Call for joint maritime patrols

JOHOR BARU: Maritime patrols around Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks should be conducted jointly with Singapore as the two features were close to each other, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said.

Details of the security arrangement will be worked out by the technical committee set up to study the implications of the International Court of Justice's decision, which ruled that Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore while Malaysia had sovereignty over Middle Rocks.

Syed Hamid said Malaysia would not adopt an aggressive posture by cordoning off the area around Middle Rocks.

"Though Singapore got Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks belongs to us and our fishermen and vessels should not be hindered from going to the area.

"The technical committee must sit down and figure out the security arrangement and navigation in the area," Syed Hamid said.
Following the decision by the court on Friday, the government said a bilateral technical committee would be formed to draw up the two countries' maritime borders around Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.

The committee would also determine which country possessed South Ledge, an outcropping southwest of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks that is only visible at low tide - NST

Pulau Batu Puteh decision: Fishermen can access Middle Rocks

By V. Anbalagan from the The Hague

MALAYSIAN fishermen can now operate freely in the waters off Middle Rocks following the International Court of Justice's ruling, which awarded the uninhabited outcropping to Malaysia, an academician said.


Pulau Batu Puteh is a granite island 137m long, with an average width of 60m and covering 8,560 sq metres at low tide. It is situated at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore. It lies 25.5 nautical miles to the east of Singapore, 7.7 nautical miles to the south of Johor and 7.6 nautical miles to the north of the Indonesian island of Bintan. The Horsburgh lighthouse in Pulau Batu Puteh was built in 1851. Middle Rocks and South Ledge are the two maritime features closest to Pulau Batu Puteh. Middle Rocks is located 0.6 nautical miles to the south and consists of two small rocks about 250 metres apart that are above water and stand 0.6m to 1.2m high. South Ledge, at 2.2 nautical miles to the southwest of Pulau Batu Puteh, is a rock formation only visible at low tide.

Professor Dr Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud, senior lecturer with The Malay World and Civilisation Institute, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, said the navy and marine police could patrol the area without hindrance.

He said the air force would also have access to the airspace.

"We have been denied entry to that locality since 1986 after Singapore took control of Pulau Batu Puteh (PBP) and the two maritime features. The republic has lost that exclusivity now," he told Malaysian journalists.

Nik Anuar was one of the researchers who assisted the Malaysian legal team to prepare its case before the ICJ.
The dispute over PBP started in 1980 when Malaysia published a map with the island lying within its territory.

In 1993, Singapore extended its claim to PBP by including two clusters of rocks nearby, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, after both nations failed to resolve the issue through bilateral means.

On Friday, the ICJ, in a 12-4 majority ruling, held that sovereignty over the island belonged to Singapore.

In a 15-1 majority ruling, the court held that Malaysia had ownership of Middle Rocks.

The court, in a 15-1 majority ruling, also stated that sovereignty over South Ledge belonged to the "state in the territorial waters of which it is located".

South Ledge is a rock formation only visible at low tide.

The court said it could not decide on the status of South Ledge because Malaysia and Singapore had only asked it to arbitrate on the matter of sovereignty separately for each of the three maritime features.

"The court observes that it has not been mandated by the parties to draw the line of delimitation with respect to the territorial waters of Malaysia and Singapore in the area in question," it said.

Nik Anuar said a careful reading of the judgment would imply that sovereignty over South Ledge also belonged to Malaysia. This was because South Ledge is only 1.7 nautical miles south of Middle Rocks.

"It is within the internationally held 12 nautical miles radius limitation to be part of Malaysian territorial waters."

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Rais Yatim said it would appear that Malaysia would have sovereignty over South Ledge.

Co-agent and former Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin said the ruling had contained Singapore from undertaking any activities unilaterally.

"She has a neighbour now because the court has recognised that Malaysia has sovereignty over Middle Rocks."

She expressed hope both nations could resolve the outstanding issues.

During the oral hearing last November, Malaysia's agent, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, said Singapore wanted to redefine her status from being a mere "lighthouse operator" by claiming sovereignty over PBP and the two maritime features.

The ruling by the ICJ affirmed Malaysia's stand that the Johor sultanate had the undisputed title over PBP and the surrounding areas from time immemorial - NST

Johor wants maritime boundaries drawn up fast

JOHOR BARU: Now that the legal dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh has been settled, the state government wants clear maritime boundaries to be drawn around the island and the Middle Rocks.

