This electronic version of Malaysia's Pleadings is provided as a
courtesy.The printed version of Malaysia's Pleadingssubmitted to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) shall remain as the authentic
version.
CopyrightO GovernmentofMalaysia.
Allrightsreserved.
Informationor data containedherein shall not be reproduced withoutthe
written permission ofthe GovernmentofMalaysia.Chapter1 Introduction
A. ThepositionsoftheParties
B. New arguments inSingapore'sCounter-
Memorial
(0 TOPO~PY
(ii) Geographyandgeomorphology
(iii) The"caseofthedisappearingSultanate"
(iv) Peripheral issues
C. The issuesforthe Courtandthestructureofthis
Reply
Chapter2 Malaysia 'riginalTitle 54-109
Introduction 54-56
A. Allegianceandtitletoterritory 57-65
B. TheJohorSultanatebefore 1824 66-77
C. The1824Treatiesandtheirimplementation 78-94
D. The continuiofJohorafte 1824 95-108
E. Conclusions 109
Chapter3 TheTransactions leadingotheConstruction ofthe
Lighthouse
Introduction
A. Buttenvorth'requestforpermissiotoconstruct
thelighthouse
B. TheSultan'sandTemenggong'a snswers
(i) 'Near PointRomania"
(ii) "Or anyspotdeemedeligible"
C. SubsequentcorrespondencseowsthattheJohor
permissionincludedPBP
(i) Butterworth'lettertothe Government
ofIndiaof26August1846
(ii) The dispatcof3October 1846 tothe
CourtofDirector inLondon
(iii) The"fill report"sentbyGovernor
ButterworthtotheGovernmeno t fBengal
dated12June 1848
(iv) Conclusion
D. Singapore's invented distincotween
"formal"and"informal"permissions givby
Malayrulerstoconstruct lighthouses E. Conclusion
Appendixto Chapter 3: Handwritiugcomparison
oftheword "casenusedinButterworth'sletterof26
August1846
Chapter4 Singapore'sTheoryofYTaking ofLawful
Possession"Testedagainstthe Facts
Introduction
A. Singapore'sclaimofc&g oflawful
possession"ofPBP
(i) Whendid Britain ''takepossession"of
PBP?
(ii) Singapore'sapproximate presentationof
doctrine
(iii) Singapore's disregarforBritishpractice
B. Eventswhich occurredonorrelatedtoPBPin
1850
Introduction
(i) The ceremonyof 24 May 1850 was a
Masonicone
(ii) TheTemenggong's presenc onPBPin
June1850
Plans fortheestablishmenot fa stationon
(iii)
PointRomaniatoprotect Horsburgh
Lighthouse
C. ThereisnoevidenceofBritish intentionto
acquiresovereignty
Introduction
TheactyalBritishintentionin
(i) constructingthelighthouse
(ii) The distinctiobetweenownershipofthe
lighthouseandsovereigntyover PBP
D. GreatBritaindid notclaimsovereigntyoverPBP
aftertheinauguratioofthelighthouse
Introduction
Nosinglea.uthoritywas installeonPBP,
(i)
whichtheOranghut continuedto
frequent
(ii) NoBritish legislation incorporaPdBP
intotheColonyo . fthe StraitsSettlements
(iii) The1861incidentsshowthattherewere
nojurisdictional changesfterthe
constructionofthelighthouse
E. ConclusionChapter5 TheSubsequent ConductofthePartiesincludingthe
MapEvidence
Introduction
A. Theconductoftheparties
Introduction
(i) Applicableprinciples
(ii) Singapore's responsesnconstitutional
developmentsandofficialdescriptions
(iii) Singapore'sfurtherarguments
concerningitsown conduct
(iv) Singapore'sresponsesonbilateral
conductofthe Parties
(v) Singapore's responsetsoMalaysia's
conduct
(vi) The 1953 correspondence
(vii) Conclusionsontheconductoftheparties
B. Themapevidence
Introduction
(i) Malaysia's arguments on the map
evidence
(ii) Singapore's argumentosnthemap
evidence
(iii) Malaysia's response
(iv) Conclusion
Chapter6 TheDistinct Characteo rfPBP,Middle Rocks and
SouthLedge
Introduction
A. Singapore'sassertion that PBP, MiddleRocks
and SouthLedgeare not separatedby navigable
channels
B. Additionalobservationson assertionsmadein
SCMChapter VIII
C Conclusions
Summary
Submissions
Appendices
AppendixI Continuityand SovereigntyintheKingdomof
Johorbetweenthe SeventeenthandtheNineteenth
Centuries,byProfessorDr.LeonardY.Andaya
iii AppendixU Somehistorical consideratonsJohor
andtheSingaporStrait,y
ProfessoDr.VincenJ.H.Houben
AppendixIIIReport oPulauBatuPuteh, iddlRocks
and SoutLedge,byCapt(RMN retired)
GohSiewChong
ListofAnnexes LISTOFFIGURES
subject Page
Figure1 Sketchmapshowingthe islandslistedinArticleXI1ofthe 37
1824Angla-DutchTreaty(pm. 82)
Fiire 2 OfficiaMap oftheDutchEastIndiesproducedin 1842by 43
G.F.Von DerfeldenVanHinderstei(pm 94)
Figure3 MapannexedtotheOrdAward,1868(para. 99) 45
Figure4 Diagramshowing"TheTemenggongs and SultansofJohor 50
from1761 "(para.108)
Figure5 SketchmapshowingthelocationsfortheLighthouse 66
mentionedinButterworth'letterof28November1844(para.
138)
Figure6 Aerialphotographshowingthe areaof PBP andmainland 67
Johor (includiPointRomania(TgPenyusoh)(para.140)
Figure7 DrawingbyJ.T.ThomsonofHorsburghLighthouse, October 69
1851,showingPointRomania,BarbukitHillandtheFalse
Barbukit,reproducedinThornson"Accoun tfthe
HorsburghLighthouse"(para.140)
Fiure 8 DrawingbyJ.T.ThornsonofPedra Branca(withoutthe 70
lighthouse),1850,reproducedinson's "Accoun tfthe
HorsburghLighthouse"(para.140)
Figure9 Thomson'sChar tfthe ViciniiyoftheHorsburghLighthouse 73
andAdjacentMalayanCoast,1851(para.146)
Figure10 Textoftheletter from Goverrutterwortothe 81
GovemtnentofIndia,26August1846(pm 162)
Figure11 AerialphotographofCapeRachadoLighthouse(pm 185) 91
Figure12 AerialphotographofPulPisang(pm 185) 92
Figure 13 Extra cndenlargementof map"PontianKechil",Sheet129, 93
Series7010,publishedbytheDirectorofNationalMapping,
Malaysia1974,Edition5-PPNM(para.185)
Figure14 Photographicalreproductioonftheinscriptthecopper 115
plate installedinHorsburghLighthouse,homson's
"Accoun tftheHorsburghLighthouse"(paras.211,220)
Figure15 Sketchmapshowingthelocationofplacesmentioned the 136
exchangeoflettersbetweenGovernorCavenaghandthe
Temenggongof May1861(para.270)
Figure16 Satellitephotogra(3)of PBP,MiddleRocksandSouth 195
Ledge(paras.14,426) Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Thepositionsofthe Parties
I. Both Parties have now filed heir Memorials and Counter-Memorials,and each
round of pleadings brings theessential questionfor the Court into clearerfocus. The
Parties' Counter-Memorialsconfirm that, as suggested by Malaysia in its Counter-
Memorial,the first essentialquestion facedbythe Court, andthe oneon whichthe Parties
disagree,is "who had sovereigntyover PBP, MiddleRocksand South Ledgein the years
immediatelyfollowing the inaugurationof the lighthouse,and on what basis?"' The
answertothe secondessentialquestion-whether anythinghashappenedsincethattime to
changethat Legalsituation-was resolvedin the negativein the first round of pleadings.2
That is,conduct subsequent to theinaugurationofthe lighthouse1851 up tothe present
dayis bothsecondaryand not dispositivc:of the questionof title. Accordingly,this Reply
willfocus mainlyon the historyfthe regioninthe perioduptothe early 19" centuryand
events in the19% century leadingto the inaugurationof the lighthousein1851. The
conductofthe Partiesafter1851has alreadybeencomprehensivelyaddressed,butitwillbe
dealt within ChapterSto the extent necessaryto respondto pointsraisedby Singaporein
itsCounter-Memorial.
2. Malaysia'scase, as set out in its Memorial, isthat it has original titleover PBP
becauseit waspartof the Sultanateof Johorwhichlater became partof Malaysia, and that
this title wasneverrelinquished. Theconstruction andoperation ofthe lighthouse onPBP
byGreatBritainand laterSingaporewasonthebasis ofpermission grantedbythe rulersof
Johorfor that purpose. Singapore'scase, as set out in its Memorial, is that GreatBritain
acquiredan originaltitle over PBP throughthe "taking of lawful possession"duringthe
years 1847-1851,such takingof sovereigntyoccurringvariously befor1847,in 1847,and
between 1847 and 1851, but in any case being completed by the end of
1
2 MCM, para.13.
Ibid.1851. T~hat takingof possessionin turn entailed sovereigntyover the otherfeatures,
Middle Rocksand South Ledge, eventhough there is no evidence of any exercise of
sovereigntypriorto the presentdisputearising.
3. In itsCounter-Memorial Malaysip aointed outthat"thetaking oflawfulpossession"
is nota recognised modeof acquisition, andthat Singaporedoesnotseekto establishtitle
throughany otherrecognised modes of acquisition,suchas occupationof term nulliusor
cession, nor even the more doubtkl doctrineof acquisitiveprescription.4 For its part
Singapore's Counter-Memoria alguesthat Malaysiacannot showthatPBPwas everpartof
theSultanateof s oh o or'that therewasacontinuouschainofsuccessionoftitlebeforeand
after1824to thepresentday.6
4. Singapore'scase of title to PBP as expandedin its Counter-Memorialis that: (a)
PBPwas terra nullius(although itdoes not use that term7)which was taken in "lawful
possession by agents of the British Crownin the period 1847-1851" and "[iln the
circumstances the intention ofthe British Crown wasto establish sovereigntyyy8 o;r,
alternatively,(b)PBPdid notbelongtothe Sultanateof oh o and"[plossessionwastaken
openly.. .withoutprotest"from "any Malay chieforanyotherpower in theregionw l.0That
is, if PBP did belongto someone,that someonedid not protest the open takingof
possessionby the constructionof the lighthouseby the Britishbetween 1847-1851. The
problemwith the first argumentis that Singaporecannot showthat GreatBritain ever
asserted,or manifested an intention to assert,sovereignty overPBP. Theproblem with the
secondargumentisthatGreatBritainatthetimetreated the conseno tfJohorto thebuilding
ofthelighthouseasa necessary part of thearrangements,andSingaporedoes notidentifya
possible Malayentity or other poweras a potential candidate for sovereignty. In short,
Singaporehas failed in its Memorialandagainin its Counter-Memoriatlo statea coherent
legalbasisfor itsclaimto sovereignty.
3 SeeMCM,paras.58-60,which discusses Singapore's equivocatonits Memorialoverthe precise
time at which the alleged taking of sovereignty ocd.his equivocationis continueitCounter-
Memorial:e.g.,inpara.1.9Singapore clathalawful possessiwas taken"duringtheyears1847-1851";
in para.3.39itrefers to"thetaking of lawful ponfthe islainI847by agentsoftheBritishCrown".
4 MCM, para6..
5 SCM,pt~as.1.5-1.8.
6 SCM, para.1.4.
7 Singaporemerely observes taBP was "uninhabite(SCM,paras.3.1l, 3.43(b)).
K SCM,para 5.3.
9 SCM,para.3.43(&)& (e).
'O SCM,paras.1.9,5.3.5. On the contrary, a number of key points emerge from Singapore'sCounter-
MemorialinsupportofMalaysia'scase:
(a) Singapore does not deny that the old Kingdom(or Sultanate)of Johor
extendednorthandsouth ofthe straits."
(b) Singapore agrees that in 1824 certain events took place,'2 namely the
conclusionof the Anglo-DutchTreaty,which ledto the dismembermentof
the Sultanate of Johorintotwo parts, withRiau-Lingga fallingwithinthe
DutchsphereandJohor withintheBritishsphere.'3
(c) Singaporeconfirmsthat underthe termsofthe 1824 Crawfird TreatySultan
Hussain and the Temenggongof Johor ceded the island of Singapore,
together with"the adjacent seas, straitsand islets"up to a distanceof 10
miles tothe 13ritishi4-i.e. that SultanHussaincould disposeof islandsin
the Singaporeand Malacca Straits, including some closerto what isnow
Indonesia thantoJohor.
(d) Singapore'sdiscussion of eventsis confirmatoryof the factthat the Dutch
did not acquirePBPby virtueof the Anglo-DutchTreaty of 1824.' (~he
fact isthataRer 1824the Dutchnever claimedthe islandswithinor nearby
the straits.16)
(e) Singapore produces no documentwhich contradicts the conclusion that
Johor's consentto the constructionof the lighthousein 1844 extendedto
PBP."
6. Despite this convergence, Singapore's Counter-Memorialattacks Malaysia's
accountof the historyof the regionas "skewed andinaccurate"." It seeks todemonstrate
thisbythe introductionof a numberofnew arguments.
SCM,para. 3.8AppendixA, para.12.
SCM,pam.3.2;see alsoAppendixA,SectionC,especiallyparas.&2 14.
SCM,para.2.9.
SCM.para.6.21,AppendixA, SectionC, especiaparas.l1& 13.
SCM,para.3.22.
SeefurtherChapter2elow.
SeeSingapore'sdiscussionofthecorrespondencienSCM,ChaptV.
SCM,para.1.4. B. NewargumentsinSingapore's Counter-Memorial
7. Singapore'snew arguments attackMalaysia'saccountof the historyof the region
on threefronts:regionaltoponymy;geographyand geomorphology;and by introducinga
novel historiographical argumentwhich can be characterised as "the case of the
disappearingSultanate".These new argumentsrequiresomepreliminary comment,
(0 TOPOV~Y
8. Singaporeplacesa great dealof emphasison thevariationsin place nameswhich
occur in both primary and secondary materials, arguintghat they are determinative of
questionsof historical fact relatingto the placeso variously named. liteven challenges
Malaysia'suse of the name Pulau Batu Puteh.Singapore asserts, onthe basis of a 2001
study in Portuguese cartography stating merely that the Portuguestendedto use local
ratherthan Portuguese namesin the region,that becausethe Portuguese called theisland
PedraBrancainthe 16' and 17'centuriestheislandcannot also have hada Malay namein
the sameperiod. Onthequestionablestrength ofthisproposition Singaporethen drawsthe
conclusionthatthe Malays did not have sufficientinteret the islandto bothernamingit;
becausethe Malaysdid not namethe island,therefore Johor didnot claim it as partof its
dorninion~.'~
9. Thisargumentfailsatevery step. It certainldoesnot support an argument that the
Malaysdid not call the islandPufauBatu Puteh. It also begsthe question:if Singapore
cannotaccept thatMalays living in the region,sailingpast the island, and using itas a
navigationalaidor fishing spot mighthavereferredto it in Malayas whiterock (whichis
what the island looked like and what PBP means2'),what does Singapore suggestthey
mighthave called it? From the very firstknown referenceto the island, it was called
"whiterock". TheChinesenavigatorZhengIle voyagingintheareaaround 1405and 1433
calledthe island "PiaChiao"(whiterock). His recordof his voyagesformedthe basis of
the Wubei Zhi Chart, made in about 1621: PBP is clearly markedon the Chart as
SCM, paras.2.6-2.7.
MM, para. 5. "Pedra Branca" means white rock in Portuguese;the French cartographerBellin
labelledtheisland"Pierre Blanche" (seeAtlasMap3). a%, Pia Chiao, translated intoEnglish as "white rock".21 Moreover, Singapore's
argument doesnot reflect the historical recorwhichshowsthat the island was in fact
referredto by its Malay name aswell as by its Portuguesename. Thomsonhimself
sometimescalledthe island "BatuPuteh",and observedthat "Therock ...is cdled Pedra
BrancabyEuropeansandBatuPutihbytheMalays,both terms signifying whiterock"."
The Singapore Free Press calledthe island BatuPuteh in1843.~~The namehas been in
useinprintforatleast170years.
10. In similarvein Singapore makesmuchof Malaysia'suse of the term Sultanateof
Johor. SingaporecriticisesMalaysia's use of the term Sultanateof Johorinsteadof the
term "Johor-Riau-LinggaSultanate" on the basis that these terms refer to "entirely
differentyntities.24InanattempttomuddythewatersEurtheritadoptsno fewerthanthree
terms,"Stateof Johor","peninsularJohor" and"mainlandJohor",to referto theentityof
the SultanatofJohor.
11. It is not correct that theterms "Sultanateof Johor"and the "Johor-Riau-Lingga
Sultanate"describe,or havehistoricallybeenusedto describe, entirelydifferent entities.
First,the terms "SultanatofJohor"or 'Kingdomof Sohor"withoutthe additionalwords
"Riau-Lingga"were usedby bothhistoricalpersonalities(e.g.,HugoGrotius,thedrafters
of the Anglo-Dutch~reag) and historiansof the region (e.g., Winstedt, Netscher,
Andaya, ~rocki~~t)o describethe entirepre-1824areawhich Singaporetermsthe "ofior-
Riau-LinggaSultanate". Seconda,lthoughit is truethatthe courtof the Sultanate moved
around27and that in the early19' centurythe Sultanateof Johor broke up into two
''
22 Vol.2,AnnexI ofthisReply.
Thomson,"Extracts of Account of The Horsburgh Lighthouse Ly T. Thomson F.R.G.S.,
GovernmentSurveyoAr tSingapore",TheJournaloftheIndianArchipelagoand EasAsia ,.378,MM
Annex60(extract)andSCM, Annex61(fulltext). Thomsonspethenameaseither"BatuPutih"or "Batu
Puteh":seekther the referencesatpp.378,410,411,416,485 and486.
U MM,para. 95.
*4 SCM,para 2.9.
SeeMM,paras. 38,5 respectively.
KO. Winstedt,AHistoryofJohore (1365-1941},KualaLurnpur,MalaysianBranchthe Royal
AsiaticSociety,repr. 1992 (citedin h. 13;SCM, fns6.11,641);E.Netscher,De Nederlandersin
15);A.L.Andaya,TheKingdom.afJohore1641-1728,KualaLumpur,OxfordUniversityPress,1975(cited
inMM,fii 16;SCM,h. 600); C.A.Trocki,Princeofpiratex TheTemenggongandtheDevelopment of
JohorandSingapore1784-1885,SingaporeUniversity Press,1979. Trockiusesthe ter"oIdJohor"
and"new"or"modem"Johorto describethe Sultanabeforeandaftethesplitintotwo distinctareasfrom
themid-19'century(see forexample1-2).
27 SeeWer Chapter2ofthis Reply,~ara.'5, AppendixI,paras.B.2-B.5.
5Sultanates (respectively calledthe Sultanateof Johor andthe Riau-LinggaSultanatein
accordancewith the areas they covered),there is continuity between theentity, Johor,
referredto byHugoGrotiusandbythedraftersoftheAnglo-DutchTreatyof 1824,andthe
Johor whose consentfor the constructionof Horsburgh Lighthouse was soughb ty the
British in1844,andthe JohorwhichisaconstituentstateofMalaysia.
12. Moreover, Singapore's alternativ terminologydoes not providethe claritywhich it
suggests.28Theuseoftheterms"peninsularJohor"or"mainlandJohor"arenotaccurateto
describethe Sultanateof Johor a#er the Johor partof the Sultanate splitfiom the Riau-
Linggapartof the Sultanatebe suggestthatthepost-partitionSultanateof Johor
consisted onlyof the mainland orpeninsularpartof the original Sultanate of Johor without
any offshore islands suchas PBP, Pulau Pisang, Pulau Aur, or PuIau Tinggi, and that
somehow partsof the Sultanateof Johor disappearedor droppedoff in the processof its
split from one Sultanate intotwo. There is no evidence whatever to support these
propositions,and much to contradictthem. This includesin particular British practice
affectingthe Malay sultanates in 1824 and throughout the 19' century. Nowherein the
sources is there any suggestionthat islandswhich hadbeenpart of the Sultanateof Johor
(or any other nativeState in the region)becameterranulliusbecausethe Sultanate split
intotwo under BritishandDutchinfluence.Further,theBritish werecarefblnot to acquire
additional bitsofterritory byaccident and they were meticulous in listingthe territorythey
didacquire. Atnotimedidanyofthese lists includePBP.
(ii) Geographyandgeomorphology
13. Singapore misreads Malaysia's discussion about the locatioofnPBP in relationto
SingaporeandMalaysiato suggest that Malaysia is makina gn argumentbasedonphysical
proximity.29Indoing so,itdescribesPBPas beingcloserto Indonesia'sPuiauBintanthan
to the Malaysian mainland (by a matterof 0.1of a nautical mile(nm))." Quiteapartfrom
the questionable validitofan argumentbasedon geographicalproximity, this argumen otf
Singapore ignores Malaysia's Romania Island (ws hich include Peak Rock) lying offits
southern coast: these are the closest land to PBP, closer by nearly 1 nm to PBP than
28 SeeSCM, para.2.10.
29 SCM, paras1.6,4.6-4.7.
30 SCM, para.2.& Insert1p. 12.Indonesia's Pulau~intan.3' Indeed the link betweenPBP and Point Romania at the
entranceto the Straitwas longre~ognised.~~
14. Singapore also attempts to make somethino gf the geomorphologyof the region
wherethethree featuresarelocated. Itobservesthat there isa deep water channelbetween
PBPand the Malaysian mainlandbut only relatively shallow waterbetween PBPand
Indonesia. This, it says,"demonstrate[s]that anyargumenton proximityis not supported
by the geography"."3 SinceMalaysia is notmakingan argument basedon proximityas
such-as distinct from thehistoricalappurtenanceof the islandsin the vicinityof the
peninsulato Johor-this argument isbesidethe point. In any event,if the provenanceof
PBPis to be determinedby referenceto the criterionof the depth of surroundingwater
channels (an entirelynovel legalargument), it would also suggestthat title to PBPmore
properlylies with Indonesia thanwith either Singaporeor Malaysia. But thefact is that
neitherIndonesia nor itsDutch predecessorseve lridclaimto PBP.
IS. Torepeat, Malaysia does nob taseitsclaim onthe mere proximityof PBPto therest
of Malaysia. But it is an unavoidablegeographicalfactthatPBPlies6.8 nm fromthe rest
of Malaysiaand25.5 nm fromSingapore,that it is impossibleto describe or illustrPBP
withoutthis being apparent, and thatthis irreducible geographical factis necessarily the
backgroundto the historyof dealings with PBP. If Great Britain and then Singaporhead
soughtto claim dominion over islands and other featurw esell beyondthe famous10-mile
linewhich determinedthe territoryof the settlement, one mighthave expectedthemto do
so clearly. One might have expectedlegislationthat incorporatedthe territory, maps to
showthe territory, listsof islandsto list it, laws toname it, officials experiencedin the
administrationof lighthouses to treatit as part of Singapore. Yet-as Malaysia has
shown-the reverseofthisoccurred.
3L MM,para.32. PulauPemanggiilntheRomaniaIslandsgoup istheclosestlandtoPBP.
32 See,e.g.,LeNepfzineOriental,dauRoi ,arM. D'Apr6sdeMannevilleteParis:Demonville,
Brest:Malassi1775)p. 138:referrito"'PierreBlanche[et]lapointeRomanie,quitouteslesdeux
fomenti'enh-ieoulasortieduddtroiA4dac:du c6tdei'est"
' SCM,para.2.3. (iii) The"caseofthedisappearingSultanate"
16. Singapore seeksto showthatJohorhadnotitleto PBPwhenThomsoncommenced
constructionofthe lighthouse.Insupport,itmountstwo alternativearguments. Thefirstis
that, becausetraditionalconcepts ofMalay sovereignty werebased onallegiancerather
thanterritory,it was commonto findterritory--or emptyland-in the Malayregionthat
did not belongto anyone.34Because PBP was uninhabited,so goesthe argument, there
were nopeopleon itfromwhomallegiancecould besought,sonoMalay rulerwouldhave
botheredclaiming PBPas part ofhisterritory,andnonedidPSAndsoPBPwasneverpart
ofthe Sultanateof Johor, ancientor modern,beforeor after it splitfromRiau-Lingga,and
so PBP belonged tono one in 1847and it was notpart of the coastaleconomy.36This
argumentignores thesimplefact that peoplewho owedallegianceto a Malay rulerlived
somewhere andso a notion of territoriality was part of traditional Malayforms of
sovereignty;the importanco efcontroloverpeopleintheMalay kingdomor the absenceof
clearly demarcated borders didnot preclude notionsof territoriality. Moreover, the
interactionwith Europeantradingcompaniesduringthe 17*and 18' centuriesled Malay
State-centres,suchasJohor, todevelopfurthertheirnotionofterrit~riality.~~
17. The second alternative argument-in which Singapore invokesthe toponomy
argumentoutlined above-is thatofthe"disappearingSultanate". Thiscanbe summarised
as follows.The SultanateofJohor wasanunstablekingdom3'consistingof littlemorethan
thinlypopulatedrivermouths.39Itwasina stateofdisso~ution?~It hadallbutdisappeared
bythe early 19~ centuryand itfollowsthat the Sultanatedid not retain itspossessionsin
theregionandthatthereis noterritorialor other continuitybetweenthatentitycalled Johor
by Grotius andthe entity calledJohorwhich becamepart of Malaysia. Correspondingly,
PBPneverbecamea territorialpossessionof theSultanateofJohorafterit splitfromRiau-
SCM,paras.3.8& 4.20.
SCM,par&3.1 1.
Seefurtherthcexpert opinionsbyProfessorsAndayaandHouben, AppendiceI1to thisReply.
SCM,paras.3.13-3.15.
SCM,para.3.15.
SCM, para.3.15.
SCM,paras.3.31-3.34.18. On either argument, Singaporesays, the 1824Anglo-DutchTreafy is irrelevant42
and"did not touchuponor affectthe status"of PBP?~Nevertheless,Singaporegoesonto
arguethat the Anglo-DutchTreatydid not result in any sort of "demarcation"line in the
Singapore andthat,evenifitdid,PBPwasinneitherthe British nor Dutch sphere!'
In Singapore's eyes, Malaysia's emphasis onthe 1824Anglo-DutchTreaty is misplaced:
the real.event of importanceis the subsequent donationby letter of 25 June 1825 by the
'%rueSultan"of the Sultanateof Johor,who was based inRiau under Dutch influence,of
theJohor territoryin the Malay Peninsulato his brother, SultanHussain, the otherclaimant
to the Sultanate of oh or." This donation was limited to the mainland temtories and
excluded"all the islandsinthe seayyt,husexcludingPBP."~
19. Singaporealso pointsoutthat the defact0 rulerinJohorwas notthe Sultanbutthe
Temenggong,suggests that the scope of his territory in Johor was less than that of the
Sultan,and argues that therefore PBP could nothave fallen within hisdomains either.48
Whetheror not Singapore's argumentas to the traditional extentof the Temenggong's
territoriesas compared withthe Sultan'sis correct,it isin anyevent irrelevant. TheBritish
treated both the Sultan and the Ternenggong as the sovereign authorities of Johor.
Moreover,the Temenggongsucceededin 1855 to dejure title over the territorywhenthe
Sultan of Johor formally ceded full authority over all but a very small part of his
tenit~ries?~ Singapore itselfrecords this fact." In order to get around it, Singapore
suggeststhatthewording ofthe 1855cessionagreementconfirmsthat the Sultanonlyhad
territories"within the MalayanPeninsula"to cede; i.e. no offshore islands such as PBP,
PulauPisang,Pulau Auror PulauTinggiwere includedin the cession becausePBPwas
eithernot one of the Sultan'spossessions(becausebeingan islandit was not a "mainland
territory")or, if it was, hedid not cede it to the Temenggong(because,being anoffshore
isIand,it wasnotwithin the"Malayan~eninsula").~'
''
SCM,paras.3.17 & 3.30.
43 SCM,paras3 ..31,3.43(4,
44 SCM,paras.3.20-3.24.
4s SCM,paras.3.29-3.30.
46 SCM, paras.3.31-3.34.
48 SCM,paras.3.33-3.34,
49 SCM,para.3.36.
AppendixItoSthisReply,para.C,14. onlya smallareabenveentheKesangandtheMuarRivers. See funher
'' SCM,paras.3.38-3.39.
SCM,pm. 3.39.20. Singaporein essence suggeststhat PBP'Yelloff Johor,either when theSultanof
Riau-Lingga "donated"Johor to the Sultanof Johor in 1825 or when dejure title was
transferredfrom the Sultan of Johor to the Temenggongin 1855. But this is a priori
unlikely,andthereisnotrace of any suchsuggestionintheBritishrecordsofthetime. The
way in which successiveGovernorsof the Straits Settlementstreated the territoryand
islandsof the Malay States in treaty relationswith the Crown bears no relationshipto
Singapore'snewtheoryof vanishingsultansanddisappearingdominions. The Britishand
the Dutchagreed on the effectof their 1824 Treaty,which disposedof the wholeof the
ancient Sultanate ofJohor; they were anxious above all not to create anyvacuum of
authorityor territorywhichcouldallowathirdpowertocomein. And from an indigenous
point of view, the political and legal history of the Malay peninsula andimmediately
surrounding islandsafter1824 is one of continuity, not discontinuit. he islandswhich
becamepartoftheSettlementof Singaporeby virtueoftheJohor'scessionof 1824 arestill
partof Singapore;the otheroffshoreislands are still partof Johor. There is noexception,
nofallingoff, nodisappearance;noislandis leftunaccountedfor.
Whatall theseSingaporearguments failto explain is thewell-documented British
21.
behaviour in relatioto PBP, If undertraditionalMalay concepts of sovereignty PBP and,
presumably,other partsof the area whichwere uninhabitedwerenot theterritoryof any
Malaychief, and ifin 1825 SultanAbdul Rahmanof Riau-Lingga cededonly mainland
Johorandnot anyislands,thefollowingquestionneedsto beanswered:why didtheBritish
behaveasthey.didinrelationtotheregion? Inparticular, whydidthe British
o seekJohor'sagreementto cedethe "Islandof Singapore ..togetherwiththe
adjacentseas,straits,andislets,tothe extent often geographicalmiles,from
the coast of the saidmain Islandof Singapore"in1824 eventhoughnot all
itssurroundingislandswere inhabited?52
request permissionin 1844 fromthe dejure andde facto rulers of Johor to
constructa lighthouseonan islandnearPoint~omania?'~
suggestin 1850 that the Temenggongbe requestedto establisha villageon
PointRomaniatoserviceand protectthe lighthouse?54
MM, pata.56.
l3 MM, paras121-2.
54 MM, paras.146-147.Singaposuggests(paras.44.46f thattheTemenggong'administration
didnotxqendtoPointRomaniain themid-19'century---clheBritishconsideredotheraet thetime. * facilitatethe settlemetfthedisputebetweenthe SultanandTemenggong
in1855'f"
a act as arbitratinthe tenitorialboundarydispute between Pahangand
Johor which resulteinthe 1868 OrdAwardallocating islands, botinside
and outside the 3 nm territorialsea, between Pahang and Johor (an
allocationoperativeto thisday)?56
22. Singapore goesto greatlengthsinitseffortto discreditthe evidencethatconfirms
thatPBP waspart of oho or ,^reflectedin Britishdealings withthe ruIersof Johor in
respectof PBP,e.g. inseekingpermissiontoconstructa lighthousethedB cooperatingto
combat piracy inthearea of PBP,'~receivinga visit fromthe Temenggongat the very
beginningof constructionwork6'and attemptingto excludethe OrangLaut ,ubjectsof
theTemenggong, fromthelighthouse.61Singaporeattemptsto unpickthewordingusedin
19¢urydocumentsto showthatitcannotbeinferredthatPBPwas partofJohor. The
very fact that Singaporeis compelledto approachthe historical evidencein this nit-
pickingfashiontendsto undermineits casethatsuchevidenceisirrelevant:theclearsense
to begained fromtheevidencetenderedbyboth Partiest,akenasawhole,isthat likeother
isIands in the area PBP fell within the territoryof the Sultanateof Johor, awas
consideredassuchbytheBritish.
23. Singapore's versioof the historyof the region paintsan eccentricpictureof a
SultanateofJohor made upof small,disconnectedbitsandpiecesof territominterspersed
with bitsthat belongedto no one, a Sultanatewhich passedin and out of existence-
indeed, whichdidnot resembleanykindof Stateat all,stilllessthe StatetheBritish dealt
wit hontinuouslyand (forthe mostpartr)spectfidlythroughoutthe lgdcentury. There
is noevidencethat thiswashowthe Britishor theMalayrulersthought oftenitoryinthe
regioninthemid- 1 century.
5s SCM,AppendixA,pars 19.
MM, para86-88.
SCM,paras4384.39.
'' sCM,paras.4.43-4.44.
59 SCM,paras4.47-4.50.
60 SCM,pm 4.51.
SCM,paras4.53-4.54. 24. Singapore'scase might carry more weightif PBP was an isolated rock in the
middleofthe IndianOcean,out of sightandout ofmind,butthis ispatentlynotthe case.
The isiandis visiblefromthe Johorcoastand was well known to MaIayfishermenand
pilots. The British and the rulers ofthe Sultanateof Johorwere dealingith a key
landmark inthe entranceofa waterway whichhadbeenheavilytraffickedfor centuries.
Whatevermightbesaidofoutlyingislands or forestedtractsinhabitedby hunter-gatherers
(andyet boundarieswere drawn throughsuchtractsand islandsattributed to oneStateor
the other), it cant e concludedhatPBPand the surrounding area, inthe centreof the
regionbetweenthe Mataypeninsula and the Riau-Lmggaarchipelagoand at the entrance
ofoneofthemost used waterwayisntheregionwassomehowforgotten.
25. In addition, Singapore's argumentasre inconsistent. For example, it claims
variousIythat: accordingto traditionalMalay conceptsof sovereignty,based on the
allegianceof populatedareasandnotthe control oftenitord2 the SultanateofJohor"at
times amountedto no more tha n mere collectionof thinly populatedcentresat river
mouths"63a ,ndsoPBP,andipsofactoPeak ROCIC ,idnotfallundertheJohorSultanor
Temenggong'sor anyotherruler'sterritoryin 1850becauseitwas~ninhabited;~a 'ndthat
when the Sultanate was in the processof splittinginttwo,the Sultan overthe Wau-
Linggapart of the Sultanateof Johorin 1825"ceded"onlymainlandJoborandnot my
islandsinthe sea.66But later Singaporseek to distinguishtheprovenance of PBPfrom
that of Peak Rock, an"island in thsea", by arguing thatin 1850the Romania Island
group of which PeakRock is apartfell within the territorialseas of Joand was
thereforea locationwithinw oh or .^^nt Romaniaandthe RomaniaIslandscannotbe
part of theterritoryof Johorto supportone part ofSingapore's argumen(tinapterV)
and outsideofJohorto support anothepartofitsargument(inChapters HI andVI).
26. In short,allthe evidence, includthat put forwardby Singapore,showsthat the
Sultanateof Johor did survive into the modem period and that in time it became a
SCM;paras.3.2,3.4-3.12.
SCMapara.3.1S.
64 In''themid-19' century, theTemenggong'sadministeffectivelydid not extenthe
RomaniaIslandsorevento PointRomanSCM, para.4.10.
SCMapara.3.11.Followingthis lineof argument, PcndtheRomaniaislandswouldalso
M1 outsidetheSultanate'tseastheywereuninhabitinthemid-19'century.
'' SCM,paras.S,65,5.71.constituent Stateof modern-day~ala~sia.~~The divisionof the region into spheres of
influence which resulted fromtheAnglo-DutchTreatywasrespectedby the Dutchandthe
irredentist claimsof the Sultan of Riau-Linggato be the "only and true Sultan" were
disregardedby British andDutch The islandsin the Singapore Straitand around
the Johorcoast were consistently treatedas part ofthe Sultanate of Johorfrom that time
onwards-and wellbefore therelevant transactions inthe present case.Thevery existence
andextent ofSingaporeasa British Colony,andnowasanindependent State,isthe result.
(iv) Peripheral issues
Singactore'sinteroretationofthe lighthousecorrespondence
(a)
27. All Singapore's subsequent arguments in its Counter-Memorial,namefy its
interpretations of British documentb searingon the constructionof the lighthouse,70 are
predicatedon its centralpremisethat the Britishat allrelevanttimes consideredPBPwas
terra nulh and/ornot partofthe Sultanateof Johor. Butif the samedocumentsare read
and interpretedagainstthe premisethat the British consideredthat PBP was part of the
Sultanateof Johor,a quite different picture emerges.The documentssupportMalaysia's
view that both the British and the rulers of Johor consideredthat Johor had given
permissionto build the lighthouseon PBP. Conversely,there is nothing that supports
Singapore's viewthat the British,the Dutch orthe Malayrulers of Johor consideredthe
island open to a "taking of lawful possession" andan (in the event quite fictional)
incorporationintotheSettlementof Singaporebetween1847-185 1.
28. Singapore seeksto dismiss the importanceof the key fact-that permissionto
constructa lighthouse near Point Romaniao ,r anyother placewithinthe territoryof Johor,
was givenby rulersof Johorin 1844-by inferringthat any documentsin respect ofthe
See Mer L.A. Andaya,Kingdomof Johor,1641-1728 (1975, OxfordUniversityPress, Kuala
Lumpur)andHistoryofMalaysi(a 2nded.,2000,Macmillan~Universitf HawaiiPress,London/l-fonolulu).
Seefurther Chapter2 of this Reply,paras.84-92, AppendixI, para.C.12, p. 214 and11,pendix
aras.19-24,pp.225-227.
Butterworth'sletterof26August1846presenting theforLe lighUlouseto his superiorsinIndia
referredtohis earlierletterof 28November 1844whichin turnattached,interaria, the Temenggong'sand
Sultan's lettsf consentof 25 November 1844(SCM p,ara.5.81-5.84),andChurch'sletter of 7November
1850(SCM,paras.5.87-5.89,5.99-5.100). Copiesof Butterworth'slettersof 28 November1844,including
all its attachm(i.e.,includingthe lettersof permission ofthe Johor rulers)and26 August 1846wereboth
attachedto the letter of 3 October 1846 from the Governmentof India to the Courtof Directors,which
reported that"PedmBrancahad beenapprovedas the positionrrectingtheHorsburghLight":annexedto
Malaysia'sMemorial,MMAnnex54.constructionof a lighthouseinthe area of Point Romania preparebdefore 22 August 1845
areirrelevantto the questionofthe constructionofthelighthouseonPBP. Only documents
preparedin the period 1845-1847 are consideredby Singaporeto be relevant7'"because
oncethe focushad shiftedto PedraBranca,the issueof thirdpartytitle droppedaway''.72
Thisoverlooksthe obviouspointthat if the British authoritiesin the year1845-1847 had
beenaskedwho had sovereigntyoverthe islandon whichthe lighthousewas tobe built,
andto recall whether consenthad been givenbythe nativerulerto buildthere,the answer
was inthe documentsbeforethem.
29. The crucial factis that copiesof the lettersof permissionwere attachedto thekey
correspondence of 3 October 1846 se
Directorsof the EIC concerningthe c
correspondenceexplicitly dealing with
lighthouselists as relevantthe dispatch
India whichincludes Johor's lettersof
the key British personalitiesinvolvedin the
would have(a) limited their view of ma
correspondencecreated inthe period 1845-1847,
documentsbefore 1845 as if they had never existed(eventhough such documentswere
attached) and(c) feltthe needto restatethequestionof sovereigntyoverthe locationofthe
lighthouseinevery pieceof correspondencebetween 1845-1847 ,oesnotmake sense?'
7' SCM,para.5.86-5.87,
73 SCM,para.5.90.
74 MM:para.136. Seealsonote69 above.
These are the letters fromthe Under-Secreto the Governmentof Bengal to Governor
Butterworthf10May1847 (SM Annex 20;MCNAnnex 20)the"fi.r1portregardintheconstructiof
theLighthousoenPBPsentbyGovernorButterworto W.SetonKarr,Under SecretarotheGovernmenotf
Bengal,dated12Junel848(SM Annex27).
SCM,para.5.87. 30. Singapore'sargument onthe omissionof referencesto the issueof permission in
thenine "relevant" documentist listsfromtheperiod5-1847~i~mplies, moreovert,hat
the questionof sovereignty overPBPwasrelevanton each occasion.Butifthe question
of sovereigntywasrelevantin each document, hydid theBritishnot restatein eachthat
the islandwas rerranulliw and opento occupation, orrefer to the permissionof some
other Malay ruler or Power? The answer is that the documentin question werenot
concernedwith sovereignty over thelocationof theghthousebecause thathad already
been addressed. The record of correspondenceshows that Butterworth'sletter of 28
November 1844annexing the Sultan's and Ternenggong'sletters of consent of 25
November 1844 wasalways beforethe relevant officials during the decision making
process?7 The recordalso showsthat, contraryto Singapore'ssuggesti~n~Peak Rock
wasnotdroppedbytheSingapore authorities asapossible locationforthelighthouseuntil
1846. The finalauthorisationfor PBPsthe location was notsoughtftomtheEIC Court
ofDirectors until3 October1846.
31. Thus the British authoritiesunderstoodthat the consentgivin 25 November
1844bythe Sultanandthe Ternenggongto constructa lighthouse extendedtoPBP. This
understandingis demonstratedin particularby a letterof 26 August 1corn Governor
Butterwort. to the Secretaryof the Governmentof India in which he explains thatthat
'"wholeof the detailsfor tcas oef LightHouses"relatingtothe Peak Rocklocationas
setfofi inhisprevious correspondenceof28November1844,''willbeequallyapplicable
to the new Position",PBP.~' Butterworth'sletter of28 November 1844annexedthe
lettersofconsentof25November 1844ofthe SultanandTemenggong.
32. Singaporehas counteredthisbywhat canbeconvenientgy termedas its"care/case"
argument.80 It alleges that Malaysia mistakenlytranscribed the original copy of
Butterworth'sletter of26 August 1846 by substituting"case" for "care", and that
Butterworthwas referring only to the"care of Light House", not the "case of Light
Houses''when advocatingPBP as the location forthe lighthouseinsteadofPeak Rock
Therefore, Singaporargues, the1844lettersromthe Johorauthoritiesgiving permission
77 SCM,pm. 5.87.
SeefurthChapte3rbelow.
MM,M,para134.6-5.90.
80 SCM,paras.5.80-5.83.to constructa lighthouse-being aspectsofthecasefora lighthouse-did not also relateto
PBP,unlikeaspectsof Butterworth's letter of28November 1844which relatedto thecare
of the lighthouse.81 As will be explained in detail in Chapter 3 the word used by
Butterworthin his 26 August letterwas "case"ratherthan "care",and Malaysia'soriginal
transcriptionof the correspondencein itsMemorial isaccuratea8'But whether thewordis
"case"or"care",thecorrespondencedoesnotsupportSingapore'sinterpretation.83
33. Herein also lies the obvious exp protest at the
constructionofthe lighthouseonwhich Singapore placessuchweight:therewasnothingto
protest.84The Johorauthoritieshad alrea& given permissionfor a lighthouseto be built
"near Point Romania" or "anyspotdeemedeligibie7y,85
34. Singaporeinterpretsthehistorical recordinthe periodafter 1847-in particularthe
visit ofthe Temenggongin June 1850g6and the laying of the foundation stoneof the
lighthousein May 1850*~-in a similarfashionto the pre-1847correspondence,for the
most partbuildingits case solelyon an attemptto discreditMalaysia's. But in the 261
pagesof its Counter-Memorial Singapore cannot shoa wnyrecordof a Britishintentionto
assumesovereigntyover PBP. This is anessential elementof itstheory. Thiselement is
not recordedin anyof the British correspondenceftomthe period. Noris thereany record
that Britainmanifestedits intentionbyanyof theusualformalitiesor informalitieswhich it
employedat thattime. Singaporecannot prove the titleitclaims.
(b) Singa~ore'srelianceontheMinauiersandEcrehosdictum
35, Singapore invokes the Court's statement iM n inquiersand EcrehosCase that
"[wlhatisof decisiveimportance,inthe opinionof the Court,is not indirectpresumptions -
deduced from events in the Middle Ages,but the evidencewhichrelatesdirectlytothe
" SCM,para.5.83.
SCM,para.5.83.
84 Seefurtheparas.162-174below.
8s MM, para.122.1,5.137,6.& 6.6.
86 SCM,paras.5.102-5.106.
SCM,paras.5.112,5.117-5.120. Singapore incorryferstothis eventheinauguratinfthe
lighthouse. Tdidnottakeplaceuntil11.possession ofthe Ecrehosand Minquiersgroups".88Singaporerelies on it to suggestthat
the nature of the evidencepresentedby Malaysiato support its original title isn fact
dispositiveofthattitle. Thisignoresthecontextof the Court's statementnthatcase. The
Courthadalready observedthatthe United Kingdomderivedits originaltitleto the islands
as the result of the conquestof Englandby the Dukedomof Normandyin 1066 andthat
Francedid notdispute this;89itsstatementwas directedto whether the evidencepresented
by the parties showedthat anythinghad happenedsubsequently,as allegedby France,to
displacethat title. The Courtwasnotpersuadedthat it had. Needlessto say, the evidence
in Minquier and Ecrehoswas of a markedlydifferent characterto that in this case: it
concerned historicalevents in Anglo-Frenchrelations over severalcenturies and the
competingoriginaltitles ofEuropeanStatesfromthe 1lthcentury. Bycontrastthe present
case involves the original title oan established indigenousState against a purported
acquiredtitle of a colonial Powerin the mid-lgfhcentury. Comparisonsare not easily
made; butifmadetheysupportMalaysia'stheory,not Singapore's.
(c) Publication ofthe1979mav
36. Finally,one moreperipheral argument madeby Singaporeshouldbeaddressed:its
attemptto discreditMalaysia'sclaim by referenceto the alleged manner in which itwas
informed, in December 1979, of Malaysia'smap showing the "Territorial Watersand
ContinentalShelf BoundarieosfMalaysiayy.
37. The publication ofthe 1979map was the event which preceded the exchange of
notesbetweenthe Partieswhichtriggeredthe disputenow beforethe Singapore
reliesonaninternaldocument,viz.,a reportofthe SingaporeHighCommissionerdated 24
December 1979to the Singapore Ministryof ForeignAffairs on his being informedby
Malaysian officialsof the gazettingof the new map. The High Commissioner concludes
his report with his "overal...reading" of the events he has recorded, which is that
"Malaysiais taking the lineof gazettingtheirclaimofPuiauBatu ~uteh".~'Basedon his
"reading"of events, Singapore alleges inits Memorial that"Malaysia madeher claim to
1953ICJReport47,57.
ibid.,53.
'' SM,Annex.141para.13. PedraBrancain a hesitant and unusuaml anner",9that"the manner inwhich [Malaysia]
madethe claimshowsthatMalaysiawasuncertainandembarrassedaboutityyg andthat its
publicationof the 1979mapshowsthat "Malaysianofficials clearlyunderstoodthat the
Malaysian claimwas entiretynew and was not in conformity with a long-standing
sit~ation"?~Amongperipheralissuesthis isthemostperipheralofall-an internalreport
based on hearsay, speculation andsubjective impressions. But for the sake of
completenessSingapore' asllegationsinviteabrief response.
38. TheMalaysianGovernment decided thaitt wouldofficiallyannouncepublication
of the newmapdefining theboundaryof Malaysia's continenta slhelf on 21 December
1979andadvisedall itsmissionsaccordinglyby a telegramof 20 December1979.9'The
telegram advisedmission officialsthat the maptookaccountof Malaysia'sContinental
Shelf Act 1966, of agreementswith Indonesia and Thailaud on continental shelf
boundaries,ofanagreementconcluded duringthecolonialruleofNorthBorneoandofthe
1958Geneva Convention on the ContinentalShelf. Furthermore?he productionof [the]
NewMap does notconstitutenewclaim[s]byMalaysiabutmerely[an]indicationon [a]
specificmapofourwaysia's] right tothecontinentalshel'.%
39. The telegramlists neighbouringcountrieswhich the map affected for various
reasons, includingSingapore"due to our incorporatinPulauBatu Putih on which exist
Horseburgh[sic]LighthouseandPulauPisangonwhichexist anotherlighthousepresently
administeredbySingapore".TheGovernmentfurtherrecordsitspositionthat:
"It is definitelynotourintentiontobringabouttensioninthisareabycoming
out with New Map at this time. Shouldanyof our neighbouringcountries
feel unhappywith New Map mattercould be broughtup to us for our
consideration.Malaysiaon her part wouldbe pre aredto resolvewhatever
problemthatarisethroughpeacefiilnegotiations.?yg
40. Instructionsweregivento callupthe headsofmissionsofASEANMember States
inKuaIaLumpurto infonnthemindividuallyofthe newmap,and specifictalkingpoints
93 SM,para.4.6.
SM,pm. 6.114-6.115.
94 SM,para.7.37.
1bi4para..nnex20.
Ibid,para.6.were prepared forthose Statesconsideredaffectedbythe map,includingsingapore?* It is
accordingto these instructionsthat the meetingwith the Singapore HighCommissioner
tookplace on21 December2979,whichisthe subject of thereportbythe SingaporeHigh
Commissionerannexedby Singaporeto its ~emorial?' As the instructionscontainedin
the telegrammakeclear,the nap was not produced"to gazetteMalaysia'sclaim"to PBP:
while Malaysia appreciatedthat the map would affect Singapore because of its
administrationof lighthouses on PutauPisang and PBP, it clearly considered thatPulau
Pisang and PBPwere Malaysian territory. This was not a "new claim" on the part of
Malaysia, as alleged by Singapore. There is no basis for the conclusion drawnby
Singapore that "Malaysian officials clearly understood thatthe Malaysian claim was
entirelynewandwasnotinconformitywitha long-standingsit~ation".'~~
41. Singapore seeksto draw adverse inferencesfrom theorder in which issues were
addressedin the meetingbetweenthe HighCommissioner and the MalaysianoEcial, Mr.
~awanchee;"'in particularfrom thefactthatPBPwas mentionedat the endof the meeting
rather thanat the beginning,and fromthe HighCommissioner'ssuppositionthatthe point
was notincluded onthe preparedtextwhich(hesays)was read out. In fact, thepointwas
listedasthe lastinthe preparedtalkingpoints,'02whichexplainsthe order inwhichit was
dealt with. The orderof the prepared text,followed duringthe meeting, wasconsistent
withthe purposeof the meetingfromMalaysia'sviewpoint:to adviseof publicationof the
newmap,the principles onwhichit was preparedand, as a specificmatter,of Malaysia's
belief that Singapore's continuingadministrationf a lighthouseon PBP did notaffect the
factthey it was Malaysianterritorygeneratingterritorialseaandcontinentalshelf.
42. If Singaporewasso certainin 1979that PBP wasunderits sovereignty (despitethe
absenceof claims,of officialacts, of lawsor of maps on Singapore'spart), why did the
Singapore High Commissioner not react immediately and say so directly to Mr.
Pawanchee?Thereisnothinginthe recordto suggesthe didso. It was notuntil8January
1980thatSingaporeraisedthe issueofPBPwith Malaysiaandeven then Singaporedid not
claim the island wasSingaporeterritory: it saidthat Singaporewould bestudying "All
98 Ibid,par7.
100 SM, paras4.5-4.SMAnnexes 140-141.
SM, pam.7.37.
102 SM, para.6.15.
MR,vol.2,Annex21.aspects includingparticularlythe legalaspec...so as to ascertainthe actuallegalposition
withregard totheownershipofPulau Batu~~tih".'~~ Thisisnot conduct consistentwith a
long-heldunderstandingandbeliefthatPBPhad beenSingaporeterritory since185 1.
(v) Concludingremarkson Singapore 'Sarguments
43, Despite the lengthandemphasis ofSingapore'sarguments, they canbe summedup
inthe simple propositionthat whoeverhad sovereigntyoverthe islandin 1851continues
(throughits successor)to doso. Malaysiaagreeswiththis. Inparticular:
1 Singaporedoes not anywhere in itspleadingsso far pointto any conductof
its own(or to any British conducti)n respectofPBP that doesnot relate to
acts concerningtheconstructionand operationof the lighthousewhich,as
Malaysiahas already pointed out,are not in themselves acts & tirrede
souverain.
e Inany event, Singaporereiteratesthat ittistledoesnotturnonef~ectivitds.'~~
Singaporedoesnot provideanyconvincine gvidenceof anydescriptionfkom
eitherthe 19' or 20~ centuries that shows an appreciationon the part of
Great Britain or Singapore that PBw Pas indeedpart of its territoryfrom
1851.
Singapore refersto no juncture after 1851 at which sovereigntyover the
islandcouldhavechangedfromJohorto Singapore.
44. So the fourkey elementsto the caseas summedup by Malaysia in itsMemorial
remain~naffected.'~' Theyare:
- First, i1844, atthe time when consideratiown as givento the constructionof
the lighthouseon PBP,the islandwas part of the territories subject to the -
Sultanateof Johor. Fromtheearly 16"century,the territoriesofthe Sultanate
of Johor had extended to theislandssouth of and around SingaporeStrait.
This title was confirmed when the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824
1°' Minute by AhmaFduziB. I-Ij.AbdulRazakofameetingon8 Janua1980withMr. FrederiTkan
IrnKian,Counsello, ingaporeHighCommission,nddiscussiowithMr.ChaoHickTin,SeniorFederal
Counselof SingaporattheTripartiSOM,15-16January 1980,dated21 January1980:this Reply,vol.2,
Annex23.
