D-day 23rd may pedra branca
-
CNA confirm 'LIVE' telecast on Friday afternoon, 23 May 2008 - from 16.00hrs, which is about the time for the start of the working day in Europe.
-
ah..........23/5/08 @ 4pm, i will be sipping pina colada in a east coast resort in peninsula malaysia......such is life!
good luck to both!
-
My only concern is Mahathir and his endless attempts to bring about a return of 3rd world politics to the Malaysian landscape and consequently affect bilateral relations.
Someone should tell him that his outdated ways are but dust, and that both MY and SG do not need such crude ways of competition or name-calling.
-
Channel NewsAsia will show the verdict 'live' on Friday, from 4pm. - CNA/vm
i read up to 8 pm??
MY RTM 1 also live boardcast fr 4 pm.
################
Judges are not God.
They also may make mistakes.Read the agruments put forward
by 2 countries and YOU will be the Judge,whatever the outcome.
Read the agrument if it can convince you.
Read Singapore agruments here
http://www.mfa.gov.sg/pedrabranca/
Resources center--Multi media--
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
-
read what Foreign Minister of Malaysia wrote.i post it here see
MY or SG can keep calm after the Judgement.
I hope officials of both sides can deliver what they have promised.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/Columns/2240632/Article/index_html
2008/05/15 NSTimes,MY
The long-drawn saga of conflicting claims to Pulau Batu Puteh is drawing to a close in a victory of process over protest, writes RAIS YATIM.
A PANEL of 16 judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) convenes on May 23 in The Hague to deliver judgment on the case of Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, a longstanding territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore.
For generations, Pulau Batu Puteh - roughly half the size of a football field located 7.7 nautical miles off Johor's coast at Tanjong Penyusoh - was a tranquil haven for fishermen plying the surrounding waters. But a claim on the island, which is part of the Johor Sultanate, surfaced three decades ago.
It began on Feb 14, 1980, when Singapore protested against the 1979 map published by Malaysia clearly placing Pulau Batu Puteh in our territory. Singapore then expanded its claims to the nearby Middle Rocks and South Ledge in February 1993. On Feb 6, 2003, Malaysia and Singapore signed a special agreement to refer the matter to the ICJ.
Malaysia's position is that Pulau Batu Puteh is and has always been part of the state of Johor. We have asserted to the ICJ that nothing has happened to displace our sovereignty over it. Singapore's presence on the island for the sole purpose of constructing and maintaining a lighthouse there - with the permission of the territorial sovereign, Johor - does not displace Malaysia's sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.
Our nation has more than 1,000 islands. Many of them sit in strategically important, resource-rich seas, so territorial disputes are bound to occur for one reason or another. It is unfortunate that Malaysia has had to seek international legal recourse. But it is only when diplomatic and political channels are exhausted that Malaysia refers the dispute to a third party.
We have had to exercise this option twice before. A territorial dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan off the coast of Sabah was referred to the ICJ, while our concern over Singapore's land reclamation led us to institute arbitral proceedings at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
In the case involving Sipadan and Ligitan, the ICJ on Dec 17, 2002, in a 16-1 majority decision, ruled that both islands belonged to Malaysia. On Singapore's land reclamation, the ITLOS tribunal issued a provisional ruling on Oct 9, 2003, which, among others, directed Singapore not to conduct its activities in ways that would prejudice Malaysia's rights or damage the marine environment.
In both cases, the outcome of the proceedings confirmed Malaysia's position. But neither outcome would have been possible for Malaysia without a strong, meticulously prepared case. That track record continued with the Pulau Batu Puteh proceedings at the ICJ.
Three of the five leading international law experts who argued our case for Pulau Batu Puteh also represented Malaysia at the ICJ during the proceedings for Sipadan and Ligitan and at the ITLOS tribunal on Singapore's reclamation works. Cambridge University professors Sir Datuk Elihu Lauterpacht QC and Datuk James Crawford, and Leiden University international law professor Datuk Nicolaas Jan Schrijver are among the best in the business.
Under the capable leadership of Malaysia's Agent for the Pulau Batu Puteh case, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, as well as our Co-Agent, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the legal team assembled a case that involved research spanning nearly 30 years. More than 50 experts were roped in to scour records in nine countries. No stone was left unturned in our research to present the most compelling arguments to the ICJ.
Our preparations would not have been successful without the assistance of the attorney-general, the National Archives of Malaysia, the Department of Survey and Mapping, and the Johor government. The inter-departmental co-operation involved 35 ministries, agencies, departments, the armed forces, police and local institutions of higher learning. It easily serves as one of the best case studies in teamwork and dedication to protect the interests of Malaysia.
