JAMALUL Kiram wants to fine
Malaysia RM78 billion for charging eight gunmen for waging a war against the
Yang DiPertuan Agong -- and act which the 'sultan' says Malaysia had not right
to do because it is merely an occupant of Sabah, the land which "belongs
to the Sulu sultanate."
Meanwhile, it's been widely
reported that Philippine government has lined up a slew of the best lawyers to
study the feasibility of claiming Sabah for the Philippines.
The republic is doing this,
despite Aquino's overt support for Malaysia in the Lahad Datu intrusion and
attack, to the point that Jamalul Kiram III and Nur Misuari have condemned him
for siding with Malaysia and not with his countrymen in Sulu.
But any effort by the
Philippines to claim Sabah, even with the most skillful of attorneys (as they
are called in the Philippines), would be an exercise in futility because of the
overwhelming evidences which have piled up over a century in favour of Sabah
and Malaysia.
In the past three
installments of this column I have listed quite a few facts of history which
would make such a legal suit to claim Sabah pointless and a waste of time for
the Philippines.
But there is one point of
history favouring Sabah and Malaysia which I hadn't yet touched on, nor had
those arguing from both sides of the issue had shown any awareness of it.
This is the critical
question of whether Brunei had actually given North Borneo, or parts of North
Borneo, to the Sulu Sultanate. The wellknown version of the North Borneo
handover says that the sultan of Brunei gave North Borneo to Sulu as the
promised reward to the Sultan of Sulu for helping quash a rebellion in Brunei.
Centuries later, the sultan
of Sulu then ceded North Borneo to the British North Borneo Company owned by
Alfred Dent and Baron Gustavus Von Overbeck. The ensuing argument is whether
the cession was in fact a cession or a lease, and the Philippines claims it is
the latter. And this is the principal basis of the Sabah claim which was
officially declared by Manila in 1962.
However, none of those
making the arguments on the issue has ever asked the important question: What
if Brunei had never given North Borneo to Sulu? This little-known 'tweak' of
history may be very surprising to many, but there appears to be strong veracity
in this alternative historical account which assures us that, indeed, such a
handover never took place.
To have a perspective of the
genesis of this argument, let's look at what transpired then (as related by
Rozan Yunos of Brunei Times). At that time the sultan in power in Brunei was
Sultan Muhydin (the 14th sultan who reigned from 1673 to 1690). The 13th
sultan, Sultan Abdul Mubin, staged a war against Muhydin.
He usurped the throne after
killing Sultan Muhammad Ali when the latter tried to stop Mubin from taking his
revenge for the death of his son killed by the son of Sultan Muhammad Ali.
Mubin then appointed Muhydin as Bendahara but later Muhydin with other
followers created disturbances at the capital, forcing Mubin to flee to Pulau
Chermin. This then gave Muhydin the opportunity to appoint himself as Sultan.
Thereafter a war ensued
between the two, with Mubin fighting from Pulau Chermin as the rebel and
Muhydin fighting from the palace as the sultan. Sir Hugh Low (the first man to
climb Mount Kinabalu) had written to describe the negotiation between Sulu and
Brunei during the war: "...the Bataraa of Soolok went up to Bruni and met
the Sultan Muaddin and having feasted and drank, the Sultan asked the Batara
for his assistance to destroy the enemies at the island, promising that if the
island should be conquered, the land from the North as far as westward as
Kimani should belong to Soolook".
Eventually Muhydin
triumphed, supposedly due to the assistance provided by soldiers sent by the
Sultan of Sulu. The popular story goes that thereafter Muhydin gave North
Borneo to Sulu in gratitude for the assistance, as promised. Sir Hugh Low,
wrote in the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society
(JSBRAS) published on June 5, 1880 under the title 'Selesilah (Book of Descent)
of the Rajas of Bruni', that "by the assistance of a force from the Sultan
of Soolok, the forts on the island (Pulau Cermin) were captured."
In support of this version
of the events HR Hughes-Hallett wrote in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of
the Royal Asiatic Society published in August 1940 entitled "A Sketch of
the History of Brunei" thus: "...by the beginning of the 18th
century, the kingdom (Brunei) had been territorially diminished by the cession
to the Sultan of Sulu in the north."
However, it is very
interesting that Pehin Jamil Umar, writing in his book, Tarsilah Brunei II:
Period of Splendour and Fame (2007), denies this account. He doesn't deny the
fact that the Sulus were invited and promised the northern Brunei territory by Sultan
Muhydin if they helped him win the civil war against Sultan Abdul Mubin.
