Sabah and the Sulu claims

Rozan Yunos of The Brunei Times

Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the
weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim. The weight of Brunei tradition challenges it.Pictures: Courtesy of Rozan Yunos
THE 1968 Programme Book for the Coronation of His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Muizzaddin Waddaulah as the 29th Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, had two interesting documents inserted inside. The documents were reproduction of two treaties taken from microfilm kept at the Public Record Office in London.


The first treaty was signed by Brunei's 24th Sultan, Sultan Abdul Momin, appointing Baron de Overbeck as the Maharaja Sabah, Rajah Gaya and Sandakan signed on 29th December 1877. The second treaty was signed by Sultan Jamalalulazam of Sulu appointing Baron de Overbeck as Dato Bendahara and Raja Sandakan on 22nd January 1878, about three weeks after the first treaty was signed.

That begs the question: Who was responsible for Sabah or North Borneo as it was known then towards the end of the 19th century? That probably has a bearing on the event now unfolding in Lahad Datu in Sabah, where a group of armed men supposedly from the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo is claiming that they are the rightful owners of Sabah.

Many of the early modern accounts of written history in Brunei noted that Sulu was given possession of Sabah or parts of Sabah for help rendered to Sultan Muhydin, the 14th Sultan of Brunei who fought a civil war against the 13th Sultan of Brunei, Sultan Abdul Mubin.

Sultan Abdul Mubin usurped the throne after killing Sultan Muhammad Ali when the latter tried to stop Sultan Abdul Mubin from taking his revenge for the death of his son killed by the son of Sultan Muhammad Ali. Sultan Abdul Mubin appointed Sultan Muhydin as Bendahara but eventually Sultan Muhydin tricked Sultan Abdul Mubin into leaving Brunei for Pulau Cermin and appointed himself as the new Sultan of Brunei. The two Sultans fought against each other and Sultan Muhyidin finally triumphed, said to be due to the assistance provided by the Sulu Sultanate.

Sir Hugh Low, writing in the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JSBRAS) published on 5 June 1880 entitled 'Selesilah (Book of Descent) of the Rajas of Bruni', wrote that "by the assistance of a force from the Sultan of Soolok, the forts on the island (Pulau Cermin) were captured".

Earlier Sir Hugh Low described the negotiation between Sulu and Brunei: "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".

HR Hughes-Hallett writing in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society published in August 1940 entitled A Sketch of the History of Brunei wrote: "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".

CA Majul in his book Muslims in the Philippines (1973) referred to a letter from Sultan Jamalul Azam of Sulu to the Governor General of Spain on 17 September 1879 that the coast area from Kimanis to Balikpapan was to pay tribute to the Sultan which he said proved that the Brunei territory facing Suluk was ceded to Suluk.

Interestingly enough, Pehin Jamil Umar writing in his book, Tarsilah Brunei II: Period of Splendour and Fame (2007), countered all of the above. Pehin Jamil did not 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. However, during the battle for Pulau Cermin, the Sulu forces who were supposed to attack the island from Pulau Keingaran and from the sea, did not do so. 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 did the Sulu forces landed and took the opportunity to seize a number of war booties.

According to Pehin Jamil, Sultan Muhydin refused to cede the territories claimed by Sulu. Pehin Jamil noted that the area was only "claimed" and not "ceded", as Sir Stamford Raffles, in his book "History of Java" (1830), had noted "on the north-east of Borneo proper (Brunei) lies a very considerable territory (Sabah), the sovereignty of which has long been claimed by Sulu Government".

Pehin Jamil further noted that according to the oral tradition, Sulu continued to press their claim. In 1775, one of their chiefs came to Brunei pretending to seek fresh water. What they really wanted was to seek an audience with the Sultan regarding Sabah. However, the Sultan ordered one of the chief wazirs to see them and he threatened that if they wanted to pursue their intention, he will kill them all. The Sulus immediately left. Despite that setback, the Sulus continue to maintain their claims.

The argument that Brunei has not ceded Sabah to Sulu is supported by LR Wright in her book The Origins of British Borneo (1970). She wrote: "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. Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim. The weight of Brunei tradition challenges it".

The Sulu claim is currently resting on that treaty which was mentioned at the beginning of this article signed by Sultan Jamalalulazam of Sulu appointing Baron de Overbeck as Dato Bendahara and Raja Sandakan on 22nd January 1878. But at the beginning of this article, there is, in fact, another treaty which was signed earlier by Sultan Abdul Momin appointing Baron de Overbeck as the Maharaja Sabah, Rajah Gaya and Sandakan signed on 29th December 1877. In 1877, the Brunei Sultanate then still believed and maintained that the territory was in fact still under the control of the Brunei Sultanate.

Another interesting document is the British North Borneo Treaties Protocol of 1885 signed in Madrid, which is also known as the Madrid Protocol of 1885, a copy of which can be found on Sabah State Attorney General's website. It was signed by the British, Germany and Spain who was the predecessor government of the Philippines. The two most important articles are Article I British and Germany recognising the sovereignty of Spain over the Sulu Archipelago and Article III Spain relinquishing all claims to Borneo.

