Tuntutan Bertindih Pulau Batu Putih (Pedra Branca) antara Malaysia dan SingapuraMahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa memulakan persidangannya hari ini untuk mendengar tuntutan oleh kerajaan Singapura dan Malaysia keatas Pulau Batu Putih atau lebih dikenali sebagai Pedra Branca. Pulau yang sebesar padang bola ini terletak di selatan Semenanjung telah ditadbir dibawah pemerintahan British semenjak 1840 sehingga diambil-alih oleh pemerintah Singapura setelah penguduran pentadbiran British dari Malaya tetapi dituntut semula oleh kerajaan Malaysia pada tahun 1979. Kedua-dua negara bersetuju membawa kes ini ke Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa pada 2003.
Hakim-hakim yang mendengar kes ini terdiri dari Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar), Shi Jiuyong (China), Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone), Gonzalo Parra Aranguren (Venezuela), Thomas Buergenthal (US), Hisashi Owada (Japan), Bruno Simma (Germany), Peter Tomka (Slovakia), Ronny Abraham (France), Kenneth Keith (New Zealand), Bernardo Sepulveda Amor (Mexico), Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco) and Leonid Skotnikov (Russia).
Malaysia melantik Christopher S.R. Dugard dari Afrika Selatan, manakala Singapura pula melantik Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao dari India sebagai hakim-hakim pemerhati.
Delegasi Singapura terdiri dari Timbalan Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Undang-Undang Singapura S. Jayakumar, Ketua Hakim Singapura Chan Sek Keong, Peguam Negara Singapura Chao Hick Tin dan Duta Besar Tommy Koh dibantu pakar undang-undang antarabangsa yang terdiri dari:
1. Queen's Counsel Ian Brownlie, an international law specialist from Oxford University
2. Professor Alain Pellet of the University of Paris X-Nanterre, a member of the United Nations International Law Commission
3. Mr Rodman Bundy of the English law firm Eversheds, who deals with boundary and territorial dispute resolution
4. Ms Loretta Malintoppi, also of Eversheds and an international arbitration and public international law specialist.
Manakala delegasi Malaysia pula diketuai oleh Peguam Negara Malaysia Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Duta Besar dan Penasihat Perdana Menteri mengenai Hal Ehwal Luar Negara Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad dan Duta Besar Malaysia ke Belanda Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin pasukan perundangan antarabangsa yang terdiri dari:
1. Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and James Crawford, both professors in International Law at the Cambridge University
2. Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, professor of Public International Law, Leiden University
3. Marcelo G. Kohen, professor of International Law, the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
4. Penelope Nevill, college lecturer, Downing College, Cambridge University
6 Nov PUTRAJAYA, 2 Nov (Bernama) -- 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.
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
_______________________________________
HUJAH OLEH PIHAK KERAJAAN SINGAPURA
Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Puteh (both meaning "white rock" in Portuguese and Malay respectively) is an outcrop of rocks situated where the Singapore Strait, specifically Straits of Johor, meets the South China Sea, measuring at its longest, during low water spring tide, a mere 137 meters. It has a land area of 2,000 m². It is known as Pedra Branca in Singapore and Pulau Batu Puteh in Malaysia. The island was recorded as early as 1583, by the Dutch voyager Johann van Linschoten. The rocks have long been a navigational hazard.
For example, between 1824 and 1851, at least twenty-five sizeable vessels met with disaster on those rocks. In 1851, the Horsburgh lighthouse was built and named after Captain James Horsburgh , a Scottish hydrographer to the East India Company Ownership of the island is disputed by Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore has been administrating Pedra Branca and managing Horsburgh Lighthouse as early as 1851. The Separation Agreement in 1965 did not address the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
Singapore continues to administer the island and manage the lighthouse. Malaysia first claimed the island in 1979 when the country published new official maps, which included the island of Pedra Branca in its territory. Malaysia asserts that when Johor Sultanate ceded Singapore to the British in 1824, the island was not part of the secession and that the Sultan of Johor only allowed the British to construct a lighthouse on the island in 1844. Pedra Branca is located 25 nautical miles away from Singapore; the island is 7.7 nautical miles away from Johor. In 1994, both sides agreed to bring the matter to International Court of Justice.[1] Both countries have made written submissions to the Court and public hearings will open 6 November 2007
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers argue before World Court on island ownership dispute with Malaysia
THE HAGUE (Netherlands): Lawyers for Singapore argued before the World Court yesterday that the city state has an older and stronger claim to a small but strategic island in the Singapore Strait whose ownership is disputed by Malaysia. Malaysia’s lawyers are scheduled to make their arguments next week before the United Nation’s highest court for resolving international disputes, formally known as the International Court of Justice. “We are well prepared and our team has all the documents and evidence to win the dispute,” said Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who is leading the legal team.
A 16-judge panel, including ad-hoc judges appointed by Malaysia and Singapore, will decide the ownership of the 137m x 60m granite outcrop, known by Malaysia as Pulau Batu Putih and Singapore as Pedra Branca. The court is expected to issue its judgment next year and both sides have said they would abide by its ruling. The disagreement “has been an irritant in the bilateral relations between our two countries,” said Singapore’s ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh. “After almost 28 years, we are very pleased that the dispute will finally be brought to an end,” he added. The island, a vital landmark for some 900 ships that pass daily, is dominated by the black-and-white striped tower of the Horsburgh Lighthouse built by Britain in 1851 and now controlled by Singapore. Koh argued that Britain claimed the island more than 150 years ago and it fell to Singapore after the end of British colonial rule.
He said this was never questioned till 1979, when Malaysia published a map with the island included as its territory. Malaysia argues that it has historical title to the island that predates British control. Koh argued that Malaya took control of the island between 1847 and 1851 and that it passed into Singapore’s ownership upon independence. That Malaysia never disputed it until 1979, “is significant and must be taken to mean that Malaysia never regarded Pedra Branca as her territory,” he pointed out. Yesterday’s hearing was the first of 12 days of oral arguments at court.
– AP
-------------------------------------------------------
Straits Times,
Straits Times,
The (Singapore) Prime News
November 7, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - SINGAPORE yesterday launched its case for Pedra Branca before an international court with a systematic demolition of Malaysia's claim of historical ownership. Delivering the key speech on the opening day of a three-week hearing, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong began by saying that there was 'not a shred of evidence' to suggest that Pedra Branca was ever a part of the old Johor Sultanate. Malaysia's claim amounted to no more than 'vague and barren assertions' that further 'glossed over' important but inconvenient historical facts, he charged. Moreover, traditional Malay sovereignty rested mainly on control of people rather than territory, he pointed out.
It was thus difficult to establish with certainty such a kingdom's ownership of a remote, barren and uninhabited islet like Pedra Branca. Singapore's case, on the other hand, which Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh summarised at the start of proceedings, rested on concrete acts of sovereignty carried out over some 150 years. These dated back to 1847, when the British government in Singapore first took lawful possession of the island and decided to build a lighthouse there. The Republic subsequently confirmed and maintained its title through a wide range of activities that showed it exercised the authority of a state over the rocky outcrop, which lies east of the mainland. Professor Koh noted Malaysia's long silence in the face of such acts from 1847 - until 1979, the year it first claimed Pedra Branca as its own. 'In fact, Malaysia has, by her own conduct, recognised Singapore's sovereignty over the island,' he told the 16 judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Since Malaysia first laid formal claim in 1979 to the football field-sized islet located at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait, the two sides have sought to settle the dispute. In 1989, Singapore proposed that the matter be referred to the ICJ, the world's foremost court of international law. After protracted negotiations spanning nearly two decades, the resolution of the dispute reached its final legal phase with the start of the hearing yesterday. Both sides have agreed to abide by the court's decision. Also speaking for Singapore yesterday was Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin, who laid out a chronology of events from 1847 to 1978 to show that Singapore had performed acts of state authority consistently over Pedra Branca. These included the construction and operation of various facilities on the island, such as a water desalination plant and a tower to provide information on shipping traffic. And it did so without seeking approval from any other powers, he added. Malaysia, on the other hand, had disclaimed ownership by, among other things, publishing four maps that showed Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore, he said.
The three-hour presentation by some of Singapore's top legal minds was backed by written and spoken evidence of various forms, including maps, maritime charts, paintings and letters. There was even a 1980 audio recording of a press conference in which the late Tun Hussein Onn, the former Malaysian prime minister, admitted that the sovereignty of Pedra Branca was 'not very clear' to Malaysia. Singapore has three more days to argue its case before Malaysia sets out its case next week. From today till Friday, the four foreign counsel representing Singapore will present, in greater detail, arguments rebutting Malaysia's claim and explaining how the Republic came to acquire and maintain title over Pedra Branca. Chief Justice Chan is in the Singapore team of legal eagles, having been involved in the case since 1993 when he was Attorney-General. When he became CJ last year, Parliament was informed that he had agreed to the Government's request to continue acting for it until its resolution. Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister S. Jayakumar will wrap up the Republic's case with a concluding statement on Friday.
The atmosphere in the court, or great hall as it is called here, of the Peace Palace was noticeably friendly and members of both teams greeted each other warmly on arrival. As Prof Koh observed in his speech, Singapore and Malaysia are closely linked not just geographically, but also in their history, culture and economics. The Pedra Branca dispute has, however, been an 'irritant' in the bilateral relationship. 'After almost 28 years, we are very pleased that the dispute will be brought to a conclusion,' he said.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
Straits Times,
Straits Times,
The (Singapore) Home
November 7, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - MALAYSIA'S assertion that it had history on its side in its claim to Pedra Branca was the subject of a robust rebuttal by Singapore yesterday. As the hearing on the sovereignty of the rocky outcrop began here before the International Court of Justice, Singapore's top legal eagles sought to debunk in no uncertain terms the historical basis to Malaysia's claim. In some instances, its northern neighbour had even distorted history to bolster its position, Singapore's lawyers argued. These opening arguments on Day One of the hearing were in response to written arguments that Malaysia had earlier mounted, claiming ownership dating back to the 16th century.
For every argument, Singapore's Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin produced a counter-argument. Chief Justice Chan quoted from a range of renowned historians in a bid to show that in each case, Malaysia's interpretation of history prior to the 1847 establishment of Horsburgh lighthouse on Pedra Branca by the British, was either not backed by any available evidence or just plain wrong. AG Chao took up the story from 1847 onwards with an extensive chronology of events all the way up to 1978. He argued that those events showed that Singapore consistently performed various acts displaying State authority over Pedra Branca. In all that time, its officials also expressed the view consistently that Pedra Branca was under Singapore's sovereignty.
'Malaysian officials were, on the other hand,' AG Chao said, 'equally consistent in acknowledging and recognising Singapore's title to Pedra Branca'. It was only in 1979 that Malaysia made a formal claim to the island through the publication of its map on its territorial waters, he added. A look at the arguments by the Singapore side yesterday, which produced maps and charts to make its case: RECENT HISTORY: HOW SINGAPORE DEMONSTRATED OWNERSHIP IN 1847, the British government in Singapore decided to build a lighthouse on Pedra Branca. At the laying of the Horsburgh lighthouse foundation stone in 1851, the island was described as a 'dependency of Singapore'. In 1952 and again in 1974, the Chief Surveyor and the Marine Department of Singapore respectively wrote that Singapore was entitled to claim a territorial sea around Pedra Branca. In the early 1970s, the Singapore Government considered reclaiming land around Pedra Branca and even called a public tender for such works in 1978.
RECENT HISTORY: HOW MALAYSIA DISCLAIMED OWNERSHIP IN 1953, in response to an inquiry from Singapore, the Johor government stated unequivocally in a letter that 'the Johor government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca'. In 1962, the Federation of Malaya published two official maps which attributed Pedra Branca to Singapore. In 1965 and 1975, Malaysia again published maps showing Pedra Branca as belonging to the republic.
CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP BEFORE 1847 MALAYSIA'S historical claim to Pedra Branca rests on its argument that the island was part of the old Johor sultanate. In its written arguments, it portrayed the sultanate as a stable kingdom whose territorial extent remained the same throughout all phases of its history, from the 16th century right up to the 19th century, when the British arrived on the scene. But CJ Chan quoted from the writings of well-known historians Carl Trocki and Richard Winstedt, which stated that from her foundation, the kingdom of Johor 'was in a precarious state'. Indeed, the official 1949 Annual Report published by the Government of the State of Johor noted that by the start of the 19th century, round about the time of the British arrival in Singapore, 'the old empire was in a state of dissolution'. Malaysia's claim also glossed over the fact that traditional Malay sovereignty was centred not on territory but on allegiance. Therefore, 'the only reliable way to determine whether a particular territory belonged to a ruler is to find out whether the inhabitants pledged allegiance to that ruler', Mr Chan argued. It would therefore be difficult to establish with certainty sovereignty over barren, isolated and uninhabited islands such as Pedra Branca, he added. He also sought to debunk Malaysia's attempt to use the 1824 Anglo-Dutch treaty to back its claim, saying that it amounted to a misinterpretation of the treaty.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
Straits Times,
-------------------------------------------------------
Straits Times,
The (Singapore) Home
November 7, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
AMBASSADOR-at-Large Tommy Koh yesterday told an international court that Malaysia's 130-year silence on Pedra Branca spoke louder than words. Outlining Singapore's case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Professor Koh said before the British took lawful possession of Pedra Branca in 1847 and constructed a lighthouse there, no other state had ever laid claim to it. Singapore's title to the island is based on that 1847 act, he said in a 30-minute speech that opened yesterday's three-hour hearing.
After the lighthouse was built in 1851, Britain and later Singapore confirmed and maintained the title by the 'continuous, open and effective display of state authority' on Pedra Branca and its territorial waters, he added. How it did so will be elaborated on by Singapore's foreign counsel over the next few days. 'A key feature of this case is the constant stream of Singapore's acts of administration in relation to Pedra Branca, contrasted with the complete absence of Malaysian effectivites on Pedra Branca or within its territorial waters, and with Malaysia's silence in the face of all these state activities of Singapore,' he said. 'Such silence on Malaysia's part is significant and must be taken to mean that Malaysia never regarded Pedra Branca as her territory,' he added.
The word 'effectivites' is a legal term that refers to the activities of a state on territory which it treats as its own. In an earlier dispute which Malaysia and Indonesia took before the ICJ, the court ruled in Malaysia's favour on the ownership of Pulau Sipadan and Ligatan on the basis of its effectivites on the islands. Unlike Malaysia, Singapore has not appeared before the ICJ before. This being its first appearance, Prof Koh made it a point to stress the importance Singapore attached to international law. 'Singapore has worked with other like-minded states to strengthen the rule of law in the world,' he told the court's 16-member bench.
'We believe in the peaceful settlement of disputes.' He said Singapore believes states should attempt to settle their differences through consultations, negotiations and mediation. However, when a dispute could not be settled by those means, it believes that instead of allowing the matter to adversely affect bilateral ties, it is better to submit the matter to a binding third-party procedure, namely arbitration or adjudication. 'It is for this reason that Singapore and Malaysia have agreed to submit our dispute to this honourable court,' he said.
lydia@sph.com.sg
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
The Star
lydia@sph.com.sg
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
The Star
Sunday, 11 November 2007
THE HAGUE: Singapore dwelt at length on a 1953 letter by the acting Johor state secretary which it claimed disclaimed its title to Pulau Batu Puteh. It argued that the letter of Sept 21, 1953, to Singapore’s Colonial Secretary stated that “the Johor government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca.” Pulau Batu Puteh, which Singapore refers to as Pedra Branca, is the subject a sovereignty dispute between Malaysia and Singapore.The case is being heard at the International Court of Justice here. Prof Alain Pellet, who is representing Singapore, argued in his oral presentation that the letter had established the absence of Johor’s title over Pulau Batu Puteh, and subsequently Malaysia’s. He contended that on the strength of the reply from Johor, Singapore could claim sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh. The letter was in response to an enquiry dated June 12, 1953, by the Singapore Colonial Secretary seeking to clarify the status of Pulau Batu Puteh, where a lighthouse had been built, with a view to determine the boundaries of the colony’s territorial waters.
Prof Pellet, who referred to the letter on numerous occasions during the proceedings, dismissed Malaysia’s contention that the letter was only in reference to the Horsburgh lighthouse and not the island. He contended that the letter had explicitly sought to clarify the “status of Pedra Branca”. And the answer given was that “the Johor Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca,” he said. He added that even if Johor had ownership of the island before 1953, through the letter it was now disclaiming such an ownership. Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar wrapped up the first round of the republic’s oral presentation, contending that Malaysia’s theory that Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to the country was inconsistent with the letter where Johor never regarded the island as theirs.
The Malaysian delegation is headed by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, who is Ambassador at Large and also the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs. He is Malaysia’s agent for the case while Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands, acts as co-agent. The court will hear Malaysia’s oral presentation on Tuesday.
– Bernama
-------------------------------------------------------
New Straits Times
(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)-------------------------------------------------------
New Straits Times
November 9, 2007
Author: V. Anbalagan
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.
- New Straits Times
- New Straits Times
Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------
New Straits Times
(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)-------------------------------------------------------
New Straits Times
November 7, 2007
Author: V. Anbalagan
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.
- New Straits Times
Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------
Why Singapore is fighting the case to keep Pedra Branca Straits Times
The (Singapore) Home
November 13, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim
IN 1583, Dutch voyager Johann van Lindschoten wrote of the island on which South-east Asia's first lighthouse was eventually built: 'From the Cape of Singapore lyeth a cliffe in ye sea called Pedra Branca, or white rock, where the shippes that come and goe to and from China passe in great danger and some are left upon it.' It is clear from this account that for centuries, Pedra Branca was notorious for being a navigational hazard. It was for this reason that the British decided in 1847 to build Horsburgh Lighthouse there, to improve the safety of ships passing through the Singapore Strait. Since the construction of the lighthouse began that year, the British colonial authorities had considered Pedra Branca part of Singapore territory.
When it became self-governing in 1959, Singapore assumed sovereignty over the island from the British and has controlled it and its surrounding waters ever since. So it found Malaysia's sudden claim in 1979 that Pedra Branca stood within its territorial waters, 'to say the least, extraordinary'. That was the phrase Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar used in a speech last Friday, as he wrapped up Singapore's first round of oral pleadings before the International Court of Justice. To some, Pedra Branca may seem insignificant. It is after all but a guano-covered granite island the size of a football field, located some 25 nautical miles from Singapore's mainland. But for the Singapore Government, there is an important principle at stake, which is that no country should be able to suddenly and unilaterally claim its territory over which it has exercised sovereignty openly and continuously.
In this case, Singapore has held the island for some 150 years. In a way, Singapore is acting as any home owner would if his neighbour suddenly decided to encroach on his land. It would come as no surprise if the owner strenuously resisted any such attempt, for otherwise, he would forfeit to his neighbour land that was rightfully his to begin with. To be sure, sovereignty disputes are also usually tied up with feelings of national pride. Malaysian newspaper the New Straits Times stated in an article dated Jan 2, 2003 that 'Pulau Batu Puteh, tiny as it is, is significant for its strategic position, impact on the delimitation of territorial sea and, most of all, for national pride'.
Pedra Branca is also strategically located and is key to the safety of international shipping passing through the Strait of Singapore. It commands the entrance to the two main shipping channels - the south and middle channels - of the eastern part of the strait, through which some 900 ships pass each day. Singapore has installed a VTIS or Vessel Traffic Information System tower on Pedra Branca, which it relies on in its management of shipping traffic. While Singapore is confident of the outcome of the dispute now being heard before the International Court of Justice, it will no doubt be watching keenly for surprises that the Malaysian side might spring on it this week.
lydia@sph.com.sg
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
Now you see it, now you don't
Straits Times
The (Singapore) Home,
November 20, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political CorrespondentHow close is Pedra Branca to Johor? See the pictures, says S'pore IN THE HAGUE - AT A glance, the two pictures look alike. Both have Horsburgh Lighthouse and Pedra Branca in the foreground. But look again - at the background which shows the Johor mainland, with Point Romania and a hill named Mount Berbukit. In one picture the hill is highly visible; in the other, it is hardly visible. Therein lies the photographic illusion that Malaysia had created to exaggerate the closeness of Pedra Branca to Johor, Singapore said yesterday at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The first photograph, which Malaysia had shown the court last week, was taken by a camera using a telephoto lens.
