Sulu Sultanate wants to negotiate with Malaysia peacefully over Sabah claim

Sulu Sultanate wants to negotiate with Malaysia peacefully over Sabah claim

January 3, 2014

AFTER its Royal Forces occupied a portion of the disputed Sabah that resulted to a standoff, the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo on Friday expressed willingness to negotiate with the Malaysian government.

Newly installed Sultan Esmail Kiram 2nd has approved the recommendation of the Advisory Council of the Sultanate to push for a peaceful and civilized resolution of the Sabah claim.

“Today, I have approved the recommendation of the Council to resolve the Sabah issue in a civilized and peaceful manner, which recommendation is also sanctioned by the Ulama Council of Mindanao,” Kiram said in a press briefing.

As an initial step, he directed the chairman of the council to form and create a negotiating panel preparatory to the formal negotiation of the territorial dispute between the Sultanate of Sulu and the Federation of Malaysia.

The membership of the panel will be announced by the Sultanate on the next few days.

When asked if a government official will be part of the negotiating panel, the Sultanate said it is no longer necessary since they are claiming a private property and not duly owned by the government.

Kiram also ordered the legal panel of the Sultanate and its international legal experts to prepare the legal groundwork and conduct inventory of legal and historical documents to prove its legal and historical rights over Sabah.

He likewise urged the Philippine government to support the case of the Sultanate to be filed before the International Court of Justice and other international tribunals cognizant of the case.

Kiram said the move is only part of the Sultanate’s “New Year’s resolution to repossess Sabah through peaceful means.”

Sultanate Secretary General Abraham Idjirani said “the entire supporters of the sultanate support the sultan’s desire to reposess Sabah.

He likewise expressed hope that the President Benigno Aquino 3rd will support the sultanate as the “issue involves the interests of the Philippines, the sultanate, and Malaysia.”

More than 200 Royal Security Force (RSF) members headed by Rajah Muda Agbimuddin Kiram, younger brother of the reigning sultan, occupied a portion of Kampung Tanduo, Lahad Datu in Sabah on February 9 last year.

When they were discovered by Sabah authorities, they were asked to withdraw and return to Tawi-Tawi, Mindanao, but they resisted that resulted to a standoff.

A shooting war erupted on March 1, 2013 that led to the launching of an all-out war by the Malaysian Security Forces against the Sultanate’s forces.

The Malaysian government had filed rebellion and terrorism charges against those captured, one of them the son of Sultan, who has denied participation in the standoff.

http://manilatimes.net/sulu-sultanate-wants-to-negotiate-with-malaysia-peacefully-over-sabah-claim/64822/

MNLF mobilizes Tausug fighters in Malaysia

MANILA, Philippines - The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) has activated some 4,000 foreign trained Tausug fighters embedded in Sarawak and Sabah in Malaysia, group spokesman Emmanuel Fontanilla said yesterday.

Fontanilla said the mobilization of the fighters was aimed to protect Tausugs, who he claimed have been the subject of a crackdown by Malaysian authorities.

He said the MNLF fighters were in addition to the Sulu Sultanate Army led by Agbimuddin Kiram, the brother of Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, leading the armed struggle to reclaim their ancestral land in Sabah.

MNLF founding chairman Nur Misuari had declared Sarawak and Sabah as part of the Bangsa Moro Republik (BMR).

Fontanilla however clarified the MNLF fighters in Malaysia will act only in self-defense against any attack from Malaysian forces.

Fontanilla declined to elaborate how the armed group, called the Bangsa Moro Army in Malaysia, was “activated,” but a source revealed at least five countries are supporting it with arms shipments that had arrived in the disputed territory.

 “Just like what happened in the early ‘70s at the height of Mindanao conflict, Sabah and Sarawak will be the main base of the Bangsa Moro Army,” the source said.

The source said the MNLF in the early ‘70s had set up guerrilla and training camps in Sabah with the consent of the Malaysian government at the time.

The source added huge arms shipments were also sent to MNLF in Mindanao weeks before Misuari declared independence in Talipao, Sulu last Aug. 12.

“MNLF troops are now bearing modern assault weapons coming from foreign supporters,” the source said.