'O' SCM,paras.6.105,7.21.
'OS MM,paras. 8-l. distinguishedbetweenBritishand Dutchspheres of influencein the Malay
region. PBP did not fall the Dutch sphereof influence. PBP and
mainlandJohor lay in the sphereof influence butwere not under
British sovereignty.The positionof Singapore was different: it caender
British sovereigntyby virtueof theCrawfurdTreatyof 1824by whichJohor
expresslyceded to Britain "in full sovereigntynd property"the islandof
SingaporeandtheislandslyingwithinYengeographicalmiles"ofitscoast.
- Second,Britain acknowledgedthe title of the Sultanateof Johor when, in
1844, it sought the permissionof both the Sultan and Temenggongfor
constructionof the lighthouse.The repliesfromthe Sultanand Temenggong
contain nothingto suggestthat they were agreeing topart with sovereignty.
A11thattheauthoritiesofJohorgrantedwaspermissionto builda lighthouse.
- Third,the mere constructionand operationof a lighthousedoesnot establish
the sovereigntyof the lighthouse operator.Ajbrtiorithis is true whenthe
lighthouse is built and operated with the permission of the territorial
sovereign. The fact that the state of affairshas persistedfor some160 years
does not make any difference. NeitherBritainnor Singaporeever sought a
change in the legal position. Neither Johor nor Malaysiahad occasionto
questionor seekconfirmationof the original legalposition. Johorconsented
to theconstruction and operatiof alighthouseon oneof its islands. That is
allSingaporehaseverdone;
- Fourth, if Singaporehad regarded itselfas sovereignover PBP onecould
expect thiswouldhave beenreflectedin its off~cialconduct, But it hasnot
been. Singaporedid not referto PBPas a featurerelevantto thedetermination
ofitsterritorial watboundary withJohorin 1927 orwithIndonesiain 1973.
It did not list the island inany fists of Singaporeand itsislandsbeforethe
criticaldate. Beforthemid-1990s,SingaporeproducednomapshowingPBP
as part of Singapore.By contrast, maps producedby Malaysialongbefore
crystallisationofthedisputeshowPBPasbeingpartofJohor. C. Theissues for the Courtandthestructureof thisReply
45. For thesereasonsthe central issuefor this Courtis the questionof title over PBP
and the other featuresin the mid-19~century. It concernswhetherPBP fell withinthe
Sultanateof Johor or whether,as arguedby Singapore,PBP did notbelongto any State
untilthe Britishcamealongin 1847-1
the intentionof acquiring sovereignoy
46, In determining the answer to this question, the followingpoints are central:
Singapore'sconductis notthat ofh titre desouverainbut theconductof an administrator
and operatorof a lighthousethat was builts partofthe regionalStraitsLightssystem,and
continues toformpartof the regionalnavigationalaidssystem. Singapore'scase isthat it
tooklawfulpossessionof PBPin the period 1847-1851. Malaysia'scase isthat itdidnot,
andoriginal titleoverthe islandremained withJohor. This is the core question before the
Court. The caseconcernsa titlewhich-ac as establishedbefore
or at leasat the timeof the inaugurationof the lig changedsince. In
accordancewithbasicprinciple, subsequent e that situation,evenif
theywere unequivocalw , hichtheycertainlyar
47. Malaysia's Reply consists offive further in moredetail
with Singapore'snew "case of the disappearingSultanate";it shows that PBP, Middle
Rocks andSouthLedgewerepartofthe Sultanateof Johorbothbefore andaftertheAnglo-
DutchTreatyof 1824 and thattheycontinuedto bepart ofthe territoryof the Sultanate of
Johorthereafter.
48. Chapter 3 will respondto Singapore's arguments concerning consent to the
constructionof the lighthouse near Point Romania and in particular will respond to
Singapore'snewcase ofthe "careoftheLighthouse".
49. Chapter4 shows once again that, despite Singaporea 'ssertions,at notimedidthe
Britishmanifest any intention to acquiresovereignty, Singapore'stheory of a "lawful
taking ofpossessionyi'swronginlawand is unsupportedbythe facts.SO. Chapter 5 willcomparethe subsequentconductof the Partiesin respectof PBP
after 1851up to the criticald(1980),includina discussionofthe mapevidenceand
certain new maps located since theCounter-Memorialswere filed. It also briefly
considersthe conductofthepartiesafterthecriticaldatetothepresenttime,insof&asthat
conductassis itasnunderstandingoftheParties'respectivecases.
51. Chapter 6 will addressthe relationshipbetweenMiddRocks and South Ledge
andPBP,contestingSingapore's claimthatthethreefeaturesforma "grouof islands".
52. Three expert reportsareattachedasAppendicestothisReply. Theseareprovided
byProfessorsAndayamd HoubenandbyCaptain (RMN Retired)Goh SiewChong.
53. Annexedto theReplyare 26documentaryAnnexes and5MapAnnexes. Chapter2
MALAYSIA'SORIGINALTITLE
Introdnction
Whereasin Singapore'sMemorial,history startedin 1819,its Counter-Memorial
54.
addressesthe historyof sovereignty overPBP more extensively. Singaporeraisesthree
main points. First, it arguesthat Malay statesdid not possess territorial sovereandty
hence Malaysia'sclaim over PBP cannot beestab1ished.lMSecond,it assertsthat in any
event Johor wasan unstable and declining polity which couldnot have retained or
exercised sovereigntyover offshoreis~ands."~ Third,it considersthat the Anglo-Dutch
Treaty of 1824 and the CrawfurdTreaty of 1824 are of no relevance to the issue of
sovereignty overPBP,MiddleRocksand South~ed~e.'O*Singaporeis wrongin allthree
respects.
55. The correctnessof Malaysia'sanalysisof thehistory ofthe SultanateofJohorand
of the impactof the Anglo-DutchTreaty is confirmedby the expert opinionsof two
renownedscholarsin the field ofSoutheastAsianhistory:ProfessorLeonardAndayaand
ProfessorVincentHouben. The opinionby ProfessorAndaya,AppendixI to thisReply,
dealswithcontinuityandsovereignty intheKingdomofJohorbetweenthe 17*andthe l!?*
centuries.ProfessorHoubenysopinion,Appendix II to thisReply,addressesthe evolution
of sovereigntin and around Johor,with particular referenceto the area of the Straitof
Singapore duringthe 19* century,and describesthe implicationsof the 1824treaty as
reflectedinDutchpractice.
56. Withreferenceto theAndaya and Houben opinions,this Chapterfirstaddressesthe
issueof the relationshipbetweenthe allegianceof Johor'ssubjectsandtitle to territory
(Section A).Second,it reviewstheevolutionof theJohor Sultanatebefore 1824(Section
B). Thud,the pertinenceof the two 1824 treaties,the Anglo-DutchTreaty and the
CrawfurdTreaty,to the issueof sovereignty overPBPis addressed(SectionC). Fourth,
the continuityof Johorafter 1824asaMalayStateunderBritishprotection,whoseterritory
'" ScM, para3.4.
'07 SCM, pm. 3.13.
'OS SCM,paras.3.16-37.included all the islands in and the entrance to the Strait of Singapore, is once more
demonstrated(SectionD).
A. Allegianceandtitletoterritory
57. Singaporeargues that sovereigntyin
controlbutontheallegi
refersto ProfessorHou
-
Sultanateof Bulungan.
"common to find territory which
implying thatthisisthecasewithPB urthermore,Singapore
denies thatPBPwasever partofthecoastale
58. Authorityin States through afly beenbased on a
combinationof control over peopleand overterritory. This appliesto the Malay States as
well as anyother. The factthat Sin
even division within the royal hous
continuity ina Malay p
crucial factorto the con
who was regardedas sacredand le
personsof theroyal houseina d
of Johor in the early 16" centurv.there ha
such andwhocommandedthe allegianceof the peop
overthe territorywherethosepeople lived.
59. In earlier centuries,the rivers andthe seasservedas the primary high
the communities that offered allegiance to the Johorruler. Scatteredalong
these riversandtheirmanytributarieslived Malayfamilies,whousedthese waterwaysand
log
SCM, para.3.4eseq.
See the expert reportby Professor VincentWouben,submittedby Malaysiaas Appendix1to the
Malaysia Counter-Memoriin Sovereignrover PulauLigifanandPulauSipadan(Indonesia/Naaysio)i,n
which Professor Houbenquoted frhebookbyA.C.Milner,Kerajaan: MalaPyolificalCultureontheEve
iiIoloniafRule,1982.
'l2 SCM,para.3.8.
Professor Andaya,Continuityand Sovereigntyinthe Kingdomof Johor between the Seventeenth
andtheNineteenthCenturies",MR, vol. 1,AppendixI, pB.2-B. 5.209. Thisdepictionof the specialthe short land passages connectingthem as their principalaccess to the outsideworld.
Untilthe recent past,theylived byfishing,somefarming,coilectionofjungle productsand
trade, At or near the edgesofthe thickjungles were dispersedcommunitiesof the Orang
Asli, who were collectorsof forest products and werethe major suppliers ofrattan,
aromaticwoods and resinsfor international trade. Anotheirmportantgroupin Johor was
theOrangLaut,who livedinsmall scatteredcommunitiea slongthe lowerreachesofrivers,
the coasts,the sea straits and the many islands off southeast Sumatraand the Malay
peninsula. So far as theseMalaypeoples were concernedi,n the areasof relevanceto the
presentcase-southern andeasternJohorandthe offshoreislands--thereis no indicationof
anyuncertaintiesofallegianceand considerableevidencetothe contrary.
60. The personal allegianceof inhabitantsto the rulers of Johor, in particularthe
Temenggong,does not at all preclude a senseof territory, whichalso includedislands
whichwere uninhabitedbutwhosesurroundingwaters wereused as fishinggrounds. The
landand sea spaces thesepeople occupiedand exploitedcomprisedthe landsandwatersof
their Malayrulersand determinedtheextentofthe Sultanate,
61. In its counter-~emorial"~ Singapore stipulates that people must have lived
permanentlyin a certain spot before it can be consideredas part of their sovereign's
territory. This is a "Swiss cheese"theoryof state formation,with the holesrepresenting
terra nullius.According to thistheory everyislandor other parcelof landnotpermanently
inhabitedwas up for grabs. But British practice didnot supportsuchan arduous-not to
say discriminatory-requirement. Withinthe Straits themselves, GreatBritain acquired
sovereigntyover manyuninhabitedislandswithinten geographicalmilesfromtheIsland of
Singaporeonthe basisofanagreementwithJohorin 1824(theCrawfurdTreaty). Andthis
expressBritish recognitionofJohor'ssovereigntyover offshore islands inthisregionandat
thistimehad a firmbasis infact. TheOrangLautwere subjectsof Johorandarereported
asactingat the directionof the rulers ofJohor. Specific OrangLaut groupssuchas the
Orang Suku Galang ("the upper stratum of Orang Laut ~ociety""~) used PBPand its
andtheHikqyatHangTwh (late17' century)ndrepeatedinotherMalayhikayat.Melayu(early17'~century)
SCM,para.3.11.
114 C. satherTheBajauLmL Adaptation, History,and Fatina MarilimeFishingSocietyofsouth-
EhrternSabair,KualaLumpurO: xfordUniversity Press1,997,p. 326. SatherdescribestheOrangLautas
"...Iitcmthe'seapeople',adiversecongeriesofvariouslynamedgroups inhabigr,onceinhabitingt.hesurroundingwaters because of itsrich fishinggrounds. Theypatrolledthe seasto conduct
trade shipsto the ruler'sport, provided protectionfor all tradersinvolved with Johor,and
soughtto attack competitorsor ships intendingto trade at a competitor'sport, includingin
the immediatevicinityof PBP."'
62. As proof of its thesis that there were "no-man'sislands''in the region Singapore
refers to a statement by Thomson that he could only ascertainthat a particular territory
belongedto Pahang because"all the inhabitants acknowledge theRaja as their chief and ,.
paytributeannually".'16Butthesearereasonable andvalidtests of allegiance, which could
equally be applied in other partsof the world. The wholepassagef?omwhich Singapore
quotesreadsas follows:
"The exact boundarybetweenthetwo states I couldnot accurately ascertain.
That there shouid be debatable land, where the country is totally
unproductiveand uninhabitedis a natural consequence. The last river of
importance which undoubtedlyacknowledges the supremacyof Johore is
SidiIi Besar, but I was informedthat Sungei Merising, asmall creek and
riveropposite PuloBabi, also belongedto Johore, butthisis doubtful. The
lastriver in Pahangof importancethat undoubtedly beiongsto tha territory
is the Indau. A country covered by dense forest occupiesthe interval
between SidiIiBesar and Indau. It possesses 50 geographicalmiIes of sea
board in which there are no settled inhabitants and the few dmer
collectorsand rattan gatherersthat frequent itsjungles,claimthe protection
of eitherchiefastheymay fmdit~onvenient.""~
It must tvcsti:csscifkiitThrriisoii dijeiiotsay &at ihi~iircaon ihe mainianciof johor was
ferranullius,opento acquisitionby anyEuropean navalcaptaincarryinga flag, andin fact
the British Government during this period assisted in the determination of boundaries
Riau-LinggaArchipelago,Batam,andthe coastalwatersofeasternSumatraand SouthernJohore":p. 320(see
'lSohisMapll. l onp.322).
AccordingtoAndaya,"ThedutiesoftheOrangLautwereto gatherseaproducts fortheChina trade,
performspecial services fthe rulerat weddings, funeralsrn a hunt,serveas transport for envoys and
royalmissives, manthe shipsandserveasa fightingforceon the ruler's fl,nd patrolthe watersof the
kingdom. Except in timesof actual warfare whtheir serviceswere neededfor the fleet,the OrangLaut
wereusually on patrol providing protectioJohor'stradersor thosewantingto trade whileharassing all
othershipping":L.Y. Andaya,"The Structureof Powerin Seventeenth CenturJohor", in A. ReidandL.
Castles(eds),Pre-colonialSoutheaAsia, KualaLumpur:MalaysianBranchof the Royal Asiatic Society,
MonographNo. 6,1974,p. 7. Quotedin Sather,ibid., p. 326.See alsoJ.T. Thornson,"Accountof the
HorsburghLighthouse",in TheJournal ofTheIndianArchipelagoandEasternIndia,vol. 6 (1852) p.84,
referring to artiinthe Singapore FreePressin1846-1850,extractsofwhichare includedinAppendixI1
toThornson'sarticleSM, Amex 61, p.13.
"' SCM, paa. 3.9sub(b).
l" J.T.Thomson, "Descriptioof the EasternCoastof Johoreand Pahang,and AdjacentIslands",in
TheJo~irnaolfTheIndianArchipelagoand EasternIndia,vol5 (185I),p.84. SeeSCMAnnex15,p. 139.betweenthe Malaystates, for example in the OrdAward of 1868,in a manner whichleft
noneofthe territoryor surroundingislandsunaccountedfor.
63. Johor9ssovereigntyover areas suchas PBP and surrounding waterscan also be
inferred from an 1822 account by John Crawfurd in his capacityas an Envoy of the
GovernorGeneral of India to Siam and Cochin-China. 1n his report on the mission
Crawfurdwrote:
"We had today avisit fromsome individualsof the race of Malays,called
'OrangLaut',-thatis 'menof thesea'. They have a roughexterior,andtheir
speechis awkwardand uncouth,but, in otherrespects,I could observelittle
essential differencebetweenthem and other Malays. These peoplehave
adoptedthe Mohammedan religionT . hey aredivided into,at least twenty
tribes, distinguishedusuallyby the straitsor narrowseas they principally
frequent. A fewof themhavehabitations on shore,but by far the greater
numberlive constantly in their boats, and nearlytheir sole occupationis
fishing:those who are most civilised cultivatinga few bananas. Theyare
subjectsof theKingofJohore,andthe same people who havecaliedOrang
Selator,'menofthe Straits'; - thestraitshere alludedto being,not thegreat
Straitsof Malacca,but thenarrowguts runningamong the Zitrkisletsthut
areso abundantlystrewedover itsEasternenfrance.Underthis appellation
they have been notoriousfor theirpiracies, fromthe earliestknowledgeof
Europeansrespectingthese ~ountries.""~
64. Togetherwith theRomaniaislands at the entranceof the Straitof Singapore,PBP,
MiddleRocksand South Ledge areundoubtedly includedin the reference tothese"little
isletsthat are so abundantly strewedover its Easternentrance". Furthermore,Crawfurd
states explicitlythat the OrangLaut "are subjectsof the Kingof Johore", AsProfesssor
Houbenexplains,the areas betweenthe Straitsof Malaccaand the SouthChinaSeawere
controlledbygroupsoftheseOrangLaut owingallegiance tothe rulers of oh or."^
65. Thejurisdiction of theJohorrulers over the OrangLautwas furtherreinforced asa
resultof Johor-Riau-Lingga's interactiowniththe DutchandtheBritishfiomthe early17"
century. The Sultanate entered into aseries of treaties of fi-iendship,protection of
sovereignty andterritorialintegrity,navigationand special tradeprivileges,first:with the
'lN Emphasisadded.JohnCraivfbrJ,ournalofan Embar~yJ;ortheGol~ernor-Generallndia to the
Cotcrtsof Siamand Cochin China; xhibitinga Viewof tAcrualSlate of Those Kingdoms, ondon:
Colburn,1828. eproducedWithanintroduction by David. Wyatt,HistoricReprintsK,ualaLumpur:
OxfordUniversity Press1,967,atpp.42-43. Textin this,ol2,Annex7.
'I9 See ProfessorHouben'sopinion, "Somehistoricalconsiderationson Johorand the Singapore
Straits",R,vol. 1,Appendix11paras.25-28,p227. Dutch (in the 17' and 18' centuries)and laterwith the British(in the 19~~entury).'~'
These treatieswere internationallawarrangements, acknowledgintg he sovereignrightsof
Johorinthe samewayasthetransactions ofEuropeanpowers with thevarious rulers inthe
MiddleEast, discussed bythisCourt intheQatarLBahrac inse.12'
B.
TheJohorSultanatebefore1824
66. Singapore'sCounter-Memorialdescribesthe Sultanate of Johor in terms of a
fragmenting State in a constant processof degradation,which went fiom leading a
"precarious existence" to a "stateof di~solution''.'~A ~ppendixA suggeststhat during the
16' centurythe Sultanateleda precarious existencet,hataftera shortperiodof prosperity
duringthe secondhalf ofthe 17' centurythe standingof the Sultanatein the Malayworld
"plummeted",that in the middIe of the 18' century Johor enjoyed a brief period of
prosperityagainbutthatthroughtheDutchconquestofRiauin 1784Johor'sindependence
wasendedandtheSultanatefell intoinsignificance.In Singapore'sview,itwasonlywhen
TemenggongIbrahimwashandedthe Sultanatein 1833thata newpoliticalentityemerged,
an entityquitedistinctfromtheold~ultanate.'~
67. This account of virtually constant decline over many centuries prompts the
reflection-what sortof entity isitthat candecIinefor solongandremainin existence? It
takes some skill,one might think, to fragment, decay and dissolvefor such an extended
pCILLVUlUllUlLUWUI:,,VllWJ lUCLlLLLJUL a11. NfWL...LUL,+LilWpLbJVlib UUILSLIIU1 JVlJUl 1J-UlG- IlllMl1
descendantof the Temenggong withwhomthe Britishsignedthe Agreement of1819and
oftheTemenggong(hisson)whoseconsentwassoughtin 1844to builda lighthouseinthe
vicinityof PointRomania. Notmanyrulinghousesin 21''century Europecan claim such
continuity:indeednot manystill exist. Singapore'saccount evencastsdoubton its own
territorial scope. How can a treaty signedwith the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor
' Johorconcluded varioutsreatieswiththe Dutchand respectively. The textsof these
treatieare reproduced inJ.Allen,A.J.Stockwelland L.R. Wrig( hetds.),A Collectionof TreatiesandOther
DocumentsAgectingtheStales ofMalysia, 1761-1963, NewYork: Oceana, 1981. ThetextinDutchofthe
relevant Dutch treatiesarepublishedin Netscher,De Nederlandersin Djohor en Siak 1602tot 1865.
Historischebeschrijving,Batavia,Bruijning enWijf 1870. SeealsoAppendicesA-Dof L.Y.Andaya,The
Kingdom ofJohore 1641-1728,KualaLumpurO : xfordUniversityPres1 s,75,pp.325-329.
12' MmitimeDelimitationand TerritorialQuestions betweenQatar and Bahrain(Qatar v Bahrain),
2001ICJReports ,aras.36-69.
'22 SeeespeciallySCM,pp.25-7.
12' SeeSCM,paras.3.35-3.39.
30in Augustof 1824,the nadir of Johor's decline, constituttehe basis to this day of the
territorial extentof theRepublic ofSingapore? There seems to be somethingwrong with
Singapore'saccount,evensomethingself-destructive.
68. Turningto the actualandrecorded history otfheregion,there is no doubt that after
its establishmentin 15 11 Johorwasthe most importantMalaystate in the region. Thus
accordingto B.W.Andayaand L.Y.Andaya,"In the lateseventeenthcentury,Johorhad
becomethe preeminent power in the This positionwas recognised by the
Dutch,the British andbythird States.
69. TheDutchEastIndiaCompany (VOC) hada lengthyspecialrelationshipwithJohor
which began withthe signingoftheirfirsttreatyon 17May 1606."' The principal concern
of the VOCwas to obtain theassistanceof the Sultanof Johor in seizingthe town of
Malaccafromthe Portuguese. After several failed attempts (in 1606, 1608and 1615),the
alliance succeededin seizing thetownof Malaccain 1641.'~~The special,although not
always peaceful,relationship between Johor and the VOC eventually spanned two
~enturies."~It is significantthatit cameto anendnotthroughthe disappearanceof Johor
(whichstillexists)butofthe VOC and,temporarily,theNetherlands. Attheendofthe 18"
centurytheVOCcollapsedas a resultof bankruptcyandtheNetherlandswereoccupiedby
France. During thistime Dutch colonial possessionsand responsibilitieswere placed
temporarilyunderBritishcontrol (1795-1814).
70. Throughoutits existencetheSultanateof Johorwas sensitive toits treatmentas an
equal sovereignpower by its allies. For example,in 1655Johor sought theremovalof
Dutchships from itswaters whichhad been sent by the Dutch Governorof Malaccain
IZ4
B.W.Andayaand L.Y.Andaya,AHistoryofMalaysia,Houndsmill, asingstokc:Palgrave, e.d.,
2001,p.76andp. 82. SeealsoL.Y.Andaya inthe recentlypublishedHisforicalEncyclopediaofSoutheast
IZSa, 2004,p.697,statingthat r asthe"preeminenetntrepttateinthe Straof Melaka".
The YereenigdeOostindischeCompagnie(VOC)was established i1602 as a mergerof various
tradingcompaniesina numberof Dutchportcities. InitsChathe VOCwas givenwide-rangingpowers,
including the rtt concludeandsigntreaties,to enter intoalliances, levytroops,wagewarandappoint
governorsndjudicialofficers.
SeeL.Y. Andaya,TheKingdomofJohor1641-1728,KualaLumpurO : xfordUnivemityPress,1975,
pp.22-33;R.Spruit,TheLand ofthe Sulram.An IllirstratedHistory of rMaI, msterdamandKuala
Lumpur:PepinPress,1995, pp. 69-76.
See L.Y. Andaya.The Kingdomof Johor 1641-1728,1975, pp. 55-83;R. Vos, GentleJanus,
nterchantrince. ThVOC attd rherightropeof diplomintheMalayworld, 1760-1800,Leiden:KITLV
Press,1993,PartsI1and111.orderto prevent Chinese tradersf%om enteringthe Johor~iver.'~~Johor's concern was not
simply allowing traders fiee accessto the Johor River,butthe maintenanceofitssovereign
rights in its own maritime territories,which includedthe watersand islandsmentionedin
the Governor'sletter,i.e."the Hookof Barbukitand inthevicinityof Pedra~ranca".'~~As
the Governorof Malaccawroteto his Governor-GeneralinBatavia:
"...in the fhre at leasttwo yachts must cruiseto the south of Singapore
Straits underthe Hook of Barkubitand in the vicinityof Pedra Branca(in
order that they [the Chinese junks] do not enter [the Johor River] and
thereforemakecertain thattheyarebrought here [Metaka]or to Batavia. As
we have seen often,unlessthe Johor ruleris greatly attractedto this idea,
without his commandwe dare not put this into effect. We therefore
faithfitllyawait your orderand command as to how far we should pursue
this...''I3'
71. When the Dutch went ahead and took two Chinesejunks from the Strait of
Singaporeto Malacca, the Sultan made it clear that he was far from pleased about the
seizureof the twojunks in hiswaters."' The messagewas clear: Dutchshipshad no right
to interfereandpreventthe OrangLaut,inthiscasethe SukuGalang,from performingtheir
appointed taskfortherulerofJohor. ..
72. A further exampleof Johor'sassertionof its sovereign rights arosein 1713. The
Dutch wanted Johorto allow Malacca's inhabitantsto trade up the Siak River toll-free.
Thiswas refused. Whenthe Dutchsubsequentlyarguedthat Johor did nothavesovereignty
overFiitiipakiiiiiiii~ii~~iSi& Gac~iisL isiaiiiii&?tiiii& ilurrlagoiu(hc:iviinangkabau
emperor who lived in the mountainsof Sumatra, Johor was adamant that Patapahan did
belongto Johorand that itwas notup to the Dutchto question this. As ProfessorAndaya
explains:
"Whenever the Dutch or any other nation encroached on Johor's lands
without express approvalor neglectedto accord proper respect to theruler,
Johorwas preparedto takedrastic stepsto correctthe situation.. .No longer
wasthe issuetradeorwaysof outwittinga business community,butof more
serious import - that ofJohor'ssovereignty".'32
Iz9 MMAnnexs.722.9.
MM, para.78andAnnex 22.
13' MM,para.79andAnnex2 1.
132 L.Y.Andaya,TheKingdom ofJohor 1641-1728KualaLurnpurO : xfordUniversity Press1,975,p.
221.73. Professor Andayaconcludes:
"What mattered to the Johorese was the upholding of respect for the
integrity of Johor as a sovereignkingdomwhere properrelations were
maintained and where the inviolateness of its territories was
acknowledged."'33
74. Singaporepretends that Johor wajsust anotherweak polityinwhichthe Sultanonly
exercised nominal authorityo ,f the kind that wasdescribedby ProfessorHouben in his
discussionof the Sultanateof Bulunganin the LigitanISipadancase.'" But there were
varioustypesof Malaystatesand other entitiesand itwould be absurd to put a substantial
maritimeempiresuchasJohorona parwith atinyland-basedSultanateonthe eastcoastof
BorneosuchasBulungan. Thisis explainedinProfessorHouben'sexpert opinionannexed
to this Reply, in whichhe characterises Bulungan as "a small entityhaving only limited
interaction withthe inland peoples",'35 In Professor Houben'sview "To equate the
maritimeempireof Johorwiththe small coastal Sultanate of Bulungan,as Singaporedoes,
is historicallynsustainable."~~~
75. TheBritishofcourseconcludedagreementswith the Sultanateof Johorin 1819and
1824whichIedto the establishmentof singaPore.l3"This isjust anotherpieceofevidence
whichshowsthe existenceofthe Sultanateof Johoras aninternationally recognised actor:
the British themselvessought permissionfor, and legitimisationof, their settlementin
Singapore by concluding agreementswith the Sultanand Temenggongof Johor as the
recognised local sovereigns,and theycontinued into the20~centuryto treat Johoras a
separateStateunderBritish protection.
76. As lateas 10January 1824, just two monthspriorto the conclusionof the Anglo-
DutchTreatyof 1824, JohnCrawhrd, inhisreport totheBritish Governmentdescribed the
Johor Sultanateasfollows:
'" Andaya,ibid.,p.226.
' SeeSCM,para.3.6.
"' SeeAppendixI1tothisReply,para.8.
Houben Report,ppendixItothisReply,para.7.
Agreementof 30January1819,6 February1819,26June1819and2 Augus1824.SeeMM,paras.
45-47and54-56andMCM,para. 34. "This principality[i.e.Johore]extendsonthe continentfromMalaccato the
extremityof the peninsulaon bothcoasts. It had several settlements onthe
islandof Sumatra,andembracedalltheislandsinthemouthoftheStraitsof
Malacca withall thoseinChinaseas,asfar as the Natunasinthe latitudeof
4"Nandthe longitude 109OE."
Obviously,Crawfurd'sdescriptionof Johor is such as to includePBP,MiddleRocksand
SouthLedge.
77. Notwithstanding Singapore's assertions t,ere is no indicationthat the territorial
scope of the Sultanateof Johor northof the southern limitof the Straitsunderwentany
changeat all of relevance tothepresent case. In 1552,the PortugueseBanos reported that
"White Rock [PedraBranca] ..is very much in demand by the pilots of those
whichishardlya signof tera derelicta. Andin 1843,just priorto Butterworth'slettersof
request (themselvesa recognition of sovereigntyover the areas they covered), the
SingaporeFree Press mentionedthat PBP wasone of the islandswhere "piratesgo for
shelterandconcealment",islandswhichwere acknowledged to be"all within the territories
ofourbelovedallyandpensionary,theSultanof oho ore"'.'^^
C. The 1824Treatiesandtheirimplementation
78. Singaporedoesnot denythatbefore1824the SultanateofJohorextendednorthand
southof the ~traits.'~'Indeedthis is an obviousfact, depictedon all contemporarymaps.
However,itarguesthatthereisnolineofcontinuitybetweenthe pre-1824Sultanate(which
may be referred to, for clarity's sake,as the Johor-Riau-LinggaSultanate, though
contemporaryaccounts continuailyreferto it asthe Sultanate orKingdomof Johor)and the
post-1824SultanateofJohor. In Singapore'sviewthisTreaty did not producea divisionof
spheresof influencein the Straitof Singaporeand,in anycase, PBPlies southof the Strait
ratherthan within it.142 Whilethis would seemingly placethe island within the Dutch
sphereof influence,14'ccordingto Singaporeit did notdo so:PBP,did not fallnotwithin
anysphereof the colonialpowersuntilthe Britishtook lawfulpossessionof the islandin
MMAnnex98 and quoted inMM,para.80(emphasisadded).
QuotedinMCM,para 19.
140 MM,para.95. The textof thisarticle intheSingapore FreePressof 25 May 1843is reproducedas
14'nnex 40.
SCM,para.3.8and AppendixA, para12.
14' SCM,paras.3.19-3.30.1847.'~ Thoughvisiblefromthe coastandstillvisitedfromir,it somehowbecameterra
79. This is an essayin the imagination,and it bearsno relationto the actual historical
record. The 1824Treaty resultedina splitofthe Sultanateof Johorintotwo, theSultanate
of Johorin the north and the Sultanateof Riau-Linggain the south. Thenew Sultan of
Riau-Lingga, whose title to Johor and the surrounding islandsGreat Britain never
recognised,was compelledby the Dutchto respectthe terms of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty,
and at no stageexercisedor attemptedto exerciseanyjurisdictionover the islandsin the
Strait ofsingapore.14'A11the islandsaroundthe coastofJohor,except forthose expressly
grantedto Singaporeunder theCrawkd Treaty, remaintothis daypart of Johor: there are
84 of them, somea gooddeal firther fromthe peninsula than PBP is. It has neverbeen
suggested that these other islands became terrae nulliusin 1824. Yet this is what
Singaporepostulates, withoutthebackingofarrycontemporaryevidence,sofarasconcerns
PBP,Middle Rocks and SouthLedge.
80. Thatthe Sultanate of Johor retainedits existenceand authority overits mainland
territory aswellas these islands followingthe conclusion ofthe 1824Treatyaccords with
the standard literatureon the historyof the region.'46It is also the conclusionreachedin
Professor Houben'sexpert opinion, where he addresses theextent of the domains of
Temenggong Abdul Rahman(d. 1825) and his son and successor, Temenggong Daing
Ibrahim, who ruledfrom 1825 to 1862. Professor Houben concludes that the
Temenggong's perenfah@art ofthe largerpoliticalunitoftheJohor kingdom) consisted of
a ring of islandsin the northwesternpart of theRiau Archipelago,and included Singapore
and the Johor ~oast1ine.I~~ PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge fell within the
Temenggong'sterritory.
'43 SCM, para.3.27.
'45 SCM,para.3.29.
14' MM,paras.49-53;MCM,para.33.
Standarbooks on thhistoryoftheregioninclude:G.Itwin,Nineteenfh-CenyorneoA Studyin
DiplomaticRivalry,TheHague:MartinusNijhoff,1955;C.A.Trocki,PrinceofPirates. TheTemenggongs
andtheDevelopmentofJohor and Singapore1784-1885,Singapore; SingaporUeniversity Press, 1N;.
Tarling,Anglo-DutchRivalry in/he Malay World 1780-1824,CambridgeiSydneC:ambridgeUniversity
PressrUniversiof Queensland Press1,962;E.Netscher,De NederlandersinDjohorenSiak 1602lot 1865.
Hisrorischebeschrijving,Batavia,BruienWijt,1870;R.0.WindstedtA , Nistoty ofJohore1365-1895,
1932(reprinted1992);B.W. AndayaandL.Y.Andaya, A Historyof Malaysia,Iloundsrn, asingstoke:
Palgrave," rev.ed.,2001.
14' Professor HoubeAn,ppendixI1tothis Rep, wa.28andConclusion no5., pp.227-228.81. Both the Dutch and the British respectedthe 1824 Treaty as establishingthe
dividing linebetweentheir respective spheresof influence. TheDutchnever assertedany
claimto the islandswithinor nearthe Straitof Singapore,whilethe British persuaded the
rulers of Johor to observe the new divisionof spheresof influence as to locationsand
islandsfurtheraway(e.g.Bengkulenand theCarimon Islands).
82. Therewas somesubsequentdiscussion betweentheBritish andtheDutch as regards
the scopeofArticle XXI oftheTreatyofMarch24, 1824. ThisArticleieads:
"His Netherlands Majestywithdrawsthe objectionswhichhave been made
to the occupation of the Island of Singapore, by the Subjects of His
BritannickMajesty.
His BritannickMajesty, however,engages, thatno British Establishment
shall be madeon the CarimonIsles, or on the Islands of Battam,Bintang,
Linggin,oron anyofthe IslandsSouthof theStraightof Singapore,norany
Treaty concluded byBritishAuthority withtheChiefsofthoseIslands."
Butthe discussionon the scopeof the secondclausedid notpertainto the area in which
PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledgeare located,whichwasnever disputed. Ratherit
concernedthe phrase"or any of the other Islands Southofthe Straightof Singapore":did
this pertainto the immediatearea of the Straitsonlyor to all territoriessouth of 1°30'N
extendinginto the South China Sea and including,for example, the island of Borneo.
Basedona studyof thetravauxpriparatoires,Irwinconcludesthatthe Dutch onlywanted
to setlocallimitsto theBritishandDutchspheresof influenceinthe immediateareaofthe
Straitof ~in~a~ore.'~F~alck andFagel,the chiefnegotiators onthe Dutchside,explained
in a note thatit was necessary"to preventthe Englishfrom claimingany future right to
form connectionswith or exert influence over the islandsof Lingin, Rhio and the
..,
~arimons".'~~ In orderto avoid confusion, Elouftatthetimeadviserto theDutch Colonial
Minister)hadsoughtto substituteinthe drafttextof 1February1824thephrase"anyofthe
remainingislandsbelonging tothe ancientkingdom ofJohore"by the phrase"any of the
Islands South ofthe Straightof Singapore". This wasagreed to. In the finaltext, Article
XI1referrednotto Johor,but to Carimon,Battatn,Bintang,Linginand other islandsSouth
ofthe Straits. These islands adepictedonFigure1ontheoppositepage.
14' G.Irwin,p.66.
'49 Ibid.,p.66. THE ISLANDSREFERREDTO IN ARTICLEXI1OF THE 1824
P ANGLO-DUTCHTREATYAND 19TH CENTURYCORRESPONDENCE
Figure l83. Singaporeclaims that ArticleXI1left ''the entire Singapore Strau itndividedand
opento access by both the British and~utch"'~~ and that,as a consequence,PBPwould
have beenleftinneitherthe British northe Dutchsphereof influence. Sucha proposition
cannotbe maintained. Nota singlepiece of evidencecan befoundto supportSingapore's
thesis,eitherin the British orDutcharchives relatingto the 1824Treaty orinthe relevant
academicliterature."' Moreover, itis inherently incredible:the shared purposeof the
BritishandDutchwasto dividethe regionintospheresofinfluence,notto openthe doorto
possibleclaimsby otherEuropeanStates. The Straitof Singaporewas alreadyoneof the
busiest transit passages in the region, linking the South China Sea with the Strait of
Malaccaand the Indian Ocean. This very fact servedas the main raisond'ztre for the
establishmentof Singapore, the extent ofwhich wascarefully specifiedin the Crawfird
Treatyof 1824.
84. On 31August 1824,shortlyafterthe conclusionofthe CrawfixdTreaty, theDutch
Ministerof Colonies Eloutaddresseda letterof instructionto the Governor-Generalof the
NetherlandsEastIndies. The letterannexesthe text of theAnglo-DutchTreatyandgives
very clear instructions to the Governor-Generalon how to implement its various
paragraphs. OnArticle XI1theMinisterinstructed:
1
"The twelfth Articleby which theNetherlands renouncesall its voices of
protest against the possession of Singapore by British officials, will
necessarily prompt theconclusionof an arrangementwith the Sultan of
E EggE. yzi j2xcz:!ciic-$'l: tG daiir t~ theSii'liiiiiihii'rld
mutual interests of both European Powers have made it necessary to
effectuatea certain separationbetweentheir own possessionsand those of
theirindigenousallies,andthattheretoithasbecomenecessaryto includein
that arrangement thatpartoftheKingdomofJohorwhichis situaed withm
the Britishsphere of inzuence;conversely,the possessionsand territories
whichbelongto the Sultanand whichare situated withinthe boundariesof
the Dutchgovernment,have been confirmedonce againand in a decisive
way, and with the guaranteeof the traditional friendlyrelationswith the
Netherlands, withthe effectthatsouthoftheStraitsofSingaporenoBritish
authority exists,[and] that His Excellency himself willnote that the
dismembermentof a part of his territorieswill not amount to an essential
loss for His Excellency, particularly afier the acts of the
'"
IS' SeeSCM, paras3.23 & 3.29.
E.g.,Tarlingassessesthatthedivisionintotwospheresof influe"partlyastheresultofthe
Britishpolicyof protectingtheentrancetotheChinaseas":N. TImperiaBriraiinSouthEaslAsia,
Kuala LumpuO r:xfordUniversityPress,1975,p,25. Temenggongof Johor by whichhis influencein zheseregions was alrea&
nil~l52
Inotherwords,theareasin questionwere alreadycontrolledbytheTemenggongofJohor;
the SultanofLinggahadno influencethereandthereforehadlostnothingbytheTreaty.
85. Thereupon, the Governor-Generalsent a representative, Mr. Christiaan van
Angelbeek,to the area. On 10April 1825he arrived at Singapore anddelivered a letter
from the Dutch Governor-Generalto Resident Crawfurd, Crawfurdinformed Van
Angelbeekof the treaty hehad concluded withthe brotherof the "Sultanof Lingga and
Bintang"(i.e.,with Sultan Hussainof Johor)andwiththe Temenggong of Johorbywhich
theIslandof Singapore'Withtheislets, seas,straitsandcanalsbelongingto it7'wereceded
tothe EnglishEastIndia Company,upto adistanceoftengeographicalrnile~.'~'
86. Subsequently,Van Angelbeekpaid a visit to the ViceroyRaja Jafar in Riau,who
wasthe representative ofthe Sultanof Lingga. He delivered aletterfromthe Governor-
Generaldated 15February1825."~ Themainpurpose of hisvisitwasto notifytheSultan
of ArticlesLX, X, XI andXII of theAnglo-DutchTreaty. As VanAngelbeekreported, it
was adifficultmission. Uponarrivalat Riauon 23 April 1825 he immediatelylearntthat
H.E.the Viceroywas"in no way inclinedto cede Johor andPahangw , hich at thetimehe
stillthoughttobeathisdis~retion".'~~
Translation providedbyMalaysia(emphasisadded). Theoriginaltext inDutchreads: "Hettwaalfde
Artikel bij hetwelk Nederland vanalle vertoogen tegen het bezitten van Singapoera doorde Britsche
gezagvoerdersafziet,zalnoodwendigaanleidinggeventot het treffenvan eenigeschikkingen met denSultan
vanLingen. UweExcellentiezalaandienVorstdienente kennen gegeven,datdewederzijdschebelangender
beide Europeesche Mogendhedehet noodzakelijkmaakthebbenzekere scheidig tusschenhunnereigen
bezittingenen die van hunne Inlandschebondgenotente maken,en dat daarvoornoodig gewordenis, dat
gedeeltevan het RijkvanDjohor, hetwelk binnende grenzenderEngelschebeheen'nggelegenis,aan dezet
beschikkingover telaten;dat daartegendeeigendommenen Lanaanden Sultanbehoorende,enonderde
grenzenvan de Nederlandscheegeringliggende, opnieuwen krachtiglijkzbewaard geworden,en de
oude vriendschappelijketrekkingen met Nederland gewaarborgd, zoo dat ten zuiden van Straat
Singapoera geen Britschgezag bestaat dat Z.B. zelve ge2.1dat de afiicheidingvan eendeel zijner
landen,naal hetgeenvoorgevallenis, bijzonderlijkna degedragingenvan den TomraagongvanDjohor voor
Z.H .eenwezenlijkverlies uitmaakf als blijdawuit,datzijninvloed indie strekenreedsvroegernietig
was." Source:National Archives, TheHague,2.21.007.57,inv122,dated 31 August 1824. Extracts of
Is'original textinDutch, with translationa,realso includedinthisReply,x2.
Report from MrC. van Angelbeekto Governor-General of the Netherlands East-Indieosn his
mission to Riau, 1825. Source:TLV(Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asia and Caribbean
Studies), Leiden, Western Manuscript Collection,4. Extracts of the original text in Dutch,with
translation,inthisReply,vol.2,Annex4.
'*' SeereportinNetscher,1870,pp.282-283.
Ibid.,p.283;andseeRoyalNetherlandsinstituteof SoutheastAsianandCaribbean Studies,Western
Manuscript Collection,H 494:Kopie Rapport vanCh. vanAngelbeekomtrentzijne zendingnaar Riouw
1825(Copyof Reportof Ch. vanAngelbeekon his mission toRiau 1825). The relevantpartof the original
text, withtranslation,isalso included inthis Reply, vol2.,Annex6.
39 87. Another drawback wasthat the CarimonIslands werein the possessionof the
Temenggongof Johora ,swellastheIslandsofGalangandBoelang. VanAngelbeekfound
that the inhabitantsof the islandsrecognizedthe Temenggongas their ruler, while "the
Viceroy wasnotinclinedto bke actionwithrespectto suchclaimsbythe~ernenggong".'~~
88. From the instruction of the Dutch Minister to the Governor-General ofthe
NetherlandsEast Indiesand the reports of the latter's representative, itollowsthat the
Dutch hada clearvisionon the territorialconsequencesof the 1824Anglo-Dutch Treaty.
AI1the territorywithinand to the north ofthe Straitwouldbe underthe authorityof the
Sultanand Temenggong underBritish influence, whilethe latter wereexpectedto stop
rulingterritorieswithintheDutchsphereof influence.
89. Thatislandseveninthe southernpartof the Straitfellwithinthe Britishsphereand
not that of the Dutch is clear. Thusthe Government ofIndia statedin a letter dated4
March1825toCrawfurd:
"...our acquisitionof these islets is not at variance withthe obligationsof
the Treaty concludedatLondonin Marchlast, astheyareall situatedNorth
ofthe Southern limitsoftheStraightsof~in~a~oree."'~~
90. Subsequently,on 16August1825,Cmwfirdreported totheGovernment:
L<..I havethe honourto report thathaving takenup a convenientShip for
thepurpose, IcircumnavigatedtheIslandof Singapore, andtookpossession,
withthe necessaryformalitiesof all theIslandslying within 10milesofthe
main Island of Singapore which includes those formingthe Northern
boundaryof theStraitsofthat
91. In itsCounter-MemorialSingaporesuggeststhat itwas nottheAnglo-DutchTreaty
thatdeterminedthe extentof the Johor Sultanatebut insteadthe donationby SultanAbdul 1
Rahman by letter of 25 June 1825 of mainland territories in peninsular Malaya to
Ibid.
"7 Emphasisadded.LetterGovernmenotf Indiato JohnCrawFur4,March1825. Source: Foreign
DcpartmcnPtroceedings:ortWilliam,Consultatino. 18 atfolio219,National Archiveosf India:this
Reply,vol2,Annex3.
lS8 Emphasisadded. Letter da1t6dugust1825fromJohnCrawfurtdoGovernmenotfIndia.Source:
Foreign DepartmePrtoceedingFortWilliam,Consultatino. 1atfolio495,National ArchiosfIndia:
thiReply,vol.2,Annex5.his brother SultanHussainin 1825.'s9 Singaporecorrectlyreports that this donationwas
made "on the advice of the Dutch, who wishedto avoid any confusion overwhich
territories remained under the controlf Sultan AbdulRahmanin the post Anglo-Dutch
Treaty period".'60Hencethis event simply underlines that it was the 1824 Anglo-Dutch
Treatywhich promptedthe splitof the Johor-Riau-LinggaSultanate, and notthe so-called
"donation"by the Sultanof Riauin 1825. This alsofoltowsfromthe actualtextof Sultan
AbdulRahman's 25 Juneletter,whichexpresslystatesthatthe divisionof the territories
"...is in completeagreementwith the spirit and the contentof the treaty
concluded betweentheirMajesties,the Kingsof the Netherlandsand Great
Britain. Forthis reason,MyBrother,heedthe adviceof Your Brotheras
muchaspossible and donotactcontrarythereto.Forwho cananswer forthe
~onse~uences?"~'
92. The "donation"of SultanAbdulRahman mustbe read in the context of what is
stipulated underArticleXI1of theAnglo-DutchTreatyof 1824. Byno meansdoesitserve
as Johor'stitle toitsterritory. The territoriesspecifiedby Sultan Abdul Rahmanto be his
own (the oneunderthe Dutchsphere ofinfluence)in the letterof 25 June 1825 comprise
"theIslandsofLingga,Bintan,Galang, BulanK , arimonandallotherislands". Outofthese
five specified islands,three were mentionedin ArticleXI1of the Anglo-Dutch Treatyof
1824 (namely,the CarimonIslands,Bintangand Lingga)whilethe remainingtwo(Galang
andBulan)are islands clearlylying southof the Straitof Singapore. The phrase"all other
islands"referstoallotherislands lyingwithintheDutchsphereof influenceandnotnamed
explicitlyinthe letter,e.g.Batamand Singkep.Tosumup,this letterwas not a "donation"
butwas instead a formal recognitionthat SultanAbdulRahman did not claim sovereignty
over~0hor.l'~
Another obviousfact,underminingSingapore'a srgumentthatit was the letterof25
93.
June 1825 which conferred title to territoryon the Johor rulers and limited it to only
mainland Johor, isthe veryfactof Singapore'sexistence. TheJohor rulers couldnothave
SeeSCM,pm. 3.31.
16' SeeSCM,para.3.32.
SCM Annexes 5 & 6. The understandiby Sultan Abdul Rahrnanin respect of the donationof
territoriesis foundin the fifth sentenceof the thirdparagraphof his letterto Sultan Hussaindated 25 June
1825.AlthoughSingaporequoted thethird paragraphof Sultan AbdulRahman's SCM,epara.3.33,it
endsitquotationathefourthsentenof the letterand has chosento omitthereFerenceinthe fifih sentence
16*he 1824Treaty.
ThevariouslocationsreferredtoaredepictedinFilonpage37.cededSingapore to the Britishin 1824underthe CrawfurdTreatyif SingaporeIsland and
the "adjacent.. .islets"-indisputably "islandsinthe sea"andnotpart of mainlandJohor-
belongedto the Riau-LinggaSultanateratherthanto the JohorSultanate. To the contrary,
thecessionof SingaporebytheJohor rulerstotheBritish confirmsthattheterritoriesofthe
Johor Sultanatewere never limited toonly the mainlandterritories. Johor's territories
covered all the islandsnorth of the southern limitsof the Strait of Singaporeand this
included PBP.For Singaporeto denythe legalbasis oftheveryinstrumentsunderwhichit
wasfirstconstitutedasaseparatesettlement is curioust,o saythe least.
94. The fact that the sovereigntyof Johor includedPBP, Middle Rocks and South
Ledgeis alsoshownbyanofficialMapof theDutch EastIndiesproducedin I842byG.F.
VonDerfeldenVan Hinderstein,shownas Figure 2 on the oppositepage.'63Thismap is
part of anextensive 8-sheetmapof the DutchEastIndies,madeby order of andsubmitted
to the King of the Netherlands aroundthe same time that the British were seeking
permission to construct a lighthouse near Point Romania in Johor. As such it is
authoritative. It can becIearlynoted thatPBPor PedraBrancaas shownon the map is to
the northofthelineidentifyingtheterritorial extentoftheDutchResidencyofRiau. As&r
as the Dutchwereconcerned, theDutchsphereof influence,andthereforetheextentof the
Riau-LinggaSultanate, didnot includePBP, nor "all the islandsin the sea" off the Johor
mainland.
n 7%- ,,,+:,..:&V ,C r,~,, ,a,, IQCIA
Y. I,. ".I..I'ULLJ V."""V. PISC. .I"&-.
95. After the conclusionof the Anglo-DutchTreaty of 1824,the Sultanateof Johor
continued toexistwithinthe Britishsphereof influence and with its mainterritorialbaseon
the Malaypeninsulaand surrounding islands. It remained intothe 20'century themost
importantStateinthe Malayworld,andwasregardedasthe mostindependentoftheMalay
StateswithintheBritishsphereofinfl~ence.'~~
16'
ThisMap was alsoproducedin Malaysia'sMemorial:see Chapter9 andMMMapAtlas,Map7.
SeealsoMCM,MapsSection,Map 1,pp.277,278.
l''' The other MalaS yultanateswithinthe Britishsphereof influencewere Perak,NegeriSembilan,
Pahang,Kedah,Perlis,Kelantan,SelangorandTerengganu.Ontheincreasein the lgLh centuryof British
interferencin Johoradministrationin theearly20Ihcentury,see N. NadarajahJ,ohor and the Origin osj
BritishControl1895-1914,KualaLumpurA : renabuku2,000. MAPOF DUTCHEASTINDIES
BYG. F.VON DERFELDENVANHINDERSTEIN,
BYORDEROF THE KING,184296. As described inMalaysia'sMemorialandCounter-Memorialt,he Britishperformed
successiveacts ofrecognitionoftheSultanateof Johor, including:
e concludingof the 1819treatieswithJohorrulers for the establishmeno tfa
British factoryin~in~a~ore;'~~
a
concluding the1824Crawhrd Treaty withtheJohorrulers;
o requestingpermissionin 1844toconstructthe Horsburgh~ighthouse;'~~
0 makingthe "Arrangement asto the Temenggong'sPropertyin the Island of
Singapore" of 1846;167
a actingas arbitratorin the boundarydisputebetweenthe two Malay States,
Johor and Pahang, which resulted in the Ord Award of 1868, delineating
their territoriesas shown by the map annexed to the Award, shown as
Figure3 ontheoppositepage;'6E
e recognisingAbuBakar,thepowerful Temenggong ofJohor,as the Sultan of
Johorin 1885;16'
* concludingthe "JohorTreaty"of 1885with oho or; '^d'
0 concludingtheTerritorialWaters Agreemeno t f 1927with oho or.'^'
It is notabletheTemenggongofJohor-from 1885the Sultanof Johor-signed or attested
to eachandeveryactofBritishrecognitionofJohor listed above.
97. Similarly,Dutch practicerecognisedthe Sultanateof Johor as withinthe British
sphere ofinfluenceand never soughtto encroach intoits territory, although formerlythe
Dutchhadbeenan influentialpowerandhadhadclose dealingswiththe Johor rulers. The
Dutch, asshownby the 1842map,strictlyobservedthe 1824Treaty withthe British. The
"ResidentieRio" (Residencyof Riau) is positionedon the map strictlyin accordancewith
etermsof the 1824Anglo-Dutch~rea1y.l~~ PBPisdepictedwellnorthofthe line, as part
theterritoryof Johor andunder British influence.
SeeMM, paras.45-46.
166 SeeMM,para.120.
Seeh4h4 ,ara.62.
lK8 MM,paras.87-88.
169 SeeMM, para.63.
l79ee MM, para.64.
17' SeeMM,paras.99-100.
172 MCM,pp.277-278,MapsSection,Map1;see Figure2 onpage43.MAPANNEXEDTOTHE ORDAWARD,1868
Figur398. Also, in the perception ofthe Dutch,the maritimelimitofthe BritishSettlementof
Singaporewasclearly limitedto 10geographicalmilesfromSingaporeIsland,as is shown
ina letterbythe ResidentofRiauto theDirectorofFinanceandDomains("landsmiddelen
en domeinena')dated 12 July 1833 which addresses Americantrading ships: "the
jurisdictionallimit ofthe Singaporeport remain,as I view it,determinedto be 10 English
99. Singapore seeksto downplaythe importanceof the article of25 May 1843in the
Singapore Free Press,whichreportsthat"BatuPuteh"is"withinthe territoriesof our well
belovedallyand pensionary, the Sultanof Johor,or rather ofthe TomungongofJohore,for
he is the real Singaporecalls it an "anonymous article published in a
privately-ownednewspaper"andquotestheNicaraguacasein an attemptto showthatthe
Court treatspressarticles"withgreatca~tion".'~'IndeedSingaporegoesonatsome length
to arguewhy PulauTiggi, also mentionedin the samearticle as an island belongingto
Johor,couldnot bewithinthe territoriesof the Temenggong,the inferencebeingthat the
articleis also wrongabout PBP.'~~ However,it is a simple matterof fact thatat thetime
the articlewas publishedPulau Tinggihad alwaysbelongedto Johorandfallen withinthe
Temenggong'sdomains, This was confmned by the Ord Award and shown in the map
annexedto it (reproducedonthe precedingpageas Figure3).'77PuIauTinggiremainspart
of Johortothe presentday. Singaporefailsto provideanyevidence asto whythearticlein
the Singapore FreePress would nothave given an accurate accountof the ownershipof
PBPatthetimeitwas written, asitdoesinrespectofPulauTinggi.