The second photograph was taken by Singapore, using a camera lens that approximates what the human eye sees. As a result, the Malaysian photograph exaggerated the height of Mount Berbukit by about seven times, Singapore's Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin said when he presented the two photos before the court. He described it as 'an attempt to convey a subliminal message of proximity between Pedra Branca and the coast of Johor'.But it was not an accurate reflection of what visitors to Pedra Branca would see if they were looking towardsthe Johor mainland, he said. Mr Chao was speaking before the ICJ as the hearing over the Pedra Branca dispute enters the third week. Yesterday was the first day of Singapore's rebuttals against Malaysia's oral arguments made last week.
Both countries are appearing at the ICJ to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of the island 40km east of Singapore and which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait. Last week, Malaysia had also claimed the photo in question was taken from an online blog or weblog. The implication was the photo came from an independent source. But yesterday, Mr Chao raised questions about the blog: www.leuchtturm3.blogspot.com . 'This blog site is a most unusual one. It was created only last month. There is no information on the identity of the blogger and the photograph used by Malaysia was only put on the website on Nov 2 2007, four days before the start of these oral proceedings,' he said. Mr Chao also sought to debunk Malaysia's claim that Pedra Branca was near Point Romania in Johor.
The phrase 'near Point Romania' was used in an 1844 letter from the Temenggong of Johor to Governor Butterworth in Singapore. In that letter, the Temenggong gave permission for the British to build a lighthouse on any island near Point Romania. Malaysia claimed the phrase included Pedra Branca, and that the letter showed Britain acknowledged Johor's sovereignty over the island. Mr Chao said the letter did not refer to Pedra Branca but to Peak Rock which, in 1844, was where the British planned to build a lighthouse. He pointed out the distance between Pedra Branca and Point Romania was six times that between the latter and Peak Rock. In an 1846 letter, Governor Butterworth explained his original preference for Peak Rock as the site of a lighthouse because Pedra Branca was 'at so great a distance from the main land'.
Singapore's rebuttals yesterday were launched by Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar. He highlighted five 'baseless allegations and insinuations' that Malaysia had lobbed against Singapore and rebutted each in turn. Among them was Malaysia's charge that Singapore wished to 'subvert' long-established arrangements in the Singapore Strait. On the contrary, he said, it was Kuala Lumpur that tried to alter the status quo through the publication of a map in 1979 that altered its maritime boundaries with seven of its neighbours. That was also the map that sparked the current dispute. Prof Jayakumar said he was disappointed that Malaysia had resorted to such allegations in its bid to win the case. '
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.
lydia@sph.com.sg
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
Jayakumar says KL altered status quo with its 1979 map, not S'pore
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
Jayakumar says KL altered status quo with its 1979 map, not S'pore
Straits Times
The (Singapore) Home
November 20, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
IN THE HAGUE - SINGAPORE launched its final arguments in the Pedra Branca case with a robust rebuttal against what it called Malaysia's 'baseless' allegations against its conduct. In its oral pleadings last week, Malaysia had sought to depict Singapore as dishonest, aggressive and out to 'subvert' the stable maritime arrangements in the Singapore Strait. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar said these insinuations were baseless and unnecessary. He said that in Singapore's first round of oral pleadings, it had focused its presentations on legal and factual issues.
It had carefully avoided mentioning extraneous matters that might affect the integrity of the court proceedings, he told the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 'In view of the good relations between the two countries, we had expected Malaysia to do the same,' he said. 'We are therefore surprised and disappointed that Malaysia has, in her oral pleadings, made a series of allegations and insinuations against Singapore. 'These are of a nature which, unless rebutted, would impeach or diminish Singapore's integrity or could impress on the minds of the members of the court that there could be dire consequences for relations in the region if the dispute were decided in favour of Singapore.
Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the ICJ to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, an island 40km east of Singapore and which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait. Both sides have presented their first round of oral arguments in the last two weeks. The hearing is now in its third and final week, with each side given two days to rebut the other's arguments. DPM Jayakumar said that contrary to Malaysia's claims, Singapore was an honest, law-abiding state that has never and will never do anything to endanger navigational safety, security arrangements or the Singapore Strait's environment. He also said it was Kuala Lumpur, not Singapore, which sought to alter the status quo by publishing a map in 1979 that altered the maritime boundaries with seven of Malaysia's neighbours. That map sparked the dispute over Pedra Branca.
The DPM read from a telegram which KL had sent to its overseas missions in December 1979, informing them that the 1979 map would 'affect' Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and China. He also took pains to debunk Malaysia's insinuation that Singapore had hidden two letters from the ICJ, a charge he described as 'the most disturbing' of the lot. He said Singapore did not have the letters and had searched various archives to no avail. Five other speakers delivered presentations on Singapore's behalf yesterday. They included Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, who focused on KL's claim that the Johor sultanate possessed a title to Pedra Branca from time immemorial.
Drawing from historians' accounts, he painted a picture of the Johor sultanate as an unstable kingdom whose geographical boundaries were unclear and based more on people's allegiance than territory. To establish Johor's sovereignty over an uninhabited island like Pedra Branca, Malaysia thus had to produce documentary proof of its title, CJ Chan argued. This it had failed to do, he added. Besides asking the ICJ to decide Pedra Branca's fate, Singapore and Malaysia have also asked it to rule on who has sovereignty over two smaller maritime features near it: Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Yesterday, Malaysia's stand that the two should be regarded as separate and distinct from Pedra Branca was criticised by Singapore's Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin. Singapore's stand is that whoever has sovereignty over Pedra Branca also owns the two smaller features. Mr Chao asked why Malaysia was 'so anxious' to separate their fate from that of Pedra Branca. Was Malaysia hoping to salvage something for the future delimitation of its seas, in the event the court ruled Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore, he asked. Or was Malaysia hoping the court would split the goods between the two countries? If it was the latter, Mr Chao said: 'The law and the facts simply do not support such a ruling."
lydia@sph.com.sg
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
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,
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
--------------------------------------------------------
General descriptions of sultanate 'not enough to prove claim'
Straits Times
The (Singapore) Home
November 20, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
SINGAPORE yesterday laid out the reasons why Malaysia's reliance on general descriptions of the Johor sultanate is just not good enough to prove its title to Pedra Branca. Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said three characteristics of the old Johor sultanate constituted a 'huge obstacle to Malaysia's claim which she has not surmounted'. The first was that the Johor sultanate was, throughout its existence, unstable. The second was that the sultanate's territorial limits were indeterminate. The third was that the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty was based more on the allegiance of people than on clearly-defined territorial limits.
It was thus difficult to establish such a kingdom's sovereignty over an uninhabited island such as Pedra Branca. Malaysia claims the Johor sultanate had title to the disputed island from as far back as the 16th century. Last week, it sought to back its claim by quoting historical descriptions of the Johor sultanate as a maritime empire that stretched all the way to the Natunas islands in the South China Sea, and covered all the islands in the Singapore Strait. Singapore, however, argues that Pedra Branca was terra nullius, that is, belonged to no one when the British took lawful possession of it in 1847 and built Horsburgh Lighthouse there. In rebutting Malaysia's points based on history, Mr Chan quoted from the writings of renowned historians of South-east Asia, such as L. Andaya and Carl Trocki, whose writings Malaysia had also relied on. He told the court: '
In the context of a Malay sultanate which was people-centric and not territory-centric, general descriptions of the geographical extent of the sultanate's domains have no probative value at all as attributions of sovereignty.' Yet, Malaysia had sought to rely on such general descriptions to debunk Singapore's stand that Pedra Branca was, in the 1840s, terra nullius. Yesterday, Mr Chan and counsel for Singapore Alain Pellet also highlighted Malaysia's complete lack of documentary proof that Johor ever possessed title to Pedra Branca. They noted that none of the historical documents cited by Malaysia to back its claim even mentioned Pedra Branca by name. The only one that did was a newspaper article that Professor Pellet had earlier argued was unreliable. Yesterday, he highlighted a previous International Court of Justice ruling in which the court had said that documents which did not mention an island by name were not relevant in deciding which state had sovereignty over it. That ruling was issued in the case between Malaysia and Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan.
Mr Chan also reminded the court of a 1953 letter in which Johor's top civil servant of the time informed the British authorities in Singapore that Johor 'does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca'. That disclaimer, he said, was entirely consistent with the lack of evidence that Johor ever possessed title to the disputed island. It was also consistent with Malaysia's silence in the face of Britain and Singapore's display of state authority over Pedra Branca since 1847. 'Johor disclaimed title because it had no title. What more can be said?' he asked.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
All the pieces in Singapore's case 'fit perfectly together' Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh summed up Singapore's case yesterday by highlighting the 10 key points of its arguments. He said these were pieces of a puzzle that fit perfectly together to show Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca. Here is Ambassador Koh's summing-up of Singapore's case.
Straits Times
The (Singapore) Home
November 21, 2007
FIRST, Singapore has shown that in 1847, Pedra Branca was terra nullius. Malaysia disputes this and argues that it was not terra nullius but was part of the Sultanate of Johor. Malaysia has, however, failed to produce any evidence that this particular island, Pedra Branca, was subject to the sovereignty of Johor. Malaysia has failed to prove her only argument, that she has a historic title to Pedra Branca. She has failed to show that: (a) Pedra Branca was part of the Johor Sultanate; and (b) that any original title had been transmitted to the State of Johor. Second, Singapore had shown that from 1847 to 1851, Britain was in possession of Pedra Branca without the consent of any native ruler.
Malaysia argues that she had given permission to Britain for the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca. Again, she has not provided any evidence of such permission. All that Malaysia relies on are indirect inferences from letters which do not even mention Pedra Branca. Third, Singapore has shown that in the period, 1847 to 1851, the British acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca by satisfying the two requisite criteria: animus or intention, and corpus or activities undertaken ? titre de souverain. Malaysia has repeated ad nauseam her argument that the British lacked the animus and the corpus and that all the activities undertaken by them were merely concerned with the construction of a lighthouse. The Malaysian argument is flawed and remains so no matter how many times it is repeated. Fourth, from 1847 to 1979, a period of over 130 years, Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca was open, continuous and notorious. It was acknowledged by all concerned and challenged by none.
It was only in 1979, when, like a bolt out of the blue, Malaysia published her infamous map which claimed, for the very first time, that Pedra Branca belonged to her. Fifth, in 1953, when Johor was a sovereign State under international law, the State Secretary of Johor, writing in an official capacity, informed the Singapore Government that, 'the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca'. This disclaimer is binding on Malaysia under international law. Malaysia is clearly embarrassed by this disclaimer. Discarding her earlier argument that the disclaimer 'is not a model of clarity', Malaysia has invented a new argument, which is that Singapore is seeking to use the letter as the root of her title.
But this has never been Singapore's case. Singapore's case is that the disclaimer confirms Singapore's title and is further evidence that Johor has no prior title. Sixth, in 1968, three years after Singapore separated from Malaysia, the Malaysian government demanded that Singapore should lower its marine ensign from its lighthouse in Pulau Pisang. Since Pulau Pisang was under Malaysian sovereignty, Singapore promptly complied with Malaysia's request. However, Malaysia failed to make the same demand with respect to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on Pedra Branca. Malaysia's conduct is recognition of Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca. Seventh, between 1962 and 1975, Malaysia published six maps which attributed Pedra Branca to Singapore.
Singapore never published a single map, not one, attributing the island to Malaysia. Eighth, Malaysia has argued that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge should not be treated as a group but as three separate and distinct maritime features. This is an untenable argument. The truth is that for reasons of proximity, geology, history and law, the three features are inseparable and must be treated together. Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks constitute a group. South Ledge is a low-tide elevation within the territorial sea of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks and its fate must necessarily follow that of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks. Ninth, Malaysia has repeatedly argued that this case is about title and not about competing effectivites.
This is not correct. Singapore's case is that Pedra Branca was terra nullius in 1847 and that we had acquired sovereignty over the island between 1847 and 1851 and have maintained it ever since. However, should the Court find that the title to Pedra Branca were indeterminate at that time, and were to examine the competing effectivites of the two parties, Singapore has clearly shown that it has sovereignty. I can understand why Malaysia would be concerned if the Court were to decide to walk down this path. The reason is that Malaysia has zero effectivites. Tenth, Malaysia has, in the first round, said that Singapore may continue to own and operate the Horsburgh Lighthouse should sovereignty over Pedra Branca be awarded to her. This may sound magnanimous, but make no mistake, it is really an attempt by Malaysia to change a legal order which has existed for 160 years. Mr President and Members of the Court, the evidence in this case presents a remarkably consistent picture.
All of Singapore's actions are entirely consistent with that of a country that has sovereignty over Pedra Branca. In contrast, all of Malaysia's actions (and inactions) are entirely consistent with that of a country which has no title over Pedra Branca. In fact, all the pieces of the puzzle fit neatly together. The picture that emerges is that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca. The British activities from 1847 to 1851, in taking lawful possession of the island, are simply the other side of the coin of the complete absence of Johor's original title or of any sovereign acts by Johor on the island. Singapore's continuous stream of sovereign activities on Pedra Branca and within its territorial waters, from 1851 to the present, is the reverse side of the coin of the complete absence of any Malaysian effectivites on the island at all relevant time.
Singapore's actions were open and public and are the counterpart to Malaysia's silence in the face of these activities over a period of 130 years. Malaysia's official disclaimer in 1953 and its series of official maps attributing the island to Singapore are further confirmation of this picture. The whole story fits perfectly together.
There can therefore be no doubt that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belong to Singapore. Singapore's continuous stream of sovereign activities on Pedra Branca and within its territorial waters, from 1851 to the present, is the reverse side of the coin of the complete absence of any Malaysian effectivites on the island at all relevant time. Singapore's actions were open and public and are the counterpart to Malaysia's silence in the face of these activities over a period of 130 years.'
- AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE TOMMY KOH
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
S'pore's activities 'clearly show' it has sovereignty Republic says if neither side has proven title, activities mean its claim must prevail
Straits Times,
The (Singapore) Home
November 21, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - SINGAPORE played its trump card in the Pedra Branca case yesterday as it wrapped up its oral pleadings before an international court. It argued that its claim to the disputed island stands on two legs - lawful acquisition of title between 1847 and 1851 when the British built Horsburgh Lighthouse there, and sovereign acts carried out over 150 years. Malaysia's claim, however, stands on only one leg: its claim that the Johor sultanate had original title to the island since time immemorial.
Singapore proposed to the court that if neither side has proven it had title to the disputed island in 1851, then Singapore's claim must prevail over Malaysia's because it alone has carried out state activities on the island. In inviting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to look at the case in this light, Singapore's Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh said it was an approach that was bound to cause Malaysia concern. 'Malaysia has repeatedly argued that this case is about title and not about competing effectivites. That is not correct,' he said. The legal term effectivites refers to a state's activities that are an exercise of sovereignty over a territory. Singapore has produced a wealth of evidence of its effectivites on Pedra Branca, and they include control of access to the island and naval patrols in its surrounding waters.
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. As the hearing enters its third and final week, the court has heard Malaysia mount a claim based on the Johor sultanate's alleged title to Pedra Branca from time immemorial. But Singapore has pointed out that Malaysia has failed to produce any documents to prove such a title. Singapore's claim is that Pedra Branca was terra nullius, that is, belonged to no one, in 1847 when the British took lawful possession of it and built Horsburgh Lighthouse there. But Malaysia has called into question the depiction of Pedra Branca as terra nullius since the island is located at the centre of what used to be the Johor sultanate. Professor Koh argued yesterday that the court should not make a decision based on title alone, as Malaysia has repeatedly asked it to. 'Malaysia has repeatedly argued that this case is about title and not about competing effectivites.
That is not correct,' he said. 'Should this court find that title to Pedra Branca were indeterminate in 1851, and were to examine the competing effectivites of the two parties, Singapore has clearly shown it has sovereignty. 'I can understand why Malaysia would be concerned if the court were to decide to walk down this path. The reason is that Malaysia has zero effectivites,' he added. Essentially, Singapore is saying that its case stands even if the first of the two legs upon which it rests is a little wobbly. Malaysia's case, on the other hand, must collapse if the one leg upon which it rests is shaky. Yesterday, Singapore's international counsel Rodman Bundy pointed out that the ICJ has ruled on the basis on effectivites in four recent cases when neither side could prove it had title over the disputed territory. One of those cases was the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan, which Malaysia won on the basis of its activities on the islands.
In every one of these cases - every one - the conduct of the parties was assessed to determine which one had demonstrated a greater intensity of state activities undertaken on the islands,' Mr Bundy said. He also argued that if the court ruled in Malaysia's favour on Pedra Branca, it would produce an 'unprecedented result'. 'It would be the first time sovereignty over disputed territory would be found to lie with a party which never carried out a single sovereign act on the actual territory at any time,' he said. In drawing Singapore's arguments to a close yesterday, Prof Koh laid out the 10 key points of Singapore's case. He said they were like the pieces of a puzzle that fit perfectly together to show that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca. The picture that emerged, he said, was that of British activities from 1847 to 1851 amounting to the taking of lawful possession of the island which belonged to no one.
That was followed by Singapore's continuous stream of sovereign activities on the island from 1851 to the present. On the reverse side of the coin, he said, was the 'complete absence' of any Malaysian activities on the island. 'The whole story fits together. There can therefore be no doubt that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belong to Singapore,' he said. Malaysia will rebut Singapore's arguments tomorrow and on Friday, when the hearing ends. A verdict is expected next year.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE!
Singapura Dakwa Tuduhan Malaysia Tidak Berasas
THE HAGUE, 19 Nov (Bernama) -- Singapura memulakan pusingan kedua hujah lisannya di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini hari ini dengan mendakwa tuduhan yang dibuat oleh Malaysia terhadapnya sebagai tidak berasas. Dalam hujah beliau, Timbalan Perdana Menteri Singapura S. Jayakumar menyenaraikan tuduhan serta sindiran yang dibuat oleh Malaysia terhadap republik itu, yang katanya adalah serius dan boleh menjatuhkan integriti Singapura, jika tidak ditangkis. Jayakumar berkata perkara paling menyinggung perasaan negaranya ialah inferens Malaysia bahawa Singapura "sengaja menyembunyikan" surat Gabenor Butterworth bertarikh 1844 berhubung keizinan yang dimohon daripada Sultan dan Temenggong Johor bagi membina sebuah rumah api.
Katanya Malaysia menyatakan ia meminta Singapura mengeluarkan surat berkenaan, tetapi republik itu tidak memberi respons mengenainya. Jayakumar berkata sebenarnya, Singapura telah memberi respons terhadap permohonan Malaysia itu. "Singapura tidak mempunyai salinan surat Butterworth itu," kata Jayakumar kepada panel 16 orang hakim yang mendengar kes pertikaian mengenai pemilikan hak kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh, Terumbu Karang Tengah (Middle Rocks) dan Terumbu Karang Selatin (South Ledge) antara Malaysia dan Singapura. Dalam hujah sebelum ini, Malaysia berkata berdasarkan jawapan terhadap surat Sultan dan Temenggong Johor yang memberi keizinan bagi pembinaan sebuah rumah api, Johor memiliki kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh di mana Rumah Api Horsburgh siap dibina pada 1851. Jayakumar berkata Singapura telah mencari surat berkenaan di pelbagai arkib selama bertahun-tahun, tetapi tidak menjumpainya.
