Singapura gulung hujah Batu Putih

THE HAGUE, Belanda 20 Nov. – Singapura hari ini menutup kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge dengan mempertahankan dakwaan bahawa republik itu mempunyai hak kedaulatan ke atas ketiga-tiga pulau tersebut.

Duta Kelana republik itu, Tommy Koh di akhir ucapan penutupnya meminta mahkamah membuat keputusan berdasarkan perenggan kedua, Perkara 60, Peraturan-Peraturan Mahkamah bahawa Singapura mempunyai hak ke atas pulau-pulau tersebut.

Pasukan Singapura memberitahu Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini, pihaknya telah membuktikan bahawa ketiga-tiga pulau itu milik mereka berdasarkan hujah serta bukti bertulis yang terkandung dalam memorialnya.

Republik itu mendakwa telah berjaya mengemukakan kesnya sepanjang pusingan pertama dan pusingan kedua hujah lisan selama enam hari di hadapan barisan 15 hakim yang diketuai oleh Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh.

Kesemua hujah Singapura itu akan dijawab oleh pasukan Malaysia yang diketuai oleh Duta Tugas-Tugas Khas, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad Khamis ini.

Koh yang bertindak sebagai ejen utama Singapura dalam tempoh 15 minit membentangkan 10 hujah bagi menyokong dakwaan republik itu bahawa ketiga-tiga pulau tersebut adalah milik mereka sejak tahun 1851.

Hujah-hujah tersebut ialah Pulau Batu Putih terra nullius (tiada pemilik), justeru kehadiran British di situ pada tahun 1847 untuk membina Rumah Api Horsburgh serta tindak-tanduknya sehingga tahun 1851 jelas menunjukkan British mempunyai hak kedaulatan di pulau itu.

Malaysia dalam hujahnya mendakwa, Pulau Batu Putih adalah sebahagian daripada Kesultanan Johor, justeru ia merupakan pemilik asal pulau tersebut.

Keduanya, Koh merumuskan bahawa, di antara tahun 1847 hingga 1851, British tanpa perlu mendapatkan kebenaran daripada mana-mana pihak menyempurnakan pembinaan rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih.

Bagaimanapun, bagi dakwaan itu, Malaysia baik dalam memorialnya atau ketika hujah lisan membangkitkan tentang surat keizinan oleh Sultan dan Temenggung kepada British berhubung pembinaan rumah api.

Hujah ketiga Singapura seperti yang dibangkitkan oleh Koh ialah sepanjang tahun 1847 dan 1851, British telah mendapatkan hak kedaulatan di Pulau Batu Putih berdasarkan;

i) Niat untuk memasukkan hak kedaulatannya dan

ii) Segala tindak-tanduk yang dijalankan di pulau tersebut.

Malaysia dalam hujahnya berulang kali menegaskan, bahawa semua tindak-tanduk British itu adalah selari dengan peranan mereka sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh dan ia tidak lebih daripada itu.

Koh kemudian membangkitkan hujah keempat iaitu sepanjang tempoh 130 tahun (1847-1979), kedaulatan Singapura ke atas pulau itu dipamerkan secara terbuka dan diakui oleh pelbagai pihak dan Malaysia hanya mengeluarkan bantahan pada tahun 1979 menerusi penerbitan peta barunya.

Semasa pusingan pertama hujah lisan dan dalam memorialnya, Malaysia mempertahankan pendiriannya bahawa setiap tindak- tanduk Singapura sepanjang tempoh itu juga berkaitan dengan pengurusan rumah api semata-mata.

Ejen Singapura itu kemudian menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai hujah kelima iaitu surat balasan Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor pada 21 September 1953.

Beliau menekankan tentang ayat yang tertera di dalam surat itu iaitu: “Kerajaan negeri Johor tidak menuntut hak milik ke atas Pulau Batu Putih”.

Koh mendakwa menurut undang-undang antarabangsa surat itu mengikat Malaysia dan pemangku setiausaha kerajaan negeri mempunyai kapasiti untuk menulis surat tersebut terutamanya selepas merujuk pelbagai pihak.

Malaysia dalam hujahnya mendakwa surat tersebut bertujuan menjelaskan pendirian Malaysia berhubung pemilikan Rumah Api Horsburgh dan bukannya Pulau Batu Putih.

Hujah keenam Singapura merujuk pula kepada bantahan Malaysia berhubung pengibaran panji-panji marin Singapura di Pulau Pisang pada tahun 1968 iaitu tiga tahun selepas republik itu berpisah daripada Malaysia.

Koh berhujah, republik itu menghormati hak kedaulatan Malaysia ke atas Pulau Pisang dan segera bertindak menurunkan panji-panji tersebut.

Namun dalam kes Pulau Batu Putih, hujahnya, Malaysia tidak pernah menunjukkan bantahan berhubung pengibaran panji-panji marin Singapura di Rumah Api Horsburgh dan ia disifatkan sebagai mengakui kedaulatan Singapura di Pulau Batu Putih.

