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

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

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

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

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

Malaysia's turn to present case on islands today

THE HAGUE: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will hear Malaysia's oral arguments on the dispute over the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh, the Middle Rocks and South Ledge, today.

On Friday, Singapore completed the first round of its four-day oral arguments. Malaysia has also been given four days for the first round of its oral presentation.

Malaysia's head of delegation Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, who is Malaysia's agent for the case, will present the opening statement before the court. Abdul Kadir is Ambassador at Large and also the Prime Minister's Adviser on Foreign Affairs.

Co-agent Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands and Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail will also make oral submissions.

The court is scheduled to sit at 10am (5pm Malaysian time).

Malaysia is requesting the ICJ to adjudge and declare that the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and the two marine features belong to Malaysia.

In its memorial submitted to the court, among other things Malaysia said that Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, and other islands in and around the Singapore strait were part of the Sultanate of Johor before 1824.

This was unaffected by the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, which concerned only islands and territories to the south of the strait, it said in the memorial.

Malaysia said in its written submission that its sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are also based on the fact that neither Britain nor Singapore ever claimed sovereignty over the three features at any time prior to the critical dates in relation to the present dispute (1980 in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh and 1993 in the case of the other two features).

On the other hand, it said Singapore's legislation and treaty practice, its publications and maps as well as statements by knowledgeable Singapore officials all confirmed that the three features were not territories of Singapore, and were not administered as part of the territory of Singapore.

Singapore, in its memorial, claimed that the title to Pedra Branca (Singapore's name for Pulau Batu Puteh) already vested in the British Crown and subsequently in Singapore as the result of official actions that took place on the island in the period 1847-1851.

It contended that during this period, the British Crown acquired the title to Pulau Batu Puteh when it took lawful possession of the island and completed the erection of the Horsburgh Lighthouse - Bernama

S'pore: Ex-Johor officer disclaimed sovereignty

V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

SINGAPORE claims that a senior Johor government officer had written to the British in Singapore disclaiming sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.

Professor Alain Pellet, representing Singapore at the International Court of Justice, claimed a former acting state secretary of Johor in a letter on Sept 21, 1953 to the colonial secretary had stated that the Johor government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.

Pellet was submitting on the territorial dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore.

He said the letter from the officer to the colonial secretary showed that Johor never had a claim on Pulau Batu Puteh.

Pellet said the letter amounted to an unequivocal recognition of Singapore's title over Pulau Batu Puteh.

The 1953 correspondence came about when the British wanted to "determine the status of Pedra Branca" with a view to determine the boundaries of the colony's territorial waters.

This led to the Johor authorities being approached for enquiry, he said.

Another counsel, Rodman R. Bundy, said the British did not enter into an agreement with the Johor ruler before it built the Horsburgh lighthouse on the island between 1847 and 1851.

"The ruler did not mention Pedra Branca when the British were negotiating on the terms of agreement to build a lighthouse on Pulau Aur in 1900."

He said Malaysia was unable to produce the written agreement between Johor and the British on the construction of the lighthouse in Pulau Batu Puteh, unlike Pulau Aur and Cape Ricardo.

He said in 1952 Malaya wanted to fund the management of Pulau Pisang, Pulau Aur and Cape Ricardo lighthouses and yet there was no mention of Pulau Batu Puteh.

Counsel Loretta Malintoppi said six maps published by the Malaysian authorities between 1962 and 1975 placed Pedra Branca as a sovereign of Singapore.

Malaysia's case rests on the premise that Pedra Branca was part of the Johor Sultanate while Singapore asserts that the island was no man's land before the British acquired it to build a lighthouse for navigational purpose.

The island republic's legal team yesterday completed their first round of argument after four days of submission.

Singapore Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar, in his concluding remarks, said in international law, one could acquire a sovereign title after carrying out a series of acts on a disputed territory.

He said the British acquired the island for a sovereign purpose and Singapore, the successor to the title, continued with the lighthouse activities and maintained peace and order on the island.

He said Malaysia first made a claim in 1979, after 130 years of silence and non-conduct.

"Certainly, it is very clear Singapore was in possession of Pedra Branca and the two adjacent features," he said, adding even the Dutch recognised the British authority over it after 1851.

