History of Sabah - A Philippine own territory or a Malaysian State?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 гру 2023
- Who owns Sabah - Philippines and Malaysian Territorial Disputes
Who is the real owner of Sabah? Apparently, Sabah is technically part of the Federal state of Malaysia currently, when North Borneo was incorporated into the federation in 1963.
But in the future, the thing seems uncertain. Currently, the arbitrary battle is between the heirs of the Sultan, a private Filipino citizen, and the Malaysian Government. The Philippine government could step up, and represent the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu as the successor of North Borneo.
If ever, the 1878 treaty is still binding and enforceable, the non-payment of Malaysia of an annual rental since 2013 could result in a breach of contract, and as a consequence, the control, and ownership of North Borneo can be taken back by the owner or to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu.
This could be the reason, why the arbitrary Court in France awarded $14.9 billion, a bigger amount compared to the unpaid annual cession money for 9 years.
However, the Malaysian Government won’t budge an inch over Sabah and created a task force that has been set up to study all of Malaysia’s overseas assets and protect the security and sovereignty of Sabah.
But the real question is, was the incorporation of Sabah into the Malaysian federation is legal and binding? based on the 1878 Treaty between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British empire.
Or the 1878 concession treaty has a legal basis in the present day’s international law system?
Either way, both countries must respect any authorized arbitrary proceeding issued by the International Court and be able to create a diplomatic concession for a peaceful resolution of the issue.
Im pilipino yes mababawe na namin ang sabah para yan sa mga kapatid naming muslim yan love you all muslim naway tayo mga pilipino magka isa sa lahat
As a Filipino we don't want unnecessary bloodshed for that piece of land. We are peace loving people and we love Malaysians and other SEA neighbors.
Bullshit brother, we fougth for ULTIMATE INDEPENDENCE from COLLONIALISM, that's no word of LOVE and PEACE for INDEPENDENCE.
Bloodshit just a word for COWARD ppl.
Philippines attacked Sabah in 1985, 2000 and 2013 but failed, is it love of peace or just a joke
Piece of land... SABAH IS AS BIG AS MINDANAO.. MANGMANG KA TALAGA
@@Coboy_juniorwoohh hold your horses MALAYSIA FUNDED THE TERRORIST IN SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES
@@Coboy_junior its not the goverment who attacked sabah.. its the sulatn's arm men.
🇮🇩 support 🇵🇭
Then take all your Indonesian people in Malaysia and go to work at Philippines lah bro... Lol
Malaysia support West Papua
i support maluku selatan....acheh merdeka....papua merdeka
Penjajah jawa wkwkw
@@DonS90dijajah Bangladesh 🇲🇾
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Thirdly, after the second point above, PH claims North Borneo (Sabah) is null and void. Any colonized colony that seeks independence, the territory (sovereignty) is based on what been given by their colonizer. In this regard, the principle of uti posseditis juris is applicable, acceptable and recognize internationally. PH got their independence from US in 1946 and under this principle, there is NO North Borneo.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
The fact that Malaysian government has been paying the Sulu Sultanate annual payment for Sabah is already an excellent overwheling proof. Malaysia has been paying Sulu heirs and not the Brunei government.
😂😂😂 We have all the receipts
@@ExamineeNumber0052 Ha ha ha ha. If rent, where is the agreement? Giving away money is not an offense.
@@hopelope1703 Why would the malaysian government pay if there's no agreement ? 🤣🤣🤣 You sound stupid paying another country without any reason don't you think ? Plus the heirs of Sulu already brought the matter to all the arbitral courts already. And Malaysia not participating says a lot about their guilt. Read that again !
@@ExamineeNumber0052 the lawyer that filed the claim in Spanish court has been jailed and fined, truth is nobody knows who is the actual heir of Sulu Sultanate now. you need to show 3 proof first : proof of latest Sulu Sultanate heir as a legitimate heir, proof of Sulu Sultanate remains the sovereignty right(which has lost since 1915 to USA), proof of PH government acknowledges Sulu Sultanate sovereignty and give away its ownership of Mindanao Islands
By having 3 proof you are officially challenging USA, PH government and upbringing a new Muslim Country within the Philippine's islands ~ Good Luck !
As soon as the Philppine President (Bong2 Marcos) came to power he took precedence to the Philippine's claim to Sabah. That's the reason why the Malaysian Parliament became rattled and the Malaysian PM immediately flew to Manila for a meeting.
You must be dreaming. Your head must be in the clouds.
Really? You didn't know that's Malaysian PM goes to Philippines to claim Philippines as a Malaysia Federation!
Stop Delusion Every Leader Make A Visit To Neigbouring Country After They Became Prime Minister Or President By The Way Lawyer That Represent Sultanated Sulu Terrorrist Are Now Rotting In Spain Prison For Six Month And His License Was Suspend For Two Year 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Pack all your things and go to Malaysia
they know they stole sabah from the philippines.
Malaysia betrayed the Manila Agreement when it founded the Federation of Malaya. As Indonesians, we all know that Malaysia betrayed the agreement and trusted its colonial masters, namely England. We are also disappointed with the Philippines who remained silent when Malaysia betrayed Malaysia even though we fought in Sabah and Sarawak against the British army and the Gurkhas over Malaysia's betrayal. Our confrontation is aimed at disbanding the Malayan Federation which is not in accordance with the Manila Agreement.
Actually, the Philippines became a victim of Foreign Interventionism from Malaysia thru Sen. Benigno Aquino Sr. the then Main Opposition of the Marcos Sr. Administration, which is linked with Malaysia, and after the ouster of Marcos then, the Wife of Aquino, takeover as President and restored the Diplomatic Relations with Malaysia with Mahatir visiting her in Malacañang Palace, and created an agreement to weaken the Philippines claims on Sabah by creating a new Constitution, which also weaken Philippines claims on West Philippine Sea(Scarborough Shoal, Spratly Islands), where Vietnam and Malaysia started to occupied then.
@@romeocivilino6667 They also claim the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan as well as the waters of Ambalat. Indonesia and the Philippines are actually brothers because the border problem was resolved by our previous leaders. For us Indonesians, Malaysia is a country of plagiarists who like to claim other people's rights. especially about our culture which they always acknowledge
@@blackdot_poppunkI thought Indonesia brought the case to ICJ, and Indonesia lost the case, now the whole area belongs to Malaysia.
Actually, Philippines is not silent in Sabah issue. Marcos Sr. Will launch "Operation blue lizard" a military operation to occupy Sabah. But the mission exposed by Benigno Aquino, so Marcos Sr. Halt the operation.
@@raulsaria2247 the military of the Philippines is so weak, how to have such move? Submarines of Malaysia will just sink all poorly equipped naval ships from the Philippines
Some Indonesians say Malaysia should be named "Malingsia". Maling means kawatan. They said what should be Indonesian culture are claimed by Malaysia, and they know for the fact that Northern Borneo belongs to the sultanate of Sulu from the Philippines. That's why they label Malaysia as "Malingsia"
Ha ha ha ha. Only "some" believe what you said. You watch too much cartoon. Rebut with facts and references and NOT hearsay.
@@hopelope1703 you never put forth any rebuttal nor facts, what you did was satirically malign his facts.
@@DigonggongDutae Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@DigonggongDutaeThere is a court case recorded by ICJ (International Court of Justice, The Hague) pertaining to the Philippines claims on North Borneo. It is a special 37-page report by ICJ that was published in 2001 and easily accessible from the ICJ official website. It was a trial within a trial in the main court case between Malaysia and Indonesia over the ownership of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan in Sabah.
Philippines which is not a party to the trial requested permission to intervene. To comply to Article 62 of the Statute of Court, Philippines stated the objectives for the intervention (Section 7 & 84) namely, to safeguard and preserve Philippines historical and legal rights over North Borneo and to inform the court the affect or effect of the court outcomes on its claim to the territories.
In the trial within a trial, Philippines lawyers explained their case especially the Sulu-Ovenbeck 1878 agreement (primal reference) and related information to the court (Section 44 & 83). The same 15 main court judges were sitting at the bench and Malaysian and Indonesian lawyers too were involved in this trial.
On 23 October 2001, by 14 to 1 vote, the court rejected Philippines request on the ground that there is “no interest of legal nature” (Section 93). (Meaning Sulu/PH claim on Sabah is null and void)
Type the statement below and go to the official ICJ website (a 37-page report): INTIZRNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN APPLICATION BY THE PHILIPPINES FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE JUDGMENT OF 23 OCTOBER 2001
@@DigonggongDutaeThe basis of Sulu claim for arbitral award in several arbitral courts in France, Luxembourg and Netherlands is based on the Final Award (worth USD 14.92 billions) granted to Sulu by Dr Gonzalo Stampa (and not by the court). He was appointed earlier as an arbitrator in an arbitration claim between Sulu and Malaysia by the Madrid Court on 22/5/2019. His appointment is an ex parte judgement without the consent by Malaysia. Later, the same court on 29/6/2021 invalidate his appointment followed by the Spanish Constitutional Court (2/2/2023) that decided his appointment as unconstitutional and invalid. Thus, Sulu lost the arbitral claim in Spain.
Meantime on 25/5/2020, Dr Stampa brought his case to France and granted Final Award to Sulu against Malaysia on 28/2/2022. However, on 6/6/2023 Sulu lost the case again as the Paris Court of Appeal could not uphold Sulu appeal to enforce the Final Award that is no more valid. On top of that, the court ordered the claimants to pay Malaysia 100,000 Euro.
On 27/6/2023, Sulu claimants also lost in arbitration court case in The Netherlands when the Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed a bid by Sulu to enforce Final Award against the government of Malaysia.
As for Luxembourg, the arbitration court will make their decision on Sulu appeal later in 2023. Earlier on 26/1/2023, Luxembourg court had set aside Sulu arbitration award.
In the future, Sulu need to produce an arbitral agreement or clause with Malaysia if ever to open a new case in arbitration court in any country. The question is, do Sulu, have it?
GO AND CHECK ALL THE DETAILS IN MY ABOVE COMMENTS. I CHALLENGE YOU!!!!!!!
I'm an Indonesian watching this video just to learn history..
but I saw a lot of comments from Filipino friends saying that Sabah belongs to the Philippines...
yeah I observed and learned something new...
I hope it remains peaceful for my country's closest neighbors, Malaysia and the Philippines☺☺
In 1963 PH and Indo objected the inclusion of Sabah to the Malaysian Federation, cause both countries knew that Sabah belongs to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu.
@@DigonggongDutae
yeah that's right...
But Sabah people and their leaders still enter Malaysia, don't they...
Honestly, I don't really understand the history of other countries...
for example, Malaysia...
Indonesian history records that the British were colonialists, but in Malaysian history the British were heroes...
@@zhu_shi No, Sabahan did not hqve any referendum regarding thier inclusion in 1963, those in authority, majority of which are British are the one who convene and included Sabah as part of Malay State.
@@DigonggongDutae
If that wasn't what they wanted from the start, why did they persist until now...? Or maybe their economy is advanced enough and decided to remain part of Malaysia...?

