. Our main concern right now is a peaceful resolution to the situation,” Lacierda reiterated.

Lacierda did say the ship will stay in Sabah for as long as there is a chance that anyone involved in the standoff will want to go home.

“They will stay there as long as they are needed there, as long as if there’s any one soul who would like to come home, we will take care of them,” he said.

Some 400 people, including 20 gunmen, have been in a standoff with Malaysian police in Sabah since they crossed over early this month to reclaim the area as their ancestral territory. Sultan Jamalul Kiram said his followers will not leave Sabah despite being cornered by security forces.

Another ship?

The Malaysian news site also cited reports that another vessel left Sulu early Monday for Sabah waters. The ship reportedly was carrying a member of the Sulu sultanate family.

Government officers were reportedly with them.

The Star online cited Philippine media reports quoting Tawi-Tawi Governor Sadikul Sahali as saying he was aware of the vessel from Sulu but did not say who was aboard it. — BM/KBK, GMA News

Read More

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sabah?

MALAYSIA was invaded earlier this month. A ragtag group of people - some of them armed - travelled from the Philippine islands of Sulu to Malaysian Borneo to stake their claim to the province of Sabah.

This so-called Royal Army of Sulu, just a few hundred in number, is hardly likely to be a major threat to the Malaysian police, who are currently surrounding their base in a little village.

But the fate of these people and how their claim is handled - by both countries, but especially the Philippines - may have important consequences for regional stability.

Sale or lease?

The leader of the group is the brother of Jamalul Kiram III, one of the two main claimants to the title of Sultan of Sulu.

It is a title that goes back to before the Philippines was an American colony, or a Spanish colony, or indeed properly recognised as the Philippines at all.

The two main sultanates in the region at the time were Sulu and Brunei. In 1658, the Sultan of Brunei gave Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu - either as a dowry or because troops from Sulu had helped him quell a rebellion.

More than 350 years later, the sultan's heirs have come to remind Malaysians that they still consider Sabah to be part of Sulu and, by extension, part of the Philippines.

"Sabah is our home," they said simply when asked why they had come.

But history is not that simple and of course Malaysia has no intention of giving up Sabah to this little band of Filipinos.

The crux of their disagreement lies in a contract made in 1878, between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company.

Under this contract known as pajak, the company could occupy Sabah in perpetuity as long as it paid a regular sum of money.

Even today, Malaysia pays about RM5,000 (£1,000, $1,500) a year to the Sultanate of Sulu.

But the British and, after that an independent Malaysia, interpreted pajak to mean sale, while the Sulu Sultanate has always maintained it means lease.

"In my opinion, this is more consistent with a lease rather than a sale, because you can't have a purchase price which is not fixed and which is payable until kingdom come," said Harry Roque, a law professor at the University of the Philippines.

Secret militia

The issue has been a stumbling block in relations between Malaysia and the Philippines for decades, and a factor behind the continuing violence and instability on the islands of Sulu.

Successive Philippine presidents have pressed the sultanate's case, the most audacious being an attempt by the late President Ferdinand Marcos to train and equip a secret Muslim militia to take Sabah by force.

The plan was leaked before it could be put into action, and the militia force was allegedly killed by the Philippine army in an attempt to cover up the evidence. The massacre became one of the main triggers for rising Muslim discontent and the emergence of Muslim rebel groups which are still around in the region today.

Subsequent attempts to settle the issue have been far more peaceful and diplomatic in nature, and even the previous president, Gloria Arroyo, had brought up the claim with Malaysia on several occasions.

But under the current president, Benigno Aquino, the Sultanate of Sulu's ancestral rights have not been mentioned at all.

And that could well be why the Royal Army of Sulu decided now was the time to launch their brave, if somewhat, foolhardy invasion.

Disinterested party?

According to Roque, Aquino has not pursued Sulu's claims because he has been prioritising talks with a Muslim rebel group in the region, the Moro National Liberation Front (MILF), instead.

These talks have been fruitful, and there is a framework peace deal in place for the first time in decades.

But the facilitators of the talks are the Malaysians - and Roque says Malaysia is hardly a disinterested party.

"The fact that Malaysia volunteered to be a facilitator must have an impact on why the Aquino government has decided to keep the claim dormant," he said.

"Perhaps the Malaysians volunteered precisely because they don't want the Sabah claims to be revived."

But even if Aquino does not want to deal with the Sabah issue right now, he knows he cannot just ignore Sulu's claims.

The heirs to the sultanate are highly respected, and could call on a lot more support than the few hundred people currently in Sabah if necessary.

"If the sultan's family are not included in peace talks, and feel like they're being forgotten and left out, there will soon be a serious problem," said Professor Benito Lim, a historian from Ateneo de Manila University in the capital.

Revered family

I myself know how revered the sultan's family are in Sulu. There are two possible heirs to the title - Jamalul Kiram III, whose brother led the Sabah incursion, and Dr Ibrahim Bahjin Shakirullah II.

I visited Dr Bahjin in his little wooden house. He is a soft-spoken man, very unassuming and welcoming, living a simple life by the beach.

But the locals who came to visit with us were clearly extremely honoured to be in his presence.

After we chatted for a while, he invited me to a private room at the back of his house, where he took out what looked like a pile of old clothes.

But inside several layers of material, there was a ceremonial sword - a gift from the sultan of Brunei to his forefathers more than 300 years ago.

Decades and centuries may go past, but this family remembers its history as clear as if it were yesterday.

No peace deal, no change of presidency, not even the insurmountable odds posed by the Malaysian security forces, are going to make them forget that Sabah used to belong to Sulu - and in their minds, still does.

- Kate McGeown/ BBC

Read More

Sultanate’s army given 48 hours to leave Sabah

MANILA, Philippines - Malaysia has given the followers of the Sulu sultanate 48 hours to leave Sabah, shorter than the four-day extension sought by the Philippines, a Malaysian news site said yesterday.

The Star online said the Friday deadline was extended after the Philippines asked for a four-day extension until Tuesday “on the grounds that Manila was trying to persuade the Sulu group to give up their stand.”

The Malaysian media firm said there have been reports that the group of Raja Muda Azzumudie, the brother of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, “was running short of food supplies.”

Malaysian security forces are maintaining a tight sea and land cordon around the group, the report added.

“Azzumudie was reportedly in contact with Sultan Kiram who has told the group to stay put at the village until the Sabah claim demands were discussed but to avoid violence,” The Star online said.

Sabah is now being administered by Malaysia even as the Philippines has a standing claim to the area.

Malacañang earlier said it wants the standoff in Sabah ended peacefully as soon as possible.

Speaking over state-run radio station dzRB, deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said the government is working quietly with all stakeholders to achieve a long-term solution to the problem.

“From the point of view of this administration, we’ve always said that we’ve been working quietly with the Malaysian government and the Kiram family to resolve this standoff peacefully,” she said.

Valte said a Malacañang legal team will be coming up with a definitive position on the issue to uphold the national interest and avoid jeopardizing good relations with Malaysia.

“It will have to be dealt with separately at the proper time and under the correct conditions,” she said of the Philippines claim to Sabah.

Speaking to reporters in Iloilo City last week, Aquino said he has been talking to stakeholders in the Sabah standoff, including the family of the Sultan of Sulu.

“But of course that doesn’t rest entirely within our hands, there has to be cooperation amongst all entities to achieve first, a resolution on the current crisis and later on probably a long-term solution to this dispute,” he said.

Aquino said he has ordered the Malacañang legal team to study the Malaysian and Philippine claims to Sabah. – With Delon Porcalla - source

Read More

‘No UN arbitration in Sabah Standoff’

MANILA, Philippines - Malacañang yesterday rejected proposals for the government to ask the United Nations to intervene in the current Sabah standoff and send peacekeepers.

The Philippines has asked Malaysia to give the government four more days to deal with the standoff peacefully.

“If you assess the situation on the ground right now, if you also look at all the statements of all the parties involved, on the part of the Philippine government, we’ve conveyed our preferring to have the situation resolved peacefully,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.

Valte said the government was closely monitoring the situation and there were no reports of a “gunfight.”

