Hi all! Just like to share with you the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) decision and it's implications on Malaysia.
ICJ's Judgment
By 12-4 majority, Pedra Banca / Batu Puteh (BP) belongs to Singapore for the following reasons:
By 15-1 majority, South Ledge belongs to the state in the territorial waters which it is located.
Implications on Malaysia
Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad said they had in possession the reply from the Johor Sultan granting approval dated 1884 (which had already been presented to the ICJ). His quest for a letter said to be from the British governor on Butterworth to the Johor Temeggong seeking permission to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Batu Puteh is futile.
As per ICJ's judgment, the crucial turning point was the acting State Secretary of Johor letter dated 21 September 1953 stating that the Johor government did not claim ownership of BP and the conducts of Singapre and Malaysia regarding BP. Any letters before that date is just not relevant and would not satisfy a review under Article 61 of the ICJ Statutes.
DAP Chairman Karpal Singh questioned how BP could be awarded to Singapore when it was much nearer to the tip of Johor (14.3km) compared with Singapore (46.3km). He also expressed doubts on whether the Government has taken proper legal advice as the matter should not be brought to the ICJ unless it was confident of a win and this decision may lead to maritime disputes between both countries.
This distance issue did cross my mind and how could Malaysia did nothing for a whole century when another state is conducting various activities on her land. Well, the only explanation I could think of is what Huzir Sulaiman's article in the STAR dated 1 June 2008 stated. In summary he said that in Southeast Asia, the traditional state is not defined by the boundaries of the land but by the control of the people. There was a lack of concern over land and a great concern over the allegiance of the people. Therefore, I would have accepted ICJ's rulingif it was made say in during archaic times, but what what did the Malaysian government do after the crucial 2 September 1953 letter? NOTHING! Why? There were no people to govern on BP, it not occupied, so why bother. We could have won this case hands down if we had just monitored Singapore’s activities on the island and well….not made a blunder about the maps. So, any hope for us taking back BP? Don’t put your Ringgit on it.
Do we have any chance in getting South Ledge? Are we in risk of losing Pulau Pisang and Merambong?
Well, if you see, South Ledge is further south than Middle Rocks (belongs to Malaysia) and Middle Rocks is further south than BP ( belongs to Singapore). In fact South Ledge is just 7.6 nautica miles from Pulau Bintan (belongs to Indonesia). So, reading the ICJ's judgment, our chances of getting South Ledge is pretty slim, I think it would be a tossle betweeen Singapore and Indonesia. And the "Technical Committee" has not come up with anything tangible yet.
Pulau Pisang? Well Malaysia has asked the Singaporean government to take down their flag from the lighthouse that they have been maintaining. What I would do? Take over the lighthouse, how difficult is it to maintain a building with lights?
Pulau Merembong? Well the Singaporean navy has been constantly harrassing the Malaysian firsherman according Datuk Aziz Sapian. Pulau Merembong is closer to Singapore than Malaysia but according to Aziz, this is because of the land reclaimation by the Singapore government at Tuas. What I would do? I would question the Malaysian Marine Police on why they are not protecting our borders? Or they themselves do not know Malaysia's own maritime territories?
ICJ's Judgment
By 12-4 majority, Pedra Banca / Batu Puteh (BP) belongs to Singapore for the following reasons:
- Historical events prior to 1953 shows that BP clearly belongs to the Johor Sultanate from time immemorial.
- The Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 determined the sphere of influence between Britain and the Netherlands and the Johor empire was divided into two: the new Johor empire (which include PBP) and the Riau-Lingga Sulanate.
- Britain and subsequently Singapore conducted activities on BP.
- On 12 June 1953, the Colonial Secretary of Singapore had written a letter to the British Adviser to the Johor Sultan asking information about BP.
- On 21 September 1953, the acting State Secretary of Johor replied that the Johor government did not claim ownership of BP.
- ICJ finds the letter of denial binding as it was an undertaking from Johor that she would not claim ownership of BP.
- After 1953, Malaysia did not undertake any activities compared to Singapore.
- ICJ finds acts of sovereignty by Singapore after 1953, i.e. investigation of marine accidents, control over visits, installation of naval communication equipment and reclamation plans.
