..,
INTERNATIONAL COURT OFJUSTICE
CASECONCERNINGSOVEREIGNTY OVER
PEDRABRANCAPULAUBATUPUTEH,
MJDDLEROCKSAND SOUTHLEDGE
MEMORIAL OFMALAYSIA
VOLUMEl
25 MARCH2004 TABLEOFCONTENTS
Paragraphs c.
-Chapter 1 The SpecialAgreement
Chapter2 The Dispute between theParties
A. Overview of the dispute
B. The history of the dispute
C. Structure of Malaysia's Memorial
Chapter3 TheGeographicalSetting
A. The general setting
B. Pulau Batu Puteh
C. Middle Rocks and South Ledge
Chapter4 TheHistorical Setting
A. The Sultanateof Johor before 1824
B. The Events of 1824
(i) The 1824 Anglo-DutchTreaty
(ii) The 1824Crawfurd Treaty
C. Post-1824 developments: Singapore and the Straits
Settlements
D. British recognitionof the Sultanateof Johor
E. Post-1945constitutionaldevelopments
F. Conclusions
Chapter5 The Territorial Extent and Insular Dominionsof Johor 73-103
A. The territorial extent of Johor prior to 1824 77-84
B. Post-1824 conflict over the extent of the Sultanate of Johor 85-93
C. Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra rzullius 94-98
D. Subsequent developments confirming the territorial limits 99-102
of Singapore
E. Summary and conclusions 103Chapter6 Norsburgh Lighthouse was Constructedwith the Permission
of Johor
A. Plans for the construction of a lighthouse at the entrance of
the Strait of Singapore
B. The permission of Johor in 1844and its scope
C. The role of the Temenggong of Johor
D. The inauguration of the lighthouse did not involve a
cession or claim of sovereignty
(i) The ceremony of the laying of the first stone and
the inauguration of the lighthouse
(ii) Consistent British practice of taking possession
and incorporation of territory and its absence in
Pulau Batu Puteh
E. Distinction between ownership of lighthouses and
sovereignty over territory
F. Conclusions
Chapter7 The Conductof the PartiessupportsMalaysia's Title
A. The legal framework for considering the conduct of the
Parties
B. Constitutional developments and official descriptions of
Singapore and Malaysia
(i) The Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial
Waters Agreement, 1927
(ii) Establishment of the Colony of Singapore,
27 March 1946
(iii) The Curfew Order of 1948
(iv) Establishment of the Malayan Union and the
Federation of Malaya
(V) Establishment of the State of singadore,
.,.
:lAugust 1958
(vi) Malaysia and Singapore, 1963-1965
(vii) . The phrase "islands.. .administered as part of the
Colony of Singapore''
. . C. Bilateral conduct confirmatory bf i\/lakysian title
(i) The 1927 Agreement
(ii) The Straits Lights system
(iii) The 1953 correspondence
(iv) Conclusions on the bilateral conduct of the Parties
D. Unilateral conduct by Singapore confirmatory of
Malaysia's title
(i) Singapore's Light Dues legislation confirms that
Horsburgh Lighthouse did not fall within
Singapore's territorial waters
(ii) J.A.L. Pavitt's appreciation that the Horsburgh
Lighthouse did not fall within Singapore's
territorial waters
(iii) Indonesia-Singapore Territorial Sea Agreement,
1973
Conclusions on the unilateral conduct of
(iv)
Singapore
E. Malaysia's Conduct
(i) Malaysian naval charts showing Malaysian
territorial waters, including around Pula~~Batu
Puteh
(ii) The 1968 Petroleum Agreement between the
Government of Malaysia and the Continental Oil
Company of Malaysia
(iii) The delimitation of ~alaysia's territorial sea in
the area around Pulau Batu Puteh
(iv) The Indonesia-Malaysia Continental Shelf
Agreement, 1969
(v) Conclusions as to Malaysia's conduct
F. Co~lclusions
Chapter8 ThePositionof Middle Rocksand South Ledge
A. The relation of the two features to Pulau Batu Puteh
B. Basis for Malaysian title over the two features
C. Absence of any claim by Singapore: Singapore's
recognition of Malaysia's sovereignty
D. ConclusionChapter9 The1Wap Evidence
A. General principles
B. Review of the map evidence
(i) The early maps
(ii) Mapping of the reg& after 1824 (including the
period of the establishment of Horsburgh
Lighthouse)
C. Conclusions in relation to the map evidence
Summary
Submissions
ListofAnnexes '. .g'
Chapter 1
THE SPECIALAGREEMENT
l. This is the Memorial of the Government of Malaysia ("Malaysia") filed pursuant
to the Order of the Court made on 1September 2003.
2. The case comes before the Court by virtue of a Special Agreement concluded
between Malaysia and Singapore on 6 February 2003.' Instruments of ratification were
exchanged and the Agreement entered into force on 9 May 2003. The Agreement was
jointly notified to the Registrar of the Court on 24 July 2003.
3. The Special Agreement places before the Court a dispute between the Parties
relating to sovereignty over an island at the entrance to the South China Sea, Pulau Batu
Puteh (Pedra Branca), as well as two other features, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "three features"). Specifically the Court is
asked "to determine whether sovereignty over (a) Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh; (h)
Middle Rocks; (c) South Ledge, belongs to Malaysia or to the Republic of Singapore7'.
4. Article 4(2) of the Special Agreement envisages three simultaneous exchanges
of pleadings (Memorial, Counter-Memorial and Reply), with a Rejoinder if so agreed or
decided.
I Annexes,vol. 2, Annex20. Chapter 2
THEDISPUTE BETWEENTHE PARTIES
A. Overview of the Dispute
5. The question put to the Court refers to sovereignty over three features, Pulau
Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. The location of these features is shown in
Insert 1, opposite, together with other localities in the region, shown with their current
names. Where relevant, names given to particular features at earlier dates will be
indicated. For example, Tanjung Penyusoh was earlier referred to as Point Romania. In
some cases orthography has always been variable. For example, "Johor" was variously
spelt with or without a final "e": the modern spelling "Johor" will be used here except in
quotations. Different names for the same feature may have simply involved expressing
the same idea in relevant languages: thus the ~alay "Pulau Batu Puteh" ("White Rock
Island") is rendered "Pedra Branca" in Portuguese, "Pierre Blanche" in French, "Pin
Clziao" in Chinese. All these names have exactly the same meaning, and refer to the
white deposits left by seabirds. It has been known by this designation, in whatever
language, for centuries."
6. This case is relatively simple. As regards Pulau Batu Puteh itself, it pits
Malaysia's original title to the island against Singapore's much later claim, which dates:
from 1980. The island lies 7.7 nautical miles (nm) from the Malaysian mainland but '
25.5 nIn over the sea from Singapore. Singapore's claim is based on the construction of
a lighthouse on the island in themid-lgth century, with Johor's permission, and on the
subsequent operation and management of the lighthouse. As regards South Ledge and
Middle Rocks, Singapore's even later claim, dating from 1993, is not based on any form
7 Pulau Batu Puteh is variously referred to as an "island" or a "rock". In this Memorial it
will be referred tothe generic term "island','.of governmental activity but on the relative proximity of these features to Pulau Batu
Puteh. If Singapore's 1980 claim to the island fails, so does its 1993 claim to the other
two features. Accordingly, the focus of this Memorial will be principally on Pulau.Batu
Puteh. Issues concerning South Ledge and Middle Rocks are discussed in Chapter 8.
7. The key to the case lies in an appreciation of four elements.
8. The firstis that in 1844, at the time when consideration was given to the
construction of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh, that island was certainly part of the
territories subject to the sovereignty of the Sultanate'of Johor. This certainty regarding
Johor's title in 1844 derives from the fact that, from the early 16'~century, the territories
of.the Sultanate of Johor had extended to the islands south of and around Singapore
Strait. Except as to areas south of the Strait, this title was confirmed when the Anglo-
Dutch Treaty of 1824 distinguished between the British and Dutch spheres of influence
in the Malay region.3 Pulau Batu Puteh clearly did not lie within the Dutch sphere of
influence. The fact that Pulau Batu Puteh lay in the British sphere of influence did not
bring the island under British sovereignty any more than it did mainland Johor, which
was equally within the British sphere. Britain's own claim to sovereignty over
Singapore rested on a treaty concluded with Johor, later in 1824(the Crawfurd rea at^)?
by which Johor expressly ceded to Britain "in full sovereignty and property" the island
of.Singapore and the islands lying within "ten geographical miles" of its coast.5 That
cession clearly did not include Pulau Batu Puteh.
9: The second important element is that Britain acknowledged the title of i the
Sultanate of Johor .when,in.1.844,it sought the permission both of the Sultan and of.his
principal official, the Temenggong, for construction of the lighthouse. The British letter
3
Treaty between His Britannick Majesty and the Ing of the Netherlands, Respecting
Territory and Commerce in the East Indies, London,17 March 1824, 11 British aridFoveigrzState
Papers 194 (English text); 74 Consolidated Treaty Serie88 (English and Dutch texts): Annexes,
vol.2, Annex 5.
-1 Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between the Honourable East India Company and the
Sultan and the Temenggong of Johore, 2 August 1824,74 CTS 380 (English text): Annexes, vol. 2,
5nnex 6.
. A "geographical mile" is equivalent for practical purposes to a nautical mile. t-; ,':c.
of request has not been found, so itys impossible now to ascertain its terms. But even if
it did request a cession (which would have been unusual having regard to Britain's
practice in comparablecircumstances elsewhere), the two replies from the Sultan and the
Temenggong contain nothing to suggest that they were agreeing to part with sovereignty.
The express words appropriate to so far reaching an act as a cession of territory do not
appear in the letters, in contrast with the wording of the grant to Britain of title over
Singapore by the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824. All that the authorities of Johor granted was
the permission to build a lighthouse.
10. Thir dt,s well established in international law that the mere construction and
operation of a lighthouse does not establish the sovereignty of the lighthouse operator. A
fortior iithis true when the lighthouse is built and operated with the permission of the
territorial sovereign. The fact that the state of affairs established in 1844has persisted
for some 160 years does not make any difference. Neither Britain nor Singapore ever
requested a change in the legal position. Neither Johor nor Malaysia had occasion to
question or to seek confirmation of the original legal position. Johor consented to the
construction and operation of a lighthouse on one of its islands. That is all Singapore
..
has ever done.
. ,
11. Fourth, reference should be made to the conduct of Singapore itself. One would
have expected that if Singapore had regarded itself as sovereign over Pulau Batu-.Puteh
this would have been reflected in its official conduct. But it.has not been. Singaporedid
not refer to Pulau Batu Puteh as a feature relevant to the determination of its territorial
waters boundary with Johor in 1927~or with Indonesia in 1973.' It did not list the island'
in any lists of Singapore islands before the critical date. Before the mid-1990s,
Singapore produced no map showing Pulau Batu Puteh as part of Singapore. By
contrast, maps produced by Malaysia long before the crystallisation of the dispute show
Pulau Batu Puteh as being part of Johor.
6
StraitsSettlementsandJohoreTemtorialWaters Agreement1 ,9October1927:Annexes,
vol.2, Annex12.
