AdB‘s take on illegal Pinoy aliens in Sabah gleaned from several comments he made on Ding’s post is interesting. It provides a bit of insight on our unique ability to rationalise and — worse — institutionalise extralegality into the very fabric of our society. It aligns with something I highlighted way back in a 2003 article where I observed that:
In the Philippines, expressedly written statements that limit or prescribe individual actions in the interest of the common good — i.e. laws — from the lowliest traffic ordinances to the highest mitigations against economic plunder are routinely and blatantly flouted by Filipinos of all economic class and social status.
In this regard, a culture of crime pervades Philippine society.
AdB makes several comments all of which in essence, say only one thing: Malaysian authorities and law enforcement officers over there are also complicit and embroiled in the whole “sordid” affair which therefore makes this affair more “complex” than what simpletons like me make it out to be.
Ironically, his comments simply futher highlight how SIMPLE it really is.
The very points AdB raised in Ding’s blog post does not in any way change a SIMPLE reality: That Filipino illegal aliens in Sabah operate outside of ANY legal framework whether or not enforcers of the law over there are complicit in that operation. AdB simply widens the net of accountability to include Malaysian officers. But that does not in any way change the illegality of the presence of Pinoy illegal aliens over there, nor does it change the right of the Malaysian Government to evict — or tolerate — them at leisure; whatever option suits their national interest.
Here are some gems I harvested from AdB’s “insight” into the matter:
it is very well known that many of these Malaysian border patrol guards encourage, yes, encourage would be illegal immigrants to cross into Sabah by way of Sandakan because they are a source of additional income, i.e., bribes
To which I say: Then these border guards should be dealt with in accordance to Malaysian law as well — just as illegal aliens are also being dealt with in accordance with other Malaysian laws
and;
One Filipino who was selling fresh water pearls in the Filipino Market there (biggest market in KK and perhaps in the whole of Sabah) told me that he didn’t mind paying that “entry fee” every month because he trades or sells his goods easily, takes stuff that he can sell back home
To which I say: So what? That sounds uncannily similar to the way business is done within the Philippines as well.
So what?
and, interestingly;
I’d say, the authorities know that the majority of the Filipinos who are “building Sabah” are there illegally and tolerate it.
To which I say: Does the person who developed the Nike Air brand while employed by Nike own the Nike Air brand?
You can design and build the most innovative product in the world. But if you build it within the safe premises of your employer using your employer’s money and resources, guess how much of a claim you enjoy to personal rights over said product: ZILCH.
Much less even if you did it as an unauthorised occupant of said premises.
On one hand we can spin it as one where the Malaysians are at fault because they tolerate and profit from the illegal presence of these Pinoy nationals. But it works both ways — we can also say those Pinoy nationals profit and also work the system over there (calling their contributions to said system “fees”).
Either way it does not change the reality that whatever goes on there that involves illegal aliens from the perspective of Malaysian Law is in fact ILLEGAL.
A land owner can tolerate squatters on his land and decide to evict them AT LEISURE. Even the most elaborate shanty mansion built on someone else’s land need not be spared the wrath of a bulldozer.
Similar principles apply in this case.
It’s simple, really.
Popularity: 1% [?]
benigno, anyone can make a “demand”. but no one can expect compliance with that demand. i can send you ten thousand demand letters to “pay” an alleged debt but unless and until i’m able to get a court order for your to pay, those demands remain inutile.
I don’t know guys, J has been trying to make his point come across, seems like he’s being dismissed, without actually giving a clear counterargument on his statements.. his arguments are quite compelling… Yet, you attack him because he’s not a lawyer.
As of present time, there has been no response to his statement,
Care to respond Bencard? I’d like to know your view on this specific statement by J…
benign0: therefore, AdB is not promoting extra-legality by pushing for the government to demand, because, as you said, we are in the position to demand in principle.
I think that’s the bottom line of this discussion.
Atty. Bencard: but in international law, there’s no court to order a state to abide by international law. Even the ICJ can’t force its rulings.
Nick: Thanks.
