Results 31 to 40 of 444
-
February 28th, 2013 11:17 PM #31
continuation...
For centuries Great Britain was the cause of a lot of world problems today, history will tell you the sufferings of people in the Middle East, Africa, Indian Sub-Continent, Argentine Falklands and many more. Even within the United Kingdom, the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish people are really pissed with England.
Hong Kong was fortunate when the late Deng Xiao Ping told Margaret Thatcher in private that if Great Britain does not leave Hong Kong after squatting there for more than 150 years, the Chinese Army will overrun Hong Kong in one day. She was eventually returned to China on July 1, 1997 and now enjoyed autonomy.
What about the voices of the population during the times of the first tenant Overbeck and sub-tenant Great Britain who agree to let the sub-sub-tenant Malaysia take over?
Let me give another analogy: I am the registered legal and legitimate owner of a bus. One day someone leased the bus from me and drove around town picking up and dropping off passengers along the way for profit. Let us say that the passengers love his driving so much that they want to patronize him for life. Does that in any way mean he can sell my bus or treat the same as his property?
To answer my earlier question: the passengers can choose to ride whichever bus they want to, but the sovereignty of Sabah is vested in the Philippines. And this also means that even if the people of Sabah today might still want to stay on with Malaysia, Sabah is still the legal and legitimate territory of the Philippines under international law if the same principles are applied as per the Judgments of the International Court of Justice with regards to the cases of Sipadan and Ligitan Islands, and Pulau Batu Puteh or Pedra Branca.
The Sultanate of Sulu had ceased to exist when every inch of its territory was ceded on Sept 12, 1962 to the government of the Philippines and as the successor-in-title of the defunct sultanate, it is entitled to reclaim Sabah which is at all material times rightfully theirs.
Article IV of the Malaysia Agreement of 1963* reads as follows:
The Government of the United Kingdom will take such steps as may be appropriate and available to them to secure the enactment by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of an Act providing for the relinquishment, as from Malaysia Day, of Her Britannic Majesty’s sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore so that the said sovereignty and jurisdiction shall on such relinquishment vest in accordance with this Agreement and the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement.
Because it was stated that one part of Sabah** belonged to the Brunei Sultanate and the other part to the Sulu Sultanate, and while Brunei had ceded her part of Sabah’s sovereignty, Sulu (now part of the Philippines) only leased her part of Sabah, does Her Britannic Majesty had sovereignty over the whole or only one part of Sabah?
It is obvious that the answer is only one part of Sabah, therefore Article IV is null and void thereby rendering the entire Malaysia Agreement of 1963 illegal and of no effect…!
There is a legal maxim “nemodat quod non habet” which means “you cannot give what you do not have”.
Legitimate and legal independence or autonomy for that one part of Sabah that was leased from the Sulu Sultanate can only come from the Philippines.
Lahad Datu
It is now more than two weeks since the alleged intrusion took place and not even one piece of credible picture taken of the invaders was shown to the public.
Common sense tells me that if the occurrence was real, the only reason our security forces dare not open fire on the raiders is either our boys are outnumbered or their guns outsized.
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?
Like the May 13 bogeyman that was used to frighten the Chinese voters of Peninsular, this could well be another “sandiwara” to scare the voters of Sabah and show us that only the Barisan Nasional will be able to protect us from foreign invasion.
Note:
Malaysia Agreement 1963
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publicati...60-English.pdf
North Borneo dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of Sabah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The writer is a former member of Sabah’s faded tourism industry; loves food and speed; and blogs at ..."Without Prejudice"... giving no quarters. While the views and findings contained in the above article belong to him, he wishes to encourage intelligent individuals to find and form their own answers and judgments in comparison with his.
- See more at: To whom does Sabah belong? | Free Malaysia Today
-
February 28th, 2013 11:47 PM #32
-
March 1st, 2013 01:39 AM #33
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Posts
- 65
March 1st, 2013 05:32 AM #34I think Malaysian Government isn't sure if Sabah really part of the federal state they formed in 1963. Bakit puro extension ang binibigay sa Sulu Sultanate occupier? It's been weeks of telling the Philippine Government that you have only 4 days before you convinced to leave Sabah. Takot ba talaga ang Malaysia na mangyari sa kanila ang nangyayari sa Minadanao? Or the MNLF strong army present in Sabah?
-
March 1st, 2013 09:24 AM #35
-
March 1st, 2013 09:59 AM #36
-
March 1st, 2013 12:52 PM #37
nagkabarilan na.. nilusob na ata ng malaysian forces ...
Sultan?s men, Malaysian forces exchange fire | Inquirer Global Nation
-
March 1st, 2013 01:01 PM #38
eto pa isang report may mga namatay na raw
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/20...refight-report
-
-
March 1st, 2013 01:06 PM #40
Ipadala lahat ng congressmen at senadors natin sa Sabah!!!
Mga real-life na superheroes ang mga iyan....
18.3K:tomato:
Life Lessons From A Monk & His Tuned Mini Cooper S - Speedhunters Sent from my SM-S901E using...
Monk-owned R53