Quantcast

‘Sabah raps terroristic’

Sulu sultan says charges against his followers illegal

By , |

Malaysia’s filing of terrorism and waging war charges against eight Filipinos is “illegal,” the sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo said Thursday.

Abraham Idjirani, spokesman for the sultanate, told reporters that Malaysia’s move was tantamount to “usurpation” of the powers of Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III.

Idjirani said the sultanate would file a complaint in the International Court of Justice against the Malaysian officials responsible for the filing of charges against the eight Filipinos.

“We condemn this terroristic act of Malaysia because they do not own Sabah. They are only occupants. In fact, Malaysia is still paying rent to the sultanate of Sulu,” Idjirani said.

“We are concerned that eight fellow Filipinos are now being accused of an offense that carries a penalty of death. That’s illegal because Sabah belongs to the sultanate of Sulu,” he added.

President Aquino said Thursday that he had directed the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to retain lawyers to defend the Filipinos in the Sabah court.

The government plans to prosecute the followers of Sultan Jamalul for causing the Sabah crisis when they return to the Philippines.

Aquino said, however, that he had an “obligation” to ensure that the eight Filipinos got due process in Malaysia.

“It’s automatic for us to provide legal assistance to any of our countrymen facing charges (in other countries) regardless of whether we believe or not in their cause,” Aquino told reporters in Naga City.

Aquino was in Naga to proclaim the Liberal Party candidates for local offices in Camarines Sur.

He said the DFA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) were focused on the Sabah crisis.

Access to detainees

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda told reporters that the President had directed Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario to retain lawyers for the eight Filipinos’ defense in Sabah.

Raul Hernandez, DFA spokesman, said the Philippine Embassy in Kuala Lumpur had reiterated to the Malaysian government the Philippine request to be allowed access to the Filipinos detained in Sabah.

Hernandez said the request included access to the eight Filipinos charged in connection with the Sabah crisis.

In straitjackets

The eight Filipinos, seven of whom were in straitjackets, kept silent as they were arraigned at the High Court in Tawau town, Sabah, on Thursday on charges of launching terroristic acts and waging war against Malaysian King Abdul Halim.

A Sabah radio station reported that the suspects entered no plea as the charges were read to them in Bajau and Tausug by an interpreter in the court of Judge P. Ravinthran.

The radio station said the eight were not represented by lawyers during the proceedings.

“They were placed under tight security throughout the proceedings and seven of them were in straitjackets,” a reporter for the station said.

Arrested under Malaysia’s preventive security laws, the eight, whose ages ranged from 17 to 66, were charged in a temporary Magistrate’s Court in Lahad Datu district on Wednesday.

They face life imprisonment for terrorism and the death penalty for waging war against Malaysia’s king on conviction.

Told that President Aquino had ordered the DFA to retain lawyers to help the eight Filipinos, Idjirani said: “Well and good. That’s a welcome development.”

He added: “I thank the President for doing that. I actually expect him to do that. At least now he showed that he’s a true Filipino.”

Third-party probe

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago on Thursday suggested that a third party acceptable to both the Philippines and Malaysia conduct a fact-finding investigation of the circumstances that led to the filing of charges against the eight Filipinos.

Santiago, a former chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations who has been elected to serve on the International Criminal Court in The Hague, said determining whether the Filipinos engaged in terrorism “should not be left to the Malaysian authorities alone precisely because we’re engaged in a dispute.”

She said that if Malaysia proceeded by itself, it could be charged with “bias of justice.”

“It cannot be impartial justice if you heard only one side,” she said.

“We need a third-party inquiry and fact-finding first so that we can determine whether the complaint of terrorism has justifiable ground under international law,” Santiago said.

She said the third-party investigation could be headed by “someone whom both parties can trust . . . somebody with the . . . gravitas of former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew or a former president or former prime minister from Southeast Asia who has retired with the respect of the Southeast Asian community.”

Sabah legal help

Malaysian Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail, who was present at the charging of the eight Filipinos on Wednesday, had asked the Bar Council of Malaysia to extend legal assistance to the accused.

But the bar president, Christopher Leong, said on Wednesday that peninsula lawyers were not licensed to practice in Sabah so the council would ask the Sabah Law Association (SLA) to provide legal assistance to the eight Filipinos.

In a statement issued later on Wednesday, the SLA said it had not been asked to extend legal assistance to the accused.

But the association said that despite its limited resources it would provide legal advice and representation to the eight as well as other Filipinos detained in connection with the Sabah crisis.

