Bukan milik Singapura

Gagal buktikan 3 pulau dituntut hak republik itu - Peguam Negara

THE HAGUE, Belanda 22 Nov. – Malaysia memulakan pusingan kedua hujah lisan kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih dengan menegaskan bahawa Singapura gagal membuktikan, jauh sekali mengemukakan sebarang dokumen, bahawa pulau tersebut milik republik itu.

Malah, Malaysia berhujah, kelewatan Singapura membuat tuntutan ke atas dua bentuk maritim iaitu Middle Rocks dan South Ledge (13 tahun selepas tuntutan Pulau Batu Putih) menunjukkan republik itu tidak mempunyai hak ke atas ketiga-tiga pulau berkenaan.

Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail menarik perhatian Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini hari ini mengenai dakwaan Singapura bahawa Malaysia bukan pemilik asal Pulau Batu Putih.

Berhubung isu itu, beliau mempertikaikan dakwaan Singapura bahawa pulau tersebut menjadi milik British pada tahun 1847 hingga 1851 kerana ketika British datang ke situ, ia adalah terra nullius (tiada pemilik).

Menurut Abdul Gani, Singapura tidak dapat mengemukakan sebarang bukti bahawa Pulau Batu Putih ketika itu adalah terra nullius.

“Singapura tidak membuktikan kesnya, sebaliknya kes republik itu berdasarkan kepada kesimpulan mereka bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah terra nullius,” hujah beliau di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain termasuk dua hakim ad hoc yang dilantik oleh Malaysia dan Singapura.

Abdul Gani kemudian berhujah mengenai perkara kedua iaitu sikap berdiam diri Singapura atau kegagalan republik itu mengemukakan dokumen undang-undang yang tidak boleh dipertikaikan sehingga tahun 1978 untuk menunjukkan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik mereka.

Malaysia, hujah beliau, telah menunjukkan bahawa kebenaran yang diberi oleh Johor berhubung pembinaan Rumah Api Horsburgh di pulau itu dibuktikan menerusi surat keizinan Sultan dan Temenggung bertarikh 25 November 1844.

“Sikap Singapura yang berdiam diri berhubung perkara ini tidak boleh diketepikan begitu sahaja,” kata beliau sambil memetik keputusan ICJ dalam kes Temple of Preah Vihear mengenai pertikaian antara Kemboja dan Thailand.

Dalam kes itu, ICJ menggariskan bahawa beban untuk membuktikan sesuatu tuntutan sudah pasti terletak kepada pihak yang membuat dakwaan atau mengemukakan tuntutan.

“Malaysia telah membuktikan kesnya, bagaimanapun Singapura tidak berbuat demikian,” hujah beliau.

Abdul Gani turut menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai dakwaan Peguam Negara Singapura semasa hujah lisan republik itu pada 19 November 2007 berhubung tarikh penting tuntutan ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge.

Menurut beliau, Singapura mendakwa tarikh penting itu adalah berikutan jawapan balas kepada kenyataan Malaysia bahawa kedua-dua bentuk maritim itu adalah milik negara ini iaitu sehari sebelum rundingan dua hala antara kedua-dua negara diadakan.

Sebaliknya, Abdul Gani berkata, jika republik itu ingin menuntut kedaulatan ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge, sudah pasti ia telah memasukkan nama kedua-dua pulau itu dalam nota bantahannya pada 14 Februari 1980 iaitu ketika bermulanya pertikaian ke atas Pulau Batu Putih tetapi Singapura tidak berbuat demikian.

‘‘Kedua-dua bentuk maritim itu telah dikenali dengan namanya sekarang ini sejak lama dulu, iaitu pada abad ke-14 bagi Pulau Batu Putih dan abad ke-19 bagi dua bentuk maritim lagi.

‘‘Kenyataan bahawa Singapura membangkitkan perkara itu sebagai tindak balas kepada apa yang Malaysia katakan adalah tidak relevan kerana tiada pertikaian langsung berhubung kedaulatan Malaysia ke atas kedua-dua bentuk maritim itu sebelum 6 Februari 1993,” katanya.

Esok Malaysia akan menyambung hujah lisan dan menggulung kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge - Utusan Malaysia

ICJ Adjourns Pulau Batu Puteh Sovereignty Dispute Case

THE HAGUE, Nov 24 - After sitting for 12 days, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) adjourned the sovereignty dispute case over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore.

Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, the ICJ vice-president, who headed the 16-member panel said the court would now retire for deliberations (of the case).

He said the court would inform the agents of the two countries in due course when judgment would be delivered.

The 16 judges included two ad hoc judges appointed by Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysia appointed Christopher S.R. Dugard of South Africa and Singapore, Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao of India.

ICJ president Judge Rosalyn Higgins had decided not to hear the case as she had represented Singapore before her appointment to the court's top post.

The court adjourned the case after hearing a closing statement by Malaysia's agent Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad who closed the case for Malaysia at about 6pm (1am Malaysian time) Friday.

Abdul Kadir Mohamad, the Ambassador-at-Large and also the Prime Minister's Adviser on Foreign Affairs, led the Malaysian team.

Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian Ambassador to The Netherlands, was the co-agent.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail had also represented Malaysia together with Malaysia's team of international lawyers, namely Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and James Crawford, both professors in International Law at the Cambridge University; Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, professor of Public International Law, Leiden University; Marcelo G. Kohen, professor of International Law, the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva; and Penelope Nevill, college lecturer, Downing College, Cambridge University.

The proceedings started on Nov 6 with Singapore given four days until Nov 9 for the first round of oral pleadings while Malaysia's turn was from Nov 13 to 16.

The second and final round of oral arguments commenced on Nov 19 and 20 for Singapore and Nov 22 and 23 for Malaysia.

During the proceedings, the court heard Singapore's contention that Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius (No Man's Land) when Britain took possession of it from 1847 to 1851.

Singapore claimed it had conducted various activities there to show it had exercised sovereignty powers on the island which it called Pedra Branca.

Malaysia dismissed the claim that Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius, saying that the claim was flawed.

It stressed that Johor had the original title to the island and the two marine features since time immemorial and that Britain had obtained permission from Johor to build the lighthouse there.

Malaysia said Singapore is merely the administrator of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh and activities that have taken place there are just acts required by a lighthouse administrator.

Malaysia had also stressed that Britain's activities in relation to the Horsburgh Lighthouse and the island after 1851 were purely operational and did not reflect any intention to acquire sovereignty over the island.

Britain's and Singapore's activities in respect of the lighthouse did not amount to a conduct of sovereignty as claimed by Singapore, it submitted before the 16-member panel of judges.

The court did not specify when judgment would be delivered but on the average, it normally takes about six months to hand down the verdict - Bernama

Kes Pertikaian Kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh Ditangguh

THE HAGUE, 24 Nov - Selepas 12 hari bersidang, Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) menangguhkan kes pertikaian antara Malaysia dan Singapura mengenai hak kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh, Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatan.

Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, naib presiden ICJ, yang mengetuai panel 16 anggota berkata mahkamah kini akan ditangguh untuk rumusan kes itu.

Beliau berkata mahkamah akan memaklumkan ejen daripada kedua-dua negara bila keputusan akan diberikan.

Panel 16 hakim itu termasuk dua hakim yang dilantik secara ad hoc oleh Malaysia dan Singapura. Malaysia melantik Christopher S.R. Dugard dari Afrika Selatan manakala Singapura, Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao dari India.

Presiden ICJ Hakim Rosalyn Higgins memutuskan untuk tidak mendengar kes itu kerana beliau telah mewakili Singapura sebelum dilantik ke jawatan tertinggi mahkamah itu.

Mahkamah menangguhkan kes itu selepas mendengar hujahan penutup oleh ejen Malaysia Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, yang menggulung kes itu untuk Malaysia pada kira-kira pukul 6 petang (1 pagi waktu Malaysia) Jumaat.

Pasukan Malaysia diketuai Abdul Kadir, Duta Tugas-tugas Khas yang juga Penasihat Hal Ehwal Luar kepada Perdana Menteri, manakala Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, Duta Malaysia ke Belanda, adalah ejen bersama.

Malaysia turut diwakili Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail serta barisan peguam antarabangsa terdiri daripada Sir Elihu Lauterpacht dan James Crawford, kedua-duanya profesor Undang-undang Antarabangsa di Cambridge University; Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, profesor Undang-undang Awam di Leiden University; Marcelo G. Kohen, profesor Undang-undang Antarabangsa di Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva; dan Penelope Nevill, pensyarah di Downing College, Cambridge University.

Pusingan pertama pembentangan hujah secara lisan oleh Singapura berlangsung selama empat hari iaitu dari 6 hingga 9 Nov manakala pusingan pertama bagi Malaysia berlangsung dari 13 hingga 16 Nov.

