Malaysia Not Giving up hope on Batu Puteh Yet

Malaysia not giving up hope on Batu Puteh yet


Posted by Super Admin
Sunday, 01 June 2008

Malaysia has renewed the search for evidence to stake its claim on Batu Puteh, whose sovereignty was deemed to be under Singapore by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said although the ruling by the ICJ at The Hague on May 23 was final and not subject to appeal, there was a specific provision in the court's rules that allowed for a judicial review of a case within 10 years if new evidence was adduced.

As such, he said he had directed Wisma Putra to try again to trace the ancient letter written by British Governor William T. Butterworth to the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor seeking permission to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Batu Puteh.

During the hearing, Malaysia had contended that it was on the basis of the consent of the Temenggong and Johor Sultan via a reply dated Nov 25, 1844 (this letter was produced to the ICJ) that Great Britain built and then operated the lighthouse on the island.

"If we can gain sight of that letter, the gate can be opened again. There is a maximum 10-year period but preferably it should be done within six years.
"The letter could be in London, the British being too good at archiving. We have searched with them but it has not been conclusively proven that they don't have it.

"Probably it is in Singapore. That would be a double jeopardy," Dr Rais said in an interview.

It is learnt that the initial search for the letter covered 40 institutions in 11 countries – Britain, India, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the Netherlands, Portugal, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia.
In 1994, Malaysia requested Singapore to furnish a copy of the governor's letter if it was in its possession but the republic did not respond.

Ambassador-at-large Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, who was Malaysia's agent at the ICJ hearing, had told the court that if the letter still existed, it was likely to be in Singapore's archives in the file named "Letters to Native Rulers" which Malaysia did not have access to.

Dr Rais explained that Malaysia could introduce a separate motion to the ICJ if the letter was found.

The ICJ awarded sovereignty of Batu Puteh to Singapore in a 12-4 decision, mainly on the basis that Malaysia had not done anything to invoke its rights on the island, which Singapore calls Pedra Branca, for over 100 years.

The ruling on Middle Rocks was 15-1 in Malaysia's favour. On the other disputed territory of South Ledge, the ICJ ruled that it belonged to the country in whose territorial waters the outcrop was located.
The ICJ's "split" decision brought to a close the 28-year-old territorial dispute between both countries. Singapore first laid claim to Batu Puteh through a diplomatic note protesting the inclusion of the island as part of Malaysia in a 1979 map.

Dr Rais, who heads the technical committee for Malaysia set up to determine the South Ledge issue, said Wisma Putra secretary-general Tan Sri Rastam Mohamed Isa had led a team of officials to the republic on Wednesday to get things going.

The minister said he agreed with views by law experts that the crucial thing for both countries to do now was to demarcate the waters in the area to avoid problems and confusion.

He said he would propose to Singapore that the waters off Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge be opened to fishermen from both countries and also Indonesia. - The Star

Jaguh Kampong

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha Maaf Hishamuddin Rais. Aku ikut ketawa bersama-sama dengan kamu. Bukan untuk perli Pet. Itu pasal antara kamu dan dia, aku tidak masuk pot, campur dan tolak. Aku ketawa terbahak-bahak kerana cadangan kamu dahulu Bahasa Melayu sahajalah yang akan dapat mengujudkan perpaduan di Malaysia tak dijawab dan mendapat sambutan. Adalah satu dua artikel yang menyokong dan kemudiannya senyap sepi tampa berita. Sebenarnya aku dok tunggu-tunggu juga hang tulis pasal bahasa tapi senyap juga. Hang lebih minat menulis pasal pertembungan ekonomilah yang melahirkan pertembungan-pertembungan yang lain. Itu hak engkau aku tak mahu komen dalam artikel ini kerana engkau dah mengelarkan diri sebagai NGI.

