EMBATTLED former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak – or more popularly known as “Bossku” – seems to have a penchant for controversies in the country.
With the next general election fast approaching, he thinks and acts as though victory is within Barisan Nasional and UMNO’s grasp.
However, the federal court decision on his appeal seems to be hanging above his head like an albatross.
Of late, Najib has called for a debate in Parliament over the seizures of Petronas assets by the heirs to the Sulu sultanate.
He thinks that the seizure would not have happened if the former Pakatan Harapan (PH) government had acted in the best interest of the country.
He wants the former leaders of the PH government and the former attorney-general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas to answer six questions:
- When the Sulu Sultanate heirs initiated the arbitration process, did the PH cabinet discuss the arbitration matter?
- Why did Tommy Thomas offer a compensation of RM48,000 to the Sulu heirs?
- Was the former PH government unaware of the 2019 compensation letter?
- Can the letter be equated with the Johor government’s letter to the British in 1953 relinquishing rights over the island of Pulau Batu Puteh?
- Was former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed adamant about not paying to the heirs of the Sulu sultanate?
Najib seems to be of the opinion that it was the PH government that was the actual cause of the seizure of the Petronas assets by the heirs of the Sulu sultanate.
He conveniently forgets that the yearly stipends to the heirs were stopped by the BN government and not PH in 2013.
The payment was stopped after it was established that an armed incursion in the Lahad Datu area of Sabah was linked to the heirs of the Sulu sultanate.
It is my understanding that this was an unwise and irrational move that was responsible for the present crisis leading to the seizure of Petronas assets.
Apparently, Thomas had said that there was no link between the armed incursion in Sabah in 2012 with the Sulu sultanate.
Whether there was an offer of RM48,000 compensation to the heirs when PH took power needs to be ascertained.
Maybe Thomas should have a say on the matter.
I understand that he commented about the claims of the Sulu heirs in his recently published book.
Whether the PH government offered the heirs the amount or not pales in significance to the abrupt cancellation of the yearly stipend of RM5,300 to the Sulu heirs in 2013 ostensibly on the grounds of an armed incursion.
Such an irrational act on the part of the BN government was not acceptable considering that the Sulu heirs had potential claims over Sabah as result of the 1878 treaty that was recognised in the subsequent Malaysia Agreement of 1963.
The payment that was agreed upon was in recognition of this treaty and whether Sabah was ceded or leased will have to be determined through a legal process.
The abrupt cancellation of the annual stipends to the heirs of the Sulu sultanate was an irrational act, and I am not sure whether such a move was the sole reason why the arbitration process was set in motion in 2019.
I think that the cancellation provided the necessary ammunition for the heirs to initiate an arbitration process considering the potential benefits that might accrue to them.
The discovery of oil and gas in Sabah might have motivated the heirs to take a more comprehensive look at the 1878 treaty, the cancellation of the agreed upon payments and the need to review the whole compensation matter.
This is the reason why the heirs calculated that the actual amount to be paid to them would be over RM60 bil – one million times the original amount of RM5,300.
Whether Najib is right or wrong, the former PH government leaders will have to address the matters about the events leading to the seizure of Petronas assets by the heirs.
Even though the seizures have been stayed by the French court temporarily, the subsequent trial might pose a danger to other Malaysian assets.
I understand that Petronas has about 167 global assets. The heirs might be eyeing these assets and others as well.
It will all depend on the arbitrary process that might unfold.
Since Malaysia is party to the New York Convention on arbitration, the arbitration process in member countries might have an effect on Malaysia.
Giving too much credence to the high court decision in Sabah that refuted the claims of heirs over Sabah might not really help Malaysia.
Najib, as usual, is barking at the wrong tree.
He should be taking the BN government to task for going back on the payments to the heirs of Sulu sultanate.
I am not sure whether there is a letter written by Thomas to the heirs about an alternative offer of compensation in 2019. If there was, then maybe Thomas could shed some light on it.
But then knowing Najib, he can be very desperate as the GE15 is around the corner.
He can even clutch at straws to badmouth the former PH government. His loss in the 2018 general elections has affected him badly.
Can the letter written by Thomas to the Sulu heirs be equated with the letter written by the then Johor state secretary to the British in Singapore in 1953 in relinquishing the right of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh?
Even if Thomas had written the letter, the letter is not about giving up the sovereignty of Sabah or recognising the claims of the Sulu heirs.
It is more about increasing the quantum of compensation so as to stop other preposterous claims.
How can Najib be so ridiculous to claim that the two letters are of equal significance?
One was about preventing claims on sovereignty and the other was about giving up sovereignty. – July 21, 2022
Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also deputy chief minister II of Penang.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