Pusingan kedua dan akhir penghujahan lisan pula ialah 19 dan 20 Nov untuk Singapura manakala bagi Malaysia pula ialah 22 hingga 23 Nov.

Semasa penggulungan hujah, mahkamah mendengar hujah Singapura bahawa Pulau Batu Puteh adalah kawasan yang tidak dimiliki oleh sesiapa (terra nullius), dan bahawa dari 1847 hingga 1851, Britain mengambil pulau berkenaan tanpa keizinan dari mana-mana pemerintah tempatan.

Singapura mendakwa ia telah mengendalikan pelbagai kegiatan di pulau berkenaan untuk menunjukkan republik itu mempunyai hak kedaulatan terhadap pulau yang dipanggil Pedra Branca.

Malaysia bagaimanapun menegaskan bahawa Pulau Batu Puteh bukan terra nullius kerana Johor adalah pemegang hak milik asal ke atas pulau itu serta dua terumbu karang lain sejak zaman berzaman dan Britain telah mendapat kebenaran dari Johor untuk membina rumah api di sana.

Malaysia juga berkata Singapura hanyalah pentadbir rumah api yang terdapat di Pulau Batu Puteh, dan semua kegiatan yang dilakukan oleh republik itu di sana tidak lebih daripada tindakan yang perlu dilakukan oleh mana-mana pengendali rumah api.

Malaysia juga menegaskan bahawa kegiatan Britain dalam hubungan dengan rumah api Horsburgh dan pulau itu selepas 1851 hanyalah mengendali operasi rumah api dan tidak menunjukkan sebarang hasrat untuk memiliki kedaulatan pulau itu.

Kegiatan Britain dan Singapura berhubung dengan mentadbir rumah api itu bukan bermaksud ia mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas pulau itu seperti yang didakwa Singapura, hujah Malaysia di hadapan panel 16 anggota.

Mahkamah tidak menetapkan bila keputusan akan disampaikan tetapi secara kasarnya, mahkamah pada kebiasaan akan mengambil masa kira-kira enam bulan untuk mengisytiharkan keputusannya - Bernama

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

1979 Map Issued To Set Out Malaysia's Territorial Waters - Kadir

From Nor Faridah A. Rashid

THE HAGUE, Nov 24 - Malaysia's 1979 map, which Singapore claimed was a challenge to the "existing legal order", was in fact a step to set out in a specific map the country's territorial waters and continental shelf boundaries, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard here Saturday.

Malaysia's agent Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad said the map took into account agreed boundaries with the neighbouring countries, customary practice of boundary delimitation and applicable principles of international law.

"By contrast, Singapore never published maps showing what it now claims, and it negotiated agreements with both Malaysia and Indonesia that ignored maritime boundaries it now claims," Kadir told the 16-member panel hearing a sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge here Friday.

"The Court may decide for itself which of these two processes is preferable," he said in his closing statement on the second and final round of Malaysia's oral pleadings.

The 1979 map had included Pulau Batu Puteh in Malaysia's territorial waters.

On another point, he said the fact was that a decision in Singapore's favour would "impose another maritime regime in the area, impacting on existing maritime delimitation and jurisdiction between Malaysia and Indonesia."

Kadir said it would also require a new territorial sea delimitation between Singapore and Indonesia, notwithstanding their earlier agreement.

"That brings into focus Singapore's silence on its maritime claims," he said.

Elaborating on the 1979 map, Kadir said the purpose of the telegram dated Dec 20, 1979 from the Foreign Affairs Ministry addressed to Malaysian diplomatic missions abroad was to advise them that the Map was a statement of position, accompanied by an expressed willingness by Malaysia to negotiate any unresolved questions.

"The fact is that our colonial heritage had left us with unresolved issues with all our seven neighbours - and the developing law of maritime jurisdiction has added more," he said . The seven are Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and China.

"How else to resolve maritime and boundary issues than to set out a position after due consideration and offer to negotiate unresolved issues? It is a long process but it is an orderly one," he said.

Singapore had contented that the telegram was evident that it was Malaysia which was trying to alter the status quo by claiming title to Pulau Batu Puteh after 130 years of inaction in the face of Singapore's sovereignty over the island.

Kadir, who took about 15 minutes to close the case for Malaysia, said Malaysia had sought to present its case fully and fairly.

"It has the vital interests in security and cooperation in the region of the Straits which I have mentioned already. But it has an equal interests in maintaining peaceful and friendly relations between nations based on respect for international law," he said.

This was especially important for relations between immediate neighbours such as Malaysia and Singapore and that was why Malaysia has come to the ICJ to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

"Many allegations have been made against Malaysia by our friends and colleagues opposite. I have referred to certain points made by Professor Jayakumar last Monday which cannot be left unanswered.

"Should there be any details left unaddressed, Malaysia reserves its position on the points I have not dealt with expressly," he said.

He sought the court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh; Middle Rocks; South Ledge, belonged to Malaysia - Bernama

Peta 1979 Dikeluarkan Untuk Tentukan Kawasan Perairan Malaysia - Kadir

Daripada Nor Faridah A. Rashid

THE HAGUE, 24 Nov (Bernama) -- Peta Malaysia 1979, yang didakwa oleh Singapura untuk mencabar "perintah undang-undang sedia ada", sebenarnya bertujuan menentukan kawasan perairan negara dan garis sempadan benua dalam peta yang spesifik, Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini diberitahu.

Ejen Malaysia Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad berkata peta itu turut mengambil kira sempadan yang telah dipersetujui dengan negara-negara jiran, amalan biasa bagi penyempadanan sempadan dan pemakaian prinsip undang-undang antarabangsa.

"Secara perbandingannya, Singapura tidak pernah menerbitkan peta-peta untuk menunjukkan apa yang dituntutnya sekarang, dan ia merundingkan perjanjian dengan Malaysia dan Indonesia dengan tidak menghiraukan sempadan maritim yang dituntutnya sekarang," kata Kadir 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 pada Jumaat.

"Mahkamah perlu memutuskan untuk memilih yang mana satu daripada dua proses ini yang lebih baik," katanya dalam hujahan penutup pada pusingan kedua dan terakhir hujahan lisan Malaysia.

Peta 1979 itu turut memasukkan Pulau Batu Puteh dalam kawasan perairan Malaysia.

Bagaimanapun, katanya hakikatnya jika keputusan yang dibuat memihak kepada Singapura akan "mewujudkan satu lagi regim maritim di kawasan itu, memberi kesan pada penyempadanan maritim sedia ada dan bidang kuasa antara Malaysia dan Indonesia."

Kadir berkata ia juga akan memerlukan diadakan penyempadanan semula kawasan laut antara Singapura dan Indonesia, juga perjanjian mereka terdahulu.

"Ini akan memberikan fokus kepada sikap membisu Singapura mengenai tuntutan maritimnya," katanya.

Menjelaskan lanjut peta 1979, Kadir berkata tujuan telegram bertarikh 20 Dis, 1979 daripada Kementerian Luar yang dialamatkan kepada pejabat diplomatik Malaysia di luar negara adalah untuk menasihatkan mereka bahawa peta itu merupakan kenyataan kedudukan, diiringi dengan kesediaan yang dinyatakan oleh Malaysia untuk merundingkan mana-mana persoalan yang belum selesai.

"Hakikatnya ialah warisan penjajah telah meninggalkan kami dengan pelbagai isu yang belum selesai dengan semua tujuh jiran kami - dan penggubalan undang-undang mengenai bidang kuasa maritim telah menyebabkannya bertambah," katanya. Tujuh negara itu ialah Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Filipina dan China.

"Apa lagi cara untuk menyelesaikan isu maritim dan sempadan selain daripada menentukan kedudukannya selepas pertimbangan sewajarnya dan tawaran untuk merundingkan isu-isu yang belum mencapai penyelesaian? Ia adalah satu proses yang lama tetapi teratur," katanya.

Singapura berhujah bahawa telegram itu membuktikan Malaysia cuba mengubah status quo dengan menuntut hak milik ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh selepas 130 tahun tidak melakukan apa-apa berhubung kedaulatan Singapura ke atas pulau itu.

Kadir, yang mengambil masa 15 minit untuk menutup hujahan kes bagi Malaysia, berkata Malaysia membentangkan kesnya secara menyeluruh dan adil.

"Ia mengutamakan kepentingan keselamatan dan kerjasama di kawasan Selat seperti yang saya sebutkan sebelum ini. Tetapi pada masa yang sama juga mengutamakan kepentingan dalam mengekalkan hubungan yang aman dan erat antara negara-negara seperti termaktub dalam undang-undang antarabangsa," katanya.