Aku ketawa terbahak-bahak, sehingga keluar air mata. Mula-mula aku ketawa dan ketawa kemudiannya entah mengapa, akhirnya aku tersedu pula dengan tersangat sedih dan pilu. Aku lihat penggunaan Bahasa Melayu ini macam kelakuan orang politik semasa pilihanraya. Mereka itu akan pakai baju lama dan kereta lama untuk menunjukkan kepada rakyat yang mereka itu tidak ada bezanya dengan rakyat biasa. Berjiwa rakyat. Pembela rakyat dan semua ayat-ayat yang sewaktu dengannya maaf pinjam kata-kata Mat Sabu. Apabila dah menang, maaflah baju pun berjenama, kereta jangan disebutlah jenisnya, rumah tersergam besar. Masa nak raih undi mereka masuk kampong menjadi rakyat biasa dan bercakap bahasa Melayu. Bahasa Jiwa Bangsa. Mereka mewajibkan diri bercakap dalam bahasa orang ramai boleh faham. Apabila dah menang, apabila dah terpilih, dah jadi Yang Berhormat. Mereka dah jadi elit. Mesti cakap Inggeris. Bahasa Melayu tak standart diucapkan pula.

Aku sebenarnya sangat suka bahkan memuji apabila mendengar mereka bercakap Inggeris semasa mereka pergi ke Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, Asean. Menjual kereta diluar negara. Menjual telefon di luar negara. Atau pun mereka bercakap bahasa Inggeris dengan Stesyen CNN, bertemubual dengan Al Jazeera. Aku sangat gumbira dan bangga kerana mereka itu telah menjadi manusia global. Oh maaf lagi sekali Glokal. Tapi aku sangat sedih dan marah.

Sekali lagi aku minta maaf, sebagai rakyat biasa aku tidak boleh marah, marah, cuba bawa bertenang. Sabar dan sabar. Di hadapan rakyat Malaysia yang sawo matang pun mereka gunakan bahasa Inggeris. Aku separuh marah dalam temubual dengan rakyat Malaysia yang bukan Melayu mereka biarkan diri mesti bercakap Bahasa Inggeris. Aku juga marah apabila ketua-ketua syarikat-syarikat Malaysia yang berbangsa Melayupun, apabila bercakap kepada kalayak ramai Malaysia mesti bercakap Inggeris. Awat orang Malaysia ini tak faham, sekiranya mereka bercakap bahasa Melayu. Hanya apabila mereka bercakap Bahasa Inggeris barulah rakyat Malaysia faham atau saham syarikat mereka boleh naik melonjak. Atau mereka dengan angkoh meneriakkan, mengistiharkan. Hey! Temubual ini bukan untuk rakyat Malaysia keseluruhannya tapi untuk golongan tertentu sahaja. “Bukan untuk awaklah”. Kamu bukan elitlah dan kurang pandailah kerana kamu kurang faham bahasa Inggeris.

Aku juga mengetahui ada sebuah syarikat Melayu yang mendapat kontrak kerajaan. Pengurusannya orang Melayu. Dalam mesyuarat dan kerja harian pekerja syarikat itu mestilah bercakap Bahasa Inggeris, surat mesyurat pun dalam bahasa Inggeris. Apabila mereka berurus dengan kerajaanpun yang pegawai kerajaan hampir 90 peratus lebih itu terdiri daripada orang Melayu, mereka masih gunakan dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Malangnya biarlah aku ketawa dahulu ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Pada kali ini keluar air mata juga. Bukan kerana sedih tapi kerana mereka itu semua jaguh kampong sahaja. Satu kontrak luar negarapun, habuk tak pernah dapat. Dalam negara mereka tunjuk mereka elit, pandai dan bergaya dengan berbahasa Inggeris. Dengan orang Melayu apatah lagi dengan bukan Melayu, mereka mesti bercakap Inggeris. Mereka gunakan Bahasa Inggeris untuk istiharkan yang mereka Glokal, bertaraf antarabangsa dan semua yang muluk-muluk itu. Habuk pun tarak. Untuk mendapat kontak luar negara, mereka hanya mimpi sahaja. Mereka hanya dapat peluang di Malaysia sahaja. Itu pun nasib dan nasib, diberi oleh Kerajaan UMNO yang hurufnya diringkaskan daripada bahasa Inggeris.