Menteri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman urged the technical committee studying the implications of the International Court of Justice ruling to swiftly convene a meeting and set the boundaries.

The ICJ has ruled that Singapore has sovereignty over Pulau Batu Putih while it gave Malaysia ownership of the Middle Rocks.

"The boundaries are important for fishermen. Many problems with regard to territorial rights can be resolved once the boundaries are drawn," Abdul Ghani said after opening a Massif Design Sdn Bhd showroom here yesterday. The company specialises in landscaping work.

The ICJ ruled that South Ledge will belong to the state in the territorial waters of which it is located.

In George Town, DAP chairman Karpal Singh said the party was disappointed with the decision to award Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore.

He questioned how Pulau Batu Puteh could be awarded to Singapore when it was much nearer to the tip of Johor compared with Singapore.

Karpal also expressed doubts on whether the government had taken proper legal advice.

"Malaysia should not have been judged by the ICJ unless it was confident of a win. The decision may lead to other disputes of a maritime nature between Malaysia and Singapore."

He also called on the government to compensate the fishing community in Johor Baru affected by the ICJ decision - NST

After The Hague, it's time to move on

By Abdul Ghafur Hamid

IT was a suspenseful time for both Malaysian and Singaporean delegations to the Hague when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its judgment on Friday. The judgment was not a winner-take-all but a split one, adjudging Pulau Batu Puteh (PBP) to Singapore, Middle Rocks to Malaysia, and South Ledge to the state in the territorial waters of which it is located.

PBP is a small granite rocky island, 137m by 60m (roughly half the size of a football field), which is located 7.7 nautical miles to the south of Johor and approximately 24 nautical miles to the east of Singapore.

The island is called Pulau Batu Puteh (White Rock Island) by Malaysia and Pedra Branca by Singapore.

The dispute arose on Feb 14, 1980, when Singapore protested against the 1979 map published by Malaysia showing PBP as part of Malaysian territory. Singapore claimed the Middle Rocks and South Ledge, two marine features near the island, in February 1993.

After exhausting a few years of bilateral consultations, the two countries submitted their dispute to the ICJ on July 24, 2003.
According to the Malaysian argument, PBP, the two marine features, and other islands in and around Singapore Strait were part of the Johor Sultanate before 1824.

This situation was confirmed by the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824, which ceded to Great Britain the Island of Singapore and all islets and rocks within 10 geographical miles off Singapore, but otherwise left the territory of Johor unaffected.

Therefore, Malaysia primarily invoked the original title over the island and two marine features by the Sultan of Johor from time immemorial. The main Malaysian stand before the ICJ was that PBP was not a no man's land (terra nullius) when the British East India Company constructed the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island and sought and obtained the permission of the sultan and Temenggong of Johor to build the lighthouse on the island. Malaysia argued that Singapore's presence on the island was merely as lighthouse administrator. Neither Great Britain nor Singapore ever exercised sovereignty over the three features.

The main Singaporean contention was that the island and two marine features were terra nullius when the British constructed the lighthouse. They argued that the construction of the lighthouse and the authorisation of the British Crown constituted a classic taking of possession of a territory as a sovereign.

Title was acquired by the British in accordance with the legal principles governing the acquisition of territory in 1851. The title acquired in 1851 has been maintained by the British and its lawful successor, Singapore, for about 150 years and during such a long period Malaysia did not make any protests apart from the first assertion of sovereignty in 1979.

Singapore, therefore, primarily relied on the taking of possession of a territory not owned by any state and the continuous, peaceful and effective exercise of state authority over it.

From the perspective of international law, this case is a competition between a claim based on original title (Malaysia) and one invoking title by means of taking possession of a terra nullius and "peaceful and continuous exercise of state authority" (Singapore).

Malaysia maintains a track record of peacefully settling differences with neighbouring countries. It is a consistent practice of Malaysia to resort to international dispute resolution only when diplomatic means such as negotiation and consultation are exhausted.

A tremendous effort was made in the preparations for the Pulau Batu Puteh case. The Malaysian legal team was led by Malaysia's Agent Tan Seri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, and Co-Agent Datuk Noor Faridah Ariffin.

Counsel and advocates for Malaysia included the (then) foreign minister of Malaysia, the attorney-general of Malaysia, and eminent international law experts such as professors James Crawford and Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC from Cambridge University and Professor Nicolaas Jan Schrijver from Leiden University.

Head, deputy head and a strong team of federal counsel from the International Affairs Division of the A-G's Chambers were also part of the team.

