Source : Channel NewsAsia, 21 November 2007THE HAGUE: On the final day of its rebuttal, Singapore Tuesday strung all its arguments with facts and evidence to prove that it has sovereignty over Pedra Branca, which is also known as Pulau Batu Puteh in Malaysia.
The dispute came about after Malaysia published a new map of its territories in 1979, which included Pedra Branca. Singapore objected to it because it said the island belongs to the city-state.
Singapore's Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh laid out Singapore's arguments in ten key points.
He maintained that Pedra Branca was no man's land in 1847, when the British went there to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse.
He said Malaysia has failed to produce any evidence to show that it owns the island.
Professor Koh also noted that between 1847 and 1851, the British possessed Pedra Branca without permission from anyone.
Related Video Link - http://tinyurl.com/yog23j
S'pore strings arguments with facts to show sovereignty over Pedra BrancaMalaysia had claimed it gave Britain permission to construct the lighthouse on the island. But again, Professor Koh said Malaysia has not shown any evidence to prove that.
He also brought up the 1953 letter. "In 1953, when Johor was a sovereign state under international law, the state secretary of Johor, writing in an official capacity, informed the Singapore government that ‘the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca’. This disclaimer is binding… under international law. Malaysia is clearly embarrassed by this disclaimer."
Malaysia repeated its argument that the British lacked the intention and the activities. Singapore said Malaysia's argument is flawed.
Prof Koh said Singapore's display of sovereignty over the island was "open, continuous and notorious" for over 130 years. But Malaysia had said earlier that Singapore was merely performing acts that were expected of a lighthouse operator.
He noted that "between 1962 and 1975, Malaysia published six maps which attributed Pedra Branca to Singapore. Singapore has never published a single map attributing the island to Malaysia."
Malaysia had also argued that Pedra Branca and its outcrops of Middle Rocks and South Ledge should be treated as separate features.
But Professor Koh said for reasons of proximity, geology, history and law, the "three features are inseparable and must be treated together."
Besides, Malaysia had repeatedly argued that this case is about ownership and not about competing activities on the island. But Professor Koh objected to this argument, saying Singapore's case is that Pedra Branca did not belong to anyone in 1847 and that Singapore has acquired sovereignty over it since 1847 and has maintained it from then.
Professor Koh also pointed out that all of Singapore's actions are consistent with that of a country that has sovereignty over Pedra Branca. In contrast, all of Malaysia's actions and inactions, he said, are entirely consistent with that of a country which has no title over the island.
"Singapore's actions were open and public and are the counterpart to Malaysia's silence in the face of these activities over a period of 130 years. Malaysia's official disclaimer in 1953 and its series of official maps attributing the island to Singapore are further confirmation of this picture. The whole story fits together. There can therefore be no doubt that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belong to Singapore."
Singapore's foreign counsel also listed out the various activities it has done on Pedra Branca that underscores its ownership of the island and its outcrops.
The Singapore team highlighted that Malaysia did not protest to any of those activities over the last 130 years.
Malaysia had said that it did not protest earlier because it saw the works by Singapore as that of just a lighthouse administrator. But Singapore's foreign counsel Rodman Bundy rebutted that Malaysia's conduct was very telling.
Citing examples, he said Malaysia did not object when the British expanded the jetty and landing stage on the island in the 1880s, and it did not protest either when Singapore insisted in 1974 that it had to approve Malaysian visitors going to Pedra Branca.
In contrast, Mr Bundy said, "Singapore performed numerous activities in a manner which fully reflected the reality that it regarded itself as possessing sovereignty over the island while Malaysia did nothing."
He added, "Malaysia also disclaimed ownership over Pedra Branca in 1953. Malaysia's meteorological publications listed the rainfall station on Pedra Branca as being "in Singapore" and it published a series of official maps over a 14-year period designating Pedra Branca as Singapore. And it did nothing of its own on the island."
Foreign counsel Loretta Malintoppi representing Singapore said Malaysia has "attempted to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of some acts showing a modicum of display of sovereignty on the ground".
One point she touched on was that Malaysia claimed its fishermen fished in the waters around Pedra Branca regularly as it insisted the area was within the Johor Sultanate, but Malaysia has not shown any relevant evidence.
She also said such are private acts that do not constitute as an act displaying sovereignty.
Malaysia had argued that it had conducted navy patrols in the waters with other countries such as Australia and the United States, and those were an exhibition of its sovereignty over the island.
But Ms Malintoppi said Malaysia has no documentary evidence to indicate the precise areas covered by such patrols or that they had anything to do with Pedra Branca and its waters.
She reiterated that Malaysia's own official maps, six of them, show Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.
Speaking in French, Singapore's foreign counsel Professor Alain Pellet stressed that Malaysia's documents, which they claimed show its original title over the island, are insufficient.
The documents, he added, did not even mention Pedra Branca by name.
The court session will have a break on Wednesday to give Malaysia time to prepare for its reply to Singapore. Both countries will then return on Thursday and Friday to hear the Malaysian team sum up. - CNA/ac
Jack Investment has named the project Iluma. 