7 AgreementStipulatingthe TerritorialSea Boundary LinesbetweenIndonesiaand the
RepublicofSingapore intheStraitofSingapore,25 May1973:Annexesv , ol. 2,Annex18.12. In short, the position is that Malaysia has an original title to Pulau Batu Puteh of
long standing. Pulau Batu Puteh is, and has always been, part of the Malaysian State of
Johor. Nothing has happened to displace Malaysia's sovereignty over it. Singapore's
presence on the island for the sole purpose of constructing and maintaining a lighthouse
there - with the permission of the territorial sovereign - is insufficient to vest
sovereignty in it.
B. The History of the Dispute
13. The first indication that there was a dispute over title to Pulau Batu Puteh
occurred on 14February 1980. On that date Singapore protested a Malaysian map of its
maritime boundaries, published in the previous year, which showed Pulau Batu Puteh as
belonging to ~ala~sia.' Singapore's Note of 14 February 1980 led to an exchange of
correspondence and subsequently to a series of intergovernmental talks in 1993-1994 at
which the respective positions of the two Parties were developed, but without any result.
Subsequently it was agreed that the matter should be resolved by reference to this Court.
14. It is not necessary to burden the Court at this stage with the details of the
negotiations between the Pasties after the dispute had arisen. The substance of the
Parties' positions then taken will no doubt be set out, in more detail, in the pleadings of
both Parties. One point however does require to be noted. During the first round of
talks, held in Kuala Lulnpur on 5 February 1993, Singapore made it clear for the first
time that the dispute was not limited to Pulau Batu Puteh (to which it had refen-ed
exclusively up to that point) but extended to Middle Rocks and South Ledge. This was
despite the fact that up to that date Singapore had never exercised the slightest form of
jurisdiction or administration over these features, nor made any public claim to them.
15. In disputes concerning territorial title, the Court attaches significance to the
critical date, i.e., the date on which the dispute between the parties crystallised. This is
evident, for example, fro111 the Court's handling of post-1969 effectivites in the Ligitan
8 Map Atlas, Map 44. For Singapore's Note of 14 February 1980 see Annexes, vol. 3,
Annex 80. " 5
and Sipndnlz case."n the present case, the dispute over Piau Batu Puteh crystallised on
14February 1980; that concerning the other two features on 6 February 1993.
C. Structure of Malaysia's Memorial
16. Malaysia's Memorial is organised as follows. In Chapter 3, the geographical
setting is outlined;this is an essential basis to an understanding of the dispute.
17. Likewise essential is the historical setting, which is canvassed in Chapter 4,
tracing thereby Malaysia's title over the offshore islands as it dei-ivesfrom that of the
Sultanate of Johor.
18. Chapter 5 shows that all the offshore islands which were neither included in the
original grant of Singapore and surrounding islands to Great Britain in 1824, nor
recognised as lying south of Singapore Strait and therefore belonging to the Dutch East
Indies, were regarded as belonging to the Sultanate of Johor. The territorial extent of
Johor and its extension to the offshore islands was repeatedly recognised by Great
Britain.
I
19. Chapter 6 recounts the process by which Johor's permission was sought and
obtained for the building of a lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh or any other convenient
spot within the Sultanate; it demonstrates further that this permission did not involve any
cession of territory. After its inauguration on 15 October 185 1,Horsburgh Lighthouse
was operated by the relevant administrative agency based in Singapore, but this fact did
not involve any claim to sovereignty over the island.
' >
20. Chapter 7 shows that Singapore at no stage before the dispute arose in 1980
claimed sovereignty over puiau Batu Puteh, and that its conduct throughout, both
internally and in its dealings with its neighbours, was consistent with the original limited
purpose for its presence on the island. By contrast, Malaysia did exercise sovereignty
9 Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia and
Muluysiu), Decision on Merits, 17December 2002, ICJ Repor-ts2002.over offshore areas including the island during this period, and did regard it as one
ainong the large number of offshore islands of Johor.
21. Chapter 8 discusses the position of Middle Rocks and South Ledge. It shows
their configuration as features which are distinct from Pulau Batu Puteh and which have
always been considered as part of Malaysia. Singapore's late claim to them in 1993 is
not grounded in either title or conduct.
22. Finally Chapter 9 discusses the map evidence concerning the three features.
Although these have been shown on maps for centuries, Singapore has not produced any
map showing the features as belonging to Singapore before 1994. By contrast the
Malaysian maps show the features as part of Johor, not Singapore. The map evidence
thus supports Malaysia's case to sovereignty over the three features.
23. The Memorial concludes with a short summary of Malaysia's reasoning (cf.
Practice Direction 11,para. 2), followed by its submissions.
24. -Appended to the Memorial are 113 documentary annexes, and a Map Atlas
consisting of 48 maps. Having regard to the Court's Practice Direction III, Malaysia has
appended only essential documents, and where the document in question is lengthy, only
the most relevant passages. A certified copy of each original document referred to in
this Memorial but not annexed in full has been provided to the Registrar. .,' . .,, . ,
Chapter3
. THEGEOGRAPHICAL SETTING
Introduction
25. In order to understand the present case, it is necessary to appreciate the confined
geographical setting within which Pulau Batu Puteh and the other two features are
located. The distance between Pulau Batu Puteh and the coast of the Malay Peninsula is
small; other Malaysian islands are even closer. Moreover the location and name of
Pulau Batu Puteh ("White Rock Island") have been known for centuries. This is no
remote and intermittently unknown island, but one readily accessible by local craft from
the mainland and nearby islands. Given its strategic position at the entrance of the
Singapore Strait and its potential danger for navigation, Pulau Batu Puteh was
considered as an important maritime feature by Europeans since their first visits to the
region, as the map evidence shows.
26. The position can be seen from Insert 2, on the following page, which shows the
environs of Pulau Batu Puteh and names the various geographical features referred to in
this Chapter.
A. The General Setting
27. The region within which Pulau Batu Puteh is set is a coastal region, including
Singapore Strait and parts of the South China Sea. 18,000years ago, at the height of the
last ice-age, this region consisted of broad river valleys and wide coastal plains. As the
ice melted, sea levels rose and reached close to their present levels about 6,000 years
ago, creating this major strait. ENVIRONS OF PULAU BATU PUTEH
GreatI
-L ,",*g<<;,
28. The northern coast of Singapore Strait;. from Tanjung Piai to Tanjung
~en~usoh," consists of the coast of the Malay Peninsula and the south coast of
Singapore and its islands, which fit into the mainland along the Straits of Johor like
pieces of ajigsaw." The south coast of Singapore Strait, from Little Karimun Island in
the west to Tanjung Tondang in the east, is formed by the northern coast of the
Indonesian archipelago, including the major islands of Great Karimun, Pulau Batam and
Pulau Bintan. Pulau Bintan is less than 10nm from Pulau Batu Puteh.
29. Singripore Strait measures about 53 nm in length. It is about 10nm wide at its
western entrance and 11.5 n~nat its eastern entrance. Near the middle of the Straits,
between Saint John Island and Batu Berhenti, the channel is only 2.5 nm wide. In short,
the area is a confined one, and in normal conditions 'allthe islands are visible from the
nearest coastlines.
30. Malaysia is a continental and insular state with numerous off-shore islands.
Indonesia has-claimed archipelagic status and surrounded its islands with archipelagic
baselines, some of which border the south coast of Singapore Strait. As a result of the
Crawfurd Treaty (between the English East India Company and the Sultan and
Temenggong of Johor in 1824), the territory of Si.:r,ore ,onsists of only the Island of
Singapore together with the adjacent seas, straits, and islets, to the extent of 10
geographical i>iles,from the coast of the said main Island of Singapore.
31. The depths in Singapore Strait vary from 20 metres to 95 metres but are mainly
in the 30-40 metre range. There is no sudden deepening of sea depths east of Pulau Batu
Puteh as the continental shelf follows a gently downward gradient to the top of the
continental slope north of Sarawak, in latitude 5'30' N, where water depths are in the
order of 200 metres.
10 "Tanjung" (often abbreviated "Tg." on maps) is Malay for "point" or "promontory".
I I
The narrow waterway between Singapore and mainland Johor is known as the Straits of
Johor, in earlier times also shown as the "Old Straits" or the "Straits of". ,..- .-.<
B.,*..,.3'PulauBatu Puteli'::;.;++;
32. Pulau Batu Puteh is located at l019'48"Nand104O24'27"E.As can be seen from
Insert 3, opposite, the island lies 7.7 nm from Tanjung Penyusoh (Point Romania) on the
Malaysian mainland and 25.5 nm from the nearest point on Singapore's coast. The next
Malaysian island is Pulau Pemanggil, 6.8 nm away. Pulau Batu Puteh stands 7.3 metres
high and is permanently uncovered by water even at the highest tides.
33. The first written record of Pulau Batu Puteh (Pia Clziao) was given by the
. Chinese navigator Cheng Ho sometime before 1433." It appeared on many maps long
before 1800,identified under a variety of names. On Horsburgh's 1812 chart there were
unnamed symbols for rocks southeast of "Pedro Branca", i.e., Middle Rocks, and the
three-pointed reef (now known as South Ledge) is shown to the southwest.
C. Middle Rocks and South Ledge
34. The two features closest to Pulau Batu Puteh are Middle Rocks, located 0.6 nm
to the southeast, and South Ledge 2.2 nm to the southwest. Middle Rocks consist of
some whitish rocks that are permanently uncovered and stand 0.6 to 1.2 metres high.
L :
South Ledge is formed of three rocks which are all covered at high tide. The
northernmost rock dries at 2.1 metres at low-tide.
35. Further information about Middle Rocks and South'Ledge is given in Chapter 8:
.-.
12 J.V.G. Mills, Ma HUUYZ Yii7g-Yai Shetag-lrm: The overall sway of the ocean's shores,
Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society,Cambridge, 1970,p.210. Chapter 4
THE HISTORICALSETTING
Introduction
36. As was noted in Chapter 2, the basis of Malaysia's claim is the original and
uninterrupted title of the Sultanate of Johor to Pulau Batu Puteh as one of the islands off
the coast of the Malay Peninsula. This Chapter outlines the history of the region,
focusing in particular on the evolution of the Sultanate of Johor, the establishment of the
Straits Settlements and their administration, and post-1945 constitutional developments
relating to Malaysia and Singapore. It shows that prior to 1824, the Sultanate of Johor
extended north and south of Singapore Strait and included many islands in and around
the Strait (Section A). By the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, the British and the Dutch
divided their spheres of influence in the region. The Dutch sphere was to the south of
Singapore Strait. Pulau Batu Puteh fell within the British sphere and continued to
belong to the Sultanate of JohorSection B). Pulau Batu Puteh was not included in the
Johor grant of 1824 for the Settlement of Singapore, limited as it was to islands within
ten geographical miles from the Island of Singapore (Section C). The British
recognition of Johor as an independent State can be inferred from various legal
instruments as well as official British acts (Section D). None of the various
constitutional developments leading to the independence of Malaysia and Singapore had
any effect on the status of Pulau Batu Puteh, which remains an island within the
territorialnlits of Johor, now a component State of Malaysia (SectionE).THE MALAY REGION IN THE 19" CENTURY
I
SoutChfm
Sea
RNE
Insert4 F.. .* i>,.>?;'l9
A. The Sultanate of Johor before 1824
37. Insert 4, opposite, shows the Malay region, with significant locations marked.
During the 15thcentury, the Sultanate of Malacca was the dominant force over this
region. The town of Malacca served as the main port and became the chief political
centre as well. However, with the onset of European colonialism, Malacca fell in 1511
to the Portuguese. Shortly afterwards, in 1512, Sultan Mahmud established what became
the Sultanate of ~0hor.l~ Despite frequent incursions by the Portuguese and
subsequently, the Dutch, the Siamese and the British, and notwithstanding frequent
internal power struggles, the Sultanate of Johor was able to remain a major power in the
Malay region and to survive into the modern period.
