Sabah,Phillipines.

The title of my blog today might be controversional for Malaysians.Some might will say,"is Ezreen Emira being retarded these days,counter the fact that Sabah were part of Malaysia?",some might saying "Ezreen become so delusional,and what the hack she attacked her own country for sake of immigrant Pinoys?"

I would like to say,the fact will always be hidden in Malaysians history textbook.What the truth actually never been told by Malaysian government to it's people,and forever,if someone not discovering the hidden truth,it shall remain forever.

Sabah:Rich of Resources,Most Undeveloped State in Malaysia.

Before I lay some facts here,I put some of details of State of Sabah.

Wide:76,115 km²
Population:3,387,000
Capital City:Kota Kinabalu
Density:32 people per 1 km²
Human Developement Index:0.729(medium)

Sabah natural resources such as petroleum,natural gas,timber,aluminum,palm oil,rubber.But this is a quote from Wikipedia that might (or not) surprising some of you.

Sabah ranked as one of the richest states in the federation, with a per capita GDP second only to Selangor (which then included Kuala Lumpur).However, despite its vast wealth of natural resources, Sabah is currently the poorest of Malaysia's states. Average incomes are now among the lowest in Malaysia, and with a considerably higher cost of living than in West Malaysia. In 2000, Sabah had an unemployment rate of 5.6 per cent - the highest of any Malaysian state and almost twice the national average of 3.1 per cent. The state has the highest poverty level in the country at 16 per cent, more than three times the national average.

But what is my point here?Giving Sabah back to Phillippines might not solving any problem,because according to some Malaysians,Pinoy's economy are not good as in Malaysia(who saying that?Media in Malaysia?),and plus with Mindanao war against Moro people,Sabah might be safe haven for those MILF terrorists.

What I'm trying to say is,is that we should going back to history.When Sulu Sultanate has been established in 1450,and when Brunei Sultan's were giving Sulu Sabah as dowry for marrying Sulu's princess in 1658,but in 1882,British North Borneo Company has leasing Sabah from Sulu,by Alfred Dent,which before that it was Baron von Overback,an Austro-Hungarian with his business partner Joseph William Torrey and Thomas Bradley Harris,both Americans.Alfred Dent were backing them with financial support,but von Overback was failed to convincing Vienna for funding his company.Alfred Dent then continue paying lease to Sulu and Brunei Sultanate,respectively.

And then it all went wrong here.In 1946,British which already won against Japanese occupation,has restored Crown Colony status towards Sabah,which they proclaimed as "colony of British Empire",before World War II occured.Actually it was British North Borneo has leasing Sabah from Sulu Sultanate.

And when Malaya reached independence on August 31st,1957,British realized that their empire which "never set the sun" are now rotting in history,so British are ready to let Sabah go.So,where should Sabah go?In 1963,when British were ready to let Sabah go,it was Malaya by Tunku,are asking for combine Peninsular of Malaya with Sabah and Sarawak,plus Singapore,merged as one country,Malaysia.Then,what happen to Sulu?Sulu has emerged with Phillippines,after independence in 1946.Shall be in 1946,British start paying lease to Phillippines.

In 1963,Phillippines joined Indonesia,rising "neo-colonialism" issue,with Indonesia even more radical,launching Konfrantasi against British-backed Malaysia.If before this I'm giving my back to my country Malaysia,now,I'm giving my back to the truth.Malaysia never owned Sabah and Sarawak.That's the fact.Malaysia is actually continuing British occupation towards Sabah and Sarawak,and that's a fact.

Malaysia is a continuation of British Empire legacy,and I still remember one of Tunku Abdul Rahman quotes why he insist to bring Sabah and Sarawak to be part of Malaysia,he told in his memoir by saying "Malaya has been colonised by London(United Kingdom),so it has similarities with system in Sabah,Sarawak,Singapore and Brunei.If we compared our history in Southeast Asia,Indo China has been colonised by Paris(France),Phillippines by Washington(USA),and Indonesia by Amsterdam(Dutch),so the reason for me to emerging Malaya with Sabah,Sarawak,Singapore and Brunei is to build a strong foundation,strong country,named Malaysia."

Now this is neo-colonialism words,don't you think?

Here's the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs letter for stating Sabah status.

p/s:My Pinoy friend told me,in Tagalog,Sandak means "lease" or gadai.So what is Sandakan stands for?

Fact:Mount Kinabalu are NOT the highest peak in Southeast Asia,it was 4th in Southeast Asia behind Hkakabo Razi(Myanmar) 5881 m,Puncak Jaya(Indonesia) 4884m,and Puncak Trikora(Indonesia)4750 m.Mount Kinabalu is 4101 m.Another BN propaganda towards you,Malaysians!

A January 7, 1883, letter from the British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs Lord Granville confirms the position that the “takeover” of the
British of Sabah, a Sulu property was a lease,
not a purchase.
It states: "The British Charter [representing the
British North Borneo Company] therefore differs essentially from the previous
Charters granted by the Crown... in the fact that the Crown in the present case
assumes no dominion or sovereignty over the
territories occupied by the Company, nor does it purport to grant to the Company powers of government
thereover; it merely conveys upon the persons associated the
status and incidents of a body corporate, and recognizes the grants of territory and the powers of government
made and delegated by the Sultan in whom the sovereignty remains
vested. It differs also from previous Charters in that it
prohibits instead of grants a general monopoly of trade.
"As regards the
general features of the undertaking, it is to be observed that the territories granted to the Company have been for
generations under the government of the Sultanate of Sulu and Brunei, with whom
Great Britain has had Treaties of Peace and Commerce."
In
retrospect, the British Foreign Affairs communique conceded that the matter of
sovereignty remained vested in the Sultan of Sulu and could not be delegated to
any party because the Deed of 1878 expressly prohibited it.