I HAVE had three very long conversations on the Sabah issue with historian Samuel K. Tan (PhD from Syracuse), who taught at UP for 30 years and was at one point the chairman of the History Department. Tan is a very prolific writer with at least six books under his belt, including A History of the Philippines, The Muslim South and Beyond, Suratsog (annotated Bibliography of Jawi materials of the Muslim South), Selected Essays on the Filipino Muslims. His interest in the Sabah issue may be because he himself was born and raised in Sulu, but he is a treasure trove of information on the topic. And I’d like to share some of what I learned from him, as well as from his brother, lawyer Ancheta Tan.
First, the question of whether the transaction between the Sultan of Sulu (Jamalul Kiram I) and Gustave Baron Overbeck in 1878 was a cession (grant) or a lease. The contract was written in Tausog — the sultan spoke no English — and the controversy centers on the translation of the Tausog word “padjak.” You have American, Dutch and Spanish linguists on one side (lease) and the British on the other (cede/grant).
Well, Tan is Tausog, and his Suratsog is an annotated translation of Tausog documents spanning the reign of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II. And he says “padjak” is unambiguous: it means lease. Aside from the fact that the $5,000 annual payment in perpetuity is consistent with a lease contract and not with a cession, there is one argument, this time forwarded by Chet Tan, that should convince anyone but the British government, and now the Malaysian government. In Tausog, there is a specific term for “sale” (“dagang”), and “buy” (“bi”). So if North Borneo was sold or bought, the term used would not have been “padjak.” That British translation was clearly in bad faith, with malice aforethought.
I have elsewhere discussed another action in bad faith of the British government — when it annexed North Borneo as a colony a mere six days after the Philippines became independent, and faced with humongous problems related to the aftermath of WW II. But Samuel K. Tan points out another: this time related to the so-called Cobbold Commission.
But first, a little background. The Federation of Malaya, composed of 11 states in the Malay Peninsula, won its independence from Great Britain in 1957. It seems that there was growing international pressure at that time on the latter, including pressure from the United States, to grant independence to its colonies (their unpreparedness being no excuse, per the UN resolution). Two of its largest colonies were Sarawak and Sabah (formerly North Borneo) in the island of Borneo. Whether it was Tungku Abdul Rahman of Malaya or the British government who first got the idea to enfold Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation of Malaya (and call it Malaysia) is immaterial — but both countries certainly were enthusiastic about it. For the Federation, it would mean increasing their land area by two and a half times. For Great Britain, it would at least ensure that the former colonies would be “safe” from Indonesia and the Philippines.
And so the Cobbold Commission (CC) was created (Jan. 1962) formally known as “Commission of Enquiry,” with the stated purpose of ascertaining the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak on the proposed merger.
The CC was composed of three British: Cobbold, former governor of the Bank of England, plus a former governor of Sarawak, and a former official of the Federation of Malaya; on the Malayan side, a former chief minister and the top official of the Foreign Affairs Ministry. Samuel Tan points out a glaring flaw: the citizens of Sabah and Sarawak had no representation in the CC.
Tan also points out another glaring shortcoming: that no referendum was actually held, in the sense of the people of Sabah and Sarawak casting a vote to be part of the proposed Malaysia. What instead happened was either that their “leaders” were consulted and/or “hearings” were conducted.
Understand, Reader, that Sabah and Sarawak together have a land area about two-thirds the size of the Philippines. And yet by June of 1962,or scarcely five months after the CC was formed, its report was submitted (in confidence) to their principals — the prime ministers of Great Britain and the Malayan Federation respectively.
And guess what it said? That one-third of the people of Sabah and Sarawak were fully supportive; one-third were conditionally supportive (safeguards had to be included); and one third-wanted either that Sarawak and North Borneo gain independence first before thinking about a merger, or were totally against the merger.
That was June, right? And yet in August of the same year, the CC final report stated that more than 70% of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak were in favor. What kind of arithmetic did they use between June and August? Reportedly, the North Borneans were very surprised at the result.
What is not a surprise that the CC declared itself to be in firm support for a federated Malaysia.
In contemporary lingo, the whole process, although Samuel K. Tan was too polite to say it, was “lutong makaw.”
There is more: Tan says that when it was proposed that the UN step in, in light of several objections raised internally and internationally, Great Britain gave notice that it would not be bound by the findings and recommendations of U Thant (UN Secretary General at the time) Can you imagine the effect that announcement would have on the UN’s report?
And as if to add insult to injury, Tan also recalls that observers sent by the Philippines and Indonesia were hampered by bureaucratic obstacles.
