Sabah

-

The fact that Malaysia is paying rent to the Filipino sultanate constitutes proof that Malaysia is not the owner of Sabah. In civil law, possessor may be different from the owner of a property. In this case, Sabah is in the possession of Malaysia  who uses it under the terms of the old british lease and exercises sovereignty over it as if it was part of their territory  from the time that it was ceded to them by the previous lessee. The Sultanate of Sulu, a Filipino, constituting itself to be the rightful owner of Sabah, now wants to take possession in its private capacity. The Philippines on the other hand is a sovereign nation, who lends itself to be a claimant of Sabah, the same being a part of its national territory that includes the Sultanate of Sulu.

In a simple analogy, what we have is a Filipino citizen’s private property that is situated in Sabah, North Borneo, which the Philippines has a parallel but passive claim being  actually occupied, administered and governed by Malaysia.The Sulu Sultanate is the lessor, Malaysia is the lessee, which is also the possessor and governor. The Philippines on the other hand, seemingly, is lost in limbo because of its obscure foreign policy on the matter.

The Philippine’s claim may aptly be described as a sovereignty claim. While, the Sulu Sultanate’s claim distinctively as a lessor’s claim that seeks to end an old lease and to take physical possession of the leased property. These two claims necessarily intertwined but have a different end. Is the lease legal in the first place? I think it is, by ratification of parties through the continuation of lease payment, and its acceptance even after it was ceded. Is the lease payment morally righteous, or even so commensurately fair? the answer is no, such payment are considered by many as more of a token than true compensation considering the nominal amount given to the Sultanate and nothing to the Government of the Philippines. This is despite of Sabah’s reported income in billions of dollars annually that  goes to Malaysian coffer. Under normal condition the lease agreement should be re-constituted under Philippine laws, subject to taxes, fees and other regulatory requirements upon its use by the lessee. But since the Philippines cannot exercise sovereignty over Sabah and not even a party to the old arrangement, its position appears to be difficult since its claim is pretty much tied up with that of the Sultanate.

The questions now rises; why did the Philippine government allowed itself to remain as a  stranger in the lease arrangement for so long? why has it adopted  a passive attitude over the years? why did it chooses to condemn the act of the Sultanate and its people when they themselves as elected officials failed to act and do what needs to be done supposedly in consonance with their sworn duty in the first place. Beyond any compelling reason, the Philippine leadership should have actively asserted the Philippine sovereignty over Sabah either through or with the Sultanate, by any means, regardless of consequences. It is unthinkable that it continues to  maintain a friendly tie with a country that had robbed its territory and resources. Even the MNLF leadership admitted that Malaysia had trained and supported the secessionist movement in Mindanao which as we all know had brought misery to its inhabitants and resulted to thousands of lives lost apart from  a wide economic dislocations. It was an old tactic of divide and conquer; a diversion. One may even wonder on how the Philippines was able to shut its eyes and swallow this kind of treachery.

 More than a financial reason, the greatest stake is the dignity of the Filipino as a nation which is being trampled time and again, left and right, not only by the strong but even by a relatively weak nation.

 The worst crime that may be committed by a leader of a nation is to breach his constitutional promise to protect the citizens and its territories. More so is to admonish its citizens for asserting their birthright.


Manila, Philippines

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Transcending Filipinism

-
Image
The term Filipinism by itself is Filipinism. It is uncommon in usage internationally, but somehow it made its way to world dictionaries and may refer to usage resulting from literally translating Tagalog words into English. These are English usage peculiar to and used only by Filipinos. Turn on/ off the lights is spoken as Open/ Close the lights; CR or Comfort Rooms are used instead of Toilets (The word “Toilet” has sensibility issue and considered unhygienic); Napkins are referred to as Tissue; Canteen is used instead of Cafeteria; Colgate means Toothpaste even though it’s a Close-Up; Refrigerator is generally called Frigidaire: Xerox is to photocopy even if the machines in use are UBIX, Brothers, etc. The preceding examples demonstrate that Filipinism is beyond lingual.  It is about tradition, customary practice and generally accepted norms that manifest in  language and its usage. Filipinism is also expressions in actions like; the” boodle fight” to celebrate brotherhood an
Read more

The Philippines, Rich man…Poor man…

-
It is no secret, and history will tell us that the Philippines since the Spanish era has yet to cross the verge from poverty principally due to manipulation and monopoly by foreign and local power of its resources.  Old phrases such as tobacco monopoly, the mining monopoly, the parity rights, the levies and so on had brought undue misery and hardships. The inequality and the disparaging utilization of the Philippine natural resources in favor of foreign power and the elite had precluded genuine progress. And here now comes the present, with the dwindling wealth and resources in the west the powers of the east and west is racing back towards Africa and South-East Asia to renew and introduce a new brand of colonization using the same old but time proven and effective gun boat diplomacy. The Philippines is again stunned, bewildered by the display of might and military power. In the same way their native ancestors had been awed before them. It was because the Philippine’s has failed to
Read more

Why Russia’s BMP3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle is the best option for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

-
Image
Any avenue of approach in a war zone is a kill zone, be it an urban pave-ways or rural settings. The AFP have been sustaining unusually high casualties, resultant of inadequate armor and fire support. Individual infantry men were fully exposed while in marches on unfamiliar terrain towards the insurgent’s lair. Military vehicles have to traverse enemy territories without the security of protective armor (metal plates, chopped tree-trunks mounted on side of vehicles, sand bags, etc.).  Corollary, essential intelligence can easily be obtained in advance through aerial reconnaissance even before convoys proceed towards its destination. While the latter can be provided by available and inexpensive technology like drones, its utilization had remained an exception rather than the rule. Insurgent’s stationery bunkers/ fortifications greatly offset the AFP’s numerical advantage, that otherwise can easily be eliminated by an explosive blast. Sniper behind hard cover, like the inside of buildin
Read more