Foreign Ministry ambassador-at-large Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad will make his opening statement on Tuesday, outlining Malaysia's argument that Pulau Batu Puteh and the two features were always part of her territory.

Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands, Datuk Noor Faridah Ariffin and Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail will also speak on that day to entrench Malaysia's case - The New Straits Time

Singapore had 'control of island since 1851'

By : V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

SINGAPORE has had total control over Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Puteh) since 1851, the International Court of Justice heard yesterday.

Rodman R. Bundy, a counsel appearing for Singapore, said the British took possession of the island between 1847 and 1851 and constructed the Horsburgh lighthouse.

Thereafter, Singapore, was open on the activities on the island which confirmed their ownership, including its territorial waters.

He said none of these activities drew protests from Malaysia.

"Singapore has exercised regulatory authority and jurisdiction over personnel residing on the island, maintaining peace and good order," he said.

"The island is used as a meteorological data collection station and Singapore has exclusive control over visits by third parties to Pedra Branca.

"She had also investigated navigational hazards and ship wrecks in the territorial waters of Pedra Branca and considered sea reclamation works to extend the island."

He said the Singapore flag had been raised for more than 150 years on the island but drew no protest from Malaysia, unlike the 1968 incident at the nearby Pulau Pisang, where the flag was eventually brought down.

He said Malaysia's inaction confirmed its earlier decision that it had disclaimed ownership of the Pedra Branca in 1953.

Bundy was submitting on the territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Puteh and the adjacent features of Little Rocks and South Ledge.

Both countries are asking the court to decide on the sovereignty of the island.

Professor Alain Pellet, who is also representing Singapore, told the panel of 16 judges that it was impossible for Malaysia to find evidence or confirmation that ownership of the island belonged to Johor.

"None of the documents produced could convince the court that Johor had the original title over Pedra Branca."

Malaysia in its written submission asserts that:

* Pulau Batu Puteh, the two features and other islands in and around the Singapore Strait were part of the Johor Sultanate before 1824.

* The Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824 had no effect on the sultanate as the agreement only covered islands and territories to the south of the strait.

* Neither Great Britain nor Singapore ever claimed sovereignty over the three features at any time prior to the critical dates in relation to the present dispute (1980 as in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh and 1993 in the case of Little Rocks and South Ledge), and;

* Singapore's legislation and treaty practice, its publications and maps as well as statements by the island republic's officials all confirmed that the three features were not territories of Singapore - The New Straits Time

Hearing on 28-year Pulau Batu Puteh dispute begins

RESOLUTION of a 28-year dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and two adjacent marine features began at the International Court of Justice yesterday.

Singapore, which began submissions, contended that Johor had no claim over the islands, which it referred to as Pedra Branca, the Middle Rocks and South Ledge marine features.

The island republic's ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh told the court that Singapore had had sovereignty over the island for the past 150 years.

"Malaysia said, prior to 1847, the island was part of Johor but there is no proof to support its claim," he said.

Koh said the British acquired sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh to build a lighthouse in 1851.

He said Singapore was part of the Straits Settlement in 1867 and became part of the British colony.

"So Singapore, a former British colony, is successor to the title to Pedra Branca and also the two marine features which are located nearby," he said.

He was making his opening address to settle the territorial dispute between the island republic and Malaysia.

He said the dispute had been an irritant in the bilateral relations between the two countries.

"After almost 28 years, we are very pleased that the dispute will finally be brought to an end."

A 16-judge panel, led by court vice-president Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawaneh, will hear submissions from both parties scheduled for 12 days.

It is to decide the ownership of the 137-metre by 60-metre granite outcrop, which is located 7.7 nautical miles off Johor and 25 nautical miles from Singapore.

Situated where the Straits of Johor meets the South China Sea, it houses a light house, communication tower, helipad and a jetty.

Malaysia first claimed the island in 1979 when the country published new official maps, which included Pulau Batu Puteh as part of its territory.

This drew a protest from Singapore which currently has exclusive control over Pulau Batu Puteh, the Middle Rocks and South Ledge marine features. The court is expected to issue its judgment next year and both countries have said they would abide by its ruling.

