Author Topic: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL  (Read 73598 times)

dongskie

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 299
  • Make love not war.
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #240 on: March 01, 2013, 12:41:03 PM »
Illegally armed group?  :shock: kung ikaw  at ang iyong mga kabaro ay nasa isang HACIENDA na pag mamay-ari mo tapos may Weapons kang dala, tingin mo illegally armed group kayo? lalo na yung kinapapalooban nyo ay PAGMAMAY-ARI nyo mismo?
I expected a bilateral talks, a peaceful resolution and a working on agreement, but what happened? Nandoon na nga yung tao, lumalapit na nga sa kanila para makipag-usap, pinapaalis pa? anong klase yan!  :jeez:

 :shock:  :shock: ahahahaha..
Di mo pa rin ba naintindihan yung last three post ni mr.Hugh, Mamiyapis at Leoneones? basahin mo pa uli hanggang maintindihan mo..

wala na akong masabi :lipsrsealed:   makatulog na nga..
DO NOT SCORN A WEAK CUB, HE MAY BECOME THE BRUTAL TIGER.

Rolly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 74
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #241 on: March 01, 2013, 12:41:24 PM »
Sorry lang ha, mods?

To everyone here who is shouting and baying for Malaysia to return to us Sabah, why don't you STFU and sit down!

Ang yayabang ninyo sa internet, pero sa tunay wala naman kayo magawa! O, bakit hindi kayo sumunod doon sa Lahad Datu para tulungan yung mga gungong na nananaginip na mga sulsultan doon? Jesus H, this is a NON-ISSUE. Tanggapin na ninyo na unless mag desisyon ang UN at parties involved na mangyari yung mga wet dreams ninyo, wala na yan!

@Rolly

DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. I am part of the silent majority! I did not appoint you to say na ashamed ako of what my President did for MY country.

You know what I am ashamed of? Mga bobong taong katulad mo na nauuto ng mga sinungaling na sulsultan diyan sa Mindanao. Kesyo prisipe or prinsesa daw sila. Sinong maysabi? Sila? Matagal nang naputol ang linya ng Sultan of Sulu, the last REAL SULTAN died without a biological heir, which means itong mga Kiram ngayon e kunya-kunyaring ka-linya lang ng Sultanate! Ni hindi nga sila makapag-kasundo kung sino talaga ang tunay na Sultan, itong huli lang sila nagkausap nung nabuking sila na mga peke at huwad sila na mga sultan-kuno.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sa lahat ng mga macho-Rambo-super-soldier-wannabes dito sa forum? Gusto ninyo mabawi yung Sabah diba?

Now is your chance! May Royal Army na stupid enough tumanggap sa inyo sa Mindanao! Willing to send your special-ultra-mega-skills the way of the Malaysians and their soldiers! Who knows? Maybe you people here are a match for their British-based GGK and PASKAL commando units now encircling the insane Kiram family members and their bodyguards.

Because nothing short of a full-scale war between the Philippines and Malaysia will allow us to take what is and has been sovereign Malaysian soil for the last few decades. That is the HARD TRUTH in the matter. The Malays fought long and hard for their unity and independence, and will stop at nothing to keep it that way. Even if it means going to war with a neighboring country to do so.

These Kirams can moan, cry, and bitch all they want. But unless they are ready to die for these lands... which apparently they are not... then umuwi nalang sila and tumahimik nalang. The Malaysians have demonstrated their willingness to fight for their lands. History is already time long since gone, and no amount of digging up old historical records and poorly photocopied documents(they cannot even present the original documents!) will make time turn back.

Jesus H! Pinapataas ninyong mga tao ang presyon ko ng madaling araw!

Eh kung matalino ka pala kababayan basahin mo muna ito kung MATALINO ka talaga? kasi ako Bobo nga ako eh kagaya ng sabi mo  :eyes: napakatalino mo rin mag salita kababayan, nalulungkot ako. baka yata na alimpungatan ka dahil madaling araw eh tumataas presyon mo, hinay hinay na kasi ang pag kain ng maCHOLESTEROL talagang tataas yan,

"Huwag mong sagutin ang mangmang ng ayon sa kaniyang kamangmangan, baka ikaw man ay maging gaya rin niya.Sagutin mo ang mangmang ayon sa kaniyang kamangmangan, baka siya'y maging pantas sa ganang kaniya. - Kawikaan 26:4-5"

Quote
Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is a professor at the Ateneo School of Law.