Malaysia dalam hujahnya mendakwa pengibaran panji-panji marin Singapura di Pulau Batu Putih menandakan bahawa republik itu berfungsi sebagai pengendali rumah api dan bukannya mengiktiraf kedaulatan ke atas pulau tersebut.

Koh menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai hujah ketujuh iaitu enam peta Malaysia yang dikeluarkan bagi tempoh 1962 hingga 1975 yang jelas menunjukkan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik Singapura.

“Sebaliknya Singapura tidak pernah mengeluarkan peta mengiktiraf Pulau Batu Putih adalah dalam wilayah Malaysia,” hujah Koh.

Malaysia mendakwa, Singapura tidak pernah mengeluarkan peta yang menunjukkan Pulau Batu Putih dan dua lagi bentuk maritim itu terletak di dalam wilayah mereka.

Mengenai Middle Rocks dan South Ledge, ejen Singapura itu berhujah, kedua-dua bentuk maritim itu adalah gugusan Pulau Batu Putih dari sudut kedudukannya, geologi, sejarah serta undang-undang, justeru ia tidak boleh dipisahkan.

Bagaimanapun, Malaysia berhujah bahawa, ketiga-tiga bentuk maritim itu mempunyai ciri-ciri tersendiri dan dipisahkan oleh laluan pelayaran, oleh itu ia bukan menjadi sebahagian daripada Pulau Batu Putih.

Koh kemudian berhujah mengenai pentadbiran berkesan yang dilakukan oleh Singapura di Pulau Batu Putih bagi membuktikan bahawa ia mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas pulau itu.

“Jika mahkamah menyemak, melihat pentadbiran berkesan di pulau itu, Singapura secara jelas telah membuktikan bahawa ia mempunyai kedaulatan di Pulau Batu Putih.

“Singapura faham mengapa Malaysia prihatin (berhubung pentadbiran berkesan) itu, ini kerana Malaysia tidak mempunyai sebarang aktiviti di situ,” katanya.

Hujah terakhir ejen Singapura itu merujuk kepada kenyataan bahawa republik itu akan terus berperanan sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh jika keputusan memihak kepada Malaysia.

Beliau merumuskan bahawa, kenyataan seumpama itu adalah satu percubaan oleh Malaysia untuk mengubah susunan undang-undang yang telah berlangsung selama 150 tahun.

Di akhir penggulungannya, Koh berhujah, Singapura terus menjalankan tindak-tanduk di Pulau Batu Putih dan perairannya secara terbuka sambil mendakwa Malaysia tidak pernah menyuarakan sebarang bantahan.

“Surat Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor dan peta-peta yang dikeluarkan oleh Malaysia mengukuhkan lagi gambaran keseluruhan ini.

“Tidak ragu-ragu lagi Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge milik Singapura,” hujahnya.

Persidangan bersambung Khamis ini dengan pasukan Malaysia mengemukakan hujah-hujah pada pusingan kedua hujah lisan - Utusan Malaysia

S'pore: Malaysia had zero activities

By : V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It was acknowledged by all and challenged by none.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malaysia's Sovereignty Dispute Team Still Perky Despite Sleepless

From Nor Faridah Abdul Rashid

THE HAGUE, Nov 21 - "Sleepless in the Netherlands." This is what the Malaysian delegation working here tirelessly on the Pulau Batu Puteh sovereignty dispute must have felt over the last few weeks.

They only sleep for about two-and-a-half hours each night but early in the morning they are up and about, in high spirits, ready to tackle the case which is being heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The case had started at 10am (5pm Malaysian time) daily for the last 10 days of sitting. On Thursday and Friday the hearing will commence at 3pm when Malaysia replies to Singapore's second final round of oral arguments.

Since the dispute involves legal and historical factors, extensive research had to be done.

Raja Nazrin Aznam, Under-Secretary of the Adjudication and Arbitration Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that various agencies were involved in the research work, which had to be carried out thoroughly.

"Our officers get only two-and-a-half hours of sleep, They work until the wee hours of the morning," he told Malaysian reporters covering the case.

Describing the research work as "voluminous and extensive", he said that it was also carried out worldwide in archives and museums.

The parties involved included the Department of Survey and Mapping, the National Archives, the National Hydrographic Centre of the Royal Malaysian Navy and individuals who are experts in their fields, apart from the Attorney-General's Chambers and officers from the Adjudication and Arbitration Division.

Raja Nazrin said that the Johor state government and the Johor palace had also been helping a lot in the preparations for the sovereignty dispute between Malaysia and Singapore concerning Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

Malaysia's first navy chief, Tan Sri K.Thanabalasingam, who had written the Letter of Promulgation in 1968, was also involved.

"We have people who can think out of the box," Raja Nazrin said.

The Letter of Promulgation describes the outer limits of Malaysian territoral waters and the so-called foreign claimed waters in West Malaysia for purposes of Royal Malaysian Navy patrols. Malaysia had submitted this letter to the court to show that it regarded Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge and their surrounding waters as Malaysian territory.