To put the nearly 30 years spent researching the Pulau Batu Puteh case into perspective, consider how the top position at the Foreign Ministry changed hands not once or twice but seven times in that period! Tan Sri Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen Tengku Ismail was foreign minister at the time the work began. He was succeeded by Tun Mohd Ghazali Shafie in 1981, but was reappointed to his old portfolio in 1984.
I was made the minister two years later, and Tan Sri Abu Hassan Omar succeeded me in 1987. But the research went on uninterrupted right through to when Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was appointed foreign minister in 1991, and when Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar assumed the position in 1999.
Now, as fate would have it, I have again found myself back in the saddle at the ministry, just as the case draws to its conclusion. All my predecessors deserve their due credit. This is a story of a torch being handed from one helm to another. I would be remiss not to record the highest appreciation to all the many officers - some of whom have retired - who dedicated themselves to helping Malaysia present the best possible case at the ICJ.
We all have a special attachment to this case. Not just for the time and effort spent on it, but because of our responsibility to the Malaysian public to give our all in protecting our nation's territorial sovereignty.
The judgment on May 23 will mark the end of a long journey. We must bear in mind that in any legal case, the outcome is not guaranteed. We can only prepare the best possible arguments and hope that the judges will agree and rule in our favour. As I have communicated to my counterpart in Singapore, in the event Malaysia gets the judgment, Singapore should accept the fact. And if Singapore gets the decision, Malaysia will do likewise. Inasmuch as both nations respect international law, so shall we respect the decision of the ICJ.
The dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh has constrained our ties with one of our closest neighbours and fellow Asean member states. We hope a resolution to this dispute can pave the way to easing our other outstanding bilateral issues with Singapore.
Our decision to take this matter to the ICJ demonstrates that Malaysia is a nation that places great emphasis on the rule of law and affirms our position as a respectable member of the international community.
There should be no acrimony on either side, no matter what the judgment may be, and on this both Malaysia and Singapore have agreed. I'm happy to report that both countries have also agreed to have a Joint Technical Committee meeting headed by our Foreign Ministry secretary-general, Tan Sri Rastam Mohd Isa, and his Singapore counterpart, before the judgment is made.
In the end, it is what Malaysia and Singapore do after May 23 that will decide whether we can bring closure to a bilateral issue that has besieged us for more than three decades. Whatever the final outcome, Malaysia and Singapore will remain steadfast as friends and neighbours bound by understanding and harmony.
Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim is Foreign Minister of Malaysia. -
so tmr know who win?
win liao how? gst can go back to 3%? erp gates got take down? car and fuel prices will drop? mrt and bus fares drop?
if the answers are no, den no big deal..
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
so tmr know who win?
win liao how? gst can go back to 3%? erp gates got take down? car and fuel prices will drop? mrt and bus fares drop?
if the answers are no, den no big deal..
i think the lawyers win in this instance.
for the rest of us, live goes on after bragging rights for about 48 hours.
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
so tmr know who win?
win liao how? gst can go back to 3%? erp gates got take down? car and fuel prices will drop? mrt and bus fares drop?
if the answers are no, den no big deal..
go oversea lah.. if the GST and ERP is getting on your nerves...
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
My only concern is Mahathir and his endless attempts to bring about a return of 3rd world politics to the Malaysian landscape and consequently affect bilateral relations.
Someone should tell him that his outdated ways are but dust, and that both MY and SG do not need such crude ways of competition or name-calling.
dont worry... abdullah, najib and anwar are cooperating to "bury" his political "remains".
as far as abdullah is concern... erasing mahatir from malaysia politics would be a greater victory then winning at the ICJ over a piece of rock that they didnt even own in the first place.
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
ah..........23/5/08 @ 4pm, i will be sipping pina colada in a east coast resort in peninsula malaysia......such is life!
good luck to both!
the judgement could be delivered anytime from 4 to 8pm... depending on whenever those judges are "song" to annouce it.... admist their LLOOOOOOONNNNNGGGG explanation over the reasoning for their judgement.
-
Originally posted by Short Ninja:
One more day to go so how about we list the names of people who think Pedra Branca will officially become Pulau Batu Puteh on a Maritime chart?
As much as I want Singapore to win I strongly believe We can't screw Malaysia out of this one.
oh yeah?
our position is exactly like theirs as in sipadan and ligitan. if like that they can still win.. it begs how indonesia lost 2 years ago.
like that who wanna go to ICJ? head they win... tail we loose?
