| |
THE HAGUE, Netherlands : Malaysia said on Thursday Singapore's activities on a disputed island were merely those to be expected of a lighthouse operator and administrator.
This was the main thrust of arguments put forward by the Malaysian team on the third day of its presentations at the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Singapore had said that it carried out all activities that are consistent with that of being the owner of Pedra Branca, which Malaysia calls Pulau Batu Puteh.
Operating and administering the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh does not mean sovereignty over the island, the Malaysian team argued.
Malaysia insisted that all activities, such as Singapore granting permission for official visits or patrolling the waters around the island, are consistent and expected of one who is operating the lighthouse.
Mr James Crawford, Foreign Counsel for Malaysia, said: "Singapore is the administrator of Horsburgh Lighthouse and nothing more. Britain's and Singapore's activities in respect of the lighthouse do not amount to conduct a titre de souverain (acts consistent with sovereignty).
"Singapore's claim that its conduct on the island went completely unopposed by Malaysia is not to the point. There was no open conduct a titre de souverain to be opposed.
"Singapore's conduct was at all times consistent with that of a lighthouse administrator littoral state of the Singapore Straits.
As to the former capacity, Johor consented to the establishment and operation of the lighthouse. As to the latter, the activity was not referable to the lighthouse, as such, at all. In neither capacity was there anything for Malaysia to protest."
But Singapore said it had done many activities and constructed many other structures, besides the lighthouse on Pedra Branca, because it knew it owned the island.
Non-lighthouse related activities include having reclamation plans for the island and installing military communications equipment.
Singapore argued that it would never have done all these if the island belonged to someone else.
In its argument, Malaysia also cited the 1953 letter which the Johor government sent to Singapore. In that letter, the Johor government had said it did not own Pedra Branca.
Malaysia's counsel said before that 1953 letter, only two possibilities exist - whether Singapore had ownership over the disputed island or not.
If Singapore did have sovereignty over the island, the letter would not be relevant to the question of ownership.
But if it did not, then Malaysia said Singapore is treating the letter as its root of title.
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Foreign Counsel for Malaysia, said: "As to this last possibility which verges on the absurd, the Court only needs to be reminded that a cession of territory, which on this analysis is how this letter must effectively be viewed, can hardly be achieved by a letter written by even an Acting Secretary of a government in reply to a question posed by a junior official of another government, albeit on behalf of the Colonial Secretary, Singapore."
But Singapore argued that it lost its archives in the war and needed Malaysia to confirm that Malaysia did not own the island.
And Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar had questioned what could be clearer than the 10 words in that letter from Johor to Singapore that read: "The Johor government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca."
On Thursday, Sir Lauterpacht reiterated Malaysia's claim that the British had no intention to acquire sovereignty of the disputed island.
He said: "There is no evidence of intention to acquire sovereignty. There is no evidence of a permanent intention to do so. It follows that there is no evidence of any overt action to implement the quite clearly non-existent intention.
"Finally, it follows also that there is no evidence that Britain made its non-existent intention manifest to other States."
Sir Lauterpacht asked: "Why did the Crown never say it was annexing the Island, notwithstanding the many occasions in which it could have reasonably done so? The answer is simple. It never contemplated such an acquisition."
But Singapore's counter to that - it had exercised sovereignty over the island from the time the British constructed the Horsburgh Lighthouse in the 1800s to now.
Singapore has been executing all kinds of activities on the island consistently and openly without anyone's permission because it owned it.
Another point Malaysia brought up - that Pedra Branca and its two outcrops of Middle Rocks and South Ledge should be seen as individual features.
Malaysia said Singapore should claim ownership over these three features separately and not as a whole.
But Singapore argued that the three should be seen as one because maps and navigational charts have treated Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks as a group, while South Ledge lies within Singapore's territorial waters.
Malaysia has one more day on Friday to present its case. - CNA/de
|