“It’s being resolved in a peaceful manner. So let’s leave it at that,” she said.

She said the assessment was that the situation remained under control and “while there is a standoff, all the parties involved and all the parties concerned have expressed their commitment and their desire to have this end peacefully.”

The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) has proposed that the Philippine government ask the UN to intervene in the Sabah standoff.

Valte said the parties involved, including the Malaysian government and the Filipino gunmen, wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.

“And of course, Malaysian friends have also stated the same, so we share the same sentiment. Even the private individuals involved, the Kiram family, have also expressed their intention to have it resolved peacefully,” she said.

About 200 or more so-called Royal Army members of Sultan Jamalul Kiram have been holed out in Lahad Datu town in Sabah for more than a week, claiming their ancestral right over the region.

The gunmen led by Raja Muda Agbimiddin Kiram, the Sultan’s brother, declared they will not leave and are reclaiming the area as their ancestral territory. Malaysian authorities have given them until Friday to leave or be rounded up for deportation.

Valte though refused to comment on the timing of the incident and whether there was reason to be suspicious about the motives of those seeking to claim Sabah by force.

“If it’s wrong timing or suspicious, maybe we can set aside that issue first and focus on having a peaceful resolution on the situation in Sabah now,” Valte said.

President Aquino earlier expressed suspicion that the ongoing standoff in Sabah could have been staged to disrupt the peace negotiations between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

In a statement from Melchor Amado, media consultant of former Tarlac Rep. Jose Cojuangco and wife, former Tarlac governor Margarita Cojuangco, the President has “cleared” the couple from any involvement to sabotage the peace negotiations with the MILF.

Amado said Aquino sent a personal message to his maternal uncle belying an earlier report suggesting the Cojuangco couple had a hand in the standoff in Sabah and the perceived plan to derail the peace talks with the MILF.

“Uncle Joe, we are looking for who is instigating them. Neither you nor Aunt Ting have been mentioned in any report to me,” Amado quoted the President in the letter.

‘Let’s see what happens’

Malacañang, however, cannot say yet if there will be a breakthrough in the current standoff as emissaries continue to talk for a peaceful resolution.

“Let’s see what happens this weekend,” Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office Secretary Ricky Carandang said.

President Aquino confirmed the government was talking to the Kirams, who had been calling on the administration to help them reclaim Sabah.

There had been information circulating that former national security adviser Norberto Gonzales went to Sabah but Malacañang would not comment.

Gonzales, according to highly placed sources, is being seen as one of those orchestrating the standoff.

Lawmakers led by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte expressed optimism that the standoff would be resolved peacefully.

Belmonte said the Philippines and the Malaysian government are sincere in resolving the incident without bloodshed.

Zamboanga City Rep. Ma. Isabelle Climaco, on the other hand, said there is historical claim on the Sabah issue, but diplomacy must be used to effect a peaceful resolution.

“Diplomatic channels have to be used through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). We do not want an escalation of tensions in our borders thus, exercise all means for a peaceful resolution,” Climaco said.

Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, a former justice secretary, also supported diplomatic means to resolve the Sabah claim issue and the current standoff.

“There should be a diplomatic deal with Malaysia regarding dealing with the men of the Sulu Sultanate and at the same time talk with the Sultan to help avoid a drastic situation,” he said.

Datumanong said the government could find some people who have access to Sultan Kiram and talk to him.

Former President Fidel Ramos also called for a peaceful resolution of the standoff in Sabah.

“It will affect not only the Philippines but also Malaysia. They are having elections. So let us try to resolve it peacefully,” Ramos said.

Followers of the Sultan, however, called for more support to their compatriots holed out in Sabah.

Paramount Sultan Ibrahim Bahjin Shakirullah II of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo (now Sabah) said in a statement last Thursday that they supported the Royal Army members in asserting their rights as the people of the Sultanate of Sulu.

Shakirullah said they have already sent word through their emissaries appealing to his people in Sabah to give moral, economic, logistic and any other form of help to their brothers as a gesture of unity among the people of the sultanate.

The military, on the other hand, has intensified naval operations at the sea border of the Philippines and Malaysia in support of the security efforts to contain the standoff.

Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin said a naval blockade has been established near Tawi-Tawi to prevent undocumented Filipinos from going to Sabah as the standoff continues.

But the MNLF warned the naval blockade imposed by the military would only ignite the Tausugs of Mindanao to support and defend their brother Muslims in Sabah.

“The more (of the naval blockade), the entire Mindanao will unite,” MNLF spokesman Emmanuel Fontanilla said.

Sultan Kiram also issued an appeal to the Malaysian authorities not to take drastic steps that would harm his followers now holed up in Lahad Datu,

The MNLF leadership also raised the same appeal. –Jaime Laude, Paolo Romero, Mike Frialde, Pia Lee-Brago - source

Read More

Rosario seeks extension for Sulu army’s exit from Sabah

Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario has asked the Malaysian government to extend until February 26 the deadline for the royal army of Sulu sultanate to leave Sabah, it has been learned.

A Filipino soldier stands guard on the deck of a seacraft as it patrols the port of Jolo, Sulu province in southern Philippines yesterday, after tighter security was imposed in the area.

“(I) have requested (an) extension of the deadline to Tuesday from the (Malaysian foreign minister) in view of (the) work still in progress,” he said in a text message.

Del Rosario said that he will have to wait for a response from the Malaysian government and reiterated the Department of Foreign Affairs’ (DFA) earlier call to the armed group to leave the town of Lahad Datu in Sabah “as early as possible.”

“We are urging the group to peacefully withdraw . . . we are doing this in cooperation with the Malaysian government. If we need more time, we will endeavor to seek another extension,” del Rosario added.

Early this week, reports emerged that the Malaysian government would no longer negotiate with the Philippine government nor with the royal army of Sulu sultanate that arrived in Sabah over a week ago, to claim in what they refer to as their “ancestral homeland.”

Some 200 followers of Sulu sultan Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram arrived in Malaysia-controlled Sabah to lay claim on the island.

Meanwhile, Philippine defence and military officials are working overtime with their Malaysian counterparts to help reach an amicable settlement in the Sabah standoff without a single shot being fired.

“Right now, General Emmanuel Bautista (Armed Forces of the Philippines chief of staff), is talking with General Tan Sri Zulkifli Zainal Abidin, the chief of defence force, (while) I’m in touch with (Dr Ahmad Bin) Hamidi, defence minister, and we have agreed that this should be solved amicably and peacefully without any violence whatsoever,” Defence Secretary Voltaire Gazmin said.

Gazmin said that the two military chiefs are also closely coordinating and having a continuous exchange of information in securing the porous border between Mindanao and Sabah.The Philippine Navy has deployed six ships and an islander plane in the vast Sulu Sea, particularly in the vicinity of the provinces of Tawi-Tawi, Basilan and Sulu to prevent other Tausog warriors, supporters and relatives of the sultan of Sulu from crossing over to Sabah. The Malaysian Navy has also done the same.

Sabah is a contested territory of the Philippines and Malaysia, though Manila’s claim to it has remained dormant for years.Sabah was believed to have been leased to the British North Borneo Co by the sultanate of Sulu in the late 1800s, but Great Britain officially transferred the island to Malaysia in 1963.

The sultanate of Sulu claims that the transfer was a violation of the leasing agreement. Moreover, although Kuala Lumpur maintains its ownership of the island, its embassy in Manila reportedly continues to pay the heirs of the sultan of Sulu 70,000 pesos yearly.

Malacañang has vowed to uphold the Philippines’ interest in its claims to Sabah.

“From the beginning of this incident the administration has been working quietly with the Malaysian government and the Kiram family to peacefully resolve this standoff,” Palace deputy spokesman Abigail Valte said.

Valte also reiterated President Benigno Aquino’s position that “there is a team looking at the historical and legal context of the Sabah claim and that this would be dealt with at the proper time . . . under the correct conditions, in a way that upholds the national interests and does not jeopardise the relationship with (Malaysia).” - source

Read More

Reprieve for Pinoys in Sabah

The Sulu sultan’s “royal army” in North Borneo got a reprieve as the Philippine and Malaysian governments adopted a wait-and-see stance on the standoff in Lahad Datu town in Sabah that entered second week on Saturday.