@@zhu_shi time was one factor, cause every state needs to develop, Malaysia during that time was not yet that prosperous on the other hand Ph was much more wealthy than Malaysia back then, you dont own a land if you are paying rent, even if the owner died or move to other country you still dont own the land. Sabah is the same as palestine, Israel does not own the land they occupy and administer their own laws, since Sabahan wants a peacefull life and Malaysia guaranteed their state separation, eventually they are included in the Malay state, againi will insist if the land is return to the right owner with the same guarantee and through time they will embrace their new indentity as Sabahan under the rule of PH government.
The people of Sabah have made the decision to be in Malaysia and this combination of countries has been recognized by the United Nations. If you want to tell history, parts of Sumatra, Singapore and the Riau islands were under the rule of Malaya.
Manila The Manila Agreement was just an empty dream of the father of Indonesian prostitutes to the Japanese army because there was no objection from the Philippines because the agreement was not the defiance of the people of Malaya but the leader without the consent of the ruling Malay Sultan. The Indonesian people will keep repeating the stale news because the agreement is not recognized by the Federation of Malaya which was formed through parliamentary democracy and a constitutional King.😂🤣 Malaysia is not a republic that has to pay compensation and debts to the Queen of the Netherlands.😭😭
Riau ruled by malaya he said....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Says maling.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣Dream on moron,... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wkwkwk antek enggres malaydes king of halusinasi 😂
@@putraroum9203 hahaha lucu kowe arep komen nganggo basa inggris malah ora ngerti, komenmu koyok rojak jawa
you mean bribed. believe me the common folks did not even know they were sold.
And what do the people of Sabah say??? The Sabah question is not just a question of ownership of real estate. If you support Hawaii being part of USA or HK freedom and Taiwan independence and even Papua being part of Indonesia then SURELY it is the Sabahans who make the ultimate choice. Not Philippines government or Malaysian government. So don't be a bunch of hypocrites.
the people of Sabah has an easy choice, they will choose the more effective currency
From Sabah, I choose Malaysia... For now...
The Phil Sabah claim had been dormant for a long time but it was not abandoned.
The best solution is let Sabah as an independent state.
Why ?
many people in sabah is pilipino
@@jayb01018 you must be dreaming...
I'm from Sabah and the Filipinos in Sabah come illegally and there are only a few Filipinos in Sabah in Sabah there are many other ethnicities such as Bajau Samah Kadazan Bugis and yeah we dont want to be a part of you guys@@jayb01018
@@jayb01018most of it's population is Malay Ethnic (not arguing)
As a Filipino this is my simple opinion.. if Sabahans voted to be part of Malaysia then let them be part of Malaysia. Peripd.
Not all sabahan wants to be part of malaysia.. sabahan wants an independence country like singapore
many people in sabah is pilipino
@@jayb01018 maybe because they work there.. im indonesian working in tawau sabah . many filipina here from mindanau
@@jayb01018not really
@@DonS90 you must understand that we don't have our own armies... This may not be the best time to be independent from Malaysia... Not yet at least...
As a Filipino, I appreciate Malaysia's recent efforts as a facilitator in bringing peace to Mindanao. Borneo, much like Alaska in the USA, is rich in natural resources and significantly contributes to Malaysia's wealth. However, I believe it is time for Filipinos to focus on our human resources. Filipinos have spread across the globe, positively impacting the world through our humble, capable, and heartfelt service. I am grateful for the peace in Mindanao that Malaysia helped achieve because the education and improved living standards of poor children in Mindanao today will bear more fruit in the future than the potential of Borneo. I hope Filipinos in Borneo are treated well.
Does the original copy of the 1878 Sulu-BNBC agreement (Tausug version) shown in the video still exist? Where is it now? Who is keeping it? Why has it not been produced in many court cases in the past as an exhibit? If what has been shown is a copy from the original, how do you validate it and not FAKE? The original (Tausug version) was reported missing during His Majesty's trip to Singapore. If it is true, where do they get this photocopy? How many copies of the original exist?
it can also be backed by IPRA LAW of 1997
As i see it, the Kirams has breached the contract of a perpetuity by attacking Sabah. Malaysia is correct for cutting relations with the Kirams on this issue. The Maintenance of payment after Sabah joined Malaysia was merely good will but this good will has been destroyed by the attack by the Kirams.
The Sultanate of Sulu is the landlord, they are the owner so they will be the one to decide if they want to their land back or rent it to Malaysia 😂 lol.
Use your common sense, where can u find that law that the renter is the one who decides and not the owner 😂
@@OceanFly007 There is a court case recorded by ICJ (International Court of Justice, The Hague) pertaining to the Philippines claims on North Borneo. It is a special 37-page report by ICJ that was published in 2001 and easily accessible from the ICJ official website. It was a trial within a trial in the main court case between Malaysia and Indonesia over the ownership of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan in Sabah.
Philippines which is not a party to the trial requested permission to intervene. To comply to Article 62 of the Statute of Court, Philippines stated the objectives for the intervention (Section 7 & 84) namely, to safeguard and preserve Philippines historical and legal rights over North Borneo and to inform the court the affect or effect of the court outcomes on its claim to the territories.
In the trial within a trial, Philippines lawyers explained their case especially the Sulu-Ovenbeck 1878 agreement (primal reference) and related information to the court (Section 44 & 83). The same 15 main court judges were sitting at the bench and Malaysian and Indonesian lawyers too were involved in this trial.
On 23 October 2001, by 14 to 1 vote, the court rejected Philippines request on the ground that there is “no interest of legal nature” (Section 93). (Meaning Sulu/PH claim on Sabah is null and void)
Type the statement below and go to the official ICJ website (a 37-page report): INTIZRNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN APPLICATION BY THE PHILIPPINES FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE JUDGMENT OF 23 OCTOBER 2001
@@OceanFly007 Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@OceanFly007 If you called it a rent, where is the agreement between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, it is just like what pirates and mafia do for a living. Why in the 1878 agreement, Malaysia not mention? Is there any clause in the 1878 agreement that Malaysia inherit responsibility to continue paying Sulu? Why in the receipts that are in Sulu possession do not mention the money is for the rent? Why the amount is so small and not what been stipulated in the agreement? One Mexican gold dollar (coins) in 1878 has a weight of 1.7 grams of gold. So, 5300 X 1.7/1000 = 9.01 kg of gold. Compare the value 5300 Malaysian dollar to 9 kg of gold. Giving away money is not an offence. Can give or stop giving anytime.
@@hopelope1703 Malaysia 🇲🇾 only became a sovereign nation in 1963
It's already part of Malaysia so it's not an issue anymore! If you want to go back to history then it's belong to no one!
😂😂
@@abdulmahyadiharis1293 thats not how law works buddy, if you own a piece off land and have a title/documents of the land to support your claim then you own the land, Sultan of sulu has it, you dont have to go back to history to know that simple fact, you sound stupid srsly.
Looking back from ANCIENTS HISTORY, “SABAH” is part of territory of SHEBA, OPHIR(Ophirian/Filipino), & HAVILAH amongst the siblings of thirteen(13) sons of JOKTAN , as a part of divided lands of territory since Noah’s time.
And JOKTAN(in Hebrew meaning small man) & PELEG(the lineage of Israelite) are the two (2) sons of EBER(Hebrew Race).😮😮😮
1. 1878 Treaty word of "PAJAKAN" was explained in 1903 Agreement, to mean "CESSION".
Don't create hoax...
2..The payment of 5300 Malaysian dollar was not approved by Kuala Lumpur.
It is the Borneo High Court decision in 1939 as estate administration payment.
Check you fact..!!
3. Admin, are you living in a cave??
Paris Arbitration has been declared illegal in Madrid and also in Paris. So, no need to refer to something that illegal to justify your story..
The basis of Sulu's claim for arbitral award in several arbitral courts in France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands is based on the Final Award (worth USD 14.92 billion) granted to Sulu by Dr Gonzalo Stampa (and not by the court). He was appointed earlier as an arbitrator in an arbitration claim between Sulu and Malaysia by the Madrid Court on 22/5/2019. His appointment is an ex parte judgment without the consent of Malaysia. Later, the same court on 29/6/2021 invalidated his appointment followed by the Spanish Constitutional Court (2/2/2023) that decided his appointment unconstitutional and invalid. Thus, Sulu lost the arbitral claim in Spain.
Meantime on 25/5/2020, Dr Stampa brought his case to France and granted a Final Award to Sulu against Malaysia on 28/2/2022. However, on 6/6/2023 Sulu lost the case again as the Paris Court of Appeal could not uphold Sulu's appeal to enforce the Final Award that is no longer valid. On top of that, the court ordered the claimants to pay Malaysia 100,000 euros.
On 27/6/2023, Sulu claimants also lost in the arbitration court case in The Netherlands when the Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed a bid by Sulu to enforce a Final Award against the government of Malaysia.
As for Luxembourg, the arbitration court will make its decision on the Sulu appeal later. Earlier on 26/1/2023, the Luxembourg court had set aside the Sulu arbitration award.
In the future, Sulu needs to produce an arbitral agreement or clause with Malaysia if ever to open a new case in an arbitration court in any country. The question is, does Sulu, have it?
Sabah is a rightful Malaysian state, no exceptions.
The Philippines want Sabah but do not want their people who are stateless in Sabah....
Kind hearted Malaysia as always.. open their arm and heart to receive them... may Allah make them grateful.
Philippines don't have stateless people like Malaysia 😂 lol
If Sabah under Philippines Governance, there will be no stateless people in Sabah.
@@OceanFly007 ua-cam.com/video/zERyKrfOQu8/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
@@OceanFly007 You're country is too poor that's why many pinoy go to Sabah illegally to work and live. This is applicable to all pinoy overseas who work in many other countries as blue collar workers.
Ok
So open a philippines consulate in kota kinabalu
Where Filipinos can register their children and hence no longer stateless
@@joebidet2050 Philippines won't that, Sabah has embassy and consulate other countries (as far as Korea)... Not once have I seen one from Philippines, hence all of the stateless people in Sabah are almost entirely from Philippines
Sabah is sabah territory, and sabah want to be part of malaysia.
PH and Indo objected the illegal formation
@@DigonggongDutae sabah does what sabah wants, end of discussion
sabah's people has more filipino blood than malaysians
Sulu Archipelago maharlika. Own by sultanate of sulu
How do you explain the existence of two agreements related to the ownership of North Borneo (Sabah) namely between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC (29/12/1877) and Sulu & BNBC (22/17/1878)?
The only existing agreement involving the Sultanate of Brunei (original owner) is that agreement that Brunei grant and cede North Borneo to BNBC on 29/12/1877.
If Brunei Sultanate had given North Borneo to Sulu much earlier, his majesty would not have signed that 1877 agreement. The signing confirm North Borneo still belongs to Brunei.
Why there is no protest from Sulu to Brunei for signing the 1877 agreement?
Why Sulu & BNBC agreement not signed earlier in 1877 but 3 weeks later (1878) after the signing of the 1877 agreement between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC?
Regarding the 1878 Sulu & BNBC agreement (the original agreement in Tausug is missing during his majesty trip to Singapore), the validity of Sulu ownership of North Borneo is doubtful. How on earth Sulu can own North Borneo if no undisputable proof that Brunei gives it to them earlier? Unless there is a possibility the British been scammed, deceived, or intimidated by Sulu into signing that 1878 agreement?
For sure the first agreement (1877) and with the original owner himself is more valid in court.