Others detained

The eight, whose names were not released by the court, were among the first batch of the 107 people arrested under preventive security laws and detained following attacks on Malaysian security forces by a group of armed men led by Jamalul’s brother Agbimuddin Kiram.

Agbimuddin’s 200-odd group crossed the Sulu Sea and landed in Sabah on Feb. 9, seizing the coastal village of Tanduo to stake the Sulu sultanate’s ancestral claim to eastern Malaysian state.

The Sulu group’s presence was discovered on Feb. 12, sparking a standoff with Malaysian security forces that lasted for 17 days and erupted into violence on March 1.

Agbimuddin’s fighters were routed but managed to regroup in a tight corner of Tanduo.

Air strikes and artillery barrages from the Malaysian military on March 5 forced the group to break up into small units, which have been skirmishing with pursuing security forces in Tanduo, Tawau, Semporna and Tanjung Batu since that Tuesday.

Casualties

Sixty-three members of Agbimuddin’s group, eight Malaysian policemen and two soldiers have been killed in the fighting.

The 63rd casualty from Agbimuddin’s group was killed in a clash with military troops in Tanjung Batu on Wednesday.

Sabah Police Commissioner Hamza Taib said a Malaysian soldier was wounded in the fire fight with Agbimuddin’s men.

Malaysian military chief Zulkifeli Zin said a woman, believed to be aged 40, was arrested following the clash with the Sulu group in Tanjung Batu.

The arrest of the woman brought to 108 the number of people arrested and detained in connection with the intrusion of Agbimuddin’s group into Sabah.

Bodies buried

Zulkifeli said that so far Malaysian authorities had recovered the bodies of 30 of Agbimuddin’s slain men.

He said 29 of the bodies would be temporarily buried because of the failure of the Philippine government to claim them.

With the large number of the Sulu sultan’s followers killed or captured, the Malaysian security forces believe the mopping up operations to end the intrusion are ending soon, Zulkifeli said.

Agbimuddin has not been captured. Zulkifeli said military intelligence had confirmed that the leader of the Sulu group managed to slip out of Sabah on March 11 and was hiding on one of the small islands in southern Philippines.

Philippine authorities, however, deny that Agbimuddin has been able to reenter the country.—With reports from Norman Bordadora and Tarra Quismundo in Manila; Juan Escandor Jr., Inquirer Southern Luzon; Allan Nawal, Inquirer Mindanao; and The Star/Asia News Network


Follow Us






Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Short URL: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/?p=69863

  • delpillar

    Karim’s fault was sending 200+ followers where in less than a third were armed only by rifles, some even were using bolt-action rifles..

    With or without rifles and grenades, the Malaysian Police and the Army would still kill them all. Better have rifles and grab several Malaysian forces to the graves.

    Karim should had sent 200+ followers all with rifles and grenade launchers.

    The Ampatuans even had Barett M82 50-Cal SNiper Rifles in their houses.

    In a close quarter combat or running gun-battle, it is a proven theory that attackers would lost 3 men for every 1 defender. If all of those followers were armed, 60 Tausug could had dragged 180+ Malaysians with them to the grave.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/UYR4QMTX7MO3F6I6E25HGUZV3E Khairil Anuar

      wow.your deep insight & knowledge into military tactics surely knows no bounds,even better than Gen.MacArthur I dare say!
      .
      Are you basing these figures based on the losses of AFP soldiers during offensive operations against Mindanao separatists?

      • delpillar

        I started reading military battles and world history when I was still at elementary school in the late 1970′s (we had the 1971 Edition of FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA). Then since the early 1990′s, we have CATV subscriptions with History Channel, National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel and a lot more showing most major battles since the time of Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago.

        The 3:1 ratio will not valid only when there’s an overwhelming technology on either side. But of course the 3:1 ratio is not related who would won the battle.

        The 3:1 ratio is even applicable to TANK Battle. Although the Soviet won in the Battle of Kursk, there were more T-34 tanks (about 3X more) destroyed than German TIger and Panzer thanks in the Attack/Counter-Attack battles.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/UYR4QMTX7MO3F6I6E25HGUZV3E Khairil Anuar

        that’s it right there.I’m not sure if you are or were a professional military man,but reading or watching books or TV shows,no matter how long do not make one an expert on military tactics.

