By Erlinda Fadera-Basilio, Former Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines
I have observed with growing disquiet the recent public commentary emanating from Kuala Lumpur regarding the Philippines’ conduct in managing its maritime disputes. While I retain the highest personal regard for my Malaysian counterparts, having worked alongside them in pursuit of peace in Mindanao and in the cultivation of bilateral ties that span generations, I find it necessary to register my profound concern. This response is offered in my capacity as a retired diplomat who has devoted a lifetime to the service of this nation and to the ASEAN project, with the sole intention of preserving the institutional integrity of our regional community.
The remarks attributed to former Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah counsel the Philippines to temper its public advocacy and to moderate its reliance on the 2016 Arbitral Award. These statements represent a troubling departure from the principles of mutual respect and institutional propriety that have long formed the bedrock of regional diplomacy.
To suggest, as the former Foreign Minister has done, that the Philippines should “make less noise” about this award implies that the ruling is a matter of inconvenient friction. This is a hazardous proposition. The authority of the award stems directly from the rigour of its legal reasoning and the universality of the treaty that underpins it, rather than the volume of national advocacy. Characterizing this landmark decision as a diplomatic irritant rather than a juridical reality erodes the very foundation upon which all ASEAN states must rely when their own maritime rights are contested.
International law functions as the indispensable anchor of statecraft. The Arbitral Award stands as an objective determination of legal fact, far removed from mere national propaganda. Treating it as something to be quietly set aside in the name of regional stability compromises the principles that give stability its meaning. A stability built upon the suppression of legal truth amounts to nothing more than a fragile, temporary truce that will inevitably collapse when underlying geopolitical pressures return.
I devoted considerable energy to the defense of ASEAN propriety. The ASEAN Way is founded upon a simple and indispensable principle: family disputes are resolved within the family through quiet consultation, mutual accommodation, and respect for the sovereign dignity of each member state. Public criticism of a fellow member’s maritime strategy, delivered through public interviews and international media rather than private diplomatic channels, constitutes a clear departure from that propriety. The Philippines has consistently respected Malaysia’s sovereign prerogatives, even when they diverge from our own interpretation of international law. The Philippines has never publicly castigated Malaysia for its own approach to maritime claims, which has included the quiet construction of outposts and the maintenance of its presence in the Spratly Islands.
The immediate context of the current friction involves the Philippines’ 2024 submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. This submission has inadvertently revived the complex Sabah issue within bilateral relations. While constitutionally and historically embedded in Philippine diplomacy, this claim has long been treated as a dormant issue, set aside to foster productive ties with a vital regional partner. Malaysia has served as an essential facilitator of the Mindanao peace process, and I have personally stood on diplomatic podiums to express our nation’s gratitude for that support. Decades of accumulated goodwill are now threatened by a procedural submission that has reopened a territorial wound both nations had chosen to leave in repose.
Public disagreements create an opening for external actors to exploit divisions within ASEAN for their own strategic purposes. The South China Sea functions as both a theatre of bilateral disputes and a critical arena for great power competition. When ASEAN states air their grievances against one another in public forums, they provide comfort and strategic advantage to outside powers that prefer to see the association fractured and irrelevant. The Philippines has always been a steadfast advocate for ASEAN centrality, which dictates that the affairs of our region should be resolved by the states of our region without undue interference from outside powers. I personally chaired the 1st Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum in 2012 precisely to advance this proposition. It is deeply ironic that Malaysia’s public criticism of the Philippines is now cited by observers as evidence that ASEAN is incapable of managing its own internal affairs.
The true destabilizing factor lies in the public denunciation of a fellow member’s legal advocacy, rather than the Philippines’ open assertion of its rights under international law. The departure from quiet diplomacy, not the practice of it, exposes the collective body to external scrutiny and manipulation. Diplomacy demands a discipline of patient, strategic communication over public emotional contests. Respect for international law demonstrates civilizational maturity rather than weakness. The Philippines acts as a stabilizing force in the South China Sea precisely because it seeks to anchor its claims in the objective and universally applicable provisions of UNCLOS.
I call upon my Malaysian counterparts to return to the principles of ASEAN propriety that have served the region well for generations. Our disagreements must be channeled back into the established diplomatic avenues that generations of diplomats have worked to strengthen The ASEAN family naturally encompasses diverse and sometimes conflicting interests, yet remains bound together by the conviction that our collective well-being requires mutual respect and institutional discipline. The region will weather this present disagreement, provided that member states remember their shared history, their common legal baselines, and the collective security they stand to lose if public discord is allowed to obscure their common purpose.