Napunta ba talaga sa Sulu ang Sabah?
http://www.bt.com.bn/golden-legacy/2013/03/07/sabah-and-sulu-claims
http://www.uiowa.edu/~tlcp/TLCP%20Articles/18-3/gidvani.finalfinal.me.mlb.100109.pdf
The footnote to the above citation…
*http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2007/4/8/columnists/pointofview/17377422&sec=%20Point%20Of%20View
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2007/4/8/columnists/pointofview/17377422&sec=%20Point%20Of%20View
In the age of democracy, the sovereign will of the people trumps historic title anytime.
Whatever happened 50 years ago cannot be reversed without the consent of the people of Sabah. Any sort of retaking of Sabah done without the consent of Sabahans is colonization plain and simple.
Evolution of political thought has overtaken our legal claim. It’s time to move on.
mb@ :=((. “Sovereign will of the people” will take place only if it is LEGITIMATELY recognized and not Honored with TIME.
Self-determination trumps historical claims now.
However, it’s kinda ironical that…
Historically, self-determination was not genuinely consummated. May an actual referendum settle the issue?
But look at reality here:
@mb,
The likes of Solita Monsod will not move on especially when they read part of documents such as this:
Perhaps a referendum here is in order to either “drop” or “claim” Sabah. Settling the issue will make everyone move on…hopefully?
The link to the quoted part:
http://sovereignsulu.webs.com/North%20Borneo%20treaty%201878-Sultan%20Jamalul%20and%20Overbeck.pdf
Granting that the claim of the Kirams stands on firm legal footing and the Cobbold Commission plus the UN Team’s findings were questionable, I still have to ask where is the indication that Sabahans want to change their political status to an independent state or a province of the Philippines?
I agree with the non-binding opinion expressed by an ICJ judge in the Philippines’ application for intervention in the case involving the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia over Sipadan.
“Under traditional international law, the right to territory was vested exclusively in rulers of States. Lands were the property of a sovereign to be defended or conveyed in accordance with the laws relevant to the recognition, exercise and transfer of sovereign domain. In order to judicially determine a claim to territorial title erga omnes, it was necessary to engage with the forms of international conveyancing, tracing historic title through to a critical date or dates to determine which State exercised territorial sovereignty at that point in time. Under modern international law, however, the enquiry must necessarily be broader, particularly in the context of decolonization. In particular, the infusion of the concept of the rights of a ‘people’ into this traditional legal scheme, notably the right of peoples to self-determination, fundamentally alters the significance of historic title to the determination of sovereign title.”
“…historic claims and feudal pre-colonial titles are mere relics of another international legal era, one that ended with the setting of the sun on the age of colonial imperium.”
Even if we were to win a favorable judgment from the ICJ, it would still be wrong for us to take over Sabah without the consent of Sabahans. We would be resurrecting the age of colonization. We would be turning our backs on democracy or the exercise of self-determination.
So let’s move on. Let’s focus on making democracy triumph for everyone, everywhere. Let’s keep monarchs where they belong, in a deck of playing cards.
@MB,:-(( WE ARE NOT RESURRECTING COLONIZATION. WE ARE CORRECTING AN INJUSTICE TO A GROUP OF MINORITY FILIPINOS WHO WERE IGNORED,DEPRIVED AND CONTINUALLY BEING VIOLATED AND ALIENATED OF THEIR RIGHT AS THE TRUE AND LAWFUL INHABITANTS OF A PROPERTY OF LAND EXPROPREITED BY A FOREIGN POWER UNILATERALLY.
“TRUE AND LAWFUL INHABITANTS ”
inhabitant? kung yun lang, eh di ok lang. they can live there if they want.
but habitation is NOT their issue. actually, i’m not sure what their issue is exactly.
ano ba ang gusto nilang mangyari?
Jojie,
You will be a colonizer once you take over Sabah against the will of the Sabahans.
Tsaka “a group of minority Filipinos” is not the same as “the Kiram family”. You are misusing terms to buttress your argument. We are not talking of “a group of minority Filipinos” we are talking of one family that is claiming all of Sabah as their personal property. They belong to the Tausog tribe but Tausog are not claimants of Sabah.