38. As early as 1604,no less than Hugo Grotius recorded Johor as a Sultanate which
"has long been considered a sovereign principality". According to Grotius, Johor thus
possessed "the authority necessary to conduct a public war" against the Portuguese and
to ask the Dutch for assistance in the war.I4 As allies of the Sultanate of Johor, the
Dutch were entitled to capture the Portuguese vessel Catarina loaded with a valuable
cargo from the East Indies. In doing so, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) also
challenged the monopolist pretension\s of Portugal to navigation and conunerce in the
East Indies.
Ii
See R.O. Winstedt, A History of Johove (1365-1941), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Branch
of the Royal Asiatic Society, repr. 1992, 14.
l4 Hug0 Grotius, De iuvepmedae comrnentuvius, 1604; translated by G.L.Williams et al.,
Colnlnentaly on the Law of Prize and Booty by Hugo Gvotius, Willam S. Hein: Buffalo, N.Y.,
1995,314-15, paras. 141-2. See also P. Borschberg, "The seizure of the Sta. Catarina revisited: the
Portuguese empire in Asia, VOC politics and the origins of the Dutch-Johore alliance (1602-c.
1616)", (2002) 33 Journal oj SoutlzeastAsian Studies31.39. In 1606, the Sultanate of J'ohorconcluded an alliance with the Dutch. In 1641,
their combined forces jointly conquered Malacca after a fierce battle with the
Portuguese. It was agreed that the Dutch would have the town of Malacca, while the
Sultanate of Johor would acquire the territory around the town. No vessels of other
European powers would be allowed to trade without permission of the Dutch. Various
further treaties were concluded between the Sultanate of Johor and the Dutch East India
~om~an~.'~ Throughout the 17'~and 18" century, close co-operation between this
Sultanateand the Dutch prevailed. Johor acquired extensive commercial privileges from
the Dutch and became a leading maritime power in the Malay region.16 AS can be seen
from Insert 5, opposite, the Sultanate was located both north and south of the Straits,
and included Johor, Riau, Lingga and neighbouring islands.
40. It was only from the late 18'~century that the English East India Company
sought to establish itself in the Malay region. In 1786, the Company took control of
Penang and founded the settlement of Georgetown. During the Napoleonic wars (1793-
1815) the British took temporary control of strategic Dutch possessions including
Malacca (1795), the Moluccas (1796) and Java (1811).
41. In 1814, at the end of the French occupation of the Netherlands (1795-1814),
Great Britain and the Netherlands signed a Convention relating to the Dutch colonies.
This entailed the restoration of Dutch sovereignty over "the Colonies, Factories and
Establishments which were possessed by Holland at the commencement of the late War,
viz. on the 1stof January, 1803, in the Seas and on the Continent of America, Africa and
~sia"." Soon the Dutch restored their position on Java and Riau (sometimes spelt Rhio)
and also in Malacca. They established a hold on the island of Batam, just south of
15 See E. Netscher, De Nederlanders irlDjohor en Siak, 1602 tot 1865 [The Dutch in Johor
l6d Sipk, 1602 to 18651,Batavia: Bruinin& Wijt, 1870.
See A.L. Andaya, The Kingdom of Jolzore 1641-1728, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University
Press, 1975;R. Vos, Gentle Jan~ls,Merchant Prince. The VOC and the Tight?-opeof Diplotnacy in
the Malay World, 1740-1800, Leiden: KITLV Press, 1993.
17 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands Relative to the Dutch Colonies,
London, 13 August 1814,63 CTS322, Art. 1:Annexes, vol. 2, Annex l.Singapore.Strait. The restoration and consolidation of the Dutch possessions in the East
Indies caused someconcern to the ~ritish.'~
42. It was very much the individual initiative of Sir Thomas Starnford Raffles, who
served as Governor of Java during the period 181 1-1816, to set up a British post at the
southern end of the Straits of Malacca. After having inspected the Carimon (now spelled
Karimun) Islands, Raffles went on to Singapore and decided to establish a trading post
there. This led to the first in a series of agreements between the British and the rulers of
Johor.
43. Before turning to these agreements, the role of.the Temenggong needs to be
briefly explained. Both the Sultan and the Temenggong exercised hereditary authority
. .
within the Sultanate of Johor. Historically the latter office was of lesser status, but by
the end of the 1.8''century di fact; control over certain areas (includipg Singapore and
surrounding islands) lay with the Temenggong rather than with the sultan." As
Presgrave, the then Head of the Import and Export Office in Singapore, observed in
"Under the regular Malay Government the Tumunggong is the second
officer of the state, and has very extensive authority committed to him
by his Sovereign who troubles himself very little in the executive part of
the administration tho' for forms sake, all affairs of importance are
referred to him for his
44. The internal rivalry between the two lineages meant that third States wishing to
deal 'withJohor would have been well advised to obtain'the consent of both the:Sultan
and the Temenggong to any important transaction. This internal division was nbt
resolved until later in the 19" century.*'
18 G. Irwin, Ninetee~zth-CerzturyBorlzeo. A Study in Diplolnatic Rivalry, The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1955, ch 3; N. Tarling, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry in theMa1a.yWorld, 1780-1824,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1962.
).
l9 . See C.A. Trocki, Prince of Pirates. The ~e~~e~zggor~ ansd theDeveloplnerztof ~dhorand
Singapore, Singapore; Singapore University Press, 1979, 5-7.
'O E. Presgrave to Resident Councillor; 5 .December 1828, Straits Settle~ner~ts Factory
Records, Series W. 159:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 27. . . - -
21
See paragraph 63 below.45. By an agreement of 30 ~an'bai~1819concluded with the Temenggong of Johor,
the English East India Company obtained parts of Singapore for building a factory.2'
One week later, on 6 February 1819, a further Treaty of Friendship and Alliance was
concluded with both the Sultan and the Temenggong. Article VIII of this Treaty
provided that: "The Port of Singapore is to be considered under the immediate protection
and subject to the regulations of the British a~thorities."'~
46. Four months later, a supplementary Arrangement was concluded with the Sultan
and Temenggong of Johor, detailing the boundaries of the area on the island of
Singapore which would be under the control of the English East India Company for
purposes of establishing the factory.24Article 1provided that: . .:.
"The boundaries of the lands under the control of the ~nilish are as
follows: from Tanjong Malang on the west, to Tanjong Katang on the
east, and on the land side, as far as the range of cannon shot, all round
the factory."
47. At that stage these agreements gave the Company a license to use the laid for
the purposes of establishing the English factory but did not amount to a cession of
sovereignty. Nonetheless, the Dutch were far from pleased-by these developments.
. .
B. The Events of 1824
48. The 1819 agreements referred to above were aprelude to major political changes
in the Sultanate of Johor. These resulted in particular from two treaties concluded in the
..
same year, 1824: first, a Treaty between Great Britain and the Netherlands delimiting
their spheres of influence in the East Indies (hereinafter, "the Anglo-Dutch Treaty"), and
. . .
secondly, an Agreement between Johor and the English East India Company ceding the
22 Agreement between the Honourable East India Company and the Temenggong of Johore,
23 January 1819,69 CTS 480 (English text): Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 2.
Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between Sir Stamford Raffles and Sultan Hussain
Mahumrnad Shah, Sultan of Johore and Dato Temenggong Sri Maharajah Abdul-Rahman, 6
February 1819,69 CTS 481 (English text): Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 3.
24 Arrangements Made for the Government of Singapore,Singapore, 26 June 1819, 70 CTS
202: Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 4.Island of Singapore and certain surrounding islands to the Company (hereinafter, "the
Crawfurd Treaty").
(i) Tlze1824AIZ~~O-DLL TIeIty
49. Following extensive negotiations, Great Britain and the Netherlands concluded a
Treaty of 17 March 1824 determining their spheres of influence in the Malay region."
The Treaty required the Netherlands to withdraw its objection to the British occupation
of Singapore, to cede Malacca to the English East India Company and not to make any
arrangements in the Malay region north of the islands within the Dutch sphere of
influence. Article X provided:
"The Town and Fort of Malacca, and its Dependencies, are hereby ceded
to His Britannick Majesty; and His Netherlands Majesty engages, for
Himself and His Subjects, never to form any Establishment on any part
of the Peninsula of Malacca, or to conclude any Treaty with any Native
Prince, Chief, or State therein."
Under Article XII of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty it was agreed that:
"His Netherlands Majesty withdraws the objections which have been
made to the occupation of the Island of Singapore, by the Subjects of His
BritannickMajesty.
His Britannick Majesty, however, engages, that no British Establishment
shall be made on the Carirnon Isles, or on the Islands of Battam, Bintang,
Lingin, or on any of the other Islands South of the Straights [sic]of
Singapore, nor [shall] any Treaty [be] conclude[d] by British Authority
with the Chiefs of those Islands."
50. The Anglo-Dutch Treaty thus embodied an agreement that European influence
over this part of the East Indies would be divided amongst the two powers. In particular,
any "Islands south of the Straights of Singapore" (Article XII) would be left to the
Dutch. In return, the Dutch would no longer seek territory within or to the north of the
Strait, and would accept British "occupation7'of Singaporeitself.
25 Treaty between HisBritannick Majestyand.the Kingof the Netherlands, Respecting
TerritoryandComnercein the EastIndies,London,17March1824, 11 British and Foreign State
Payers 194(Englishtext);74 CTSSS (EnglishandDutchtexts):Annexes, vol. 2,Annex 5. BRITISH SPHERE AFTER THE ANGLO-DUTCH TREATY 1824
r v Insert651. In the course of the drafting process, the phrase "any of the other Islands South
of the Straights of Singapore" came to replace the initial wording "any of the remaining
islands belonging to the ancient kingdom of ▯ oh ore".'^ But despite the change in
wording the outcome was the same. For the effect of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty was to
split "the ancient kingdom of Johore" into two parts. One, the Sultanate of Johor,
remained based in the southern part of Malay Peninsula and came within the British
sphere. The other, the Sultanate of Riau-Lingga, was within the Dutch sphere of
influence and was to the south of Singapore Strait.
52. The two spheres of influence followed the line from P. Carimon, P. Pemping
Besar, P. Belaking Padang, P. Batam to P. Bintan, forming in effect the southern "shore"
of the Strait of Singapore. These locations are shown on Insert 6, on the preceding
page. Thereafter the Dutch would confine themselves to Sulnatra and other islands south
of Singapore Strait.
53. There is no doubt that Pulau Batu Puteh is not an island to the "South of the
Straights of Singapore", situated as it is.5 nm north of Pulau in tan.' ^hat Pulau Batu
Puteh lay within the British sphere of influence can also be seen clearly from Dutch
maps at the time, as will be shown in Chapter 9.
(ii) The 1824 Crnwfurd T~eaty
54. Soon after the conclusion of the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty, the English East
India Company and the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor concluded a new Treaty of
Friendship and Alliance on 2 August 1824.'~ By this treaty, also known as the Crawfurd
Treaty after the then British Resident of Singapore, the rulers of Johor ceded the Island
of Singapore to the English East India Company.
26 See Irwin, 1955,62-66.
27 Similarly Middle Rocks and South Ledge are respectively 7.2 and 5.8 nrn north of P.
Bintan.
