I am re-posting this very interesting article printed in the INQUIRER.net hoping this may help its goal of reaching out readers in all walks of life far wide enough so that majority of Filipinos if not all will know the history and facts behind the Philippine government's claim of Sabah.
Does Sabah really belong to the Philippines?
INQUIRER.net
8:34 pm | Monday, March 4th, 2013
Read more:
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/66689/does-sabah-really-belong-to-the-philippines#ixzz2NGMACnUr
Follow us:
@inquirerdotnet on Twitter |
inquirerdotnet on Facebook
On March 25, 1963, Senator Lorenzo Sumulong delivered a privileged
speech berating the Philippines claim to North Borneo (Sabah), which had
been filed by President Diosdado Macapagal on June 22, 1962. Five days
later, Senator Jovito R. Salonga delivered a point-by-point rebuttal to
Sumulong’s speech.
Below are the full text of Sumulong’s speech and Salonga’s reply.
We leave it to our readers to judge the merits of the case as presented
by the senators 50 years ago.
Excerpts from the speech of Salonga are also reprinted in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer in its March 5, 2013 issue in a bid to shed
light on the Sabah conflict.
Here is the full text of Senator Salonga’s rebuttal speech
delivered on March 30, 1963, which was broadcast over radio and
television and published in The Manila Times on March 31, April 1-2,
1963.
A few days ago, Senator Lorenzo Sumulong spoke on the floor of
the Senate to air his views on the Philippines claim to North Borneo. My
first reaction was to keep my peace and observe this shocking spectacle
in silence, particularly in the light of the request of the British
panel during the London Conference that the documents and the records of
the proceedings be considered confidential, until they could be
declassified in the normal course of diplomatic procedure. In part, my
reaction was dictated by the belief, so aptly expressed elsewhere, that
the best way to answer a bad argument is to let it go on and that
silence is the “unbearable repartee.”
But silence could be tortured out of context and construed by
others, not familiar with the facts, as an implied admission of the
weakness of the Philippine stand. And so, I decided to make this reply,
fully aware that in an exchange such as this, considering that our claim
is still pending and each side is feeling out the other’s legal
position, none but our British friends and their successors may well
profit.
The good Senator, whose patriotism I do not propose to impugn,
has had access to the confidential records and documents of the
Department of Foreign Affairs. By his own admission, he attended
closed-door hearings of the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and
National Defense, where crucial matters of national survival and
security were taken up. He knows the classified, confidential nature of
the records and documents bearing on the Philippine claim.
Senator Sumulong has now found it proper and imperative, if we
take him literally, to ventilate his views berating the merit and
validity of the Republic’s claim, accusing his own Government of gross
ignorance and holding in unbelievable disdain the Philippine position on
the British-sponsored Malaysia plan. He has chosen to assault the
Philippine position at a time when his own Government, by virtue of the
British request, may be said to be somewhat helpless in making, right in
our own country, an adequate, fully-documented defense of the
Philippine stand. I trust our British friends, here and across the seas,
will understand if, in defense of our position, we come pretty close to
the area of danger.
The good Senator tells us that in view of
the “importance and magnitude” of the subject, he decided to wait “until
all the relevant facts and information” were in, that he had made his
own “studies and researches,” which on the basis of the press releases
issued by his office, must have been quite massive. The morning papers
last Monday (March 25) quoted the Senator as having bewailed, in advance
of his privilege speech, that “only one side of the problem has been
presented so far,” (meaning the Philippine side) seemingly unaware,
despite the depth and range of his studies, that in the world press,
only the British side has been given the benefit of full and favorable
publicity and that the Philippine side has been summarily dismissed,
just as the Senator dismisses it now with apparent contempt, as
“shadowy”, “dubious” and “flimsy.” It may interest the good Senator to
know that his statements, particularly on the eve of the talks in
London, consistently derogatory of the Philippine claim, were seized
upon by the English press with great delight, as if to show to the
Philippine panel how well-informed the Senator was. It is, of course,
not the fault of the Senator that the British, in an admirable show of
unity, enjoyed and were immensely fascinated by his press releases and
statements.
