Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07

^tamago^ SG

KL wants island for 'maritime stability'
Malaysia says it has no problems with S'pore operating Horsburgh Lighthouse, but took issue with its 'military presence' on Pedra Branca
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home, Pg H7
November 17, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent

THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - MALAYSIA yesterday summed up its oral arguments by urging an international court to award it sovereignty over Pedra Branca as the way to maintain maritime stability in the region.

Its lawyer Professor James Crawford defined the case as being about 'the maintenance of the carefully calibrated situation' in the Singapore Strait.

That has been the thrust of Malaysia's case since Day One of its oral pleadings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

In his opening speech before the court last Tuesday, Malaysia's first speaker Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad charged that Singapore's claim to the disputed island was an attempt to 'subvert' the status quo.

The status quo, as defined by Kuala Lumpur, is that Malaysia has sovereignty over Pedra Branca and Singapore owns and operates Horsburgh lighthouse there with its consent.

Both Prof Crawford and Tan Sri Abdul Kadir, who is the foreign affairs adviser to Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, stressed that Malaysia had no problem with Singapore continuing to operate Horsburgh lighthouse.

What it took issue with was what Tan Sri Abdul Kadir called Singapore's 'military presence on one of Johor's islands'.

He was referring to Singapore's placing of military communications equipment on Pedra Branca, which Singapore had cited as one of the ways in which it had displayed its sovereignty over the disputed island.

Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the ICJ to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, an island 40km east of Singapore which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.

Malaysia's stand is that the Johor Sultanate had a title to Pedra Branca - which it calls Pulau Batu Puteh - from time immemorial.

It claims that the Johor rulers gave permission to Britain to build and operate a lighthouse there, and that Singapore continued to do so after it gained independence.

Singapore has disputed this claim.

It argues that Pedra Branca was terra nullius, that is it belonged to no one, when the British took lawful possession of it in 1847 and built the Horsburgh Lighthouse there.

In the 160 years since, Britain and then Singapore confirmed and maintained their title through a series of actions that were an open, continuous and effective display of state authority, it told the court last week.

It also pointed out that Malaysia had kept silent throughout and never once protested Singapore's exercise of sovereignty.

Yesterday, Prof Crawford sought to depict Singapore as the guest state and Malaysia as the host state in the dispute.

The host state is the one with sovereignty over the territory, while the guest state is the one allowed to carry out certain activities there, he said.

He argued that Pedra Branca was like Hong Kong, where China was the host state and Great Britain the guest state which had leased the territories for a hundred years.

He had this to say about Singapore's activities on Pedra Branca: 'Assume that the guest state uses the facility to intercept governmental communications of the host state...that may be an infringement of the terms of the original consent, but whether or not that is so, it does not even begin to give the guest state any claim to title.'

In that way, Professor Crawford sought to strike out the many examples Singapore highlighted to the court relating to its exercise and display of sovereignty over Pedra Branca in the last 160 years.

Malaysia's other international counsel, Prof Marcelo Kohen, attempted to do the same.

He told the court that the case was not about the two states' competing activities on the island, but whose claim to original title was stronger.

Malaysia's lawyers yesterday also took the court through dozens of maps to show that the first time Singapore published a map showing Pedra Branca as part of its territory was in 1995, long after the territorial dispute with Malaysia arose.

Singapore's counter is that Malaysia published six maps between 1962 and 1975 showing Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.

The hearing continues next week with Singapore set to rebut Malaysia's oral pleadings on Monday and Tuesday.

[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------

Malaysia's counsel collapses; hearing halts for 15 minutes

`TOP international lawyer Sir Elihu Lauterpacht collapsed in court yesterday on the eighth day of a 12-day hearing on Pedra Branca before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Sir Elihu, who is 79 this year and has a heart condition, slumped in his chair while his fellow counsel for Malaysia, Prof Nicolaas Schrijver, was speaking.

The acting president of the court called the hearing to a temporary halt.

Court staff escorted Sir Elihu out of the main chamber and the court went into a 15-minute recess.

When the sitting resumed, Prof Schrijver informed the court that Sir Elihu was feeling quite well and sent his greetings.

Sir Elihu has had a distinguished career in international law, combining teaching and practice.

He is a Queen's Counsel and Honorary Professor of International Law at Cambridge University.

He studied law at Cambridge at the same time as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Knighted in 1996, Sir Elihu also represented Malaysia in the Sipadan-Ligitan case against Indonesia before the ICJ, and the reclamation case against Singapore that went before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited

AndrewPKYap SG

Doesn't this article proves that this mess was created by the intransigence and the arrogance of the despots???!!!

Otherwise they would have argued that what Malaysia said was not true... that:

"Malaysia had no problem with Singapore continuing to operate Horsburgh lighthouse."

and all the problems started because of...

