Singapore Only Infers Pulau Batu Puteh No Man's Land, Court Told

THE HAGUE, Nov 22 - While Malaysia has proven its case that Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius (No Man's Land), Singapore has merely rested its claim on the inference that the island belonged to no one when it took possession of it in 1847 to 1851, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here heard Thursday.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail dismissed Singapore's claim that the taking of possession of the island was possible at that time because Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius.

He said Singapore had not produced any evidence that the island was terra nullius.

"Rather, as I submitted last week and Singapore did not refute, Singapore's case simply rests on the inference that Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius," he told the 16-member panel hearing a sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore.

Malaysia said Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius and that Johor had had the original title to the island and the two marine features since time immemorial.

Submitting on the 1953 letter of Johor's Acting State Secretary, which Singapore claimed was a disclaimer of Johor's title to Pulau Batu Puteh, Gani said Acting State Secretary M. Seth Bin Saaid was merely a servant of the Johor state.

"He was definitely not authorised or had the legal capacity to write the 1953 letter, or to renounce, disclaim, or confirm title of any part of the territories of Johor if that is what the 1953 letter is purported to do, which Malaysia denies," Gani said.

He cited a case where the court had considered that the response by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of his Government in response to a request by the diplomatic representative of a foreign Power, in regard to a question falling within his province, is binding upon the country to which the Minister belongs.

M. Seth has been clearly shown not to have any such capacity, Gani submitted.

Furthermore, Gani said the letter from JD Higham was addressed to the British Adviser of Johor and copied to the Chief Secretary Federation of Malaya.

It was not addressed to M. Seth bin Saaid, the Attorney-General said, backing his submissions with graphics.

Gani said the Acting State Secretary undertook himself to issue the letter to JD Higham.

He wrote directly to a local authority of the British Colony of Singapore and did not copy his letter to the Chief Secretary of the Federation at all, Gani said.

He said there was no evidence to show that the Chief Secretary or the High Commissioner was aware of the contents of this letter.

"The way the correspondence was conducted is procedurally irregular and incorrect," Gani said, substantiating his submisisons with documentary evidence such as the Johor Agreement of 1948 and the Federation of Malaya Agreement, also of 1948.

Both these treaties were entered into between Johor and His Britannic Majesty where Johor, a sovereign State transferred to Great Britain all of its rights, powers and jurisdiction on matters pertaining to defence and external affairs.

On another point, Gani said Singapore remained silent or failed to produce the incontrovertible legal evidence in the form of documents claimed in 1978 to be in the possession of Singapore.

He said Malaysia however has demonstrated that Johor consented to the construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse (on Pulau Batu Puteh), as evidenced by the permission letters of Nov 25, 1844 from the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor.

Gani said Singapore's silence on this matter should not be ignored.

He cited the court's judgment where both Cambodia and Thailand based their respective claims on a series of facts and contentions which are asserted or put forward by one party or the other.

The burden of proof in respect of these will of course lie on the party asserting or putting them forward, he said.

"While Malaysia has proven its case, Singapore has not," he said.

Submitting on the critical date for Middle Rocks and South Ledge, he said that if Singapore had intended to claim the two features in its Protest Note dated Feb 14, 1980 as it contended, it should have specified the two features by name in that Protest Note.

During the first round of oral arguments, Gani had said the Protest Note where Singapore officially claimed the island, had "crystallised" the dispute and as such the critical date for the dispute on Pulau Batu Puteh was Feb 14.

Gani had said the dispute concerning the two marine features was only crsytallised on feb 6, 1993 when for the first time Singapore included Middle Rocks and South Ledge in addition to its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh, during the first round of bilateral discussions between the two countries.

On Singapore's argument that he had merely dismissed Singapore's conduct after the critical date as irrelevant without offering any argument to back up this assertion, he said this was far from the truth.