Dalam penghujahan lisan pusingan pertamanya, kata beliau, Singapura telah menyatakan bahawa ia tidak menjumpai surat itu. Beliau berkata dalam hujah bertulis masing-masing, kedua-dua negara juga menyatakan bahawa surat itu tidak dapat ditemui. Lagipun, kata Jayakumar, memandangkan surat itu telah dihantar kepada Sultan Ali dan Temenggong berkenaan, adalah lebih logik salinan asalnya berada di Johor, bukan di Malaysia. Mengenai dakwaan Malaysia bahawa Singapura cuba mengganggu aturan yang telah diwujudkan di selat berkenaan sejak lebih 130 tahun lepas, Jayakumar berkata dakwaan itu merupakan percubaan Malaysia untuk menimbulkan tanggapan mahkamah berkenaan bahawa Malaysia "menjadi mangsa, manakala Singapura pula adalah pihak yang melakukan beberapa kesilapan yang cukup bersejarah terhadap Malaysia."
Jayakumar mendakwa bahawa kononnya Malaysialah yang telah cuba mengubah status quo apabila ia secara tiba-tiba menuntut hak milik ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh setelah 130 tahun menyepikan diri ketika Singapura melaksanakan kedaulatannya terhadap pulau itu. Dalam hujahnya sebelum ini, Malaysia menangkis hujah Singapura mengenai sikap berdiam dirinya itu dengan mengemukakan bukti bahawa Johor adalah pemegang hak milik asal terhadap Pulau Batu Puteh dan dua lagi tempat yang dimaksudkan sejak zaman berzaman. Jayakumar juga mendakwa bahawa Malaysia telah memaklumkan kepada semua perwakilan luar negaranya bahawa peta yang dikeluarkannya pada 1979 akan memberi kesan terhadap Thailand, Vietnam, Singapura, Indonesia, Brunei, Filipina dan China.
"Satu peta, menjejaskan tujuh negara. Seperti yang diduga oleh Malaysia, peta itu telah mengundang bantahan daripada tujuh negara berkenaan," kata Jayakumar bagi menyokong dakwaaan beliau kononnya Malaysialah yang cuba mengubah status quo. Beliau juga menolak hujah yang dibentangkan oleh Malaysia bahawa dengan menuntut kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh, Singapura cuba mewujudkan wilayah maritimnya, membahayakan persekitaran marin dan berhasrat untuk mewujudkan kehadiran ketenteraannya. "Ini suatu percubaan untuk mencetuskan ketakutan," katanya. Beliau berkata Singapura adalah negara yang patuh kepada undang-undang dan kelangsungan hidupnya bergantung pada statusnya sebagai pelabuhan utama, yang sebaliknya bergantung pula pada kelancaran perjalanan arus trafik ke Selat Singapura. Jayakumar juga berhujah tentang kenyataan Malaysia bahawa ia sentiasa menghormati kedudukan Singapura sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh dan akan terus berbuat demikian.
"Tidak perlu, dan pastinya tidak ada asas bagi Malaysia untuk berbuat demikian. Kegiatan Singapura di pulau berkenaan adalah lebih jauh daripada itu," katanya. Dalam hujahnya sebelum ini, Malaysia berkata kegiatan Britain dan Singapura yang mempunyai kaitan dengan rumah api itu, bukan merupakan perlakuan yang membuktikan pemilikan kedaulatan. Malaysia menegaskan bahawa Singapura hanyalah penyenggara Rumah Api Horsburgh di pulau berkenaan dan tidak lebih daripada itu. Jayakumar berkata kes yang dibawa ke mahkamah berkenaan melibatkan kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh, bukan hanya mengenai hak untuk mengendalikan rumah api itu. Perbicaraan disambung esok.
-- BERNAMA
-------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE!!!
UPDATE!!!
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
-------------------------------------------------------
Singapore Closes Case On Sovereignty Dispute
Singapore Closes Case On Sovereignty Dispute
From Nor Faridah A. Rashid
THE HAGUE, Nov 20 (Bernama) -- Singapore closed its case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here today contending that it has proven sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Singapore's agent Tommy Koh said the republic had shown that in 1947, Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius (No Man's Land) when Britain acquired the island. He said Malaysia disputed this and claimed that the island was not terra nullius but was part of the Johor Sultanate. However, Koh said Malaysia failed to produce any evidence to support the claim. Malaysia's only argument was that it had historic title to the island, Koh told the court in his brief concluding oral pleadings which took about 15 minutes.
He said that Malaysia did not produce evidence that Pulau Batu Puteh was part of the Sultanate of Johor and that the original title had been transmitted to Johor. Malaysia says that Johor has the original title to Pulau Batu Puteh and the two features since time immemorial. Koh said that Singapore had shown that from 1847 to 1851 Britain was in possession of Pulau Batu Puteh without the consent of any native ruler. He disputed Malaysia's argument that the Sultan and Temenggong had given permission to Britain to construct the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh. Koh contended that Malaysia had not provided any evidence of such permission and only relied on indirect inferences from letters which did not even mention Pulau Batu Puteh.
Regarding Malaysia's contention that activities Britain conducted on the island were concerned with the construction of the lighthouse he said this argument was flawed and remained so no matter how many times it is repeated. He contended that for a period of over 130 years Singapore’s sovereignty on Pulau Batu Puteh was acknowledged by all concerned and challenged by none. Koh said that it was only in 1979 when "like a bolt out of the blue", Malaysia published its map which claimed, for the first time, that Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to it. Submitting on the 1953 letter from Johor Acting State Secretary stating that "the Johor Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca (Singapore's name for Pulau Batu Puteh)", he contended that this disclaimer was binding on Malaysia under International law. He denied Malaysia's claim that Singapore was seeking to use the letter as its root of title.
"The disclaimer confirms Singapore's title and is further evidence that Johor has no title," he said. He contended that Malaysia also failed to demand Singapore to lower its marine ensign on Pulau Batu Puteh although it had done so in the case of Pulau Pisang. In the case of Pulau Pisang, Singapore had complied with Malaysia's request to lower its marine ensign from its lighthouse there as the island was under Malaysian sovereignty. In not making a similar demand in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh, Koh contended that "Malaysia's conduct is recognition of Singapore's sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.
" He also submitted that Malaysia had published six maps which attributed Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore between 1962 and 1975 but never published a single map attributing the island to Malaysia. On Malaysia's submission that Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge should not be treated as a group but as three separate and distinct maritime features, he said the three features are inseparable and must be treated together. As for Malaysia's statement that Singapore may continue to own and operate the Horsburgh Lighthouse (on Pulau Batu Puteh) should sovereignty be awarded to Malaysia, he claimed that this was an "attempt by Malaysia to change a legal order which has existed for 160 years." Malaysia says that Singapore is merely the administrator of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh, and activities that have taken place there are just acts required by a lighthouse administrator.
Koh contended that all of Singapore's actions regarding the island were entirely consistent with that of a country that had sovereignty in contrast with Malaysia's actions and inaction related to Pulau Batu Puteh. He sought the ICJ to adjudge and declare that Singapore has sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Malaysia will commence the second round of its oral pleadings on Thursday and Friday from 3pm to 6pm (local time).
-- BERNAMA
--------------------------------------------------------
HUJAH OLEH PIHAK KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
Pulau Batu Puteh case begins tomorrow New Straits Times
(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
November 5, 2007
Author: V. Anbalagan
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2007&dt=1103&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_06.htm
Batu Putih milik siapa?
Batu Putih milik siapa?
NORAINI ABDUL RAZAK
(WARTAWAN UTUSAN)
SELEPAS sekian lama menunggu, Malaysia dan Singapura akhirnya bertemu di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di The Hague, Belanda Selasa ini, untuk mengemukakan hujah-hujah lisan bagi tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih. Pertikaian yang berlarutan hampir 29 tahun itu turut melibatkan dua lagi pulau batu berhampiran yang dikenali sebagai Middle Rocks dan South Ledge.
Pasukan Malaysia diketuai oleh Penasihat Hal Ehwal Luar kepada Perdana Menteri, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad dan Duta Malaysia ke Belanda, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin. Manakala barisan peguam terdiri daripada Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.
Dalam peta Malaysia yang terkini, ditunjukkan dengan jelas kedudukan Pulau Batu Putih (White Rock Island). Pulau itu pada asalnya kelihatan berwarna putih kesan tompokan-tompokan najis burung- burung laut, sebab itu ia dinamakan begitu.
Ahli-ahli pelayaran Portugis pula memanggil pulau itu Pedra Branca dan nama itulah yang digunakan oleh Singapura hingga sekarang. Pulau kosong tanpa hidupan dan tumbuhan itu pada asalnya tidak dipedulikan oleh sesiapa sehinggalah terbina rumah api di pulau tersebut. Di sebalik wilayah yang cukup kecil iaitu seluas padang bola, kedudukan pulau berbatu itu amat strategik sehingga menimbulkan pertikaian di antara Malaysia dan Singapura berhubung siapa pemiliknya.
Mengikut tulisan R. Haller-Trost, Historical Legal Claims: A Study of Disputed Sovereignty Over Pulau Batu Puteh (Pedra Branca) 1993, pada tahun 1842, seorang bendahari, James Horsburgh telah mengumpulkan yuran di Canton, China daripada para pedagang untuk disumbangkan kepada kerajaan Negeri-Negeri Selat.
Sumbangan itu bagi membina rumah api untuk kemudahan kapal-kapal yang melalui perairan bahaya di bahagian timur Selat Singapura, terutama bagi mengelakkan kapal-kapal mengalami kemalangan merempuh batu-batu di laluan berkenaan akibat pertambahan lalu lintas kapal.
Berikutan cadangan Horsburgh itu, rumah api yang dinamakan sempena nama beliau dibina pada 1850 dan ia mula beroperasi pada 15 Oktober 1851. Tarikh inilah digunakan oleh Singapura sebagai tarikh bertapaknya kuasa mereka ke atas pulau itu.
Mengikut keterangan daripada Laporan Marin Bengal, permukaan pulau ini diukur berdasarkan panjangnya 137 meter semasa air pasang rendah dari arah timur laut ke barat daya. Bahagian permukaan besar pulau itu terdapat di sebelah utara, sementara bahagian selatan hanya sedikit sahaja. Pada aras air rendah didapati permukaan batu-batu dipisahkan pada jarak 20 hingga 30 meter dari batu besar. Kedudukan paras paling tinggi ialah 8.2 meter ketika air pasang tinggi. Bagaimanapun rupa bentuk Pulau Batu Putih sudah berubah sejak Singapura membina tempat pendaratan helikopter dan kemudahan radar dan marin di atas batu itu.
Pembuktian hak ke atas wilayah biasanya menimbulkan masalah disebabkan penyediaan dokumen dan kandungannya yang tidak lengkap. Trost yang membuat kajian ke atas Pulau Batu Putih mendapati kebanyakan dokumen rasmi yang ditemui di India Office Library dan Public Record Office di London, hanya menunjukkan sedikit sahaja rujukan kepada Rumah Api Horsburgh di Pulau Batu Putih, dan tidak mengaitkan persoalan tentang kedaulatan ke atas wilayah berbatu itu sebelum struktur binaan didirikan.
Masalah pemilikan bonjolan batu itu hanya berbangkit selepas Malaysia mengeluarkan peta baru yang menunjukkan wilayah perairan dan sempadan pentas dunia pada 21 Disember 1979.
Tiada kenyataan atau bukti tentang sebarang pertikaian Pulau Batu Putih ditimbulkan sebelum 1979. Walaupun pada tahun 1953, setiausaha kerajaan negeri Johor yang menjawab soalan daripada kerajaan Singapura bahawa ia tidak menuntut pemilikan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih kerana kedua-dua kerajaan pada masa itu di bawah kawalan kerajaan British.
Pada September 1991, Menteri Besar Johor ketika itu menyatakan bahawa ‘‘dari sudut pandangan sejarah, Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik kita’' dan ‘‘kerajaan Johor bersedia menyediakan bukti jika perlu bagi membuktikan sesungguhnya pulau itu milik Johor.”
Pendapat ini diulangi pada forum khusus tentang Pulau Batu Putih yang diadakan di Johor Bahru pada Oktober 1991 yang dihadiri oleh ahli-ahli sejarah Malaysia.
Dalam menuntut kembali kedaulatan pulau tersebut, Malaysia menunjukkan bahawa Sultan Johor mempunyai hak ke atas kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih itu sejak 1513 apabila Kesultanan Johor-Riau-Linggi ditubuhkan oleh Sultan Mahmud yang berundur setelah Portugis menawan Melaka pada 1511. Berdasarkan teori warisan negara, Pulau Batu Putih juga menjadi milik Persekutuan Malaysia kerana penyatuan Johor yang menjadi sebahagian daripada Persekutuan Tanah Melayu atau Malaya pada 1957.
Malaysia terus menyandarkan fakta bahawa Singapura hanya dibenarkan menguruskan rumah api sahaja dan ia tidak melibatkan kesan hak milik ke atas pulau itu.
Manakala Singapura pula terus beranggapan bahawa ia mempunyai hak sepenuhnya ke atas kedaulatan dan kuasa perundangan di Pulau Batu Putih berdasarkan Perjanjian Anglo-Belanda.
Malah ia juga berdasarkan fakta bahawa Syarikat Hindia Timur Inggeris yang membina rumah api dan menyelenggarakannya sejak 1851 dan kemudian menyerahkan pengurusannya kepada Singapura.
Malaysia dan Singapura sudah mencapai persetujuan untuk mengemukakan tuntutan masing-masing ke atas Pulau Batu Putih kepada ICJ di The Hague dengan memeterai perjanjian mengenai perkara tersebut di Wisma Putra, Putrajaya pada 6 Februari 2003.Dan bermula 6 November ini pertikaian tuntutan Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge akan didengar di ICJ. Keputusan siapa pemilik pulau-pulau ini hanya akan diketahui pertengahan tahun depan
--------------------------------------------------------
Surat balasan istana jadi tumpuan
Khamis 8 November 2007,
09:50am
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 Tun Dr. Mahathir 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.
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 Tun Dr. Mahathir 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 Tun Dr. Mahathir 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
-------------------------------------------------------
Pulau Batu Puteh is not no man's land
-------------------------------------------------------
Pulau Batu Puteh is not no man's land
Malaysia
Wednesday, 14 November 2007,
• Johor Government letter disclaiming ownership of Batu Puteh irrelevant
• No evidence from Singapore to support claim of sovereignty, says Malaysia
From Nor Faridah A. Rashid
THE HAGUE, Nov 14 (Bernama) -- Malaysia has brushed aside Singapore's claim that Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius (no man's land) when the British took possession of the island in 1847, saying that the island has been known and used for centuries. Malaysia's counsel James Crawford said it might be expected that because the island was a small uninhabited clump of rocks in the vicinity of other larger inhabited islands and coasts, specific reference would not have been made to it in historical records. "(But) this is not the case. Pulau Batu Puteh appears by name on the earliest maps of the region and was marked as falling within the domains of Johor," he submitted before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here Wednesday.
He said the earliest map dated from 1595 showed Pulau Batu Puteh very clearly, where it is marked between the island of Bintan and the Malay peninsula, labelled by its Portuguese name (Pedra Branca). "This is not surprising as it is a Portuguese map," he said at Malaysia's first round of oral arguments before a 16-member panel concerning a sovereignty dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Crawford also said that there was ample evidence that Pulau Batu Puteh, just like other offshore islands in the locality, "were fully used and frequented by tribes or peoples having a social and political organisation".
He said that not only was the island used socially, as a landmark and aid for navigation and a place for fishing, it was also the subject of political organisation. The island was also referred to as being within Johor's territory in a 1655 Dutch diplomatic note, Crawford said. He pointed out that Great Britain had sought the consent of the Johor authorities in relation to Pulau Batu Puteh itself. If the British did consider Pulau Batu Puteh to be terra nullius, he said, why was this not mentioned in the years of extensive communications on this topic, given the prominence of Pulau Batu Puteh in these deliberations. He said that for all these reasons, one was driven to the conclusion that Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius.
The island belonged to Johor and this could be seen in the many descriptions in contemporary documents before and after 1824, he said. He said Malaysia's case on original title was quite simple as from the maps and texts shown to the court, the pre-1824 Sultanate (of Johor) extended north and south of the straits as well as to the east and west. The island, a well known and much used island, was clearly within the sultanate's domain and that the dynastic struggle going on in the 1810s did not destroy the sultanate although it divided the ruling family, Crawford submitted. The 1824 Anglo-Dutch Agreement split the sultanate into two but no territory became terra nullius in the process, he stressed.
"It either belonged in the British sphere or the Dutch sphere and Pulau Batu Puteh was in the British sphere as the Dutch clearly recognised," Crawford said. He said that Britain and the Netherlands might have disagreed as to who was the continuator of the old Kingdom of Johor but as to the territorial consequences of the division achieved in 1824, in and around the straits, "they disagreed not at all". "Thus it was Johor, the state which outlived the East India Company and the Straits Settlements, that had the original title to the lands, seas and islands it did not cede to Britain under the Crawfurd treaty," Crawford concluded.
-------------------------------------------------------
Islands 'part of Johor Sultanate'
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."
------------------------------------------------------
Singapore Presence On Pulau Batu Puteh Is With Johor's Consent, Says Malaysia
THE HAGUE, Nov 13 (Bernama) -- Malaysia opened its oral arguments before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here today dismissing Singapore's claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, saying that the island state was merely allowed to operate a lighthouse there. Malaysia's agent Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad said Singapore's presence on Pulau Batu Puteh, the subject of a sovereignty dispute between the two countries, was with Johor's consent. "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," he told the 16-member panel at Malaysia's first round of oral arguments.
Pulau Batu Puteh and two other features -- Middle Rocks and South Ledge -- form part of the State of Johor, now part of Malaysia, he stressed, refuting Singapore's contention that it had sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh as a successor of the British government. He said that the three features are located at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits, off Peninsular Malaysia. Despite their extremely small size, the issue of sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and the other two maritime features, is important, said Kadir, who is Malaysia's head of delegation, Ambassador at Large and also the Prime Minister's Adviser on Foreign Affairs. "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," Kadir submitted.
In explaining to the court why sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to Malaysia, he said the Horsburgh lighthouse was built by the East India company in 1851, with the permission of Johor. The 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, Kadir said, backing his submissions with documentary evidence. "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," he said.
He said that 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. Kadir said that by arguing otherwise, Singapore was seeking to subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Great Britain over 150 years ago and maintained throughout the whole period of British rule. Singapore's claim had also ignored the territorial agreements in the area reached in 1824, namely the Anglo-Dutch Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands in March 1824, and the treaty which created the colony of Singapore, the Crawfurd Treaty of Aug 2 1824, he told the court.
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 off Singapore, he said. "Pulau Batu Puteh is 25.5 nautical miles away from Singapore," he said in submitting that Malaysia's case is clear and finds full support in the evidence. Kadir also refuted Singapore's contention that Pulau Batu Puteh was `terra nullius' (no man's lands) in 1847 when British took possession of the island. He said that Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius in 1847 and neither was it 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,"; he told the ICJ.