        I never and will not say I am a tactics expert myself,so I can only give comments or layman suggestions but i’m sure there are a lot of variables,conditions & exigencies such as training,supplies,tactics, morale,weaponry, level of combat support & even the time or location of battle that would greatly influence the outcome of battle,including the number of casualties on both sides.

        That is why armies will seek all available resources to gain an advantage over the enemy.Guaranteeing attacking forces a 3-to-1 loss ration is naively oversimplifying the situation way too much.In some cases it may be true but you are overgeneralizing.

        As per your example,the eastern front.during the start of Operation Barbarossa,Russia (defender) has more soldiers (about 5 million Russians against 3.5 million German & axis),more & better tanks (15,000 T-28 medium,KV-1 heavy tanks against 4,000 Pzr mark III & IV medium tanks),more aeroplanes (30,000 Russian against 5,000 German & axis) & are fighting on home soil but by superior tactics,excellent leadership,high morale and good combat training the much smaller German Army (attacker) inflicted many times casualties on the Russians than they themselves suffered (about 1.5 million German & axis casualties against about 4.5 million Russian casualties) without any benefit of overwhelming technology.

        I don’t see your 3-to-1 theory fitting there.

      • delpillar

        3:1 is a theory. A general Theory.
        A guide to the attacking group or when planning an attack

        That is the reason why even in the first phase, there are more 2 battalions of Army and thousands of police encircling the group of Sulu men. Malaysian Forces know this very basic theory that is why they did not take any chances. They called 7 or more fighter jets with precision missiles and more than 20 Armoured Personnel Carriers plus many soldiers with bullet-proof vests.

        Of course, no one knows what will happen in the real battle. But that 3:1 is the guide. You don’t attack when the numbers of your group is not more than 3 times bigger. (or make your firepower more than 3 times bigger and 3 times more sophisticated)

        The past battles of the world since 5,000 years ago teaches us of general theory of 3:1. What really happened were sometimes 5:1, 10:1, 7:1, 1:1, or sometimes the reverse. You summed it up and get the average is about 3:1.

        BARBAROSSA is not exactly the same as the Battle of KURSK. But they are related and inter-connected.

        When it comes to BARBAROSSA, well specifically in the battle of Kursk, Russian is superior in numbers and their tactics were improving a lot. But one of the decisive factor why they won was the spy inside UK’s ENIGMA German-Code decoder or decipher. All moves of the german were decoded by UK and passed on the Russian.

        Same thing in the Battle of Midway. Inferior American Fleet won over IJN because of the US Navy Naval Intelligence Decoder (Enigma-Like) Decipher Algorithm knowing all Japanese secrets of communications.

        But as I said before, body counts is not related to battle winner.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/UYR4QMTX7MO3F6I6E25HGUZV3E Khairil Anuar

        You still have not countered my argument regarding Operation Barbarossa and the validity of your 3:1 theory.All you gave were,to me, strange and irrelevant answers.

        How does the 5:1,10:1,7:1 and 1;1 sum get an average of 3:1? I don’t understand.but please,spare me the math. I easily get confused regarding maths :)

        You credit the Enigma decipher by the british as a decisive factor,this is highly misleading.The Russians by 1944 already had an understanding of Enigma deciphering methods and have already infiltrated agents in the high structure of the german army.In any case any deciphered signals that the british passed to the Russians were usually already out-of-date anyway.To credit the British as a decisive part of Russian victory is wrong & is to discredit Russian Ingenuity & intelligence networks.

        Even without Enigma deciphering,the Kursk front was an obvious place to have an German offensive at the time.The bulge of the Kursk salient can be attacked by three sides by the germans.If the pincer move groups north & south could cut off Russian army in the salient and surround them,the german central group can press the attack.unfortunately the obviousness of this situation was also obvious to the Russians and they prepared their defences accordingly.

        Neither side had any overwhelmingly superior technology and the defending Russians had more men,tanks,aircraft & artillery yet still the supposedly undermanned & undergunned germans attacked.By your 3:1 theory the Germans were guaranteed 3 times the casualties of the Russians but this was not the case (germans & axis estimated 350,000+ casualties,russians estimated 800,000+ casualties).Why is this so?

        you say this only regarding body count not victories,I am obliging you by not mentioning which side won or lost.

      • delpillar

        The Battle Of Kursk happened:
        German offensive: 5–16 July 1943
        Soviet offensive: 12 July – 23 August 1943
        ===================================
        There was no Enigma Decipher group in the Soviet in 1943 and even in 1944. Soviet could hear radio and Morse code and other RF signal communications in real time, while the war and battle is going on between German Commanders and Berlin but they could not decode it.