Others in the Malaysian delegation who are acting as technical advisors include Tan Ah Bah, Director of Survey (Boundary Affairs Section), Department of Survey and Mapping, and Professor Dr Sharifah Mastura Syed Abdullah, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanitites, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

Raja Nazrin said each of the team members had background experience and are experts in their own fields.

"We do not create a team overnight. It is a good team and their spirits are always up," he said, adding that meetings were held everyday.

"Quality control" was carried out at 7am everyday to make sure that all the papers prepared for the judges carried references and the draft speeches must also be checked, he said, adding that up to today, "17,500 pages" had been prepared for the case.

Raja Nazrin also said that the graphics for presentation were all done in-house - Bernama

Integriti Singapura terjejas – Jayakumar

THE HAGUE, Belanda 19 Nov. – Singapura hari ini memulakan pusingan kedua hujah lisan kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge dengan mendakwa Malaysia telah memburuk-burukkan republik itu menerusi siri tuduhan yang boleh menjejaskan integriti negara berkenaan.

Timbalan Perdana Menterinya, S. Jayakumar menyenaraikan hujah-hujah Malaysia sepanjang pusingan pertama hujah lisan minggu lepas yang didakwa oleh Singapura sebagai ‘tuduhan tidak berasas’ dan bertujuan mempengaruhi mahkamah.

“Kami terkejut dan kesal dengan tindakan Malaysia membuat siri tuduhan terhadap Singapura.

“Tuduhan-tuduhan itu jika tidak dipatahkan akan mencabar integriti Singapura dan akan menarik perhatian pemikiran para hakim bahawa akan wujud kesan yang amat dahsyat jika keputusan pertikaian ini memihak kepada Singapura,” hujah beliau.

Jayakumar berhujah di hadapan Naib Presiden Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ), Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain.

Jayakumar berkata, ‘tuduhan’ pertama Malaysia ialah dakwaan bahawa Singapura menyembunyikan surat Gabenor Butterworth kepada Sultan Ali dan Temenggung Johor pada tahun 1844 bagi memohon kebenaran membina rumah api.

Peguam Malaysia, Prof. Sir Elihu Lauterpacht dalam hujah lisannya membangkitkan rasa hairan beliau mengenai ketiadaan surat tersebut sambil tidak menolak kemungkinan ia (surat itu) adalah dalam simpanan Singapura dan telah disembunyikan daripada pengetahuan mahkamah.

Jayakumar berhujah, satu kenyataan telah dikeluarkan kepada mahkamah selepas kedua-dua pihak gagal menemui surat tersebut iaitu Singapura tidak mempunyai surat itu dan telah mencari bertahun-tahun di pelbagai arkib tetapi gagal menemuinya.

“Telah diketahui umum bahawa simpanan arkib Singapura tidak lengkap, malah Singapura dalam hujah bertulisnya telah menjelaskan mengapa rekod-rekodnya tidak lengkap.

“Sebab itu Singapura telah bertanyakan kepada kerajaan negeri Johor jika mereka mempunyai salinan surat yang berkaitan dengan Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Putih),” katanya.

Beliau mendakwa, adalah tidak benar apabila Malaysia mendakwa Singapura tidak menjawab pertanyaan (berhubung surat tersebut) sebaliknya republik itu telah berbuat demikian menerusi penghantaran nota oleh Pesuruhjaya Tingginya di Kuala Lumpur pada tahun 1994.

Jayakumar kemudian membangkitkan persoalan ini: “Mengapa Malaysia mengatakan bahawa ia (surat itu) ada di dalam arkib Singapura?

“Surat-surat tersebut ditulis kepada Sultan Ali dan Temenggung Johor, bukankah logik jika surat asal itu berada dalam simpanan Johor? Singapura bersetuju bahawa ia mungkin begitu.”

Jayakumar kemudian merujuk perkara kedua yang disifatkan sebagai hujah Malaysia bahawa tuntutan Singapura itu mengganggu persetujuan yang telah dicapai antara Britsih dan Johor sejak lama dulu.

Beliau mendakwa, hujah tersebut hanyalah cubaan Malaysia untuk menarik perhatian mahkamah bahawa Malaysia adalah mangsa (keadaan itu).

Hakikatnya, dakwa Singapura, Malaysia yang cuba bertindak mengubah status quo apabila secara tiba-tiba menuntut hak ke atas Pulau Batu Putih pada tahun 1974.

Pada tahun tersebut Malaysia mengeluarkan peta baru yang secara jelas menunjukkan Pulau Batu Putih adalah termasuk dalam perairan negara.

Jayakumar mendakwa, pada 20 Disember 1979, Malaysia telah menulis surat kepada semua misi luar negaranya bahawa peta tahun 1979 mempunyai kesan kepada Thailand, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapura, Indonesia, Filipina dan China.

Selain itu, beliau turut merujuk kepada kenyataan Duta Tugas-Tugas Khas, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad yang mengetuai delegasi Malaysia bahawa jika keputusan mahkamah memihak kepada Singapura, ia akan menjejaskan kestabilan hubungan antara Malaysia dan Indonesia.

“Ini merupakan satu lagi cubaan Malaysia untuk mempengaruhi mahkamah tanpa sebarang asas,” katanya.

