Former President Joseph Estrada today said that entertaining the idea of a Bangsamoro sub-state, if not handled with caution, may borderline on treason. “Peace must be attained but not at the cost of our territorial integrity,” Estrada said.


Estrada clarified that he never gave the Aquino Administration advise. He stressed that he is not in the habit of giving unsolicited advice but was only answering questions from the media regarding his stand on this issue as a former president who achieved peace in Mindanao by wiping out the MILF. 

Reports describe the substate as one that will exercise powers over its political and economic affairs and enforce security within the Bangsamoro territory. While it will remain under the Republic of the Philippines, it would have “asymmetrical relations’’ with the national government, similar to Hong Kong’s relations with China and have the unique position of having its own “responsibility in governing Bangsamoro lands”. 

“We must exert all efforts towards peace but we cannot afford to give them something that is tantamount to giving them their own government and against the Constitution,” Estrada said. “Whether you call it a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity or a Bangsamoro substate, by whatever name you call it, the MILF are essentially asking for the creation of their own government, which is a non-negotiable. The territorial integrity of our country is a non-negotiable.” 



for Former President Joseph E. Estrada



20 August 2011


Royal Maimbung, Sulu


A Royal communiqué from His Royal Highness Prince Omar Kiram Dux de Legazpi Duque de Vivar-Maniquiz, Grand Prince & Prince Marshal & Grand Master of the Royal Orders.

To All and Singular: To all whom this Royal communiqué shall come, greetings!

Be it hereby duly known with the most gracious Royal assent and approbation, and after due deliberation by the Royal Council which unanimously agreed and recommended to His Majesty Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram the First, The Sultan of Sulu & The Sultan of Sabah, Head of Islam & Head of Sultanate, The 35th Reigning Sultan – for the outright termination and cancellation of any Award or Recognition to Mr. Nick Heydarian Afshari as grantee and awardee of The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah, is cancelled and terminated with immediate effect.

Abatement reads:

Upon thorough study and examination we found out that Mr. Nick Heydarian Afshari being unable to be appointed as our USA Royal Ambassador, is now with the group of the fake sultan Aranan, thus Mr. Afshari does not qualify to hold any award or recognition from His Majesty Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram the First and any award of Mr. Afsahri is hereby terminated and cancelled today the 20th day of August 2011.

His Majesty Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram the First thereafter ordered and issued a Royal Edict to be signed and sealed today at Royal Maimbung, Sulu this 20th day of August in the year 2011.

This Royal Edict of Abatement and Termination of Award appears as a matter of public records and to be made known publicly and accordingly.

We are:

HRH Prince Omar Kiram Dux de Legazpi Duque de Vivar-Maniquiz

Grand Prince & Prince Marshal & Grand Master of Royal Orders

The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah


KOTA KINABALU: Is Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein oblivious to fact that the police have already concluded a ‘thorough’ investigation into self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan Mohd Akjan Ali Mohamad and are awaiting the Attorney-General’s directive on the matter?

This is the question posed by an ex-senator who warned that Sabah is well on its way to being fully colonised by Peninsular Malaysia.

Dr Chong Eng Leong said the only way for the state to keep intact its sovereignty within Malaysia is to vote for change in the next general election.

Chong said he came to this conclusion after Hishammuddin ordered the police to “thoroughly and seriously” investigate the citizenship of Akjan, a former Umno member who created waves in Sabah with his self-proclaimation.

The former PBS leader, who is now a Sabah PKR leader, said Hishammuddin’s statement could only mean that the recently concluded police investigation on Akjan was ‘neither thorough nor serious.’
“Surely our Home Minister has not forgotten that the police had completed the probe and had submitted the investigation papers to the A-G chamber for a decision.”

Chong also reminded Hishammuddin that Akjan was an ex-ISA detainee who was held for activities related to issuance of ‘ICs’ to foreigners in Sabah and that the police must already have all the facts concerning him.

He however expressed doubt the police would “thoroughly investigate” Akjan’s case given the fact that the federal government refusal, until today, to admit to the existence of the infamous ‘Project IC’.

The so-called ‘project’ is widely believed to have been engineered by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad back in the 90s, with the chief aim of altering the demography of Sabah to oust the Christian-dominated PBS state government at that time.

Criminal act

Lurid tales of thousands of homeless and stateless children in Sabah, many of them drug addicts, have been published by the international press without much comment from the federal authorities.

Most believe that acknowledging that there are such destitute children living of the streets in Kota Kinabalu would force the government to admit that a criminal act had been committed.

“Already there are more than 600,000 foreigners in Sabah having possession of such ICs today and they claim Sabah native status,” said Chong.

“How many times does the federal government need to be told that Sabah’s security and sovereignty within Malaysia is at stake, a time-bomb ready to explode any moment?”
Chong pointed out that there was strong circumstantial evidence that Akjan’s claim that he is a bona fide Malaysian is false.

He noted that online news portal Sabahkini had reported in February that Akjan was born in Jambangan, Nipah-Nipah, in Philippines, on Nov 23, 1957 and a few individuals have also testified against his citizenship claim.

However Akjan’s Malaysian IC states that he was born on July 7, 1957 and he claimed that he was born in Kg Limau-Limauan, Kudat.


BaronessAnne de Bretagne 10:58pm Aug 29
The speech by the Speaker of Malaysia Parliament was delivered before ARMM some 10 months ago in which he said:

“With the achievement of a peace settlement in the Southern Philippines, the region will be able to divert its attention and resources to development. Development will thus bring growth, progress, reduce poverty, improve access to education and increase the standard of living.

“I am pleased that Malaysia has been retained as the Third Party Facilitator in the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF. Malaysia is looking forward to working closely with the GRP and MILF Peace Panels in order to facilitate the achievement of a just and lasting peace settlement between the GRP and the MILF.”

Ja, ja, ja! Get out of Sabah you bleeding jerks and we will see development across the board. And ja, ja, ja again! Who the hell are you trying to fool with your so-called peace talks mediation?

Parliament of Malaysia

Joomla! – the dynamic portal engine and content management system


The Bates Treaty

Madge Kho


(The author thanks Ernie Garcia, former director of ABS/CBN  in the Philippines, and Jim Kaplan for their editorial comments.)


A relatively unknown but significant detail in Philippine history is the Bates Treaty, signed between the U.S. and the Sultanate of Sulu on August 20, 1899. This article looks into the background of that treaty and its consequences.


The Filipinos had been waging their War of Independence from Spain when the U.S. “won” the Spanish-American War in the battle of Manila Bay. Despite the opposition of anti-imperialist forces, the U.S. took possession of the Philippines. Disappointed by and bitter about this unexpected and unforeseen move by the country he had considered an ally, Filipino General Emilio Aguinaldo then turned the war into the Philippine American War. Now labeling the ongoing independence war an “insurrection,” the U.S. proceeded to establish control of the Philippine Islands through force. Filipino forces were increasing in the north and becoming a growing concern of the U.S. military. In order to concentrate its limited forces in the north, and to hold at bay the Moro resistance to its colonization in the Sulu Archipelago, the United States resorted to the device of a treaty. Known as the Bates Treaty, it was the first step towards the dissolution of Moro (Muslim population of the southern Philippines) sovereignty and the dismantling of the Sulu Sultanate.


The Bates Treaty had promised to uphold mutual respect between the U.S. and the Sultanate of Sulu, to respect Moro autonomy, and to not give or sell Sulu or any part of it to any other nation. In addition, under this treaty the Sultan and his datus (tribal chiefs) were to receive monthly payments in return for flying the American flag and for allowing the U.S. the right to occupy lands on the islands.


A year prior, in December 1898, and with the Tausug (people of Jolo and neighboring islands) unaware that they were among the pawn peoples whose fates were being decided at a table thousands of miles away, the Treaty of Paris was signed, which included their beloved string of islands. In the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guam to the U.S.; and for $20 million the entire Philippines. Included in this cession were the territories of Mindanao and Sulu, which actually had not been in full Spanish control. About two years later, on November 7, 1900, the U.S. paid an additional $100,000 to Spain to include in the 1898 cession the Sulu islands stretching as far west as Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu.


After their defeat by the U.S., the Spaniards turned over a garrison on the island of Siasi, southwest of Jolo, to the Sultan, who personally went from his seat in Maimbung on the island of Jolo to Siasi to oversee the transfer. It was not until May 1899 that the U.S. sent troops to take over the Spanish fort in Jolo. The Americans had not been able to get troops to Jolo sooner because, as General. E.S. Otis wrote to Admiral Dewey on May 14, 1899, they could not afford to send any troops outside the Luzon area.


The fighting in Luzon was peaking at this time. In the south, the Filipino revolutionary forces had already taken over from the Spaniards a fort in Zamboanga at the southern tip of the island of Mindanao. General Otis estimated it would require 2,000 men to retake the Zamboanga fort. The Spanish fort in the town of Jolo was much smaller and, he surmised, would require only 600 men for its defense after the Spaniards left. “[It] would be a good scheme to send the garries to Jolo immediately, or the Moros would destroy the fortifications and guns and turn them upon us when we appear.” So, U.S. troops were immediately sent to Jolo. It was a timely move. The Moros, as he feared, could easily have taken over the fort from the Spaniards. The Sultan had a standing army of 26,000 men.


When the Americans arrived in Jolo, they told Jamalul Kiram II, the sultan of Sulu, that the U.S. had taken over the affairs of Spain and asked the Sultan to recognize the U.S. in the place of Spain, and honor the 1878 provisions of the treaty, which the Sultan had signed with Spain. But the Sultan refused, stating that the U.S. was a different entity and that the U.S. should enter into a new treaty with the Sultanate.


The Spanish Treaty of Peace, signed on July 22, 1878, was the last one signed by the Sultan during the Spanish occupation of the town of Jolo. The treaty had allowed Spain to set up a small garrison, covering about 15 acres, in the town of Jolo. Outside the wall, the Sultan still ruled. Scholars fluent in both Spanish and Arabic found the treaty to have translation flaws, which would have implications in the 1898 cession of the Philippine Islands to the U.S. The Spanish version states that Spain had sovereignty over Sulu, whereas the Tausug version describes a protectorate relationship rather than a dependency of Spain. The treaty says that the customs, laws, and religion of the Moros would not be subjected to Spanish jurisdiction. It made Jolo a protectorate of Spain. This treaty also provided the sultan and his datus monthly payments of 250-1500 Mexican pesos. The sultan had the mistaken impression that the agreement with the Spaniards would be similar to the one he signed six months earlier with the British North Borneo Chartered Company, which paid him $5,000 annually for the use of his North Borneo territories (now Sabah). (The Philippines, under President Diosdado Macapagal in the 1960s, tried to reclaim Sabah in the world court. This continues to be a source of irritation between the Philippine and Malaysian governments.)


In place of the Spanish treaty, the sultan presented Brig. General John Bates with a 16-point proposal. The proposal allowed the U.S. to fly its flag side by side with the Sultanate’s and required the U.S. to continue monthly payments to the sultan and his datus. The U.S. was not to occupy any of the land without the permission of the sultan. The sultan’s proposal was rejected by Bates, because it did not acknowledge U.S. sovereignty.


Bates then countered with his 15-point proposal, which included the recognition of U.S. sovereignty over Sulu and its dependencies, the guarantee of non-interference with Moro religion and customs and a pledge that the “U.S. will not sell the island of Jolo or any other island of the Sulu Archipelago to any foreign nation without the consent of the Sultan.”

The sultan resisted Bates’s offer for several months, but he could not get unanimous support from his ruma bichara (ruling council) to press for his demands to the Americans. Because of this internal dissension, led by his own prime minister and adviser Hadji Butu and two of his top ranking datus, Datu Jolkanairn and Datu Kalbi, the sultan on August 20, 1899 conceded to the Americans. The treaty terms were much more favorable to the U.S. than what the Spanish treaty provided. According to Sixto Orosa, “The people did not wish to come under American sovereignty; but Hadji Butu recognizing the folly of armed resistance, exerted all his influence to prevent another useless and bloody war.” Hadji Butu and his son, Hadji Gulamu Rasul would later become favorites of northern Filipinos for opposing the Sultan’s agama court and for favoring integration of Moros into the Philippine republic.


By this time, the Sultanate was financially drained and weakened. From1830 when Spain cut off the lucrative Manila-Jolo trade, because it felt threatened by the sultan’s friendly relations with other European powers like Germany, France and Great Britain, it had to fight Spain’s unrelenting attacks to subjugate it. Class differences was also beginning to tear at the seams of the monarchy. The sultan never gave up his scheming against the U.S. despite his datus’ friendliness to the Americans. John Bass of Harper’s Weekly reported that the sultan was importing a large cache of rifles and ammunition “evidently to maintain his sovereignty.” This would later be borne out by a series of cotta (bunker or trench) wars against the Americans by the sultan’s subjects. This might not seem plausible as the sultan had denied any knowledge of his subject’s doings when the U.S. accused him of promoting an insurrection against the U.S. But, in August 1999, I received an e-mail from a friend of Ben Han, a Jolo native, who informed me that Ben Han’s grandfather was an Afghan mercenary hired by the sultan as an officer in the fight against the Americans between 1906-1913.


Whether the Bates treaty made a difference in later years, it is worth mentioning that there was a very critical translation error from English to Tausug. The word sovereignty was not used anywhere in the Tausug version. Article I of the Treaty in the Tausug version states “The support, aid, and protection of the Jolo Island and Archipelago are in the American nation,” whereas the English version read “The sovereignty of the United States over the whole Archipelago of Jolo and its dependencies is declared and acknowledged.” Najeeb Saleeby, an American of Lebanese descent who was assigned to Mindanao and Sulu, caught the translation flaws and charged Charlie Schuck, son of a German businessman, for deliberately mistranslating the treaty. Schuck was acquitted of all legal charges. Whether mistranslated, the wording of the treaty provided the justification for the U.S. decision to incorporate the Sulu Archipelago into the Philippine state in 1946.


The Bates Treaty did not last very long. After the U.S. had completed its goal of suppressing the resistance in northern Philippines, it unilaterally abrogated the Bates Treaty on March 2, 1904, claiming the Sultan had failed to quell Moro resistance and that the treaty was a hindrance to the effective colonial administration of the area. Payments to the Sultan and his datus were also stopped. But in reality, Bates never intended to ratify the treaty. As Bates would later confess, the agreement was merely a temporary expedient to buy time until the northern forces were defeated. “The Treaty was made at a time when nearly all the state volunteers had been sent home and other troops had not arrived to take their places. It was a critical time, as all the troops were needed in Luzon. The Government could not afford to stir up trouble with the Moros. The Treaty was made as a temporary expedient to avoid trouble. It has served its purpose for three years, and there is now no reason why the treaty which was but a temporary measure at a critical time, should not be changed in accordance with the conditions.”


The sultan protested vehemently and payments were reinstated. He argued that he could not stop the Moro attacks against the Americans, because the U.S. had imposed poll and land taxes on the population, a practice which the Moros were not used to. In a letter to Governor General Luke Wright in April 1904, the sultan urged the Americans not to “put yokes on our necks that we cannot bear, and don’t make us do what is against our religion, and don’t ask us to pay poll tax forever and ever as long as there is sun and moon, and don’t ask taxes for land which are our rights of the Moro people, including all that grows in Jolo and its islands.”


Now securely in a position of power and strength after the defeat of the northern Filipinos, the U.S. launched a determined campaign to suppress the ever-defiant Tausugs, who were as opposed to U.S. rule as they had been to the Spanish occupation. Known as the Moro Campaigns, this ferocious war between American soldiers and Moros continued in the south of the Philippines for the next thirteen years, making it the longest war in U.S. history. It was a bloody war; neither side took any quarter, nor gave any. During its course, two infamous massacres occurred on the island of Jolo: Bud Dajo in1906 and Bud Bagsak in 1913.


The Battle of Bud Dajo on March 7, 1906 was a consequence of the U.S. “Policy of Disarmament” as implemented by General John “Black Jack” Pershing. The Moro Wars taught the U.S., albeit costly, the inseparability of a Tausug and his weapon. In turn, what the Moros had to reckon with in the American soldier was the motivation that had fueled the Indian wars in America. The cry “A good Indian is a dead Indian!” became “A good Moro is a dead Moro!” Passions raged and collided, and blood flowed during that crimson period in Jolo. In the Dajo Massacre, some 900 men, women, and children were slaughtered atop an extinct volcano in the municipality of Danag on the island of Jolo. The Americans spared not a single life of the brave Tausugs who defended their mountain retreat — not a man, woman or infant! Though the bloody campaigns against the Moros officially ended in 1915, U.S. troops continued to encounter sporadic Moro attacks for the next two decades.


Recognizing a flaw in the wording of the Bates Treaty, Governor Frank Carpenter asked the sultan, his heirs, and his council to sign another agreement with the U.S. on March 22, 1915–this time, for the Sultan and his heirs to abdicate their claims to the throne. Article IX of the treaty refers to the “government of the sultan.” More importantly, the new agreement was meant to put an end to the existing parallel government of the sultan; the sultan continued to rule as before exercising his powers in all aspects of Moro life, collecting taxes, and trying civil and criminal cases. When the U.S. protested the sultan’s practice, he simply demurred that his status as sovereign head was reinstated when the U.S. abrogated the treaty in 1904. Thus, Carpenter wrote in his 1916 report that it was “necessary and opportune definitely to extinguish all claims of the sultan to any degree of temporal sovereignty.”


Implementation of the 1915 Agreement was further delayed by negotiations over what the sultan and his heirs would receive in exchange for their giving up their temporal powers. The negotiations which concluded in May 1919 gave the sultan a life-time payment of P12,000 per annum and allowed him and his heirs the usufruct use of public lands. Carpenter was confident that with the settlement final, the sultan would now cooperate with the U.S. by fully recognizing U.S. sovereignty over Sulu. In his 1919 Report, Carpenter stated that “this satisfactory conclusion has resulted in the forward advance of the policy of amalgamation and in the complete triumph of the ideals of the Government and the Filipino people.”


As the U.S. was preparing to give the Philippines commonwealth status in preparation for its independence in 1946, some Moro leaders favored integration into the republic but majority from both Sulu and Mindanao protested the plan to incorporate their homeland into the Philippine state. “Our public land must not be given to people other than the Moros,” they urged. “[I]f we are deprived of our land, how can we then earn our own living? A statute should be enacted to forbid others from taking over our land, a safe and reliable way to forestall a tragedy.” But their pleas fell on deaf ears. The U.S. went ahead and turned over the islands to Filipino hands. In 1946, contrary to its promise under the Bates Treaty “not to give or sell Sulu or any part of it to any other nation,” the U.S. incorporated Mindanao and Sulu against the will of the Moro people into the state now known as the Philippine Republic.


(Madge Kho is a native of Jolo and presently resides in Boston, Massachusetts where she is co-chair of the Friends of the Filipino People, an organization founded in 1973 to oppose U.S. support for the Marcos dictatorship. Madge is also a director of the Jolo Culture and Historical Society. She has a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.)




Frank Carpenter, “Report of the Governor of the Dept. of Mindanao and Sulu Frank Carpenter, January 1-December 31, 1914” in Report of the Philippine Commission, 1914, pp. 325-407 inclusive, Bureau of Consular Affairs, War Dept., Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C., 1916).

Peter Gowing, Mandate in Moroland: The American Government of Muslim Filipinos 1899-1920, Philippine Center for Advanced Studies, (Quezon City, Philippines, 1977).

Vic Hurley, Swish of the Kris, E.F. Dutton, (New York, NY, 1936).

Lo Shih-Fu, “The Moro Rebellion: Its History and Background” in Issues and Studies, Volume X, October 1973.

Cesar Adib Majul, Muslims in the Philippines, University of the Philippines Press, (Quezon City, Philippines, 1973).

Hunter Miller, ed, Treaties and Other International Acts of the U.S.A., Volume 4, 1836-1846, U.S. Government Printing Office, (Washington, D.C., 1934).

Lela Garner Noble, Philippine Policy Toward Sabah. A Claim to Independence, The University of Arizona Press (Tuczon, Arizona, 1977).

Sixto Orosa, Sulu Archipelago and Its People, World Book Company, (New York, NY, 1931).

Ralph Benjamin. Thomas, Muslims but Filipinos. The Integration of Phlippine Muslims, 1917-1946. unpublished doctoral dissertation, History Dept., UPenn, 1971.

Najeeb Saleeby, History of Sulu, Manila Filipiniana Book Guild, Inc., (Makati, Philippines, 1963).

Rad Silva, Two Hills of the Same Land, Mindanao-Sulu Critical Studies & Research Group (Philippines, 1979).

Nicolas Tarling, Sulu and Sabah: A Study of British Policy Towards the Philippines and North Borneo from the Eighteenth Century, New Day Publishers (Quezon City, Philippines, 1985).

U.S. Senate, “Bates Treaty”, 136, 56th Congress, lst Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, (Washington, D.C. 1900).

U.S. Congress, U. S. Treaties at Large, Volume 31, page 1942, 56th Congress, 1899-1901, U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C., ). Legal citation 31 Stat 1942.

James Francis Warren, The Sulu Zone 1768-1898: The Dynamics of External Trade, Slavery, and Ethnicity in the Transformation of a SE Asian Maritime State, New Day Publishers (Quezon City, Philippines, 1985).

Marion Wilcox, Harper’s History of the War in the Philippines, Harper & Bros., (New York, NY, 1900).

Charles Wilkes, “Sooloo” in Volume V of Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition, during the years 1838, 1839, 1841, 1842, C. Sherman, (Philadelphia, PA, 1844.).


Posted by Baroness Anne de Bretagne


BaronessAnne de Bretagne

THE SABAH LEASE ISSUE WITH MALAYSIA : When the Sabah lease was signed 130 years ago on the 22nd day of the month of January 1878 between the Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah and two foreign individuals/businessmen, the Sultanateensured that their rights to Sabah ownership were protected with this all encompassing moral and legal clause that’s spelled out in the lease contract:

“but the rights and powers hereby leased shall not be transferred to any nation, or a company of other nationality, without the consent of Their Majesties Government. ”

The whole Mindanao-Moro problem and Malaysia’s incursion right in the heart of Philippine Moro ‘homeland’ is without a shadow of doubt tied to the Philippine Sabah claim. The Malaysians know it and the Filipinos know it — Kuala Lumpur will do everything in their power to make sure that the Philippines will not have a moment’s respite to turn around and raise the Sabah claim. And the problem is being compounded by the fact that successive Chinese communities in Sabah have staged their own claim over Sabah and over the last couple of decades; they have been at it, trying to muster political support from the population of Sabah to claim “independence” from Malaysia. As years go and while this problem is unsettled, there will be more problems, political and military that are bound to arise and could very well bring the Sabah question to the inevitable: armed conflict…

After 130 years, it is time to examine the contents of the lease and to bring them out in the open. The Republic of the Philippines nor Malaysia cannot continue to be blind. Sabah is either the Philippines’ or it is not — only a minitious examination of facts done in absolute good faith can determine final legal and moral ownership. If the parties to the claim or to the counter claim refuse — and that includes major counter claimant Malaysia, to adhere to the principle of good faith, I’m afraid, the rebellion problem in Mindano will continue as the rebel forces in Mindanao are encouraged, maintained and funded by the the current occupiers of Sabah.

This treaty is written in Sulu, at the Palace of the Sultan Mohammed Jamalus Alam on the 19th day of the month of Muharam, A.H. 1295; that is on the 22nd day of the month of January 1878.The Land Grant of 1878Grant By The Sultan of Sulu of a Permanent Lease Covering His Lands and Territories on the Island of BorneoDate : January 22, 1878 We, Sri Paduka Maulana Al Sultan MOHAMMED JAMALUL ALAM, son of Sari Paduka Marhum Al Sultan MOHAMMED PULALUM, Sultan of Sulu and of all dependencies thereof, on behalf of ourselves and for our heirs and successors, and with the expressed desire of all Datus in common agreement, do hereby desire to lease, of our own free will and satisfaction, to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck of Hong Kong, and to Alfred Dent, Esquire, of London, who act as representatives of a British Company, together with their heirs, associates, successors, and assigns forever and until the end of time, all rights and powers which we possess over all territories and lands tributary to us on the mainland of the island of Borneo, commencing from the Pandasan River on the east, and thence along the whole east coast as afar as the Sibuku area, known as Paitan, Sugut, Banggai, Labuk, Sandakan, China-batangan, Mumiang, and all other territories and coastal lands to the south, bordering on Darvel Bay, and as far as the Sibuku River, together will all the islands which lie within nine miles from the coast.

In consideration of this (territorial?) lease, the honorable Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent, Esquire, promise to pay His Highness Maulana Sultan Mohammed Jamalul Alam and to this heirs and successors, the sum of five thousand dollars annually, to be paid each and every year.

The above-mentioned territories are from today truly leased to Mr. Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and to Alfred Dent, Esquire, as already said, together with their heirs, their associates (company) and to their heir successors and assigns for as long as they choose or desire to use them; but the rights and powers hereby leased shall not be transferred to any nation, or a company of other nationality, without the consent of Their Majesties Government. Should there be any dispute, or reviving of old grievances of any kind, between us, and our heirs and successors, with Mr. Gustavus Baron de Overbeck or his Company, then the matter will be brought for consideration or judgment to Their Majesties’ Consul-General in Brunei. Moreover, if His Highness Maulana Al Sultan Mohammed Jamalul Alam, and his heirs and successors, become involved in any trouble or difficulties hereafter, the said honorable Mr. Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and his Company promise to give aid and advice to us within the extent of their ability.

This treaty is written in Sulu, at the Palace of the Sultan Mohammed Jamalus Alam on the 19th day of the month of Muharam, A.H. 1295; that is on the on the 22nd day of the month of January 1878.

For further reference, please consult


The Honorable Datuk Sir Haji Surya Darma Ali, KGCMRSS (Indonesia Minister of Religious Affairs)

For exemplary achievements in bringing closer understanding on religious and cultural ties between The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah and Indonesia, and better friendship between the Philippines and Indonesia, the Royal grantee of honors shall become Datuk/ Knight Grand Commander (KGCMRSS) of the Royal Order of Sulu & Sabah as from today namely 2nd day of August 2011:

The Honorable Datuk Sir Haji Surya Darma Ali, KGCMRSS (Indonesia Minister of Religious Affairs)