Philippine police fired at Chinese fishing boat; gunmen kidnapping farm manager and tourists...

Captain recalls attack by Philippine police

"They rushed toward us in a boat and fired at us," He Junting, captain of the fishing boat Qiongqionghai 03168, said Thursday when recalling an attack by Philippine police.

He's boat was about 300 meters from Qiongqionghai 09063, which was seized by Philippine police at about 10 a.m. Tuesday in waters off the Half Moon Shoal in the South China Sea, with 11 fishermen on board captured.

He drove his boat and rushed away after seeing the armed vessel. It encountered another armed boat later but safely got away.

"If we had not known the sea conditions around the Half Moon Shoal well, we would never have got away from them," he told Xinhua.

"If we delayed a little bit, our nine fishermen aboard would have been seized," he said.

The Half Moon Shoal is China's inherent territory. It has rich fishing resources, good anchorages and harbors, the captain said.

"It is a traditional fishing ground for fishermen in Qionghai City, Hainan Province," He said. "We have been fishing there many times."

The Beidou navigation system installed on Qiongqionghai 09063 was switched off by the Philippine police, meaning the 11 fishermen lost contact with China, according to a Qionghai fishing administration official on condition of anonymity.

There are still 48 Chinese fishing boats in the waters off the Nansha Islands, according to the Qionghai municipal fishing administration station.

Police will make contacts with the boats four times a day and make sure to know their positions. They will guide fishing boats to leave dangerous sea areas if needed, said Yu Yi, head of the Tanmen township border police station of Qionghai City.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Wednesday urged the Philippines to "immediately" release the detained fishermen and the boat.

China has demanded the Philippines "make rational explanations", said spokeswoman Hua Chunying at the daily press briefing, warning the Philippine side to "take no more provocative action".

Hua said a Chinese maritime police boat has arrived at the sea area. China's Foreign Ministry and the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines have already lodged representations with the Philippine side.

Hua reiterated that China has undisputable sovereign rights over the sea area, including the Half Moon Shoal of Nansha Islands, where the incident occurred. - Xinhua

Another Chinese national kidnapped in Malaysia by Philippine gunmen

Once again a Chinese tourist is abducted from Sabah. Yes, again!

Indeed the word 'again" epitomizes the vulnerability of Sabah's marine defence, the loopholes in the state's security, the woes of the state's tourism industry, the deeply planted worries of the state's residents, as well as the indignation of all Malaysians.

It is not just a scandal for Sabah, but a crying shame for the entire nation.

Are you kidding me? Just one month and now we have another tourist kidnapped from our territory.

Goodness! Why a Chinese national again?

Is it Abu Sayyaf again?

Public reactions have been a concoction of varying sentiments: shock, disbelief, frustration, anguish, humiliation...

More than a hundred Chinese passengers onboard MH370 are yet to be located while the young female Chinese tourist abducted from a Semporna resort is yet to be freed. And now we have the Chinese manager of a fish farm snatched away.

Many Chinese nationals have cancelled their travel plans to Malaysia after the MH370 and Semporna kidnapping incidents. So far no bookings have been received from Chinese travel agencies.

There were a total of 1.6 million Chinese tourists visiting Malaysia last year but according to estimates, the number will likely shrink by 400,000 to 800,000 this year.

With another Chinese national now kidnapped in Sabah, it is foreseeable that Chinese tourists will shun the country while other nationals might review their travel plans. To be honest, no one wants to visit a country that fails to guarantee foreigners' safety.

This is not the first time Filipino terrorists have kidnapped hostages from Sabah in demanding exorbitant ransoms from the government. Last November, a Taiwanese couple was assaulted on Bon Bon island off Sabah. The husband was killed while the wife was abducted, to be released only after a large sum of ransom was paid to the kidnappers several months later.

In April 2000, some 21 people were kidnapped by Filipino militants, including 12 foreigners. The kidnappers released the hostages after US$20 million was paid by the Philippine government at the mediation of Libya.

Last February, armed Sulu terrorists breached our territorial waters to stake a claim on their '"ancestral land" culminating in bloody clashes with our military.

Have we done or learned anything after all this? Why do the terrorists roam so freely into our territory even after the formation of the Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM)? Why do our security forces appear so helpless in fending off these intruders, allowing them to do whatever they wish in our country?

We remain so helpless and powerless in the face of such blatant provocation from these lawless militants. We have not only surrendered their insatiable ransom demands but also the confidence of Malaysians towards this country as well as our international reputation and image.

- Mysinchew.

Sabah shaken by kidnapping of fish farm manager from Guangzhou

Crime scene: Comm Hamza (right) and Sabah crime division chief SAC Omar Mamah showing photos of the kidnapping location. — Bernama

LAHAD DATU: Fresh off a piracy case on Sunday, Sabah was shaken by the kidnapping of another Chinese national from an island nearby.

Chief Minister Datuk Musa Aman has since announced that a curfew and travels restrictions would be imposed in high risk areas off the coast of Sabah.

The kidnapping of 34-year-old fish farm manager Yang Zai Lin from Guangzhou saw five Filipino gunmen in a brief shootout with the pursuing Malaysian security forces before they fled to Sibutu Island in the southern Philippines.

The kidnapping came about 28 hours after four pirates armed with M16 rifles attacked four fishermen and robbed them of their outboard engines late on Sunday at Tanjung Labian, close to Kampung Tanduo that was intruded by Sulu gunmen in February last year.

The 10-minute raid at 2.45am on Tuesday at Wonderful Terrace Sdn Bhd fish farm on Pulau Baik, close to the shores of Silam, about 30km south of Lahad Datu, has shocked Sabahans who are now questioning the Eastern Sabah Security Command (Esscom).

