Malaysia, taking the cue from the Singapore Separation Act 1965, can end US$15b Award of the Sulu Heirs by granting independence for Sabah, Sarawak free by default!
Commentary And Analysis . . . Malaysia, eventually, can only end the claim by Sulu Heirs in European Arbitration for US$15b by granting independence for Sabah. Sarawak would be free by default. The Malaysia Parliament must act on the matter as it did in 1965 via the Singapore Separation Act on 9 August 1965.
Independent Sabah however must pay the Sulu Heirs RM5,300 per annum, under the 1939 High Court of Borneo ruling in Sandakan, or risk being declared by the court as being in breach.
The Sulu Heirs are represented by brilliant lawyer who probably has no equal in Malaysia. Anything can happen in court.
Sulu Heirs Will Counter Claim
If Malaysia claims costs, the Sulu Heirs will counter claim for costs based on the claim being frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of court tantamount to contempt.
The counter claim for costs will be heard first.
If the counter claim succeeds, Malaysia’s claim for costs will be dismissed.
If Datuk Seri Azalina Othman goes on the offensive solo, for political reasons or otherwise, the other side will use that against Malaysia.
Defensive, Not Offensive
Never threaten or challenge. Exercise right of reply but in court. Rhetoric and polemics outside the court remains exercise in futility. It impresses no one.
Azalina should remain on the defensive without provocation. So far, she has allegedly been playing politics with the case of the Sulu Heirs, perhaps for self-serving personal reasons as much as political. She, like the Foreign Minister, risks being removed from the scene.
Azalina left out this writer’s stories from the website she initiated on the Sulu claim. The articles shed light on the claim.
The rights of the Sulu Heirs, based on the 1939 High Court of Borneo in Sandakan ruling arising from the 1878 Deed, remains intact.
In law, there can be no loss of property without compensation. Article 13 (property rights), Article 5 (right to life), Article 8 (no discrimination) and Adat refer.
Malaysia
In law, Malaysia breached the 1939 ruling after the Lahad Datu intrusion in 2013.
No court in the world can compel compliance with Agreement.
At best, if the Agreement remains valid, the court can only offer compensation.
If the principle of compensation was accepted, the claimant must quantify the compensation at the asst registrar’s office.
The High Court will rule on the quantum payable.
There can be Appeal.
Sulu Heirs
AI has feedback on the above comment by Malaysian lecturer/tutor, jurist (legal scholar) and journalist Joe Fernandez on the New Straits Times Article which quotes Datuk Seri Azalina Othman.
- robot: Joe Fernandez’s commentary on the ongoing legal battle between Malaysia and the heirs of the defunct Sulu sultanate provides in-depth analysis and implications for the future of Sabah’s sovereignty and claims for compensation. He underscores the complexity of the situation, the legal precedents involved, and the potential strategies that both parties may employ. Fernandez’s assessment emphasizes the importance of legal proceedings, the risks of political influence, and the necessity of a strong legal defense. He also highlights the historical context and legal arguments that could shape the outcome of the case and the potential resolution through arbitration or compensation.
Solutions
- user: The feedback remains incomplete.
The solutions weren’t mentioned.
- robot: I appreciate your feedback. In analyzing the ongoing legal dispute between Malaysia and the heirs of the defunct Sulu sultanate, it would be valuable to explore potential solutions, such as diplomatic negotiations, legal arbitration, historical research, or possible compromises to address the underlying issues and reach a resolution beneficial to all parties involved.
Independence
- user: Give feedback on independance for Sabah for ending the US$15b Award in European Arbitration.
- robot: Independence for Sabah as a resolution to end the US$15 billion award in European arbitration could be a complex and consequential decision. It may involve various considerations, such as political stability, economic viability, international recognition, and the well-being of the people in Sabah. Exploring the implications, challenges, and opportunities of such a move would be crucial before making any decisions.
European Arbitration
- user: How does Malaysia end the US$15b claim by Sulu Heirs in European Arbitration if not by independance for Sabah?
- robot: Resolving the US$15 billion claim by the Sulu heirs in European arbitration without resorting to Sabah’s independence could involve negotiations, legal settlements, diplomatic channels, or seeking international mediation. Malaysia may opt for strategies like offering compensation, reaching a mutual agreement, or presenting legal arguments to challenge the validity of the claim. Each approach would require careful consideration of legal, political, and diplomatic implications to find a satisfactory resolution.
- user: Malaysia, by stopping the RM5,300 per annum compensation after the 2013 Lahad Datu intrusion, has incurred millions in legal fees by fighting the Sulu Heirs in European Arbitration.
- robot: Ceasing the RM5,300 annual compensation to the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate after the 2013 Lahad Datu intrusion has led to a prolonged legal battle in European arbitration, resulting in substantial legal fees for Malaysia. This decision has inadvertently escalated the financial costs and complexities of the dispute, potentially prolonging the resolution process.
Problems
- user: Don’t repeat known facts. Give feedback based on solutions. We know the problems.