Ada juga sebuah syarikat kerajaan yang baru-baru ini diperbadankan. Sebelum diperbadankan daripada ketua No 1 sehingga pekerja yang paling bawah bercakap dan menulis dalam bahasa Melayu. Dalam sekelip mata, apabila diperbadankan, semua urusan dibuat dalam bahasa Inggeris. Itulah sedihnya. Mereka hanya bergerak dalam negara. Jadi Jagoh kampong. Hoi Jaguh Kampong. Jangan eksenlah.

Adoh, sakitnya fatwa munafik dan fasik

Adoh, sakitnya fatwa munafik dan fasik.

Bernama melaporkan:The Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (Abim) has called on the government to clarify the necessity for the Public Service Department (PSD) to increase the ratio of scholarships for non-Bumiputeras from 10 percent to 45 percent.Abim secretary-general, Khairul Arifin Mohd Munir, said in view that the education quota issue was closely related to provisions in the federal constitution like Articles 153(2) and 153(3) it was therefore necessary that Malaysians be given an explanation for the move.

Berikutan daripada berita Bernama itu, RPK membebel. Mengeluarkan fatwa munafik dan fasik. Habis dikerjanya yang UMNO dan ABIM itu munafik dan fasik.

Adoh sakitnya, RPK membedal lagi. Bukan sahaja ‘smash tajam’ bahkan ‘pukulan flat’. Siapa sahaja yang tidak mengamalkan “Amal makruf Nahi Mungkar’ ala RPK memerangi UMNO masuk dalam kandang munafik, fasik. Kah, kah kah. Sabar, sabar minta bersabar YM raja. Jangan mudah mengeluarkan fatwa.

Salahkah sekiranya seseorang individu atau organisasi bertanya mengapa dikurangkan atau dinaikkan biasiswa. Salahkah bertanya ? Sekiranya bertanya terus dituduh berserongkol dengan UMNO ? Berserongkol dengan munafik, hatta fasik ?. Woi hebat sungguh fatwa anak raja ni. Asas bagi manusia apabila nak memahami sesuatu perkara, lalu ia bertanya ? Jika bertanya pun tak boleh. Amal makruf nahi mungkar apa itu.

Sekiranya organisasi orang Melayu bertanya ia dituduh berserongkol dengan UMNO, berserongkol dengan perkauman. Tidak menjalankan nahi mungkar dan amal makruf, itu adalah logik yang salah.

Saya boleh faham masalah YM Raja dengan UMNO. Tapi dengan ABIM, YM ‘smash tajam’ itu saya kurang faham. ABIM bertanya biarlah pihak JPA yang menjawab. Yang YM menjawab itu munafik, itu fasik, mengapa ? Marah sungguh nampaknya. Mungkin YM Raja ada makluman yang kami tiada ?

Tak pakai pakaian secara Islam tak apa asal Amal Makruf nahi mungkar itu versi RPK. Buatlah. Tapi jika Raja minta orang lain masuk Islam secara sempurna Raja juga hendaklah masuk ke dalam Islam secara sempurna juga. Sekiranya orang lain tak sempurna, itu munafik. Kalau kita tidak sempurna tak apa. Sebab kita amalkan amal makruf nahi mungkar. Begitukah ?

Jangan-jangan apa yang PRK kata yang Najib itu di kontrol oleh Rosmah adalah manesfestasi daripada diri YM Raja sendiri yang dikontrol oleh isteri Chinanya sehingga apa sahaja yang bersangkutan dengan Melayu adalah perkauman. Nak tanya pun tak boleh. Biarlah, biarlah mereka bertanya. Salahkah sekiranya mereka bertanya ? Mengapa marah sangat sekiranya orang lain bertanya ?


Saya pun nak tahu juga rasional JPA. Sekira JPA memberi penerangan, saya boleh terima, saya akan terima, sekiranya tidak saya akan tolak dan minta JPA membaikinya. Itu juga hak saya. Hak itu bukan perkauman dan tidak juga mengenepikan hak orang lain. Hak asas saya ialah bertanya sekiranya saya tidak tahu.

Kedaulatan Pulau batu Putih : Kerangka Minda Di Sebalik Tuntutannya.