Perkara ini amat penting terutamanya dalam hubungan antara jiran-jiran terdekat seperti Malaysia dan Singapura dan sebab itu kenapa Malaysia telah merujuk kepada ICJ untuk mencari penyelesaian secara aman dalam pertikaian tuntutan ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge.

"Pelbagai dakwaan telah dilemparkan terhadap Malaysia oleh rakan-rakan kami di sebelah. Saya telah merujuk kepada perkara tertentu yang dikemukakan oleh Profesor Jayakumar pada Isnin lepas yang tidak boleh dibiarkan tidak berjawab.

"Sekiranya terdapat sebarang butiran yang tidak dijawap, Malaysia menangguhkan dahulu pendiriannnya terhadap perkara yang masih belum disentuhnya secara menyeluruh," katanya.

Beliau memohon mahkamah memutuskan dan mengisytiharkan kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh; Terumbu Karang Tengah (Middle Rocks) dan Terumbu Karang Selatan (South Ledge) adalah milik Malaysia - Bernama

Singapore's Claim On Pulau Batu Puteh Flawed

THE HAGUE, Nov 23 - Singapore's claim that Pulau Batu Puteh terra nullus (No Man's Land) when Britain took possession of it in 1847 is fundamentally flawed, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here heard Thursday.

Malaysia's counsel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, said there was no basis on which Britain could, then or at any other time, acquire title to an island that could only be obtained with the consent of the local sovereign.

"And the consent given was restricted to the building and operation of a lighthouse (on the island)," he told the court hearing a dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

He said that Malaysia was criticised for its "silence on the nature of acts a titre d souverain" (the exercise of sovereign powers) on the island but this was because during the period 1847-1851, Britain's conduct could not be classified as having exercised sovereign powers.

"It was conduct in every respect related to the construction of a lighthouse and nothing more," Lauterpacht said in the second and final round of Malaysia's oral arguments.

He said that the placing of experimental bricks, the cutting of rain channels and others on the island, as submitted by Singapore, could hardly be described as acts of the exercise of sovereign powers unless one assumed, as Singapore's counsel Ian Brownlie did, that there was scope for the performance of such acts.

"But once the basic foundation of his presentation is undermined, that is necessarily an end to the classification," counsel said.

He also said that calling the works (on the island) "public works" did not advance Singapore's case because beyond the fact that the works were done in public, which was certainly not what Brownlie had in mind in using the adjective, there was nothing that could not have been done by a private person.

Lauterpacht submitted that what mattered to Britain was not the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh but the construction and operation of a lighthouse for the benefit of ships plying their trade between Britain and its Far Eastern commercial links.

"From an imperial, military or naval perspective, it simply did not matter whether the island was British or not. There was no room on it anyway for any British settlement unrelated to the operation of the light (house)," he said.

He also touched on Singapore's submission concerning his "arithmetic" methods.

During the first round of Malaysia's oral pleadings, Lauterpacht had said that like what was taught in school, the simple arithmetic that when zero is multiplied by any number whatsoever, the result is always zero and as such, a title that did not exist could not be confirmed or maintained by any amount of subsequent state action.

He said Singapore had contended that the "multiplication" should be discarded in favour of a process of addition like zero plus one makes one and so on.

"So what are we to add together between 1847 and 1851 to produce a title by 1851?

A decision to support the construction of a lighthouse, a decision regarding the site, advancing part of the funds on the basis that the excess over subscriptions will be repaid out of light dues, the provision of an architect, some visits to the island by the governor -- but never, never a statement of intention or even a gesture towards a declaration of title," he said.

Another of Malaysia's counsel, Marcelo Kohen, submitted that the permission of Johor to build the lighthouse made the "fragile and convoluted Singaporean case irreparably collapse" before the purported taking of possession of a terra nullius as well as after it.

Kohen said that despite all the efforts by Singapore to make it complicated, ultimately the question was simple.

There was a desire to build a lighthouse on the island to pay homage to James Horsburgh, the Johor authorities gave the permission to build the lighthouse and the East India Company built the lighthouse.

"The proof is not missing, It is rather over-abundant," he said.

Nicolaas Jan Schrijver submitted that Singapore advanced its terra nullius proposition at a very late stage, namely in its reply, as earlier it only argued its case on the basis of "the lawful taking of possession" of the island in the mid-19th century.

He said that during the oral pleadings this week, Singapore "betrayed" some uncertainty as to the validity of its terra nullius theory.

"This lack of conviction has apparently led Singapore to back two horses in the same race," he said.

He stressed that the terra nullius claim was untenable and that at all relevant times, Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius as it was featured by name on the earliest maps, as a seamark as well as a point of danger.

He said that the native population used the island, as referred to in Portuguese books as early as 1552 and in 1822. Nearly 300 years later, John Crawfurd reported that the "men of the sea" living in that area were subjects of the Sultanate of Johor.

Crawfurd was the second British Resident of Singapore, holding office from 1823 to 1826.

On the argument that the ruler of Johor was "disinterested" in the small islands, counsel said that this was not correct, for example, in the Sejarah Melayu, the ruler of Melaka had stated that "he does not care if a territory is only the size of a coconut shell."

Counsel stressed that from time immemorial the Sultanate of Johor has had an original title to the three features and that the 1844 permission of the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor to the British to construct a lighthouse on the island did not involve the transfer of sovereignty over the island.

James Crawford, submitting on the period 1966 to the critical date and subsequently, said that Singapore never publicly claimed Pulau Batu Puteh in the period 1965-1978.

The events of 1978-1980 leading up to the crystallization of the dispute could not have changed that position, he added - Bernama

Tuntutan Singapura Ke Atas Pulau Batu Puteh Ada Kecacatan

Daripada Nor Faridah A. Rashid

THE HAGUE, 23 Nov - Tuntutan Singapura bahawa Pulau Batu Puteh ialah terra nullus (tanah yang tidak dimiliki sesiapa) semasa Britain mengambil alihnya pada 1847 ada kecacatan pada asasnya, Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) diberitahu pada Khamis.

Peguam yang mewakili Malaysia, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, berkata langsung tiada asas yang boleh digunakan oleh Britain, pada ketika itu atau pada bila-bila masa, memperoleh geran ke atas pulau itu yang hanya boleh diperoleh dengan kebenaran kedaulatan tempatan.

"Dan kebenaran yang diberikan hanya dihadkan kepada bangunan dan operasi rumah api (di pulau itu)," katanya pada pendengaran kes pertikaian terhadap kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh, Terumbu Karang Tengah (Middle Rocks) dan Terumbu Karang Selatan (South Ledge) antara Malaysia dan Singapura.


(Dari kiri) Panel Penasihat Antarabangsa Malaysia Prof. Marcelo G. Kohen, Menteri Luar Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Duta Malaysia Ke Belanda Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin dan Ketua Delegasi Malaysia yang juga Penasihat Khas Hal Ehwal Luar Kepada Perdana Menteri Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad berdiri sebagai tanda hormat semasa ketibaan hakim-hakim di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di The Hague. Foto: Abdullah Ibrahim

Katanya Malaysia telah dikritik bagi langkahnya yang "membisu bagi tindakan titre d souverain" (pelaksanaan kuasa kedaulatan) ke atas pulau itu tetapi itu berlaku pada era 1847-1851, tindakan Britain itu tidak boleh diklasifikasikan sebagai mempunyai kuasa kedaulatan.

"Ia dilaksanakan daripada segi semua aspek yang bersangkut paut dengan pembinaan sebuah rumah api dan tidak lebih daripada itu," kata Lauterpacht dalam hujahan lisan pusingan kedua dan terakhir Malaysia.

Katanya peletakan batu bata, pembinaan saluran hujan, seperti yang dihujahkan oleh Singapura, tidak boleh dikatakan sebagai pelaksanaan kuasa kedaulatan kecuali sebagai andaian sahaja seperti yang dilakukan oleh peguam yang mewakili Singapura, Ian Brownlie bahawa wujud skop bagi tindakan seumpama itu.

"Tetapi sebaik sahaja asas bagi presentasinya dipersoalkan, dengan itu menamatkan klasifikasi berkenaan," hujah peguam itu.

Beliau juga berkata kegiatan pembinaan (di pulau itu) "kerja-kerja awam" tidak memberi kelebihan kepada kes Singapura atas hakikat kerja itu dilakukan secara terbuka, tidak seperti apa yang difikirkan oleh Brownlie, kerana tiada apa yang tidak boleh dilakukan oleh orang persendirian.

Lauterpacht berhujah apa yang penting kepada Britain bukan kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh tetapi pembinaan dan operasi rumah api berkenaan bagi manfaat kapal perdagangan Britain dan Timur Jauh yang menggunakan laluan itu.

"Daripada perspektif empayar, ketenteraan atau tentera laut, ia tidak penting sama ada pulau itu ditadbir British atau tidak. Lagipun tiada ruang bagi sebarang penempatan lain British selain rumah api itu," katanya.