The Malaysian legal team established a case that was the result of a thorough research for nearly 30 years, conducted by experts from various ministries and government departments, including academia.

The preparations for the case were the co-ordinated efforts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the A-G's Chambers, the National Archives of Malaysia, the Department of Survey and Mapping and the Johor government, to mention only a few.

Based on this research, the legal team prepared one of the most compelling arguments to the ICJ, consisting of Written Memorials of 172 pages, Counter Memorials of 306 pages, and Reply of 213 pages, a number of documents and maps, together with oral submissions by counsel.

Now the much awaited judgment has come out. As far as PBP itself is concerned, the ICJ first of all accepted the Malaysian contention and concluded that the Sultanate of Johor had sovereignty over the island by means of original title from time immemorial.

The ICJ, however, found that the following acts and omissions of the parties since 1953 had decisively changed the legal position:

(1) the reply by the acting state secretary of Johor to the Singaporean government that the "Johor Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca"; [Refer HERE]

(2) the investigation of shipwrecks by Singapore within the island's territorial waters;

(3) the permission granted or not granted by Singapore to Malaysian officials to survey the waters surrounding the islands; and,

(4) the absence of protest from Malaysia to the flying of the Singapore ensign on the island, the installation of military communications equipment on the island in 1977 and the proposed plans by Singapore to extend the island as well as a few specific publications and maps.

The ICJ concluded that sovereignty over PBP had passed to Singapore due to peaceful and continuous display of sovereign acts on the part of Singapore since 1953 and acquiescence on the part of Malaysia.

Middle Rocks and South Ledge are maritime features located at 0.6 and 2.2 nautical miles respectively from PBP. Middle Rocks consist of some rocks that are permanently above water whereas South Ledge is a low-tide elevation.

In the absence of proof to the effect that the ancient and original title of the Sultan of Johor over Middle Rocks had passed to Singapore like in the case of PBP, the ICJ adjudged that sovereignty over Middle Rocks remained with Malaysia.

Since South Ledge is a low tide elevation and not an island, a specific legal principle applies. A low tide elevation is owned by the state in the territorial waters of which it is located.

South Ledge now falls within the overlapping territorial waters of the main land Malaysia, PBP and Middle Rocks.

The ICJ was not asked by the parties to delimit their territorial waters and as there are overlapping territorial waters in the area, the ICJ left open the question of sovereignty over South Ledge, which is to be determined by the parties themselves in future by delimiting their overlapping territorial waters.

The judgment of the ICJ is based on facts and evidence and in accordance with its consistent jurisprudence.

In any legal case, a party can only prepare the best case for it. Once the judgment has come out, it is the obligation of each party to abide by it no matter what the judgment is if supremacy of law is to be observed.

Since Malaysia owns Middle Rocks, which is only 0.6 nautical miles from PBP, Singapore cannot make any unilateral decision or work to reclaim land around the island.

It is also an urgent need for the two countries to negotiate the delimitation of territorial waters in the area. Now is the time for the two countries to fully co-operate in a spirit of the utmost friendliness.

In any case, let us give credit to those who deserve it - the Malaysian legal team and those who assisted in one way or another in preparing the Malaysian case - for their hard work and a wonderful job done.

Dr Abdul Ghafur Hamid @ Khin Maung Sein is professor of international law at the International Islamic University Malaysia. He may be contacted at ghafur@iiu.edu.my.

S'pore cannot act unilaterally in greater Batu Puteh area now

KOTA TINGGI, Sun - The split decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last Friday means that Singapore cannot act at its discretion in the greater area of Pulau Batu Puteh, the island over which it now has sovereignty, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said today.

He said the ICJ judgment also gave Malaysia sovereignty over Middle Rocks, located close to Pulau Batu Puteh, and as such Malaysia could exercise its right over the waters of Middle Rocks.

"Now Malaysia can conduct activities in the area (of the Middle Rocks), unlike previously when we could not do anything there,” he said.

Syed Hamid, who was previously foreign minister, spoke to reporters after an anti-drug activity in his Kota Tinggi parliamentary constituency.

He said Malaysians, particularly fishermen, could go to Middle Rocks now because it belonged to Malaysia.

The ICJ, in its judgment delivered on Friday to end the 28-year-old dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, awarded sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore and sovereignty over Middle Rocks to Malaysia and ruled that South Ledge belonged to the country in the territorial waters of which it was located.