The kidnappers, also armed with M16 rifles, had paddled their 40HP white boat to the fish farm, avoiding the security guard by moving towards a second jetty on the other side of the farm.

Sources said that two of the masked men headed straight to the room of a female cook and demanded to know the whereabouts of the Hong Kong-based owner of the fish farm.

On learning that the owner had left just a few hours before their arrival, after a four-day stay at the farm, they grabbed Yang who had come out to check on the commotion outside his room, which was adjacent to the cook’s room.

They pulled him to the waiting speedboat where the guard was being held.

However, the gunmen pushed the guard off the boat and sped off towards international waters.

Security forces were immediately notified of the kidnapping.

Due to the proximity of the incident to mainland, police set up roadblocks along the Tawau-Lahad Datu road while at sea they went on red alert under Ops Tutup.

Sabah Police Commissioner Datuk Hamza Taib said that at about 6.20am they spotted a 200HP speedboat close to the Malaysian border island of Mataking and as police tried to intercept the gunmen, gunfire was exchanged.

He said the gunmen managed to slip into Alice Reef and flee towards the Philippines’ Sibutu island.

He said they believed that the gunmen had switched from their 40HP boat to the higher powered 200HP speedboat to make their escape out of Sabah.

Disclosing they had asked assistance from the Philippines police, Comm Hamza added that they were also checking whether the same group was behind the act of piracy at Tanjung Labian on Sunday.

According to sources, the pirates in the Labian incident had used a black boat and had spoken in local Malay while in Silam they spoke in the Bajau dialect, common among the bajaus on both sides of the Malaysia-Philippines border.

However, they were not ruling out the possibility that they might be linked to each other.

On April 2, gunmen from southern Philippines snatched Chinese tourist Gao Huayun, 29, and resort worker Marcy Dayawan, 40, from the Singamata Reef Resort in the neighbouring Semporna district.

Their whereabouts in southern Philippines remain unknown though the Malaysian authorities say that they are safe.

On Nov 15 last year, a Taiwanese woman Chang An Wei, 58, was kidnapped from the Pom Pom resort while her husband Li Min Hsu, 57, was killed when gunmen raided the Pom Pom resort. She was released a month later after an undisclosed ransom was paid

 - The Star/Asia News Network

Related Story:

We're sick of the abductions, says MP
Measures to be imposed in Sabah waters

Related posts:

Philippines based Abu Sayyaf gunmen want RM36mil to ...

KUALA LUMPUR: Abu Sayyaf-linked gunmen have demanded RM36.4mil for the release of a 29-year-old Chinese woman tourist whom they abducted from a resort off Semporna in Sabah, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. He added that ... One of the kidnappers is believed to be also involved in the abduction of a Taiwanese woman who was snatched on Pom Pom Island on Nov 15 last year after gunmen shot dead her husband. To a question ...

Chinese tourists abducted by Philippine terrorists, to sour ...

PETALING JAYA: The notorious Abu Sayyaf group believed to be responsible for the abduction of a Chinese and Philippine national in Sabah used to demand up to US$3.5mil (RM11.5mil) for the release of non-Filipino citizens, said a security analyst. Prof Dr Aruna Gopinath who specialises in maritime security said the separatist group based at ... KL and Manila in hunt for gunmen · Gao's mum gets sms just before attack · Websites show Singamata still popular with ...

Ugly business of Pilipinos kidnapping in Malaysia

When I heard that was the amount demanded for the release of 58-year-old Chang An Wei abducted at gunpoint after her 57-year-old husband Hsu Li Min was shot dead by Filipino gunmen in the exclusive island resort off Semporna town on Nov 15, I worried about the consequences of paying for her freedom. I tweeted: ..... Gao Huayun< Video http://shar.es/TX2SIHome minister: Kidnappers want RM36m for Chinese tourist, Malaysia negotiating themalaymailonline.

Ugly business of Pilipinos kidnapping in Malaysia

It is understandable that family members of a hostage would want to see their loved one released as quick as possible but paying the ransom only encourages the crime to flourish. 
 
Last week, the whisper among the intelligence operatives in Sabah is that the asking price for the Taiwanese tourist kidnapped from Pom Pom island is RM10mil.

When I heard that was the amount demanded for the release of 58-year-old Chang An Wei abducted at gunpoint after her 57-year-old husband Hsu Li Min was shot dead by Filipino gunmen in the exclusive island resort off Semporna town on Nov 15, I worried about the consequences of paying for her freedom.

I tweeted: “If ransom is paid for Taiwanese hostage abducted from Pom Pom, $$$ will be invested into powerful boats & guns. Expect more kidnappings.”

Intelligence operatives also speculated that Chang was on the way to Jolo or was already on the island, the kidnap capital of the Philippines.

Kidnapping is big business in Jolo.

Last year, in Zamboanga City in southern Philippines, I had a chat with Lee Peng Wee. The tycoon made his money through seaweed grown mostly in kidnap-prone Philippines provinces such as Sulu and Tawi Tawi.

He was instrumental in securing the release of nine Sabahans kidnapped in Sipadan and held in Jolo in 2000. The Sipadan kidnapping was big international news – 21 hostages were abducted, including 10 tourists from Europe and the Middle East.

At his residence where 12 years ago he and Malaysian negotiators strategised on buying the Malaysians’ freedom, I asked him how the situation in Jolo was.

“It is the same. They kidnap two and release one. They kidnap three and release two,” he said, referring to Filipinos abducted in southern Philippines.

“Kidnapping is easy money. These people do not have a steady livelihood.”

The typical modus operandi is: kidnap-for-ransom group will abduct rich individuals in southern Philippines and they then sell the human commodity to bandits (some using the name of Abu Sayyaf) in Jolo. The island is so lawless that it is a “holding pen” for hostages.