KEDAULATAN PULAU BATU PUTIH:Kerangka Minda Di sebalik Tuntutannya

Ruhanie Ahmad

Sejarah membuktikan Pulau Batu Putih – biar hanya sebesar padang bola - adalah milik Kesultanan Johor. Pulau ini adalah warisan bangsa Melayu di bumi Malaysia yang berdaulat dan merdeka.

Malangnya, pada 23 Mei 2008, kedaulatan pulau ini telah dengan rasminya dirampas daripada Malaysia dan diserahkan kepada Singapura berasaskan pelbagai fakta bukan sejarah.

Fakta-fakta inilah yang telah dihurai, dikupas, dipertikai dan diwarnakan di Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) mengikut citarasa segelintir kuasa neoimperialis tertentu yang berkepentingan terhadap kegunaan strategik pulau berkenaan di bawah Singapura.

Ini bermakna, kedaulatan Malaysia ke atas Pulau Batu Putih tidak akan tergadai jika fakta bukan sejarah tidak dijadikan asas utama tuntutan Singapura.

Ini bermakna, Singapura yang disifatkan sebagai sahabat Malaysia, jelas tidak menghormati fakta sejarah bila ia menuntut kedaulatan pulau tersebut.

Ini bermakna, ketulenan persahabatan Singapura terhadap Malaysia adalah sesuatu yang perlu sentiasa dikaji dan sentiasa dicurigai.

Ini juga bermakna, fakta sejarah tidak boleh dijadikan jaminan tunggal untuk Malaysia mempertahankan kedaulatan mana-mana wilayahnya yang berhampiran Singapura di hari muka.

Daripada hujah di atas, Singapura seolah-olah menuntut kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih berasaskan kerangka minda bahawa mana sahaja wilayah jiran tetangganya yang difikirkan strategik kepada survivalnya, boleh dituntut dan dijadikan miliknya, asalkan wujud undang-undang dan ruang perundangan yang boleh diheret hingga ke ICJ.

Kerangka minda seperti ini adalah manifestasi betapa rakus dan betapa terdesaknya pulau kecil ini untuk menguasai ruang dan bumi yang lebih besar dan luas di luar lingkungan kedaulatannya bagi menampung penduduknya yang dipercayai berkembang hingga 10 juta orang di hari mendatang.

Insaflah. Republik pulau ini adalah sekutu Israel dan Amerika Syarikat (AS) di Asia Tenggara. Lantas, mustahilkah jika Pulau Batu Putih suatu hari kelak ditukar menjadi satu kompleks ketenteraan yang canggih dan moden demi memenuhi kepentingan strategik dan kepentingan geopolitik sekutu-sekutunya di abad ke-21 di rantau ASEAN?

Kita mesti sentiasa tegas dan waspada. Kita juga mesti berani bersuara bahawa walau keputusan ICJ memang muktamad, ini tidak bermakna kita mesti merelakannya atau mesti tunduk kepada Singapura.

Hakikatnya, di bumi Malaysia kini masih terdapat pelbagai lagi kepentingan strategik Singapura, termasuklah beberapa loji takungan air di Johor.

Siapa boleh menjangka suatu hari nati, atas asas undang-undang, lokasi ini juga mungkin diheret ke ICJ supaya kedaulatannya diserahkan kepada Singapura?

Pertanyaan ini memang keterlaluan. Tetapi, tindakan Singapura menuntut kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih juga adalah sesuatu yang mustahil jika republik itu benar-benar tulen dalam merangka, memelihara dan menghargai persahabatannya dengan kita.

Jadi, tidakkah sikap “hati kering” negara itu perlu sentiasa dicurigai dan dicemburui sepanjang hayat? Atau, mestikah kita perlu adakan majlis jamuan makan durian dan golf bilateral pada setiap tahun dengan Singapura?

Perlukah ada lagi pembesar kita mengelirukan rakyat jelata dengan menyifatkan keputusan ICJ kononnya “kemenangan bersama” kepada Malaysia dan Singapura?