Sabah is Philippine territory. We must assert our claim. The ancient 1878 lease contract must end.

In 1704, the Sultan of Brunei gave the sovereignty of Northern Borneo, now called Sabah, to the Sultan of Sulu in gratitude for the latter’s assistance in quelling a widespread rebellion in Brunei. In January 22, 1878, the Sultan of Sulu entered into a contract bestowing rights to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent over Sabah. The latter later formed the British North Borneo Company (BNBC) which was granted a charter by the British Government. Subsequently, BNBC assigned the contract to the British Empire.

Six days after the Philippines was granted independence by the United States, the British Empire on July 10 1946 decided to officially take over the sovereignty of Sabah. In 1962, the Sultan of Sulu entered into an agreement with the Government of the Philippines ceding sovereignty of Sabah to the latter and empowering the GRP to claim Sabah for the Philippines. And when the British Empire granted independence to its colony , Malaysia, in 1963, it included Sabah in the Federation of Malaysia.

Malaysia and the Philippines both claim Sabah. Malaysia anchors its title on state succession from the British Empire. On the other hand, the Philippine claim is based on historic title and cession. Which country has the better right?

There is no doubt that the Philippines has a better right.

The resolution of the question lies in the nature of the deed which the Sultan of Sulu entered into with Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent which was assigned to the British Empire. Malaysia claims that the contract was, in effect, one of sale where the Sultan of Sulu ceded Sabah for a price. On the other hand, the Philippines and the Sultanate of Sulu assert that the grant was a lease arrangement.

Let us examine the deed. It specifically provides that the Sultan of Sulu and his heirs and successors

“do hereby desire to lease of our own free will and satisfaction, to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck of Hongkong, and to Alfred Dent, Esquire, of London, who act as a representative of a British Company, together with their heirs, associates, successors, and assigns forever and until the end of time, all rights and powers which we possess over territories and lands tributary to uson the mainland of the Island of Borneo, …. ( description of Sabah)”

The wordings of this contract as to the operative prestation are very clear. It is a “lease”. Indeed, the word “lease” was again used in relation to the payment of the financial consideration, thus:

“in consideration of the territorial lease, the Honorable Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and to Alfred Dent, promise to pay His Majesty Maulama Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Ahlam Kiram and to his heirs and successors, the sum of five thousand dollars annually, to be paid each and every year.”

And then, “lease” was mentioned again twice in another paragraph as follows:

“The abovementioned territories are from today truly leased to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and to Alfred Dent, Esquire,as already said, together with their heirs, their associates (company) and to their successors and assignees for as long as they choose or desire to use them, but the rights and powers thereby leased shall not be transferred to another nation without the consent of His Majesty’s Government.”

The repeated reference to “lease” highlights the clear intention of the parties. Ownership-dominion over the subject property was still with the Sultan of Sulu. The land mass was only subjected to encumbrances in favor of Von Overbeck and Dent. The original contract was written in Arabic and the word used was “pajak”. This has already been interpreted as “lease” and not cession or sale by a number of well known international translators. Moreover, Von Overbeck and Dent were very capable negotiators and merchants and they would not have agreed to anything that would not reflect the agreement of the parties.

To support the argument that it was a sale, the fact that possessory right was given to the transferees “until the end time” has been asserted. This is not decisive. It is not extraordinary that lease contracts even today are granted for long periods such as 25 years, 50 years ,100 years and so on. There are even contracts like “usufructs” which grant possessory rights ( not ownership title) on a possessor until the lifetime of the owner. Legally, a lease confers real rights which, even under ordinary local law, can be automatically transmitted to the lessee’s heirs living in the leased premises. This is why, unless allowed by specific provisions of law or contract, a lessor cannot simply eject the heirs of a lessee on the ground of the death of the lessee. It is clear that a lease in perpetuity does not and cannot negate the superior ownership title of the Sultan of Sulu when the contract was entered into.