"Singapore's placing of military communications equipment on Pedra Branca, "

.... despotic arrogant dictators... they get away with their despotic behavior because of their fawning supporters that support them even when they behave like barbarians from the kingdom of the apes... the running dogs support them.... hoping for what? some leftover food thrown on the floor for them?

supporting despots is a betrayal of Singapore... support the country, not the actions of despots that act according to self and party interests...

CX SG

How does joint custody solve anything?

The question of sovereignty will still be sticking out like a sore thumb. Are we gonna give it up? Are they gonna let us have the island after kicking up a fuss over it in 1979?

That the "regime" is anything at all is totally beside the point... A point which you keep refusing to acknowledge.

You keep lumping it all together to say that its all the government's fault for getting the country into this "mess"...

And I keep telling u (but u keep refusing to listen)... Its not a mess and its far from over.

Forget it... u're a waste of time.

soul_rage SG

Much as I dislike the PAP, and all their money-grubbing antics, I have to agree with you that this is not an issue about PAP, but an issue about Singapore's sovereignty.

And as such, I agree that this case should to go court and be resolved once and for all. There is no mess, and I actually do believe we can win this, given what I have read on both sides' arguments.

If we do not exercise our assertiveness on this, one day maybe they will start claiming ownership of all the surrounding islands that belong to us.

CX SG

Very reassured to hear a like minded-view Smile

Its so strange and some Singaporeans (assuming that it IS a Singaporean and not a Malaysian in disguise) will automatically take the opposite position from the government just for the sake of opposing the PAP Question Rolling Eyes Confused

I'm not a great fan of the govt either... Esp where domestic policies are concerned, they don't consult meaningfully and explain sufficiently.

At some points, I find them arrogant, heavy handed and not in touch with the man on the streets.

But I do feel that they have done a good job of representing Singapore overseas. We are well regarded by many countries and we have credibility.

And this business with the ICJ is the best thing that both countries (SG and MY) could have done to resolve a whole host of outstanding bilateral problems.

The outcome, whichever way it turns out, will enable both countries to move on constructively, rather than to continue to get stuck on such irritating issues.

AndrewPKYap SG

You are right on one point, it is a waste of time talking to you... you just want to defend the arrogant despots even when they are clearly wrong... if they had not put up military installations there, we would not be in this mess... a point made by Malaysia and conceded by the Singapore arrogant despots...

reddressman SG

CX, what if My wins?

Can u guarantee a win?

Are u able?

Do u hv wat it takes?

Talk is easy.

I oso can.

What if my wins? huh ?

CX SG

Its there because for the longest time, it was regarded as Singapore's island and the Malaysians did not, and indeed, could not, until now, object to its presence.

Thats the extent of what you regard as "conceded".

Boring...

AndrewPKYap SG

you are on the verge of sounding idiotic… if they did not concede that point, they would have made a vigorous attempt to dispute it in court….

CX SG

Why dispute an established fact? The military communication installations ARE there. It is a matter of fact.

And they are there because we built it there. And we built it there because for the longest time, it was regarded as Singapore's island.

AndrewPKYap SG

Then, when Malaysia complained... they should behave like gentlemen and look at the issue coldly and rationally instead of behaving like the despots that they are... and why did they behave so despotic? Is there any doubt that they are despotic because of their fawning supporters like yourself?

They do not about accountability and transparency because they know that they can count of wide eyed naive fans like yourself...

I think that it is time you stop betraying your country and stop supporting despots...

CX SG

Did u read the news at that time???

This has always been one of the outstanding bilateral issues between SG and MY.

Every attempt was made by MFA to resolve the issues on water, pedra branca, railway land, airspace and bridge.

BOTH parties eventually decided to bring the issue surrounding pedra branca to the ICJ. There's nothing despotic about that.

It is the mature and normal conduct of diplomacy between 2 countries.

AndrewPKYap SG

Malaysia said that all they wanted was for Singapore to remove the military installations and Singapore refused, leading to the current mess.

If Singapore wins, so what did they win? Nothing other than the right to place military installations on PD. If they lose, the consequences can be grave.

Did Singapore dispute the fact? That the disagreement started because of the military installations? Well according to the court proceedings reports, no, they conceeded.

Isn't that despotic arrogant behavior? Can they by themselves be so arrogant and despotic or can they be arrogant and despotic only because they have the support of people like you?

CX SG

Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Malaysia said that all they wanted was for Singapore to remove the military installations and Singapore refused, leading to the current mess.

It is not the place of a foreign country to dictate what another country should or should not do with its military if the country was acting within its own sovereign territory.