Gani said he had made it clear that Singapore's conduct after the critical date was irrelevant for the purpose of assessing its conduct as they are not a normal continuation of Singapore's prior acts of administration of the lighthouse but are acts to strengthen its legal position in the present dispute carried out especially in the 1990s.

Gani was Malaysia's first speaker on Thursday to rebutt Singapore's final round of oral submissions on Monday and Tuesday.

The others who submitted today were Malaysia's team of International counsel namely Sri Elihu Lauterpacht, James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver and Marcelo G Kohen.

Hearing continues on Friday - Bernama

Singapura Hanya Buat Kesimpulan Pulau Batu Puteh Tidak Dimiliki Sesiapa

Daripada Nor Faridah A. Rashid

THE HAGUE, 22 Nov - Meskipun Malaysia telah membuktikan kesnya bahawa Pulau Batu Puteh bukanlah terra nullius (tanah yang tidak dimiliki sesiapa), Singapura sekadar meletakkan asas tuntutannya terhadap kesimpulan bahawa pulau itu tidak dimiliki sesiapa semasa ia mengambilnya pada 1847 hingga 1851, Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) diberitahu pada Khamis.

Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail mengetepikan dakwaan Singapura bahawa pengambilan pulau itu dibolehkan pada ketika itu kerana Pulau Batu Puteh adalah terra nullius.

Beliau berkata Singapura tidak mengemukakan apa-apa bukti bahawa pulau berkenaan adalah terra nullius.

"Sebaliknya seperti yang saya hujahkan minggu lepas dan tidak disangkal oleh Singapura, kes Singapura semata-mata bersandarkan kepada kesimpulan bahawa Pulau Batu Puteh adalah terra nullius," katanya kepada panel 16 anggota yang mendengar kes pertikaian terhadap kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh, Terumbu Karang Tengah (Middle Rocks) dan Terumbu Karang Selatan (South Ledge) antara Malaysia dan Singapura.

Malaysia berhujah bahawa Pulau Batu Puteh bukanlah terra nullius dan Johor adalah pemegang hak milik asal ke atas pulau itu dan dua terumbu karang berkenaan sejak berzaman-zaman.

Semasa berhujah mengenai surat pada 1953 daripada Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor, yang Singapura dakwa bahawa Johor tidak menuntut hak milik ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh, Gani berkata Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri M.Seth Bin Saaid hanyalah seorang kakitangan kerajaan negeri Johor.

"Beliau sudah tentulah tidak mempunyai kuasa mahupun keupayaan perundangan untuk menulis surat pada 1953 itu, atau untuk melepaskan, menafikan, atau mengesahkan hak milik mana-mana bahagian wilayah Johor, jika itulah maksud surat pada 1953 ditulis, yang Malaysia nafikan," kata Gani.

Beliau memetik kes di mana mahkamah mengambil kira bahawa respons oleh Menteri Hal Ehwal Luar bagi pihak kerajaannya sebagai respons kepada permohonan oleh wakil diplomatik sebuah kuasa asing, berhubung soalan yang berada dalam lingkungan wilayahnya, terikat kepada dari negara mana menteri itu berasal.

"M.Seth jelas terbukti tidak mempunyai keupayaan seperti itu," hujah Gani.

Selanjutnya, Gani berkata surat daripada JD Higham dialamatkan kepada British Adviser Johor dan salinannya pula kepada Ketua Setiausaha Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Ia tidak dialamatkan kepada M. Seth bin Saaid, kata Peguam Negara yang menyokong penghujahannya dengan grafik.

Gani berkata Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri bertindak sendiri untuk menghantar surat kepada JD Higham.

Beliau menulis terus kepada pihak berkuasa tempatan British Colony of Singapore dan sama sekali tidak menghantar salinan suratnya itu kepada Ketua Setiausaha Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, kata Gani.

Beliau berkata tiada bukti bagi menunjukkan bahawa Ketua Setiausaha atau Pesuruhjaya Tinggi sedar mengenai kandungan surat berkenaan.

