Development be future, claim be past

WELL, this is of course a sensitive recurring issue, but it is addressed, albeit proportionately and periodically. For the issue of the Philippine claim to Sabah has once again been pushed to the front of regional, if not international, media attention. A former President of the Philippine Senate, Mr. Aquilino Pimentel, was quoted as proposing that as part of the impending Philippine constitutional reform arrangements, Sabah should be explicitly included as the 13th state of a federal Philippines.

Well, in the ordinary course of even politically inspired events, such an ostensibly exhortatory call by a supposedly retired politician is quite harmless. I am also usually counted as a former political operative at the core of political affairs, and I also aspire to be the duke of more than one mountain side, but these remain wild fantasy served only to please one made the “Sabah claim” statement in his capacity as a member of the Philippines’ Charter change consultative committee tasked with proposing new amendments to the Philippine Constitution, that gives a to the whole statement.

The Philippine claim to Sabah is “sensitive” because it touches upon the understandably tenderly patriotic sentiments of the peoples of two otherwise extremely friendly countries—Malaysia and the Philippines—in general, as well as the indigenous feelings of the people of Sabah. On the other hand, it is “recurring” primarily because before, during and after national election campaigns in the Philippines, the “Sabah claim” issue would inevitably surface, with some politicians, perhaps running out of ideas for addressing other more pressing domestic political and social issues, deliberately raising it to, I suspect, precisely “cash in” on the sensitive nature of the matter, hoping to transform the jingoistic resonance it thus generates into more votes for the politician concerned.

I would like to be generous to Mr. Pimentel and think that the latter, politically expedient “recurring” scenario described above does not apply to him, who is supposedly a retired politician with no need for more votes in an incoming election. Whatever his motivation, Mr. Pimentel would be well advised that the counter-issue of not belonging to the Philippines but being an integral part of Malaysia, has long been settled in the views of the vast majority of the mainstream international community. at least two international commissions of inquiry set up to ascertain the opinions in forming Malaysia together with Sarawak, Malaya and Singapore (which left to be- come an independent country later).

One such commission was even formed by no less than the United Nations, with members from both rival sides of the Cold War period, and thus cannot be characterized as either pro-West or East even during that tense period of international politics. And both commissions reported positively on the general willingness of the people of North cut case of the much vaunted practice of self-determination on the future of former colonial subjects, and it should trump any historical sovereignty claims otherwise.

For if historical sovereignty claims are allowed to “run wild,” then the maps of the entire world would have to be redrawn, with historically longstanding countries being able to exercise sovereign precedence over newly formed ones. Italy, for example, as a successor state of the city state of Rome, should be allowed to claim sovereignty over almost the whole of Europe, as such was the vast climaxing expanse of the ancient Roman Empire. The absolute absurdity of such historical claims is thus sensibly consigned for the amity and comity of the international community that be.

Furthermore, the Malaysia Agreement, the foundational legal document for the formation of Malaysia, of which Sabah is an integral part, is deposited with the United Nations as part of its Treaty Series. The obligations of the various contracting parties therein are thus again recognized by the international community, and not just some secret arrangements hidden from international examination. Therefore, to once again raise the “Sabah claim,” and especially in these modern, internationally legally settled days, is tantamount to exposing an “ignorance of history and international law” as rebuked by the Malaysian Foreign Minister, Mr. Anifah Aman, who, like me, is a Sabahan.

And indeed, as a Sabahan, I would like to see an even closer and friendlier working relationship with the Philippines. Geography situates us next to each other, and I think it is a blessing as such, for we are both lands endowed with not only abundant resources but also a variety of peoples and their colorful cultures. We should make the best use of these endowments to bring about better livelihoods for our respective peoples. The Philippine government would be well advised to devote even more attention to the development of its southern frontiers, now that no less than the President himself hails from the south and should better understand the needs of his native land. Similarly, the Malaysian government should also redouble its development efforts in Sabah. And we should help out one another whenever possible. It is only through such mutual best practices of “prosper thy neighbor” that long- lasting friendships between nations are cemented, hopefully forever.