Syed Hamid said senior officials of both countries would have to work out the procedures and regulations pertaining to various matters, including security patrols and navigation in the waters of Pulau Batu Puteh and Middle Rocks.

The joint technical committee which would implement the decision of the ICJ would have to demarcate the continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of both countries in those waters, he added.

"Either side cannot act unilaterally,” he said, adding that the

“Eye-in-the-Sky” patrol of the Malacca Straits could be emulated for navigational cooperation in those waters.

Meanwhile, Syed Hamid said his ministry was formulating new legislation on the prohibition of glue-sniffing and consumption of “ketum” leaves, and parliament was expected to approve the new bill at the end of the year - NST

Singapura tidak lagi bersendirian di Pulau Batu Puteh: Syed Hamid

KOTA TINGGI: Keputusan Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di The Hague, Belanda mengenai hak kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh, Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatin, Jumaat lalu, menunjukkan Singapura kini tidak boleh bertindak sewenang-wenangnya di perairan itu sebagaimana yang dilakukannya sebelum ini, kata Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.

Menteri Dalam Negeri itu berkata, keputusan ICJ memberikan Malaysia kedaulatan mutlak terhadap Terumbu Karang Tengah membuktikan negara mempunyai hak terhadap perairan di kawasan itu.

"Keputusan ICJ itu bermakna Singapura tidak lagi bersendirian di kawasan perairan berkenaan. Malaysia juga berhak terhadap kawasan perairan terbabit. Kini kita boleh menjalankan aktiviti di kawasan itu, berbanding dahulu di mana kita tidak boleh langsung (menjalankan aktiviti),” katanya kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan majlis Gerak Gempur Dadah Parlimen Kota Tinggi di sini, hari ini.

Katanya, warga Malaysia terutamanya nelayan kini boleh pergi ke Terumbu Karang Tengah kerana ia adalah hak milik negara ini.

Syed Hamid berkata beliau memahami ada perasaan sedih dengan kehilangan Pulau Batu Puteh, tetapi keputusan ICJ dua hari lalu itu juga turut mengandungi hikmah kepada Malaysia.

Singapura ketika mengemukakan kesnya kepada ICJ, kata beliau mahukan kedaulatan dan pemilikan terhadap Pulau Batu Puteh, Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatin, tetapi akhirnya hanya mendapat Pulau Batu Puteh manakala Malaysia diberi hak terhadap Terumbu Karang Tengah.

Republik itu sejak dahulu lagi meletakkan kapal peronda angkatan tenteranya di sekitar perairan ketiga-tiga struktur maritim berkenaan dan menghalau mana-mana pihak termasuk nelayan negara ini daripada menghampiri perairan di sekitarnya.

Nelayan Malaysia, katanya kini boleh menjadikan Terumbu Karang Tengah, yang terletak berhampiran dengan Pulau Batu Puteh itu sebagai kawasan perlindungan ketika cuaca buruk.

Syed Hamid berkata, pegawai kanan kedua-dua negara kini perlu berbincang dan merangka prosedur dan peraturan berkaitan pelbagai perkara termasuk kawalan keselamatan dan navigasi pelayaran kerana perairan di situ sudah menjadi perairan bersama.

Jawatankuasa Teknikal kedua-dua negara yang akan melaksanakan keputusan ICJ, katanya perlu merangka peta pelantar benua dan kawasan Zon Ekonomi Eksklusif (EEZ) kedua-dua negara di kawasan perairan itu - Bernama

Pengerang Fishermen Will Abide By Decision On Pulau Batu Puteh

KOTA TINGGI, May 23 - The Pengerang Fishermen's Association will abide by the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that gave Singapore sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.

Its chairman Abu Bakar Mohamad said the fishermen would go on with their lives as usual and would respect Singapore's ownership of the island although they were rather disappointed with the decision.

The association, which was formed in 1973, has about 1,500 members.

The fishermen had been fishing near the rocky island, also known as Pedra Blanca, before the territorial dispute came to the fore 28 years ago.

Since then, the fishermen were not allowed by the Singapore authorities to fish near the island.

Abu Bakar said the fishermen were sad that they could no longer fish in the area which was teeming with fish.

Fisherman Abu Bakar Abdul Rahim, 55, said he regarded what happened as a test from God in earning a living for his family as he had to look for other fishing grounds.

In JOHOR BAHARU, private sector employee Mohd Salleh Ali, who watched the direct telecast over RTM1 said he was disappointed with the decision.

