DPM Jaya rebuts KL's
allegations
Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar expressed surprise and
disappointment at the allegations and insinuations made against
Singapore by Malaysia last week. He has to rebut them, he said
yesterday. Otherwise, they will leave an impression of dire
consequences for the region if the ICJ decided in Singapore's
favour, he added. Below is an account of his
arguments.
Straits Times, The
(Singapore)
Home, Pg H6
November 20, 2007
Concealment of letters
MALAYSIA insinuated that Singapore might have hidden two 1844
letters from Governor Butterworth to the rulers of Johor, in which
he sought permission to build a lighthouse near Point Romania on
the Johor coast.
Both countries are disputing whether the scope of the permission
sought included Pedra Branca.
This is an important point as Malaysia claims that Pedra Branca was
part of the Johor sultanate at the time and the Johor rulers gave
the British permission to build a lighthouse there.
Singapore disputes that. It argues that Pedra Branca belonged to no
one when the British took lawful possession of it in 1847 and built
Horsburgh Lighthouse there.
Both Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Foreign Affairs Adviser to the
Malaysian Prime Minister, and Malaysia's counsel, Sir Elihu
Lauterpacht, spoke about the missing letters.
Sir Elihu told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The
Hague that the letter must originally have been in the Singapore
archives and that he would have to 'leave entirely aside any
suggestion...that Singapore has deliberately concealed'.
Yesterday, DPM Jayakumar told the court that remark was the 'most
disturbing' of Malaysia's insinuations.
Singapore did not have copies of Butterworth's letters, he said,
and had searched for them in various archives to no avail.
The reality was that its archives were incomplete, as noted in Mary
Turnbull's authoritative history of the Straits Settlements, he
added.
DPM Jayakumar also pointed out the difficulty Singapore would face
in hiding such documents, even if it wished to, as microfilm copies
of its archival records were available in other institutions,
including Australia's Monash University, which bought them in
1961.
Finally, he noted that Governor Butterworth sent the letters to
Johor's Sultan and Temenggong.
'Why should Malaysia say that 'these must originally have been in
the Singapore archive'? Would it not be more logical for the
original of the letters to be in Johor, not Singapore?
'However, Malaysia has stated that she also does not have the
letters. Singapore has accepted that in good faith,' he said.
Subverting the legal order
MALAYSIA also claimed that Singapore 'seeks to disrupt'
long-established arrangements in the Singapore Strait and 'subvert'
arrangements reached between Johor and Great Britain more than 150
years ago.
But it is Malaysia, DPM Jayakumar said, that is trying to alter the
status quo by claiming Pedra Branca after 130 years of
inaction.
In 1979, Malaysia published a map which showed for the first time
that Pedra Branca lay within its territorial waters.
DPM Jayakumar said it was evident from a telegram Malaysia had sent
to all her overseas missions on Dec 20, 1979 that Kuala Lumpur knew
the map would alter the status quo.
That telegram said the 1979 map would 'affect' Thailand, Vietnam,
Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and China.
'As Malaysia had anticipated, her map indeed attracted protests
from all seven countries,' DPM Jayakumar said.
'Who then, may I ask, was seeking to upset the existing legal
order?'
Malaysia also told the court that if it found in Singapore's
favour, the stability of Malaysia's relationship with Indonesia
would be affected.
DPM Jayakumar said that was another attempt to influence the court
with 'extraneous considerations which have no foundation'.
Sinister motives
MALAYSIA also alleged sinister intentions on Singapore's
part.
It speculated that Singapore might reclaim the sea around Pedra
Branca to create a 'maritime domain', with potential adverse impact
on the environment, navigation and security.
DPM Jayakumar said that was 'scaremongering' as Singapore was a
law-abiding country.
Its economic well-being and very survival depended on its status as
a major port of call, which, in turn, was dependent on the smooth
flow of shipping traffic through the Singapore Strait.
'We have never taken, and will never undertake, any action which
would endanger the marine environment, the safety of navigation and
the security situation in the Singapore Strait,' he said.
Used navy aggressively
MALAYSIA also complained of Singapore's 'military presence' on
Pedra Branca. It alleged that Singapore sent its naval vessels to
the island in 1986, after the dispute arose, raising tensions in
the area and chasing away Malaysian fishermen.
But Singapore's navy had been patrolling Pedra Branca's waters
since the British navy withdrew in 1975, four years before the
dispute arose in 1979, he said.
The Singapore navy's presence in the area had also been peaceful
and non-confrontational and none of its officers had arrested any
Malaysian fishing vessels.
By comparison, Malaysia had aggressively arrested Singapore's
fishing vessels in the area and raised tensions, he added.
Offer to let Singapore continue running
lighthouse
MALAYSIA also told the court that it had always respected
Singapore's position as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse on
Pedra Branca and would continue to do so.
DPM Jayakumar said there was no need and no basis for Malaysia to
do so.
'Singapore's rights in relation to Pedra Branca are the rights of a
country having sovereignty over the island, not that of a
lighthouse operator,' he said.
And Malaysia had recognised Singapore's sovereign status over Pedra
Branca until December 1979, he added.
'The questions for the court, as agreed by both countries...concern
sovereignty. This case is not about the right to operate the
Horsburgh Lighthouse,' he said.
In closing, DPM Jayakumar said Singapore had no choice but to rebut
Malaysia's baseless allegations and insinuations.
'Every state which appears before this honourable court in a
dispute would of course do all it can to persuade this court to
decide in its favour. That is perfectly legitimate.
'However, we should seek to win by stating objective facts and
submitting persuasive legal arguments, and not by resorting to
unfounded political statements and making insinuations damaging to
the integrity of the opposite party,' he said.
He reiterated that Singapore and Malaysia agreed to submit their
dispute to the ICJ instead of allowing it to adversely affect their
overall good relations.
'I have no doubt that both countries are committed to maintaining
our friendly and peaceful relations,' he said.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