The contract clause providing that the transferees shall not assign “to another nation without the consent of his Majesty’s Government” does not help the Malaysians. The phrase “his Majesty’s Government” clearly refers to the Sultan of Sulu or his successors and not to the British monarchy. To say that the consent refers to the consent of the British Empire is not textually supported by the deed itself. A cursory reading of the grant shows that the transferees were not even representing the British empire. They were acting for themselves and as representative of an unnamed “British Company.” This later turned out to be the British North Borneo Company which was not even in existence at the signing of the contract. It was only subsequently given a Charter by the British government.

It is also argued that the fact that contract stipulation providing that any dispute between the transferors and the transferees “shall be brought for consideration or judgment To His Majesty’s Consul General in Brunei” signifies that the parties admit the sovereignty of the British Empire. That assertion likewise is wrong. Legally, this conflict-resolution-provision is an ordinary arbitration clause.

It is standard in any contract to stipulate where and which body shall resolve disputes and claims of the parties. It is normal that third parties without any legal connection to the contract are designated as arbitrators by agreement of the parties. Today, for example, disputes in the Philippines between Philippine Corporations governed by Philippine laws may be ventilated by agreement of parties in the Arbitration Tribunal of Singapore, Hong Kong, or Melbourne. And this does not necessarily mean that the parties are under the sovereignty of, subjects or citizens of Singapore, Hong Kong or Melbourne.

Also, was the “the sum of five thousand dollars annually, to be paid each and every year” rental or purchase price? Significant indicators to negate a “purchase price” are present. In a contract of sale, the consideration must be a specific price-certain. Though it may be paid in installments, there will be a final payment. It can never be left indefinitely unknown. In the 1878 deed, it is indefinite and that indefiniteness made uncertain the alleged price. Rentals, on the other hand, are small and could never be the equivalent of the actual value of the land. They are also for a fixed amount and usually paid at regular intervals, subject only to change as allowed by law or the stipulations of the parties. All the signs of a rental are therefore present. It will indeed strain one’s credulity to stretch the import of the financial consideration in the 1878 deed as a purchase price.

The claim of the Philippines is very straightforward. It is based on historic title emanating from the ownership of the Sultan of Sulu in 1878 which was transferred to the Philippines in 1962 by way of cession, a mode of acquiring property under international law. The historic title of the Sultan of Sulu over Sabah has already been internationally admitted. In fact, the very origin of the dispute which is the grant, deed, or contract as discussed above is the very evidence of that historic title. Nobody questions that it was the Sultan of Sulu who could have exercised ownership and dominion over Sabah such that he was the only one who executed the contract in 1878 with Overbeck and Dent which, in turn, was assigned to the British Empire.

Prior to 1946, the Borneans were not even subjects of the British Empire like the Indians in India or the South Africans in Africa or some other colonies. It was only after the Second World War when it declared that the British Empire intends to include Sabah as part of the future Federation of Malaysia that this was done. How could the British Empire include a land mass which it possessed merely by way of a transferred-contract of lease in a plan that created a new state? There was absolutely no legal-ownership-title to transfer. It was simply a land-grabbed property to be given to another. It is axiomatic in property law that the transferee has no greater rights than the transferor.

To protect the Sultanate of Sulu’s ownership interest over Sabah, the Sultanate sought the aid of the Philippine government in 1962. This led to the signing of the cession-agreement where the Sultan of Sulu ceded sovereign rights over Sabah to the Philippines and where the Philippine government agreed to represent the royal family of Sulu in their claim over Sabah in the international arena, particularly against Great Britain at that time. By this cession, Sabah has become part of the territory of the Philippines with the Sultan of Sulu and his family having proprietary rights over the same inside Philippine territory.

