Give peace a chance over Sulu, Philippines claims

 

From Ahmad Nazzan

The birth of Malaysia in 1963 was considered a diplomatic success and the new federation quickly earned recognition and the respect of member states of the United Nations, except for Indonesia and the Philippines.

Indonesia refused to recognise this new entity and declared “Konfrontasi” or “Confrontation”. It was a violent opposition, with Indonesia landing some troops in parts of Malaysia. However, President Suharto, who replaced Sukarno, ended this conflict to open a new chapter in the diplomatic relations between the two neighbours.

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Ads by 

On the other hand, the Philippines, in 1962, raised the issue of Sabah being part of the Sulu sultanate and an integral part of the Philippines. It was president Macapagal who raised the thorny issue, beginning a dispute that has lasted to the present.

Historically, the issue dates back to the rule of the sultan of Brunei, who had control over northern Borneo in the 17th century. He ceded the north of Borneo to the sultan of Sulu for help in putting down a rebellion.

In 1878, the Sultan of Sulu, Barradudin Kiram, executed a deed in favour of two commercial agents of the British North Borneo Company in return for payment of 5,000 dollars per year.

This is the basis upon which the Philippines claim rests.

The agreement was written in Jawi and uses the word pajak, which in Malay means “rent”. The English translation uses the term “cede”.

Here is where the controversy begins. The Philippines claim is that the sultan of Sulu did not cede North Borneo but merely took an annual payment of rent from the two merchants. The British, however, stuck to their interpretation of the sultan having ceded the territory to the British North Borneo Company.

Principally, the entire dispute revolves or rests on this. Therefore, heirs to the Sulu sultanate and the Philippines government together need to come to an agreement to accept any solution in the foreseeable future.

Malaysia would be willing to accept a lasting solution so long as Sabah’s sovereignty as part of Malaysia is guaranteed.

One entity that can and should play a pivotal role in finding a solution is Asean which must take on a dynamic role in settling disputes among members.

Malaysia and the Philippines, as founder members, should give importance to Asean as an honest broker.

However, Asean also has to review its policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states. It cannot stick to rigid principles laid down in the 1960s.

It is time for Asean to prove its viability in the political arena to find a lasting solution to this long-running dispute.

The heirs to the Sulu sultanate would better benefit if the annual token being paid is increased proportionately in accordance with the times. An accepted sum can be worked out as Malaysia is in a position to reimburse the heirs.

Goodwill and trust is essential here and Asean can use its influence to ensure that both parties give peace a chance.

The Russia/Ukraine conflict is a warning to others that prolonged mistrust between neighbours can lead to open conflict or war.

It is in the best interests of both Malaysia and the Philippines to find a lasting solution to this issue that has not only strained relations but also prevented both sides from fully cooperating for the benefit of the citizens of both countries.

We should give peace a chance. - FMT

Ahmad Nazzan is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.