But before I take up the Senator’s
arguments in detail, it may be well to set our frame of reference by
restating the position of the Philippine Government on the North Borneo
claim.
Thousands of years ago, what is now known
as the Philippines and what is known today as Borneo used to constitute a
single historical, cultural, economic unit. Authoritative Western
scientists have traced the land bridges that connected these two places.
The inhabitants of the Philippines and Borneo come from the same racial
stock, they have the same color, they have or used to have similar
customs and traditions. Borneo is only 18 miles away from us today.
North Borneo, formerly known as Sabah, was
originally ruled by the Sultan of Brunei. In 1704, in gratitude for help
extended to him by the Sultan of Sulu in suppressing a revolt, the
Sultan of Brunei ceded North Borneo to the Sulu Sultan.
Here, our claim really begins. Over the
years, the various European countries, including Britain, Spain and the
Netherlands acknowledged the Sultan of Sulu as the sovereign ruler of
North Borneo. They entered into various treaty arrangements with him.
In 1878, a keen Austrian adventurer, by the
name of Baron de Overbeck, having known that the Sultan of Sulu was
facing a life-and-death struggle with the Spanish forces in the Sulu
Archipelago, went to Sulu, took advantage of the situation and persuaded
the Sultan of Sulu to lease to him, in consideration of a yearly rental
of Malayan $ 5,000 (roughly equivalent to a meager US $ 1,600), the
territory now in question. The contract of lease — and I call it so on
the basis of British documents and records that cannot be disputed here
or abroad — contains a technical description of the territory in terms
of natural boundaries, thus:
“…all the territories and lands being
tributary to us on the mainland of the island of Borneo commencing from
the Pandassan River on the NW coast and extending along the whole east
coast as far as the Sibuco River in the South and comprising among
others the States of Peitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan,
Kinabatangan, Muniang and all the other territories and states to the
southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco River
with all the islands within 3 marine leagues of the coast.”
Overbeck later sold out all his rights
under the contract to Alfred Dent, an English merchant, who established a
provisional association and later a Company, known as the British North
Borneo Company, which assumed all the rights and obligations under the
1878 contract. This Company was awarded a Royal Charter in 1881. A
protest against the grant of the charter was lodged by the Spanish and
the Dutch Governments and in reply, the British Government clarified its
position and stated in unmistakable language that “sovereignty remains
with the Sultan of Sulu” and that the Company was merely an
administering authority.
In 1946, the British North Borneo Company
transferred all its rights and obligations to the British Crown. The
Crown, on July 10, 1946 — just six days after Philippine independence —
asserted full sovereign rights over North Borneo, as of that date.
Shortly thereafter former American Governor General Harrison, then
Special Adviser to the Philippine Government on Foreign Affairs,
denounced the Cession Order as a unilateral act in violation of legal
rights. In 1950, Congressman Macapagal — along with Congressmen Arsenio
Lacson and Arturo Tolentino — sponsored a resolution urging the formal
institution of the claim to North Borneo. Prolonged studies were in the
meanwhile undertaken and in 1962 the House of Representatives, in rare
unanimity, passed a resolution urging the President of the Philippines
to recover North Borneo consistent with international law and procedure.
Acting on this unanimous resolution and having acquired all the rights
and interests of the Sultanate of Sulu, the Republic of the Philippines,
through the President, filed the claim to North Borneo.
Our claim is mainly based on the following
propositions: that Overbeck and Dent, not being sovereign entities nor
representing sovereign entities, could not and did not acquire dominion
and sovereignty over North Borneo; that on the basis of authoritative
British and Spanish documents, the British North Borneo Company, a
private trading concern to whom Dent transferred his rights, did not and
could not acquire dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo; that
their rights were as those indicated in the basic contract, namely, that
of a lessee and a mere delegate; that in accordance with established
precedents in International Law, the assertion of sovereign rights by
the British Crown in 1946, in complete disregard of the contract of 1878
and their solemn commitments, did not and cannot produce legal results
in the form of a new tide.
I shall not, for the moment, take issue
with the Senator as to his statement of the problem sought to be solved
either through the Malaysia plan or the Greater Malayan Confederation.