Many in Malaysia assume that the Filipino kidnap-for-ransom group only targeted the east coast of Sabah. Wrong.

On Tuesday, JV Rufino, the Director for Mobile for the Inquirer Group in the Philippines, tweeted a link to a Philippines Daily Inquirer story headlined, “Military: Abu Sayyaf behind Sulu treasurer’s abduction”.

In Jolo, Sulu provincial treasurer Jesus Cabelin was allegedly taken by a group led by Julli Ikit and Ninok Sappari, who is a member of the Abu Sayyaf, according to the Philippines Daily Inquirer.

It reported that Sappari was “linked to several incidents of abduction in the island-province, including the March 2012 disappearance of Indian national Viju Kolara Veetil and six health workers of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao”.

“The victims were later freed after ransom had been allegedly paid,” the report continued.

Cabelin was the fourth kidnap victim in Jolo since Oct 22. Kidnapping is common in the Philippines especially in Jolo and nearby provinces.

However, it is rare for these groups to operate outside of Filipino waters. If you count the numbers of actual kidnappings at resorts in the east coast of Sabah, there are only three – Sipadan in 2000, Padanan in 2000 and Pom Pom in 2013.

(This count does not include kidnapping cases such as the abduction of the cousins who owned a bird’s nest farm in Lahad Datu or seaweed farm owners in Semporna).

One way to stop kidnappings by Filipino armed groups inside Malaysian waters is to stop paying for ransom.

Ransom was paid for all the 21 Sipadan hostages except Filipino cook Roland Ullah who “walked out” of captivity in 2003.

The then Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi bankrolled the payment for European and Filipina hostages and Malaysian businessmen raised the money to free the Sabahans. (The ransom for the first hostage – a Malaysian – released was paid for by a Filipino tycoon who described to me the payment as “small change”.)

At the back of my mind during the Sipadan hostage crisis, I was worried that ransom payment would only encourage kidnap-for-ransom groups to launch more kidnappings in my home state of Sabah.

Nevertheless, if you were a family member of a hostage, you would understand that not paying ransom is an option you would not consider.

I’ve met the Malaysian hostages twice while they were held by the Abu Sayyaf and I’ve spoken to almost all their family members, so I understand the agony they faced.

The negotiation for the release of the hostages dragged until Aug 20, 2000, when the last of three abducted Malaysians were released. Less than a month later, Filipino gunmen raided Padanan island and abducted three Malaysians on Sept 10.

This time the mood from the top was “no negotiation” with the kidnappers. Kuala Lumpur had learnt its lesson – paying ransom for hostages only encouraged the crime to flourish.

The then Philippines President Joseph Estrada ordered a military offensive on the Padanan kidnappers in Jolo. The three Malaysians were released after 46 days in captivity following a military operation.

That was the last raid by Filipino gunmen on a Malaysian island until the killing and kidnapping in Pom Pom.
Paying for Chang’s ransom will only encourage more kidnappings in Malaysian waters.

Contributed by One Man's Meat Philip Golingai

Sulu sultanate, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram gave Datuk Seri title

Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram

PETALING JAYA: Muhammad Ridhwan Sulaiman (pic right) carries a “Datuk Seri” title given to him by the so-called Sulu sultanate, a claimant to the controversial throne said.

Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram said he bestowed the title upon Muhammad Ridhwan after his “coronation” on Sept 16 last year.

“I conferred the title to him as an honour because he has helped my people,” Muedzul said from Manila yesterday.

He said Muhammad Ridhwan gave money generously to support his programmes to alleviate poverty among his people, including for hospitalisation and religious activities.

“To our people, he is like a hero. He was a bridge between Malaysia and the Suluk,” added Muedzul, who lives on Sulu island.

He said he didn't not agree with the actions of Jamalul Kiram III, another claimant to the Sulu throne, who sent armed men to Sabah to reclaim it as their territory.

Muhammad Ridhwan, 48, is president of the Al-Ehsan Islamiah charity foundation based in Penang.

He has been detained under the Security Ordinance and Security Measures Act 2012 after turning himself in to police over the incursions in Sabah.

In BUTTERWORTH, Muhammad Ridhwan's family said he did not support terrorists, insisting his dealings with Muedzul were “purely business”.

Nur Rina Abdullah, 39, said her husband, a Kubang Pasu Umno division member, got to know the self-styled sultan six months ago.

“My husband was looking for investment opportunities for Al-Ehsan Islamiah. So, he wanted to explore the virgin coconut oil business and decided to tap its potential in Sulu Island, which has ample supply of coconuts,” she said at their home in Taman Inderawasih in Prai yesterday.

She said her husband, a Hindu known as Ravindran Subramaniam Nair before his father and their entire family converted to Islam about 20 years ago, once ran a legal firm in Kuala Lumpur.

Nur Rina, a Catholic before she embraced Islam, said they later moved to Penang and started a banana leaf restaurant in Bandar Baru Air Itam on the island.

She said the venture failed and Muhammad Ridhwan, who was born in Taiping, set up another legal firm in George Town in 2008.

She joined him as a field officer while their son Muhammad Danish Nair, 22, was the firm's customer service officer.

The couple have four other children, with the youngest aged 14.

“We understand the police need to conduct necessary investigations, but we pray that he will be released soon,” she said.

- Sources: The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:

Sultan of Sulu, who is the true and legitimate? 

The former Sulu Sultanate, a foreign problem in history ... 

Sulu history and the Chinese 

Stop paying quit rent to Sultan of Sulu, it's time to close 

Sultan of Sulu, who is the true and legitimate?