So? You forgot Sabah is now belong to Malaysia and Malaysia belong to Sabah! Sabahan have the rights to choose their own destiny!
@@ChowYewLoon Ha ha ha ha i'm addressing my comment to this vlog admin. There is no issue as Sulu/PH have no justification to claim Sabah. Read all my comment.
Hey@@ChowYewLoon why is your mouth open for so long? shut up, even if you lose the debate but never open your too long. I'm afraid that a fly will lay eggs in your mouth, in two or three hours the fly egg will turn into a maggot.
Hey...@@ChowYewLoon ... why are you open your mouth so long? shut up, even if you lose the debate but never open your mouth too long. I'm afraid that a fly will lay eggs in your mouth, in two or three hours the fly egg will turn into a maggot....
Yang Sabah na yan kasama pa yan sa mapa ng Pilipinas during may elementary days. Kasi naalala ko, project namin yan dati na i-draw ang mapa ng Pilipinas. At ang mga mapa rati ay kasama pa ang Sabah.
So if u follow the history … Philippine is belong to Brunei …. Im from brunie … if u dare to take the sabah … remember brunie got all letter what happend before … so brunie can claim Philippine and sabah back ….
i think 60% of borneo can be claimed by brunei.
really? 😂😂😂
@@gozxc702🇮🇩🇮🇩💪💪
It sounds like Malaysia is in breach of contract since they have been missing lease payments. They should resume payments and make back payments with interest.
@@wcoastbo So where is the contract or agreement involving Malaysia and Sulu? Only pirates and mafia demand money without any agreement.
Let time make the people of Sabah would want to be a part of the Philippines like they did before when they wanted to be part of Malaysia because the latter was economically wealthy than the former. When the time comes that the Philippine reaches the 'highly developed' economic status for sure those people would come rushing to the shores of the Philippines.
Lol they are renting the place and we are the land lord. They are squatting
That's for sure , they will go back to the jurisdiction of the Philippines .. 😊
@@rrvillareal2011 Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@rrvillareal2011 Ha ha ha ha. You must be dreaming. Read all my comments regarding claim on Sabah.
Ha ha ha ha ha. What a joke!!!!. Brunei's civil war started in 1660 and ended in 1673. How on earth do you claim Brunei gave Sabah to Sulu in 1658? So funny.
In June 2023, Malaysia secured landmark victories in the Paris Court of Appeal and the Hague Court of Appeal, demonstrating the fundamentally flawed nature of the Sulu claim and a clear step towards the collapse of the case. 1:14
Philippines clearly has soverign over Sabah, as owned by Sulu Sultanate. It was not ceded, but waa victimized by pseudo ownership of the british dutch company. When they surrendered malaysia, the folls of the first govt of malysia assumed sabah was surrendered as ownership. But it wasnt. It was only given to them to take over responsibility of leasing, not buying
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@hopelope1703 The British paid Sulu Sultanate USD 10M or 5000 Mexican gold coins per year to rent Sabah. It is in recorded history with thousands of banking evidence.
Sabah is Philippines through history of legal agreement with the full support by documents of paper that's own by sultanate of Sulu in Philippines
Sabah is majority Muslim so It should be Part of Malaysia
It belong to Philippines
@@hasinabegum1038 Sulu is a Muslim region of the Philippines
Sabah, Philippines not Malaysia
@@hasinabegum1038 thats a stupid claim. Mindanao is also Muslim so Sabah is Philippines
I love how Filipinos used the Hague ruling against China when it is in their favor, but when they lost the Sabah to Malaysia, they ignore the French arbitration court. Lol
Lets assume you have a point with your argument, will Malaysia oblige on the same Arbiration regarding the payment? "THE Paris Arbitration Court has ordered the Malaysian government to pay $14.92 billion to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu as compensation for Kuala Lumpur’s alleged failure to pay the lease for Sabah for more than seven years, Spanish media portal La Informacion reported.
The sulu heiress win they own Sabah part of the Philippines therefore still continue battle in international court
no dont worry sabah is not philippines interest just few idiots who want to create tension and benefit from the money of few individual
@@haochentrends who says SABAH is Philippines? Sabah is own by the Sultanate of Sulu, Just like Palestine is not Israel, the land belong to the Palestinian, even if you occupy the land and you administer your laws, the truth of the fact is that the land does not belong to you.
French arbitration court isn't The Hague...lol!
sabah is for malaysia
Sabah Philippines❤️
Most Filipinos seems to have already forgotten the Sabah issue.
Whenever a territory slips away from the hands of the British, things go complicated. Look what happened here to Sabah look what happened to Palestine. Look what happened to most countries to India and in Africa. See the pattern.
The Philippines claims Sabah on the basis that Sabah was said to be once under Sulu Sultanate. Descendants of former Sultan of Sulu claim that Sabah belonged to Sulu Sultanate because Sabah was given by Brunei the original owner to Sulu as a gift for purportedly helping Brunei to fight rebels. But Brunei refuted this claim and denied ever having given Sabah to Sulu. There was NO DOCUMENT regarding the transfer of ownership of Sabah from Brunei to Sulu signed by both Sultans.
In fact on 29 December 1877, the Sultan of Brunei ceded the whole of Sabah to BNBC/British and concurrently appointed Baron Von Overback, the co-owner of BNBC as Maharajah of Sabah and Rajah of Sandakan and Gaya. This cession agreement was documented.
When BNBC went to Sabah to begin their business, Sulu claimed that Sabah belonged to Sulu. BNBC agreed to enter a "pajak" agreement with Sulu after they were advised by their fellow businessmen in Hong Kong who advised that Sulu would attack them if they didn't have a deal with Sulu. This "pajak'' agreement was signed on 22 January 1878. BNBC understood that this "pajak" was a "cession", so did early generation of Sulu Sultan accepted it as "cession". Only later generation of descendants of former Sultan of Sulu claimed that the "pajak" agreement was meant to be "rent" or "lease''. Still there was NO DOCUMENT regarding the transfer of ownership of Sabah from Brunei to Sulu signed by both Sultans. The two above events led to an overlapping issue on Sabah.
What ever it was, the above agreement and overlapping issue were superceded by later event. On 22 July 1878, the then Sultan of Sulu had relinquished all his possession and sovereignty of Sulu and it's territories including Sabah to Spain. The Sultanate of Sulu only remained as hereditary cultural and traditional entity without any sovereign territory.
In 1885, to resolve overlapping issue on Sabah and other issues involving other islands, Britain, Spain and Germany arrived to an agreement known as Madrid Protocol in which Spain surrendered Sabah to Britain. As new owner of Sabah Britain had full control and sovereignty over Sabah and they could do what ever they wanted. Sulu could not claim anything because they had already relinquished the sovereignty of Sabah to Spain and Spain surrendered Sabah to Britain.
What ever happened to Sabah after that was under British jurisdiction. Even though British had full control and sovereignty of Sabah, they still honoured the annual "cession money" payment stipulated in the "pajak'' agreement as consolation for the Sulu Sultan. So did Malaysia when formed in 1963, still honoured the annual "cession money" payment as consolation for the Sulu Sultan. The term "cession money" was used because to use the term "consolation" was felt to be too degrading. Thus the term "cession money" was continually used as used before by the British.
Even the argument about the word "pajak" and it's meaning in the "pajak" agreement still favoured the British. The "pajak" agreement was written in classical Malay, in jawi script (Arabic alphabet). Malay is the national language of Malaysia and Brunei, and mother tongue of majority Malaysians and Brunei. In those days, Malay was also used by people of Sulu because Malay was the "lingua franca" of this region including the present Philippines. That was why the agreement was written in Malay. But over the years Sulu people had lost their Malay language (standard Malay) because of several reasons like colonisation by different European. This made Sulu relied on translation of the agreement. Things got worse when they translated it to Sulu's local language, be it Tagalog or Tausug, which was rather translation of another translation, that they translated it to their favour.
The word "pajak" carried several meanings depending on the contact used in the sentence or passage. It could mean "tax, rent, pawn, lease, or cession". In the agreement between BNBC/ British and Sulu, the word "pajak" was used together with the phrase "selama-lamanya" which meant "forever". When "pajak" was used together with the phrase"selama-lamanya", in this contact the word "pajak" meant "cession". Cession means "the formal giving up of rights, property or territory by a state". When Sulu "pajak" Sabah to BNBC it meant Sulu ceded Sabah and it meant Sabah no longer belonged to Sulu.
This was further clarified. There was a second agreement which was a supplementary to the first agreement known as "Confirmation of Cession of Certain Islands Agreement". It was regarding certain islands between Sabah and Sulu which they were not sure whether they were included in the first agreement or not. In this second agreement, the word "pajak" was no longer used because they thought it might lead to misunderstanding by later generation. Instead the word "menyerahkan" which meant "surrender" was used, and the annual payment was increased from 5,000 dollars to 5,300 dollars due to certain islands included.
Another example where the Philippines generally or Sulu in particular misunderstood due to wrong translation or translation to their favour, was about the clause that the territory could not be transfered to another party. Yes, there was a clause that Sabah could not be transfered to another party "... without the consent of 'Duli Queen'...". The British translated "Duli Queen" as "Her Britannic Majesty", even though it was not correct literally but it was correct in the meaning. The "... Queen" was referring to Queen Victoria, the ruler of England / Britain at that time. But Sulu translated "Duli Queen" (or rather translated from a translation) as "Their Majesties' Government". This led to an understanding that "Duli Queen" was the ruler of Sulu. The question was since when Sulu as a Muslim state had a female as their ruler (Sultanah or Queen)?
The above showed that North Borneo (Sabah) had indeed been ceded to Britain, that was why it could not be transfered to another party without the consent of 'Duli Queen' (Queen Victoria), the ruler of England/ Britain at that time. And further it was stated that any dispute about the agreement had to be referred to the "Consul General" being the Queen's representative in Borneo to be resolved. It meant that outside Arbitrator had no jurisdiction over the agreement. This fact became the main reason of judgement by Paris Court of Appeal in setting aside and annulling the Paris Court (lower court) ruling awarding the heirs of the defunct Sulu Sultanate.
On 31 August 1963 Britain gave independence to Sabah and before that on 22 July 1963 Sarawak was given independence. The people of Sabah and Sarawak had exercised self determination to form Malaysia together with Malaya and Singapore. The sovereignty of Sabah and Sarawak as component states of Malaysia is intact and recognized internationally and recognized by the UN. This was confirmed and clearly stated in the United Nations Malaysia Mission Report "Final Conclusion of the Secretary-General", 14 September 1963. The last sentence of the report says:
"I fervently hope that the people of these territories will achieve progress and prosperity, and find their fulfillment as component states of Malaysia".
Full text of the report can even be accessed from the Philippines Government Gazette website.
About the arbitration award by Paris Court to Sulu of US$14.92B, it had since been set aside and annulled by Paris Court of Appeal. Here is the latest situation.
Latest as in June 2023:
1. June 6th - Paris Court of Appeal had set aside and annulled the previous Paris Court (lower court) ruling awarding the heirs of the defunct Sulu Sultanate.
2. June 27th - Dutch Court of Appeal in The Haque had dismissed a bid by eight descendants of former Sultan of Sulu to enforce the arbitration award by Paris Court (lower court) ruling, and dismissed an attempt to seize Malaysian assets following the Paris Court of Appeal decision.