What he denies is that the
Sulu actually helped Sultan Muhydin in the civil war. Pehin Jamil assures that
during the battle for Pulau Cermin, the Sulu forces were supposed to attack the
island from Pulau Keingaran and from the sea, but they didn't do so.
Against all the tales of
heroic fighting exploits of Sulu
warriors, they were terrified by the resistance of Sultan Abdul Mubin's forces
in Pulau Cermin! It was only after Sultan Muhydin had won the battle that the
Sulu forces found their wits and courage, went up the island and took the
opportunity to take a number of war booties!
Because of this failure of
the part of the Sulu soldiers, according to Pehin Jamil, Sultan Muhydin refused
to cede the territories promised to Sulu. Pehin Jamil notes that the area was
only "claimed" and not "ceded"! Sir Stamford Raffles,
writing in his book History of Java (1830), supports this, referring to a claim
and not a cession, thus: "on the north-east of Borneo proper (Brunei) lies
a very considerable territory (North Borneo), the sovereignty of which has long
been claimed by Sulu Government".
Pehin Jamil goes on to write
that according to the oral tradition of Brunei, Sulu continued to press their
claim. In 1775, (about a century after the civil war), one of the Sulu chiefs
went to Brunei in the pretense of looking for fresh water. His group was
actually seeking an audience with the then ruler, Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin I,
to pursue their claim on North Borneo.
The Sultan, however, ordered
one of his chief wazirs to deal with them, and threatened that if they
persisted on their intention, he would have them killed. The Sulus left
immediately but thereafter continued to maintain their claim.
This argument (that Brunei
never ceded Sabah to Sulu) is supported by LR Wright in her book The Origins of
British Borneo (1970), in which she writes: "...indeed, the legitimacy of
the Sulu claim to the territory (North Borneo) is in considerable doubt partly
because of the unreliability of tarsilas such as 'Selesilah', which in many
cases are nothing more than written-down legends to enhance the status of the
royal house which produced them."
Such 'legends' are still
being created in Sulu and Manila. It is also known that succeeding sultans of
Brunei had denied the supposed cession of North Borneo. While Sulu kept
pressing with the claim the weight of Brunei tradition denies it.
The current Sulu claim on
Sabah is currently resting on the treaty signed by Sultan Jamalul Alam (Azam)
of Sulu and British North Borneo Company. But there is a very pertinent
question regarding this treaty, which is: If North Borneo was never given to
Sulu, and there is no shred of evidence that it ever was, and neither is there
any document to prove it, then isn't that treaty invalid and a product of fraud
on the part of Jamalul Alam? If so the on-going claim is a huge world-shaking
lie based on this fraudulent transaction.
We also need to ask: If
North Borneo belonged to Sulu since the 17th century why then did Sultan Abdul
Momin of Brunei appoint Baron de Overbeck as the Maharaja Sabah, Rajah Gaya and
Sandakan by way of a document signed on 29th December 1877, just one year
before the Jamalul Alam-Overbeck/Dent treaty?
If Sabah was given to
Overbeck by Brunei before it was given by Jamalul Alam, then Jamalul Alam had
given away something which didn't belong to him in the first place, or given
away something which someone else had given away earlier! But why did Overbeck,
as the Rajah of Sabah, bring Dent to Sulu to sign the treaty to ask for
something he already owned?
This can perhaps be
explained as a clever strategy to prevent any trouble from Sulu in the form of
attacks or intrusion into Sabah (over which Overbeck held jurisdiction),
knowing that Sulu had been claiming Sabah since the end of the Brunei civil
war. If that was the motive, then Jamalul Alam was conned big time into not
creating trouble for the sake of 5,000 dollars per year.
But whatever the motive was
on the 1878 treaty, it is very obviously that in 1877 -- centuries after the
Brunei civil war -- the Brunei Sultanate then still believed and maintained
that the North Borneo territory was under its control! This therefore proceeds
to the great and ultimate implication that the present Sabah claim is totally
unfounded, a daring and shameless lie, hence not even worth arguing over,
simply because of the high possibility that Sabah never belonged to Sulu!
In any discussion with the
Philippines over the Sabah claim, this important argument must be raised with
demand of proof of the supposed cession from Brunei to Sulu. And it would do no
harm to bring Brunei officials and historians into the discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment