Claimants to defunct Sulu sultanate have hidden agenda

By Joe Fernandez
The only reason Muslim Sultans in southeast Asia claim to be royals is because they were previously Hindu rajahs. Example: Parameswara in Malacca.

In Islam itself, a Sultan is not royal but was democratically elected by the local ummah to be their spiritual head. These democratic elections in the Middle East were subsequently stopped somewhere along the way and/or partly by western intervention and colonialism which wanted puppet rulers.

Anyone who claims to be the Sultan of Sulu is the Father of All Liars ... Even if any claimant produces a DNA report to trace direct descent as heir to the so-called "throne", the "territorial" claim is sheer nonsense under international law. It's also a distortion of history, the concept of democracy, the rule of law and sovereignty.

The Sulu Sultanate did not "own" the territory that comprises the eastern and northern third of Sabah, the subject of the so-called Sabah claim by Manila.

The Philippines is not interested in Sabah but is using the so-called claim to expell the Muslim population of Sulu and the southern Philippines. Hence, the illegal immigrant influx from the Philippines into Sabah, not just from Sulu but also from elsewhere in the Muslim south. Putrajaya is playing deaf, dumb and blind instead of ensuring that Sabah has the security promised by Malaysia.

In eastern Sabah, the Sulu Sultanate -- founded by a bogus Arab who raped the daughter of a local dignitary -- used to forcibly collect toll along the waterways. This was nothing but extortion using gangster methods.

In northern Sabah, the Brunei Sultanate collected/extorted toll along the waterways and subsequently transferred this so-called right to the Sulu Sultanate which, by the way, is defunct like the Malacca Sultanate which began as a Empire founded by a Hindu prince -- Parameswara -- from Palembang, Sumatra.

It was Parameswara who killed the crown prince of Siam in Singapore (Tumasik) and ruled there for six months before he fled.

What the Brunei and Sulu Sultanates "transferred" to the Borneo Chartered Company was the "right" to collect toll along the waterways in the northern and eastern thirds of Sabah. The company abolished toll collection along the waterways and instead built roads, a railway and ports to bring in revenue.

In return for transfer of their so-called right, the Sulu Sultanate but not the Brunei Sultanate, received an annual pension of RM 5, 000 as "compensation" from the Borneo Company.

This compensation is being paid every year by the Federal Government as per the MacKasie Declaration of 13 Dec 1939 of the High Court of Borneo in Sandakan. Civil Suit No. 169/39.

C. F. Mackasie, the Chief Judge of Borneo, categorically rejected the claims of the so-called nine heirs of the Sulu Sultanate to Sabah and ruled that "Sabah (North Borneo) belonged to the people of the territory".

The Sabah claim is being raised to justify illegal immigration and whitewash the tainted electoral rolls.

Can Malacca today claim that it was never really conquered by the Portuguese and that it has the right to Sumatra or parts of it and that those illegal immigrants from Sumatra have a right to stay in Malacca and vice versa or claim Singapore?

In Peninsular Malaysia, the British also stopped the Sultans from collecting toll along their main waterways, gave them a yearly purse in compensation, drew borders so that they had "territory to rule" and was not confined to the main waterway as a Kerajaan Sungei, stopped them from sending the Bunga Mas tribute (rental for squatting on Thai territory) to Bangkok, and set up the Council of Malay Rulers or Majlis Raja Raja Melayu.

All this was done after the British fought two wars with Bangkok to carve out Peninsular Malaysia from the Siamese kingdom to plant rubber and mine tin.

The Majlis Raja Raja Melayu or the Sultans of Solo (correct) and Jogjakarta do not recognise any of the so-called claimants to the defunct Sulu Sultanship.