Beliau turut menyentuh hujahan Singapura berhubung kaedah "aritmetik" beliau.

Dalam pusingan pertama hujahan lisan Malaysia, Lauterpacht berkata seperti apa yang diajar di sekolah, aritmetik mudah ialah sifar didarab dengan mana-mana nombor, jawapannya tetap sifar dan dengan itu, geran yang tidak wujud tidak boleh disahkan atau dipertahankan oleh sebanyak manapun kegiatan yang dilakukan sesebuah negara itu.

Katanya Singapura telah berhujah bahawa kaedah "darab" tidak sepatutnya digunakan sepertimana proses campur seperti sifar campur satu maka jumlahnya jadi satu dan seterusnya.

"Jadi apa yang kita nak campur antara 1847 dan 1851 untuk mengeluarkan geran pada 1851?

Keputusan untuk menyokong pembinaan rumah api itu, keputusan berhubung tapak, pendahuluan sebahagian daripada dana atas asas bahawa lebihan langganan akan dibayar balik daripada apa yang perlu dibayar rumah api itu, penyediaan arkitek, beberapa lawatan ke pulau itu oleh gabenor -- tetapi tidak sesekali mengenai surat hasrat atau malahan isyarat ke arah pengisytiharan geran itu," katanya.

Seorang lagi peguam Malaysia, Marcelo Kohen, berhujah kebenaran yang diberikan oleh Johor untuk membina rumah api itu telah menjadikan "kes Singapura lemah dan berbelit-belit" malah sebelum mengambil alih terra nullius dan selepasnya.

Kohen berkata disebalik semua usaha Singapura untuk menjadikannya rumit, sebenarnya persoalannya amat mudah.

Berikutan hasrat untuk membina sebuah rumah api di pulau itu sebagai tanda penghormatan kepada James Horsburgh, pihak berkuasa Johor telah memberikan kebenaran untuk membina rumah api itu dan Syarikat Hindia Timur telah membina rumah api itu.

"Bukti itu tidak hilang, ia terlalu banyak," katanya.

Nicolaas Jan Schrijver berhujah bahawa tuntutan Singapura ke atas terra nullius juga agak lewat, iaitu paling awal mengikut hujahnya bagi asas "pengambilalihan mengikut undang-undang" ke atas pulau itu ialah pada pertengahan abad ke-19.

Katanya sepanjang hujahan lisan minggu ini, Singapura "telah mengkhianati" beberapa ketidaktentuan seperti kesahihan teorinya mengenai terra nullius.

"Kekurangan sabitan ini jelas telah mendorong Singapura terpaksa menggunakan dua ekor kuda dalam satu perlumbaan," katanya.

Beliau menegaskan tuntutan terra nullius tidak dapat dipertahankan dan pada setiap masa yang relevan, Pulau Batu Puteh bukannya terra nullius sepertimana tercatat dalam peta dahulu, sebagai penanda laut serta titik bahaya.

Katanya penduduk pribumi telah menggunakan pulau itu, seperti tercatat dalam buku Portugis seawal 1552 dan pada 1822. Hampir 300 tahun kemudian, John Crawfurd melaporkan "pelaut" yang hidup di kawasan itu adalah rakyat Kesultanan Johor.

Crawfurd ialah Residen British yang kedua di Singapura, berkhidmat dari 1823 hingga 1826.

Mengenai hujahan bahawa pemerintah Johor "tidak berminat" dengan pulau-pulau kecil, peguam itu berkata perkara itu tidak betul, contohnya, dalam Sejarah Melayu, pemerintah Melaka menyatakan bahawa "baginda tidak kisah jika kawasan itu sebesar biji kelapa."

Peguam itu menegaskan sejak zaman berzaman Kesultanan Johor telah mempunyai geran asal ketiga-tiga pulau itu dan kebenaran yang diberikan oleh Sultan dan Temenggong Johor pada 1844 kepada British untuk membina rumah api di pulau itu tidak membabitkan pemindahan kedaulatan ke atas pulau itu.

James Crawford berhujah pada tahun 1966 hingga ke tarikh kritikal itu dan seterusnya, berkata Singapura tidak pernah secara terbuka menuntut Pulau Batu Puteh pada sekitar 1965-1978.

Peristiwa sepanjang 1978-1980 yang membawa kepada pertikaian itu tidak dapat mengubah kedudukan itu, katanya - Bernama

Sultanate's 'continuity still existing today'

By: V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

THE Johor sultanate, dating back to 1511, had shown a remarkable continuity existing until today, the International Court of Justice was told. Counsel for Malaysia, Professor Nico Schrijver, said this continuity was reflected in the survival of her name, her dynasty, the allegiance of her people and the control of territory.

"In particular, there is continuity of treaty relations concerning territory from 1824 to 1995," he said in the second round of oral submission on Thursday.

The ICJ is hearing the territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Puteh (PBP) and the two adjacent maritime features, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

Malaysia's stand is that the features are part of the Johor sultanate from time immemorial and the British sought the permission of the rulers to build and administer a lighthouse for navigational safety on PBP.
Singapore has sought to dismiss the claim, citing that PBP was an uninhabited island with no people to pledge allegiance to the ruler.

On Monday, Chief Justice of Singapore Chan Sek Keong told the court that Malaysia did not provide evidence that the sultanate had ever exercised sovereignty over PBP to claim original title.

Chan said the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty was based on control of people rather than control of territory and as such the sultanate's territorial boundaries could not be determined.

The Johor sultanate began in 1511 with the fall of the Malacca empire to the Portuguese and the defeated ruler fled and established a new capital along the Johor river.

The capital of the sultanate would later shift to Riau and then finally to Lingga, thus giving rise to the name "Johor-Riau-Lingga sultanate".

Schrijver said when the capital was destroyed, the ruler and his followers relocated and the people continued to give allegiance to him.

"When the ruler was forced to flee as a result of the Portuguese attack, he was guided to a new site by his Orang Laut, who then informed the people where he had gone."

He said the Orang Laut were under the control of the sultanate and was always in the vicinity of PBP, an important landmark for shippers.

Schrijver said the Anglo-Dutch Treaty and the Crawfurd Treaty, both in 1824, did not alter the status quo of the features.

The Anglo-Dutch Treaty marked the spheres of influence of the British and the Netherlands in the area covered by the Johor sultanate.

The Johor empire was split into two, one headed by Sultan Hussein which continued to be known as Johor sultanate and the other by Sultan Abdul Rahman which became the sultanate of Riau-Lingga.

Under the Crawfurd Treaty, Sultan Hussein and the temmengong of Johor agreed to cede Singapore island together with "adjacent seas, straits and islets to the extent of 10 geographical miles from the coast of the main island of Singapore" to the British.

"The 1844 permission of the sultan and temenggong of Johor to the British to construct the lighthouse on PBP did not involve the transfer of sovereignty," he said.

Another counsel Professor Marcelo Kohen said Singapore's continuous state activities on PBP was to strengthen her sovereignty claim but had collapsed because consent was only given to build a lighthouse.

Hearing continues - The New Straits Time

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

Johor official 'had no legal authority to disown island'

THE Johor acting state secretary had no legal authority in 1953 to declare that Pulau Batu Puteh (PBP) was not a territory of the state, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said.

He said the Johor Agreement and the Federation of Malaya Agreement, both of which came into force in 1948, provided that all external and defence matters of the state be transferred to the British.


Members of the Malaysian team preparing material for submission to the International Court of Justice yesterday.

"Such affairs were to be executed through the high commissioner of the federation," he said in the opening session of Malaysia's second round oral submission before the International Court of Justice.

In that year, the nine Malay States, including Johor, the former Straits Settlements (SS) of Malacca and Penang made up the federation.

Under both agreements, Johor, which was a protected state, transferred all of her rights, powers and jurisdiction on defence and external affairs to the British, he said.
Gani said both agreements continued to be in force until the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 came into force.

He said a clause in the Federation Agreement provided that the executive authority of the federation shall be exercised by the high commissioner either directly or through officers subordinate to him.

Gani said another clause in the Federation Agreement clearly showed that no power or authority exercised by the high commissioner could be exercised by a state secretary.

"The Federation Agreement does not provide any executive authority to any state or settlement.

"Johor, therefore, had no power or competence to deal with matters pertaining to external affairs," he said.

Gani said the then Johor acting state secretary, M. Seth Saaid, was merely a civil servant and had no legal capacity to write the 1953 letter to renounce any part of Johor's territories.

On Tuesday, Singapore's agent Tommy Koh, in his closing remark, claimed that Johor in 1953 was a sovereign state and Seth's letter to the Singapore government was binding under international law.

Malaysia had earlier submitted that Singapore was seeking to use the letter as her root to claim title over PBP.

