Talk:Sabah dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sabah dispute article.
Article policies
This article is supported by WikiProject Malaysia.

This project provides a central approach to Malaysia-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 WikiProject Southeast Asia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Southeast Asia-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Removal of the military conflict style infobox

The template used before was a military conflict format. Sabah dispute is not a military conflict (yet). So I've removed it from the article. Someone madeit read like as if it is a war between Malaysia and the Philippines. Ryan_Aldren 06:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cobbold etc.

This section is wrong: 'Malaysian sovereignty over Sabah was further strengthened by two referenda: the first facilitated by the United Nations-backed Cobbold Commission, from February to April 1962 and the second before the formation of Malaysia in September 1963. Both referenda recorded 70% of Sabahan population voting for Sabah to be part of Malaysia'. Firstly, the Cobbold Commission was the commission set up by the governments of UK and Malaya to investigate the possiblity of forming Malaysia; it was the second commission that was UN-backed, created as a response to Philippine and Indonesian objections to the formation of Malaysia. More importantly for the argument being made, NEITHER commissions were referenda; they were commissions of inquiry that interviewed a relatively small number of people, largely from the existing elite that were biased in favour of Malaysia and, by their own admission, did little to try to ascertain the views of the interior people. Monsopiad 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)monsopiad

Can you cite references for this? --Howard the Duck 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual texts of both commission reports are available at the Sabah State Archive and in numerous public record libraries around the country and the UK, including Rhodes House at Oxford. If you consult these, you will see that both commissions interviewed a very small number of people/organizations and were in no way representative, let alone proper referenda. The Cobbald Commission provided a rough estimate - based simply on the impressions of its members - that one third of the population of North Borneo was pro-Malaysia, one third was anti-Malaysia, and one third didn't really care or understand the issues. A couple of academic articles that discuss Sabah's status within Malaysia are Paridah Abd. Samad and Darusalam Abu Bakar, 'Malaysia-Philippines relations: The issue of Sabah', Asian Survey 32:6 (1992) and Audrey Kahin, 'Crisis on the periphery: The rift between Kuala Lumpur and Sabah', Pacific Affairs 65:1 (1992). 81.154.16.250 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Monsopiad


[edit] Obviously biased...

..and lacking in citation, incorrect grammar, and many typos. many work to be done here.--kawaputra 13:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY DOES MALASIA OBJECT TO HAVING THE SABAH ISSUE RESOLVE LEGALLY THROUGH THE ICJ? mactanone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.99.218 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because Malaysian government policy is that the Philippines claims are groundless...that's what we're told. But when came to think about this, I think its politically suicidal for any leaders in Malaysia to bring this issue to the ICJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan darknight (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Padjak/pajak

The key word in the agreement was "padjak," which has been translated by American, Dutch and Spanish linguists to mean "lease" or "arrendamiento." The BNBC (Barron & Alfred Dent Company) "Leased" (Padjak) the North-Borneo territory in 1878 and the leased/Padjak valid "for as long as they (Barron & Alfred Dent Companny) intended to use them (The North-Borneo). The agreement further states explicitly that "the rights to the territory may not be transferred to a nation or another company without the sultan's express permission".

i thought the meaning of padjak in malay is "pawn". i dont know if tausugs uses this word. hence, malaysian/british interpretation: "sale" or "cession" --> wrong. phils/american/spanish/dutch interpretation: "lease" --> wrong. this means that the sultan sulu had actually intended to get some cash while putting sabah on as security. he might have hoped to regain sabah back one day by paying back the same amount with interest (and inflation :o). or he might not. my 2 cents --kawaputra 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR __earth (Talk) 15:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks for pointing that out. should i delete/edit the relevant theories/ideas i written above?

anyway, what do u understand from the word padjak/pajak? i havent consulted a dictionary yet, but im quite sure thats the meaning. i found only one article online though:

The Philippines v. Malaysia: At the heart of what so far remains this war of words is, quite fittingly, one particular word. That is padjak, which today in Malay means "mortgage" or "pawn" but a century ago meant "to lease" or "to cede." from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,723859,00.html

i think the last part of the sentence is influenced by the american,spanish,dutch interpretation. cos lease in malay is is "sewa" isnt it?