Sultan Muhammad Fuad A. Kiram I (The last son of HM Sultan Esmail E. Kiram I - Sultan of Sulu 1947 to 1973) or Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram (son of  Sultan Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram - 34th Sultan of Sulu 1974 - 1986)
 
Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram 35th Sultan of Sulu Son of  Sultan Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram 34th Sultan of Sulu (1974 - 1986)

Sultan of Sulu - Sultan Jamalul Kiram II (1894-1936).

 

Sultan of Sulu, Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Jamalul Kiram II (1893-1936) was recognized worldwide. During his long reign he signed several treaties with different nations.  

 Sultan of Sulu, Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Jamalul Kiram II

Unfortunately he has no offspring of his own. He passed on his authority to his youngest brother Al-marhum Sultan Mawallil Wasit Kiram (1936).

Al-marhum Sultan Mawallil Wasit Kiram was Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's great grandfather and Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Jamalul Kiram II was his great grand uncle.

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram is the grandson of the 33rd Sultan of Sulu, Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Esmail E. Kiram I (1950-1973)

  

Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Esmail E. Kiram I has granted authority to Philippine government under the administration of President Diosdado Macapagal on 12th of September 1962 and of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1969.

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's mother Dayang-Dayang Farida Tan-Kiram was the first wife of his father. Half tausug and half Chinese, she was commonly known as the Princess of Sulu.

His father's second wife is Dayang-Dayang Merriam Tanglao-Kiram, commonly known as the Princess of the South.
 

Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram, 34th Sultan of Sulu had seven children:

1. Dayang-Dayang Zuharra T.Kiram
2. Dayang-Dayang Dinwasa T. Kiram Delos Santos
3. Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram
4. Datu Yldon Tan Kiram
5. Dayang-Dayang Nur Mahal T. Kiram
6. Dayang-Dayang Ayesha T. Kiram
7. Dayang-Dayang Tanya Rowena T. Kiram -Tahil
 

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram is married with H.M. Dayang-Dayang Mellany S. Kiram. They have seven children.

1. Raja Muda Moh. Ehsn S. Kiram
2. Datu Nizamuddin S. Kiram
3. Dayang-Dayang Rahela S. Kiram
4. Datu Jihad S. Kiram
5. Datu Mujahid S. Kiram
6. Dayang-Dayang Redha S. Kiram
7. Datu Mahakuttah S. Kiram
 

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram studied Islam in Lahore, Pakistan (1995-1996). He got a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree from AE College, Zamboanga. He also served the local community as a government official. At present he is involved as a civil society leader in the Province of Sulu which opposes the US-RP Balikatan Exercises of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
 

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram was born in Jolo. Jolo was once the capital of a maritime empire that traded with the great  Empire of China and with other kingdoms in Southeast Asia. 

As Raja Muda of Sulu, the Sultanate is Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram birthright. There is a sacred bond between the Sultan and his people, the Rayaat, that is handed down from generation to generation between the royal family and trusted people who live in Sabah and in the Sulu Archipelago.

The Sulu Archipelago includes Palawan, Sabah, Zamboanga Peninsula, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, the Sprately islands and the Balambagan group of islands.  Historically it was part of  Nusantara. According to oral history and traditions, Sulu has been independent and sovereign centuries before the birth of the Republic of Philippines. Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's ancestors contracted treaties with powerful nations and defended Sulu rights to freedom in traditional way of life against invaders.

But from the start of the Philippine Republic which lumped Sulu with the rest of the islands under the name Philippine Archipelago, Sulu has experienced devastation, death and downfall.

The Macaski Judgment over the Sabah issue in 1939 was a blow to the Sulu Sultanate. Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's grandfather, Sultan Moh. Esmail E. Kiram I was one of the recipients of that judgment. The Macaski settlement divided Sulu into divisions

Sabah became a private property and the heirs of the Sultan were divided among themselves. One group wanted Sabah for sale while another group wanted to take it back.

When Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's  grandfather, Sultan Moh. Esmail E. Kiram I, granted authority to the Philippine government through Pres. Diosdado Macapagal and Pres. Ferdinand Marcos, it was with the hope that the Philippine government would become a caretaker of the domain of the Sulu Sultanate to help the Muslims in this archipelago. This transfer of sovereign authority carried with these obligations and agreements.

As Sulu political power is declined, the unity of the Tausug people in the whole archipelago also has weakened. The economic life of the whole region was brought to the lowest level. Then came the Muslim rebellion and the civil war in 1974 that devastated the whole Sulu. Hundreds of thousands innocent people died.
 

In 1974 Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's  father was installed as the Sultan of Sulu. His father's twelve year reign started the slow but steady recovery of Sulu people. 

However after his death (February 16, 1986) there were several claimants made by pretenders (royals and non-royals) to the title of Sultan.

During the coronation process of Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram as the 35th Sultan of Sulu

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram, 35th Sultan of Sulu, together with 
Mellany S. Kiram and Crown Prince Moh. Ehsn S. Kiram.

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram has waited  twenty-two years for the official recognition to succeed his father.

Source :  Royal Sultanate of Sulu Facebook
(Joined Facebook on 12th May 2011)

**********************************************************

Sultan Muhammad Fuad A. Kiram I 

The 35th Reigning Sultan of Sulu 

 The last son of HM Sultan Esmail E. Kiram I 

(Sultan of Sulu 1947 to 1973)

Sultan Muhammad Fuad A. Kiram I 

Indonesia Minister of Religious Affairs granted the rank and tittle of hereditary knighthood 

by Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I

(2nd December 2011)

Chancellor of Al Zaytun granted the rank and tittle of hereditary knighthood 

by Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I

(Al Zaytun is the biggest Islamic boarding school in Indonesia)

  ( 27th November 2011)

Source :  

The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah Facebook
 (joined Facebook on 7th May 2011)

Related posts:

Sulu history and the Chinese 

The former Sulu Sultanate, a foreign problem in history 

The Sultan of Sulu reclaims eastern Sabah, MNLF ... 