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
i think the lawyers win in this instance.
for the rest of us, live goes on after bragging rights for about 48 hours.
that depends if you see the country as yours...
-
0004 hrs........D-day 23 may 08
In a few hours, we will know if Singapore has shrunk further......
If this happens, I say we scrap the SAF and refer our survival to the ICJ to decide.
Afterall, Singapore is the only country in the world who wants to negociate away our sovereignity......so is there a need for an army when our leaders are not willing to defend our territory?
We are being bullied left and right. The Indonesians refuse to sell us sand, and poison us every year with their smog, killing us slowly. Yet our leaders say nothing and do nothing.
I am dissapointed with the lack of courage on the part of our political leadership.
-
After reading this thread, I would like to post some of my thoughts on this issue….
The Pedra Branca issue involves the territorial, sovereignty and strategic survival issues of Singapore. As much as I dun agree with PAP, I believe even if today, WP, SDA, SDP is in power, they would definitely also have exercise all means to protect SG’s interest in terms of Pedra Branca. Anyone that calls him or herself a SGrean must stand together as a united front to deal with the PB issue, bcos, the challenge faced today involves all SGreans and not any political party, or any policy this and that. So one must be clear this is a SG issue and not a PAP issue.
I have read in some other forums, ppls felt that we should back-down from this issue as MY can easily take up retributive actions against SG, or this PB issue is a classic example of Kiasu SGrean mentality. I can only say, pls get your realities checked. Remember WW2? Neville chamberlain and many pacifists claim that by supporting Germany’s claim on Austria, Hilter will be contented and be willing to work with the western power. But it nv happened, Hilter went on to Sudetenland and eventually the whole of Europe. This example may not be perfect, but it illustrate the situation well. MY unilaterally increase their territorial wate from 3nm to 12nm without consulting neighouring ASEAN nations. By going to ICJ and winning it, we are sending a strong msg to MY not to push its luck and redefine its border into our backyard. If not, who knows when the 12nm may become 20nm the next day, and soon, all our offshore islands will be claimed by them. Lets not forget, SG depends heavily on maritime trade and activities like petrochemical industries. PB acts as a gate-keeper/sentry for the easten end of SG.
Let me give u a real-life example of how serious these ‘small’ problems can get. Not too long ago, PRC unilaterally planted naval markers in regions around an island of the spratley regions. PRC did this despite an agreement between ASEAN and PRC that indicates no party was allowed to build new structure unilaterally on these islands. The Estrada administration took a bold stand by sending F-5 to bomb those markers. PRC got the msg and no further buildings occurred. After a few yrs, during the Arroyo administration, PRC decided to test their luck and build some port facilities and watch towers on one of the island. Arroyo did not take up any action against them and merely raised some matters of concern to the PRC counterparts. This was a disastrous move as PRC are rapidly solidifying their infrastructures on the island. To rub salt on the wounds, PRC dangled millions of dollars of aid to the Philippines in exchange for their agreement to allow hydrographic exploration of the region. For that, I’m not sure whether they agreed, however if the pinoys agreed to it, their nightmare is abt to begin. Many may just think that those ocean surveys are just for innocent maritime studies. But most dun understand the implications of such activities in the military sense. It can be used for facilitating the planning of submarine usages during wartime, in which, PRC have many. So one can see how not so innocent these small matters may seem.
-
well said...
unfortunately... every country must have its fair share of dumb idiotic morons... so we must endure those mentally less endowed.
-
Ai-ya, the SAF is for Wayang purpose only lah........
Our political leadership were got bolls to fight? That's why they allow themselves to be judged by ICJ.
If got bolls, we should have told the Malaysians to fak off in the first place. We don't need to talk to them. If not happy, put time and place........we can slug it out
-
Originally posted by Dr Who:
004 hrs........D-day 23 may 08
In a few hours, we will know if Singapore has shrunk further......
If this happens, I say we scrap the SAF and refer our survival to the ICJ to decide.
Afterall, Singapore is the only country in the world who wants to negociate away our sovereignity......so is there a need for an army when our leaders are not willing to defend our territory?
We are being bullied left and right. The Indonesians refuse to sell us sand, and poison us every year with their smog, killing us slowly. Yet our leaders say nothing and do nothing.
