Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
continuation from previous page...
No, the Malaysian have not been offensive in the tone or the language used, and as I have constantly indicated - I am decidedly concern with the manner that they are not being transparent and complete in reporting events as it progress.How did you come to this state of mind in concluding from my postings that domestic crowd will be roused into a rabid frenzy ?
If at all, my concern is that WITHOUT any objective and detailed reporting of the proceedings at the ICJ, any outcome that may NOT benefit the side with the least information - may actually result in this state of frenzy that you are now describing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree... It really depends on the level of maturity of the politician and the public. The reason why I feel that no reporting could be good news is because I totally do not trust them to not make a big deal every time we sneeze.
If anything at all, I feel that it is TOO easy to inflame them, whether there's information available or not.
If the intention is to calm sentiments, then no news is good news.
In any case, no verdict will be forthcoming for another 6 to 9 mths. Thats an eternity in politics.
The brutal truth be told, it doesn't matter what's reported now. It can still be skewed later. [/quote]
I presume you are writing about the Malaysian side ?
As humans, the Malaysians are no different from Singaporeans - at least they are not from Mars.
The only difference is in the politics, and the fact that the Malaysian Malays prefer to practise politics with a racial flavor.
As far as maturity is concerned, politics seems to take center stage until someone with a level head step up in the form of their present PM.With both governments having stated publicly to their own citizens that the matter be placed before the ICJ, and that its decision will be final with no further recourse to appeal - it is only right that any news reporting should not be selectively printed and done with a twist at ridiculing or belittling the statements made by either side.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, so far, I do not find the reports on the Malaysian side to be offensive. Selective and sparse, yes. But not offfensive.
As also mentioned earlier, the population on both sides are living in the FAST FOOD Age and depend on reliable, concise and complete information from the printed and broadcast mediums.
[quote]The Singapore Straits Times have so far done a proper job at reporting the details of the daily proceedings at the Hague, lets see if they will do the same for Malaysia during the course of their presentation made this week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To hazard a guess, I think the Malaysian side will start to pick it up, but coverage will not be extensive. They have a lot to report in recent weeks
The rock is low on their list of priorities.
From my sense of the situation, I think the Malaysia is bogged down with domestic concerns. In theory, its the perfect time to slam us to distract their people from the real problem, but they have not done so.
Mahathir would have done so if he was still PM
The question is: Why have they not yet done so IF it was their intention to do so all along?
Dare we hope for a more mature phase in SG-MY relations?
The Malaysian is not exactly bogged down with any major issues that prevent them from giving sufficient interest to the present ICJ proceedings.
The recent UMNO Annual Meeting has seen a remarkable toning down of the racist outburst from the very public speeches by over enthusiastic speakers, and this was due very much to PM Badawi's firm hand to prevent these speakers from antagonising the other component political parties in Barisan Nasional.
The upcoming elections is not expected till at least March 2008 - unless a snap election is called during the next two months.
The economy is zipping along satisfactorily, with oil revenues riding the current high prices.
Is there any reason for the media not to be more transparent and informative to the Malaysian population ?
Is the current lack of publicity due to their belief that their case is based on very flimsy historical foundation based on oral history that were recorded by others, and with important documents thought to exist in the Singapore Official Archives controlled by the Singapore Government ?
To be generous to the Malaysian, perhaps it is PM Badawi's preferred way not to stoke up the issue to a higher profile, to prevent the Opposition and other renegade political maverick from hijacking the publicity to themselves.
Since PM Badawi stepped into the driver's seat, the tone of the relationship between Malaysia and Singapore has taken on a bright hue of rainbow colors, and this is very much due to his own nature as a true believer in the complete teachings of Islam.
If you were to note the important political speeches he has made to his home audience - it has always been to project the positive teachings from Islam, even on the international stage as the leader of the OIC, the message remained the same.
The wild card Foreign Minister Syed Albar in Mahathir's cabinet - has shown a remarkable improvement in his personal behaviour, political attitude and rhetoric towards Singapore.
I can only attribute these remarkable U-Turn changes to the able leadership of PM Badawi - reflecting himself as a true Muslim by his personal behavior.
{NB - This response was posted late as the system seems to have crashed since after SGP Time 05.00hrs of this Wednesday morning }
As matters stand now, in this Wednesday edition of the local Straits Times - it has given less space to the Malaysian presentation. However, to its credit it has not attempted to present it in any format or paragraphing other then as they were orally presented at the ICJ.
It is unfortunate, that the Malaysian papers have not been honest to themselves, their profession and to the Malaysian people in the manner that they have been reporting.
Compared to the paucity and slight twist in reporting Singapore's position, the Malaysian paper has been very generous in column space given to the Malaysian oral presentation. -
Surely you will not expect you and I agree on every issues ?Originally posted by CX:Its no secret that I do not agree with him on many issues...
Its been a long time...
It will be simply too boring if you prefer to agree on every issues with me.
It is good enough that you have agreed on at least one point, and somewhat to a second point in your reply of 13 November 2007 - 03.14 PM on Page 3 of this thread. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
Simply mischevious in the usual way.
If you want to quote ATOBE, you better make it DARK RED or else you will be seen as discrediting his arguement.
Have you decided to drop off the debate in the 'other thread with your remarkable list of Temasek's stable of 31 investments' ?
If one must quote another, it is only courteous that it is quoted accurately - including the preferred color.
Part of the decision to stick with the choice of 'Darkred' color was to suit someone's fetish for the color of the crap that he simply cannot resist to sniff at. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Definition of the word, "Objective"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True lah... Its not objective. But both the ST and the NST are known government mouth-pieces in their respective country.