-- BERNAMA
------------------------------------------------------
Just a 'lighthouse operator': M'sia It is no basis for S'pore's claim to sovereignty
THE HAGUE — Singapore's activities and works on Pedra Branca Island were merely those expected of a lighthouse operator, lawyers for Malaysia told the International Court of Justice here yesterday. . They said Singapore did not have any right to sovereignty based on these activities, reported Channel NewsAsia. Malaysia's counsel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, said Britain had never expressed any intention to claim sovereignty over the island when it sought permission from Johor to build a lighthouse about 150 years ago, Bernama reported. He said the acts of the British and the circumstances presented by Singapore did not add up to evidence of an intention to claim Pedra Branca. . He described as "complete fiction" a conclusion expressed by Singapore in its memorial claiming that there was unequivocal evidence of British's intention to annex the island. . He said Malaysia did not deny that Britain built the lighthouse but Malaysia could not find anything in this process that reflected a co-existing intention on the part of Britain to assert title to the territory, reported Bernama. It is no basis for S'pore's claim to sovereignty
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2007&dt=1115&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Muka_Hadapan&pg=mh_01.htm
Lapan bukti penting -- Malaysia kemuka dokumen Pulau Batu Putih milik Johor
Lapan bukti penting -- Malaysia kemuka dokumen Pulau Batu Putih milik Johor
Daripada NORAINI ABD. RAZAK
THE HAGUE, Belanda 14 Nov. – Malaysia mengemukakan lapan bukti penting bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik Johor sebelum tahun 1847 dan bukannya terra nullius (tidak berpenghuni serta tidak dimiliki oleh sesiapa) seperti yang didakwa oleh Singapura. Bukti-bukti penting itu berupa dokumen perjanjian yang dipersetujui sepanjang tahun 1824 hingga 1851 melibatkan Kesultanan Johor dan British.
Tiada dokumen dikemukakan oleh Singapura bagi membuktikan dakwaannya bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah terra nullius dan terbuka untuk diduduki oleh mana-mana kuasa sekalipun, hujah Profesor Elihu Lauterpacht. Beliau memberitahu Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini mengenai bukti pertama iaitu surat yang ditulis oleh Residen British di Singapura pada 10 Januari 1824 kepada pentadbiran di India mengenai jajahan Johor.
Surat tersebut, hujah Lauterpacht, menyebut tentang pulau-pulau jajahan Johor yang terletak di kawasan 254 batu nautika di timur tanah besar negeri itu dan ia semestinya termasuk Pulau Batu Putih yang berhampiran dengan Johor. Profesor Lauterpacht kemudian mengemukakan dokumen kedua iaitu Perjanjian Crawfurd antara Syarikat Hindia Timur Inggeris dengan Sultan dan Temenggong Johor yang berlangsung pada tahun 1824.
Menurutnya, Artikel II perjanjian itu menyebut Sultan dan Temenggong Johor dengan penuh kedaulatan menyerahkan Singapura serta kawasan berupa perairan, selat dan pulau-pulau yang terletak 10 batu dalam lingkungan republik itu. “Ini jelas menunjukkan British mengakui kedaulatan Johor ke atas pulau-pulau jajahannya dan ia juga menggambarkan bahawa Johor mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas pulau-pulau kecil melepasi 10 batu dari Johor,” hujah Profesor Lauterpacht.
Beliau berkata, jika Singapura mempersoalkan hak Sultan Johor ke atas Pulau Batu Putih, maka persoalan yang sama terpakai dalam kes Singapura. “Jika Sultan Johor tidak mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih pada tahun 1824, maka jelas ia juga tidak mempunyai hak ke atas Singapura. “Dan jika Sultan Johor tidak mempunyai hak untuk diserahkan, maka British tidak menerima apa-apa, seperti yang sering dibangkitkan oleh pasukan Singapura, anda tidak boleh memberi apa yang anda tidak ada,” hujahnya.
Beliau kemudiannya secara sinis bertanya kepada mahkamah: “Adakah negara (Singapura) yang menentang Malaysia di mahkamah ini yang menjadi wilayah menerusi penyerahan hak tidak mempunyai pemiliknya.” Profesor Lauterpacht kemudiannya menjelaskan bukti ketiga iaitu Surat Crawfurd bertarikh 3 Ogos 1824 yang mengiktiraf kedaulatan Johor ke atas pulau-pulau kecil dalam lingkungan 10 batu dari Singapura sebelum ia diserahkan kepada republik itu.
Tiga lagi dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh Malaysia Surat Crawfurd pada 1 Oktober 1824, Laporan Presgrave (Edward Presgrave) bertarikh 5 Disember 1828 mengenai kegiatan lanun di Selat Melaka serta sempadan empayar Johor termasuk di Pulau Batu Putih dan peta tahun 1842 yang disediakan atas arahan kerajaan Belanda.
Artikel yang tersiar dalam Singapore Free Press pada 25 Mei 1843 yang jelas menyebut Pulau Batu Putih antara pulau dikaitkan dengan kegiatan lanun terletak di bawah kuasa kerajaan Johor dikemukakan sebagai dokumen ketujuh. Surat-menyurat antara Gabenor Butterworth dan Sultan serta Temenggong pada tahun 1844 berhubung cadangan pembinaan rumah api di pulau-pulau di bawah pentadbiran kerajaan Johor pula menjadi dokumen yang kelapan.
Selain bukti berupa dokumen, Profesor Lauterpacht turut menyentuh mengenai cara British datang ke Pulau Batu Putih yang jelas menunjukkan untuk membina rumah api dan tidak lebih daripada itu. Beliau berhujah mengenai ketiadaan upacara rasmi (yang menjadi amalan wajib British setiap kali menakluk atau menjajah sesuatu tempat) seperti menaikkan bendera atau tembakan meriam membuktikan bahawa British hanya mengendalikan Rumah Api Horsburgh di pulau itu.
Lauterpacht turut menyentuh mengenai hujah Singapura bahawa Malaysia tidak pernah menjalankan sebarang aktiviti untuk menyaingi kedudukan Singapura di pulau miliknya sendiri.
“Apa yang Singapura harap Malaysia lakukan di pulau itu? Perlu diingat bahawa saiz Pulau Batu Putih amat kecil,” katanya sambil menunjukkan peta Pulau Batu Putih.
“Anda mendapati Pulau Batu Putih dikelilingi oleh bentuk empat segi yang menyamai saiz padang bola sepak dan separuh daripadanya telah dipenuhi dengan rumah api serta kemudahan sampingan.
“Di kawasan mana Johor boleh melakukan aktivitinya. Dan apakah bentuk aktiviti untuk bersaing di pulau tersebut, adakah dengan membina satu lagi rumah api,” hujah beliau.
Oleh itu, hujah Profesor Lauterpacht, dakwaan Singapura bahawa ketiadaan aktiviti oleh Johor membuktikan pulau itu milik mereka hanyalah sia-sia. Johor telah memberi keizinan kepada British untuk mendirikan rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih dan menyerahkan kepadanya untuk mengendalikan rumah api itu serta lain-lain aktiviti berkaitan.
Persidangan berlangsung di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain termasuk dua hakim ad hoc masing-masing dilantik oleh Malaysia dan Singapura. Delegasi Malaysia diketuai oleh Duta-Duta Khas, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad.
– Utusan
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2007&dt=1116&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Mahkamah&pg=ma_01.htm
Tiada hasrat British miliki Bt. Putih
Tiada hasrat British miliki Bt. Putih
Daripada NORAINI ABD. RAZAK
THE HAGUE, Belanda 15 Nov. – British tidak pernah menzahirkan niat untuk mendapatkan hak kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih ketika memohon kebenaran daripada Sultan Johor untuk membina dan mengendalikan rumah api di situ kira-kira 150 tahun lalu.
Profesor Elihu Lauterpacht berhujah, walaupun Singapura mendakwa kehadiran British di pulau itu pada tahun 1847 hingga 1851 menunjukkan ia mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih, namun republik itu gagal mengemukakan bukti bagi menyokong dakwaan tersebut.
Katanya, tujuan sebenar British berada di Pulau Batu Putih amat jelas iaitu bagi membina rumah api serta berperanan sebagai pengendali kemudahan tersebut. Menurut beliau, ia tidak ada kena-mengena dengan hasrat British untuk mendapatkan hak kedaulatan di situ.
Perkara itu, kata Lauterpacht, dibuktikan satu persatu bermula dari surat pertama hasrat British membina rumah api iaitu pada tahun 1844 hinggalah kepada pemilihan Pulau Batu Putih sebagai lokasi muktamad iaitu dua tahun selepas itu. Malah, hujah beliau, surat Sultan dan Temenggung Johor pada tahun 1844 jelas menunjukkan bahawa Johor memberi kebenaran kepada British untuk membina rumah api di kawasan berhampiran Romania atau kawasan-kawasan yang bersesuaian.
Surat tersebut, jelas Lauterpacht, langsung tidak menyebut tentang memberi kebenaran kepada British untuk mendapatkan hak kedaulatan di lokasi yang mereka pilih iaitu pertamanya pulau Peak Rock dan muktamadnya ialah Pulau Batu Putih.
“Malaysia tidak menafikan bahawa British yang membina rumah api itu.
“Tetapi Malaysia tidak dapat menemui sebarang bukti semasa proses rumah api itu dibina (1847-1851) yang menggambarkan niat British untuk mendapatkan kedaulatan di wilayah itu.
“Fakta yang paling jelas ialah tiada satu pun dokumen sepanjang tempoh itu yang mengandungi perkataan bagi menunjukkan hasrat British untuk berbuat demikian,” katanya semasa berhujah pada hari ketiga pusingan pertama hujah lisan Malaysia di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini hari ini.
Lauterpacht menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai amalan wajib British setiap kali mengisytiharkan kedaulatannya di mana-mana pulau atau wilayah sedangkan amalan seumpama itu tidak dilaksanakan di Pulau Batu Putih. Amalan tersebut, hujah beliau, termasuk mengisi borang perisytiharan kedaulatan seperti yang disebut dalam laporan Thompson berhubung tindak-tanduknya ketika mendapatkan kedaulatan di Pulau Ubin, Pulau Arnab dan Pulau Coney yang terletak 10 batu dari Singapura.
Beliau juga merujuk kepada tatacara British ketika mendapatkan hak kedaulatan di pulau Rockall pada tahun 1995 yang terletak 255 batu ke barat Ireland iaitu dengan meletakkan plak yang antara lain tertera ayat-ayat menunjukkan bahawa British menguasai pulau itu.
Begitu juga dengan kehadiran British di Labuan pada tahun 1846 yang dengan jelas menunjukkan proses mendapatkan hak kedaulatan di situ bermula dengan surat gabenor pada tahun 1846 dan diikuti dengan upacara menaikkan bendera rasmi negara berkenaan di pulau itu.
“Pada 30 September 1846 ketika British di Singapura mencadangkan kepada Pengarah Syarikat Hindia Timur supaya Rumah Api Horsburgh dibina di Pulau Batu Putih, tidak disebutkan langsung niat untuk mendapatkan hak kedaulatan di situ,” hujah Lauterpacht.
Beliau berkata, semua surat-menyurat yang lain hanya menyebut tentang prosedur serta proses pembinaan rumah api tanpa ada satu pun yang menyentuh tentang niat British untuk mendapatkan hak kedaulatan di Pulau Batu Putih.
Lauterpacht turut membangkitkan notis kepada pelayar-pelayar yang dikeluarkan oleh Gabenor British ketika Rumah Api Horsburgh hendak memulakan operasinya pada tahun 1851.
Katanya, walaupun notis tersebut dikeluarkan oleh gabenor Singapura namun ia tidak menunjukkan sebarang isyarat bahawa pulau tersebut adalah milik British sebaliknya ia hanyalah notis menandakan rumah api itu akan mula beroperasi.
Beliau memberitahu mahkamah, pada 27 September 1851, Gabenor Negeri-Negeri Selat dengan diiringi oleh Pencatat Negeri-Negeri Selat melawat rumah api itu sambil menyatakan rasa puas hati kerana segala-galanya berjalan lancar.
“Tiada apa yang dapat direkodkan oleh Thomson (beliau melaporkan segala-galanya mengenai pembinaan Rumah Api Horsburgh) sebagai bukti bahawa British menganggap pulau itu sebagai wilayahnya,” hujah Lauterpacht.
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2007&dt=1116&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Mahkamah&pg=ma_02.htm
Middle Rocks, South Ledge juga milik Malaysia
Middle Rocks, South Ledge juga milik Malaysia
THE HAGUE, Belanda 15 Nov. – Tindakan Singapura menuntut hak kedaulatan ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge 13 tahun selepas Pulau Batu Putih hanya bertujuan menyokong kes mereka, hujah Profesor Nico Schrijver. Beliau memberitahu Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini, tuntutan tersebut sebenarnya tidak relevan kerana kedua-dua bentuk batu itu bukan gugusan Pulau Batu Putih seperti yang didakwa oleh Singapura sepanjang hujah lisan republik itu minggu lepas.
Katanya, baik dari sudut geologi, geomorfologi, hidrografi, pelayaran mahupun undang-undang antarabangsa, ketiga-tiga pulau batu itu kekal berasingan dan merupakan bentuk maritim yang berbeza. “Singapura tidak boleh menuntut hak kedaulatan ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge semata-mata berdasarkan tuntutan mereka ke atas Pulau Batu Putih.
“Ia (Singapura) mesti menunjukkan bahawa mereka mempunyai hak kedaulatan ke atas setiap bentuk maritim itu secara berasingan.
“Manifestasi ini yang gagal dilakukan oleh Singapura,” katanya ketika mengemukakan hujah lisan di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 14 hakim lain di sini, hari ini.
Schrijver berhujah, pada 14 Februari 1980 iaitu ketika Singapura menuntut hak kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih, tiada rujukan dibuat ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge.
Sebaliknya, tambah beliau, tuntutan ke atas kedua-dua bentuk maritim itu hanya dibuat 13 tahun selepas itu iaitu pada 6 Februari 1993, ketika berlangsungnya rundingan antara Malaysia dan Singapura berhubung Pulau Batu Putih.
“Amat jelas kelewatan tuntutan oleh Singapura ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge hanya bertujuan menyokong tuntutan mereka ke atas Pulau Batu Putih,” hujahnya.
Menurut Schrijver, dakwaan peguam Singapura, Alen Pellet bahawa Pulau Batu Putih dan Middle Rocks membentuk satu unit, oleh itu South Ledge juga termasuk dalam kawasan tersebut tidak berasas sama sekali.
Tegas beliau, ketiga-tiga pulau batu itu tidak boleh disifatkan sebagai satu kumpulan semata-mata berdasarkan persamaan karakter yang ada pada batu-batu itu.
- Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
Singapura cuma pengendali rumah api
THE HAGUE, Belanda 15 Nov. – Singapura hanya pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh dan tidak lebih daripada itu, hujah Profesor James Crawford di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) pada hari ketiga pusingan pertama hujah lisan Malaysia.
Beliau menegaskan, semua aktiviti yang dijalankan oleh British dan Singapura berhubung pengendalian rumah api di situ tidak membuktikan bahawa republik itu mempunyai hak kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih.
Katanya, semua aktiviti yang dijalankan oleh Singapura sebelum timbulnya pertikaian, seperti yang disimpulkan oleh pakar-pakar, sama ada bersesuaian dengan fungsi republik itu sebagai pengendali rumah api atau tindakan yang sememangnya perlu dilakukan oleh mereka.
Malah, hujah beliau, hanya panji-panji marin British dikibarkan di Rumah Api Horsburgh lebih seabad lamanya, kemudian digantikan dengan panji-panji marin Singapura pada 1953 manakala pada 1965 dikibarkan pula panji-panji marin Republik Singapura.
“Sepanjang yang kami (Malaysia) sedari, tidak pernah Union Jack dan bendera kebangsaan Singapura dikibarkan di Rumah Api Horsburgh,” katanya.
Crawford berhujah lagi, dakwaan Singapura bahawa segala tindakannya di Pulau Batu Putih tidak dibantah oleh Malaysia juga tidak membawa sebarang makna.
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?y=2007&dt=1114&pub=utusan_malaysia&sec=muka%5Fhadapan&pg=mh_01.htm&arc=hive
Perluas kuasa maritim -- Hujah Malaysia terhadap motif tuntutan Singapura ke atas tiga pulau
Perluas kuasa maritim -- Hujah Malaysia terhadap motif tuntutan Singapura ke atas tiga pulau
Daripada NORAINI ABD. RAZAK
THE HAGUE, Belanda 13 Nov. – Malaysia hari ini mempertahankan kedaulatan negara terhadap Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge dengan berhujah tuntutan Singapura ke atas pulau-pulau berkenaan bertujuan memperluaskan kuasa maritim republik itu di Selat Melaka dan Selat Singapura. Pasukan Malaysia berhujah, tindakan Singapura itu ternyata merosakkan persetujuan yang telah sekian lama wujud berhubung kawalan keselamatan dan perlindungan alam sekitar di perairan yang menjadi laluan utama kapal-kapal itu.
Malaysia juga berhujah bahawa ia sentiasa menghormati peranan republik itu, bagaimanapun tuntutan Singapura menimbulkan tanda tanya mengenai apa sebenarnya yang ingin dilakukan oleh negara jiran itu di ketiga-tiga pulau yang menimbulkan pertikaian. Tindak-tanduk Singapura itu juga, hujah Duta Tugas-Tugas Khas Malaysia, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad amat bertentangan dengan fungsi sebenar republik itu di Pulau Batu Putih iaitu semata-mata sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh.
“Singapura tidak memerlukan pulau yang lebih besar untuk (menguruskan) rumah api dengan lebih baik. Mengapa ia memerlukan pulau yang lebih besar,” soal Abdul Kadir dalam hujah pembukaan hari pertama pusingan pertama hujah lisan Malaysia di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini. Beliau berhujah, di sebalik saiznya yang kecil, kedudukan Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge amat penting. “Bukan sahaja ia (pulau-pulau itu) mempunyai implikasi kepada kestabilan wilayah dan maritim di Selat Singapura dan Selat Melaka.
“Bukan sahaja ia (pulau-pulau itu) mempunyai implikasi kepada kestabilan wilayah dan maritim di Selat Singapura dan Selat Melaka. “Malah persetujuan yang telah dicapai sejak sekian lama penting untuk pengurusan bersama bantuan pelayaran, perlindungan alam sekitar di perairan serta soal- soal keselamatan di selat itu,” katanya. Abdul Kadir dalam hujah yang ringkas tetapi padat mengaitkan tuntutan Singapura dengan polisi penambakan republik itu yang aktif selain beberapa tindakan yang menunjukkan hasrat negara itu yang didakwanya untuk menguasai perairan di situ.
Beliau yang bertindak sebagai ejen utama dalam kes itu menarik perhatian mengenai hujah Singapura dalam hujah bertulisnya berhubung cadangan penambakan di sekitar Pulau Batu Putih.Hujah Abdul Kadir, tuntutan Singapura selain mempunyai kesan ke atas persekitaran serta pelayaran di Selat Singapura juga berpotensi untuk membawa perubahan yang serius kepada kawalan keselamatan di laluan masuk di timur selat tersebut.
Malah katanya, kaedah agresif yang digunakan oleh Singapura untuk menuntut ketiga-tiga pulau itu telah membawa perubahan kepada kestabilan di kawasan tersebut. Beliau berhujah, sejak 1986 (selepas timbulnya pertikaian ke atas Pulau Batu Putih), Singapura telah menghantar kapal tentera lautnya ke pulau tersebut dan sejak dari tarikh itu telah menjalankan rondaan tetap 24 jam di situ.
“Ia telah menimbulkan ketegangan dan bahaya. Nelayan-nelayan Johor telah dihalau oleh pasukan peronda laut Singapura daripada perairan tradisional serta tempat perlindungan mereka di sekitar Pulau Batu Putih. “Kapal peronda Malaysia serta para pegawai-pegawainya juga tidak boleh mendekati pulau itu tanpa dihalang secara fizikal oleh kapal peronda Singapura,” katanya.
Malah, katanya, kenyataan Singapura dalam hujah bertulisnya menunjukkan bahawa republik itu telah menempatkan peralatan komunikasi ketenteraan di Pulau Batu Putih pada Mei 1977 dan perkara itu tidak disedari oleh Malaysia sebelum ini - semestinya ia menimbulkan kebimbangan di pihak negara ini. “Masalah Malaysia dengan Singapura ialah kehadiran tenteranya di sebuah pulau milik Johor yang terletak di laluan masuk di timur Selat Singapura.
“Kita tidak mempunyai masalah dengan Singapura sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh,” katanya.