Fontanilla however denied the arms shipment, saying the reports were part of government propaganda.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/09/09/1188941/mnlf-mobilizes-tausug-fighters-malaysia

We are asking President Aquino to be a patriot in the truest sense of the term: To 'love' his own (people) first and the Peninsular Malaysians only a distant second

We would like to clarify the belief that Sabah claim has been submitted to the International Court of Justice for Arbitration: The Sabah dispute has not been brought to the ICJ for arbitration because up until now, Malaysia has refused to honor the Manila Accord which is all about solving this thorny issue. The Manila Accord is a UN treaty (8029) signed by the chief executives of three nations in 1963, namely Republic of Indonesia, Malaya Federation and the Republic of the Philippines.

The ICJ will not entertain Philippine case if Malaysia does not accept ICJ jurisdiction over the case. Both countries must agree to do it.

It is incumbent upon the Philippine president to demand Najib Razak of the Malaysia Federation to honor the Manila Accord in order to try to solve the impasse. If the Philippine president refuses to do it, he will not be serving the interest of his country and his people but will be seen as one who is serving the interest of Kuala Lumpur.

President Aquino has a responsibility as president to do what is right to preserve the integrity of the Philippine Republic and a moral and legal obligation to fight for the rights of his people.

We agree that the job of being president of the country is not easy but we are convinced that President Aquino was aware of the difficulties and the problems that would face him before he ran for president. And we are also convinced that he was aware of the Sabah dispute before he "applied" for the job.

To try to bring the Sabah issue to the ICJ, will be an "easier road" to take than the road of an armed conflict which might happen again if the President decides to keep the Sabah claim issue in the back burner.

We are asking President Aquino to be a patriot in the truest sense of the term: To 'love' his own (people) first and the Peninsular Malaysians only a distant second.

~~ Admins, Philippine Sabah Claim Forum
27 June 2013

Facts About Sabah: What transpired at the hearing

By Yolanda Ortega Stern, Philippine Sabah Claim Forum:

The current GPH should please look at its archives and find Page 23 of their official handbook "The Facts about Sabah". 

Look at June 7-11, 1963. It's the official documentation of what transpired in that hearing. 

Malaysia is a professional landgrabber -- they tried to steal Pulau Batu Puteh from Singapore too

By HM Sultana Matt Salleh
For the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum
9 May 2012

NB: In line with the possible dispute with Malaysia being heard in the ICJ, it is imperative to review the application of Malaysia to the ICJ for arbitration. The following application shows clearly well that Malaysia has made it a habit of land-grabbing what territories they can; in this case, it's all about Pulau Batu Puteh (shown in map). Forewarned is forearmed.

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MALAYSIA, )
JOINT APPLICANT )
WITH )
SINGAPORE, )
JOINT APPLICANT )
MEMORIAL OF THE FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA
COMES NOW the Federation of Malaysia and for their Memorial to the Court
states the following:

STATEMENT OF LAW

1. The Johor Riau-Lingga Sultanate was founded in the 16th century. The territory of the Sultanate encompassed the island of Pulau Batu Puteh.

2. On August 2, 1824, Singapore became a British colony when Sultan Hussein, the ruler of Johor and Singapore agreed to cede the island and the ten nautical miles that surround it to the British East Indian Company "in perpetuity".

3. After the Japanese occupation from 1941-1945, the British created the Malayan Union which emerged into the Federation of Malaysia and gained independence from the British on August 31, 1957. The Federation of Malaysia consisted of Malaya, Sarawak, Sabah, and Singapore.

4. Singapore seceded from the Federation of Malaysia on August 6, 1965.

5. The International Court of Justice has stated that the administration of lighthouses and navigational aids does not necessarily exhibit State authority.

6. International Law also dictates that acts done by disputing parties that will aid their case in the International Court should not influence the final ruling. The court acted accordingly to this statue in Malaysia’s previous dispute with Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan where the court disregarded all activity on the islands after 1969when the dispute materialized.