"But I'm glad that Middle Rocks still belong to Malaysia, and let the government decide on the next move over the South Ledge ownership issue," he said - Bernama

Loss a big blow for fishermen

By Satiman Jamin

KOTA TINGGI: The normally quiet fishing community in Sungai Rengit, Pengerang, 65km from here, became highly charged yesterday, as fishermen shook their heads in disbelief over the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh.

The fishing community has a direct stake in the dispute as they have been at the receiving end of enforcement by Singapore's marine police guarding the tiny island, and being told to keep clear of the waters around it.



Pengerang Fishermen Association chairman Abu Bakar Mohamad said before the dispute over the ownership of the island, fishermen were free to fish there.

"The area around the island is a gold mine, abundant with marine life, both in quality and quantity.

"Although we really hoped for Malaysia to be declared the rightful owner of the island, we are also aware of the government's stand to accept the International Court of Justice's decision," he said.

Abu Bakar said he had informed all his 1,500 members to stay calm, regardless of the outcome of the arbitration.

A fisherman, Syed Ahmad Syed Yasin, 72, who had been fishing since 1957, said he was really disappointed with the judgment.

"How can we accept that, as it was much closer to us compared with Singapore," he said, pointing out that Pulau Batu Puteh is just 7.7 nautical miles from Tanjung Penyusuh, Pengerang, compared with the 25.5 nautical miles distance from Singapore.

He said in the 1970s, there was only a lighthouse on the island, but when living quarters and a helipad were added in the 1980s, fishermen became apprehensive that Singapore would lay claim to Pulau Batu Puteh.

Azizul Zaidi, 31, was more concerned with the long-term ramifications of the decision.

As the island is less than 12 nautical miles from the peninsula, Singapore could divide the waterways halfway as theirs, he said.

"I would understand if the dispute was between Indonesia and Malaysia, because as close as Pulau Batu Puteh is from our shores compared with Singapore, at four nautical miles, Sedona in Tanjung Pinang, Indonesia is the nearest shore to the island," Azizul Zaidi said. He said fishermen would not have any rich fishing ground in the area to earn a living.

"Where are we supposed to fish then, as the area around Tanjung Pengelih had been badly affected by the reclamation carried out by Singapore a few years ago?" Azizul Zaidi asked. He said they had sought refuge from storms in the waters around Pulau Batu Puteh as it was always calm there.

"This is a real blow to us," he said - NST

Legal implications 'to be studied'

By Sheridan Mahavera

JOHOR BARU: The government will form a technical committee to study the legal implications of the International Court of Justice's decision on Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak.

However, since the court upheld Malaysia's claim to Middle Rocks, Singapore cannot make any unilateral decision or work to reclaim land around the island republic.

Najib said the decision benefited Malaysia "on balance" as it confirmed the country's ownership of Middle Rocks and the area around it.

The marine feature, which lies south of Pulau Batu Puteh, is also important in determining maritime borders between Malaysia and Singapore.

"As far as Pulau Batu Puteh is concerned, it has always been managed by Singapore." The committee, he said, would meet and take a few weeks to study the implications of the decision but what was important was that Malaysians accepted it.

"Of course, I do understand the importance and the symbolic nature of Pulau Batu Puteh to Malaysia and to the people of Johor.

"I can understand the disappointment but we must take it in the spirit that it was our decision to take it (the dispute) to the ICJ."

On how he personally felt about the decision, Najib said: "When you go into court you want to win the maximum.

"We did not get all that we wanted. We got some of it. It is a disappointment, but it is something that we have to accept.

"Although we were not successful in the whole claim, at least we defended half of it," Najib added - NST

Latest Upadate - 23 May 2008

LATEST!:
Singapore gets Pulau Batu Puteh while Malaysia given Middle Rocks - Bernama

THE HAGUE, Fri: The International Court of Justice here today ruled Singapore has sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh while Malaysia owns Middle Rocks, and South Ledge belongs to the state in whose territorial waters it is located.

The judgment brought to a close a 28-year-old territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over the island which Singapore called Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

Pulau Batu Puteh is located 7.7 nautical miles off the coast of Johor's Tanjung Penyusuh. Both countries have pledged to abide by the decision of the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, whose decision is final and not subject to appeal.

Malaysia and Singapore have also repeatedly emphasised that whatever decision handed down by the ICJ, would not strain ties between the two neighbours.