Exactly. In principle. In principle is different from in effect. And the laws or globally-recognised CONVENTIONS in effect whether “in effect” means recognised by an international body, recognised by consensus, or recognised by published geographical data (say, in Atlases and Google Maps).
Let me introduce yet another guiding phrase in this discussion:
Tough luck.
If the Philippines truly believed in its claim on Sabah, then it wouldn’t have allowed 50 years to pass while Malaysia steadily built up a comprehensive governance infrastructure in this “disputed” territory which today pretty much secures it as a de facto province of Malaysia.
Let me put it in plain Tagalog: Ngayon pa tayo umangal.
In this, as in most things that have to do with Da Pinoy Plight, the Perennial Chump, and the Regional Basket Case, the simple phrase applies:
Tough luck.
fine, mike. i’ll humor you. your friend asserts @11:45 pm “if the dispute comes after the occupation, then the dispute changes the status quo of the legitimacy of that ocupation, i.e., where before the legitimacy of the occupation laws (sic) were firmly established, the dispute makes the legitimacy questionable.” this is apparently to refute my comment @ 3:04 a.m. where i said “a dispute doesn’t change the status quo unless a competent authority finds reasonable ground to change it.”
to give you a familiar hypothetical: palawan has been occupied by the philippines since time immemorial as part of its territory. there’s no question that the philippines’ title to it is legitimate. if, all of a sudden, china makes a “historical” claim to it presenting ancient documents to support that claim, does the resulting dispute renders the philippine title illegitimate, as your friend insist? to say that it does is absurd.
the fact that the ICJ cannot render a binding order without the prior agreement of the parties is irrelevant. the status quo, i.e., the philippine occupation and ownership, remain undisturbed. china doesn’t gain anything simply by DISPUTING the philippine title.
btw, whether it is in a domestic or international setting is irrelevant. the same principle applies.
if the above doesn’t settle the issue in your and your friend’s mind, i give up.
who’s mike?
“mike” is supposed to be nick. he knows who he is.
“Attorner” Bencard: Yes, if China does that in Palawan, then the legitimacy of the Philippines’ sovereignty over Palawan gets questioned. The status quo changes.
And the hypothetical scenario you just gave is very different from our Sabah claim simply because the Malaysians acknowledge the Sulu Sultan’s ownership of Sabah by paying yearly rent to him.
The difference between international law and domestic law is highly relevant, Atty. bencard. Because, as I said, in domestic law, the legitimacy of one’s occupation of a property is not changed by a mere dispute. It is changed only after the government makes a ruling. In international law, there is no government to make a ruling, hence a mere dispute does change the status of legitimacy of one’s occupation.
By the way, Attorney, I have, as promised, consulted this matter not just with a summa cum laude lawyer who graduated from UP but with two of the country’s senior career diplomats- whose stellar track-record in the foreign service speaks for their expertise in international law- as well.
Attorney Ruby Sakkam, Ambassador Rey O. Arcilla (who served as governor of IAEA and member of the 5-man Commitee of Experts appointed by the Security Council to give recommendations with regars to the Taliban) and Ambassador Josue L. Villa basically agreed that:
1. In international law, occupation and effective control doesn’t legitimize a country’s sovereignty over a territory if there’s one party who has a strong claim over that territory.
2. In Sabah’s case, the international community recognizes, for practical reasons, only the status quo of Malaysia’s effective occupation of Sabah, but not its legality.
3. Given these premise, the Philippines has the right- if it chooses to- not to recognize Malaysian laws in Sabah until the claim is resolved.
Ambassador Villa told me that you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand these. All you need is common sense.
If you want to confirm that these experts really said these, I can email you their email addresses and you can ask them.
benign0:
If, as you conceded, we have the legal right, even just in principle, not to recognize Malaysian laws over Sabah by virtue of our claim, then where are you coming from when you said that doing so promotes extra-legality? I mean, it’s legal, right?
It’s simple, really. Your de facto de jure difference now contradicts the oversimplifications you did in this post. And it renders your arguments againts AdB’s comments invalid.