There is no true "independent press" to speak of.
I do not mean to disregard your point of view, but I'm just curious that you attempt to find objectivity in a realm where none was known to exist. I might be more confident of life on Mars than objectivity in these 2 newspapers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is any action in life without any objectivity ?
The fact that your time spent to engage on issues in this Speaker's Corner would surely fulfill some personal objectivity - be it mundane or otherwise.ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation[uhb-jek-tiv]
–noun
1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.ob·jec·tive
I was relating to the 2nd definition of the adjective.
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. a) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b) Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
c) Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
4. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
Not helpful of u to muddy up the 2 definitions.
And no, I don't expect your agreement in all things. It defeats the purpose of having a meaningful discussion.
Anyway, had a chance to skim through the Malaysian oral proceedings...
Interesting points raised... Not uncharacteristic of how we would've approached the issue, had the roles been reversed.
Strong arguments on both sides, with each side trying to discredit the other side's arguments...
What are your thoughts on the points raised? -
SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU BATU PUTEH - Opening Speech by Malaysia's Agent
By : NST Newsdesk
OPENING SPEECH BY THE AGENT OF MALAYSIA, TAN SRI ABDUL KADIR MOHAMAD SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU BATU PUTEH/PEDRA BRANCA, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE) 13 NOVEMBER 2007
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is a great honour to appear before you, and to take this opportunity to explain why sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to Malaysia.
2. Mr. President, please allow me to thank the Agent of Singapore for his kind greetings to my colleagues on the Malaysian team and to me personally on the opening day of these proceedings. These greetings are fully reciprocated. Indeed, both of us have known each other for a long time, as members of the diplomatic service of our respective countries.
3. Mr. President, Malaysia and Singapore are two neighbouring countries in South-east Asia, which have mutually agreed to appear before this honourable Court to settle a dispute over the three features, located at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits, off the Malaysian Peninsula, as illustrated on the map that is now being displayed on the screen before the Court. You may also see it in tab No. 1 of your folders.
4. Pulau Batu Puteh and the two other features form part of the State of Johor, now part of Malaysia. The State of Johor has its origins in the ancient Sultanate of Johor. The current Sultan of Johor, Sultan Iskandar Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Ismail, is a direct descendant of one of the signatories to the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between Johor and Great Britain of 2 August 1824, also known as the Crawfurd Treaty, in which part of the territory of the Sultanate was ceded to create Singapore. Singapore Island is nestled in the bottom of Peninsular Malaysia. At its closest point Singapore is only 600 meters from the Johor mainland. It is now shown on the screen and can be found in Tab No.2 in the Judges's Folders.
5. Singapore and Malaysia, together with Indonesia, today share the waters and management of the Malacca and Singapore Straits which link the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea. Because of this geography, their genealogy and British colonial history, Singapore and Malaysia share much in common. The graphic now on the screen shows the Malacca and Singapore Straits. This will also be found in Tab No.3 of the Judges? Folders. This is a current navigational chart which is readily available in the public domain.
6. The details of how this dispute arose and the efforts of the parties to settle it will be described to you by the Attorney-General of Malaysia later this morning.
7. But before looking at how, the Court may wonder why: why would two responsible States be in such an acute and extended disagreement about sovereignty over such small maritime features?
8.. Last week, the Court heard many arguments advanced in many ways by Singapore to support its claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. But all these cannot hide the fact that Singapore is seeking to subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Great Britain over 150 years ago and maintained throughout the whole period of British rule. 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. Pulau Batu Puteh was selected as the site. Great Britain and then Singapore have operated the lighthouse ever since. 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.
9. Singapore?s claim also ignores the territorial agreements in the area reached in 1824, namely the Anglo-Dutch Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands of 17 March 1824, and the treaty which created the colony of Singapore, the Crawfurd Treaty of 2 August 1824.
10. Despite their extremely small size, the issue of sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and the other two maritime features is important. 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.
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court,
11. Malaysia?s case is clear and finds full support in the evidence.
12. As Malaysia has shown in her written submissions, Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius in 1847. It was not 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.
13. The Anglo-Dutch Treaty established that the division between the British and Dutch spheres of influence would run to the south of the Straits of Singapore. 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. The division between the British and Dutch spheres is now illustrated on the screen, as well as in Tab No. 4 in the Judges? Folders. Last week, Singapore sought to present a new interpretation of the dividing line. Tomorrow, Professor Schrijver will explain why the new Singapore interpretation is wrong.
14. 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 of Singapore. Pulau Batu Puteh is 25.5 nautical miles away from Singapore.
15. In 1851, with the permission of Johor, the Horsburgh Lighthouse was built on Pulau Batu Puteh by the East India Company. The permission was given by the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor on 25 November 1844, for the building and operation of a lighthouse "near Point Romania" or "any spot deemed eligible". As you can see on the graphic that is now displayed on the screen (and in Tab 5 of your folders), Pulau Batu Puteh is near Point Romania.
16. Pulau Batu Puteh was certainly an "eligible spot" because of the difficulties of navigating the waters at the eastern entrance to the Straits. In fact, Pulau Batu Puteh was the location of choice of the merchant subscribers when they began collecting funds for a lighthouse in 1836.
17 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.
18. Tomorrow, Professor Kohen will analyse the letters of permission written by the Temenggong and the Sultan of Johor on 25 November 1844. Malaysia has not been able to trace the letter of request from Governor Butterworth which was referred to in the letters of permission. In 1994, Malaysia requested Singapore to furnish a copy of the Governor?s letter if Singapore had such a copy in their possession. Singapore did not respond to Malaysia?s request. If this letter exists today it is likely that it is in Singapore?s archives in the file entitled "Letters to Native Rulers". Unfortunately, Malaysia does not have access to these archives.