Simply put, the Philippines’ claim is based on historic title originally belonging to the Sultan of Sulu and on cession. Both mode of acquisitions are accepted in international law. Malaysia’s claim is based on a commercial contract assigned to the British Empire which land-grabbed Sabah. Under international law, both latter instances cannot be the basis of a legal title leading to ownership.

In the 1960’s, we had great minds in the government, particularly in Congress, who fought for this territory. One of them was former Senator Jovito Salonga. In 1962, he was in the negotiating panel of the Philippines that confronted the British authorities. I could just imagine how these people might have underestimated the then young Filipino negotiator when he entered the negotiating room. They probably thought that he was just a mediocre, trouble-maker small Asian and Filipino lawyer……. until Salonga opened his mouth.

Salonga’s explanation on the matter was so solid and comprehensive that these British legal minds must have been stunned, listening with mouths agape. In front of them was in fact, a brilliant lawyer who placed number 1 in the Philippine Bar without yet finishing his institutional law studies, a scholar by all standards who took his Masters of Law in Harvard. He later finished his Doctorate of Laws in Yale with high honors and was awarded the prestigious Ambrose Gherini Prize for the best research paper in international law. His articulation of the Philippines’s legal position was simple, clear but legally sound. He said

Our claim is mainly based on the following propositions: that Overbeck and Dent, not being sovereign entities nor representing sovereign entities, could not and did not acquire dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo; that on the basis of authoritative British and Spanish documents, the British North Borneo Company, a private trading concern to whom Dent transferred his rights, did not and could not acquire dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo; that their rights were as those indicated in the basic contract, namely, that of a lessee and a mere delegate; that in accordance with established precedents in International Law, the assertion of sovereign rights by the British Crown in 1946, in complete disregard of the contract of 1878 and their solemn commitments, did not and cannot produce legal results in the form of a new tide. (Speech of then Congressman Jovito Salonga at the House of Representatives March 30, 1963)

At that time, the Philippines was very well represented by a crusading and dedicated public servant. With a valid legal claim on Sabah and a brilliant negotiator in Salonga, the great British Empire was made to stop for a while, think and ponder their next moves. Then the empire finally decided. Instead of confronting the issue head-on, the British decided to grant the Federation of Malaysia its independence in August 1963 and then left the Sabah problem as the headache of the new state.

Time passed. It seems that in previous years, the Philippines’ interest waned for various reasons. The recent events involving the crown prince of the Sultan going to Sabah should shake the Philippine government from its complacency over this issue.

It is time to again assert our rights over Philippine territory. Once asserted, it is also time to put an end to the 1878 contract of lease which up to now Malaysia is honoring by paying the miniscule rentals thereof.

In international law and in ordinary commercial law, there is an accepted legal principle that justifies the extinguishment of an obligation created by treaty or contract. This is known as the doctrine of rebus sic stantidbus. Quoting our very own Supreme Court in PNCC vs. CA ( G.R. No. 116896, May 5, 1997), “under this theory, the parties stipulate in the light of certain prevailing conditions, and once these conditions cease to exists, the contract also ceases to exist.” In international law, this rule posits that if there is a fundamental change in circumstances, the treaty must be rendered ineffective.

So many absolutely exceptional and fundamental changes have transpired since 1878 up to the present that require extinguishing the 1878 contract. For one, the rental after more than a hundred years has become so ridiculous. Also, the involved-sovereignties have unquestionably and irretrievably changed. In those times, the Republic of the Philippines and the Federation of Malaysia did not exist. Unlike in 1878, the economies of the different countries of the world are now so much global, sophisticated and intertwined. Even questions of security, alliances and national defense, whether local, regional or intenational, have been altered. Indeed, there are so many substantial changes that, legally, the 1878 agreement must be considered functus officio.

While Sabah is just a mass of property on earth, our claim is more than just a wish for additional territorial metes and bounds. Our assertion manifests our dignity and pride as Filipinos and exhibits that uniting idea that whether we are Christians or Muslims, we will stand and fight for each other and our principled causes. As George Willian Curtis said “A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.” 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 12:52:29 PM by Rolly »
In times of peace we must prepare for war! and in times of war we must promote peace!.
"TWENTY-FIVE SPANIARDS IS ENOUGH TO CONQUERED THE WHOLE CHINA!."