Our commitments under the United Nations Charter, the Bandung Conference
Declaration and the 1960 decolonization resolution of the General
Assembly are matters of record and there is no quarrel about them.
Let us deal now with Senator Sumulong’s
analysis of the “relevant facts”. He begins by saying that “since the
organization of the United Nations in 1945, Britain in accordance with
the obligations imposed by the Charter has declared herself to be the
colonial power administering North Borneo as a British colony”. There is
something misleading in this naked assertion. The good Senator could
have informed the people, having proclaimed knowledge of all the
relevant facts, that the British Crown never considered North Borneo as
British territory, nor the North Borneans as British subjects, until
July 10, 1946 — six days after the Philippines became independent. He
may well have asked himself, “Why July 10, 1946?” and thereafter report
to the Senate and to the people he loves so well the results of his new
inquiry.
Then, with the air of a magistrate
delivering a stinging rebuke, he asks: “Why was the Philippine claim of
sovereignty to North Borneo so tardily presented in the United Nations?”
Yet, in the next breath, the good Senator reassures everyone that “I am
and have been in favor of our government giving every possible support
to the proprietary claims of the heirs of the late Sultan Jamalul
Kiram.” Now, let us examine these interesting assertions a little more
closely.
(1) If the Senator believes that the claim
of sovereignty was so “tardily presented”, how could the proprietary
claim of dominion or ownership — which is the main element of
sovereignty — regardless of whether it is the Philippine Government or
not that institutes the claim — be considered still seasonable and
appropriate?
(2) If the Senator suggests now that the
proprietary claim is not yet tardy and that the Government should merely
support, “the heirs of the Sultan” in this aspect of the claim, how can
he turn around and say that it is late if it is the Government that is
instituting the claim? Be it noted that the Philippine claim includes
sovereignty and dominion over North Borneo.
(3) But what arouses my curiosity is the
bald statement of the Senator that he is and has always been in favor of
supporting the proprietary claims of the “heirs of the Sultan of Sulu.”
Well, that must have been quite a long time! The Senator cannot
therefore blame us, since he has invited and provoked the inquiry, if we
now file a bill of particulars. Did he really support the proprietary
aspect of the claim since he first became a member of the House of
Representatives and assumed the Chairmanship of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs? Probably he did not give much thought to it then. But
certainly he must have heard of the Macapagal-Lacson-Tolentino
resolution of 1950. Did he give it in the Senate active and real
support, even in its proprietary aspects? He has been a member of that
distinguished body for more than 12 years — when, how and in what form,
(even through a proposed amendment so as to fit his thinking) did he
give that support? The cold, lifeless records of Congress yield no
evidence of what he now eloquently professes.
The distinguished Senator makes a most
interesting suggestion. He tells his colleagues in the Senate and the
Filipino people that “the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu” should have gone
to the United Nations, presumably to the International Court of Justice,
so that if the said heirs lose their case, “there would be no loss of
honor or prestige for the Republic of the Philippines.” I would commend
to the good Senator a closer reading of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice, in relation to Chapter 14 of the United Nations
Charter. Undoubtedly, he must have known that “the heirs of the Sultan”
could not possibly litigate before the International Court of Justice
for the simple reason that they have no international legal personality.
They do not constitute a State, as that term is understood in law.
Chapter 2, Article 34, paragraph 1 of the Statute clearly provides:
“Only States may be parties in cases before the Court.”
The same thing may well be said of his
suggestion that the heirs file a reservation or a petition before the
United Nations. And were we to follow the logic of the good Senator, we
might conclude that America, Britain, France, the Netherlands and other
countries have no more prestige and honor to keep since they have, as a
matter of cold fact, lost quite a number of cases before international
bodies and tribunals. But, of course, the conclusion is wrong. For
respect for the rule of law has never meant and should never mean loss
of honor and prestige.