The judgment was delivered by ICJ Vice-President Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, who was the Acting President in the case, at 10am Netherlands time and ended reading out the verdict five minutes before noon.

Shawkat and 15 other judges had heard oral submissions by both countries from Nov 6-23 last year.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim regarded the judgment as a "win-win" situation and stated that the status quo remained although Singapore had sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh and Malaysia over Middle Rocks.

The delivery of the judgment was televised live by RTM from The Hague, Netherlands, from 10am (4pm in Malaysia) - NST

Secret ballot to decide outcome

KUALA LUMPUR: The outcome of the Pulau Batu Puteh dispute tomorrow will be decided through secret ballot by the judges presiding over the issue at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands.

Malaysia's agent for the case at the ICJ, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, said the judges would also state their reasons for their decision.

In a special briefing to journalists at Parliament House yesterday, he said the presiding president of the proceeding would cast his vote in the event of a tie.

"We cannot predict the basis of their decisions," he said.

This was because there was no indication on whether the judges would base their decision on whether the matter involved three distinct issues -- Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge -- as Malaysia had requested, or as a whole as requested by Singapore.

He said the decision could see the republic winning outright, merely getting one of the islands or losing their claim altogether.

It could also see the status quo maintained where Pulau Batu Puteh continued to be under Malaysian sovereignty while Singapore would be allowed to operate the lighthouse there.

Abdul Kadir said the Pulau Batu Puteh decision would not be as straightforward as the case of the Sipadan and Ligitan dispute with Indonesia, which was decided in Malaysia's favour by a vote of 16-1.

"It will not be that easy," said Abdul Kadir, who is the adviser for foreign affairs to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim has urged Malaysians to accept and respect whatever decision was made.

"Both Singapore and Malaysia will not make an issue of it," he said at the Parliament lobby after a briefing on the issue to both Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara members at Parliament House yesterday.

Abdullah also attended the briefing.

Rais said Malaysia and Singapore had agreed to set up a technical committee to manage issues arising from the Pualu Batu Puteh decision, whatever it was.

He said this was to enable the interests of both countries involving the island, such as the lighthouse and fishing rights in the surrounding waters, to be managed and administered based on international norms.

"For example, if Malaysia wins, the status of the lighthouse on the island needs to be determined as to whether we still allow Singapore to manage it." - NST

Batu Puteh verdict to be telecast live on TV1

KUALA LUMPUR, Wed - Will Pulau Batu Puteh be ours? Find out on Friday live as RTM1 will be televising the judgement from The Hague from 4pm.

Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek said the judgment, expected to last about two hours, would be telecast live from the International Court of Justice.

Speaking after briefing editors and journalists from local publications at Parliament House yesterday on the 28-year-old dispute over the island between Malaysia and Singapore, he said the decision to telecast the judgment live was to enable Malaysians to understand the issues raised by the court.

He said interpretation from a third party, such as news services, might be inaccurate.

Shabery said RTM had been carrying a programme on the Pulau Batu Puteh issue as an educational process for the people to understand the matter.

He urged Malaysians to accept the decision and and not to get too emotional if the court ruled in Singapore’s favour.

“Whatever the decision... it should not lead to any negative implication,” he said - NST

RTM siar secara langsung penghakiman kes Pulau Batu Puteh

KUALA LUMPUR: RTM1 akan menyiarkan secara langsung penghakiman oleh Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) mengenai pertikaian hak kedaulatan terhadap Pulau Batu Puteh antara Malaysia dan Singapura mulai jam 4 petang Jumaat ini, kata Menteri Penerangan, Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek, hari ini.

"Siaran langsung dari The Hague, Belanda itu akan memberi peluang kepada rakyat Malaysia, khususnya anak Johor, mengikuti prosiding kes berkenaan daripada kaca mata Malaysia," katanya pada majlis taklimat di Bangunan Parlimen di sini.

Shabery berkata ramai orang Johor mengadakan doa selamat dan sembahyang hajat agar keputusan kes itu memihak kepada Malaysia kerana kes berkenaan amat dekat di hati mereka.

Bagaimanapun, beliau berkata, kedua-dua negara berjanji akan akur terhadap keputusan ICJ berhubung pertikaian itu dan pihak yang menang, tidak akan mengadakan sebarang sambutan kemenangan.

"Yang penting di sini ialah mencapai penyelesaian bagi konflik yang berlarutan sejak sekian lama,” katanya sambil menambah bahawa rakyat Malaysia akan menerima apa saja yang diputuskan oleh mahkamah atau sistem antarabangsa.