Perlukah Perdana Menteri kita meluahkan retorika diplomasi kononnya yang “menang pun tak menang semua” dan yang “kalah pun tak kalah semua” kerana “itulah keadilannya” dan “keadilan itu mestilah diakui’’?

Kenyataan seperti di atas hanya mencerminkan kedangkalan segelintir pembesar kita dalam mentafsirkan perkembangan geopolitik serantau dan global dalam konteks survival negara-bangsa di hari muka.

Kenapa tidak ramai pembesar kita yang berani bersuara seperti Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin yang menegur Singapura “supaya tidak angkuh dengan keputusan ICJ” itu.

Oleh itu, dalam kita kesedihan, wajarlah kita yakin bahawa Allah SWT memberikan kita kekalahan ini untuk menguji sejauh manakah kebijaksanaan kita mentafsirkan hikmah di sebalik kehilangan kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih.

Allah SWT juga memberikan kekalahan ini untuk menduga kepintaran kita menyedari dan menginsafi wilayah mana lagikah yang boleh dirampas kedaulatannya daripada kita oleh pihak asing di hari muka.

Dengan keinsafan seperti ini, pembesar kita perlu cerdas berfikir dan pantas bertindak. Seluruh kepentingan strategik Singapura di Johor perlu dikaji semula supaya tidak memungkinkan “pisang berbuah dua kali” dalam konteks kedaulatan negara.

Kajilah keseluruhannya secara teliti, tegas dan profesional. Auditlah keseluruhannya untuk memastikan tiada cacat celanya. Demi agama, bangsa dan negara, jangan kita beri muka kepada mana-mana pihak yang amat licik untuk bermuka-muka!

Sesudah itu, pastikanlah bahawa seluruh pemimpin kita adalah kelompok yang faham, sensitif, pintar dan mampu mentafsir kerangka minda Singapura terhadap Malaysia supaya kefahaman itu membolehkan kita sentiasa menentingkan kedaulatan negara dan maruh bangsa bila berurusan dengan republik berkenaan di hari muka.

THE PULAU BATU PUTEH CASE A STRATEGIC DISASTER FOR MALAYSIA

THE PULAU BATU PUTEH CASE A STRATEGIC DISASTER FOR MALAYSIA

by Matthias Chang
Singapore Got The MansionMalaysia Got Some Rocks Which Cannot
Be Used To Put Up Even A Kampong Hut YET RAIS YATIM SAYS,
“We won half and Singapore won half. So I Say it’s a win-win situation …”

A PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND WORDS AND THE PICTURE OF PULAU BATU PUTEH, MIDDLE ROCKS AND THE SOUTH LEDGE AT THE FRONT PAGE OF STAR NEWSPAPER 24.5.2008 SAYS IT ALL
Summary of Criticism

1) The Legal Team

I am a lawyer and had studied International Law for my Bar Exams in 1975 under the distinguished Professor Ian Brownlie C.B.E. Q.C. member of the English Bar, Chairman of the UN International Law Commission, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford, member of the Institut de droit international, Distinguished Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford.

Ian Brownlie is the “leader” of the foreign team advising the Singapore government. A brilliant choice!

(a) Foreign Component

The foreign component of the legal team of Malaysia and Singapore are internationally renowned experts in international law and I have no doubts that they discharged their responsibilities admirably. But tactically, the Singapore “foreign component” had a critical advantage in that Ian Brownlie is the Chairman of the UN International Law Commission, and Mr. Alain Pellet is a member and former Chairman of the UN International Law Commission. And Ian Brownlie is not just a brilliant Lawyer (Q.C.), he is also a lawyer who has a profound grasp of geo-political issues.

To dispel any misperceptions and misunderstanding, I am not suggesting that they can influence the ICJ judges, but having served in such a critical position, Ian Brownlie and Alain Pellet have the inside track on the current thinking and or the approach of the ICJ in such disputes. After all, the UN International Law Commission sets the direction and the development of international law. I am therefore not surprised that Singapore went the extra mile to secure their services – a brilliant strategic appointment.
This dispute is not a mere dispute of ownership and sovereignty over some patches of rocks etc. but a strategic battle for control of territorial waters and sea lanes.