100. AshouldalsobeobservedthattheSingaporeFreePresswasa respected newspaper
and in additionto articlespublishedofficialgovernmentinformationand businessreports.
Thomson's"Accountof the HorsburghLighthouseyaw , hich Singaporehas not called into
-,
question, relies on and includes references to articles in the Singapore
Translatioprovidedby Malaysia.Theoriginal texitn Dutch reads: lierniteofjurisdictieder
SincapoerschReheede, iemeenikop 10Engelschemijlenbepaalis":this Repl,ol.2,Annex8.
'74 SingaporeFreePress,25 May1843:MM, para.95 andAnnex40. The article readsinpart:"The
placesandIslandsnearwhich thesepiraciesaremostfrequentlcommittedandwherethepiratesgo for
shelter aconcealment, suchsPuloTinghie,BatuPuteh, Point Romaniac,areallwithin territorieosf
ourwellbelovedallandpensionary t,heSultanofJohore,ratheofthe Tomungono gfJohore, freisthe
realSovereign."
'" SCM,para.4.38.
SCM,para.439.
''l SeeMM,paras.88-89andMMMapAtlas,Map10.Free The standing of this newspaperis acknowfedgedby Turnbull in her
'T3ibliographyofwritingsinEnglishon BritishMalaya,1786-1867".Shesaysthatthe
"newspapers ofthe Straits Settlement provide avery valuable sourceof
informationforthe period upto 1867,particularlyafter the censorshiplaws
wererepealedin 1835. They areusefulfor gaugingpublic opinion ata time
when there was no LegislativeCouncil in the Straits, and they contain
verbatim reports of discussions held and resolutions passed at public
meetings. They also recordspeechesmadeby Governors, Recorders,other
officials,lawyersand merchants; verbatim accountsof charges madebythe
Recorders to Grand Juries and the Presentmentsof the Juries in reply;
memorandacirculatedprivatelyto membersofthe British Parliamentandto
Chambers of Commerce in Britain; reportsof interviews with British
politicians;and muchothermaterial, bothfactualandcomment,whichdoes
not appearin officialrecords and isnotto befoundelse~here."'~~
The Singapore FreePress is expressly included in this account of reliable English
newspapersinthe StraitsSettlements.
101. Hence, there was nothing inaccurate or ill-informed about the report in the
Singapore FreePress of 25 May 1843that '73atuPuteh7'is""withinthe territoriesof our
belovedallyandpensionary,the SultanofJohore,orratherthe TomunggongofJohore".
102. Furthermore, there isno reason to belittlethe relevance of press articles which
reflect contemporaneous public knowledge or information. International courts and
tribunalsfrequentlyrelyon such records,'80
103. In 1886,duringa visitto London,SultanAbu Bakarof Johorrequestedthe British
Governmentbywayof an officialletterof 20March 1886to keepaRegisterofhis islands
in view of the possibility of other Powers bringingany of his islands into their
protectorates.'81The request wasmade inaccordance withArticle V of the 1885Johor
"' See J.T. Thornson, "Accounotf the HorsburghLighthouse",in The Joz~rnalof The indian
Archipelago and Easterndia,vol.(1852),p.84,referringarticlesintheSingaporeFreePressin 1846-
1850,extracofwhichwere includeinAppendixU[toThornson'asrticle.SeeSM Annex61,p.13.
C.M.Turnbull", Bibliograof writings in EnglisohnBritish Malaya1,78&.18, L.A.Mills
(ed.),"BritishMala1824-67",inJournalof theMalayanBranch,RoyalAsiatic Society,vol. 33(1960),
Part3, No.191,pp.335-337,atp.335.
IB0 Examplesincludethe Case ConcertringCertainPhosphateLan&fnNauru (Nmtru v Amlrulia),
Preliminarybjections,1992 ICJReports240,para.33, p.254 (pressreports),andtheNuTestsCme
(Ne7vZealandv France) 1974ICJ Reports457, paras.40-43, p. 471 (press conferesndtelevision
interview).
Is' MM,paras.89-92;MMAnnex63.Treaty which provided for British protection of the territorial integrityof the Johor
~ultanate.'~~Inhisrequest,theSultanexplainedthat:
"The Islands in question rangethemselvesaroundthe Coast of Johore:all
thoseon the Westernside, anda largenumberon theEasternside,beingin
the immediate vicinityof Johore; but of the latter a large proportionalso
extends farther out, stretching to even asfar as the neighbourhoodof
~orneo."'~~
104. The Sultan'srequest was accompaniedby a Memorandumand several chartsas -4
identificationof the islandsbelongingto the JohorSultanate. Amongthe chartspresented
for the considerationof the British Government was Admiralty Chart 2041 representing
islands on the "Eastern Coast of Johor (immediatevicinity)"and which includesPBP,
Middle Rocks andSouth ~ed~e."~
105. Britain never rejectedthe Sultan'sconfirmationthat the islands on the "Eastern
Coast of Johor (immediatevicinity)'',including PBP and as reflected in the Admiralty
Chart 2041, werepartof Johor. Ifthe Britishhad indeed taken"lawfulpossession''ofPBP
in 1847-1851as Singaporenow claims, it was incumbentupon the British to makethis
clear in 1886 in responseto the Sultan'sletter. The British, however, did nom t akeany
suchreservation. The eventsof 1886 provide further evidencethat,even 35yearsafterthe
constructionof the Horsburgh Lighthouseon PEP and its continued operationby the
British, allrelevant parties, the British and Johorese,firmlybelieved it to be underthe
~n.c/ereigcn?ythednhcrS?r!tx!zte.
106. Whatthe 1886 eventsalso demonstrateis that the Sultanof Johor was careful to
ensuretheterritorial extentand integrity ofhis Sultanatewasmaintainedandrespectedby ..
EuropeanPowers operating inthe region. The 1895Constitutionof Johor,whichmarked
the transitionfroman absolutemonarchytowardsa constitutionalmonarchyby providing
182 Article Vof the 1885JohorTreatystat"The Governorof the Straits Settlements, in the spirit of
former treatiwillatalltimestotheutmostofhis powertakewhateverstepsmaybenecessaryto protectthe
Government andtcnitory of Johore from any external hostileasn;d for theseor for similarpurposes
Her Majesty'sOfficersshallat all times have free accestso the watersof the Stateof Johore; and it is agreed
that those waters exto 3 milefromthe shoreof the State,or inanywatersless than6 miles in widtht,o
an imaginary line midway betweehe shores of the two countries."' See Agreement on Certain Points
Touching the Relatiosf Her Majesty's Government the Straits Settlements witthhe Government of the
IndependentStatofJohore,l1 December1885:MMAnnex10.
la3 SeeMM,para.90.
184 SeeMM,para.9 1.fora Council ofMinistersanda State Council,soughtto protectthe territorialintegrityof
JohorbyprovidinginArticleXVthat
"...the Sovereignmaynot in anymanner surrenderor make any agreement
or planto surrender thecountry orany part of the country and Stateof
Johoreto anyEuropeanStateorPower,orto anyotherStateornation.. ."lg5
107. The issueof the territorial extentof the Sultanatewas also addressedin the Straits
Settlementsand Johore Territorial Waters Agreementof 1927. Under this Agreement
certain seas,straitsandisletsthathadbeencededto the Britishunderthe CrawfurdTreaty
of 1824 wereretrocededto Johor. This 1927 Agreementin effect redefinedthe northern,
eastern and westernlimits of Singapore in the Straits of e oh or.'^H^owever, the
retrocession arrangements neither addressed nconcernedPBP because PBP had never
been part of the territory of Singaporeunder the CrawfurdTreaty of1824 and never
becamepartofSingaporethereafter, despite Singapore's recnltaims.
108. The continuityof Johor is alsoshownby the uninterruptedsuccession ofSultans
andTemenggongsof Johor after 1824 whichareshowninFigure4 onthe followingpage.
This showsthateachand every Sultan and Temenggong wassucceededby a son,andthat
the present Sultanof Johor is a directIinealdescendantof TemenggongAbdul Rahman,
signatoryof the agreementswith Great Britain of 1819 and 1824. Thus, withoutany
interruption,the Sultanateof Johorremained inplacefio1511until1946 when ibecame
part of the Malayan Unionand subsequently partof the Federation of Malaya, later
Malaysia.
IS6 SeealsoMM,para.65. ThetextoftheConstitofJohorisreproducinMMAnnex 88.
MM,paras.190-192Thetextofthe1927AgreementisreproduasMMAnnex 12.Figure4:LISTOFTEMENCCONGSANDSULTANSOFJONORFROM1762'
SultanMnhnii~d SIinh111:1762-1812
e
TemenggongAbdulRsbman: 1806-1825 Sultan~u&ain: 1819-1835 AbdulRnLmnnS , ultanof
(Instalfation:1806 (Installation:6FebruaryI819 Risu-Lingga:1812-1830
Died:8December 1825) Died:5 September 1835)
TemenggongDaingIbrahim: 1825-1862 SrlllanAli: 1835-1855
(Instaliation:19August1841 (Proclamation:1835
Died:31January1862) Died: 20June1877)
TetnenggongAbuBakar: 1862-1885 -T& Sultan Abu Bnknr: 1885-1895
(Proclamation1 February1862) 1 Proclamation:i l December1885
Died:4 July1895
In 1885Temenggong
SultanIbrahitn: 1895-1959
Abu Bakar becomes (Proclamation: September1895
. SultanAbuBakar of' Installatio2November1895
"I Died:8May1959)
(Proclaniatio: May1959
fnstallatioa:10February 1960
Died:l0 May1981)
SultanMahmudIskandar: 1981-current
(Proclamation1l May1981)
YnngDiPertuanAgongMalay15November19WPP/Raja,ArkibN~:ga alaysiaCawanganJol1or-nc;rm~anganDLtlamJ,ohorBnl,JiRnja,No. 10.12"July1981.ArkibNegm , auangnnhnIsknndar
Johor-bfel; traitsSelllemenlFncloryRecords,SeriesW41, Folio48,Reel142,MicrofiimCopy,Universieof Mnlya Lihraty.
Sccondewsources:C.U.Uuckfey,AnAttl lstoty Titn nSltrgflp.rasersndNenve:Singn, olreprinted,KualnLur.nivenilyofMalayaPress; .A.Trocki,PrincectjRatotes.
Te~nerrggo~astheDcveloptoftJo/~t?orttdSingapore1Sn.nlopS:iiigaporeUniversityPrRO.,U'instnlt,AIIlstotyofJoho~r(13,932reprtntethMalaysianUwicltheRoyal
hialic SociUudaLmnpur,1992.109. The recorded politicafhistoryof the JohorSultanatespansa period of nearly450
years. Like all other States, during thislong period Johor experienced upheavals.
However,italwaysmaintaineditsstatusasarecognisedindependentSultanateandwasone
of the most powerfiilMaIay States until well into the 20' century, A long history
supportedby clearevidenceprovesthe originaltitle ofMalaysiaoverPBP, MiddleRocks
and South Ledge:each of themwas and has alwaysbeen part of the Sultanateof Johor
whichbecamepartof Malaysia. Thishistorycanbe summarizedas follows:
(a) Duringthe period 1511-1824 the Sultanateof Johor emergedas a maritime
empire which, during theperiod 1784-1824, was exposed to some
fragmentation and reconfiguration as a result of Dutch and English
interference.
(b) The internationalstatus of the Johor Sultanate priorto the Angio-Dutch
Treatyof 1824waswellknown andgenerallyaccepted. Itsdomaincovered
partsofthe mainland oftheMalayPeninsula, partsofthe islandof Sumatra,
allislandswithinandat theentranceofthe Straitof Singaporeandnumerous
other islandsintheopenChinaSea,includingtheNatunas,Anambasandthe
Tambelans. PBP,Middle RocksandSouthLedgewereclearlyincluded.
(c) At all relevanttimesPBPwasnot tewa nullizis.The island wasfeaturedby
nameon the earliestmaps,as a seamarkas wellas a point of danger. The
native populationusedtheisland,asreferredto in Portuguese booksasearly
as 1552. Nearly300years laterCrawfurdwouldstillreportthatthe"menof
the sea" living in that area weresubjectsof the Sultanateof Johor,a fact
confirmedby articles in the Singapore FrePeressaround the timeof the
construction of the lighthouse. Dutch diplomatic exchangeswith the
sovereignof Johor regarding piraccontrolandotherEuropean Powers also
madereferenceto PBP.'~'
(d) The Johor Sultanate splitinto the Riau-Lingga andJohor Sultanatesas a
result of the Anglo-DutchTreatyof March 1824. This treaty dividedthe
Johor Sultanateinto twoseparatespheresof influence: onecoveringthe
SeeMM,para. 20.islands southofthe Straitof Singapore(i.e.theRiau-LinggaSultanate)was
left underDutchinfluenceandthe other,the territory and all islin the
StraitsofSingaporeandtothe northof it(i.e.the StraitsSeElemenand the
Johor Sultanate)wereplacedunderBritishinfluence. PBPis not anisland
south of the Strait of Singapore. Accordingly,it fellthi te British
sphere of influenceand remained a territory underthe sovereigntyof the
Johor Sultanate. Thesameappliesto the othertwo featuresat issuein this
case, MiddleRocksandSouthLedge.
AfZerthe split into twoSultanates effectedby the Anglo-DutchTreatyof
1824, Johorcontinuedto exercise sovereignoveritsterritoryincludingall
islandsin the StraitofSingapore withthe exceptionof those islandsto the
south of the Straitmentionedin ArticleXII of the Anglo-Dutch Treatyof
1824 and, after August1824, the main island of Singaporeand islands
withinits tengeographical mile circumference whJohorhadcededtothe
British undertheCrawfurdTreaty.
Throughoutthe period from 1824 to 1957,PBPremained part of Johor
territoryandwasrecognisedby theBritishassuchinall itsdealingswiththe
Johor rulers, for examplein 1886when'sultan Abu Bakar confirmedthe
extent of his territorywith the British and in1927 TerritorialWaters
AgreementbetweenBritainand Johor. Chapter3
TEE TRANSACTIONS LEADING TO TEIE CONSTRUCTION OF
Introduction
110. A keyelementforthe settlementofthisdisputeisthe determinationofthe scopeof
Johor'spermissionfor the constructionof thelighthouse. This Chapter will focuson the
correspondence relatedto that question. The inaccuof Singapore'spresentationof
the correspondence,andthe weaknessof its attemptto denythat the authorisationto build
the lighthouseincludPBP, willbe demonstrated.Attentionwillbe drawninparticularto
four keyelementsofthatcorrespondence:
Governor Butterworth's request for Johor's permissionto construct the
lighthouseSectionA);
o the extentof the Sultan'sand theTemenggong's25 November1844lettersof
permission,in particular,the referenceto the constructionof the Lighthouse
"nearPointRomania","oranyspotdeemedeligible"(SectionB);
* the letter sentby GovernorButterworthto the Governmentof Indiadated26
August 1846 informingit of the changeof location£?omPeak Rockto PBP,
the contentofwhichisnowchallenged bySingapore(SectionC);and
the dispatchof therelevantcorrespondencebythe Governmentof India tothe
East IndiaCompany's Courtof Directorsin Londonof 3 October 1846,at a
timewhenPBPhad beendefinitely chosen asthe site for the lighthouse,and
. whichincludedthe Sultan's and Temenggong'ermissions(SectiD).
111. Finally,this Chapterwill addressotherancillaryargumentsmade in the Singapore
Counter-Memorial relatedto the correspondence regardingthe construction of the
lighthouse,in particular Singapore'snew theory distinguishingbetween "formal" and
"informal"permissionsgivenby Malayrulersto construct lighthouseson their territories
(SectionE). A. Butterworth's request for permissionto construct the lighthouse
112. Both Parties agree that Governor Butterworth wrote to the Sultan and the
Temenggongin orderto requestpermissionto constructthe lighthouse. Theyalsoagree
that the Johor authorities gave suchpermissionby letters dated 25 November 1844.
However, they disagree as to the geographicalscope of that permission. Malaysia
considersthat PBP was included. Singapore'sargues that Buttenvorth's requestfor
permissionconcerned PeakRockandonly PeakRock. Thisargumentis baseduponpure
speculation.'88
113. Despiteextensiveefforts,Malaysiahas beenunableto locateButterworth'sletter
of request, Nor has Singaporeproducedit. Instead, Singapore'scase is based on an
inconsistent analysisof the lettersButterworthsentto other Britishofficialsimmediately
before or soon after receiving the Sultan's and the Temenggong's answers of 25
November 1844 to his request. It will be shown that Singapore's appraisalof the
correspondenceis inaccurate: itdoesnottake intoaccountthe historyof the planningof
the constructionof the lighthouse to honour the memory of James Horsburgh, is
inconsistentwith GovernoB r utterworth'spreviousand laterreferencesto the regionand,
aboveall,is inconsistentwiththe principal documents thatdo exist-the Sultan'sandthe
Temenggong'slettersof 25November1844.
114.
It is not possible to determine theexact date of Governor Buttenvorth'srequest.
Buteven if Butterworth hadPeak Rock in mind,a final decisionon the locationof the
lighthousehad not been takenin the latter part of 1844, contrary to what Singapore
contends.'89Hencethere is noreasonto believethat Butterworth's requesw t as confined
to a single possible location. The only thing that was sure at that stage was that the
lighthouse wouldbe erected in the Straitof Singapore,preferablyat the entranceto the
SouthChina Sea,sincethe dangers fornavigationenteringthe Straitwere locatedthere.
Thecorrespondencecorroboratesthis.
115. In a letterfiom CaptainBelcherto GovernorButterworthof 1 October1844,the
formerreferredto the latter'srequestdated20 April 1844for "an opinionuponthe most
eligible position foa Light House in the Straits of Singapore".Belcher thought the
lighthouse shouldstand"upon a position whereits benefitswouldbe generallyusefulto
SN,para.5.41;SCM,para.5.43.
189 SCM,para.5.95.the navigation of the China Seas as well as these straits".'" Butterworth referredto
Belcher'sletterin a subsequentletterto CaptainFaber,the SuperinteEngineer,dated
3 October1844,as being';relativeto the sitefor a LightHouseatthe entranceof theChina
Seayya,ndto thewishofthe subscribersotheBuildingofa LightHousebearingthe name
of Horsburghon Pedro Branco,at the entrance of China Again,in anotherletter
fiom Governor Butterworth,this time to Purv&sCo. of 30 October 1844, referenceis
made tohis desire"of movingthe SupremeGovernmentof Indiaon thesujecr ofaLight
Houseinthevicini ofPedra ~ranca".'~~ Inhis letterto F. Currie, Secretaryto the
Government of India, of 28 November 1844, Governor Butterworth referredto the
constructionof the lighthouse''asa matterof somemomenttothe navigationof the Straits
ofMalaccainthe vicinityof Singaporeandthe openingoftheChinaSea",andrecalled that
the subscriberscollectedthe fundsothe erectionof a LightHouse bearingthe nameof
'Horsburgh'onPedraBrancaatthe entranceof theChina Sea,or on suchother localityas
mightbedeemedpreferablebytheGovernmentoftheHonorableEastIndia~orn~an~".'~~
116. All these references are generalin character, leavthe questionof the exact
locationof the lighthouse. The ensuingcorrespondence,dthe actual courseof events
leadingto the construction ofthe lighthouse,show that Butterworth's endorsementof
Belcher's preferenforPeakRockwasnot afinaldecision.
l7. Singaporecontendsthat"GovernorButterwortheventuallydecided upon Peak Rock
after receiving CaptainBelcher'srecommendationon 1 October 1844".'94 In fact, the
Governordid no morethanendorse CaptainBelcher'sviewsand submit "the questionto
the supremegovernment", as he himself wrote.'g5 His letter of 22 August 1845to C.
Beadon, the Undersecretaryto the Government of Bengal, shows that Butterworth
consideredthat the decisionsto the location ofthe lighthouse wasstill open.'96 In its
Counter-Memorial,Singapore only quotedthe third paragraphof thisetter.'97 But it is
MMAnncx 41;SMAnnex 11.
SCM ,aro.5.3andAnnex10.
MR,vol2,Annex9 (emphasis added).
MMAnnex46;SMAnnex13.
SCM,piua5.33.
SCM ,ara5.32.
MMAnnex 47;SMAnnex14.
SCM ,ara.5.52.clear fromthe second paragraphthat Butterworthcontinuedto refer to the area under
considerationfor the constructionof the lighthouseas ''thevicinityof PedraBranca and
Point Romaniaat the openingof the ChinaSea";he referredtothat wholeregionas 'Yhat
neighbourhood".Moreoverinthesane paragraph Butterworth defendedhis earlychoiceof
Peak Rockagainst the alternativesite of PBP. Eventhe third paragraph (theonly one
quotedby Singapore)does not supportits analysis. Butterworth recalled that "itwould
appear that the pmposition for the Erection of a Light House on the site selected by
Captain Sir E. Belcher C.B. viz Peak Rock the outer Romania Island has been
recommendedfor the favourableconsiderationof the Honblethe Court of~irectors".'~~
Thisisnotthelanguageofdecision.
118. Evenas lateasJanuary 1846,ThomasChurch,theResident CouncillorinSingapore
whohadtranslatedthetwoJohorpermission letters,wasuncertainaboutthe finalityof the
selectionof the site. Referringto the letter from CaptainCongaltondated 12January
1846,"' theResident Councillorwrote:
"it appearsthat, should PeakRock beeventuaIljselectedasa suitablesite
for a LightHouse, it will occasionallybe inaccessibleduring the N.E.
ons soon".^^
Clearly, the decision process didnot stop at Peak Rock once Butterworthreceived
Belcher'sproposal. The BritishGovernorwas wellawarethatthe final decision wasnot
histomake. ThealternativetoPeakRockwasalwaysthesame:PBP.
119. Singaporepositsthatthefist timePBPwasconsideredasa candidate wasin 1847,
once concretestepsto construct ithad beenimplemented, andconsequentlythatthe 1844
exchangeof lettersbetweenGovernorButterworthandthe authoritiesofJohorcouldnot
have referredto PBP. The realitywas quite different. Thereis no doubt thatat all times
PBPwas atthe coreofthe discussionconcerningthe siteforthe lighthouse: befored , uring
and after 1844. The documentationincluded in both Parties' Memorialsand Counter-
'9"mphasis added.
In&tatletterCaptainCongaltexplainedthatheandJ.T.Thomsonhadbeenunabletobuildbrick
11llars onPeakRock, duetotheviolenceof thesea. SeethisReply, Ch4, para194andvol.2,Annex
200
Letter froT. Church,ResidentCounciilorto the Goverrf theStraitsSettlements,13January
1846:Annex12,vol.2 of thisReply.Memorials, fromthefirsmeetingin Cantonon 22November1836untilthe first stepsto
constructit onPBPin 1847,abundantlyprovesthisfact:
TheCantonPress,26November1836?01
IlzeCantonPress, 10December 1836;02
o TheCantonRegister,10January1837?03
TheSingaporeFree Press, 9February837?04
The SingaporeFree Press, 5April1838,2°5
r LetterfromJ. Matheson& Co.,Treasurerto the ChinaFundfor a testimonial
toJ.Horsburgh,careofMessrs.J. Purvi& Co.,to S.G.Bonham,Governorof
PrinceofWalesIsland, SingaporeandMalacca,1March 1842?06
o
LetterfromGovernorBonhamtoJ.Matheson,4 April 1842?07
r LetterfromGovernorButterworthto C.E.Faber (Superintending Enginee,)
October1844,'08
Letterfrom GovernorButterworttoJ.Purvis& Co.,30October1844;09
r LetterfromJ.Purvis& Co.toGovernorButterworth,31October1844,210
Letter fromGovernorButterworthtoF. Currie,Secretaryto the Government
of India,28November1844;"
LetterfromGovernorW.J.Butterworthto C. Beadon,Under Secretaryto the
GovernmentofBengal,22August1845?12
TheBombayTimesandJournal ofCommerce,10January1846:'~
TheTimes,22January1846:j4
e Letter fromN.B. Hamilton, Secretaryto the Admiraltyto the Secretaryto the
EastIndiaCompany,18April1846:15
MM Annex30.
MMAnnex31.
MMAnnex32.
MMAnnex 33.
MMAnnex34.
MMAnnex 35;SMAnnex8.
MMAnnex 36.
ThisReply,v.,Annex9.
MMAnnex46;SMAnnex13.
MMAnnex 47;SMAnnex 14.
MMAnnex48.
MMAnnex49.
MMAnnex 50. m Letter fkom S. Congalton, Captain of the Hooghly, and J.T. Thomson,
GovernmentSurveyor,toGovernorButterworthof25August1846,216
Letterfrom GovernorW.J.Butterworthto G.A.Bushby,the Secretaryof the
GovernmentofIndia,26 August1846,217
m InternalMinuteofGovernorW.J.Butterworth,30 September1846;'~
LetterfromtheGovernmentofIndiatothe CourtofDirectorsof theEastIndia
Company,3 October 1846:''
a Internal Minuteof GovernorW.JButterworth,3 October1846,220
Letter from G.A. Bushby, Secretary to the Governmentof India, to the
Governor Generalof India in Council, undated,enclosurein letter from C.
Beadon, Under-Secretaryto the Governmentof Bengal, to Governor W.J.
Butterworth,10 May1847.22'
m Letter from C. Beadon, Under-Secretaryto the Governmentof Bengal,to
Governor W. J.Butterworth,10May 1847.m
120. Of particular interestin this regard is the following assertion in Singapore's
.-
Counter-Memorial:
"from the firstpublic meetingon 22November1836 inCanton concerning
the proposalto constructrsburghLighthouse, a1the Europeanmerchants,
whetherinCanton, SingaporeoI rndia, hadacted onthe basisthatallthatthe
British had to do was to take possession ofPedra Branca. At no time did
anyof themconsideror expressa viewthatthe consentof eitherthe Sultan
or Temenggongof Johor was relevanttothepr~ject."'~
Tbere is here an acknowledgmentby Singaporethat, fiom 1836 onwards,PBP was
considered alikelyplacefor the construcofthelighthouse. Therest ispurespeculation
notsubstantiatedbyany evidence, ThearticlepublishedbyTheCantonPress informingof
the public meetingof 22 November 1836,as wellas the letterof the merchantswhotook
the initiative to pay tribute to James Horsburgh, did not refer to this
SCMAnnexIl.
MMAnnex51.
MMAnnex53.
MMAnnex54.
MMAnnex55.
MCM Annex20.
SMAnnex20.
SCM,para4.42.issueinany They were not concernedwithmattersof sovereigntyatall, eitherthe
requirementof permission fromthe sovereign orthe taking of possessionof terranullius.
AspointedoutbybothMalaysiaand Singapore,lighthousesinthe region wereconstructed
or envisagedby Britishauthoritiesinterritorieseitherbelongingto Great Britainorto local
Malay rulers: in the latter case there was no reason to think consent would not be
forthcoming. Singapore's theory seems toentail that merchants,hailing fkomdifferent
places and nationalities, collected funds in order to allow Great Britain to acquire
sovereigntyoverPBP.
121, Singapore then analyses the exchange offettersbetweenJohn Purvis & Co. and
Governor Buttenvorthandaffirmsthat
"Malaysiais wrongin stating thatGovernor Butterworthcontinuedto refer
to the projectas 'the erection of a Light House in the vicinity of Pedra
Branca'duringthe periodwhenhe decided onPeak Rock.
notusedbyButterworth,butby John Purvis, a privatemerchant.
In fact Purvis& Co. wasinchargeof the money collectedbythe merchantsfromdifferent
placesfortheconstructionofthe lighthouse.Butterworth'sletterto Purvis & Co.,dated30
October 1844confirmsMalaysia'sviews. Itreadsas follows:
"Beingdesirous againof moving theSupreme Governmentof India onthe
subject ofa LightHouse in the vicinityofPedra Branca in accordancewith
the viewsofthe subscribersto the Horsburghtestimonial, Ishall feel greatly
obligedbyyou informingme, if I:may intimate thatthe sum alludedto in a
letterfrom Messrs.Mathesonand Co. under datethe 1" March 1842sent
underyour care tothe addressof the late Governorof these Settlementsis
stillorthcomingfortheabovepurpose."226
Butterworth referredto "the subjectof a LightHouse in the vicinityof Pedra Brancain
accordancewith theviewsof the subscribersto the HorsburghTestimonial" lessthan one
monthbeforethe dateofthe Sultan'sand Temenggong's responses.
122. Itisworthnotingthatthe firstofthe enclosures(EnclosureA) thataccompanied the
letter of GovernorButtenvorthto F. Currie (Secretaryto the Governmentof India) of
12'
225 SeeThe CantonPressof26November1836and10December 1836M : MAnnexes30 & 31.
236 SCM,para.5.36.
ThisReply,vol2,Annex9(emphasisadded).28 November 1844also containsthe responsefkomPurvis & Co. of 31 October 1844,
whichreadsas follows:
"We have the honor to acknowledge receipo tf your letter of yesterdayin
whichyourequest usto informyouwhetherthefinds subscribedinChinato
the HorsburghTestimonialare stillforthcomingfor the purposof aidingin
theerectionofa LightHousein?hevicinityofPedra~ranca.""~
123. Governor Buttenvorthcontinuedto usethe samegeographicdescription ("erectinag
Light House in the neighbourhoodof Pedra Brancayya )fter receiving Johor's lettesf -
permissionof 25 November 1844and after his letterto the Governmentof Indiaof 28
November1844-for example,inthe lettertheGovernorsenttoRear AdmiralCochraneon
8December1 845.228
124. The onlyavailable direct evidence beforetheCourt withregardto the geographical
extentof Buttenvorth'srequestto Johor for permissionto constructthe lighthouseis the
Temenggong'sanswer,whichexplicitlyrefersto Buttenvorth'srequest:
"I have duly received my .friend'scommunication andunderstand the
Contents. My friend is desirousof erecting a Light House near Point
~omania".u9
This is the most important piece of evidence helpingto determine the content of
Buttenvorth'sletter. NeithertheTemenggong'sresponse (northe Sultan's) mentionP seak
Zcck g$ S!!. As sete:! 2bs*:e,P3,Dha:! beer!the ~rigine! m:! prefe~e:!p!zc:c:f:c%E.
constructionofthe lighthouse. Thereis abundantevidenceof this. In the letterfromW.J.
Buttenvorthto E. Belcherdated 2 October 1844it is madeclearthatthe originalintention
ofthose havingthe initiativeto constructthe lighthousewasto do it on"Pedro~ranco".'~~
As seenabove,the last available letteron the caseof the lighthouse writtenby Governor
Buttenvorth beforethe Sultanand Temenggong's lettersof permissionof 25 November
I844 was that of 30 October 1844, and in that letter he defined the region under
considerationas "the viciniot fyPedra Brmca in accordancewith the views of the
subscribers totheHorsburghTestimoniar'.
227 MMAnnex42; SCMAnnex13(emphasisadded).
Letterby GovernorButterworto RearAdmirnlSir Cochrae.B.of 8 December1845,vol2,
Annex10 ofthisReply.
229 TranslatbyT.ChurchR, esident Councilr:MAnnex45.
230 SCMAnnex9.125. To sumup,thereis nota singlepieceofevidenceto supportSingapore's assertion
that the permission sought by Governor Butterworthconcerned Peak Rock only.
Singapore'seffortto showthat Johorgavepermissionto constructa lighthouseon Peak
Rockbothstatesthe obviousand missesthepoint. Singaporeput considerableeffortinto
tryingto "prove"that Johor'spermission extendeto Peak Rock. This is not at issue:
what Singaporehas to show is that the permissionexclusivc eoncerned Peak Rock.
SingaporeEdilto doso.
126. But even if(arguendoButterworth's letteorf requesthadreferredto PeakRockit
does notfoIlowthat thepermissionswerelimitedtothat spot.~raspublicknowledgeat
the timethatseverallocationswereunder discussion.EvenfButterworth'spreferredspot
at the time ofhe Sultan'sand Temenggong'sanswers was Peak Rock, the requests for
permissionand the permissionsthemselveswere not so limited. The contextand the
conespondencetakentogether showprecisely thecontrary:the permissionsreferredto an
arearatherthana single location,that areaed PBP,andthe two envisaged locations
inthatareawere Peak Rock andPBP.
127. Ifthatwas(asisclear)trueofthepermissions,itmaybe inferredtohavebeentrue
of theletterofequestas well. If Butterworth'srequesthadreferredexclusivelyto Peak
RockwhywouldtheTemenggong'sanswernot havesimplysaid"on Peak Rock"or"on
outerRomaniaIsland" or "on Peak RockRomania"(the differentnames by whichthe
islandwas referredto in the correspondeninsteadof "nearPointRomania"? Why did
hispermissionextendalsoto "anyspotdeemedeligible7'?Why did Butterworthcontinue
to refeinhis correspondencwith thoseinchargeofthemoney beingcollectedtoan area
expresslymentioniP nBgP ('"inthe vicinityofPedraBrancain accordancewiththeviews
ofthesubscriberstotheHorsburgh Testimonial") and notst PeakRock? Whydidthese
merchants referto the locationof the lighthousein the manner ("in the vicinofy
PedraBranca")? Whydidthe veryfirstparagraphof his28 November 1844letterto the
Governmentof Indiacontaina referenceioa regionCin thevicinityof Singaporeandthe
openingofthe ChinaSea'')?Whydid therestofthisletteritself;althoughmentioningthe
preferencegiventoPeakRock,stillrefertoPedraBranca?128. It is much more likely,in the contextof the letters discussingthe matter during
Octoberand November 1844t,oconsiderthatButterworthutilisedthe same wording--such
as"in the vicinityofPedraBranca"(letterto JohnPurvi& Co.),or"atthe entranceofthe
China Sea" (letter to the Government of India).The letter to Purv&s Co. is the last
available onefromButterworth (30October1844)beforethe Sultan'sand Temenggong's
letters. It continuesto referto thesitefor thei 'thevicinityofPedra Brancain
accordancewiththe viewsof the subscribers Testimonial",andthis even
afterreceivingCaptainBelcher's advictoconstructitonPeakRock(1October1844). -.
B. TheSultan'sandTemmenggong'sanswers
129. Imaginedinterpretationsof Butterworth's letter cannot constie basis for the
interpretationof the authorisationgiven by Johor. What is essential isthe scope of the
Johorauthorities' letters,
130. SultanAlliemadea generalstatementastohispleasurewithregardtotheprojectof
the constructionof thelighthouse?3' Contraryto what Singapore argues, this isby no
meansirrelevant.Theonly possible interpretatiofthe Sultan'sletteristhatheauthorised
GovernorButterworthto constructthe envisagedlighthousein his territorieswhereverthe
East IndiaCompany(EIC)would fmd it suitable. The regionenvisagedat that timewas
wellknown:theeastern entranceof theSingaporeStrait.
131. The geographicextent of the Temenggong'sauthorisationis not "imprecise",as
Singapore contend^? ^ 'th PBPand Peak Rock,the only spots ever envisagedfor the
constructionofthelighthouse,are"nearPointRomania".
(i) "NearPoinR tomania"
132. SingaporearguesthattheTemenggong's authorisationconcernedonlyone sitea nd
that thesitewar Peak Rock. The reasoning is that since the latter is closer to Point
Romaniathan PBP and was temporarilypreferredto PBPby CaptainBelcherand laterby
GovernorButterworth,then the referencein the Temenggong'spermission to construcat
-
"' MM Annex 44.
'I2 SCM,para.5.42.lighthouse"nearPointRomania" couldonlymean"PeakRock"'.This is exactly the same
speculationasthat concerningthe letter of requestby Butterworth,refiitedabove. The
differenceis that there isan availabletext hereandthe text refers to an area("nearPoint
Romania"),not to the RomaniaIslandsnor to any specificlocationof those islands(i.e.,
PeakRock),asSingaporewouldhaveit.
133. Of coursewhat was at issue was the constructionof a lighthouseto lessen the
dangersfor thenavigationof theeasternentrance of the Straitof Singapore. BothParties
agree thatthe mainchannelsusedthen andnoware the north andthe middle channels,in
particularthe latter. ThosechannelsaresituatedclosetotheJohor mainland.TheRomania
Islands(PulauLima)markthe northern limitof the middle channeland PBP is the south
edge of it. Clearly,the dangersfor navigationare constituteby these two features:the
RomaniaIslandsandPBP. Thesewerethetwo obviouscandidatesforthe lighthouse. The
correspondenceclearlyshowsthis.
134. Accordingto Singapore,GovernorButterworthhimselfdid not consider thatPBP
was located"nearPoint ~omania"?~~The passageit quotesfromGovernorButterworth's
letterto Under-Secretaryto the Govenunentof Bengal,C. Beadon,dated22 August 1845
only mentionsthat "in responseto a proposalto site the lighthouseon Pedra Branca,he
indicatedhispreferenceforPeakRock because Pedra Branca 'issoremotefrom Singapore,
at so great a distancefrotheMain Land'. . Thewhole passagereadsasfollows:
"The number of vessels that have been wreckedin the vicinityof Pedra
BrancaandPointRomaniaat the openingof theChinaSea, imperatively
rulefor a Light House in that neighbourhoodandthere can be littledoubt
thattheformerwouldbethe bestpossiblepositionfor onesofar on the light
is concerned,but it issoremote fromSingapore,at so great adistancefrom
the MainLand and soinaccessibleat certainseasonsof the yearthat under
all circumstancesI should give preference to the position selectedby
CaptainSirEdwardBelcherC.B.as reportedinmyletterunderdatethe28'
November1844No 1 10.'"~~
233 Ibid.
Ibid.
MM Annex47; SM Annex14(emphasiasdded). The firspartof the sentence("inthe vicinityof PedraBrancaandPointRomaniaat the
opening of the China Sea'')is not cited by Singapore. Butterworth employed the
expression"so remotefromSingapore"in contrastwiththe "so greata distance"usedto
refer to mainlandJohor. Peak Rockis closerto the mainland thanPBP. Butterworth
employedthe words"thatneighbourhood"to describe"thevicinityof Pedra Branca and
Point Romaniaat the opening of the China Sea". Pedra Branca and PointRomania
formed,in Butterworth'seyes,partofthesame"neighbourhood".
135. Singaporecontendsthat "proximity isa relative But it is possibleto
determinethe meaningof the tenn "near"in a given instrument or letter. Singapore
supposes thatonlythe RomaniaIslandsare "nearPointRomania"and stressesthat PBP
does notformpartofthose This isnotthepoint. Indeed,itpracticallychanges
the wordingof the Temenggong's permission h:e didnotwrite"in theRomaniaIslands",
but"nearPointRomania".
136. Nodoubt "near i"a relative term.ThisCourt considered that"near",cccloseto its
shoresy',"off its coast?' ,opposite", "in front of the coast", "in the vicinity of',
lcneighbouring the coast", "adjacent to" and cccontiguous 're "allof them termsof a
somewhatimprecisecharacterwhich, althoughthey conveya reasonablyclear general
idea, arecapableof a considerablefluidityof meaning"."8 Althoughthe Courtmadethis
analysisin the context of continentalshelf delimitation, itscomment can also help to
clarifythe expression"nearPointRomania". Rejectingthe theoryof "closerproximity"
invokedby Denmarkand the Netherlandsin the NmthSea ContinentalShelfcases, the
Court consideredthat the idea of absolute proximityis not implied by the general
terminologymentioned above.239
237 SCM, par&5.65.
238 Ibid.
239 NorthSea ContinentdShelfJ,udgment,196ICJ Reports30,pm. 41.
Thewhole quotation reassfollows:
"Asregardsthenotion ofproximity,theideaofabsoluteproximityiscertaintynot implied
bytherathervagueand general terminoloemployedinthe literatureofthe subject, and
in mostStateproclamationsand international conventionotherinstruments-terms
suchas%eary7",cfoseto ishores "ofitscoast",opposite","in frontofthecoast","in
the vicinity',"neighbouringthe coast", "adjato",Lccontiguousnt,c.,-all of them
tms of a somewhatimprecisecharacterwhich,althoughthey conveya reasonablyclear
generalidea,are capableofconsiderablefluidofmeaning.Totakewhatisperhapsthe
mostfrequently employedof these terms,namely "adjacentto", it is evidentthat by no
stretchof imaginaticana pointonthecontinentalshelf situsay a hundredmiles,or
evenmuchless,from agivencoast,beregardedascbdjacent"to it,orto anycoastatall,in137. Followingthe Court'sreasoning, "near" doesnot mean "nearest", andthe closer
proximity ofthe RomaniaIslandsto Point Romaniadoesnot excludethat PBP is "near
Point Romania". The historical recordin this case clearly shows that PBP has been
consideredas "near PointRomania". Hiis includesthe fact that Point Romaniawas used
for shelter and provisioning duringthe constructionwork on PBP, and the idea of the
establishmentofa station ora villagein PointRomaniawasconsideredas the bestwayto
protect thelighthouseon PBP. Referringto this possibility,Thomson wrote:"Here [i.e.
PointRomania]a constantwatchcould be maintainedon the lighthouse and their rapid
presencecouldbehadattherockincaseofneed.';t4'
138. In orderto determinewhethera place is "near"another, itis essentialto knowthe
placefromwherethe observerintendsto makethisjudgement, Viewed from Londonor
Calcutta,PBPis even"near7'Singapore. Not surprisingly,Governor Butterworth,in his
letterto F. Currie(Secretaryto the Governmentof India) of28 November 1844,refersto
the area as being"in the vicinityof Singaporeandthe openingof the China sea'?" He
had in mindthe areabeingcontemplatedfor theconstruction ofthe lighthouse. Governor
Butterworthwent onto expIainthe differentlocations envisaged forthe constructionofthe
lighthouse:Barn Island, Peak Rock and PBP. These locationswere, for him, "in the
vicinityof Singaporeandthe openingofthe ChinaSea". Barn Islandiscloseto theIsland
of Singapore (withinthe ten milelimitestablishedbythe CrawfurdTreaty), whereasPeak
RockandPBPlieat the openingof the ChinaSea. Thiscanbe seenfromFigure 5, onthe
followingpage.
in thenormalsense ofadjacency,even if the point concerned isr someone coast
thanto any other.Tlliswouldbeeventruerof localitieswhere, physicallyt,he continental
shelf beginsto merge with the ocean depths.Equally, apoint inshoresituatednew the
meetingplaceofthe coastsof twoStatescanoflenproperlybe saidto be adjatoboth
coasts, eventhoughit may be fractionally closerto the one thanthe other. Indeed,local
geographical configuration masyometimescause it to acloser physical connection
with the coast to which it is not in fact closest. Thereseems in consequenceto be no
necessary,and certainlyno complete, identitybetweenthe notions of adjacency and
proximity;and therefore the question of whirtfsthecontinental shelf "adjacentto" a
coastline bordering mothan one State fall withenappurtenanceof which of them,
remainsto this extenan open one, notto be determinedon a basis exclusivelyof
proximity."
(NorthSea ContinentalShelf;Judgme19,9ICJ Reports30,paras.41-42).
240 LetterfromJ.T. Thomson, Government Surveyor, to. Church,Resident Council, November
1850:MMAnnex 58;SMAnnex47.
241 SCM,para.5.36. For thewhole letters,eeMMAnnex46, SMAnnex13. LOCATJOWS FQIi THE LIGHTHOUSEMENTlOMED IN BUTTERWORTH'S
LETTEROF 28 NOVEMBER1844
Foillustreurposonly Aerial photographshowingtheareaof PBP
and mainlandJohor(includingPointRomania (TgPenyusoh))
Figure6139. This beingso, how canthe argumentseriously beadvancedthat for Butterworthor
the Tenenggong, PBP was not "near PointRomania"? Viewed from Singapore, theonly
locationsnear PBP are the adjacent Johor mainland (including Point Romania), the
LimalRomaniaIslands and Bintan. Actually, theonly locations that canbe considered
"nearPointRomania"incorrespondencebetweenthe Britishauthoritiesandthoseof Johor
forthe purposeof constructinga lighthousearethe LimajRomaniaislandsand PBP, since
Bintanfellwithinthe Dutchsphereof influence.
(Romania)Islands,includingPeak Rock,and PBP. Betweenthe Lima Islandsand PBP
-
someshipscanbe seen. Theyprovidea clear pictureofthe dimensionsof the geographic
featurespresent andthe close distancebetween them. In fact, Singapore'sInsert9 shows
the contraryofwhatSingaporeclaims.
1
SCM, para.5.70.142. While discussing thescope of the expression"near Point Romania", Singapore
downplaysthe two clear andconcrete geographic descriptions madb ey key figuresin the
story,Crawfbrdand horns son:'^^
'Xomania is the Easternpart of SingaporeStraits, the entranceis divided
intotwochannelsbya clusterof rocks,the largestis20 feetabovethelevel
ofthe seanamedbythe PortuguesePedro Branca."
(J.Crawfurd,BritishResidentofthe Settlementof Singapore)?
"Point Romaniathe nearestlandtoPedraBranca."
(J.T. Thomson,GovernmentSurveyor,architect of the Horsburgh
~i~hthouse)?~~
The onlyanalysismadeby Singaporeof these descriptions isa simpledistortion ofwhat
Thomsonwrote. For Singapore,"the reference[byThomson] is to the nearest mainland
andthisfact is hardlyconclusiveofthepointin Thomson referred to "land",
notto"mainland7'.Unsurprisingly,the SingaporeCounter-Memoriad loesnotcomment on
Crawbd's statement,which actually treats"PedroBrancaa' aspart ofthe Romaniaarea.
143. The Chart ofthe Vicinityof theHorsburghLighthouseandAdjacentMalayCoast
by J.T.Thomson isalsostrongevidencethatPBPis "nearPoint Romaniaa'.Initsordinary
meaning,Lcadjacent" means "next to or adjoining somethingelse" and its Latin origin
signifies"lyingnear
l Singaporearguesthat, sinceButterworth'sletterto the Governmentof Indiaof 28
November1844specified,referringto PeakRock,that"ThisRockis partof the territories
of the Rajah of Johore,who with the Tamongonghave willinglyconsented tocede it
gratuitouslyto the East India Company", only Peak Rock was the subject of the
permission.248Of coursethe permission included PeakRock, which off-shoreislandwas
partof Johor. Butnothingsupportsthe assertionthat the spatial scopeof the permission
244 SCM, para.5.65.
z'i MM,para.125 & Annex23,
MM,para.125 & Annex58.
"'6 SCM,para.5.65.
24s OxfordDicfionoryofEnglish,2nded.,Oxford: OxfdniversityPress2,00p.20.
SCM,paras. 5.63and5.69.was exclusivelylimitedto PeakRock. Itwas not for theTemenggongto decide thefmal
location ofthe lighthouse. If Butterworthmentionedthat the Temenggong"ceded it
gratuitouslyto the EIC"referringto PeakRock, it simplywas becausehe consideredPeak
Rockas the most appropriatesiteforthe constructionof the lighthouseat that timeand he
was proposingthis locationto the EIC. Malaysia has already explained paragraphof
Butterworth'sletter.%'The fact is that the lighthousewasnot constructedon Peak Rock
but onPBP. ThestatusofPeak Rockwasnot affectedatall. Clearly, whatwasessentialin
the exchangeof IettersbetweenButterworthand the Temenggongwas the permissionto
construct the lighthousomewhereintheregion describedor inanyotherplaceconsidered
appropriate. Nothinghappenedon PeakRock afterthat exchange.Instead, thelighthouse
was constructedon PBP.
145. ThatButterworth'sstatementof28 November1844wasconsideredto applyto PBP
may be inferred fiom the 12 June 1953 letter sent by J.D. Higham, on behalf of the
SingaporeColonialSecretary,to the British Adviserof Johor. The relevantpassagereads
asfollows:
"It appears thisrock [PedraBranca]is outsidethe limitsceded by Sultan
Hussainand the DatoTummunggongto the East IndiaCompanywith the
Islandof Singaporein the Treatyof1824(exlractat 'A').It was however
mentionedin a despatchjkomtheGovernorofSingaporeon 28thNovember
f844(extractat 'B')."~~~
A-finexB of ihisfGei i.~piudu~~IuG~rwur&'s sitiiemenW& &c: addiiionofhe phrase
'"edra Branca]"asthemeaningof"this~ock".~'
146. The terms of the Temenggong'sletter are clear. There was no identitybetween
Point Romania andthe Romania Islands. These are two differentgeographicfeatures.
Moreover, they are the European names for Tanjung Penyusoh and PuIau Lima
respectively. Singaporewronglystates that the RomaniaIslands are "also called Lima
Islandsin more recent chartsand sailindirection^" n'fact Thomson'sChartof the
Vicinityof the HorsburghLighthouseand Adjacent MalayanCoast of 1851 clearly
249 MM, para.133. Fora similarreferencetoa"cession"wittheconstructofa lighthouse
150apeRachado(Tg.Tuan),see MCM,paras.327-328.
MMAnnex67;SMAnnex93(emphasisadded).
'52 MCM, paras.139,5&7508;SM Annex93.
SCM,p.97,h.221.mentions"PointRomaniaor TanjongPenyusoh"and"RomaniaIslands orPuloLima"(see
Figure9 ontheprecedingpage). SincetheMalayoriginalof the Temenggong's letter has
not beenfound (both Parties producedthe Englishtranslationby T. Church, Resident
Councillor),it is not possibleto knowwhetherhe usedthe Malay(TanjungPenyusoh)or
the European name(Point Romania). Butthere is not the slightest suggestion thathe
referred toPulauLima.
147. To sumup, 'WearPointRomania"is a referenceto an area, not a location. In its
Counter-Memorial, Singaporienterpretedthisphrasetorefer onlyto one island:PeakRock.
Itseffortto confineJohor's authorisatioto thissinglelocationfliesinthe faceoftheclear
wording ofthe Temenggong's letter.It also contradictsthebackgroundagainstwhich the
exchange ofletters betweenButterworthandtheTemenggongoccurred. Itis clear thatthe
permission had a broad territorial scopeand that the phrase "near Point Romania"
necessarilyincludedtheonly spotthathad beeninmindfiomthebeginning:PBP.
(ii) "Oranyspotdeemedeligible"
148. The Temenggong gavethe British a choice as to the locationof the lighthouse:
either"nearPointRomania","or anyspotdeemedeligible". This can onlymeanthat the
authorisationextended to anyplaceunder Johor's sovereignttyhattheEICwouldselect for
the erection ofthe envisaged lighthousein honourof JarnesHorsburgh. SultanAllie's
answer cannotbut beinterpretedinthesameway.
149. In its Memorial, Malaysiahas already stressedthe coincidence between the
alternativeformula usedbythe Temenggong("or any spot deemedeligible")and similar
phrasesusedbyotherrelevant actorsbeforehim inthe decision processof theconstruction
of a lighthouseto pay tribute to James ~orsbur~h.~~~ Singapore hasnot contestedthis
analysis. One of the letters it relies on to argue that Butterworth'srequest to Johor's
authoritiesreferredonlytoPeakRockcontainsa similarfonnula:
"At a meetingof the subscribersa wishwasexpressedthat thecontribution
should bedevotedto the Buildingof a Light House bearing thenameof
SeeMM, para129. HorsburghonPedroBranco,atthe entrance ofChinaSea,or onsuchother
localitys mightbedeemedpreferczblebytheGovemmenf'.
This letter isdated3 October 1844 (less than two months before the Sultan's and
Temenggong'sanswers). The writeris GovernorButterworthhimself.z4 He used the
same formulainhis letteraddressedF. Currie,SecretarytotheGovernmentinIndia,on
28 November 1844, i.e. only three days after the date of the Sultan's and the
Temenggong'slettersofpermission.2sThereisa strikingconcurrenceofterminology.
150. Singapore's analysis tfispart oftheTemenggong'sletterofpermission deprives
it of any efjFectivensy interpretingitas a referenceto another spot"near Point
Romania". In a pieceof circularandself-servingreasoning,a11that Singacansay is
that
"theTemenggong'sreferenceto 'anyspotdeemedeligible'couldnothave
referred toedraBrancabecauseit is nota spotnearPoint Romaniaand
there areseveralother islandswithii the Romania Group whichfits that
des~ri~tion~'.~~
Obviously,"anyspotdeemed eligible" cannotbe a spot"nearPointRomania",otherwise
therewouldbe nosenseinaddingthephrase. Ifonefollows Singapore's reasonin" g,ear
Point Romania"means'Teak Rock" and "or any spotdeemedeligible"means"or any
spotnearPointRomania". And as seen,for SingaporenearPointRomania"exclusively
means the "Romania Islands". All of this defies the ordinary meaningof the texts.
Singaporeisunable to challengethe conclusiotnha4even ifPBPwasnotconsideredtobe
"nearPointRomania",theTemenggong's permissionwouldstillincludeit.
151. To sum up, the Sultan'sand the Temenggong's letters, writtenagainst the
backgroundof a publicdebate asto the proper location ofthe lighthouse,cannotbut be
interpretedas granting permisstothe EICto constructit on anpartoftheterritoryof
Johor thatwouldbe appropriatefor that purpose. Therea underconsiderationwas the
entranceof the SouthChina Sea; thetwo possible locationswere the Romania (Lima)
Islands andPBP.
