| |
THE HAGUE, Netherlands : Malaysia continued its second day of presentation at the International Court of Justice, trying to prove that a disputed island was indeed owned by the Johor Sultanate.
The Malaysian team also argued that the island, which Malaysia refers to as Pulau Batu Puteh, was not a no man's land (terra nullius).
Singapore had earlier told the court that Pedra Branca did not belong to anyone until the British claimed it. The British then passed the possession of the island to Singapore.
Malaysia's arguments were put forward by four foreign counsel.
The Malaysian team dished out early maps from the 1700s to show the existence of Pulau Batu Puteh, which the counsel referred to as PBP.
Mr James Crawford, Foreign Counsel for Malaysia, said: "PBP had been known and used for centuries. It might be expected that because PBP is a small uninhabited clump of rocks in the vicinity of other larger inhabited islands and coasts, specific reference would not have been made to it in the historical records.
"This is not the case. PBP appears by name on the earliest maps of the region and was marked as falling within the domains of Johor. If, as Singapore says, it was obviously terra nullius, it must have been the most famous terra nullius in the East."
Singapore had earlier argued that Pedra Branca was not identified as a Malaysian territory, and that it was indeed a no man's land until the British constructed the Horsburgh Lighthouse and carried out activities on it.
Singapore said the maps shown by the Malaysians did identify Pedra Branca, but the island was never attributed to Johor.
Malaysia went on to argue that the Johor Sultanate then had authority over islands in the Straits of Singapore, including those within 10 miles from Singapore.
Mr Nicolass Schrijver, Foreign Counsel for Malaysia, said: "How could it be that the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor had sovereignty over all these uninhabited islands up to a distance of 10 geographical miles from the island of Singapore such as Pulau Ubin and Coney Island but not over PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, which lay in the case of PBP, only seven miles from the mainland of Johor?"
Singapore's counter to that was that Malaysia had no specific evidence and documentation to prove it.
Mr Schrijver highlighted how the Anglo-Dutch Treaty in 1824 had split the Johor Sultanate into two.
The treaty was between the British and the Dutch to divide power for that part of Asia. And that led to the British taking the areas north of the Straits of Singapore, while the areas south of the Strait went under Dutch rule.
So Malaysia argued that since Pedra Branca fell on the north, the island therefore comes under its ownership.
Mr Schrijver said that "not a single shred of evidence can be found to support Singapore's thesis, neither in the British or Dutch archives relating to the 1824 Treaty nor in the relevant literature. There were only two spheres of influence. There were no undivided areas."
Singapore had disagreed with this, stating that Malaysia had obviously misinterpreted that treaty.
Singapore added that the treaty did not split the Johor Sultanate, thereby making Malaysia's claims inaccurate.
Before the hearing ended on Wednesday, another foreign counsel for Malaysia, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, managed to get started on his argument.
In his brief time before the judges, he set out to show that even if Britain had been lawfully present on Pedra Branca from 1847-1851, it did not indicate by its intention or conduct that it has title to the island.
He cited an example of how the British had flown a flag over the Government House in Hong Kong, but that is not an indication of a claim to sovereignty.
The British also did not "seek to rest a claim to sovereignty on those acts of administration which covered every aspect of life" in Hong Kong.
But Singapore had said last week that it exercised clear intention of its ownership of Pedra Branca. These were shown in various ways throughout the years such as the construction and maintenance of the Horsburgh Lighthouse, the building of other structures like a military communications equipment and navy patrols in the waters around the island.
Singapore said it had done all that knowing that it had sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
Malaysia also cited another example, saying that the British did ask the Johor rulers for permission to build a lighthouse on various locations along the Straits of Singapore, which included the disputed island.
So that permission should apply to Pulau Batu Puteh when the British eventually decided on the island.
Singapore argued that the British never considered the island initially. So, that approval, cannot be seen as one given for Pedra Branca.
Malaysia has two more days to argue its case. - CNA/de
|