Gani also pointed out that the letter from Singapore representative J.D. Higham was addressed to the Johor British adviser and copied to the chief secretary of the federation.

He said it was not addressed to Seth and the acting state secretary undertook himself to issue the letter to Higham.

"He wrote directly to a local authority of the British colony of Singapore.

"He did not copy his letter to the chief secretary," Gani said.

He added that there was no evidence that the chief secretary or the high commissioner was aware of the contents of this letter.

Gani said the way the correspondence was conducted was procedurally irregular and incorrect.

He said Singapore could not prove PBP was no man's land although she claimed that the British had taken possession of the island between 1847 to 1851.

"Singapore's case simply rests on the inference that PBP was terra nullius (no man's land)," he said.

Gani said Singapore also remained silent or failed to produce the "incontrovertible legal evidence" in the form of documents claimed in 1978 to be in her possession.

He said Singapore's conduct after the critical date of dispute in December 1979 were relevant for assessing state activities carried out by the island republic.

"They are not a normal continuation of Singapore's prior acts of administrating the lighthouse but to strengthen her legal position in the present dispute," he said.

Hearing continues - The New Straits Time

Malaysian Team On Pulau Batu Puteh All Set For Final Round

From Nor Faridah A. Rashid

THE HAGUE, Nov 21 - Malaysia is all set for the final round of its oral arguments on the sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge before the International Court of Justice here (ICJ) on Thursday and Friday.

Despite having to work until the wee hours of the morning, the Malaysian delegation is in high spirits and cheerful mood.

The Malaysian legal team will reply to submissions put up by Singapore on Monday and Tuesday during the republic's second round of oral pleadings.

Singapore's first round of oral submissions was heard over four days on Nov 6-9 while Malaysia presented the first round of oral submissions from Nov 13 to 16.

When Singapore closed its case on Tuesday, among other things, the republic argued that it had shown that in 1847, Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius (No Man's Land) and that from 1847 to 1851, Britain was in possession of the island without the consent of any native ruler.

Singapore's agent, Tommy Koh, said Malaysia had argued that it had given permission to Britain for the construction of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh.

However, he contended that Malaysia had not provided any evidence on such permission.

He claimed that Malaysia had only relied on indirect inferences from letters which did not even mention Pulau Batu Puteh.

Malaysia said that 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.

It said that Singapore was merely the administrator of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh and activities that have taken place there were just acts required by a lighthouse administrator.

After Malaysia's final arguments, the court will adjourn the case before coming out with a decision, which is expected to be before June next year.

The Malaysian delegation is headed by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Ambassador at Large, who is also the Prime Minister's Adviser on Foreign Affairs.

He is Malaysia's agent for the case while Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian 5Ambassador to the Netherlands, is the co-agent

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail is also representing Malaysia together with Malaysia's team of international lawyers, namely Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and James Crawford, both professors in International Law at the Cambridge University; Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, professor of Public International Law, Leiden University; Marcelo G. Kohen, professor of International Law, the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva; and Penelope Nevill, college lecturer, Downing College, Cambridge University - Bernama

Pasukan Malaysia Sudah Bersedia Hadapi Pusingan Akhir Penghujahan Di ICJ

Daripada Nor Faridah A. Rashid

THE HAGUE, 21 Nov - Pasukan Malaysia sudah bersedia untuk menghadapi pusingan akhir penghujahan secara lisan esok dan lusa dalam kes pertikaian dengan Singapura mengenai hak kedaulatan Pulau Pulau Batu Puteh, Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatin di Mahakmah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ).

Anggota pasukan itu tetap bersemangat tinggi dan sentiasa kelihatan riang walaupun terpaksa bersengkang mata hingga ke pagi sejak beberapa hari lepas bagi membuat persiapan untuk mematahkan hujah Singapura berhubung kes itu.

Pada pusingan akhir nanti, mereka akan menjawab dan mematahkan hujah lisan yang dikemukakan Singapura pada Isnin dan Selasa semasa pasukan republik itu membentangkan kes mereka bagi pusingan kedua.

Pusingan pertama pembentangan hujah secara lisan oleh Singapura berlangusng selama empat hari iaitu dari 6 hingga 9 Nov manakala pusingan pertama bagi Malaysia pula berlangsung dari 13 hingga 16 Nov.

Semasa menggulung hujahnya pada Selasa, republik itu berkata ia telah menunjukkan bahawa pada 1847, Pulau Batu Puteh adalah kawasan yang tidak dimiliki oleh sesiapa (terra nullius), dan bahawa dari 1847 hingga 1851, Britain mengambil pulau berkenaan tanpa keizinan daripada mana-mana pemerintah tempatan.

Ejen Singapura, Tommy Koh, berkata walaupun Malaysia menyatakan ia telah memberi kebenaraan kepada Britain untuk membina sebuah rumah api di Pulau Batu Puteh tetapi ia tidak mengemukakan bukti mengenainya.

Beliau berkata Malaysia hanya bergantung pada rujukan tidak langsung kepada surat-surat yang tidak sedikitpun menyebut Pulau Batu Puteh.

Malaysia bagaimanapun menegaskan bahawa Pulau Batu Puteh bukan terra nullius kerana Johor adalah pemegang hak milik asal ke atas pulau itu serta dua terumbu karang lain sejak zaman berzaman.

Malaysia juga berkata Singapura hanyalah pentadbir rumah api yang terdapat di Pulau Batu Puteh manakala semua kegiatan yang dilakukan oleh republik itu di sana tidak lebih daripada tindakan yang perlu dilakukan oleh mana-mana pengendali rumah api.

Setelah Malaysia selesai menggulung hujahnya, ICJ akan menangguhkan perbicaraan tuntutan bertindih ini, sebelum mengisytiharkan keputusannya, yang dijangka dibuat sebelum Jun tahun depan.

Pasukan Malaysia diketuai Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Duta Tugas-tugas Khas, yang juga Penasihat Hal Ehwal Luar kepada Perdana Menteri.

Beliau juga bertindak sebagai ejen Malaysia bagi kes ini manakala Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, Duta Malaysia ke Belanda, adalah ejen bersama.

Malaysia turut diwakili Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail serta barisan peguam antarabangsa terdiri daripada Sir Elihu Lauterpacht dan James Crawford, profesor Undang-undang Antarabangsa di Cambridge University; Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, profesor Undang-undang Awam Antarabangsa di Leiden University; Marcelo G. Kohen, profesor Undang-undang Antarabangsa di Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva; dan Penelope Nevill, pensyarah di Downing College, Cambridge University - Bernama

Malaysia optimistic of success

By : V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

SPIRITS are high in the Malaysian camp ahead of the second round of oral submissions before the International Court of Justice today in the Pulau Batu Puteh case.

The Foreign Ministry under-secretary in charge of adjudication and arbitration, Raja Nazrin Aznam, said the Malaysian side was optimistic that it would succeed in convincing the ICJ.

"We may be exhausted but morale is high as we are working as a team. We want to put in a sterling performance before allowing the court to decide on the dispute."

The team is assisted by a support staff comprising university lecturers, those with legal knowledge and government officials with technical know-how.

On Tuesday, the team gathered for a brain-storming session soon after Singapore completed its submission. Tasks were delegated as to who should attend to points raised by Singapore.

Malaysia will submit over the next two days.

A secretariat has been set up at the hotel where the Malaysians are staying, and Raja Nazrin said meetings were being held daily, with everyone given tasks, including clarifying issues raised by the republic.

Last week, the production team worked until the wee hours of the morning to ensure that texts of speeches to be delivered before the court were in order.

"Since last week, all of us have had only two or three hours of sleep a night," said Raja Nazrin, who has been involved in the case since 1993.

He said all written submissions in folders were presented to the court registry by 9am, an hour before judges were on the Bench.

After the final rebuttals, the court is expected to make its ruling next year on the territorial dispute, which began in 1979.

The island, located 7.7 nautical miles from Tanjung Penyusuh on the Malaysian mainland, is currently under the jurisdiction of Singapore.

"Pulau Batu Puteh will remain in the hands of Singapore if we do not go through the legal process, and we have at least a 50 per cent chance of regaining the island by referring the dispute to the court," he said.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail will kick-start Malaysia's submission today, followed by five other speakers.

Malaysia's case is anchored on the basis that the island has belonged to the Johor Sultanate from time immemorial and that the British merely had the permission of the rulers to build and administer the Horsburgh lighthouse.

Singapore had argued that Pulau Batu Puteh was no man's land when the British took lawful possession of the island in 1847 and built the lighthouse there - The New Straits Time

S'pore: Malaysia had zero activities

By : V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

SINGAPORE yesterday closed its case on the territorial claim over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and the two adjacent maritime features of Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

Its agent, Tommy Koh, said the island republic had proved its case and called on the International Court of Justice to adjudge and declare that the country had sovereignty over the disputed areas.

