The Dispute of Philippines and Malaysia Over Sabah Territory

Demetion, James P.

BSED-Social Studies 2-1

Ms. Marielle Crisostomo

July 18, 2022

 Abstract

The dispute of the Philippine and Sabah have been a long-term problem in the
Southeast Asia. The cause of this dispute can be traced back to the historical background
of the Sulu sultanate and the Malay federation. These scenarios also get worse when the
colonialism of different western countries add to the equation. The formation of Malaysia
in 1963 alarmed the Philippine government to the inclusion of the Sabah territory. The
Philippine is upholding the rights of the heirs of the sultan of Sulu that once owned the
Sabah. These claims lead to the tearing apart the diplomatic ties between Malaysia and
the Philippines. Multiple cases have been filed in different international courts and some
were favoring the claim of the heir of the sultan, and some were favoring the Malaysian
rights.

This paper features the long-standing relationship of the region and focusing to the
broken ties of the Philippines and Malaysia. The researcher focused on the sequence of
the even until the recent development of the dispute. Lastly, this answers the questions
of the scenario if the Philippine still pursue its claims in the disputed territory.
Introduction

Over the time, Philippines and Malaysia has a significant relationship. Each
country has a similarity in language, culture, and traditions and historically, they are
trading with each other. Geographically, they are connected and only the Sulu Sea set
the boundaries between them. Each country has a unique geographic location and just
literally they are both neighbor countries. History is the witness on how these two
countries progress together. Both Malaysia and Philippines conquered by the western,
Malaysia colonized by the Portugal and British Empire, while Philippines being occupied
by Spain and USA. But even before the colonial period, Malaysia and Philippines has
already a government system and lead by Datus and Sultans. The ties began to sour as
the emergence of the Sabah dispute started.

This paper will focus on the positions and claims of both Malaysia and the
Philippine over Sabah territory. We can also notice on how the history and the leaders of
both countries affect the issue.

Significance

The significance of this study is to provide a narration of the event and the
importance of it and if the Philippines’ claims are worth fighting for in this generation. This
paper will also focus on the benefits after if we pursue our claims in Sabah. This also aim
to understand the effect of the claim to the following lives or institutions.

a. Philippine Government- the significance of the Sabah territory to the Philippine

Government and on how it will contribute significantly in political aspects.
b. Filipino People- this paper also give significance to the lives of every Filipino on
how the claims of the Philippines affect their Social, Political, and Cultural self.
c. Sabahans- this research will understand the situations of the Sabahans if the
Philippines pursue their claims in Sabah. How this issue will affect their Social,
Political, and Cultural Self.
Objectives of the Study

1. Determine the Claims of both Philippines and Malaysia in Sabah territory.

2. To look in the historical perspective of the Sabah dispute.

3. Discuss the actions and decisions of every Philippine president regards to the issue.

4. Explain the different factors that affects the dispute.

Statement of the Problem

This paper will aim to give a clear narrative in the validity of the Philippines’ claims
in Sabah territory. Also, this paper will seek the answers in these following questions:

1. What are the significant impacts of the Philippine claims on Sabah and the affected
nation of Malaysia?
1.1 What are the significant changes that might occur once the Philippines pursue
their claims in the Sabah territory?
1.2 If the Philippine continue the claims, will it initiate further conflict between
Malaysia and Philippines?

Review of Related Literature

The relationship of Malaysia and Philippines is quite unnatural considering its

geographical location and their commonalities. Even they are considered as a part of one
regional group, their ties are full of speculation and mistrust. The claims of Philippines in
Sabah are the contributing factor to shatter their relationship. Philippines makes their first
move when President Diosdado Macapagal insist that the Philippine Government has the
Full sovereignty over the North Borneo. But when Ferdinand Marcos assumed the
presidency, he recognized the formation of Malaysia in 1966. Both countries expected to
solve the dispute through the ASEAN formation. (Samad & Abu Bakar,1992)
 As a result of the Philippines' refusal to recognize Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur broke
diplomatic ties with Manila. As observed from the Philippines, relations could be restored
as soon as Malaysia acknowledges the existence of the claim to Sabah and accepts the
international court of justice's compulsory jurisdiction over the issue. The Malaysia crisis
has provided the Philippines with an opportunity to take advantage of South -East Asia's
broader re-alignment of influence. The world-view fragmentation of blocks and alliances,
in Macapagal's opinion, provides many opportunities for new choices and alternatives.
(Vellut, 1964)