"Cara surat-menyurat itu dijalankan adalah di luar aturan dan tidak betul daripada segi prosedur," kata Gani yang menyokong penghujahannya itu dengan dokumen bukti seperti Perjanjian Johor 1948 dan Perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu juga pada 1948.

Kedua-dua perjanjiam itu ditandatangani antara Johor dan His Britannic Majesty di mana Johor, sebuah negara berdaulat, memindahkan kepada Great Britain kesemua hak dan bidang kuasa terhadap perkara berkaitan pertahanan serta hal ehwal luar.

Seperkara lagi, kata Gani, Singapura mendiamkan diri atau gagal mengemukakan bukti perundangan yang tidak dapat dipertikaikan dalam bentuk dokumen yang didakwa pada 1978 berada dalam simpanan Singapura.

Beliau berkata Malaysia bagaimanapun telah membuktikan bahawa Johor memberi persetujuan kepada pembinaan Rumah Api Horsburgh (di atas Pulau Batu Puteh), seperti yang terkandung dalam surat kebenaran bertarikh 25 Nov, 1844 daripada Sultan dan Temenggong Johor.

Gani berkata tindakan Singapura yang berdiam diri berhubung perkara itu tidak harus dipandang sepi.

Beliau memberi contoh penghakiman mahkamah di mana Kemboja dan Thailand meletakkan asas tuntutan masing-masing berdasarkan beberapa siri fakta dan pendapat yang dinyatakan atau dikemukakan oleh pihak yang terbabit. Beban bukti berhubung perkara ini semestinyalah terletak di atas pihak yang menyatakan atau mengemukakannya.

"Walaupun Malaysia telah membuktikan kesnya, Singapura pula sebaliknya, katanya.

Sambil berhujah mengenai tarikh kritikal bagi Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatan, beliau berkata sekiranya Singapura berhasrat untuk menuntut kedua-dua terumbu itu dalam Nota Bantahan bertarikh 14 Feb 1980 seperti yang ditegaskannya, negara itu seharusnya secara khusus menyatakan nama kedua-dua terumbu dalam Nota Bantahan itu.

Dalam pusingan pertama penghujahan lisan, Gani berkata Nota Bantahan di mana Singapura secara rasmi mendakwa pulau itu, telah "membentuk" pertikaian itu, oleh itu tarikh kritikal bagi pertikaian mengenai Pulau Batu Puteh ialah 14 Feb.

Gani berkata pertikaian membabitkan dua terumbu karang itu hanya terbentuk pada 6 Feb 1993 apabila buat kali pertama Singapura memasukkan Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatan sebagai tambahan kepada tuntutannya ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh, semasa pusingan pertama perbincangan dua hala antara kedua-dua negara.

Mengenai hujah Singapura bahawa beliau sekadar mengetepikan perilaku Singapura selepas tarikh kritikal itu sebagai tidak berkaitan tanpa memberikan sebarang hujah bagi menyokong pernyataan itu, beliau berkata ia menyimpang jauh daripada kebenaran.

Katanya, beliau telah menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa perilaku Singapura selepas tarikh kritikal itu adalah tidak berkaitan, bertujuan menilai perilakunya memandangkan bukanlah sesuatu yang biasa bagi Singapura untuk terus bertindak mentadbir rumah api sebelum itu.

Sebalik tindakan itu adalah untuk memperkukuhkan kedudukan perundangannya dalam pertikaian sekarang yang dilakukan terutamanya dalam tahun 1990-an, katanya.

Gani merupakan jurucakap pertama Malaysia pada Khamis untuk mematahkan penghujahan lisan Singapura dalam pusingan akhir pada Isnin dan Selasa.

Turut membuat penghujahan hari ini ialah pasukan peguam antarabangsa Malaysia iaitu Sri Elihu Lauterpacht, James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver dan Marcelo G Kohen.

Pendengaran disambung pada Jumaat - Bernama