"Our evidence presents a consistent picture. All the pieces of the puzzle fit together," said Koh in his concluding remark, outlining 10 reasons why the court should decide in Singapore's favour.

He said Malaysia failed to produce evidence that Pedra Branca was a no-man's island and that it was part of Johor.

"Malaysia has failed to prove her only argument, in this case that Johor had an historic title over Pedra Branca."

He said Singapore had shown that the British was in Pedra Branca between 1847 and 1851 without the consent of Johor.

"Malaysia argues that Johor had given permission for the construction of a lighthouse in Pedra Branca. Again, she has not provided evidence of such permission."

He said all that Malaysia relied on was indirect inference from letters which did not mention Pedra Branca.

He said Britain had satisfied the two criteria: intention to acquire the island and state activities undertaken subsequently.

He said from 1847 to 1979, Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca was "open, continuous and notorious".

"It was acknowledged by all and challenged by none.

"It was only in 1979, like a bolt out of the blue, that Malaysia published her map which claimed the island for the first time."

He said in 1953, the acting state secretary of Johor, then a sovereign state, had disclaimed "ownership" of the island.

"This disclaimer is binding on Malaysia under international law."

He said Malaysia also did not demand Singapore to lower its marine ensign flown over Pedra Branca, unlike in Pulau Pisang where the island republic complied.

He said between 1962 and 1975, Malaysia published six maps which attributed Pedra Branca to Singapore while the island republic did not do otherwise to recognise Malaysia's claim.

He said the three maritime features were inseparable because they formed a group and that the court should make a decision that the winner would take all three.

He said Singapore's stand was that the sovereignty should be decided based on who had carried out activities on the island. "Malaysia had zero activities."

Koh said Malaysia's offer to Singapore to continue managing the light house, although appearing magnanimous, was in reality aimed at changing the legal order which had existed for 130 years.

The Malaysian legal team will return on Thursday and Friday to rebut Singapore's case, bringing to a close the 28-year-old dispute.

Decision is expected from the 16-man panel in the middle of next year.

Malaysia maintains that the island had always been part of the Johor empire and the British had sought permission to build a light house for navigational safety - The New Straits Time

Pulau Batu Puteh 'either Johor's or no-man's land'

V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

THE International Court of Justice has to only determine whether Pulau Batu Puteh (PBP) was part of the Johor empire or if it was a no-man's land.

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, who is representing Malaysia in determining whether the sovereignty of PBP belonged to Malaysia or Singapore, said the island formed part of the Johor sultanate.

He said Singapore placed its claim firmly and exclusively on events between 1847 and 1851 on the basis that the island was owned by acquisition.

"There is no doubt that the sultanate of Johor, before 1824, encompassed an area which covered north and south of the Singapore Strait, including Pulau Batu Puteh," he said in his submission entitled: "PBP: Malaysia's case."

He listed eight reasons, with strong inferences, that PBP belonged to Johor. Among them were:

- The Treaty of Cession of Singapore, between the British East India Company and the sultan and the temenggong of Johor, implied that Johor had sovereignty over islets beyond 10 miles of its coast. It would then not be logical to treat PBP differently. PBP is about 25 nautical miles from Singapore.

- The sovereignty of PBP could be derived from the correspondence between the governor of Butterworth, the Prince of Wales (Penang), Malacca and Singapore in 1844.

The temenggong had stated he had no objection to a proposal to build a lighthouse near Point Romania, Peak Rock or at "any spot deemed eligible".

Lauterpacht said it could be PBP, but unfortunately Malaysia does not have the governor's letter to the temenggong although Malaysia has requested Singapore to produce it.

On another matter, Lauterpacht said a letter written by the acting state secretary of Johor in 1953 to the British on the position of PBP, only meant that Singapaore did not claim ownership.

"He was using the ownership in the private sense. In any case, he could not have meant sovereignty since he lacked the capacity to dispose of Johor's territory," he said.

Another counsel, James Crawford, said Singapore's contention that the Johor sultanate had "disappeared" was wrong.

He said chief justice of Singapore Chan Sek Keong, last week put forward his theory of the disappearing sultanate which could be contradicted on various counts.

Crawford in his submission said after the Dutch destroyed the sultan's capital in Riau, Sultan Mahmud III went to Pahang and finally to Lingga.

He died in 1812, leaving behind sons, Abdul Rahman and Husein.

Husein was chosen as the successor and recognised by the British and the temenggong.

He said the temenggong who was based in Singapore, and Husein, then signed a treaty of friendship with Singapore in 1819.

At that time, there was a conflict between Husein and Abdul Rahman with the Dutch taking one side and the British the other.

"The 1885 agreement between Husein and the temenggong was the beginning of the end for the former who was later confined to Kesang," he said.

Crawford said in the same year, Temenggong Abu Bakar became the Sultan of Johor.

He advanced the argument that the Johor sultanate had the orgininal title to PBP before the construction of the Horsburgh lighthouse.

Another Malaysian counsel, Nicholaas Jan Scrijver, said the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty not only split the Johor-Riau-Lingga sultanate but also divided it into two separate spheres of influence.

"Islands south of the Straits of Singapore were left within the Dutch sphere of influence while all the territory and islands in the strait and north of it were placed under British rule. This included the Johor Sultanate," he said.

However, he said Johor continued to exercise sovereignty over its territory, including all islands in the straits of Singapore. PBP remained the territory under the sovereignty of the Johor Sultanate and so after 1824, it fell within the British sphere of influence - The New Straits Time

No evidence from Singapore

...to support claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh

THE HAGUE, WED:

Singapore has failed to adduce evidence to support its claim that Britain had established title on Pulau Batu Puteh in the years 1847-1851, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here heard.

Malaysia’s counsel Sir Elihu Lauterpacht said that although Singapore had repeatedly stated that its conduct after 1851 merely confirmed and maintained a title already acquired, there was no contemporary documentation of any kind which implicitly or explicitly specified that the island was or had become British territory.

“One looks in vain for evidence of any official, formal, direct or even indirect assertion of title,” he told the 16-member bench.

He said that unless by 1851 there really existed British title over Pulau Batu Puteh, there was nothing that could be maintained or confirmed.

“Just as we are taught in school the simple arithmetic that when zero is multiplied by any number whatsoever, the result is always zero. So a title that does not exist cannot be confirmed or maintained by any amount of subsequent state action,” he said.
Singapore, which is claiming sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, had argued that it was maintaining and confirming its pre-established title of Pulau Batu Puteh as the British successor and had continuously, exercised State Authority on and in relation to the island.

Sir Elihu refuted this claim, saying that overwhelmingly this was practised with regard to the operation of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh and had nothing to do with sovereignty over the island.

He emphasised that the operation of lighthouses was not a basis for sovereignty, citing the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, where the ICJ had decided that lighting and buoying since 1861 could not be considered sufficient evidence of an intention to act as sovereign.

They were not seen as acts of such a character that they could be considered as involving a manifestation of state authority.

He also cited another case where an arbitral tribunal held that “the operation and maintenance of lighthouses and navigational aids is normally connected to the preservation of safe navigation, and not normally taken as a test of sovereignty”.
Turning to Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Sir Elihu said that there was also no substance in Singapore’s claim for these two marine features because, just like Pulau Batu Puteh, they have always belonged to Johor.

On Singapore’s contention that it had also carried out non-lighthouse activities, he said that these could either be attributed to the republic’s role as the lighthouse administrator or were otherwise unconnected with sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.
Sir Elihu submitted that when Britain built and operated the Horsburgh lighthouse on the island, it showed no intention at all of acquiring sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.

In light of this, plus the strong British practice in the 19th and 20th centuries of building and administering lighthouses on its key trade routes on the territories of other states, the continued administration today by Singapore of a lighthouse, which formed part of the Straits Lights System, could not be regarded as evidence of its sovereignty over the territory where it is located.

Submitting on Singapore’s claim that Johor never carried out any competing activities on the island on its own, Sir Elihu said this point was “meaningless verbiage.”
He pointed out that Pulau Batu Puteh was a very small place, no more than half the area of a football field, and all that area had been taken up by the lighthouse.

“Where was Johor to engage in competing activities on the island, what competing activities could there have been on the island. Was it to build a competing lighthouse?” he said.

Sir Elihu said that Johor had licensed Britain to construct and operate a lighthouse and after that there was nothing for Johor to do except let Britain get on with the operation of the lighthouse and any related activities.

“There was no scope for any competitive Johor activity,” he stressed.

Describing every stage, phase or element in Singapore’s claim to Pulau Batu Puteh as ill-founded, he said that Britain’s conduct between 1847 and 1851, on which Singapore relied to found the establishment of title during that period, could not be regarded as effective.