Buti pa si Ferdinand E. Marcos at Sultan ay may paninindigan para sa kapwa Filipino, eh ang mga Aquino kaya merong paninindigan para sa kapwa Filipino?

Na ito ang buhay na walang hanggan na ikaw ay makilala nila na iisang Dios na tunay at ang iyong sinugo sa makatuwid bagay si HesuKristo. - Juan 17:3

hughdotoh

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4270
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #242 on: March 01, 2013, 12:44:36 PM »
I am just curious on the difference between our claim in WPS and claim in Sabah?

Big difference.

Our maritime claims are based on contemporary international law, and the Philippine government is acting as a sovereign nation with legitimate claims to exploit economic resources recognized by the UN to be within our jurisdiction. The whole world recognizes our maritime rights re: WPS.

With Sabah, the claims are based on defunct treaties made at a time when white people ruled the world, and now these claims are made moot by the fact that nobody there really wants to be ruled by the Kiram clan. The whole world recognizes that Sabah is Malaysian territory and the locals would rather be Malaysians.

So any attempt to say that WPS = Sabah is a sign of severe mental retardation, curable only by self-inflicted .45cal or 9mm puncture through the temple.

casual observer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 839
    • virtual personal assistant
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #243 on: March 01, 2013, 12:47:43 PM »
Big difference.

Our maritime claims are based on contemporary international law, and the Philippine government is acting as a sovereign nation with legitimate claims to exploit economic resources recognized by the UN to be within our jurisdiction. The whole world recognizes our maritime rights re: WPS.

With Sabah, the claims are based on defunct treaties made at a time when white people ruled the world, and now these claims are made moot by the fact that nobody there really wants to be ruled by the Kiram clan. The whole world recognizes that Sabah is Malaysian territory and the locals would rather be Malaysians.

So any attempt to say that WPS = Sabah is a sign of severe mental retardation, curable only by self-inflicted .45cal or 9mm puncture through the temple.

Has The Philippine Government officially renounced its claim on Sabah?

javelin

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 175
  • Ultimate Procrastinator
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #244 on: March 01, 2013, 01:27:34 PM »
And what about our intelligence officials? How is it that no one even knew that a large number of Filipinos were headed to Sabah? Whoever is advising the President on foreign policy matters has done terribly wrong by our people and has put us on a slippery slope with regard to this conflict the government sent the wrong signal to the Malaysian government when it portrayed the Filipinos pursuing the claim on Sabah as common criminals. It is the president’s duty to protect its citizens everywhere.

agree.. but sir you must understand that China may join the fray... and i think the President is fulfilling his mandate to protect its citizen kasi mas malaki ang problema pag nadamay tayo dyan although may mga sablay tulad ng lost in bureaucratic daw ung sulat ng sultan..

may tamang panahon para bawiin ang sabah and obvious naman na hindi na ito ang tamang panahon.. and kung history lang ang usapan dapat nuon pa nila ginawa yang homecoming na yan.. nakatipid pa ang Marcos Admin at cguro walang MNLF MILF or Abusayaf at walang jabidah na ngyari..
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 01:38:30 PM by javelin »

4threich

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4827
  • Uncareless whisper
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #245 on: March 01, 2013, 01:52:46 PM »
First post last post.

Sabah is Malaysia Check Present Philippine maps.

Sulu Sultan is as history as Datu Paiburong. No more no less. Worthy for a good read.

IMO, MILF-RP peace talks triggered a series of MNLF-Sulu Sultan KSP. First MNLF-ASG, then Sabah Sultan Vacation. what's next? bombs?

You young crazy  people forgot to focus on the real dispute on hand which is irrefutable Philippine Territory.. the chinees creeping invasion of our EZZ in WPS.


"Col. Jis op: You can't handle the truth!!!!"
"4threich: You can't even handle your wife.. :P"

troung

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #246 on: March 01, 2013, 04:02:38 PM »
Quote
Our maritime claims are based on contemporary international law, and the Philippine government is acting as a sovereign nation with legitimate claims to exploit economic resources recognized by the UN to be within our jurisdiction. The whole world recognizes our maritime rights re: WPS.