Beliau juga menyentuh hujah Abdul Kadir mengenai hasrat republik itu untuk melakukan penambakan laut di perairan Pulau Batu Putih serta memperluaskan kuasa maritimnya di Selat Singapura.

Malaysia juga berhujah, hasrat Singapura itu berpotensi untuk memberi kesan kepada alam sekitar, pelayaran dan keselamatan perairan.

Jayakumar menyifatkan hujah Malaysia itu sebagai spekulasi dan hujah bahawa Singapura ingin menyerlahkan kuasa ketenteraannya di perairan tersebut juga sebagai tidak berasas.

Beliau mendakwa, ‘tuduhan’ mengenai penambakan laut oleh Malaysia bertujuan menakut-nakutkan.

Kedudukan Singapura sebagai pelabuhan utama, dakwa beliau, bergantung kepada kelancaran amalan-amalan maritim termasuk alam sekitar dan keselamatan pelayaran dan perairan di Selat Singapura.

Mengenai hujah Malaysia bahawa Singapura menghantar kapal tentera lautnya di Pulau Batu Putih selepas tarikh penting iaitu selepas tahun 1980, Jayakumar mendakwa, sejak tahun 1975 Tentera Laut British yang berpusat di Singapura telah melakukan rondaan keselamatan di perairan tersebut.

Mengenai hujah bahawa Singapura tidak membenarkan nelayan-nelayan Johor mendekati perairan Pulau Batu Putih, beliau mendakwa, republik itu tidak pernah menangkap nelayan Malaysia.

Beliau juga menyentuh mengenai kenyataan Abdul Kadir bahawa Malaysia sentiasa menghormati Singapura sebagai pengendali rumah Api Horsburgh dan akan terus berbuat demikian.

“Adalah tidak perlu dan sesungguhnya tiada asas kepada Malaysia untuk berbuat demikian (mengeluarkan kenyataan seumpama itu).

“Hak Singapura berkaitan Pulau Batu Putih adalah mengenai kedaulatan ke atas pulau itu dan bukan hanya sebagai pengendali rumah api malah aktiviti Singapura di situ turut diiktiraf oleh Malaysia sehingga Disember 1979,” dakwa Jayakumar.

Persidangan bersambung esok - Utusan Malaysia

Penggulungan hujah bermula

THE HAGUE, Belanda 18 Nov. – Pasukan Malaysia dan Singapura akan menggulung hujah lisan masing-masing bermula esok pada pusingan kedua hujah lisan kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini.

Kedua-dua pasukan diberi dua hari untuk mempertahankan tuntutan ke atas ketiga-tiga bentuk maritim itu selepas pusingan pertama yang berlangsung selama lapan hari berakhir Jumaat lalu.

Singapura akan memulakan hujah lisan serta menggulung kes mereka bermula esok dan Selasa manakala pasukan Malaysia akan menyempurnakan gilirannya pada Khamis dan Jumaat.

Persidangan akan berlangsung di hadapan Naib Pengerusi ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh yang mendengar kes itu bersama 15 hakim lain.

Keputusan tuntutan bertindih ke atas Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge akan diputuskan enam bulan lagi.

Duta Tugas-Tugas Khas, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad mengetuai delegasi Malaysia yang turut terdiri daripada Duta Malaysia ke Belanda, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin dan Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

Barisan peguam yang akan mempertahankan pendirian Malaysia terdiri daripada Profesor Elihu Lauterpacht, Profesor James Crawford, Profesor Nicolas Jan Schrijver, Profesor Marcelo G. Kohen dan Penelope Nevil.

Malaysia berpegang kepada pendirian bahawa ketiga-tiga pulau itu miliknya berdasarkan hujah-hujah bahawa kesemua bentuk maritim itu telah menjadi sebahagian daripada empayar kesultanan Johor sejak tahun 1511 lagi.

Kedaulatan ke atas pulau-pulau tersebut juga tidak terjejas selepas Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda 1824 atau selepas British mendirikan Rumah Api Horsburgh di Pulau Batu Putih pada tahun 1847.

Hujah Malaysia dikuatkan lagi dengan fakta bahawa British membina rumah api itu dengan keizinan Sultan serta Temenggung Johor dan ia tidak pernah menzahirkan niat untuk mendapatkan hak kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih.

Tindak-tanduk British sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh amat jelas dan ia kemudian diteruskan oleh Singapura di bawah Sistem Rangkaian Rumah Api Negeri-Negeri Selat.

Malaysia juga akan mempertahankan hujah bahawa Singapura menerusi tindak-tanduknya tidak pernah menunjukkan bahawa ia mempunyai hak kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih sehingga tercetus pertikaian pada tahun 1980.

Hujah itu dikuatkan lagi dengan fakta pemetaan apabila tiada satu pun peta Singapura yang dikeluarkan sebelum tahun 1995 menunjukkan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge termasuk dalam wilayah mereka.

Keadaan itu amat bertentangan dengan dakwaan Singapura bahawa ia mempunyai hak kedaulatan di situ sejak tahun 1851.