Stop paying quit rent to Sultan of Sulu, it's time to close   

Sabah's invaders only flog a dead horse!

Related articles:

Lahad Datu: 'Datuk Seri' sought by cops over Sulu incursion turns himself in 

Lahad Datu: Ridhwan said to have been running NGO for eight years
Tourists returning to Sabah 

Lahad Datu: Eight more suspects charged over intrusion
Insurance firms waiting for green light to cover tourists in Sabah

Sabah's invaders from the Philippines only flog a dead horse!

EVEN though foreign insurgents make a historical claim to Sabah, the facts of history refute it.

AS Malaysian troops and police continue mopping-up operations to flush out straying remnants of the Lahad Datu standoff, partisans on both sides trade emotive claims and insults.

Analysts, meanwhile, weigh the terms in historical documents like “rent”, “lease” and “cession money” to determine Sabah’s actual status. But not only are these documents read differently in translation (English and Sulu), the terms are also interpreted differently.

It makes more sense to focus on the events and circumstances of history. The known facts reveal at least 16 reasons why the Filipino Sulu claim to Sabah is unwarranted and unworthy of consideration.

First, today’s Philippines as a modern nation state and a republic by definition abrogates a former sultanate whose territory it occupies and whose sovereignty it denies.

The Republic of the Philippines has no claim to Sabah of its own. The on-off claim, originating from Sulu sovereignty made by certain quarters, is only a private matter of some revisionist individuals.

The second reason is that the Sulu Sultanate no longer exists, since there was no provision even for a constitutional monarch. Any claim requires a claimant and the property/territory in question, whether anyone else has effective control and ownership over it.

If the claimant or the territory does not exist, the claim cannot stand. The insurgents and their leader Jamalul Kiram III are only pressing a notional claim, since they cannot represent a defunct entity.

Third, there is no agreed rightful heir to the last Sultan of Sulu, even if an heir were to press the claim. Jamalul’s claim to be that heir is disputed by nearly a dozen other hereditary “royal” personages.

Another reason for rejecting his claim to Sabah comes with denial of his claim to the throne: 10 other “heirs” had renounced all claim to Sabah in 2007. Nine did so in a signed statement, and Rodinood Julaspi Kiram II in a separate declaration.

It does not matter whether Jamalul was among the nine. If he was, he had unlawfully reneged on the signed agreement, and if he wasn’t, he is outnumbered and is challenged 10 ways.

Fifth, when Spain took over the Sulu Sultanate as part of the Philippines, it left North Borneo (Sabah) in British hands. Spain disrupted the Sultanate by removing 18-year-old Sultan Jamalul Kiram II in 1886, replacing him with a rival, only to “reappoint” him six years later.

Britain made North Borneo a protectorate in 1888. Under Spain, the Philippines and most of the Sulu Sultanate with it were going in one direction, while North Borneo and the British went in another.

Eventually, the sultanate was divested of political and administrative powers until it exercised authority only over religious matters. No effective, functioning sultanate existed any more.

Sixth, the death of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II in 1936 saw no successor, since he died childless. His younger brother and anointed successor, Mawalil Wasit, died the same year before he was crowned.

Thus ended the Royal House of Sulu’s lineage. After Spain passed the Philippines, including the territory of the former sultanate (excluding North Borneo) to the United States, the US officially abolished what remained of the sultanate in 1936.

Eighth, the British North Borneo Company also ceased payment to the sultanate that year, indicating that the business sector had considered the 1878 agreement voided. (Payment later resumed only after relatives of the deceased sultan brought the matter to court.)

Ninth, President Manuel L. Quezon of the (then) Commonwealth of the Philippines declared in 1936 that Jamalul Kiram II was the last Sultan of Sulu. To emphasise the point, Quezon said the Philippine government would no longer recognise a Sulu Sultanate.

Britain had been exercising increasing proprietary moves over North Borneo, earning two rebukes from the US (1906, 1920). Britain ignored those reminders and annexed North Borneo in 1946, turning it into a crown colony.

Whatever the moral issues there, it again spelled the end of any vestige of Sulu royalty. For London, it was a justifiable move since it had taken over all the legal obligations of North Borneo.

Tenth, there was no question later (in the 1960s) about Sabah having to obtain independence from Britain. This underlined the fact that Britain was the sole governing authority up to that point.

Then as Sabah’s independence and the Cobbold Commission’s findings led to the scheduled formation of Malaysia on Aug 31, 1963, agitation flared from the Philippines. The date was postponed to Sept 16, such that Sabah was an independent entity for 16 days, ending any remaining claim from an extinct sultanate or the Philippines as belonging to it.

Twelfth, the very act of freely becoming part of the Malaysian federation negated all further claims on the territory by foreign partisans. The new state of Malaysia in its present form is recognised in all international organisations, including the United Nations and Asean, of which the Philippines is also a member.

Although former President Marcos tried to retake Sabah in the 1960s, the claim was later abandoned. At the Second Asean Summit in Kuala Lumpur in 1977, Marcos declared that the Philippines was taking concrete steps to end the claim.

Later, as Marcos’ rule clearly became a dictatorship, he made Punjungan Kiram “interim sultan” for Sulu. But this candidate ran off to Sabah, preferring to be a Malaysian instead.

Marcos then “appointed” Punjungan’s son Jamalul Kiram III successor to a non-existent sultan. This instigator of Lahad Datu is not only a dubious candidate since he is not the son of a sultan, but his claim to authority comes from a discredited and ousted dictator of a republic.

Not least, when President Corazon Aquino’s post-Marcos government planned a new Philippine Constitution in 1987, Malaysia lobbied for wording to end the disturbing claim to Sabah for good.