28 Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between the HonourableEast India Company and the
Sultan and the Temenggongof Johore, 2 August 1824,74 CTS 380 (English text): Annexes, vol. 2,
Annex 6.THE CRAWFURD TREATY, 182455. The Treaty specified the geographical scope of the cession of the Island of
Singapore, together with adjacent seas, straits and islets, to the extent of ten geographical
miles from the coast of Singapore.
56. - Specifically, ArticleIIof the Crawfurd Treaty provided as follows:
"Their Highnesses the Sultan Hussain Mahomed Shah and Datu
Tumungong Abdul Rahman Sri Maharajah hereby cede in full
sovereignty and property to the Honourable the English East India
Company, their heirs and successors for ever, the Island of Singapore,
rsituated in the Straits of Malacca, together with-the adjacent seas, straits,
and islets, to the extent of ten geographical miles, from the coast of the
said main Island of Singapore." .
A notional ten-mile radius drawn in accordance with Article ITcan be,seen from Insert
7, on the preceding page. The Crawfurd Treaty thus carried with it British recognition of
the prior authority of the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor over islands in the Strait of
Singapore, including islands within 10 nin of Singapore itself.
C. Post-1824 developments:Singaporeandthe Straits Settlements
57. In 1825, the British Resident, John Crawfurd, was instructed to take formal
possession of the Island of Singapore and its dependencies. For this purpose he sailed
around the Island of Singapore, during which he established its easternmost point. His
acts included the planting of the Union Jack and the firing of a 21 gun salute on Pulau
Ubin in the Straits of Johor. Subsequently, on 9 August 1825 Crawfurd landed on
Rabbit and Coney Islands and took possession of them under a salute of 21 guns.'9 ke
"These two islets.. .form the limit of British possession to the South West
and this possession in all, now embraces a circuinference of one full
hundred geographical ~niles."
29 These islands are now known as Pulau Biolaand Pulau Satumu, respectively.
30 See J.H. Moor, Notices of the Indian Arcl?ipelago arid Adjacent Coz~ntvies,Singapore,
1837,pp. 269-273.Singapore and its dependencies, as determined by the 10-mile limit, were shown on
numerous maps of the time, beginning with the 1849 map, Insert 8, shown on the
preceding page.31
58. Pulau Batu Puteh fell clearly outside of the area of the 1824 grant. It is situated
25.5 nm to the east of the Island of Singapore, well beyond the ten-mile limit laid down
in that Treaty. Similarly, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are far beyond the ten-mile
limit.
59. In 1826, the English East India Company united Penang, Province Wellesley,
Malacca and Singapore under the name of the Straits Settlements, with its headquarters
in penang." The Straits Settlements are depicted in red on Insert 9, shown opposite.
This map was originally published in Singapore in 1887. After the abolition of the East
India Company in 1858,the Straits Settlements came formally under the Government of
British India, based in Calcutta. In 1867, the Straits Settlements became a separate
Crown Colony whose administration was transferred from the India Office to the
Colonial Office in ond don.'?
60. Whenever changes were made to the territorial extent of the British settlements,
care was taken to formalise them. For example, on two occasions other islands. were
incorporated into the Straits Settlements: in 1886 the Cocos (Keeling) ~slands?~and in
1900Christmas ~sland." Pulau Batu Puteh was never so dealt with.
31
32 See Map Atlas, Maps 12, 13, 14.
See C.M. Turnbull, The Straits Settler?zents 1826-67. hdian Presiderlcy to Crown
Colony, London: Athlone Press, 1972. In 1832 the government of the Straits Settlement was
moved to Singapore.
33 See Act of British Parliament to Provide for the Government of the Straits Settlements,
10 August 1866: 70 BFSP 314.
Letters Patent,I February 1886, Appointing the Governor of the Straits Settlements and
their Dependencies to be Governor of the Cocos or Keeling Islands, and Authorising the
Annexation of those Islands to the Straits Settlements, 21 0 and S1Revised to December 31,
1948,512.
35 Letters Patent, 8 January 1889, Appointing the Governor of the Straits Settlements and
their Dependencies to be Governor of Chistmas Island, and Authorising the Annexation of that
Island to the Straits Settlements,R & 0 and SI Revised to December 31, 1948, 514.MAP OF THE MALAY PENINSULA, 1887
Insert 9 D. British Recognition of the Sultanate of Johor
61. As noted in paragraph 38 above, the Sultanate of Johor was a recognised
political entity from the 16"'century onwards. As one French text put it:
""Si Singapour est recent comme etablissement europken, le lieu est
ancien comme place indigene.. .La place.. . etait la residence des sultans
de D.johor, dont la donlinatiojnss'Ctendaitsur la moitiCde la presqu'ile
Malaise, et dont la suzerainett trait reconnue par beaucoup de radjahs de
1'ArchipelIn~lien."~'
62. The continued recognition of the Sultanate of Johor as an independent State by
the British can be seen from a number of legal instruments as well as from a series of
official British acts. Examples include the series of agreements in 1819 between the
English East India Company and the rulers of the Sultanate of Johor on the establishment
of a factory in ing gap ore E.ven more important is the Crawfurd Treaty, by which the
British Crown plainly recognised the right of the Johor rulers to exercise sovereignty
within their dominions, including off-shore islands. In 1846, Governor Butterworth
presented a sword to the Temenggong of Johor as "a testimony of the high estimation" of
the Government of India for his services in the suppression of piracy.38 In an Agreement
as to the Teinenggong's Property in the Island of Singapore of 19 December 1862, the
British addressed the Teinenggong of Johor, with whom by then full control over Johor
lay, as the "Sovereign Ruler of oho ore".'^
Reference has already been made above (paragraph 44) to the internal divisions
63.
within Johor between the Sultan and the Temenggong. In March 1855, the then Sultan
and- the Temenggong concluded an agreement in order to put an end to their
36
V de Saint MartinJLRousselet, G6ogaphze U~?z~~erseP ller,is,LibrairieHachette, 1892,V,
954.
37 See paragraphs 45-47 above.
38 The text of the speechby Governor Butterworth was published in SrlzlitsT~nze5,
September 1846. See Annexes, vol.3, Annex 52.
39 Text in W.G. Maxwell and W.S. Gibson (eds., Treaties and Engagerne17ts Affeectir~the
Malay States and Borneo, London: Jas Truscott& Son, 1924,p. 129: Annexes,vol. 2, Annex 9. difference^ T.h's amounted to a transfer of full authority to the Temenggong over the
whole of the territory of Johor, with the exception of the small Kassang territory which
remained reserved for the Sultan. Abu Bakar, the powerful Teinenggong of Johor from
1862-1885, became Sultan from 1885 until his death in 1~95.~'
64. During Sultan Abu Bakar's tenure, the British Government and the State of
Johor concluded what is commonly referred to as the Johor Treaty of 1885." In this
Treaty, explicit reference was made to "the Independent State of Johore". In an
amendment to it in 1914, reference was made to "the State and territory of oh ore".^'
These instruments provided for overland trade and transit rights for Britain through the
Straits of Johor, but allowed only limited British intervention in the internal affairs of
Johor. In essence, these treaties were co-operative arrangements without eliminating the
sovereignty of Johor or changing its territorial extent. For example, Article V of the
1885 Johor Treaty provided that the Governor of the Straits Settlements would at all
times protect to the utmost of his power the Government and State of Johor from
external hostile attacks. For that purpose British officers were given free access to
Johor's territorial waters which, according to the Treaty, extended to 3 nin. The British
also used this facility forpurposes of piracy control.44
40, Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between His Highness SultanAlli Iskander Shah bin
Sultan Hussain Mohamed Shah and His Highness DatuTumungong Daing Ibrahim bin Abdul
RalimanSri Maharajah, l0 March.1855:text in Maxwell & Gibson, 1924, 127: Annexes, vol.2,
Annex7.
41 For the role of Abu Bakar in maintaining the independenceof Johor during this period
see E. Thio, "British Policy Towards Johore: From Advice to Control", (1967) 40 Joc~r-afl the
Makryan BI-unclzof the Ro.yalAsiatic Society I.
42
Agreement onCertain Points TouchingtheRelationsof Her Majesty's Governmentof the
Straits Settlementswith theGovernmentof the Independent Stateof Johore;London,
l l December 1885, 167CTS 82 (Englishtext): Annexes,vol. 2, Annex 10.
'' Agreement betweenhis Britannic Majesty's Governmentand the State of Johore making
provision for the Appointmentof a British General Adviserat the Court of Johore, Singapore, 12
44y 1914, 107BFSP 519:Annexes, vol.2, ~nnex 11.
See R. Braddell, The Legal Srat~l.ofthe Mulay States, Singapore: Malaya Publishing
House, 1931,22.65. The sovereignty of the Johor Sultanate was emphasised in the 1895 Johor
constitution." Article XV provided:
"...the Sovereign may not in any manner surrender or make any
agreement or plan to surrender the country or any part of the country and
State of Johore to any European State or Power, or to any other State or
nation..."
The Constitution provided for a Council of Ministers and a State Council. The Sultan was
answerable to his own State Council rather than to the British.
66. The Sultan's sovereign status was an issue in a court case in England. When
Miss Mighell sued a certain Albert Baker (in reality Abu Bakar, the Sultan of Johor,
travelling ilzcogrzitoin the United Kingdom) for breach of promise of marriage, the Court
granted the Sultan as an "independent sovereign" immunity from jurisdiction." The
decision was based on a letter from the Secretary of State for the Colonies stating that
"generally speaking, [the Sultan] exercises without question the usual attributes of a
sovereign ruler." This further demonstrates the British recognition of the Sultanate of
Johor as an independent State.
67. Both Johor and the Straits Settlements remained separate from the Federated
Malay States when the latter was established in 1896. This group consisted of Selangor,
Pahang, Perak and the newly united Negri Sembilan. The Straits Settlements remained a
Crown Colony in its own name, while Johor maintained its separate sovereign status.
Together with Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu, Johor was part of a group
referred to as the Unfederated Malay States. From 1914, British influence in Johor
increased through the appointment of a British Adviser with powers not unlike those of
the British Residents in the Federated Malay states4' But none of these changes had
any effect on the territorial extent of the various units.
-
45 Constitution of Johore, 14 April 1895: text in J. de V. Allen, A.J. Stockwell and L.R.
Wright (eds., A Collectior~of Treaties arid Otller Docz~r?zerisflectilig the States of Mc~laysia,
1761-1963, New York: Oceana, 1981, vol. I, 77 (Johore Document of 14 September 1895):
J6nexes, vol. 3, Annex 88.
'' Migl~4l v.S~lltarzoj Johore, [l8941 1QB 149, 153.
See E. Thio, "British Policy Towards Johore: From Advice to Control", (1967) 40
Journal of the Malaya~iBrancl?of the Royal Asiat~cSociety 1, 35.Forillustrativepurposesonly
Insert 10 E. Post-1945 ConstitutionalDevelopments
68. In 1946, after World War II ,he Colony of the Straits Settlements was divided
into separate entities." From 1946, Singapore was administered as a Crown Colony in
its own right before becoming a self-governing colony in 1958." A new Federation of
Malaya, including Johor, was formed in 1948. Insert 10, on the preceding page, shows
the Federation as it gained independence from Britain in 1957.~'
69. On 9 July 1963, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawakjoined the Federation of Malaya
to become the independent State of the Federation of ~ala~sia." This Malaysia
Agreement, which was also signed by the United Kingdom, calne into effect on 16
September 1963.'' Both Johor and Singapore became States within Malaysia.