Koh yesterday supported his submissions with maps and documents.

He said although Malaysia was formed in 1963 and Singapore became an independent state in 1965, many legal proceedings took place prior to that.

He said the lawful taking of Pulau Batu Puteh was effected by a series of actions such as the landing of a British agent in 1847 and the inaugration of the Horsbrough light house in 1851.

He said Malaysia had been silent over Pulau Batu Puteh and only asserted sovereignty in 1979.

"The taking over of the island was through peaceful means and there was no opposition from any party," he said adding that there was also no evidence that the British sought permission from Johor.

Indeed, he said the Dutch governor-general in Batavia (Indonesia) in the 1880s recognised the British acquisition of Pulau Batu Puteh.

The Malaysian legal team is led by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamed who is the Malaysian agent, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Penelope Nevill, Professors James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Marcelo and G. Cohen.

Hearing continues. - The New Straits Time

Pulau Batu Puteh case begins tomorrow

Pulau Batu Puteh is about the size of a football field, and holds a lighthouse, communication tower, helipad and jetty constructed by Singapore.

PUTRAJAYA: A 12-day hearing on the territorial dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore will begin at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the Netherlands, from tomorrow.

The proceedings come more than four years after the two countries signed an agreement to refer the case to the court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

In the agreement signed on Feb 6, 2003 here, Malaysia and Singapore requested the court to determine to whom the sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, and the two adjacent marine features, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to.

The agreements were ratified by parliaments of both nations which agreed to accept and be bound by the court's decision.

Pulau Batu Puteh, called Pedra Branca by Singapore, is 7.7 nautical miles off Johor and 25 nautical miles from Singapore.

It is about the size of a football field, and holds a lighthouse, communication tower, helipad and jetty constructed by Singapore.

The dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh arose in 1979 after Malaysia published new official maps showing it as part of its territory.

After 1980, Singapore prohibited local fishermen from carrying out their activities and seeking shelter during bad weather.

At present, the island is under Singapore's control.

Singapore asserts that it has sovereignty as it has maintained the Horsburgh lighthouse there since 1851.

Malaysia's stand is that she was not making a claim over Pulau Batu Puteh as it was always part of her territory.

In Malaysia's view, the lighthouse was built and administered only by consent of the Sultan of Johor, which was granted in 1844.

Both countries tried to resolve the issue through diplomatic means, but at their first meeting in February 1993 Singapore extended its claim to Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

Subsequently, both countries agreed in 1994 to refer their dispute to the ICJ but it was put on the back burner pending the settlement to the Sipadan and Ligitan territorial dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia.

The ICJ on Dec 17, 2002, ruled in favour of Malaysia.

The Malaysia-Singapore dispute will be heard by a 16-man panel led by court vice-president Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawaneh and two ad-hoc judges appointed by Malaysia and Singapore.

Court president Rosalyn Higgins had disqualified herself as she was involved in preparing the case for Singapore.

The Malaysian legal team is led by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Marcelo G. Cohen and Penelope Nevill.

Both parties, apart from raising principles and rules of international law, will also rely on historical background and map evidence, to argue their case.

Judgment is expected in the middle of next year - The New Straits Time

Johor MB comments on Pulau Batu Putih dispute

By Hamdan

TANGKAK: Johor will accept the decision reached by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Pulau Batu Putih dispute between Malaysia and Singapore.

Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman said the state and the Malaysian Government had agreed for the dispute to be resolved by ICJ and would look forward to the outcome.

Speaking to reporters here, he said it was just like the case where Malaysia accepted the decision regarding the dispute with Indonesia on Pulau Ligitan near Sabah several years ago.

“There has been a precedent on resolving such disputes when Malaysia agreed to bring related matters to the International Court of Justice.

“Similarly, we brought the land reclamation works carried out by Singapore in the Johor Straits to the International Tribunal of The Law of The Sea in Hamburg to resolve the issue,” he said recently.

Abdul Ghani, who accompanied his wife Datin Paduka Prof Jamilah Arifin in launching the Johor Healthy Women Carnival 2007, said the state hoped the outcome would favour Malaysia.

Recently, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said Malaysia and Singapore would know early next year which side owns Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks and South Ledge when the ICJ makes its decision.