(b) Local Component

Both countries for obvious reasons had Ministers to provide the political imput and the critical linkage to their respective Prime Ministers. But, it cannot be said of Abdullah Badawi, our Prime Minister that at all material times, he was “hands-on” in this strategic battle with Singapore – especially when he had conceded so many issues to Singapore (the bridge, airspace, the Iskandar project etc.).

Singapore had a battle-ready Commander-in-Chief, whereas Malaysia’s leader was sleeping and out of touch.

Once again, I must praise Singapore for their brilliant tactical move in having the Chief Justice Mr. Chan Sek Keong as part of the legal team. It reflects the seriousness and total commitment of Singapore to win this case at all costs!

Why was having the Chief Justice as part of the legal team another brilliant strategic appointment?
Simple!

A good advocate does not necessarily make a good judge. But a judge knows the inside workings of the judiciary and how consensus is established amongst judges in arriving at a decision. Therefore, in submitting on behalf of Singapore, the Chief Justice would know how to play to the strength and weaknesses of judges and would be able to offer critical advice to the rest of the team. The Judges of the International Court of Justice must have been impressed by the presence of the Chief Justice. I stand to be corrected, but this could be the first case in which a Chief Justice appeared before the Court. Even if I am wrong on this score, it can be said without fear of contradiction that it would be very rare for a Chief Justice to advance a case for his country.

My US$ Trillion dollar question is – Where was our Chief Justice when it was apparent that Singapore would be using all their “heavy” weapons?
Sad to say, our Judges, including the Chief Justice were all too busy fighting among themselves for the coveted top three jobs in the judiciary to be bothered about this mundane affair. It has no significance to them. I am not surprised that they took the attitude, “this has nothing to do with the judiciary, we judges hear cases, we do not partake in advocacy – even if the country’s strategic interests are at stake.”

We may dislike Singapore and disparage their system of administration, but there is one thing we must admit and learn – when they go to battle, any battle, anyone from the highest to the lowest can be and must be recruited if it serves to ensure victory. Should we be surprised that we keep on losing to Singapore?

The independence of the Malaysian Judiciary is meaningless, if at such critical juncture it is not able to play any role at all. Leadership is sorely lacking!

The Malaysian Bar Council is likewise irrelevant. It is so arrogant and conceited that it cannot see beyond its ugly nose. Like the judiciary, it is a den of vipers and its primary aim (as reflected by the conduct of past and present Chairman) is to promote it’s preferred slate of judicial candidates for higher office.

(c) The Research Component

If the research component is the same as the one that was assembled to do battle with Singapore on the Water Dispute, then I am not at all surprised that we lost this crucial battle to Singapore.

In both cases, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad was the point man.
The team that advised the then Prime Minister (which is almost the same team as the present one) took the view that Malaysia had a weak case. The Prime Minister was so disappointed in their collective attitude that he instructed me to embark on an independent research and to ensure that no stones were left unturned.

Working close to 18 hours a day for a week, I was able to compiled 14 volumes of critical documents (approximately 1,500 pages) and assembled a team of senior practicing lawyers. The critical document (and our nuclear weapon) was the letter written by none other than Mr. Lee Kuan Yew that no documents, notes, letters, memos etc. exchanged between Malaysia and Singapore will be binding as they were written on a “without prejudice” basis, and that unless and until a formal agreement has been signed by the respective Prime Ministers, nothing is deemed agreed!

When this crucial letter was brought to the attention of the said legal team (which they were not aware) they sheepishly conceded that Singapore had no case against Malaysia!

I do not know whether the team has learnt a lesson from that experience and that for this case, a more thorough effort was mounted. I certainly hope so. But I have my doubts, as Tan Sri Kadir Mohamad is still the point man. In fact, he was appointed by Abdullah Badawi as the “Adviser” and on my retirement as Political Secretary to the then Prime Minister, he moved in and occupied my then office.

2) The Legal Arguments

1) Introduction

For the purposes of this article which is written for the benefit of the public, I do not intend to provide an exhaustive analysis of the judgment of the International Court of Justice. But, I would like to highlight some salient points which will expose the perverse conclusions of the said court that “sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh passed to Singapore” as a result of events in the last eighty (80) years.