3. Paris Court of Appeal also imposed on Sulu €100,000.00 (Euro currency) to be paid to Malaysia as legal cost.
4. Mean while in Luxembourg, a second attempt to seize Malaysian Petronas assets had been filed in Luxembourg Court due for hearing in September 2023 after the first attempt was dismissed. This will likely be dismissed too following the Paris Court of Appeal decision.
Now is already December 2023, no news about Sulu's claim proceeding in Luxembourg Court. It looked like they withdrew their case when they acknowledged the Paris Court of Appeal decision.
Malaysia had spent around RM32m, equivalent to about US$6.6m to deal with these Sulu claim cases in various European courts, in Madrid, Paris, Luxembourg and Netherlands. Apart from the €100,000.00 Sulu has to pay to Malaysia as legal cost, Malaysia is planning to sue Sulu for compensation for the loss of RM32m (USD6.6m) spent.
Because The group claimed over Sabah was cancelled the ruling reward not for Philippine by Tribunal Court.Sulu claimed was long void.
Actually, problems like this are very easy to overcome, you have to ask the people of Sabah, whether they want to go to the Philippines or Malaysia, that's the end of the problem.
The three heads of state signed an agreement known as the Manila Accord 1963, which stipulated that the inclusion of North Borneo as part of Malaysia would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder by the Philippines to the territory. It was further agreed to petition the UN to send another commission (beside Cobbold Commission) of enquiry and the Philippines and Indonesia agreed to drop their objection to the formation of Malaysia if the new commission found popular opinion in the territories in favour within the context of General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV), Principle IX of the Annex, by a fresh approach.
The UN Mission to Borneo was thus established, comprising members of the UN Secretariat from Argentina, Brazil, Ceylon, Czechoslovakia, Ghana, Pakistan, Japan and Jordan. Members of the Mission include Mr. George Howard; Mr. Kenneth K.S. Dadzie; Mr. Laurence Michelmore; Mr. George Janecek, Deputy Representative of the UN Secretary General and Mr. Neville. The Mission's report, authored by UN Secretary-General U Thant found ‘a sizeable majority of the people' in favour of joining Malaysia. Indonesia and the Philippines subsequently rejected the report's findings and Indonesia continued its semi-military policy of confrontation towards Malaysia. The "referendum" did not involve the entire population of North Borneo and Sarawak at that time, but only representative consultations. The UN mission report noted "there was no reference to a referendum or plebiscite in the request..." and that "the Mission accordingly arranged for consultations with the population through the elected representatives of the people, leaders of political parties and other groups and organisations, and with all persons who were willing to express their views". The UN Secretary-General’s mission spent three weeks in Borneo to conduct a survey. It reported on Sept 15, 1963, that the Malaysia proposal had the wide backing of the people of these territories.
Type "United Nations Malaysia Mission Report, “Final Conclusions of the Secretary-General,” 14 September 1963". Also accessible from PH Official Gazette.
United Nations Malaysia Mission Report, “Final Conclusions of the Secretary-General,” 14 September 1963
Well they can move out of Philippine territory and go to Malaysia then.
@@ryanc3595 in one year, what can Philippines do for Sabah???
@@rahmatizzat2216 a lot
Very clear Sabah belongs to Philippines. Sabah is a part of Sulu and Sulu is part of the Philippines. Sultan Kiram a Filipino acts the governor of Sabah but during that time the British Company partner by Malaysian was rented that place, after the rent contract finished, it was turn over to Malaysia by British company. It should be turn over to Philippines in the hands of Sultan Kiram who acts like the governor in Sabah, Philippines. Sultan Kiram tried to get back that land but Philippines president Aquino did not support Sultan Kiram. Till Sultan Kiram became older and older and was died. Malaysia should continue to pay the Philippines for the amount rented, all natural resources by Sabah. fishing and oil and gas was benefited to Malaysia. Later, It was heared the news the twin tower tallest building Petronas in Malaysia was funded by the Sabah. So Sabah Sulu Philippines the rich island of Philippines was illegally own by Malaysia. Philippines can get back Sabah because there still have some Kiram clans son, daughter who can certify that place belongs to them. If I'm not mistaken, Sultan kirams children studied in US, one of them is Attorney Jaycel Kiram, a very kind, beautiful and talented lady attorney.
Sulu/PH needs to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia. Firstly, Sulu needs to show undisputable proof that earlier, the Brunei Sultanate (original owner) gave North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of the 29/12/1877 agreement (consisting of 4 agreements) signed by the Brunei Sultanate that grants the whole of North Borneo to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and are kept at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” has been used, and it has never been challenged or protested by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into a British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946), and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia. Secondly, let's assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. The Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and the Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and the US relinquished North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. In the end, Sulu has nothing. Thirdly, after the second point above, PH claims North Borneo (Sabah) is null and void. For any colonized colony that seeks independence, the territory (sovereignty) is based on what has been given by their colonizer. In this regard, the principle of uti posseditis juris is applicable, acceptable, and recognized internationally. PH got their independence from the US in 1946 and under this principle, there is NO North Borneo. Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
There is a court case recorded by ICJ (International Court of Justice, The Hague) about the Philippines' claims on North Borneo. It is a special 37-page report by ICJ that was published in 2001 and is easily accessible from the ICJ official website. It was a trial within a trial in the main court case between Malaysia and Indonesia over the ownership of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan in Sabah. Philippines which is not a party to the trial requested permission to intervene. To comply with Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, the Philippines stated the objectives for the intervention (Section 7 & 84) namely, to safeguard and preserve the Philippines' historical and legal rights over North Borneo and to inform the court of the effect or effect of the court outcomes on its claim to the territories. In the trial within a trial, Philippines lawyers explained their case especially the Sulu-Ovenbeck 1878 agreement (primal reference) and related information to the court (Section 44 & 83). The same 15 main court judges were sitting at the bench and Malaysian and Indonesian lawyers too were involved in this trial. On 23 October 2001, by a 14 to 1 vote, the court rejected the Philippine's request on the ground that there is “no interest of legal nature” (Section 93). (Meaning Sulu/PH claim on Sabah is null and void) Type the statement below and go to the official ICJ website (a 37-page report): INTIZRNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN APPLICATION BY THE PHILIPPINES FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE JUDGMENT OF 23 OCTOBER 2001
If you called it a rent, where is the agreement between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, it is just like what pirates and mafia do for a living. Why in the 1878 agreement, Malaysia not mention? Is there any clause in the 1878 agreement that Malaysia has the responsibility to continue paying Sulu? Why in the receipts that are in Sulu possession not mention the money is for the rent? Why the amount is so small and not what has been stipulated in the agreement? One Mexican gold dollar (coins) in 1878 had a weight of 1.7 grams of gold. So, 5300 X 1.7/1000 = 9.01 kg of gold. Compare the value of 5300 Malaysian dollars to 9 kg of gold. Giving away money is not an offense. Can give or stop giving any time.
O & G contributed only 4.3 % of Malaysia's GDP in 2022. The main 2 contributors are manufacturing and services. In oil and gas production, Sabah contributed 41 % and 18 % respectively. Sarawak and the east coast states in Peninsular Malaysia contributed too to the O & G industry.
That is a false narrative created by the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs. North Borneo (Sabah) previously belonged to Brunei before they ceded the entire territory to the British under the 1877 agreement, in the agreement it clearly states that North Borneo will be ceded to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). However the Sultan of Sulu came along and falsely claims that North Borneo belongs to them, and to avoid a possible war in the region the British enter the 1878 agreement with the Sulu Sultanate which states that Sulu will grant and cede North Borneo to the BNBC which was the original meaning of “pajak” and was agreed as such by both the British and the Sulu Sultan however the Sulu heirs of the now defunct Sulu Sultanate then twisted the original meaning and claims that the word pajak actually means “lease and rent”. The British then agreed to pay 5,000 Mexican gold coins annually to the Sultan of Sulu as cession money for North Borneo but the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs twisted the narrative yet again and claims that the payment is “rent money”.
The major arguments should be what UN survey result has said 1963. People of Sabah desires not old kingdom that tries to regain control and subjected civilised people to submit to them. Non suluk is majority of Sabah. They never submitted to any Suluk kingdom. This is the basis for populated territory for unpopulated territory papers work... But people inspiration rule in this case. It is clear as in ICJ ruling.
SABAH WAS NOT OWNED BY THE BRITISH
MEANING IT WAS OWNED BY A PERSON THE SULTAN OF SULU
SO IT CANNOT BE CEDED BY BRITAIN TO ANYONE
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@hopelope1703 then why is malaysia paying the heir of the sultan?
for what?
do the logic
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN If you called it a rent, where is the agreement between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, it is just like what pirates and mafia do for a living. Why in the 1878 agreement, Malaysia not mention? Is there any clause in the 1878 agreement that Malaysia inherit responsibility to continue paying Sulu? Why in the receipts that are in Sulu possession do not mention the money is for the rent? Why the amount is so small and not what been stipulated in the agreement? One Mexican gold dollar (coins) in 1878 has a weight of 1.7 grams of gold. So, 5300 X 1.7/1000 = 9.01 kg of gold. Compare the value 5300 Malaysian dollar to 9 kg of gold. Giving away money is not an offence. Can give or stop giving anytime.
Now your turn to do the logic!!!!
''Padjak'' in Malay and Tausug the term means “lease”.it is not cease or grant. The North Borneo Company agreed to the written TAUSUG aggreement signed by bought parties. The English translation was not approved by the Sultan of Sulu. IT MEANS the English translation is illegal. The Transfer of North Borneo aka SABAH of the British is illegal they should return it Instead to the Heirs Instead they favored to gve it their Malaysian colony. None payment of said rent to the Heirs means violations of the contract. No such contract are legal in international Laws without term limits in present day times.
Have u ever refer 1903 Agreement yet?
After 1878 agreement, another agreement between British and Sultanate of Sulu in 1903 was signed that mention "مڽراهكن".
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (23/5/1969). This is the international reference when dispute on the content and text in the treaties.
i). Article 1 stated that treaties should be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms in their context and in the lights of its object and purpose.
ii). Article 33 (4) is referred on the definition of words which denote different meaning in 2 separate translations. This is with reference to the word “lease” or “padjak” as argued by Philippines. If exist 2 translations (English & Tausug), then it should be look whether does it conform to the objective and purpose of the agreement.
iii). Looking back at the sentences whether in English or Tausug translation, the word or sentences used such as “lease in perpetuity”,” permanent lease”, “until the sun or moon do not rise”, “until end of time”,” assigns forever”, “supreme leader”, “Datu Bendajara”, “Raja of North Borneo” and others denote that North Borneo is meant to be given away for good.
But that 1878 agreement is null and void.
How do you explain the existence of two agreements related to the ownership of North Borneo (Sabah) namely between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC (29/12/1877) and Sulu & BNBC (22/17/1878)?
The only existing agreement involving the Sultanate of Brunei (original owner) is that agreement that Brunei grant and cede North Borneo to BNBC on 29/12/1877.
If Brunei Sultanate had given North Borneo to Sulu much earlier, his majesty would not have signed that 1877 agreement. The signing confirm North Borneo still belongs to Brunei.