Malaysia juga akan meneruskan hujah bahawa ketiga-tiga pulau itu sentiasa menjadi miliknya. Dalam kes perairan Pulau Batu Putih, ia sentiasa digunakan oleh nelayan di Johor untuk menangkap ikan dan Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia turut melakukan rondaan di perairan berkenaan.

Amalan persempadanan oleh Malaysia, Singapura dan negara-negara di Selat Singapura serta Laut China Selatan juga sejajar dengan kedaulatan negara ke atas Pulau Batu Putih.

Malaysia juga akan meneruskan hujah bahawa Middle Rocks dan South Ledge tidak berangkai dengan Pulau Batu Putih seperti yang didakwa oleh Singapura sebaliknya ketiga-tiga bentuk maritim itu mempunyai karakter geologi dan geomorfologi yang berbeza - Utusan Malaysia

Misi pertahan hak Malaysia

SELASA lalu, galeri awam di tingkat atas bilik persidangan Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) bagi kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge agak sesak berbanding minggu sebelumnya.

Wajah-wajah yang hadir begitu bersemangat. Ramai juga yang hadir adalah muka-muka baru yang tidak kelihatan semasa Singapura memulakan pusingan pertama hujah lisan sepanjang minggu lepas.

Mereka mewakili pelbagai agensi dan juga orang perseorangan yang datang untuk memberi sokongan moral kepada delegasi Malaysia pada hari pertama pusingan pertama hujah lisan bagi mempertahankan kedaulatan negara ke atas ketiga-tiga pulau itu.

Selepas empat hari ‘diasak’ dengan hujah-hujah lisan oleh Singapura yang hanya sedar kononnya mereka berhak ke atas ketiga-tiga pulau itu 17 tahun lalu, delegasi Malaysia diketuai Duta Tugas-Tugas Khas, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad tampil cergas.

Kelihatan Duta Malaysia ke Belanda, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin ringkas tetapi anggun; Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail dan barisan peguam hebat yang terdiri daripada Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Profesor James Crawford, Profesor Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Profesor Marcelo G. Kohen dan peguam muda jelita Penelope Nevill bersedia untuk berjuang.

Manakala ‘orang di belakang tabir’ yang bersengkang mata membuat persiapan kes setiap hari seperti Abd. Rahim Hussin, Raja Aznam Nazrin, Kapten Sahak Omar (sekadar menyenaraikan beberapa nama), para penyelidik dari Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia dan Jabatan Pemetaan dan Ukur menduduki barisan kedua.

Dalam ucapan pembukaannya, Abdul Kadir yang bertindak sebagai ejen Malaysia dengan nada tegas, padat dan ringkas menegaskan pendirian negara bahawa Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge selama-lamanya milik Malaysia.

Beliau secara ringkas memperkatakan satu per satu perihal Pulau Batu Putih bermula dari sudut sejarah iaitu sebelum tahun 1847 lagi iaitu pulau itu bukan terra nullius (tiada pemilik) seperti yang dihujahkan oleh Singapura.

Abdul Kadir tidak mengulas panjang kerana barisan peguam akan memperincikan siri perjanjian, kehadiran British di Pulau Batu Putih, Sistem Rangkaian Rumah Api Negeri-Negeri Selat dan tindak-tanduk Singapura sebagai pengendali rumah api di pulau itu.

Beliau tanpa ragu-ragu menyelongkar motif utama Singapura menuntut ketiga-tiga bentuk maritim itu dengan berselindung di sebalik fungsi mereka hanya sebagai ‘penjaga’ rumah api yang dinamakan Rumah Api Horsburgh.

Katanya, Singapura mempunyai polisi penambakan laut yang aktif dan tuntutan di ICJ itu tidak mustahil ada kaitan dengan cita-cita republik itu untuk meluaskan pengaruh maritimnya di selat yang penting itu.

Bagaikan dirancang pada hari Malaysia memulakan hujah iaitu pukul 10 pagi waktu tempatan (5 petang waktu Malaysia), akhbar Straits Times Singapura menyiarkan satu artikel memperincikan satu per satu mengapa rumah api itu penting bagi republik itu.

Ucapan Abdul Kadir (tanpa dirancang) seolah-olah menjawab perincian artikel tersebut – Malaysia menghormati fungsi Singapura sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh dan akan terus berbuat demikian.

Dalam erti kata yang lain, bukan rumah api yang dibina di atas Pulau Batu Putih menjadi ‘subjek utama’ pertikaian tetapi kedaulatan pulau tersebut yang menjadi keutamaan bagi Malaysia.

Sebab itu, Abdul Kadir, bertegas bahawa Malaysia bukan menuntut hak kedaulatan ke atas pulau seluas padang bola itu sebaliknya mahu mahkamah mengesahkan semula bahawa ia sememangnya milik negara.

Yang menuntut adalah Singapura manakala Malaysia mahu mengekalkan kedaulatannya di Pulau Batu Putih untuk memastikan ia (pulau tersebut) kelak tidak dijadikan alat oleh republik itu untuk mengeruhkan hubungan serantau.