Then, the good Senator tells us that
“contrary to the impression created in the minds of our people, the
claim of sovereignty put forward by our Government as transferee of the
Sultan of Sulu does not cover the entire area of North Borneo but only a
portion thereof.” I do not know who created this impression, or whether
the Senator has had a hand in it, through his own statements. However,
the scope of our claim is clear: we are claiming these portions of North
Borneo which were leased, as clearly defined and described in the
contract of 1878 and which are still under the de facto control and
administration of the British Crown. But the good Senator would like to
know what are the “exact metes and bounds” and gloats over the seeming
inability of the people in the Foreign Affairs Department to tell him
what are the exact boundaries. International law, it may be well to
remind our good Senator, does not require exact, rigid definition of a
territory by metes and bounds. In the language of international law
authorities of the highest repute, “rigidly fixed boundaries are not
indispensable and boundaries of a territory may be indicated by natural
signs, such as rivers, mountains, deserts, forests and the like.” (See,
for example the decision of the German-Polish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal,
August 1,1929). Up to now, ancient nations, such as India and China, are
still quarreling about their boundaries. In other words, Senator
Sumulong is exacting of his own government more than what International
Law requires of us. But no matter. The lease contract of 1878 tells us
in specific terms the natural boundaries and I do not think Senator
Sumulong can improve on it. Nor can the British, if we consider as
correct the conclusions of reputable writers abroad that the dividing
boundary lines between the Borneo territories are neither fully-surveyed
nor well-defined (See, for example, North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak,
Country Survey Series, New Haven, 1956).
It may be well for us, on such a delicate
matter as this, to refrain from accusing our own Government of
ignorance, partly out of simple discretion and partly because the real
difference between most of us is that we are ignorant on different
subjects — it may be the best thing indeed not to talk about each
other’s ignorance.
Incidentally, the good Senator cites
Professor Tregonning of the University of Singapore, who wrote a book on
the subject, “Under Chartered Company Rule” to support his own — not
Tregonning’s — conclusion that Overbeck and Dent — the two adventurers
whose exploits the good Senator carefully avoided mentioning —
“evaluated the rights acquired from the Sultan of Brunei to be 3 times
greater than the rights acquired from the Sultan of Sulu, the yearly
payment to the former being Malayan $ 15,000 and to the latter Malayan $
5,000.” His conclusion is not supported by the authority he cites. Let
me quote from Tregonning himself:
“This meager rental (of Malayan $ 15,000
paid to the Sultan of Brunei) reflects the state of affairs. The
territory had long ceased to be under Brunei control and failed to bring
in any revenue. The Sultan received Malayan $ 15,000 for nothing and he
was well pleased.” (p. 14).
Likewise, in reading Tregonning, the good
Senator avoided telling the people that the history professor he cited
characterized the yearly payment of Malayan $ 5,000 to the Sultan of
Sulu as “annual rental” (p. 14), that the British Colonial Office
objected strenuously to the grant of the Royal Charter to the British
North Borneo Company, “considering that no private company should
exercise sovereign rights” (p. 20) and that the highest British
officials were reassuring one another that the Royal Charter awarded to
the British North Borneo Company did not vest the sovereignty of the
territory in the British Government (at pp. 27-29).
Assuming that we fail to recover North
Borneo, the good Senator insists that “we would appear as attempting to
colonize North Borneo without any lawful or just cause.” How can Senator
Sumulong damn his own country as a colonizer when it is precisely
submitting its claim, based on historic and legal considerations, in
accordance with the peaceful procedures indicated in the United Nations
Charter? How can he, on the other hand, have nothing but praise for
Malaya which, without any claim at all and virtually a stranger in the
region, desires to take over — thanks to British support — the Bornean
territories?
Like the isolationists of old, Senator
Sumulong asks us: What is the gain of involving ourselves in North
Borneo, if after all, even if we recover it, we are committed to the
idea of letting the North Borneans determine what their eventual fate
would be? It is like asking a man what is the use of working if after
all he would eventually fade away — and leave his properties to his kin.