2Ss MM Annex46;SMnAnnex13.(emphasiadded).
2s6 SCM,para.5.70.
75 C. Subsequentcorrespondence showsthatthe JohorpermissionsincludedPBP
152. Oncethedecisiontoconstructthe lighthouseonPBPinsteadofPeakRockhad been
made,the subsequentcorrespondenceshowsclearlty hatthe British authoritiesinterpreted
Johar's permissionto includePBP. Particularlyrelevant for this purpare:
Butterworth'slettertothe GovernmentofIndiadated26August1846;~~
(i)
(ii) The correspondenceof 3 October1846by the Govemmentof Indiato the
East India Company'sCourt of Directors in London concerning the
constructionofthe lighthouseonPBP;~*and
(iii) The "fullreport" writtenby GovernorButterworthto the Governmentof
Bengal dated 12June 1848.~~~
In itsCounter-Memorial, Singapore made an extraordinaryeffortto twistthe wording of
the firstitemandacknowledgedthatthe second supportsMalaysia's position.It has failed
todealwiththethird atanystageofthepleadings.Theseitems willbeconsideredinturn.
Butterworth'slettertotheGovernmeno tfIndi oaf26August f846
(5)
153. GovernorButterworth'slettertothe GovernmentinIndiaof 26August1846shows
that the British authorities were well awarethat Johoryspermission to construct the
lighthouseincludedPEP. Accordingto Singapore,the Ietter,insteadof saying
"thewholeofthe details forthecaseofLightHousesassetforthinmyletter
underdate the 28' November1844,with referenceto its being erectedon
PeakRockwillbeequally applicabletothenewPosition [PedraBranca]"
shouldread asfollows:
"Thewholeof thedetailsforthecareofLighrHouseas setforthinmy letter
underdate 28 Novr1844,with referenceto its beinglocatedon Peak Rock,
will beequally applicabletohenewPosition[Pedra~ranca]"?~~
Singapore makesa big issueof the words"casey'and"care", but its readingof the letter
doesnotcorrespondwithreality. Indeedthis is notthe onlymistakemadeby Singaporein
itsreadingof this letter. Forexample,SingaporeattributestoG.A.Bushbythe capacityof
"8 M, paras.134-135& Annex51.
'59 SMAM~X27.36& Annex54.
?.M) SCM,para.5.81(emphasisadded).Secretaryto the Governmentof whereastheclearwritinginall availablecopies
ofButterworth'slettersrefersto himasSecretarytotheGovernmentofIndia.
154. Beforeanalysing Singapore's care/caseexercisein more detail, it may be noted
that this sentencewas not the only referencemad to his letterof 28
November 1844.The firstreferenceismade inthe firstsentenceof the sameparagraph,
whichreads asfoIlows:
"My letters underdatesthe 2~~ November1844No 150,and 22"dAugust
1845No 139will havepointedoutthe glaringnecessityof a Light House
inthepositionaboveindicated."
The"positionabove indicat
sentencestates:
"On receiptof Mr. Melvill'scommunicationI forthwithcall[ed]uponthe
aboveOfficersfor their Reportwhich I havethe honorto enclose,and by
which thePresident inCouncil willat onceperceivethat PedraBrancais
theonly trueposition fora Light HouseattheentranceoftheChinaSeaya.
Clearly,Butterworth CO
letterof 28 November1
andrenders Singapore's
155. In its Memorial,Malaysiaproducedthe originalletter (theone actuallysignedby
Butterworthand filed in the National Archivesof India), whereas Singapore in its
Memorialonlyproduced a copyof it (thefile copyintendedto be kept in Singaporeand
filedinthe StraitsSettlementsRecords, NationalArchivesof ~in~a~ore).~~O ~bviously,
preference must begivento theoriginalletter.
156. Evena superficialcomparisonofthetwo versionsshowsthatthe filecopycontains
a number of errors. Putting aside fora momentthe now controversialword, it is
indisputablethat the originaluses "LightHouses"(in the plural), whereas thefile copy
26' SCM, fa.35,p. 104.
262 ASalreadmentionedinthMCM,p.72,fn.209.9-
7,263
relieduponby Singaporehasthe singular'"lightHouse . Before therelevantsentence
the letter has already refe S, so that "case of Light Houses"makes
sense. But there was only one lighthouse,so "care of Light Houses"
makesnosense. No-onewasgoingtohavetocareforlighthousesintheplural.
ExtractfromtheoriginalButterworth'sletterof26August1846keptinIndia
Extract from the orth's letter of 26 August 1846 kept in
Singapore
157. Moreover,Singaporehas notonlywronglytranscribedthe word"case",butit did
not mentionthat thefilecopy containsthe indefinitearticle 'b" between"of" and"Light
~ouse".Z~~Hence, even following Singaporien the idea that the word usedwas "care"
andnot "case",therelevantpartof the sentencewouldread "The whole of the detailsfor
thecareofa LightHouse". Yet ntlynotwhatthe originalsays.
263 The third copy provideby Singapore,hm the Boardof Control Records,kept at theBritish
Library(IndiaficeCollections)alsocontainsthe plura(l"Light HousS:CM Annex12, p.109.
264 See"Reportinrespectofthe forensicexaminatinfthe letterfiomW.J.Bunerworth(Governor of
Princeof Wales Island,Singapored Malacca)to G.A. Bushby(Secretaryto the Governmenotf India)
dated26 August 1846".preparedby Mr. WongKong Yong,Document ExaminerF , orensic Division,
Departmentof Chemistry, Malaysia,1 September2005, vol. 2 of this Reply, Annex26, 3,finding
numberII.158. Thereisnodoubtthatthewordemployedinthe26August 1846letteris"case"and
not"care", forthefollowingreasons:
(a) the meaningof all thedocumentsincluded in the dispatchof 26 August
1846,i.e.the letteranditsenclosurestakenasa whole;
the contextinwhich therelevant sentenceof the 26 August1846 letter was
(b)
written;
(c) the factthatthe Britishauthoritieswould beunlikelyto usethe word"carey'
to refertothe actsofmaintaining,protectingot rheupkeepof a lighthouse.
.lj
Moreoversubsequentpracticeshowsthat the "whole ofthe detailsy'setup by Butterworth
in his letterwere appliedoncestepsto constructthe lighthousewere taken, andthat these
detailswerenotlimitedtoquestionsof "care"ormaintenance.
159. In its Counter-Memorial,Singapore produced three diierent versions of the
e words endingwith "re'br "se"
Butterworthletterof 26 August 1846,highligh
(suchas "Singaporeyy ",enclosure","house")in establish that thewordin question
is "care" and not The first 26 August 1846 letter used by Singapore isthe
originalthat comes hm theNationalArchivesof India,the secondisthe filecopy keptin
Singapore and comes from the Straits SettlementsRecords, National Archives of
Singapore, andthe third is another copyfrom the IndiaOEce Collectionsof the British
Library. Thefirst andthirdofthese containthe fulldispatchof 26August1846including
the enclosures A, B, C andD to the letter;the first and second were writtenby the same
person, whereas thethird copywas written by a differentperson. With regard to the
original letter, Singaporediscardedthe text of the enclosures,even though theywere
written by the same person whowrote the letter and contain valuable informationto
determinetheexactword used,inparticularfourundisputableuses of the word"caseyyT . he
useofthe samewordbythe samewriterof boththeoriginalandthecopykeptin Singapore
allowsa comparison withthechallenged word.Thiscomparisonis madeinan Appendixto
this Chapter (pages96-102) andshows thatthe word "case" was writtensimilarlyon all
occasionsintheoriginal letter.
ZGS SCMAnnex 12.160. Annex 26 also contains a forensic examinationof the handwritingof both the
original andthecopyofButterworth's letterf26Augusti 846 together with itsenclosures.
It providesa systematiccalligraphicstudyof both the originalletter signedby Governor
Butterworthand its filecopy keptin the National Archivesof Singapore,and shows that
Singapore'smethodisnotaccurate.
161. But quiteapart fromhandwritinganalysis,other factorssupport the readingof the
phraseas"caseof Lighthouses".
(a) The context vant wordwas written
162. Inadditionto thehandwriting evidencet,hecontextinwhichthe relevantwordwas
written demonstrates thatthis word is indeed "case" and cannot be "care". Given the
importance ofthis letter, andin orderto betterunderstands content andto determinethe
exact word used in the relevant sentence,its whole text is presented onthe next page
(Figure 10).
163. Theletterof GovernorButterworthof 26 August 1846 informedthe Governmentof
Indiaabout theexchangeof lettersbetweenthe EIC Courtof Directorsand himselfwith
regardto the selectionof PBP insteadPeak Rock for the constructionof the lighthouse.
The purpose ofthe letter isto explainthe changeof location andto requestthe sendingof
anironlighthousefromLondon.
164. Thefirst sentenceoftheparagraphinwhichthe nowcontroversialwordappearshas
alreadybeen cited: it refers also to2RNovember 1844 letter as"willhave pointed out
the glaring necessity ofa LightHouse in the position aboveindicated [PedraBranca]".
Butterworthregrettedthat the work had not begun buttrusted that the questionwould
receiveearly considerationandthat theaccompanyingletterof the Chamberof Commerce
at Singapore"will inducethe Hon'blethe Presidentin Council tomovetheHon'ble Court
of Directorsto order an Iron LightHouse fromEnglandfor erectionon Pedra Branca".
Thenfollowsthe sentenceinquestion:"thewholeofthe detailsforthe [casetcare]of Light
Housesas set forthinmyletterunderdate 28 Novr 1844, withreferenceto itsbeinglocated
onPeak Rock, will beequally applicabletothenewPosition". TheGovernorofPrinceofWales Island
Singaporeand Malacca
G.A.BushbyEsquire
SecretartotheGovernmentof India
FortWilliam
DatedSingapore 26&August 1846
Sir,
1havethe honorto transmitthe accompanyingcopyof a letter*to
my address, from theSecy tothe Hon'bleCourtof Directors, enclosing the
Copy of a letter fromthe Secretaryto the Admiralty, relativeto the Light
House,proposedto beercctedto the memoryof the late Hydrographer,James
HorsburgEsquire,attheenb-anceoftheChinaSea
Inmy letterunderdatethe22ndAugust 1845No. l39 I intimatedmy -
unqualifiedopinion thatPedra Branca shbe thebest possible positionrfoa 'L-
LightHouse,so far as the Light is concerned,but I was inducedto givethe
preferenceto Peak Rock inouter Romania Island,the position selectedby
Captn.Sir EdwardBelcherC.B. in consequenceof thefomcr Island beingso
remote from Singapore,at so great a distance from the Main Land, andso
inaccessibleatertainscasonsof theyear.
Vidcmyletter totheaddressof The rcccntsurveyof the Straitsmadeby the Government Surveyor
Mr. Thomson and Captain Congalton Commandintg he Hon ble E.I. CO's
datethe4IhMaylastNo.63nder StcarnerHoogtyhasledtothcdiscoveryofsomany Rocks, and Shoals
previouslynknown,that1onlywaitcdto learnthddecisionof Government
touchingtheerectionofa LightHouseto institutefurtheren~uir-csre-arding
thetwositesvizPedra~ranca& PeakRock.
On rcccip! ofMr. Melvill'scommunicationI forthwith calledupon
thc aboveofficersfortheirReport*. whiIhavethehonorto cnclose.andby *-.
which thePresidentin council wilt at onceperceivethat Pedra Branthks
onlytruepositionforaLight Houseattheentranceofthe ChinaSea.
The formerto thcaddressof My letter under dates the 28'h November 184QNo.150, and
Mr.Secy[Currie]andthe ~2"~August 1845 No. 139will have pointedout the glaring necessity for
LettertoMr.UndcrSccyBeadon C a LightHouse intheposition above indicatedb,ut l need hardly observe
thatthe work has notbeen commencedupon asanticipated by the Secretary
to the Hon'ble East IndiaCompany.I earnestly trust howcver that the
question will receive early consideration, and thatthe accompanyingCopy
of a letter* with its enclosures, just received from thc Chamber of *C.
Commerceat Singaporewill induce the Hon'blethe Presidentin Councito
move the Hon'bleCourt of Directors to orderan Iron Light House from
England for ercction on PedraBranca.Thewholeof the Details fortcase
of LightHousesas set forthin my letterunderdatet281bNovember 1844,
with reference to its being crectcd onPeak Rockllbc equallyapplicable
tothenewPosition.
Itwillbe observedby the letterfromMr. Gordon,thatan IronLight
House canbe deliveredatthe siteselectedff3000,or about30,000 Rupees
andbytheotherlettersadvenedtointhe Communication fromthe
Chamber of Commerce that there is forthcoming from Madras
RS. 780 and from Bombay
4300 whichwiththatfrom China" 12,378 previouslyreported
gives a total of 17, 458 Rupees available for a ~i~ht~ouse and-thi1
havenodoubt will be addedto whenitbecomes knownthatGovernment have
decideduponcartying outtheviewsand wishesoftheMcreantileCommunity.
InconctusionIbeg toannexa copyof my reply* tothe Secretary
to the Hon'bleE.I. Company whichI trustwill be approvedof by theHon'ble
the PresidentinCouncil.
Ihavethe honortobe
Sir
YourMostObedt. Servant165. Thusthe paragraph beginsand endswith areferenceto the letter of 28 November
1844. It is mentionedtogetherwith the letterof 22 August 1845,which also refersto the
discussionof whetherPeak Rock or PBP wasthe best spot for the constructionof the
lighthouse. It is the 28 November 1844 letter that contains allthe specific details
concerningtheconstructionofthe lighthouse: (l)the referencetothe @ridscoIIectedbythe
merchants, (2) the person in charge, (3) the permission grantedby Johor, (4) the
architecturalplan of the lighthousemade by J.T. Thomson, (5)the budgetagreed with a
Chineseconstructor,and(6)themethodofoperatingthe lighthouse.Oncethe decisionwas
madeto constructthe lighthouseon PBP,Butterworthindicated thateverything applicable
to the lighthousewhenit was envisagedon Peak Rockwouldbe equally applicableto the
new location: "the wholeof the details forthe caseof lighthouses asset forthiny letter
under date28Nov'1844,with referenceto its being locatedonPeakRock,will be equally
applicableto thenewPosition".
166. To avoid such an interpretation (obviousas it is on its face), Singaporewrongly
asserts that "many aspects of Butterworth'sletter of 1844are simply not applicable to
PedraBranca". But itprovidesonlyone whichisnot: "for example,Thomson's surveyof
Peak ~ock.''~~In fact manyaspectsof Thomson'ssurveywere confirmed lateras being
equallyapplicableto the construction ofthe lighthouseon PBP. These are, in particular,
(1)the period of the year duringwhich the work must be done,(2) "the bestand most
economicalmode ofconstructinga Lighthouse",envisagingeithera "brickor iron edifice",
(3) the protection requiredduring the constructionwork, (4)the workers envisaged to
construct thelighthouse,and (5) the conclusionof a contractwith the Chinese contractor
ChoaAllum,to constructthe lighthouse onPBP.~~~
167. A letter by 3.T. Thomson himself contradicts Singapore's interpretation.He
explainedthathe
"calleduponthe ChineseContractorChoaAllum toinformthe Gentlemanif
he wouldundertake the buildingofnzyplan of theHorsburghLighthouse,
on Pedra Branca instead of Peak Rock Ronrania for the same sum
SCM, para.5.84.
267 SeethesurveyinMMAnnex 43;SMAnnex12. andunderthesame termsandconditionsassetforth theestimate contained
inmyletterunderdate 2dh Novenzber 1844."~~'
That Thornson'splan of 20 November 1844 was applied to the construction of the
lighthouseon PBP is also confirmedbya publicationof the NationalMuseumSingapore,
whichexplains a paintingof the HorsburghLighthouseby J.T.Thomsonin 1852 in the
followingmanner:
"A paintingof theHorsburgh Lighthouse byJ T Thomsonin 1852, after the
lighthouse wascompletedin 1851. Theplansfor the lighthouseand the
estimatesfor erectingit were drawnby J T ThomsoninNovember,1844.
Constructionof the lighthousebegan in earnestin December, 1847. The
foundationfor itwas laidbytheBrethrenoftheLodge'Zetlandinthe East',
onthe instructionofthe over nor."^^^
Theplans referredto areclearlythoseofthe surveyof20November1844.
168. Moreover,the sentenceproposedby Singapore simply doesnot makesense. Why
referto the "careof lighthouse"giventhatthe paragraphis discussing its constructiand
the work has not yet begun? Why would Butterworthonly refer to the "care" of a
lighthousewithoutreferringtothe otherimportant"details",suchas the factthat the plan
was ready,the contractsigned,the permission obtained, etc.The paragraph that follows
specifiesthe budgetary elements,i.e.costsof sendinganiron lighthousefiomEnglandand
finds collected in different places forthe purpose ofthe constructionof the lighthouse.
ThereasonisthatButterworthencloseda letterreceivedhm the Chamberof Commerceat
Singaporewithnewinformation related thereto.
169. Even assuming that Butterworth had in mind the "details for the care of a
lighthouse",the placementof this sentence wouldlackcoherence. Boththe previousand
the nextsentencearediscussingthe possibilityof sendingan ironlighthousefrom London
for its erectionon the definite location
something, notthemaintenanceof so
268 LetterfromJ.T.Thomson,Government SurveyotrSingaporet,oT. Chur, esidentCounciIrta
Singapore, date9dJuly1847:SMAnne21(emphasisadded).
JohnHall-Jones& Christopher ooi,AnEarlySurveyorin Singapore.JohnTurnbuNThornonin
Singapore1841-1853,Singapo: ationalMuscumSingapor, 979,p. 114(emphasisadded):v2ofthis
Reply,Annex22. 170. Finally,the sentence"for the care of Light Houses''is very odd. No one ever
envisaged that two lighthouses would have to be cared for, yet there is no doubt
Butterworth'soriginal letterusedtplwal. If thewordreallyusedwas "care", the plural
"lighthouses" is inexplicable. Of the different proposed texts, only "the case of
lighthouses"representsgoodEnglish, andonlythatphrasemakessenseofthe context.
(b) The British Authorities would not use the expression "care of
lighthousersl"
171. TheBritishauthoritieswould be unlikelyto use the word"care" to referto the act
of maintenance,protectionor upkeep of the lighthouse. Significantly,the wordcare"
doesnotappearinthe letterof28 November 1844.
172. Accordingto Singapore,the paragraphof the 28 November 1844 letterthat refers
to"thecareof1ighthouse"isthefollowing:
"A Light House, if not properly attended,would prove infinitely more
perplexing and dangerous to the Mariner, than its total absence.am
thereforeof opinionthat less than twoEuropean andEightNatives would
barelyanswerthe purposeofkeepingwatchandworkingthe Gun incaseof
need, I would thereforerecommendthat two steady Pensioners fiom tbe
Artillerymightbe allowedto volunteerforthe service,who should receive
an additional Salary andRations, with8 Malaysor Lascars, making the
annualcostto the stateincludingtheEstimatedcostof materialsforfeeding
the light2856 Rupeesperannurnshould itbedeemedadvisableto employ
Is ClassConvictsin placeof the Malaysor Lascars,the expensewouldbe
considerablyreduced."270
Thisparagraphdiscussesthe personnel necessaryforthemaintenanceofthe lighthouse. It
can hardlybe summarised as "the wholeof the details for thecare of lighthouse[s]". If
Butterworthhad wished to refer only to the maintenance,protection or upkeep of the
lighthouse(as distinct fiam the other significantmatterscoveredin his earlier letter),he
would have usedthese words, or some of them. This is the style of contemporary
legislation andcorrespondence. EIC Act No. VI of 1852 uses "maintaining", "keeping
upw."' C. Beadon(Under-Secretary tothe GovernmentofBengal) writingto Butterworth
"O SCM,para.5.83.
"' MMAnnex84; SM Annex59. on 10May 1847referstothe"constructionandmaintenanceofthe lighthouse'',27a2 ndthis
ithe phrasethatwouldnormallyoccurtoanEngli suchasubject.
(c) Subseauentumcticeshowsthat "the whole of the details for the case of
1i~hthouses"aa~plicabtePeak Rock were appliedtoPBP
173. A striking demonstrationthat "the who1 visaged in 1844were
also applicableto PBP is what happened W t the lighthousewere
finallytaken. Themoneycollectedandthe personsmc son's plansfor
the lighthouse,the contractorto performthe work, the authorisationto collect dues, the
request to an iron lighthouse from London-all these "details" determined in
Butterworth'sletterof 28November1844were alsoappliedto the final location onPBP.
Even a letter from the Under-Secretaryto the Gowewent of Bengal to Governor
Butterworthof 10 May 1847categorically1
withtheconstructionofthelighthouse inPB
"I am directed to forward for your informationcopy of the documents
noted in the margin, (No. 284 d/ 24th April 1847 Hon'ble Court's
Dispatchesto Govt of Indiain the Marine DptNo.6 d/15Oct 1845,No.1
d/2rlhFeby 1847)andto requestthat you will immediatelytake measures
for thecomtructionofa Light House upon PedraBrancaaccordingto the
plan and estimates withyour letter No. I50 dated the 28'' November
1844.""
dence of
174. Singaporeargues that
"[elven ifthe wordinButterworth's1846letteris 'case'his doesnot help
Malaysia's claim. As Singapore has shown in paragraphs 5.43 to 5.50
above, in the first place those letters of permission cannot be read as
extendingto Pedra~ranca.''~~~
Thisis question-begging.Even if Butterworth'slettero
Rock (which does not seem to have been the case), the fact is thattterworthfurther
"'2 SMAnnex20;.MCM Annex20 (emphasisadded).
274 SCM,para 5.84.
85informedthat "he whole ofthe detaib for the caseof lighthousesas set forthin my letter
underdate 28 Nov' 1844, withreferenceto itsbeinglocatedonPeak Rock,willbe equally
applicableto the new PositionFedra Branca]". The inescapable conclusionis that any
permission granted toPeak Rock also extended to PBP. Buttenvorth's letter of 28
November 1844 enclosedthe Sultan's and Temenggong'lsetters. Those letterswere in
termscapableofapplyingtoPBP.
(ii) Thedispatchof3 October1846totheCourtofDirectorsinLondon
75. The seconditemof subsequentcorrespondence showingthat theJohor permissions
extendedto PBPis the correspondence of3 October 1846 fiomtheGovernmentof Indiato
theEastIndia Company's Court o DfirectorsinLondon. This contains thewholesetofthe
relevant documentation refening to the construction of the lighthouse, including
Buttenvorth'sletterof28November 1844 with boththeSultan 'Sand the Temenggong's
lettersofpermission. The title of this dispatchis "Reports thatPedraBranca hasbeen
approvedas thepositionfor erectingtheHorsburgh LightR . equestingconsiderationofthe
propositionfor sendinganIranLightHousefLom~n~land'.~~'
176. Singaporedidnot producethiscorrespondence.It could nothave beenunawareof
its existence. Other correspondence included in Singapore's Memorial and Counter-
Memorial expresslyrefer to that letter: for example, theletter sent the sameday by the
sameauthorityto GovernorButterworthinformingthe latterof theapprovalof PBPasthe
site for the lighthouse andthat the Governmentof India wouldreauest the Court of
Directors to sendan iron lighthousefiom ~n~land.'~~ Singapore even included the
responseof the Court of Directorsto the letter sentby the Governmentof India on 3
October 1846F7 In itsCounter-Memoriala,llthat Singaporehadto sayaboutthis dispakh
was that "it is unfortunate that theMalaysianGovernmentcites only onedocument(the
letterof3October 1846) to supportthe imaginative pictpaintedinthetwoparagraphs of
herMemorial quotedabove[thosementioning thatthe Britishauthoritieswere awarethat
thepermission extendedto PBP]').~~'
275 MM,para.136& Annex54.
276 SM Annex17.
'" LetterfromtheCourtof Directorsof theEastIndiaCompatheGovernorGeneralof Indiain
Council datd4Februar1847:SM Annex18.
278 SCM, par&5.86. 177. Inanattemptto divert attentionfkomthis importantdispa,ingaporecitesa list
of differentlettersin which''thereis no referenceto the issueof This is
disingenuous.Firs he,rewasno reasonat allto recallin each pieceof correspondence
the permissiongranted byJohor. Indeed,someofthe letters includedin Singapore'sIist
couldhave never referrtothepermissiongrantedbyJobor. Thisis thecaseofGovernor
Butterworth'sletterto theGovernmentof India dated22August1845,inwhichhe insists
onthelocationofthelighthousebeing PeakRock Thisisalsothe casein theletterofthe
Courtof~irectorsofthe EIC to the Governor-Generailn CouncildateISOctober1845,
which referred onlyto Peak Rock Thereis alsono sensein mentioningin this Iistthe
lettersfromthe Governmentof Indiaor theEICto GovernorButterworth,since it was
Butterworthhimselfwho obtainedthatpermission.Singaporealsoincluded initslisttwa
letterswrittenby subordinateofficials, CapCongaltonandJ.T. Thomson,whichdeal
withaspectsof theactualconstructionof thelighthouse:the matterof thepermissionwas
notat issue. Second,becaus(asanalysed aboveinoneofthe letters citedby Singapore,
that of Butterworthto the IndiaGovernmentof 2August 1846, explicit referencesare
made to theissue oftheapplicabilityoft28November1844lettertothe location ofthe
lighthouseonPBP.~"
278, The significanceof the dispatchof 3 Octo1846 is apparent. It concernedthe
two major authoritiesinvolved the constructionof the lighthouse,that is,thosehaving
the final capacityto decide,the Governmentof Indiaandthe EICCourtof Diictors. It
containedthe full set of documentson the subject requiredin order to make a final
decision. It showsthat Singapore'sthesisthatPeak RockandP wereseparate,distinct
and unrelated issues has no basis, for the dispatch included the Sultan's and
Temenggong's 1844lettersof permission, Yet,accordingto Singapore,these musthave
been-and must havebeenknownto be-irrelevant bythisstage. If PBP was notwithim
Johor'ssovereignty,if th1844permissionsdidnot extendto PBP,asSingaporeasserts,
why did the Governmentof India include the Sultan'sand Temenggong'sletters of
permission amongstthe relevant documentationconcerning the construction of the
lighthouseon PBPin its reportto the EICCourtof Directorsin London? Theyknew the
situation. If theyhad intendedto draw a distinctionbetweenPeakRock part of Johor
SCM,para.5.87.
Seeabove,para153-161(SectiC). (requiring permissio)nd PBP asterranullim(notrequiringpermission)the permission
letterswouldnot have beenincluded. The Courtof Directorshad before itthe Sultan's
and the Temenggong'sletters of permissionwhen it approved the location of the
lighthouseon PBP. The dispatchof 3 Octobe1846 constitutes strong evidence thatthe
British authoritiesunderstoodJohor's permisto constructHorsburghLighthouseas
beingapplicableto PBP.
(iii) The '7% Ie2ort" sent by GovernorButterworthto the Governmentof
Bengaldated 12 June1848
179. Governor Butterworth submittedto W. Seton Karr, Under Secretary to the
Governmentof Bengal,a "fill report"regardingtheconstructionofthe lighthouseonPBP
dated 12June1848. Thiswas the laststageinthe correspondenceexchanged beforethe
beginningofthe constructionofhelighthouse.Thereportbeginsas follows:
"With reference to the several communicationsnoted in the margin*
regarding the constructionofa Light House on Pedra Branco at the
entranceof the China Seato the memoryof the celebratedHydrographer
James Horsburgh Esquire, I have now the honor to submit the
accompanying fillRepor on the subjectfor the final orders of theRight
HonbletheGovernorof ~en~al.''~'
180. The firstof the communications notinthe marginis Butterworth'sletterto the
Governmentof Indiaof 28 November 1844. Thisuncontroversialevidence doesotadmit
of any doubt. For Butterworth,his letter o28 November 1844, which included the
Sultan'sand the Temenggong'spermissions,is the first of the relevantcommunications
"regardingtheconstructionofa LightHouseonPedraBranco".
181. The communicationsthatthenpassedamongthe relevantauthorities(Government
of Bengal, Govement of India, Court of Directors) contained or referred to
Butterworth'sfbllreport of 12 June 1848. All the authorities concerned withthe
constructionofthe lighthousewereawarethatButterworth'sletterof 28 November1844
appliedto PBP.~'~The same can be said of his officials immediatelyin chargeof the
"' SM Annex 27.
14ofthisReply);Dipatohof theGoverntfIndiato theCourtofDirectorsdated3 March1849(vol.2,
Annex13ofthisReply),LetterfiomtheCOWofDirectorstothe Goveotf Indiaof5 Sept1849r
(SM Annex31).constructionof the lighthouse. Inhis letterof 12 December 1849 communicatingthe
decision of the Court of Directors to begin that construction, GovernorButterworth
requested T.Church(theResident Counsellorwho hadactually
Temenggong'slettersofpermission)to enclosea copyofhisre
theinstructionsto beaddressedtoJ.T. horns son.^^^
(i$ Conclusion
182. Clearly, Johor's permissiotno construct the lighthouseincluded PBP. Forthis
reason Singapore'sassertion that'?he British Government andits successorsconsidered
that PeakRock formedpartof Johor,whilstPedraBranca didnot"284is not supportedby
any evidence. Notonly thereis noBritishGovernmentstatement or conductto thiseffect;
there is concrete evidenceof the opposite,in particularButterworth'sletter of 26 August
1846, the Governmentof India's letter to the EIC Courtof Directors in Londonof 3
October1846and Butterworth's lettertotheGovernmentofBengalof 12June 1848.
D. Singapore'si issions
183. This section wilt briefly rebut a new theory advancedby Singapore about the
existence of two different kinds of pe British
Governmentfor the constructionof lighth entury.
Accordingto Singapore:
"If the lighthousewas to be built on native territories,the British practice
was to obtain a formalgrantor cessionof the landon which the lighthouse
was to bebuiltfromthe localchiefwhohadauthoritythere.Forexample,in
the casesof CapeRachadoandPulauPisang,theBritishsoughtandobtained
land grantsfrom the localchief forthe establishmentof the lighthouse.In
the cases of Peak Rock and Pulau Aur, informalpermissionwas obtained
fromthe local chiefs,buttheBritishdid notfollow upwithobtainingformal
land grants because the British did not proceed witheither of these
283 LetterfromGovernor utterworth 9,vol.2,
Annex15ofthisReply.
SCM,pm. 5.58.
285 SCM,pm. 4.43 (footnotesomitted).It goeson to arguethat,"[i]n the caseof PedraBranca,the British builtthe lighthousebut
didnot requesta landgrant.'"86The purposeisclear:to suggestthat permission involveda
complex procedureand that that procedurewas not followedwith regardto PBP. But
Singaporeis deliberately mixing two different questions: permission to construct the
lighthouseandthe establishmentofatitleofownership overapieceof land.
otherthanthe lighthouse.
286 SCM,para.4.44.
SeeMM,para119& Annexes62,64 & 89.
28s Seevol.2,Annex24of thisReply.Aerial photographof Cape Rachado Lighthouse
Figure 11 ->Aerialphotographof PulauPisang186. The case of Pulau Pisanglighthouseis telling. It was constructedby the British
Governmentwiththe authorisationof SultanAbuBakarofJohorin 1885.~~' Theindenture
grantinga plot of land was made only on 6 October 1900.~'~Clearlyt the permission
grantedin 1885did not require any other formalityfor the lighthousebeing constructed,
operated and owned by the authoritiesof the Colonyof the Straits Settlements. The 6
October1900indentureconcerned onlyatitledeedto ownershipof landon m islandwhere
otherpeople werealsopresent.
187. Hence, contrary to what Singaporesuggests, there were notdifferent kinds of
"formal" and "infonnal" permissionsby local rulers in the process of constructionof
lighthousesby Britain onMalayterritories. Theconstructionof Horsburgh Lighthouseby
the British Government onPBP isnot distinguishableat all from the other casesof the
constructionof iighfhouses
by the same governmentin other Malayterritorieswith the
permissionoftheMalayrulers.
E. Conclusions
188. The correspondencerelatedto the constructionof the lighthousetopay tributeto
JamesHorsburgh,showsthat:
The construction of HorsburghLighthouse was a process in which its
(a)
possiblelocationonPBPwas envisagedatall times;
(b) Peak Rock and PBP were two different locationsenvisaged for the
constructionof the samelighthousewiththe samepurpose and inthe same
region;
(c) The Britishauthorities soughtand obtained permissionfromthe authorities
of Johor to constructthe lighthouse"near Point Romania...or any spot
deemed eligible";
(d) PBP,anislandunderJohor'ssovereignty, was coveredbythatpermission;
(e) The British authorities were awarethat the permission grantedby Johor
includedPBP,asboththeletterofGovernorButterworthto the Government
289
AbuBakar wasthegrandsonof TemenggonAbdulRahmanwhocededSingaporein 1824andthe
290nof TemenggonIbrahiwho gavepermissiforHorsburglighthouse.
MMAnnex89. in India of 26 August 1846and the correspondenceof the Governmentin
Indiato theEICCourtofDirectorsinLondon of3 October1846show;
Instead of demonstratingany acquisitionof sovereigntyby Great Britain
(f)
over PBP, the transactionsregardingthe constructionof the Horsburgh
Lighthouse on PBP prove Johor's sovereignty: to give permission to
construct that lighthousethereon constitutes evidenceof an2 titr ee
sowerain byJohorwith regardtothisterrito Ha edinButterworth'sletterof26
(1) ThiA snnex analysesthe handwritingofthe word"caseboth in the originaland
the copy ofButterworth'sletterof 26 August1846anddemonstratesthat thewordused
/
intheletteris"caseyy.
(2) The word "caseyy wassed in differendocuments containedin the 26 August
1846dispatch. A comparisonfollowsthat indicatesthatthe word usin the relevant
sentenceofthe letter"case" Thewordused in the relevantsentenceof the26August
1846letterwillsystematicallybe comparewiththe word "case"usedinthe enclosures,
in allinstancesin whichthereis no doubtthatthe wordusinthe enclosuresis "case",
The fist perusal correspondsto the originalletter fiom the National Archivesof India
(A), and the secondto the file copy kept in the Straits SettlementsRecords, National
Archives ofSingapore(B). Bothwerewrittenby the samepersonand"A" containsthe
enclosures,alsocopiedbythesameperson.
(A) Comparisonwithregardtotheoriginalletter(NationalArchivesofIndia)
Comparison withenclosureBto the 26 August1846letter(Letter fromS. Congalton
andJ.T.inomson toButterwonhof 25~ugust Nationai Archivesofincifa The relevantsentenceextracted ureB above readsas follows:"Ships would
consequentlybe forced continu th s of the light and not approach
withone directcou at
thewordis"case"an S:
Letter Enclosure B Merged
Comparisonwith enclosureCto the26 August 1846letter(Letterfrom A. Gordon
toGovernorButterworthof31January1846),NationalArchivesofIndia
This enclosurehasthree instanceswhere theword "case"wasundoubtedlyused.
The relevantfirstsentenceextractedfromenclosureCabovereadsas follows:
"A measureof confidenceand I venture to suggestan arrangementfor the proposed
Lighthouseat Singaporewhich differs in many particularsfrommy former Works in
order to complywith the novelconditions of securityfrom dangerto the Towerof the
lLightsand LightKeepersin case of a surprise from Piratesand offering theadvantages
of aSignalStation."
Letter Enclosure C firstcase Merged
Therelevantseco enceextractedfromenclosureC abovereadsas follows:"...and
havea caseof CO hastilythrownintothe lowercompartment foa small additional
sumofmoney".
Letter EnclosureCsecondcase Merged
Therelevant thirdsentenceextractedfromenclosureC abovereads asfollows:"...It will
at oncebeseenthat such aLighthouseis Cheap,easilyerected strongto resist vibration
in hurricanes,cannotbe injuredbylighteningandissafecaseof Earthquakesorfire". Letter EnclosureCthirdcase Merged
(B) Comparisonexercise with regard to the filCO letter (National
ArchivesofSingapore)
A similar comparisonexercisefollowsin respect ofthe filecopyof the 26 August 1846
letter,extractedfromthe ProceedingsVolumeintheNational Archivesof India.
Comparisonwithenclosure B tothe26August1846letter(LetterfromS. Congalton
andJ.T. ThomsontoButterworthof25August1846).
The relevantsentence extractedfromenclosureB above readsas follows: "Shipswould
consequentlybe forced continuallyto alter their bearingsof the light and not approach
withonedirectcourseas inthe caseof Pedra Branca" Letter Enclosure B Merged
e twowordsseem
Firstuse oftheword"caseyy
enclosureabovereadsas foil
re to suggestan arrangement
rs in many particulars frmy
tionsof securityfrom dangerto the Towerof the
Lightsand Light Ke."ersin case oasurprisefromPiratesand offering the advantages
ora SignaiStation,.
Letter EnclosureC firstcase Merged
Therelevantsecondsentence extractedfromenclosureCabovereadsas follows:"...and
havea caseof concrete hastily thrintothelowercompartmentfor a smalladditional
sumof moneyy'. Letter EnclosureC secondcase Merged
The relevantthirdsentence extracted from eCeabovereadsasfollows:"...It will
at once be seen that suchghthouseis Cheap,easily erectedstrongto resist vibration
inhurricanes,cannotbeinjuredbylighteningandissafeseof Earthquakeorfrre".
"".
-J%&d-4L. A4r#-4/&.4z .- ?L&
&..2fA* ,;.
9 /X
Letter EnclosureC thircase Merged
As mentionedabove,a similar comparison catemade withrega
of the 26 August 1846letter(from the British Library) submitted by Singapore. The
letterandt snclosures werenotplacinthe samefile. Thecopyistof the letterwasa
differentpersonfro Conclusians
Anexaminationoftheexercisemadewithregardto thetwo26August 1846 lettersand
theenclosures,onthebasisofthecomparisonofthewordusedinthereievantparagraph
ofthe letteand theword"case"undoubtedly used by the same writerinthe encIosures
show astrikingidentity.The fourcomparisonsof the challenged word in the original
*I- letter (National ArchiosfIndia)withthe clearwritingoftheword"case"inother parts
ofthe same file showa strikingidentity. With rego thesimilarcomparisonexercise
madewiththecopyofthe letterkeptintheNationalArchivesof Singapore,three show
an identitywiththewordwritteninthechallenged sentence w, hereasthe remaining(the
comparisonwithEnclosure C) isopentodoubt. Thiscomparisonleads totheconclusion
thatwhatButterworthwrotewas:
%hewhole of the details for theaseof Light Houses asset forthin my
letter under dateth28& November 1844, with referenceto its being
erectedonPeak RockwillbeequallyapplicabletothenewPosition".
(emphasis added) Chapter4
SINGAPORE'STHEORYOF"TAKINGOFLAWFWL POSSESSION"
TESTED AGAINSTTTXE FACTS
Introduction
189. ThisChapter willshowthat,despitethe sharpnessof languageused inChapterVof
its Counter-Memorial,Singaporehas been unableto advance any concrete argument to
justifyitsclaimbasedonanalleged "takingof lawful possessionPedra Brancabyagents
oftheBritishCrown"atthe time ofthe planningandconstructionofthe lighthouse, nor to
disputeMalaysia's factuaalnd legalanalysisas setoutinearlierpleadings.29'
190. The Chapterwill be dividedintofour sections:SectionA will addressthe plea of
"takingof lawfhlpossessiony'ndwill showhowthat plea cannot possiblybe appliedto
PBP. It is true that Singapore hasnot yet decided exactly when Great Britain "took
possessioni7ofPBP (its Counter-Memorialconsiders that British sovereignty exdvene
beforethe layingof the foundationstoneofthe lighthouin 1850,whereasitsMemorial
putemphasis onthe "takingof lad1 possession" inthe periodhm 1847to 1851).This
section willshowthatthe exclusivereliancebySingaporeona singledoctrinalquotationto
sustainits claim is devoidof anyjustification.ionB will deal with three eventsor
discussions occurring in850which shedlighton the perceptionof the partiesconcerned
asto thesituationwith regatoPBPatthattime,andwhose contentwas misrepresentedin
theSingaporeCounter-Memorial:
TheMasonic ceremony for the layingofthefoundationstone;
(i)
(ii) The visitof the Temenggong to PBPone week after the layingof the
foundationstoneofthelighthouse; and
(iii) The internal debatebythe Britishauthoritiesin Singaporeaboutwhether
to establisha stationonPointRomania,or to request theTemenggongto
establishaviIIagethere,inordertoprotectthe lighthouse.
MM, paras151176.SectionCwillunderlineSingapore'sfailuretodemonstrateany Britishintention toacquire
sovereignty over PBP.As willbe seen, Singaporeattributesto theBritishGovernmentan
intentionit clearlydid not haveat any relevanttime. SectiDnwill briefly referto the
situationexistingimmediatelyafterthe inaugurationofthe lighthousewillshowthatthe
British governmendtidnot modifyitspositionas regards sovereignty ovPBP bythe fact
of operatingthe lighthouse. Forexample, therewasno legislation incorporaPBPinto
the Straits Settlement,a matter on which Singapore'sCounter-Memorialis silentbutthe
significanceof whichwill be furtherexplained. Finally, Singapore's Counter-Memorial
misrepresentssome fishing incidents which occurredin the regiona decade after the
inauguration ofthe lighthouse:it will be seen that thesedemonstrate theabsenceof any
BritishclaimtoorexerciseofsovereigntyoverPBP.
A. Singapore'sclaimof "takingoflawfulpossession"ofPBP
191. Singapore'spresentationof its claimbased onth'%takingf lawfblpossession" of
PBPis irreconcilable withthe factsand the law.ts positionthat it acquiredsovereignty
over PBP between 1847 and 1851 through thetakin of lawll possession facesthe
followinginsurmountableobstacles:
First, it requires that the territory was terra nuiliusbut at thPBPthad a
sovereign, Johor.
Second, the material actsperformed on the island, i.e. the constructionof the
!I&thtt.,o;e:, ii'~&~iisiby &S SOVCTG~~~ i;i~V~Vfaet ~iii;iudesihargument
thatthesubsequentpossessionwas dtitredesowerain.
Third,Britishpracticeshowsthat in orderto takepossessionof territoryon behalf
oftheBritishCrown someformalitieswere required:noneof these werecarriedout
in relation to PBP, at that time or at any time (in contrast to mistakeable
formalitiesassociatedwith small islands, Singaporeitselfin
1825).
Fourth,the materialelementof possession mustbe accompaniedby the subjective
element,that is, the intentionto acquiresovereignty: evenif the materialelement
waspresent(whichitwasnot),the subjectiveelemenwt astotallyabsent.
Fifth, the taking of possessionof territory isfollowed in British practiceby the
incorporationof the territory into theBritishCrownor the official designofion theterritorial utowhichithenceforth belongo srtheauthority responsibleorit:
noneoftheseprocedureswasinstituted with regardtoPBP.
When didBritain"takepossession"ofPEP?
(i)
192. Aftertwo roundsof pleadings, Singapories still unableto decidewhen Britain
purportedlytookpossessionof PBP andconsequently 'kquired" sovereigntyoverit. In
its Memorial,Singaporepresentedthreedifferentmomentsor periods:(1) at the time of
the finalselection ofPBPas the sitefor thelighthouse(whichoccurredat local levelin
1846and was approvedby theCourtof DirectorsinLondoninearly1847);(2),when J.T.
Thomsonplanted sevenbrick pillarsb measurethe strengthof the waves (1 November
1847);and(3)the periodof constructionofthe iighthouse(1847-1851).~~T ~hethird of
theseseemstobethe predominant line of reasoninin Singapore's Memorial. Thei rea
shiftin Singapore's Counter-Memorial, where Singae porehasisesthe fact thatBritish
sovereignty existed before850:'~althoughit hasnot entirely abandoned1847-1851 as
theperiodofthe takingofpossession.294
193. Singapore no longer invoke he argumentthat it acquired sovereigntwhenthe
decision taconstructthe lighthouse onPBP wasadopted. This is understandable.To
considerthatthemerechoosingofPBPasthe location ofconstructionof thelighthouseis
tantamountto a takin ogfpossessiondefiescommonsense. Evenif the choicehadbeen
made withthedeclared ideaofacquiringsovereignty (ofwhichthereisnoevidence),this
couldnot havebeenconsidered as an act oftakingof possession, whichrequiresboth
corpus and animur. Not a single pieceof evidencesupportsthe theory thatthe simple
choosingof PBP as the locationof the lighthouse implied any intentionto acquire
sovereignty over it. However, Singapore still invokes the other two contradictory
positions.
SeeMCM, pm 60.
For example,We BritishGovernment-when theytook possessionof Pedrain1847..."
(SCM,pars.4.43);"it wouid havebeenunnecessaryto usethe inauguratioas thejunctureat
whichsovereignty wobeclaimed. Sovereigylreadyexisted. Thefirstuneqactsofpossession
occurredin847 when Thomsonplaced the brick pillars onPedra Branca"(SCM5.112) "he
ceremonyon Pedra Brancatook placein 1850by whichtime theBritish Crown had alreadtyaken
"isession ofPedBranc a"CM,para5.120).
'%awfulpossessionof PedraBmca was takenby agentsof the BritishCrownduring theyears
1847-18 fo1thepurposeof construcalighthouse"(SCM,par1.9";hebasisof claimthetaking
oflawful possesofPedra Brancaby theagentsoftheBritishCrownin the1847to1851 SCM,
para.5.3).194. Singapore's indecisionas to the moment in whichBritain would haveacquired
sovereignty over PBPreveals the weakness of its claim. Faced with overwhelming
evidence ofthetypeof acts performedbyBritain inundisputedsituationsofacquisitionof
territoryin the nameof the BritishCrown, Singaporeis obligedto find explanationsas to
whythe 1850 ceremony wasnotcarriedout in thesamemanner. For example,itcontends
that those acts were notnecessaryat the time of the "inaugurationof the Iighthousein
1850"becauseBritainalreadyhadsovereigntyoverPBP. Butthis line ofreasoningsimply
shifts the problem to a different timeframe;it does not solve it. If one accepts this -
assertion,typicalacts constitutingataking of possession otferritory shouldhave occurred
at someearliertime. The idea that BritainacquiredsovereigntyoverPBP in 1847 cannot
be accepted:J.T. Thomsonvisited the islandand plantedseven brick pillarsto test the
strengthof the waves inorderto consider the feasibilityof the sitefor the constructionof
the lighthouse.29sA similar test was envisaged for Peak Rock when this island was
consideredasa site for the lighthouse.296Moreover,Singapore is wrongwhen it asserts
that theinauguratioo nf the lighthouseoccurredin 1850.~~T ~his tookplaceon 15 October
1851 .298What happenedin 1850 wasthe layingofthefoundationstoneofthe lighthouse.
(ii) Singapore 'Sapproximatepresentation
195. Singapore's theoryof the "taking of lawful possession" asthe ground for the
acquisition ofsovereigntyover PBP is basedona confusedand partial reading of doctrinal
Accordingto Singapore'sCounter-Memorial,Malaysia's thesisis "built on
sand" because"standardworks on British practiceare ignored"."" Leaving asidefor a
moment Singapore's complete disregard for primary sources (i.e. British oflicial
documentation),the standardworksit referstoareof nohelpto its case,sincetheydo not
concern thesituationof PBP aspresentedby Singapore.Nordo theycontradict Malaysia's
analysiseither.301
295 MCM,paras.106-107.
LetterfromS.Congalton, ommandeorfH.C.SteamerHoogly,toT.Church ,esidentCouncillin
Singapore,l2 January1846:vol.2 of this , nnex11.
SCM ,ara.5.11l.
298
299 MM,para.153;SM Annex56.
SM, paras5.90-5.91nd5.108-5.11,rebuttediMCM paras21,57-59,74 ;CM,paras.5.6-5.1.
30i SCh4,para.5.9.
Theway Singapore dealt iththequotationbyKeller,Lissitzyn& MaoncitedbyMalaysiain its
Memorial itselling.Asmentione,hisisthestandareferenceworkonthepractice regarsymbolicacts
employedbyEuropean powerstoacquiresovereign(MM, paras1 58-159)A.ccordingtoSingapor, [tlhe
propositiobyKeller,LissitzynaMann is notreIevantandhasnoapplicatitotheBritish occupatnfo
PedraBranca.Instead,as explained abovei,nsome cases,symbolic actseffectedby?heindividualsinthe196. Singapore attaches great importance to Kenneth Roberts-Wray's book
Commonwealthand Coloni Lal w.Accordingto thistext,"A Colonymaybe acquiredby
anyoneof the followingmeansor bya combinationof twoof them: Settlement, Cession,
Conquest,~nnexation."~'~ Thislistdoesnot reflect generalnternationallaw,andnordoes
it usethe appropriateterminology. QuotingA.D.McNairandT.J.Lawrence, Malaysiahas
already referred inits Counter-Memoriatlo the improperuse of the term
Whatwill be stressed here is theway Singapore misusesits selectedauthor. Singapore
twicequotesthe sameparagraph from~oberts-~rag~~whichrefersto"Annexationaloneyy
as"afourthmethodofacquisitionof ~olonies".~~T ~he questionis whetherSingaporenow
considersthat "annexationalone"was the meansby whichBritain acquiredsovereignty
overPBP. UntilnowthishasnotbeenthebasisofSingapore's claim.
197. Thewholeparagraphquotedby Singaporeisasfollows:
"Annexation,in a broadsense,is a fourthmethodof acquisition ofColonies.
An instrumentof annexation may accompany the acquisitionof territoryby
settlement,conquestorcession,buttheunilateralmanifestationofthewillofthe
Crom mayalso be theonlymeansby a territory hasbeenbroughtwithinHer
Majesty's dominionsf;orexample,inthecaseofremote unoccupied areas,such
as those inthe Antarctic,wherethere is no questionof settlement,cessionor
conquest. Evenif therootof title is discovery,that,though importantiomthe
internationalpoint of view, is not per se a method of acquisition. In
internationallawit must befollowedby effective occupation;in municipal law
ownershipshouldsomehowbe asserted. Preferably by formaldocument,such
as an instrumentof annexation. The firstformalinstrumentmadewith respect
to theFalkland Islands Dependencie asndtheBritishAntarcticTerritoryappears
to have been Letters Patent dated July 21, 1908, providing for their
government.''
absenceof acommissionfrom theCrownwerenotsufficienitnthemselvestogeneratetitwthenthep
ratificaof the Crown had beeffected.Thisis of norelevanceto PedraBranca7('SCM,para.5.12).
But thequotatifromthoseauthordidnot reftoactsof"individuals itnheabsenceofa commfromon
theCrown".Insteadtstressedtheformalcharrfthe British pracetakingofpossessionofterritory.
302 KennethRoberts-WrayC,ommonwealtandCofoniaLmv, London:Steven& Sons,1966,p.99.
'03 MCM,paras.84-87.
'04 Atpp.107-108of CommonwealthandColonialLaw.
305 SM,para,5-90;SCM,para.56.198. Contrary to what Singapore asserts,this paragraph indicates that settlement,
conquestand cession can be accompaniedbyannexation,butthatannexationcanalonebea
means ofacquisitionof a colony, The firstpart of the paragraphsuggests thatthe author
uses "instrumentof annexation"and"unilateralmanifestationof the willof the Crown"as
synonyms. But whatfollows israther obscure.The example ofAntarcticais followedby
the correct assertion that discoveis not enoughin internationallawto acquire territory.
The authorthen arguesthat in internationallawdiscovery mustbe followedby effective
occupation and "in municipal law 'ownership' [sic]should somehowbe asserted.
Preferablyby fonnal document,such asan instrumentof annexation." Apparently an
instrument ofannexationis not the only way to assert "ownership". Then followsthe
referencetothe LettersPatent of 1908concerningAntarctica.Roberts-Wraydoesnotgive
anyexampleof an informalannexation.
199. The inference isthat the Great Britaintook possessionof PBPand annexedit; in
other words,that the ''takingof lawfit1possessiony'is the equivalentto the "annexation
alone". Whatis lacking,however, is anyindication of whenor howBritainmanifestedits
intentionto acquiresovereignty overPBPandconsequentlyannexedit. Suchanintention
being manifestly absent, this was not a case of xation alone". Moreover,the
paragraph ofRoberts-Wrayupon whichSingapore showsthat "annexationalone"
was envisagedas the way to acquire sovereigntyin the case of remote and unoccupied
qrcs~:Pf?P !g remete 1s-".Q!QC&& i~,&:~~~~~gg~i e$S.
200. TheothertwocasesRoberts-Wrayquotesunderthe headingof"AnnexationAlone"
arethoseconcerningthe seabedand~~prus?*~From bothit followsthatwhatthe author
had inmindbyusingtheterm "annexation" wasa legislativeor executiveactoftheBritish
Crown (e.g.,an Order in Council). The presentcase has nothingin common withthose
examplesasnosuchactswereundertakeninrespectofPBP.
201. Singapore quotesat length from W.E. Hall, without any explanation ashow the
quotation assistsSingapore'scase?07 Hall clearly requiresboththe taking of possession
and the intentionto acquireas two cumulativeconditionsfor acquisitionof territoryby
'06
'07 KennethRoberts-Wrayo,p.cit.,108-110.
SCM,para.5.l l.occupation.308Further,in the extract quoted in Singapore'sCounter-Memorial,Hall is
essentiallydistinguishingbetweenthe takingof possessionby unauthorisedindividualsand
by those havingan oMicialcharacter. Theformer requiresStateendorsementin orderto
reuniteboth possessionandintention.Thecaseofthe latter isdescribedbyHall asfollows:
"A declarationby a commissionedofficerthat he takespossessionof territoryforhis state
is a stateactwhich showsat leasta momentaryconjunctionof fact andintenti~n.''~~%e
authorclearIyrefersto a "declaration" made bya commissionedofficer. No declarationof
anykindofthe intentionto acquiresovereigntyover PBP wasmadebyany British official.