Isu Pulau Batu Puteh membabitkan pertikaian mengenai hak asal Malaysia terhadap pulau berkenaan apabila ia dituntut Singapura mulai 1980.

Pulau terbabit terletak 7.7 batu nautika dari tanah besar Malaysia dan 25.5 batu nautika melalui laut dari Singapura.

Malaysia adalah pemilik asal Pulau Batu Puteh sejak sekian lama dan pulau itu menjadi sebahagian daripada wilayah Johor.

Malaysia berhujah bahawa kehadiran Singapura di pulau berkenaan adalah semata-mata melalui pembabitannya dalam membina dan menyenggara sebuah rumah api di situ - itupun setelah mendapat restu dan keizinan pemegang kedaulatan pulau berkenaan iaitu Johor - dan oleh itu, ia tidak menyebabkan Malaysia hilang kedaulatan terhadap Pulau Batu Puteh - Bernama

Rais: Verdict over Pulau Batu Puteh will be in our favour

JOHOR BARU: Malaysia has a good chance of winning the sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers judgment on May 23, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said yesterday.


Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim with Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman after a briefing by state government officials on the case involving Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge in Johor Baru yesterday.

"Having gone through the items, the grounds of submission and the case law that has been relied upon, Malaysia has a very good case. We are confident that the judgment will be in our favour," he said at a press conference after a 90-minute briefing by state government officials at Bukit Timbalan here yesterday.

Also present was Menteri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman.

Rais said he had recently visited Singapore and both countries had agreed to submit to the ICJ decision.

The arguments submitted by Malaysia to the ICJ were based on historical facts closely related to treaty, population, regulations and terms which stated a clear case of Malaysia owning the territory, he said.

Asked about Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Prof S. Jayakumar's statement on Singapore winning the case, Rais said that the republic might feel they too had submitted strong evidence.

"Singapore may have the same feeling about their efforts in producing evidence in court to support their case. We cannot stop them from expressing their confidence."

Rais said both countries had agreed to form a joint technical committee headed by Foreign Ministry secretary-general Tan Sri Rastam Mohamed Isa and his Singapore counterpart to act on the ICJ decision.

"This committee will study and translate the ICJ decision and make recommendations on the governance of Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge to both countries," he said.

Rais said it was too early for the ministry to postulate the actions that would be taken should the ICJ deliver a judgment unfavourable to Malaysia.

"I will be making a statement from the Hague, the moment we get the verdict. It is rather premature to postulate now on what we would do next," he added.

Rais also met the Sultan of Johor at Istana Bukit Serene yesterday to brief him on the case.

"Since the territorial dispute is located in Johor waters, it is only right for us to inform the sultan of the proceedings and seek his feedback," he said.

Members of Malaysia's legal team, including the special adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, will be at The Hague on May 23 for the decision - NST

Opinion: Pulau Batu Puteh: Past, present and future

By Rais Yatim

The long-drawn saga of conflicting claims to Pulau Batu Puteh is drawing to a close in a victory of process over protest, writes RAIS YATIM.

A PANEL of 16 judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) convenes on May 23 in The Hague to deliver judgment on the case of Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, a longstanding territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore.


The lighthouse built on Pulau Batu Puteh and the illegal structure by Singapore.

For generations, Pulau Batu Puteh - roughly half the size of a football field located 7.7 nautical miles off Johor's coast at Tanjong Penyusoh - was a tranquil haven for fishermen plying the surrounding waters. But a claim on the island, which is part of the Johor Sultanate, surfaced three decades ago.

It began on Feb 14, 1980, when Singapore protested against the 1979 map published by Malaysia clearly placing Pulau Batu Puteh in our territory. Singapore then expanded its claims to the nearby Middle Rocks and South Ledge in February 1993. On Feb 6, 2003, Malaysia and Singapore signed a special agreement to refer the matter to the ICJ.

Malaysia's position is that Pulau Batu Puteh is and has always been part of the state of Johor. We have asserted to the ICJ that nothing has happened to displace our sovereignty over it. Singapore's presence on the island for the sole purpose of constructing and maintaining a lighthouse there - with the permission of the territorial sovereign, Johor - does not displace Malaysia's sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.