Relations between North Borneo and the Philippines deteriorated when the
Philippines revived the Sultanate of Sulu's claim to the Sabah Territory that stated in the
Manila accord of 1963 and the believes that the sultanate of Brunei gave Sabah to the
Sultanate of Sulu as a appreciation gift. To add to the confusion, the Sultan of Sulu never
had power over the southwestern part of North Borneo, but he did have influence over
the northeastern half of what is now Indonesian Kalimantan. (Stutter, 1964) the
Philippines has explored numerous approaches. It used diplomatic means to resolve its
claims to Sabah and sought a judicial settlement through the International Court of Justice
(ICJ). However, the United Kingdom and the Federation of Malaysia have refused to
accept the Philippines' proposal to bring the case of Sabah to the International Court of
Justice. (Uy, 2020)

On the other hand, Malaysia claiming that they have a strong justification of Sabah
territory. Since Malaysia was a former British colony, Malaysia's claim to Sabah has been
heavily reliant on the legitimacy, legality, and authenticity of the UK's claims to
Sabah/North Borneo, particularly those of Overbeck and Dent, based on the 1878
Treaty's grant and concessions and their implications. Similarly, Malaysia regards the
Philippine claims over Sabah as a "non-issue" because Sabah, along with Sarawak and
Singapore, was one of the founding states of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963, and so
was an act of "self-determination" by the people of Sabah. (Uy, 2020)

The Philippines and the United States were also at odds over the Sabah claim. In
August, State Department spokesman Robert McCloskey read the state department's
statement to reporters: the United States had acknowledged Malaysia, which implied
acceptance of Sabah as a constituent part of Malaysia. The outcome was a protest the
American embassy and a slew of negative comments in Congress. Mennon Williams, the
new ambassador, attempted to defuse the situation by issuing a formal statement
claiming that the US was "completely unbiased" on Sabah and that the mutual defense
pact remained in full force and effect. (Grossholtz, 1969)

North Borneo is not part of the Philippines' national territory, as defined and
specified by our Constitution. The heirs of the late Sultan Jamalul Kiram, who died in
1936, were the claimants to North Borneo when the United Nations was established in
1945. If the alleged heirs had any claims to sovereignty over North Borneo, they may
have filed a petition or a reservation to the United Nations denouncing British control and
administration over the island, but they did not do so. (Sumulong,1963)

However, there is still debate over whether the Sultanate was officially abolished
when Sultan Jamalul Kiram died in 1936 with no evident heir. The Supreme Court of North
Borneo assumed that the Sultanate's international legal identity had terminated and that
the Government of the Philippines was its successor in sovereignty in the Macaskie ruling
in 1939 regarding the disposition of the "cession.moneys" under the 1878 agreement.
However, because the Philippine government did not file a claim, the funds were left to
the Sultan's private descendants. (Marston. 1978)

While a formal renunciation from the Philippines is required, the Sabahans must
also be given new options for their future through a true vote. However, Kuala Lumpur
may consider this exercise as unnecessary. The time for belittling people is over. The
ghosts of colonialism in the ASEAN region should be put to rest once and for all. Kuala
Lumpur and Manila should genuinely submit their different national interests to the
ASEAN common good, or even better, align the two. (Parpan, 1988)

After a long year of silence about this issue, it’s been revived because of a
controversial tweet. Even though numerous presidents have kept it dormant, the
Philippines' claim to Sabah has not been abandoned. It has, however, occasionally burst
into massive crises that have acted as historical turning points. (Esmaquel, 2020)

Outline of Ideas

I. Historical Background on Malaysia-Philippines relations

II. The Philippines’ claim
a. The Manila Accord
b. Sulu Sultanate
III. The Malaysia’s claim
a. Madrid Protocol
IV. Other countries involve
V. 1903 confirmation of cession of certain islands
VI. 1939 Macaskie decision
VII. Recent development
VIII. Analysis and Discussion

