Singapore acted more like lighthouse operator, says KL

Other activities on disputed island unrelated to sovereignty, it says

The Straits Times, November 16, 2007
By Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent


MAKING THEIR CASE: In court are Sir Elihu (standing) and (from left) Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Malaysia's Attorney-General, Malaysia's Ambassador to the Netherlands Noor Farida Ariffin and Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Foreign Affairs Adviser to the Prime Minister.





THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - MALAYSIA yesterday sought to portray all that Britain and Singapore did on Pedra Branca in the last 150years as actions of a lighthouse operator, not a state exercising sovereignty over the island.

As for those activities it could not link to Horsburgh Lighthouse on the disputed island, Malaysia charged that some of those had been carried out in secret, making it impossible for it to protest against them.

The others were unrelated to sovereignty, it said on the third day of its oral pleadings.

That was how two of Malaysia's international counsel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Professor James Crawford, sought to dismiss all the evidence Singapore had brought before the court to show it had exercised sovereignty over the island for more than 150 years.

Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the International Court of Justice 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.

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

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

Singapore disputes that.

It 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 the Horsburgh Lighthouse there.

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

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

Among the many examples that Singapore cited as proof of its sovereignty were its naval patrols in the waters around Pedra Branca, and its control of access to the island.

Yesterday, Prof Crawford sought to rebut these two examples.

He claimed the Malaysian navy had also patrolled the waters around Pedra Branca but produced no evidence.

He also referred to a 1974 incident cited by Singapore, in which Malaysians wishing to visit Pedra Branca sought permission to do so from the Singapore authorities.

He said they had asked for permission to stay at the lighthouse, not visit the island.

Prof Crawford told the court that before 1979, when the dispute over the island first arose, Singapore had not published a single map showing Pedra Branca as part of its territory.

The dispute arose in 1979 when Malaysia published a map that showed, for the first time, that Pedra Branca lay within its territorial waters.

But last week, Singapore pointed out that before 1979, Malaysia had also not published any map showing Pedra Branca as part of its territory.

It also highlighted to the court six maps the Malaysian government had published between 1962 and 1975, which showed Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.

Yesterday, Sir Elihu also sought to rebut Singapore's argument that Johor had formally disclaimed sovereignty to Pedra Branca in a 1953 letter to the British authorities.

In that letter, Johor's then-top civil servant wrote that 'the Johor government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca'.

Sir Elihu said ownership was a 'private-law concept' relating to the lighthouse, which was property that the British owned.

It did not mean the same thing as sovereignty, which was a concept of international law and referred to territory, he argued.

He also sought to brush aside the differences that Singapore highlighted between Pedra Branca and Pulau Pisang.

Singapore claims sovereignty over Pedra Branca but recognises Pulau Pisang as part of Malaysia.

It operates a lighthouse on Pulau Pisang with the agreement of the Malaysian government.

Singapore pointed out that in the case of Pulau Pisang, there was a written agreement between Johor and Britain for the latter to operate the lighthouse on the island.

In Pedra Branca's case, there was no such agreement.

In 1968, Malaysia also told Singapore to stop flying its marine ensign over Pulau Pisang, but it never did so for Pedra Branca.

A marine ensign is a flag flown over maritime features, and each country has its own.

Yesterday, Sir Elihu said those differences were due to Pedra Branca being far smaller than Pulau Pisang.

There was therefore no need for an agreement on the running of its lighthouse, nor was there a need for Malaysia to make a fuss over the flying of Singapore's marine ensign over it.

Malaysia will wrap up its first round or oral pleadings today.