        I think you should study English in order to know what Theory means.
        Theory (of planning an attack) is not the real outcome of the war. Theory is a guide for planning an attack based on statistical data of the past. Not just one event of the past but for several thousand events or samples of the past. .

        You are asking about only the case Barbarossa for the actual body count after the war to see where is the real 3:1 ratio.

        Asserting my point that there could be 180+ casualties on Malaysian Side for the 60+ casualties of the Sulu gunmen is THEORY (of PROBABILITY) if and only if the SUlu gunmen were better armed. If Malaysian Forces pursued the Sulu gunmen with only 600+ up to 800 plus soldiers (No JET Fighters and Helicopter GUNSHIPS), the Sulu gunmen could had and would had engaged in bitter close-quarter and running gun-battle. I will assure you that hundred in the Malaysian Side would had died before all the 200-men (well-armed) sulu gunmen all killed

        It maybe difficult for you to understand the mathematics or science of Theorem and Postulates, and deviation and Mathematical Probability based on actual statistics. I rest my case here.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/UYR4QMTX7MO3F6I6E25HGUZV3E Khairil Anuar

        Theories are nice to read in books,but I hardly believe mathematical models have any serious impact on how real battles are managed or fought.

        From the level of English i use here I think you can adequately judge my competence of it.and the very notion that you are attacking my knowledge based on my understanding of a certain language it surely is not fair.’Theory’ is a very basic & general concept,used in many languages under possibly different names but the meaning is broadly similar and the suggestion that I must master english to know what theory means is somewhat disappointing.

        Anyway,the theory may work in real life,but only in a perfect situation that is either hardly economical or acceptable. In my opinion battles should be only regarded and planned by the way they could be executed,not by the way it should be executed.

        While it is under your theory that the Sulu Gunmen SHOULD be armed with all 200+ riflemen to be the ideal choice for the for battle but for some reason they did not do this.why? this is the COULD part of the equation,which may be unknown to us.Maybe they cannot afford more guns,maybe they lost some on the way over.we don’t know.But the result of this is over 200 people with only 60 riflemen landed on the beach.That is the starting point of Sulu gunmen’s battle plan,by taking account of all the resources you have at hand,not the resources you SHOULD have had.

        Also,you mentioned that the IF the Malaysians only deployed 600 to 800 soldiers,the (theorized) 200 Sulu fully armed riflemen SHOULD have been able to maximize the casualties they inflicted,but this did not happen.why? because the result shows that the Malaysians COULD deploy 7 battalions,30 Armored cars & many Aircraft to join the battle instead of just 800 soldiers.And that is the starting point of the Malaysian battle plan,by taking account of all available resources and this is the strength the Malaysians COULD muster.

        So according to your 3:1 theory there SHOULD have been 200 fully armed riflemen against 800 Malaysian soldiers but in reality 200 Sulu people including 60 riflemen against 7 battalions of soldiers, armored cars,Jet fighters & helicopter gunships.From that reality onwards the situation transpired as they are happening today.That is the situation on the ground because it is the situation that COULD & have happened instead of the situation that SHOULD & never happened.

        it seems from your theory you are comparing actual battles with the ones that are played on a playing board. I seriously think this is a major flaw as there are far too many variables to calculate on the issue of casualties in a situation as chaotic and unpredictable as a battle. Wasn’t there a great conqueror who once said “No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy”?

        Look,I respect that you have an opinion & you are defending it but I also have an opinion & I am defending it also.I also believe one,even a normal guy like me,can understand military realities without the clear understanding of mathematics or the science of Theorem and Postulates. I also rest my case here.

  • boldyak

    “But the bar president, Christopher Leong, said on Wednesday that peninsula lawyers were not licensed to practice in Sabah …..” hahahaha…and why is that if malaysia considers Sabah as part of Malaysia?….hmmmm……

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VS5EYSP4FPOTVQCJZ24NRE6Z2M Edgardo Mendoza

    this pilipinos are heroes! they die in his home land! salute you pilipino nations

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VS5EYSP4FPOTVQCJZ24NRE6Z2M Edgardo Mendoza

    fu ck you malayshits the real sabahans is pilipinos terrorist contry malayshits!

  • walangsinasanto

    What a shameful, The sultanate of Sulu started the crisis in Sabah and now they been finished by the Malaysian…..



Copyright © 2014, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
Advertisement
Advertisement
Marketplace