From the submissions of the respective parties and the judgment of the Court, it is clear that Malaysia and Singapore adopted the common strategy of having all or nothing in determining whether it has sovereignty over:

a) Pedra Branca /Pulau Batu Puteh
b) Middle Rocks
c) South Ledge

as they are “geographically linked”.

Pulau Batu Puteh is a granite island measuring 137 m long, with an average width of 60 m and covering an area of about 8,560 sq m at low tide. It is situated at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore, at the point where the latter open up into the South China Sea. Pulau Batu Puteh is located at 1º 19’ 48” N and 104º 24’ 27” E. It lies approximately 24 nautical miles to the east of Singapore, 7.7 nautical miles to the south of the Malaysian state of Johor and 7.6 nautical miles to the north of the Indonesian island of Bintan.

On the island stands Horsburgh Lighthouse which was erected in the middle of the 19th century.

Middle Rocks and South Ledge are the two maritime features closest to Pulau Batu Puteh. Middle Rock is located 0.6 nautical miles to the south and consists of two clusters of small rocks about 250 m apart that are permanently above water and stand 0.6 to 1.2 m high. South Ledge, at 2.2 nautical miles to the south-south-west of Palau Batu Puteh is a rock formation only visible at low tide.

I trust that you will now agree that Singapore was given “the mansion, while Malaysia was given some rocks which stand only 0.6 to 1.w2 m high”! In short, Malaysia was given crumbs to save face! But our current Foreign Minister says that it is a win-win situation.
How stupid and ridiculous can one get? Freaking a#@hole!

2) Applying Imperialist’s Logic

a) Ownership by Sultanate of Johor
After reviewing the history of the Johor Sultanate and the Dutch and British rivalry for control of South East Asia and the insidious role of the East India Company as an instrument for colonial conquest and occupation, the Court concluded:

“The territorial domain of the sultanate of Johor covered in principle all the islands and islets within the Straits of Singapore, including the island of Pulau Batu Puteh. It finds that this possession of the islands by the Sultanate was never challenged by any other power in the region and can in all circumstances be seen as satisfying the condition of ‘continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty. The Court thus concludes that the Sultanate of Johor had original title to Pulau batu Puteh.”

The Court then reviewed the Imperialist Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 wherein the two colonial powers divided South-East Asia into two separate spheres of influence. The argument by Singapore that by this time the islands in the Straits of Singapore (including Pulau Batu Puteh) were terrae nullius and therefore subject to appropriation through “lawful occupation” was rejected by the Court. The Court concluded that notwithstanding the aforesaid Treaty:

“that as of the time when the British started their preparations for the construction of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844, this island was under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor.”

b) The 21st September 1953 Letter

On 12th June 1953, the Colonial Secretary of Singapore wrote to the British Adviser to the Sultan of Johor on the status of the island. We know that at the material time, British Advisers had tremendous influence. Why was there such an enquiry when it was very clear that the Sultan had ownership and sovereignty over the island at all material times? The British using this subterfuge must have been preparing the ground for a letter to be issued disclaiming sovereignty over the island. In a letter dated 21st September 1953, the Acting State Secretary replied that “the Johore Government did not claim ownership of Pedra Branca.”

Surely, if the Sultan was indeed disclaiming ownership and sovereignty to the island, any reference would be that of Pulau Batu Puteh as the island was known as such to the Sultanate. The fact that the letter used the Portuguese name of Pedra Branca is evidence that the British contrived to issue this letter. The letter did not say that it was the Sultan that was disclaiming sovereignty. It was the Johor government, which was under British control. Thus we had a situation whereby a British administration in Singapore was writing to another British administration in Johor as to the status of an island belonging to the Sultan and by a stroke of a pen, hijacked the island for their own strategic use.

The Court, applying Imperialist logic dismisses Malaysia’s contention that “the Acting State Secretary was definitely not authorized and did not have the legal capacity to write the 1953 letter, or to renounce, disclaim, or confirm title of any part of the territories of Johor.”