19. Between 1850 and 1946, the Straits Lights system was developed by Britain to aid navigation through the length of the Malacca and Singapore Straits. The graphic now on the screen and located at Tab No. 6 in the Judges? Folders, shows the lights in the Straits Lights system, including the names of the various lighthouses. This was the list which appeared in the 1912 Ordinance of the Colony of Singapore which abolished light dues.
20. The Straits Lights system, including Horsburgh Lighthouse, was administered by the Straits Settlements. Each lighthouse was operated from one of the three stations in Singapore, Penang or Malacca. From 1912, the Federated Malay States contributed to the running costs of the Straits Lights when they stopped being funded by the collection of lights dues. But the Straits Settlements kept maintaining the lights because they had the necessary expertise.
21. In 1946, when the Straits Settlements was dissolved and the Colony of Singapore and the Malayan Union created, the Straits Lights system ceased to be run as a single system. However, the lighthouses continued to be operated from their original stations in the former Straits Settlements. Pulau Pisang and Horsburgh lighthouses continued to be run from Singapore, and the others, such as Pulau Undan, Cape Rachado, Muka Head and Pulau Rimau, were run from their stations in Malacca and Penang both of which in 1946 formed part of the Malayan Union, and are now part of Malaysia.
22. Today, Horsburgh Lighthouse and Pulau Pisang Lighthouse continue to be run from Singapore, the others from Malaysia. Nothing has changed.
23. The authorities in Singapore simply picked up where the British left off, as did the authorities in Penang and Malacca. The arrangement has worked for over 150 years.
24. The cooperation between the States which later became Malaysia and Singapore was not limited to cooperation in the building of lighthouses and navigational aids.
25. Let me take the example of the Royal Malaysian Navy, previously referred to as the Malayan Naval Force. It had responsibilities for Singapore until 1975 when Singapore established its own navy. The Royal Malaysian Navy continued to operate primarily from the Woodlands base in Singapore until the early 1980s, and only handed over the Woodlands base to Singapore in 1997.
26. Before and after the creation of the Singapore Navy, British and then Malaysian naval forces patrolled the waters of the Straits, including the area of Pulau Batu Puteh.
27. Such cooperative arrangements - and there are many others, for example in the field of communications and water supply - reflect not only our close historical ties but our ongoing rights and obligations as the littoral States of the Malacca and Singapore Straits.
28. Malaysia and Singapore, together with Indonesia, have cooperated for over 30 years in the management of the Straits. On 16 November 1971, all three countries joined forces to adopt a common position on matters relating to the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, and created the Tripartite Technical Experts Group on Safety of Navigation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. This forum meets annually to discuss technical issues relating to the safety of navigation in the Straits.
29. Horsburgh Lighthouse and its facilities form part of the multilateral regime for the safety of navigation in the Straits, just as it was a key light in the Straits Lights system in the 1850s until 1946.
30. With traffic in the Straits expected to increase from 94,000 vessels in 2004 to 141,000 in 2020, the safety of navigation, maritime security and protection of the marine environment are key. Ongoing cooperation in the Straits between the three littoral States is crucial.
Mr. President, Members of the Court:
31. Singapore now seeks to disrupt the long established arrangements in the Straits.
32. Singapore wants to radically change the basis on which it acquired the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh, and the character of its presence on the island.
33. 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.
34. Singapore?s presence on Pulau Batu Puteh as lighthouse operator never extended to issues concerning the territorial waters or the continental shelf around Pulau Batu Puteh. In 1969 Malaysia enacted legislation which extended its territorial sea from 3 to 12 nautical miles. Singapore did not protest. Later in 1969 an Agreement was reached between Malaysia and Indonesia in relation to the Continental Shelf. The delimitation line agreed between Malaysia and Indonesia in 1969 is shown in the map now on the screen. The same graphic is provided as Tab No. 8 in the Judge?s Folders.
35. As you can see, the delimitation line approached the vicinity of Pulau Batu Puteh closely and Point 11 is just 6.4 nautical miles from Pulau Batu Puteh. Singapore at no time asserted any interest, raised any objection or reserved its position. Neither did Singapore delimit the area around Pulau Batu Puteh or reserve its position in that area of the Straits in the Territorial Sea Boundary agreement it concluded with Indonesia in 1973.
36. Singapore?s claim not only upsets the existing arrangements in this way, but raises the question of what it wants to do with the island. In its pleadings Singapore has relied on a reclamation proposal around Pulau Batu Puteh. An internal document, a 1978 Tender Evaluation Report, shows a prospective artificial island of 5,000 sq meters towards Middle Rock. This is not fanciful conjecture. Singapore has an extremely active reclamation policy, which was the subject of the Reclamation Case instituted by Malaysia against Singapore in ITLOS in September 2003. The Provisional Measures Order given by that Tribunal in October 2003 will be known to the Court, as well as the subsequent amicable settlement of that case.
37. But Singapore does not need a bigger island for a better lighthouse. What does it need a bigger island for? Quite apart from the possible effects on environment and navigation in the Straits, this could lead to potentially serious changes to the security arrangements in the eastern entrance to the Straits. In fact, the aggressive methods Singapore has 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.