Muslims at the Golden Mosque in Quiapo district of Manila on Saturday express their support to Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III and followers who are Sabah in press for their claim.

The Malaysian government did not take any action in the remote village of Kampung Tanduo although the Filipinos insisted on staying in the forested area beyond the Friday deadline set by Kuala Lumpur.

“While there is a standoff, all the parties concerned have expressed commitment and desire to have this end peacefully,” said Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte in an interview over state-owned dzRB radio.

She said the Department of Foreign Affairs had yet to receive word from Kuala Lumpur regarding the four-day extension Manila requested from Malaysian security forces, but Malaysian Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein told journalists in Malaysia that he had been informed of Manila’s request for an extension, but he said the Malaysian foreign minister will be the one to decide the matter.

“Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman just called me this morning and I told him I would leave it (the extension) for Wisma Putra (the foreign ministry) to decide,” Hishamuddin was quoted as saying by Malaysia’s New Straits Times.

“If there is a request to extend the deadline, do not extend it for too long as there is a limit to it in our quest of safeguarding our own country,” he added.

At the same time, Valte said Malacañang Palace has rejected a proposal of the Moro National Liberation Front to send peacekeepers to Sabah because all parties involved had “conveyed preference to have situation resolved peacefully.”

On Friday, Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin also said their government is aiming for a peaceful solution, adding that it was important to resolve the issue without bloodshed.

The group of around 200 Filipinos, some of whom are armed, arrived in Sabah on February 9 and refused to leave, claiming that they were followers of the Sultan of Sulu who owned Sabah. They were promptly surrounded by Malaysian security forces and a standoff ensued.

Malaysian security forces have adopted a cautious wait-and-see stance in the ongoing standoff, but the standoff has taken a political color in Malaysia which is expected to hold general elections not later than June 27.

At the same time, the Philippines has deployed six naval ships to Tawi-Tawi to prevent other Filipinos from crossing the sea border.

President Aquino had earlier asked the armed group to give up peacefully because their actions may lead to a confrontation, but the group rebuffed the request. - source

Read More

Sabah issue: A transaction gone awry

IT is a case of a real-estate transaction that has gone awry. Malaysia, the supposed lessee, has been paying the same rent since 1878 for its occupation of the North Bornean state of Sabah. The supposed owner, the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo, which is represented by the Kiram family, its heirs, is left to receive a pittance in what appears to be a “betrayal of Islam.”

The owner wants to kick out the lessee out of Sabah to claim what it defines as its rightful piece of real-estate property, but Malaysia would not move an inch.

As Malaysia earns billions of dollars from what the heirs define as its “illegal occupation” of Sabah, the Philippines, which is supposed to represent the heirs after the Sultanate has ceded its sovereignty over Sabah in 1962, has been lukewarm to pursue its claim of sovereignty over the North Bornean state.

Malacañang’s timidity over the last five decades—as shown by the failure of the administrations of Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and, now, Benigno Aquino III to raise before the appropriate forum—has been so disturbing and frustrating for the heirs and many Filipinos, who think that the Philippines is on the right track of history to pursue its claim of sovereignty over Sabah.

Meanwhile, the heirs have made it known that the issue of sovereignty over Sabah is for Manila and Kuala Lumpur to discuss and settle. All they want is to receive their rightful share of the bounty, which Malaysia enjoys since 1963, when the British government has ceded to the Malaysian Federation the sovereignty over Sabah.

In brief, the reported standoff between 100 fully armed Filipinos, who said they represent the Sultanate, and the Sabahan authorities in the remote village of Lahad Datu in Sabah could have been avoided. Had the two governments sat and tried to settle it, the heirs and their followers could have taken diplomacy as the road to settle the controversy.

But it is something that is not meant to be settled over the negotiating table. Malaysia is bent on ignoring the Sabah claim; the Philippines, to keep it dormant. The let-the-old-dog-lie attitude of Manila is tantamount to jettisoning the claim of sovereignty over Sabah, which Kuala Lumpur may perceive as virtual abandonment.

Bone of contention

THE country’s claim of sovereignty over Sabah is based on historic rights. In 1658 the then-Sultan of Brunei gave as “gifts” the territories of Sabah and Palawan to the Sultan of Sulu for the latter’s effort to quell a civil war in Borneo against the Sultanate of Brunei.

But the bone of contention is the lease agreement, which then-Sultan of Sulu Jamalul Kiram I entered into in 1878 with a British company of Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent. The lease accord allows the British firm to use Sabah, but prohibits its transfer to another nation or company without the consent of the Sultanate of Sulu.

Great Britain’s transfer of Sabah to Malaysia, a former colony that gained its independence in 1963, has been described as a violation of the lease agreement. The Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo was never consulted.

Then-President Diosdado Macapagal had lodged the official Philippine claim of sovereignty over Sabah and suggested its litigation and resolution before an international forum like the International Court of Justice. Kuala Lumpur has been ignoring the Sabah claim.

The heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu had claimed that Great Britain used to pay rent equivalent to $1,500 annually since 1878. Malaysia has continued this practice of paying the same rent since 1963, indicating Malaysia’s unstated acknowledgment of the Sultanate’s ownership—and proprietary rights—over Sabah.

Malaysia has never denied it has been paying the $1,500 annual rent, but it has described it as “cession money,” a questionable phrase because of the lease pact used the term padjak, or rent. This has sparked controversy, too.

On September 12, 1962, the Sultanate of Sulu, represented by Sultan Muhammad Esmail Kiram, had officially ceded to the Philippine government its sovereignty over Sabah, enabling Manila to lodge its claim. The cession document does not include any surrender of the heirs’ proprietary right or ownership of Sabah.

The heirs said through a spokesman that they did not in any way favor any invasion or violence to pursue the claim over Sabah, but said they were open for the renegotiation of the 1878 lease accord to enable the heirs and Manila to get what he described as a “fair share” of what Malaysia has been earning from Sabah.

Complications

THEN-PRESIDENT Ferdinand Marcos attempted to continue the Sabah claim, which his predecessor did, but then-Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr.’s disclosure of the Jabidah massacre compromised his efforts, leading to an indefinite suspension of the claim. This raised some complications over the issue, which could have been settled by the exercise of soft diplomacy, or negotiations.

In his 1969 privilege speech, Aquino revealed “Operation Jabidah,” an alleged secret 1968 plan “to infiltrate” Sabah with Filipino Muslim soldiers, who would foment chaos and disorder to hasten Manila’s takeover of Sabah. Aquino disclosed the alleged murder of Muslim soldiers, who were supposed to take part in the invasion.

The magnitude of Aquino’s revelation has forced Malaysia to adopt an elaborate national security plan that has identified the Philippines as a potential enemy and invader. Since then, Manila has hardly raised the Sabah claim. It was not exactly known what prompted Marcos to devise this alleged plot, although some latter-day historians were beginning to express doubt on its veracity.

Meanwhile, Kuala Lumpur has been successfully brandishing what it has dubbed as the “Asean [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] solidarity” card in easing Manila’s claim over timber-, minerals- and oil-rich Sabah, located about a thousand kilometers from the Malayan peninsula.

The solidarity of the 10-nation Asean should not be derailed or compromised by the Sabah claim. It is a card to which Manila has acquiesced over the decades.

Ironically, former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, whose father initiated the claim as a lawmaker and later as president, never raised it during her nine-year incumbency and even during her earlier stint in the Senate. The same thing happened with her predecessors, who avoided the issue like plague for no apparent reason.

The heirs were vocal enough to say that they were willing to give a huge part of the escalated rent to the national coffers.

Current Philippine President Aquino was being urged by lawmakers, including Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and Quezon City Rep. Winston Castelo, to restate in clear and unequivocal terms the official state policy on the Philippine claim of sovereignty over Sabah. But judging from the recent historical antecedents and his actuations, this is essentially a long shot. Mr. Aquino even cavalierly described as “dormant” the Sabah claim.