Penting Abdul Kadir berhujah, dengan jumlah trafik yang menggunakan Selat Melaka dijangka meningkat daripada 94,000 kapal pada 2004 kepada 141,000 pada 2020, keselamatan pelayaran dan maritim serta perlindungan alam sekitar di situ amat penting. Oleh itu, beliau menambah, kerjasama yang berterusan di antara negara-negara terlibat iaitu Malaysia, Singapura dan Indonesia amat penting dan tidak boleh dijejaskan dengan tuntutan Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge oleh Singapura.
Malaysia turut berasaskan kepada dua perjanjian penting pada tahun 1824, surat kebenaran kepada British untuk membina rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih (1844) serta Sistem Rumah Api Negeri-Negeri Selat untuk mempertahankan hujah bahawa pulau-pulau itu tidak pernah diserahkan kepada British pada bila-bila masa. Perjanjian yang dirujuk ialah Perjanjian Crawfurd dan Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda di mana di bawah perjanjian itu, Johor menyerahkan Singapura dan pulau-pulau kecil serta pulau batu dalam lingkungan 10 batu daripada republik itu kepada Syarikat Hindia Timur Inggeris.Pulau Batu Putih terletak 25.5 batu nautika daripada Singapura.
Justeru, Malaysia dalam hujah-hujahnya enggan menggunakan perkataan menuntut (seperti yang digunakan oleh Singapura) sebaliknya meminta mahkamah mengesahkan semula kedaulatan negara ke atas ketiga-tiga pulau itu. Abdul Kadir menegaskan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih bukan terra nullius (tidak berpenghuni) sebelum rumah api didirikan di situ pada tahun 1847, justeru kehadiran British di pulau itu semata-mata sebagai pengendali Horsburgh dan peranan itu diteruskan oleh Singapura sehingga kini. “Pada tahun 1844 Sultan dan Temenggong Johor telah membenarkan rumah api didirikan di Pulau Batu Putih dan Malaysia tidak pernah mencadangkan pengendalian yang disambung oleh Singapura sebagai satu masalah,” hujahnya.
Persidangan berlangsung di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain.
Turut membentangkan hujah-hujah lisan bagi pihak Malaysia ialah Duta Malaysia ke Belanda, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin; Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail dan Profesor Elihu Lauterpacht.
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?y=2007&dt=1114&pub=utusan_malaysia&sec=muka%5Fhadapan&pg=mh_03.htm&arc=hive
Singapura bersandar ‘tanggapan’
Singapura bersandar ‘tanggapan’
THE HAGUE Belanda 13 Nov. – Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini diberitahu bahawa Singapura tidak pernah mengemukakan dokumen undang-undang bagi menyokong tuntutan kedaulatan republik itu ke atas Pulau Batu Putih. Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail ketika membangkitkan hujah itu berkata, tuntutan republik itu hanya bersandarkan kepada ‘tanggapan’ bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah terra nullius (tidak berpenghuni) dan tidak dimiliki oleh sesiapa.
Singapura dalam hujah-hujahnya minggu lepas mendakwa kehadiran British di pulau itu pada tahun 1847 bagi membina rumah api sekali gus memberi hak kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih. “Hanya pada 14 Februari 1980, Singapura dalam nota bantahannya secara rasmi menuntut Pulau Batu Putih sebagai sebahagian daripada wilayah berdaulatnya. “Nota itulah yang mencetuskan pertikaian. Berasaskan (nota bantahan itu) tarikh kritikal pertikaian Pulau Batu Putih adalah pada 14 Februari 1980,” hujah beliau di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh dan 15 hakim lain pada hari pertama pusingan pertama hujah lisan Malaysia hari ini.
Abdul Gani berhujah, bukan sahaja dalam nota bantahan itu, Singapura tidak menamakan sebarang dokumen undang- undang bagi menyokong tuntutannya malah sehingga sekarang republik itu masih gagal berbuat demikian. Katanya, penentuan tarikh kritikal itu penting dalam pertikaian Pulau Batu Putih kerana ia berkaitan dengan tindak-tanduk republik itu selepas tarikh tersebut yang disifatkan sebagai tidak normal berbanding fungsi sebenarnya hanya sebagai pengendali rumah api di situ. Oleh itu, hujah Abdul Gani segala tindak-tanduk Singapura di pulau itu selepas tarikh tersebut mesti diketepikan kerana tarikh kritikal penting untuk menilai serta mengesahkan bukti-bukti yang dikemukakan dalam tuntutan Pulau Batu Putih.
Beliau turut menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai tuntutan ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge yang hanya timbul pada 6 Februari 1993 ketika berlangsungnya perbincangan dua hala di antara kedua- dua negara berhubung pertikaian itu.
Abdul Gani memberitahu, Singapura mendakwa perlu memasukkan kedua pulau batu itu dalam Nota Bantahan 1980 berasaskan kepada frasa “Pedra Branca dan perairan di sekitarnya’'.
“Tafsiran Singapura (dalam frasa tersebut) tidak betul. Middle Rocks dan South Ledge bukan perairan tetapi bentuk yang berbeza. Kedua- duanya mempunyai nama yang dikenali.
“Jika Singapura berniat untuk menuntut (pulau-pulau itu) pada tahun 1980, mereka telah berbuat demikian. Tetapi tidak,” hujah Abdul Gani. Beliau turut berhujah mengenai peta Malaysia yang dikeluarkan pada 1979. Katanya, pada 20 Disember 1979, Kementerian Luar Malaysia telah memaklumkan kepada semua Misi ASEAN menerusi telegram mengenai keputusan untuk mengeluarkan peta baru.
Telegram tersebut menyebut: “Penerbitan peta baru tidak berkaitan dengan tuntutan-tuntutan baru Malaysia tetapi hanya satu petunjuk mengenai hak-hak Malaysia di pelantar laut.”
Pada 21 Disember 1979, Kementerian Luar Malaysia memanggil satu mesyuarat antara Timbalan Ketua Setiausahanya dengan Pesuruhjaya Tinggi Singapura. Satu lagi mesyuarat juga telah berlangsung melibatkan pegawai tinggi kedua-dua negara berhubung peta 1979 dan isu-isu lain berkaitan. “Singapura tidak membuat bantahan secara rasmi berhubung peta 1979 semasa mesyuarat pertama pada 21 Disember 1979,” katanya.
Mengenai kenyataan Perdana Menteri Malaysia semasa sidang akhbar 13 Mei 1980 seperti yang dibangkitkan oleh Singapura dalam hujah lisannya minggu lepas, Abdul Gani berhujah, ia dibuat berasaskan kepada kenyataan Lee Kuan Yew berhubung dokumen dalam simpanan Singapura bagi membuktikan Pulau Batu Putih milik mereka. Hujahnya, sehingga sekarang Malaysia masih tidak melihat sebarang dokumen dari Singapura yang definitif untuk membuktikan fakta itu. Sehubungan itu, hujah Abdul Gani, kenyataan Perdana Menteri Malaysia hanya bersifat persahabatan dan menghormati tuan rumah iaitu Perdana Menteri Singapura.
“Kenyataan seumpama itu tidak mempunyai nilai sahih di mahkamah ini - tetapi apa yang beliau katakan perkara itu perlu dibincangkan di antara kedua-dua negara, itulah pendirian Malaysia,” hujahnya. Sementara itu, Duta Malaysia ke Belanda, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin dalam hujah-hujahnya memberitahu mahkamah, Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge adalah antara pulau-pulau yang menjadi sebahagian daripada Johor. “Anda boleh melihat Pulau Batu Putih dan perairan sekitarnya selalu digunakan oleh orang Melayu tempatan, sebagai subjek kesultanan Johor dan penduduk Johor. “Tidak ada satu pun perkembangan kewilayahan atau politik selepas tahun 1824 mengubah (fakta) ini,” hujahnya. Beliau turut berhujah mengenai nama Pulau Batu Putih yang turut terkenal di kalangan saudagar Cina sebagai ‘Pia Chiao’ yang membawa maksud serupa seperti yang direkodkan oleh carta pelayar China Wubei Zhi pada 1621.
Noor Farida menarik perhatian artikel 1843 mengenai kegiatan lanun yang merujuk ‘Batu Puteh’ termasuk dalam wilayah kesultanan Johor manakala peta 1928 menandakan pulau tersebut sebagai ‘Batu Puteh’. Persidangan bersambung esok.
– Utusan
--------------------------------------------------------
SEDUTAN pembukaan hujah agen Malaysia, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ), The Hague, berhubung tuntutan bertindih ke atas Batu Putih, Terumbu Karang Tengah (Middle Rocks) dan Terumbu Karang Selatin (South Ledge), semalam.
BENARKAN saya mengambil peluang ini untuk menjelaskan mengapa Pulau Batu Putih, Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatin adalah milik Malaysia.
Pada kesempatan ini, benarkan juga saya mengucapkan terima kasih kepada wakil dari Singapura di atas hujah mereka sebelum ini. Penghargaan turut dirakam kerana kesediaan mereka menerima baik saya secara peribadi dan rakan sejawatan dari Malaysia pada hari pertama penghujahan ini. Malaysia dan Singapura saling mengenali di antara satu sama lain dalam tempoh yang panjang iaitu sebagai rakan diplomatik di negara masing-masing.
Kedua-dua negara merupakan negara berjiran di Asia Tenggara, yang membuat persetujuan bersama untuk membawa kes tuntutan ini ke hadapan mahkamah yang mulia, bagi menyelesaikan pertikaian ke atas ketiga-tiga pulau berkenaan, yang terletak di timur pintu masuk Selat Singapura, luar Semenanjung Malaysia sebagaimana dapat dilihat di atas peta.
Pulau Batu Putih dan dua lagi pulau terbentuk dalam sebahagian negeri Johor, yang juga menjadi sebahagian Malaysia. Asal usul negeri Johor itu ialah di bawah naungan Kesultanan Johor. Sultan Johor sekarang, Sultan Iskandar Ibni Almarhum Sultan Ismail merupakan waris langsung kepada salah seorang yang menandatangani Perjanjian Setiakawan (Treaty of Friendship) dan Pakatan di antara Johor dan Great Britain pada 2 Ogos 1824.
Pulau Batu Putih dan dua lagi pulau terbentuk dalam sebahagian negeri Johor, yang juga menjadi sebahagian Malaysia. Asal usul negeri Johor itu ialah di bawah naungan Kesultanan Johor. Sultan Johor sekarang, Sultan Iskandar Ibni Almarhum Sultan Ismail merupakan waris langsung kepada salah seorang yang menandatangani Perjanjian Setiakawan (Treaty of Friendship) dan Pakatan di antara Johor dan Great Britain pada 2 Ogos 1824.
Pakatan ini juga lebih dikenali sebagai Perjanjian Crawfurd, di mana sebahagian daripada wilayah kesultanan diserahkan bagi mewujudkan Singapura. Kepulauan Singapura terletak di bawah Semenanjung Malaysia. Kedudukannya yang paling dekat ialah hanya 600 meter dari tanah besar Johor. Berkongsi Singapura dan Malaysia, bersama-sama Indonesia, pada hari ini berkongsi perairan dan pengurusan Selat Melaka serta Singapura, yang bersambung dengan Lautan Hindi sehingga ke Laut China Selatan. Atas sifat geografi, salasilah serta sejarah penjajahan British, Singapura dan Malaysia banyak berkongsi perkara yang sama.
Dalam pada itu, maklumat terperinci bagaimana pertikaian ini bermula serta usaha-usaha yang dilakukan kedua-dua pihak untuk menanganinya akan dijelaskan oleh Peguam Negara Malaysia (Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail) kemudiannya. Tetapi sebelum memperlihatkan bagaimana (tuntutan ini berlaku), mahkamah tentunya mempunyai persoalan kenapa dua buah negara boleh berbalah sehingga ke peringkat ini untuk menuntut kedaulatan sebuah pulau kecil di perairan selat.
Minggu lepas, mahkamah telah mendengar hujah-hujah daripada Singapura yang menyokong tuntutan ke atas kedaulatan Batu Putih, Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatin. Tetapi di sebalik semua ini, hakikat yang tidak boleh disembunyikan ialah Singapura cuba mengubah persetujuan yang dicapai di antara Johor dan Great Britain sejak 150 tahun lalu dan kekal sepanjang masa ketika pemerintahan British.
Dalam hujah bertulis, Malaysia telah mengemukakan bukti yang Johor memberikan kebenaran bahawa Great Britain boleh membina dan mengendalikan sebuah rumah api di salah satu kepulauan Johor. Pulau Batu Putih telah dipilih sebagai tapaknya. Sejak itu, Great Britain dan Singapura pada masa itu telah mengendalikan rumah api berkenaan.
Justeru, adalah menjadi satu perkara yang besar kepada Malaysia apabila Singapura mendakwa kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik mereka hanya kerana ia mengendalikan operasi di rumah api berdasarkan persetujuan kami.
Dakwaan Singapura juga mengetepikan persetujuan sempadan di kawasan itu yang dicapai pada tahun 1824, iaitu Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda di antara Britain dan Belanda pada 17 Mac 1824 serta perjanjian yang mewujudkan koloni Singapura, Perjanjian Crawfurd pada 2 Ogos 1824.
Walaupun saiznya sangat kecil, isu kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih dan dua lagi pulau ini sangat penting. Bukan sekadar ia memberi implikasi kepada persempadanan dan kestabilan maritim di kawasan selat, tetapi tidak kurang penting ialah buat pentadbiran kerjasama yang berterusan berhubung bantuan pelayaran, perlindungan persekitaran marin serta hal-hal keselamatan di selat.
Bagi Malaysia, ia sangat jelas dan hujah disokong dengan kuat oleh bukti-bukti kukuh. Sebagaimana yang Malaysia bentangkan dalam penghujahan bertulis, Pulau Batu Putih tidak berpenghuni (terra nullius) pada tahun 1847. Ia tidak berpenghuni pada 1851, semasa Syarikat Hindia Timur Inggeris selesai menyiapkan pembinaan Rumah Api Horsburg di kepulauan itu.
Pulau Batu Putih merupakan sebahagian daripada Kesultanan Johor dan apabila Kesultanan terpecah menjadi dua susulan Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda pada 1824, ia tetap kekal menjadi sebahagian daripadanya, bukan Riau-Lingga. Perjanjian Inggeris Belanda menunjukkan bahawa pembahagian di antara lingkungan pengaruh British dan Belanda merangkumi sehingga ke selatan Selat Singapura. Kedudukan Batu Putih ialah dalam pengaruh British dan sebahagian daripada Johor, di mana ia terus dikenali sebagai Kesultanan Johor.
Minggu lalu, Singapura cuba membentangkan interpretasi baru mengenai garis persempadanan. Esok, Profesor Nicholas Jan Schrijver akan menjelaskan mengapa interpretasi ini silap. Schrijver ialah barisan peguam yang mempertahankan pendirian Malaysia.
Dalam Perjanjian Crawfurd 1824, Johor menyerahkan kedaulatan Pulau Singapura kepada Syarikat Hindia Timur Inggeris bersama-sama pulau kecil serta berbatu dalam lingkungan geografi 10 batu Singapura. Pulau Batu Putih terletak 25.5 batu nautika dari Singapura. Pada 1851, dengan kebenaran Johor, Rumah Api Horsburgh dibina di Pulau Batu Putih oleh Syarikat Hindia Timur Inggeris. Kebenaran itu diberikan dengan perkenan Temenggong dan Sultan Johor pada 25 November 1844, untuk membina dan menguruskan sebuah rumah api ‘berdekatan Titik Romania’ atau ‘mana-mana kedudukan yang sesuai’.
Pulau Batu Putih terletak berhampiran Titik Romania. Pulau Batu Putih sudah tentu merupakan ‘tempat sesuai’ kerana kesukaran panduan pelayaran di timur pintu masuk ke selat. Malahan, Pulau Batu Putih merupakan lokasi pilihan buat pedagang tetap apabila mereka mula mengutip dana bagi sebuah rumah api pada 1836.
Adalah menjadi perkara pokok persetujuan daripada Temenggung dan Sultan Johor bahawa Great Britain dibenar membina, kemudiannya mengendalikan Rumah Api Horsburgh di atas Pulau Batu Putih. Esok, Profesor Marcelo G.Cohen akan memperhalusi surat kebenaran yang ditulis oleh Temenggong dan Sultan Johor pada 25 November 1844. (Cohen juga tersenarai dalam barisan peguam yang mempertahankan pendirian Malaysia.)
Malaysia tidak berupaya untuk menjejaki surat permohonan daripada Gabenor Butterworth, yang dirujuk di dalam surat kebenaran terbabit. Pada 1994, Malaysia memohon kepada Singapura untuk memberikan satu salinan surat Gabenor jika Singapura memilikinya. Singapura tidak memberi reaksi kepada permintaan Malaysia.
Jika surat tersebut ada hari ini, bermakna ia ada dalam arkib Singapura dengan fail boleh dirujuk sebagai Letters to Native Rulers. Malangnya, Malaysia tidak memiliki akses kepada arkib tersebut. Di antara 1850 dan 1946, sistem Lampu-Lampu Selat dibangunkan oleh Britain untuk membantu pandu arah laut atau navigasi yang melalui Selat Melaka dan Singapura.
Sistem Lampu-Lampu Selat termasuk Rumah Api Horsburgh ditadbir oleh Penempatan Selat-Selat. Setiap rumah api beroperasi daripada satu daripada tiga stesen di Singapura, Pulau Pinang dan Melaka. Bermula 1912, Persekutuan Negeri-Negeri Melayu menyumbang kepada kos pengendalian Lampu-Lampu Selat apabila mereka tidak lagi dibiayai oleh kutipan untuk lampu-lampu, yang sepatutnya dibayar.
Tetapi Penempatan Selat-Selat terus mengekalkan lampu-lampu memandangkan mereka memiliki kepakaran yang diperlukan. Pada 1946, apabila Penempatan Selat-Selat dibubarkan dan Koloni Singapura dan Malayan Union wujud, sistem Lampu-Lampu Selat tidak lagi beroperasi sebagai sistem tunggal. Bagaimanapun, rumah api terus kekal beroperasi dari stesen asal di bekas Penempatan Selat-Selat.
Rumah Api Pulau Pisang dan Horsburgh terus dikendalikan daripada Singapura manakala yang lain-lain seperti Pulau Undan, Cape Rachado, Muka Head dan Pulau Rimau, dikendalikan dari stesen mereka di Melaka dan Pulau Pinang. Kedua-duanya pada 1946 membentuk Malayan Union, yang kini sebahagian daripada Malaysia.
Pada hari ini, Rumah Api Horsburgh dan Pulau Pisang terus dikendalikan dari Singapura, selebihnya dari Malaysia. Tidak ada sebarang perubahan. Pihak berkuasa di Singapura hanya meneruskan apa yang ditinggalkan oleh British, sebagaimana pihak berkuasa di Pulau Pinang dan Melaka. Keadaan itu berterusan untuk tempoh lebih 150 tahun.
Kerjasama di antara negeri-negeri, yang kemudiannya menjadi Malaysia dan Singapura tidak terbatas pada kerjasama dalam pembinaan rumah api dan bantuan pelayaran semata-mata.
Benarkan saya memberi contoh Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia (TLDM), yang sebelum ini dirujuk sebagai Tentera Laut Malaya. Ia bertanggungjawab kepada Singapura sehingga tahun 1975, apabila republik itu membangunkan tentera lautnya sendiri. TLDM pada awalnya terus beroperasi dari pangkalan Woodlands di Singapura sehingga awal tahun 1980-an. Pangkalan Woodlands hanya diserahkan kepada Singapura pada 1997.
Sebelum dan selepas pembentukan Tentera Laut Singapura, British dan pada ketika itu tentera laut Malaysia meronda di perairan selat itu, termasuk kawasan Batu Putih. Keadaan kerjasama seperti itu dan banyak lagi - sebagai contoh, komunikasi dan bekalan air, mencerminkan bukan sahaja hubungan sejarah yang akrab, tetapi hak berterusan kami serta tanggungjawab sebagai negeri di Selat Melaka dan Singapura.
