Limbang and the oil-rich blocks L & M are two separate issues, though one was used to trade off against the other.

Historically/legally Malaysia probably has better rights to Limbang were the case to go to International Court of Justice (ICJ). Originally Limbang was Brunei’s but from 1884 to 1890, the Limbang people revolted against the Sultan of Brunei and colonial power Britain annexed Limbang to Sarawak from which Malaysia claimed sovereignty when Sarawak joined Malaysia). Because of its strategic position Brunei not likely to give this up for nothing. Reportedly Malaysia ceded Limbang to Brunei in exchange for oil rich (RM320 billion) Blocks L & M with a sweetener arrangement that Petronas be allowed to jointly explore/benefit from them along with Brunei.

TDM basically argues that both Limbang & Blocks L&M belong to Malaysia, giving oil rich Blocks L&M to Brunei in exchange for Limbang is therefore not right especially so when Brunei now claims she hasn’t relinquished a claim to Limbang.

TDM’s argument (appealing to patriotism) implicates and intends to implicate the (present & past) government. This is because Tun Badawi allegedly made the “deal” with Brunei in March 2009 – via an exchange of letters between Malaysia and Brunei on March 16, 2009 – just before he retired as PM and claimed that was made with cabinet approval which included the then DPM not PM!

TDM is right in only these limited senses: matters like these should be decided with full accountability to Parliament and people and not quietly via cabinet decision protected under OSA. Besides the circumstances are usual: normally when an outgoing PM is about to leave, with powers slipping away fast, he would not take on such momentous decision involving cessation of territories at the 11th hour. Also present govt seems to be wavering: it says that it has not ceded away Blocks L&M but is still working with Brunei on joint efforts to develop and exploit oil resources there.

This is not that plausible, the reason being the production-sharing contracts covering Blocks L and M, were already awarded in 2003 to Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd and Murphy Oil Corp. Why would these companies confirm that these production-sharing contracts have now been terminated if it were not true that Brunei has already taken over rights to Block L & M and now the main player to dictate who gets the replacement exploration contracts as part of the March 16 deal with the Malaysian Government???
Having said this, it does not mean that TDM is necessarily right to say that Blocks L&M legally by international law definitely belong to Malaysia. What is correct to say that Malaysia has a claim over Blocks L&M and has better “effectivités” in international law. In international law jargon, where territories are in dispute the party that has acted in manner consistent with effective exercise of territorial sovereignty (or ““effectivités”) scores points ion its claim against the other. The ICJ concluded that on the basis of effectivités, “sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belonged to Malaysia” instead of Indonesia. Likewise on same basis Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore than Malaysia.

(Continuing) In international law it means that legally Blocks L&M now belong to Brunei because Malaysian government/cabinet then decided to relinquish our tentative claims in favour of Brunei and what Malaysian Cabinet/govt did in 2003 binds Malaysia!

In effective terms we accepted the inevitability of a maritime joint development zone or MJD in these blocks in which it does not matter that Brunei now claims better rights in international law: as trade off, the friendly neighbour stops haranguing us on Limbang that wedges Brunei into two parts!
If we were to fight with Brunei over Blocks L&M in ICJ it does not necessarily mean we will win though our chances are OK as we have in a sense better effectivités as earlier mentioned and assumed.

However ICJ is protracted procedure with no assurance of winning, better effectivités notwithstanding: so why not “share share” on “win win” giving up claims to L&M that we’re mnot very certain for sure for certainty of Limbang once and for all???

In the absence any proof of corruption one could not fault in practical sense the deal made by Malaysian govt though we may fault its secrecy and lack of public transparency of it in 2009 which may in turn make people to suspect it (corruption).

TDM is kicking up the issue now as if he as Petronas advisor didn’t know about the deal in 2009??? As usual he plays on “patriotism” knowing the negative political effects on both Pak Lah & Najib! He’s up to something but in that something he has become an Opposition’s ally on this issue to pressure the government on accountability and transparency.

///If Brunei wants to talk, let’s engage them to endless talks///

The Money Factor: the sooner resolution by 50% sharing – win win for all to explore and extract oil from Blocks L&M quickly – so as to make the money earlier whilst world oil prices are still OK. Besides Malaysia (more than Brunei) needs money (raising GST and all that). Malaysia’s debt to GDP ratio (at 70%)?) is below that of the PIGS, it isn’t far off either.

///…ceding away the oil-rich offshore Blocks L and M….///

That is only TDM’s interpretation. Or spin if you have it.

“Cede” in our context means to yield sovereignty or surrender possession of physical territories, whether land locked like Limbang or islands like Pulau Ligitan, Pulau Sipadan or Pedra Branca…

How can you “cede” a certain portion of the South China Seas that never belonged to you in the first place???

One can’t give up – cede – something that never was within one’s physical territory.

Agreed: one can give up a “claim” of rights to exploit certain areas of the sea bed based on 200 nautical mile (nm) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) concept as codified in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC).

But thats understandable in sense that when one talks of 200 nautical mile (nm) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) concept as codified in the 1982 LOSC its clear cut for litoral (coastal) states facing wide Pacific or Atlantic oceans but when one talks of a smaller sea like South China Sea bordered by the coastal states that are nearby to each other, either side by side and facing each other across the waters not less than 400 nautical miles wide, imagine every country from Phillippines, Vietnam Brunei Malaysia Indonesia Thailand each staking right to claim 20 nautical miles from their coast lines??? Its sure to inter-sect : so who has better rights?

Its ingenuity of TDM that he could “appeal to patriotism, and present the relinguishing of such a claim (a contested claim at that) far out at sea (at Blocks L&M) as if it were the same platform as giving away a physical territory like (say) Singapore Island or Limbang or some island like Pedra Branca…

Its obvious the situations of compromising one’s claim/stake at sea and giving away physical territory within one’s national boundaries are not the same – easily packaged as traitoriously surrending one’s sovereignty and national integrity…..