70. On 7 August 1965, Singapore separated from the Federation and became an
independent Republic in its own right.53
7 1. Again, none of these changes had any effect on the extent of the territory
belonging to either Malaysia or Singapore, as will be described in more detail in Chapter
7 54
" These new Crown Colonies included the Settlement of Singapore; Cocos (Keeling)
Islands; Christmas Islands; the Settlements of Penang (including the Province Wellesley, Malacca,
Labuan, and the Dependencies of these Settlements. The Settlements of Penang and Malacca were
incorporated into the Malayan Union in 1946 and laterinto the Federation of Malaya in 1948.
49 See the State of Singapore Act, 1958: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 103.
50 Agreement for the Establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an Independent
Sovereign Country within the Commonwealth, Kuala Lumpur, 5 August 1957, 163 BFSP 46:
51nexes, vol. 2, Annex 13.
Agreement between the United Kingdom, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo,
Sarawak and Singapore Concerning the Establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, London, 9
July 1963, 167 BFSP 49:Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 14.
52 Malaysia Act No. 26 of 1963 (Federation of Malaya) (extract): Annexes, vol. 3, Annex
.
536,proclaimed on 16September 1963.
Agreement between the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore Relating to the
Separation of Singapore from Malaysia as a Separate and Sovereign State, 7 August 1965, 563
UNTS89: Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 15;Proclamation of Singapore, Federal Government (Malaysia)
Gazette No. 16 of 9 August 1965: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 108,'Legislative definitions of the term
54ingapore" are analysed in paragraphs 190-206 below.
See below, paragraphs 193-218. . . F. Conclusions
72. From this recital of the history the following conclusions emerge:
(a) Prior to 1824,the domains of the Sultanate of Johor extended north and south of
Singapore Strait and included all the islands in the vicinity of the Strait.
(b) By the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, the British and the Dutch divided their
spheres of influence in the region.
(c) Pulau Batu Puteh remained a territory belonging to the Sultanate of Johor and
fell within the British sphere of influence.
(d) Pulau Batu Puteh, which is more than ten geographical miles from the Island of
Singapore, was not included in the Johor rulers' grant of 1824to the British for
the Settlement of Singapore. '
(e) The various constitutional developments relating to the Straits Settlements as a
Crown Colony, to Johor and to the independence of Malaysia and Singapore had
no effect on the respective territorial limits of Johor and Singapore. Hence, they
did not alter the status of Pulau Batu Puteh as an island belonging to Johor, now
part of Malaysia. JOHOR NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE STRAIT : PRE-1824
Forilluseurposonly .v Insert11 2 . r'4. ,*a:
Chapter 5
THE TERRITORIAL EXTENT AND INSULAR
DOMINIONS OFJOMBR
Introduction
73. This Chapter shows that at the time of the permission for the construction of a
lighthouse in 1844, Pulau Batu Puteh had always been under the sovereignty of Johor,
which as an established political entity had sovereignty over all the islands in its vicinity.
74. In particular, at a time when the Johor Sultanate extended north and south of
Singapore Strait,its territory included all the islands within and adjacent to the Strait. At
no time was it suggested that its territory was limited, for example, to islands within 3
nm of its mainland coast. None of these islands was considered to be terra ~zullius.
When Britain sought to acquire additional territory or influence in this region, it did so
by entering into treaties with local rulers and not b4.way of mere occupation. After
1824, Johor was always anxious to maintain its territorial integrity, as the settlement of
various boundary disputes shows.
75. Thus Johor held sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh in the context of its title to a
wider range of islands, which the local people, subjects of the Sultan, used as part of the
coastal economy. By contrast, under the 1824 Crawfurd Treaty, the territory of
Singapore extended only to the main island and islets within the specified distance of 10
geographical miles from its coast.
76. This Chapter addresses the territorial extent of the Sultanate of Johor prior to
1824 (Section A). After 1824 Johor was always anxious to maintain its territorial
integrity, as the settlement of various boundary disputes shows (Section B). At no time
was Pulau Batu Puteh term rzullius(Section C). The tei-ritoryof Singapore extendedonly to the main island and islets within the specified distance of 10geographical miles
from its coast (SectionD).
A. The Territorial Extent of Johor prior to 1824
77. As noted in the preceding chapter, prior to 1824Johor had been for centuries an
extensive Sultanate, stretching both north and south of Singapore Strait. It covered
substantial territories, including parts of the mainland of the Malay Peninsula, parts of
the island of Sumatra, all islands within and at the entrance of Singapore Strait and
numerous other islands in the open China Sea including the Natunas, Anambas and the
~ambelans.~' These can be seen from Insert 11,on page 36 above.
78. This situation was of long standing. The earliest Dutch treaty with Johor was
concluded on 17 March 1606, and the Dutch conducted international relations with
Johor as an independent State. In 1655, the Dutch Governor in Malacca, having been
informed of Chinese junks trading with Johor, proposed that the Dutch East India
Company send two boats to cruise in the Strait in order to prevent Chinese traders from
entering the Johor River:
"...in the future at least two yachts must cruise to the south of Singapore
Strait under the Hook of Barbukit and in the vicinity of Pedra Branca (in
order that they [the Chinese junks] do not enter [the Johor River] and
therefore make certain that they are brought here [Melaka] or to Batavia.
As we have seen often, unless the Johor ruler is greatly attracted to this
idea, without his command we dare not put this into effect. We therefore
faithfully await your order and command as to how far we should pursue
this.."56
55
See also L.Y. Andaya, The Kingdoln of Jolzor 1641-1728, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford
University Press, 1975; E. Netscher, De Nederlallders in Djolzor en Siak, 1602 tot 1865 [The
Dutch in Johor and Siak, 1602 to 18651,Batavia: Bruining & Wijt, 1870;C.A. Trocki, P~-ir?cef
Pirates. The Ternenggorlgsand tl?eDei~eloprnentof Johov and Singapore, Singapore: Singapore
University Press, 1979.
56 Missive from Governor Thijssen of Melaka to Governor-General and Council of the
Dutch East India Company in Batavia, 1 April 1655, VOC 1209: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 22
(translation by Professor.Y. Andaya).Apparently the idea was pursued; two junks were taken in the Strait and diverted to
Malacca, leading to a protest from the Sultan. The Governor-General reported to
Amsterdam that.. .
"The appearance of these junks at Melaka has already brought a little
trade but it is unfortunate that we had none or very little pepper in the
warehouse, since this is much desired by them. The king of Johor has
sent an envoy to the governor of ~elaka to indicate his great displeasure
regarding the seizure of the above-mentioned two junks, not without '
using offensive and threatening terns in the event that the same thing
occurs in the future...""
79. Thus the Sultan of Johor protested at a Dutch scheme involving, if not a
blockade at least a form of trade diversion from his dominions, in con-espondence
specifically mentioning Pedra Branca; and there is some indication that his protest
carried weight.
80. The general extent of the Sultanate of Johor was much the same at the beginning
of the 19'~century. In a report to the British Government dated 10 January 1824, the
British Resident in Singapore, John Crawfurd, stated:
"I beg for ainoinent to bring to the recollection of the Right Hon'ble the
Governor-General the situation,of this island [i.e., Singapore] and of the
other countries in its neighbourhood constituting the nominal
principality of Johore, when we formed our settlement in the year 1819.
This principality extends on the continent from Malacca to the extremity
of the peninsula on both coasts. It had several settlements on the island
of Sumatra, and embraced all the islands in the mouth of the Straits of
Malacca with all those in China seas, as far as the Natunas in the latitude
of 4" N and the longitude 109"E. These countries are all sterile, thinly
inhabited here and there on the coast only.. ."58
81. Thus in 1819, an informed British source clearly considered all islands of the
Straits of Malacca, through Singapore Strait and up to a specified distance into the China
57 General Missive frorn the Governor-General and Council of the Dutch East India
Company in Batavia to the Seventeen Directors of the Dutch East India Company in Amsterdam,
26 December 1662, VOC 1238: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 21 (tranrlation by Professor L.Y.
58daya). C.B. Buckley, An A~zecclotalHistory of Old Times in Singapore, Singapore: Fraser &
Neave, 1902, 161.Seas to belong to the Sultanate of Johor. Certainly none of these islands, whether or not
lying more than 3 nin off the coast of the Malay Peninsula, were regarded as being terrcr
1~~11liziMs.oreover, as John Crawfurd noted, Johor was essentially a maritime power, its
control not extending far inland but confined to the coast, rivers and islands. The
extension of the actual control of the Sultanate inland on the Malay Peninsula was a
process initiated by the Temenggong in the 1830s.~~
82. Crawfurd's description of the territorial extent of the Sultanate of Johor is
confirmed in the Presgrave report of 1828. Presgrave observed that the Johor Sultanate
appeared to embrace.. .
"the Southern part of the Malayan peninsula till joined by the Malacca
territory and principality of Pahang, a small portion of the eastern coast
of Sumatra, laying between the Jainbi and Siak Countries, all the Islands
lying between the Karimnonsto the South- Pulau Aor to the East, at the
entrance of the China Sea- and Linggin and the numerous Islands
adjacent thereto, extending nearly to the Islands of Banka and
illi it on."^'
These locations are shown in green on Insert 11 on page 36.
83. Many of the inhabitants along the coasts of the Johor Sultanate were seafarers;
they were termed Orang Laut ("men of the ~ea").~' They earned their living through
fishing and collecting other marine products such as sea-slugs (trepang), tortoise shells
and seaweed, as well as by what the Europeans at least considered as piracy. The
seafarers were highly mobile and according to the season they moved across vast spans
of sea. The Sultan of Johor and his chief officials possessed rights of collecting taxes
and raising labour forces from numerous islands for construction works on the mainland.
59
60 See, e.g.,Trocki, Prince of Pimtes, chs 3-4.
Report by Edward Presgrave to Resident Councillor, 5 December 1829, Straits
Settlen~etztsFactory Records, Series W 159(emphasis added): Annexes, vol.3, Annex 27.
61 See L.Y. Andaya, The Kitzgdotnoj Jolzor 1641-1728, KualaLumpur: Oxford University
Press, 1975. 1.1
84. Thus the practice of the concerned states during the period after 1824 treated all
the nearby islands, whether within or beyond 3 nm from the coast, as belonging to the
relevant Sultan, i.e. to the Sultan of Riau-Lingga south of Singapore Strait, otherwise to
the Sultan of Johor. There was no suggestion that any of the islands in the region, small
or large, was term nullius or open to acquisition by third States by mere occupation.
This was the basis for the British acquisition of sovereignty over Singapore and its
dependencies. Under the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824, all islets within 10 geographical
miles from the main Island of Singapore were included in the cession.
B. Post-1824conflict over the extent of the Sultanate of Johor
85. As demonstrated above, in 1824 the extent of the Sultanate of Johor was
generally well-known and was not limited to islands within 3 nm of the coast. But the
impact of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 on the Sultanate gave rise to disputes. In
particular, Johor continued to claim sovereignty over the Carimon Islands just south of
the Straits of Malacca. In 1827,the Johor rulers had to agree that pursuant to the Anglo-
Dutch Treaty, the Carimon Islands were now under Dutch influence and should be
considered as under the sway of the Sultan's younger brother, Sultan Abdul Rahman of
~iau-~ingga."
