Sabah or North Borneo and the Island of Palawan were bestowed as gifts to the Sultan of Sulu by the Sultan of Brunei in 1658 in gratitude for the assistance of the Sultan of Sulu to avert a civil war in Borneo.
Thus, since that time, Sabah became a property of the Sultan of Sulu and the Sultanate of Sulu. Sabah’s problem is that its tenant Malaysia is not paying the right amount of rent to the lessor or landlord (current Sultan of Sulu) HM Fuad A. Kiram I.
In 1878, HM Sultan Jamalul Ahlam Kiram, the legitimate owner, leased Sabah to a British company headed by Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred dent for their use and their heirs, but the lease disallows the transfer of Sabah to any nation, company, or persons without the consent of His Majesty’s government (“Government of the Sultanate of Sulu”). The transfer of Sabah to Malaysia by Great Britain in 1963 constituted a breach of the provisions of the 1878 lease as the government of the Sultan of Sulu did not consent to the transfer to Malaysia. As a point in law, Sabah must and should be returned to the lessor as owners (The Sultan of Sulu and the Sultanate of Sulu).
In 1906 and in 1920, the United States formally reminded Great Britain that Sabah did not belong to the latter and was still part of the Sultanate of Sulu, but Great Britain ignored the reminder of the US and transferred Sabah to Malaysia in 1963. This transfer is prohibited under the Sabah lease of 1878. Sultan Fuad A. Kiram says that any income derived from the Sabah rent or the joint administration will be utilized to develop Sulu to uplift the well-being of the Sulu people such as roads, hospitals, schools, education, peace and order, etc. The correct rental payment by Malaysia to the Sultanate of Sulu or the joint administration of Sabah will be the solution to the Sabah issue.
Aglipay, not ugly pay
There seems to be a deliberate attempt by the Catholic Church in the Philippines to ignore year after year the important role played by the Philippine Independent Church of the late Gen. Gregorio Aglipay who helped spark the revolt against “Madre Espana.”
The Independent Church, more popularly known as the Aglipay Church, was referred to in historical reports, including those in foreign documents as “the church of the Philippine revolution,” and thus praised for playing a major role in the Philippine Revolution against the Spaniards, which had been described as “the first revolt against colonialism in Asia,” and was a model for other revolutions in other Asian countries.
Some blamed the “distortion” of Philippine history on the “continued meddling” by the catholic Church in government affairs in the Philippines and on a systematic campaign to hide the truth about the revolution against Spanish rule and the friars, especially in history books taught in Philippine schools, particularly those colleges run by the church. Some historians have reportedly brought up this perversion of the role of Aglipay church in the revolution, to make the necessary corrections to the continuing mammoth historical injustice.
Some family members of the leaders of the revolution were given protection and sanctuary in Aglipayan churches particularly up North who contributed greatly to the success of the uprising against the colonialists. To ignore such a role, and even ridicule them, as sought by those out to blot their heroic efforts is an unforgivable crime against our heroes who shed their blood and laid down their lives for our beloved country.
Dark outside but white inside
Remember all that fuss over chocolate cookies sold in London called “Filipinos?” And how some of our instant nationalists bashed the Brits for racism against Pinoys because the cookies were dark outside but white inside, implying being non-white to be inferior? Methinks many of us Filipinos are really guilty of the fact that while we are dark outside, we really are white inside as to suffer from an acute case of colonialic mentalitis.
It turned out the cookies were not even made in Britain but by a US food giant with branches in Spain where it had been quite a hit for several years. Some friends say that on the contrary, we Pinoys should be happy and proud over having a favorite food item named after us which simply means we are a source of delight and satisfaction. And after all, since many years back, one of the basic food items in almost all Pinoy homes has been the good old Pan Americano, but not a squeak was heard from the Yanks on this.
There are times when nationalism and racial sensitivities can be overdone, wouldn’t you agree? And, aren’t we also oh so guilty of even bigger social crimes when we ourselves have added to our exciting vocabulary cuss words such slanders as Intsik, Negro, Bumbay, Muslim and Hudyo?
READ MORE:
'Mr. Chair, you're out of order!' (April 20, 2024)
Comments