I. Historical Background on Malaysia-Philippines relations

The Philippine and Malaysia consistently connected to each other though the
course of time. Separated only by sea, but related through culture, religion, and history
that binds the pact of the two nations. On January 22, 1878, the Sulu Sultanate, which
held Sabah, signed a treaty with the British North Borneo Company, allowing the latter to
occupy the eastern half forever in exchange for a payment to the Sultanate. North Borneo
was handed up to the British government at the end of World War II after becoming a
British protectorate in 1888. It won independence in 1963 after a referendum in which the
people decided to join Malaysia. North Borneo was called Sabah because of this. The
foundation of the Malaysian Federation was viewed as neocolonialism in Indonesia under
President Sukarno, prompting the Ganyang Malaysia movement. Just after the
Federation of Malaya gained independence in 1959, the Philippines established its first
diplomatic representative office in the country. The Philippines and Malaysia have had a
long-standing bilateral connection spanning more than 60 years. (Gavilan, 2016)
 II. The Philippines’ claim

The Manila Accord

The Malaysian, Indonesian, and Philippine delegation were entered a deal to

strengthen the ties of the three nations. Also, this aims to establish stability, security,
economic development, and social progress. Through the Manila accord, the three
governments in the image of their representatives met in Manila from June 7 to 11 of 1963
to attend the conference of ministers of the three countries. The Meeting of the head of
states were made in frank manner and in a most cordial atmosphere. The Presidents of
Malaysia, Philippines, and Indonesia will make sure that their exchange still and will
maintain the cooperation and strength of ties between the three nations. The deliberations
will benefit the future and relationship in the region. The three countries were agreed in
the formation of the Malaysian federation and the inclusion of Sabah to the Malaysian
control but the Philippines is the only country who supported it but it will still continue to
support its claim in the Sabah territory. The Philippines and Malaysia both promised to
maintain the peace and stability in the region as the curtesy to their historical ties and
geographical propinquity. Through the United Nation Secretary General, the Indonesia
and Philippines attested that they would support the inclusion of the Sabah into the
proposed Malaysian federation to ensure to all Sabahans their needs and rights. The
Accord also included the plan of president Macapagal which, to uphold the common
interest of the people in the region, helping each other and ensuring peace and harmony,
and establishment of secretariat that will be deployed in each country. According to Ao
(2020), the signing of the Manila accord paved way to the peaceful settlement of territorial
dispute in the area over the Sabah confrontation.

Sulu Sultanate

According to Regalado (2020), the Sultanate of Sulu, which previously dominated

the Philippines' southernmost territory, is the source of the Philippines' claim to Sabah.
The Sultan of Brunei gave North Borneo to Sulu as a present in exchange for his
assistance in a fight in the 1600s, according to the sultanate.
 The sultanate's arrangement with the British North Borneo Co. in 1878, according
to Manila, was only a lease, not a transfer of sovereignty. The current Sultan, Muedzul
Lail Tan Kiram, told that his grandfather promised to merge Sulu into an independent
Philippines to help him recapture Sabah. Only two Philippine presidents, Diosdado
Macapagal, and dictator Ferdinand Marcos, have openly supported Sulu's claim to date.

Several branches of the Royal Family are currently disputing who would be the
legitimate Sultan of Sulu, even though the line of succession fell on the Kiram branch of
the royal family from 1823 until the death in 1936 of the last sovereign sultans, Sultan
Jamalul Kiram II, who died without a direct male heir. Over a dozen persons claim to be
the heir to the Sulu throne. One of them, Prince Rodinhood H.J. Kiram, has filed a legal
challenge, claiming that the British were obligated to return Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu
rather than ceding it to Malaysia because the disputed territory was brought under British
dominion through a temporary lease agreement negotiated by the British North Borneo
Company.

III. The Malaysia’s claim

Madrid Protocol

The history of the Southeast Asia was dramatically full of colonialism from the west
and influenced a lot of country and territory. Since the Spain colonized the Philippines for
hundreds of years and occupied the island in the archipelago, they were marked and set
the boundaries and the territory of the country. When the Malay became Malaysia, it is
once occupied by the British and included in one of the commonwealths of the England
crown. Both countries were controlled by the external forces and affect the laws and
boundaries that being implemented. The Madrid protocol were recognizing the territory
once occupied by the Spaniards and these were respectively understood by the Great
Britain and Germany. The said governments were made a declaration on their power over
the territory of north Borneo.
 IV. Other countries involve

The journal of Van der Croef (1963) explaines that, the Indonesia and Malaysia
has a long-term conflict between each other, and they were resolving it in various ways.
The Indonesia issued the Confrontation policy to the country of Malaysia for being a
prompt of neo0imperialism and neo-colonialism and directing hostile policy towards
Indonesia. The country also has a competition in their economic race as each country
has a natural rubber importation. Indonesia wants to be a hegemony over the Southeast
Asia and these measures leads the tension in the different aspects of their relationship.
Lastly, the Indonesia together with Malaysia and Philippines agreed to sign the Manila
accord of 1963. On August 11, 1966, both Indonesia and Malaysia signed a peace accord,
effectively ending the Konfrontasi. Malaysia and Indonesia conducted an "undeclared
war" known as the Konfrontasi. The struggle began on September 16, 1963, when
Malaysia was created from Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore. President Sukarno
was a passionate opponent of Malaysia's establishment, which he considered as a British
ploy to restrict Indonesia's geopolitical ambitions in the region (the Philippines was also
against the formation of Malaysia but apart from breaking off diplomatic relations did not
resort to the use of military means). Sukarno began a "Ganyang Malaysia" or "crush
Malaysia" campaign, employing political, economic, and propaganda tactics at first.

The Philippines was upholding its claim that the sultanate of Sulu ruled the Sabah
as it is handed over by the sultan of Brunei. But according to Nagara (2020), Brunei denies
that Sulu ruled North Borneo. Historical records indicate that this frontier of Brunei,
particularly the northeastern section Sulu claims, was undeveloped, underpopulated, and
unfriendly at the time, and that the Sulu Sultanate never inhabited or administered it.

V. 1903 Confirmation of Cession of Certain Islands

In 1898, the Philippines were transferred to the United States. The Philippines'
former master, Spain, did not precisely define its territorial boundaries. In contrast to
Spain, the US was more careful, forceful, and legalistic when it came to the limitations of
its territorial sovereignty. In 1903, it began the process of precisely determining and
confirming the territorial limits of its sovereignty over the Philippines, particularly in areas
adjacent to North Borneo. Soon after, it was discovered that the State of North Borneo,
through the British North Borneo Company (BNBC), was illegally administering twenty-
six islands off the state's east coast that belonged to the Sultan of Sulu and thus fell under
US authority. The two sovereign powers in the region, Britain, and the United States, were
active in addressing the problem of occupation and sovereignty from 1903 until 1930. The
US also wanted to establish a permanent international border between its possessions in
North Borneo and the Philippine Islands, which it did in 1930. These two difficulties led to
the formation of the 1907 Agreement and the 1930 Boundary Convention between the
United Kingdom and the United States, which determined the fate of several islands in
the vicinity, including Sipadan and Ligitan. This chapter delves into the convoluted nature
of the issues at hand, as well as the repercussions that result. Singh (2019). The
confirmation of the cession of island was made by the sultan of Sulu and where he gave
up the certain island with an estimation of 22 and other small island surrounding it. The
file also mentions the mane of these islands, Muliangin, Muliangin Kechil, MalawaH,
Tegabu, Bilian, Tegaypil, Lang Kayan, Boan, Lehiman. Bakungan, Bakungan Kechil,
Libaran, Taganack, Beguan, Mantabtuan, Gaya, Omadal, Si Amil, Mabol, Kepalai,
Dinawan. This were signed at Sandakan on 22nd of April 1903.