With Sabah, the claims are based on defunct treaties made at a time when white people ruled the world, and now these claims are made moot by the fact that nobody there really wants to be ruled by the Kiram clan. The whole world recognizes that Sabah is Malaysian territory and the locals would rather be Malaysians.

So any attempt to say that WPS = Sabah is a sign of severe mental retardation, curable only by self-inflicted .45cal or 9mm puncture through the temple.

This forum needs a like button  :beer: .

Quote
I expected a bilateral talks, a peaceful resolution and a working on agreement, but what happened? Nandoon na nga yung tao, lumalapit na nga sa kanila para makipag-usap, pinapaalis pa? anong klase yan!  :jeez:

Two to three hundred armed men from another nation invaded Malaysian territory - Malaysia would have been within their rights to drop LGBs and finish them off with grape shot and bayonets. As a sovereign nation they don't have to hold talks in this situation.

Quote
a bloody encounter could have been avoided and should never have happened. the DFA should be at the forefront of the matter and must never compromise the President of the Philippines by allowing him to comment on such issues. Should not our ambassador to Malaysia have been the one at the frontline? Or our DFA officials? the lack of attention, priority and importance given to Sultan Kiram’s letters to the President.

The "sultan" caused the deaths, not Malaysia. A shame two policemen and villager had to lose their lives because of the "sultan" and his goons.


Quote
Followers of Sulu sultan in Sabah ask Malaysia for time to bury their dead
March 2, 2013 5:20am
 http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/297347/news/nation/followers-of-sulu-sultan-in-sabah-ask-malaysia-for-time-to-bury-their-dead
Sulu sultan prays as firefight erupts in Sabah . Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III prays inside his house in Maharlika village, Taguig City on Friday as fighting was reported to have started between Malaysian forces and his armed followers at a small fishing village in Sabah. In a report aired over GMA's News TV Live, reporter Mariz Umali quoted Kiram's spokesman Abe Idjirani in Manila as saying that Malaysian forces began surrounding the Filipinos at around 6 a.m. He also said the first shot 'was fired by Malaysian police authorities.' Reuters/Romeo Ranoco
After at least 12 of its followers were killed in a bloody shootout with Malaysian forces, the Sulu sultanate sought a ceasefire with Malaysian security forces in Sabah so its members there can bury their dead, a Malaysian news site reported late Friday.
 
Sultanate secretary general Abraham Idjirani, spokesman of Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, said Malaysia as a Muslim nation should understand their followers' need to bury their dead, Malaysia's The Star online reported.
 
“Malaysia is a Muslim nation so they should understand that we need to bury our dead ... I hope Malaysia will reconsider its position,” he said in a phone interview with Malaysia's The Star online.
 
Kiram's followers had been holed up in the seaside village of Tanduo, led by Jamalul's brother Raja Muda Azzimudie Kiram.
 
Idjirani insisted the Malaysian forces had attempted to dig their way in to the area at around 6 a.m. Thursday but withdrew.
 
Friday's shooting began at 10:30 a.m.
 
Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the Filipinos fired first and triggered the deadly encounter.
 
Najib also declared there will be no more grace period for the armed Filipinos to leave Sabah.
 
He said he has given "full mandate" to the ground commanders - police Inspector-General Tan Sri Ismail Omar and Armed Forces chief Tan Sri Zulkefli Mohd Zin - to take the necessary action.
 
"They are given the full power to act in this case, using their discretion but the armed group must be defeated and appropriate further action taken against them," state-run Bernama news agency quoted Najib as saying.

Najib said the Filipino group ventured 1.5 km from their camp in Lahad Datu in Sabah and opened fire at the Malaysian forces, according to a report on Malaysia's The Star online.
 
"I am very sad over the incident because what we had wanted to prevent, which is bloodshed, had actually happened," he was quoted in The Star online report as saying.

Because of this, Najib declared there will be no more grace period for the armed Filipinos to leave Sabah.
 