The Court applying bizarre logic then concluded:

“In the light of Johor’s reply, the authorities in Singapore had no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom had sovereignty over the island.”
This is perverse Imperialist logic! Why should the Sultan for no rhyme or reason and out of the blues disclaim or renounce sovereignty over the island? This the Court never explained.

It is abundantly clear that the ICJ used this letter as the main basis (giving its historical context) for their majority decision that sovereignty passed to Singapore. The other secondary reasons (issue of maps) relied on by the Court which of itself are never ever sufficient and or conclusive to support a claim for sovereignty as they can refuted by other countervailing documents.

I am fortified in my view as one of the judges, though agreeing with the majority opinion that Singapore has sovereignty over the island observed that the Court failed to appreciate impact and consequences that at the material time when the letter of 1953 was issued, the Sultan of Johor was under the “colonial control” of the British Colonial administration. I quote:
“While relations between sovereign colonial Powers fell within the ambit of international law, it is difficult to argue that dealings between the United kingdom and the Sultanate of Johor were based on relations between sovereign, equal subjects of international law. Thus, the sovereignty acknowledged to indigenous authorities was inoperative vis-à-vis colonial Powers, the authorities’ sole obligation being to submit to the will of the powers. Under these circumstances, the Sultan of Johor could not broach the slightest opposition to a decision by the British.”
Judge Parra-Aranguren was more devastating in his dissenting opinion and considered that “the findings made by the Court in the judgment demonstrate that judicial reason can always be found to support any conclusion.”

This is indeed a grievous indictment as to the integrity of the judgment and the judges that formed the majority opinion. I believe that this may be the first time that a fellow judge has questioned in such a dramatic way the integrity of the judgment of his fellow judges.

I wonder whether the Malaysian Bar and its Chairman, Ambiga has the courage of its convictions to expose this perverse judgment. In his dissenting judgment, Justice Parra-Aranguren supported my contention that the Court applied imperialist logic with regard to the effect and implications of the 21st September 1953 letter.

Additionally, the said judge exposed the fact that the conclusions offered by the majority opinion contradicts and are in conflict with their own findings of fact. For example, the bulk of activities of alleged “Singapore control” over the island was post 1953 and that both parties had agreed and the Court found that 1980 was the critical date for the purposes of the dispute as to sovereignty over the island.

Therefore, Singapore was only “actively involved” in the island for about 20 odd years. Yet, in an earlier decision in 2002, the Court handed down a judgment that a period of 20 years of activity is “far too short” a period to establish sovereignty [case: Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, ICJ Reports 2002, page 352]

Such activities cannot in law undermine historical title, which title was acknowledged as having being with the Sultan of Johor. There is the added confusion in the said judgment [para 222] in that the Court expressly acknowledges that “ownership is in principle distinct from sovereignty.”
This is where I believe the Malaysian team screwed up big time. The judge observed that at all material times, the Sultanate of Johor used the term “ownership” and not “sovereignty”.

The judge also observed that there have been a few instances where in international litigation, “ownership” over territory has sometimes been used as “equivalent to sovereignty”. Be that as it may, the fact remains, that “ownership” and “sovereignty” are two distinct and separate concepts!

Conclusions

This article written for the public cannot encompass the entire legal arguments in support of my contention that the judgment of the ICJ is perverse.

There are urgent lessons to be learnt from this case. But I am not hopeful that Malaysia will more vigilant in protecting itself from predator states like Singapore from hijacking our lands.

This case seems to rest on the same principles in which Israel was founded. The myth and propaganda [specifically by Golda Meir] for the creation of Israel in Palestine was that Palestine was a land without any people, and that the Jews were people without a land.
Therefore, it was right and proper to take the land away from the Palestinians.

Singapore do not have enough land for its people. It has attempted to reclaim land even on the island of Pulau Batu Puteh, besides the use of the strategic lighthouse. Singapore claims that Johor has no sovereignty over the island. Therefore, the island belongs to Singapore.

This is Zionist fascist logic.

Matthias Chang
24th May 2008
Kuala Lumpur