And please, benign0, study your history. We didn’t just sit idly by as the Malaysians built up their effective occupation of Sabah. We have put the claim in the backburner- for the sake of ASEAN unity- only after the Malaysians have built up its “comprehensive governance infrastructure” there.
Ever heard of Operation Merdeka?
suit yourself. tell your consultants that they can call malaysia’s possession of sabah “illegitimate” or “illegal” till they are blue on the face, but do you think malaysia would care? and why should they?
btw, philippine non-recognition of malaysian law in sabah doesn’t save the filipino “illegals” there from jail or deportation.
Gentlemen, may I interject that one point being missed is how our political leaders, past and present have, in both the Sabah and Spratlys issues, simply displayed lack of will, commitment and resolve to uphold Philippine interests.
Witness simply how the baselines law and its revision have been frozen simply because of Miriam Santiago’s all-consuming ambition to be elected to the International Court of Justice.
Do we even think for a moment that should Maid Miriam take the seat to be vacated by Jordan that the Philippines will suddenly ‘discover’ its sovereign duty to fight for those disputed territories much less look after the Filipino TNTs in North Borneo?
One can easily say that.
But then, the results speak otherwise whatever we did, or said we did.
Just like losers say they did their best and yet failed to achieve the desired outcome.
Which brings me to one of my favourite quotes from the movie The Rock (spoken by Sean Connery’s brilliant character):
Losers whine about doing their best;
Winners go home and fuck the Prom Queen.
Which brings us to this gem of yours:
To which I say, by all means, invoke this “right” not to recognise Malaysian Law. Time will tell who the loser will be if this option is invoked. :D
At least Argentina had the pair to ACT on its claim on the Falkland Islands back in 1982, standing up to no less than Great Britain, which for its part also ACTED to enforce its own claim. Of course the Brits beat the shit out of them, but at least one can’t call the Argentinians a bunch of spineless whiners.
That’s what REAL countries do (in contrast with certain countries that merely whine about “disputes”).
Which reminds me also of another one of our quintessentially spineless approaches to conducting ourselves in the international theatre. Back in 2004 we pulled out our military personnel from Iraq in another act of populist pandering, and here is what I thought:
Read the full article, “The lack of substance of Filipino society“. Click here.
Tough luck, J, as I will continue to maintain:
It’s simple, really. :p
bencard: yes, Malaysia does enforce its laws on Sabah and only war can change that. That’s concedable. What I was trying to point out is the fact that, unlik what you were saying all along, Malaysia’s effective occupation doesn’t translate to legitimacy. Hence, the Philippines has the right to question the laws if it chooses to.
benign0, the problem with you is you oversimplify things. We did try to get Sabah through the foiled Operation Merdeka. And we did exhaust all efforts to get it back. We just didn’t result to war, like the Argentines did, because our constitution prohibits the use o war as an instrument of national policy.
But I’ll give you that. I concede that the Philippines was/is indeed ineffective with regards to the Sabah claim. But that doesn’t change the fact that we have legal, historic title to the territory and we have the right not to recognize their laws on Sabah and that Malaysia’s hold on Sabah, by virtue of the dispute, is legally questionable.
So don’t go off topic. The bottomline of this discussion is that you were wrong by asserting that standing up for the OFWs, which was AdB (and my) view, is tantamount to institutionalizing extra-legality and, by extension, the culture of crime.
bencard, I don’t care if Malaysia would care or not. That’s not what we were arguing. What I was arguing was Malaysia’s legitimacy over Sabah, which you tried to rebut just by saying you’re a lawyer and I’m not.
j, read our whole exchange. i did not rebut you by saying i’m a lawyer. you were not paying attention to what i was saying, and you were stubbornly repeating your kakamamie “doctrine” over and over again. read and keep reading until you have an accurate discernment of what you and i have written.
you can fool yourself, but you cannot fool everybody in this blog.
Then following your logic, dude, it is only “legally questionable” to the party disputing said legality. But to the rest of the world, including those who are in the business of publishing geographical data, who do not question Malaysia’s sovereignity over Sabah (nor care about the whining of some obscure island nation named after an otherwise noteworthy Spanish king), it is a done deal (sealed by the spinelessness and inaction of that whiney nation I mention).
