S'pore Wants To Redefine Status By Claiming Sovereignty On Island

THE HAGUE, Nov 24 - Malaysia reiterated its stand that it has no wish to change the status quo concerning the operations of the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh but it was Singapore which wanted to redefine its status on the island by claiming sovereignty not only over the island but also Middle Rocks and South Ledge, the International Court of Justice heard here Friday.

Malaysia's agent Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad said Singapore had alluded to the possibility of some "historic wrong" but there was no such wrong.

He said Johor's consent for the construction and operations of the lighthouse was sought and willingly given and in that respect nothing has changed.

"The problem is of recent origin. Singapore changed Britain's long-standing policy as reflected in Pavitts' book and in Singapore's own Light Dues Act of 1969. Singapore wants to redefine its status on Pulau Batu Puteh by claiming sovereignty not only over Pulau Batu Puteh but also Middle Rocks and South Ledge," he said.

Kadir said this in his closing statement before a 16-member panel hearing a sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore.

He said when Singapore's counsel Deputy Prime Minister Prof S. Jayakumar told the court that the case was not about the right to operate the lighthouse, "that raises the question what it is about."

"You have heard about Singapore's reclamation plans -- all Singapore says in response is that it is a law-abiding country and is proud of its record in this respect.

"There is no specific denial of reclamation plans whatever - and I would note that Malaysia was not even consulted before Singapore commenced its major reclamation works in the Straits of Johor without due regard for the boundaries of Malaysia or the marine environment," he said.

Submitting on the operations of the lighthouse and Singapore's plan for the three features, Kadir said Singapore had also now referred to the three features as an archipelago, another questionable idea never suggested by Singapore before.

"So the court will, I hope, understand our concerns - which Singapore has done nothing to address before you, but has in fact aggravated," he said

During the first round of Malaysia's oral pleadings, Kadir had said the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor had consented to the establishment of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844 and Malaysia had never suggested that its continued operations by Singapore presented any problem.

He said Malaysia had always respected the position of Singapore as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse and would continue to do so.

Submitting on Singapore's military presence on the island, he said first Singapore had admitted having introduced military radar communications equipment on Pulau Batu Puteh and secondly, the so-called F5 patrol zone of 1975 bore no specific relation to the island at all.

It was only since 1986 that a 24-hour guard has been mounted around Pulau Batu Puteh, Kadir said, adding that the effect is to make the region around the three features a "no-go area."

He submitted that Jayakumar had also stated that Singapore had never arrested any Malaysian fishermen in Pedra Branca (Singapore's name for Pulau Batu Puteh) waters.

Kadir, however, said the issue here was not about whether any Malaysian fisherman has been arrested, it was about Johor fishermen being completely prevented from fishing anywhere near Pulau Batu Puteh, from taking shelter on the island in bad weather and being deprived of their traditional fishing grounds.

Submitting on the letter of request from Governor Butterworth to build a lighthouse on Johor territory, Kadir said the court had now heard, for the first time, that Singapore did not have the Letters of Request from Governor Butterworth.

He said the proposal for a third round of consultations, to which Jayakumar referred on Monday, was plainly not a response to Malaysia's specific inquiry in 1994 for the letter.

"Nor does Malaysia have the Butterworth letters, as we have said in our written pleadings," he said in response to Jayakumar's suggestion that it might be more logical for the original letters to be in Johor and not Singapore.

He said in all likelihood, the letters were received by the Sultan and Temenggong in Singapore, where they were residents at that time and that those residences in Singapore were no longer there.

Malaysian researchers have searched all the Johor palaces in Johor and the royal archives without success," he said.

On the 1953 letter from the Johor Acting State Secretary, which Singapore claimed was a disclaimer to Johor's title to Pulau Batu Puteh, he said the letter was not an instrument of cession or a "disclaimer" of sovereignty because of its terms and also because the Acting State Secretary simply did not have the capacity to effect such a cession or disclaimer and nor was it taken as such at the time.

"It was never acted upon by either party. Singapore's own uncertainty about the letter -- which is referred to, amongst other things, as a confirmation, a renunciation, a waiver, a disclaimer and an estoppel -- shows that Singapore cannot decide on any determinate view as to its status.

"In fact, the 1953 letter had none," he added - Bernama

S'pura Mahu Takrif Semula Status Dengan Tuntut Kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh

Daripada Nor Faridah A. Rashid

THE HAGUE, 24 Nov - Malaysia mengulangi pendirian tidak berhasrat untuk menukar status quo berkaitan operasi Rumah Api Horsburgh di Pulau Batu Puteh tetapi Singapura yang sebenarnya mahu mentakrifkan semula statusnya di pulau itu dengan menuntut kedaulatan bukan sahaja ke atas pulau itu tetapi juga Terumbu Karang Tengah (Middle Rocks) dan Terumbu Karang Selatan (South Ledge), Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa diberitahu pada Jumaat.

Ejen Malaysia Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad berkata Singapura telah menyebut mengenai kemungkinan beberapa "sejarah salah," tetapi tidak wujud kesalahan seperti itu.

Katanya kebenaran Johor bagi pembinaan dan operasi rumah api itu telah dipohon dan diberikan dengan rela hati dan berhubung dengan perkara itu, tiada yang berubah.

"Masalahnya bermula baru-baru ini. Singapura menukar dasar Britain yang diguna pakai sejak sekian lama - seperti tercatat dalam buku Pavitt dan Akta Tempoh Rumah Api 1969 Singapura sendiri. Singapura mahu mentakrifkan semula statusnya ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh dengan menuntut kedaulatan bukan sahaja ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh tetapi juga Middle Rocks dan South Ledge," katanya.