In 2009 the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) has pledged loyalty and support to the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo, which, although it has become archaic as a political unit, continues to enjoy the support and respect among Filipino Muslims, especially the Tausog ethnic community in Mindanao.

The pledge of support provides the Sultanate with a military arm that could—and would—support its heirs’ claim over Sabah. The fully armed men in the recent Sabah standoff are reputedly MNLF members.

Further complications

THIS recent development does not jibe with the decision of the Aquino administration to pursue political settlement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), MNLF’s rival, in Kuala Lumpur. The peace talks between the two parties were held under Malaysia’s auspices, giving rise to further complications.

But Mr. Aquino is noted for taking hard decisions even to the consternation of other powerful parties. When pushed, he could navigate new grounds. But he is not likely to open a new front of conflict since the Philippines is still embroiled with China over the disputed territories in the South China Sea.

The MILF, for its part, has been saying that it did consult the Kiram family on the issue of its political settlement with the Philippine government. Since 2009, the Kirams, however, kept on opposing Kuala Lumpur’s choice as the venue of the peace talks, arguing that the Sabah claim should be considered a stumbling block to the bilateral relations of the two countries.

Magnitude of claim

GIVEN the magnitude of the heirs’ claim of proprietary right over Sabah, President Aquino has no choice but to revive the Sabah claim. But his tack should be to entice Malaysia to the negotiating table to talk about a new mode of rent, where the heirs would be properly compensated.

Malaysia has no choice but to negotiate, too, because of an emerging secessionist movement among Sabahans, who want independence for Sabah. If it refuses, it suffers the consequence of being ostracized in the community of nations. Even its allies among the Islamic nations would be unhappy if it refuses to listen to overtures of a peaceful settlement.

Mr. Aquino may also be left with no choice but to discuss and settle for a realistic rent for Sabah, of which a part should go to the heirs, who, although they live in poverty in Mindanao, have renounced violence and opted for renegotiations of the 1878 pact on Sabah lease, and a bigger part, to the Philippine government.

The new rent could be between $1 billion and $3 billion. This is very far from the token amount of $1,500 annually. Even the heirs have been open to the idea of using a big amount of the rent for Mindanao’s economic development.

Otherwise, the “symbolic occupation” of the North Bornean state or any of its variations will recur to the complete embarrassment of the Philippine and Malaysian governments. The heirs and their supporters have done it. There is no reason to believe it could not do it again—just to keep the issue alive and become a regional or global controversy. - source

Read More

Claiming Sabah is a quixotic thing to do

Last week, 12 February 2013, there was a stand-off in Lahad Datu in Sabah, Malaysia where 400 persons including 20-40 who were armed have infiltrated the town of Lahad Datu in behalf of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III of the former Sultanate of Sulu on the basis that North Borneo or Sabah is in the dominion of the former Sultanate of Sulu and the recently signed peace deal between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or MILF, appeared to have isolated that deal, prompted the decision to send the men to Sabah this month.

They were given until Tuesday or 26 February to withdraw from Sabah and return to Sulu but the Sultan has been consistent not to do so because the Malaysian government is still paying yearly rental dues to them as a result of the 1878 lease agreement between the British North Borneo Company and the Sultanate of Sulu.

The Sabah sovereignty dispute between the Philippines representing the Sultanate of Sulu and Malaysia should be traced back in 1878 when an agreement between the British North Borneo Company represented by Alfred Dent and Baron von Overback and the Sultanate of Sulu, which stipulated that North Borneo be which stipulated that North Borneo was either ceded or leased (depending on translation used) to the British syndicate in return for payment of 5000 Malayan Dollar per year. The dispute on whether the Sultanate of Sulu leased or ceded North Borneo to the British North Borneo Company has been in contentious dispute until now because different interpretations of the American, British, Dutch, and Spanish interpretations of the word “padjak” where all of them expect the British interpreted to mean as “rent” or ”arrendamiento” while the British interpreted as “grant or cede”.

The dispute has become a complicated ones when the Spanish colonial government in Manila, where the Sultanate of Sulu had belong as a protectorate after the Treaty of 1851, relinquished all claim to North Borneo which had belong to the Sultanate in the past through the Madrid Protocol of 1885.

21 years later in 1906, the American colonial government, who was controlling the Philippine archipelago including Sulu after they ousted the Spaniards 8 years before, formally reminded Great Britain that North Borneo did not belong to the Crown and was still part of the Sultanate of Sulu. However, the British did turn Sabah into a Crown Colony in 1946. American reminders were denied on the basis that the Sultanate of Sulu was a mere protectorate of Spanish East Indies based in Manila during the signing of the Madrid Protocol in 1885 while they asserted that the Spain never acquired sovereignty over North Borneo.

This ambiguity has been passed to our Philippine government through the promulgation of the 1935 constitution which states that the national territory of the Philippines included, among other things, “all other areas which belong to the Philippines on the basis of historical rights or legal claims” as a weapon to claim North Borneo.

Malaysia asserted its claim on North Borneo after the British left in 1963 and the residents were decided through a UN-supervised referendum on whether to be a part with the Federation of Malaysia or with the Republic of the Philippines and when the results were announced, Sabahans chose to be a part with the former.

A year before the Federation of Malayan States, during the presidency of President Diosdado Macapagal, the former Sultanate of Sulu ceded its rights on claiming North Borneo to the Republic of the Philippines, thus gave the Philippines an authority to claim Sabah unsuccessfully from Great Britain. The Philippines broke diplomatic relations with Malaysia after the federation had included Sabah in 1963 but probably resumed it unofficially through the Manila Accord.

The Philippines tried to claim Sabah through force through forming a number of Moro Muslim recruits to train for the invasion of Sabah which was not executed as most of the recruits were massacred during their training in Corregidor attempting to escape the training led by military handlers according to some accounts. The massacre became the root cause of Moro discontent against the Philippine government from Marcos up to the present time.

I think the reason on why Sabah is not ours was because the Spaniards were too late of consolidating their control on the Philippine archipelago including Sabah and when the Spaniards gained sovereignty over the Sulu and Sabah for a short period of time, the British, Germans, Austrians, and even Americans were already looking to control the then-Sultanate of Sulu and as Spain did not have enough money or manpower to control the then-Sultanate of Sulu, they had to relinquish Sabah in exchange for the sovereignty of Sulu archipelago. When the Americans wanted to claim Sabah in 1906 and 1920, it was way too late to claim it. Also, the Philippine government was way too late of pursuing to claim Sabah. Therefore, Sabah’s exclusion from the Philippines was a product of Spanish Empire’s long decline of its prominence to the British Empire, who economically and militarily controlled the world when Spain gave up its control on Sabah.

I don’t think making foolish military actions to claim Sabah to us would gather sympathy to the Sabahans and in fact, the recent stand-off further scared the motives of the Sultanate of Sulu and the Philippines on claiming Sabah. We don’t have even an enough military technology and manpower to assert our claims on Sabah against the Malaysians, how much more of making a sensible military actions to claim Sabah?

We should not sacrifice our relations not just with Malaysia but also with the rest of ASEAN on claiming Sabah in a foolish way. We need to befriend all of them though a greater economic and political integration where if the latter achieves sometime in the future, it would be easier for the Filipinos to live and work in Sabah under the ASEAN supranation umbrella like what most European Union member states under the Schengen Area where the Germans can live and work in France or vice versa without barriers.

If we want to pursue our claims on Sabah, we have to clean our own backyard first like improving the lives of the Filipinos into Malaysian levels or greater than of that so that the people of Sabah will insinuate to be part of our country. - source

Read More

The Malampaya Project: The Big Picture

The discovery of an alternative and indigenous source of energy was a milestone event for the Philippines, a country that has historically relied on imported fuel for the bulk of its domestic and industrial power requirements.

The Malampaya Deep Water Gas-to-Power project is one of the largest and most significant industrial endeavors in Philippine history. A joint undertaking of the Philippine national government and the private sector, the project is spearheaded by the Philippine Department of Energy (DOE) developed and operated by Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. (SPEX) on behalf of joint venture partners Chevron Malampaya LLC and the PNOC Exploration Corporation.