No Britishofficer was ever commissionedto take possession ofPBP in order to acquire
sovereigntyon behalfoftheBritishCrown:therewasnotevenamomentaryconjunctionof
factandintention.
202. Singapore does not refer to other classic British works such as Oppenheim-
Lauterpacht. The relevantpassageson the kind of temtory opento occupationand onthe
requirementsforsuch occupation read as follows:
"Only such territorycan be the object of occupationas is no State's land,
whether entirelyuninhabited,for instance,an island, or inhabitedby natives
whose communityis not to be consideredas a State. Nativesmay live on a
territoryundera tribalorganisationwhichneed not beregardedas a State;and
even civilised individualsmay live and have private propertyon a territory
without formingthemselvesinto a State proper whichexercises sovereignty
over such territory. But the territoryof any State, even though itis entirely
outsidetheFamilyofNations,is not a possible objectof occupation;andit can
onlybeacquiredthrough cessionor subjugation,"310
"Theoryand practiceagree nowadaysuponthe rule thatoccupationis effected
through taking possessionof, and establishing an administrationover, the
territoryinthenameof,and for,theacquiringState. Occupation thuseffected is
real occupation,and, in contradistinctionto fictitious occupation,is named
effective occupation.Possessionand administration arethe two essential facts
thatconstituteaneffectiveoccupation.
Possession.-The territory must really be taken possessionby the occupying
State. Forthis purposeit is necessary thatit should takethe territoryunderits
sway (corpus)withtheintentionof acquiring sovereignty overit(animus).This
canonlybe donebya settlementonthe territory,accompaniedby someformal
actwhichannouncesboththattheterritoryhasbeentaken possessionofandthat
30s Hall,WiliiamE.,A TreatiseofInternafionalL8',ed.ByP.Higgins,Oxford:ClarendonPress,
1934,p. 125.
Ibid.,p.28.
''' L. OppenheimI,nternationalLW. A Treatise,5thed.By H. Lauterpt,ondon:Longman,1937,
vol.I,p.438, para.221(footnotesomitted). the possessorintendsto keep it under his sovereignty.It usually consistseither
of a proclamationor of the hoistingof a flag. But such formal act by itseIf
constitutes fictitious occupation only, unlessthere is left on the territory a
settlementwhich isableto keepup theauthorityofthe flag. Onthe otherhand,
it is immaterialwhether ornot some agreementis made with the natives by
which theysubmit themselvesto the way of the occupyingState. Any such
agreementisusuallyneitherunderstood nor appreciateb dythem, andevenifthe
nativesreallydounderstand itsmeaning it hasamoralvalue only.
Administration.-After having,inthe aforementionedway,taken possessionof
a territory,the possessormust establish some kindof administration thereon
which showsthat the territory is reallygovernedby the new possessor. Ifl
within a reasonable time afterthe act of taking possession,the possessor does
not establish some responsible authoritywhichexercises governing functions,
thereisthenno effectiveoccu ation,sinceinfootnosovereigntyisexercisedby
anyStateover the territory,,HP
203. This quotation shows conclusivelythat acquisition involved bothcorpus and
animus,the latter requiring"someformalact whichannouncesboththat the territory has
been taken possession of and thatthe possessor intendsto keep it under hissovereigntyfy.
Indeed even after possessionis taken, the establishmentof an administrationis also a
requirement forthe acquisitionof sovereignty.TheBritishGovernmentdidnot accomplish
anythingofthekindwith regardtoPBP. Therewasnoformalactannouncingthetakingof
possessionand the acquisitionof sovereignty. Therewas no legislation determining the
authorityin chargeto the islandandno exerciseof authorityin virtueof sovereigntyover
the island. There is no evidence whatsoevetrhat theBritish Governmenthadit in mindto
---..:-----.A-:-L. nnn
aqulrc suv~rcr~rtry uvct rur.
(iii) Singapore 'Sdisregardfor Britishpractice
204. Malaysiahas furnished comprehensiveevidence based predominantly on primary
sources, completedby doctrinal reference^ M."^laysia'sinterpretationofBritishpractice
concerningthetaking ofpossession ofterritorywiththe intentionto acquiresovereigntyis
supportedby more than 30 concrete cases,concerningterritoriesall over the world and
particularlyislands, rocksandreefs, most ofthemof reduceddimensionsanduninhabited,
like PBP?'~ Of particular importanceare the examplesof taking of possessionwhich
3" Ibid.,pp439-440,para222(footnotesomitted).
312 MM,paras. 157-164;MCM paras.56-92.
' MCM,paras. 74-89,130.occurredinthe sameregionand inthesame period as theconstructionofthe lighthouse,
notablythe islandsand islets aroundSingapore in 1825aad the island of Labuanin
1847.~'~The comparison with Singapore'spresentation is pronounced. With the
exceptionof the indirectand incorrect referenceto Antarctica,there is not a single
examplein Singapore's pleadingo sf a takingofpossessionbyBritainthat cansupportits
claiminthepresentcase.
205. TheallegationthatMalaysia reliedin itsMemorialuponpracticerelatingto "acts
ofannexationby Britishsubjects"isa di~tortion?'~In itsMemorial, Malaysiamentioned
five territories takin possessionby Britaincloseintimewiththe purported'Wing of
possessionyoyf PBP. Thesewere:(1)someislandsandparts ofAntarctica,(2) Singapore
and its dependencies,(3) the Falkland(Ma1vinaIsslands,(4) BularnaIsland and (5) El
TigreIsland. Only inone of the Antarctic cases were the relevanatcts performedby
Britishsubjects.In all theothersthe actswereperformedbyBritishofficials, Thetaking
of possessionof Singaporeand its dependencies was performeb dy John Crawfurd,the
Britishesidenqthe FalkIandhIalvinasIslandsby CaptainOnslow,BulamaIslandby
LieutenantLapidgeand the islandof El Tigreby the British ConsulGeneralin Central
~merica?'~
206. Despite this, Singaporstillseeksto maintainthat formalitieswererequiredonly
when the taking of possession was performedby individualsnot having an official
chara~ter.~"The MalaysianCounter-Memorial demonstrates, wicto hncreteexamples of
Britishpracticeiom the end ofthe 18~centuryto the beginningof the 20~century,a
consistentpatternof British conductundertakenin orderto take possessionof temtory.
Whatwasinvoked inall cases was thereadingof adeclarationoftakingof possessionon
behalf ofthe BritishCrown, accompaniebdyactssuchasthehoistingofthe Union Jack,a
21-gunsalute,amilitaryparadeorotherformalities,anditscommunication to therelevant
superiorauthorities. Mostof the casesalsoshowthat the takingof possessionoccurred
only after instructionsfiom the British government, througthe Admiralty or other
relevant authority,were received. If there were no such instructions,the British
governmentwould formally confirm its intentionto acquire sovereignafter the act of
MCM, paras.22-26.78-79athisReply,pa213 below.
'lS SCM, para5.10.
'l6 MM, para.60.
3"7 SCM,para.5.10. takingof possessionwas performe4 and this was the case whetherthe act of taking
possessionhadbeen performed byaBritishofficialor aprivateBritishsubject.
207. Singapore'sCounter-Memorialcriticisesthe examplegiven byMalaysia in its
Memorial,despitethe fact that itwas suppliedby the Britishgovernmentitself in its
Applications against rgentinaandChileconcerningAntarctica The relevant reference
totheBritishApplications readasfollows:
"In 1829,Captain H. Foster,RN., inH.M.S C hmrticleer,ffecteda landingon
one of the coastal islands, HoseasonIdand off West Graham Land, and
depositedthere acopper cylinder inwhichwasa documenttakingpossession
inthenameofKing George TV".~'~
InSingapore'sanalysis, this
"is proposedas an act more substantialin character (perhaps because it is
supposedly 'formal')than the pattern of British Government activities
concerning PedraBrancawhich are detailedin ChapterV of the Singapore
Memorial. Inthiscontextthe Court isaskedto considerthat a processlasting
more than four years, and involvingthe appropriationof an islandand the
constructionof a majorlighthousefor Statepurposes,as evidenceof animw
occupandi, should carry less wei ht legally thanthe 'formal'deposit of a
cylinder containina doc~rnent".~8'
Thisisthe onlyplace i mptsto explainthe
purported intentioto a followingremarks
may bemadeinresponsetothiscuriousreasoning.
208. Whatthe example ofAntarctica (oneof many)shows,is that Britain,like other
States, explicitly displaits intention toacquiresovereign&,even in a region suchas
Antarctica,at about It is Singapore
thatreliesheavilyon mainsourceof
evidence)that refersto unnecessary
I
and"theunilateral manifestatioofthe willofthe Crownmayalsobethe onlymeansby
which a territoryhas beenbroughtwithin Her Majesty's ~ominions".~~'But that is not
3'8 ICJPleadingAntarcticaCase(UnitedKingdomvArgentina; Unitdingdomv Chile),4 May
1955p. 12,pm 10,p.52,para.10.
'l9 SCM,p.80,para.5.22.
320 Roberis-Wray, ., CornrnomveatndColoniaLaw (1966)pp. 107-108inSM,para.5.90and
SCh4,para.5.6.the British positionas declaredbeforethis Court. Inits Applicationin the Antarctica
cases,therewas anexplicitdeclarationbytheUnited Kingdom that theterritoryhadbeen
takenin possessioninthenameoftheKing. Thiswasindeeda "unilateral manifestation
ofthewill of theCrown". Nothing ofthe sortoccurred inrespectofPBP. There wasno
"unilateralmanifestationofthewilloftheCrown'' toacquiresovereignty atall.
209. Singaporeargueswithoutany supporting evidenctehat theprocessofconstruction
of the lighthouseamountedto the "appropriation"of the island. On the contrary,as
demonstrated by Malaysia, the EastIndia Company only declared that Horsburgh
Lighthousewas its property.32'As has been shown,until comparativelyrecenttimes
Johor's subjects continuedto use the island for their traditionalpurposes; the 1851
instructionstothelight-keeperswereonlynottoallowthemtoenter thelighthouse.322
210. Shgapore contendsthat the constructionof the lighthouse wasmade 'TorState
purposes"'.It isnot clearwhat "State purposes"ingaporeis here referringto. Inreality,
the purposeof the constructionof the lighthousewas widely known andaffirmedby the
Britishauthorities onmanyoccasions,that is,the safety ofnavigationat the entrance of
Singapore Ithadnothingtodowith sovereigntyor anyalleged"Statepurpose".
211. Singaporetries to approximatea formal annexationby analogy to the copper
cylinder containinga documenttaking possessionin the name of King which was
depositedinthe Antarcticacase. Singapore observeisn its Counter-Memorial that some
itemslike "Britishcoins,copiesof the officialtrade and revenuefiguresof the Straits
Settlementsand a planof theTownof Singapore were deposited on PedraBrancaduring
the inaugurationceremony".JZ4Other items reportedby Thomson'sAccount,such as
copiesof Horsburgh'sDirectoryand of the FreePress (the same newspaperthat had
reportedin 1843that ?BP belongedto Johor),the StraitsTimesand the Journalof the
IndianArchipelagoand EmternAsia, are not mentionedby Singapore. Apparently it
selects among theitems depositedin an attempt to stress the supposedly''official"
characterof the depositedobjects?25It is true that theseitemswere deposited underthe
EasIndiaCompany,ActNo 6,1852(MM Annex84;SMAnnex 59).
'" MM,paras.94, 143-14MCM,paras. 516-529,
SeeMM, paras,152-54.
'2' SeeJ.T.Thomson,AccountoftheHorsburghLighthous,428:SM Annex 61,p531.foundation stone, together wihcopperplatewhoseinscriptionplainlysummarises?he
content and purposeoftheceremony.SeeFigure 14onthefollowingpage.Clearly,the
actinquestionhadnothingtodowithsovereignty.
212. Accordingto Singapore,''[i]f,asMalaysiahasargued,thedepositofa cylinderin
the Antarcticacasefulfilsthe requirementsof formality,it is illogicalto claimthat the
depositof theseitemsonPedraBran= doesnotsimilarlyfulfil thisrequirement''?2But
whatis importantinthe case ofCaptain Foster'sactionin Antarcticain1829 is notthe
depositof the cylinderitself,butthat it contai"addocumenttakingpossessionin the
nameofKingGeorge UnfortunatelyforSingapore'sargument,thereisonecrucial
documentthatislackingamidstthe coins andpapers depositedundetrhefoundationstone:
adeclarationofthetakingofpossessionofPBPonbehalfoftheBritishCrown.
213. Against thisbackground itis worthrecallinghowJohn Crawfurddescribedthe
takingof possessionof the islandsand isletssituatedwithinthe ten mile radius to the
Islandof Singaporeinhislettertothe Secretarytothe Governmentof Indiaof 16August
1825:
'7n obedienceto the instructionscontainedin your letter of the13' of
January directinthatthe Islets orIslandsin the Straitsof Singaporeshould
be taken possessionof on the part of the British Govt. as well as in
conformityto theTreatyconcludedon the 2ndof Augustlastwith the native
PrincesI havethe honourto reportthat havingtaken up aconvenie~~ Chlip
for the purpose, I circumnavigatedthe Island of Singapore,and took
possession,withthenecessaryformalities,of allthe Islands lyingwithin10
miles of the main bland of Singapore which includetshose fonning the
Northern boundaryof the Straitsofthatname.'J28
214. Fromthis letteras from allthe other casescited,it is clear whatthe patternof
British practiwas:
(a) The actsof takingof possessionof thoseislandsand isletsoccurredafter
instructionsfromthesuperiorauthoritietsodoso.
SCM,pm 5.27.
Seeabovepar&207.
ThisReply,vol.2,AnnS. Figure14
Photographicalreprodudionoftheinscriptiononthecopperplatewhichappearsin
J.X Thomson,CLAccono nftheHorsburghLighthouse",(1852)6Jud of the
Idib ArchipelkgoandEasternAsia,Series1,428
In tlc'Trwof our LoTd 1850,
and
In tllo13th Teal*ofthe Reign of
Vrc~onm,
Qamx ofGrpt Britain and Idand,
The Host Noble
3Asrss AYDREW NARQUISof Rac~c~usxlz,9. V.
beingGo~*crz~or-GenemofiBzSGrjhlaclia,
The Foundatio Stone
aftllIj$ht-housetobe erecte dnPadraBranca,
and dedtctitedtothe Memory of the celebrated
Hydr erJnarxzsHortssa~~n, P.R. S.
waa Md le24tlt dayaf Wig, &e hennivcrsary
af EheBirth-day oIserMost GmdousXajesty,
by the
'W~bipf~l E. p.DAPI~SOB, W-
and the
Brethren of tlteLodge ZetIaad in tlteEast
No. 768.
Biitishan1.FoxieigResidentsofSiigapore, Straits8etHernepfendmanyof tlre
J.T. Th-n,
A?.chitm:;E. (b) In Crawfurd's words, this actis accomplished "with the necessary
formalities": thesincludedtheplantingofthe UnionJackandthefiringofa
21gunsalute.329
(c) Thetaking of possessionof thoseislandsonbehalfof the Crown was later
communicatedtothe superiorauthorities.
The contrast withwhat happened(or, more accurately,what did not happen) onPBP is
striking.
215. PerhapsawareoftheclearcontradictionbetweenwhatSingaporeargueswithregard
to PBP and theBritish practice concerning the taking of possessionof territorywith the
intentionto acquire sovereignty, Singapore contends that 'Theapplicable law is general
internationallawandnot Britishpractice".330Butgeneralinternationallaw (thenandnow)
requireda clear manifestationof an intentionto acquire sovereignty,At issue iswhether
Great Britainmanifested suchan intentionin this case. Itspraoticein analogouscasesat
the sametime isboth highly material and revealing.
216. Singaporehas been unableto producea singlepiece of evidencethat the British
governmentconsideredthat through a "taking of lawful possession" it had acquired
sovereigntyoverPBP. Britishoficial attitudesin Singaporea centurylater reveal that for
morethan onehundredyears Britainhad not ing sovereigntyover
PBPdue to a "takingof lawfulpossession7o 'r 0therwise.3~'The theory was invented for
B. Eventswhich occur
217. In an attemptto maskthefactthat:there wasno actof taking ofpossessionof PBP
byBritain,Singaporeattemptsto presentactsthat werenotconcerned with sovereignty at
allas''ofEcial"a'cts, andinturnto assimilatesuch"officialy7ctswiththosemanifestingan
intentionto establish British sovereigntover PBP. Thisisanothernon sequitur. For it is
obvious that not all official acts performed by State authorities have as their
consequencethe establishment of,or the manifestationof,sovereignty.Thereis noneed
329 MM, paras.5& 160.
''O SCM,para.5.9.
33' See MM, paras.237-239;MCM,paw. 139 & 506.to dwell on this. Examplesof officialactsperformedby States on foreign territoryare
numerous allaroundtheworld.
218. Singapore'sdifficultieswith its case do not, however,stop here. In somecases,
Singaporepresentsacts not havinga public characteras public. This is the caseinrespect
of the majoreventwhich would havebeen the best occasionfor the purported takingof
possessionof PBP on behalf of the BritishCrown to take place-the laying of the
foundationstone of the lighthousethrougha Masonicceremonyon 24 May 1850. In
another case, Singapore relies on an imaginary British permission allowing the
Temenggongto visitPBP. Yetagain Singaporeisat painsto accommodatethe ideaofthe
Britishrequestingthe Temenggongto establishan authority on Point Romaniato provide
securityto thelighthouseand itskeepers toit. theoryof "exclusive controlof public order"
inandaroundPBP. These threeitemswill bedealtwithinturn.
( litreceremorlyof24May 1850wasaMasonic one
219. Singaporerecognises thatin principlea Masonicceremonydoes not constitutean
officialact, Nonetheless,it arguesthattheceremonyof the layingof the foundationstone
on 24 May 1850 was an official one."' There is much evidence to the contrary.333
Singaporeassertsthat the ceremony took place"underthe controland the auspices ofthe
British Crown, in the person of Colonel W.J . utterworth,the Governorof the Straits
Theuse of theword"control"isanexaggeration.TheMasonicceremony
was performedin accordancewiththe rites of Freemasonry,excludingany governmental
control. AI1the published accountsareconsistent onthis.'35That it took placeunderthe
auspicesof GovernorButterworthdoes not necessarilyafford it an officialcharacter, A
Governmentcan organise or assistin events not having an official character. English
Freemasonrywascloselylinked tothe Crownandgoverningcircleson a personal
332
SCM,paras.5.117& 5.113.
MM,pms. 152 & 155-156& Annex57;SM Annex45;J.A.L.Pavitt,FirstPharosofthe Earern
Seas.HorsburghLighthouse,Singap:ingaporLightDuesBoardbyDonaldMoorePress,1966,pp.23-
30.
'" SCM,para.5.113.
J.A.L.Pavitt,First Pharosofthe EasternSeas. HorsburghLighthouse(SingaporeLightapore
''esBoardbyDonaldMoorePress,1966),pp.23-30:MMAnnex57;SMAnnex 45.
TheUnitedGrandlodgeofEnglandhadtheDukeof Sussex (sonof KingGeor111)asfirstGrand
Mastein1813.AlbertEdward, rinceofWales (later gdwarVII)was elected Grand Mastir1874
(htt~://ww\v.~andlodge-eneland.ore/ug- I.htm, visitedon 30Septembr005).but this well-known fact does not transform Freemasonriy nto an institutionhaving an
officialcharacter. J.T. Thomson wasa Freemason,as were manyof the merchantswho
weremembersof the SingaporeChamberof Commerceandsubscribersto the Horsburgh
Fund,includingT.0 CraneandW.~a~ier?~~
220. Contrary to Singapore'spresentation, this was not a ceremony conducted by
GovernorButterworthinthepresenceoftheWorshipfulMasterof theLodgeZetlandinthe
East,Mr.Davidson: itwasaceremonyconductedbythe WorshipfulMasterinthepresence
of the Governor. The copperplate celebratingthe eventcouldnot be clearer. It explains
that the foundation stoneof the lighthousededicatedto the memoryof JarnesHorsburgh
waslaid by the WorshipfilMaster ofthe LodgeZetlandintheEast,M.F.Davidson,inthe
presenceof the Governor ofthe Straits Settlementsand manyof the Britishandforeign
residentsof~irz~a~ore?~ SeeFigure 14onpage 1 15 above,
221. Singaporecites as evidenceofthe "official"characterof the ceremonythe factthat
theparty wentto PBPonGovernment-provided vessels.339Butthe useofofficialmeansof
transportto attend an event doesnot transformthe event intoan official one. What is
essentialis the eventitself: canbe seen,th
shedby bothsidesdescribes
the ceremonyof24May 1850 asMasonic,not
222. To defend its curious vision of the "official ace' involving the laying of the
foundationstone,Singaporeinvokesthe presenceofa
to attend. Accordingto Singapore,"Theanal
religious elementis not as such 'an officia
ofilcialceremoniesin manypartsofthe world.'" ^ut the presenceof achaplainamongst
a party made up Eromthe British and foreign residentsof Singapore has no legal
significanceat all. The fact that prayers are "a normal concamitant of official
ceremoniesinmanyparts of theworld"doesnot explainwhathappenedon24May 1850:
ArthurWellesley,Duke of Wellington, wasinitiatedin 1790and, havingvisiting Prince ofWales Island
coIonyin 1797, ranksas the secondknownFreemasonin what is now Malaysia. StamfordRaffles, the
creator oftheBritishsettlementin Singapore,was alsoa Freemason(ChristopherHafmer,"EasternMasonic
Frontiers beforethe Union",ArsQuafuorCoronaiomm,TransacrfQuafuorCoronatiLodgNo.2076,
"'ndon:Butle& Tanner,1991,vol.10pp.21-22and24-27).
charles BurtonBuckIey,AnAnecdotalHistoyf Old Timesin Singapore,Singapore:Fr&ser
Neave (1902),reprintedin Kuala Lumpur:Universityof Malaya Press(I965), p. 437: thi2,Reply, vol.
'nnex18.
SCM,para5.113.count otfheHorsburghLighthouspe.,428:SMAnnex61,p1.3
340 SCM,para.5.117.the questionis whetherthe prayerby the chaplainwas a "concomitanf'oan official
ceremony.This wasnotthecase. According to alldescriptions,theprayerwassimplya
concomitanttotheonly ceremony thattook place,theMasonicone. Infacttheceremony
is stillconsideredby Singapore'sFreemasonry one of the 'MajorMasoniceventsin
South EastAsia inthepast150
223. Singaporeattachesmuchsignificanctothe factthat theWorshipfilMasterofthe
LodgeZetlandinthe East, Mr.Davidson,inhisdiscourseforthelayingofthefoundation
stone, affirme:MaytheA11 BounteousAuthorofNature blessourIsland,of whichthis
Rockis a dependency,withCorn,WineandOil, and withall thenecessarycomfortsand
conveniencesof life." Malaysiahasalreadyreferredto his discourse?42InitsCounter-
Memorial,Singapore qualifiesthis statemenas a "politicalattribution".343BMr,
Davidson,a private merchantof Singapore,had no authorityto make any '~olitical
attribution't all. His languagewas vagueand did not involveany referenceto
sovereignty.Whatis more relevant is tht overnorButterworthdid notmakeanysuch
statementor endorsethatmadeby Mr.Davidson.The1849"Map ofSingaporeIslandand
itsDependencies" drawbny J.T.Thornsondoesnotcontain any inset showingBP as a
c'dependency"?44
224. The SingaporeCounter-Memoriaa lrgues thatthe absenceof reactionfrom the
Sultan andtheTemenggong to thepublicationbytheSingaporeFreePress andtheStraits
Timesof whatMr. Davidsonsaid isrelevant.In fact,neitherDavidson'sreferenceta
"dependency"nor the lack of reaction isrelevant. As explained, Davidson wasn
individualnot acting in any official function;neither at that time nor today does a
governmentneedto reactto a statementmadebya private individlndpublishedinthe
press. Moreoverf,or the Sultanandthe Temenggongthe situation wasclear: theyhad
grantedpermissionto theBritish authoritietso constructthe lighthouse.SincetheBritish
authorities' actionswere direodthatpurpose,therewasnothingoprotest orobjectto.
34' httu:lhveb:singnet.com.se/-masov nrsy/onenSeaptemmber05Seevo1.ofthis
ReplyAnnex25.
"' MCM,pm=. 70-71.
344 SCM,para.5.16,
MMMapAtlas,Map8.225. Governor Butterworth'sspeech followedthat of the Worshipful Master of the
Lodge. It isclearevidencenotonlythattherewasnointentiontoacquiresovereigntyover
PBP, but also that the constructionof the HorsburghLighthousedid not evenhavethe
characterof anexclusiveenterpriseof the East India Company,as Singapore asserts.
Governor Butterworthexplainedthe participationof the EIC and his presencein the
ceremony inthefollowingterms:
"Ishoufdbe wantinginjusticeto themercantilecommunity andmarinersin
China ifI omittedto noticewhatyoumentionedof their liberality for their
donations towards the Horsburgh testimonial,which magnified by the
munificenceof Mesrs.Jardine,Mathesonand Co., in allowingcompound
interestonthesumraisedin 1842,mostcertainlyenabledmeto calluponthe
GovernmentofIndiaforaidin thismatter. The callwas readilyrespondedto-,
and favourablyreceivedby the HonableCourt ofDirectorsas our presence
herethisdaybears evidence.'J45
226. As reportedin the MalaysianMemorial,a similarMasonicceremonyoccurred
with regardto the layingof the foundationstoneof bflles Lighthouseon ConeyIsland
(PulauSatumu)in 1854.~~~ By virtueof the 1824CrawfizrT dreatythis ia Singaporean
island,takenin possessionby a formal actin 1825. ForSingapore,this reference"is a
meredistraction preciselybecauseinthat case sovereigntywas not involved".347Again,
thismissesthe point.Thefact that identical asonicceremonieswereaccomplished with
regardto thetwo lighthouses shows that '"sovereignwasnot involveday n,otonlyinthe
caseofMes LighthousebutofHorsburghaswell.
227. Governor Butterworth'srequestto the WorshipfUM l aster ofthe LodgeZetlandin
the East on 9 March 1854to performthe ceremonyon Pulau Satumuprovidesa full
explanationofthenatureoftheact:
"Ihad occasionin 1850,to solicit theexercisesof your Craft in layingthe
foundationStone ofthemostPhilanthropiw corktheHorsburgh Light House
whichhas beenin filloperationatPedraBrancaforthepast twoyearstothe
benejtof theMariner intheseSeas.
2. IamnowdesirousofagainenlistingtheservicesoftheLodge Zetland
inthe Eastin a simiIarunderfaking Ialludeto the Light Houseaboutto be
345
346 Pavit, .A.L.,op.cp.29.
MM, par&155.
'' SCM,para.5.19. constructedon the 'Coney',in the immediate vicinityof this Island,by the
Hon'bleEastIndia ~om~an~.''~~
228. In another letterafter the layingof the foundation stoneof RafflesLighthouse,
GovernorButtenvorthsaid:
"'Icannot close this communicationwithout expressingthe gratification1
experienceathavingmyname associatedwith that ofthe LodgeZetlandinthe
Eastin connexionwithiwosuchPhilanthropic worksas theHorsburghand
Rapes Light~ouses.'"~~
229. Indeed,Singapore itselfendsup acknowledgingthe limitedscopeof thoseevents:
''Theceremoniesmerely underscoredthe solemnityof the occasion'?50 In order to
diminishthe impactof the factthat the 1850ceremonyin no wayimpliedan assertionof
sovereignty, Singapore seemsto haveretreated fromits earlier positionon the Masonic
ceremony. InitsCounter-Memoriali,t assertsthat Britishsovereigntyexistedeven before
the beginning of the construction ofthe lighthouse,and that "it would have been
unnecessaryto usethe inauguration ceremony asthejunctureat which sovereignty would
beclaimed.Sovereigntyalready existed. Thefirstunequivocalacts ofpossessionoccurred
in 1847whenThomsonplacedthe brickpillarson Pedra~ranca."~~'Similarlyit asserts
that "the ceremonyon PedraBrancatook placein May 1850,by which timethe British
Crownhad alreadytaken possessionof Pedra~ranca"?'~ The lackof any basis forthis
argumentwasunderlinedearlier.353
230. Summingup, the SingaporeCounter-Memorialconfirmsthat the ceremony of
laying the foundationstone of HorsburghLighthousewas not an act of taking of
possession.Despiteitseffortstosuggestthattheceremonyhadan officialcharacter, itwas
aMasonicone anddidnotconcernsovereigntyatall.
Annex16,vol.2ofthisReply(emphasis addedF.orthe similar sentbyGovernorButtenvorth
totheWorshipful asterwithregardtoHorsburhighthouses,ecMMAnnex56.
"' LetterfromGovernorW.J.ButterwortthotheWorshipful MastefrtheLodgeZetlanintheEast
date12August 1854:thisReply,vol.2,Annex17.
350 SCM,para.5.120(emphasisadded).
351 SCM,para5.112.
353 Above,pm.5194.. (ii) TheTemenggong 'spresenceonPBP inJunef 850
231. In its Memorial, Malaysiareferred to the significanceof the presence of the
Temenggongwith 30 of his subjectson PBP just eight days after the laying of the
foundationstoneofthelighthouseandthe beginningoftheconstruction
232. In orderto diminish the importanco ef that presence,Singapore invents thetheory
that the Temenggongwas on PEP by reason of being "invited" by the British
~overnrnent.~~T ~osupportthistheory,itattachesconsiderablesignificancteo thefactthat
theTemenggongwentto PBPina sampanbelongingtoGovernorButterwortha, factwhich
(it complains) Malaysiadid not mentionin its Memorial. Indeed, Pavitt'sHorsburgh
Lighthousebook, publishedby the Singapore Light Dues Board, whica hlso reproduces
Thomson's account d,oes not mention this Equa
onhis lifeand actioninSingapore, published bytheNati
mention iteither, whilementioningthe Ternenggong'spresence onPBP during the
construction
233. Singaporeassertsin itsCounter-Memorialthatthe ggongvisited PBP "with
British permission" and "at the British Governor'sinvitation". There is no trace
whatsoeverof any such"permission"or "invitation"in the record. Thomson's account
doesnotreferto any invitation orpermissiongrantedto the Temenggong to visitPBP. The
quotedtext neither explicitlynor implicitlysuggeststhat theTemenggongcameto PBP
uc~cluscrlcWO.,rllvlrc;or iiraipc;rmissiowas granredtohim.
234. In its Counter-Memorial,Singaporetransformswhat Thomson described as "a
beautifulfastsailingsampan belonging to theGovernoroftheStraitsSettlements"into'?he
BritishGovernor'sboat"?" TheGovernor's boaw t astheHooghIyand wasnota sampan.
Itis onlyon the basisof this unsupportedsuppositionon Singapore'spartthat Singapore
infers thatthe BritishGovernment"invited"the Temenggong andgave "permission"for
him to visit PBP. But the fact that the Temenggong used a sampan that
354 hth4,paras.148-150.
355 SCM, para.5.103.
J.A.L.Pavin, op.cit.32.
'" JohnHall-Jones& Christopher ooi,AnEarlySurveyorin Singapore.JohnTurnbullThomsonin
Singapore1841-1853,Singapore: ationalMuseumSingapore,1979,pp.15-16:vol.2 of thisReply,Annex
"m
LL. SCM,para.5.104.belonged to the Governor doesnot mean that itsdestinationwas British territory. For
example,for the Masonic ceremony concerningRaffles Lighthousea, vesselbelongingto
the Sultanof Linggawas usedto carrythe membersof the Lodge Zetlandinthe East .n
anotheroccasionavesselof the TemenggongofJohorwasused by Singaporemerchantsto
goto ~hio.3~~ Noneofthiscarriedany connotationof a concessionof sovereignty.
235. In hisAccount,Thomsonmentionsthat"[alboutten othersmallsampanscomposed
hisfleet"?6o For Thomson, this was the Temenggong'sfleet, not the Governor's.
Thomson wentonto explain that "[tfhe Singaporesampanis famed over the worldfor its
fleetnessin either pullingor sailing;mannedwith the orangut(menofthe sea)theyhave
successfullycompetedwith the fastest gigsor wherries from England,broughtout on
purposeforthe contest."36'
236. As is recorded,the Temenggongarrivedat PBP the same dayas J.T T.homson,i.e.
2 June 1850. Tojudge fromThomson'sAccount,they didnot cometogether.
237. Singapore goeson to imagine thatthe British marine ensign"was flyingon Pedra
Branca" at the time of the Ternenggong'srecorded presence. The only evidence is
Thomson's painting reproducedinthe Singapore Leaving aside thequestion
oftheevidentiaryvalueofthese paintings;63nothingsupportsthe contentiothattheywere
painted at the time when the Temenggong was present. Moreover, as explained in
Malaysia's counter-Memorial:64 the marine ensign is not a symbol of territorial
sovereignty,and Thomson's presence onPBPin orderto construct thelighthousehad its
ground in Johor's permission,As Thomsonhimself explained in his letterto Resident
Councillor Churchof 20 July 1851,detailingall the requirementsfor the operationof the
lighthouse andancillary activities,"The Light house flagI presume is differentfromthe
national
'
CharlesBurtonBuckley,AnAnecdotal Historyof Old Timesin Singapore,Sing: ras&r
Neave(19021,reprininKuaiaLumpurU : niversityofMalaya Pres(s1965),pp.520and542ofthis
Reply,Annex18.
"' Ibid.siadded,J.T.Thomson, ccountoffheHorsburghLighthop. 430SMAnnex61, p.533.
'" SCM,para.5.106.
363 SeeMCM,para.133.
'64 MCM,paras.129,132-13& 386-392.
LetterfromJ.T.ThomsonT.Churchdated20July1851:SMAnnex54.238. Whilereferringto the fact that theTemenggong was"allied to British interests",
Singaporeomitsthe previous political reference madby J.T.Thomsonin the first partof
the same sentence.366The whole sentencereads as follows:"He is the most powerfit1
nativechiefintheseparts,alliedtoBritishinterests". Thprevioussentencereads:"Onthe
samedayhishighnesstheTomungong ofJohorevisitedtherock,accompaniedof 30 ofhis
foliowers". The sentencethat follows the referenceto the Temenggongbeing the most
powerful nativechief in theseparts,comments:"He remainedat my house for two days,
employing hisleisure in fishing, to which sport he is greatly devoted". Theordinary
meaningof the words employed by Thomsonin their context leadsto the unavoidable
conclusion: "these partcannotbutincludePBP.
Plans for the establishmentof a station on Point Romanitao protect
(iii)
HorsburghLighthouse
239. Closeto the time of the inaugurationof the lighthouse,the question arose asto the
best way to protect it as well as the keepers. Thoseinvolvedin the constructionof the
lighthouse discussedtwo possibilities:establishingtationwith a militarypresencein or
near PointRomaniaorrequestingtheTemenggongto establish avillageundertheauthority
ofa reliablevillagechief(Panghooloo)inthe sameplace. Fighting piracyintheregionwas
alsoenvisagedas a task for the forcethatwould beestablished there. This emergesffom
J.T. Thornson and T. Church's letters of 2 November 1850 and 7 November 1850
respectively.
240. Thomsonproposed"the erectionofa stationonthatpoint [Point Romaniai]nwhich
an armedpartyof not less than 14men andtwo boats couldbe placedone a fastpulling
boat for inshoreduty and the othera safe built boatfor sea duty. Herea constantwatch
couldbe maintainedonthe light houseandtheirrapidpresencecouldbe hadatthe rockin
caseofneed."367
241. TheResident Councillorof Singapore, Thomas Church, responde as follows:
j6' LetterfromJ.TT.homson,Government Surveyoo,T.ChurchR, esidentCouncil, November
1850:MMAnnex58; SM Annex47. "I observeMr. Thomsonadvocatesthe Establishmentof a stationnear Point
Romania,for the purposeof offeringassistanceto the inmates ofthe Light
House in case of need, and also to suppress Piracy, an armed party of the
strength suggestedwould,doubtless,be of someservice, but I doubt whether
such is absolutelynecessary,or commensuratewiththe permanent expense
whichsuch an Establishment mustnecessarilyoccasion, Romaniamoreover
belongs to the Sovereignof Johore, where the Britishpossess no legal
jurisdiction,t wiII,of coursebe necessaryfor the Steameror Gun boats to
visitPedro Brancaweekly,somebenefit wouldalso accrueby requestingHis
HighnesstheTamoongongto formavillageatRomaniaunder the control oa f
respectable Panghooloo to renderassistanceto theinmatesof the Light House
incaseof
242. Singaporerelies heavily onChurch's letterp,retendingthat itprovides evidencethat
Britainhad sovereigntyover PBP. Singapore"achieves"this resultthrough a contrario
reasoning:"The text of Church'sresponse of 7 November 1850 confirms the contrast
betweenPoint Romania,which 'belongsto the Sovereignof Johore, wherethe British
possessno legaljurisdiction',andthe statusa contrarioof PedraBrancawherethe British
dopossesslegaljuri~diction,"~~
243. Malaysiahas alreadyrespondedto this untenablesupposition.370Church'sletter
neither explicitlynor implicitlyffms that theBritishhadjurisdictionoverPBP and the
Temenggong not, On the contrary, it was Church himself who envisagedthe
Temenggong'sexerciseof authorityto protectthe lighthouseandlight-keepersonPBP. In
reality, what wasatstakewas the establishment oa fpermanentstationwitharmedpresence
"nearPointRomania". Atno timewastheestablishmentof sucha forceenvisagedonPBP
itself. The alternativewasnot betweenestablishinga British military presence eitheron
Point RomaniaoronPBP. Thealternativewasto requestJohor's authorisation to establish
that presencenear Point Romaniaor to ask the Temenggongto create a villageundera
respected authorityinthe same area.Singapore'sa contrarioargument is groundless.
Letterfrom T. Church, Resident Councilloo .J. Butterworth,Governor of Princeof Wales
Island,SingaporeandMalacca,7November1850:MMAnnex59;SMAnnex48.
SCM,para.5.89. Seealsasimilarreasoning inpara.4.56:"Thereal significance of Church's letter
is thathe, the most senior British official in Sier Governor,drewa clear distincbetween
mainland Johor (Point Romania) where the British poslegal jurisdiction, and Pedra Branca where
theBritishhadjurisdiction(andtheTemenggonghadnone)."
""CM, para.111.244. Moreover, itmustberecalled that duringtheconstructionwork,PointRomaniawas
frequentlyusedbytheBritish, includingwithgunboats,without anyspecificpermission.371
The reason is very simple. The Sultan and the Temenggong had already given
authorisationto constructthe lighthouse;consequently,activitiesperformedwithsuchaim
were coveredbythat authorisation.What wasdiscussedbyThomson andChurchherewas
different:the establishmenotfa permanentstationinJohor's territory.
245. Singaporestresses that what Church discussedin his letter was '%thenecessity of
establishmentof a station on the mainlandat Point~ornania".~~~ This is a distortionof
what Churchactually wrote. He describedthe place as "near Point Romania" orsimply
"Romania". It is also in contradictionwith previous Singaporean interpretation of the
expression "near Point Romania" as used by the Temenggong. In its previous
interpretation,Singapore attributed to this expression the meaning of the Romania
~slands.~~I~ndeed,given the natureoftheenvisaged activityi ,nvolving gunboats aimingat
securingthe light-keepers and suppressing piracy in the region, "near Point Romania"
meansbothJohor'sland andwaters.
246. To sum up,the discussionof theestablishmentofanarmedstationor avillageon or
near PointRomaniainordertoprotectthe lighthouseconstructed on PBP showsthat:
PBPisaplace"nearPointRomania";
(a)
(b) the establishmentof a permanentBritish stationwith an armed partynear
BointRomaniaio prorecitineiigftthouse atx i@ragainstpiracywouidnave
required Johor's permission;
the British oflicials directly in charge of the construction of Horsburgh
(c)
Lighthouse envisaged ensuring its security and that of the light-keepers
throughtheauthorityoftheTemenggong of Johor.
371 MCM, para.108.
372 SCM,para. 4.55(Singapore'semphasis). Equally,pa4.56insiststhatThornson'sand Church%
letters"addressedtheproposalto establishanaidstationonrnain1andSingapore's emphasis).
j7' SCM,para.5.70. Singaporealsomisconstrues Malaysia's statements with rThomson'sand
Church'slettersandessentiallyendsuprebutting arguments which have neeadebyMalaysia(SCM,
paras4.55-4.56)In reality, what Malaysia maintaishatclearly emerges the Church andThomson
letters:that the establit fapermanentannedstation near Point Romania woldaverequired Johor's
authorisation and thaitn orderto provide protectionto the lighthouseand itsinmates, Resident Councillor
Church envisaged requestingthe Ternenggongto do so by establishinga subordinaledauthority"at
Romania". C. There is noevidenceofBritish intentionto acquire sovereignty
247. Singapore acknowledgesin its Counter-Memorialthat the intention of acquiring
sovereignty is essentialand qualifies thisrequirementas "the key legal principle"or "the
governing Equally, whileexaminingthe relevanceof the constructionof
lighthousesforthe acquisitionof sovereignty,Singaporeaffirmsthat "[tlhe criterion isnot
based upon anabstract propositionto the effect that navigationalaids are, or are not,
manifestationsof sovereignty,but consists of the intention to acquire sovereignty as
revealedintherelevantcircum~tances'~.~~~
248. The previous section of this Chapter has demonstratedthe key role that the
subjective element(animus,intention)plays when a State takes possession of territory
aiming atthe acquisitionof sovereignty. Britishpracticein this regard has consistently
been presented. Malaysiahas also demonstratedthe very limited function that the
construction of lighthouses or other aids to navigation playsin the acquisition of
sovereignty;there is no need to further elaborateon this point either.376The purposeof
these devices is to help navigation. Their constructioncannot be enough to show an
intentionto establish sovereignty.Followingthe case lawquoted in previousMalaysian
pleadings, itcan be said that there is a presumptionagainst an intention to acquire
sovereignty overterritoryonwhichaidsto navigationarec~nstructed.~'~
249. Singaporedid not includeany evidencein its Counter-Memorial showintg hat the
intentionofthe BritishCrownwasto acquiresovereignty over PBP. Thepresentsection of
this Chapterneed, therefore, onlybriefly analyse (i) some aspects of the actual British
intentionwhile constructingthe Horsburgh Lighthouse,and (ii) the distinctionbetween
ownershipofthe lighthouse and sovereignto yverthe territorywhereit is located.
SCM, paras.5.4& 5.7.
375 SCM,para.5.122.
'76 MM,paras. 171-175;MCM,paras2 . 01-237.
377 Singapore's attemtotgivetheideaof a contradicinMalaysia'spresentpositionwiththe oneit
adoptedinthePulauLigifanandPulauSipadancaseis clumsy(SCM,paras.5.123 & 5.128). Thereis no
contradictionatll. Malaysiawasvery clearduringtheproceedinitscasewithIndonesia.Itclearlyand
explicitlystressedthattheconstrucof lighthousesiththehawledge andtheconsentoftheother State
arenot considerto bean acthtitre de souveraininrespectof thelocationof the light(PulauLigilanand
PufauSipadan(Indonesi&afaysia), Replyof Malaysia,paras.5.&55.26). InitsMcrnoria, alaysiahas
alreadyclearlyindicated maindifferences betweetnheLigitonand Sipadancase andthepresentone
(MM,p. 80,para.175). 0) TheactualBritish intentioninconstructingthelighthouse
250. Accordingto Singapow,"the existenceof intentiondependedon the provisionof
evidence butnoparticularformalitieswerecalledfor. Thiswasthe positioninthe British
practiceof the Singapore assumesthat "[iln the circumstances,the intentionof
the British Crown was to establishs~vereignty"?'~Thereisjust a laconicrenvoito the
SingaporeMemorial,which issaid tocontain"a variety of proofsof intenti~n"?~'Butthe
fact is that so far Singaporehas been unableto produceanyevidence showingthat the
intention of the British government was to acquire sovereigntyover PBP by the
constructionof the lighthouse, On the contrary, therecords submitted by both Parties
clearly showthatthe intentionbehindthe constructionof the lighthousehad nothingto do
withthe acquisitionof sovereignty,but was to aid navigationin the Straitwhilehonouring
JamesHorsburgh. All the so-called"evidenceyi'nvokedbySingapore hasbeenrebuttedin
Malaysia'scounter-~emorial.~~'
251. Singaporeargues that "the unilateralmanifestation ofthe will of the Crown is a
sufficient basisof title"?82 But even assuming thatthis couldbe correct in principleasa
-
general statement,quod non,in the caseof PBP there was no "unilateralmanifestationof
the wiIl of the Crown" to acquire sovereignty atall. This is enough in itseIfto reject
Singapore's claim.Therecordsdonot show anyfact,proclamation,declaration, legislative
act or other possibleway by which the Crown manifested an intention to acquire
sovereignty.Theoperationof thelighthouse isnota sufficientbasis from whichto deduce
suchan intention. As a~b~~iedgedbybothParties,the straits Settiementsoperated-and
Singaporestillcontinuesto operate-lighthouses inforeignterritory,
252. Indeed, Singapore'sCounter-Memorial even provides new evidence that the
intentionof the British authorities in constructing thelighthousehadnotatallbeen the
SCM,para.5.5.
379 SCM,para.5.3.
"O SCM,para.5.27.
38' MCM,paras.93-134. As demonstratedit, consists onlyof thelayingof thefoundationstone,the
constructioof the lighthouseby theEastIndiaCompany,thevisitsof official ,he displayof tbe
marineensignandthe panelplacedinthevisitors' room.Not oneof theseacts provesthatintetll.n aa
Otherfactsinvokeby Singaporearenotsubstantiatbyanyevidence, sucasthe"maintenancoef public
order"ontheisland.
"' SCM,para.5.7.acquisitionof sovereigntyAn exampleisthe letterfromGovernorButterworthto Captain
EdwardBelcherofH.M.S.Samarangd , ated2 October1844. Butterworthwrote:
"I havethe ho receiptof your letter underdate the''
Instant, in reply to my communicationof the 20* April last, soliciting the
favor of your opinionas to themostadvanlageous sitefor the erectionofa
Light House with a view of carryingout the Philanthropic intention otfe
committee for a testimonial to the memory of the late celebrated
Hydrographer JamesHorsburgh ~s~uire."~~~
253. VisitsbyBritishoMicialsto PBPin nowayconstitute an expression of the intention
to acquire sovereignty?84 For example,Governor Butterworthhimself went to Point
Romania with the purpose of deciding the best location for the construction ofthe
HorsburghLighthouse. PointRomaniawas (and is) part of Johor and Britainhad no
intentionto acquiresovereigntyoverit.TheletterfromButterworthto CaptainBelcherof
2 October1844,quoted above,concludedwiththefollowingrequest:
"In the course ofa few days l intendto visit Point Romaniain the steamer
when I shall request the favor of your attendancein furtherance of the
PhilanthropicresolutionofthecommitteefortheHorsburgh testimonial."385
254. The correspondence clearly showsthat no distinctionin the nature of theintention
oftheBritishauthoritieswasmadewhenthey dealtwiththe differentoptionsenvisagedfor
the locationofthe HorsburghLighthouse. Indeciding infavourof the latter,the Admiralty
gavethe followingreasons:
"I amcommandedbytheirLordshipstorequestthatyouwillstateto theCourt
of Directors that the proper position of this Light is a question of great
importancenotonlytothe safetyof hermajesty'sFleetbutalsoto the welfare
of all Marinersthat frequent the China Seas and myLordsare inclinedto
think that Pedra Branca is the best point for the Light Houseand for the
followingreasons :-
I' BecausethatIsletstandsnearlyinthemiddleofthe Entranceofthe Straits;
2"*Becauseitnay befreely approachedbyrunningdownitslatitude;
3"1Because itsconspicuousappearance at thedistanceof9 or10 milesrenders
itthe usualBeaconbywhich allvessels endeavourto makethe Straitsandby
theadditionof a Light itwould be rendereequally serviceablebynight;and
4~Becausewhena vesselhaspassedit,the stern bearingof the Light would
enablehimto shapeasafecourseto ~in~a~ore.'"'~
SCMAnnex9 (emphasisdded).
MCM, pwa.123.
'** SCM Annex9.
MMAnnex 50.255. Nothingin this can be assimilatedto the slightest intentionto acquiresovereignty.
ThecontrastwithAdmiralty instructions to take possession ofterritorywiththe purpose of
acquiringsovereigntygiveninactual casesof
sion is clear.
256. Summingup, Singaporeis stillunableto advanceanyevidence thatthe intentionof
the Britishauthoritiesby constructingthe HorsburghLighthouse wasthe acquisitionof
sovereigntyoverPBP. Moreover,Singaporeprovidesno examplesof a British assertionof
sovereigntyoverterritorywherethe intentionto do so wasriotexplicitly recordedinsome
way. Onthe contrary,the records submittedbybothparties clearlyshowthatthe intention
of that constructionhad nothing to do with the acquisitionof sovereignty. The real
intention,quitesimply, was toprovide safetyto vesselsnavigatingthe entrancetothe Strait
whilepayingtributeto JamesHorsburgh.Thewordthatcameup repeatedlyinthe reasons
givenfortheconstructionofthe lighthousewasnotsovereignty,but philanthropy.
(ii) Thedistinction betweenownershipof the lighthouseandsovereignty over
PBP
257. Singapore did not contradict the general distinction madeby Malaysia in its
Memorialbetweensovereigntyand ownership.387Therecords showthat if there wasany
British intentionto acquire somethingthroughthe constructionof the lighthouse,it was
ownershipof the lighthouse,not sovereigntyoverPBP. The correspondencewithJohorys
authoritiesdid notconcernmatters ofsovereigntybutpermissionto constructalighthouse
onJohor'sterritory. The internal British correspondencerelatino the constructionofthe
lighthousedoesnotreferevenoncetotheacquisitionofsovereignty.
258. It is significantthat the British Governmentfelt the need to declare that the
lighthouse wasits property,but did not feel the sameneed to declare that the territory
belongedto it.This is in sharpcontradictionto thewaythe British governmentexpressed
its willto acquiresovereigntyin other placesat the sametime. It is even moreso if the
samegovernmentconsideredthat the territoryinquestion didnot belongto anyoneat the
timeof its purportedacquisition. Toproclaimsovereigntyover a territorywithouta master
iseven morenecessarythanina case whereatreaty ofcessionexists.
387 MM, paras.165-168See alsMCM,para. 65.
130259. Acomparisonwiththe most recentdecisionrenderedbythe Chamber ofthis Court
inthe caseconcerningthe FrontierDispute(Benin/Nger)isiIlustrative.Thepartiesinthat
casehadconstructedtwo bridges over theRiverNiger. Theydisagreed astothe locationof
the boundary on the bridges. The Chamber dissociatedownership of the bridge and
territorialsovereignty,i.e.thecourseofthe boundarywithregardtothebridges. Observing
the existenceof agreementsand arrangements concerningthe use or maintenanceof the
bridges between the parties, the Chamber "observes that these agreements and
arrangementsdo notcontainanyprovisionsonterritorialiss~es~".3T ~hejudgmentwenton
by sayingthat "[tJheChamberobservesin particular thatthe questionof the courseof the
boundaryon the bridges is totallyindependentof that ofthe ownershipofthose structures,
which belongto the Partiesjointly."389The same can be said in the present case: the
questionof sovereigntyoverPBPistotally independentofthe ownershipof the Horsburgh
Lighthouse,which belongsto Singapore.Thisownershipinnowaymodified Johor's,now
Malaysia's,sovereigntyoverPBP.
D. GreatBritaindidnotclaimsovereigntyoverPBPafterthe inauguration ofthe
lighthouse
260. This section addressesthe lack of any action takenby the British Governmentto
assertitssovereigntyinthe yearsthatfollowedthe inaugurationof the lighthouse. Indeed,
as Chapter5 will show,that patternof conductalso continuedinto andduring the 20~
century. Oncethe operationof the lighthousebegan in 1851: (i) there was no British
authority installedonPBP;(ii)the British governmendidnottakeanylegislative measure
either incorporatingPBP into one of the colonial divisionsof the British Empireor
designatingany authority as responsible forits government;(iii) incidents concerning
fishermen coming fiom Singapore to fish in the area motivated an exchange of
correspondencebetweenthe Governorof the Straits Settlements and the Temenggongof
Johorin 1861which showsthat Britaindid notconsider that the watersaround PBP were
incorporatedintotheColony. To the contrary,theBritishauthorities stronglyreliedonthe
1824Crawkrd Treaty asthesolebasisfortheirjurisdiction.
CaseconcerningtheFrontier Dispute(Benifliger), Judgmenotf 12July123., para.
389 Ibid,para.124. ) Nosingleauthority was installedonPBP, whichfheOPangLautcontinued
tofi.eqaent
261. Singapore doesnot point to the presenceof a Britishauthorityon PBP once the
lighthousebeganits operation. As Singaporeacknowledges,Britain did not envisagethe
permanent presence oafny military force or statio,vena limitedone,onor aroundPBP.
262. The presenceof the lighthouse-keepersin HorsburghLighthousedid not amountto
a presence of Statorganshaving administrativefunctionosverthe island. Thereisnothing
to suggestthesepersons did anythingotherthanwhatwas expectedof ordinary lighthouse-
keepers, i.e. facilitatedthe functioningand maintenanceof the lighthouse, togetherwith
other ancillaryacti~ities.~"In itsMemorial, Malaysia quotedhornson'swarnings relating
to thefiequentvisitsof OrangLaut to PBP andthe needtopreventthem fiom enteringthe
building?" It also quotedtheLight-keepersRules,which instructedthe lighthouse-keepers
in the samemanner.392The cleardistinctionbetweenthe OrangLaut's presenceon the
island(notprohibited) andtheirnon-admittanceto thelighthouse(prohibited)was stressed.
