Friday, 24 April 2009

The Philippine claim on Sabah (North Borneo) not an issue

The Philippine claim on Sabah (North Borneo) not an issue

The Kota Kinabalu Member of Parliament, Dr. Hiew King Cheu had received the document proof that the Philippine and the Sulu sultanate had totally no claim over the sovereignty on Sabah, previously the North Borneo. After months of research, Dr. Hiew had got hold of the document proof to clear the air over the said claim. He hopes this will help to clear the matter once for all.

The document proof came from the famous “Macaskie Judgment, 1939” in the High Court of the state of North Borneo. During which, the Government of North Borneo and the British North Borneo Company claimed that the 1873 Agreement, concluded between Messrs. Overbeck & Alfred Dent and the Sultan of Sulu, had granted and ceded the rights and power of the Sultan in North Borneo to the former and that the lands and territories were already vested in the Company. Nevertheless, in his judgment, the Chief Justice found inter alia that the “ deed of Cession was a complete and irrevocable grant of territory and the right reserved was only the right to an annual payment ( cession Monies), a right which is in the nature of moveable property”. The heir of the Sultan, had a rightful claim to the cession monies, had never been contested by the British Government then, which had succeeded the British North Borneo Company by virtue of the Agreement of 26 June, 1946.

However, the Philippines was already under American administration in 1939, and the United State had assumed the sovereignty of Spain over the Philippines and the Sulu Archipelago under the terms of the Treaties of 1898 and 1900 (concluded between the United State and Spain), the Bate Treaty of 1898, the Carpenter Agreement of 1915 and the Boundary Convention of 1930 (concluded between the USA and United Kingdom). The terms of these treaties and convention were subsequently adopted in the Philippine Proclamation of Independence in 1946, under which the Republic of Philippines inherited the sovereignty of the United State over the Philippines as well as the Sulu Archipelago. However, in all these agreements and boundary conventions, North Borneo had never been the object of the pronouncement of the Chief Justice who did not specify in categorical terms that the Philippine Government was sovereign over North Borneo. He proclaimed that the “Successors in sovereignty of the Sultan of Sulu are the Government of the Philippines Island” i.e. the USA. As such the decision could never be the true basis of the Philippine claim to the Territory of North Borneo.

The British government, in fact continued to pay the cession money to the rightful heirs under the terms of the 1878 Agreement. The Malaysian government which had, in turn, succeeded the British government, too did not contest this right, and continue to pay the money.

Therefore the claim towards the territory of North Borneo by the Philippines when all the Chief Justice’s decision did, inter alia, was to make pronouncement over the rights of certain heirs of the late Sultan to succeed to the cession monies under the term of the 1878 Agreement. Therefore, the Philippines could not put her claim to the sovereignty over North Borneo.

Based on the facts given and the historical records, it is factual that Sabah is no longer belonging to any one, but as an integral part of Malaysia.

Dr. Hiew wanted the New Minister of Foreign Ministry, Datuk Anifah Aman, to immediately work with the Philippine Government to declare there is no more claim towards Sabah, and the Cession Money shall also cease permanently. The Philippine government shall immediately with effect to establish its Consulate in Sabah. An extract of the “Macaskie Judgment” has been handed over to Datuk Anifah for his reference.

Dr. Hiew King Cheu.


菲律宾索回沙巴州(北婆罗洲)不再是一个课题
亚庇国会议员邱庆洲博士收到文件证明,菲律宾和苏禄苏丹后裔已经完全没有对沙巴州有任何主权,前称北婆罗洲。 经过几个月的研究和探讨,邱博士已掌握了证据和文件针对该索回的课题。他希望这能够将索回的件事一劳永逸。

该文件是北婆罗洲最高法院著名的‘一九三九年,麦加斯基的判决’(Macaskie Judgment, 1939)。 在这期间,北婆罗洲的政府和英国北婆罗洲公司声称在一八七三年的协议中,,奥维贝克(Overbeck)及阿尔弗雷德邓特(Alfred Dent)和苏禄苏丹,注明苏丹已经授权及转移/割让北婆罗洲领土的所有拥有权归于该公司。 然而,在他的判决里,主审法官觉得该“割让契约”是一个完整并且是不可撤销授的领土拥有权契约,而唯一保留的权益只是一项‘割让款项 - 年费’而该权益为‘流动资产性质’。 苏丹的继承人,纵然可以合法的要求割让留存,但随后从来不曾向英国政府争议,因此英国北婆罗洲公司凭该协定于一九四六年六月二十六日有效拥有领土拥有权。

然而,在一九三九年菲律宾已经受美国政府所管制,就是美国根据一九八九年和一九零零年的条约(美国和西班牙之间缔结)已经继承西班牙之后在菲律宾及苏禄群岛的拥有权,一八九八年‘贝特条约’,一九一五年‘卡便德契协’和一九三零年的‘国际边界公约’(结束在美国与英国)。这些协定和公约的条例,随着在一九四六年菲律宾宣布独立的时候已被该国纳入独立宣言里,菲律宾共和国已经自动从美国手中继承苏禄群岛的主权。然而,在所有的协定和国际边界公约中,北婆罗州并没有在宣告中,而且最高法院的主审法官也没有具体明确指出北婆罗州的主权为菲律宾政府所有。他只是宣布说,‘继承苏丹[苏禄]主权为菲律宾群岛政府,即是美国’。 所以这项裁决已充分表明菲律宾索回北婆罗洲领土的不可能性。

根据一八七八年所规定的协定中,英国政府实际上继续支付割让款项给的合法的继承者。 马来西亚政府成立之后,也承认该项割让款项。

因此,针对索回北婆罗洲的土地的说法,尤其当主审法官已经判决,除此之外,根据一八七八年所签署协定的条例之下,继承人只有继承割让款项所留存的权益。 所以,很明显的菲律宾是不能索取北婆罗洲土地的拥有权。 根据历史记录的事实和提供,沙巴州事实上不再属于任何人,它是马来西亚的一份子。

邱博士希望新上任的外交部部长,拿督阿尼法阿曼立即与菲律宾政府宣布,不要再向沙巴要求索回及不需再支付任何的割让款额。而菲律宾政府应该立即在沙巴州设立其领事馆。 此外,邱博士已经已把‘麦加斯基的判决’的摘录移交给拿督阿尼法阿曼作参考。