The question of whether the Philippines claim Sabah isn’t just an old history lesson—it’s a gripping tale of intrigue and high-stakes politics that has unfolded over decades. Picture Sabah, a lush and resource-rich region on Borneo’s northern tip, caught in a whirlwind of historical disputes and modern ambitions. This is not just about who owns the land but involves deep-rooted historical claims and shifting political powers. With its blend of colonial legacies and contemporary strategic interests, the Sabah dispute offers a fascinating glimpse into the complexities of Southeast Asia’s international relations, making it a story that’s both captivating and crucial.

Introduction

In Southeast Asia, Sabah is a strategically important and resource-rich region that is located on the northern half of Borneo Island. Sabah’s complicated historical background has made the area a point of conflict between Malaysia and the Philippines, this territorial conflict between them is known as The North Borneo dispute, also known as the Sabah dispute. The conflict began in the 19th century, when the Filipino monarch, the Sultan of Sulu, leased Sabah to the British North Borneo Company in 1878. Despite Sabah’s post-World War II incorporation into Malaysia, the Philippines keeps defending its claim to the area, claiming that the lease was not considered a sovereignty transfer. Malaysia views Sabah as a vital component of its economic development and national integrity, While the Philippines view the claim as a source of historical legitimacy and national pride. Malaysia had 3.6 billion barrels of known oil reserves as of January 2017, ranking it fourth in the Asia-Pacific region, according to the Oil & Gas Journal. Sabah, Malaysia, has reserves of crude oil and condensate equivalent to about 1.64 billion barrels as of the end of 2018, according to a report from the Statista Research Department (2022). Sabah’s offshore oil and gas discoveries have made it a vital component of Malaysia’s hydrocarbons industry, which is a major driver of the country’s economy. Sabah’s state revenues have benefited greatly from oil and gas production. Sabah is still profitable, and new discoveries have been made as late as now. In a similar vein, Sabah has an abundance of natural resources, but it also has an abundance of lumber, palm oil, natural gas, and petroleum. With the information above, it is easy to understand why Malaysia finds it so difficult to give up control of Sabah to the Philippines. This dispute affects Southeast Asia’s political ties, economic goals, and regional stability, among other things.

Historical Basis of the Claim

The Philippines have a “dormant claim” to Eastern Sabah, claiming that the Sultanate of Sulu leased rather than gave up the region to the British North Borneo Company in 1878. As the Sultanate’s successor state, the Philippines maintain its claim to sovereignty, believing it was never completely given up. However, Malaysia sees this as resolved and calls it a “non-issue.” Malaysia claims that the 1878 lease, which was first given to the British North Borneo Company by Sultan Mohammad Kiram, was a transfer of sovereignty as opposed to a short-term agreement.

The Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company’s 1878 agreement lies at the heart of this conflict. To fully understand the nature of the lease, it is essential to understand the term “pajakkan” as used in the agreement. The interpretation of this phrase, which is written in Jawi script in Malay, has caused debate on whether it refers to a “lease” or a “cession” of sovereignty. The term “pajakkan” has been misunderstood by several translators. While some early American and Spanish translations translated it as “lease” or “arrendamiento,” early 20th-century British interpretations indicated it meant “to grant and cede,” or even “to mortgage” or “pawn.” A controversial territorial clause in the agreement is also included; interpretations of this clause differ depending on the language used. The Philippine government stated that the sultan of Sulu requested 5,000 be paid by the Malaysian government during the Maphilindo meeting in 1963 between the governments of the Philippines, Malaya, and Indonesia. At the time, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the prime minister of Malaysia, promised to return to Kuala Lumpur and pursue the issue. The payments made to the Sultanate were described in British records as “cession money,” a term that Malaysia interprets as a price for a nation to exist but these payments are seen as rent by the Sultan’s heirs. The complexity and conflicting views over the meaning of the 1878 agreement are reflected in this ongoing discussion. Despite Malaysia’s understanding of the agreement as a complete transfer of sovereignty, the Philippines argue that their claim remains valid asserting that sovereignty over Sabah was never given up.

Legal and Diplomatic Efforts

Since 1961, the Philippines has aggressively pressed its claim to Sabah through a variety of diplomatic and judicial measures. This has included official appeals for global assistance, one-on-one discussions, and tactical diplomacy. A major point in the Philippines’ diplomatic efforts occurred in 2008 when Nur Misuari, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) leader, took the initiative to bring the Sabah claim before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Malaysia rejects demands from the Philippines to settle the dispute in the International Court of Justice, arguing that the Sabah claim is non-issue and non-negotiable. The motion made by Nur Misuari was dismissed by the Sabah government in 2009.

International Perspective

One important forum for discussing territorial claims and disputes in Southeast Asia has been the United Nations. While the UN has not directly involved in the Sabah conflict, it has given the Philippines a forum to submit formal appeals and submissions for international attention. The purpose of these contributions is to showcase the historical and legal justifications put forth by the Philippines for its Sabah claim. Though it usually maintains its neutrality and favors bilateral talks over direct involvement, the UN’s approach to such issues emphasizes the significance of international law and diplomatic resolution. The UN has recently given the conflict more attention. In reaction to the Philippines’ allegations, Malaysia issued a diplomatic note to the UN, reaffirming the nation’s sovereignty over Sabah.