One of the rosiest chapters in our entire history as a people was
written when we dispatched our young men to Korea to fight for the cause
of freedom in that part of the world. I don’t remember Senator Sumulong
having raised the question, “What’s the use of it all?” The good
Senator seems to forget that what happens in North Borneo affects us
with greater immediacy and impact because of its proximity to us, that
the North Borneans come from the same racial stock, that years of
political isolation and hostile propaganda have created a gap between
our two peoples, that despite the proud assertion that British interests
have administered North Borneo for many years, the British, by their
own admission, have not prepared the Borneans for self-government, that
the natives are backward, that they are under the economic, cultural and
political domination of the Chinese and that according to the
British-prepared Report (Cobbold) there exists in North Borneo “fertile
material on which Communist infiltration could work in the same way as
it is already working in Sarawak.” The Communist danger, the Cobbold
Report states, “cannot be excluded for the future.” (p. 36).
Senator Sumulong is all praise for the
success and the leadership of the Tungku of Malaya and from these
coupled with “British military and economic aid”, he jumps to the
conclusion that “the enlarged Federation of Malaysia under the same
leadership and with continued British military and economic aid will be
able to meet and overcome any communist attempt to capture Singapore,
Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo.” But anyone who has studied logic must
surely see that that is a mighty, big jump. Since the Tungku succeeded
in fighting Communism in his home base, the Senator is certain he will
also succeed elsewhere even if the conditions are quite different. This
must be a new brand of logic! For one thing, there is the simple matter
of geography. The Tungku Government is a thousand miles away from the
jungles of Borneo. For another, the Borneo peoples, particularly in
North Borneo, are not quite prepared for self-government. And how can
the distinguished Senator be so sure about “continued British military
and economic aid”, when Britain no longer requires a military outpost in
this area as an essential link in her claim of defense, when the
usefulness of fixed bases — such as Singapore — has been rendered
obsolete by new developments in nuclear warfare and when England, beset
by economic problems and stymied by many commitments, must of necessity
launch a program of progressive withdrawal from Southeast Asia? The good
Senator did not care to tell our people that the whole concept of
Malaysia was designed to sterilize Singapore, that the whole plan was
intended to redress Chinese dominance in Singapore and Malaya and that
the Federation was not conceived out of a sense of oneness, or of racial
or ethnic unity, or of a common heritage, but out of mutual fear and
distrust. How can a Federation — so conceived and designed — endure,
much less bring stability to a region where the countries immediately
involved — the Philippines and Indonesia — have not even been consulted?
The British may well be wrong here, just as they were proved wrong in
their evaluation of Singapore on the eve of the Second World War
(remember how the British thought it could “stand a long siege” and yet
this “key base” fell in less than a week’s time?) and just as they are
now being proved wrong in Africa where the British-inspired Central
African Federation is about ready to collapse. And if the Malaysia
Federation should fail and become instead the focal center of Communist
infection, what does the good Senator intend to do? Isn’t it rather
ironic that whereas in some responsible British quarters, including a
sector of the British press, there has arisen a lurking doubt as to the
feasibility of the Malaysia plan, the good Senator should be so certain
about its success?
The respected Senator tells us that he
cannot say whether the Greater Confederation plan is a better
substitute. I thought he had all the relevant facts. And if he did not
have all the relevant facts, may it not have been the better part of
prudence to give the higher officials of the Department of Foreign
Affairs all the chance to explain the outlines of the plan? But as I
said earlier, the good Senator had access to the Government’s
Confidential Report. He knows or should know that incisive studies have
been made and completed since last year on the Greater Confederation
Plan by an Ad Hoc Committee, composed of professors and scholars in the
University of the Philippines. Surely, he does not expect his Government
to spell out the Confederation Plan to the last detail at this time,
before an agreement in principle is reached among the proposed members.
Assuming that the Greater Confederation Plan does not convince the good
Senator, after a careful reading of the studies that have been
completed, can he not possibly render service to the Republic by
suggesting positive, meaningful alternatives, having in mind his massive
research and studies on the subject?
Our distinguished Senator has but one suggestion. I quote him:
“…the better course to follow is for our
government to inform the United Nations in due time, i.e., when the
Federation of Malaysia Plan is submitted for consideration in the United
Nations, that we are voluntarily relinquishing whatever claims of
sovereignty we may have to any portion of North Borneo in order to
accelerate the changing of its status from a non-self-governing
territory to that of a self-governing or independent State and that we
favor holding a plebiscite under UN auspices to give the people of North
Borneo the opportunity to freely express their will and wishes…”
In short, the good Senator would have us
tell the world we are abandoning our claim, let Malaya take over North
Borneo under the so-called Malaysia Federation, then ask for a
referendum in North Borneo to ascertain what the North Borneans want.