38. In 1986, well after the critical date, Singapore sent its naval vessels to Pulau Batu Puteh, and has since then maintained a permanent, 24-hour guard around Pulau Batu Puteh. This has created tension and danger. Johor fishermen have been chased away by Singapore forces from their traditional fishing waters and sheltering spots around Pulau Batu Puteh. Malaysian officials and naval vessels cannot go anywhere near Pulau Batu Puteh without being physically challenged by Singapore naval vessels. In response to Singapore?s actions, Malaysia has chosen to adopt a policy of non-confrontation and to act in a peaceful manner while this dispute is in the process of being settled. We have now learned through its pleadings that Singapore placed military communications equipment on Pulau Batu Puteh in May 1977, which we were not previously aware of and which causes us grave concern. This conduct does not fall within the consent given for the construction and operation of the lighthouse.
39. Great Britain and Singapore?s conduct in respect of Pulau Batu Puteh before the critical date, at least that which was known to Malaysia, was entirely consistent with being the operator of the lighthouses on Pulau Batu Puteh and Pulau Pisang with the consent of the sovereign, Johor.
40. Malaysia, by contrast, has always respected the long-standing arrangements for Singapore?s operation of the lighthouses on Pulau Batu Puteh and Pulau Pisang. We have not interfered with Singapore?s operation of the lighthouses.
41. But Malaysia does not wish the stability of its relationship with Indonesia altered. Yet this would inevitably follow if Singapore were to be treated as sovereign over Pulau Batu Puteh with attendant implications for established maritime delimitation in the area.
42. Malaysia respectfully requests the Court to bear in mind these important considerations and, accordingly, to reaffirm Malaysia?s title to Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
43. Mr President and distinguished members of the Court, before ending my submission, I would like to clarify one point. Our problem is with Singapore as a military presence on one of Johor?s islands in the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits. We have no problem with Singapore as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse. Malaysia wishes to maintain the peaceful and stable conditions at the entrance to the South China Sea. It is Singapore which is seeking to change the situation. The Sultan and Temenggong of Johor, in 1844, gladly consented to the establishment of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh, and Malaysia has never suggested that its continued operation by Singapore presented any problem. I repeat, Malaysia has always respected the position of Singapore as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse and I would like to place formally on record that Malaysia will continue to do so. Malaysia?s concern is quite different, as I have indicated.
44. Mr. President, I wish to conclude here. After this, my colleague the Co-Agent will describe to you the Sultanate of Johor?s geographical make-up, the political events which shaped its territory, and Pulau Batu Puteh?s social and economic place in Johor and Malaysia.
45. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I thank you and would ask you now to call on the Co-Agent of Malaysia, Her Excellency Noor Farida Ariffin. -
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 -
KL accuses S'pore of trying to 'subvert' the status quo
Malaysia also says S'pore never replied to requests for copies of Johor's 1844 letters
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Prime News, Pg 4
November 14, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - LAUNCHING its case before an international court yesterday, Malaysia lost no time in attacking Singapore's claim on Pedra Branca as an attempt to overturn the status quo in the Singapore Strait.
Its first speaker, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, questioned Singapore's motivation in asserting such a claim.
He called it a bid to 'subvert' a 150-year-old arrangement by Malaysia for the Horsburgh lighthouse on Pedra Branca to be operated from Singapore.
The lawyer and Foreign Affairs Adviser to Malaysia's Prime Minister also sought to paint to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) an image of Singapore as an expansionist state.
He suggested that the Republic would - if allowed to - upset the peace and stability of the eastern part of the Singapore Strait, the site of the disputed island.
Singapore, he told the court, has a 'very active reclamation policy'.
In 1978, it conceived plans to reclaim the waters around Pedra Branca to construct an artificial island some 5,000 sq m in size, he noted.
'Quite apart from the possible effects on the environment and navigation in the Strait, this could lead to potentially serious changes to the security arrangements in the eastern entrance of the Strait,' he said.
Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the ICJ to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, an island 40km east of Singapore.
Malaysia is giving its oral pleadings this week, after Singapore did so last week.
In its arguments, Singapore had made no secret of its 1978 tender to reclaim land around Pedra Branca.
It had argued that the reclamation tender was proof that it had all along exercised state authority over the island. No state, it pointed out, would set out to reclaim land around an island it thought belonged to someone else.
Yesterday, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir also charged that Singapore began mounting 24-hour naval patrols around Pedra Branca in 1986.
Its naval boats chased away Malaysian fishermen and made it impossible for the Malaysian navy to approach the area without provoking a skirmish, he added.
Malaysia, he said, chose 'non-confrontation' in the face of Singapore's actions.
Singapore had made clear in its pleadings that it had been patrolling the waters there since the inception of its navy in 1975, well before the dispute arose.
Tan Sri Abdul Kadir and Malaysia's international counsel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, also sought to cast aspersions on Singapore's conduct in its dealings with its neighbour.
They referred to two letters of 1844 in which the Johor rulers gave permission to the Governor of Singapore to build a lighthouse on any of the islands near Point Romania.
Malaysia has argued that the letters proved that Pedra Branca was thus among those islands under Johor's sovereignty.
Yesterday, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir said that in 1994, Malaysia wrote to Singapore asking for a copy of the Governor's letter. But Singapore never replied.
'If this letter exists today, it is likely that it is in Singapore's archives in the file entitled 'Letters to Native Rulers'. Unfortunately, Malaysia does not have access to these archives,' he said.
In its written pleadings, Singapore had pointed out the letters should be in Malaysia's possession as the Governor had sent them to the Johor rulers.
Yesterday, Malaysia also argued that Pulau Batu Puteh, its name for Pedra Branca, had always been part of the Johor sultanate.
Despite the tough talk in court, the sitting began on a friendly note with Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar exchanging greetings with Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar. Malaysia continues its arguments today.