This would replace “historical right or legal title” with “over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction” (i.e. the status quo), which was accepted after the third reading in Congress.

So for Philippine citizens to invade Sabah to lay claim to it clearly violates their country’s Constitution. President Benigno Aquino III’s prosecution of these criminals is fully in accordance with the law.

It is also said that no rightful Filipino claim to Sabah exists because as a country, it had not consistently engaged in the activities of a de facto power there. Not only that, there has also been no consistent Filipino claim to Sabah.

Behind The Headlines by BUNN NAGARA

Related posts:

Sulu history and the Chinese

The former Sulu Sultanate, a foreign problem in history that became Sabah's   
The Sultan of Sulu reclaims eastern Sabah, MNLF among invaders 
Stop paying quit rent to Sultan of Sulu, it’s time to close the chapter   
Filipinos’ Sulu militant group in Sabah must leave Malaysia today

Sulu history and the Chinese

Did you know that the Sulu people could have been Chinese nationals 250 years ago?

Sulu political relations and cooperation with China dated back to the Yuan dynasty (1278-1368). The Sulu missions convinced the Chinese to view Sulu as an equal of Malacca.

Since only foreign countries tributary to the Chinese court were allowed to enter Chinese ports, many countries or principalities in Malaysia sent tribute. Among these was Sulu. Sulu appears in Chinese sources as early as the Yuan dynasty (1278-1368), and a lengthy account of a tributary mission in 1417 from Sulu to the celestial court is recorded in the Ming Annals. Book 325 of the "History of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1643) of China," as abstracted by Groeneveldt, speaks of the Kings (Sultans) of Sulu as attacking Puni (Borneo) in 1368.

Trade with Sulu rule, European powers and the Japanese brought about the massive amounts of silver. Beginning in 1405, Emperor Yong Lo entrusted his favored eunuch Chinese Muslim named Zheng He as the admiral for a gigantic new fleet of ships designated for international tributary missions.

China’s First National Historical Archive, located in the Forbidden City of Beijing, preserves a very significant document presented by the Sultan of Sulu to the Qing emperor in the 18th century.  Dated August 1743, it is Sultan Mohammed Amirudin’s appeal to Emperor Qian Long to include the territory and inhabitants of Sulu as part of China. The document was translated into the Chinese classic language.

Qing Shi Lu, the historical annals of the Qing Dynasty, recorded the event in 1754.  It said that Qian Long denied the sultan’s request, although he did it diplomatically.

Had the emperor granted the request, then the history of Sulu would have been rewritten. (Najeeb Saleeby records in A History of Sulu "[Sultan Amirudin’s], that "Amirudin’s name is foremost in the memory of the Sulus partly because of his able administration and partly [because] he is the grandfather of all the present principal datus of Sulus." Sulu occupies a unique role in Philippine history. The island is the primary spot where Islam began to propagate. When the Spanish conquistadors colonized the Philippine Islands in 1565, they failed to take over Sulu until 1876.

Sulu also had unique relations with China. It had a rich tributary relationship with China since the early 1400s. Most of us are familiar with the story of Sultan Paduka Batara, who died in 1417 in Dezhou, Shandong province, on his way home to Sulu. This was the sultan’s first tribute mission. His heirs were left in China and are now well into their 21st generation.

At present, the special royal tomb of the sultan, which has two gates, is a huge compound with a mosque and impressive stone statues of horses, lions, grooms, rams, generals, and tortoise. 

The Chinese government has proclaimed the tomb to be under the state protection in January 1988 for its valuable and symbolic recognition of friendship between the Philippines and China.   “The Chinese local and national governments have alloted Sultan Batara’s Shrine a total of  one billion Chinese yuan or equivalent to seven billion pesos for the development, rehabilitation, renovation and construction of new buildings of the Muslim villages of the descendants of  Sultan Batara. The project is on-going and expected to finish in two or three 3 years, Tawasil said after the trip.

What we are unfamiliar with are the two "mosts" that Sulu boasts. First, it has the longest tributary relationship with China. Second, it sent the most numerous missions to China.   In all, 16 tribute missions journeyed to China, covering two dynasties and spanning 346 years—from 1417 in the Ming Dynasty to 1763 in the Qing Dynasty.

Other islands had sent tribute missions much earlier, such as Butuan in 1003, but these were few and lasted only a short time. The Butuan missions ended in 1011. More often than not, tribute missions to China were discontinued when the places were colonized by the Spaniards. That Sulu was able to continue its relations with China apparently has something to do with its independence from the Spaniards.  It had been acting as a sovereign state.

From this detail, we can surmise that China had no territorial ambitions toward the Philippine Islands.  Imagine, the Sultan of Sulu had voluntarily offered his territory as well as its people to China, and yet China refused the offer. Compared with the Spaniards and Americans who waged war from tens of thousands of miles away in order to occupy and conquer the Philippines, China was such a good neighbor.

Unfortunately, this historical fact is not well known among Filipinos, even in academic and historical circles.  The close relationship between Sulu and China can also be gleaned from the 420 documents compiled in Volume 2 of The Philippines: A Collection of Archives on the Relations Between China and Southeast Asian Countries in the Qing Dynasty. Of these, 73 documents contain materials about Sulu.  

Descendants of Chinese migrants are still in Sulu citing the current governor of Sulu Abdusakur M. Tan, who has a Chinese bloodline.

In barter trading, it is between Tausugs, Chinese, and Malaysians.

“There are only two types of foreigners who went to Sulu who did not wage war against the Moros – it is the Chinese and the Arabs,” Loong said, adding that “the Chinese entered Sulu through business ventures.” (Aileen A. Alam)

Souces and references:  BO GON JUAN waltokon.org; Neldy JoloTubagbohol.com, Aileen Alam http://zabida.com.ph/news/artist-tawasil-visits-sulu-sultans-tomb-in-china.html#.UUFTyVfgLHe

Related posts:
The former Sulu Sultanate, a foreign problem in history that became Sabah's   

Sabah's invaders from the Philippines only flog a dead horse!