VI. 1939 Macaskie decision

The Macaskie decision were the result of the trial brought by the heirs of the sultan
of Sulu to the highest court of North Borneo against the North Borneo itself. The court
decides to give the plaintiff as they present evidence and they requested to pay them
rental money or the “cession monies” under the deed of 1878. The court decides to give
the cession monies to the government of the Philippines as the government are the
successors of the sovereignty of the Philippine islands. The court also states that if the
Philippine government intervene, it is on their own behalf. At the end, the Philippine
government allows Sultan Jamalul Kiram to enjoy the session money as a private
individual. Ortiz (1963).
 VII. Recent development

This issue has been drowned for many years and never been a serious topic. But
the urgency to claim and resolve the conflict is still alive. The tension again escalated
when the Malaysia sent a note to the United Nation to extend the 200 nautical mile in the
northernmost part of the North Borneo and will occupy some part of the south China sea.
In March, the Philippines issued a so-called note verbale to the United Nations, criticizing
the move. Malaysia was projecting its claim from regions of North Borneo "over which the
Republic of the Philippines has never renounced its sovereignty," according to the
secretary-general. The Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, China, and Taiwan all
claim sovereignty of the Kalayaan Islands, which are part of the larger island series known
as the Spratlys and are contested by the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, China,
and Taiwan. (Sepe & Azmi, 2020). On July 16, 2020, Philippine foreign affairs secretary,
Teodoro Locsin jr. made a tweet containing their claims in Sabah and stated that Sabah
is in the Philippine territory. It burst outrage to his Malaysian Counterpart, Hishammuddin
Hussein as he responded to Locsin’s tweet. They were both summoned the ambassadors
of other’s country.

VIII. Analysis and Discussion

The Malaysia and the Philippine conflict can’t be dissolved easily. They were used
different ways like ASEAN formation as the hope to resolve the broken alliance of the two
countries. The Sabah dispute is a long-term conflict that both countries are facing and
until now, the discussion and the impact of it is still alive. According to Samad & Abu
Bakar (1992), the Philippines will not still drop its claims in Sabah as the government did
not issue a law to recognize the Malaysian’s claim. If the Philippines pursue its claims
over Sabah, it will promote and defend the Philippine historical rights and jurisdiction over
the territory of Sabah. As well as, upholding the legal rights of the heir of the sultan of
Sulu. This is not the only dispute that facing by the Philippines and other Southeast Asian
nations, until now the West Philippine Sea dispute between China is still under the
discussion. Same as the Sabah dispute, the West Philippine Sea conflict engages in the
historical rights of the Philippines over the territory. For the Philippines, it is important to
uphold the historical rights over this territory and pursuing these claims will widen the
Philippine control over the area. These are the changes that might occur when the
Philippine succeeded to gain the territory of Sabah. The Philippine will gain more EEZ or
exclusive economic zone, will have control over the natural resources in the territory, and
the Sabahans will become Filipino if they want. To answer the question if it will result a
further conflict if the Philippine still chase the victory over the disputed territory, it is more
likely to happen since both sides do not want to drop their own claims and until now, as
we see in the recent developments, the two countries were still upholding their claims.
According to the case study of Breitenbücher (2021), there are multiple cases of attacts
made by both sides and there are men armed and died just aiming to reclaim the Sabah
territory. The tension will continue to arise if there are no side that will waive the white
flag. The researcher’s point of view has change when conducting this paper, as the
evidence and understanding each side being brought up to fulfill this paper. According to
Nagara (2020), Despite what is usually referred to as "the Philippine claim to Sabah," the
Philippines has never had a legitimate claim to Sabah. The defunct Sulu Sultanate's
disputed former claim to North Borneo when it was still part of the Brunei Empire is the
sole basis for Manila's claim. Sulu and the succeeding Republic of the Philippines never
had any document or other evidence to establish Brunei had bequeathed North Borneo
to Sulu, nor did they provide a satisfactory explanation for why they did.The Philippine
claims can’t be justified, this issue must always be between the heirs of the sultan of Sulu
and the government of Malaysia. The issue like this is an example of how the external
factors and the history of colonialism affect the situation. The Philippines and Malaysia
were bound on the decisions of their colonial ruler in the past. The Philippine claim should
gain more support from other countries if they want to continue their claims. The
Malaysian claim supported by other countries like Great Britain and USA. These factors
affecting the chance of the Philippine to claim the victory.