][email protected]
MORE REPORTS, HOME H6
S'pore activities on island irrelevant: KL
It says island 'has been part of Johor Sultanate since 16th century'
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home, Pg H6
November 14, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - MALAYSIA yesterday urged an international court to reject as irrelevant all Singapore has done on Pedra Branca since 1851 to show it exercised state authority over the disputed island.
Its international counsel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, argued that it was Johor, not Singapore, that has had title or sovereignty over the island.
Therefore, Singapore could not 'confirm and maintain' its title to the island through activities, as it had claimed, since it had no such title to begin with, Sir Elihu told the International Court of Justice.
'Just as we are taught in school...that when zero is multiplied by any number whatsoever, the result is always zero, so a title that does not exist cannot be confirmed and maintained by any amount of subsequent State action,' Sir Elihu argued.
Singapore's stand is that Pedra Branca was a remote and uninhabited island that belonged to no one when the British took legal possession of it in 1847 in order to build a lighthouse there.
After the lighthouse was completed in 1851, the British crown and later Singapore confirmed and maintained their title to the island through a range of activities which included naval patrols and the control of access to the island, it said.
These activities, it argued last week, amounted to an open, continuous and effective display of state authority over Pedra Branca, against which Malaysia failed to protest.
Yesterday, Malaysia sought to brush aside all these activities in one sweep by deeming them irrelevant.
Sir Elihu told the court that the issue of sovereignty boiled down to whether Pedra Branca was terra nullius in 1847, as was claimed by Singapore.
The Latin phrase means no man's land or belonging to no one.
Both he and Malaysia's Ambassador to the Netherlands, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, mounted arguments to back Malaysia's claim that Pedra Branca had never been terra nullius because it had always been part of the old Johor Sultanate dating back to the 16th century.
Datuk Noor Farida, a lawyer, described the geographical extent of what she termed its large maritime empire.
'The extensive reach of the old Sultanate of Johor is recorded in the Malay annals and confirmed in all 18th- and early 19th-century descriptions,' she said.
She then went on to describe its territory as extending all the way north to the Natunas islands in the South China Sea, and all the way south to the islands in the Riau-Lingga archipelago, and covering all the islands in the Singapore Strait including Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia's name for Pedra Branca.
She also stressed Pedra Branca's closeness to the Malaysian peninsula by flashing on a screen a photograph of the disputed island with Johor's hills in the background.
Last week, Singapore said Malaysia's claim that Pedra Branca was part of the old Johor sultanate was vague and not backed by historical evidence. It also argued that the boundaries of a traditional South-east Asian kingdom were based on who the people in an area paid allegiance to, rather than on clear territorial limits.
It also highlighted that the physical proximity of a disputed territory to a claimant state was not considered to be a valid point in international law.
Yesterday, Sir Elihu also quoted from eight documents, which he said provided 'conclusive' proof that Pedra Branca had belonged to Johor.
These included two letters by the British Resident in Singapore John Crawfurd which, Sir Elihu said, described the Johor Sultanate as including all the islands in the China Sea 'as far as the Natunas'.
However, Singapore had pointed out that none of those documents referred to Pedra Branca by name, except for a newspaper article in the Singapore Free Press, which its counsel had shown to be unreliable.
[email protected]
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
Yes, it is good to see the Malaysian side being so professional, systematic and methodical in preparing their position, which showed that they have certainly spent alot of time doing their background research - as much as our Singapore Team has done for the Singapore side.Originally posted by CX:
{quote}Originally posted by Atobe:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True lah... Its not objective. But both the ST and the NST are known government mouth-pieces in their respective country.
There is no true "independent press" to speak of.
I do not mean to disregard your point of view, but I'm just curious that you attempt to find objectivity in a realm where none was known to exist. I might be more confident of life on Mars than objectivity in these 2 newspapers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is any action in life without any objectivity ?
The fact that your time spent to engage on issues in this Speaker's Corner would surely fulfill some personal objectivity - be it mundane or otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of the word, "Objective"ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation[uhb-jek-tiv]
–noun
1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{quote}ob·jec·tive
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. a) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b) Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
c) Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
4. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was relating to the 2nd definition of the adjective.
Not helpful of u to muddy up the 2 definitions.
Have I muddled up the two definitions - {noun and adjective} - to the word 'objective', or did you misread the use of my word 'objectivity' in response to your use of the same word - twice - in your statement as quoted below ?
''I do not mean to disregard your point of view, but I'm just curious that you attempt to find objectivity in a realm where none was known to exist. I might be more confident of life on Mars than objectivity in these 2 newspapers''
Were you not referring to the objectivity of my reply in the first place ?
Now it seems that you have muddled up the sequence of my piece preceding your reply - by placing your response before my statement in your quote, and with the missing ''darkred'' color further muddling the entire line of your response.
And no, I don't expect your agreement in all things. It defeats the purpose of having a meaningful discussion.
Thanks for coming to a common ground of agreement.
It is not so difficult to agree on most things that one has no passion for.
[quote]
Anyway, had a chance to skim through the Malaysian oral proceedings...
Interesting points raised... Not uncharacteristic of how we would've approached the issue, had the roles been reversed.
Strong arguments on both sides, with each side trying to discredit the other side's arguments...
What are your thoughts on the points raised?
This professional side is a surprise and provide a rare insight to a different Malaysian characteristic in contrast to the usual loud, unreasoned and frenzied political outcry that is etched in the minds of most Singaporeans.
This is the professional courtesy of the diplomatic realm, a side that is not given publicity by the national medias on both sides - perhaps to prevent each captive audience from wavering their loyalty to their own team.
Such surprises about the professionalism of the other side should not happen, if the media on both sides are allowed to provide full publicity to all issues that give the real political development that is occurring, and not merely publish the negative news of the political, economic and social events.
