THE HAGUE, Netherlands : On the final day of Malaysia's arguments on the case over Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Puteh, its team produced more geographical maps to drive home the point that the island was not attributed to Singapore.
The maps, from the 1800s and 1900s, were from countries like the US and UK. According to the Malaysian team, the maps show that the island belongs to the Johor Sultanate.
But Singapore had argued earlier that it has maps to show how it owns the island and its two outcrops of Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Friday's session at the International Court of Justice had to be adjourned for a short while because of an unexpected turn of events.
About half an hour into the sitting, one of Malaysia's foreign counsel, Elihu Lauterpacht, collapsed in his chair while another counsel for Malaysia was speaking.
Professor Lauterpacht was led out of the room and given medical attention.
The 79-year-old has since recovered but didn't return for the rest of the session.
And when hearing resumed, Malaysia proceeded to show that Singapore's activities on Pedra Branca after the Horsburgh Lighthouse was built, should be considered irrelevant.
Malaysia argued that in the first place, the construction of the lighthouse was possible because the Johor government granted the British permission to do so.
They insisted that the Johor Sultanate owned Pedra Branca.
Singapore had said the island was a no man's land before the British went there in 1847 to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse.
Malaysia claimed that the British showed no intention of owning the island.
But Singapore disagreed, arguing that the British didn't think it was necessary to conduct any formal acts to stake its claim of Pedra Branca.
Instead, Singapore exercised sovereignty over the island and its two outcrops of Middle Rocks and South Ledge by openly conducting numerous activities and work there. These include building a military communications equipment and having reclamation plans for the island, all of which Malaysia did not object to.
Malaysia countered by saying that Singapore's actions were merely that expected of a lighthouse operator.
James Crawford, foreign counsel for Malaysia said: "Last week you heard a lot of atmospherics about inaction on the part of Malaysia. But why should Malaysia have done anything? The Sultan and Temenggong gladly consented to its construction and operation.
"A guest State may be permitted to set up a military hospital or a military transport depot on the territory of the host State. Assume that the guest State uses the facility to intercept governmental communications of the host State or for other extraneous purposes, that may be an infringement of the terms of the original consent. But whether or not that is so, it does not give the host State any claim to title."
He went on to say ask the court to "not allow questionable reliance on arguments redolent of consolidation or prescription to feed back into the determination of original title." Doing so, he added, would be "intellectually dishonest."
But Singapore said the British never asked for permission to build the lighthouse and never needed to because nobody owned it at that time. And all the activities Singapore carried out on the island are state functions, displaying the country's sovereignty over the island.
One of Malaysia's foreign counsel also listed a number of maps from the US and UK to show that Pedra Branca is identified as part of Johor.
"The map evidence, as a whole, illustrates and supports Malaysia's case based on the other evidence. By contrast, Singapore has failed to explain why there are no maps of Singapore which include PBP (Pulau Batu Puteh) before 1995, even though it has had supposed title since 1847 or 1851. The absence of official maps of Singapore including PBP as part of Singapore before the critical date is completely at odds with its claim that it has had sovereignty over PBP since that time," said Penelope Nevill, Malaysia's foreign counsel.
Singapore countered that it does have maps showing that Pedra Branca belongs to the city state. In fact, these maps even identified the island with Singapore's name printed under it.
Malaysia also pointed out that its navy patrolled the area around the waters of Pedra Branca because it treated the island as its own. But Singapore said Malaysia has not shown any evidence to prove that.
Another foreign counsel for Malaysia, Professor Nicolaas Schrijver, also questioned why Singapore did not protest to a maritime boundary line established in a 1969 Agreement between Malaysia and Indonesia. That line runs very close to Pedra Branca.
Malaysia said Singapore's "silence suggests that Singapore did not consider it had any territorial interest in the area affected by the delimitation. Should this have been otherwise, Singapore might have been expected to register at least some form of public objection or expression of interest, inasmuch as the outcome of the negotiations was public."
Singapore said that’s because that line did not cut into its country's territorial waters. That's why there was no need for her to raise any objections.
After spending a total of eight days arguing their case, the first round of hearing is now over.
The court will resume on Monday, November 19 and both countries will rebut each other's statements. Singapore will have two days to reply what Malaysia has been saying and Malaysia will have two days to do likewise.
At the end of next week, the panel of 16 judges will then start to deliberate the case behind closed doors. - CNA/ir/ls
No comments:
Post a Comment