The Sultan of Sulu reclaims eastern Sabah, MNLF among invaders 
Stop paying quit rent to Sultan of Sulu, it’s time to close the chapter   
Filipinos’ Sulu militant group in Sabah must leave Malaysia today

Stop paying quit rent to Sultan of Sulu, it’s time to close the chapter

Safeguarding our territory: Malaysian troops moving into Tanduo village during an operation to flush out the armed intruders. — (Handout photo by Defence Ministry)

 

A major shift in Malaysia's position on the Philippine claim to Sabah is needed. 
 
THE Philippines Government officially announced their claim to North Borneo (now Sabah) on June 22, 1962. Despite numerous attempts to settle the issue, it still festers on, exemplified by the latest tragic events unfolding on the east coast of Sabah.

The Philippine claim is based on two documents dated Jan 22, 1878. By the first document, Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzam granted (pajak) all his territorial possessions in Borneo (tanah besar Pulau Berunai) to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent Esquire as representatives of a British Company for a yearly payment/ quit rent (hasil pajakan) of five thousand dollars (Spanish dollars).

By the second document, the said Sultan appointed Overbeck as “Dato' Bendahara and Rajah of Sandakan” with the fullest powers of a “supreme ruler” (penghulu pemerintah atas kerajaan yang tersebut itu).

Descendants of Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzam (the number cannot be ascertained, but is large), represented by the Kiram Corporation and the Philippine Government, have always claimed that this 1878 grant was a lease (pajakan) and not a cession as claimed by Malaysia. The continuous annual payment of the quit rent or cession monies of five thousand dollars (now RM5,300) to these descendants is cited as further proof of this contention. Based on these grounds, they claim, Sabah belongs to the Philippines/ the Sultan of Sulu's descendants.

Before discussing how Malaysia has been responding to this assertion and how it should alter its position drastically, a little bit of historical narrative is in order.

Without going too far back in time, it is suffice to say historical documents confirm that both the Sultanate of Brunei and the Sultanate of Sulu exercised political control over parts of present-day Sabah (there was no State or Negeri Sabah at that time) in the late 19th century. Brunei had defacto jurisdiction on the west coast from Kimanis to Pandasan, while Sulu ruled the east coast from Marudu to the Sibuku River. The interior was largely independent under local indigenous suku chiefs.

Both Sultanates, however, claimed dejure jurisdiction from the Pandasan on the west coast to the Sibuku River on the east. Both Sultanates were also in a state of decline. Brunei was suffering from internal decay while large parts of its territories were being swallowed up by the new state of Sarawak under the Brookes.

In the Philippine region, the Spanish authorities in Manila had been trying to subjugate the independent and powerful kingdom of Sulu for three centuries without success. In 1871, the Spaniards launched another exerted campaign to conquer the stubborn kingdom.

It was in this kind of environment that a number of European and American speculators became interested in obtaining territorial concessions from the two weak Sultanates for speculative purposes. Among them were Lee Moses and Joseph Torrey of America; and Baron von Overbeck and Alfred Dent who had formed a company called the Overbeck-Dent Association on March 27, 1877 in London for the purpose of obtaining land concessions in Sabah and selling them for a profit.

Overbeck and Dent acquired Brunei's jurisdiction over its Sabah possessions in five documents dated Dec 29, 1877 from the Sultan of Brunei and his ministers. After this, Overbeck sailed to Jolo where he also obtained the rights of the Sultan of Sulu in Sabah through two agreements concluded on Jan 22, 1878.

Why was Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzan prepared to lease/ grant/ pajak his territories in Sabah to Overbeck and Dent? Sulu was on the brink of capitulating to the Spaniards and as such Sultan Muhammad was hopeful of obtaining some assistance from the Overbeck-Dent Association and possibly even from Britain. Placed in such dire straits, he was therefore not adverse to giving Overbeck and Dent territorial concessions in Sabah with some hope of salvation.

In the event, no such aid came either from the Overbeck-Dent Association or the British Government. Six months after the Overbeck-Dent grants were concluded, Sulu was conquered by the Spanish authorities on July 2 1878. With the fall of Sulu, the said Sultanate ceased to be an independent entity as it was incorporated as part of the Spanish colonial administration of the Philippines.

In 1898, Spain lost the Philippines to the United States by the Peace of Paris (Dec 10, 1898), which ended the Spanish-American War. The US ruled the Philippines till 1946 when independence was granted.

The sultanate ended when Sultan Jamalul Kiram II signed the Carpenter Agreement on March 22, 1915, in which he ceded all political power to the United States.

 

Carpenter, Governor of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu, Philippine Islands,  from 1913-1920, with the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II.

Meanwhile, in 1936, the US colonial administration of the Philippines abolished the Sulu Sultanate upon the death of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II (1894-1936) in the same year in an attempt to create a unitary State of the Philippines. Jamalul Kiram III is a self- appointed “Sultan” with a dubious legal status.

Now, coming back to the question of Malaysia's ongoing treatment of the claim, and why and how it should completely alter this position. Since the official announcement of the claim by the Philippine Government on June 22, 1962, Malaysia has been pursuing an ambivalent policy. On the one hand, it has persistently rejected the Philippines claim, but on the other it has compromised Malaysia's sovereignty by agreeing to settle the “dispute” by peaceful means (such as the Manila Agreement, Aug 3, 1963) and a number of other mutual agreements between the two countries.