A proper understanding to the facts presented by both sides will help to make the outcome more palatable, which is important for the side that will have to face the decision of a loss; and will need the facts to support the outcome.
This has been my concern in our discussion over the last few days, but somehow we find no common grounds on this issue.
With regards to the facts produced so far, Singapore has claimed that Malaysia kept silent for over 150 years to all the activities that Singapore has made that reflects sovereignty over the disputed island and neighboring outcrop of rocks; the Malaysian side has also revealed that - ''in 1969, Malaysia enacted a legislation which extended its territorial sea from three to 12 nautical miles and the island republic had not protested.''
The ICJ will weigh the list of arguments raised by both sides, based on previous decision to similar disputes that was established in the previous case - which Malaysia won the title over the Indonesian claims to two island off the Sabah coast, Singapore will have a stronger case for the same reason provided by Malaysia that allowed her to win. -
ok, we mati mati also must keep these rocks with us...Originally posted by CX:Noted your source... I think its a bit dodgy...
You might like to know that the fact that the Masons turned up at Pedra Branca in full regalia was seized upon by the Malaysian side that as such, the taking into possession of the rock was not a state-act, but a private one
It was further noted that a similar ceremony was conducted at the construction of Raffles Lighthouse on Coney Island and since Coney Island was strictly within SG's domain and this ceremony was conducted in a similar fashion, the Pedea Branca ceremony cannot be considered a state action taking possession of a territory.
Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that the Masons in effect, represented the who's who of the British establishment in the colonies... Hence, their participation would've been as ubiquitous as the participation of the Chinese secret societies in the consecration of a new Chinese temple.
The difference here is:
A chinese temple built on land in the colony remains under the jurisdiction of the colonial administration (as much as they can and care to control the Chinese in those days)
BUT
A lighthouse built on no-man's land witnessed by Colonial administration VIPs, influential european merchants and local Malay chiefs, and accompanied by a speech that said "“May the All Bounteous Author of Nature bless our Island (Singapore), of which this Rock (Pedra Branca) is a dependency ...”
That pretty much sums up the case in my humble opinion...
So really... its beside the point that they were Masons... but that they were VIPs who happened to be Masons
Its like an ultra atas country club in those days
-
if we lost the rock that means other than mainland every single island surrounding SG belong to malaysia.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
I think that has very much to do with the fact that its not so much a "Malaysian" team or "Singapore" team. Rather, its an "International" team consisting of foreign experts in international law.
Yes, it is good to see the Malaysian side being so professional, systematic and methodical in preparing their position, which showed that they have certainly spent alot of time doing their background research - as much as our Singapore Team has done for the Singapore side.
This professional side is a surprise and provide a rare insight to a different Malaysian characteristic in contrast to the usual loud, unreasoned and frenzied political outcry that is etched in the minds of most Singaporeans.
Hired "mercenaries" can always be more trusted to keep a straight face and get the job done without being clouded by subjective nationalistic sentiments.
Also, its one thing to scream from the rostrum and wave a kris at the audience, but really quite another to present oneself in a dignified manner before the ICJ.
Its playing to the right audience in the right approach.This is the professional courtesy of the diplomatic realm, a side that is not given publicity by the national medias on both sides - perhaps to prevent each captive audience from wavering their loyalty to their own team.
Yes, sad isn't it? such is politics. The domestic audience sometimes likes its own politicians to "talk tough" and "stick it to the other side"... Such an approach doesn't help most of the time! Its antagonistic and prevents consensus.Such surprises about the professionalism of the other side should not happen, if the media on both sides are allowed to provide full publicity to all issues that give the real political development that is occurring, and not merely publish the negative news of the political, economic and social events.
I would say that we have different concerns.
A proper understanding to the facts presented by both sides will help to make the outcome more palatable, which is important for the side that will have to face the decision of a loss; and will need the facts to support the outcome.
This has been my concern in our discussion over the last few days, but somehow we find no common grounds on this issue.
I know what you're saying... and to your credit, I would say that you're probably right, had it not been so that the public on BOTH sides of the straits had been so badly tainted by their politicians... Malaysia, by their race-based politics and rhetorics, Singapore, by our "politics of survival".
This, plus the fact, as u mentioned earlier, that we're in the fast-food age... Pple dun read details. They want the facts summarised for them by a press thats not known for objectivity (or even thoroughness, when it suits their purpose).
Such an approach to journalism, fettered by both political concerns, self censorship and an impatient, undiscerning reader-base, can never be free from subjectivity or biases.
Its not that the facts are not out there for pple to make informed decisions... Its the fact that many times, pple choose to be fed bull-crap and believe what the gov't tells them.
In the worst instances, pple WANT to read bull-crap because the truth hurts.
I must confess, that when I read both the memorials, I found myself sympathetic to the side that wrote it. The "facts" were presented neatly, in a structured manner, with very convincing and persuasive arguments put forward. But I also distinctly preferred reading the SG memorial because of my own nationality and hence, my own subjectivity and biases.With regards to the facts produced so far, Singapore has claimed that Malaysia kept silent for over 150 years to all the activities that Singapore has made that reflects sovereignty over the disputed island and neighboring outcrop of rocks; the Malaysian side has also revealed that - ''in 1969, Malaysia enacted a legislation which extended its territorial sea from three to 12 nautical miles and the island republic had not protested.''
Agree... for Sipadan and Ligitan, the Court ruled that the Malaysian side, though excercising control in a very limited manner, was nevertheless entitled to sovereignty.
