This is a
matter-of-fact article.
It is
written deliberately without political drama, emotional framing, or spin. The
aim is simple: to explain what happened, why it happened, and why the outcome
is neither unusual nor unprecedented. This approach is necessary if we, as
Malaysians, are to be mature citizens and informed voters who are not easily
swayed by political rhetoric. We do not need harsh words or to belittle others
to uncover the truth.
Truth
stands by itself.
The
Context of the Boundary Malaysia and Indonesia share a long and complex boundary, both on land
and at sea. While much of this boundary is agreed upon in principle, not all of
it has been clearly demarcated on the ground or delimited at sea. Some
segments, inherited from colonial-era treaties, remained unresolved for
decades. These are not new disputes; they are legacy technical problems that
were never fully finalized.
Most of
these unresolved areas fall into two categories:
- On Land: Concentrated along the
Sabah–North Kalimantan frontier. The terrain is difficult, dominated by
dense jungle, rivers, and mountain ridges. Early boundary descriptions
relied on vague references such as watersheds or latitude lines, often
without precise maps. In some stretches, border pillars were never
installed; in others, they were damaged or lost over time.
- At Sea: Unresolved areas exist in
parts of the Celebes Sea and surrounding waters. These involve overlapping
claims over territorial seas, continental shelf boundaries, and Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZ). They are further complicated by differing
interpretations of baselines and the impact of earlier international
rulings.
Together,
these unresolved segments are formally known as Outstanding Boundary
Problems (OBP).
The Myth
of "No Man’s Land" An undemarcated area is not "empty
land." It is not a lawless territory or land that can be freely claimed.
It simply means that the exact legal boundary line has not been finalized.
Sovereignty exists in principle, but its precise coordinates remain unresolved.
Administrative control may exist in practice, but it is not yet conclusive in
law.
This is
why the term “no man’s land” is misleading. It suggests abandonment or an
absence of sovereignty. In reality, such areas are governed by treaties, joint
technical committees, and international norms. Precision matters because
borders are determined by evidence and process, not by rhetoric.
The
5,987-Hectare Resolution The recent issue involving 5,987 hectares falls squarely within this
framework. This area was a recognized OBP. Before negotiations concluded, the
entire 5,987 hectares was undemarcated—it was not conclusively recognized as
either Malaysian or Indonesian.
After
negotiations, the legal uncertainty was resolved. Approximately 5,207 hectares
are now recognized as Indonesian territory, while approximately 780 hectares
are recognized as Malaysian territory in Sabah. This was not a
"transfer" of recognized land, nor a surrender of sovereignty. It was
a clarification. A line that had been blurry for decades was finally drawn.
Why the
Uneven Split? The
uneven distribution often raises questions, but unequal outcomes are standard
in boundary resolution. International borders are not divided by simple
arithmetic or notions of "splitting the difference." They are
determined by:
- Pre-existing treaties and
historical maps.
- Natural features such as
rivers and watersheds.
- Technical surveys and
long-standing administrative practices.
Where the
evidence points, the boundary follows. History shows this clearly. Along the
Sabah–Kalimantan border, multiple undemarcated segments have been resolved in
stages since the 1970s. In some cases, Indonesia received larger areas; in
others, Malaysia did. The land's size was never the governing principle—the
evidence was.
Precedents
in Resolution The same
pattern is visible at sea. In the Straits of Malacca, Malaysia and Indonesia
resolved overlapping continental shelf claims over several decades. Some
segments favored Malaysia, others favored Indonesia. These outcomes were
accepted because they replaced uncertainty with clarity.
An even
starker example is Sipadan and Ligitan. Before adjudication, sovereignty was
unresolved. After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling, both islands
were awarded entirely to Malaysia. While that was an "uneven"
outcome, it was accepted as the final legal resolution to a long-standing
dispute.
Conclusion The 5,987-hectare resolution
fits a long-established pattern. Undemarcated areas are clarified through
evidence-based negotiation. Some outcomes favor Malaysia, and some favor
Indonesia. What matters is that ambiguity is removed and jurisdiction becomes
clear.
In simple
terms: an area that was previously undemarcated has now been formally divided.
5,207 hectares are recognized as Indonesian, and 780 hectares are recognized as
Malaysian. That is the substance of the matter.
No
politics. No emotion. Just facts.
Peace,
anas
No comments:
Post a Comment