Kadir berkata demikian dalam kenyataan penutupnya di hadapan 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.

Katanya apabila peguam Singapura Timbalan Perdana Menteri Profesor S. Jayakumar memberitahu mahkamah bahawa kes itu bukan mengenai hak untuk mentadbir operasi rumah api itu, "itu menimbulkan persoalan ia mengenai apa".

"Anda telah dengar mengenai rancangan penambakan laut oleh Singapura -- apa yang Singapura katakan dalam responsnya ialah ia sebuah negara yang mematuhi undang-undang dan berbangga dengan rekodnya berhubung perkara itu.

"Tiada penafian spesifik bagi apa juga rancangan penambakan laut - dan saya ingin mengambil perhatian bahawa Malaysia langsung tidak dirundingi sebelum Singapura melaksanakan kerja penambakan laut besar-besaran di Selat Johor tanpa memberi perhatian kepada sempadan Malaysia atau persekitaran marin," katanya.

Berhujah mengenai operasi rumah api itu dan rancangan Singapura di tiga-tiga pulau itu, Kadir berkata Singapura juga kini merujuk kepada tiga pulau itu sebagai kepulauan, satu lagi idea yang boleh dipersoalkan kerana perkara itu tidak pernah dicadangkan oleh Singapura sebelum ini.

"Jadi mahkamah akan, saya harap, memahami kebimbangan kami - yang Singapura langsung tidak berkata apa-apa untuk memaklumkannya di depan Yang Arif, tetapi pada hakikatnya semakin teruk," katanya.

Dalam pusingan pertama hujahan lisan Malaysia, Kadir berkata Sultan dan Temenggong Johor telah memberikan kebenaran bagi pembinaan rumah api di Pulau Batu Puteh pada 1844 dan Malaysia tidak pernah mencadangkan operasinya yang ditadbir secara berterusan oleh Singapura akan mendatangkan sebarang masalah.

Beliau berkata Malaysia sentiasa menghormati kedudukan Singapura sebagai pentadbir Rumah Api Horsburgh dan akan terus berbuat demikian.

Berhujah mengenai kehadiran tentera Singapura di pulau itu, beliau berkata pertamanya Singapura mengaku telah memperkenalkan peralatan radar komunikasi tentera di Pulau Batu Puteh dan keduanya, apa yang dikenali sebagai zon rondaan F5 pada 1975 langsung tiada kaitan spesifik dengan pulau itu.

Hanya sejak 1986 pengawal 24 jam ditempatkan sekitar Pulau Batu Puteh, kata Kadir dan menurutnya ia bertujuan menjadikan kawasan di sekitar ketiga-tiga pulau itu sebagai "kawasan tidak boleh dikunjungi".

Beliau berhujah bahawa Prof Jayakumar turut menyatakan Singapura tidak pernah menahan nelayan Malaysia di perairan Pedra Branca (nama yang diberikan oleh Singapura bagi Pulau Batu Puteh).

Kadir, bagaimanapun berkata isu di sini bukan mengenai sama ada nelayan Malaysia ditahan tetapi ia mengenai nelayan Johor yang dihalang sepenuhnya daripada menangkap ikan dekat kawasan Pulau Batu Puteh, berlindung di pulau itu ketika cuaca buruk dan dirampas hak untuk menangkap ikan di kawasan tradisi mereka.

Berhujah mengenai surat permohonan dari Gabenor Butterworth untuk mmebina rumah api di kawasan Johor, Kadir berkata buat pertama kalinya mahkamah diberitahu bahawa Singapura tidak mempunyai Surat Permohonan daripada Gabenor Butterworth.

Katanya cadangan bagi pusingan ketiga rundingan, yang dirujuk oleh Jayakumar pada Isnin, jelas bukan respons kepada permohonan spesifik Malaysia pada 1994 bagi surat itu.

"Malaysia juga tidak mempunyai surat-surat Butterworth itu, seperti kami maklumkan dalam hujahan bertulis kami," katanya kepada cadangan Jayakumar bahawa mungkin lebih logik bagi surat asal itu berada di Johor dan bukannya Singapura.

Beliau berkata namun surat-surat itu telah diterima oleh Sultan dan Temenggong di Singapura, ketika itu mereka penduduk di situ dan bahawa kawasan penempatan itu tidak wujud lagi di Singapura.

"Penyelidik Malaysia telah memeriksa semua istana di Johor dan arkib diraja tetapi tida berjaya menemuinya," katanya.

Dalam surat pada 1953 dari Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor, yang didakwa oleh Singapura telah menafikan hak milik Johor ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh, Kadir berkata berdasarkan termanya, surat itu bukan instrumen penamatan atau "penafian" kedaulatan dan juga kerana Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri tidak mempunyai kapasiti untuk membuat keputusan bagi menamatkan atau menafikan atau berlaku perkara sebegitu pada ketika itu.

"Ia tidak pernah dikuatkuasakan oleh mana-mana pihak. Singapura sendiri tidak pasti mengenai surat itu -- yang dirujuk antara lain sebagai pengesahan, pelepasan, penepian, penafian dan penamatan -- menunjukkan bahawa Singapura sendiri tidak dapat menentukan secara tepat akan statusnya. "Malahan dalam surat 1953 juga tidak mengandungi perkara itu," katanya - Bernama