Syed Hamid Albar said Malaysia was ready with the necessary evidence and documents to face Singapore during the hearing on Nov 6.

Pulau Batu Putih is about 14.3km from Tanjung Penyusop in Johor and 46.3km from Singapore.

The Middle Rocks is an island about half a nautical mile from Pulau Batu Putih and 1.7 nautical miles from South Ledge.

Singapore claimed sovereignty over Pulau Batu Putih in 1979 and the two other places in 1993.

On July 24, 2003, Malaysia and Singapore agreed to hand over the matter to ICJ.

Commenting on Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s statement recently for Malaysia to lead in economic cooperation in the Iskandar Development Region (IDR), he said it was open to participation.

He said that Malaysia was the world’s 17th top trading nation and any economic growth, including in IDR, would be based on open economic investment.

He said that economic investment in Singapore also observed such open participation and hoped investment in the growth region would be continuous.

Lee recently said that Singapore-Malaysia cooperation, which he described as good, would proceed at the pace Malaysia was comfortable with.

Lee also hoped that Malaysia would accept whatever the outcome was in the dispute between the two nations over Pulau Batu Putih - The Star

ICJ to hear island dispute in November

KOTA TINGGI: Malaysia and Singapore will know early next year who owns Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks and South Ledge when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) makes its decision.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said Malaysia was ready with all the necessary evidence and documents to face Singapore during the hearing on Nov 6.

Malaysia and Singapore both claim sovereignty over the islands and the dispute has been referred to the ICJ in The Hague, the Netherlands.

“So, let ICJ determine the real owner of the islands,” he said.

Syed Hamid said the 50-man Malaysia legal team was headed by adviser for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamed.

He said the team was the one Malaysia sent to handle the sovereignty dispute over Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan which Malaysia won.

“The hearing is expected to take between two and three weeks,” Syed Hamid, who is also the MP here, told reporters at the SM Teknik Excellent Award ceremony yesterday.

He said any decision by ICJ would not change the two-way policy between Malaysia and Singapore.

Pulau Batu Putih is about 14.3km from Tanjung Penyusop in Johor and 46.3km from Singapore.

The Middle Rocks is an island about half a nautical mile from Pulau Batu Putih and 1.7 nautical miles from South Ledge.

Singapore claimed sovereignty over Pulau Batu Putih in 1979 and the two others in 1993.

On July 24, 2003, Malaysia and Singapore agreed to hand over the matter to ICJ - The Star

Lee: Issues will be resolved

LANGKAWI: Singapore yesterday hinted that outstanding bilateral issues with Malaysia will be resolved through international arbitration.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the issues would have to be resolved “at some point.”

“They are not easy matters to be resolved, otherwise we would not have inherited them from our predecessors.

“So we ought to deal with them in a way that is acceptable to both sides and at the same time it must not affect our bilateral relations.

“These are specific issues, let’s tackle them in a way that is completely acceptable,” he told reporters after a get-together with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi here yesterday.

Lee used the overlapping claims over Pulau Batu Putih as an example of dealing with bilateral problems. The matter is in the International Court of Justice.

“Whichever way the judgement goes, Singapore will accept, Malaysia will accept. I think we will move on from there and that’s one possible model on how we can deal with other issues as well.”

Malaysia and Singapore are disputing the sovereignty of the tiny island 7.7 nautical miles from Johor and 25 nautical miles from Singapore. Singapore administers the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Putih.

In 1994, both agreed to take the matter to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and have made written submissions. Public hearings are scheduled to start on Nov 6.

Malaysia and Singapore Cabinet ministers attended the get-together. On the Malaysian side, they included Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy and Johor Mentri Besar Datuk Ghani Othman.

Abdullah later said Malaysia agreed that while outstanding issues were hard to resolve, “we don’t want to get bogged down by these issues while there are other things we would like to do”.

The outstanding bilateral issues are the price of water sold to Singapore, the use of Malaysian airspace by the Singapore air force, the development of KTM Bhd land in Singapore, the new bridge to replace the Causeway and the early withdrawal of Central Provident Fund contributions by Malaysians working in Singapore - The Star

Pulau Batu Putih issue will be resolved in three years' time

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.