AUTHOR and entrepreneur Murray Hunter seems to take the side of the Malaysian Government on the question of Sabah’s sovereignty in his latest Sin Chew piece, The Sulu arbitration decision is a direct affront to Malaysian sovereignty.
He said that the European arbitration courts should not have given an opportunity to the greedy and selfish American and Spanish arbitrators to represent the preposterous claim made by the Sulu heirs.
He described the arbitration process engaged by lawyers representing the Sulu heirs as “untenable”, “undemocratic” and, most importantly, “nothing short of criminal legal imperialism”.
If at all the Sulu heirs have any claim over Sabah, then the judicial process has to be exhausted in either the UK, Sabah or Malaysia. It made no sense to blackmail Malaysia in the arbitration court in Europe, motivated by the scandalous pursuit of wealth.
It should be established at the outset whether the Sulu heirs have indeed a just claim over Malaysia just because of certain historical legal antecedents, namely the 1878 agreement and the subsequent Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
In Hunter’s opinion, the legal claim of the Sulu heirs cannot be extended to Europe and more so through an arbitration mechanism.
He defended the Malaysian Government and public officials for taking the right steps in resolving the dispute with the Sulu heirs, including the abrupt cessation of the annual stipend in 2013.
He is also of the opinion that former attorney-general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas had taken the appropriate step in dealing with matters of sovereignty over Sabah, including the one-off payment after the annual stipend was cancelled.
Hunter’s criticisms of the European arbitration process and the lawyers, however, do not detract from the larger argument of the contentious nature of the claim.
“The present imbroglio”
The American and Spanish lawyers representing the Sulu heirs might be motivated by selfish reasons, but the fact remains that the Malaysian Government had a role in creating the present imbroglio.
The early 2013 incursion into Sabah (apparently by those related to the Sulu heirs) was no excuse for the Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak Government to abruptly cancel the annual payments, which amounted to a mere RM5,300 per year.
Even Tommy thought then that the links between the invaders and the Sulu heirs were rather tenuous. Why then was there a necessity to cancel the payment without realising the consequences?
Even the offer of the former Pakatan Harapan Government to placate the heirs with a lump sum of over RM48,000 did not address the larger problem.
The question is why cancel and reinstate in the form of one lump sum payment?
The cancellation by the Najib Government motivated by jingoistic considerations did not anticipate the backlash by the Sulu heirs. The subsequent attempt to mollify them, meanwhile, was simply not enough.
It cannot be denied that the cancellation of the annual stipend ignited the larger concerns of the Sulu heirs, which subsequently led to the colossal financial demand of more than RM66 mil.
On the matter of the Sulu claim, they had sufficient financial as well as legal support to take the matter up in the European arbitration courts.
The question as to why the Sulu heirs didn’t use the courts in Malaysia or the normal judicial process in Europe seems academic now.
The fact that the matter has been stayed in the French arbitration court pending a full hearing should be the focus of the Malaysian Government – not whether the arbitration mechanism is the proper avenue to settle matters of the claim of the descendants of the Sulu sultanate.
Hunter might think that the Sulu heirs might not have a legitimate claim but this is his mere opinion.
Lambasting the lawyers representing the Sulu heirs or taking shots at the arbitration process itself is hardly the way forward.
Claim or no claim, diplomacy should be given priority in resolving the thorny issue of the sovereignty of Malaysia. – Aug 9, 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.