Conclusion

The researcher concludes that the dispute of the Philippine and the Malaysia
together with other countries over the Sabah territory has inclined in their strong beliefs
that they owned the territory historically and geographically. The long due of this problem
can affect both nation’s economic and political partnership. These can further result on
damaging each other’s images when they banter each other’s claims. The historical side
of this dispute can be traced through the colonialist ruler that run the negotiation in the
past. Until now, the influence of its decision was visible in this problem. The heirs of the
sultan of Sulu is the first concern to resolve this issue, the cession money should be sent
to the heirs for the compliance of the Macaskie ruling decision. The Philippine just want
the recognition that the Sabah is somehow been part of the Philippines and the Malaysia
Should respect the historical rights of the sultanate of Sulu over the territory. The most
affected of this conflict is the citizens over the area in the south of the Philippines and the
northeastern part of the Sabah. That is why, the government of both countries, when they
decide regard to the conflict, they must uphold the security and protection of all the
civilians at the area. This is the issue that only a matter of time can tell the result.

References

Ao, T. (2020, August 27). The Discord over Sabah between Malaysia and the Philippines.
Indian Council of World Affairs.
https://www.icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=5311&lid=3744

Breitenbücher, D. (2021). Malaysia/Philippines, Conflict over the Sultanate of Sulu.

https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/malaysiaphilippines-conflict-over-
sultanate-sulu

Esmaquel II, P. (2020, August 7). ‘Sabah is not in Malaysia’: When Locsin awakens a
sleeping giant. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/sabah-not-in-
malaysia-when-locsin-awakens-sleeping-giant/

Gavilan, J. (2016, November 9). FAST FACTS: What binds the Philippines and Malaysia?
Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/151736-philippines-malaysia-
relationship-fast-facts/

Grossholtz, J. (1969). The Philippines: New Adventures with Old Problems. Asian Survey,
9(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2642094
Marston, G. (1978, January 2). International Law and the Sabah Dispute.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1967/4.pdf

Nagara B. (2020, November 1). Why the Philippines has no justifiable claim to Sabah and
never had. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/week-
asia/opinion/article/3107859/why-philippines-has-no-justifiable-claim-sabah-
and-never-
had?fbclid=IwAR056BMhLtBj2lO4T8Y5jdG0IsC1ocda8UA1it6jQfehmbry3WeF
S-fURxc

Ortiz, P. (1963). Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question. Philippine Studies,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42719825

Paridah Abd. Samad, & Bakar, D. A. (1992). Malaysia-Philippines Relations: The Issue
of Sabah. Asian Survey, 32(6), 554–567. https://doi.org/10.2307/2645160

Parpan, A. G. (1988). The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look. Philippine
Studies, 36(1), 3–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42633059

Regalado, F. (2020, September 29). Malaysia's Spat with Philippines over Sabah: Five
Things to Know. Nikkei Asia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-
relations/Malaysia-s-spat-with-Philippines-over-Sabah-Five-things-to-know

Sepe B.& Azmi, H. (2020, September 3). Malaysia, Philippines Take Row over Sabah to
the UN. Benar News.
https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/Sabah-dispute-
09032020141241.html

Singh, D. (2019). Delimitation of the North Borneo–Philippines Sea Boundary and the
Transfer of Sovereignty over Certain Islands to North Borneo, 1903–30. In The
Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan
Islands: Historical Antecedents and the International Court of Justice
Judgment (pp. 71-104). ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute.
Sumulong, L. (1963, March 25). Privilege Speech of Senator Lorenzo Sumulong on the
Sabah Claim Philippine Senate. Inquirer.net.
https://globalnation.inquirer.net/66689/does-sabah-really-belong-to-the-
philippines

Sutter, J. O. (1964). Report from Sabah. SAIS Review (1956-1989), 9(1), 8–15.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/45348346

Uy, A. M. (2020, November 25). Sabah, A Dispute that Refuses to Go Away. The ASEAN
Post. https://theaseanpost.com/article/sabah-dispute-refuses-go-away

Uy, A. M. (2020, October 8). Sabah: Malaysia’s or Philippines’? The ASEAN Post.
https://theaseanpost.com/article/sabah-malaysias-or-philippines

Van der Kroef, J. M. (1963). Indonesia, Malaya, and the North Borneo Crisis. Asian
Survey, 3(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/3023585

Vellut, J. L. (1964). The Philippines and the Malaysia Issue. The Australian Quarterly,
36(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/20633936