Kebimbangan Malaysia dinyatakan dengan jelas oleh Abdul Kadir yang berbunyi: “Saya ingin menjelaskan satu perkara. Masalah kami (Malaysia) dengan Singapura ialah kehadiran ketenteraannya di sebuah pulau milik Johor yang terletak di laluan masuk di timur Selat Singapura.

“Kami tidak mempunyai masalah dengan Singapura sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh. Malaysia ingin mengekalkan keadaan yang stabil dan aman damai di laluan masuk ke Laut China Selatan. Singapura yang menunggu-nunggu untuk menukar keadaan ini.”

Noor Farida mengambil tugas kedua, membongkar sejarah sebelum tahun 1847 bagaimana rapatnya hubungan Pulau Batu Putih dengan Orang Laut dan nelayan-nelayan tempatan.

Beliau juga meneroka nama Pulau Batu Putih yang dikenali begitu kerana najis burung yang menutupi pulau batu itu, bahasa Portugisnya Pedra Branca turut membawa makna yang sama.

Manakala saudagar Cina memanggil pulau itu Pia Chiao seperti yang direkodkan dalam arahan dan carta pelayaran Wubei Zhi pada tahun 1621, di kalangan pedagang Perancis ia dikenali sebaai Pierre Blanche.

“Setiap orang memanggilnya batu putih dalam bahasa masing-masing. Adalah tidak masuk akal bagi Singapura untuk mengatakan bahawa nama Pulau Batu Putih hanya muncul baru-baru ini di peta rantau ini dan adalah nama yang (Malaysia) rujuk hari ini,” katanya.

Duta Malaysia ke Belanda itu kemudian menghuraikan satu per satu bukti berupa catatan bertulis termasuk yang tersiar dalam Singapore Free Press dan tertera di peta Johor pada tahun 1928.

Kemudian Peguam Negara tampil membangkitkan kegagalan Singapura mengemukakan sebarang bukti berupa dokumen undang-undang untuk membuktikan bahawa mereka adalah tuan Pulau Batu Putih.

Hujah Abdul Gani tidak meleret sebaliknya terus kepada fakta mengenai tarikh penting (bermulanya pertikaian) iaitu pada tahun 1980 – sebelum daripada itu tiada sebarang bantahan oleh Singapura berhubung dokumen dan peta yang menunjukkan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih milik Malaysia.

Singapura, menurut beliau, langsung tidak menghiraukan tarikh penting itu sebaliknya secara lepas laku terus menjalankan pelbagai aktiviti di Pulau Batu Putih sedangkan seperti yang diputuskan oleh ICJ dalam kes Ligitan dan Sipadan:

“Tindak-tanduk selepas tarikh penting tidak akan dikira, kecuali jika tindakan seumpama itu berupa kesinambungan tindak-tanduk sebelumnya dan bukannya bertujuan mengukuhkan kedudukan perundangan pihak yang bergantung kepadanya.”

Sememangnya hujah-hujah Malaysia sepanjang empat hari berkisar kepada bukti-bukti penting yang menunjukkan bahawa ketiga-tiga pulau itu adalah miliknya. Siri dokumen berupa perjanjian, peta-peta dan fakta sejarah menjawab setiap dakwaan yang dikemukakan oleh Singapura.

Satu per satu hujah Singapura dipatahkan oleh barisan peguam Malaysia bermula daripada bukti sejarah sehingga kepada kegagalan republik itu mengemukakan peta-petanya yang boleh menunjukkan Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik mereka.

Sepanjang pusingan pertama hujah lisannya, Singapura bersandarkan kepada enam peta Malaysia (yang mempunyai penafian (disclaimer) bahawa ia tidak boleh dijadikan bukti untuk urusan persempadanan wilayah) untuk menyokong dakwaannya.

Sedangkan republik itu sendiri tidak pernah mengeluarkan peta sendiri kecuali pada tahun 1995 iaitu 15 tahun selepas tuntutan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih dilancarkan. Secara logiknya mengapa tiada satu pun peta yang dikeluarkan oleh negara yang mendakwa mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas pulau tersebut sejak tahun 1851 lagi.

Teori Profesor Lauterpacht iaitu setiap angka yang didarab dengan kosong jawapannya kosong menarik perhatian mahkamah. Analoginya mudah. Jika Singapura tidak mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih, apa pun yang dilakukan ke atas pulau itu tidak akan membawa sebarang makna.

Singapura tidak boleh menjadikan segala tindak-tanduknya berhubung penyelenggaraan rumah api di pulau itu sebagai bukti bahawa ia mempunyai kedaulatan di situ lantaran teori yang digunakan itu tidak memenuhi ciri-ciri yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang antarabanga.

Profesor Crawford ketika merumuskan pusingan pertama hujah lisan Malaysia meringkaskan hujah-hujah delegasi negara.

Jika: Pulau Batu Putih bukan terra nullius pada tahun 1847; dan pulau itu tidak termasuk dalam pengaruh Belanda di bawah Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda; ketika itu Pulau Batu Putih adalah sebahagian daripada Johor.