The territorial conflicts, such as the one over Sabah, have the potential to sour relations within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which aims to foster cooperation and stability among its member states. The disagreement has an impact on regional diplomacy, affecting the way ASEAN nations work together on matters of economy and security. Furthermore, tensions in Southeast Asia, a region already characterized by complicated geopolitical dynamics, may be exacerbated by the ongoing dispute. The management of these conflicts and the preservation of regional stability depend heavily on ASEAN’s emphasis on dialogue and peaceful resolution.

Recent Developments

Recent developments in the Sabah conflict have had a major impact on domestic politics in both Malaysia and the Philippines, as well as persistent diplomatic tensions. Intermittent diplomatic talks persist between the two nations, punctuated by sporadic clashes that highlight the issue’s persistent sensitivity. On July 7, 2024, in response to the Philippines’ claim over Sabah, Malaysia issued a diplomatic note to the UN highlighting its sovereignty, according to Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan.

He went on to say that the diplomatic message clarified that Sabah and Sarawak were included in the country’s sovereignty as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

“There have not been any advancements because we and the Philippines both sent notes. This is how diplomatic relations work. We also addressed a note to the UN, since the Philippines had mentioned in their note that they had taken into account Sabah’s maritime border.

“This implies that they assert ownership of Sabah. Consequently, we submitted a protest letter to the UN since the establishment of Sabah, the independence of Sabah and Sarawak, and the creation of Malaysia were carried out methodically and in a planned manner, with unanimous consent and acknowledgement from the UN,” he informed reporters following his role as Umno deputy president and officiating the Rembau Umno Division delegates’ meeting here today.

He continued by saying that Sabah, Sarawak, and Tanah Melayu united to form the Federation of Malaysia, and he hoped that the disagreement over Sabah would not have an impact on the two nations’ diplomatic ties.

According to international media, Malaysia protested and rejected the Philippine claim to Sabah by delivering a diplomatic note to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
“Let this matter be resolved internationally; else, the International Court may become involved. Nobody can just declare that a portion of Malaysia is theirs; we are a sovereign nation,” he continued.

End Note

In essence, the Sabah territorial dispute between Malaysia and the Philippines is a complex matter with profound historical, legal, and geopolitical roots. The Sultan of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company made an agreement in the late 1800s, which is when the fight first started. Because of its unclear phrasing, this agreement—which was first written in Malay and later translated into several languages—remains at the heart of the issue. alternative academics have given alternative translations for the term “pajakkan,” which is crucial to the varying opinions of whether the 1878 agreement was a lease or a complete cession of sovereignty. The Philippines insists that Sabah’s sovereignty was never fully surrendered and that the deal was only a lease. This position stems from the idea that sovereignty was preserved in spite of the leasing agreement, as well as the historical background of the Sultanate of Sulu. However, Malaysia sees the deal as a blatant ceding of sovereignty, supported by further accords and the people of Sabah’s vote to become a part of Malaysia in 1963, which they see as a manifestation of their right to self-determination. The Philippines has used international forums, such as the UN, to support its position, despite the UN’s neutrality and emphasis on bilateral talks. In response, Malaysia has reaffirmed its claims to sovereignty and dismissed the disagreement as unimportant. In future, persistent diplomatic efforts and a readiness for fruitful discussion will be necessary to resolve the Sabah problem. In order to find a solution that works for all parties, Malaysia and the Philippines must understand their own internal political environments. Addressing this long-standing issue and fostering regional harmony will require a balanced strategy that upholds historical claims while encouraging communication and understanding.

Heavy rainfall has triggered dangerous flooding in China’s Guangdong and Guangxi provinces, placing many residents at risk. Officials are actively engaged in disaster response efforts to safeguard lives and minimize the impact of the ongoing crisis.

In Guangdong, concerns are heightened as rivers in the Xijiang and Beijiang basins swell to levels seen only once every 50 years. The government’s water resource ministry has issued an emergency notice, urging cities and towns to prepare for potential emergencies. Relief efforts are underway, with supplies such as food, clothing, and shelter being dispatched to those in need.

The relentless downpours and strong winds over several days, including a 12-hour deluge on Saturday night, have severely affected central and northern parts of Guangdong, including cities like Zhaoqing, Shaoguan, Qingyuan, and Jiangmen. In Qingyuan, nearly 20,000 individuals have been forced to evacuate, while damaged power facilities in Zhaoqing have led to localized power outages. As a precautionary measure, schools in Qingyuan have been closed to ensure student safety.

Social media platforms are abuzz with firsthand accounts of the devastation, particularly in Zhaoqing’s Huaiji county, where flooding has disrupted power and communication services for elderly residents and children. Disturbing videos show floodwaters sweeping away cars along narrow streets, illustrating the severity of the situation.

In neighboring Guangxi province, strong winds have caused significant damage to buildings, and some areas have experienced hailstorms and major flooding. Rescue teams are tirelessly working to assist those trapped in floodwaters, with reports indicating 65 landslides in Hezhou city alone.

The unfolding weather crisis serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for swift and coordinated action to protect vulnerable communities in both Guangdong and Guangxi provinces. Authorities remain vigilant, closely monitoring the situation, and are committed to providing necessary support to millions of people affected by the severe weather conditions in southern China.