SingaporehasinterpretedtheLight-keepersRulesto meanthatthe reasonfornotexcluding
the OrangLautfiomPBPbut fromthe lighthouseonlywas that"if attackedby piratesand
outnumbered,it wouldhavebeen imprudentfor thelight-keepersto leavethe lighthouseto
tryto expelthemfiomthe Ifthiswere true,thentherewouldhavebeennoneed
to includesuch an instructionin the Rules: it is obviousthat if attacked the lighthouse-
GPepe~ :VCU!C! ILI!~ pemissicnk egter the !iglk,tl..c~ ne?hezFz~LPrs!h4crec~er,
Singaporepresumesthatthe OrangLaut only evercameto PBPforthe purposesof piracy.
ButPBPwasusedasatraditional fishingplaceuntiIveryrecently.
263. In short,there was noBritishauthorityinthe island,either ona permanent basisor
otherwise.
390 MCM,Chapters6 & 8, extensivelyanalysethe activitiesof lighthouseasndtheir legal
scope.
39' MM,para.143.
MM,para.144.
"' SCM,para.4.54. (ii) No British legislation incorporateP dBP into the Colony of the Straits
Settlements
264. The BritishGovernme legislationin orderto incorporate PBP
intothe Colonyof the StraitsSettlementsor into any other colonialdivision. The Indian
Act No. V1 of 1852 only declaredthat the lighthousewas the EIC's property. The
Singapore Counter-Memorial presentee dxtracts from the travauxpriparatoires of that
AC~.~" They confirmthat sovereigntyover PBP wasnot at all at issueandthat the main
purposeof ActNo.VIwas"defrayingthecost ofa LightHouse onPedra~ranca"?~'
265. To expIainthe lackof any legislation including PBPunderBritishsovereignty, the
Singapore Counter-Memorial misleadingm lyixes the issuingof Letters Patentwith the
intentionof acquiringsovereigntyat the time of a taking of possession.396Normally,
LettersPatent,Ordersin Councilor Proclamationscome afterthe occupationof territory,
and are designed to proclaim either its incorporationinto the British Crown or the
designation of the entity within the Empire that is henceforth responsible for its
administration.AsstatedbySir HenryJenkyns:
"Asa generalrule, the Britishdominions cannotbe addedto or diminished
without the consentof the Crown.Whetherthe Crown can, except for the
purposeof concludinga war,surrenderBritishterritorywithoutthe consentof
Parliament, is a moot constitutional questionT . he answer would depend
largelyupon the circumstancesof the surrender,but inthis, as in most other
constitutionalquestions,the modem tendencyis to consider that theCrown
couldnotdo soimportantanactwithouttheconsentof Parliament.
In India,territoryis notinfrequently annexedor surrenderedbythe Governor-
General.But the case ofIndia, withits dependent states,is exceptional,and
canhardlybecited asa precedent forthe surrenderofterritoryinothercases.
In the case of other British possessions,the boundariesare determinedor
altered by Order in Councilor Letters Patent under the Great Seao l f the
United Kingdom, and are sometimes fixe by or underthe directauthorityof
an imperialAC~,"~'
394 SCMAnnex16.
withtheGovernorGeneralof 24 October1851,the letterof F.J.Halliday,Secretaryto theGovetfmeno
India,toW.J.Butterworth,GovernoofrP.W.Island,SingaandMalaccaof24 October 1815,theletterof
SirH.M.Elliot,Secretarytothe Governmentf India withthe Governor Gener, FJ. Hallidayof 12
November1851andtheLetterofW.J.ButterwortthoF.J.Hallidayof 17November 1851i,bid.
Ip6 SCM,para.5.16.
"' HenryJenkynsB, ritishRand JurisdictionbeyondtheSeas,Oxford,ClarenPress,1902,pp.2-
3 (footnotes omitted).266. Inthe presentcasetherewasnotakingof possessionon behalf ofthe BritishCrown
and consequentlyno Letters Patent incorporatingPBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
within theStraitsSettlements,in notable contrast withwhat happenedwith the Christmas
andCocos(Keeling)~slands.~'~ Singaporedoesnotexplainwhy,whenterritoryoutside the
1824CrawfurdTreatywas incorporatedto Singapore(as wasthe case with the Christmas
and Cocos Islands) corresponding legislation was passed,whereas nothingof this sort
occurredwith regardto PBP.~" Had Great Britainintendedto acquire sovereigntyover
PBP through the constructionof the lighthouse,the further step would have been its
incorporation into one of its administrativeunits in the region, notably the Straits
Settlements and, in particular, the Settlementof Singapore. This did not happen.
Singaporefailsto explainwhy PBP shouldhavereceiveda differenttreatmentto theactual
cases in which the territoryof the Settlementof Singapore was extendedafter the 1824
Crawfurd Treaty, i.e. through the incorporation of ChristmasIsland and the Cocos
(Keeling)Islandsbythe issue ofLetters Patent stating that these territoriesformed partof
the Settlementof Singapore.
267. Singapore'sCounter-Memorialcontinuesto blurthe actsnecessaryto the takingof
possessionof territory withthe legislativeacts determiningwhich entity or authority is
responsiblefor itsadministration.Itcomparesthewhole ofthe British conductwithregard
to the Cocos (Keeling)Islands-which is clear-with '%%e activities relating to Pedra
Brancainthe periodleadingup to the inauguration ofthe lighthouse",in ordertoraisethe
fij;;ij-+Lijiiast-;sri; ;itbetiedi"ulj;?.igii&.&iittiariiijdai;ifjpiissessfoiief&;iigi"
the CocosIslandsare in any senseof superiorquality, legallyand politically,than those
relatingto Pedra~ranca?"~~ The answerto thisquestionis simple:yes.401Inthe caseof
theCocosIslands therewas aformaltakingof possessiononbehalf ofthe BritishCrownin
1857,following instructionsof the Admiralty,despitethe fact that British nationalshad
been establishedthere as early as1826. The British governmenttook administrative
decisionsasto theappointmentof thecolonial authoritychargedto exerciseadministrative
controlover the islands,the fu;s betingthat of Ceylonand then transferringthem to the
Colony ofthe Straits Settlementsand finally incorporatingthem into the Settlementof
398 MM,paras. 162-164MCM,para.80.
399 SeeSCM,para.5.19.
400 SCM,pm 5.21.
40' MM,para. 62;MCM, para92.270. As explainedin theMalaysiaCounter-Memorials,omeof the incidentsoccurred
withinthe 10geographicalmile limi otf SingaporeIsland,others outside, includnthe
neighbourhood of PBP. The Governor ofthe StraitsSettlements,incorrespondencewith
theTemenggong,clearlydistinguished thetwosituations. In theGrst,he stronglydenied
anyrightoftheTemenggong tocollecttaxesand&firmedBritishjurisdictiontojudgethe
authors of the violence and robbery. In the second, he lodged a protest withthe
Temenggongr ,equiringhimtopunishthepersonsresponsibleforthecriminal conduct. In
orderto facilitatethe understandingof this correspondenc, igure IS on the opposite
pageshowsthedifferentlocations mentioned.
271. Accordingto Singapore's Counter-Memorita h, fishermen involvedhadsimply
chosento "lie" aboutthe locationof their fishing neto PBPto attractBritishsupport,
since theywere aware thatthose waters wereunderBritishjurisdiction. As a result,
Singapore says,the British authoriti"tookup their complaints without hesitation"PW
Nothinginthe detailed recordsofthese incidents submittedybothPartiessupportssuch
speculation?05
272. There is no basis for the assumptionthat the Singapore fishermen lied. They
affirmedthatthey wentfishing"near to thePedroBranco LightHouse,andontheirway
backa Malay, wellknowntobetheheadof avillage neartothatover which Nong Besar
is headman,cameoff with three othersandforciblyattemptedto takeall the fishes"!06
Both theBritishand Johorrecords showthat the Singapore fishermen performedtheir
activity"in the neighbourdof PedroBranco LightHouse"or "atthe mouthof 'Sungei
Ringat"'. Thereis no contradictiohere. The incident occurreat the mouthof Sungai
Rengit.Thisdoes notmeanthattheSingaporefishermen hadnotcome from fishing ''near
to the PedroBranco LightHouse". Both locationsare part of the samearea. Sungai
Rengit (located neatrhe river ofthe samename)is the closest localityBP. And PBP
wasa well-knownfishingspot:evenuntil recentlyJ ,ohor fishermenfiom Sungai Rengit
continuedto fisharoundPBP?'? Inthepast,itwouldtakea small fishingboat witha sail
'OS SCM,paras.4.61-4.62.
SeeMCM Annex24; SCM Annex 19.
Ibid.
407 MCM,pm. 517.aboutfivehoursto do the trip between SungaRi engitand PBP, and between 15 to 25
hoursfromSingapore Harbour.408
273, Thefishermen'smemorial,insteadof showing thattheywere aware thatPBPwas
under Britishjurisdiction, clearly demonstratehaetyacknowledgedJohor'sauthority.
Theystatedthatthey paidtheJohortaxwhile"theirfishinggroundhas alwaysbeen a little
beyondPuloPikongandthis sideof PedroBrancoy'.Theywerecomplainingabout their
treatmentat thehandsofJohar'ssubjectsand theamountofthe levies collectedby Johor,
notaboutthe factofpayingtaxtotheTemenggong.
274. Moreover, whatis essential(andcompletely neglectedin Singapore'sCounter-
Memorial) is analysisof the contentof the British protest to Johor aboutthe acts
performedby Johorsubjects ''inthe neighbourhooof Pedra Branca LightHouse". The
relevantletteristhat fromGovernorCavenaghtotheTemenggongof 15May 1861,which
readsasfollows:
"Aftercompliments,Withreferenceto ourformercommunication No. 227
dated4' instanttoourfriendonthematterofinjuries sustainbytheBritish
subjectsfiom residentsin our friend's country wenow enclose for our
ftiend'sinformationa copy of apetitionfiom several Chinese fishermen
complainingof the seriousmolestationto whichthey have been subjected
whilst pursuingtheir ordinary avocatiin the neighbourhoodof the Pedra
Branca Light House.We trusthat ourfriendinadditionto punishingthese
offendersby whomthe petitioners wereattackedand two of their party
wounded,willadopt suitablemeasuresfor the preventionf suchillegalacts
inthefuture".409
275: Thecontrast withthe previousletterof 4 May 1861 sent bythe Governorof the
StraitsSettlementstothe Temenggong,referringto an incidentwhichoccurred"in the
neighbourhoodof Punjurina,bout six miles fkomChanghie"is noticeable. Governor
Cavenaghstressed inthis.letter:
"Ideemit rightto pointout tomy fiend that the Sea inwhichthe above
offences were committedbeing withinthe limitprescribedby Article I1 of
the treatyof the&August1824,the fishermen were withiB nritishwaters,
408
MCM Annex.24;SCM9Annex19. andconsequently none of myfkiends's subjectscouldin anywayhavebeen
justifiedininterferingwiththem.'"'0
276. The lettersentby to the Temenggongon 15May 1861was
basedonthe alle curred"intheneighbourhood ofthePedroBranco
LightHouse". If the GovernorhadconsideredthatPBPwasBritish territoryh , e should
haveundoubtedlyreferredto theTemenggong in the er ashe reactedto the
previousincident:i.e. he would haveremindedhim hor's subjectscould not
interferewithfishinginBritishwaters.
277. Thecorrespondence relatedtothe 1861incidents showthat:
(a) TheTemenggong continuetd ocontrol fishinintheneighbourhood of PBP
and toexercisecriminaljurisdictionfor actscarried outinJohorwaters;
Themaritimejurisdictionof Singaporewasnotalteredbythe construction
(b)
ofthe lighthouseinPBP,theBritishauthoritiescontinuedto claim astheir
waters no more than thoseextended to ten geographical milesfrom
SingaporeIsland,inaccordance withtheCrawfbrd Treaty;
(c) The British authoritierecognisedthat the Temenggong had jurisdiction
overthewaters"intheneighbourhood of thePedraBrancaLightHouse",
E. Conclusion
278. The crucial period in the 1840s tothe beginningof the 1850sinvolvingthe
planning, construction andinaugurationof the lighthouse,as well as the years that
followeditsinauguration,howthat:
(a) Theparties agreethat theconstructionofthe lighthouseas accomplished
by the British authoritisn a territorythat did not previously beloto
GreatBritain.
(b) Singaporestill has to decide whether its claim of the acquisitionof
sovereigntythrough the "takingof Iawfulpossession"of PBP occurred in
1847 or in the period from 1847 to 1851. Its contradictionson the
fundamental timeelement reveatlheweaknessanduncertaintyofitsclaim.
"* Ibid.
,-.
139All that Singaporehasprovedto date isthat it was the East IndiaCompany
that constructedHorsburghLighthouse onPBPand asserted ownershipof
it-facts thatarenot indispute,
Activity leadingtothe constructionof the lighthousedid not amount tothe
takingof possession ofPBPin the name ofthe British Crown. Singapore's
Counter-Memorialdoesnot laimin
this regard. Allthe acts invokedby Sin ernorid purportedly
constitutingataking of possession haeeenrefitteas suchbyMalaysia.
Britain did nothave the slightestintentionof acquiring sovereigntyover
PBP(still lessMiddleRocksand SouthLedge) throughthe constructionof
the lighthouse. The wholeof theevidenceadvancedby bothPartiesclearly
demonstratesthatthepurposeof theEast India Companyinconstructingthe
lighthousewas tohelpnavigationinthe Straitof Singapore.
The conductof the Partiesandtheir predecessorsin the yearsthat followed
the inaugurationof HorsburghLighthousesh
that the presence of it amountto a changewi
over PBP. To the contrary, theyconfirm that, on the one hand, Johor
continuedto consideritselfssovereignof PBPand itsneighbouring waters
and,ontheotherhand,Britain consideredthe extension of itsjurisdictionin
the region was limitedto ten geographicmiles from the main island of
Consequently,the situation as PBP remained
unchangedafter the constructionof the HorsburghLighthouse,i.e. Johor
kept its sovereigntyoverthe island. Allthat the EIC claimedand acquired
S from different
partsof Asia Chapter S
THE SUBSEQUENTCONDUCT OF TFE PARTIES mcLmmG THE
MAPEVIDENCE
Introduction
279. As notedalready,the Parties areentialIyin agreementaboutthe criticalquestion
in issue in this case,namely, whohad sovereigntyover PBP, Middle Racks South
Ledge in theyears immediately followthe inaugurationof the HorsburghLighthouse,
andonwhat basis. Malaysia'sclaimrestsonohor'soriginaltitleto the threefeaandes
Malaysia's succession thereto.Singapore'ase, emphasisedthroughout its pleadings
(includingnits discussion ofthe subsequent conductof the Parties)is that itstitIe"stems
fromtheBritish Crown's takiof possession oftheislandin 1847"followingwhich"title
was acquiredin 1847-185"?" It isno part of either Parties' casethat title wasacquired
throughthe conduct of thePartiesinthe period sincethe lighthousewas constructed. The
subsequentconductof the Partiesaccordingly peripheral.The Parties agreethatnothing
has happenedsince 1851that changesthe legal positionconcerningtitle as it subsistedat
thatpoint. TheParties'respective clto titlestand orfallbyreferenceto the positionin
1851.
280. Nonethelessthe conductof the Parties may have legal relevancein confirminga
legal title already established, andboth parties rely an the conduct of the other in that
respect. Inthis contextthisChapteraddressestwo issues:first. the subsequentconductof
the Parties;and second,the questionof maps. These issues properlygo togetherasthey
addresstheway in whichthe Partieshavedealtwith anddepictedthe threefeatures since
the mid-19~century. As theveryfullreviewof theconductclaimedby Singaporetorie
titredesouveraininMalaysia's Counter-Memorslowed,thereisnothingin Singapore's
subsequent conduct, includmapping,which could properly provia foundation fora
claim to title. In contrast, Malaysonduct is consistentwith and supportiveof its
original title to PBP and permissiongranted for the constructionof the Horsburgh
Lighthouse.
4I SCM,paras..8,6.7 respectively. A. TheConductof the Panties
281. 'Whilesubsequentconductis largely peripherat lo theassessmentof the respective
claimsto title,SingaporeaevertheIessputssubsequentconductinissuebycontendingthat
its "consistentconductdrtitredesouverain sincetheBritish authoritiestookpossessionof
the islandin 184T'is confirmatoryof itclaim?12The coreofthiscontentionis thatthe
conduct in question is indeed conduct cititrede souverain. On this the Parties
fundamentally disagree. As Malaysia demonstrated in comprehensive detailin its
Counter-Memorial,''thereis nothing - not a single item - in the conduct on which
SingaporereIiesthat is capableof sustaking Singapore'sclaimto sovereignty'~'~~ It~is
not conducth titrede somerain. It isconductinthe administrationof the lighthousethat
would have been undertaken ba yny operatorof a lighthouseas partof its administrative
responsibilities.4It doesnotconstituteevidenceoftitleandis innowayconfirmatoryof
title.
282. Thereare three questionsthat arise inrespectof the conducton which Singapore
reiie~.~'~First, is the conducth questionconducth titredesowerain? Secon&is the
conduct in question sumcient to offset the inferenceagainst Singaporeansovereignty
which derives from Singapore'sown inconsistentpractice? is the conduct in
questionsufficientto displaceMalaysia's sovereignty baseo dnJohor'soriginaltitleto the
island? In this regard, itis notablethat Singaporhas not at my point advanced a claim
basedonadversepossession.
283. These are cumulativequestions. Before anyweight can attach to the conduct
advancedby Singapore,the Courtmust be satisfiedthat the answerto each of them is in
theaffirmative, Singapore's conducm t ust bed titrde sowerain. Its conductasa whole
(not simplythat onwhichit relies) must be consistentwithits claimto sovereignty. And
this conduct must be of sufficient weight todisplace Malaysia's original title. In
Malaysia'scontention, the answer to eachofthese questionscannotbutbe inthe negative,
forreasonswhich weredevelopedindetailin h4alaysiaYC sounter-Memorial.
413 SCM,paras.6.4,6.8.
MCM, para.339.
4's MMC,pm. 339.
Seefrtrthe,CM, para. 341.284. A good deal of Singapore's responsein its Counter-Memorialon the questionof
subsequentconduct proceeds simplyby way of a restatementof argumentsthat it had
alreadyadvanced initsMemorial andtowhichMalaysiahas alreadyresponded. Thus,the
twincontentionsthat "titfwas alreadyvestedinSingaporebyvirtueof thetakingoflawful
possessionofthe island bythe BritishCrown duringtheperiod 1847-1851"andthat"[tlhis
title was subsequentlymaintainedby the United Kingdom's and Singapore'suninterrupted
administrationof Pedra Branca to the are simply repeated, likea rnantra,
throughoutthe discussion of subsequent practicein Chapter V1 of Singapore's Counter-
Memorial. Theyare atthe core ofSingapore'sresponseson the subjectof Malaysia'sand
Singapore'sconstitutionaldevelopments?" They are repeated in marginally different
languagein response to Malaysia's submissionr segardingthe character of Singapore's
administrationof PBP?'~ TheyarerepeatedagaininresponsetoMalaysia'scontentionson
the subjectofJ.A.L.Pavitt'scommentsregarding PBP?" Theyarerepeatedonce againin
summationof Singapore's case onconduct?ZoForgoodmeasure,they appearyetagainin
the context of Singapore's discussion of the 1953correspondenceand the relationship
betweenthemanagementofa fighthouseandthe issueofsovereigntyP2'
285. Thefirstofthese contentions,whichgoestothe heartofthis case, wasaddressedin
detail inMalaysia's Memorial, Counter-Memorial an earlier inthis Reply. Thesecondof
these contentionswas addressedin considerabledetailacrossfour chaptersin Malaysia's
Counter-Memorial.Onlythebarestofadditionalcommentonthis issueisnowrequired.
286. Centralaspectsof the substantiveargumentsadvancedby SingaporeinChaptersV1
and V11of its Counter-Memorialhave also already been fully addressedin Malaysia's
Counter-Memorial. This is the caseas regardsthe 13 or so specific heads of conduct
advancedby Singaporein its Memorialand repeatedin paragraphs6.39 and 6.71of its
Counter-Memorial. These were addressed in a line-by-lineanalysis in Chapter 8 of
Malaysia's Counter-Memoriaa lnd require no further commenthere. Observationshave
SCM,para.6.14,
417 SCM,paras.6.1& 6.19.
418 SCM,pm. 6.38 6.39.
'l9 SCM,para.6.62.
420 SCM,para.6.71.
42' SCM,para.7.21.also been made in Malaysia's Counter-Memorialon various subjects revisited in
Singapore's Counter-Memorial. These include Singapore's LiD ghts ~egislation:~ the
Indonesia-SingaporeTerritorialSea Agreement1973:'~ Malaysiannaval charts showing
Malaysianterritorialwaters>24 the StraitsLightssy~tern,4~a'ndthe 1953corre~pondence.~'~
In the lightof the furtherobservationsonthese elementsin Malaysia'sCounter-Memorial,
onlymarginaladditionalcommentontheseissuesisnowrequired.
(i) Applicableprinciples
287. Singaporeopens itsdiscussionon subsequent practicewith some commenton the
applicableprinciples.In particular,itnotesitsagreementwiththepropositionadvancedby
Malaysiain its Memorial that there is a presumptionagainst the easy abandonmeno tr
displacementoftitletoterritory. Italsonotes its agreement with theproposition thattitleto
territory can onlybe establishedbyconduct iititrede so~erain."'~This principleapplies
equally to the creatively amorphous process of acquisition ot fitle which Singapore
advancesin supportof its claim,that it somehowacquiredtitle through a processof taking
of lawful possessionin 1847(or perhapsduring the period1847to 1851).
288. Malaysia's title rests on the original title of Johor. If the practice on which
Singaporereliesis to haveanyrelevanceat all inthis case, Singapore mustshowthat it is
conduct Li fitre de souverain,that it is of sufficientweight and characterto displace
Malaysia's original title,and that Malaysiahas relinquisheditsclaim and has recognised
Singitpure's iiiie.As iii~Cira~~bu erf ik Coun ob~~rved rai;ert'iii iis ;iidgiieriritk
Benifliger Frontier Dispute case, citing the Judgment of the Chamber in Burkina
Faso/MaliFrontierDispute case, "pre-eminenceis to be accorded to legal title over
effective possessionas a basisof sovereignty"?28Insofaras Singaporereliesuponconduct
(a point whichremainsuncleargiven that Singapore has notat any stageadvanced a
claim based on adverse possession),it is clear that the burden rests on Singaporeto
show that the conducton which it relies is bothconduct Lititredesouverainand is of
sufficient weight and character to displace Malaysia' osriginal title. It is for
422
MCM,paras.332-333,343-344& 351.
'24 MCM,paras.552-554.
415 MCM,Chapter7.-546andthe AffidaviotfRear-AdmiraTlhanabalasingamM,CMvol. 2,Annex4.
'l7 MCM,paras.503-514.
428 SCM,para6.3;addressingpointasdvanced iMM,paras.186-187.
Case ConcerningtheFrontierDispute(BeninNiger),Judgmetf 12July2005,para.47. Mataysiato showthatitsconductsince 1851hasbeenconsistentwithits originaltitle,the
permissionit gavefor the constructionof the lighthouse,and the character of theisland
moregenerally.
289. In paragraph 6.5 of its Counter-Memorial,Singapore challenges Malaysia's
referencetheBelgiumflVetherland FrrontieLand case, Singaporeassertsthat"Malaysia
omitsimportantaspectsof the decisionsshequotesy'ndgoesonto quote an extractofthe
FrontierLand Judgmentwhich refersthe "complexsystemof intermingling enclaves
which existed"between BelgiumandTheNetherlands.
290. Theextractquotedby Singaporeisin factsetoutfully in Malaysia's~emorial?'~
Therehasbeenno omissionby Malaysia. Thepointmadeby Singaporeby referenceto
the"complexsystemof interminglingenclaveswhichexisted"is that''[tjhereare no such
difficultiesinthepresentcase"?30It foliows,presumably,inSingapore's analysis,that the
Court's rejectiooftheNetherlands' claim inthatcase,onthegroundsthattheconducton
which it reliedwas insufficientto displaceelgium'ssovereignty,is not appositehere.
Nothing could befurtherhm thetruth.
291. As Malaysia showedin Chapter 7 of its Counter-Memorial,the arrangements
regardingthe Straits'Lights Systemin the period1850 to 1946were both complex and
intermingling, and proceeded without regard to questionsof the sovereignty over the
territoryon whichthe various lighthouses thatformedpart of the Straits' Lights System
were constructedor by whom they were administered. The extract of the Court's
Judgmentinthe FrontierLandcaseisentirelyapposite. Indeedo ,necouldsimplyslotthe
namesand factsof the presentcase into the languageof the Court in the FrontierLand
case to arrive at a fair and proper assessment ofthe positionas it applied between
MalaysidJohorand Singapore/StraitsSettlements concerning lighthousesin the period
1850-1946:
"Theweightto beattachedto theactsreliedupon bySingaporemustbe
determinedagainstthebackgroundofthe complexsystemof the Straits '
LightsSystemwhichexisted. The difficultiesonfrontingMalaysia in
detecting encroachmentsupon, andin exercising, its sovereigntyover
4w MM,para.186.
430 SCM,para.6.6. PufuuBatuPuteh, givenSingapore 'sadministrationoxthe Horsburgh
Lighthouse,are manifest. The acts relied uponare largelyof a routine
and administrative character performed by local officials and in
consequence of the adminish-ationof theHorsburgh Lighthouse by
Singapore. They are insufficientto displace Mulaysia'ssovereignty
based onJohor 'Soriginaltitletotheisland.'*31
292, In paragraph6.7 of its Counter-Memorial, Singaporc eontendsthat "in the present
case,Malaysia'sclaimrests on her abilityto showthat she effectivelyexercisedterritorial
sovereignty over Pedra Brancay". This fundamentally misconceives the nature of
Malaysia's case andignoresthe burden uponSingaporeto proveitsclaim. Malaysia'stitle
is not based on the acquisitionof sovereigntyby occupationor adversepossession. It is
based on Johor's original title to PBP, Middle Rocks andSouth Ledgeand Malaysia's
successionthereto. Malaysia'sconductin respectof the three features since1851 reflects
the characterof the features,the permission
PBP, and Singapore'sadministrationof
permission. As Malaysiashowedin Ch al, its conduct since
185 1hasineverywaybeen consistentwith
0 Singapore's responseson constitutional developments and oficial
descriptions
293. In paragraphs6.10 to 6.50of its Counter-Memorial, Singapore addresse vsarious
arguments advancedin Malaysia's Memorial concerninc gonstitutionaldevelopments in
Malaysia and Singaporeandoflicialdescriptionsof Singapore relevantto an assessment of
.title?32 Malaysia contends that (a) there was nothing in Singapore's constitutional
evolutionwhichprovides abasis for or supports its claimto PBP, and (b) variousofficial
descriptions of Singapore-ranging from that in the Straits Settlements and Johore
TerritorialWatersAgreement,1927to the SingaporeCurfewOrder,1948to detailedand
purportedlycomprehensiveenumerationsby Singaporeof the islands that belongedto
Singaporein the officialseriesSingaporeFactsandPicturesand theAnnualReportofthe
RuralBoardofSingapore-eitherhadthe effectof excluding PBPor failedto includePBP
in circumstancesin which reference to PBP would have been expected. The basic
propositionis summed upinMalaysia's Memorialinthe followingterms:
431 Theunaltereparagraphof theCourt's JudgmenttheFronfiLendcase,p.229, wordinitnlics
substitutbyMalaysiaforthoseinoriginalreportisquotedinMM,para.186.
4'2 Forthese argumentsseeMM,paras.189-218.
146 "As this account shows, Singapore hashad a consistent andhighly
detailedappreciationofits territory. The four documentsnoted in the
preceding paragraph span a 53 year period straddling the crucial
developmentsin the transitionof Singaporefrom(a) the Settlementof
Singapore,part of the Straits Settlements,prior to1946, to (b) the
Colonyof Singaporefrom 1946 to 1958,to (c) the Stateof Singapore,
from 1958 to 1963,through(d)theperiodof Singapore'sparticipationas
part of the Federation of Malaysia between 1963-1965, to (e) the
Republic of Singapore, fromthe point of Singapore'sexit from the
Federation of Malaysia in 1965 to the period immediatelyprior to
Singapore's objection to Malaysia's map on 14 February 1980.
?'%roughou tis 53year period, in whichthe authorities in Singapore
haveevidentlypaid very closeattentionto theextent oftheir territory,
there was never any indicationthat Pulau Batu Puteh was part of
~in~apore.''~~
294. Singapore's responseto this argument is to contend that (a) Malaysia's
constitutionaldevelopment.must be seeninthe lightof its''explicitdisclaimer"oftitlein
the 1953 c~rres~ondence~~(~ b) Singapore, and its predecessor in title, the United
Kingdom,carriedouta steadystreamof officialactivitiesonPBP and withinitts erritorial
waters and its legislative measures and constitutionaldevelopmentsconked that
titleP3'(C)PBP never formedpart of JohorandMalaysiacannot referto a singleact of
administrationthat either Johoror Malaysia carriedout with respecttoPBP,~~(~d) the
StraiS tettlementand JohoreTerritorialWatersAgreement,1927hadnothingto dowith
PBP;~' (e) thCu@w Order,1948had nothingto dowithPBP;~' (0 the official series
SingaporeFactsand Pictures was not a legally comprehensivdescriptionof Singapore's
territod3' (g) the successiveAnnualReports of the Rural Board of Singapore was
equallynotcomprehensiveindetailingthe extentof Singapore'ste~~itory.*'
-
295. The subjectof the 1953 correspondence has alreadybeenaddressedat lengthby
Malaysia in both its Memorialand its counter-~emorial.~' In the light ofthe further
4" MM,para.218(emphasis added).
434 SCM,para.6.11.
435 SCM,para.6.12;seealsoparas.6.37-6.40.
436 SCM, para6.13-6.18.
438 SCM,paras.6.206.25.
SCM,pm. 6.31-6.34.
439 SCh4,para.6.43.
44' MM,paras.235-243;MCM,paras.503-5.14. I,:
arguments advanced by Singapore under thh ieading in Chapter VII of its Counter-
Memorial,somefurtherbriefcomment ismade on thi ssuebelow.
296. Singapore'sreferenceto a "steadystreamof oficial activities" in respectf PBP,
activities whichit says arecititre de souverain,is simply a repetition ofthe conduct
advanced inits Memorial. Paragraph 6-39of Singapore's Counter-Memoria isl an exact
repetition ofthe conduct on which it reliedin Chapter V1of its Memorial Thereis
nothingnew. Malaysia gave acomprehensiveresponse to theseclaimsin Chapter8 of its
Counter-Memorial,The essenceof Malaysia's response is that not evena singleitem of
the conductrelied uponby Singapore amountsto conduct ri titre de souverainthat is
capabIeof sustaininga claimto title,let alonecapable ofsustaininga claimto titleof a
strength and weightthat iscapablofdisplacingMalaysia'soriginaltitIe.
297. Malaysia'sconductasregardsPBP andits surrounding watershas alsobeenfully
addressed.44AsMalaysiaobservedin itsCounter-Memorialc ,onsiderationofthepractice
of the Partiescannotproceedin isolationfromits historicaland geographicalcontext. In
contrast, Singapore relies on isolated acts of conduct leaving out of account any
assessmentof whetherthe conductreferredto was part of a pattern of routineacts in the
administrationof the HorsburghLighthouseor whetherit amountedto manifestationsof
sovereign activity. Singaporewould thushave the Court ignorethe historical record
concerningthe Straits' Lightssystem andthe interaction betweeMalaysiaandSingapore
overcenturies. Singaporealsoignoresthejointandcooperative arrangementsconcerning
the SingaporeStraitin which Malaysia hasbeenactively engaged.As Malaysiaobserved
in its Counter-Memorial, Singapore'csaseon conduct-both its own and Malaysia's-is
constructedin very largemeasureon omissionratherthan on anyreflectionof the actual
purposeoftheconductonwhichitrelies.443
298. There is nothing in Singapore'sgeneralresponseto Malaysia's submissions on
Malaysianconductthat requires furthercommenthere. Singapore's assertion that PBP
never formed part of Johor is addressed indetail in Chapters4 and 5 of Malaysia's
Memorial,in Chapter2 of its Counter-Memorial, and in Chapter2 of this Reply. This
goestotheheartofthe case. Itisnot,however, a matterofsubsequentconduct
'
MM, paras268-282MCM, Chapte9.
443 MCM, ~BT~S547-548.299. This leaves Singapore'scontentions on the Siraits Settlements and Johore
TerritorialWatersAgreement,1927,the Ctidew Order, 1948,the Si~gaporeFactsand
Picturesenumerationof islandssaidto be partof Singapore,andthe similarenumerationof
islandsin the successiveAnnualReportsof the RuralBoardof Singapore. Singapore's
responseon these documents isthatthey eitherhadnothingto do with PBPor theywere
notdispositiveofthe extentof Singapore's territory.
300. The basic propositionas regards allof thesedocumentsisthat statedinMalaysia's
Memorial and recalled above. Ove treyears, Singaporehashada highlydevelopedsense
ofitsownterritory. Thisisnotsosurprisinggiventhat Singaporeiscomprisedofa number
ofmostlysmall islandswith a readilyidentifiableterritorial reach, asituation goingbackto
the creationof the Settlementof Singaporein 1824and whichhas never changed. The
geographic extentof Singapore asa Statethushingeson a clear appreciationof whichof
the outlying islandsin the Singapore, Malaccaand Johor Straitsfom part of Singapore's
territory.
301. Followingthe1824CrawfbrdTreaty,theStraits Settlementa sndJohoreTerritorial
WatersAgreement,1927hadasitsobjecttheretrocessionof"certainofthe saidseas,straits
and islets"to Johor. It did so,however,not by setting out an agreed andcomprehensive
definitionof Johor but by adopting an agreedand comprehensivedelimitation ofthe
geographic extentof the Settlementof Singapore. The existence and importance of
PBP,and Singapore's administrationof the HorsburghLighthouse, would havebeen
wellknowntothose whosignedthe1927Agreement.If therehadbeenanyunderstanding
at the time that PBP was part of Singapore,it wouldhave been a simple matter to
reflect this inthe text. But no mention is madeof PBP as being part of Singapore.
At a point at which those mostly intimately concerned with and
knowledgeable
about the territorial reach of Singapore were addressing,in a detailed and
comprehensive manner,the outer territorial limits of the Settlementof Singaporein a
documentthat wasintendedtobeenduring,nomentionatall is made of an island whose
strategicimportance Singapore emphasiseasnd which it claims was uncontroversially
part of its territory fro18.51. This is simply not credible. The 1927 Agreement
authoritativelydescribed and delimited Singapore's territorial reh.o mention wasmade of PBPin this exercise. It is true thatthe 1927Agreement didnot concern PBPas
such. TheomissionofPBP is,however,telling.
302. Asregardsthe Cufm Order,1948,Malaysiadoesnotcontendthat itconstitutesan
authoritativestatementofthe extentof Singapore'sterritory, The Orderis relevant for two
reasons. First, it repeats the territoriai description of Singapore given in the 1927
Agreement. In doing so, it reflects an appreciation thatthe language of the 1927
Agreementconstituted an accurate and definitive statementof Singapore's geographic
reach. Second,the descriptionof Singaporegivenin the Ordercorrelates,insofaras its
omissionof PEP is concerned, with the detailed listsof islands that formed part of
Singaporeset out in the Singapore FactsandPicturesand in the AnnualReportsof the
RuralBoard ofSingapore. It is thus partof a consistentpatternof conductrangingfrom
1927, though 1948t,hrough 1953, throughto 1972andbeyond,illustrating that Singapore
paidcloseattentiontothe extentof itsterritoryand hada consistentappreciationofit. The
RuralBoardreportof 1953states thatthe listof islandsfallingwithintheterritorialwaters
ofthe Colonyof Singaporeincludes &l the smallneighbouringisIands,whetherinhabited
or not.444The SingaporeFactsandPicturespublicationincludes amongst the54 islands
identified a number which are uninhabited, are smaller than PBP and which have
lighthouses.
303. Singaporeseeksto persuadetheCourtthat itacquiredtitleto PBPin 1851andthat
iihas acted as suvesign h respect of fie isiaocieversince. lne ciocumenis TO which
Malaysia points, howeverf,undamentailychaIlengethatproposition-especiaily iftheyare
read together. PBP featuresnowhereon successive, detailed lists of Singapore'soutlying
islandsuntil the crystallisationof this dispute. The documentsto which Malaysiarefers
thusattestto anabsenceof anyappreciationbySingaporeoveranextended periodthatPBP
formed part of Singapore'sterritory.
(iii) Singapore 'Sfurtherargumentsconcerningitsownconducf
304. Inparagraphs6.51to 6.73of itsCounter-MemorialS , ingaporerevisitscertainof its
ownconduct whichhadbeenthe subjectofcommentinMalaysia'sMemorial. Leaving to
one side the epithets ("cavalieryy",unirnpres~ive'~t),e elements on which Singapore
444 SeetheextractatMM,paras.213-214.
150focuses are (a)its lightdueslegislation,44b)J.A.L.Pwitt's comments regardingPBF:~~
-.)the differencesbetweenPulau Pisang and PBP:~~ and (d) the Indonesia-Singapore
TerritorialSea Agreemen1 t973.~~'Somethingshouldbesaidabouteach.
(a) Singapore's liehtdues legislation
305. As regards Singapore'slight dues fegislation,Malaysia'scontention is that the
special additionalreferences in the Light Dues(Amendment)Ordinance 1958 to the
lighthousesat "Pedra Branca (Horsburgh) andat Pulau Pisang" indicated that these
lighthouses,although administeredby Singapore,did not fall withinthe 'cwatersof the
Colony"of Singaporethatwas otherwiseaddressed by thelegislation.Theneed for special
reference suggeststhat, absent sucha reference,light duesin respectof these lighthouses
wouldnot havebeencoveredby the legislation.Furthermore,giventhe undisputed status
of Pufau Pisang as a Malaysianisland, notwithstandingthat the lighthousethereon is
administeredby Singapore,the referencestothe lighthousesat"PedraBranca(Horsburgh)
and at PulauPisang"constituted evidenceof an appreciationby Singaporethat thesetwo
lighthouses,and the islands on which they stood,are subject to a special regimeof
lighthouse administration. This readino gf the 1958Ordinanceis supportedby a plain
readingofthetermsofthe SingaporeLightDuesAct 1969.
306. Singapore disputes this readingof its legislation. It does notdo so, however,by
referenceto the languageof the measures themselves. Rather, iftalls back on the mantra
that"Singaporehasalreadyshown thatshe wasadministeringPedraBrancaat therelevant
date and that the island and its territorial waters consequently fell squarelyithin the
defrnitionof 'Singapore' inthe119691 AC~."~~' This merelyasserts whathasto be proved
andtakesmattersno fUrtheratall.
307. As regards the1958Ordinance,Singaporeagain side-stepsthe plain languag oef its
ownmeasure,preferringinsteadto rely on aspeechinthe SingaporeLegislative Assembly
inwhich special referencewas mado enlytothePulauPisanglighthouse.
Thisis discussedatMM,paras,246-256;MCM,paras.343-352.
446 ThisisdiscussedatMM,paras.257-263.
447 Thisis discussedatMM,paras.232-234,2&0246;andMCM,Chapter 7generallyandparas.304-
305specifically.
44s Thisis discussedatMM,paras.264-2&6MCM, paras.550-554.
449 SCMIpara6.57. 308.
It is telling when a State has to fall back on inconclusive languagein a
parliamentary debateto oustthe plainlanguageandevidentmeaningof legislation. This
approachwouldnot be acceptedin a Singaporeor Malaysiancourtand it should notbe
accepted bythis Courteither. This isnot simplya questionof statutoryinterpretation;it
goes also to the substantivepovertyof the point whichSingaporemakes. The plain
languageof Singapore's light dues legislatiin1957-58 and 1969 isclear. It placesthe
Horsburghand PulauPisanglighthousesina specialcategory. It makesspecialreference
to them in termswhichimplythat, but for that reference, lightues in respectof these
lighthouses, botadministeredbySingapore, would notbecoveredbythelegislation.
309. There isa furtherelementto allthiswhichSingaporealso failsto address. Thisis
that the administratiof theStraits' Lightsnthe periodafter1946can onlybe properly
understood inthe light of the developmentof the Straits'Lights systemand its
administration priorto this date. This elementis addressedin detailin Chapter 7 of
Malaysia'scounter-~emorial!~~
310. The significantpoint for present purposesis that afte1946 both Malaysia and
Singaporelegislatedto make provisionto secure fundingfor the maintenanceof the
Straits'Lights. The Federation ofMalaya didso first in1953 by the enactmentof the
FederationLight DuesOrdinance 1953. Singaporefollowedsuit in 1957, in legislation
that was subsequentlyrevisedby the 1958 Ordinanceand thenrepealedand replacedin
1969, Giventhat the Singapore"station"underthe Straits'Lightssystem4*'had been
responsiblefor the maintenanceof fiveof the Straits'Lights-Horsburgh, Fort Canning,
Raffles, PulauPisang,and SultanShoal-the intent ofthenewlegislation wasto provide
forthe continued maintenance of thesleightsand othersthathad beenconstructed since.
Both theHorsburghariP dulauPisanglighthouses,although administeredbytheSingapore
"station",were situatedon Johor territory.Singapore'slightdues legislationreflects this
bymakingspecialreferencetothese lighthousesinthelegislation.
45P Seeinparticulparas:331-334.
45' SeetheMCM, patas.329-330. (b) Pavitt'scommentsregard inPBP
31 1. On the subjectofJ.A.L.Pavitt's comments regardingPBP, Malaysia's contention
is that in his writings on the Horsburgh Lighthouse, Pavitt, Singapore's Direcrfo
Marine, distinguishedbetweennavigationalaids ''h Singapon:watersy7and those "for
outlyingstationsat PedraBranca(Horsburgh)inthe SouthChina SeaandPulauPisangin
the Malaccap trait"?^^'2 doingso,Pavittexplicitlydistinguishedbetweenthe Horsburgh
and PulauPisanglighthouses,on the onehand,andtheRaffles, SultanShoalandFullerton
lighthouses, onthe other. In Malaysiacontention,this distinctionby perhapsthe most
authoritative sourceof the day between the various lighthouses of the Straits'Lights
system administeredbythe Singapore"station"is cogentacknowledgementof the special
status of the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang lighthouses. There is no other plausible
explanation.
312. Singapore responds by saying that Pavitt's reference to "Singapore waters"
"simplyrefersto the watersaroundthe Islandof~in~a~ore~~?I~ tgoes onto suggestthat
the Horsburghand PulauPisanglighthouses"were distinguishedas 'outlying stations'in
contrastto the Raffles, SultanShoaIand Fullertonlighthouse^"? F^ially, it contends
that the c'misguidednature of Malaysia's conclusionsregarding Pavitt'scomments is
underlinedbya letterwrittenon his behalfi1967 by D.T . rowninwhich Brownsays "I
have been advisedthat the waters within3 milesof HorsburghLighthouse(at the eastern
entranceto the SingaporeStrait)maybe consideredto be Singaporeterritorialwaters".
313. A number of observationsare required in response. m, there isno basis in
substancefor Singapore's assertionthat Pavitt'sreferenceto "Singaporewaters" mustbe
read as a referenceto "the waters aroundthe Islandof Singapore". Noproofis offeredin
support of this proposition, which contradictsthe plain meaningof the words. The
SingaporeLight Dues Board was responsiblefor the maintenanceof all the lighthouses,
lightsand other beacons that fell within the administrative remit of the Singapore
"stationyy. These were not confined to "the waters around the Island of Singapore",
whatever geographicalconnotationthis phrasemay carry-a point left unaddressedby
Singapore.
452 TherelevanextraisreproducenMM,para. 259.
453 SCM,para.6.61.
" SCM,park 6.61, 314. Second in asserting that, in Pavitt's writings,the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang
lighthouses"were distinguishedas 'outlying stations' icontrast to the Raffles, Sultan
Shoal andFullertonlighthouses",Singaporeoverlooksdocumentsto whichit hasreferred
elsewherein its own pleadings. Thus ,t Annex 82 to Singapore's Memorial, in the
Annual Reportof the Marine Departmentof Singaporefor 1950,the followingstatement
isfound:
"Atthe requestof theFisheriesDepartment the lighthousekeepers of the
four seaward lighthouses have, since 1949,collected daily samples of
sea waterfor thepwpose of investigatingthe salinity of Malayanwaters
N..455
The reference to "Malayan waters" here was the subject of comment in Malaysia's
counter-~emorial.~'~ For present purposes, the question is what was meant by the
referencesto the four"seaward lighthousesy".
315. Referencesin the precedingparagraphsof the same report indicatethat the four
seaward lighthouses,alsoreferredto asthe"Singaporegroupof lighthouses", included
''Horsburgh (Pedra Branca) distant 33% miles; Fort Canning in
Singapore;Raffles distant 10% miles; SultanShoal distant 13%miles,
andPulauPisangdistant43%miles.'*57
316. Of the five lighthousescomprisingthe SingaporeStation,to whichPavittreferred,
fourwerelocatedmorethan I0 milesfiomthe Singaporemainland.Thereisthusnobasis
forSingapore's assertion that the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang lighthouses were
distinguishedfiom the RaMes, SuitanShoal andFullertonlighthousesbecausethe former
ware "outlying"whereasthe latterwereinsomeway"inlying"orcoastal.
317. as regards Singapore's relianceon the 1967 letter by D.T. Brown, it
providesno contextor other explanationto theletter. Singaporeis not able to offer any
other contemporaneous documentto show that Singapore,in 1967,claimed for itself a
territorial sea around PBP. There is no indicationof who Brawn was advisedby in
455 SM Annex82, p.720(emphasiadded).
"' MCM, paras.361-362.
4" SMAnnex82,p.720.makingthis observation. Nor is it evidentthat Brown waspurportingto offer a definitive
viewaboutthe status of the watersaroundPBPor whetherhe was simplysayingthatthese
waters "may" be consideredto be Singapore territorialwaters, i.e., whether he was
commentingon a hypo--etical;whetherhe was writingwith any knowledgeof the actual
status of PBPand its surroundingwaters;or whether he was addressing correspondence
which raisedtheseissuesin somewiderpolitical context. Brown's letteris so unclear that
itcannotbegivenanyweight.
318. In any event, especiallygiven the absence of any contextto Brown's letter,the
authoritativevoice in all of thisustbe-Pavitt's. Pavitt'smonographwas publishedin
1966. It is fancifulto suggestthatthere wasa completeandunexplainedchange ofviewin
the mind of Singapo- -s Director of Marine on the basis of an unexplained,
uncontextualised, unpublished lettebry his subordinatethe followingyearwhich proceeds
onthe basisof"I havebeenadvised"thatthewatersaroundPBP"may"beconsideredtobe
Singaporewaters.
(c) Thedifferencesbetween PulauPisangandPBP
319. Thereisnodisputethat Singaporeis responsibleforadministerintg he lighthouse on
PuIauPisang. Equally,thereis no controversythat the islandis Malaysian territory.The
wider frameworkinwhichSingaporecameto administerthe PulauPisang lighthousewas
addressed in Malaysia's discussionof the Straits' Lights system,of which both the
Horsburghand PulauPisanglighthouseswereanintegralpart?58
320, Singapore'sonly refuge is tosaythat "each istandhad a verydifferentlegal and
factualhistory"andthatthey "weresubjecttoentirelydifferentlegalregimes".45vIt istrue
that thetwo arenot identicalandthat thishelpsto explainthe differentwayinwhich they
weretreatedat certaintimes. But forpresent purposes,however,the similaritiesbetween
Pulau Pisangand PBPare more importantthan their differences. They were bothpart of
the Straits'Lights system. Bothlighthouseswereconstructed bythe Britishon landthat
was part of Johor sovereignterritory pursuant topermissiongranted by Johor for the
constructionof the lighthouse. Both lighthouseswere administeredby the Singapore
458 MCM,Chapter7.
4S9 SCM, paras6.63& 6.66. '"statioaspartofthe StraitLightssystem,althoughtheywerenotsituatedin Singapore
territory.
321. ThePulauPisanglighthouseis relevantto the presentdiscussionbecauseit neatly
liftstheveilonthe complexitiesandrealitofstheStrai Lishtssystem. Simplyto say
that thereare differencesbetweenPulauPisangandPBP is to say nothingat all of any
substance.
322. Forcompleteness, onthe questionof differences between PulPisangand PBP,
Malaysia observesimplythatthecharacterofPulau PisangandPBPas islandsis entirely
different. PulauPisang is considerablylarger thanPBP, with the lighthouse andits
associatedpropertytakingup a fraction of theterritoryofthe isAsnthe Indenturein
respect of thePulauPisanglighthousemakes clear,the initialFebruary 1885agreement
was for the grant of "a plot of ground in the Islandof Pulau Pisang in the Straitsof
Malaccaasa site fora Lighthouse aadroadwayfromtheretothe beach". Followingthe
constructionoftheIighthouse,theIndentureof6October1900wentonto grantthe plot of
landon whichthe lighthouse wasconstructed,the roadwayconnectingthe plot of landto
the beach, a Iandingplace contiguousto the beach, and a landing causewayand pier
adjacenttheretoP60
323. InthecaseofPulauPisang,theneedforthe Indenturewasto delineatebetweenthe
territoryof the island grantedfor purposesof the constructionand maintenanceof the
lighthouseandthe remainingterritoryof theislandwhichwas notavailableorrequired for
suchpurposes. Inthe case ofPBP, its small sizeobviatedanyneed to delineatebetween
the territory madeavailable for purposes of the constructionand maintenanceof the
lighthouseandotherhabitable territoryontheisland.
The lndonesia-Sin~aporeTerritorialSeaAmeement1973
(d)
324. As regardsthe Indonesia-SingaporTeerritorialSeaAgreement1973, Malaysia's
contentionsare straight-forward. The Agreementdelimitsthe boundaryof the territorial
sea betweenSingaporeand Indonesia.It is not drawnbyreferenceto PBP. R makesno
accommodation forPBP. Its conclusionwas not accompaniedby any reservationof
466
Indentuef6 October1990,MMAnnex89. Seealabove,paras.184-185.
156position by Singaporeregardingthe claim status of PBP as a Singapore island. The
Agreementis silentonthesubject.
325. Had Singaporeconsideredthat ithad sovereignty overPBP, some referenceto or
reservation of positioin respectof PBPwouldhave beenexpected. The absenceof any
suchelementistellingandatteststo the absenceof anyappreciationon Singapore'spartat
thetime that it haditletoPBP. Furthermore,there is nosuggestionthat any majorpartof
the territorialsea boundary betweenIndonesiaand Singaporewas held over for future
negotiation.
326. Singapore's responseis simplyto say that the Agreementdoes not ''effectuatea
completedeIimitationof the two States' maritimzeones".461In supportof this position, it
quotes an extract ffom the collection on maritime boundariesedited by Charney and
Alexanderwhich says that''thedelimitationin this agreement has beenleft 'unfinished'
exceptintheheavilynavigated portion ofthe StraitofSingapore."
327. This contention cannot withstandscrutiny. First, by reference to the 1973
Agreementitself, there isno suggestion thata discrete portionof the boundaryremains
unaddressedand heldover for further negotiation. On the contrary, as pointed out in
Malaysia'sCounter-Memorialt ,he languageof theAgreementis definite andunequivocal,
talking of "the boundariesof the territorial seasof the two countries inthe Strait of
Singapore".
328. Secon$ as to the Charney-Alexander quotet,his datesfrom 1993 and reflectsthe
factthatatthat time the disputebetweenMalaysiaandSingaporeover PBPhad crystallised
andbecomea matterof public knowledge. Moreover a,stheCharney-Alexanderquotation
indicates,the 1973 Agreement doesnot delimit the tri-junctionsat both ends of the
SingaporeStrait. To this extent it istrue that the 1973Agreementis not a complete
delimitation. But it is one thing (and a common practice) for a bilateral delimitation
agreementt:o stopshortof the putativetripointwith anotherState:it is somethingelseagain
for an agreementwhichis expressedto delimit "theboundaries of the territorial seas
of the two countries in the Strait of Singapore" to omit a substantial
SCM, para.6.68.sectionofboundarywithin andatthe entrancetotheStraitof Singaporewithoutsomuchas
a referenceto theomission. HadSingaporehadanysenseat allthat itwas sovereign over
PBP,goodsensewouldhave includedthiswithinthe delimitationas it wouldsignificantly
haveimprovedSingapore's positioninany later delimitationof the tri-points. Atthe very
least,Singaporewouldhavetaken stepsto reserveitsposition.
(e) Conclusionsonthe subjectof Singapore's conduct
329. In its conclusionof its discussion of itsownconduct Singaporerecapitulatall of -
theconductonwhichit reliedin its~emorial.~~Malaysiaaddressedthiscomprehensively
in its Counter-Memorial.As Singapore's tactic of repetition suggests, ads is borneout
bythe precedingreviewof Singapore's substantivc eomments,Singapore's attitude to PBP
(outsideof the fiameworkof its administrativeresponsibilitietsowardthe lighthouse)has
beenequivocalat best. It cannotpointto any conduct cititrede souverainasregardsthe
island. Its explanationsfor itsown conductcontradictingany appreciationof sovereignty
overthe island areunconvincing. Its relianceon practiceis puffed out by repetitionof
administrativeconduct. It failstotakeanyaccount,in its discussion ofitsown conduct,of
the singularfeaturesoftheStraits' Lightssystem.
