ANNEX TO THE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT BY MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, PROF S JAYAKUMAR IN PARLIAMENT, 25 JANUARY 2003

Pedra Branca (Question asked by Mr R Ravindran)

Pedra Branca is not a new issue in Singapore-Malaysia relations. It arose in 1979, when Malaysia for the first time published a new map which claimed the island. Prior to that, Singapore had occupied and exercised full sovereignty for more than 150 years since the 1840s without protest from Malaysia. Previous Malaysian maps, even as late as 1974, showed Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore. As I had briefed Members on this issue in Parliament on 16 May 2002, both countries had agreed in 1998 to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and had settled on the text of a Special Agreement.

For four years between 1998 and the middle of last year, Malaysia made no real attempt to pursue the signing and ratification of the Special Agreement. After the 17 December 2002 judgement of the ICJ on the Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan case, there was an outburst of wild allegations, made on a daily basis. These came hot on the heels of their Mingguan Malaysia story on 22 December 2002 which claimed that we were engaged in many kinds of construction activities on Pedra Branca. They were wrong both in law and facts and we have rebutted these allegations fully in the MFA statement on 26 December 2002. Let me recap the main points.

First, that we were dragging our feet on the signing of the Special Agreement. What are the facts? Singapore had always been ready to sign the Special Agreement at any time and at any place. It was Singapore which had first proposed to resolve Malaysia's claim through the ICJ process, as early as 1989.

We had suggested that the Special Agreement could be signed at the sidelines of the ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting in Brussels, on 27-28 January 2003 because Malaysia wanted to sign the Agreement quickly and the meeting in Brussels was the earliest and most convenient time for Minister Syed Hamid and myself to meet. However, the Malaysians later counter-proposed other dates in January and February so that the signing can be done either in Malaysia or Singapore. As I have said publicly, it is absurd to quibble over the location of the signing ceremony as it will not affect the outcome of the case at the ICJ in any way. As Members know, we have now agreed to sign the Special Agreement in Putrajaya on 6 February 2003.

Second, Singapore's so called construction and other alleged "illegal" activities on Pedra Branca. The fact is that there has been no recent construction work on Pedra Branca. The last structures were built in 1991, well over 10 years ago.

In any case, there is no cause to make an issue of this, as it is a well-established principle in international law that acts done by disputing parties to advance their own case after the dispute has already arisen will not be given credence.

To strengthen their allegations, Malaysia claimed that they had never done similar "unfriendly" or "un-neighbourly" acts to Indonesia in their dispute over Sipadan and Ligitan. What are the facts? According to documents filed by Indonesia at the ICJ, Jakarta had in fact protested at least five times about continued Malaysian activities on Sipadan. Malaysia had rejected these complaints, saying that the activities were simply the continuation of actions they had undertaken before the dispute arose. Well, in this light, Singapore's actions on Pedra Branca are no different in law from Malaysia's own actions on Pulau Sipadan.

To sum up, Singapore's position on Pedra Branca continues to be clear and consistent. Our sovereignty and ownership of Pedra Branca is based on facts and sound principles of law. Nevertheless, we are prepared and ready to work with Malaysia to move forward with the ICJ process. We have always dealt with Malaysia's claim amicably and in the spirit of goodwill, and will continue to do so. Our media has never attacked Malaysia in the way their media has attacked Singapore.