Our nation has more than 1,000 islands. Many of them sit in strategically important, resource-rich seas, so territorial disputes are bound to occur for one reason or another. It is unfortunate that Malaysia has had to seek international legal recourse. But it is only when diplomatic and political channels are exhausted that Malaysia refers the dispute to a third party.

We have had to exercise this option twice before. A territorial dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan off the coast of Sabah was referred to the ICJ, while our concern over Singapore's land reclamation led us to institute arbitral proceedings at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

In the case involving Sipadan and Ligitan, the ICJ on Dec 17, 2002, in a 16-1 majority decision, ruled that both islands belonged to Malaysia. On Singapore's land reclamation, the ITLOS tribunal issued a provisional ruling on Oct 9, 2003, which, among others, directed Singapore not to conduct its activities in ways that would prejudice Malaysia's rights or damage the marine environment.

In both cases, the outcome of the proceedings confirmed Malaysia's position. But neither outcome would have been possible for Malaysia without a strong, meticulously prepared case. That track record continued with the Pulau Batu Puteh proceedings at the ICJ.

Three of the five leading international law experts who argued our case for Pulau Batu Puteh also represented Malaysia at the ICJ during the proceedings for Sipadan and Ligitan and at the ITLOS tribunal on Singapore's reclamation works. Cambridge University professors Sir Datuk Elihu Lauterpacht QC and Datuk James Crawford, and Leiden University international law professor Datuk Nicolaas Jan Schrijver are among the best in the business.

Under the capable leadership of Malaysia's Agent for the Pulau Batu Puteh case, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, as well as our Co-Agent, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the legal team assembled a case that involved research spanning nearly 30 years. More than 50 experts were roped in to scour records in nine countries. No stone was left unturned in our research to present the most compelling arguments to the ICJ.

Our preparations would not have been successful without the assistance of the attorney-general, the National Archives of Malaysia, the Department of Survey and Mapping, and the Johor government. The inter-departmental co-operation involved 35 ministries, agencies, departments, the armed forces, police and local institutions of higher learning. It easily serves as one of the best case studies in teamwork and dedication to protect the interests of Malaysia.

To put the nearly 30 years spent researching the Pulau Batu Puteh case into perspective, consider how the top position at the Foreign Ministry changed hands not once or twice but seven times in that period! Tan Sri Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen Tengku Ismail was foreign minister at the time the work began. He was succeeded by Tun Mohd Ghazali Shafie in 1981, but was reappointed to his old portfolio in 1984.

I was made the minister two years later, and Tan Sri Abu Hassan Omar succeeded me in 1987. But the research went on uninterrupted right through to when Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was appointed foreign minister in 1991, and when Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar assumed the position in 1999.

Now, as fate would have it, I have again found myself back in the saddle at the ministry, just as the case draws to its conclusion. All my predecessors deserve their due credit. This is a story of a torch being handed from one helm to another. I would be remiss not to record the highest appreciation to all the many officers - some of whom have retired - who dedicated themselves to helping Malaysia present the best possible case at the ICJ.

We all have a special attachment to this case. Not just for the time and effort spent on it, but because of our responsibility to the Malaysian public to give our all in protecting our nation's territorial sovereignty.

The judgment on May 23 will mark the end of a long journey. We must bear in mind that in any legal case, the outcome is not guaranteed. We can only prepare the best possible arguments and hope that the judges will agree and rule in our favour. As I have communicated to my counterpart in Singapore, in the event Malaysia gets the judgment, Singapore should accept the fact. And if Singapore gets the decision, Malaysia will do likewise. Inasmuch as both nations respect international law, so shall we respect the decision of the ICJ.

The dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh has constrained our ties with one of our closest neighbours and fellow Asean member states. We hope a resolution to this dispute can pave the way to easing our other outstanding bilateral issues with Singapore.

Our decision to take this matter to the ICJ demonstrates that Malaysia is a nation that places great emphasis on the rule of law and affirms our position as a respectable member of the international community.

There should be no acrimony on either side, no matter what the judgment may be, and on this both Malaysia and Singapore have agreed. I'm happy to report that both countries have also agreed to have a Joint Technical Committee meeting headed by our Foreign Ministry secretary-general, Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa, and his Singapore counterpart, before the judgment is made.

In the end, it is what Malaysia and Singapore do after May 23 that will decide whether we can bring closure to a bilateral issue that has besieged us for more than three decades. Whatever the final outcome, Malaysia and Singapore will remain steadfast as friends and neighbours bound by understanding and harmony.

Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim is Foreign Minister of Malaysia.

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

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

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

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