Sabah’s status, maritime interests must be defended through law, evidence, says Warisan man
by Elton Gomes · Borneo Post OnlineKOTA KINABALU (Aug 28): Parti Warisan (Warisan) maintains that Sabah’s status as part of Malaysia and the state’s maritime interests must be defended through facts, law and evidence, rather than political conflation.
Warisan Strategic Communication Director Christopher Masudal said the party did not recognise or support the Philippines’ claim to Sabah and remained committed to defending Malaysia’s sovereignty and maritime interests relating to the state.
Responding to former chief minister Datuk Yong Teck Lee, he said three separate issues should not be conflated — the Philippines-China arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 2016, the Philippines’ continuing claim over Sabah or North Borneo, and its submission for an extended continental shelf in the West Palawan region.
“These matters may have political intersections, but they are not the same legal proceeding,” he said in a statement.
Masudal said the 2016 case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) involved the Philippines and China and concerned maritime entitlements, historic rights, maritime features and China’s conduct in the South China Sea.
He said the tribunal had expressly stated that it was not deciding sovereignty over land territory and that the proceedings did not delimit a maritime boundary between the parties.
“The legal significance of the 2016 award must therefore be understood within the scope of the questions actually decided by the tribunal,” he said.
On the Philippines’ continental shelf submission, Masudal said Malaysia had already lodged its objection, citing a further communication submitted by Malaysia to the United Nations on July 24, 2026.
He also referred to the Foreign Minister’s public statement that Malaysia had lodged its protest before the Philippines made its subsequent presentation.
“Accordingly, the assertion that Malaysia had remained silent on the matter is inconsistent with the official record,” he said.
Masudal said the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf had also made clear that its recommendations on the outer limits of the continental shelf did not prejudice the delimitation of maritime boundaries between states.
“A continental-shelf submission is not, by itself, a determination of sovereignty or a maritime boundary between states,” he said.
On allegations that Warisan had compromised Sabah’s position, Masudal challenged Yong to produce any statement by the party purportedly recognising Philippine sovereignty over Sabah or its maritime entitlements.
He also called on Yong to produce evidence that Warisan had rejected the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) or abandoned Malaysia’s position on Sabah.
“If such a statement exists, let it be produced. If it does not, then the allegation should not be presented as fact.
“A political accusation does not become a legal fact simply because it is repeated,” he said.
Masudal stressed that defending Sabah as part of Malaysia was not contradictory to demanding full compliance with MA63.
He said rejecting the Philippines’ claim to Sabah was likewise not inconsistent with maintaining peaceful relations with the country, while defending Malaysia’s maritime interests was compatible with supporting UNCLOS.
“Sabah deserves to be defended with facts, MA63, international law and evidence — not political insinuation,” he said.
He reiterated that Warisan’s position remained unequivocal: Sabah is part of Malaysia; MA63 must be respected; Malaysia’s maritime entitlements and interests relating to Sabah must be defended; the country’s position rejecting the Philippines’ claim to Sabah must be maintained; and international law and UNCLOS must be upheld.
“If Datuk Yong wishes to challenge Warisan, then let the debate be conducted on the basis of the treaty, the UN record, UNCLOS, the PCA award and the actual words of Warisan.
“Most importantly, show us the legal chain connecting the 2016 Philippines-China arbitration to recognition of Philippine sovereignty over Sabah.
“If that chain does not exist, the allegation should be withdrawn,” he said.