A STORY OF POWER

The Malampaya story is a story of resilience, perseverance, and innovation spanning over a decade. In 1989, a small gas reservoir called Camago was discovered in the area of service contract 38 (SC 38). In 1990, upon acquisition of a 50% participating interest in SC38, SPEX joined the search for natural gas reserves. Two years later, the Malampaya gas field was discovered, and was later found to be connected to the Camago structure.

SPEX drilled five wells to determine the amount of gas available in Malampaya. The findings confirmed the presence of a formidable power source 80 kilometers northwest of Palawan island–about 2.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves and 85 million barrels of condensate, located some 3,000 meters below sea level. In 1995, after comprehensive studies, it was concluded that Malampaya presented an extraordinary opportunity for commercial gas development in the Philippines.

The development of Malampaya posed a myriad of daunting logistical, social, environmental, and financial challenges. It required the active participation and involvement of government agencies, communities, and both Filipino and multinational companies. The DOE played a key role in making Malampaya a reality.

In 1998, former President Fidel V. Ramos signed the declaration of commerciality of the venture. Three-and-a-half years later, in October 2001, the Malampaya Deep Water Gas-to-Power Project was inaugurated in a special ceremony at the onshore gas plant in Batangas.

Read More

Malampaya Gas Consortium Pays $1.1B Royalties

The Malampaya consortium on Thursday paid the government $1.1 billion in royalties from the deep water gas-to-power project in offshore Palawan.

A symbolic check was presented by the Malampaya joint venture partners, led by Shell Philippines Exploration Corp., to Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima.

“Malampaya continues to benefit the country by providing much needed government revenue, and clean energy to power the lives of millions of Filipinos,” said SPEX managing director Sebastian Quiniones.

The consortium intends to pursue the development of the Malampaya gasfield by drilling two more product wells and installing a second platform for additional compressors, Quiniones noted.

The Malampaya gas field supplies 2,700 megawatts or 45 percent of Luzon’s power requirements.

A joint venture of the national government and private sector partners under Service Contract No. 38, the project is spearheaded by the Department of Energy with lead partner SPEX as developer and operator on behalf of Chevron Malampaya LLC and PNOC Exploration Corporation.

Read More

5 Heartburn Prevention Tips

To Heartburn Prevention, dr.T.Bahdar Johan, Sp.PD, an expert in diseases of Bintaro International Hospital, suggested a few tips. It is not an absolute tips apply to all people because each individual has a situation and a different body condition.

1. Watch lunchtime

This applies especially to people who have stomach acid disorders. Eating late can cause interference in the stomach or stomach acid to rise into the chest area. This is why many people feel the heat inside.

2. Beware of food that is too hot or cold

Foods that are too hot or cold can interfere with the digestive system. Human digestive system to work at a certain temperature limits. Hot foods may interfere with the excess mucus layer that lines the digestive tract. Foods that are too cold will also make the digestive system to shrink, making the process of digestion.

3. Watch Menu Foods

Hot foods and fried often cause injury or irritation of the throat. Inflammation will cause heartburn symptoms. Too much oil in the diet is not good for digestion and throat.

4. Regular exercise

Heartburn symptoms can occur because of fatigue. With exercise, body condition can be trained and better maintained. Endurance or stamina will increase, so do not easily affected by heat in the body condition was too tired.

5. Manage stress

Today many people are complaining in the heat stress. Stress can lower the immune system, also disrupt hormones mealtimes and body.

Read More

Sapphire Radeon HD 6850 Snap Review

Thanks to the shift in pricing that followed the the AMD HD 68xx series, the HD 6850 has come into its own more in the intervening months. Now available for as little as £132, it's about the same price as the GTX 460, and just about had it pipped to the post in most of our benchmarking suite.

Like the HD 6870 before it, it's based on the same Barts GPU, a reworking of the GPU at the heart of AMD's last generation of DirectX 11 graphics cards, the HD 58xx series. In real terms, though, this card was brought in to replace the excellent HD 5770, despite what the naming structure may have you believe.

For the price it gives fantastic performance numbers, mostly thanks to AMD's driver team. At launch, this card was looking off the pace compared to Nvidia's GTX 460, especially in 1GB trim. Today, though, the driver-level tweaks mean that it outperformed the GTX 460 in all but the Nvidia-favouring benchmarks such as DiRT 2.

The more the merrier

The impressive performance only gets better when you add a second card in CrossFire. Thanks to the ubiquitous nature of CrossFire-capable motherboards, pretty much anyone with a vaguely modern mobo can enjoy AMD's multi-GPU technology.

For a reasonable £264 outlay for a pair of HD 6850s, that's looking like a safe bet for anyone who would have gone for a GTX 460 SLI setup but found themselves stuck with a non-SLI board. In CrossFire, you're looking at the sort of performance that could show up a GTX 580 at the standard resolutions. For this cash, that's incredible.

Benchmarks

DirectX 11 tessellation performance
Heaven 2.5 FPS: Higher is better
Single: 11.6
SLI: 23

DirectX 11 gaming performance
Metro 2033 FPS: Higher is better
Single: 2
SLI: 3

DirectX 11 gaming performance
Aliens vs. Predator FPS: Higher is better
Single: 15
SLI: 30

DirectX 11 gaming performance
Lost Planet 2 FPS: Higher is better
Single: 17
SLI: 31

DirectX 11 gaming performance
DiRT 2 FPS: Higher is better
Single: 39
SLI: 73

DirectX 10 gaming performance
Just Cause 2 FPS: Higher is better
Single: 21
SLI: 41

Being able to top 30fps in Metro 2033 at 1,680 x 1,050, in full DX11 mode, with 4x antialiasing, is little short of astonishing. The GTX 460, while a sterling value proposition, is left lagging behind a pair of HD 6850s, especially in the increasingly-important DX11 gaming benchmarks.

It is a little pricier than the GTX 460, but with the increased number of CrossFire-compatible mobos compared with SLI-certified boards, the HD 6850 pair has to take the win. It's not the overclocking monster the cheaper GXT 460 is, but there's a little more juice you can squeeze out, putting it almost on the same level.

There's also the fact that you can keep adding in more cards all the way up to four-way CrossFireX (should you have a PSU with more PCIe connectors than the great lord Cthulu has tentacles). With the competing Nvidia card, you're restricted to two-way SLI. That may not be a huge problem considering the diminished returns from going above two GPUs, but it still gives you the option to add to an existing setup.

The HD 5850 could cause issues for the HD 6850, performing more in line with the HD 6870s higher up the pecking order. Still, as a bargain board with multi-GPU leanings, the HD 6850 is attractive. - source

Read More

Health Benefits of Melon

You may often underestimate the melon you eat. In fact, cheap fruit that contains many unusual properties as disease prevention. Approximately 95% of meat contains water melon, which can give a sense of cool and soothing effect. Because the character of refreshing melon can relieve heartburn in the stomach. Melon contains vitamin A, B and C and contains protein, calcium and phosphorus. Mineral content in melon can even eliminate the acidity of the body and have healing properties constipation. The acidity of the body should be removed because it would interfere with digestion, especially in the stomach organ.

Melon Nutritional was 15.00 mg of calcium; 25.00 mg of phosphorus; 0.5 mg iron; 34 mg vitamin C, 640 mg IU Vitamin A; and 0.03 mg of Vitamin B1. Melon contains an anticoagulant called adenosine, which could stop the clotting of blood cells that can lead to stroke or heart disease. Meanwhile, the carotenoid content high melon can prevent cancer and reduce the risk of lung cancer because it is the main compound attackers cancer.

The melon has a very good diuretic that can cure kidney disease and severe eczema disease and acute. When combined with lemon, it can crush the melon uric acid diseases. So you'll want to eat the melon on a regular basis once a day in the morning.

Thus, the benefits of melon for our body's health is:
1. As an anticancer.
2. Exhaust system helps to prevent constipation.
3. Reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke.
4. Prevent blood clotting.
5. Reduce the risk of kidney disease.
6. Eczema cure.
7. Prevent and cure heartburn.