Deal with it in all its simple glory, dude.
Is there anyone who can help me about the acquisition and lease of Sabah ?
benign0, let me repeat to you again:
Those people recognize the status quo- that Malaysia occupies Sabah- but not the legality of the occupation.
But still, even if I concede that they do recognize the legality of Malaysia’s occupation, it doesn’t change the fact that we it is legal for the Philippines not to recognize the legality of Malaysia’s law over Sabah.
Which is the bottomline of this whole discussion. That, I repeat, you were wrong in saying that AdB’s comments institutionalizes extra-legality and, by extension, the culture of crime.
Deal with THAT simple glory.
bencard, the only discussion I had with you is on the issue of whether or not Malaysian laws imposed on Sabah is not undisputedly legitimate, and that it’s the Philippines has the option not to recognize it. And these sums it up:
I said:
“bencard, it’s still simple. Disputes means that there’s a question of ownership. Therefore, it means that the legality of one’s occupation of a territory and the legitimacy of the laws he imposes on that territory becomes questionable when there’s a dispute.
If the dispute comes after the occupation, then the dispute changes the status quo of the legitimacy of that occupation. I.e. where before the legitimacy of the occupation’s laws were firmly established, the dispute makes the legitimacy questionable.
This is simple, really.
benign0 is the one guilty of oversimplification by condemning Ana de Brux’s– and by extension those who want to assert support our OFWs in Sabah’s– as a manifestation of the Pinoy’s so-called institutionalization of extra-legality.
Had this been a case of Mexicans crossing the US border, benign0 could have been right. But we are talking here of citizens of a country that has a rightful claim to a territory its citizens. effectively build and from which they are being expelled.”
You said:
“j, standing by an argument could be a good thing if you were on the right side of it. otherwise you can wallow in your ignorance and it won’t change a thing. let me tell you something about law, on which i have been making a living for many years. the status of legality or illegitimacy is not changed simply by disputing it. you cannot refute this truism by fancy declarations or stubborn argument. if you are not a lawyer,
try consulting with a trained professional familiar with property law and maybe we can continue this debate.”
I said:
”
Bencard, in a domestic setting, there’s such a thing as government arbitration and both parties are subject to the authority of the arbiter. This is why legality is not changed simply by disputing it. The legality is changed only by the arbiter.
In international law, there’s no arbiter that has absolute authority. Hence, mere dispute put question on the legality and legitimacy of things like occupation of a territory. That’s because there’s no one to say that the one disputing the occupation is wrong and vice versa.
I’m sorry if I’m not a lawyer. But don’t you think it’s better for you to make me understand why my fancy declarations and stubborn arguments are wrong instead of bragging your being a lawyer?”
You said:
“i’m not bragging. i am what i am, which you admit you are not. don’t be so presumptuous to know something you don’t. you cannot argue law by simple play of words, and i’m not about to give you legal education just to prove you are wrong. you get some points from me for your nerve, though.”
I said:
““Attorney” bencard: look who’s arguing by play of words. You never responded my arguments. You dismissed all of them by saying I’m ignorant without saying how so.
But I accept your challenge of consulting an expert on international law. If he says I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it. ”
And, finally:
”
“Attorner” Bencard: Yes, if China does that in Palawan, then the legitimacy of the Philippines’ sovereignty over Palawan gets questioned. The status quo changes.
And the hypothetical scenario you just gave is very different from our Sabah claim simply because the Malaysians acknowledge the Sulu Sultan’s ownership of Sabah by paying yearly rent to him.
The difference between international law and domestic law is highly relevant, Atty. bencard. Because, as I said, in domestic law, the legitimacy of one’s occupation of a property is not changed by a mere dispute. It is changed only after the government makes a ruling. In international law, there is no government to make a ruling, hence a mere dispute does change the status of legitimacy of one’s occupation.
