Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
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. .
==========================
After 6 Nov 07........Singapore may find that its area had shrunk......just like 50 years ago when we lost Christmas Island to Australia......
.........er........sorry.....when we sold it to Australia...... -
I would be very surprise if sg lost because i believe MY win over Indo on the ground of inhabitant. -
Malaysian Foreign Minister very confident Malaysia will win the Island......
Singapore become smaller.......
-
We all could complaint alot about S'pore Govt..... but we all know that they don't play play when it comes to International Laws...... the Govt wouldn't have dare to bring up this case to the UN if they are unsure about winning.
As of Malaysia Govt saying they have a good case...... Everyone before the Judgement is passed, will always said they are correct, right, or have a good chance......
-
Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Puteh? Pedra Branca lor !
Want to claim a rocky outcrop? Why not claim Singapore? Singapore was once a part of Johor Sultanate until it was sold to Stamford Raffles.
When did Malaysia came into being? Only after it was granted independence by the British colonialists. If Pedra Branca was to be part of Malaysia, the British would have said so! Since, it was silence on this and also when Singapore got kick out of Malaysia, then it should remained silent!
Technically, Pedra Branca is still a British colony! The British colonial government built the Horsburg lighthouse there, and since 1840 the white stone was administered by Singapore. By extension, it should remained being administered by Singapore.
I am confident the ICJ's verdict would be favourable to Singapore. Merdeka! Mallulah! -
clap clap, well said. Majullah Singapura!Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Puteh? Pedra Branca lor !
Want to claim a rocky outcrop? Why not claim Singapore? Singapore was once a part of Johor Sultanate until it was sold to Stamford Raffles.
When did Malaysia came into being? Only after it was granted independence by the British colonialists. If Pedra Branca was to be part of Malaysia, the British would have said so! Since, it was silence on this and also when Singapore got kick out of Malaysia, then it should remained silent!
Technically, Pedra Branca is still a British colony! The British colonial government built the Horsburg lighthouse there, and since 1840 the white stone was administered by Singapore. By extension, it should remained being administered by Singapore.
I am confident the ICJ's verdict would be favourable to Singapore. Merdeka! Mallulah! -
There are two ways of looking at it.
One, Singapore has been administering the islands since 1851, and up to 1979 there was no claim on it by Malaysia, or even the Federation of Malaya. When Singapore became independent in 1963, there was no challenge to the boundries of the new nation. Therefore Singapore would be granted the right of possession.
The other, the island is part of the Federation of Malaya, belonging to the State of Johore. The island has never been part of any negotiations between the British authorities and the Malay sultans. Therefore it is still the property of the State of Johore.
Lets see what the ICJ says. -
If Singapore lose........will PM Lee and company resign.....commit hara kiri......?
Will SAF mobilise?
Will SPF give up its base on the Island?
Or kuai kuai give up island?..........after that., each time RSN wants to go to South China Sea must ask for permission to pass Malaysian waters?
If Malaysia lose.....will Singaporeans going to JB be attacked by parang?
Will your car get scrached? -
Nothing will happen lah..... even after that half-bridge thingy, did anyone see a Malaysia TANK come near the causewayOriginally posted by Dr Who:If Singapore lose........will PM Lee and company resign.....commit hara kiri......?
Will SAF mobilise?
Will SPF give up its base on the Island?
Or kuai kuai give up island?..........after that., each time RSN wants to go to South China Sea must ask for permission to pass Malaysian waters?
If Malaysia lose.....will Singaporeans going to JB be attacked by parang?
Will your car get scrached?
Or when we could still reclaim land at tekong..... anyone malaysia Airforce aircraft flys into S'pore airspace
Parang attack & car get scrached is a daily affair when S'pore Cars enter JB. -
Pulau Pisang - where Singapore runs a lighthouse, but cannot fly Singapore flag
===============
Professor S Jayakumar said- "Let me say upfront Pulau Pisang belongs to Malaysia. We have never disputed Malaysia''s sovereignity over Pulau Pisang but our MPA however has a right to operate the lighthouse there and the plot of land as well as the road leading to lighthouse has been granted in perpetuaty so long as Singapore operates that lighthouse. It's in an indenture between Johor Sultanate and the Straits Settlements in 1900; so Pulau Pisang we never contested the sovereignty.
In 1968, the Malaysians objected that we fly our flag at Pulau Pisang and we took it down ........
from : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/parliament/relations/special4.htm
Maybe one day we also cannot fly singapore flag on ktm railroad land and railway station....... -
hah, this is interesting .... don't you think everytime you enter the T. Pagar station, you have to use passport? Or when you cross the railroad say in B. Timah, Clementi, Ulu Pandan, you have to show some damn invisible immigration officer your passport?Originally posted by Dr Who:Maybe one day we also cannot fly singapore flag on ktm railroad land and railway station....... -
S'pore rebuts KL's claim of historical ownership
Hearing opens with the Republic presenting evidence to show it has performed acts of state authority consistently over disputed islet
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.
[email protected]
MORE REPORTS, HOME H8
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
Malaysia has no evidence to back up claim'
Quoting from historians, S'pore lawyers debunk its claim to ownership dating back to the 16th century
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.
