| |
THE HAGUE : Singapore continued to present its case on the sovereignty of Pedra Branca and its outcrops of Middle Rocks and South Ledge at the International Court of Justice on Wednesday.
On the second day of hearing, Singapore presented more facts to support its arguments that Malaysia has no evidence to say that it owns the island.
The Singapore team argued that what the British did on Pedra Branca showed clear intent of Singapore's ownership over the island.
Singapore also argued that Malaysia's whole claim of sovereignty over Pedra Branca falls apart because it does not have the original title of the island.
Singapore has four days till Friday to present its case. After that, Malaysia will have the same time-frame to present its arguments.
Two of Singapore's four international counsel presented their arguments to the 16 judges on Wednesday.
Singapore's International Counsel, Professor Alain Pellet and Queen's Counsel Ian Brownlie, took great care and pain to show that historical documents never indicated that Pedra Branca belongs to Malaysia.
Speaking in French, Professor Pellet set out to show that even Malaysia's own historical experts could not confirm that the Johor state then, in the era of 1820s and 30s, had ownership of Pedra Branca.
Professor Pellet said: "….. there exists not one single document, not a treaty, not a declaration, not a judicial decision, not a doctrinal opinion which establishes, or even implies, in any way whatsoever, that Johor enjoyed or exercised any sort of a territorial title over Pedra Branca before Great Britain took possession of the island. Even the experts consulted by Malaysia are wary of affirming this."
He also said that Malaysia had misinterpreted a letter to say that the British had asked permission from Johor to build a lighthouse then.
The British never did that.
Malaysia claims that in history, fishermen and pirates operating around Pedra Branca acknowledged the native rulers, not the British, so that should show that Pedra Branca belongs to Malaysia.
But Singapore's Professor Pellet argued that such acts by private individuals cannot be proven, and therefore has got no significance to the issue of sovereignty of the island.
Queen's Counsel Ian Brownlie, representing Singapore, highlighted the activities carried out by the British on the island.
Singapore states that it has exercised sovereignty over Pedra Branca through many ways.
These include maintaining the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island and granting permission to others for visits.
Singapore also considered reclamation plans for the island in the 1970s - something which Singapore would never have done if Pedra Branca did not belong to her.
The major works are clear acts of Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca, he pointed out.
Queen's Counsel Brownlie cited activities like the British planning the design of the lighthouse, as well as the laying of its foundation stone in 1850.
He said: "The evidence concerning the intention of the British Crown in respect of Pedra Branca is voluminous and definitive.
"There is a great deal of evidence to show that the British Government selected Pedra Branca, funded the construction and provided every kind of logistical support and protection during the process.
"Moreover, given the physical circumstances of Pedra Branca, and the purpose of the appropriation, to suggest that there was no appropriation of the island as a whole is to defy common sense."
Singapore will continue with its oral arguments on Thursday, and its third International Counsel will present his case to state Singapore's ownership of the island - from the period of 1852 to modern times.
Also, Mr Rodman Bundy will explain how Singapore has maintained its title through the continuous exercise of State Authority on and in relation to Pedra Branca.
On Friday, Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister S. Jayakumar is expected to sum up the Singapore's team of presentations. - CNA/de
|