The ICJ will weigh the list of arguments raised by both sides, based on previous decision to similar disputes that was established in the previous case - which Malaysia won the title over the Indonesian claims to two island off the Sabah coast, Singapore will have a stronger case for the same reason provided by Malaysia that allowed her to win.
I found Sir Elihu's distinction between "imperium" and "dominium" the most interesting... A very sharp legal mind to have made that distinction to attempt to rebut a critical piece of evidence put forth by the other side... -
Originally posted by Arapahoe:if we lost the rock that means other than mainland every single island surrounding SG belong to malaysia. then jialat lor, every sat want to play beach volley ball at sentosa also must bring passport lor
-
-
So Singapore is the "kwa cheew" "tai sui" "security guard" and not the owner...
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
Malaysia not so stooopid after all.... -
Singaporeans have in their heads the delusion that Malaysia is stupid beyond redemption because of the relentless propaganda... hmmmm what other delusions do Singaporeans carry in their heads?
If the judges agree that the security guard cannot claim ownership.. then ....
If Singapore lose, it will be a double slap in the face.... because they are always portraying in their propaganda press how stupid Malaysia is.
Instead of going to court, they should have negotiated a joint custody settlement. Now it is too late to turn back and we have to wait for the verdict.
They must have started to believe their own propaganda... sad... despots.
Just because they can bully Silliporeans, they think the rest of the world are like stupid Silliporeans.
It is time for Silliporeans to become Smartoporeans... -
...sooner or later, these despots will find that they're not so invincible afterall...Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Singaporeans have in their heads the delusion that Malaysia is stupid beyond redemption because of the relentless propaganda... hmmmm what other delusions do Singaporeans carry in their heads?
If the judges agree that the security guard cannot claim ownership.. then ....
If Singapore lose, it will be a double slap in the face.... because they are always portraying in their propaganda press how stupid Malaysia is.
Instead of going to court, they should have negotiated a joint custody settlement. Now it is too late to turn back and we have to wait for the verdict.
They must have started to believe their own propaganda... sad... despots.
Just because they can bully Silliporeans, they think the rest of the world are like stupid Silliporeans.
It is time for Silliporeans to become Smartoporeans...
Over confidence & eloquence will ensure eventual face-plants... -
it is not "sooner or later"; they are already discovering how stupid they are in reality... look at this...Originally posted by HyperFocal:...sooner or later, these despots will find that they're not so invincible afterall...
Over confidence & eloquence will ensure eventual face-plants...
How more stupid can you get? Buy in July and "lao sai" in a few months...
It would have been hilarious if not for the fact that they are using Singaporeans hard earned money to play a fool... -
Honestly I think Singapore is trying to pull a fast one on Malaysia.
-
Yeah... I know, learning to do big business with our money, without learning from ANY of their past mistakes... right up to current date..!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:it is not "sooner or later"; they are already discovering how stupid they are in reality... look at this...
How more stupid can you get? Buy in July and "lao sai" in a few months...
It would have been hilarious if not for the fact that they are using Singaporeans hard earned money to play a fool...
I give up on them liao....
-
-
Its not that simple.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Singaporeans have in their heads the delusion that Malaysia is stupid beyond redemption because of the relentless propaganda... hmmmm what other delusions do Singaporeans carry in their heads?
If the judges agree that the security guard cannot claim ownership.. then ....
If Singapore lose, it will be a double slap in the face.... because they are always portraying in their propaganda press how stupid Malaysia is.
Instead of going to court, they should have negotiated a joint custody settlement. Now it is too late to turn back and we have to wait for the verdict.
They must have started to believe their own propaganda... sad... despots.
Just because they can bully Silliporeans, they think the rest of the world are like stupid Silliporeans.
It is time for Silliporeans to become Smartoporeans...
Read within context, the Malaysia's argument is meant to further their claim of disputed territory. Of course they have to make it good! Did anyone expect Malaysia to just roll over and play dead???
And its not as it no attempts were made to settle the issue bi-laterally. The Malaysians were playing it up domestically and refusing to settle for anything less than SG stepping aside and letting them claim the island which we have administered for more than 100 years.
This has implications on sovereignty. Are we going to step aside and let them have their way every time they kick up a fuss?
If you've properly read the memorials on both sides (and not just news summaries and press releases), you will realise that both sides presented compelling arguments and both sides made attempts to discredit each other's claims.
Thats the way these situations are resolved in the ICJ.
If you have doubts in the integrity of your country every time u read a slanted press report, then it just shows how much of a Singaporean u are.
Just a thought: Even if you don't agree with the government, its no reason for u to slime the rest of the country with derogatory terms like "silliporeans".
And especially where this issue is concerned, I don't care whether its the PAP or any other party in power. I expect them, as a SINGAPOREAN to defend every inch of the country's territory.
Don't you? or would u prefer to just bend over and bare your arse for the other side? -
Originally posted by CX:
Well said.
Its not that simple.
Read within context, the Malaysia's argument is meant to further their claim of disputed territory. Of course they have to make it good! Did anyone expect Malaysia to just roll over and play dead???
And its not as it no attempts were made to settle the issue bi-laterally. The Malaysians were playing it up domestically and refusing to settle for anything less than SG stepping aside and letting them claim the island which we have administered for more than 100 years.
This has implications on sovereignty. Are we going to step aside and let them have their way every time they kick up a fuss?
If you've properly read the memorials on both sides (and not just news summaries and press releases), you will realise that both sides presented compelling arguments and both sides made attempts to discredit each other's claims.
[b]Thats the way these situations are resolved in the ICJ.
If you have doubts in the integrity of your country every time u read a slanted press report, then it just shows how much of a Singaporean u are.