[email protected]
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
Malaysia's 130-year silence 'speaks volumes'
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home
November 7, 2007
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 LIM
-----------------------------
What the case is about
A DISPUTE between Singapore and Malaysia over sovereignty over Pedra Branca and two outcrops - the Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Pedra Branca, which the Malaysians call Pulau Batu Puteh, is an islet the size of a football field located some 40km east of Singapore.
It stands strategically at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait, through which some 900 ships pass each day.
Singapore has exercised sovereignty over the islet since the 1840s when the British colonial government built the Horsburgh lighthouse there.
But in 1979, Malaysia staked a claim on the islet when it published a new map of its territories.
In 2003, the two countries signed a Special Agreement referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice.
Legal teams from both sides will appear before the court over three weeks to make their oral arguments. A judgment is expected next year.
WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY
THE hearing opened with Singapore presenting its case first. Its arguments centred on the point that Malaysia has no evidence that Pedra Branca was ever part of the Johor sultanate, as it claims.
In contrast, Singapore has carried out many activities that showed it has all along considered the islet to be part of its territory.
Singapore will continue presenting its arguments until Friday.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
I can't bother to read all of the articles, but to me, as a Malaysian, Pedra Branca is Singapore's.
It's like giving your child to someone for hundreds of years and suddenly, you come out of nowhere and try to claim your so-called rights. No way. If Malaysia really owns Pedra Branca, Malaysia should've took care of it for the past hundred of years. -
Why don't someone just blow up the rocks? Solve ALL the problems.
-
If - only - it was given away from the beginning, one can still lay claim to one's past relationship.Originally posted by aku1b0d0:I can't bother to read all of the articles, but to me, as a Malaysian, Pedra Branca is Singapore's.
It's like giving your child to someone for hundreds of years and suddenly, you come out of nowhere and try to claim your so-called rights. No way. If Malaysia really owns Pedra Branca, Malaysia should've took care of it for the past hundred of years.
Unfortunately, that piece of rock was never given away.
Historical records that date back to the early 1800s, revealed the British Colonial Government laid claim on an uninhabited piece of rock without asking anyone's permission; and the Colonial Government subsequently expanded the rocky outcrop to accomodate a light house in 1844 - also without asking for anyone's approval except from the British political administrators.
Could a small piece of exposed rock even be inhabited by pirates or fishermen, when it does not provide any form of shelter, and almost uninhabitable ?
The light house was built on this rocky outcrop as it presented a danger to shipping that sail into the Straits of Singapore, and was intended to provide a navigational reference point for all vessels that sail towards Singapore.
Even during the 1800s, the Dutch Colonial Government in Indonesia had also given recognition to the British claim to the claim to this piece of rock.
The amazing part of modern history has it that even when Singapore was evicted from Malaysia on the evening of 8 August 1965, the map of Malaysia was updated and had freely allowed this piece of rock to be included as part of Singapore territory - as a natural progression and transition of history that transpired from the British Colonial Government administration of this rocky island when governing Singapore as a Colony.
Subsequent official release of new maps had continued with this rock being included as being part of Singapore's territory, and remained so till the Mahathir Government in 1979 felt it was useful to create a point of dispute - so as to increase more issues that can be exchanged for other negotiated benefits.
Was this outcrop ever given to Singapore - or to the British - by any rulers in the old Malaya, or the modern Malaysia in any treaty or written understanding ?
The dispute is almost similar to the claim of Argentina on the British Falkland Islands, which led to the Falkland War in 1982. -
If Singapore loses and is ordered to hand over the island,can we first blow up the lighthouse and all on the island(leaving nothing standing)?
-
IF WAR IS INEVITABLE
I WILL DEFEND SG WITH MY RIFLE AND MY BUDDY AND ME!
SAF WILL TAKEN DOWN THE ENEMIES SWIFTLY AND DECISIVELY!
THE REASON WHY OUR ENEMIES FEAR THE DARKNESS IF BECAUSE WE WILL TAKE THEM DOWN WITH OUR M16S AND SAR21S!
TONIGHT WE DINE IN
THE COOK HOUSE! -
Hey Kid,u watched too many time 300,is it?Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:IF WAR IS INEVITABLE
I WILL DEFEND SG WITH MY RIFLE AND MY BUDDY AND ME!
SAF WILL TAKEN DOWN THE ENEMIES SWIFTLY AND DECISIVELY!
THE REASON WHY OUR ENEMIES FEAR THE DARKNESS IF BECAUSE WE WILL TAKE THEM DOWN WITH OUR M16S AND SAR21S!
TONIGHT WE DINE IN
THE COOK HOUSE! -
Just a wild thought..U think if MY win they could try to ask for control of Singapore as well?
-
My sentiments... except that we nid to include the destroying of the island. If we can't have it, no one can.Originally posted by ceecookie:If Singapore loses and is ordered to hand over the island,can we first blow up the lighthouse and all on the island(leaving nothing standing)?
-
If we lose,maybe we can test our first nuclear bomb thereOriginally posted by wonderamazement:My sentiments... except that we nid to include the destroying of the island. If we can't have it, no one can. -
why you all so biased?
never read Malaysia's side of the story? any articles from NST? -
Malaysia will present their side of the story next week, this week is Singapore's time to presentOriginally posted by Icemoon:why you all so biased?
never read Malaysia's side of the story? any articles from NST?