Tuesday November 20, 2007 THE HAGUE: Singapore opened the second round of its oral pleadings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here yesterday, contending that allegations made by Malaysia were without foundation.
Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar outlined the allegations and insinuations made against Singapore which he claimed were "serious and if not rebutted would diminish the country's integrity."
He said the most disturbing allegation was Malaysia's inference that Singapore "deliberately concealed" Governor Butterworth's 1844 letter pertaining to permission sought from the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor to construct a lighthouse.
"Singapore does not have a copy of Butterworth's letter," he said in his submission before a 16-member panel that is hearing a sovereignty dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore.
Malaysia had said that based on the response to this letter from the Sultan of Johor and the Temenggong giving consent to a lighthouse being built, Johor had sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh where the Horsburgh Lighthouse was completed in 1851.
Jayakumar said that Singapore had searched various archives over the years for the letter but it could not be located.
On Malaysia's claim that Singapore was trying to disrupt the long established arrangement in the straits since over 130 years ago, he said that this was an attempt to impress the court that Malaysia "is a victim and Singapore the perpetrator of some historic wrongs against Malaysia."
Jayakumar claimed that it was Malaysia that was trying to alter the status quo by suddenly claiming title to Pulau Batu Puteh after 130 years of inactivity in the face of Singapore's exercise of sovereignty over the island.
He also rebutted Malaysia's contention that by claiming title to Pulau Batu Puteh, Singapore was trying to create a maritime domain, endanger the marine environment and wanted also to create military presence.
He said that Singapore was a law-abiding country and that its survival depended on its status as a major port of call which in turn depended on the smooth flow of maritime traffic into the Singapore Straits.
Malaysia had said that Britain and Singapore's activities in respect of the lighthouse did not amount to conduct of sovereignty.
It had said that Singapore was just the administrator of the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island and nothing more.
The hearing continues. – Bernama
COMMENTS
Malaysia has never intended to exercise sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh since 1844 after she has permitted Singapore to use the island for Horsbourgh Lighthouse. By doing so, there is an indefinite agreement for Singapore to use the said island free of charge. There is no condition being laid down in the Butterworth's letter if my guess is right as deduced from the fact that Singapore has no privy over the letter nor making any form of payment in term of fee or rental to Sultan of Johor. Sovereignty cannot be exerted when no form of payment was regularly made by Singapore. So there is sudden change of status quo by Malaysia when wanting to claim sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh after 130 years of inactivity. ICJ have to rule wisely from this perspective. On the other hand, if Singapore was merely an administrator and had no sovereignty over it neither did Malaysia exercise sovereignty through 130 years of silence. There may have other agreement with Singapore that is similar to transfer of rights to Singapore as Administrator of the Estate. Just my thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment