Sabah Standoff Issues

[xninjax]

Marcos planned to invade and reclaim back Sabah in the 70's if I'm not mistaken. I used to hear stories from my uncle who was part of the commando unit trained supposedly for the mission

I suppose we had a bad-ass military back then compared to our neighbors

Philippine Daily Inquirer - Google News Archive Search

[Ry_Tower]

Marcos planned to invade and reclaim back Sabah in the 70's if I'm not mistaken. I used to hear stories from my uncle who was part of the commando unit trained supposedly for the mission

I suppose we had a bad-ass military back then compared to our neighbors

Philippine Daily Inquirer - Google News Archive Search

I have to concur on this, may plan nga si Marcos. Hindi ata natuloy because he was focused na on declaring Martial law.

Kuwento nga nang mga elders in the military.

[hein]

Marcos planned to invade and reclaim back Sabah in the 70's if I'm not mistaken. I used to hear stories from my uncle who was part of the commando unit trained supposedly for the mission

I suppose we had a bad-ass military back then compared to our neighbors]

Since when did we have a bad-ass military?

Malaysia finished off their communist insurgency in 3 years, tayo more than 40 years hindi pa tapos.

Mahina ang PH military, and everyone in the region knows that, especially China.

[wowiesy]

If Sultan backs down... Most likely tuloy ang Bangsamoro entity... Will the Sultanate play along? Or manggugulo? Are they capable na manggulo ? Or kahit capable ba sila ay insignificant din dahil sa Sulu ay isolated from Mainland Mindanao kaya di ganoon kabilis mag spill over?

If Sultan plays hardball now and there are casualties... Pananagutin ni PNoy anf Sultan then what? Lalong mabura yung claim nila? Manggulo pa ba? Malamang tuloy pa rin Bangsamoro entity.... Whether mag sweep ang Team PNoy o hindi may also depend to an extent on the outcome nito...

Weird lang talaga... Mahina talaga sa diplomasya ang PNoy admin... Wala sila binigay na posssible graceful exit sa sultan... Even just to save face.... Same thing with the isssue against china...

[Boy Bastos]

Since when did we have a bad-ass military?

Malaysia finished off their communist insurgency in 3 years, tayo more than 40 years hindi pa tapos.

Mahina ang PH military, and everyone in the region knows that, especially China.

50s to 60s era. Bad ass ang AFP. Bully pa ang Pinas sa Malaysia at Indonesia. Puro fly-by ng F-86 Sabre pinoy pilots sa borders.

Ngayon. Olats na. Kamote pa.

[oliver1013]

San ba ang loyalty ng Malaysian tausogs sa clan nila o sa bansa kung san sila nakatira?

[yebo]

San ba ang loyalty ng Malaysian tausogs sa clan nila o sa bansa kung san sila nakatira?

dyan takot ang malaysia. kasi considered na nth class citizen ang mga tausog at badjao. parang indian caste system din kasi sa kanila - sa taas yung bumiputra, then yung malay muslim sa borneo, sunod ang mga dayak, badjao at tausug, tapos dayak christian and malay christian at indian blood, at sa pinaka-ilalim mga malay-chinese.

alam nila kung paano nila alipustahin ang mga tausug. alam nila kung kaninong lupa yung ni-land grab nila at ginawang taniman ng palm oil. halos hindi makapasok sa high school ang mga badjao at tausug, pupunuin muna ang quota ng nasa taas bago sila (mahirap na baka matuto, di ba. keep them dumb and bare foot.)

yan, tignan nyo ingat na ingat ang malaysian government. isang maling putok lang yan civil war sila dyan.

[Altis6453]

San ba ang loyalty ng Malaysian tausogs sa clan nila o sa bansa kung san sila nakatira?

Apparently, a lot of them claim to be either "Sabahoanans" or Malaysians with no interest at all in becoming part of the Philippine State.

[Altis6453]

Speaking of EPAL, kups talaga ang mga organisasyong militante tulad ng BAYAN at MIGRANTE:

The online news portal of TV5

MANILA, Philippines -- Leftist groups on Thursday accused the government of “double standards” in responding to the more than two-week old standoff between followers of the Sulu sultanate pressing their claim to Sabah and Malaysian security forces.

In a statement, the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan noted the marked contrast between the administration’s handling of the Sabah problem and the row with China over disputed territory in the South China Sea, which Manila calls the West Philippine Sea.

For its part, the party-list Migrante, which advocates the welfare of overseas Filipino workers, scoffed at what it called the government’s sudden concern for the possible repercussions of the Sabah standoff on the 800,000 Filipinos living and working in Malaysia, calling it “lip service.”

Bayan accused President Benigno Aquino III of “obscuring or muddling the legitimacy of the assertion of the sultanate of Sulu and (choosing) to perpetuate the more than five decades of government passivity, if not total abandonment, of the country’s Sabah claim.”

It slammed Aquino’s threat to prosecute Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III and those of his followers who have occupied a village in Lahad Datu, Sabah and called his concern over the sultanate’s possible secession if government recognized its ownership of the territory as an “absurd point.”

In contrast to Aquino’s stance on Sabah, Bayan said he has engaged “in open polemics on the territorial dispute” over the Spratly Islands and Panatag Shoal, and even sought international arbitration.

Bayan claimed Aquino’s posturing on the West Philippine Sea dispute is not so much to defend the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but to “justify the ever-increasing presence” of American military personnel and materiel in the country in support of the US’ “pivot” to the Asia Pacific region.

And while it noted that the administration’s stance toward Sabah might have to do with concerns about its impact on reaching a peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which Malaysia is helping broker, it said the government’s handling of the Lahad Datu “is not only surrendering our territorial integrity and national sovereignty. It is also creating conditions that make an enduring peace with justice in Mindanao more elusive.”

For her part, Migrante chair Connie Bragas-Regalado, belittled the government’s concern for Filipinos in Malaysia “when it has done nothing to address OFWs’ work-related plights and ‘stateless status’ through the years.

She cited information they had gathered in a series of fact-finding missions in Sabah that, she claimed, showed that Philippine representatives there have “done nothing to address the problems of Filipinos working or residing” in the territory.

“Slave-like conditions of Filipino plantation workers, ‘stateless children’, human trafficking of our women and workers have been rampant in Sabah for many years now, yet our government has not lifted a finger to assist them,” she said.

Like Bayan, she accused the administration of double standards in handling the Sabah and West Philippine Sea disputes.

“It is aggressive in the Spratlys issue to promote and justify increased US troops presence in the Asia-Pacific region while it is passive in the Sabah issue to goad the Moro Islamic Front into capitulation and to appease Malaysia which plays a lead role in the ongoing peace negotiations between the MILF and GPH,” Bragas-Regalado said.

“We fail to comprehend how the government is taking a defeatist stance in Sabah when we have as much right to assert claim as we are doing in the Spratlys dispute with China,” she said.

Galit kapag increased US presence sa Asia-Pacific, pero tahimik at mga tupang maamo kapag ang China ang umaariba!

[night_raven]

Totoo ba yung napanood ko sa balita kaninang tanghali na gusto lang ng mga Kirams na makipag-negotiate na taasan ang rentang ibinabayad sa kanila ng Malaysia at sa opinyon ko mukhang pera lang talaga ang habol at hindi naman para bawiin ang Sabah.

Kasi nga naman kung ganoon, mukhang pwede kasi kung ang mga Kirams at Malaysia lang ang mag-uusap siguradong tatanggi ang Malaysia sa hiling ng mga Kirams pero pag idamay mo na ang buong Pilipinas eh medyo malaking tsansa na makinig ang Malaysia at makuha ng mga Kirams ang gusto nila.

So ganito rin ba ang pananaw ninyo o talaga nga kayang kapakanan ng mga nakatirang Pilipino sa Sabah at sambayanan ang iniisip ng mga Kirams kaya nais na nilang bawiin ang Sabah.

[chrismarte]

Apparently, a lot of them claim to be either "Sabahoanans" or Malaysians with no interest at all in becoming part of the Philippine State.

kaya pala!, naalala ko nung nagpunta ako ng malaysia sa harap ng "kota raya bldg" may manong na sapatero dun na marunong managalog nung nag aantay ako ng bus tsinika ko, natanong ko kung kelan huling uwi nya sa pinas ang sagot nya sa akin ay di ako pinoy "sabahanon" ako.

Pero dati syang pinoy citizen nung nag offer ang Malaysia to be come Malaysian citizen sa mga taga Sabah kinuha daw agad nila.

[yebo]

eto from a Malaysian's point of view >>> To whom does Sabah belong? | Free Malaysia Today

To whom does Sabah belong?
Vidal Yudin Weil
| February 22, 2013

If there really was an incursion, how come I do not see our Foreign Minister flying off to the Philippines or their Foreign Secretary here in Sabah to negotiate the retreat?
COMMENT

I was asked to pen my views on the alleged ongoing standoff between the Malaysian armed forces and the so-called Sulu intruders at a Lahad Datu village in Sabah.

I will touch on the history of Sabah followed by my arrival to the conclusion on the probability of the incident actually happening in reality.

North Borneo

It was written that on Jan 23, 1878, the Ruler of Sulu, Sultan Jamalul Alam leased Sabah (formerly known as North Borneo) to Gustavus Von Overbeck for an annual rent of equivalent 5,000 dollars through Von Overbeck’s trading partner Alfred Dent. It was also recorded that this amount of money (USD1,500 per year) is still being paid to the heirs of the Sulu Sultan by the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines until today.

