Is Sabah (North Borneo) under lease to Malaysia or been sold?

Setting aside the political maneuver of Sabah issue will only boil down to two questions. Is it under Lease Contract or has been sold ? The answer cannot be benevolently deduce without going to the parameter of the International Law. The two key words suggest for different approach of legal opinion. For the consumption of the public, let us tackle the word "Lease" . The " Lease is normally documented in the form of "Contract Agreement" between two party specifically identifying the Lessor and the Lessee. The elements of lease is written in the form of articles with the provision of stipulations Common question simplify the agreement - What is being Lease? - a piece of land. How big is the land being leased? - enumerate the boundaries and established the size. How long to have it leased? - a mentioned of length of time. How much to have it leased? - a mentioned of monetary or equivalent in kind as per agreed in continuous mode to the length of time, if the contract has no specific lenght of time , the payment will continue endlessly. The secondary stipulation is the involvement of the third party between contracting party - Can the lease be transfer to other entity or person?

Now let us tackle the word "Sell or Sold" . The same exist to write off a " Contract Agreement " between two contracting party with the same parameters as Lease except for the condition of payment, because no point of sale with continuous payment forever has been written so far in the history of legal practice. . We can easily point out that writing a Lease Contract or Selling Contract has no much deviation except for the payment method of specific price at specific time. Therefore , this must present no problem except if the Contract agreement is not written in English. This is the advantage of English language over all languages of the world because of it's inherent specific characteristic of meaning.

The Sabah Lease Contract of 1878 was written in Malay language and the word used is " Padjak" this keyword is the object of interpretation. The British government has translated it "Cession" while the Malay language mean it " Lease" . This terminology squabble can be easily lodge for interpretation to the Malay linguistic expert based during that time, because people of the same token language deviate from the original meaning in passing of generations . The Malay language terminology can be different after 100 years due to cross race culture and race inter-mixture or inter racial marriage. Unlike English language that did not differ much of it's meaning after so many generations.

In so far as Sabah is concern and the uniqueness of the case is not very hard to solve, because interrelated and collateral evidence is in place and will suffice if it is Lease or Sell. Regardless if Lease or sell, if the breach of contract has been comitted , the chance is the "Contract" will be automatically void. The Lease Contract of 1878 states that it will be forever assigned to the Private British Company and to it's heirs ( Third Party) But cannot be transfer to another company or country. This specific provision has very clear interpretation, there is an actual discrepancy because people and company is dissolvable and therefore the word forever is not existent, when company has dissoved or died. The contract is written and addressed to the Company , the person who signed the contract is representing the company.It is an individual contract on the part of the landlord but contracted to a Corporate Company and so when company has ended to exist so is the contract, even if the signatory to the contract or his heirs of the signatory is still existing.

Since the contract says non- transferrable , the act of transferring the Sabah Lease Contract of 1878 is outright violation and breach of contract. This is what exactly happen , the private British Company has ceased to exist but has transferred to the British Government , the probable logic of having both British word cannot substantiate to the two individual entity - the Private British Company and the British government. Nothwithstanding the situation , the British government has transferred the Sabah Lease Contract of 1878, to Malaysia in 1963. We maintained the notion of Lease because Malaysia has continued to pay the rental money initiated by the British Government in 1939.

Deed of Sabah (North Borneo) Lease Agreement Document

The collateral evidence of the Sabah Lease Contract of 1878 is highlighted, by the Ruling of the High Court of North Borneo in 1939 to pay continuously to the heirs . Albeit if it is a Selling contract, the payment has fixed amount and fixed time to complete the payment. In addition , a "Letter of Sabah Administration was awarded to then Datu Punjungan Kiram to audit and inventory the property owned by his father Sultan Mawalil Wasit. The Letter of Administration could be the last nail on Dracula's coffin. The Royal Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo has to do the longtime delay audit and inventory of their property to the whole island of Sabah. the British government has committed grave slander in absorbing Sabah island as well as Malaysia, of whom is clearly an outsider to the contract. It appears that a landgrabber ( British Government) has awarded Sabah to another landgrabber (Malaysia) .

CONCLUSION: REGARDLESS IF THE WORD "PADJAK" MEANS LEASE OR SELL OR CESSION. THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN BREACHED BY THE SECOND PARTY ( PRIVATE BRITISH COMPANY) INTRUDED BY ANOTHER PARTY ( BRITISH GOVERMENT) AND AGAIN INTRUDED BY ANOTHER PARTY ( MALAYSIA) SERVES AS MULTIPLE BREACH OF CONTRACT. THIS MAKES THE CONTRACT NULL AND VOID AND SO SABAH MUST RETURN TO THE OWNER .The case rested.

read some explanation here

Continue reading

‘Limited force’ could be used to rescue Filipinos in Sabah: judge-elect at the International Criminal Court, Meriam Santiago

The Philippines may use "limited force" against Malaysia if the  lives of Filipinos caught  in the middle  of a violent dispute in Sabah are in danger, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said  on Friday.

While the use of law is prohibited under international law, Santiago said there are certain conditions that allow a state to use a "limited  force"   to protect and save the lives of its nationals.

"International law prohibits the use of force.  But there is an unwritten exception which allows states to protect or rescue their nationals by means of armed forces in the territory of another state,"  she said before the annual convention of the Association of Nursing Service Administrators Philippines held at the Manila Hotel.

"However, this exception should not be invoked, unless the Philippines has to carry out rescue operations," said Santiago, a judge-elect at the International Criminal Court.

Santiago said among the pre-conditions that the  Philippine must first observe before  undertaking rescue operations in Malaysia are the following:

The lives of Filipino nationals should be genuinely in danger

Malaysia is unwilling or unable to ensure the safety of the persons concerned

The Philippines does not pursue any other purpose at the occasion of the operation

The scale and effects of the military force used are adequately measured to the purpose and conditions of the operation.

Asked  later during a press conference if the present  situation  in Sabah  warrants  the  Philippines' use of  a limited force against  Malaysian authorities, Santiago said, " According to the preconditions that are available, then the   Philippines could go to war in a limited sense as long as  these preconditions are met…"

"So as long as we meet these conditions under international law, we can avail of the exemption that allows us to use limited force to rescue Filipinos. We should have rescue operations there if the Filipinos are in danger of losing their lives," she said.

Under international law, Santiago said, the  states in  conflict  with each other must avail  only peaceful means of settlements  of dispute.

"Meaning to say that war is considered illegal under international law for proving that a state has the right of sovereignty over a certain territory…That  of course applies to the dispute in Sabah by the Philippines and Malaysia," she pointed out.

But the senator pointed out   how Malaysia stood  firm in sending first Filipinos out of Sabah before discussing any means  of settlement to end the dispute.

This attitude  by Malaysia, she said, was not approved by the international law.

"That's is not provided for  by international law. If Malaysia insists that first Filipinos should all get out of Sabah then it will be willing to discuss any means of settlement of dispute, I'm afraid that Malaysia will be in danger   of being branded as a rouge state by the international community. That behavior is not anticipated and is not approved of by international law," she said.

But  before  the  Philippines  takes  any action against  Malaysia, Santiago proposed the appointment of a third-party that would investigate  the recent spate of violence  in  Sabah.

When Congress opens in July, the senator said she would file a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that President Benigno Aquino III should invite  Malaysia to agree  to an investigation by a third-party.

Santiago said the third-party could be a former prime minister or president of Southeast Asian Nations.

INQUIRER Global Nation

Continue reading