I am dissapointed with the lack of courage on the part of our political leadership.
we shouldnt even bother to go to the ICJ with regard to pedra branca... but... i think the govt has other ideas which i think i understand.... wait and see lah. -
Originally posted by Dr Who:
Ai-ya, the SAF is for Wayang purpose only lah........
Our political leadership were got bolls to fight? That's why they allow themselves to be judged by ICJ.
If got bolls, we should have told the Malaysians to fak off in the first place. We don't need to talk to them. If not happy, put time and place........we can slug it out
fighting is more costly mah.... wait for the ICJ verdict... afterward we can reconsider the military option not late.
-
Even if we win, will Malaysia accept it when PB is blocking the entrance to their Naval Base at Pengarang, and their live-firing area in Tanjong Rumania?
I don't think their Navy will ask permission to cross into PB waters ever! I believe they got more bolls than our mighty SAF
-
Originally posted by Dr Who:
Even if we win, will Malaysia accept it when PB is blocking the entrance to their Naval Base at Pengarang, and their live-firing area in Tanjong Rumania?
I don't think their Navy will ask permission to cross into PB waters ever! I believe they got more bolls than our mighty SAF
were you there when they did that? or you just imagine?
singapore is in charge of all the airspace between east and west malaysia and the sea traffic around us...
malaysia may not like it... but to challenge singapore's authority would put its own ships and planes at risk and endangers the lives of other users from around the whole world, big and small, powerful and weak.
so unless... you believe that got balls for brain... they wont be that silly.
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
oh yeah?
our position is exactly like theirs as in sipadan and ligitan. if like that they can still win.. it begs how indonesia lost 2 years ago.
like that who wanna go to ICJ? head they win... tail we loose?
100 minutes to losing the white rock and If I am wrong you can throw 1,000 stones at me.
-
malaysia is goin to win!!!!!!
singapore .. sory lah
-
Channel NewsAsia - 50 minutes ago
Island dispute between Singapore and Malaysia to be finally settled
The Hague: The International Court of Justice will hand down its verdict Friday over a sovereignty dispute between Malaysia and Singapore for an island half the size of a football field on the eastern approach to the Straits of Singapore.
The dispute over the island known as Pedra Branca by Singapore and Pulau Batu Puteh by Malaysia, arose in 1980 after Malaysia published a map and included the islet within its maritime boundaries.
Both parties agreed to seek the intervention of the UN court and the International Court of Justice heard arguments from both parties last November on sovereignty over Pedra Branca and a pair of nearby rock clusters known as Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Malaysia claims the land was always its property, although Singapore has been operating the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island for more than 130 years.
Sixteen judges who are elected by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, heard the Pedra Branca case.
The judges hailing from countries like the US, China and Slovakia, included two ad—hoc judges, Mr P S Rao of India who was appointed by Singapore, and Mr Christopher John Robert Dugard from South Africa who was chosen by Malaysia.
Presiding over the case was ICJ Vice—President, Awn Shawkat Al—Khasawneh, of Jordan.
Normally, ICJ President, Rosalyn Higgins, would be part of the panel, however she excused herself from the case because Singapore had sought her opinion before she joined the Court.
Pedra Branca is the first case that Singapore has referred to the ICJ, while for Malaysia, this is its second. Malaysia had brought its territorial dispute with Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan before the same court in 2002, and won the case.
The aim of the ICJ, also known as the World Court, is to settle legal disputes between countries and to give advice. Without the court in the Hague, ICJ President, Rosalyn Higgins, believes it would be very hard to imagine how such issues could have been resolved.
Speaking to Channel NewsAsia, Judge Higgins said it was the ICJ that first made clear that self determination is not just a political aspiration, but a legal right. "How important that has been in the world" she added.
"I’m sure the world would be a less good place, had the court not been able to make its input."
Decisions by the ICJ are binding and cannot be appealed.
However, if one party fails to comply with the Court’s judgment, the other can bring the matter to the Security Council.
But as Judge Higgins points out, "It’s now becoming appreciated that you can maintain very good relations with neighbours, which I know is very important for the Southeast Asian countries. Maintain very good relations with neighbours, while having a third party, the International Court, resolve a problem between you that you haven’t been able to settle yourselves."
That was the step taken by Singapore and Malaysia, and both have said they will accept the ICJ outcome without letting it affect bilateral ties.
The Court has delivered over 94 judgments on issues like territorial sovereignty and maritime boundaries since 1946. CNA—AFP/sf
Channel NewsAsia will broadcast the verdict "live" from 4pm (Singapore time)
-
err... so is the verdict out yet? nothing on CNA website....
-
Doesn't sound too optimistic