86. These particular disputes may have been resolved, but Johor continued to press
its claims to territory along the east coast and in the South China Sea. In 1862,'Johor
and its northern neighbour Pahang concluded a Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and
Mutual But not all boundary issues had been iesolved. The Kingdom of
87
Pahang claimed the islands of Tioman, Tinggi and Aur; Johor disputed the claim. The
1862Treaty included a dispute settlement clause, Article 7, which read as follows:
67 Letter from Resident of Rhio to Resident Councillor, Singapore, 18 August 1827, extract
reprinted in A.C. Baker, "Some Account of the Anglo Dutch Relations in the East at the Beginning
of the 19"' Century Based on the Records Preserved in the Colonial Secretary's Office in
Singapore,and, in the Resident's Office Malacca", (l913) 64 Jour. Straits Branch R.A. Soc. 1,40;
Resident Councillor, Singapore, to Secretary to Government, Prince of Wales Island, Singapore
and Malacca, 8 September 1827,ibid, 45: see Annexes, vol. 3, Annexes 25, 26.
63 Johore-Pahang, First Boundary and Friendship Treaty, 17 June 1862, in J. Allen, A.J.
Stockwell and L.R. Wright (eds.), A Collection of Treatzes and Other Docuinerzts Affecting the
States oofMalaysia, 1761-1963, New York: Oceana, 1981,vol. I, 343: Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 8.MAP ATTACHED TO THE ORD AWARD,1868 .:%,,-r G.:.t
"The parties hereto agree and declare for themselves and their respective
successors that should any dispute or difference arise between thein or
their successors at any time hereafter, either with regard to this Treaty or
the matters contained in it, or with regard to any other matter or thing
whatever, whether national, political, or private, the same shall be and is
hereby referred to the friendly mediation and settlement of the British
Government, whose award or decision shall be final and binding on both
parties."
87. Sir Harry Ord, the British Governor of the Straits Settlements, was called upon
as arbitrator to settle the boundary dispute. In 1868, he ruled that "the Endau River
should be taken as the starting point and latitude for the demarcation line into the South
China Sea":
"...the River Indow shall be the boundary on the Mainland between the
territories of His Highness the Maharajah of Johore and His Highness
the Bendahara of Pahang, and that the Islands of Tioinan, Aor, Pulo
Tingy, Siribuat and others lying off the East Coast of the Malayan
Peninsula shall be divided by a direct line from the centre of the nlouth
of the River Indow to the southern extreme of Pulo Raban and thence
due east along the north parallel of latitude 2"59'20" and all the islands
to the.north of this line shall belong to Pahang and all to the south of this
line to Johore as laid down on the chart annexed to this award."'"
88. As can be seen from the lnap attached to the Award, reproduced opposite (Insert
12), also as Map 10 in Map Atlas, all islands to the north of the line belonged to Pahang;
all those to tlie south belonged to t oh or.^ F^urthermore, the islands included on this
chart were both within and beyond the 3 nm line. All these islands remain respectively
part of the Malaysian States of Pahang and Johor to this day. On this chart which Ord
attached to his 'Award, the islets with "Horsburgh Light R" and "South Rocks" are
included and are depicted as islands belonging to Johor.
89. While on a visit to London, the Sultan of Johor raised the issue of sovereignty
over certain islands in the open seas and straits belonging to the State of Johor. He did
.I
64 See Award of l September 1868made by Governor Sir H. St George Ord: Annexes, vol.
3, Annex 86. See also Allen, Stockwell & Wright, vol. 1, 345; and Trocki, 151-2.
65 For a larger version of the map attached to the Award see Map Atlas, Map 10. so pursuant to the 1885 Johor Treaty which provided for British protection of the
territorial integrity of the ~ultanate.~~
l
90. In an official letter of 20 March 1886 addressed to the British Colonial Office,
the Sultanexplained:
"The Islands in question range themselves around the Coast of Johore: all
those on the Western side, and a large number on the Eastern side, being
in the immediate vicinity of Johore; but of the latter a largeproportion also
extends farther out, stretching to even as far as the neighbourhood of
~orneo."~'
Thus the Sultan made the significant distinction between islands in the immediate
vicinity of the mainland of Johor and those in the open sea. It is evident that Pulau Batu
-
Puteh was included in the phrase "a large number on the Eastern side, being in the
immediate vicinity of Johore". There is no suggestion that any particular island was
exempt from the general position so described.
91. As regards the islands in the open sea, the Sultan referred to the Pulau Tujoh
(the "Seven Islands"), i.e. the Natunas, the Anambas and the Tambelans: these and other
relevant features are shown on Insert 13, shown opposite. At the same time the Sultan's
Secretary, Abdul Rahman, submitted a Memorandum to the Colonial Office under the
title "Chartsof the Islands belonging to Johore" (20 March 1886). He drew a distinction
between General Charts and Charts of Groups of Islands (the "Seven Islands"). As
regards the former, he tabled among other charts Admiralty Chart 2041, entitled "Eastern
Coast of Johor (immediate vicinity)", the same chart as used in the Ord Award of 1868,
reproduced on page 42." This provides further evidence that at the time, i.e. more than
forty years after the to construct a lighthouse, Pulau Batu Puteh was firmly
believed to be under the sovereignty of the State of Johor.
66
67 FortheJohor Treaty, 1885,see Annexev s,ol2,Annex 10,andparagraph64 above.
LetterfromSultanof Johoreto theRt. Honourable EarlGranville,Principal Secretary of
68atetotheColonies, 20 March1886,in CO 4962:Annexes,vol. 3,Annex 63.
Ibid. IC1 IN THE OPEN SEAS & STRAITS BELONGING TO JOHOR, 1886
South China
Sea
. .
Sum92. After subsequent discussion between the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office,
the Sultan was informed that Britain could not intervene as regards the Sultan's claims to
the islands in the South China Sea as Britain had earlier acknowledged Dutch presence
in this area. Again the British authorities appear to have proceeded on the basis that
Johor extended to all islands in its vicinity except (a) those that were part of the
Settlement of Singapore as defined by the Crawfurd Treaty of 2 August 1824 or (b) those
belonging to Pahang pursuant to the Ord Award of 1868, as depicted on Admiralty Chart
2041. "Horsburgh Light R.", "South Rocks" and other features at the entrance of
Singapore Strait were indicated on this Chart. These islands were to the north of the
Dutch sphere of influence under the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty. They were clearly
outside of the islands, straits and seas ceded by the Crawfurd Treaty of1824.
93. In 1896, the Sultan of Pahang again raised the question of over Pulau Aur. The
matter was settled in 1898 by a Boundary Commission which reconfirmed the
delimitation of islands between Pahang and Johore fixed by the Ord Award, thus placing
Pulau Aur firmly within oho or.^^
C. Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra rzullius
94. As already demonstrated, Pulau Batu Puteh was a well-known feature in
Singapore Strait, being shown on the earliest maps. Not only navigators but also the
relevant administrators were well aware of its existence. For the local people, used to
the sea, it was a source of food where fish and seaweed were collected.
95. Pulau Batu Puteh was not only a dangerous point in terms of navigation in the
Strait; it was also considered a hot spot for piracy. The Johor rulers co-operated with the
Dutch and later with the British in piracy control. In 1843, Pulau Batu Puteh was
recorded in the sirlgclpdre Free Press as one of the islands and places where "pirates go
69 ReportoftheJohoreBoundariesCommission,l8 February1898:Annexes, vol. 3,Annex
87. The Codssion was askedto settleany outstandingdisputesas to Johor'sboundarieswith
adjacentstates. In respectof the Johor-Pahangboundary,the Commissioners held that the 1862
Treatyand 1868Awardconstituteda settlementwhich theycouldnotallowto bere-opened:ibid.,
para.7.for shelter and concealment" and those were all said to be "within the territories.. . of
Johore". According to this report:
"The places and Islands near which these piracies are most frequently
committed and where the pirates go for shelter and concealment, such as
Pulo Tinghie, Batu Puteh, Point Romania &c, are all within the
territories of our well beloved ally and pensionary, the Sultan of Johore,
or rather of the Tomungong of Johore, for he is the real Sovereign." 70
This article, published at the time that the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor granted to
the British the permission for the construction of a lighthouse, makes it clear that Pulau
Batu Puteh belonged to Johor.
96. The sovereignty of Johor over Pulau Batu Puteh was public knowledge. The
island, and occasionally Middle Rocks and South Ledge as well, was depicted on maps
of the Sultanate of Johor, for example on the extensive %-sheetMap of the Netherlands
East Indies (1842) and Admiralty Chart 2041 which was attached to the 1868 Ord
ward.^' The British request in 1844to build a lighthouse on islands of rocks within the
proximity of mainland Johor provides further evidence of contemporary awareness of
Johor's sovereignty over adjacent islands. This is discussed in Chapter 6 of this
Memorial.
97. To use the Court's words in the Qafar v.Balzrcrincase (2001) with respect to
"very small islands", the activities of Johor with respect to Pulau Batu Puteh are
sufficient to support Malaysia's claim to s~vereignt~.~'In particular, as the Court noted
in the case concerning Sover-eig~ztoyver P~ilcrzLligifcrlzand Pulazl Sipadan, a State can
exercise State functions "in the context of the administration of a wider range of
70 SirzgaporeFree Press, 25 May 1843; Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 40.
71 The 8-sheet Map of the Netherlands East Indies (1842) and Admiralty Chart 2041 are in
the Map Atlas, Maps 7 and 10 respectively. The map attached to the Ord Award (which was
drawn on Admiralty Chart 2041) is reproduced on page 42; a larger version is in the Map Atlas,
Map 10.
71 See Case conceriiirzgMaritzme Delirnitatior~and Territorial Qz~estiorisbet~leerlQatur
and Bahranz (Qatar v.Bahrain), ICJ Reports 2001, para. 197.
73 See Care cotzcer-fling Sovereignty over Puln~~ Ligitari and P~llau Sipadan
(I17do11esidMalaysia)D, ecisioll on Merits, 17December 2002,ICJ Reports 2002, para. 148.98. It follows that in the mid-nineteenth century Pulau Batu Puteh could certainly
not be considered as term rzulli~tsand as susceptible to occupation. As the Court noted
in its Advisory Opinion with respect to the WesterrzScrlznra,it is "a cardinal condition of
a valid 'occupation' that the territory shouldbe terrcr~z~llius- a territory belonging to
no-one - at the time of the act alleged to constitute the 'occupation'."74 The established
links between the Johor rulers and Pulau Batu Puteh and the fact that Singapore Strait
with its islands were the object of territorial regulation in the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty
and the 1824 Crawfurd Treaty, exclude the possibility that any of these well-known
islands could have been considered as territory which "belonged to no-one in the sense
that it was then open to acquisition through the legal process of 'o~cupation'."~~Pulau
Batu Puteh was not terrcrrzullius.
D. Subsequentdevelopments confirming the territorial limits of Singapore
99. In 1927, the Sultan of Johor concluded an Agreement with the Governor of the
Colony of the Straits Settlement for the delimitation of their respective territorial waters
in the Straits of oh or.' T^he agreed delimitation is shown on Insert 14,opposite.
100. The 1927 Agreement involved a retrocession to Johor of certain areas within the
Straits of Johor, but in all other respects it confirmed the Crawfurd Treaty of 2 August
1824 and the territorial situation resulting therefrom. The 1927 Agreement line was
substantially confirmed in 1995," after the present dispute had broken out.