Just a thought: Even if you don't agree with the government, its no reason for u to slime the rest of the country with derogatory terms like "silliporeans".
And especially where this issue is concerned, I don't care whether its the PAP or any other party in power. I expect them, as a SINGAPOREAN to defend every inch of the country's territory.
Don't you? or would u prefer to just bend over and bare your arse for the other side?[/b]
This is the kind of slanted report that will merely generate jingoistic feelings in one form or another.
If both governments have decided to present the matter to the ICJ, and have conducted relations with each other at the ICJ with so much warm personal diplomacy, mutual respect, and professionalism - both governments should ''instruct'' their national media to lay the bare facts of the day's proceedings - even if summarised - without editorial slanting the report to suits its own side.
Even watching the Channelnews Asia nightly news become agonising as it reports the day's proceeding of Malaysia's presentation, only to follow up with corresponding statements for the Singapore side - as if Singapore is making an immediate rebuttal to the points presented at the same time.
The Malaysian national media did a disservice to its own population - as much as it has done to Singapore, by giving practically little space to Singapore's presentation last week, compared to the better coverage that Singapore's media has given to Malaysia's presentation this week - {even if the Singapore media consistently inserted Singapore's case, as if to remind Singaporeans or international readers concerning Singapore's position}.
As much as the Malaysian team has foreign counsels to assist in presenting their case, as also has Singapore, the opening speeches made by the Malaysian Agent, her Foreign Minister, and Attorney General were all made in remarkably impeccable spoken English presenting their position in neat and precise details of facts.
It was surely a surprise to me - at least - that the upper crust of Malaysian leadership is more fluent in English then the politics have made them out to be.
Singapore's media should continue to remain as open as possible to educate and inform Singaporeans of the true nature of our competitors, and not leave us to have a rude awakening when it is too late.
Both Malaysia and Singapore have strong case based on the material facts of history and actual events that transpired.
Different ways of arguing can be made to the manner in which both sides have offered their contradicting views - especially on the Anglo-Dutch Treaty that carve the spheres of interests for each colonial power.
It will require the learned minds of the 16 judges of the ICJ to weigh the sum total of historical facts, and events over the last 150 years - both recorded and oral - to determine the outcome.
In the meantime, we should not judge our own people to the jingoistic support given to the government way of thinking; and keep an open mind to hope for the best that some good will come of this experience whether we get to keep Preda Branca or not. -
MyVi,
Thanks for the transcripts.
Did anybody else go through or skim through it? Or we overly engrossed with our opinions that we ignored the long post by MyVi.
I find point #43 interesting. -
I think it is clear from the events of the past 2 weeks that neither side's press is thoroughly "objective".Originally posted by Atobe:Well said.
This is the kind of slanted report that will merely generate jingoistic feelings in one form or another.
If both governments have decided to present the matter to the ICJ, and have conducted relations with each other at the ICJ with so much warm personal diplomacy, mutual respect, and professionalism - both governments should ''instruct'' their national media to lay the bare facts of the day's proceedings - even if summarised - without editorial slanting the report to suits its own side.
Even watching the Channelnews Asia evening report becomes agonising as it reports the day's proceeding of Malaysia's presentation, only to follow up with corresponding statements from the Singapore side - as if Singapore is making an immediate rebuttal to the points presented at the same time.
The Malaysian national media did a disservice to its own population - as much as it has done to Singapore, by giving practically little space to Singapore's presentation compared to the better coverage that Singapore's media has given to Malaysia's presentation this week - {even if the Singapore media consistently inserted Singapore's case, as if to remind Singaporeans or international readers concerning Singapore's position}.
As much as the Malaysian team has foreign counsels to assist in presenting their case, as also with Singapore, the opening speeches made by Malaysian Agent, it Foreign Minister, and Attorney General were remarkably impeccable in spoken English and details of facts.
It was surely a surprise to me - at least - that the upper crust of Malaysian leadership is more fluent in English then the politics have made them out to be.
Singapore's media should continue to remain as open as possible to educate and inform Singaporeans of the true nature of our competitors, and not leave us to have a rude awakening when it is too late.
Both Malaysia and Singapore have strong case based on the material facts of history and actual events that transpired.
Different ways of arguing can be made to manner in which both sides have offered their contradicting views of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty that carve the spheres of interests for each colonial power.
It will require the learned minds of the 16 judges of the ICJ to weigh the sum total of historical facts, and events over the last 150 years - both recorded and oral - to determine the outcome.
In the meantime, we should not judge our own people to the jingoistic support given to the government way of thinking; and keep an open mind to hope for the best that some good will come of this experience whether we get to keep Preda Branca or not.
The Malaysian press was indeed, waiting for the Malaysian delegation to begin its oral proceedings to present everything in painstaking details to the exclusion of the previousday's events.
The Singaporean press was painstakingly presenting the entire proceedings, with a special emphasis on Singapore's arguments and how they pertain to the Malaysian allegations.
As for "special instructions" to the press to excercise restraint, my suspicion was that it was given. That's why you haven't seen the excessive and inflammatory editorial and opinion pieces yet... YET
And lets not forget the blogosphere...
Its getting interesting
As for whether Singaporean readers are more matured and level headed than Malaysian readers, I think its clear that there are many who will believe just about ANYTHING they're told and blame the government for everything...
I remember your point on the role of the civil society in debating politics openly and publicly... I see your point that its probably a good idea to engage and involve the public on political issues that concerns the nation as a whole.
But THIS is what i'm afraid of sometimes when we talk about letting the common man have his 2 cent's worth...
Not that i'm elitist or anything, but it really ticks me off when pple shoot their mouth (or their fingers) off without thinking. Talk is cheap after all...