Malaysia dan Singapura, bersama-sama Indonesia menjalin kerjasama sejak lebih 30 tahun dalam menguruskan Selat ini. Pada 16 November 1971, ketiga-tiga pasukan negara ini bersetuju menerima pendirian bersama berhubung isu-isu berkaitan Selat Melaka dan Singapura. Selain itu, ketiga-tiga bersetuju untuk mewujudkan Kumpulan Pakar-Pakar Teknikal Tiga Pihak (Tripartite Technical Experts Group) berhubung keselamatan pelayaran di Selat Melaka dan Singapura.
Forum ini mengadakan pertemuan setiap tahun bagi membincangkan isu-isu yang mempunyai hubung kait dengan keselamatan pelayaran di selat. Rumah Api Horsburgh dan kemudahannya dibentuk sebahagian daripada rejim multilateral untuk keselamatan di selat itu, sebagaimana ia adalah lampu utama dalam sistem Lampu-Lampu Selat pada tahun 1850-an hingga 1946. Dengan aliran laluan trafik di selat dijangkakan meningkat daripada 94,000 kapal pada 2004 kepada 141,000 menjelang 2020, keselamatan pelayaran, maritim dan perlindungan kepada alam sekitar menjadi sesuatu yang sangat dititikberatkan.
Kerjasama berterusan di selat di antara tiga negara pesisir ini menjadi sangat penting. Singapura kini cuba mengganggu penyusunan dan persetujuan yang telah lama terjalin serta diguna pakai di selat. Singapura mahu perubahan mendadak atas alasan ia selaku pengendali rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih serta ciri-ciri kehadirannya di kepulauan itu. Singapura berikhtiar untuk dirinya sendiri mewujudkan penguasaan maritim di mana ia jauh melencong daripada asas kehadirannya di Pulau Batu Putih sebagai pentadbir atau pengendali rumah api. Kehadiran Singapura sebagai pengendali rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih tidak pernah melangkaui kepada isu-isu melibatkan sempadan perairan atau pelantar benua sekitar Pulau Batu Putih.
Pada tahun 1969, Malaysia menggubal undang-undang di mana perluasan sempadan laut dilakukan. Ia diperluas daripada tiga kepada 12 batu nautika. Singapura tidak membantah. Kemudiannya, pada tahun sama, satu perjanjian dimeterai di antara Malaysia dan Indonesia berhubung pelantar benua. Garisan penyempadanan menghampiri kawasan sekitar Pulau Batu Putih dan hanya 6.4 batu nautika dari Pulau Batu Putih.
Singapura pada bila-bila masa tidak menunjukkan sebarang minat, membangkitkan bantahan atau memberikan pendiriannya. Singapura juga tidak pernah membuat batas sempadan kawasan sekitar Batu Putih atau memelihara kedudukannya di kawasan Selat di dalam perjanjian Territorial Sea Boundary yang dimuktamadkan dengan Indonesia pada tahun 1973.
Dakwaan Singapura bukan sahaja mengecewakan persetujuan yang telah ada, tetapi turut mengundang persoalan tentang kehendaknya ke atas kepulauan itu. Dalam hujahnya, Singapura membentangkan mengenai cadangan penambakan sekitar Pulau Batu Putih. Satu dokumen dalaman, Laporan Penilaian Tender 1978, menunjukkan prospektif buatan kepulauan seluas 5,000 kilometer persegi ke atas Terumbu Karang Tengah.
Singapura mengamalkan dasar-dasar penambakan yang aktif, di mana ia menjadi subjek Kes Penambakan, dimulakan oleh Malaysia ke atas Singapura di ITLOS pada September 2003. Arahan The Provisional Measures Order yang diberikan oleh Tribunal pada Oktober akan dimaklumkan kepada mahkamah, begitu juga persetujuan secara damai dan bersama mengenai kes berkenaan.
Tetapi Singapura tidak memerlukan sebuah pulau yang lebih besar untuk rumah api lebih baik. Apa ia perlukan ialah sebuah pulau lebih besar? Selain kemungkinan kesan ke atas persekitaran dan pelayaran di selat, ini membawa kepada kebarangkalian satu perubahan yang serius kepada struktur pengurusan keselamatan di timur pintu masuk selat.
Malahan, pendekatan agresif Singapura yang digunakan untuk membuat tuntutan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih memberi perubahan - mendukacitakan, walaupun boleh ditarik balik - untuk kestabilan di kawasan itu. Pada tahun 1986, agak lama sesudah tarikh kritikal, Singapura menghantar kapal-kapal lautnya ke Pulau Batu Putih dan sejak itu terus kekal di situ, berkawal 24 jam di sekitar Pulau Batu Putih. Ini mencetuskan ketegangan selain mendatangkan bahaya.
Nelayan-nelayan di Johor, telah diusir oleh pasukan Singapura daripada menangkap ikan di perairan tradisi mereka serta tempat berlindung di sekitar Pulau Batu Putih. Manakala, pegawai-pegawai Malaysia dan kapal laut tidak boleh ke mana-mana berhampiran Pulau Batu Putih kalau tidak dicabar secara fizikal oleh kapal-kapal laut Singapura.
Menangani tindakan Singapura ini, Malaysia memilih untuk mengamalkan dasar tidak berkonfrontasi sebaliknya bertindak secara diplomasi semasa pertikaian ini dalam proses penyelesaian. Kami difahamkan menerusi penghujahan bahawa Singapura meletakkan peralatan komunikasi ketenteraan di Pulau Batu Putih pada Mei 1977. Kami tidak maklum mengenainya dan sudah tentu ia mencetuskan rasa bimbang yang amat.
Tindakan ini tidak merangkumi persetujuan yang diberikan untuk pembinaan dan pengendalian rumah api. Pengendalian dan pengurusan Great Britain serta berhubung Pulau Batu Putih sebelum tarikh kritikal, sekurang-kurangnya yang diketahui Malaysia, jelas konsisten dengan operator rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih dan Pulau Pisang dengan persetujuan pemilik, Johor.
Malaysia, sebaliknya, sentiasa menghormati persetujuan yang telah lama dipakai berhubung pengendalian Singapura di rumah api Pulau Batu Putih dan Pulau Pisang. Kami tidak mencampuri operasi Singapura berhubung rumah api.
Tetapi Malaysia tidak mengharapkan kestabilan hubungan dengan Indonesia diubah. Sebaliknya, tidak dapat tidak, ini akan berlaku jika Singapura diberi hak kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih dengan penyertaan implikasi pembangunan penyempadanan maritim di kawasan itu. Malaysia memohon supaya mahkamah menimbang perkara penting ini dan dengan itu mengesahkan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih, Terumbu Karang Tengah dan Terumbu Karang Selatin kepada Malaysia.
Sebelum menyimpulkan penghujahan ini, saya mahu menjelaskan satu perkara. Masalah kami dengan Singapura ialah kehadiran sebilangan tentera di salah satu kepulauan Johor di timur pintu masuk Selat Singapura. Kami tidak mempunyai masalah dengan Singapura selaku pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh. Malaysia berharap untuk mengekalkan keamanan dan keadaan stabil di pintu masuk ke Laut China Selatan. Hanya Singapura yang mahu keadaan berubah.
Sultan dan Temenggong Johor pada 1844 dengan rela hati bersetuju terhadap pembangunan rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih dan Malaysia tidak pernah beranggapan bahawa operasi secara berterusan oleh Singapura itu mengundang masalah.Saya ulangi, Malaysia sentiasa menghormati kedudukan Singapura sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh dan meminta direkodkan secara rasmi bahawa pendirian Malaysia akan terus begitu. Kebimbangan Malaysia adalah sedikit berbeza, sebagaimana yang telah saya utarakan.
-------------------------------------------------------
Surat izin Sultan Ali bukti kukuh
THE HAGUE, Belanda 14 Nov. – Laporan pertama Kerajaan India kepada Pengarah Mahkamah Syarikat Hindia Timur di London berhubung pemilihan Pulau Batu Putih sebagai lokasi Rumah Api Horsburgh pada 3 Oktober 1846 yang disekalikan dengan surat Sultan dan Temenggung Johor membuktikan bahawa negeri itu mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas pulau tersebut.
Hujah itu dikemukakan oleh Profesor Marcelo G. Kohen pada hari kedua pusingan pertama hujah lisan Malaysia bagi kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini.
Menurut Kohen, laporan tersebut menyebut mengenai lokasi muktamad untuk pembinaan Rumah Api Horsburgh iaitu di Pulau Batu Putih dan permintaan supaya dihantar rumah api besi dari England. Dalam laporan itu, hujah Kohen, terkandung Surat Gabenor Butterworth bertarikh 28 November 1844 dan surat-surat Sultan Ali dan Temenggung Johor yang memberi kebenaran kepada British untuk membina rumah api di ‘kawasan berhampiran Romania atau mana-mana kawasan yang didapati sesuai’. “Mengapa perlu dimasukkan surat Sultan dan Temenggung dalam pemilihan Pulau Batu Putih sebagai lokasi muktamad Rumah Api Horsburgh, jika seperti yang didakwa oleh Singapura sebagai tidak relevan,” soal Kohen.
Singapura dalam hujah bertulis dan hujah lisannya mendakwa kedua-dua surat keizinan itu tidak relevan kerana ia hanya merujuk kepada kawasan berhampiran Romania iaitu Peak Rock tanpa mengambil kira frasa kedua surat itu yang menyebut ‘atau mana-mana kawasan yang didapati sesuai’. Republik itu juga mendakwa surat itu terbatal dengan sendirinya apabila British membuat keputusan untuk mencari kawasan lain bagi membina Rumah Api Horsburgh.
Menyanggah dakwaan Singapura itu, Profesor Kohen menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai Laporan Penuh Gabenor Butterworth kepada Kerajaan Benggal bertarikh 12 Jun 1848 iaitu surat menyurat terakhir di antara pelbagai pihak yang bertanggungjawab sebelum bermulanya pembinaan rumah api itu.
Surat pertama yang dimuatkan dalam laporan itu ialah Surat Butterworth 28 November 1844 yang turut mengandungi kedua-dua surat Sultan dan Temenggung Johor. Ia disifatkan sebagai komunikasi pertama berhubung pembinaan Rumah Api Horsburgh di Pulau Batu Putih. “Penulis surat bertarikh 28 November 1844 itu sendiri - Gabenor Butterworth - menyifatkan surat-surat tersebut berkaitan dengan pembinaan rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih,” hujah Kohen. Beliau berhujah, Laporan Penuh Butterworth itu kemudian diedarkan kepada semua pihak yang berkenaan dan masing- masing menyedari bahawa surat-surat yang terkandung di dalamnya merujuk kepada Pulau Batu Putih.
Kohen kemudian di akhir hujahnya merumuskan bahawa surat keizinan Sultan dan Temenggung kepada British amat jelas menunjukkan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih bukan terra nullius (tidak berpenghuni dan tidak dimiliki oleh sesiapa) seperti yang didakwa oleh Singapura.
Keduanya, British tahu dan mengiktiraf kedaulatan Johor. British juga, hujah Kohen tidak mempunyai sebarang niat untuk bertindak sebagai pemilik Pulau Batu Putih, oleh itu kehadirannya di pulau tersebut hanya sebagai pengendali Rumah Api Horsburgh.
Sementara itu, Profesor Nico Schrijver dalam hujahnya berkata, kesan Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda yang ditandatangani pada 17 Mac 1824 dan Perjanjian Crawfurd (2 Ogos 1824) jelas membuktikan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge terletak di bawah naungan Johor. Kedua-dua perjanjian itu juga mengiktiraf bahawa Johor adalah pemilik asal ketiga-tiga pulau itu sekali gus menyangkal dakwaan Singapura bahawa ia terra nullius dan hanya menjadi milik British pada tahun 1847. Beliau berkata, akibat daripada perjanjian itu, kesultanan Johor telah dibahagikan kepada dua - sebahagian diletakkan di bawah pengaruh Inggeris manakala sebahagian lagi dikuasai oleh Belanda.
Schrijver menambah, menerusi perjanjian itu pulau-pulau di selatan Selat Singapura diletakkan di bawah pengaruh Belanda iaitu Kesultanan Riau-Lingga sementara wilayah-wilayah dan semua pulau di Selat Singapura serta di utara selat itu dinaungi oleh British (kesultanan Johor).
Beliau berhujah, rumusannya Johor terus mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas wilayah-wilayahnya termasuk semua pulau di Selat Singapura, kecuali:
* Pulau-pulau ke selatan Selat Singapura seperti yang disebut dalam Artikel XII Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda 1824; dan
* Tanah besar Singapura dan pulau-pulau dalam lingkungan 10 batu yang telah diserahkan kepada British di bawah Perjanjian Crawfurd (yang juga ditandatangani pada tahun 1924).
“Pulau Batu Putih yang tidak terletak ke selatan Selat Singapura dan juga bukan termasuk dalam kumpulan pulau yang diserahkan kepada British kekal sebagai sebahagian daripada wilayah Johor.
“Pulau itu terletak 7.5 batu nautika dari Bintang (Pulau Bintan) serta di Selat (Singapura),” hujahnya di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al- Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain.
Schrijver berkata, kedudukan Pulau Batu Putih di bawah pengaruh British juga boleh dilihat dengan jelas menerusi peta-peta Belanda ketika itu.
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?y=2007&dt=1115&pub=utusan_malaysia&sec=mahkamah&pg=ma_02.htm&arc=hiveSingapura menampakkan keraguan
THE HAGUE, Belanda 14 Nov. – Tindakan British di Singapura menulis surat kepada Kerajaan Negeri Johor pada tahun 1953 berhubung status Pulau Batu Putih adalah bertentangan dengan dakwaan republik itu bahawa pulau tersebut menjadi miliknya sejak tahun 1851. Profesor Elihu Lauterpacht ketika berhujah mewakili Malaysia memberitahu Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini, surat tersebut bertujuan mendapatkan maklumat mengenai status Pulau Batu Putih dan meminta Johor menjelaskan kedudukannya.
“Adalah amat luar biasa bagi negara yang sekarang ini menuntut hak ke atas sebuah pulau yang didakwa menjadi miliknya sejak lebih seabad lalu, memperlihatkan keraguan mengenai kedudukannya sehingga terpaksa bertanya kepada negara yang berkenaan,” hujahya. Sehubungan itu, Prof. Lauterpacht berhujah, surat balasan Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor kepada Setiausaha Kolonial Singapura pada September 1953 mengenai status Pulau Batu Putih tidak relevan untuk menyokong tuntutan Singapura ke atas pulau batu itu.
Beliau berkata, walaupun isi kandungan surat itu menyebut bahawa kerajaan negeri Johor tidak menuntut hak milik ke atas Pulau Batu Putih namun ia bukan merujuk kepada kedaulatan pulau tersebut.
“Saya telah menegaskan mengenai perbezaan di antara hak milik (ownership) dan kedaulatan (sovereignty). Hak milik adalah konsep yang digunakan dalam undang-undang persendirian manakala kedaulatan pula adalah konsep undang-undang antarabangsa. “Semasa Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor menulis bahawa Johor tidak menuntut hak milik ke atas pulau tersebut, beliau merujuk ‘hak milik’ dari sudut undang-undang persendirian. “Beliau tidak sama sekali bermaksud ‘kedaulatan’ kerana beliau sendiri tidak mempunyai kapasiti untuk menyerahkan mana-mana wilayah Johor,” katanya yang berhujah bagi pihak Malaysia dalam kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih dan dua lagi pulau iaitu Middle Rocks dan South Ledge di ICJ pada hari kedua pusingan pertama hujah lisan Malaysia.
Prof. Lauterpacht kemudian menjelaskan secara panjang lebar kes-kes dalam undang-undang antarabangsa berhubung kenyataan atau pengumuman yang dibuat oleh mana-mana pegawai tinggi kerajaan berhubung kedudukan wilayah-wilayah di negara. Katanya, walaupun pengumuman seumpama itu didaftarkan dalam bentuk laporan, arahan atau pengisytiharan bertulis namun ia tidak menghalang negara yang berkenaan menyanggah kenyataan tersebut menerusi bukti-bukti yang mencukupi.
Persidangan berlangsung di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain. Delegasi Malaysia diketuai oleh Duta-Duta Khas, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad yang bertindak sebagai ejen utama.
Sementara itu, Prof. Lauterpacht turut menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai tuntutan Singapura ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge. Menurut beliau, kedua-dua pulau itu dari segi geologinya tidak bersambung dengan Pulau Batu Putih. Middle Rocks dan South Ledge masing-masing terpisah pada jarak 0.6 batu dan 2.1 batu dari tersebut. Katanya, Singapura juga tidak membuktikan sebarang perlakuan di kedua-dua pulau itu untuk mewajarkan tuntutan mereka yang dibuat pada tahun 1993. Beliau menambah hujah, kedua-dua pulau itu juga bukan terra nullius (tidak berpenghuni dan tidak dimiliki oleh sesiapa) sebaliknya tertakluk kepada kedaulatan Johor serta tidak bergantung kepada Pulau Batu Putih.
“Pulau-pulau itu sentiasa menjadi sebahagian daripada pulau-pulau kecil yang terletak di utara Selat Singapura di mana Johor mempunyai kedaulatan ke atasnya,” hujah Lauterpacht.
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?y=2007&dt=1115&pub=utusan_malaysia&sec=muka%5Fhadapan&pg=mh_01.htm&arc=hive
Lapan bukti penting -- Malaysia kemuka dokumen Pulau Batu Putih milik Johor
Lapan bukti penting -- Malaysia kemuka dokumen Pulau Batu Putih milik Johor
Daripada NORAINI ABD. RAZAK
THE HAGUE, Belanda 14 Nov. – Malaysia mengemukakan lapan bukti penting bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik Johor sebelum tahun 1847 dan bukannya terra nullius (tidak berpenghuni serta tidak dimiliki oleh sesiapa) seperti yang didakwa oleh Singapura. Bukti-bukti penting itu berupa dokumen perjanjian yang dipersetujui sepanjang tahun 1824 hingga 1851 melibatkan Kesultanan Johor dan British. Tiada dokumen dikemukakan oleh Singapura bagi membuktikan dakwaannya bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah terra nullius dan terbuka untuk diduduki oleh mana-mana kuasa sekalipun, hujah Profesor Elihu Lauterpacht.
Beliau memberitahu Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini mengenai bukti pertama iaitu surat yang ditulis oleh Residen British di Singapura pada 10 Januari 1824 kepada pentadbiran di India mengenai jajahan Johor. Surat tersebut, hujah Lauterpacht, menyebut tentang pulau-pulau jajahan Johor yang terletak di kawasan 254 batu nautika di timur tanah besar negeri itu dan ia semestinya termasuk Pulau Batu Putih yang berhampiran dengan Johor.
Profesor Lauterpacht kemudian mengemukakan dokumen kedua iaitu Perjanjian Crawfurd antara Syarikat Hindia Timur Inggeris dengan Sultan dan Temenggong Johor yang berlangsung pada tahun 1824. Menurutnya, Artikel II perjanjian itu menyebut Sultan dan Temenggong Johor dengan penuh kedaulatan menyerahkan Singapura serta kawasan berupa perairan, selat dan pulau-pulau yang terletak 10 batu dalam lingkungan republik itu.
“Ini jelas menunjukkan British mengakui kedaulatan Johor ke atas pulau-pulau jajahannya dan ia juga menggambarkan bahawa Johor mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas pulau-pulau kecil melepasi 10 batu dari Johor,” hujah Profesor Lauterpacht. Beliau berkata, jika Singapura mempersoalkan hak Sultan Johor ke atas Pulau Batu Putih, maka persoalan yang sama terpakai dalam kes Singapura.