By the way, Attorney, I have, as promised, consulted this matter not just with a summa cum laude lawyer who graduated from UP but with two of the country’s senior career diplomats- whose stellar track-record in the foreign service speaks for their expertise in international law- as well.
Attorney Ruby Sakkam, Ambassador Rey O. Arcilla (who served as governor of IAEA and member of the 5-man Commitee of Experts appointed by the Security Council to give recommendations with regars to the Taliban) and Ambassador Josue L. Villa basically agreed that:
1. In international law, occupation and effective control doesn’t legitimize a country’s sovereignty over a territory if there’s one party who has a strong claim over that territory.
2. In Sabah’s case, the international community recognizes, for practical reasons, only the status quo of Malaysia’s effective occupation of Sabah, but not its legality.
3. Given these premise, the Philippines has the right- if it chooses to- not to recognize Malaysian laws in Sabah until the claim is resolved.
Ambassador Villa told me that you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand these. All you need is common sense.
If you want to confirm that these experts really said these, I can email you their email addresses and you can ask them.”
Now, tell me, bencard. Which points of yours did you ignore? I can point out some points of mine that you did ignore by saying you don’t need to educate me on law.
so be it, j. enough is enough. don’t waste further the space on this thread by repeating ad nauseam what we have previously written, which are all in here. i don’t know about you but i’m certain everyone here can read and understand what they are reading. please don’t insult their intelligence.
you’re the one insulting our intelligence, “attorney.”
And so what if it is our right? What are we gonna DO about it?
You know what the REAL bottom line is? We are in the wrong side of what the COMMUNITY recognises as legal. And therefore what you and AdB seem to propose is to stand our ground up to the point of looking like a bunch of idiots (also because we don’t have the cojones to defend that ground).
So it brings us back to what I assert, that AdB is proposing that we UNILATERALLY make up the rules as we go – rules that simply look stupid — no, pathetic is the better word — to the rest of the community.
benign0, don’t you understand? We don’t make up the rules unilaterally. Under international law it’s entirely legal for us not to recognize, if we choose to, Malaysia’s law on Sabah.
And again, the community don’t recognize the legality of Malaysia’s hold on Sabah. It merely recognizes, for practical reasons, the fact that Malaysia has the upper hand.
And who are you to say that standing up for our rights is pathetic? benign0, you are right on some things. But clearly not on this one.
Clearly you say?
Here is a dose of CLARITY for you:
Standing up for the “right” to work ILLEGALLY in territory RECOGNISED by the international community as being under the sovereign authority of the Malaysian government IS pathetic, dude.
PLUS: This drama spun around this pathetic initiative MASKS and GLOSSES OVER the underlying issue which is the fact that Pinoy nationals have to RESORT to such pathetic options as making a living ILLEGALLY on foreign soil.
The only thing that is clear here is this:
Having the upper hand CLEARLY gets you what you want in this world.
It also gets you LEGITIMACY.
Everything has a price.
And CLEARLY there is not much that a basketcase country like the Philippines can afford.
So here’s what you can do: You can hang up this whole boo-hoo-Sabah-belongs-to-us crybaby episode up there in our big wall of could-have-been trophies which includes:
(1) Our claim to have been an independent republic on 12 June 1898
(2) Our claim to have invented “People Power”
(3) Our claim to have invented fluorescent lighting
(4) Our claim to have invented the moon buggy
(5) Our claim to have “Asia’s Songbird” as one of our national treasures
.
.
.
(N)
… where N = infinity
And while we go boo hoo the rest of the world is laughing all the way to their central banks. :D
nice discussion.
pls visit our website:
http://www.phil-sabah.org or send an email to
membership@phil-sabah.org
Tsk, tsk, benign0.
I’ve shown over and over again how you are wrong in oversimplifying the Sabah question through simple logic and opinion from the experts, but you keep on dismissing them by using your arguments which premises I have already rebutted. When your arguments fallm flat on your face, you either bring up different topics or blame the Filipinos, something you’re always good at.
it’s useless benigno. might as well argue with a drunk. like the cat said over at mlq3′s, “don’t feed the troll”.
Useless for you because you can’t argue logically?