7'4 Westem Sahara, Advisol-y Opirlion, ICJ ~epo;rs 1975, p. 6, at 39, para. 79. See also
75gal Status of Ensterr~Gveenla~ld,PCIJ,Series NB, No. 53, at 44, 63.
76 ICJ Reports 1975, p. 6, at 39, para. 79.
Straits Settlementsand Johore Territorial Waters Agreement, 19 October 1927: Annexes,
vol.2, Annex 12.
77 Agreement Between the Governmentof Malaysia &ndthe Government of the Republic of
Singapore to Delimit Precisely the Territorial Waters.Boundary in Accordance with the Straits
Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters Agreement 1927, 7 August 1995: Annexes, vol. 2,
Annex 19. TERRITORIAL SEA AGREEMENTS AFFECTING SINGAPORE
MALAYSIA
JOHOR101. In 1973, Singapore and Indonesia signed a Territorial Sea Agreement delimiting
their respective territorial sea boundaries in Singapore The line so drawn is
shown on Insert 14. Again no reference whatsoever was made to Pulau Batu Puteh,
even though - if it or Middle Rocks or South Ledge had belonged to Singapore - this
must have had some impact on the territorial ~naritinle boundaries between the two
States. If the Parties had not intended to deal with maritime boundaries in any other
locality, at least some reference or reservation should have been made to the undelilnited
maritime boundary between the two States to the south of Pulau Batu ~uteh.~~
102. The absence of any claim on the part of Singapore and its predecessors after
1824 is consistent with and is confirmed by a multitude of maps depicting Singapore's
territorial limits, as well as of published lists of islands, islets and rocks situated withi..
Singapore. This practice is surveyed later in this ~emorial.~'
E. Summary and Conclusions
103. To summarise, the following conclusions may be drawn from this review of the
evidence:
(a) Prior to 1824,the domains of the Sultanate of Johor extended north and south of
Singapore Strait and included all islands in the vicinity. All seas, straits and
islands in the region were known and named.
(b) By the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, the British and the Dutch determined their
spheres of influence in the region. Pulau Batu Puteh was within the British
sphere. It remained with the territory of Johor.
(c) Pulau Batu Puteh was not included in the Johor cession to the British of the
Settlement of Singapore in 1824, a grant which extended only to islands within
ten geographical miles from the main island of Singapore.
78 Agreement Stipulating the Territorial Sea Bounday Lines between Indonesia and the
Republicof Singaporein theStraitof Singapore,25May 1973:Annexes,vol.2, Annex 18.
79 See further paragraphs 264-266.
80
For the conduct of Singapore see below, Chapter 7. For the map evidence see below,
Chapter 9.(d) Pulau Batu Puteh was not term ~zullius.The close links between the Johor rulers
and the area in question exclude any possibility that in the mid-19" century it
could have been considered susceptible to acquisition through the legal process
of occupation.
-
(e) On a number of occasions the territorial limits of Johor were confinned. These
included the Ord Award of 1868,the Report of the Johor Boundary Commission,
18 February 1898 and the Johor Territorial Waters Agreement of 1927. None of
these instruments changed the status of Pulau Batu Puteh as an island within the
dominions of Johor. Rather they confirmed the long-standing status quo. Chapter6
HORSBURGHLIGHTHOUSEWASCONSTRUCTEDWITH
THEPERMISSIONOFJOHOR
Introduction
104. This Chapter analyses the circumstances leading to the construction of the
Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh. It traces the plans for the lighthouse,
intended not as an extension of territory but as a tribute to James Horsburgh,
hydrographer of the East India Company. The Lighthouse was due to a private initiative,
based upon the collection of funds from different countries. Pulau Batu Puteh was from
the very beginning the leading candidate, as well as the final choice, for the location of
the lighthouse (see Section A).
105. A fundamental point of this case is the request made by W.J. Butterworth,
Governor of the Straits Settlements, to the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor, seeking
permission for the construction of the lighthouse. The permission given by the Johor
authorities, for the sole purpose of erecting a lighthouse, extended to Pulau Batu Puteh,
which was from the first singled out as a likely location (see Sections B-C).
106. The inauguration of the Horsburgh Lighthouse in 1850 did not involve any
cession or claim of sovereignty. What the English East India Company acquired was
ownership and the right to operate the lighthouse; the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh
remained with Johor (see Section D-E). A. Plansfor the Constructionof a Lighthouse at the Entrance of the Strait of
Singapore
107. In 1836 the hydrographer Jaliies Horsburgh died. A group of merchants and
mariners, wishing to pay tribute to his memory, decided to raise funds for the erection of
a lighthouse at the entrance of the South China Sea. The first public meeting was held in
Canton on 22 November 1836. A suggestion to create a scholarship or professorship of
navigation was discarded, for "as subscriptions were to be invited from all parts of the
world, a merely national institution was not to the purpose".81 "[Tllie erection of some
work of public utility, as a lighthouse on Pedra Branca, in the Straits of Singapore" was
thus preferred.8' A further "initiative to pay tribute to Jaines Horsburgh through a
monument to be erected in St. Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey in London was
discarded for similar reasons. The members of the Colnrnittee created in Canton
explained that "[wle have already invited all nations to join us in our undertaking, and
we look to America, Holland, and France with the most sanguine hopes". They
explained that there would be no greater testimony of gratitude than the construction of
one or more lighthouses, and went on to say that "[tlhe spot we propose for the first is
Pedra ~ranca"
108. The initiative to pay a tribute to James Horsburgh through the construction of a
lighthouse was widely publicised.x4 It led to an exchange of views from readers of the
newspapers with regard to the best locations. One of them, signed "A Traveller",
advised constructing it on the remote island of Pulau Supata in the China Seas and
perhaps also on some of the islets of the Paracels shoals. The author was aware that the
idea of constructing a light on Pulau Supata "would involve the necessity of taking
SI
-TheCn17torP7iass, 26November1836.Annexes, vol.3,Annex30.
82 Ibid.
83 "TheHorsburgh Memorial" ,ingupore Free Press, 5 Aplil1838,Annexes, vol.3,Annex
34.
X4 Cf. The Cuntolz Press, 10 December1836; The Cur7tor7Register, 10January 1837,in
which is foundtheoriginal listofsubscribersinCanton:Annexes,vol.3,Annexes31,32.possession df the island and placing an establishment there"." Subsequently the
Singapore Free Press commented:
"Respecting Pedra Brmca, which has been proposed or rather fixed
upon for one, there is not likely to be any difference of opinion - and we
think the next step ought to be to settle the other points on which it
would most conduce to the security of navigation in the Straits to have
lightse~tablished."~~
109. The Treasurer of the ChirzaFund for a Testinzorzialto tlzeMenzorial of tlzeLate
Janzes Horsburglz Esqre, in a letter of 1 March 1842 to S.G. Bonham, Governor of the
Straits Settlements, considered that the building of a lighthouse "on Pedra Branca, at the
entrance of the China Sea", could "only be carried into effect and maintained under the
immediate auspices of the British Government". He then informed the Governor about
the sum of money collected and the readiness to hand over this money for a lighthouse
"to be erected either on Pedra Branca, or on such other locality as the Government of the
Hon'ble East India Company may deem preferable".87
110. Different options asto the location had been discussed for years. In his response
to the Treasurer of the China Fund, Governor Bonham made it known that he
recommended that the lighthouse "be erected on Tree Island or on some other adjacent
spot which may be deemed by Mariners more de~irable".~~Explaining why he preferred
Tree Island to Pulau Batu Puteh, Governor Bonham expressed the view that the former
could "be maintained with greater certainty and at a smaller expense - advantages which
will I hope be admitted as fully counterbalancing the more prominent locality afforded
by Pedra ~ranca."'~ Both Tree Island and Pulau Batu Puteh fell outside the territory of
Singapore. The former was situated within the Dutch sphere of influence, the latter
85 "Missing Vessels - Navigation to China", Shgopnt-e Free Pt*ess, 13 October 1836
S6xtract): Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 29.
87 SingaporeFreePress, 9 February 1837:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 33.
Letter of 1 March 1842 from Jardine Matheson & Co., Treasurer to the China Fund for a
testimonial to the memory of the late James Horsburgh Esqre, care of Messrs. John Purvis& Co.,
Singapore, tothe Hon'ble S'.G.Bonham Esqre, Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and
Malacca: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 35.
88
Letter of 4 April 1842 by S.G. Bonham in reply to Messrs Jardine Matheson & Co letter
of 1March 1824:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 36.
89 Ibid.within Πoh or.^' The idea of locating the lighthouse on .Tree Island .-was quickly
abandoned.
11 l. Initially J.T. Thomson, Government Surveyor of the Straits Settlements, who
was to be the architect of the lighthouse, proposed Barn Island (Pulau Senang) in 1842.
Thomson's choice rested upon the short distance of Barn Island from Singapore. He also
made suggestions with regard to the colours of the light, "[iln order to distinguish the
light from the many fires that are kept burning on tlze ndjncerztIslands by ~ala~s".~'
This proposal was forwarded by Governor Bonham to G.A. Bushby, Secretary to
Government of the East India Company, on 23 July 1842.~' However, it was rejected by
the Court of Directors pf the Company, on the ground that the levying of harbour and
anchorage duties would be in contradiction with the preservation of the freedom of trade
at ~inga~ore.~' This was the only proposal for the construction of the lighthouse on an
island belonging to Singapore.
112. It was only when the Chamber of Commerce of Singapore took the matter into
its hands that the project materialised. The Bornbay Times & Journal of Conzrnerce
published a report of the Committee of that Chamber regarding the erection of the
lighthouse, and commented:
"We are glad to see the Chamber take up the matter with so much
earnestness, as we may anticipate from it the speedy accomplish~nentof
the project. As long as the matter was left in the hands of the Indian
Government we confess we saw little chance of its being carried
through."94
90
See Government Secretary to Resident Councillor, Fort Cornwallis, 22December 1829,
Straits SettlementsFactory.Records (K.14,f. 197): Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 28. . . .. .
91 Letter from J.T. Thomson to Governor.S.G. Bonham of 1May 1842:.Annexes, vol. 3,
Annex 37 (emphasisadded).
92 Letter from Governor S.G. Bonham to G.A. Bushby, Esqre, 23 July 1842: Annexes,vol.
93Annex38. . .
Letter from G.A.Bushby to S.G. Bonham of 31August 1842: Annexes,vol: 3, Annex 39.
94 . "Erection of a Light-House on Romania Island", Bonzbay Tiines and Jo~~rnalof
Conzn~erce,10January 1846:Annexes,vol. 3, Annex 48. See also "Lighthouse at Singapore", The
Tiines,22 January 1846:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 49. 113. In the final planning stages for the cokitiuction of the lighthouse, the
determination of a site was narrowed down to two possible choices: Peak Rock and
Pulau Batu Puteh. Captain Sir Edward Belcher, after a survey of the region, considered
"the Romania outer island (that is, Peak Rock) as the most eligible site.95 Governor
Butterworth then instructed J.T. Thomson to examine "Peak Rock Romania" in order to
ascertain the probable cost of building the lighthouse there and to evaluate this place
with reference to the Romania Islands, the coast of Johor and the Island of ~in~a~ore.~~
In a letter addressed to Under-Secretary C. Beadon of 22 August 1845, Governor
Butterworth insisted that the number of vessels wrecked in the vicinity of Pulau Batu
Puteh and Point Romania (today known as Tanjung Penyusoh) would "imperatively rule
for a Light House in that neighbourhood." He expressed the opinion that the former
would be the best possible position for a lighthouse, but preferred Peak Rock for the
reason that "it is so remote from Singapore and so great a distance from the Main Land
and so inaccessible at certain seasons of the year..
