The Sabah crisis — Jonathan Muk Chen Yeen

The escalating tensions in Sabah are cause for concern. As a peaceful nation, such a scenario presents many uncertainties for Malaysia. What is paramount however are the lives of Malaysians, regardless of whether they are the police, the army or ordinary unarmed civilians.

The response of the Malaysian police and army has been perhaps unsettlingly restrained for most. It is not uncommon to find in cyberspace calls for the government to launch an all-out offensive against the intruders. The opposition has also questioned the reaction of the government. Regardless, there are three considerations which the government must be mindful of in calibrating its response towards the intruders.

The history of Sabah

The history of Sabah is a complicated one. Originally ceded by the Sultan of Brunei to the Sultan of Sulu in 1658, the Sultan of Sulu later granted the North Borneo Chartered Company a permanent lease over the territory. However in 1963, the people of Sabah voted in favour of forming the Malaysian federation. Nevertheless, the Malaysian government continues to this day to pay an annual sum of RM5,300 to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu, on the basis of a judgment by Chief Justice McKaskie in favour of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu.

Thus while the wider international community and ASEAN have recognised Sabah as Malaysian territory since 1963, the status of Sabah in international law would make for a novel international law issue in the international courts. It is perhaps with this consideration in mind that the Malaysian government is proceeding cautiously in reacting to the intrusion.

Diplomatic ties with the Philippines

In dealing with the intruders, Malaysia has to deal with its ASEAN neighbour. As a non-state, the self-proclaimed Sultan of Sulu is in international law considered a citizen of the Philippines. This applies as well to the armed intruders currently in Malaysia and a death on their side is considered the death of a Filipino citizen.

It is noted that Philippine President Benigno Aquino has urged Malaysia to exercise “maximum tolerance” in dealing with the intruders. Consequently, should Malaysia be deemed to have exercised less than this standard in the eyes of Philippines, there could be negative repercussions in the long run for the relations between both countries. As two of the founding five members of ASEAN, this could impede regional integration, something which an open economy like Malaysia would want to avoid at all costs.

International obligations under the Geneva Convention

Lastly, Malaysia is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. As a signatory, it is bound by international law to ensure that action taken against any intrusion must be in accordance with the law and not at will. However the Geneva Convention is signed between states. Since the armed intruders operate on the Sultan of Sulu’s claim to ownership and not on behalf of the Philippines, it is questionable if this can be considered an invasion by the Philippines and whether they are protected by the Geneva Convention. The status of the armed intruders in international law should thus be ascertained to ensure Malaysia is not in breach of her international obligations in taking action.

Conclusion

The actions of the armed intruders are deplorable. However wider considerations are at hand, constraining the government’s ability to act against the intruders. As citizens, we would do well to bear these considerations in mind and not be overly critical of the government in a time of national crisis.