This article serves only to point out that past events have repercussions on the present and more so if the past events were not clearly defined as in this particular case.

2 comments:

  1. MADRID PROTOCOL RECOGNISED BRITISH COLONIAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER NORTH BORNEO (SABAH) 1885.

    In 1885 a "Big Power" re-drawing of the world map took place and North Borneo was traded between Spain and Britain like a piece of real estate.

    Britain Spain and Germany signed an international treaty called the "Madrid Protocol" recognising Spain's sovereignty and authority over the Jolos (Sulus).

    Article 111 of the Madrid protocol recognised Britain's sovereignty and control over the territory of North Borneo.

    ARTICLE III says as follows:

    "The Spanish Government renounces, as far as regards the British Government, all claims of sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu (Jolo), and which comprise the neighbouring islands of Balambangan, Banguey, and Malawali, as well as all those comprised within a zone of three maritime leagues from the coast, an d which form part of the territories administered by the Company styled the “British North Borneo Company.”

    The article noted that "....Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu (Jolo)"

    It seems that by 1885 North Borneo was likely no longer under the nominal control of the Sulu Sultanate as the Article says "which have belonged..."

    A complete copy of the Madrid Protocol may be found on this link:

    http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/Lawnet/SabahLaws/Treaties/Protocol%28Madrid%29.pdf

    This treaty clearly established British control over North Borneo.

    It is noted that since 1521 the Spanish presence was never effectively established in North Borneo. And in 1762 Britain invaded and captured Manila and ruled for a short period which ended by the Treaty of "Peace of Paris" 1763. The Philippines was not mentioned in the treaty.

    (British invasion- Wikipedia-main article: British occupation of Manila)

    "In August 1759, Charles III ascended the Spanish throne. At the time, Britain and France were at war, in what was later called the Seven Years War. France, suffering a series of setbacks, successfully negotiated a treaty with Spain known as the Family Compact which was signed on 15 August 1761. By an ancillary secret convention, Spain was committed to making preparations for war against Britain.[21]

    On 24 September 1762,[22] force of British Army regulars and British East India Company soldiers, supported by the ships and men of the East Indies Squadron of the British Royal Navy, sailed into Manila Bay from Madras in India and after a battle, took possession of Manila and its port, Cavite.[21] The expedition, led by Brigadier General William Draper and Rear-Admiral Samuel Cornish, captured Manila, "the greatest Spanish fortress in the western Pacific", and attempted to establish trade with China.[23]

    cont'd next post

    ReplyDelete
  2. SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS ARE MAINLY TEMPLATES OF PAST COLONIAL EMPIRES

    The early success at Manila did not enable the British to control the Philippines. Spanish-Filipino forces (made up mostly of Filipinos) kept the British confined to Manila. Nevertheless, the British were confident of eventual success after receiving the written surrender of captured Catholic Archbishop Rojo on 30 October 1762.[24]

    The surrender was rejected as illegal by Don Simón de Anda y Salazar, who claimed the title of Governor-General under the statutes of the Council of Indies. He led Spanish-Filipino forces that kept the British confined to Manila and sabotaged or crushed British fomented revolts. Anda intercepted and redirected the Manila galleon trade to prevent further captures by the British. The failure of the British to consolidate their position led to troop desertions and a breakdown of command unity which left the British forces paralysed and in an increasingly precarious position.[25]

    The Seven Years War was ended by the Peace of Paris signed on 10 February 1763. At the time of signing the treaty, the signatories were not aware that the Manila was under British occupation and was being administered as a British colony. Consequently no specific provision was made for the Philippines. Instead they fell under the general provision that all other lands not otherwise provided for be returned to the Spanish Crown.[26]" source- Wikipedia.

    The USA caveated its interest in North Borneo twice early last century- purely out of imperialist competition with Britain.

    In 1963 the much weakened "Big Power" Britain re-drew the map of S. E. Asia by transferring colonial power over North Borneo and Sarawak to another small time foreign power Malaya under the Malaysia Treaty.

    The Philippines opposed this plan and made its claim on North Borneo.

    In the previous centuries in all these trading of territories the people's wishes in the Borneo colonies have been ignored.

    [It is noted that the nations of S.E. Asia are largely the creation of the foreign big powers.

    Indonesia today is the template of the Dutch East Indies Empire with the exception of East Timor which was occupied and rule by Portugal for over 400 years. So is the Philippines a template of the Spanish South East Asian empire. None of them existed as independent states in their present form.

    The same applies to Malaysia which the British cobbled together in 1963 and it fell apart in 1965 when Singapore left the ill-fated union.]

    In the new century the people of Sabah are increasingly rising up to re-claim their country for themselves and to assert their right to self-determination free from any form of foreign rule.

    INI KALI LAH!

    ReplyDelete