STATEMENT OF FACT

Pualu Batu Puteh was originally a part of the Johor Sultanate. During British colonialization, Malaysia and its colonial ruler assumed sovereignty over the island. In 1824, the Sultan of Johor bestowed Singapore and the ten nautical miles that surround it to the East Indian Company; this area does not include Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, or South Ledge which lie 25 nautical miles from the coast of Singapore. In 1844, the Sultan of Johor allowed the British to construct the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island; the sultan merely gave the British the permission to construct and administer the lighthouse. When the Singapore gained independence in 1965, they took responsibility over their navigational control duties from the British along with the duty
of up keeping the Horsburgh Lighthouse. Malaysia restated their claim to Pualu Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge through the publication of a map in 1979 which showed the islands as Malaysian. Singapore protested in 1980. Around ten years after the disagreement surfaced, Singapore built a radar facility and a helipad on Pualu Batu Puteh in 1989 and 1991 respectively.

STATEMENT OF JURISIDICION

Though both Malaysia and Singapore have not previously made declarations recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the two nations have agreed to join in a special agreement to settle the dispute over the sovereignty of Pulau Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge. The special agreement was signed by both parties at Putrajaya on February 7, 2003. The agreement was formally ratified by both Malaysia and Singapore on May 9, 2003. In cooperation, the nations have agreed to respect decisions made by the International Court of Justice regarding territorial disputes.

ARGUMENTS

I. Malaysia’s authority to rule Pulau Balu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge.

Malaysia has controlled Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge since the 16th century with the foundation of the Johor Riau-Lingga Sultanate. The sovereignty of the Sultanate has been undisputed and even recognized by the British who later became the colonial ruler of Malaysia. During the colonial period, Malaysia and Britain ruled over the islands by making and enforcing laws as well as adjudicating disputes.

In 1844, the Sultan of Johor granted the British permission to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh to be used as an aid for the free and safe passage of merchant ships. The Sultan of Johor also allowed the British to administer the island, but all of this was granted solely by permission without turning over legal rule of the island to Britain.

II. Singapore’s claim to Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge does not have legal grounds.

Singapore was ceded to the East Indian Company in 1824. The territory gained by the company included the island and the 10 surrounding nautical miles. Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge were not included in this agreement for the small islands lie 25 nautical miles from the coast of Singapore and only 7.7 miles from Johor. The territory of which the islands in dispute lie was never under the authority of Singapore nor was this territory seceded to Singapore through any chain of title.

Additionally, after Singapore declared independence in 1965, the nation took authority over its navigational control duties as well as taking the responsibility of administering the Horsburgh Lighthouse from the British. Since the British were only granted permission to build and administer the lighthouse, Singapore has no legal authority to claim the island as its territory. To add to this, the ICJ has previously stated that mere operation of lighthouse and other navigational aids do not manifest state authority over that territory.

III. The recent construction on Pulau Batu Puteh by Singapore authorities should
not be presented as evidence on behalf of Singapore’s case.

The dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore commenced with the publication of a Malaysian map in 1979 labeling the islands as Malaysian territory. Singapore protested the claim in 1980. Nine years later, Singapore built a radar facility on Pulau Batu Puteh followed by the construction of a helipad in 1991. Both of these facilities were built years after the dispute over the island arose. Since international law dictated that acts done by disputing parties in order to advance their own cases shall not influence a final ruling, Singapore should not be allowed to include the construction of these two features as facts that show sovereignty over the islands in question.

SUMMARY AND PRAYER FOR RELEIF

Malaysia has held sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge for hundreds of years while Singapore has merely been allowed to administer the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh. Recent developments on Pulau Batu Puteh should not be considered by the International Court of Justice as evidence to support Singapore’s case. Until this dispute is resolved, Malaysia has agreed to avoid confrontation with Singapore on Pulau Batu Puteh. Furthermore, the Federation of Malaysia and Singapore have both agreed to adhere to the court’s judgment in this matter.


http://www.amun.org/final/05/ICJ_Malaysia.pdf
www.amun.org

TO VIEW THE SCHOLARLY STUDY MADE IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION BY THE ICJ ON THE PULAUH BATU PUTEH SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTE (SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE), CHECK THE DOCUMENTS BY CLICKING ON THE FOLLOWING LINK here