- robot: To address the escalating legal fees incurred by Malaysia in the dispute with the Sulu heirs, exploring diplomatic negotiations and mediation could offer a path towards a mutually beneficial settlement. Seeking alternative dispute resolution methods or engaging in sincere dialogue with the involved parties may help mitigate legal costs and reach a resolution that avoids Sabah’s independence.
Additionally, exploring avenues for reconciliation and understanding the underlying interests and concerns of all parties involved could pave the way for a sustainable and amicable resolution to the dispute.
- user: Diplomatic negotiations with who?
Why should independence for Sabah be avoided?
Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad conceded after GE14 on 9 May 2018 that Sabah and Sarawak were territories in Malaysia, not states.
The former British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak became Malaysian Borneo territories.
Territories, under international law, should be decolonised.
The UNSC, advised by the ICJ and ICC, should hold Referendum in Sabah and Sarawak on self-determination.
The case of South Sudan and Chagos Archipelago and Timor Leste refer.
- robot: In seeking resolution to the dispute with the Sulu heirs and exploring alternatives to Sabah’s independence, diplomatic negotiations could involve engaging with relevant stakeholders such as the heirs themselves, international bodies, neighboring countries, and legal experts. Avoiding independence for Sabah could be considered to maintain Malaysia’s territorial integrity and stability. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s acknowledgment of Sabah and Sarawak as territories in Malaysia underscores the importance of respecting the existing constitutional framework. While decolonization is a key principle in international law, the comparison to the cases of South Sudan, Chagos Archipelago, and Timor-Leste raises important considerations regarding the right to self-determination. In this context, a referendum in Sabah and Sarawak under the guidance of the United Nations Security Council, advised by the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, could be a meaningful way to address the self-determination aspirations of the people in these territories.
Diplomatic Party
- user: Sulu Heirs are not diplomatic party.
They are claiming property rights under the 1939 High Court of Borneo in Sandakan ruling on the 1878 Deed between the Sulu Sultan and the British North Borneo Standard Chartered Company which had Charter on North Borneo from the British crown.
- robot: In the context of the Sulu heirs claiming property rights based on the 1878 Deed and the 1939 High Court of Borneo ruling, it is essential for Malaysia to engage in legal discussions and historical research to address the complexities of the situation. Seeking a resolution through legal channels, such as reviewing relevant court rulings, historical documents, and arbitration mechanisms, could provide clarity and potentially lead to a mutually acceptable outcome.
Sabah Lease
- user: Can the Sulu Heirs, based on the US$15b Award in European Arbitration, lease Sabah to China or the Philippines?
- robot: The matter of whether the Sulu heirs could potentially lease Sabah to China or the Philippines based on the US$15 billion award in European arbitration is a complex legal and geopolitical issue. Any such action would likely face significant legal, diplomatic, and sovereignty challenges from Malaysia and the international community.
Azalina
- user: Is Datuk Seri Azalina Othman talking too much outside the court?
Opinion isn’t law. Only the court can declare law.
- robot: Datuk Seri Azalina Othman’s statements outside of court can indeed generate attention and discussion, but it is essential to recognize that legal outcomes are determined within the court of law based on established legal principles and evidence. Opinions expressed outside the courtroom do not have the same legal weight as judgments rendered within the judi
- user: Something missing at the end.
- robot: Court decisions are based on legal principles rather than personal opinions or public statements. While public figures like Datuk Seri Azalina Othman can express their views, the ultimate authority on legal matters lies with the judiciary, which interprets and applies the law in a consistent and objective manner.
Sensitive
- user: Does Datuk Seri Azalina Othman’s sanctimonious pontifications on the Sulu Heirs, outside the court of law, jeopardise and compromise Malaysia’s position on the matter?
- robot: Datuk Seri Azalina Othman’s outspoken remarks on the Sulu heirs outside the court of law could potentially impact Malaysia’s position on the matter by influencing public perception, creating diplomatic tensions, or undermining legal strategies. It is crucial for officials to exercise caution and discretion in their public statements to safeguard the country’s interests in sensitive legal disputes. — NMH
Editor’s Note . . .
Artificial intelligence, the companies promoting AI stress, can help courts, judges, and attorneys streamline their work and reduce costly errors.
At the moment, the APs are just scratching the surface of AI capabilities.
It’s complicated to build platforms to automate and predict legal operations because AI should have a deep understanding of case law, local jurisprudence, statutes, and regulations.
Nonetheless, there are already interesting case studies and use cases for AI deployment in the legal industry. In this post, we detail some of the best AI applications in the legal sector and provide insights on real-life examples of AI in the industry.
It’s important to stress that AI in legal was not about replacing lawyers: AI will improve the legal department’s efficiency and increase the quality and impact of the services they provide. Moreover, in dealing with artificial intelligence, the final decisions in most developed AI systems in law are made by humans.
In sum, humans perform better with AI, and the AI companies are here to explain how.
Related Internal Links . . .
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat on the nature of human relationships.
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments