A FEW hours after the call made by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to end hostilities in Sabah, Sultan Kiram ordered a unilateral ceasefire. But it was rejected by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Razak who said that the Royal Army must first lay down its arms.

Over the past three weeks, the stand-off had elicited varying reactions with  solutions proferred to end the impasse. While some sympathizers of the   Kiram clan reinforced the latter’s action, a majority thought that the problem of such complexity would need a comprehensive study. Thus President Aquino had taken the right step by asking the “invaders” holed in a small Sabah town to come back while the government was evaluating the situation.

Considering the looming escalation of the conflict, we agree with both former President Fidel Ramos and UP Dean of Islamic Studies Julkipul Wadi that it is time to consider other approaches. FVR suggests a face-to-face dialogue between P-Noy and Kiram, while Wadi thinks interventions from outsiders such as the peacekeeping forces and the ASEAN community might help mediate the conflict.

Perhaps P-Noy’s study group which had examined historical and legal documents justifying claims from both sides, must now arrive at a  policy option that would be welcomed by both camps.

While I can understand the sentiments of the Kiram Royal family, my reaction following the unforeseen entry into Sabah was that if they did consult other people, they have been ill-advised. If they felt that they were ignored by the government (the letter of Sultan Kiram written just before P-Noy took over was lost during the change in administration),  they could have brought it to other third party referees. While I do appreciate the arguments on the Philippine claim, put forward by Senator Salonga and  validated in both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, I agree with Prof. Randy David and an academic from Singapore, Dr. Farish Noor,  that it is time to shift the focus to the actual “sovereigns” – the people in Sabah. David notes that the current debate appears to have ignored the latter and gives the impression that Sabah is a mere a piece of real estate that can be moved  from one owner to another.

Within the context of change going on as a consequence of decolonization, globalization and the impact of the new information technology, concepts of “nation-state” and nationalism appear to be evolving. Which means that collaboration, or “living and working together” and “win-win” approaches must replace archaic adversarial relationships. It was earlier pointed out by FVR that existing cooperative structures like the East ASEAN Growth Area or BIMP-EAGA, an initiative of the four members, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, can be a model of an appropriate mechanism for cooperation in future resources utilization in Sabah. The objective is to increase trade, tourism, and investments inside and outside the subregion by facilitating the free movement of people, goods, and services, and making the best use of common infrastructure and natural resources.

Noor, a professor of International Studies at the Nanyang Technological University, notes that it is the lack of regular information that is fuelling so much speculation about Sabah, a cosmopolitan state where various cultures now intersect. Indigenous groups – Kadazandusuns, Murats, and other ethnic groups – must have the final say on the fate of the state which at present is part of the Federation of Malaysia. We trust that in the next few weeks, a viable agreement, acceptable by all parties, and perhaps mediated by ASEAN, can be forged.