"There will be no compromise; either (the intruders) surrender or face the consequences if they refuse," he said.
 
He said the intruders are now "fully surrounded," and the Royal Malaysian Navy has raised the level of security in Malaysian waters to prevent any intruder from escaping. — ELR, GMA News
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 04:16:44 PM by troung »

israeli

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6167
"I'm very determined. If I decide what something is worth doing, then I'll put my heart and soul to it. The whole ground can be against me, but if I know it is right, I'll do it. That's the business of a leader." - Lee Kuan Yew

12th BCT

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Dulce bellum inexpertis...
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #248 on: March 01, 2013, 04:42:47 PM »
Bottom line is, this Sultan put the country and Malaysia on a probable collision course for a war we are ill-equipped to fight.

AND, even if we were adequately equipped to take the Malaysians head - on, while maintaining an credible deterrent on the WPS, War should only be the last resort should political means fail.

While I understand that the plebiscite, vote or whatever you label it, conducted by the British to help determine if ALL the inhabitants of Sabah wants to be Malaysian or Otherwise has some color to it, addressing the matter diplomatically should be paramount.

OTHERWISE, well... fill in the blanks.

Ad praesens ova cras pullis sunt meliora...

israeli

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6167
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #249 on: March 01, 2013, 04:59:35 PM »
just bring this whole matter before the ICJ whether the Malaysians like it or not.
"I'm very determined. If I decide what something is worth doing, then I'll put my heart and soul to it. The whole ground can be against me, but if I know it is right, I'll do it. That's the business of a leader." - Lee Kuan Yew

boxster

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 107
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #250 on: March 01, 2013, 06:05:55 PM »
There are intelligence report indicating that anti- pnoy forces are really behind this to pursue their selfish political end and derail the peace process.they want to embarass our president and create a revolutionary  atmosphere ..a lot of people are falling into this trap of the saboteurs ..this is exactly what they want for peoples emotions be enflamed. Candidates coming from the opposition are now riding on this issue.. What is Boy Saycon of Copa and friends of UNA candidate tingting cojuangco doing in the Kirams residence? Why is the  MNLF talking to  the communist chinese? Why is the CPP NPA and their front organizations suddenly supporting the actions of the Kirams regarding sabah but numb on the subject of the spratlys and the panatag shoal? What is the role of Norberto Gonzales and his priest friend in this series of events? This are something we have to think about..this is not the time to blame anyone..this is the time to analyze and defend our government from malicious attacks by enemies of the state..the timing of it means this was well planned to destabilize our Govt. think about this.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 06:08:48 PM by boxster »

taro_king

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #251 on: March 01, 2013, 06:17:08 PM »
If theres one thing this thread and its companion thread in the Military Trends subforum has succeeded in doing, its showing our people's mettle.  Take a bow, gents, you make all of us Filipinos proud.   Hint:  Im being sarcastic.

Mr. Tagalacion has made the most sensible post so far, and I propose we take that into consideration:

Even if there was a valid referendum held among Sabah occupants, it still wouldn't have mattered.  If you owned a piece of land that's been occupied by squatters for years, will it really matter to you if a referendum among them said that 100% of them wanted to continue staying on your land against your will?  Of course not.  That is not their choice to make.  They don't even have the right to make that choice.

As for the other arguments put forward here opposing our continued pursuit of Sabah...

Pointing out how poor and weak the Philippines is against Malaysia doesn't mean our case for Sabah is equally weak and is completely beside the point.  In fact, that argument misses the point completely.  To go with that argument is to also argue that might makes right.

Saying we'd only invite another insurgency and unrest in Sabah once we get it back is also wildly inconsequential.  What does that matter to the legal arguments about Sabah's true ownership?  Will you let squatters stay on your land simply because they might get 'angry' if you told them to leave?

And why insist on dragging the Sultan of Sulu's heirs into this argument?  They have no legal standing on this matter.  The previous undisputed Sultan of Sulu had already ceded his sultanate's rights to Sabah over to the Republic of the Philippines in the 60's.  This legal standing to pursue the claim now belongs to the Republic of the Philippines, not the late sultan's heirs.