Most damaging of all is Malaysia's willingness to honour the clause in the 1878 Sulu grant pertaining to the payment of the annual quit rent or cession monies as Malaysia says, of RM5,300, to the descendants of the former Sulu Sultanate. To this day, Malaysia is still paying this quit rent, lending credence to the claimants' argument that the 1878 grant was a lease and not a cession and therefore it still belongs to them.

If Malaysia continues to follow this policy, there will be no end to this problem except to buy out the rights of the descendents of the Sultan of Sulu. But this course is fraught with danger as it will lead to further legal complications with the Philippines and even endless litigation with the descendants.

My proposal is that Malaysia should go by the laws of “effectivities”, as in the case of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) judgement pertaining to the issue of sovereignty over the Sipadan and Ligitan islands, and the law of acts of a'titre de souverain as in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh. No title, however strong, is valid once the original owner fails to exercise acts consistent with the position of a'titre de souverain. The opposite is true, that is, the holder of the lease may not have original title but he ultimately gains permanent possession of the lease by virtue of continuous state “effectivities”.

In this case, the Sultan of Sulu and its successors including the Philippine government have failed to conduct any acts of a'titre de souverain since 1882, and so they have legally lost their title.

On the other hand, the successors of the Overbeck-Dent Association, that is the British North Borneo Company (1882-1946); the British Colonial Administration (1946-1963); and Malaysia, (from 1963) have been exercising continuous acts of a'titre de souverain for a period of 131 years.

Since we have all this evidence on our side, Malaysia should now take a new stand by totally rejecting the validity of the 1878 grants on the grounds of “effectivitie” and a'titre de souverain. It should also immediately stop paying the so-called annual quit rent or cession monies. This payment has always brought huge embarrassment to Malaysia and has in fact compromised its sovereignty.

We should also never agree to go to the International Court of Justice not because our case is weak (it is very strong), but because we don't want to trade the fate of sovereign territories and people through the judgment of any court, even the ICJ.

There's one more point that should be pondered upon. No country or state or nation which has obtained independence has ever paid ownership monies to its former masters. The 13 Colonies of America did not do so, India did not do so, the Federation of Malaya did not do so.

Sabah became an independent state on Aug 31, 1963 and decided to form the Federation of Malaysia with three other partners on Sept 16, 1963. It is strange indeed, if not preposterous, that a sovereign state is paying ownership or cession monies to certain people based on a colonial, pre-independence treaty that is 131 years old!

Comment by EMERITUS PROF DR D.S RANJIT SINGH

Emeritus Prof D. S. Ranjit Singh is Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (ranjit@uum.edu.my). 

Related posts:

The Sultan of Sulu reclaims eastern Sabah, MNLF among invaders

The former Sulu Sultanate, a foreign problem in history that became Sabah's  

The Sultan of Sulu reclaims eastern Sabah, MNLF among invaders

 

Carpenter, Governor of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu, Philippine Islands,  from 1913-1920, with the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II.

 
THE Sultanate of Sulu was a traditional Islamic monarchy of the Tausug people that covered the Philippine provinces of Basilan, Palawan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the eastern part of Sabah.

It was founded in 1457 by religious scholar and explorer Sharif Abu Bakar, who assumed the title Sultan Shariful Hashim after his marriage to Paramisuli, a local princess.

He promulgated the first Sulu Code of Laws (Diwan) that were based on the Quran, and introduced an Islamic political institution and the consolidation of Islam as a state religion.

In 1675, the throne of what is now Brunei was disputed and the Sultan of Sulu was asked to settle the conflict, after which he was rewarded with North Borneo (now eastern Sabah).

In 1878, the Sulu Sultan leased North Borneo to the Europeans. The agreement stated that the lease was of their own free will and was valid until the end of time.

The sultanate received an annual cession payment that was equivalent to 5,000 Malayan dollars, which was increased to 5,300 Malayan dollars in 1903.

North Borneo was a British protectorate from the late 19th century until it became a crown colony.

It gained a brief period of independence before becoming part of Malaysia in 1963. From then, Malaysia paid RM5,300 as cession payment each year to the sultanate.

The former Sultan’s descendants did not retake the territory, instead, agreeing to accept the cession payment under the previous arra­ngement. This lasted until a few weeks ago.

The Sulu sultanate was also under the control of Spain, but the Spaniards in 1885 signed the Madrid Protocol with Britain and Germany, relinquishing any claim to North Borneo.

The sultanate ended when Sultan Jamalul Kiram II signed the Carpenter Agreement on March 22, 1915, in which he ceded all political power to the United States.

The Philippines, however, continued to recognise the sultanate as a sovereign entity until the demise of Sultan Mohd Mahakuttah A. Kiram in 1986.

There are now at least 11 claimants to the title Sultan of Sulu, including Sultan Jamalul Kiram III.

MNLF elements among invaders

PETALING JAYA: The Sulu invaders are not officially recognised by any group other than the self-styled Sulu Sultanate and its supporters, said Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia Professor Dr Aruna Gopinath.

“This is just a name this group has decided to create and call themselves by so that they can come and attack us.

“The bigger threat is if other militants join this group under the banner of the south Philippines and try to attack us as well,” said Aruna, an expert on Philippine history, politics and security.

Some of the Sulu fighters were possibly trained by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) led by Nur Misuari before they broke away from the group.

She explained that many of the armed militants in southern Philippines used to be members of the MNLF, from which many breakaway groups later emerged with most of them belonging to the Suluk or Tausug ethnic group, which the MNLF once represented.

“Some among the so-called Sulu army could have had combat experience during their previous stint in the MNLF before they broke away. They do have some degree of skill and are not mere marauders as there appears to be some quite capable people on the ground,” said Aruna.

She said that when Misuari became MNLF head he clamoured for secession but the Philippine Government insisted on autonomy as the only option.