Dan jika: Pulau Batu Putih sebahagian daripada Johor pada tahun 1847; dan keizinan Johor untuk pembinaan rumah api termasuk di Pulau Batu Putih; ketika itu pentadbiran British ke atas rumah api di situ bukan prilaku a titre de souverain (menunjukkan ia mempunyai kedaulatan di situ).

Kedua-dua kesimpulan itu, menurut Crawford, menunjukkan bahawa British membina Rumah Api Horsburgh di wilayah Johor dengan kebenaran Johor maka kes Singapura menjadi sia-sia.

Dengan cara yang amat ringkas, Malaysia menyimpulkan tugas empat hari dengan soalan ini: “Mengapa Malaysia perlu membuat apa-apa? Sultan dan Temenggong telah mengizinkan pembinaan dan penyelenggaraan (rumah api). Anda telah mendengar ejen Malaysia berkata, keizinan ini berterusan dan akan diteruskan.”

Pusingan kedua hujah lisan dan penggulungan bagi Malaysia dan Singapura akan bermula esok. Singapura akan memulakan pusingan kedua pada Isnin dan Selasa manakala Malaysia bakal menyempurnakan tanggungjawab tersebut pada Khamis dan Jumaat - Utusan Malaysia

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

V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No evidence from Singapore

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

THE HAGUE, WED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islands 'part of Johor Sultanate'

By : V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiger Vs Lion

From YouTube:

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

Safeguard Our Sovereignty (SOS)

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

Surat balasan istana jadi tumpuan

Daripada Noraini Abd. Razak

THE HAGUE, Belanda 7 Nov. – Surat balasan Sultan dan Temenggung Johor bertarikh 25 November 1844 yang memberi kebenaran kepada British untuk membina sebuah rumah api di sebuah pulau milik kerajaan Johor menjadi antara tumpuan Singapura pada hari kedua persidangan kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini.

Alen Pallet yang bertindak sebagai ejen bersama Singapura mendakwa, isi kandungan surat itu langsung tidak menamakan secara khusus Pulau Batu Putih sebagai tempat yang diizinkan kepada British untuk membina rumah api.

Bekas Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Undang-Undang Antarabangsa Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu itu memberitahu mahkamah, surat tersebut juga hanya menyebut sebuah rumah api sambil mendakwa ia tidak merujuk kepada rumah api Horsburgh yang dibina oleh British di Pulau Batu Putih pada 1847.

Sehubungan itu, beliau melihat, Malaysia gagal membuktikan surat balasan Sultan dan Temenggung Johor memberi kebenaran kepada British membina sebuah rumah api sebagai bukti bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah terletak di bawah kerajaan Johor.

Surat tersebut juga dakwa Pallet, langsung tidak menunjukkan bahawa Johor mempunyai sebarang kuasa ke atas Pulau Batu Putih kerana ia secara jelas tidak menamakan pulau itu.

Beliau berhujah lagi, ketiadaan surat permohonan di pihak British kepada Sultan dan Temenggung untuk tujuan tersebut juga menimbulkan tanda tanya mengenai kawasan sebenar yang dipohon oleh British untuk dibina sebuah rumah api tersebut.

Katanya, walaupun surat balasan itu menunjukkan bahawa permohonan British melibatkan sebuah pulau di bawah kerajaan Johor namun jawapan oleh Sultan dan Temenggung Johor amat kabur dan gagal mengaitkannya dengan Pulau Batu Putih.

“Kebenaran (untuk membina rumah api) itu adalah bagi mana-mana kawasan di bawah pentadbiran Johor, boleh jadi Pulau Romania atau Pulau Mungging tetapi ia bukan Pulau Batu Putih,” katanya.

Profesor di University of Paris X-Nanterre itu mendakwa, pemilihan Pulau Batu Putih hanya dibuat dua tahun selepas tarikh surat balasan iaitu apabila Gabenor Butterworth menukar fikirannya.

Beliau mendakwa, pemilihan Pulau Batu Putih sebagai tapak Rumah Api Horsburgh bukan bertolak daripada surat kebenaran Sultan dan Temenggung Johor itu malah keputusan tersebut langsung tidak merujuk kepada surat balasan tersebut.

Justeru, Pallet mendakwa, penyerahan surat tersebut dalam memorial Malaysia bagi menyokong tuntutan bertindih ke atas Pulau Batu Putih tidak boleh dijadikan bukti bahawa pulau tersebut adalah milik Johor.

Pallet turut membangkitkan isu lawatan Temenggong Johor ke Pulau Batu Putih dua hari selepas upacara perasmian Rumah Api Horsburgh yang didakwanya amat jelas menunjukkan bahawa pulau itu bukan milik Johor.

Beliau memberitahu mahkamah, tatacara kedatangan Temenggong Johor ke Pulau Batu Putih itu menunjukkan beliau tidak dijemput oleh British pada hari perasmian sekali gus membuktikan bahawa Kesultanan Johor tidak mempunyai kuasa ke atas pulau tersebut.