“Singapore concedes that it must show an intention of British conduct to have acquired title in that period. But there is no evidence of British conduct that can be interpreted as a manifestation of intention to acquire sovereignty between 1847 and 1851,” he said - Bernama

Islands 'part of Johor Sultanate'

By : V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

MALAYSIA yesterday presented to the International Court of Justice that Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Lodge were part of the Johor Sultanate.

In the fifth day of proceedings in the territorial dispute between the two countries, Malaysia sought to disprove Singapore's claim that the British acquired sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh as no man's land.

Malaysia's agent, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamed, said Singapore advanced in many ways last week its claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh and the two maritime features.

"But all these cannot hide the fact that Singapore is seeking to subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Britain over 150 years ago and maintained throughout the period of British rule," Kadir said in his opening address.

He said Malaysia had provided evidence that Johor had given permission to Britain to build and operate a lighthouse on one of Johor's islands. Pulau Batu Puteh was selected as the site.

He said Britain, and then Singapore, had operated the lighthouse ever since.

"Therefore, it matters a great deal to Malaysia when Singapore claims sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, simply because it has been running a lighthouse on it with our consent."

Kadir said Singapore's claim also ignored the territorial agreements reached in 1824, namely the Anglo-Dutch Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands of March 17 and the Crawfurd Treaty of Aug 2.

He said despite their small size, the issue of sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and the other two maritime features were important.

"Not only does it have implications for the territorial and maritime stability of the (Singapore) straits, but the long-established arrangement is important to the continued cooperative management of navigational aids, marine environmental protection and safety matters."

He said Malaysia had shown that Pulau Batu Puteh was not a no man's land (terra nullius) in 1847 and it was not so in 1851, when the British East India Company completed the construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island.

Pulau Batu Puteh was part of the ancient Johor Sultanate and when the empire was divided into two after the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty, it remained part of the Johor Sultanate, instead of Riau-Lingga.

The Anglo-Dutch Treaty established that the division between the British and Dutch spheres of influence would run to the south of the Singapore straits.

This placed Pulau Batu Puteh in the British sphere of influence and in that part of Johor which continued to be known as the Sultanate of Johor. Last week, Kadir said Singapore sought to present a new interpretation of the dividing line.

Today, Professor Nicholaas Jan Schrijver, appearing for Malaysia, would explain why the Singapore interpretation was wrong.

Kadir said permission was given by the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor on Nov 25, 1844 for the building and operation of a lighthouse "near Point Romania, or any spot deemed eligible".

Pulau Batu Puteh was near Point Romania and was an "eligible spot" because of the difficulties of navigating the waters at the eastern entrance to the straits.

"It is on the basis of the consent of the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor that Britain built and operated the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh."

He said the co-operation between Malaysia and Singapore was not limited to the building of lighthouses and navigational aids, but also in patrolling the seas in that locality.

Kadir said Singapore now wanted to radically change the basis on which it acquired the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh.

"Singapore is endeavouring to create for itself a maritime domain which is a far cry from the basis of its presence on Pulau Batu Puteh as lighthouse administrator."

Kadir said in 1969, Malaysia enacted a legislation which extended its territorial sea from three to 12 nautical miles and the island republic had not protested.

"Singapore at no time asserted any interest or raised any objection. Neither did Singapore delimit the area around Pulau Batu Puteh when it concluded the Territorial Sea Boundary Agreement with Indonesia in 1973."

He said Singapore's claim not only upset the existing arrangements but included a land reclamation proposal around Pulau Batu Puteh.

"This is not a fanciful conjecture. Singapore has an extremely active reclamation policy which was the subject of the Reclamation Case instituted by Malaysia against Singapore in September 2003," said Kadir.

"In fact, the aggressive methods (Singapore) used to assert its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh have already led to regrettable although not irreversible changes to the stable conditions in the area." - The New Straits Time

Sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh:

Opening speech by Malaysia's agent

OPENING SPEECH BY THE AGENT OF MALAYSIA, TAN SRI ABDUL KADIR MOHAMAD SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU BATU PUTEH/PEDRA BRANCA, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE)

13 NOVEMBER 2007

1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is a great honour to appear before you, and to take this opportunity to explain why sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to Malaysia.

2. Mr. President, please allow me to thank the Agent of Singapore for his kind greetings to my colleagues on the Malaysian team and to me personally on the opening day of these proceedings. These greetings are fully reciprocated. Indeed, both of us have known each other for a long time, as members of the diplomatic service of our respective countries.

3. Mr. President, Malaysia and Singapore are two neighbouring countries in South-east Asia, which have mutually agreed to appear before this honourable Court to settle a dispute over the three features, located at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits, off the Malaysian Peninsula, as illustrated on the map that is now being displayed on the screen before the Court. You may also see it in tab No. 1 of your folders.

4. Pulau Batu Puteh and the two other features form part of the State of Johor, now part of Malaysia. The State of Johor has its origins in the ancient Sultanate of Johor. The current Sultan of Johor, Sultan Iskandar Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Ismail, is a direct descendant of one of the signatories to the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between Johor and Great Britain of 2 August 1824, also known as the Crawfurd Treaty, in which part of the territory of the Sultanate was ceded to create Singapore. Singapore Island is nestled in the bottom of Peninsular Malaysia. At its closest point Singapore is only 600 meters from the Johor mainland. It is now shown on the screen and can be found in Tab No.2 in the Judges's Folders.

5. Singapore and Malaysia, together with Indonesia, today share the waters and management of the Malacca and Singapore Straits which link the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea. Because of this geography, their genealogy and British colonial history, Singapore and Malaysia share much in common. The graphic now on the screen shows the Malacca and Singapore Straits. This will also be found in Tab No.3 of the Judges? Folders. This is a current navigational chart which is readily available in the public domain.

6. The details of how this dispute arose and the efforts of the parties to settle it will be described to you by the Attorney-General of Malaysia later this morning.

7. But before looking at how, the Court may wonder why: why would two responsible States be in such an acute and extended disagreement about sovereignty over such small maritime features?

8.. Last week, the Court heard many arguments advanced in many ways by Singapore to support its claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. But all these cannot hide the fact that Singapore is seeking to subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Great Britain over 150 years ago and maintained throughout the whole period of British rule. In its written pleadings. Malaysia has provided evidence that Johor had given permission that Great Britain could build and operate a lighthouse on one of Johor?s islands. Pulau Batu Puteh was selected as the site. Great Britain and then Singapore have operated the lighthouse ever since. Singapore is now present on the island, as was Great Britain before it, with Johor?s consent. Therefore it matters a great deal to Malaysia when Singapore claims sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, simply because it has been running a lighthouse on it with our consent.

9. Singapore?s claim also ignores the territorial agreements in the area reached in 1824, namely the Anglo-Dutch Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands of 17 March 1824, and the treaty which created the colony of Singapore, the Crawfurd Treaty of 2 August 1824.

10. Despite their extremely small size, the issue of sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and the other two maritime features is important. Not only does it have implications for the territorial and maritime stability of the Straits but the long-established arrangement is important to the continued cooperative management of navigational aids, marine environmental protection and safety matters in the Straits.

Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court,

11. Malaysia?s case is clear and finds full support in the evidence.

12. As Malaysia has shown in her written submissions, Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius in 1847. It was not terra nullius in 1851, when the East India Company completed the construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island. Pulau Batu Puteh was part of the ancient Sultanate of Johor, and when the Sultanate divided in two after the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 it remained part of the Sultanate of Johor rather than that of Riau-Lingga.

13. The Anglo-Dutch Treaty established that the division between the British and Dutch spheres of influence would run to the south of the Straits of Singapore. This placed Pulau Batu Puteh in the British sphere of influence and in that part of Johor which continued to be known as the Sultanate of Johor. The division between the British and Dutch spheres is now illustrated on the screen, as well as in Tab No. 4 in the Judges? Folders. Last week, Singapore sought to present a new interpretation of the dividing line. Tomorrow, Professor Schrijver will explain why the new Singapore interpretation is wrong.

14. In the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824, Johor transferred sovereignty over Singapore Island to the East India Company together with islets and rocks within 10 geographical miles of Singapore. Pulau Batu Puteh is 25.5 nautical miles away from Singapore.

15. In 1851, with the permission of Johor, the Horsburgh Lighthouse was built on Pulau Batu Puteh by the East India Company. The permission was given by the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor on 25 November 1844, for the building and operation of a lighthouse "near Point Romania" or "any spot deemed eligible". As you can see on the graphic that is now displayed on the screen (and in Tab 5 of your folders), Pulau Batu Puteh is near Point Romania.

