YOURSAY | Questions over RM63b award to Sulu sultan’s descendants

 

YOURSAY | ‘This whole Sulu sultan treaty is a joke.’

Report: M'sia ordered to pay almost RM63b to Sulu sultan’s descendants

COMMENT | RM63b award to Sulu sultan’s descendants - an interesting situation

BusinessFirst: Sabah Law Society president Roger Chin raises very cogent questions (on the issue of the RM63 billion award to Sulu sultan’s descendants by an arbitration court in France).

My question is whether it was a mistake for Malaysia not to have participated in the proceedings.

First, I understand the rationale for not participating, as if we did and lose then we could be argued to be bound, now we can say that we do not recognise the decision.

However, it would still have been possible to enter an appearance without prejudice to challenge jurisdiction. I am not sure this was done and if not, why not?

Secondly, did we not do anything because we feared we would lose because the analysis of the Malaysian judgment is not likely to be upheld in an international tribunal and is good only well… for Malaysia only (which appears to be the case for many things these days)?

Thirdly, did our Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) consider the implications of a negative judgment whether in terms of publicity and its enforceability? Malaysia has assets across the world and now there is a risk that it may be seized or at the very least embroiled in litigation.

My fourth question is why did Malaysia stop paying (annual payments of approximately US$1,000) in 2013? If this is an agreement then we should stick to it. Malaysia gained a lot more having Sabah and the amount sought is a pittance.

Our failure to abide by agreements does not reflect well on the country and this has far greater implications which add to the negative view of Malaysia with 1MDB, drinking warm water to cure Covid, laughing like Doreamon and beating your wives gently.

It makes us look like a failing state or if not that, makes us look like clowns that no one can do serious business with.

Of course, we know that is a common problem by the government and maybe, unfortunately, has trickled down to the "culture" here.

Whether it is the water deal with Singapore or even Malaysia My Second Home, the government seems to decide unilaterally and be damned the other partners.

Of course, Singapore can hold its own, the Sulu sultan has good lawyers, and foreigners can vote with their feet, but for those with fewer resources, you know the government is not good for its word (which is not really a surprise, kleptocrats and backstabbing frogs abound), and that is worrying.

Milshah: The people of Sabah and Sarawak supported joining Malaysia in a referendum conducted by the Cobbold Commission.

On every map of the world, Sabah is considered part of Malaysia. Why is this still being disputed? Why is Sabah still considered owned by the Sulu sultanate (which does not exist anymore) and leased to Malaysia? Do the Sabahan people have no say at all?

It is time Malaysia go head-on wherever these judgments are made. Don't be afraid. If they contest in the North Pole, then Malaysia should go there too. Malaysia needs to protect Sabah from anyone who tries to claim it.

Malaysia is on the right side, both legally and factually. Enough is enough with this nonsense.

Hmmmmmmmm: If Sabah still belongs to the Sulu sultan, how was it possible for Britain to allow it to join Malaya and Sarawak to form Malaysia?

Surely, Britain must have studied the lease from all legal aspects before allowing Sabah to be independent? If not, Britain should pay the compensation, not Malaysia.

On another note, if it can really be proven that Sabah still belongs to the Sulu sultan, does that now mean that the formation of Malaysia is illegal? So, Sabah and Sarawak can pull out? Interesting.

Proarte: This whole Sulu sultan treaty is a joke. This is just the British and Dutch colonials doing a scam deal with one of the thousands of pirates who infested the trade routes along the South China Sea.

This treaty was used to give legal justification to their administrative and financial control of the vast territory of Sabah. They could then say to the world they were 'invited' to Sabah by its supposed 'king' and paid rent for the privilege.

Did anyone ask the Sabahans whether they recognised or whether they even knew of the Sultan of Sulu? Why then did he not have a presence in Sabah? Instead, his residence is on Sulu, a tiny speck of an island far away from Sabah.

Poor Sabahans, they are the victims of the machinations of European colonials and businessmen in collaboration with pirates.

Fair Play: It was reported that the original hearing in Madrid was annulled on the ground that Malaysia was not properly informed about the case.

However, when the hearing was later moved to the French capital, Malaysia did not attend.

It looks like Malaysia had miscalculated by not attending.

And now, for Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s government, as usual, when it rains, it pours incessantly.

Siva1967: There was an agreement in effect when North Borneo (now Sabah) was leased to the British.

Thereafter, North Borneo joined Malaya to form the Federation of Malaysia. From then until recently the Philippines is claiming that Sabah is part of the Philippines via the Sulu sultanate.

Thus, Malaysia was paying towards the lease to honour their part of the agreement being the "newer owners" of the land.

The Philippines took a more diplomatic approach in reclaiming Sabah, but Indonesia took a military approach in reclaiming Sarawak.

This is as though they are following Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor’s logic that Penang belongs to Kedah. Using the same logic, this means that the Sulu sultan’s descendants may have the same right to lay their claim on Sabah.

And maybe and just maybe, Johor ruler Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar may have the right to reclaim Singapore. - Mkini