- The Johor government and their successors took no action at all on BP from June 1850 for the whole of the following century or more.
- Malaysian maps between 1962 and 1975 which depicted BP belonged to Singapore stands as a geographical fact, especially when Malaysia has itself produced and disseminated it, even against Malaysia's own interests.
- ICJ concludes that by 1980 sovereignty has passed over to Singapore because the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors acts consistent with sovereignty, taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors includinh their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors.
By 15-1 majority, South Ledge belongs to the state in the territorial waters which it is located.
Implications on Malaysia
- The decision is binding and not subject to appeal in accordance with the Special Agreement signed by Malaysia's and Singapore's Foreign Ministers on 6 February 2003, by Article 60 of the ICJ Statutes and by Article 94 of the United Nations Charter.
- However, Article 61 of the ICJ Statutes states that if there is a discovery of facts that could be a deciding factor when judgment was made, and it was not known to the ICJ, apllication for review could be made. The condition is that the missing facts is not due to negligence and the party seeking the review must not know the facts at that time. Application must be made 6 months from the discovery of facts and 10 years from the judgment date.
- Singapore's entitlement to territorial sea or maritime zones (Exclusive Economic Zone) around BP would be governed by the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS).
Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad said they had in possession the reply from the Johor Sultan granting approval dated 1884 (which had already been presented to the ICJ). His quest for a letter said to be from the British governor on Butterworth to the Johor Temeggong seeking permission to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Batu Puteh is futile.
As per ICJ's judgment, the crucial turning point was the acting State Secretary of Johor letter dated 21 September 1953 stating that the Johor government did not claim ownership of BP and the conducts of Singapre and Malaysia regarding BP. Any letters before that date is just not relevant and would not satisfy a review under Article 61 of the ICJ Statutes.
DAP Chairman Karpal Singh questioned how BP could be awarded to Singapore when it was much nearer to the tip of Johor (14.3km) compared with Singapore (46.3km). He also expressed doubts on whether the Government has taken proper legal advice as the matter should not be brought to the ICJ unless it was confident of a win and this decision may lead to maritime disputes between both countries.
This distance issue did cross my mind and how could Malaysia did nothing for a whole century when another state is conducting various activities on her land. Well, the only explanation I could think of is what Huzir Sulaiman's article in the STAR dated 1 June 2008 stated. In summary he said that in Southeast Asia, the traditional state is not defined by the boundaries of the land but by the control of the people. There was a lack of concern over land and a great concern over the allegiance of the people. Therefore, I would have accepted ICJ's rulingif it was made say in during archaic times, but what what did the Malaysian government do after the crucial 2 September 1953 letter? NOTHING! Why? There were no people to govern on BP, it not occupied, so why bother. We could have won this case hands down if we had just monitored Singapore’s activities on the island and well….not made a blunder about the maps. So, any hope for us taking back BP? Don’t put your Ringgit on it.
Do we have any chance in getting South Ledge? Are we in risk of losing Pulau Pisang and Merambong?
Well, if you see, South Ledge is further south than Middle Rocks (belongs to Malaysia) and Middle Rocks is further south than BP ( belongs to Singapore). In fact South Ledge is just 7.6 nautica miles from Pulau Bintan (belongs to Indonesia). So, reading the ICJ's judgment, our chances of getting South Ledge is pretty slim, I think it would be a tossle betweeen Singapore and Indonesia. And the "Technical Committee" has not come up with anything tangible yet.
Pulau Pisang? Well Malaysia has asked the Singaporean government to take down their flag from the lighthouse that they have been maintaining. What I would do? Take over the lighthouse, how difficult is it to maintain a building with lights?
Pulau Merembong? Well the Singaporean navy has been constantly harrassing the Malaysian firsherman according Datuk Aziz Sapian. Pulau Merembong is closer to Singapore than Malaysia but according to Aziz, this is because of the land reclaimation by the Singapore government at Tuas. What I would do? I would question the Malaysian Marine Police on why they are not protecting our borders? Or they themselves do not know Malaysia's own maritime territories?
No comments:
Post a Comment