In Indonesian, padjak(old spelling)/pajak(new spelling) means "tax"...so, probably in lieu of or something owed. Though these are my personal interpretation. Rad vsovereign 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The End of The Lease

I think I saw it somewhere in my school history book that the last of the Sulu Sultanate Sultan Esmail Kiran officially announced that the lease had ended somewhere in the 50's. Why does the Phillipine government still trying to take the rights of the Sabahan and Malaysian people?

(Ryan_Aldren 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

Because that would be a malaysian government created history book you learned from. Unfortunately.(and its not theyre fault) Malaysians have failed to realise that every piece of information that was fed through to them before the internet was widely available, is what they want you to think/know. There have been many injustices that have happened in Sabah that have been kept quiet. People in West Malaysia have no idea that alot of Sabahans especially the ones who live in the more rural areas have secret meetings talking about independance, i know because i finally was invited to one and shocked to see at least 20 thousand people in a secret rally in the middle of Pitas. Even police were there!
Sabahan talking about independence from Malaysia? Who wrote this? Ryan_Aldren 06:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Stop using too many Question marks!People might get the impression that 1.)you're angry (which isn't really wrong)or 2.)that you are biased towards your country and do not have an impartial attitude,which is banned in this site.To the person who said that Sabahans were holding "independence meetings":Please present proof,please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.251.12 (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done.Ryan_Aldren 08:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price of Lease

How much is the annual rent? Rad vsovereign 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the "official" Sulu Sultanate web site it is suppose to be PhP77,442.36 or US$1,500. But I can't confirm if Malaysia are paying for these lease or not. Ryan_Aldren 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts of the Claims

The agreement only mentioned the eastern part of Sabah, not the whole of Sabah.

The agreement was with the Sultan of Sulu, not the Government of the Philippines that does not even recognise the rights of the Sulu Sultan in the Philippines, let alone pay any lease on the former Sultan properties in the Philippines.

The descendents of the Sulu Sultan in Sabah have equal rights compared to those of the Philippines that are no longer of direct descendent of the Sultan of Sulu, and are considered as being captured by the enemy as they had been stripped of their rights as the Sultan of Sulu.

If the Sulu royalty really want their rights and dignity to be restored, they must search for all the rightful descendents of the Sultan of Sulu in Sabah and take their cases to the world courts.

The Suluk word is "Sanda" which in malay means "pajak". These all mean "mortgage", not "lease". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan darknight (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


And what if the Phillippines recognizes the rights of the Sultan,As they could be forced to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.251.12 (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There would be some kind of constitutional issue I guess. Because since the formation of the Republic of Philippines, the Sulu Sultanate were no longer recognized as a political and government institution. But in case of Sabah dispute I am not sure since the deal was between the Sulu Sultanate and the British colonial power. Ryan_Aldren 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming article

I suggest renaming the article to Philippines' claim of Sabah. There doesnt seem to be any dispute. There is no military combat. Plus i think Phils dropped their claim years ago. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

- no. the philippines has not abondoned the claim. doing so would be politcal suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.14.31.18 (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. The Philippines haven't give in yet. Please explain why it is a 'political suicide'?Ryan_Aldren 09:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan darknight (talk • contribs)

[edit] Claim by Republic of the Philippines, or by the autonomous South?

In the present context, "Philippines" refers to republican government in Manila. I have yet to come across any recent claim from Manila on Sabah, besides during the Konfrontasi days of the 1960s, hence the tone of this article sounds rather misleading. Instead, the claim on Sabah as of May 2008 comes from Nur Misuari who seems to be acting on behalf of the Muslim South only. (source [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anggerik (talk • contribs) 07:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)