Why there is no protest from Sulu to Brunei for signing the 1877 agreement?
Why Sulu & BNBC agreement not signed earlier in 1877 but 3 weeks later (1878) after the signing of the 1877 agreement between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC?
Regarding the 1878 Sulu & BNBC agreement (the original agreement in Tausug is missing during his majesty trip to Singapore), the validity of Sulu ownership of North Borneo is doubtful. How on earth Sulu can own North Borneo if no undisputable proof that Brunei gives it to them earlier? Unless there is a possibility the British been scammed, deceived, or intimidated by Sulu into signing that 1878 agreement?
For sure the first agreement (1877) and with the original owner himself is more valid in court.
Malaysia to end the issue must challenge the Heirs of Sulu and the Philippine government to END the dispute which Malaysia continues to avoid. How can they solidify claim the area is their own when they continue to avoid settling disputes to the International Court of Arbitration.
If ever Philippine take control of Sabah again, I hope our lawmaker make them an autonomous region. Or better yet, make them into an independent country.
We don't need SABAH to be prosperous, but due to the ruling that states that we own SABAH, we need to follow the ruling. But I would support an independent SABAH or at the very least, an Autonomous region.
Muslim regions in mindanao are autonomous, so if Sabah will be reclaimed it will fall under the control of ARMM.
I hope Mindanao region will also gain independence from Philippines and create a country for its Muslim people
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7ko That too I support. But it is what it is, as Filipino citizens I have an obligation to uphold the ruling, no matter how much I disagree with it.
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@hopelope1703 It's been already been proven by the judge in Spain, later in France that the agreement between the Sultan of Sulu and the British North Borneo company is a "Lease" between a Private company and the Landlord, and not a Cession payment as Malaysia is claiming.
Malaysia wouldn't have to be paying 14 Billion dollar for extracting resources in their own Territory if they indeed own Sabah. The fact that Malaysia isn't even trying to contest the Spanish Judges ruling and going hush hush about it is indicative that they knew that they will not win should they try to bring this to the international court.
Sultan of Sulu 🇵🇭 brave hero, thank you Sultan of Brunei 🇧🇳 for the awesome generous gift
Four (4) agreements exist between Brunei Sultanate grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC) dated on 29/12/1877. Below is just one of the examples.
Just type “Grant by the Sultan of Brunei of territories from Paitan to Sibuku River. These are…”. Go and check the Sabah State Government Website or UK Government Website (National Archives) for the details of the agreement.
Now your turn to show evidence Brunei gave Sabah to Sulu as a gift.
The Sultan of Brunei never gave Sabah to Sulu as a gift. They did however ceded Sabah to the BNBC.
@themalaysianpatriot3099 it is known that some of the bravest Filipino soldiers are from Sulu, these people were naturally skillful and talented strategists, hope the Philippine government protect these special and rare bloodline of warriors 🇵🇭
@@badjaeaux Yeah well you’re definitely not getting your hands on Sabah. Sabah is rightfully part of Malaysia, and any claims on Sabah will be dismissed.
@themalaysianpatriot3099 that depends on the times, before 2013 Malaysia is paying rent on Sabah to the Sulu Sultanate, if the Sulu Royals gain support from the government and the Middle Easters powers, things can change pretty quickly, enjoy Sabah while you still can, it might only be 30 years or less
As a Filipino, I say Sabah is 💯% Malaysian. The people there are Malay, not Pinoy! To claim otherwise is like saying Taiwan is part of China.
if u base it on sabahans speaking malay, that would be contradictory to what you said about taiwan, since taiwan also speaks mandarin, just like in china....
Sabahan identified as Malaysian and already accepted to be part of Malaysia. Sabahan has the right to self determination. If they want to be Filipino they would have done so decades ago. They would have revolted and join PH but they dont.
@@xXxSkyViperxXx That is the weakest possible argument. Is Nigeria part of the USA? They speak English there, too. Malays and Taiwanese speak multiple languages, just like Filipinos and other nations in Asia, including China. Plus, the Mandarin influence is relatively new as it is a result of immigration from China promoted by the British between their colony in Hong Kong. So, your argument makes more sense to say Sabah should be British, which makes no sense at all.
@@user-vq8yk1wc1u it wasn't my argument. that was your argument. read your post again and see how stupid your argument was. sabah has many languages. malay is just one of them. dayak were not originally malay speaking and that too was fairly recent. also ur talk about nigeria and hong kong has no connection.
stupidest reply I have ever seen
There’s no other agreement but an agreement between the BNBC and the Sultan of Sulu, but Malaysia and the British after the land grabbing of Sabah are trying to incorporate and insert many new different conditions that are not inside the lease contract agreement that is in favor to Malaysia because there was already a covert intention to claim Sabah permanently in favor to Malaysia by the connivance of both the British and Malaysia. Malaysia was not a signatory to 1878 leased contract agreement because Malaysia came only into existence in 1963 as a sovereign country? Despite there was an existing agreement of 1878, The British and Malaysia ignores and invalidated this contract to give way to the illegal annexation and land grabbing of Sabah, they claim and used the word defunct to justify their claim despite the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu are running after Sabah, the legitimate owner of Sabah
How do you explain the existence of two agreements related to the ownership of North Borneo (Sabah) namely between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC (29/12/1877) and Sulu & BNBC (22/1/1878)?
The only existing agreement involving the Sultanate of Brunei (original owner) is that agreement that Brunei grant and cede North Borneo to BNBC on 29/12/1877.
If Brunei Sultanate had given North Borneo to Sulu much earlier, his majesty would not have signed that 1877 agreement. The signing confirm North Borneo still belongs to Brunei.
Why there is no protest from Sulu to Brunei for signing the 1877 agreement?
Why Sulu & BNBC agreement not signed earlier in 1877 but 3 weeks later (1878) after the signing of the 1877 agreement between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC?
Regarding the 1878 Sulu & BNBC agreement (the original agreement in Tausug is missing during his majesty trip to Singapore), the validity of Sulu ownership of North Borneo is doubtful. How on earth Sulu can own North Borneo if no undisputable proof that Brunei gives it to them earlier? Unless there is a possibility the British been scammed, deceived, or intimidated by Sulu into signing that 1878 agreement?
For sure the first agreement (1877) and with the original owner himself is more valid in court.
There are four (4) agreements that exist between Brunei Sultanate grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC) dated on 29/12/1877. Below is just one of the examples.
Just type “Grant by the Sultan of Brunei of territories from Paitan to Sibuku River. These are…”. Go and check Sabah State Government Website or UK Government Website (National Archives) on the details of the agreement.
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Thirdly, subsequent to the second point above, PH claims on North Borneo (Sabah) is null and void. Any colonized colony that seek independence, the territory (sovereignty) is based on what been given by their colonizer. In this regard, the principle of uti posseditis juris is applicable, acceptable and recognize internationally. PH got their independence from US in 1946 and under this principle, there is NO North Borneo.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
That is a false narrative created by the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs. North Borneo (Sabah) previously belonged to Brunei before they ceded the entire territory to the British under the 1877 agreement, in the agreement it clearly states that North Borneo will be ceded to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). However the Sultan of Sulu came along and falsely claims that North Borneo belongs to them, and to avoid a possible war in the region the British enter the 1878 agreement with the Sulu Sultanate which states that Sulu will grant and cede North Borneo to the BNBC which was the original meaning of “pajak” and was agreed as such by both the British and the Sulu Sultan however the Sulu heirs of the now defunct Sulu Sultanate then twisted the original meaning and claims that the word pajak actually means “lease and rent”. The British then agreed to pay 5,000 Mexican gold coins annually to the Sultan of Sulu as cession money for North Borneo but the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs twisted the narrative yet again and claims that the payment is “rent money”.
@themalaysianpatriot3099 5000 gold coins annually, and each coin today cost 2000 USD. That is USD 10M minimum per year. The British knew who originally has authority over Sabah and its people.
Sabah, Philippines ❤
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
Say goodbye forever to West Philippines Sea , it's owned by China now 😂😂
Dream on Philippines Spanish 😂
Pay attention to your geography class. Sabah is part of Malaysia, not the Philippines.
Philippine owned sabah is a fact, but ain't no way we have to deal more islamic insurgency especially from the land that regularly supply local muslim rebels and terrorist in the philippines
Kayang labanan yan. Pero ung langis na makukuha dun madami
@@jamie3226 kung ganun ka dali, matagal na sana natalo ng sundalo ang MILF, MNLF, BIFF, Abusayaf at NPA, at naiwasan nyo pa ang paggawa ng BARMM napagod na kami dito mga mabait na Kristyano at Muslim sa Mindanao nasundin ang interest ng Manila para sa Pilipinas habang pinag iwanan at pinaharap pa ng problema ng walang tulong galing sa kapitolyo ayaw talaga namin ng extremist at masayang ang gastos sa imbestment ng Mindanao para mag arang, mapunta ulit sa giyera
@@darkflamemaster6541wala interest ang karamihan na pinoy makuha yan dahil muslim
Region ang sabah pero kung naging christian yan mapalitan ang goberno kunin yan due to public demand.
Kinda ironic the words from the person where their Land allowed the citizens to have their own guns as "Hobby" to blame other land for their rebel and terrorist movement. Crime, Rebel, Terrorist was already your blood and there was nothing to do with us. Talk to your Spain and USA about that.
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
This is a matter on how the Philippines welcome the people of Sabah as our Princess of Jolu Sulo won all the trials or cases , Court even ask the Malaysia to pay our Princess of Jolu Sulu.. Malaysia pay rent to the Princess of Julo Sulo clear enough that Sabah is a part of the Philippines ,latePres.Marcos Sr.never lost focus on people of Sabah and its case just so sad after late FEM was the beginning of more trouble,one the Aquino president was once said that people of Jolu Sulu is a terrorist but some are only defending themselves ..
Hello cleary you're lost The cased has won by Malaysia Now the court has ordered Sulu to pay Malaysia
The basis of Sulu claim for arbitral award in several arbitral courts in France, Luxembourg and Netherlands is based on the Final Award (worth USD 14.92 billions) granted to Sulu by Dr Gonzalo Stampa (and not by the court). He was appointed earlier as an arbitrator in an arbitration claim between Sulu and Malaysia by the Madrid Court on 22/5/2019. His appointment is an ex parte judgement without the consent by Malaysia. Later, the same court on 29/6/2021 invalidate his appointment followed by the Spanish Constitutional Court (2/2/2023) that decided his appointment as unconstitutional and invalid. Thus, Sulu lost the arbitral claim in Spain.
Meantime on 25/5/2020, Dr Stampa brought his case to France and granted Final Award to Sulu against Malaysia on 28/2/2022. However, on 6/6/2023 Sulu lost the case again as the Paris Court of Appeal could not uphold Sulu appeal to enforce the Final Award that is no more valid. On top of that, the court ordered the claimants to pay Malaysia 100,000 Euro.
On 27/6/2023, Sulu claimants also lost in arbitration court case in The Netherlands when the Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed a bid by Sulu to enforce Final Award against the government of Malaysia.
As for Luxembourg, the arbitration court will make their decision on Sulu appeal later in 2023. Earlier on 26/1/2023, Luxembourg court had set aside Sulu arbitration award.