The keyword in the written agreement was “Pajak” which if translated literally means “Lease”. It was also explicitly written that the rights to Sabah cannot be transferred to any other nation or anyone else without the Sulu Sultan’s express consent.

The Spaniards in Manila eventually took control of the entire Sulu Sultanate; and in 1885, Great Britain, Germany, and Spain signed the Madrid Protocol confirming Spanish influence over everything in the Philippines except Sabah which belongs to the Sultanate.

Great Britain was reminded by America in official black and white in 1906 and 1920 that Sabah does not belong to Great Britain; and was and is at all material times legally and legitimately part and parcel of the Sulu Sultanate.

The British government, however as we all know, arrogantly and unilaterally did turn Sabah into a Crown-leased Colony on July 10, 1946 even though there was a declaration by Chief Justice CFC Makaskie of the High Court of North Borneo on Dec 19, 1939 in a civil suit filed by Dayang Dayang Hadji Piandao and 8 other heirs of the Sulu Sultan including Putlih Tarhata Kiram that the successor of the Sulu Sultan in the territory of Sabah was Punjungan Kiram and not Great Britain!

Earlier on in 1941 the Constitution of the Philippines states specifically that the national territory of the Philippines includes “all other areas which belong to the Philippines on the basis of historical rights or legal claims” which means that the Philippines have never relinquished their claim on Sabah.

Even before Sabah joined Malaya, Sarawak, and Singapore to form Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963, numerous delegations were sent by the Philippines to London reminding the British government that Sabah belongs to the Philippines.

On Sept 12, 1962, the territory of Sabah and the full sovereignty, title and dominion over the territory were ceded by the then reigning Sulu Ruler, Sultan Muhammad Esmail E. Kiram 1 to the Republic of the Philippines during the Presidency of Diosdado Macapagal.

The cession effectively gave the Philippines government full authority to pursue their claim in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. But until today, Malaysia continues to consistently reject the Philippines’s calls to refer the matter to the ICJ.

Immediately preceding the formation of Malaysia, two commissions of enquiry visited Sabah and Sarawak in order to establish the state of public opinion regarding merger with Malaya and Singapore. However, the commissions were never mandated to address the legal status of Sabah nor were they referendums in the proper sense.

The first commission known as the Cobbold Commission was established by the Malayan and British governments and was headed by Lord Cobbold, along with two representatives from Malaya and Britain – but none from the territories under investigation.

The Commission found that about one third of the population of each territory i.e. Sabah and Sarawak strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern over terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards. The remaining third is divided between those who insist upon independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come.

Indonesia and the Philippines rejected the findings of the Cobbold Commission and in 1963, a tripartite meeting was held in Manila between Indonesian President Soekarno, Philippines President Diosdado Macapagal and Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. The meeting agreed to petition the UN to send another commission of enquiry and the Philippines and Indonesia agreed to drop their objection to the formation of Malaysia if the new commission found popular opinion in the territories in favour.

The UN Mission to Borneo found “a sizeable majority of the people” dubiously in favour of joining Malaysia and as expected Indonesia and the Philippines subsequently rejected the report’s findings and Indonesia continued its semi-military policy of “konfrontasi” towards Malaysia – the disputed report in effect sealed the creation of Malaysia.

The whole situation in a nutshell

To give the ordinary layman on the street an easier picture to digest, the following analogy best describes the whole situation:

A landlord called Jamalul leased a piece of land to a tenant called Overbeck for a yearly rent of $5,000. The written agreement stated that Overbeck cannot sub-let the land or sell the lease without Jamalul’s permission.

But the tenant despite the prohibition illegally sold the lease to a sub-tenant called Great Britain who later also illegally sold the lease to a sub-sub-tenant called Malaysia.

And in between all the illegal transactions perpetrated by Overbeck, Great Britain and Malaysia, Jamalul transferred all his rights and interests to a new landlord called the Philippines. The new landlord now wants back the land but the sub-sub-tenant Malaysia refuses to leave. The new landlord wants to take the matter to the International Court of Justice at The Hague but the sub-sub-tenant Malaysia also refuses to go there.

Can the sub-sub-tenant Malaysia claim to be an innocent victim when she took over the lease from the sub-tenant Great Britain?

In my humble opinion: the law be it either international or of any civilized country is that if a purchaser acquires a property with prior knowledge that the property in question is in fact stolen or that the seller does not have a legal or legitimate title to the property at the time of transaction is equally guilty of the crime of theft. Such transaction is not only null and void and of no effect, the title to the property in question is still vested with the original owner.

The ICJ only handles cases between states and nations which must agree to come voluntarily to be adjudged and be bound by its decisions; I strongly believe that Malaysia dares not go to the International Court of Justice to face the Philippines because the former foresee the high possibility of losing.