Singapore 'responses on bilaferalconductoftheParties
(iv)
330. In itsMemorial,Malaysia highlightedthree examplesof the bilateral conduct of the
Parties which showed, in dealings with Malaysia,the absence of any perceptionon
Singapore'spart thatit had titleto PBP. The conductcited was the 1927Agreement,the
management of Straits' Lights system, and the 1953 exchange of correspondence.
Singapore's response inits Counter-Memorialon the 1927Agreement andStraits' Lights
system was brief, remarkablyso in the case of the Straits' Lights systemgiven the
centralityofthesearrangements. Incontrasttoitsresponseonthe I927Agreementandthe
Straits' Lightssystem, Singapore devotedChapter VII of its Counter-Memorialto a
response to Malaysia's submissionson the 1953 correspondence. This element is
accordinglyaddressedseparatelybelow.
462 SCM,para.6.1. (a) The.,1927Agreement
331. Singapore's response onthe questionof the 1927Agreementis simplyto saythat
the purposeof the Agreementwas not the comprehensivedefinitionof the Iirnitsof the
landterritoryandterritorialwatersof Singapore. Itgoesonto reiterate thatthe Agreement
merelyaffecteda retrocessionofcertainmaritimeterritoryand isletsbacktooho or?'
332. Malaysia does not take issue with the stated objective of the 1927 Agreement,
which is clearfiom its opening article. However, as has already been observed,the
singularfeature of the 1927Agreementis that the retrocession proceededby wayof a
detaileddelimitation ofthe geographic extentof the Settlementof Singapore, rathan
byadefinitionor descriptionoftheterritoryof Johor.
333. But Malaysia does not rely on the 1927 Agreement only as an authoritative
delimitationof Singapore'sterritorialreach. Rather,the 1927Agreementis importantfor
two other reasons. First, it is one instance ina chain of consistentpracticethat stretches
from 1927through to the criticaldate of this disputin which the territorial extentof
Singapore is described in considerable detaif, including in official publications of
Singaporeitself, butin whichno referenceto PBP is to be found. Second,this consistent
practiceis at odds withthe assertionnow madeby Singaporethat it acquired sovereignty
over PBP in 1847,or otherwiseintheperiod 1847to 1851,and that it has consistentlyand
knowingly exercisedits sovereigntyoverthe islandever since.
334. If Singaporehad acquired sovereigntyoverPBP in the mid-19' centuryas it now
claims, itis inconceivable,giventhe strategicimportanceof the island,that no reference
would have been made to the islandin the string of documents starting withthe 1927
Agreementin which the geographic extent of Singapore is described in detail. The
existenceandimportanceof PBPandtheHorsburghLighthousewouldhavebeenfamiliar
to those whosignedthe 1927Agreement. Hadthere beenany senseat the timethat PBP
was part of Singapore, it is unlikely that reference, even if only passing and for
completeness,wouldnot havebeen madeto PBP. It is difficultto acceptthat, at a point
atwhichtheouterterritoriallimitsoftheSettlementof Singaporewasbeing addressedina
documentthat was intendedto be enduring,no mention is made at all of anisland which
Singaporenowclaims was uncontroversiallypartof its territoryfrom 185l. Moreoverthis
463 SCM, paras6.97-6.99. difficultyismultipliedaswe multiplytheoccasionsonwhichSingaporecould havemade
sucha reservation or reference andiledtodoso.
) TheStraits'Lightssvstem
335. On the subjectof the Straits'Lights system,Singaporeis remarkablybrief?* It
appearsto accept thatthe construction and maintenanef lighthouseswhich were partof
the Straits'Lights systemboreno necessaryrelationshiptothe sovereigntyoftheterritory
on whichthe lighthouseswere 1ocatedPb5Nonetheless,it takes issue with Malaysia's
-
analysis, contendingthat "[ilt is untenablefor Malaysia to argue that, just because
Horsburgh Lighthouse is part of the Straits Light system, it is not situated in
BritisWSingaporeterritory".466It goes on to take issuewith Malaysia's analysisof
QrdiianceNo.XVIIof 1912and contendsthatJobor was not oneof the FederatedMalay
Statesandwas thusnota contributortotheStraitsLights~und.~~'
336. TheexistenceandoperationoftheStraits' Lights systemwasaddressedindetailin
Chapter7 of Malaysia's Counter-Memorial in terms whic chmprehensivelyaddressthe
argumentsadvanced in Singapore'sCounter-Memorial.NevertheIess,giventhe central
importanceof theStraits'Lightssystemtothe presentcase,somefurtherbriefcommentis
appropriate.
337. The essential propositionsthat follow firornthe existence and operationof the
Straits'Lightssystemmay be simplystated. Firs itw as common practiceby Britain,
France and other maritime States,in the period fiom around the mid-19& to mid-2om
centuries,to constructandmaintain lighthouses onforeign territory, whetheron the basis
of express permission or otherwise,without such conduct amountingto a taking of
possession of the territory on which the lighthouse was situated for purposes of
sovereignty. Second, the subsequentmanagementand operation of these lighthouses
equallydidnotconstituteconduct lititre desowerainforpurposesof sovereignty.
thiswiderpractice was reflectedinBritish conductin the constructionand administration
of lighthousesin the Malacca andSingaporeStraitsin the periodfromthemid-19&to the
46s SCM, paras.6.100-6.103.
SCM,para.6.101viz."theinclusionalighthousewiththeStraitsLightssysmasnoimpact
466enitSCM,para.6.101."
'" SCM, pam. 6.102-6.103.mid-20' centuries. Fourth,the factthat a lighthousewasmanaged bythe Governorof the
Straits Settlementsas part of the Straits'Lightssystemhadno bearingon the sovereignty
overthe territoryonwhich thelighthousewas situated. Fifth,lighthousesadministeredby
the Governorof the Straits Settlementsas part of the Straits' Lights system were not
administeredaspartof the territoryofSingapore. Sixth twas entirely consistentwith this
practicethat theHorsburgh Lighthouse, an integra plart of the Straits' Lights system, was
constructedbyBritainand administeredfromSingaporeonthe basis ofpermissionto doso
grantedby Johor andwithout prejudiceto the continuingsovereigntyof Johor overthe
islandonwhichthe lighthousewaslocated.
338. The legislativeframework ofthe Straits' Lights system is describedin Malaysia's
Counter-Memorial,including the elements of the1912Ordinancewith which Singapore
takes AlthoughJohorwasnotoneofthe FederatedMalayStates(apointnotedby
Malaysia),this does not obscure thefundamental point,commonly acknowledgedby
British representativand others, that themaintenanceand administrationof a lighthouse
by the Straits Settlementhad no necessary bearingon the sovereigntyof the territory on
whichthelighthousewassituatedbut,rather,wasdictatedbytheColony'sexpertise?69
(v) Singapore 'SresponsestoMalaysia cosnduct
(a) Preliminar,observations
339. In its Memorial,Malaysiapointedto a numberof examplesof Malaysianconduct
whichareconfirmatoryof its title toPBP. This includedMalaysian navalchartsshowing
Malaysian territorial waters, including aroundPBP, the 1968 Petroleum Agreement
between Malaysia and the ContinentalOil Companyof Malaysia, thedelimitation of
Malaysia's territorialea in the area aroundPBP,and the Indonesia-Malaysia Continental
ShelfAgreement1969.4~'
340. In its Counter-Memorial, Malaysia supplementetd hese examples with hrther
detailed evidence on Malaysiannaval patrols in the waters around PBP, and the
appreciationof senior Malaysian and third Statn eavalofficersofMalaysian sovereignty
468 MCM,paras.306-319.
469 MCM, para315.
470 MM,paras2.68-282.overPBP.~~'Of particularnotewas theAffidavit, accompanied by documentary annexes,
by Rear-Admiral(retired) Thanabalasingam,the former Chief of the Royal Malaysian
~av~?~' AS regardsthese patrols,the Rear-Admiralatteststhat "[tlhe Royal Malayan
Navypatrolledthe waters around PulauBatu Puteh rightfromthe point that Britainfirst
handedoverthe navyto theMalayanGovernmentinJuly 1958"',47t3 he patrolstaking place
"routinely" throughout the Rear-Admiral'sservicethroughto the pointof hisretirementas
Chief ofthe Royal MalaysianNavy on 31 December 1976.~~~ This timeline affirms a
period of consistentconduct by Malaysiarunning from the earliest days of the Royal
Malayan(laterMalaysian)Navy throughtothe crystallisationofthisdispute. It alsorebuts
Singapore's allegationthat relevant Malaysian conduct "only date[s] back to 1968 at
341. Additionalevidenceprovidedby Malaysiain its Counter-Memorial attested to the
historicuseof thewatersaroundPBPbyJohorfi~hermen.4~O ~f particularimportancefor
purposesof providing necessarycontextto both Malaysianand Singaporeanconductin
respect of the waters around PBP, Malaysia also addressed the historical interaction
betweenMalaysiaand Singapore, includinginrespectof lighthousesa ,nd thehistoricaland
on-goingcooperationbetween Malaysiaand Singaporeinthe field of maritime safetyand
relatedmattersthathavea bearingon thewatersaroundPBP?~~
342. This analysis pointsto three conclusions, First,the wider contextof Malaysian-
"Cinn~nnr~an int~ra~tinn"~nd rnn~e~ti~: in ~e~pct cf r?,&ine sefev iz Zngapcre zq,?",
ministration of
MalaccaStraitsprovidesimportant context,both
the HorsburghLighthouseandto the on-going
matters today. Second,Malaysia'son-going soverei ests in respectof PBP,Middle
Rocks and South Ledge continue to be expressed and exercised in the context of
Malaysia'sparticipationin cooperative ventures with Singapore, Indonesiaand other
States in respect of the waters aroundPBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Third,
operativeforainwhichit
Singaporeis unableto point to anyconductof
47' MCM,paras. 533-546.
MCMAnnex4.
473 AftidaviofRear-AdmiralThanabalasingam,MCMAnnex 4,at para.51.
"" APfidavitofRear-AdmiralThanabalasingarn,MCMAnnex4,at pm. 60.
475 SCM,para.6.75(a).
476 MCM,paras.516-532andAnnexes5 & 6.
"7 MCIM,paras.487-500.either asserted sovereignty overPBP, MiddleRocks or South Ledge, or reserved its
position onthisissue.
343. Singapore responded to theexamplesof Malaysia'sconductin paragraphs 6.74to
6.94 of its Counter-Memorial,Inthe lightof Malaysia'shrther treatment of these issues
initsCounter-Memorialo ,nlybrieffirthercommentisrequiredin responseto Singapore's
arguments.
(b) Malaysia'snavalcharts
344. On the subjectof Malaysia'snavalcharts~'*Singapore's principalcontentionof
substanceisthatthechartsin questioncannoh taveanyprobativevalueastheyareinternal
Malaysianpractice and arenotopposabIeto Singaporefurthercontends that
these chart wsere nothingbut a "projection"of the mles of the 1958 Conventionon the
TerritorialSeasbythe Malaysian navy withoutregardto the legalboundariesbetweenthe
concernedStates in the wedB0 Singaporefurther suggeststhat this "projection" did not
necessarilyreflectthe viewsoftheMalaysianGovernment as a whole,asdemonstrated by
the factthat,while Malaysia askedSingaporeto stopflyingthe Singaporemarine ensign
overthe lighthouse on PulauPisangthat sameyear, it didnot makea similarrequestin
respectofthefIyingof themarine ensignovertheHorsburgh~i~ht.house.4~'
345. Singapore's contentions regarding theflying of the marine ensign over the
HorsburghLighthousewereaddressed fbllyinMalaysia's Counter-Memorial, includii nng
respectofthe alleged contrast withthePulauPisang~i~hthouse.~~ Thiselementdoesnot
thereforerequireany furthercomment.
478 In SCM,pm. 6.78,SingaporeobservedthatMalaysiadid notexpresslyreferto anyannexed maps.
The absenceof a cross-referencein Malaysia's Mewlasan oversight, remediedin the MCM,para.
533. In any event, the appropriatewasrincludedandclearlymarkedin theMap Atlasannexedto
Malaysia's Memoriat, e titleap25 beinggivenas follows: "AdmiraltyChart2403,SingaporeStrait,
1936[;]Chart Showing Outer limitsof MalaysianTerritorial Watersand Foreign claimedwaters inWest
MataysiaC;Drawn by Naval StaffDivision, Ministryof DefenceMalaysia, 19Singapore correctly
identifiesthischart,and thatatMap20 in Malaysia'sMaasttherelevantchartsinSCM,para.6.78.
479 SCM,para.6.79. Also,para. 6.81.
480 SCM,para 6.80.
481 SCM,para 6.80.
482 MCM,paras. 378-399. 346. As regards Singapore's other contentions otnhe question of Malaysia'snaval
charts,fust t,ere can be no doubt whateverthat the Letter of Promulgation,and its
attached chartlets, issuby the Chiefof the Royal MalaysianNavy to the Naval Staff
Divisionof the Malaysian Ministryof Defence reflectedin every smalldetailthe formal
viewsof the MalaysianGovernment onthesematters. It is disingenuousof Singapore to
suggestotherwise.
347. Thecharacterand statusof Lettersof Promulgationare addressedin detail inthe
Affidavitof Rear-AdmiralThanabalasingama ,ttachedasAnnex4 to Malaysia'sCounter-
~ernorial?'~ nese matterswillbe familiarto Singapore, andto itsseniornavalofficers
and civiliannaval administration,as both the Malaysianand Singaporean navieshave
emergedfrom the same naval tradition. The following observationsby Rear-Admiral
Thanabalasingam onthispointwmmt emphasisforpresentpurposes:
"45. 1should emphasisethatnormal navalordersarenot issuedbyway
ofLetters of Promulgation. Lettersof Promulgationare reserved for
specific orders of particular importance, The object of a Letter of
Promulgationis to informSeniorand CommandingOfficersof matters
that its essential for them to know, such as thelimits of a State's
territorial waters, or particularproblems associatedth international
waterways or foreign waters about whichthey should be especially
aware.
...
68. ...when itcameto drawingup the Letterof Promulgationthat I
eventually issuedin July 1968, two factors weighed heavily on the
process. The first was the need to identifythe limits of Malaysian
territorialwaters, pendingthe extension of thesewatersto 12 nautical
miles,which I expectedwould occur. The secondwas to identifythe
limitsof foreignclaimedwaters,notablythoseclaimedbyIndonesiaand
the limits of Si~lgapore'territorial waterThe reason was to ensure
thatnavaloperationsweresensitiveto the limitsofthesewaters.
...
75. As I examinethischarttoday, andreadthe accompanyingnotes,
36 yearsafter Iissued the Letterof PromulgationI am quiteclearthat,
in 1968,we had no doubt that PulauBatu Puteh (as well as Middle
Rocksand SouthLedge) wereMalaysianterritory. Equallyimportant is
the fact that these chartlets formed the basis of the on-going Royal
Malaysian Navy patrolsinthesewaterstowhich X havealreadyreferred.
Theonly restriction thattheymarked in respectof patrolsin thewaters
around Pulau Batu Puteh was south of the line marking Indonesian
ClaimedWaters."
483
AffidavofRear-AdmiraTlhanabalasingaM,CM Annex4, para3646,64-75. As is clear from these extracts, reinforcedby the wider evidenceof Rear-Admiral
Thanabdasingam,theLetter ofPromulgation and its accompanyingchartletsreflected the
clear and official appreciation ofthe MalaysianState abouthe limits of its territorial
watersandthoseofboth IndonesiaandSingapore.
348. Second,it wiiI alsobe clearfiomthese extracts,and fromthe evidence of Rear-
".. AdmiralThanabalasingamas a whoIe,that the Letter of Promulgation andits attached
chartletswere notsome unofficialand abstract "projection"of the limits of territorial
waters withoutregardto the legalboundariesof all the Statesconcerned. Asthe Rear-
Admiralattests,the Letter of Promulgation waspreparedwith painstaking attentionto
detail?84Where there wasuncertaintyaboutterritorialwaters'limits,the Rear-Admiral,
his staff and those advisingi were carefulto reflect that uncertaineS5 bothin the
LetterofPromulgation and initsattachedchart~ets?~~
Furthermore,the Letter ofPromulgation andchartletswere prepared andissued
349.
pendingthe extensionof Malaysian territoriawaters to 12 nauticalmiles,not to effect
such ane~tension?'~ As the Rear-Admiralfurther attests, contemporaneously with the
preparation and issuing of the Letter of Promulgationand chartlets, Malaysia and
Indonesiabegandiscussingmaritime delimitation issues ihe Singapore Oneof
the objectivesof the Letter ofPromulgation andchartfets,reflected expresslyon the face
of these documents,was to identify the limits of waters claimed by Indonesia and
Singaporepreciselyso as to avoidany confrontationbetweenMalaysiaand these States
that might haveresultedfiom Malaysian naval patrols inadvertentlyoperatingin waters
claimedby these States. The annotated versionof (British) Admiralty Char2403which
wasattachedto theLetterofPromulgation shows the boundarylinebetween Malaysia and
Singaporedescribed indetailinthe 1927StraitsSettlementsandJohoreTerritorial Waters
~~reemenp~' Similarly,the chart depictsthe limitsof "Indonesian Claimed waters"PPo
484 AffidavofRear-AdmiraTlhanabslasingaM,CMAnnex4, para.46.
AffidavofRear-Admiral ThanabalasingamC,MAnnex4, apara73.
486 AffidavofRear-AdmiraTlhanabalasingaM,CMAnnex 4,atpnras.70-74.
'" AffidavitRear-Admir alhanabalasingaM,CMAnnex4, atpara.68.
488 AffidavofRear-Admiral ThanabalasingamM, Annex4 atpark66.
Affidavof Rear-Admiral ThanabalasinamC,MAnnex4, atpara.71; andthechartattaased
Map25 intheMapAtlastoMalaysia'sMemorial.
490 Affidavof Rear-AdmiralhanabaiasingaM,CMAnnex 4,atpara74;andthechartattachas
Map25 intheMapAtlasto Malaysia'sMemorial. In any case where therewas uncertain ms overlappedwith
claims, actual or potenti,f Indonesia solid line depicting
Malaysianterritorial aterswouldtaketheformof apeckedline.dg'
350. m on the question of theprobative valueof the Letterof Promulgationand
chartlets,itistruethat these constituteinternalMalaysianpractice. Singaporeis, however,
incorrectinjumpingto the conclusion in no way dispositive
andarenotopposableto ~in~apore"?~~
351. The Letterof Promulgation andchartletsare relevantfor three distinctpurposes.
First, theydemonstrate aclear, developedand well-groundedappreciationby MaIaysia
thatPBP,MiddleRocks and SouthLedge,andtheirsurrounding waters,wereMalaysian.
This is importantnot only as it is conhatory of the consistency of Malaysia's
appreciation of sovereignty but also because it is evidence that cogently rebuts
Singapore's assertionb,ased,forexample, on the1953
not havesuchan appreciationof sovereignty. Second,
well-grounded appreciationby Malaysia that there were no competing claims by
Singapore(or anyotherState)in respectof e Rocks andSouth Ledgeandtheir
surroundingwaters. The Letter of Promu chartletsfaithNly and accurately
reflect Malaysia's understandingof the limits of Singapore and Indonesian claimed
waters. The fact that these documents were sensitive naval documents, internal to
Malaysia,addstotheir weightandveracityonthispoint astherecan be no suggestionthat
theywere producedforanywider seIf-servingp
352. Third,thesedocuments,whilenot opposableto Singaporeas such, werethe basis
of on-goingnaval patrolsbytheRoyalMalaysianNavy in thewaters aroundPBP,Middle
Rocks and SouthLedge onthe understanding thatthese waterswere Malaysianwaters.
The evidencerelatingto these patrolswasaddressedinMalaysia's Counter-Memoria alnd
in the AEdavit attached theretoby Rear-AdmiralThanabalasingamPg3As the Rear-
Admiral attests, these patrols andother related naval activity "tookplace routinely
-
49' AEfidaviafRenr-AdmiraTlhanabalasinga, CMAnnex 4, at pm, 72-74;and thechart
attachedasMap25inthMap AtlastoMalaysia'sMemorial.
492 SCM,para.6.79.
493 MCM,paras.533-546;Affidavitof Rear-AdmTlhanabalasingn,CMAnnex4, atparas.51-
63 (notabl, ara.andAttachment1-5).Pulau Batu Puteh waters hout the period of my tenure as Chief of the Royal
MalaysianNavy from 1 er 1967 to 31 December 1976."94 These patrols were
manifestand opendisplaysof Malaysiansovereignty,yet "Singaporenever onceprotested
againstthese patrols".49sThe factsofthese patrolsareopposableto Singapore. TheLetter
of Promulgation andattached chartlets go to the b e patrols and are thus
probativeof Malaysia's sovereignty overPBP,Midd South Ledge and their
surroundingwaters.
(c) The 1968PetroleumAweement betweenthe Governmentof Malavsiaand
the ContinentalOilCorn~anvofMalavsia
353. Respondingto Malaysia's relianceon the 1968Petroleum Agreementbetweenthe
Governmentof Malaysia andthe ContinentalOil Companyof Malaysia, Singaporeasserts
that the concession agreement didnot encompassPBPand was speculative in that it left
open the factthat relevant internationalboundariesmay be established in the futureP9'
Singaporehrther notes that islands, includingthree-mile belts of territorial sea around
them,were expressly excluded fromthe concession.497 Singaporealso seeks torely onthe
Court's dictumin the LigitanandSipadancase to the effect thatit could not in that case
draw any conclusion iiom the practice of the parties in awarding oil concession^^^^
Finally, Singapore argues that Malaysia didnot provide any evidence that the actual
coordinatesoftheconcession were made publicatthetime.499
354. As will have been evidentfromthe geographiccoordinatesof the concessionarea
reproduced at Annex 110 of Malaysia's Memorial as well as from the map of the
concessionarea reproduced on page 120 of Malaysia's Memorial,the concessionarea
encompassedanextensivemaritimearea offthe eastcoastof Peninsula Malaysia,including
the watersaround PBP. As with the watersimmediatelyaroundall of the islands covered
by the concession, the waters immediatelyaround PBP were not includedwithin the
concession area. This was an indiscriminate provision which related to all
494
49' AffidavitofRear-AdmiralThanabalasingam,MCMAnnex4,at para. 60.
AffidavitofRear-AdmiralThanabalasingam,MCMAnnex4, at para.60.
496 SCM, para.6.83.
Og7 SCM,para6..85.
SCM ,aras.6.86-6.87.
499 SCM ,ara6.88. islandwithin the concessionarean,ot simplyto PBP. It hasnobearingonany question
of statusregardingany islandwithin theea.
355. Malaysiarelies on the 1968Petroleum Concession Agreemen for three reasons.
First,it is evidenceof Malaysia's appreciathat the entireconcessionareafell within
Malaysia'scontinentalshelf. This point is expresslymade in the First Schedule ofthe
concession, whichaddressesthe "ContinentalShelfff the EastCoastof WestMalaysiayy
byreferenceto detailedgeographiccoordinateswhichencompassan areaextendingto and
beyondthe watersaroundPBP.
356. Singaporecontendsthatthe preciseextentof the concessionarea was speculative
in that the First Schedulerefers to an area "extendingto the International Boundaries
whereverthey may be establishedyy. hatSingaporefailsto address,and what is made
abundantlyclear Zjrorthe Letterof Promulgationand accompanyingchartlets,as well as
fiom the mer elucidation of this matter in the Affidavit of Rear-Admiral
Thanabalasingam,isthat,while theremayhavebeensomeindeterminacyoverthe precise
reachof theconcessionareainthe south,the area ofuncertaintywas precisely identified.
It relatedto the area coveredby notation'?ndonesianClaimedWaters", insofar as this
overlappedwithMalaysianmaritimeclaims,as depictedby thesolidand peckedSmeson
thechartletattachedto the LetterofPromulgation.Thisarea ofuncertaintywassomeway
to the southof PBP, Middle Rocksand South Ledge,Malaysiansovereigntyover these
features andtheir surrounding watersnot beingin doubtat this time. Furthermore,as
Rear-AdmiralThanabalasingamattests, at thepoint at whichthe petroleum concession
was awarded, Malaysiaand Indonesiawere activelyengagedin discussionsabout the
delimitationof the maritimezonesbetweenthem in this area.Insofar asthere was any
speculativeelementat all, therefore,this did not relate toPBP,Middle Rocksor South
Ledge ortheir surroundingwaters.
357. Thesecondreason forMalaysia's reliance of the concession agreemenits that it is
evidenceofactualStateconductbyMalaysia--conduct htiiredesouoerain-in respectof
an area whichMalaysiaconsideredto fallwithin itssovereign territory.In otherwords,
Malaysia'sappreciationof sovereigntyin respectofthi areawasnot simply an abstract
appreciationbut one which was manifest in public form opposableto aII. As with
Mdaysian navalpatrolsin this area,the awardof the concessionagreementwas an opendisplayof Malaysi ich, had itbeendisputedby Singapore,wouldhave
calledfora protest.
358. Particularly when taken together with other contemporaneous conductby
Malaysia-notably the Letterof Promulgationand chartletsand RoyalMalaysianNavy
patrols of the waters around PBP, Middle Rocks andSouth Ledge-the award of the
concessionagreementis illustrativeof a widerandconsistent appreciationbyMalaysiaof
its sovereignty overthis area. Thisdistinguishesthis practice from thatin issue in the
LigitdSipadan case where,asthe quotationcitedby Singaporemakes clear, the islandsin
disputedidnot fallwithintheconcessionperimeters.
359. The third reason forMalaysia'sreIianceon the concession agreementftowsfrom
the second. The concession agreement was concludedopenly. It was widelypublicised,
includingin trade journalsand the Straits~irnes?" Whilethe precise coordinatesof the
concessionareawere notpublished,thefactthat itcovered the full lengthofthe east coast
ofWestMalaysiawasknown, Itwasalsothe casethattheconcessionaire, ContinentaO l il
Company, worked its concession initiallyfromtheJurongMarineBase, which belonget do
the SingaporePort Authority.Thegeneralregionof theconcessionarea isthereforelikely
to havebeen familiar tothe Singaporeauthorities. Particularly itnhe case of uncertainty
over the extent of the concession area,had there been any basis for concernthat the
concessionarea mighthaveencroachedintosovereignSingaporeterritory,protest or,atthe
least,enquiryby Singaporemight havebeen expected. The explanation for Singapore's
silenceisthat it was unconcernedwiththe concessionas it had no territorial intereststhat
couldpossiblybe affectedbyanoilconcessionoffthe east coastof WestMaleysia.
(d) Malaysia'sdelimitationof itsterritorialsea
360. In its Memorial, Malaysia drewattentionto the extension, by its Emergency
(Essential Powers)Ordinance1969,of its territorialwaters from3 to 12 nm and the fact
that this legislation extendedMalaysianterritorialwaters to and beyond PBP.~" This
legislationattest to two things; first,Malaysia's convictthat PBP andits surrounding
'O"ee MM, pam. 278.
501 MM, para.279. waters fefl within its territorial waters; second, an absence of any appreciation by
Singaporethat MaIaysia's conduct in any way touched upon Singapore'sterritorial
interests.
361. Singaporeconteststhisanalysis,suggestingthatthe Ordinance"expresslyleftopen
the questionof delimitationbetweenMalaysiaand her neighburs".5" Singaporecites
section 3 of the Ordinance in supportof this contentionand goes on further to quote
"Section 12, paragraph1,of the saidOrdinanceyy c,ontendingthat '%is provisionclearly
cannotprejudgesovereigntyoveranylandterritoryor island"?03
362. As an examinationof the Ordinanceat hex l l1 to Malaysia'sMemorialwill
show, Singaporeis in error both in its readingof section 3 of the Ordinanceand in its
reference to "section 12, paragraph jtY'ofthe Ordinance. As regards section 3, this
provides,in paragraph 1, that "[ilt is hereby declaredthat the breadth of the territoria1
watersof Malaysiashall be twelve nauticalmiles andsuch breadth shallbe measuredin
accordance withArticles3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11,12and 13 of the Geneva Conventionon
the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone(1958),which Articles are set out in the
Schedulehereto". Contraryto Singapore's contentionthis sectiondoesnot leave openthe
questionof delimitationbetween Malaysiaand her neighbours.
363. It seems more likely that Singapore intendedto refer not to section 3 of the
Ordinancebutratherto Article 12,paragraphl of the 1958GenevaConvention scheduled
tothe Ordinancepursuantto section3. Thisprovidesthat Stateswith oppositeoradjacent
coastlinesarenot entitled,failingagreementbetweenthem to the contrary,to extendtheir
territorialseas beyond the median line, Section6 of the Ordinance,which is controlling
onthis matter,variesthis provisionbyprovidingthat Malaysia may,by order,modifythe
areas of the Malaysia's territorial waters pursuantto any agreement entered into by
Malaysiaand another coastalState. Contraryto Singapore's contention, therefore, the
effectofthe Ordinancewas to extend Malaysia'sterritorialwaters to 12nm, subjectto a
latitude to revisethis in places subsequentlyin the lofhan agreementconcluded with
anotherStates.
SCM,para.6.90.
SCM, pm 6.91. 364. Whileitisappropriateto correctSingaporeonthis smalldetail,aswithsomuchof
Singapore'spleadings,Singapore's laof attentionto detail obscuresa widerand more
importantpoint. As has alreadybeen observed,his is simplythat the 1969 legislation
atteststo the fact that, in 1969,Malaysiahad nodoubtthat PBP fell withinMalaysia's
territorialwaters. In this regard, Malaysia's apprecev, idencedby its affirmative
conduct,that ithadtitle to PBP,findssupportin Singapore'sappreciation,evidenbyd
itssilenceandanabsenceof protest,thattheislandwasnotpartof Singapore'sterritory.
(e) TheIndonesia-Malaysia ContinentalShelAmeement1969
365. On 27 October1969, Indonesia andMalaysia concludedan agreementdelimiting
thecontinentalshelfbetween them.Thefactof thenegotiations, antheAgreementitself,
were a matterofpublic record.Although Point 11fthisboundarywas only6.4 nm from
PBP, Singaporeat no point asserted any interest,raised any objectionor reserved its
position?04
366. InitsCounter-Memorial Singapore contendtsatit wasnot obliged to reactto the
Agreemenffirst,becauseit was res inferaliosactaand, second,becausethe Agreement
"carefbllyavoidedany intrusion into the areain the vicinity"of PBP~" The realityis,
however,somewhatdifferent. Singapore's silencien the face of this Agreement,which
certainly approachethe vicinityof PBP closely,minors its silencein fac ef every
other instance ofconduct in respect of PBP that would have been inconsistentwith
Singapore'sclaimto sovereignty overthe island,if indeedSingapore entertainedsucha
claim at that time. Thus, PBPdoes not featurein key documents,ranging from 1927
throughto 1979, issuedby Singaporeor to whichit was a party and which addressed
Singapore'sterritorialreach. Singapore'ssilence these documentsis mirroredby its
silenceinthe faceof Malaysiannaval patrolsinthewaters around PB, iddleRocksand
SouthLedge fkomthe earliestdaysoftheRoyalMalayan Navyin 1958,extendingthrough
thelate 1960sand intothe 1970s. Singaporewassilentinthe faceof the 1968Petroleum
Agreement. Itwas silent in the faceof the extensionof Malaysia'sterritorialwatersin
1969. It wassilent in the face of theIndonesia-MalaysiaontinentalShelfAgreement
1969. It failed to say anythingto reserve itsposition in the context oownts1973
*" MM, para280;MCM, para555-556.
*OS SCM,pwas. 6.92-6.93.TerritorialSeaAgreement with Indonesia. The reality,whenthe piecesof the puzzleare
presentedtogether,is that Singaporehascomeby its claimto sovereignty very latein the
day. Nothingelse can explain this consistesiIence.
(Q ConclusionsonSingapore'sresponsesto Malaysia's conduct
367. Given the character of PBP, Singapore's administrationof the Horsburgh
Lighthouse,the historical interactionbetween Malaysia and Singapore stretching over
centuries,including in respectof the Straits' Lightssystem, andthe more recent bilateral
andmultilateralcooperativearrangementsin the field of maritimesafetyin the Singapore
Strait,it is not surprising thatMalaysiacan point to only a few examplesof unilateral
conduct whichillustrateits sovereigntyoverPBP. Butthese examplesare in every respect
consistent and affirmative of Malaysia's title overPBP. The evidence, adduced in
Malaysia'sCounter-Memorial, regarding naval patrols and related naval conduct, is of
particularlysignificance. In contrast, Singapore'sresponse to Malaysia's conduct is
characterisedby silence. It has said nothingand done nothingto contradictMalaysia's
conduct.
(vi) The1953correspondence
368. Singaporedevotes a separatechapterto the 1953correspondence?06It contends
that (a) the 12June 1953lettersent onbehalfofthe SingaporeColonial Secretary "in no
way showsthat Singaporerecognised Johor'stitle to PedraBranca",(b) the Anglo-Dutch
and Crawfurd Treaties of 1824 are irreIevantto the present dispute,(c) there is no
correlation between the status of Pulau Pisang and PBP, (d) Singapore's internal
correspondenceconfirmsSingapore'sownershipof the island,(e) Singapore consistently
and constantly reconfirmed its ownershipof PBP,and (f) the letterfromthe Acting State
Secretary,Johorisa clear disclaimerof sovereigntybyMalaysia.
369. Theseissueshavealreadybeenthesubjectof extensivecommentinbothMalaysia's
Memorialandcounter-~ernorial?~~Insummary,Malaysia'scontentionsonthispointare
asfollows:
306
507 SCM,ChapterVII.
MM, paras.235-243;MCM,paras.03-514.
172 First, the lettersent on behalf of the SingaporeColonial Secre12rJune 1953
indicates quite clearly,in contrast to the argument that Singapore now advances,
that in June1953 Singapore did nothave any sense that PBP was part of the
territoryof Singapore.
Second, this correspondencealso indicatesthat the Singapore Colonial Secretary
hada clear understandingofthe extent of Singapore's sovereignty.
m, the reference, in the letter senton behalfof the Colonial Secretary,to the
position of Pulau Pisang indicates an understandingthat the administration and
managementof a lighthouse was distinctfrom and was not determinativeof the
sovereignstatusofthe territory whichthe lighthousewas located.
Fourth, the internal Singapore correspondencein response to the reply from the
Acting State Secretary, Johorisequivocaland confirmsthat itwas not, even at that
point, Singapore'sview that PBP wasat that time already a part of Singapore's
territory.
Fiftahtnotime subsequentto this correspondenceand beforethe critical datedid
Singapore evertake anysteps to assert a claim tPBP, On the contrary,as the
documents (referred to above) which enumerate the islandsthat form part of
Singaporeattest, Singaporeat no time manifestedany appreciationthat PEP wasa
Singaporeanisland.
Sixth .he letter fromtheActingState Secretary,Johoro21 September 1953 does
notreferto sovereigntyoverPBPbuttoownershipofthe lighthouse.
Seventh,the letterof12June 1953 sent on behalfof the ColonialSecretary clearly
showsthat Singaporewasawarethat PBPwaspartofthe SultanateofJohor.
370. Nowhere is the equivocationand uncertainty underlyingSingapore's claim of
sovereigntyoverPBPmore apparentthanin itsdiscussionofthe 1953 conespondence. On
the one hand, Singapore's case rests categorion the propositionthat it acquiredtitle,
through Britain,in1847or in the perio1847 to 185I. ?he point is encapsulatedin the
followingparagraphfound inthe midstofitsdiscussionofthe1953conespondence:
"It must however berecalled that,inthe present ease,Singapore's titleis
not based onthe role of the lighthouseas an effeectividr se. As
explained in Singapore'smemorial, Singapore's titleis based on the
lawfultakingof possessionof the island. This title is confirmedby the
administrationand control of the island and the maintenance of the facilitieson it for more t150 yearswithoutanydisputeor contention
byJohoror Malaysia oranythird ~tate."~~~
And thenwe havereferenceby Singapore tothe 1953 correspondence. Leavingaside the
substanceofthe issues raisedbythe1953 correspondencet,here isa glaringnonsequiturin
Singapore'sclaim. The veryessenceof its claim isthat it acquiredtitle, demonstrably,by
the takingof lawfulpossessionin 1847 or the period1847-51, It eschewsconduct as a
basis ofclaim. But it nonetheless seeksto rely on ambiguous correspondencein 1953
whichopens witha letter sent on behalf of the SingaporeColonial Secretary, explicitly
expressinguncertaintyabout theveryposition that Singapornow assertsis clearandwas
always clear, andconcludes, followingan ambiguousletterby the Acting State Secretary,
Johor, with totalinactionby Singaporeto assertany claimto PBP. Whatthis showsisthat
the essentialbasisof Singapore'sclaimtPBP intheseproceedingsrestsona legal theory,
a fiction,whichit hasdeveloped asanafter-thought.There was noclearand unambiguous
taking oflawful possessionby Britain in 1847-1851. This was no part of Singapore's
conceptionoftheposition in 1953.Thetheoryofsovereigntythat Singaporenowadvances
issimplyapegonwhichto hangitscase,
(vii)Conclusionsontheconduct
371. The issueof subsequentconductis peripheralto the claimsof both Partiesin this
laysia's succession
dispute. Malaysia'sclaim to titlerestson
thereto. Subsequent conductis relevant tothislaimonly insofaras Malaysiamust show
that it has not abandonedits originaltitle.
conductin respectof PBPis necessarilylim
and other considerations identifiedabove, it is titrede sowerain and
undoubtedlysufficienttomaintain sovereigntyderi r'soriginaltitle. Asboth
Partiesaccept, thereis a presumptionagainsttheeasy abandonmentof title. Moreover pre-
eminenceis to be accordedto legaltitle over effective possession,a positionwhichagain
bothPartiesacceptand which isrepeatedlyaffirmedinthejurisprudence of theCourt. By
referencetothese principles,thereis nobasison whichto displaceMalaysia's originaltitle.
308 SCM,pwa.7.21.372. Singaporeadvances atheoryof a takingof lawfulpossession in1847 or perhaps
overthe period 1847to 1851. It doesnot advancea claim based on adverse possession.
Subsequentconductisnot thereforerelieduponby Singaporeas a basisof title, It is said
onlyto be confirmatoryof title. But an examinationof the conducton whichSingapore
relies in support of its claim showsthat there ishing in its own conductthat can
properly bedescribedas conductcititrede sowerain. Every item of Singapore'sown
conduct inrespectofPBP isproperlycharacteriseasconductintheadministrationof the
HorsburghLighthouse. It cmot pointto anyconduct cititrde sowerain as regards the
island. It alsofaiinitsanalysis,toreflectthecomplexitiesofthe Straits'Lights system.
It fails to addresstheealtiesof the historical interactionbetweenthe Parties and the
relevanceof the characterofPBP. Andinrespectof conductthatisinimicalto itsclaimto
sovereignty, thereis onlysilence. Singapore'sconductis insufficientto sustain itsown
claimto title. It iscertainlyinsufficienttodisplaceMalaysia'soriginaltitle.
B. TheMapEvidence
373. Turningto thequestionof maps,twopreliminaryobservationsshouldbe madeat
the outset abouthe totalitofthe mapevidence advancedby the Parties. Firs dets.ite
Singapore'sclaimto have exercised sovereigntover PBP andthe twofeaturesfor over
150years, in all the 89 maps and charts produced byboth Parties in two sets of
pleadmgs-a representativeselectionof the total mapsand charts of the area of which
thereare many--there isonlyone map,of 1995,which showsPBPas part of Singapore.
Thismapwasin factproducedbefore theCourtbyMalaysia, not~in~a~ore.~~ Singapore
has not been able to produce any maps of Singapore which showPBP as part of
Singapore.
374. Second,thereare no mapsof maritimeboundariesinthe area ofPBP whichshow
or evensuggestthat Singaporehasany maritimeboundariesin the areaofPBP,as would
be expected ifSingaporehadactuallyhadsovereigntyoverthe islandforover150yearsas
itnowclaims.
509 MM Map AtlasMap48. 375. Beforerespondingin detail to Singapore'sargumentson the map evidencein its
Counter-Memorial,it isusefulto briefly recallParties argumentonthe mapevidence
intheirMemorialsandCounter-Memorials.
(i) Malaysia'smgumentsonthemapevidence
376. In its Memorial, Malaysia showedthat the cartographic historyof the region
provides generalsupportfor Malaysia's cof sovereigntyoverthe three features,PBP,
MiddleRocks andSouth As observedbyMalaysia,in the presentcasethereis
no map havinglegalforce in the manner describedby the Court in FrontierDispute
Case(Burkina~aso/~ali). W~h'tthemapevidencedoes show isthat:
o mapsoftheregionsho connectionincontemporary
PBPandPointRomania;
e post-1824maps,insofaras they showedthe divisionbetweenthe British
and Dutchspheresof influence,treaPBP as fallingon the Britishsideof
the
mapsof Singaporenever includedPBP,MiddleRocksand SouthLedge, by
insetor otherwise,untilthe 1990s,well afterthe criticaldate in this case,
14February1980. Mapsof Singaporeconsistentlyshowit as consistingof
the main island of Singaporeand the islands within the 10 mile limit
establishedbythe 1824Crawfurd~reaty;fl4
apartfiom a fewequivocalmaps [discussedbelow),there isno suggestion
inany other mapsof Singapore,Johor,Malaya or Malaysia,thatPBP and
the otherwo featuresarenotpartof~ala~sia;~'~
Malaysia consideredPBPiswithinMaiaysianterritorialwatersasshown in
-~
its1979 publication ofa 2-sheet mapdepictingthe limitsof its continental
shelfboundaries;516
formed
thereis no suggestioninthe ch
geographersof third Statesthat PBPis other than Malaysian.The United
'l0 hth4para301.
'" MM, para.02,citinFronti eisputCase (BtvkinaFasdMaIi1986 ICJReport554,582
pm. 54).
' MM, paras306-308.
'l3 MM, pm. 310.
si4 MM, paras.312-314,323324.
'l5 MM,pm. 315-319.
"' MM, para.320. States Geographer's1974 depictionof international boundarylines in the
regionand a 1994map producedby the United KingdomDirector General
of Military Surveyshowsthat these Statesdid notconsider that Singapore
had any maritime territory in the area of PBP. Certainly there is no
indicationor suggestionin either of these mapsthat there is a Malaysia-
Singaporeinternationalboundary inthe areaofPBP;~'~
r thereare British mapsshowing PBPasbelongingto Malaysiaandthereare
no Britishmapsshowing PBPas belongingto Singapore.
377. 'Inits Counter-Memorial,Malaysiaobservedthat if Singapore hashad sovereignty
over the threefeatures (as it claims it has had since at least 1851),this would implya
maritime boundaryline whichat least delimits the areaaroundPBP and MiddleRocksat
the entranceof the SingaporeStrait in the China SeabetweenSingapore,Malaysiaand
Indonesia. However,Singaporehas neversoughtto delimitsucha boundarywithMalaysia
or Indonesia, noreven reserved itsrights in circumstanceswhere it could have been
expectedto do so. Nor haveany depictionsof internationalmaritime boundariesin the
area, whether by the Parties themselvesor agenciesof third States, suggestedany such
delimitati~n.~'~Not onlyis thereno suggestionof a Singaporemaritimeboundaryin the
area of the three features, but asignificantnumberof maps indicate completemaritime
limits around Singaporewhich placePBP in Malaysianwaters and outside Singapore
waters.
Singapore 'sargumenfsonthemapevidence
(ii)
378. Singapore introducedonly 12 maps and charts in its Memorial, forthe most part
directedto its argumentsconcerningMiddleRocksand SouthLedge,exceptforfourmaps,
three editionsfromthe same series(two publishedin 1962and one in 1965)and another
mapof 1974,all of which, it argued,representadmissionsagainst interestby ~ala~sia.~'~
Three of these maps were also producedby Malaysia in its ~emorial.~~~Singapore
discussedthese four maps at length:2' claiming that theyare a "significant numberof
MM, para322,325.
'IB MCM, Chapte r0.
'l9 SM,para.7.50SCM ,ara.9.4.
MM,para.321,Map Atlas, aps34,39& 41.
52' SM,paras.7.38-7.50.maps published over a significant period" and,as such, represent admissions against
interes:yMalaysia.
379. Singapore's responsein itsCounter-Memorialto Malaysia'm s ap evidencemakes
two mainpoints:5"(a) mapsfromthe late 16' centuryto the early 1 centuryshowthat
PBPwas not consideredto have any connectionwith the Johormainlandor to be partof
Johor's dominions;and (b) afficialmaps of the State of Johor fro1887showthat PBP
was notconsideredto be partof the Stateof oho or. S'i^gaporealso makesa numberof
small, more specific pointson individualmaps produced by ~ala~sia."~ Although
Malaysia's response wifllcusonSingapore's two mainpointsinorderto retainan overall
viewof themapevidence, for the sake of completenesseach ofthese smallpoints will also
beaddressed.
fiiQ Malaysia'Sresponse
380. Beforeturningto Singapore'sfirstmainpoint,it should beobserved thatnowherein
Singapore's extensive discussion omapss25is thereanyreferenceto the absence ofany
Singaporemaps showingPBPas partof Singaporepriorto the criticaldate. Singapore is
silentonthiskey point. It does noteven attempttoexplainwhytherearenomaps showing
PBPas part of Singaporeeven though,it asserts,the Singaporeauthoritieshadconsidered
PBPto bea partof Singaporeforwellover 100yearssince1850. Wy are thereno maps?
The only likely explanation for the complete absence o mfaps showingPBP as part of
Singaporeis because the Singaporeaufnoritiesciidnot, contrruyto Singapore'scase,
considerthatPBPwaspartofSingapore.
381, Singapore's firstmain point on the map evidenceis that there are "numerous
historicalmaps rangingfromthelate 16' centuryto the early 19* century[which show]
thatPedra Branca wasnot considered tohave any connectionwiththeJohor mainlandorbe
part of Johor's domini~ns".'~~Singaporefirnishes two historicalmaps which, it says,
S12
SCM, Chapte9r.
524 SCM,para,9.5,
Singaporquestionstheattribunf Mapsl5& 16ofMMMap Atla(SCM,para.9.16).
"' That"numerouh-sistoricalmapsrangingfromthelate16"centstheearly 19"century [show]
that Pedraancawas not considero haveanyconnectionwiththeJohormainlandorbepartof Johor's
dominionsy':,paras.9.5(a) & 9.9.clearlydepictPBP in a differentcolourfromthe Johormair~land.~"The first of the two
maps,Maps3(a)and (b), a republicationof a 1617map byPetrusPlancius,Hydrographer
tothe DutchEast India Company,of theEastIndiesdoes notshowPBP in anycolour,but
none ofthe islandsof the size of PBP are coloured becausethey are so small that their
depictionby black line completelyfills in the space,feavingno room for colour. Colour
codingis not conclusivein anyevent5" ButMaps3(a)and 3(b)of Singapore'sCounter-
Memorialdo not support Singapore'sconclusionthat PBP is depictedin a "different
colour''fromthe Johormainland-it is not colouredat all. The secondmap furnished by
Singapore, a reproductionof Les isles de Zasonde entre ZesqueZZessonr Sumatra, lava,
Borneo, be of 1654 does not, contraryto Singapore's assertion,clearly show PBP in
yellow. Thismap is not a very accurate depictof the area and it is not clearto which
islandthe title "Pedra Bruca" is intendedto refer. Neitherof the most likelycandidates
appeartobe coloured yellow.
382. Singaporealso arguesthat thereare many historicalmaps of the region between
1595to 185I that show PBP"considerably removed fromthe mainland"and so "mapsof
the period do not show a close connection betweenPedra Branca and the Johor
mainland,"529The first point to note is that the scalein these early maps isinaccurate.
Second, the phrases employed by Singapore to describe the maps it annexes---
"considerablyremoved from the mainland", "significantdistance";30 "far out into the
China or "isolatedfeat~re"~~~-areratheropaquedescriptionsofthe mapsto which
they refer. For example,PBP is notactually illustratedas "far out intothe ChinaSea" in
Map 2 of the Singapore Counter-MemorialMap Atlas as suggested by Singapore's
commentthereon. In any case, Malaysia's poinitn its Memorialis thatthe threemaps it
refers toshow 'Yheclose connectionin contemporaryeyes betweenthe Johor coast,the
islandin the RomaniagroupandPulauBatu~uteh".'~~None of the mapsthat Singapore
fhishes show any differently:PBP isprominentlyshown andlabelled off in the area
betweenPoint Romania, Johor,and PulauBintanin the entranceto the SingaporeStrait.
Thereasonforthis isobvious. PBPwasperhapsthe bestknown rockinthe easternmouth
SCM,para.9.11andSCMMapAtlas,Maps3 and4.
SeeSCM,para.9.10.
SCM,para.9.9.
CommenttoMap1,SCM.
Commentto Map 2,SCMMapAtlas.
MM,mepara. 07-308.nd3,SCMMapAtlas.of the Strait. It wasa key nauticalmark in the area forsafenavigation,and sailors took
their bearingsfrom Point Romaniaand PBP,as shown inthe "Vues des Terres dansles
DCtroits7inEelfin'smap of 1755'~~ and inthe WubeiZhi Chart and accompanying sailing
instructions completedby MaoYuanjiin in about 1621.5~~ Suarez'sEarly Mapping of
SoutheastAsia, citedbySingapore,details the roofPBP as aguideto sailors.536
383. Turningto Singapore's arguments on the 19" centurymaps,'37Singapore claims
that "the maps published in the19~century discussedin Malaysia's Memorial are neither
indicative,nor dispositiveofthe issueoftitle".538Itsaysfurtherthat
ct that, untilhe
"...these maps donot, in any way, c
Britishauthoritiesin Singaporetook lawful ossessionofPedraBrancain
the period 1847-1 831, sovereignty overthe island was undetermined.
This reasoningis not inconsistentwith Thomson7 msapof 1849showing
a boundarydrawnaroundSingapore. ..For Malaysia,the fact thatPedra
Branca was not includedamongst Singapore's dependencie osn the map
meansthat this island wasnot consideredas belonging to Singapore. In
reality..this map deals onIy with islands lying within10 miles of
Singapore and thus did not encompass Pedra Brancafor obvious
384. The obvious reasonPBPwas not includedon the 1849map was that it was not
considered partof Singaporeandthat was becauseitwasnotpartof Singapore: Singapore
atthetimeof itsestablishmentin 1824,in 1847-1851anduntilthe 1927JohoreAgreement
andretrocessionof certain islandsinthe Johor Straitto Johor,consistedof the main Island
of Singapore, "together withthe adjacent seas, straitsand islets, to the extent of ten
geographicalmiles, from the coast of the saidmain Island of ~inga~ore"."" It did not
includePEP,lyingsome25 nm fromSingapore, h fact,anotherMapof SingaporeIsland
and its Dependencies copied from Government Surveys in 1852, a year after
MM,para.308andMMMapAtlas,Map3.
'j5 ThisReply,vol. 2, AnnexI (originalandEnglishtranslationc,ompiledbytheMalaysofnInstitute
Translation2,8July2005). Thesailing directionasdvisepilots"Aftert, seGui Chou and Dan
Guidirectionfor5GendistancestraighttoMount East Moountain..."'.
'l6 Suarez,p.49.
SCM, paras.9.12-9.15.
SCM, para.9.12.
SCM,paras.9.13-9.14.
Articl11CraWfurTdreaty:MM,para.54andreferenctherein.Singaporesaysthat its 'Wng of lawfulpossession"was definitivelycompleted,doesnot
includePBP.'~'
385. Singapore's argument thatthe 1849 map was not considered by the British
authoritiesto be authoritative asto Singapore'sterritorial extent (because theBritish in
I861 rejectedan argumentbythe Johor authoritiesbasedon that mapwhichshoweda line
runningthroughthe Johor Strait) does not further itscase.542Puttingto one sidethe fact
that the statementsrelied onby Singaporewere made by the two partiesin l861 in the
courseof making a caseagainsteach other ina dispute,andsoare notan indicationofwhat
theythought of the relativestrengthof thosearguments,the reasonforthe Britishposition
that the linewas notdefinitive was because Johorby the Crawkrd Treatyhad cededthe
"adjacentseas, straitsand islets,to the extentof ten geographicalmiles,.fromthe coastof
thesaidmainIsIandof Singapore".Thatmeantthat Singapore'sterritorywentrightupthe
Johor coastlinebecause thatwas less than 10 miles from Singapore, as illustratedin the
Sketchofthe BritishSetflementof Singapore, Accordintgo theTreatyofthe 2& ofAugust
1824.~~~ Britain'sview inthe 1861dispute withJohor is in fact fullyconsistentwiththe
viewthat Singaporewentnofurtherthanthe famous10-milelineframSingaporeIsland.
386. Singaporenext observes thatthe maps Malaysiahas producedof Singaporefrom
1885, 1898and 191 1,which do not show PBP either,do not contain anyathibution of
sovereignty?44ButSingaporecannot show asinglemapproduced bySingaporeauthorities
in the 19~century which showsPBP as one of its dependencies,nor has it given a
convincing explanationof this strikingfact. Singaporesays that"by the time thesemaps
[ofSingapore]wereissued, sovereignty oveP redraBranca laywithGreatBritainandthese
maps do not contradict that legal conclusionand nor are they inconsistent with
541
"Map of Singapore Islandand its Dependencies.Copied by permission from the Government
Surveys,Singapore,52",annexedtothisReply,vo2,Map Annexl.
543 SceMCM, para.9.14.
Sketch ofthe British Settlt f SingaporeAccordingto the treatyzndof August1824,by
JohorPeninsulajoining the a pointonthe eastern sideof thePenAnnote on the map reco-'N.B.