“Jika Sultan Johor tidak mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih pada tahun 1824, maka jelas ia juga tidak mempunyai hak ke atas Singapura. “Dan jika Sultan Johor tidak mempunyai hak untuk diserahkan, maka British tidak menerima apa-apa, seperti yang sering dibangkitkan oleh pasukan Singapura, anda tidak boleh memberi apa yang anda tidak ada,” hujahnya. Beliau kemudiannya secara sinis bertanya kepada mahkamah: “Adakah negara (Singapura) yang menentang Malaysia di mahkamah ini yang menjadi wilayah menerusi penyerahan hak tidak mempunyai pemiliknya.”
Profesor Lauterpacht kemudiannya menjelaskan bukti ketiga iaitu Surat Crawfurd bertarikh 3 Ogos 1824 yang mengiktiraf kedaulatan Johor ke atas pulau-pulau kecil dalam lingkungan 10 batu dari Singapura sebelum ia diserahkan kepada republik itu. Tiga lagi dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh Malaysia Surat Crawfurd pada 1 Oktober 1824, Laporan Presgrave (Edward Presgrave) bertarikh 5 Disember 1828 mengenai kegiatan lanun di Selat Melaka serta sempadan empayar Johor termasuk di Pulau Batu Putih dan peta tahun 1842 yang disediakan atas arahan kerajaan Belanda. Artikel yang tersiar dalam Singapore Free Press pada 25 Mei 1843 yang jelas menyebut Pulau Batu Putih antara pulau dikaitkan dengan kegiatan lanun terletak di bawah kuasa kerajaan Johor dikemukakan sebagai dokumen ketujuh.
Surat-menyurat antara Gabenor Butterworth dan Sultan serta Temenggong pada tahun 1844 berhubung cadangan pembinaan rumah api di pulau-pulau di bawah pentadbiran kerajaan Johor pula menjadi dokumen yang kelapan. Selain bukti berupa dokumen, Profesor Lauterpacht turut menyentuh mengenai cara British datang ke Pulau Batu Putih yang jelas menunjukkan untuk membina rumah api dan tidak lebih daripada itu. Beliau berhujah mengenai ketiadaan upacara rasmi (yang menjadi amalan wajib British setiap kali menakluk atau menjajah sesuatu tempat) seperti menaikkan bendera atau tembakan meriam membuktikan bahawa British hanya mengendalikan Rumah Api Horsburgh di pulau itu.
Lauterpacht turut menyentuh mengenai hujah Singapura bahawa Malaysia tidak pernah menjalankan sebarang aktiviti untuk menyaingi kedudukan Singapura di pulau miliknya sendiri.
“Apa yang Singapura harap Malaysia lakukan di pulau itu? Perlu diingat bahawa saiz Pulau Batu Putih amat kecil,” katanya sambil menunjukkan peta Pulau Batu Putih. “Anda mendapati Pulau Batu Putih dikelilingi oleh bentuk empat segi yang menyamai saiz padang bola sepak dan separuh daripadanya telah dipenuhi dengan rumah api serta kemudahan sampingan. “Di kawasan mana Johor boleh melakukan aktivitinya. Dan apakah bentuk aktiviti untuk bersaing di pulau tersebut, adakah dengan membina satu lagi rumah api,” hujah beliau.
Oleh itu, hujah Profesor Lauterpacht, dakwaan Singapura bahawa ketiadaan aktiviti oleh Johor membuktikan pulau itu milik mereka hanyalah sia-sia. Johor telah memberi keizinan kepada British untuk mendirikan rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih dan menyerahkan kepadanya untuk mengendalikan rumah api itu serta lain-lain aktiviti berkaitan. Persidangan berlangsung di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain termasuk dua hakim ad hoc masing-masing dilantik oleh Malaysia dan Singapura. Delegasi Malaysia diketuai oleh Duta-Duta Khas, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad.
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
Kenapa Malaysia patut menang
Jelas sekali Portugis , Belanda dan British menggunakan istilah pulau Pedra Branca untuk pulau Batu Putih. Dalam hikayat Melayu lama, tidak pernah muncul nama pulau ini kecuali nama Temasik, nama lama Singapura atau Singapore sekarang. Singapura amat bergantung bukti , dokumen, surat-menyurat , pentadbiran pulau itu oleh Enpayar British. Secarsa analogi, jika Selat Tebrau pernah ditadbir oleh British, apakah Selat Tebrau juga milik Singapura. Empayar mana jadi titik rujukan terakhir, adakah Empayar British, Empayar Belanda, Empayar Portugis, Empayar Johor-Riau , Empayar Melaka, Empayar Srivijaya atau sebelum itu lagi. Daratan yang paling dekat Pulau Batu Putih / Pedra Branca ialah Malaysia. Jaraknya hanya 7 km .
Sedangkan jarak dengan Singapura 22 km nautika. Empayar British melalui Syarikat Hindia Timur Inggeris yang diketuai oleh Stamford Raffle telah 'membuka' dan mendapatkan pulau Singapura dari Sultan Husain dari Kesultanan Johor pada 1819. Apabila Perjanjian 1824 ditandatangani antara Empayar British dengan Belanda, dengan jelas Singapura termasuk / tertakluk dalam Empayar British. Perjanjian Inggeris-Belanda pada 1824 hanya melibatkan pulau Singapura dan wilayah di selatan Selat Singapura. Great Britain dan Singapura tidak pernah menuntut kedaulatan ke atas tiga kawasan itu pada bila-bila masa sebelum tarikh penting berkaitan pertikaian sekarang (1980 bagi kes Pulau Batu Puteh dan 1993 bagi kes dua kawasan lain itu) Pulau Batu Puteh, Terumbu Karang Tengah (Middle Rocks) dan Terumbu Karang Selatin (South Ledge) serta pulau lain di sekitar Selat Singapura adalah sebahagian daripada Kesultanan Johor sebelum 1824.
Undang-undang dan amalan perjanjian yang diguna pakai oleh Singapura, penerbitan serta petanya dan kenyataan oleh pegawai-pegawai Singapura yang berpengetahuan, kesemuanya mengesahkan bahawa tiga tempat berkenaan bukan wilayah negara itu, tetapi ditadbir sebagai sebahagian daripada wilayah Singapura. Istilah Malaysia hanya wujud pada 1963 . Sebelum itu dikenali sebagai Persekutuan Tanah Melayu atau Malaya. Dari 1402 - 1511 dikenali dengan nama kerajaan Melaka. Apabila British menjajah, ia dikenali sebagai Negeri-Negeri Selat ( Strait Settlement) . Singapura yang dikenali sebagai Temasik pernah dijajah oleh kerajaan Siam melalui pemerintah Tamagi. Parameswara yahng lari dari Palembang telah singgah sekejap dan menukar nama Temasik kepada Singapura. Parameswara telah mengasaskan Empayar Melaka , merupakan kesinambungan Empayar Srivijaya di Palembang.
Apabila Empayar Melaka runtuh pada 1511 oleh Portugis, Empayar Johor-Riau-Lingga telah ditubuhkan oleh Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah pada 1528. Logiknya pulau Batu Putih dalam lingkungan pentadbiran Empayar Johor-Riau-Lingga ini
-------------------------------------------------------
Berita Harian
23 Nov 2007
2 bukti baru Malaysia
MALAYSIA dalam hujah lisan pusingan kedua pada perbicaraan kes Tuntutan Pulau Batu Puteh, semalam mengemukakan dua dokumen perjanjian 1948 bagi mematahkan Tuntutan Singapura ke atas kedaulatan pulau berkenaan. Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, berkata mengikut Perjanjian Johor dan Perjanjian Persekutuan Malaya 1948, Kerajaan Johor tidak mempunyai kuasa membuat sebarang perjanjian dengan negara luar. Sehubungan itu, katanya, pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Johor, M Seth Saaid, sebagai seorang kakitangan awam tidak mempunyai kuasa menulis surat bagi memaklumkan Singapura bahawa Johor tidak menuntut hak milik pulau berkenaan pada 1953. Beliau berkata, mengikut kedua-dua perjanjian yang ditandatangani Sultan Johor bersama Raja-raja Melayu dengan Raja British itu, semua kuasa mengenai pertahanan dan hal ehwal luar terletak di bawah penjajah. Mengikut Fasal 3 (2) Perjanjian Johor, Sultan Johor tanpa pengetahuan dan kebenaran Raja British tidak boleh membuat sebarang perjanjian, rundingan mengenai politik dengan menghantar wakil ke negara luar. "Perjanjian Johor dan Perjanjian Persekutuan Malaya 1948 menyatakan semua hak, kuasa dan bidang kuasa mengenai hal ehwal luar Johor dipindahkan kepada penjajah serta dikuatkuasakan melalui Pesuruhjaya Tinggi Persekutuan. "Pesuruhjaya Tinggi itu dilantik oleh Raja British manakala kedua-dua perjanjian itu sah sehingga Akta Kemerdekaan Persekutuan Malaya 1957 berkuat kuasa," katanya dalam ucapan pembukaan kes Malaysia di depan Naib Presiden Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ), Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta barisan panel hakim tetap dan ad hoc. Abdul Gani berkata, pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Johor menulis surat jawapan itu yang bukan dialamatkan kepadanya, terus kepada pihak berkuasa tempatan (PBT) British di Singapura. Katanya, pegawai awam itu tidak memberi salinan surat itu kepada Ketua Setiausaha Persekutuan dan tidak ada sebarang bukti menunjukkan Pesuruhjaya Tinggi British di Malaya serta Ketua Setiausaha mengetahui mengenai kandungan surat 1953. “Cara surat-menyurat itu dijalankan menyalahi prosedur dan silap. Hanya Pesuruhjaya Tinggi British atas nasihat dan persetujuan Majlis Perundangan Persekutuan boleh membuat undang-undang mengenai hal ehwal luar serta pertahanan,” katanya. Beliau berkata, Johor tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mengadakan sebarang perjanjian mengenai hal ehwal luar, sekali gus membuat perisytiharan undang-undang. Mengenai hujah pusingan kedua Singapura, Abdul Gani berkata, Malaysia menegaskan republik itu gagal membuktikan bahawa ia mempunyai hak milik ke atas Pulau Batu Puteh pada 1847-1851 berdasarkan pulau itu terra nullius. Katanya, Singapura gagal mengemukakan sebarang keterangan bahawa pulau itu tidak bertuan, selain tidak menyanggah hujah Malaysia bahawa republik itu hanya membuat kesimpulan pulau itu terra nullius. "Kedua, Singapura masih membisu atau gagal mengemukakan keterangan undang-undang yang tidak boleh dipertikaikan dalam bentuk dokumen berhubung dakwaan mempunyai hak milik ke atas pulau itu pada 1978. "Bagaimanapun, Malaysia berjaya menunjukkan kepada mahkamah bahawa kebenaran Johor berhubung pembinaan Rumah Api Horsburgh adalah sebagai keterangan, surat kebenaran Sultan dan Temenggong Johor pada 25 November 1844. "Oleh itu, mahkamah perlu memberi perhatian kepada tindakan Singapura membisu mengenai perkara itu," katanya. Abdul Gani juga berkata, Singapura tidak pernah mempertikaikan Malaysia mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas Batuan Tengah dan Tubir Selatan sebelum 6 Februari 1993. Malah, katanya, melalui Nota Bantahan 14 Februari 1980 berhubung penerbitan peta Malaysia memasukkan Pulau Batu Puteh sebagai sebahagian wilayah Malaysia, tidak dinyatakan Tuntutan ke atas Batuan Tengah serta Tubir Selatan. "Singapura sepatutnya membuat Tuntutan ketika mengemukakan nota itu, tetapi republik itu gagal berbuat demikian. Kedua-dua bentuk bumi itu dikenali sejak kurun ke-19 lagi. "Sehubungan itu, hujah Peguam Negara Singapura bahawa republik itu membangkitkan soal Batuan Tengah dan Tubir Selatan sebagai susulan pertanyaan Malaysia tidak relevan kerana kedaulatan kedua-dua bentuk bumi tidak pernah dipertikaikan sebelum November 1993," katanya. Selain itu, katanya, semua kegiatan yang dijalankan Singapura selepas tarikh kritikal pada 1980 tidak relevan kerana ia hanya hujah untuk menyokong kedudukan republik itu menuntut hak kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bukan milik Singapura -- Gagal buktikan 3 pulau dituntut hak republik itu - Peguam Negara
Daripada NORAINI ABD. RAZAK
THE HAGUE, Belanda 22 Nov. – Malaysia memulakan pusingan kedua hujah lisan kes tuntutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih dengan menegaskan bahawa Singapura gagal membuktikan, jauh sekali mengemukakan sebarang dokumen, bahawa pulau tersebut milik republik itu. Malah, Malaysia berhujah, kelewatan Singapura membuat tuntutan ke atas dua bentuk maritim iaitu Middle Rocks dan South Ledge (13 tahun selepas tuntutan Pulau Batu Putih) menunjukkan republik itu tidak mempunyai hak ke atas ketiga-tiga pulau berkenaan. Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail menarik perhatian Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini hari ini mengenai dakwaan Singapura bahawa Malaysia bukan pemilik asal Pulau Batu Putih.
Berhubung isu itu, beliau mempertikaikan dakwaan Singapura bahawa pulau tersebut menjadi milik British pada tahun 1847 hingga 1851 kerana ketika British datang ke situ, ia adalah terra nullius (tiada pemilik). Menurut Abdul Gani, Singapura tidak dapat mengemukakan sebarang bukti bahawa Pulau Batu Putih ketika itu adalah terra nullius. “Singapura tidak membuktikan kesnya, sebaliknya kes republik itu berdasarkan kepada kesimpulan mereka bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah terra nullius,” hujah beliau di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain termasuk dua hakim ad hoc yang dilantik oleh Malaysia dan Singapura. Abdul Gani kemudian berhujah mengenai perkara kedua iaitu sikap berdiam diri Singapura atau kegagalan republik itu mengemukakan dokumen undang-undang yang tidak boleh dipertikaikan sehingga tahun 1978 untuk menunjukkan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik mereka. Malaysia, hujah beliau, telah menunjukkan bahawa kebenaran yang diberi oleh Johor berhubung pembinaan Rumah Api Horsburgh di pulau itu dibuktikan menerusi surat keizinan Sultan dan Temenggung bertarikh 25 November 1844.
“Sikap Singapura yang berdiam diri berhubung perkara ini tidak boleh diketepikan begitu sahaja,” kata beliau sambil memetik keputusan ICJ dalam kes Temple of Preah Vihear mengenai pertikaian antara Kemboja dan Thailand. Dalam kes itu, ICJ menggariskan bahawa beban untuk membuktikan sesuatu tun.tutan sudah pasti terletak kepada pihak yang membuat dakwaan atau mengemukakan Tun Dr. Mahathir. “Malaysia telah membuktikan kesnya, bagaimanapun Singapura tidak berbuat demikian,” hujah beliau. Abdul Gani turut menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai dakwaan Peguam Negara Singapura semasa hujah lisan republik itu pada 19 November 2007 berhubung tarikh penting Tun Dr. Mahathir ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge. Menurut beliau, Singapura mendakwa tarikh penting itu adalah berikutan jawapan balas kepada kenyataan Malaysia bahawa kedua-dua bentuk maritim itu adalah milik negara ini iaitu sehari sebelum rundingan dua hala antara kedua-dua negara diadakan.
Sebaliknya, Abdul Gani berkata, jika republik itu ingin menuntut kedaulatan ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge, sudah pasti ia telah memasukkan nama kedua-dua pulau itu dalam nota bantahannya pada 14 Februari 1980 iaitu ketika bermulanya pertikaian ke atas Pulau Batu Putih tetapi Singapura tidak berbuat demikian. ‘‘Kedua-dua bentuk maritim itu telah dikenali dengan namanya sekarang ini sejak lama dulu, iaitu pada abad ke-14 bagi Pulau Batu Putih dan abad ke-19 bagi dua bentuk maritim lagi. ‘‘Kenyataan bahawa Singapura membangkitkan perkara itu sebagai tindak balas kepada apa yang Malaysia katakan adalah tidak relevan kerana tiada pertikaian langsung berhubung kedaulatan Malaysia ke atas kedua-dua bentuk maritim itu sebelum 6 Februari 1993,” katanya. Esok Malaysia akan menyambung hujah lisan dan menggulung kes tun.tutan bertindih Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge.
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
Pemangku SUK Johor tiada kuasa lepas hak milik pulau
THE HAGUE, Belanda 22 Nov. – Surat balasan yang menyebut Johor tidak menuntut hak milik ke atas Pulau Batu Putih pada September 1953 ditulis oleh pegawai kerajaan negeri yang tidak mempunyai kuasa atau kapasiti undang-undang untuk berbuat demikian. Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail berhujah, Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor, M. Seth Bin Said yang menulis surat itu kepada pegawai British di Singapura hanyalah seorang pegawai kerajaan negeri Johor. “Beliau pastinya tidak diberi kuasa atau mempunyai kapasiti undang-undang untuk menulis surat pada 1953 atau melepaskan, menafikan, atau mengesahkan hak milik ke atas mana-mana wilayah Johor,” katanya. Abdul Gani menarik perhatian Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini hari ini mengenai surat yang ditulis oleh pegawai British, J.D. Hingam kepada kerajaan negeri Johor berhubung status Pulau Batu Putih dan surat balasan yang dikeluarkan oleh M. Seth.
Pertamanya, hujah beliau, surat daripada J.D. Hingam itu dialamatkan kepada Penasihat British di Johor dengan salinan kepada Ketua Setiausaha Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan bukannya kepada Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri. Keduanya, Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri sendiri mengeluarkan surat kepada J.D. Hingam. M. Seth, hujah Abdul Gani, menulis terus kepada pihak berkuasa tempatan koloni British iaitu Singapura. Beliau (M. Seth) tidak sama sekali membuat salinan surat kepada Ketua Setiausaha Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. “Tiada bukti untuk menunjukkan bahawa Ketua Setiausaha (Persekutuan Tanah Melayu) atau Pesuruhjaya Tinggi tahu mengenai isi kandungan surat tersebut.
“Kaedah surat menyurat (berhubung status Pulau Batu Putih) adalah menyimpang daripada kebiasaan dan tidak betul,” hujah Gani di hadapan Naib Presiden ICJ, Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh serta 15 hakim lain termasuk dua hakim ad hoc. Duta Kelana di Kementerian Luar republik itu, Tommy Koh ketika menutup kes Singapura kelmarin berhujah: “Pada tahun 1953, ketika Johor merupakan sebuah negeri berdaulat di bawah undang-undang antarabangsa, Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor dengan kapasiti rasmi kerajaan telah memaklumkan kepada kerajaan Singapura bahawa Johor tidak menuntut hak milik ke atas Pulau Batu Putih.” Abdul Gani mempersoalkan hujah Singapura itu: “Persoalannya ialah sama ada beliau (Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor) diberi kuasa dan mempunyai kapasiti undang-undang untuk melepaskan, menafikan atau mengesahkan hak milik ke atas mana-mana wilayah Johor.”
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
Singapura tidak yakin miliki pulau
NORAINI ABD. RAZAK (BELANDA)
THE HAGUE, Belanda 23 Nov. – Singapura yang tidak yakin bahawa Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rocks dan South Ledge adalah miliknya terpaksa beralih dari satu alasan ke satu alasan untuk mewajarkan tun.tutannya ke atas ketiga-tiga pulau itu. Barisan peguam antarabangsa yang mewakili Malaysia dalam kes tersebut memberitahu Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini, ketidaktentuan pasukan Singapura itu menjadikan kes yang dibentangkannya ‘lemah dan berbelit-belit‘ sehingga kadangkala menimbulkan kekeliruan di pihak republik itu sendiri. Mereka berhujah, di peringkat awal kes, Singapura menyandarkan tun.tutan mereka kepada dakwaan bahawa British menduduki Pulau Batu Putih pada tahun 1847 secara sah (lawful taking of possession) kerana pulau itu terra nullius (tiada pemilik).