In the future, Sulu need to produce an arbitral agreement or clause with Malaysia if ever to open a new case in arbitration court in any country. The question is, do Sulu, have it?
There is a court case recorded by ICJ (International Court of Justice, The Hague) pertaining to the Philippines claims on North Borneo. It is a special 37-page report by ICJ that was published in 2001 and easily accessible from the ICJ official website. It was a trial within a trial in the main court case between Malaysia and Indonesia over the ownership of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan in Sabah.
Philippines which is not a party to the trial requested permission to intervene. To comply to Article 62 of the Statute of Court, Philippines stated the objectives for the intervention (Section 7 & 84) namely, to safeguard and preserve Philippines historical and legal rights over North Borneo and to inform the court the affect or effect of the court outcomes on its claim to the territories.
In the trial within a trial, Philippines lawyers explained their case especially the Sulu-Ovenbeck 1878 agreement (primal reference) and related information to the court (Section 44 & 83). The same 15 main court judges were sitting at the bench and Malaysian and Indonesian lawyers too were involved in this trial.
On 23 October 2001, by 14 to 1 vote, the court rejected Philippines request on the ground that there is “no interest of legal nature” (Section 93). (Meaning Sulu/PH claim on Sabah is null and void)
Type the statement below and go to the official ICJ website (a 37-page report): INTIZRNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN APPLICATION BY THE PHILIPPINES FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE JUDGMENT OF 23 OCTOBER 2001
@@hopelope1703 thank you, you enlightened me or us about the Philippines Sabah case ,our Philippines government and Philippine Smart and good lawyers working at their best
Sulu Archipelago not for sale.. Sultanate of sulu
Borneo/Sabah Malaysia, is the of ownerships, "SULU" known as province of Sulu, grantee owner Mahadum ALLAH, family...
why do we always make a fuss about remote islands, even though there is Sabah which is wider and rich in oil resources, historically Sabah is part of the Philippines, if there is a war with Malaysia I am sure the Philippines will win.
Historically sabah is part of Brunei. I am from Brunei and the sulu didn't sent helps during the uprising in Brunei. So, sulu breach the contract. Sabah already chose to be with malaysia. So just let bygone be bygone. Sabah people have their own right to choose. Are Philippines try to take sabah's right? Do Philippines want to take sabah freedom? The colonizers left Asean years ago. Do Philippines want to take their job?
This doesn't need to argue for because the sulu sultunate have the papers.
How do you explain the existence of two agreements related to the ownership of North Borneo (Sabah) namely between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC (29/12/1877) and Sulu & BNBC (22/17/1878)?
The only existing agreement involving the Sultanate of Brunei (original owner) is that agreement that Brunei grant and cede North Borneo to BNBC on 29/12/1877.
If Brunei Sultanate had given North Borneo to Sulu much earlier, his majesty would not have signed that 1877 agreement. The signing confirm North Borneo still belongs to Brunei.
Why there is no protest from Sulu to Brunei for signing the 1877 agreement?
Why Sulu & BNBC agreement not signed earlier in 1877 but 3 weeks later (1878) after the signing of the 1877 agreement between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC?
Regarding the 1878 Sulu & BNBC agreement (the original agreement in Tausug is missing during his majesty trip to Singapore), the validity of Sulu ownership of North Borneo is doubtful. How on earth Sulu can own North Borneo if no undisputable proof that Brunei gives it to them earlier? Unless there is a possibility the British been scammed, deceived, or intimidated by Sulu into signing that 1878 agreement?
For sure the first agreement (1877) and with the original owner himself is more valid in court.
because of the political turmoil and the separatist Moro that malaysia took advantage of to support So Sabah was no longer taken care of but now the political instability of the country is fixed it will be taken back in
Ha ha ha ha ha. You can keep on dreaming.
Your country can’t even defeat the ongoing insurgency in Mindanao and you expect the Philippines to properly govern Sabah? Dream on Pinoy.
I'm tausug we are not pinoy Spanish slave... My ancestors fight the aggressor why we must join them now? The Spanish didn't even win against moro... We are not pinoy (Spanish slave)
you are missing the point.
Sabah legally territory of Philippines but occupied by Malaysian Government
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@hopelope1703No need because Malaysian government pay a cheap amount for least to sultanate of sulo it's proof that Malaysia knows and recognized that sultanate of sulo is original owner of Sabah why? Coz why Malaysia pay heirs of sultanate of sulo yearly when they are not the owner in the first place it's common sense.
@@user-bq4yg9gg4m 3: SULU: RENT.
If you called it a rent, where is the agreement between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, it is just like what pirates and mafia do for a living. Why in the 1878 agreement, Malaysia not mention? Is there any clause in the 1878 agreement that Malaysia inherit responsibility to continue paying Sulu? Why in the receipts that are in Sulu possession do not mention the money is for the rent? Why the amount is so small and not what been stipulated in the agreement? One Mexican gold dollar (coins) in 1878 has a weight of 1.7 grams of gold. So, 5300 X 1.7/1000 = 9.01 kg of gold. Compare the value 5300 Malaysian dollar to 9 kg of gold. Giving away money is not an offence. Can give or stop giving anytime.
@@user-bq4yg9gg4m There is a court case recorded by ICJ (International Court of Justice, The Hague) pertaining to the Philippines claims on North Borneo. It is a special 37-page report by ICJ that was published in 2001 and easily accessible from the ICJ official website. It was a trial within a trial in the main court case between Malaysia and Indonesia over the ownership of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan in Sabah.
Philippines which is not a party to the trial requested permission to intervene. To comply to Article 62 of the Statute of Court, Philippines stated the objectives for the intervention (Section 7 & 84) namely, to safeguard and preserve Philippines historical and legal rights over North Borneo and to inform the court the affect or effect of the court outcomes on its claim to the territories.
In the trial within a trial, Philippines lawyers explained their case especially the Sulu-Ovenbeck 1878 agreement (primal reference) and related information to the court (Section 44 & 83). The same 15 main court judges were sitting at the bench and Malaysian and Indonesian lawyers too were involved in this trial.
On 23 October 2001, by 14 to 1 vote, the court rejected Philippines request on the ground that there is “no interest of legal nature” (Section 93). (Meaning Sulu/PH claim on Sabah is null and void)
Type the statement below and go to the official ICJ website (a 37-page report): INTIZRNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN APPLICATION BY THE PHILIPPINES FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE JUDGMENT OF 23 OCTOBER 2001
@@user-bq4yg9gg4m How do you explain the existence of two agreements related to the ownership of North Borneo (Sabah) namely between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC (29/12/1877) and Sulu & BNBC (22/17/1878)?
The only existing agreement involving the Sultanate of Brunei (original owner) is that agreement that Brunei grant and cede North Borneo to BNBC on 29/12/1877.
If Brunei Sultanate had given North Borneo to Sulu much earlier, his majesty would not have signed that 1877 agreement. The signing confirm North Borneo still belongs to Brunei.
Why there is no protest from Sulu to Brunei for signing the 1877 agreement?
Why Sulu & BNBC agreement not signed earlier in 1877 but 3 weeks later (1878) after the signing of the 1877 agreement between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC?
Regarding the 1878 Sulu & BNBC agreement (the original agreement in Tausug is missing during his majesty trip to Singapore), the validity of Sulu ownership of North Borneo is doubtful. How on earth Sulu can own North Borneo if no undisputable proof that Brunei gives it to them earlier? Unless there is a possibility the British been scammed, deceived, or intimidated by Sulu into signing that 1878 agreement?
For sure the first agreement (1877) and with the original owner himself is more valid in court.
Any Filipino and Sulu supporters would point to the 1878 agreement and claim that Sabah was lease to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). But there are numerous evidence to point that Sulu did not previously own Sabah as the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs would suggest, the claim that the Sultanate of Brunei gifted North Borneo (Sabah) to the Sultanate of Sulu as a gift can be disputed and debunked by the following evidence:
- 1877 Agreement
Prior to the 1878 Agreement which was signed between the British North Borneo Company (BNBC) and the Sultanate of Sulu, there was an agreement that was signed in 1877 between the Sultanate of Brunei and the British North Borneo Company. Within this agreement, the word “grant” has been used numerous times. It’s also stated within the agreement that the entirety of North Borneo (Sabah) will be ceded to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC) for 15,000 Mexican gold coins .
With these statements, it’s clear that the Sulu Sultanate did not own North Borneo (Sabah) and that the 1878 agreement is redundant.
I would also like to point out that within the 1878 agreement, the word “pajak” was meant to be stated a “grant and cede”, and within the receipts of the so-called “rent payments” are listed as cession payment. Cession means to give something away. With that this proves that the 1878 Agreement wasn’t a lease agreement but rather a cession agreement.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that the Sultanate of Brunei gifted North Borneo (Sabah) to the Sultanate of Sulu and that the Sultanate of Sulu did indeed own Sabah and that the 1878 agreement was a lease agreement. Yet the Sultanate of Sulu has signed many agreements which relinquishes their rights over Sabah. These are the following:
- 1878 Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement
This agreement highlights the Sultanate of Sulu’s surrender of sovereignty to Spain. This means that anything happens whether internal or external affairs is under Spanish jurisdiction.
- Article III of the Madrid Protocol of 1885
The Madrid Protocol of 1885 was an agreement between the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain to recognise Spain’s rule over the Sulu Archipelago. There is a particular statement within Article III which states that Spain will relinquish all of their claims on Borneo. This alongside with the 1878 Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement as stated previously shows that the Sultanate of Sulu now no longer have any jurisdiction over North Borneo (Sabah). This also means that North Borneo (Sabah) is now under complete British jurisdiction.
- 1903 Confirmation of Cession
This agreement was signed between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company (BNBC) in which it states that the Sultanate of Sulu will grant and cede North Borneo (Sabah) as well as additional islands which is how the payment of 5,000 Mexican gold coins which at this point has switched entirely to the Malayan dollar increased to 5,300 Malayan dollars.
- 1915 Carpenter Agreement
This agreement was signed between the Sultanate of Sulu and the United States. Within this agreement it states that any power that the Sultan of Sulu has over his land has been given to the Philippines which is under American-rule.
-1930 Anglo-US Border Convention
This agreement was signed between the United States and the United Kingdom. This agrement also define the border of North Borneo (Sabah) and the Philippines with the agreement being that North Borneo (Sabah) will remain under British jurisdiction and the Philippines being under American jurisdiction.
-1963 Malaysia Agreement
Finally this agreement was signed between the United Kingdom, Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, and North Borneo (Sabah) to form a new country now known as Malaysia. Now that North Borneo (Sabah) has gained it’s independence from the UK, they opted to join this agreement and with the previous agreements signed, it means that North Borneo (Sabah) now have self-determination. And with the UK approving this agreement under the Malaysia Act of 1963 which has been passed in the British Parliament. This agreement has also been recognised by the United Nations and agreed on by the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretary-General himself. This means that Sabah is now rightful Malaysian territory.
With all of these facts in place, it’s clear that Sabah rightfully belongs to Malaysia and neither the Philippines nor Sulu have any legal claims over Sabah.
Hope Sulu will get its RIGHT as malaysia govt. Broke the contract no mora pay the leasing..