This, to my mind, is a proposal so naive it does not do justice to the
reputation of the distinguished Senator or to the depth and range of his
studies. In the first place, a Federation plan need not be approved by
the United Nations. In the second place, a sophisticated study of the
results of a plebiscite under the circumstances set forth by the
distinguished Senator (and having in mind the plebiscites that have
already been held, where there was indeed no choice but to say “yes” to
what the British and Malayans wanted) forecloses the kind of result that
will be achieved. For so long the North Borneans have been under
British tutelage; the Malaysia plan is British-conceived,
British-inspired and British-sponsored; Malaya is raring to take over a
territory whose native inhabitants, according to the Cobbold Report,
have a low level of education and political consciousness and who were
ready to agree to the Malaysia proposals “although they were not fully
understood.” Now, what kind of free elections does the Senator expect to
witness in North Borneo?
In fine, the Senator would have the
Republic launch a program of defeat — born of fear and doubt and
timidity. I cannot agree to such a plan of action.
We have told the British that we agree that
their interests in the region should be respected and that we welcome
any practical arrangements to this end. But this should not take the
form of colonialism in a different guise which, instead of being a
factor of stability becomes the source of endless provocation. The
Philippines is here in Southeast Asia to stay; Britain, saddled with
various commitments, probably desires to play a lesser role in Southeast
Asia and make a graceful exit; Malaya, a distant stranger to the
region, desires a virtual annexation of the Bornean territories to
sterilize and quarantine Singapore, the “key base”, which is
predominantly Chinese and, whose loyalties are not beneath suspicion. A
professor in an Australian University, writing in the India Quarterly,
makes a thorough analysis of the Malaysia Plan and sees great
difficulties ahead.
“Even in North Borneo and Sarawak the
indigenous peoples are not happy about a federation. Their own racial
problems are much simpler and their economic prosperity does not require
any political integration with Malaya. In any case, Borneo territories
are extremely jealous of their imminent independence which they are
reluctant to submerge in a federation.
“It is also unclear how the central
(Tungku) government located in Kuala Lumpur would be able to exercise
effective control over those territories, which are separated by South
China sea from Malaya by varying distances, from about 500 miles to well
over a thousand. Jesselton is nearer to Saigon or to Manila than to
Kuala Lumpur. In area British Borneo is about the same as Malaya, but
its 1400 mile long coast line is longer than the Federation’s. Defense,
in the event of a crisis, from Malaya would be difficult…” (Singhal,
D.P., Imperial Defence, Communist Challenge and the Great Design).
The good Senator realizes, of course, that
if North Borneo should fall into hostile hands, it is the Philippines
that will be immediately affected. And yet until we filed our claim to
North Borneo and talks were conducted thereafter in London culminating
in an official cognizance of our claim, there was no attempt at all to
consult with us on matters that affect the very survival and security of
this country. It is only now that Britain and Malaya have become
increasingly appreciative of our stand and their willingness not to
prejudice our claim despite Malaysia is certainly a great credit to the
Administration. If between now and August 31,1963, the scheduled date of
birth of the Malaysia Federation, these countries should stiffen in
their attitude towards our claim, I must state in all candor that for
all my respect for him and even assuming the nobility of his motives,
the good Senator cannot fully escape the burden of responsibility,
I am no apologist for the President of the
Philippines, not even on the North Borneo question and will disagree
with him whenever I think that his action is not well-advised. But I
believe that on such a fundamental question as this, it may be well for
us to remember that political considerations, bitterness and endless
quibbling should stop at the water’s edge and that the claim to North
Borneo is not the claim of the President, nor of the Liberal Party, nor
of his Administration, but a claim of the entire Republic, based on
respect for the rule of law, the sanctity of contractual obligations,
the sacredness of facts and the relentless logic of our situation in
this part of the world.