..Thereddotted linedenotcsthe limitsoftheTreaty"(fromtheNationalArchivesof India): annexedto this
Reply, vol. MapAnnex 2
544 SCM,para.9.IS.itA,,545
But the maps are not consistent withthat legalconclusion. If "during the period
1847-1851, title to Pedra Branca was acquired by Britain by the taking of 1a;vhl
possession,througha series of official why did noneof the maps of Singapore
show it as part of Singapore,even when insets wereemployedin maps of Singaporeto
show Singaporeislands whichfell outsidethemarginsofthemap?547
387. Singaporealso notesthat "duringthe sameperiod/1885, 1898and 191I], official
maps publishedbyJohoralsofail.to depictPedraBrancaamongstJohor'sdependencies"548
andthat althoughPBP was included im n aps ofJohor enclosed inthe Johor Annual Reports
for the years 1928-1930,it was omitted.fromthe maps forthe years 1931-1939.~~'The
explanation forthis isthatthe formatof the mapschangedbetween1930and 1931sothat
PBP felloutside the edgeofthe map,asdid otherislandsbelongingto Johor suchas Pulau
Aur andPulauTinggi. In fact, Johor islandslyingfurther ea such
as PulauAur andPufauTinggi wereneverincludedin mapsin theAnnuaIReporiseries.
Singaporearguesthat"Johor'sselectiveinclusionof Pedra Brancainthis seriesofmaps is
whollyinconsistent,and does nothingto advance theMalaysiancase".550But if Johor's
depiction of PBP may have been inconsistent, Singaporehas been consistent in not
depictingPBP. Thisishighlysignificant.
388. Turningto Singapore's critique of the AdmiraltyChart appendedto Commodore
(subsequentlyRear-Admiral)Thanabalasingam's1968Letterof Promulgation (Map25 in
Malaysia's Map~tlas):~' Singapore suggeststh id not make the connection
betweenthe Commod
"tro~blin~"~~a ~s if to
innuendo isbaseless,si the lines drawnon
54s SCM,para 9.15.
546 SCh4,para.9.15.
547 SeethemapintheMM,MapAtlas,Naps 15& 16. Referredto intheSCMat para.9.16. Singapore
complains that the legof this 16-sheet compilatmap has not been reproduced.13 othe16sheets
making upthe map containthe map legend;one of thesesheisreproducedin vol. 2 to this Reply,Map
Annex3-1. The entire mapis reproduced again the Replyas MapAnnex 3-2. Singaporesuggests the
absenceof thisinformationmeans"it is impossibleto establish theofuthesemaps". Thisstatement
simply seeksto distractfromthe factthat Singapore cannot providaeconvincinasto whyPBP and
theother two features were never included iofsSingapore. Whether or ttesemaps"shownothing
S48atingtothe legal statusoftheislands",they certainlydoshowtheywere not cpartofSingipore.
249 SCM, para.9.15.
SCM,para.9.20.
55' SCM,para.9.20.
552 MM,paras.270-273and316.
SCM, para.9.22.thechartwere drawnby Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam t,at it wasan internalMalaysian
document,andthat Malaysiaappendedthe chartto showthe Rear-Admiral's depictioo nf
Malaysia'sterritorial waterin 1968. The issuesof substance goingto the significanceof
thischarthave already been discussed.
389. Map26in Malaysia'sMemorialMapAtlasdepictsboundarylineswhichplace PBP
withintheterritorial watersofMalaysiaor itspredecessors.553Singapore observesthatthe
mapcontainsanumber of curiousfeatures: itnotesthatthemapseemstobe compilationof
differentmaps,that it is not clearwhetherany pertinent informationhasbeenomittedas a
result or whether some of the markingsare part of the original or were later added by
hand.554In fact Map26 is a compilation oftwo sheetsfromthe World 1:1,000,000Series
GSGS 4646 produced by the UK War Office, Sheet NA-48 of the series, entitled
"Singapore",Edition 5, 1954,and Sheet SA-48, entitled "Palembang", from the Third
Edition, 1946.Several editions of the serieswere produced,and not every sheet ofeach
edition was publishedin the same year, For theavoidanceof furtherconfusion, Malaysia
appendsan originalcopy ofSheetNA-48,"Singapore",edition5 of the series,whichforms
thetop half ofthe compilationin Map26of its MemorialMapAtlas. Thisis the relevant
part of Map 26 for the purposes of Malaysia'spleadingsas it shows the international
boundarylinesinthe areaof Singapore, Indonesia andMalaysiareferredto by Malaysiain
itsMemorial andcounter-~ernorial?~~Theinternational boundary line indicatedonSheet
NA-48, "Singap~re'~e ,dition 5, clearly shows acomplete maritimeboundary around
Singapore whichexcludesthethree featuresand doesnot indicateany Singaporewatersin
theareaofthethreefeatures.556
390. Map 27 of Malaysia's MemoriaM l ap Atlas,entitled"SediliBesar",printedbythe
Surveyof IndiaOffices,1944:~~alsodepictsinternationalmaritimeboundarylines which
place thethree featurein Johorwatersandoutside Singaporewaters. Singaporearguesin
respectof this mapthatbecause British Malaya at the time themapwasproducedincluded
the Straits Settlementsand the Malay States such as Johor, the "map therefore
553 MCM,para.558 & MM,para.317 & Insert29,p.147.
SCM, para9..23.
MM,para,317 & Insert29& MCM,para.558.
ThisReply,vol.,MapAnnex4.
SSi Ona scaleof 1:253440HIND 1076, Sheet1,Firstedition,printedatthe Surveyof IndiaOffice
(P.Z.O.),1934.providesno informationaboutwhetherPedra Brancabelongedto Singaporeor ~ohor"',5~~
Singaporealso attempts the sameargumentin respectofMaps 28 and 29 of theMalaysian
MapAtlas.
391. Singapore's argumenh tere amountsto little morethan a smokescreen, attempting
to blurin its writtendescriptionof the maps whatis patently clearon lookingat the maps
themselves. The watersshown inMap27 are divided into threedistinctareasbya dashed
Imewhich,the legendat the bottomof the map says, depicts"Boundaries,international: "
stateand province:district". A complete internationab loundarylinefromthe lefihandside
of the map to the right is marked andlabelled"British Malaya"and "NetherlandsEast
Indies". Acompleteboundary line between JohorandSingaporeis alsodrawnwhichruns
down from the boundaryin Johor Straitto intersect the BritishMalaydNetherlandsEast
Indiesline. Thelinesso drawnclearly placethe three featuresinJohor waters. Whilethe
onlylabellingon the map is that which labelsthe BritishMalayaNetherlandsEast fndies
boundary,the legend information at the bottomof the map containsa diagramillustrating
the "Indexto Provinces". Eachof the three areasis numbered,1-3,"1 Johore(Malaya)",
"2 Singapore(Malaya)" and"3 Riouw(SumatraN.E.I.)". If there was an appreciation
that PBPbelongedto Singaporeas Singaporeclaims,it wouldhave beenlogical fora line
to havebeendrawn betweenthe Netherlands EastIndies,JohorandSingaporeinthe areaof
PBP. But no such line is drawn. Contraryto Singapore's claim that no informationis
provided, the map informs us that the authors did not consider that PBP fell in the
~31Ll~apJIC[lVi91uya))IIUVL~IVV,aiaw ilwazIJUYV.rVLlrrwyurr~~u..urr-.
392. Singaporesuggests that theIabellingof theinternationalboundary line in an earlier
map, on which it says Map 27 is based, "Unfederated MalayStates - Straits
SettlementdSumatra,Netherlands East Indies", seems to imply that the mapmaker
consideredthat therewereterritories belongingto the Straits Settlementsinthe vicinityof
the South China Againt,his isnot convincing:the mapagainshows lines dividing
the waters into three distinct areas:60 the Malay State of Johore, the Settlement of
Singaporeand Sumatra NetherlandsEast Tndies. Againthe three features are shown as
fallinginthe MalayStateof Johor. The lines themselvesareslightlydifferentinthis case:
SCM,paras.9.26& 9.27.
559 SCM, fn5.77,p.227,referrintoMap24 oftheSCM MapAtlas.
'60 Thelegend atthebottomofMap 24,SCM Map Adas.the JohorefSingaporeboundaryis shownby a differentdashedline fromthe dashedline
between the 'WnfederatedMalay States-StraitsSettlements/Sum.atraN , etherlands East
Indies". Thelegend at the bottom ofthe map says the latter fonn type of dashedline
indicates"'Boundary:International'w' hereasthe formerform of the dashedline indicates
"Resident in MalayState". The reason,therefore,whythe internationalboundarylineis
labelled"UnfederatedMalay States-Straits SettlementslSumatraN , etherlandsEast Indies"
isbecause it labelstheline illustratithe internationalboundarylinerunning through both
the Straits Settlements watersof Singaporeand the UnfederatedMaIayState watersof
Johore. Again thereisnothingin Singapore's poinatstoMap27.
393. Singaporealso argues that"the linedrawn inthe seacontinuesto befor thepurpose
of differentiatingbetween the British and Dutch possessions",and that there "are no
indications onthese maps [that they were done] with the intention of authoritatively
attributing territoriesbetween...elementsof British Malaya7',Johor and ~in~a~ore?~'
Thisisnot convincing.If thelineinthe sea was solelyto differentiatebetweenBritish and
Dutchpossessions,as Singaporesuggests,whywas the line between Singapore andJohor
drawnat all? The factthe linesweredrawn atall strongly suggests thatthatwaswherethe
Britishauthorities consideredthboundaries between SingaporeandJohorlay, andit isnot
consistentwithanunderstandingthat thewaters aroundPBP were attributab tleSingapore.
It is not consistentwith a viewthat PBPhad belongedto Singaporepredecessors since
roundabout1851as claimedby Singapore. It is consistent with theviewthat PBPfellin
Johorwatersanddid notbelongto Singapore.
394. Singaporesaysinrespectof Maps35 and 36that it isnot clearwhatthe "sporadic,
dottedlinegoingbetweenPedra Branca andIndonesia,labelled'Malaysia'onone side and
'Indonesia'on the other side", "were intendedto represent".562As Singaporesays,the
detailedmap legendfor somereasondoesnot specifLwhat the type of line is meant to
indicate. Howeveri,tisdifficultto seewhatthe linemight be intendedto indicatief notthe
internationalboundary,especiallyas it is labelled"Malaysia"on onesideand "Republicof
Indonesia"on the other. Againinthismap,as inthe other maps referred to above,thereis
noindicationintheareaofPBPofany Singaporeboundary line.
.''l SCM,para.9.27.
SCM,para.9.28.395. Thenextmapdiscussedby Singapore in its Counter-Memorialis the Johoresurvey
compilation sheet which includesPBPdated 1957(Map30 of Malaysia'sMemorialMap
Atlas). Singapore says thereis "no way of knowing what Malaysia's grounds are for
advancing theassertion"that the sheetwas"evidentlycarefullydrawnand checked".563It
arguesthatnothinginthe sheet attributesPBPto Johor orMalaya, thatthe sheet wasdrawn
forthe purposeof an air photo survey,that a surveyorneednot actuallytravel to a feature
foritto serve asa triangulation point,andthatthe samecompilationsheetformedthebasis
onwhichthe 1962so-called"admissionagainst interest" mapwasdrawn.564
396. Thesepointsmaybe addressedinturnF .irst,thatthe sheetwas carefullydrawnis
shownbythelevelofdetailinwhichthe landis depicted,showing the varying elevatioo nf
the landandcoastal shoalingin greatdetail,and theprecisenessofthe figuregivenforthe
coordinatesofthe PlanControlPointsinthetable onthe righthandsideofthe sheet. That
the sheetwas carefullycheckedis shownby the list of signaturesat the bottom righand
cornerof thepage. The list showsthatthe compilationandcontouringwerecompletedby
two different drafters, both were checked by another official and then the survey
compilationwas approved again bya fourthofficial.
397. Second,while nothingin the sheetattributes PBP to Johor orMalaya, it is clear
from the surveycompilation sheetthat PBP is hcluded in, and is key to, the surveyof
Johor. It isthe only featureofthat sizeinthe watersofftheJohor coast whichisnamedin
suruey r,ompilatinnsheet and is used aq a Plan Control Point. Contrary to the
implicationby Singapore thatPBP mighthave been used as a Johor triangulationpoint
withoutFederation of Malaya surveyorstravelling to thefeature:65the recordsshowthat
the surveyorsdid indeed traveltoBPto take observations from the island. The "Survey
DepartmentFederation of Malaya,TopographicalBranch, Angle Book TRTG1524 for
Surveyof Sheet 135"'partofthe Series~7010,5~ Season1959includesrecords headedthe
"ObsnforfixingrocksroundBatuPuteh"which werecompletedby aFederationof Malaya
surveyor, Mr. A. Velu Pillai. Mr. Piflai took the observations over a period of
S63
MM,para.318,citedinSCM,para.9.29.
SCM,para.9.29.
lG6 SCM,para.9.29(6).
Copiesof variousversionsof S135EtomtheL7010Seriesareannexedto theMM,MapAtlas,
Maps32,33,34 and39andintheSCM MapAtlas, Maps26,27,28 and30,anSCM Insert14,p.230.several days, on 2, 10, 1l, 14 and 15 October 19595~' Besides being used as a
triangulationpoint, PBP was occupiedwhilethe detailedsurveys were being carriedout.
Amongsthis detailed recordings, Mr. Pillai's records include a detailed diagram and
description ofPBPandthe locationofthetrigpointonit, and adiagram and description of
the relationshipofMiddleRocksand SouthLedgeto PEP.
398. Singapore's last pointin respect of the 1957compilation surveysheet isthat its
technicalexpertsareof the viewthat it formedthe basisonwhich theso-called"admission
against interest?mapwasdrawn. It is notknownwhetherthiswas in fact thecase. Inany
event,Malaysiadoes not acceptthatthe mapscanbe characterisedas an admission against
interest onits part.As pointed outalready:6Bthese maps are equivocal.Firstof all, they
contain Second, itisnotat ailclearwhetherthe term"(Singapore)"as used
here ismeant to indicatethat the island or thelighthouseor the island and the lighthouse
belongto Singapore. Theuseof the bracketssuggestsnot:"BatuPuteh" isnotinbrackets,
whereasthe nameof the lighthouseislisted directlybelow inbrackets,"(J3orsburgh)",and
thenunderthat inbracketsistheterm"(Singapore)",shownasfollows:
Lighthouse[symbol]28
P.BatuPuteh
(Horsburgh)
T SIN GAP ORE)".^^^
399. This is equivocal; themapscannotstandas the "statementof geographicalfacrS7'
which Singapore claims they represent. Nor is Singapore's argumentaided by its
comparisonof the treatmentof PulauPisangby Malaysiaon the 1961PontianKechilmap
sheetinEdition3 of the map serieswiththat oflEIorsburgh Lighthouseinthe sameEdition
oftheseries." ThePontianKechilmapshowsthe lighthouseon PulauPisangandthe road
connecting it to the beach, both being land grantedto Singapore under the 1900
1ndenture.5~~The lighthouse does not occupythe whole island andthe road is illustrated
differentlyfrom those on the mainland. Addingthe notation "(Singapore)"under the
ThisReply,vol.2, Anncx19.
SeeMM,para. 321;MCM,para.574.
MM,pmr321.
'7"~, paras.7.47-7.50.SingapoeeiteratthispointatSCM,para9.4.
SCM,para.9.31, citiEritrea/Elhi BopiadaryCommission, Decisi13 (2002)41 ILM1057,
para. .27.
57' SCM,para.9.3l(c& SCMMap25.
57' bfMpara.233& Anncx89,lighthousesymbolonthis map sheetwouldhaveobscuredthe drawingof the contourson
Pulau Pisang and the road to the lighthouse,a drawback in a land survey map. The
omissionof a referenceto the ownershipof the Pulau Pisang lighthouse and connecting
roadcannotbeconstruedasa statementofgeographicalfactaboutPBP.
400. Singapore points out that the Gazetteer
Geographicnames,second edition1970,listsPBPas belongingto ~in~a~ore.~~ A~recently
declassifiedUnitedStatesDepartmentof Statemapof thearea,SheetNA 48-10, however,
hasthefollowingnotation forthe island:
"Pulau BatuPuteh
(Horsburgh)
[MALAYsIA~"~~
401. This recent examplefromthe US StateDepartment'sdigital intelligence database,
togetherwiththe consistent representationb sy the US Governmentof Singaporemaritime
boundary lines as excludingPBP,'~~can be compared against with the US Gazetteer
referenceandthe 2000 editionof the CIAmapwhich (wellafterthe critical date)shows
PedraBrancaasaninseton the Singaporemap.577Theweightof US practicefallson the
SCM,para 9.32.
.'75 This Reply,vol. 2, Map Annex 5 (italics in original). Below the map there isa notation in
handwritingas follows:'WOLIMDIS RESTRICTIO NERIFIED(Liz) MAP ANNEX, 21May 2004.
VER/MWGGIS ,OURCE: JOG 1:250,000no date(1990's)SheetNA48-10".Lizis the US State Department
officialwhoverifiedthe mapandwrotethisnotation;~NRistheBureauofinreiijgencefirxiKesG;Cjis
the Ofticeof the Geographer and Global Iss; Gis JointOperations Graphic.The map is reproduced
fromtheir digital intelligence's map databaasned is an onannotateanooriginalpaper map,Joint
OperationsGraphic(AIR)map, "Singapore, alaysia andIndonesia",produced by the Director Galfro
theMilitarySurvey,MinistryofDefence,United Kingd{1993),Serie1501AIR, SheetNA 48-10,Edition
4-GSGS.Thisisan earlier editofMap47oftheMM.
576 See the discussionin MCM,paras. 564567. Singapore explaiat para. 9.36 of its Counter-
Memorialthatafter the United Kingdom published the onailntOperationsGraphicin 1993,from which
the UnitedStates map iscopied (Map Ann5,vol.2 of thisReply), that it prthe annotationon the
map attributing PBPto Malaysia, explathat Singaporeand Maiaysiawere currently ina dispute over
sovereigntyoverthe island,andthasa resultof its representationsthe United Kingdom reissuetdhe map
withoutthe annotation"[Malaysia]"and the earlier versionwas never published. Theticrecords
regardingthisincidentwhich Singaporeannexteosits Counter-MemorialAnnexes 52-54}indicatethat
the UK offeredno opinionon the question of sovereignty anidts High Commissionerto Singapore told
Singaporethat ithadno intentionof interfering in thedispute (S53). Sin~pore says thattheUK
Ministryof Defence senta draft oi the map to Singapore for comments, wtse diplomatic records
annexedby Singaporedonot indicatethat Singapore came intopossiofnthemapinthismanner, nor that
it was never formally published. In fact, Singapore's representative pointeodut to the UK High
Commissionerthatf Singapore could t copyof the map,so could otherStates(SCMAnnex53), and it
nowappearsthat the USdid obtnina copy whichtheycopiedto their digital intelligence.ssuchaseA
this particularin its various editions shows thaat,ttheleast, neithertheUKnor theUSwereoftheview
thatPBPbelongedto Singapore.
'" MCM,para.567and MapsSection,Map 17, p. 299. Thisis simplya copyof the 1995 Singapore
map,showingPBPasaninsetforthe firstime.sideofnottreatingPBPaspartofSingaporeandnotattributingany
Singaporein ?3earea of PBP. At the least, itcanhardlybe said to
supportiveof Singapore'sviewthat it:has had dear and undisputed sovereigntyaverPBP
forover 1SO years.
(iv) Conclusion
402. Ithasneverbeensuggestedthatthemap evidencedefinitively attributessovereignty
overPBP,MiddleRocksand South Ledge to Johorand Malaysia. What istrue isthatthe
maps consistentlydo not support Singapore'sclaim that it has had title to PBP since,
variously,1848, 1847-8 15l, or185 1. In fact,the maps stronglysuggest thatSingaporedid
not considerPBP as part of Singaporein 1851,andthat third States did notconsider that
Singaporehad an internationalboundaryin sheareaof PBP. Although Singapore's claims
itstitleoverPBP"is not basedon.. . any...map,buton the lawful takingof possessionof
PedraBranca in the period 1847-1851 and on the uninterruptedmaintenanceof her title
throughadministrationof the islandand thewatersaround itfor morethan 150 years'7,5it8
isstrikingthatat notime untilwellintothe 1990sdidthe Singapore authoritiesthemselves
publisha map of SingaporeincludingPBP.
403. Singapore's repeatedassertion that four maps representan admission against
intered7' calls fora number ofresponses:
0 as observed by both Parties, mapscannot constituteprimary evidenceof
0 the maps in question containa disclaimeras to internationalboundaries,as
Singapore notes;58'
e the notationis equivocal:the emphasis ison lighthouseand not theisland;
the featureis shownbya symboland nota drawingof land. Itis notat all
clearwhatthe notation isintendedtoindicate;582
0 Singapore ignores the significant number of official maps and charts,
published over a considerableperiod bothbefore and after the maps in
question,whichdonotshowthat PBPispartof Singapore.
SCM,para.9.37.
'l9 SCM,paras.9.30-9.31.
58"~M, SM,para.7.49;SCM,para.9.25fi cMM,para.321;MCM,para.573.
'" SeeMM,para. 321. point,referencecanbe made
-Yemenarbitration.58A3s Singapore records:
"Yemen produced a number of official Italian maps published
throughoutthe 1924-1939which consistentlyshowedthat the disputed
islandshadnot been includedintheformer Italiancolonyof Eritreaand
that, therefore,Italyhad neverregarded theseislandsas failingunderher
sovereignty."584
TheTribunaa lcceptedthis pointsayingthat:
"On balance, the evidence seems to establish that Italy, in the
interbellurnperiod, did not considerthe Islands to be under Italian
sovereigntyor at least does not establishthat Italy in that period did
considertheIslandsto beunderItaliansovereignty".585
As in theexampleofItaly in Eritreflemen, noofficialmap ofSingaporepublishedbythe
Governmentof Singaporebeforethe 1990sshowed PBPas partof Singapore. Andthis is
thekeypointso farasthe maps areconcerned. hart evidenceas ,
a whole, the fact is that Singaporecannot p map which
unequivocallyshowsPBPaspartof Singaporebefore the criticdate,oranymaporchart
by Singaporeor third States of maritime boundariesin theare af PBP which shows a
Singaporemaritime boundary in the area. To mirror the words of the Eritredemen
Tribunal,the evidence establishes thatSingapore didnot considerthe islandtbe under
Singapore sovereignty;at least it doesnot establishthat Singapor0did consider theisland
to beunderSingaporesovereignty.Thisis quiteatoddswith Singapore'sclaimthat ithas
hadsovereigntyoverthe island foratleast150ye
$13' SM,para.7.45.
SM,para.7.45.
Erittea/YemenArbitration, Awardof the ArbitrdTribunalin PhaseOne:TerritorialSovereignty
andScopeofthe Dispute, 9 Octr998,114ILR2,96-97 @am 374). Chapter6
THE DISTINCT CRARACTER OFPBP, MIDDLE ROCKS
AND SOUTH LEDGE
Introduction
405. In its Memorial:Malaysiaobservedthat PBP, MiddleRocksand SouthLedgeare
separatefeaturesthatdonot constitutean identifiable groupof islandsineitherhistoricalor
geomorphological The three featuresare separated bynavigational channels.
They do not have similar structuresand do not stand on asingle raised section of the
seabed. The ChartproducedbyJ.T.Thomsonin 1851,reproducedinMalaysia'sMemorial
at page63andinthisReply at page73,showsthis onthebasisofaccuratesoundingsofthe
three features.
406. Singaporecontests this viewin its MemoriaI,arguingthat "Middle Rocks,South
LedgeandPedra Brancaform asinglegroupofmaritimefeatures"andthat "MiddleRocks
and SouthLedge can onlybe regardedas'dependencies'of Pedra~ranca".~~'Malaysia
respondedto this argumentin its Counter-Memorialin termsthat do not requirekrther
recitationhere.588In its Counter-Memorial,Singaporerestates itsargument,viz."Middle
Rocks forms a single group with Pedra Branca while South Ledge is but a low-tide
elevation".589Singaporegoeson to take particular issue with Malaysia's cotnattio
''PulauBatu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are separated by navigational
~hannels"~~~ontendingthat no reasonableshipmasterwouldsailhis shipbetweenMiddle
RocksandSouthLedge,that thisshallowchannelcanhardly beregardedas a navigational
channel,andthatthe areabetweenMiddleRocksandPBPis'cnon-navigable".591
407. This Chapterrespondsto these argumentsby Singaporethat PBP,Middle Rocks
and SouthLedgeare not separatedby navigable channelIt also addressesa numberof
otherminorpointsmadeinChapterVIIIof Singapore's Counter-Memorial.
387 MM,Chapter8.
588 SM,para,94.
589 SCM,para.8.3.
SCM,para.8.8(Singapore's emphasis).
"' SCM,para8.8. A. Singapore'sassertionthatPBP,MiddleRocksandSouth Ledgearenot
separatedbynavigablechannels
408. Singapore'sassertionsthat PBP,MiddleRocksand SouthLedge are not separated
bynavigable channelshaveno foundationin fact. AppendixI11to this Replyis anReport
byCaptain(rtd.)GohSiew ChongoftheRoyalMalaysian~av~.''~CaptainGohwasfrom
1981to 1986 the Chief Hydrographer of the Royal MalaysiaN navy ("RMN"). As the
curriculumvitae attached to his report shows, before becomingChief Hydrographer,
CaptainGohcommanded variousRMNsurvey ships. In the periodMarch to May 1967,
CaptainGohwasonattachmenttoHMSDampier,a BritishRoyalNavy surveyshipwhich,
at the time, undertooka comprehensive hydrographic surveyof the waters aroundPBP,
MiddleRocksandSouthLedge.
409. The simple pointtowhichCaptainGohattestsasexpert isthat,froma hydrographic
perspective,PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are unarguably three distinct and
separate features separatbynavigationalchannels. Before settingout his evidencemore
fklly,however,it isworth recalling certain details relto theHMSDampiersurveyof
the areaasthis surveyhas previouslybeenaddressedin evidence in Malaysia'spleadings,
althoughfor differentreasons.
410. In his Affidavit at Annex 4 of Malaysia's Counter-MemorialR , ear-Admiral
Tt.lnEb!igE .tat$.E.ff?!!ws:
"Another element that I recall which aErmed Pulau Batu Puteh's
Malaysian character, werethe requestsby thepritish] Royal navyfor
permissionfor the surveyship HUS Dampierto surveyoff Pulau Batu
Puteh, One particular requestof hich Isubsequentlybecame aware, was
that on20 February 1967at aroundthe timethat 1was informed that I
wastotake upthe positionof ChiefoftheNavy. Therequestcamefrom
the RoyalNavy Officeof CommanderFar East Fleet, Singaporeto the
Ministry of Defence (Navy), Kuala Lumpur requesting clearance 'for
HMS Dampier' and detached parties to carry out surveys in West
Malaysia'. The coordinatesof the surveygiven in the letterof request,
which I have been shownand exhibit heretoasAttachment6, are the
coastal referencepoints of the survey to be conducted. The survey
includedthe watersaroundPufauBatu Puteh,as is clearly evident from
"' Reportof Captain(rtd.) GohSiewChong,thisvol. Appendix111:p.235-248.
192 the Fair SheetReport ofHMSDampierinrespectofthis survey. TheFair
SheetReport,which Ihave beenshown and exhibitheretoas Attachment
7,wassignedbythe Captainofthe H. ~am~ier."~~'
411. TheFair SheetReportofthe HMS Dampierappendedas Attachment7to the Rear-
Admiral's Affidavit records amongst those whoassisted with the survey one "Sub-
LieutenantGoh SiewChong". The datesof the survey aregivenas 21 Marchto 22 May
1967. Depth soundings in fathoms(i.e., units of 6 feearegiven in the Report for the
whole of the survey area, includingthe waters around PBP,Middle Rocks and South
Ledge.
412. Addressingthis survey, Captain Gohstateas follows:
"4.2 This survey covered a largearea from Tanjung Ayam (Southern
Johore)to Tanjung Punggai ('stem Johore)and includingthe Middle
Channel, PuIau Batu Puteh, MiddleRocks and South Ledge. The co-
ordinatesof the surveyareawere as per theFair Sheet attachedto Rear-
Admiral Thanabalasingam'sAffidavit.
4.3 The positioning for the survey was carriedout manually by
measuringsimultaneoussextantanglet so fixedmarks. No usewas made
of electronicaids. Soundingwereobtainedbyecho soundersfitted inthe
ship and inthe surveyboat. Whilst soundingoperation wasin progress,
tidal observationat Puiau Batu Puteh was observed visuallyat regular
intervalsand recordedmanually. Thetidalobservationobtainedwas for
the purpose of reducing all soundings obtainedby echo sounder to
sounding/chartdatumadopted,
4.4 1wasamong the party thatlandedon Pulau Batu Puteh for the
purposeof settingup a tide pole and establishingthe datum on the tide
pole by Ievelingto the existingBench-Mark. We landed on Pulau Batu
Puteh by small boat loweredfromHMSDumpier. We were dressedin
our navalworkingclotheswhenwe landedontheisland. A tidepolewas
erectedonPuIauBatu Puteh. Oncompletionofthe setting upof the tide
pole, levelingwascarried outusing an automaticlevel and a graduated
tachstaff.From the levelingobservationsobtained,soundingdatum on
the tide pole wasdeduced, It took us abouttwo hoursto complete this
work. After completion of the leveling work, we went up to the
lighthouse andmet the lighthouse keepersand proceededto observethe
view from the top of lighthouse. After that, we returned to HMS
Dampier. At no stagedidweask permission from the lighthousekeepers
tovisitthe island.
593 AffidavofRear-Admira(l td)Dnto'KaralasinrhanabatasingaM,CMAnnex4,para.63.
...
193 4.5 On a separateoccasion,aftercompletionof the soundingoperation
of the area, a small survey party, including myself, landed on Middle
Rocks and on South Ledge to establish the various heights of the high
points of the rocks. It took us about three hours to complete the work
and, oncompletion,we returnedto HMSDumpier,
4.6 On completionof the wholesurvey, a final survey Fair Sheet was
drawn up. This is the Survey Fair Sheet attached to Rear-Admiral
Thanabalasingam'sAffidavit. As a normal practice,the completedfinal
Fair Sheet would have been sentto the United KingdomHydrographic
Department and a copy forwardedto the country in whose waters the
surveytookplace, inthiscasetothe MinistryofDefence, Malaysia.
4.7 This survey was used to update all AdmiraltyCharts coveringthe
area, includingBritishAdmiraltyChart 2403and BritishAdmiralty Chart
383 1. Charts produced by Malaysia, Singapore and other countries
coveringthearea alsousedatafromthis survey directlyor indire~tl~.''~~~
413. Basing hisassessmentonthis surveyby HMS Dampier,as well as on other surveys
of these waters, Captain Gohaddressesthe question of whether PBP, Middle Rocks and
SouthLedgeare separatemaritime featuresinthe followingterms:
"5.4Basedon these swveysandcharts,PulauBatu Puteh, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge are three distinct features separated by navigational
channels. Pufau Batu Puteh is one group of rocks. Middle Rocks is
another group of rocks and South Ledgeis a group of rocks completely
submergedat high tide. Pulau Batu Puteh is the largest of many rocks,
including submerged rocks, that are generally describedby this name.
MiddleRocks isa groupof rockswith twohigh points,one at 0.9metres
high andthe other 1.5metreshigh. SouthLedge isa groupof submerged
rocks,onlyoneof which(thenorthern-most)dries 1.Smetresat lowtide.
5.5 Pulau Batu Puteh and Middle Rocksare two separate groups of
rocks separated by a navigable channel of 970 metres (0.53 nautical
miles) wideand witha leasta depthof 10.1metres. Shipswitha draftof
about 7.0 metres can navigate betweenPulau Batu Puteh and Middle
Rocks. Singapore'sassertion (Counter-Memorial,paragraph 8.8)that no
navigationalchannel existsbetweenPulau BatuPuteh and Middle Rocks
is incorrect. Its assertion thatthere isa shallowbank linkingPulauBatu
594 Reportof Captain(rtd.) Goh Siew Chong,thisReply, vol. I,111paras.4.2-4.7, pp.240-
241.Itwarrantsemphasisthat"ftlherewasno navalofficerfromSingapore attachetdoHMSDrtanya
timeinconnectionwiththis survey:ReportofCaptainGoh,atparag4.1, pp.239-240. Puteh and Middle Rocks whichmakes the area non-navigable is also
incorrect.This isaddressed furtherbelow.
5.6 SouthLedgeis a groupof submergedrocksseparatedfromMiddle
Rocksby an expanse of sea ofabout 3000 metres(1.6 nauticalmiles) in
distanceand with depthsof water generallymorethan 20 metres. There
is, however,a patchof shallowerwater witha depthof 18.3metresabout
1000metresto the northof SouthLedge. Avoidingthis patch,shipswith
a draftof 17metrescan easilynavigate betweenMiddle Rocksand South
~ed~e.'"~~
414. The physicalcharacterof each of these features, each individuallcomposed ofa
group of distinct rocks, is evident from the satellite photographs reproduced on the
preceding page(Figure16).
415, Commenting specifically on Singapore'scharacterisationas absurd Malaysia's
argument that PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are separated by navigational
channels,59C6aptainGohstates:
"6.1 Singapore'sassertion(Counter-Memorial,paragraphs8.6 and 8.7)
that the sea bed featuresbetweenPulau Batu Puteh and MiddleRocks,
with a deepest pointof 32 metres,and betweenMiddleRocksand South
Ledge, with a deepest point of 36 metres, are 'extremely shallow' is
misleading. Depthsof32to 36metresareconsideredquitedeep.
6.2 In paragraph 8.8 of its Counter-Memorial,Singapore assertsthat
Malaysia's argumentthat Pulau Batu Futeh, Middle Rocksand South
,.edge areseparated hy navigablechannels is ahst~rd.Qn the contrary it,
is not absurd. It is a factbasedonthesurveybyHMS Dampierin 1967as
well as on the detailedhydrographic surveyconductedby the Maritime
and Port Authorityof Singaporein 2003. Based on datafiom these
surveys,it can be stated conclusively that therarenavigablechannels
betweenthethreefeatures.
6.3 Singapore'sCounter-Memorial,at paragraph 8.8(a), aErms that:
South Ledge and Middle Rocks are separatedby a navigablechannelof
about 20 metres depth, From a generalnavigational pointof view,20
metresofwaterisnotshallow.
6.4 Whethera channelis navigabledependson itswidth,the depthsof
water availablein the channel, thesize anddraftof the vessel. Froma
navigational pointof view,the channelsbetween Pulau BatuPuteh and
Reportof Captain(rtd.)GohSiewChong,thisReply,v1Appendix 11p,aras.5.4-5.6,p.243.
""CM, para.8.8. Middle Rocks andbetween Middle Rocks and South Ledge are both
navigable. Vesselswith adraftof around 7 metrescan navigatebetween
Pulau Batu Putehand Middle Rocks andvesselsof a draft of around17
metres can navigatebetweenMiddleRocks and SouthLedge. Vessels
whichgroundedon eitherMiddle Rocks orSouth Ledgeweredueto poor
416. As this evidenceattests, the three features are separatedby navigable channels.
Indeed,all the availableevidence-geomorphologica~hydrographicand navigational-all
indicatethatthese featuresareproperly regardedasdistinctmaritimefeatures ratherthaas
constituent partsofa singleisIandgroup.
B. Additional observationson assertionsmade inSCMChapterVIII
417. A numberof other brief observations arewarrantedon variousassertions madein
Chapter V111 of Singapore's Counter-Memorial,
418. In paragraph8.5of its Counter-Memorial, Singapora esserts thatthe fact thPBP,
Middle Rocksand South Ledge are moreremote fromSingaporethan they are from
Malaysiais irrelevant. It goes on to contend that"[tlhe key poi...is that South Ledge
andMiddleRocks liewithin the territoriasleaof PedraBrancaitself'. Withrespect,this is
simply asserting whatmust be proved in the hopethat the assertion itselfwill generate
suficient momentumto establishthepoint. It is unarguablethat South Ledge iscloserto
MiddleRocks thanit is to PBP. Middle Rocksarejust as capablein law of generating a
territorialsea as is PBP. To say that MiddleRocks and SouthLedge lie within the
territorialsea ofPedra Brancaisthusto saynothingat all.Ifthe Court acceptsMalaysia's
contention thatPBP and Middle Rocks aredistinct features,it would follow thatSouth
Ledge wouldlie within the territorial sea generatedby Middle Rocks, notby PEP.
Singapore'sassertiononthispoint issimplywrong.
419. It also bears recollection thatthe Special Agreementof the Parties submittingthis
disputeto the Courtexplicitlyrequests that the Courtdeterminesovereignty overeachof
thethreefeatures. This case isnot simplyaboustovereigntyoverPBP.
"' Reportof Captain(rtd.) Goh SiewChong,this Repl1Appendix 111,aras. 6.1-6.4,pp. 244
245.420. On the question of proximity,Malaysia acknowledges that proximitty o the
Malaysian mainland cannotof itself forma basis of It has never made sucha
claim. However,proximity is not irrelevant.Theproximityof PBP,Middle Rocksand
SouthLedgeto theMalaysian mainland is relevan att a numberof levels. PBP isvisible
fromthe Johor coast. As Malaysiashowed in itCounter-Memorialt,hrough evidence,
PBPisan importantpartoflocalJoharfishingculture. Johor fishermenhave beenfisishmg
in its watersfor generations. Acceto thesewatersis easy,quickand direct. None of
this appliesin the caseof Singapore. PBP is geographically remfromSingapore. It
plays no part in local culture and experienceAccessto these waters for Singapore
fishermenisnot easy,quick anddirect,Proximity,inthiscase,isa featureofandsupports
evidenceofconduct advanced byMalaysia.
421. Inparagraphs8.6and8.7of itsCounter-MemorialS ,ingapore suggeststhatthe&ct
that themainnavigational routein the area,MiddleChannel,is broaderand deeperthan
the channels between PBP,Middle Rocks and South Ledge somehow supports the
propositionthanthethree featuresarenotdistinct. This doesnotfollowatall. Thedepth
andbreadthoftheMiddleChannelis irrelevmttothedistinctcharacteror otherwiseofthe
three features. As Captain Goh statesin his evidence,what mattersis whether the
channelsbetweenPBP,Middle Rocksand SouthLedgeare navigable. They are.They
are able tosupporttrafficby vesselsof a significantdraft. The facttasuper-tanker
may not take such a route, in preferenceto a deeper, wider and moredirect route
elsewhere, does notfor a moment rebutthe contentionthat thereare navigablechannels
betweenthethree features.
422. Inparagraph8.9(b)of itsCounter-MemorialS, ingaporerelies on a 1957report
preparedbyCommander R.H.Kennedyaspart ofthe preparatory documento sf the 1958
UnitedNations Conference on the Lawof the Citingan extractfrom this report,
Singaporestatesthat CommanderKennedy "referred to Pedra BrancaandMiddleRocks
collectivetyasthe 'Horsburghgroup''H,orsburghgroupof rocks'and 'groupofrockson
which standsHorsburghLight"'.
h4R,Chapte1,puas. 14-15.
AnextractofthisreportSCMtAnnex37.423. Aswithsomuchof thedocumentary material relied upob ny Singapore-addressed
in exhaustive detail in Chapter8 of Malaysia's Counter-MemoriaC-the report by
Commander Kennedydoes not support the proposition forwhich it is advanced. In
paragraph2 of the relevant section of thereport, whichdescribes the SingaporeStrait,
CommanderKennedystates:
"...theeastern end[ofthe Straitmaybe considered]asthe intersectionof
similararcs centredonthe low-water lineof TanjongBerakitand on the
easternmostdryingrockof thegroupof above-water anddryingrockson
which stands the Horsburh Lighthouse, whichis maintained by the
GovernmentofSingapore." #O0
424. The report later goesonto describein moredetailthe limitsof the SingaporeStrait
and, in this context, describes theeasternend of the Strait inthe paragraph extractedin
Singapore's pleadings.
425. Three observationsarewarrantedon this element.Firs tre,carefbllanguageused
byCommanderKennedyinhisreport isinstructive.AddressingtheHorsburghLighthouse,
he says thatit "is maintainedbythe GovernmentofSingaporey'This phraseis bothvery
preciseandparticular,andcurious. Nowhere elsein his descriptionof the Singapetrait
doesthe Commanderrefertospecificlighthouses,althoughtheStraitisboundedbythemat
every turn and the report notes that ''[!It is well marked for both day and night
navigation".60'Inaddressingthe HorsburghLighthouse,CommanderKennedymight have
saidnothingat all aboutwhichState maintainedit. Conversely,he might have observed
that the lighthousewassituatedona Singaporeislandlyingoffthe Johorcoast,in keeping
withreferences elsewhereinthereportto "Indonesianislandslyingoff the Sumatracoasty'.
Hedid neither. Instead, thelanguageusedto describetheislandstates thattheHorsburgh
Lighthouse ismaintainedby the Governmentof Singapore, theimplicationof the phrase
beingthatthe islandonwhichthe lighthouse stoodwasnot necessarily aSingaporeisland.
426. Second,itisbynomeansclearthatthereport'sreferenceto?he easternmostdrying
rock of the group of above-waterand drying rocks on which stands theHorsburgh
Lighthouse"(inthe quotationabove)is in fact a referenceto PBP Middle Rocks. As
WO
60' Reportof CommanderR.H.KennedSCM Annex37,page349,para.2.
ReportofCommanderR.H.KennedySCMAnnex 37,page350, para.3.Images3, 4 and 16 in Singapore'sMemorial(followingpages 10 and 102)make plain,
PBP is not itself a single rock but is cornprisedof a whole series of above-waterand
drying rocksin the immediate vicinityof the mainPBP island. CommanderKennedy's
referenceto "the groupof rockson whichstandsthe HorsburghLight" is, by its context,
verymuchmorelikelyto havebeena referencetotherocks,above-wateranddrying,that
comprisePBPandPBPalone.
427. Third, nor do the references,relied upon by Singapore in the extract which it
cites-to "the group of rocks on which stands the HorsburghLight", the "Horsburgh
group",andthe 'Xorsburghgroupof rocks"-advance Singapore'scase. Inthe light,in
particulaof the preceding observations,it cannotbe assumed thatCommanderKennedy
was,bythis passing comment,characterisingBP andMiddle Rocksas a singlemaritime
feature. In any event, evenif this is wrong,the extracton which Singapore relies itself
makesit explicitlyclear that South Ledgeis not part of the "Horsburghgroup",thereby
underminingthevery argumentwhichSingaporepropounds.
428. In reality, however one readsthe various extracts from Commander ennedy's
report,itis evidentthathis referenceto"thegroupofrocks onwhichstandstheHorsburgh
Light"cannotin any way betakenas a dispositivestatementof either thesingular or the
distinct characterPBP, MiddleRocks andSouth Ledge. Singapore placesmoreweight
on CommanderKennedy's reportthan it can bear.As it has done at every turnin its
pleadings,Singaporecontortsthemeaning ofthedocumentin a vainattemptto bolsteran
argumentthat otherwise canfindlittlesupport.
429. Inparagraph 8.9(c)of itsCounter-Memorial,Singaporerefers to Maps27, 28 and
29 inthe MapAtlas annexedto Malaysia'sMemorial notingthat these haveadopted"the
composite label'PedraBrancaHorsburgh(MiddleRock)',clearlytreatingPedra Branca
andMiddleRocksas one singlegroup". Themapsinquestion, whicharenot navigational
chartsaredrawnon a scaleof 1:253,440.Theydonotdepictindividualmaritimefeatures
within anygreat clarity. OnthisscaPBP andMiddleRocks wouldbe 1/8 ofaninch,or
about3 millimetres,apart. Thereferenceto "PedraBrancHorsburghmddle Rock)"on
these mapscannot in any way be relied upon as evidencethat Malaysiaregardedthese
featuresasa group;it is simanyaccommodationto scale.430. In paragraph 8,9(d) ofitsCounter-Memorial, Singaporeasserts a toponomy
argument,contendingthat MiddleRocksandSouthLedge "are namedin clear relationto
PedraBranca". It attemptsto bolsterthis argumentbyreference,in paragraph8.9(e),to
JudgeCarneiro'sSeparate Opinionin the Minquiersand Ecrehoscase. Evenassuming
arguendothat MiddleRocksandSouth Ledgearenamedinrelationto PBP,this doesnot
advance the case. The fact that features arenamed in relationto one another doesnot
establish thatthey form part ofsinglecompositewhole. It reflectsproximity,not an
integrated relationship. There is nothingof substanceto this particular argumentby
Singapore,
431, The questionof both Singaporeand Malaysia's conductin relation to Middle
Rocks and SouthLedge hasbeen addressed fi,~Iin Malaysia's Memoriaalnd Counter-
Memorial. It remains only to say thati,n respect of Malaysia's conduct, this has
consistently proceeded onthe basis that each of the three features formed part of
Malaysiansovereignterritory.Thefactthatthefeaturesareproximateto one anotherdoes
not mean thatthey formpart of a singlegroup.As regardsthe conductwhich Singapore
advances at paragraphs8.18-8.20of its Counter-Memorialin support ofitscase, this
largelyrestateswhatwas saidin Singapore'sMemorial andto whichMalaysiaresponded
in detail in its Counter-Memorial.There is thereforeno needto repeat thesearguments
here. It shouldsimply be emphasisedthat the surveysto which Singaporerefers were
evidentlyassociatedwith Singapore's responsibiliss operator ofthe lighthouse rather
than being conductthatcouldinany waybeconsidered2 titrdesouvcrain.
C. Conclusions
432. AsMalaysia'ssuccessivepleadingsonthispointhave demonstrated, howeveo rne
looksat PBP, Middle Rocksand SouthLedge-whether throughthe prisms of geology,
geomorphology,hydrographyor navigation-they constitutethree separate and distinct
maritime features. Toponomy,and the proximityof the features oneto another,cannot
alter thisassessment. Singapore canntssertsovereignty overMiddleRocks and South
Ledge simplyas a passing by-productof its claimto sovereigntyover PBP. It must
demonstrate sovereigntinrespectofeachfeatureindividually.Thisithasfailed to do.433. As Malaysia observin its Counter-Memoril,iddleRocksandSouthLedge
have beenpartof Johorsincetimeimmemorial.Thwasconfied by the1824Anglo-
DutchConventionandtheCrawfurdTreatyof thesameyear. Thereis no banow for
anyclaimbySingaporetosovereignoverthesefeatures.434. Malaysia's sovereigntyover Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge, isbased on the originaltitle of the Sultanate of Johorto the three features.
Thebasisoftheoriginaltitleoverthethree featurescanbesummarisedas follows:
(a) The three featuresand other islandsin and around SingaporeStrait
were partof the maritimeempireofthe Sultanateof Johor,which was
establishedaround 1511 and coveredparts of the Malay peninsula,
part of the islandof Swnatra, islandsin the China Sea and the Riau
Archipelago. The sovereigntyand internationalstatusofthe Sultanate
of Johorsincethe 16Icenturywerewell-knownandrecognised.
(b) The Sultanate ofJohor was exposedto some reconfigurationas the
result of Dutch and English interferencein particular, i1824 the
Anglo-DutchTreaty resultedin the Sultanate beingsplit into two in
accordance with the English and Dutch spheres of influence
establishedby the Treaty. The Dutch sphere lay south of the
Singapore Strait, underSultanAbdulRahrnan,and came tobe called
the SultanateofEau-Lingga, The Britishsphere coveredthe northern
part ofthe Sultanate, under SultanHussain,and retainedthe name of
the SultanateofJohor. The Sultanateof Johor subsequentlybecamea
constituentpartof themodem-day StateofMafaysia.
(c) PulauBatu Putehwas not an islandsouthofthe Straitof Singapore. It
fellwithintheBritish sphere ofinfluenceandremainedtheterritoryof
the Sultanateof Johor.TheDutch never claimedthe islandand were
careful to ensure that the Sultan of Riau-Lingga observed the
separationeffectedbythe 1824 Anglo-DutchTreaty.
(d) Theterritory of Johor thusremained intact,exceptfor thapartwhich
becamethe Sultanateof Riau-Lingga andthat part (including islands
just north of the southern shore of theStrait) which Johor ceded to Great Britai in 1824 for the establishmentof the Colony of the
Singapore;
(e) After 1824 Britainacknowledgedthe SultanateofJohor'ssovereignty
over itterritoryinallits dealingswiththeJohorrulers,forexample in
1886 when SultanAbu Bakarof Johor confirmedthe extent of his
territory with the British, and in the 1927 Territorial Waters
Agreement betweenBritain andJohor.
435. Pulau Batu Puteh, lyingat the entranceof the busy Straitof Singaporeinto
the SouthChinaSea, was notterra nufliusbut was(andstill is) a very wellknown
landmark andnavigationalpointof referencewhich has beenfeatured byname on
the earliestmapsand chartsof the region(sinceat least 1552). It was used by the
OrangLaut,whoowedallegiancetothe Temenggongof Johorandwere subjectsof
the SultanateofJohor.
436. Singaporearguesthat itstitleto the threefeatures derivesfrom "a takingof
lawfulpossession"of PulauBatu Putehin 1847, or 1851,or at anyrate inthe period
1847-1851,by virtue of the preparation fox or construction of the Horsburgh
Lighthouseon the island. But Statesmay possess territoryin the sense oflawfully
using it forsuecificpurposeswithoutassertingor acquiringsovereignty. The key
questionis:inwhat capacity did GreatBritainconstructand operatethe lighthouse?
Inassessingthis, thefollowingpointsaredeterminative:
(a) Britain's conduct at the time of the construction of the Lighthouse
indicated clearly that it did not do so with a view to claiming
sovereignty, but with a view to assisting navigation in the public
interest:there is no evidenceat all of intention to acquiresovereignty
overthe island.
(b) The lighthouse was constructed on Pulau Batu Puteh with the
permissionof theSohorrulers. TheBritish correspondencerelatingto
the construction of the lighthouse makes it clear that the British
authorities believed that they were constructing the lighthouse on PulauBatuPutehwith thepermissionofthe Sohorrulers. Thistypeof
arrangementwas quite commonin the region and elsewhereat the
time:Britainandother European States builtandoperatedlighthouses
onthe territoryoflocal rulers.
(c) At no stage prior to Singapore's independence did the character of
British conduct change; at no stage did Britain publicly assert
sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh. Nor did Singapore act any
differentlintheperioduntil 1980when the disputebrokeout. There
was neverany annexationor incorporationof Pulau Batu Puteh into
the BritishColonyofthe StraitsSettlements.
(d) Singapore cannot showany conduct in respect ofthe island of the
character of2 titrede souverain. The only thing that Britain or
Singaporeever didinrelationtothe islandwasoperate the lighthouse,
whichwasa partoftheregionalStraits' Lightssystem.
In those circumstancesthe locationof sovereignty remainsunchanged: itremains
withthesovereignwhose consentwas soughtandgiventoestablishthe lighthouse.
437. The absence of anyoriginaltitle onthepartof GreatBritainto the islandwas
reflectedin British andSingaporeanpracticeat all stagesprior to the critical date,
Until 1980 no Singaporean authorityever referred to PBP as belonging to
Singapore;it was never includedin anymaps of Singapore before the1990s;was
never referred to in lists of SingaporeIslands before the 1990s; was never
incorporated into Singaporelegislatioduringthe 19' or 20" century. Theterritory
and dependencies of Singapore have alwaysbeen carefully describedand were
consistently limitedto the 10-mile limit of Singapore Islandestablishedin 1824,
Theyhavenever includedPBP.
438. Middle Rocksand SouthLedge are distinct and separate from PBP. The
three featureshave neverbeen namedas a group andhave distinct geologicaland
geomorphologicalcharacteristics. The features are separatby navigablechannels.Singapore's lateclaim to Middle Rocks and South Ledgeis merely an effort to
enlargeitsterritorialclaim.
439. Johor (and subsequently Malaysia) neverrelinquished title to the three
features,but continuedto treat them as part of its territory, in the context of its
sovereigntyoverawiderrange ofislands:
(a) The waters ofPBP continuedto be usedastraditional Malay fishing
waters righup until modern times (onlyceasing when Singapore's
actions preventedMalay fishermen from doing so), and the RoyaI
MalaysianNavypatrolledthewaters around PBP,
(b) Malaysia's delimitationpractices,as well as those of Singaporeand
otherStatesinthe SingaporeStraitand SoutChina Seaareconsistent
with and supportive of Malaysia's sovereignty over PBP and
inconsistentwith Singapore'sclaim.
440. Thecore question beforethis Court, accordingto bothPartisthequestion
oftitleoverthe islandatthetime oftheinaugurationofthe lighthouse. Singapore's
claimsitstitlewas established byplanning andconstructingthe lighthousPBP;
Malaysia's caseis that it did not, andthat originaltitle tothe island remainedwith
Johor, with whose permissionthe lighthousewas built. The case concerns atitle
which, accordingto both States, existed 1851 and has not changed since. In
accordance with basic principle, subsequenteflectiviticannot change that
situation. In anycase,bothParties'subsequent conducthasbeen entirelyconsistent
with thestate of affairswhich existedin 1851, All Britainever intendedandall it
everdid was to build and operate alighthousean islandbelongingto Joborwith
itspermission. All it ever claimedwasownershipofthe lighthouse, notsovereignty
over theisland. Priorto the criticaldateSingaporedidno more,and Malaysianever
concededanymoreat anytime. Consequently,sovereigntyover PBP (and afortiori
the other features) remains withthe successor tthe Sultanate of Johor, viz.,
Malaysia.In thelightof the consideratioset out above,Malaysiarespecthlly
requests te ourto&judge anddeclarthatsovereigntover
(a) PedraBranca/PulaBuatuPuteh;
(b) Middle Rocks;
(C) SouthLedge,
belongs tMalaysia.
Agent ofMalaysia
KualaLurnpur
25November 2005
Reply of Malaysia