Make referendum for some part of sabah that want in malay federation, but Sulu RIGHT in its biggest city must give back to them the legitimate ruler
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
If you called it a rent, where is the agreement between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, it is just like what pirates and mafia do for a living. Why in the 1878 agreement, Malaysia not mention? Is there any clause in the 1878 agreement that Malaysia inherit responsibility to continue paying Sulu? Why in the receipts that are in Sulu possession do not mention the money is for the rent? Why the amount is so small and not what been stipulated in the agreement? One Mexican gold dollar (coins) in 1878 has a weight of 1.7 grams of gold. So, 5300 X 1.7/1000 = 9.01 kg of gold. Compare the value 5300 Malaysian dollar to 9 kg of gold. Giving away money is not an offence. Can give or stop giving anytime.
That is a false narrative created by the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs. North Borneo (Sabah) previously belonged to Brunei before they ceded the entire territory to the British under the 1877 agreement, in the agreement it clearly states that North Borneo will be ceded to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). However the Sultan of Sulu came along and falsely claims that North Borneo belongs to them, and to avoid a possible war in the region the British enter the 1878 agreement with the Sulu Sultanate which states that Sulu will grant and cede North Borneo to the BNBC which was the original meaning of “pajak” and was agreed as such by both the British and the Sulu Sultan however the Sulu heirs of the now defunct Sulu Sultanate then twisted the original meaning and claims that the word pajak actually means “lease and rent”. The British then agreed to pay 5,000 Mexican gold coins annually to the Sultan of Sulu as cession money for North Borneo but the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs twisted the narrative yet again and claims that the payment is “rent money”.
Not an expert in history, geopolitics, legal, or international law here, but IMHO, ownership, administration and control are different matters. What could have transpired in the treaty is cessation or concession of control and administration of the territory or land of Sabah to the administering government or controlling entity at that time. Being technically part of a country does not necessarily mean the land is owned by the government of that country, as ownership remains to the original owner as provided by law or tradition, proof of which is the perpetual rental afforded (the rentee never owns the property of the rentor). Parties involved during that time recognized such ownership so why parties on this contemporary time not? There could be no argument on the desire of the Sabah people to be under their preferred nation as this is their political right, only that the land they are living is owned by private individuals residing in another country, who, in a civilized world and society, retain the rights and privileges subsequent of such ownership. No wonder the international court awarded billions of dollars in favor of the aggrieved parties, owing to the damages demanded in the breach of contract case.
At the end of the day Sabah is a philippine territory.
Absolutely! Sabah taken by Malaysia to include in a formation of federation of Malaya. Bec. Of resources. But its definitely Philippine territory.
The basis of Sulu claim for arbitral award in several arbitral courts in France, Luxembourg and Netherlands is based on the Final Award (worth USD 14.92 billions) granted to Sulu by Dr Gonzalo Stampa (and not by the court). He was appointed earlier as an arbitrator in an arbitration claim between Sulu and Malaysia by the Madrid Court on 22/5/2019. His appointment is an ex parte judgement without the consent by Malaysia. Later, the same court on 29/6/2021 invalidate his appointment followed by the Spanish Constitutional Court (2/2/2023) that decided his appointment as unconstitutional and invalid. Thus, Sulu lost the arbitral claim in Spain.
Meantime on 25/5/2020, Dr Stampa brought his case to France and granted Final Award to Sulu against Malaysia on 28/2/2022. However, on 6/6/2023 Sulu lost the case again as the Paris Court of Appeal could not uphold Sulu appeal to enforce the Final Award that is no more valid. On top of that, the court ordered the claimants to pay Malaysia 100,000 Euro.
On 27/6/2023, Sulu claimants also lost in arbitration court case in The Netherlands when the Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed a bid by Sulu to enforce Final Award against the government of Malaysia.
As for Luxembourg, the arbitration court will make their decision on Sulu appeal later in 2023. Earlier on 26/1/2023, Luxembourg court had set aside Sulu arbitration award.
In the future, Sulu need to produce an arbitral agreement or clause with Malaysia if ever to open a new case in arbitration court in any country. The question is, do Sulu, have it?
If you called it a rent, where is the agreement between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, it is just like what pirates and mafia do for a living. Why in the 1878 agreement, Malaysia not mention? Is there any clause in the 1878 agreement that Malaysia inherit responsibility to continue paying Sulu? Why in the receipts that are in Sulu possession do not mention the money is for the rent? Why the amount is so small and not what been stipulated in the agreement? One Mexican gold dollar (coins) in 1878 has a weight of 1.7 grams of gold. So, 5300 X 1.7/1000 = 9.01 kg of gold. Compare the value 5300 Malaysian dollar to 9 kg of gold. Giving away money is not an offence. Can give or stop giving anytime.
@@hopelope1703 if all these are facts, there's a long way to go... and hopeful here that the rightful claimants prevail.
Unfortunately, not anymore.. seeing all these people can only talk about the history brings joy to the world 😂
Philippines and America have an agreement that if Americans help philippines to take-over sabah, philippines will give a designated land part of sabah to americans to become a large permanent american military base, thats why malaysia shoud watch out.
Ha ha ha ha. US signed an agreement with the British in 1930 that divided the boundaries between PH and North Borneo. And they even recognize Sabah in Malaysia. On top of that, UN recognize Sabah in Malaysia since 1963. Also you better check Article 1 in the Mutual Defense Treaty 1951 between PH and US.
@@hopelope1703Of course the U.S will not anounce it on public😅 You knew how U.S works, if they can't get it legally, they will get it under the table, like arming sulu army with stingirs for anti tank and anti aircraft capabilities, And long arm weapon. This time the sulu army are already survying the area of Sabah how they can operate, after that they will land a full scale attack including using of tunnel at mountains to avoid airstrike, and stockfile of weapon and food💪.
Sorry but the reply above me proof you're wrong
Most Filipinos seem to have already forgptten the Sabah issue.
Sabah is not malisian people in 1917
Neither it was part of the Philippines.
How do you explain the existence of two agreements related to the ownership of North Borneo (Sabah) namely between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC (29/12/1877) and Sulu & BNBC (22/17/1878)? The only existing agreement involving the Sultanate of Brunei (original owner) is that agreement that Brunei granted and ceded North Borneo to BNBC on 29/12/1877. If the Brunei Sultanate had given North Borneo to Sulu much earlier, his majesty would not have signed that 1877 agreement. The signing confirms North Borneo still belongs to Brunei. Why is there no protest from Sulu to Brunei for signing the 1877 agreement? Why Sulu & BNBC agreement not signed earlier in 1877 but 3 weeks later (1878) after the signing of the 1877 agreement between Brunei Sultanate & BNBC? Regarding the 1878 Sulu & BNBC agreement (the original agreement in Tausug was missing during His Majesty's trip to Singapore), the validity of Sulu ownership of North Borneo is doubtful. How on earth Sulu can own North Borneo if no undisputable proof that Brunei gives it to them earlier? Unless there is a possibility the British had been scammed, deceived, or intimidated by Sulu into signing that 1878 agreement? The first agreement (1877) with the original owner is more valid in court.
Colonial land era It's kiram territory that's is sulu territory heartbreaking when sabah lost to be philippine territory 😢
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@hopelope1703 1878 renting sulu territory
@@edgarmendoza2397 Ha ha ha ha. Do read all my comments ŕegarding the claim on Sabah. One simple thing I want you to show me as evidence. Show me the agreement between Malaysia and Sulu on Sabah. Without it, just like what pirates and mafia do to get money (extortion) knowing they own nothing. Show me!!!!
Leave it for the Sabahans to decide.
Sabah, a gift to the Sulu people for helping their Brunei brothers. It all comes down to this. Malaysia should give back land to Sulu.
That is a false narrative created by the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs. North Borneo (Sabah) previously belonged to Brunei before they ceded the entire territory to the British under the 1877 agreement, in the agreement it clearly states that North Borneo will be ceded to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). However the Sultan of Sulu came along and falsely claims that North Borneo belongs to them, and to avoid a possible war in the region the British enter the 1878 agreement with the Sulu Sultanate which states that Sulu will grant and cede North Borneo to the BNBC which was the original meaning of “pajak” and was agreed as such by both the British and the Sulu Sultan however the Sulu heirs of the now defunct Sulu Sultanate then twisted the original meaning and claims that the word pajak actually means “lease and rent”. The British then agreed to pay 5,000 Mexican gold coins annually to the Sultan of Sulu as cession money for North Borneo but the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs twisted the narrative yet again and claims that the payment is “rent money”.
@@themalaysianpatriot3099 awesome fictional story 👍 hope Netflix picks it up
@@ryanc3595 Haha, “fictional story”. Looks like someone is in denial. If you think I’m lying then show some undisputed proof to show that Brunei gifted Sabah to Sulu or that Sulu previously owned Sabah.
According to Brunei the Sulu never came to aid in battle thus the agreement was void...
That is Philippine Territory
What undisputed proof do you have that the Philippines have legal claims over Sabah? They have never govern that territory.
Sabah is for Philippines not Malaydesh Bangladeshia
para sa akin bilang isang Pilipino. wag nalang bawiin ang Sabah sa Malaysia. Hayaan nalang natin ang kapayapaan,ang Pilipinas at Malaysia ay magkakapatid parin sa mga ninuno. Asia pa rin tayo. kawawa lang ang mga tao na madadamay sa digmaan, lahat ay talo sa digmaan. NO TO WAR, YES FOR PEACE.
The people of Sabah in variety races are new immigrants claimed by their generation as their ancestors land that belongs to other as private land in leased agreement in international history of Natuons.
Maharlika/Opirian Kingdom since Time immemorial
the people of sabah agreed to join federation of malaysia in cobbold commision and UN ...
Sabah belongs to sultanate of sulu
Sultanate of Sulu belongs to Philippines
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
As a Filipino i dont like that because it was a gift for us and taken from us
What undisputed proof do you have that the Philippines have legal claims over Sabah?
Please report misleading
Panahon yata yun ni Pres. Diosdado Macapagal at sumunod na administrasyon ni Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
full support for philippines. sabah is philipines. 🇮🇩❤️🇵🇭
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
Thank you my indo brother ❤
@@rodlapuz4891semenanjung benar benar boneka british,karena mengingkari perjanjian antara indonesia,philipines,dan malaya😊
Brother, you're not even in Sabah
From the river to the sea, Sabah & Sarawak will be!
Don't steal slogans!
Sabah and Sarawak are rightful Malaysian states.
Sabah,Philippines
in 2023 president of the Philippines and leader of Malaysia are talked already about that issue..but they were fuccosed on economy between two countries..
economy is important than Sabah...government said😊 peace was already maintain between brothers.
Why the sulu do not want to claim mindanao?
Why just sabah
Free Sarawak, go go Philippines,, Sabah belong to you.. love from aceh
What undisputed proof do you have that the Philippines have legal claims over Sabah?
@@themalaysianpatriot3099 The Philippines has proof that Sabah is its own. If Sabah is yours, why is your government still paying rent?... if it's yours, why are you still paying rent, the owner won't pay rent to non-owners?