Read More

The Philippine Claim to North Borneo: A Statement of Facts

The Philippine Claim to North Borneo: A Statement of Facts
By Senator Jovito Salonga

THE NORTH BORNEO QUESTION

There is ample justification, I believe, for the statement that emotionalism has beclouded and confused the North Borneo question. There are Filipinos who summarily adopt the my-country-right-or-wrong attitude; in specific terms, they tell us, “Let us have North Borneo by all means,” little realizing that by such a hasty, imprudent posture they render no little disservice to the very cause they propose to champion.

At the other end of the line are the faint-hearted souls who cherish a host of vague, nameless fears, and who have not stopped imagining the catastrophic, nuclear wars into which the Philippines would be drawn should it so much as attempt to press the claim to North Borneo, regardless of the merit or validity of such a claim. Responsible quarters confess to no little measure of amusement over the unrestrained enthusiasm, on the one hand, of home-grown nationalists in supporting claims — without adequate study of their validity — of sister countries in Asia over territories held by Western powers, and their unconcealed dread, on the other hand, in espousing a claim — without the slightest inquiry into its possible merit — over a portion of the globe’s surface which may belong as a matter of law and equity to Filipinos.

A good number of friends have asked me to deliver what they call an “impassioned speech” on the question, but I had felt that the time was not ripe and that the whole issue should be studied in an atmosphere of dispassion and restraint. I felt and still feel that the restoration of prudence and sobriety in the conduct of our foreign policy is a matter of cardinal importance. In the language of one world statesman, foreign policy is not only what we do, but how we do it.

If the Philippine claim to North Borneo is valid, we should — despite our standing as a young, physically weak nation — institute and press the claim in accordance with the accepted peaceful modes of settlement prescribed by international law and procedure. If, despite the assumed knowledge of the validity and justice of the Philippine claim, we fold our arms in mortal fear, we should lose not merely the respect of all law-abiding nations (the United Kingdom and the Asian countries in particular), but also a considerable measure of self-respect — which, to my mind, is more important — and, by our own inaction and timidity, lose our faith in the ultimate validity of that which is right and just.

If, on the other hand, we come to the conclusion that the Philippine claim is without basis, then we should say so and let the British Government know our stand. Such candor and probity will undoubtedly inspire the respect of the entire free world.

It is partly because of the well known regard of the British Government for the rule of law, and partly because of our deep-seated respect for the British institutions of law and order, that I have requested the Department of Foreign Affairs to make a careful, thoroughgoing study of the question and, if morally convinced of the merit of the Philippine claim, to institute and prosecute this claim through all peaceful processes, including diplomatic negotiations, good offices, commission of inquiry, arbitration, or resort to the International Court of Justice.

There need be no fear of breach of amicable relations between the United Kingdom and the Philippines. Both are members in good standing of the United Nations; both are committed to the rule of law and to the necessity of maintaining a society of free men. On the other hand, the peaceful solution of the North Borneo question may well be a distinct Anglo-Philippine contribution, so sorely needed at a time such as this, where instead of a precarious equilibrium of terror as a temporary stabilizing factor in international relations, there should emerge more instances of healthy respect for law and for more voluntary arrangements among nations so that the moral force of right may be made to prevail over the right of might.

Friendly countries will therefore understand why the Filipinos view with deep concern any move on the part of the United Kingdom, in advance of the institution of such a claim, to render academic the North Borneo question through extra-legal means. For instance, a dispatch from Kuala Lumpur. Malaya, published in the New York Times issue of February 7, 1962. states and I quote:

“KUALA LUMPUR, Malaya, Feb. 6. — A political merger under a strong central government has been recommended by the Malaysian Solidarity Committee.

”The five-state merger would create a federation of Malaya, Singapore Island — which is linked to Malaya by a three-quarter mile causeway — and the Northern Borneo territories of Sarawak, Brunei and British North Borneo.

“A British and Malayan commission, headed by Lord Cobbold, former Governor of the Bank of England, is due to arrive in Borneo soon to inquire into public opinion in Sarawak and British North Borneo concerning the merger. Both are crown colonies. Brunei is a British protectorate, and its Government will deal directly with the Federation of Malaya and with London.”

One may well inquire: — why this plan of a merger at a time such as this? At any rate, and without considering such a development, let us consider the facts.

1 . There is no controversy regarding one historical fact: namely, that in 1850, the Sultan of Brunei, in gratitude for the aid he received during war from the Sultan of Sulu, ceded North Borneo to the latter.

II. In January, 1878, the Sultan of Sulu entered into an agreement with two representatives of a private British company, namely, Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent. It is at this point where controversy arises.

There are, to be sure, several versions of the agreement and quite a number of translations of said agreement. One group of heirs of the Sultan of Sulu submitted a certified translation of a Spanish text of the agreement, dated January 4, 1878, which in turn is a translation of the original in Arabic. Under this document, the Sultan of Sulu merely concluded a contract of lease with Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent, and granted to Mr. Overbeck the title of “Datto Padajara Rajah de Sandakan” as long as he might live, with the right to levy taxes on the said land, exploit its ores, forest products and animals, administer justice and collect dues and taxes from the traders of said towns.

There are also in the files of the Department of Foreign Affairs several English translations (Conklin translation; Saleeby translation on the “History of Sulu” pp. 225-233; Decision of High Court of Borneo citing translation in “Treaties and Engagements affecting the Malay States,” by Maxwell and Gibson), which invariably use the terms “lease,’ “cede” and “grant.”

On the other hand, a document purporting to be the British text of the agreement, kept in the files of the British North Borneo Company in London, would seem to show that the Sultan of Sulu ceded and granted to Overbeck and Dent on January 22, 1878,

“all the rights and powers belonging to me over all the territories and lands being tributary to us on the mainland on the Island of Borneo”

in consideration of a yearly compensation of 5,000 dollars, together “with all other powers and rights usually exercised by and belonging to Sovereign Rulers, and which we hereby delegate to him of our own free and sovereign will.”

III. On November 1, 1881, the British Government granted a Charter to the British North Borneo Company which, after a recital of the terms of agreement between the Sultan of Sulu and the two representatives of the Company, empowered the Company to acquire full benefit of the said “grant” and “benefits.” Accordingly, Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent turned over their rights to the British North Borneo Company, which continued paying the stipulated 5,000 Malayan dollars.

IV. In 1915, Governor Frank Carpenter, head of the Mindanao and Sulu division of the Philippine Government, defined the stand of the United States vis-a-vis the Sultan’s temporal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the territories of the Sultanate beyond American jurisdiction, particularly those in North Borneo. He stated and I quote:

“It is necessary, however, that there be clearly of official record the fact that the termination of the temporal sovereignty of the Sultanate of Sulu within the American territory is understood to be wholly without prejudice or effect as to the temporal sovereignty and ecclesiastical authority of the Sultanate beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. Government, especially with reference to that portion of the Island of Borneo which as a dependency of the Sultanate of Sulu is understood to be held under lease by the chartered company (known) as the British North Borneo Company.”

V. In 1939. a group of heirs of the Sultan filed suit in the court of North Borneo against the Government of North Borneo and the British North Borneo Company for the recovery of the stipulated annual payments. Both defendants admitted their obligation to pay, the only issue being — in view of reported dispute among the heirs — to whom payment was to be made. The High Court of the State of North Borneo, through Chief Justice Macaskie, rendered judgment in favor of the heirs on December 18, 1939.

Crucial Question:

VI. On July 10, 1946, six days after the Philippines became independent, the British Government, by virtue of an alleged agreement between the Secretary of State for the colonies and the British North Borneo Company dated June 6, 1946 — whereby the Company “have transferred and ceded all the said rights, powers and interests to the Crown with effect from the 15th day of July, 1946, to the intent that the Crown should, as from that day, have full sovereign rights over, and title to, the territory of the State of North Borneo, and that the said territory, should thereupon become part of His Majesty’s dominions” — announced, by what is now known as the “North Borneo Cession Order,” that from the 15th day of July, 1946, “the State of North Borneo shall be annexed to and shall form part of His Majesty’s dominions and shall be called, together with the Settlement of Labuan and its dependencies, the Colony of North Borneo.”

