Much water has flowed under the bridge since the formation of Malaysia. Even though Malaysia gained independence through peaceful means, it did not mean that the birth of the new nation was without labour pangs.

Sukarno of Indonesia and Macapagal of the Philippines were both opposed to the inclusion of the North Borneo territory in the Federation of Malaysia. Sukarno, it must be emphasised, had launched the Konfrontasi to crush Malaysia.

Macapagal was however less vehement in his pursuit against the formation of Malaysia, despite allegations in the first half of 1968 that young Suluk men were secretly being trained in Corrigedor for the purpose of infiltrating and invading Sabah.

Successive Philippine governments have raised the matter of the claim over Sabah with the Malaysian government at various regional and international fora. At one stage, they even threatened to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague for arbitration.

However, the Malaysian government has persistently refused to be a litigant on the grounds that Sabah had become an integral part of Malaysia through a constitutional and democratic process.

That aside, the people of Sabah had strongly expressed their desire to be part of the Federation of Malaysia under the aegis of the United Nations-sponsored United Nations Malaysian Mission (UNMM) and the Lord Cobbold Commission.

Notwithstanding the above argument, the Philippine government has persisted to pursue her claim of sovereignty over Sabah. Two books were published on the claim, one in 1964 and the other in 1967, setting out the legal and historical bases of her claim on Sabah; but the contents of the books were refuted by the Malaysian government's at a June-July 1968 meeting in Bangkok, much to the embarrassment of their Philippine counterparts.

Undeterred by these failures, especially the one to bring the matter to the attention of the ICJ, the Philippine ambassador to the United Nation, Salvador Lopez, put on notice on October 1964 that the Philippines would ask that it (the claim) be placed on the agenda of the UN General Assembly.

This proposition was immediately shot down by the Malaysian deputy permanent representative to the United Nations at that time R Ramani who said:

'The UN Charter says that all legal claims must be referred to the International Court of Justice. The Philippines now wants to take her claim to the UN. The Assembly is a political body. By their latest move, they are admitting that their claim is no longer a legal problem, but a political question.'

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos did initially warm up to the idea of friendlier relations with Malaysia when he ascended to the palace; but political expediency would rear its ugly head soon after. On Sept 18,1968, Marcos signed a Congressional Bill which defined part of Sabah as Philippine territory.

Is the Philippine claim of sovereignty over Sabah phantom, or reality?

For all intents and purposes, the claim on Sabah is political rather than legal, however much the Philippines tries to portray otherwise.

In April 1970, vital documents relating to the claim had reportedly been lost from the Philippines National Archives.

The strongest statement yet on the non-legal entity of the claim was made by the former Chief Justice of Borneo, CFC Macaskie when he handed down the judgement on the claim in 1939:

'Now as regards the Sabah cession of course, the cession by the Sulu refers only to parts of the East Coast you know the question whether the cession agreement was a lease or an outright grant is really just a matter of semantics. What must decide is the wishes of the people.'

Sabah, despite our prime minister's declaration that it is one of the poorest states in Malaysia, is actually rich. This is probably one of the reasons why it is so tantalising.

It is rumoured that Sabah's oil reserves are as big as Kuwait's. Besides, we have substantial mineral deposits such as coal, gold, etc. apart from our huge natural tourism potentials. Diving haven Sipadan alone brings in RM50 million a year. Yet this island resort is only the tip of the iceberg of our tourism assets. So Sabah is a pricey catch.

The Philippine government knows full well the futility of pursuing the claim through the legal channels; but they will pursue it nonetheless for various reasons.

Military options are not plausible as they are obviously against the spirit of Asean. The Americans might be their military partner; but Malaysia is a member of the Five Power Defence Arrangements with the United Kingdom involved. The latter, of course, is America's closest ally.

It has been quite clear since the early seventies that there has been an attempt to realise this objective through demographic means when their diplomacy and veiled military threats failed to fructify.

Tens of thousands of their citizens flooded the shores of Sabah. The rebellion in the south could have been instigated as a ruse for their citizens to leave; and to our disadvantage the UN has granted a number of them refugee status. By now their numbers could be at a ratio of one to one to the locals.

Judging from the newspaper reports, a number of them have also been charged for possession of fake identification papers. This is a clear indication that they have been attempting to acquire Malaysian citizenships by hook or by crook. Are we sure that our security safety net is foolproof?

By international convention, these people could become citizens of Malaysia naturally if they are not repatriated. Hence, they could take part in future elections.

The implication of this is grave, because the possibility of them standing for elections and winning is not a figment of an imagination. Then their motherland could agitate for a referendum; and the result is a foregone conclusion.

In the heat of the 1985 and 1986 riots in Sabah, these Filipinos were heard to say openly that Sabah belonged to the Philippines. Their leaders certainly believe so.

The question of their claim on Sabah and the issue of illegal immigrants have been plaguing Sabahans for more than three decades now; yet there has been no solution in sight.

Among the reasons cited for the inability to stem the influx is the long coastline. Plausible this may be; but considering the time factor, the problem still smacks of something less desirable for the future of Malaysians living in Sabah.

Commenting on the Philippines' claim on Sabah, Historian Dr James Ongkili could not have made a more poignant reminder for us to ponder upon when he said in his book, Modernisation in East Malaysia 1960 - 1970 :

'... the Philippines has been flogging a dead horse and Malaysia has been too hesitant to bury the carcass, while Sabah has had to bear the stench'.