@@Spongebob-yi2hj That is a false narrative created by the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs. North Borneo (Sabah) previously belonged to Brunei before they ceded the entire territory to the British under the 1877 agreement, in the agreement it clearly states that North Borneo will be ceded to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). However the Sultan of Sulu came along and falsely claims that North Borneo belongs to them, and to avoid a possible war in the region the British enter the 1878 agreement with the Sulu Sultanate which states that Sulu will grant and cede North Borneo to the BNBC which was the original meaning of “pajak” and was agreed as such by both the British and the Sulu Sultan however the Sulu heirs of the now defunct Sulu Sultanate then twisted the original meaning and claims that the word pajak actually means “lease and rent”. The British then agreed to pay 5,000 Mexican gold coins annually to the Sultan of Sulu as cession money for North Borneo but the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs twisted the narrative yet again and claims that the payment is “rent money”.
@@themalaysianpatriot3099 whatever you say about this, Sabang always belong to the Philippines.. until now you still pay rent, thats the fact..
@@Spongebob-yi2hj What’s wrong? Can’t refute my points so you resort to denial? Ironic considering you were so convinced that Sabah is “rented” by Malaysia even though I showed you undisputed proof to show you that Sabah is not rented by Malaysia. Also, the International Court of Justice also sided with Malaysia and denied any claim that Sabah is rented. As a wise person once said, “refute with facts and references, not hearsay”.
Sabah ,Philippines 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
Lmao Bros Country disagreed what UN says
this has not been settled yet...
Sabah is Filipino!
What undisputed proof do you have that the Philippines have legal claims over Sabah.
Rather than mindanao secede
To become an independent country
Perhaps it should just join malaysia
Keep on dreaming it's a non issue
It is a very simple answer. If you don't own a place you pay rent. That is exactly what is happening in Sabah. You dont own Sabah if you are paying the Sultan of Sulu. And the Sultan owns Sabah.
If you called it a rent, where is the agreement between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, it is just like what pirates and mafia do for a living. Why in the 1878 agreement, Malaysia not mention? Is there any clause in the 1878 agreement that Malaysia inherit responsibility to continue paying Sulu? Why in the receipts that are in Sulu possession do not mention the money is for the rent? Why the amount is so small and not what been stipulated in the agreement? One Mexican gold dollar (coins) in 1878 has a weight of 1.7 grams of gold. So, 5300 X 1.7/1000 = 9.01 kg of gold. Compare the value 5300 Malaysian dollar to 9 kg of gold. Giving away money is not an offence. Can give or stop giving anytime.
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
SABAH, PHILIPPINES 🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭
Sulu/PH need to resolve 2 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia.
Firstly, Sulu need to show undisputable proof that earlier, Brunei Sultanate (original owner) give North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in the Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of 29/12/1877 agreement (consist of 4 agreements) signed by Brunei Sultanate that grant the whole of North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and keep at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” been used, and it has never been challenged or protest by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946) and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia.
Secondly, let assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and US relinquish North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. At the end, Sulu has nothing.
Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay.
@@hopelope1703 SABAH BELONGS TO THE PHILIPPINES, since the Sultanate of Brunei gave it to the Sultanate of Sulu. The British North Borneo Company leased it from Sulu during their occupation of the island and Malaysia government has been paying the heirs of Sulu Sultanate until 2013. The payment is rent, not cession, as indicated in the agreement. Malaysia cannot claim Sabah because in the first place, Malaysia was a new country, only formed as a country in 1963 when Sarawak, Sabah (called North Borneo during British occupation), Singapore, and Malay Peninsula confederated with each other (Singapore left in 1965 to be independent of its own). The Sultanate of Sulu, being part of the formation of the Republic of the Philippines, ceded its territories to the Philippine government. The Sultanate of Sulu has been a sovereign kingdom or nation that existed since the Islamic invasion of South East Asian islands during the latter reign of Madjapahit (Indian/Hindu) Empire in 1400s. Therefore, the people that resides in Sabah should accept this historical fact and the Malaysian government should respect this historical agreement too. The agreement was written in Malay Language and the contested word is not cession but rent. There are around 800,000 Filipinos residing in Sabah today according to an estimate
@@jmgamer7332 Ha ha ha ha. Show me the evidence. Not hearsay. I give you one example. There are four (4) agreements that exist between Brunei Sultanate grant and cede North Borneo to British North Borneo Company (BNBC) dated on 29/12/1877. Below is just one of the examples.
Just type “Grant by the Sultan of Brunei of territories from Paitan to Sibuku River. These are…”. Go and check Sabah State Government Website or UK Government Website (National Archives) on the details of the agreement.
If you called it a rent, where is the agreement between Sulu and Malaysia? If none, it is just like what pirates and mafia do for a living. Why in the 1878 agreement, Malaysia not mention? Is there any clause in the 1878 agreement that Malaysia inherit responsibility to continue paying Sulu? Why in the receipts that are in Sulu possession do not mention the money is for the rent? Why the amount is so small and not what been stipulated in the agreement? One Mexican gold dollar (coins) in 1878 has a weight of 1.7 grams of gold. So, 5300 X 1.7/1000 = 9.01 kg of gold. Compare the value 5300 Malaysian dollar to 9 kg of gold. Giving away money is not an offence. Can give or stop giving anytime.
Sulu a goner as he relinquish all his territories to the Spanish (1878) and US (1915). Read again my comment above.
Where is the original copy of the 1878 agreement in Tausug? Who is keeping it? Why not produced in court as exhibit? How do you verify whatever copy is genuine if the original copy is missing during his majesty trip to Singapore?
Mindanao is Malaysia we will take it, China takes north we take south.
Sabah is Philippines,
What undisputed proof do you have that the Philippines have legal claims over Sabah?
Sulu/PH needs to resolve 3 legal aspects before making any claim on Sabah from Malaysia. Firstly, Sulu needs to show undisputable proof that earlier, the Brunei Sultanate (original owner) gave North Borneo (Sabah) to Sulu as a gift for assisting in Brunei’s civil war. This is to rebuke the existence of the 29/12/1877 agreement (consisting of 4 agreements) signed by the Brunei Sultanate that grants the whole of North Borneo to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). These agreements exist and are kept at the National Archives in London. The word “grant” has been used, and it has never been challenged or protested by Brunei, even when the British turned North Borneo into a British Charter (1881), Protectorate (1888), Colony (1946), and finally British Parliament under the Malaysia Act 1963 incorporate it into Malaysia. Secondly, let's assume North Borneo belongs to Sulu. The Sultanate of Sulu signed many agreements to relinquish his territories and dependencies (including North Borneo) to the colonizers. These include the Bases of Peace and Capitulation Agreement with Spain on 22/7/1878 and the Carpenter Agreement on 22/3/1915 with the US. Later Spain and the US relinquished North Borneo under the Madrid Protocol 1885 and Anglo-US Border Convention 1930 to the British respectively. In the end, Sulu has nothing. Thirdly, PH claims North Borneo (Sabah) is null and void. For any colonized colony that seeks independence, the territory (sovereignty) is based on what has been given by their colonizer. In this regard, the principle of uti posseditis juris is applicable, acceptable, and recognized internationally. PH got their independence from the US in 1946 and under this principle, there is NO North Borneo. Rebut with facts and references. Not hearsay. The UN has recognized Sabah in Malaysia since 1963.
of course there is legal basis up to this day
None. That is why both Sulu and PH government make the claims on Sabah in several courts and lost.
If the dispute is brought to the International Court of Justice the Hague, the Philippines will lose, 100% chances of losing.
THE Paris Arbitration Court has ordered the Malaysian government to pay $14.92 billion to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu as compensation for Kuala Lumpur’s alleged failure to pay the lease for Sabah for more than seven years, Spanish media portal La Informacion reported, lets follow this first.
@@DigonggongDutae the Philippines is good at paying obscure arbitration parties to award unenforceable judgements to them. What can the Philippines get out of that? Feeling good... And wasting lots of money.
@@Liboch what?
@@DigonggongDutae "Spanish mediator who granted US$15 billion to Sulu heirs in Malaysia land dispute charged with contempt of court. Spain’s state prosecutor accused Gonzalo Stampa of contempt of court, saying he failed to comply with a ruling by a Madrid court to drop the case."
That mediator guy is a scammer and the Sulu heir pays lots of money to him...
@@DigonggongDutae Embattled Spanish arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa will face criminal charges in Madrid next month after awarding a $14.9 billion arbitral award against Malaysia in a territorial dispute with the heirs of the...
It's all about money, if the Malaysian government just continue the payments to the sultan, they have no problem about their milking cow(sabah).
There is no need for Malaysia to Continue the payment to begin with. Malaysia didn't sign any agreement in 1878 & 1903 which means it's not Malaysia responsible for any agreement that has been signed between British and Sulu.
Sabah already gained independent as sovereign state free from either British or Sulu or Brunei. And Sabah decided to join Sarawak, Singapura and Malaya to form a new federal country on September 16, 1963 which Federation of Malaysia.
Isn’t Sabah a country? It has a capital?
No, Sabah is a Malaysian state.
I just realised 11 (or something else) malaysian states have capitals so yes sabah is a state
I hope that one day Mindano will enter Malaysia and we will together develop the states in Malaysia together.. if it happens people from Mindano will not have to use illegal routes or use passports to enter Malaysia...
A Mindanaoan here.. that would be difficult since the majority of us, around 70% or something, are Christian Visayans who feel more culturally connected to the Hispanicized north. May work in Bangsamoro areas, I guess, but not the whole Mindanao.
Tukang ngeklaim haha
@@Acehmakmurdari lo Indon satu dunia mau di klim huhu..ibarat si miskin ada hati mau2 nya klim satu dunia aduhh 😅😂😂
@@mendicius_jadeeastern part of indonesia is majority christian. what do you think about joining indonesia?
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 No, Christians in Mindanao still are Spanish-influenced. We are closer to the Christians in Visayas.
ah yes. The british. Not surprising at all
Sabah is Philippines.. love from Aceh Indonesia
What undisputed proof do you have that the Philippines have legal claims over Sabah?
@@themalaysianpatriot3099 Sabah belong to the Philippines
@@Spongebob-yi2hj Then show undisputed proof which states as such. Stop spouting nonsense.
@@themalaysianpatriot3099 what is wrong with you, do not claime everything you don't have.. Sabah is Philippines teritory
@@Spongebob-yi2hjYou can’t even show proof that Sabah is “rented” by Malaysia, if you’re so confident in that fact then show evidence. “Refute with facts and references, not hearsay”.
Neither. Sabah is an autonomous nation within Malaysia, not a state. The same goes with Sarawak. That's why according to law using the term 'negeri' is incorrect.
Sabah is a state of Malaysia. Malaysia has no “autonomous nation”, only states and federal territories.
@@themalaysianpatriot3099 you call yourself Malaysian patriot, but you seem to forget our founding constitution and the Sabah and Sarawak agreements. Sabah and Sarawak are rightfully autonomous territories.
@@imfromtambunan I have read our constitution and I stand by what I said. It appears you’re the one who forgot our founding constitution. It clearly states in the constitution that Sarawak and Sabah will be treated as equals to the states of Malaya which means that both Sarawak and Sabah are in fact states of Malaysia. Even under our law it also states that Sarawak and Sabah are states, there is no mentioned of an “autonomous nation”.
Lagyan na natin ng airport yan para maka gala naman tau sa sabah Philippines char waiting you brother and sister