Project : Sabah
Objective: International Law
Contesting Party:
British North Borneo Company
British Government
Malaysia
Factual Background:
North Borneo is the original name of Sabah. Malaysia changed it to Sabah to probably elude the issue of the original name. Sabah is originally part of Brunei. Brunei has given Sabah Island to the Sultan of Sulu in aid to quell the war with Indonesia. The British rule Peninsular Malaysia. The Private British Company rented Sabah in 1878 . The Private British Company has transferred the Lease to British Government upon dissolution. In 1939, the High Court of North Borneo has ruled that Sabah belongs to the Sultanate of Sulu Kiingdom and a “Letter of Administration was given to Datu Punjungan Kiram, the son of Sultan Mawalil Wasit, authorizing to audit and to inventory all the proprietary properties of Sabah. The high Court of North Borneo stipulates the nine principal heirs to share the monetary rental of Sabah. Malaysia become independent in 1963 and absorbed Sabah and continue the rental payment of 5,000 ringgit. Malaysia changes the name of North Borneo to Sabah later and presently arguing that it was sold as to whom is not clear. Subsequently, Malaysia claims the island due to the decision of Cobbold Comission. One purpose of the case study is to find out if Malaysia is the legal entity to keep Sabah or the heir to the Sultanate of Sulu kingdom.
Legal Status:
The British Government absorbed Sabah from the Private British Company and has interpreted the word “ Padjak” under the term “ Cession", which was interpreted in the Malay language as “Rent” or “Lease ”. This was clarified in 1939 by the High Court of North Borneo by appointing Datu Punjungan Kiram as an “Administrator “ through the “Letter of Administration” . The High Court of North Borneo consequently appointed Nine “Principal Heirs” to share the monetary rental. In 1963, the British Government gave independence to Malaysia. Malaysia also absorbed Sabah giving the argument that it is part of Malaysia per se and continues to pay the yearly rental to the heirs of the Royal Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo.
Legal Argument:
Sabah did not acquire by the British Empire by war. It was owned by the Royal Sultanate of Sulu Kingdom. It was contractually leased to a private British Company. Now, the 'Leased Contract of 1878" has a very clear stipulations clause that in no way it can be transferred to another company or country. The contract says it will take effect until the end of time. It does not matter if it is now, 2010. The contract is effective till today. The "TRANSFER" to the British Government is outright “ILLEGAL". The "TRANSFER" to Malaysia, when they got their independence, is also "ILLEGAL". This is double jeopardy in the rule of Law. How Malaysia can reason to the whole world as such and manipulate Sabah as if that is their own? They were even reminded many times by America and Britain upon realizing when they return Turtle Islands that Sabah belongs to the Royal Sultanate of Sulu Kingdom and hence it was called Royal Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo Kingdom. It is not an empty claim; there are legal documents of 'Lease Contract'. There is a ‘Letter of Administration from the High Court of North Borneo’. No Court in the world will allow anybody to administer a piece of private land that was owned by someone of whom that does not belong to the person that administer, the chance is he is the owner of the land; unless, the appointment body is a government itself who owns the land and chooses someone. What the Royal Sulu and North Borneo traditional kingdom needed is a dynamic partner to develop their land and definitely, if it is not Malaysia, it must be someone who has the guts to say to Malaysia to give way if not to kick Malaysia out of their rented land. It is indeed questionable if Malaysia is real and a legal lessee even if they are paying the original lease of USD$ 1,500.00 dollars only for the last 47 years, being "NOT " a party to the "Lease Contract of 1878".
Method of Acquisitions:
1. Acquisition by Inheritance – definitely it cannot be encompass to the level of acquisition by inheritance since neither British North Borneo Company , British Government nor Malaysia has right to inherit Sabah.
2. Acquisition by War – this mode of acquisition doe not suggest than an ensuing battle has occurred between the Private British Company, the British Government nor Malaysia against the Royal Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo.
3. Acquisition by Contract – the “Lease Contract of 1878” is a piece of document signed between the Private British Company and the Royal Sultan of Sulu . This contract has the stipulations of each article safeguarding the interest and right of each contracting party.
The Contract
The ‘Lease Contract of 1878” clearly denotes the following:
a.) The contracting party – Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent versus Sultan Ahlam of Sulu
b.) The contract stipulates the area covered by the contract.
c.) The amount is set as regard to the size of the area.
d.) The length of time is specified covering the power of the lessee and it’s heir infinitely to the Private British Company.
e.) The signatory has extended the power of the contract to the heirs of the original signatory.
f.) The contract stipulates non-transferrability to any company or country.
g.) The contract party cannot change any of the provisions without the consent of both party.
The Letter Of Administration
The Letter of Administration was ruled and given by Judge C. F. McKaskie of the High Court of North Borneo in 1939 to then Datu Punjungan Kiram , the son of Sultan Mawalil Wasit. After thorough examination , Judge McKaskie adds up and identifies the Nine Principal heirs to the monetary rental based on the Leased Contract of 1878. Should the Lease Contract of 1878 is not existing and effective to the contents thereof , Judge McKaskie’s basis of granting the “Letter of Administration will become a hearsay; for the fact that Malaysia is paying the monetary lease yearly. The Lease Contract of 1878 is valid and effective till today. Malaysia is self confessing and accepting that those legal instruments are legal and valid upon continue to pay the “Lease ‘ after the High Court of North Borneo Ruling till today.
Applicable Conclusion:
As per argument above, it can easily deduced the culpability of the contracting party rest on the “Lessee” (British North Borneo Company) for direct violation of the stipulation contain within the contents of the contract.(f.) Likewise, a fraudulent act is committed by both the Private British Company and the British Government (g.) , by acting without the consent of the owner. No International Law can interpret the contract with the above premises other than the true context of the contract specially the original language, where the contract was written, the interpretation must be based on the prevailing explanation during that time; although language may change the meaning in due time from generation to generations in relation also to the translations which may have undergone the same metarmorphosis in it’s meaning. Malaysia, being the third party, has no legal capacity to argue to the previous contract. Malaysia is only an illegal recipient and the secondary violator with the original “Lessee”. Malaysia, being an intruder to the contract, cannot argue the validity of the change of name from “North Borneo to Sabah as well as the “Cobbold Commission “, on the suspicion that it was only induced to elude the transparency of the case. Inducing a political ploy to circle around the issue will not result in confusion but will instead rectify the omission to the interpretation of a simply written contract which only induced violations on the agreement stipulations.
Ref: 1941 lend lease law: Hongkong lease : UN land lease
Researched By :
Technology Research Foundation
98 Road 1 , Project 6 , Quezon City , Philippines 1106
No comments:
Post a Comment