Let's not be misled by claims this 'cession' of rights had already been rescinded by one of the heirs either.  First of all, it's not even clear who the real Sultan of Sulu is as there are currently 5 claimants IIRC.  Since the 'cession' was given by the undisputed Sultan of Sulu during the 60's, what right do mere claimants have to rescind it?


The discussion about the Sabah claim should center around legal concepts and dispassionate arguments.  There is no call to ridicule opposing opinions nor to appeal to emotions.  If one must argue against our pursuit of Sabah, one must at least present valid legal arguments about why Sabah should no longer belong to PH. 
One could always borrow Malaysia's arguments on this issue, except - come to think of it - they really don't have one, do they?  Otherwise, they'd have faced us in the world court over this issue by now.

But for this thread's discussion on the so-called 'standoff', feel free to ridicule the crumbling House of Kiram all you want.  Just don't assume that the unfitness and hypocrisy of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu diminishes the rights of the Republic of the Philippines with regards to Sabah.

Thanks.

Of course, the problem is that none of us here are experts in international law, although some pretend to be.  And with our pretentious ways we either blindly defend the Sultan's actions or willingly give away real estate.  But for this thread and its companion thread to be of any real value to its readers, the discussion --- should it continue --- must be based on "legal concepts and dispassionate arguments."  Otherwise, it only fuels anger and degrades the forum. 

This forum deteriorates not only because of unnecessary and/or illogical posts pertaining to defense equipment, unecessary and/or illogical posts on other matters degrades it as well.  I hope everyone understands that.

Gentlemen, at what point do you think we should stop this forum melee?


 

« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 06:20:24 PM by taro_king »


Stay here. Its probably one of the last few places where people actually agree with you.

taro_king

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #252 on: March 01, 2013, 06:39:08 PM »


The discussion about the Sabah claim should center around legal concepts and dispassionate arguments.  There is no call to ridicule opposing opinions nor to appeal to emotions.  If one must argue against our pursuit of Sabah, one must at least present valid legal arguments about why Sabah should no longer belong to PH. 


I dont suppose it would be too much if the forum members heeded this proposal?



Stay here. Its probably one of the last few places where people actually agree with you.

mamiyapis

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3996
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #253 on: March 01, 2013, 07:02:59 PM »
@ Rolly

Then why don't you and the good professor go and retake Sabah by yourselves? This is like old crazy people talking about Spanish titles from a bygone era. Eh kung maglabas kaya ako ng Spanish title saying ako ang nagma-may-ari ng buong lupain na kinatitirikan ng bahay mo ng ilan generations na? Tapos sabihin ko sayo na yang buong probinsya kung nasaan ka ay pagmamay-ari ko ayon kay King Philip ng Spain? How would you feel?

You know, maybe the British should reform the East India Trading Company and claim all the lands they occupied, bought or leased back then? Cause the agreements they made back then are still valid, after all right?

Alam ninyo, merong batas that covers cases like these eh, wag na tayong tumingin sa UN. Simple possession nalang diba?

geranhulmaster

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 114
Re: Sultan of Sulu vows to 'reclaim' Sabah from KL
« Reply #254 on: March 01, 2013, 07:10:06 PM »
I hope you're the only voter with that flawed reasoning.  Bobong botante!! kaya nagkaka leche-leche ang Pilipinas kasi dahil sa mga katulad mo!

Save yourself the stress Mr. Moonlight. These are the same kind of people who claims that the Marcos Regime was the best we ever had, and that Cory was the scourge of the Philippines. They are better locked in a wooden box and buried under the ground, mga ten feet under pwede na.

Aren't we calling on China to follow international laws? To follow binding legalities and ****? Now here goes a make-believe royalty, entering a place and demanding its transfer to him! Regardless of legalities, Kiram made a fool of the entire Philippines.

Maybe the AFP should also start a fast-recruitment scheme. Sa Facebook ang daming nagtatawag to reclaim Sabbah come what might e.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 07:14:43 PM by geranhulmaster »