16. Pulau Batu Puteh was certainly an "eligible spot" because of the difficulties of navigating the waters at the eastern entrance to the Straits. In fact, Pulau Batu Puteh was the location of choice of the merchant subscribers when they began collecting funds for a lighthouse in 1836.

17 It is on the basis of the consent of the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor that Great Britain built and then operated the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh.

18. Tomorrow, Professor Kohen will analyse the letters of permission written by the Temenggong and the Sultan of Johor on 25 November 1844. Malaysia has not been able to trace the letter of request from Governor Butterworth which was referred to in the letters of permission. In 1994, Malaysia requested Singapore to furnish a copy of the Governor?s letter if Singapore had such a copy in their possession. Singapore did not respond to Malaysia?s request. If this letter exists today it is likely that it is in Singapore?s archives in the file entitled "Letters to Native Rulers". Unfortunately, Malaysia does not have access to these archives.

19. Between 1850 and 1946, the Straits Lights system was developed by Britain to aid navigation through the length of the Malacca and Singapore Straits. The graphic now on the screen and located at Tab No. 6 in the Judges? Folders, shows the lights in the Straits Lights system, including the names of the various lighthouses. This was the list which appeared in the 1912 Ordinance of the Colony of Singapore which abolished light dues.

20. The Straits Lights system, including Horsburgh Lighthouse, was administered by the Straits Settlements. Each lighthouse was operated from one of the three stations in Singapore, Penang or Malacca. From 1912, the Federated Malay States contributed to the running costs of the Straits Lights when they stopped being funded by the collection of lights dues. But the Straits Settlements kept maintaining the lights because they had the necessary expertise.

21. In 1946, when the Straits Settlements was dissolved and the Colony of Singapore and the Malayan Union created, the Straits Lights system ceased to be run as a single system. However, the lighthouses continued to be operated from their original stations in the former Straits Settlements. Pulau Pisang and Horsburgh lighthouses continued to be run from Singapore, and the others, such as Pulau Undan, Cape Rachado, Muka Head and Pulau Rimau, were run from their stations in Malacca and Penang both of which in 1946 formed part of the Malayan Union, and are now part of Malaysia.

22. Today, Horsburgh Lighthouse and Pulau Pisang Lighthouse continue to be run from Singapore, the others from Malaysia. Nothing has changed.

23. The authorities in Singapore simply picked up where the British left off, as did the authorities in Penang and Malacca. The arrangement has worked for over 150 years.

24. The cooperation between the States which later became Malaysia and Singapore was not limited to cooperation in the building of lighthouses and navigational aids.

25. Let me take the example of the Royal Malaysian Navy, previously referred to as the Malayan Naval Force. It had responsibilities for Singapore until 1975 when Singapore established its own navy. The Royal Malaysian Navy continued to operate primarily from the Woodlands base in Singapore until the early 1980s, and only handed over the Woodlands base to Singapore in 1997.

26. Before and after the creation of the Singapore Navy, British and then Malaysian naval forces patrolled the waters of the Straits, including the area of Pulau Batu Puteh.

27. Such cooperative arrangements - and there are many others, for example in the field of communications and water supply - reflect not only our close historical ties but our ongoing rights and obligations as the littoral States of the Malacca and Singapore Straits.

28. Malaysia and Singapore, together with Indonesia, have cooperated for over 30 years in the management of the Straits. On 16 November 1971, all three countries joined forces to adopt a common position on matters relating to the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, and created the Tripartite Technical Experts Group on Safety of Navigation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. This forum meets annually to discuss technical issues relating to the safety of navigation in the Straits.

29. Horsburgh Lighthouse and its facilities form part of the multilateral regime for the safety of navigation in the Straits, just as it was a key light in the Straits Lights system in the 1850s until 1946.

30. With traffic in the Straits expected to increase from 94,000 vessels in 2004 to 141,000 in 2020, the safety of navigation, maritime security and protection of the marine environment are key. Ongoing cooperation in the Straits between the three littoral States is crucial.

Mr. President, Members of the Court:

31. Singapore now seeks to disrupt the long established arrangements in the Straits.

32. Singapore wants to radically change the basis on which it acquired the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh, and the character of its presence on the island.

33. Singapore is endeavouring to create for itself a maritime domain which is a far cry from the basis of its presence on Pulau Batu Puteh as lighthouse administrator.

34. Singapore?s presence on Pulau Batu Puteh as lighthouse operator never extended to issues concerning the territorial waters or the continental shelf around Pulau Batu Puteh. In 1969 Malaysia enacted legislation which extended its territorial sea from 3 to 12 nautical miles. Singapore did not protest. Later in 1969 an Agreement was reached between Malaysia and Indonesia in relation to the Continental Shelf. The delimitation line agreed between Malaysia and Indonesia in 1969 is shown in the map now on the screen. The same graphic is provided as Tab No. 8 in the Judge?s Folders.

35. As you can see, the delimitation line approached the vicinity of Pulau Batu Puteh closely and Point 11 is just 6.4 nautical miles from Pulau Batu Puteh. Singapore at no time asserted any interest, raised any objection or reserved its position. Neither did Singapore delimit the area around Pulau Batu Puteh or reserve its position in that area of the Straits in the Territorial Sea Boundary agreement it concluded with Indonesia in 1973.

36. Singapore?s claim not only upsets the existing arrangements in this way, but raises the question of what it wants to do with the island. In its pleadings Singapore has relied on a reclamation proposal around Pulau Batu Puteh. An internal document, a 1978 Tender Evaluation Report, shows a prospective artificial island of 5,000 sq meters towards Middle Rock. This is not fanciful conjecture. Singapore has an extremely active reclamation policy, which was the subject of the Reclamation Case instituted by Malaysia against Singapore in ITLOS in September 2003. The Provisional Measures Order given by that Tribunal in October 2003 will be known to the Court, as well as the subsequent amicable settlement of that case.

37. But Singapore does not need a bigger island for a better lighthouse. What does it need a bigger island for? Quite apart from the possible effects on environment and navigation in the Straits, this could lead to potentially serious changes to the security arrangements in the eastern entrance to the Straits. In fact, the aggressive methods Singapore has used to assert its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh have already led to regrettable - although not irreversible - changes to the stable conditions in the area.

38. In 1986, well after the critical date, Singapore sent its naval vessels to Pulau Batu Puteh, and has since then maintained a permanent, 24-hour guard around Pulau Batu Puteh. This has created tension and danger. Johor fishermen have been chased away by Singapore forces from their traditional fishing waters and sheltering spots around Pulau Batu Puteh. Malaysian officials and naval vessels cannot go anywhere near Pulau Batu Puteh without being physically challenged by Singapore naval vessels. In response to Singapore?s actions, Malaysia has chosen to adopt a policy of non-confrontation and to act in a peaceful manner while this dispute is in the process of being settled. We have now learned through its pleadings that Singapore placed military communications equipment on Pulau Batu Puteh in May 1977, which we were not previously aware of and which causes us grave concern. This conduct does not fall within the consent given for the construction and operation of the lighthouse.

39. Great Britain and Singapore?s conduct in respect of Pulau Batu Puteh before the critical date, at least that which was known to Malaysia, was entirely consistent with being the operator of the lighthouses on Pulau Batu Puteh and Pulau Pisang with the consent of the sovereign, Johor.

40. Malaysia, by contrast, has always respected the long-standing arrangements for Singapore?s operation of the lighthouses on Pulau Batu Puteh and Pulau Pisang. We have not interfered with Singapore?s operation of the lighthouses.

41. But Malaysia does not wish the stability of its relationship with Indonesia altered. Yet this would inevitably follow if Singapore were to be treated as sovereign over Pulau Batu Puteh with attendant implications for established maritime delimitation in the area.

42. Malaysia respectfully requests the Court to bear in mind these important considerations and, accordingly, to reaffirm Malaysia?s title to Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

43. Mr President and distinguished members of the Court, before ending my submission, I would like to clarify one point. Our problem is with Singapore as a military presence on one of Johor?s islands in the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits. We have no problem with Singapore as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse. Malaysia wishes to maintain the peaceful and stable conditions at the entrance to the South China Sea. It is Singapore which is seeking to change the situation. The Sultan and Temenggong of Johor, in 1844, gladly consented to the establishment of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh, and Malaysia has never suggested that its continued operation by Singapore presented any problem. I repeat, Malaysia has always respected the position of Singapore as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse and I would like to place formally on record that Malaysia will continue to do so. Malaysia?s concern is quite different, as I have indicated.

44. Mr. President, I wish to conclude here. After this, my colleague the Co-Agent will describe to you the Sultanate of Johor?s geographical make-up, the political events which shaped its territory, and Pulau Batu Puteh?s social and economic place in Johor and Malaysia.

45. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I thank you and would ask you now to call on the Co-Agent of Malaysia, Her Excellency Noor Farida Ariffin - The New Straits Time