VII. On February 26, 1947, former Governor General Francis Burton Harrison (as Special Adviser on Foreign Affairs to the Philippine Government), in a special report to the President of the Philippines, considered this an act of political aggression, “which should be promptly repudiated by the Government,” since it was done by the British Government “unilaterally and without special notice to the Sultanate of Sulu nor consideration of their legal rights.” He added:

“The proposal to lay the case before the United Nations should bring the whole matter before the bar of public opinion.

“Never in history has there been given any people such an opportunity to secure justice by an appeal to the enlightened conscience of mankind.”

VIII. In 1957, the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu issued a proclamation declaring the termination of the lease contract over the territory in question effective January 22, 1958. This declaration was served on the British Government. Since then, the heirs have made claims upon the British Government for the return of the territory, but their claims have been disregarded.

The crucial question, then, is one of ownership: Is ownership vested in the United Kingdom? Does the Philippines have any right to claim North Borneo?

In discussing this, I have taken careful note of the statements of the highest British officials and considered the views of English authorities on international law. In this way, we avoid pointless controversy since the British Government cannot possibly dispute, under the principle of estoppel, its own official stand. There may be a lot of wrangling over what is the authentic version of the agreement of 1878, but there can be no debate on the official British stand on that agreement.

At the time the agreement was entered into in 1878, the British North Borneo Company had no legal personality whatever. It was incorporated by Royal Charter only on November 1, 1881. It is important to note this, since admittedly in 1878, North Borneo was not under the territorial supremacy of any member of the Family of Nations.

Overbeck and Dent, therefore, acquired rights over North Borneo merely as private individuals and no more. Their purported acquisition of territory and “sovereignty” was therefore beyond the pale of International Law. Did the incorporation by Royal Charter of the British North Borneo Company in 1881 create a trading company with sovereign rights — even from the English viewpoint — over North Borneo?

This was the very bone of contention between the Spanish and Dutch Governments, on the one hand, and the British Government, on the other, soon after the Royal Charter was granted the British North Borneo Co. It is a matter of record that the British Government had declared that it did not intend to acquire sovereign rights in North Borneo. But the Spanish and Dutch Governments protested that such a declaration was inconsistent with the grant of a Royal Charter to the British North Borneo Company, “invested with sovereign rights by the Native Chiefs of North Borneo, and subject, as regards the exercise of these rights, to the Supreme authority of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government.”

The British Foreign Minister, Lord Earl Granville, in a correspondence to the British Minister at Madrid, Mr. Morier (No. 197), dated January 7, 1882, recapitulated “the circumstances under which Her Majesty’s Government acceded to the application of the Company for Incorporation by Royal Charter,” drew attention “to the special character of that Charter,” and explained “its legal effect.” Lord Granville said the British North Borneo Company was in fact established under three Charters: (1) the Charter and territorial concession from the Sultan of Sulu; (2) the Charter and territorial concession from the Sultan of Brunei; and (3) the British Charter of incorporation. Note the following significant passages from Lord Granville’s correspondence:

“The first two Charters, from the Sultans of Sulu and Brunei, are those under which the Company derive their title to the possession of the territories in question, and their authority to administer the government of those territories by delegation from the Sultans.

“The third Charter is the British Charter under which the Company have obtained incorporation and a recognition of her Majesty’s Government of their title to the territories granted. In return for incorporation by Royal Charter, and for the recognition of the Concessions, the Company have surrendered to Her Majesty’s Government various powers of control over their proceedings which, though of a negative character only, are sufficient for the prevention by Her Majesty’s Government of any abuse in the exercise of the authority conferred by the Sultans. It is important to bear in mind that no such control would have been reserved to the Crown had the Company taker, incorporation in the usual manner by registration under the Companies Acts, and elected to follow their own course independently of Government support.

“The British Charter therefore differs essentially from the previous Charters granted to the East India Company, the New Zealand Company, and other Associations of that character, in the fact that the Crown in the present case assumes no dominion or sovereignty over the territories occupied by the Company, nor does it purport to grant to the Company any powers of Government thereover; it merely confers upon the persons associated the status and incidents of a body corporate, and recognizes the grants of territory and the powers of government made and delegated by the Sultans in whom the sovereignty remains vested. It differs also from previous Charters, in that it prohibits instead of granting a general monopoly of trade.”

In thus differentiating the status of the British North Borneo Company, Lord Granville stated that “after very careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case Her Majesty’s Government decided that the Charter should be granted, and you will perceive from an examination of its provisions that its effect is to restrict and curtail the powers of the Company and not to create or enlarge them.”

In similarly repudiating the Dutch contention, Lord Granville stated that the territories “will be administered by the Company under the sovereignly of the Sultans of Brunei and Sulu, to whom they have agreed to pay a yearly tribute,” and that “the British Government assumes no sovereign rights whatever in Borneo.”

Much the same disclaimer was sounded by the famous Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone. Speaking in the House of Commons, he acknowledged that the “remarkable powers” obtained by the British North Borneo Company involved the “essence of sovereignty” but they were “covered by the Suzereignty of the Native Chief.” He declared that no greater obligation rested upon the Government to protect the Company than “to protect any other subject who might be in pursuit of objects not unlawful.”

These authoritative statements show, in brief:

1 . that Overbeck and Dent were not authorized by the British Government to acquire and administer North Borneo; they merely acted in their private individual capacity.

2. that the British North Borneo Company was not invested by the British Government with the public power of acquisition and administration of North Borneo, unlike the different trading companies chartered at the time.

3. that the British Government assumed no rights of sovereignty whatever in North Borneo; and

4. that the British Government explicitly acknowledged the sovereignty and title of the Sultan of Sulu over North Borneo.

Significance:

The classic British text on International Law, a Treatise on International Law by Oppenheim (7th edition, edited by Lauterpacht, 1948), gives us the significance in International Law of the above facts. Oppenheim states that where an individual or a corporation acquires land in countries which are not under the territorial supremacy of a member of the Family of Nations, such acquisition of territory and sovereignty thereon “takes place outside the dominion of the Law of Nations, and the rules of this law, therefore, cannot be applied,” unless the “corporation in question is invested by its State with public power of acquisition and administration.” (Volume I, sec. 209 (2), p. 496). He adds:

“If the individual or corporation which has made the acquisition requires protection by the Law of Nations, he or it must either declare a new State to be in existence and ask for its recognition by the Powers, as in the case of the former Congo Free State, or must ask a member of the Family of Nations to acknowledge the acquisition as having been made on its behalf.” (Id., at 496, 497.)

It is obvious that the British North Borneo Company, as the successor in interest of Overbeck and Dent, has not declared a new State to be in existence in North Borneo; and it is equally obvious that the British Government has refused to acknowledge, at least until 1946, the acquisition by Overbeck and Dent, and latterly, the British North Borneo Company, as having been made in its behalf.

What, then, is the significance in International Law, of the British Cession Order of July 15, 1946, which states in part:

“And whereas by an Agreement dated the twenty-sixth day of June, 1946, and made between His Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Colonies on behalf of His Majesty (therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Crown’) of the one part and the Company of the other part the Company (amongst other things) have transferred and ceded all the said rights, powers, and interests to the Crown with effect from the fifteenth day of July, 1946, to the intent that the Crown should, as from that day, have full sovereign rights over, and title to, the territory of the State of North Borneo, and that the said territory should thereupon become part of His Majesty’s dominions;

“Now, therefore, His Majesty is pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:

“1. This Order may be cited as the North Borneo Cession Order in Council, 1946, and shall come into operation on the fifteenth of July, 1946;

“2. As from the fifteenth day of July, 1946, the State of North Borneo shall be annexed to and shall form part of His Majesty’s dominion and shall be called, together with the Settlement of Labuan and its dependencies, the Colony of North Borneo;

“3. All persons who on the fifteenth day of July, 1946, are citizens of the State of North Borneo by virtue of the provisions of the North Borneo Naturalization Ordinance, 1931, shall, on that day, become British subjects;

“4. His Majesty hereby reserves to Himself, His Heirs and Successors, power to revoke, alter and to amend this Order.”