Are we going to withdraw from Pulau Tekong in future then? If the Malaysians claim that they are "upset" by Singapore's military exercises on the island?

If Singapore wins, so what did they win? Nothing other than the right to place military installations on PD. If they lose, the consequences can be grave.

What grave consequences? Shipping taxes? I have yet to know of any other littoral state that charges ships passing through its territorial waters. Internal waters, yes... territorial waters, no.

I wonder if the UN Convention for the laws of the seas, guaranteeing right of innocent passage has anything to do with it?

Whether we win or lose, at least that island won't be an irritant holding up the rest of the outstanding bilateral issues anymore!

Did Singapore dispute the fact? That the disagreement started because of the military installations? Well according to the court proceedings reports, no, they conceeded.

Dispute what fact? Its not even Singapore's turn to reply to Malaysia's presentation yet. U think what? Watch too much Boston Legal ah? Happy happy can stand up and say "objection!"???

Wait for next week. Singapore will have 2 days to reply, followed by Malaysia.

Isn't that despotic arrogant behavior? Can they by themselves be so arrogant and despotic or can they be arrogant and despotic only because they have the support of people like you?[/b]

I consider that to be the normal behavior of a sovereign nation state. What u are advocating is the behavior more suited for a colony or a semi-independent vassal state.

Diplomats are expected to be assertive and jealous in guarding the national interests. I don't expect them to give away territory as and when there's a dispute and do everything a foreign country tell them to do.

equlus84 SG

For once, I will have to disagree with what andrew said.

This is not a PAP issue but a national issue. No matter which party, is in power today, they will have to stand up to protect the national iterest and sovereignty of our country. I believe this also applies to Malaysia. As eventhough they know their chances of winning the case is quite weak, but due to the strategic locations of those islands, they are trying to fight to the best position and advantage for their country.

Regarding your comments that if SG did not act in a so called arrogant and high-handed position, they will concede those island to us with a fair agreement. This statement might sound logical, but the question is, will the MY govt voluntarily cede those island to SG when it involves sovereignty and strategic interest? Under what conditions and terms will SG give in to them to get their acknowledgement that those islands belongs to us; and at what cost?

Regarding the so called military installations on those islands. I think the MY side is trying to raise a ruckus over a small issue or just cooking up some hearsay stories. Yes, they claim SG have military related installations on PB, but do they have evidences to that claim? If there is really some secret installation on that island that an threaten MY, why did their govt not openly exert diplomatic pressure on SG to remove them?
In fact, this is not the first time this type of hearsay, no-evidence nonsense appear on their main newspaper to stir up MY citizens' feeling against SG. Remember the "Johorean fishermen witness SG UAV flying in MY airspace and scaring away fishes" or the "SG military firing mortat bombs into MY waters". All these accusations after investigations all boiled down to rumors and false information, even MY official later made a public statement that such events never happened.
Besides, sir Elihu, is the lawyer for MY, for the sake of professionalism and the interest of his client, like a typical lawyer, hes has to twist and turn fact to the advantage of MY.

kawasaki2 SG

Stop fighting over one small island like this. Is it even worth it? It is so small and I wonder why anyone would value it so much.

Who would want to live on such a small island anyway?

soul_rage SG

Malaysia say this small island is theirs, and we agree, so no more fighting.
Then one day, they will insist that the surroundings islands around us is also theirs. We have many small islands that cannot be lived on. Are you telling me we should give them up too?

Your argument reminds me of the Qing dynasty, where the govt continually cede parts of China lands to foreign countries.

Its not an issue of big or small island. Its an issue of asserting our position. We may be small, but we are no pushovers.

hloc SG

Where got fighting..... Question

All seating around and talk infront of some AngMor Judge only. In another 6-9mths time, all will settle.

If you don't ''fight'' for the things that belongs to you, then you don't deserve to own it. Confused

soul_rage SG

Honestly, I doubt its a matter of us installing the military installation.
Either way, our legal sector has always been better than Malaysia's. I honestly believe that we would not have gone to ICJ if we are not confident of ourselves.

On a PAP level, I dislike them for their elitist attitude. They pay themselves high salaries, but do not dare take up responsibilities and accountabilities of that level. In other countries, a minister would step down if things like the Circle Line tragedy happened. Here, the ministers clutched onto their jobs with their lives, because they know they are worth zero if they were to lose this iron rice bowl.

soul_rage SG

The island is actually of strategic value to us. Its useful for us to direct ships using the waters, which is a major business for PSA. Many ships have crashed in that area in the past.

It is also of strategic value military-wise. I don't think I need to say it too clearly here. That's probably why MY is grumbling about us putting a military installation there, similar to how they grumble about us building a naval port large enough for US air carriers to berth at Changi.

« Previous Page Next Page »