Malaysia announced that it will formally send a protest note to the Philippines over new maritime laws recently enacted by Manila. This diplomatic action, confirmed by Malaysia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mohamad Alamin, underscores escalating tensions surrounding overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea—a region long embroiled in sovereignty disputes between multiple Southeast Asian nations, including China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei.
The note comes in response to the Philippines’ enactment of the Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act. These laws, aimed at clarifying the Philippines’ territorial waters and asserting sovereignty, have alarmed both Malaysia and China. Kuala Lumpur’s immediate concern centers on how these laws could impact Malaysia’s territorial claims over Sabah, a resource-rich state on Borneo Island that is geographically close to the Philippines and has historically been a subject of Philippine claims.
The two Philippine laws at the center of this controversy are designed to legally delineate the country’s maritime zones and reinforce its sovereign claims in the South China Sea.
- The Maritime Zones Act: This legislation, ratified by the Philippines, outlines the extent of the country’s territorial waters, contiguous zones, and exclusive economic zones (EEZ). It emphasizes Manila’s intention to protect its national security, economic interests, and territorial integrity.
- The Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act: This law provides specific sea lanes within Philippine archipelagic waters where foreign vessels, including military and commercial, can transit. The establishment of such lanes aligns with the Philippines’ rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) but raises concerns over the potential impact on international navigation freedoms and the maritime claims of neighboring nations.
Manila asserts that these laws are crucial for solidifying its claims and fortifying its territorial defense capabilities, especially amidst growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. However, by defining zones that potentially overlap with areas claimed by Malaysia and China, the Philippines has sparked a renewed wave of regional tensions.
Deputy Foreign Minister Mohamad Alamin emphasized Malaysia’s commitment to safeguarding Sabah’s sovereignty, declaring that the government would not hesitate to protect the state from external claims.
“We will send a protest note today to demonstrate our commitment to defending Sabah’s sovereign rights and the sovereignty of our country,” he said in a parliamentary address. Malaysia’s diplomatic response signals its determination to assert territorial integrity amid perceived encroachments on its boundaries. Sabah, a state rich in biodiversity and resources, has historical ties to both Malaysia and the Philippines but is officially recognized as part of Malaysia by most international authorities.
The Philippine claim on Sabah dates back to colonial times when the Sulu Sultanate, which controlled parts of what is now the Philippines, held influence in northern Borneo. Though largely dormant, the Philippines’ official position on Sabah was reinforced by a 2011 Supreme Court ruling asserting that the claim had never been formally relinquished.
The South China Sea dispute is a multi-layered geopolitical issue, involving overlapping claims from Malaysia, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, and Brunei. The region, which covers critical shipping routes, fisheries, and potential underwater oil and gas reserves, holds immense strategic and economic importance.
China claims nearly the entirety of the South China Sea, based on its “nine-dash line” boundary, which is not recognized by the international community. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled against China’s claims in a case brought by the Philippines, affirming that Beijing’s claim lacks legal basis under international law. China, however, dismissed the ruling, continuing to exert control over various features within the sea.
In this context, Malaysia and the Philippines are grappling with the challenge of defending their own territorial waters without provoking further escalations with China or each other. While both countries are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a regional bloc that advocates for peaceful solutions to disputes, their overlapping claims complicate the path to unified action against Chinese incursions.
China, like Malaysia, has also issued complaints about the Philippines’ recent maritime legislation. Beijing sees the Philippine laws as potential challenges to its expansive claims over the South China Sea. China’s assertive stance in the region includes the construction of artificial islands, deployment of military assets, and frequent patrols, actions that are routinely condemned by neighboring countries and the wider international community.
For China, the Philippines’ legislative push signals a regional shift towards legally codifying territorial claims, a move Beijing perceives as an indirect threat to its own objectives. China has refrained from directly addressing the Sabah issue but remains attentive to actions that could undermine its South China Sea ambitions.
The Sabah dispute remains one of the longest-standing territorial issues in Southeast Asia, stemming from agreements and treaties during the colonial period. In 1878, the Sultanate of Sulu—then a powerful entity in the Sulu Archipelago—leased parts of Sabah to the British North Borneo Company. Over time, this territory became part of Malaysia following its formation in 1963, but the Philippines never relinquished its claim, viewing Sabah as a territory leased rather than ceded to foreign powers.
Malaysia maintains that Sabah is an integral part of its federation and has dismissed the Philippines’ claim as outdated and legally invalid. However, the claim is still a sensitive issue in Philippine domestic politics, with nationalistic elements occasionally urging Manila to reassert its historical ties to Sabah. While official statements on the matter are rare, the recent Philippine maritime laws appear to reignite these dormant tensions, eliciting a response from Kuala Lumpur.
The Philippines and Malaysia are both key members of ASEAN, an organization that prioritizes regional stability, diplomatic engagement, and peaceful resolution of conflicts. While ASEAN members have often called for a binding Code of Conduct (COC) for the South China Sea, progress has been slow, largely due to differing national interests and China’s influence in the region.
Malaysia’s protest against the Philippines, while specific to Sabah, also reflects broader challenges within ASEAN regarding the South China Sea. The bloc’s consensus-based approach requires unanimous agreement, making it difficult to take a firm stance on member disputes or on China’s actions in the South China Sea. Malaysia and the Philippines, both of whom have economic ties to China, may find it challenging to balance national interests with regional cohesion.
Despite these obstacles, ASEAN continues to advocate for the adoption of the COC, which would ideally establish guidelines for conduct in disputed waters, reducing the risk of conflict. However, the question of enforcement and commitment remains, as many nations are unwilling to compromise on their respective claims.
As Malaysia lodges its protest and the Philippines stands by its new laws, the potential outcomes are complex and uncertain. Diplomatic negotiations may follow, though neither side has indicated willingness to make concessions. For Malaysia, the protest note demonstrates a strong stance on Sabah, which is likely to garner domestic support. For the Philippines, the Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act are symbols of sovereignty and national pride, particularly as it navigates its own tensions with China.
The continued friction over Sabah could lead to diplomatic strain between Malaysia and the Philippines, especially if the Philippines chooses to reiterate its claim. In the South China Sea, increased legal and political actions may also embolden other claimants, such as Vietnam, which has its own maritime disputes with China. Should Malaysia and the Philippines fail to reach an understanding, there is a risk of further complicating the dispute, creating additional challenges for ASEAN unity.
In the immediate term, Malaysia’s protest note signals its disapproval, but how the Philippines responds remains to be seen. The issue of overlapping claims in the South China Sea continues to evolve, influenced by national interests, international law, and external pressures from powerful actors like China and the United States. For now, Malaysia’s response highlights its unwavering commitment to Sabah’s sovereignty, marking another chapter in the ongoing saga of the South China Sea conflict.