Now what is the basis of the Kiram claim? A grant from the Sultan of Brunei. Where did sultan of brunei get the right to own every living thing in Sabah to give it away at his caprice? Did the sultan of brunei become the owner of Sabah by right of conquest or by some divine gift from Allah? Nagpaalam ba siya sa mga inhabitants of Sabah? If you read history you will see that the sultan of sulu helped the sultan of brunei put down an uprising. Sino kaya yun mga nag umalsa, hindi kaya mga natives na din ng North Borneo? Sa Sarawak, the English adventurer James Brooke was mad Whute Rajah after he helped the sultan of brunei put down a native rebellion. Di kaya ganun din ang nangyari sa kaso ng sultan of sulu>
So the foreign power na sinasabi mo ay the sultan of brunei and the sultan of sulu. Hindi ba foreign power din yun sultan of sulu nung una siyang tumapak sa Sabah to claim the land that was awarded to him by another foreign power the sultan of brunei?
Walang kamalay-malay yun mga natives ng Sabah eh pinagpasapasahan na pala sila ng sultan of brunei to the sultan of sulu and the sultan of sulu to some businessmen and the businessmen to England and the English to the Malays.
Meron legitimate claim yun sultan of sulu if Sabah’s history began with him. But it did not. There were many tribes that settled Sabah ahead of him. The sultan of sulu was nothing more than a foreign power that colonized those people. Kaya nga sa Mindanao nagaaway ang mga lumad at yun Bangsa Moro. Sabi ng Bangsa Moro kanila daw yun indigenous lands, sabi ng lumad kanila. Ang basehan ng moro ay sultanates. Ang sagot ng lumad ay hindi kami nag convert to Islam kaya wala kaming pakialam sa inangkin ng mga sultan ninyo at ngayon ay tinutukoy ninyo pagaari din ninyo. Ganun din yan claim ng sultan of sulu. It is the claim of a colonial power! You cannot cherry-pick historical events. That is self-serving.
@mb :=(( If the Kiram family and tribe is not the legitimate sultanate to sign a treaty and lease agreement why did the British empire recognized the signed documents and are forever paying rent?????
Jojie,
Hindi mo pala naintindihan ang sinulat ko.
Simple lang. Historic title, after the age of monarchs and colonial rulers ended, does not count for shit anymore. Self-determination, democracy ika nga, yan na ang batayan ng sovereignty ngayon.
As to ownership claim naman. Huwag na tayong pumunta pa sa Sabah o sa Mindanao kung saan umaangal ang mga lumad. Kahit diyan lang tayo sa Bulacan pumunta. Yun mga katutubo diyan ay tumututol dun sa mga lupang tinitutluhan ng Kastila, Amerikano, at ng Republika. Sabi nila basta na lang namigay kayo ng Torrens title ni hindi ninyo inalam kung may nagmamay-ari na sa mga lupang yun. (Di mo naalala yun kaso ng mga katutubo dun sa lupa ni Manny Villar sa Bulacan?)
Kaya on both counts – 1) on sovereignty wala na ang historic title. 2) On ownership talo din yan kung indigenous title ang katapat.
So move on. Try to catch up with political evolution. Pang Disneyland na lang ang mga hari at reyna at mga kaharian.
A glimpse of Malaysian point of view…
The hard line stand of Malaysia refusing to make the Sabah claim issue an International Court of Justice (ICJ) domain is embodied in this 2001 document they submitted to the ICJ:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/10809.pdf?PHPSESSID=5c19dbe8e80c861d3384398fb1043fca
This is how Malaysians view the Philippines’ claim to Sabah in a legal document…
The Philippines’ claim to Sabah in the eyes of Malaysia continued…
As previously mentioned, Pilipinas must overcome the Malaysian point of view.
To sum up in one sentence, Malaysia’s policy towards Sabah (formerly North Borneo) is:
http://www.academicjournals.org/jlcr/pdf/pdf2009/oct/salleh%20et%20al.pdf
In the same document immediately above, there was reference to these statements of facts:
“Clear case of ‘lutong makaw'” by Solita Collas-Monsod http://opinion.inquirer.net/49303/clear-case-of-lutong-makaw
What is being claimed is just a part of Sabah. If a genuine “fresh” Sabah referendum is to take place then Sabahans will be asked a two-tiered election:
First part: if they want Sabah to be divided (claimed areas and unclaimed areas) or not (United Sabah); then…
Second part: if Sabahans (either united or not, depending on the result of the first election) want to be independent, if they want to be with Malaysia, or if they want to be with the Philippines.
Pretty sure a Sabah referendum will never take place at this point…
ENTRY POINTS | Sultan’s claim does not cover entire Sabah, plus other areas of talk to end conflict
By: Veronica C. Uy, InterAksyon.com
March 20, 2013 1:07 AM
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/57501/entry-points–sultans-claim-does-not-cover-entire-sabah-plus-other-areas-of-talk-to-end-conflict