Note that the Cession Order is convenient in its vagueness as to the exact nature and scope of the rights and interests of the British North Borneo Company. How could it be otherwise in the light of the categorical disclaimers made by Lord Granville and Prime Minister William Gladstone?

Could the British North Borneo Company purport to transfer sovereignty over North Borneo to the Crown? Certainly not. The British Government had made it crystal clear that the Company did not have that power, and that sovereignty remained with the Sultan of Sulu. All that was transferred, in the very carefully worded Cession Order, was the mass of “interests, powers and rights” previously acquired by the British North Borneo Company.

In other words, the assertion of sovereignty over North Borneo by the Crown, effective July, 1946, under its own Cession Order, repudiated and set aside all the solemn Government declarations made by its highest officials; more than that, it threw overboard the sovereignty and title of the Sultan of Sulu which it had acknowledged in the past and completely disregarded the proprietary rights of the heirs of the Sultan over North Borneo. It was, to borrow the language of former Governor General Francis Burton Harrison, “an act of political aggression which should be promptly repudiated by the Government.”

I shall not, at this juncture, belabor the point so ably expounded by the Philippines Free Press writer, Mr. Napoleon Rama, namely, that the agreement of 1878 was just a contract of lease, not a contract of cession. The statements of Lord Granville and Prime Minister Gladstone three years after the contract was concluded, the contemporaneous official communications to and from the Minister of State in Madrid, the yearly tribute of 5,000 dollars to the Sultan of Sulu, and the terms of the “Cession Order of 1946″ amply show that no cession was contemplated or ever perfected. A lease arrangement which, according to language scholars, is the English translation of the Malayan word, “padjak,” would seem to be the only other explanation. At any rate in International Law, individuals do not and cannot enter into treaties of cession (whereby sovereignty is acquired) with native tribal chiefs: these are outside the realm of the Law of Nations.

Modes:

It is probable that the British Government, to justify its new stand, will fall back on one of two modes of territorial acquisition in International Law; namely, occupation and prescription.

Occupation is an original mode of territorial acquisition, and is effected through possession and administration of the territory by or in behalf of the acquiring State. The prime object of settlement by occupation is the incorporation of unappropriated territory into the national domain of the acquiring State. Only such territory as is not within the dominion of any State may be the object of occupation. In other words, the territory must be res nullius or terra nullius. The term res nullius, as has been interpreted, does not require that the territory be uninhabited, but that it be not already occupied by a people or State whose political organization is such as to cause its prior rights of occupancy to be recognized.

We must concede that in the past European powers did not recognize the title of settled peoples whose civilization was allegedly below the European standard. The emergence of non-European powers, and the growing importance of new nations in the Afro-Asian bloc, have eroded away this concept. At any rate, insofar as the British Government is concerned, it is precluded from claiming that the Sultan of Sulu had a title or a political organization below the European standard. All we need to do is to refer back to the text, of Lord Granville’s correspondence. Note the last paragraph in his letter to Morier, the British minister at Madrid, portions of which were quoted earlier:

“As regards the general features of the undertaking, it is to be observed that the territories granted to the Company have been for generations under the government of the Sultans of Sulu and Brunei, with whom Great Britain has had treaties of Peace and Commerce. . .”

It would be passing strange now for the British Government to contend that the Sultan of Sulu did not possess either a perfect title or a political organization below European standards, at least insofar as North Borneo is concerned. In the Law of Nations, states the British authority, Oppenheim, the conclusion of a bilateral treaty, such as a treaty of commerce and navigation, implies recognition (Op. cit., Section 75 (cl) p. 143).

THE NORTH BORNEO QUESTION

But this is not all. The important thing is that the Cession Order of 1946, annexing as it does the Territory of North Borneo and incorporating it as part of His Majesty’s dominions, ran counter to and violated:

(1 ) the official declarations of the British Government as to the legal nature and effect of the Agreement of 1878;

(2) the Treaty of Peace and Commerce entered into between Great Britain and the Sultan of Sulu;

(3) the title and rights of dominion which the Sultan of Sulu, on the strength of British admissions, had over North Borneo.

Oppenheim is authority for the proposition that while it is true that States may acquire new territorial or other rights by unilateral acts, such an annexation, without recognition on the part of third States being required for their validity, yet the position is different when “the act alleged to be creative of a new right is in violation of … conventional International Law. In such cases the act in question is tainted with invalidity and incapable of producing legal rights beneficial to the wrongdoer in the form of a new title or otherwise.” (Op. cit., Sec. 75 (b), at p. 136).

Prescription. — Prescription has been defined as the acquisition of territory by an adverse holding continued through a long term of years. The generally accepted concept of prescription in International Law apparently requires the existence of two essential facts, namely: continuous and undisturbed possession, and lapse of a period of time. Hugo Grotius, the father of International Law, laid down the rule that the adverse holding should go “beyond the memory of man. Vattel maintained that possession may ripen into title only after the lapse of a “considerable number of years ” Insofar as the present question is concerned, there may not be sufficient warrant for saying that the British possession was adverse, considering the yearly tributes they have paid to the Sultan of Sulu and his heirs. Their possession from 1946 up to this date, in the light of the continuous protests of the heirs and the termination of the lease, has not been uninterrupted and cannot possibly ripen into a title.

I have heard it said that the Philippine claim may not prosper because of Article 1 of the Philippine Constitution defining the National Territory. Article I provides:

“Section 1. The Philippines comprise all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said Treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington, between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and in the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.”

I feel that those who argue along this line confuse the concept of national domain with proprietary rights of Filipino citizens over a portion of the earth’s surface. The Philippine Government is now called upon to defend and vindicate those rights, and if, as I know, appropriate arrangements have been made by the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu, with the Philippine Government, there should be no apprehension whatever that this claim will provide undue incentives for mere speculators. In other words, Article I has no applicability whatever to this kind of a claim. In the remote possibility that Article I is made to apply, there is ample room for protection in the saving clause found in said article, in the light of authoritative pronouncements of British officials. We need not even consider the thesis that in 1935, when the Philippine Constitution was adopted by the Filipino people, the Philippines was not an independent State but a mere dependency, and that therefore the restrictive provisions of Article I could not possibly tie the hands of the Republic as soon as independence became a reality.

There is something pathetic in the fact that it took an American official, the former Governor General Francis Burton Harrison, to assess the full import of the Cession Order of 1946. In a special report he submitted on September 26, 1946 in his capacity as Special Adviser on Foreign Affairs to the Philippine Government, he called the Cession Order by its proper name — “an act of political aggression.”

It would seem equally pathetic that some home-grown nationalists have counseled the Government to pursue a policy of fear and inaction.

In 1946, the voice of Harrison sounded like a cry in the wilderness. In 1962, that voice has gained volume and is no longer alone. Just a few days ago, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution requesting the President to take all the necessary steps consistent with international law and procedure for the recovery of North Borneo.

Before the bar of world opinion, the Philippines can invoke the ringing declarations of responsible leaders all over the world — including those of the United Kingdom — who have vowed to end the practice of colonialism in all its manifestations. In recent years, the United Nations has been seriously concerned with the problem of colonialism and has now asked for its speedy liquidation. The North Borneo question should furnish an excellent instance for the British Government to translate a preachment into a cold reality. When in 1946, the British Government saw fit to make North Borneo a colony, in disregard of its previous disclaimers, her policy-makers must have foreseen the inevitable consequences of such an inopportune move, considering the temper of subject peoples all over the world. For the Filipinos, the North Borneo situation is not merely a problem of liquidation of colonialism; it is a question of the return to them of what, in law and equity, properly belongs to them, and which they can rightly call their own.

As I said in the beginning, there should be no apprehension of any rupture in the friendly relations between the United Kingdom and the Philippines. Friends can and should at times disagree. The important thing is that they should not become disagreeable. And like two good friends, the Philippines and the United Kingdom can differ on this point without being difficult. It is merely in keeping with the highest traditions of civility and a mutual respect for the rule of law that the Philippine Government should now, in the light of all relevant evidence, institute the claim and initiate the necessary steps toward the peaceful settlement of the North Borneo question. Manila Times, Manila Chronicle, Philippines Free Press – May, 1962. - source

Read More