Kemudian, republik itu mengheret mahkamah untuk mendengar tentang (kononnya) British mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih semata-mata kerana kerja-kerja yang dijalankan untuk membina Rumah Api Horsburgh yang berlangsung antara tahun 1847 dan 1851. Peguam-peguam Malaysia berhujah lagi, oleh kerana dua alasan berkenaan masih melemahkan kes Singapura, republik itu cuba menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai tindak-tanduknya di pulau itu selepas tahun 1851 hingga sekarang untuk membuktikan bahawa ia mempunyai kedaulatan di Pulau Batu Putih. “Kebenaran Johor (Sultan dan Temenggung) untuk (British) membina rumah api tersebut menjadikan kes Singapura yang sememangnya lemah dan berbelit-belit runtuh dan tidak boleh dipulihkan, baik bagi tujuan menduduki secara sah disebabkan pulau itu terra nullius mahupun kerana tindak-tanduk republik itu di Pulau Batu Putih. “Kesemuanya itu langsung tidak mempunyai nilai untuk mengasaskan kedaulatan di wilayah yang berkenaan,” hujah Profesor Marcelo G. Kohen di hadapan barisan 16 hakim yang diketuai oleh Naib Presiden ICJ, Hakim Awn-Shawkat Al-Khasawneh.
Kohen berhujah, persoalan yang timbul dalam kes tun.tutan tersebut amat mudah malah bukti-bukti yang menunjukkan Malaysia mempunyai kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih juga jelas, tetapi Singapura bekerja keras untuk menjadikannya rumit. Katanya, kes tersebut adalah mengenai hasrat British untuk membina sebuah rumah api di Pulau Batu Putih sebagai penghormatan kepada James Horsburgh - pihak berkuasa di Johor memberi kebenaran membina rumah api - dan Syarikat Hindia Timur membina rumah api itu. “Bukti-bukti amat jelas. Malah ia terlalu banyak, surat-surat Gabenor Butterworth sebelum dan selepas kebenaran dikeluarkan oleh Sultan dan Temenggung Johor; laporan penuh Butterworth bersekali dengan surat pemerintah Johor yang menunjukkan bahawa pemilihan lokasi asal iaitu Peak Rock juga terpakai kepada Pulau Batu Putih.
“Kesemua ini tidak dicabar oleh Singapura,” hujah Kohen lagi. Profesor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht juga menarik perhatian mahkamah mengenai dakwaan Singapura bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah terra nullius yang dirumuskannya sebagai mempunyai kecacatan. Malaysia, hujah beliau, telah membuktikan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih bukan terra nullius sebaliknya ia adalah milik Johor, justeru adalah amat tidak berasas kepada British ketika itu atau pada bila-bila masa mendapat hak milik ke atas sebuah pulau yang hanya boleh diperoleh menerusi keizinan pemiliknya. “Dan keizinan yang diberi terhad kepada membina dan mengendalikan sebuah rumah api,” hujah Lauterpacht. Beliau turut menyanggah kritikan Singapura kononnya Malaysia membisu terhadap a titre de souverain (tindak-tanduk British yang menunjukkan ia mempunyai kedaulatan) di Pulau Batu Putih. Hujah beliau, tindak-tanduk British dari tahun 1847 hingga 1851 tidak boleh diklasifikasikan sebagai mempunyai kedaulatan di pulau tersebut kerana ia hanyalah mengenai pembinaan rumah api dan tidak lebih daripada itu.
Malah, Lauterpacht berhujah, fakta bahawa pembinaan rumah api itu dibiayai oleh kumpulan saudagar seperti yang diperjelaskan dalam Laporan Thomson sangat melemahkan dakwaan Singapura bahawa ‘tanpa keputusan kerajaan British untuk membina dan membiayai pembinaan rumah api di Pedra Branca, rumah api itu tidak akan wujud’. “Fakta sebenar ialah kerajaan British tidak membiayai pembinaan rumah api itu atau mengambil inisiatif untuk berbuat demikian. “Malah Akta 1852 jelas menggambarkan peranan kerajaan British yang amat terhad iaitu hanya kepada membina rumah api,” hujah beliau. Sementara itu, Profesor Nicout Schrijver berhujah mengenai kelewatan Singapura memasukkan hujahnya mengenai terra nullius iaitu hanya dalam dokumen balasannya. Katanya, hujah-hujah bertulis Singapura dalam memorialnya tertumpu kepada British menduduki Pulau Batu Putih pada pertengahan abad ke-19 secara sah.
Bagaimanapun, hujah beliau, mahkamah pasti sedar semasa menyampaikan hujah-hujah lisannya, Singapura telah menyimpang daripada asas pertamanya dan berhujah pula mengenai teori terra nullius tetapi dalam keadaan ragu-ragu. Schrijver berhujah, berbanding dakwaan Peguam Singapura, Alain Pellet mengenai teori terra nulliusnya, ejen republik itu, Tommy Koh pula mendakwa: “... jika mahkamah mendapati hak milik Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Putih) sebagai tidak dapat dipastikan (bagi tahun 1847 hingga 1851), Singapura jelas telah menunjukkan kedaulatannya’'. Beliau secara sinikal berhujah, ketidakyakinan Singapura terhadap kesemua asas-asas dakwaannya bahawa Pulau Batu Putih miliknya menyebabkan mereka terpaksa ‘menggunakan dua ekor kuda dalam satu perlumbaan’. Katanya, tindakan Singapura menggunakan terra nullius sebagai asas Tun Dr. Mahathir langsung tidak boleh dipertahankan. Pada bila-bila masa, hujah Schrijver, Pulau Batu Putih bukan terra nullius dengan pulau tersebut dikenali menerusi namanya dan tertera dalam peta-peta awal, juga sebagai penanda laut dan titik bahaya. Malah, penduduk tempatan (yang datang daripada kesultanan Johor), katanya, menggunakan pulau tersebut sejak seawal tahun 1552 seperti yang terkandung dalam buku-buku Portugis.
– Utusan
-------------------------------------------------------
1979 Map Issued To Set Out Malaysia's Territorial Waters - Kadir
Nor Faridah A. Rashid
THE HAGUE, Nov 24 (Bernama) -- Malaysia's 1979 map, which Singapore claimed was a challenge to the "existing legal order", was in fact a step to set out in a specific map the country's territorial waters and continental shelf boundaries, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard here Saturday. Malaysia's agent Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad said the map took into account agreed boundaries with the neighbouring countries, customary practice of boundary delimitation and applicable principles of international law. "By contrast, Singapore never published maps showing what it now claims, and it negotiated agreements with both Malaysia and Indonesia that ignored maritime boundaries it now claims,"
Kadir told the 16-member panel hearing a sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge here Friday. "The Court may decide for itself which of these two processes is preferable," he said in his closing statement on the second and final round of Malaysia's oral pleadings. The 1979 map had included Pulau Batu Puteh in Malaysia's territorial waters. On another point, he said the fact was that a decision in Singapore's favour would "impose another maritime regime in the area, impacting on existing maritime delimitation and jurisdiction between Malaysia and Indonesia." Kadir said it would also require a new territorial sea delimitation between Singapore and Indonesia, notwithstanding their earlier agreement. "That brings into focus Singapore's silence on its maritime claims," he said.
Elaborating on the 1979 map, Kadir said the purpose of the telegram dated Dec 20, 1979 from the Foreign Affairs Ministry addressed to Malaysian diplomatic missions abroad was to advise them that the Map was a statement of position, accompanied by an expressed willingness by Malaysia to negotiate any unresolved questions. "The fact is that our colonial heritage had left us with unresolved issues with all our seven neighbours - and the developing law of maritime jurisdiction has added more," he said . The seven are Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and China. "How else to resolve maritime and boundary issues than to set out a position after due consideration and offer to negotiate unresolved issues? It is a long process but it is an orderly one," he said. Singapore had contented that the telegram was evident that it was Malaysia which was trying to alter the status quo by claiming title to Pulau Batu Puteh after 130 years of inaction in the face of Singapore's sovereignty over the island. Kadir, who took about 15 minutes to close the case for Malaysia, said Malaysia had sought to present its case fully and fairly. "It has the vital interests in security and cooperation in the region of the Straits which I have mentioned already. But it has an equal interests in maintaining peaceful and friendly relations between nations based on respect for international law," he said.
This was especially important for relations between immediate neighbours such as Malaysia and Singapore and that was why Malaysia has come to the ICJ to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. "Many allegations have been made against Malaysia by our friends and colleagues opposite. I have referred to certain points made by Professor Jayakumar last Monday which cannot be left unanswered. "Should there be any details left unaddressed, Malaysia reserves its position on the points I have not dealt with expressly," he said. He sought the court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh; Middle Rocks; South Ledge, belonged to Malaysia.
-- BERNAMA
-------------------------------------------------------
November 23, 2007
09:42 AM
Singapore's Claim On Pulau Batu Puteh Flawed
Nor Faridah A. Rashid
THE HAGUE, Nov 23 (Bernama) -- Singapore's claim that Pulau Batu Puteh terra nullus (No Man's Land) when Britain took possession of it in 1847 is fundamentally flawed, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here heard Thursday. Malaysia's counsel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, said there was no basis on which Britain could, then or at any other time, acquire title to an island that could only be obtained with the consent of the local sovereign. "And the consent given was restricted to the building and operation of a lighthouse (on the island)," he told the court hearing a dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. He said that Malaysia was criticised for its "silence on the nature of acts a titre d souverain" (the exercise of sovereign powers) on the island but this was because during the period 1847-1851, Britain's conduct could not be classified as having exercised sovereign powers.
"It was conduct in every respect related to the construction of a lighthouse and nothing more," Lauterpacht said in the second and final round of Malaysia's oral arguments. He said that the placing of experimental bricks, the cutting of rain channels and others on the island, as submitted by Singapore, could hardly be described as acts of the exercise of sovereign powers unless one assumed, as Singapore's counsel Ian Brownlie did, that there was scope for the performance of such acts. "But once the basic foundation of his presentation is undermined, that is necessarily an end to the classification," counsel said. He also said that calling the works (on the island) "public works" did not advance Singapore's case because beyond the fact that the works were done in public, which was certainly not what Brownlie had in mind in using the adjective, there was nothing that could not have been done by a private person.
Lauterpacht submitted that what mattered to Britain was not the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh but the construction and operation of a lighthouse for the benefit of ships plying their trade between Britain and its Far Eastern commercial links. "From an imperial, military or naval perspective, it simply did not matter whether the island was British or not. There was no room on it anyway for any British settlement unrelated to the operation of the light (house)," he said. He also touched on Singapore's submission concerning his "arithmetic" methods. During the first round of Malaysia's oral pleadings, Lauterpacht had said that like what was taught in school, the simple arithmetic that when zero is multiplied by any number whatsoever, the result is always zero and as such, a title that did not exist could not be confirmed or maintained by any amount of subsequent state action. He said Singapore had contended that the "multiplication" should be discarded in favour of a process of addition like zero plus one makes one and so on.
"So what are we to add together between 1847 and 1851 to produce a title by 1851? A decision to support the construction of a lighthouse, a decision regarding the site, advancing part of the funds on the basis that the excess over subscriptions will be repaid out of light dues, the provision of an architect, some visits to the island by the governor -- but never, never a statement of intention or even a gesture towards a declaration of title," he said. Another of Malaysia's counsel, Marcelo Kohen, submitted that the permission of Johor to build the lighthouse made the "fragile and convoluted Singaporean case irreparably collapse" before the purported taking of possession of a terra nullius as well as after it. Kohen said that despite all the efforts by Singapore to make it complicated, ultimately the question was simple. There was a desire to build a lighthouse on the island to pay homage to James Horsburgh, the Johor authorities gave the permission to build the lighthouse and the East India Company built the lighthouse. "The proof is not missing, It is rather over-abundant," he said.
Nicolaas Jan Schrijver submitted that Singapore advanced its terra nullius proposition at a very late stage, namely in its reply, as earlier it only argued its case on the basis of "the lawful taking of possession" of the island in the mid-19th century. He said that during the oral pleadings this week, Singapore "betrayed" some uncertainty as to the validity of its terra nullius theory. "This lack of conviction has apparently led Singapore to back two horses in the same race," he said. He stressed that the terra nullius claim was untenable and that at all relevant times, Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius as it was featured by name on the earliest maps, as a seamark as well as a point of danger. He said that the native population used the island, as referred to in Portuguese books as early as 1552 and in 1822. Nearly 300 years later, John Crawfurd reported that the "men of the sea" living in that area were subjects of the Sultanate of Johor.
Crawfurd was the second British Resident of Singapore, holding office from 1823 to 1826. On the argument that the ruler of Johor was "disinterested" in the small islands, counsel said that this was not correct, for example, in the Sejarah Melayu, the ruler of Melaka had stated that "he does not care if a territory is only the size of a coconut shell." Counsel stressed that from time immemorial the Sultanate of Johor has had an original title to the three features and that the 1844 permission of the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor to the British to construct a lighthouse on the island did not involve the transfer of sovereignty over the island. James Crawford, submitting on the period 1966 to the critical date and subsequently, said that Singapore never publicly claimed Pulau Batu Puteh in the period 1965-1978. The events of 1978-1980 leading up to the crystallization of the dispute could not have changed that position, he added.
-- BERNAMA
-------------------------------------------------------
Singapore Only Infers Pulau Batu Puteh No Man's Land, Court ToldNor Faridah A. Rashid
THE HAGUE, Nov 22 (Bernama) -- While Malaysia has proven its case that Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius (No Man's Land), Singapore has merely rested its claim on the inference that the island belonged to no one when it took possession of it in 1847 to 1851, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here heard Thursday. Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail dismissed Singapore's claim that the taking of possession of the island was possible at that time because Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius.
He said Singapore had not produced any evidence that the island was terra nullius. "Rather, as I submitted last week and Singapore did not refute, Singapore's case simply rests on the inference that Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius," he told the 16-member panel hearing a sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysia said Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius and that Johor had had the original title to the island and the two marine features since time immemorial. Submitting on the 1953 letter of Johor's Acting State Secretary, which Singapore claimed was a disclaimer of Johor's title to Pulau Batu Puteh, Gani said Acting State Secretary M. Seth Bin Saaid was merely a servant of the Johor state.
"He was definitely not authorised or had the legal capacity to write the 1953 letter, or to renounce, disclaim, or confirm title of any part of the territories of Johor if that is what the 1953 letter is purported to do, which Malaysia denies," Gani said. He cited a case where the court had considered that the response by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of his Government in response to a request by the diplomatic representative of a foreign Power, in regard to a question falling within his province, is binding upon the country to which the Minister belongs. M. Seth has been clearly shown not to have any such capacity, Gani submitted. Furthermore, Gani said the letter from JD Higham was addressed to the British Adviser of Johor and copied to the Chief Secretary Federation of Malaya. It was not addressed to M. Seth bin Saaid, the Attorney-General said, backing his submissions with graphics. Gani said the Acting State Secretary undertook himself to issue the letter to JD Higham.
He wrote directly to a local authority of the British Colony of Singapore and did not copy his letter to the Chief Secretary of the Federation at all, Gani said. He said there was no evidence to show that the Chief Secretary or the High Commissioner was aware of the contents of this letter. "The way the correspondence was conducted is procedurally irregular and incorrect," Gani said, substantiating his submisisons with documentary evidence such as the Johor Agreement of 1948 and the Federation of Malaya Agreement, also of 1948. Both these treaties were entered into between Johor and His Britannic Majesty where Johor, a sovereign State transferred to Great Britain all of its rights, powers and jurisdiction on matters pertaining to defence and external affairs. On another point, Gani said Singapore remained silent or failed to produce the incontrovertible legal evidence in the form of documents claimed in 1978 to be in the possession of Singapore. He said Malaysia however has demonstrated that Johor consented to the construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse (on Pulau Batu Puteh), as evidenced by the permission letters of Nov 25, 1844 from the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor.
Gani said Singapore's silence on this matter should not be ignored. He cited the court's judgment where both Cambodia and Thailand based their respective claims on a series of facts and contentions which are asserted or put forward by one party or the other. The burden of proof in respect of these will of course lie on the party asserting or putting them forward, he said. "While Malaysia has proven its case, Singapore has not," he said. Submitting on the critical date for Middle Rocks and South Ledge, he said that if Singapore had intended to claim the two features in its Protest Note dated Feb 14, 1980 as it contended, it should have specified the two features by name in that Protest Note. During the first round of oral arguments, Gani had said the Protest Note where Singapore officially claimed the island, had "crystallised" the dispute and as such the critical date for the dispute on Pulau Batu Puteh was Feb 14. Gani had said the dispute concerning the two marine features was only crsytallised on feb 6, 1993 when for the first time Singapore included Middle Rocks and South Ledge in addition to its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh, during the first round of bilateral discussions between the two countries.
On Singapore's argument that he had merely dismissed Singapore's conduct after the critical date as irrelevant without offering any argument to back up this assertion, he said this was far from the truth. Gani said he had made it clear that Singapore's conduct after the critical date was irrelevant for the purpose of assessing its conduct as they are not a normal continuation of Singapore's prior acts of administration of the lighthouse but are acts to strengthen its legal position in the present dispute carried out especially in the 1990s. Gani was Malaysia's first speaker on Thursday to rebutt Singapore's final round of oral submissions on Monday and Tuesday. The others who submitted today were Malaysia's team of International counsel namely Sri Elihu Lauterpacht, James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver and Marcelo G Kohen. Hearing continues on Friday.
-------------------------------------------------------
Malaysia's Sovereignty Dispute Team Still Perky Despite Sleepless
Nor Faridah Abdul Rashid
THE HAGUE, Nov 21 (Bernama) -- "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
-------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2007
16:23 PM
Malaysian Team On Pulau Batu Puteh All Set For Final Round
Nor Faridah A. Rashid
THE HAGUE, Nov 21 (Bernama) -- Malaysia is all set for the final round of its oral arguments on the sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge before the International Court of Justice here (ICJ) on Thursday and Friday. Despite having to work until the wee hours of the morning, the Malaysian delegation is in high spirits and cheerful mood. The Malaysian legal team will reply to submissions put up by Singapore on Monday and Tuesday during the republic's second round of oral pleadings.
Singapore's first round of oral submissions was heard over four days on Nov 6-9 while Malaysia presented the first round of oral submissions from Nov 13 to 16. When Singapore closed its case on Tuesday, among other things, the republic argued that it had shown that in 1847, Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius (No Man's Land) and that from 1847 to 1851, Britain was in possession of the island without the consent of any native ruler. Singapore's agent, Tommy Koh, said Malaysia had argued that it had given permission to Britain for the construction of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh. However, he contended that Malaysia had not provided any evidence on such permission. He claimed that Malaysia had only relied on indirect inferences from letters which did not even mention Pulau Batu Puteh. Malaysia said that Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius and that Johor had had the original title to the island and the two marine features since time immemorial.
It said that Singapore was merely the administrator of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh and activities that have taken place there were just acts required by a lighthouse administrator. After Malaysia's final arguments, the court will adjourn the case before coming out with a decision, which is expected to be before June next year. The Malaysian delegation is headed by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Ambassador at Large, who is also the Prime Minister's Adviser on Foreign Affairs. He is Malaysia's agent for the case while Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian 5Ambassador to the Netherlands, is the co-agent Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail is also representing Malaysia together with Malaysia's team of international lawyers, namely Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and James Crawford, both professors in International Law at the Cambridge University; Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, professor of Public International Law, Leiden University; Marcelo G. Kohen, professor of International Law, the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva; and Penelope Nevill, college lecturer, Downing College, Cambridge University.
-- BERNAMA
No comments:
Post a Comment