Selain itu, Pallet berhujah, dakwaan Malaysia bahawa kehadiran orang laut (yang mempunyai kaitan dengan Temenggung) sebagai nelayan di Pulau Batu Putih juga tidak membuktikan bahawa Johor memiliki pulau tersebut.

Turut membentangkan hujah-hujah bagi pihak Singapura hari ini ialah Rodman R. Bundy. Singapura mempunyai dua hari lagi untuk mengemukakan hujah-hujah lisan pada pusingan pertama.

Perbicaraan berlangsung di Peace Palace di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh.

Delegasi Malaysia diketuai oleh Penasihat Hal Ehwal Luar kepada Perdana Menteri, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad manakala Duta Malaysia ke Belanda, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin bertindak sebagai wakil bersama. Turut tersenarai Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail - Utusan Malaysia

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

Isu Pulau Batu Puteh

From YouTube:

Pertikaian Batu Puteh Di ICJ Bermula 6 Nov

PUTRAJAYA, 2 Nov - Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) akan mendengar pertikaian antara Malaysia dengan Singapura berhubung kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge, yang terletak di perairan luar pantai Johor, bermula Selasa depan di The Haque, Belanda.

Pendengaran akan bermula dengan ucapan pembukaan oleh kedua-dua pihak sebelum penyampaian hujah lisan oleh Singapura pada hari pertama.

Singapura diberikan empat hari (6-9 Nov) untuk menggulung hujah lisan pusingan pertama, sementara Malaysia diberikan giliran pada 13-16 Nov, menurut siaran akhbar di laman web ICJ.

Ini akan diikuti dengan hujah lisan dua hari pusingan kedua oleh Singapura pada 19 dan 20 Nov dan Malaysia pada 22 dan 23 Nov.

Keputusan kes dijangka disampaikan sebelum Jun tahun depan.

Pada 2003, dua negara berkenaan mengemukakan bersama kepada ICJ pertikaian berhubung kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge.

Mereka memberitahu ICJ mengenai kes itu menerusi perjanjian khas ditandatangani oleh Malaysia dan Singapura pada 6 Feb tahun berkenaan di Putrajaya dan dikuatkuasakan pada 9 Mei tahun itu.

Delegasi Malaysia akan diketuai oleh Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Duta Kelana, yang juga Penasihat Perdana Menteri mengenai Hal Ehwal Luar. Beliau akan menjadi wakil Malaysia bagi kes itu sementara Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, Duta Besar Malaysia ke Belanda, bertindak sebagai wakil bersama.

Pasukan undang-undang Malaysia akan diketuai oleh Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

Lain-lain dalam pasukan itu ialah Sir Elihu Lauterpacht dan James Crawford, kedua-duanya profesor Undang-undang Antarabangsa di Universiti Cambridge; Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, profesor Undang-undang Antarabangsa Awam, Universiti Leiden; Marcelo G. Kohen, profesor Undang-undang Antarabngsa, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva; dan Penelope Nevill, pensyarah kolej, Downing College, Universiti Cambridge.

Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, naib-presiden ICJ, akan mempersidangkan kes bersama 15 hakim lain, termasuk dua hakim ad hoc dilantik oleh Malaysia dan Singapura.

Hakim-hakim itu ialah Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar), Shi Jiuyong (China), Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone), Gonzalo Parra Aranguren (Venezuela), Thomas Buergenthal (AS), Hisashi Owada (Jepun), Bruno Simma (Jerman), Peter Tomka (Slovakia), Ronny Abraham (Perancis), Kenneth Keith (New Zealand), Bernardo Sepulveda Amor (Mexico), Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco) dan Leonid Skotnikov (Russia).

Malaysia telah melantik Christopher S.R. Dugard dari Afrika Selatan dan Singapura, Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao dari India, sebagai hakim ad hoc.

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

Kesemua 16 hakim, termasuk Awn Shawkat, akan mengundi untuk menentukan keputusan kes itu.

Semasa prosiding, kedua-dua pihak akan mengemukakan bukti termasuk peta dan dokumen berdasarkan latarbelakang sejarah dan prinsip undang-undang antarabangsa seperti penemuan, pemisahan, pertambahan, serahan, serta peraturan "uti possidetis" iaitu sempadan negara-negara baru merdeka berdasarkan sempadan wilayah jajahan lama, kesinambungan dan kesamaan sempadan.

Sementara itu, Abdul Gani, yang kini berada di the Hague, berkata Malaysia optimis akan memenangi kes itu.

"Kami semua cukup bersiap sedia dan pasukan kita mempunyai segala dokumen dan bukti untuk memenangi pertikaian ini...insyaAllah.

"Setiap orang cukup bersemangat...terutama diri saya. Ini adalah antara pertikaian yang begitu ditunggu-tunggu selepas Malaysia memenangi pertikaian ke atas Pulau Ligitan dan Sipadan pada 2002," katanya ketika dihubungi Bernama.

Beliau berkata cuaca sejuk di The Hague tidak akan menjejas mood pasukan undang-undang Malaysia untuk memberikan prestasi terbaik semasa hujah lisan pusingan pertama - Bernama