114. In 1846, the British Admiralty expressed its preference for Pulau Batu Puteh as
the best place for the lighthouse from the navigational point of view.98 After further
surveys by J.T. Thoinson and Captain Congalton, Governor Butterworth finally decided
that the best site for the lighthouse would indeed be Pulau Batu Puteh. The East India
Company gave its final approval on 3 October 1~46.~~
95 Letter from Edward Belcher, Captain of HMS Samarang to W.J. Butterworth, Governor
96 Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca, o1 October 1844:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 41.
See Report of J.T. Thomson to W.J. Butterworth, 20 November 1844: Annexes, vol. 3,
Annex 43.
97 Annexes, vol. 3, Annex47.
98 Letter from N.B. Hamilton, Secretary to the Admiralty to the Secretary to the East India
99mpany of 18April 1846:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 50.
See the Internal Minute of Governor Butterworth of 30 September 1846:Annexes, vol. 3,
Annex 53; Minute No. 14 of 3 October 1846: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 55; and the letter from the
Government of India to the Court of Directors, 3 October 1846:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 54. South China
Sea
ocationsProposedForA Lighthouse
Insert I.Il l<. Insert 15, opposite, shows the location of th'eSiiious sites considered for the
lighthouse, and their relation to the coast of Johor, in particular Point Ro~nania(Tanjung
Penyusoh) as well as the 10mile limit around Singapore.
116. These documents demonstrate three things. First,the construction of the
lighthouse was a p;ivate initiative. Second, the location of the lighthouse was an open
question until 1846. Thir from the very beginning and during the entire decision-
making process the site of Pulau Batu Puteh was envisaged as one of the main options
for the construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse.
117. It is also clear that the choice depended mainly upon the identification of the
best location from a navigational point of view. In considering the advantages and
drawbacks of each site, the question of sovereignty over them was not an issue. There is
not a single"referencein the correspondence to the effect that the lighthouse should be
built on term ~zulliusor that Pulau Batu Puteh was finally chosen because it was terl-cr
izuI1iu~.Thelighthouse was a project in the general interest and not a matter of purely
national concern. It might be built within Singapore itself (Barn Island), or on some
island beyond the well-known teiritorial.limits of Singapore (Tree Island, Peak Rock or
Pedra Branca). In the latter case (at least as far as concerned islands in the British
2.
sphere) no difficulty was anticipated in obtaining the consent of the relevant territorial
sovereign, given the general beneficial nature of the enterprise.
B. The Permission of Johor in 1844and its Scope
118. The British authorities were of course well aware that the entrance of Singapore
Strait in the China ~ei fell outside Singapore's territorial scope, as established by the
Crawfurd Treaty of 1824. Hence, they needed authorisation from the authorities of
Johor for the construction of the lighthouse on that site, since the locations envisaged
were part of their territory, as demonstrated in Chap5.r119. The relations between Britain and Johor were international in character: Britain
did not claiin or exercise sovereignty over b oh or.' ^^ence the British approach of
seeking permission for the construction of the lighthouse. Indeed, there was a consistent
pattern: whenever the British authorities wanted to construct a lighthouse outside the
territory of the Straits Settlements, they sought the permission of the relevant Malay
rulers. This was not only true for the construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse, but also for
the lighthouses constructed at Cape Rachado (Tanjung ~uan)"' and Pulau ~isang"' and
for the proposed Pulau Aor ~i~11thouse.l~~
120. On 25 November 1844, both the Sultan and the Ternenggong of Johor granted
permission to Governor Butterworth to build the lighthouse, following a request by.the
latter. Unfortunately, despite extensive research by Malaysia, Butterworth's letters to
the Sultan and the Tenlenggong have not been located. But there is no doubt the letters
were written, since both the Sultan's and the Teinenggong's letters clearly acknowledged
their receipt. Both replies describe Butterworth's letters as involving a request for
permission for the construction of a lighthouse, not as a request for a cession of territory.
12 1. The letter of per~nissionfrom Sultan Allie reads as follows:
"I have received my friend's letter, and in reply desire to acquaint my
friend, that I perfectly understand his wishes, and I am exceedingly
pleased at the intention expressed therein, as it (a Light House) will
enable Traders and others to enter and leave this Port with greater
confidence". IM
101 See above, paragraphs 61-67.
See the exchange of letters dated 7 October 1860, 27 October 1860 and 26 November
1860between the Sultanof Selangor and the Governor of the Straits Settlements: Annexes, vol. 3,
Annex 62.
102 See the preamble of the Indenture of 6 October 1900 between Ibrahim, Sultan of Johore,
and Sir James Alexander Swettenham, the Officer Administering the Governmentof the Colony of
the Straits Settlements: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex89, see also Colony of Singapore,I~ILLRUe~port
oftl~eMarine Departi~ient1952, Singapore: 1953, 59-60.
Io3 Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 64.
I04 Letter of 25 November 1844,translated by T. Church, Resident Councillor: Annexes, vol.
3. Annex44.122. The letter of permission from the Temenggong to overn Butnerworrth is more
explicit and reads as follows:
"1have duly received my friend's cormnunication and understand the
Contents. My friend is desirous of erecting a Light House near Poirzt
Ro~zaizia;I can have no possible objection to such a measure; indeed I
am much pleased that such anundertaking is in contemplation. I wish to
be guided in all matters by the Govt., so much so, thatColnparzyare
atfull liberty toputpa Light Housetlzere,or any spot deemed eligible.
Myself and family for many years have derived support from Singapore,
our dependence is wholly on the English'Government and we hope to
merit the protection of and be favoured by the Company on all occasions
consistent withropriety."10'
123. As shown in Chapter 4, over the first half of the 19'~century, the office of
Temenggong came to be more important than that of Sultan. This explains why
Governor Butterwofth sought consent fro111both authorities ofoho or."^ he ordinary
meaning of their answers is clear: the East Indiarnpany was free to choose between
erecting the lighthouse near Point Romania, or anywhere else in the territory of Johor
considered suitablefor the purpose of providing guidance to shipping going to or leaving
Singapore. The authorisation did not concern only Peak Rock. Moreover, the
geographic area for the construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse had also been clearly
established at that time: the entrance of Singapore Strait in the South China Sea. The
territory in that region was under Johor's sovereignty, as explained in Chapter 5.
124. Pulau Batu Puteh is undoubtedly covered by the authorisation given by the
Sultan and Ternenggong. The reasons for this are twofold.
125. First,Pulau Batu Puteh is a place "near Point Romania". It is located only 7.7
nm from Point Romania, which is the nearest mainland coast to Pulau Batu Puteh.p his
fact was specifically aclcnowledged by two of those most involved at that time: John
Crawfurd and J.T. Thomson. Crawfurd, first British Resident of the Straits Settlements,
wrote in his diary on board the survey shipestigator on 7 December 1818:
105
Letter of 25 November 1844, translated by T. Church, Resident Councillor (emphasis
'06ed): Annexes, vol. Annex 45.
See above, paragraphs 43, 63. "Romania is the Eastern part of Singapore Straits, the entrance is
divided into two channels by a cluster of rocks, the largest is 20 feet
above the level of the sea named by the Portuguese Pedro ~ranca."'~'
Thomson, the architect of Horsburgh Lighthouse, referred in the following unequivocal
terms to "Point Romania the nearest land to Pedra ~ranca."'~~
126. This is also evident from the Chart of the Vicirzityof the Horsl?oul*ghLighthouse
and Adjacent MalayarzCoast drawn by the same J.T. Thomson in 1851, which appears
on the opposite page as Insert 16. From the very beginning, the cartography was
consistent in showing Pedra Branca and Point Romania as the two most important
geographic features,close together at the entrance of Singapore strait.Io9
127. Secondlv, even if Pulau Batu Puteh were not considered a place "near Point
Romania", it would be covered by the extension of the consent to another "spot deemed
eligible". As stressed above, Pulau Batu Puteh was at all times one of the spots eligible
for the construction of the lighthouse. The Sultan and the Temenggong, who were both
resident in Singapore, would have been aware of this.
128. It is important to emphasise the year in which these letters were written. In 1844,
for the first time, the British authorities had taken concrete measures towards the
construction of the lighthouse. The first survey was carried out by Captain Belcher. In
his letter of 1 October 1844, he recommended "outer Romania island" (that is, Peak
Rock), as reported above. In particular, as demonstrated above, when the British
authorities sought consent from Johor to build the lighthouse, a final decision as to its
location had not yet been made. They had in mind other possible locations within the
territory of Johor besides Peak Rock.
'07 Document MS 353, Manuscript Collection, National Libraryof Australia: Annexes, vol.
,108nnex 23.
Letter from J.T. Thomson to Resident Councillor, Singapore, 2 November 1850:
A109xes, vol. 3, Annex 58.
See below, paragraphs 306-309; Map Atlas, Maps 4, 5,6.129. From the very beginning, Pulau Batu Puteh was envisaged as a possible - and
probably the best - location for the lighthouse. Once the decision in principle to
construct a lighthouse was taken, various locations were under consideration, including
Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Puteh). This was a matter of public knowledge in the region,
as reported by the press. It is a striking fact that the terminology employed by all
relevant actors (subscribers, the Governor of the Straits Settlements, the authorities of
the East India Company, the Temenggong, etc) is always concordant, by referring both
to one place or another (Pedra Branca, Tree Island, Peak Rock, Point Romania) "or on
such other locality as the Government of the Hon'ble East India Company may deem
preferable", "or on some other adjacent spot which Inay be deemed by Mariners more
desirable", "or any spot deemed eligible". This shows clearly that every measure or
every decision taken by the different actors with regard to the erection of Horsburgh
Lighthouse always had in mind the possibility of at least two different places, and Pulau
Batu Puteh was always one of them.
130. Even at the time when Peak Rock was the lead contender as the site for the
construction of the lighthouse, Governor Butterworth continued to refer to the plan as
"the erection of a Light House in the vicinity of Pedra~ranca"."~ Thus, the construction
on Pulau Batu Puteh of the Horsburgh Lighthouse was envisaged at all stages of the
decision-making process, both before and after the permission of the Temenggong and
the Sultan of Johor.
131. The letter addressed by Governor Butterworth to F. Curie, Secretary to the
Government of India, of 28 November 1844 - only three days after the consent given by
the Sultan and the Temenggong - enclosed both their letters. As mentioned before, the
site then envisaged by Captain Belcher was Peak Rock. GovernorButterworth wrote:
"The report of that Scientific Officer [Captain Belcher] I desire to lay
before the Right Hon'ble the Governor General of India with the Plan
and Section of the Rock therein alluded to, prepared by Mr. Thomson
the Surveyor, together with an outline chart, shewing its position with
"O See the letterfromJohn Pmvis &Co. toW.J. Butterworth of 31October1844: Annexes,
vol.3, Annex 42. reference to Pedra ~rahca, the main land of oho ore a,d Island of
Romania, situated about 32 iniles in an E by N direction froin Singapore
- This Rock is part of the Territories of the Rajah of Johore, who with
the Tarnongong have willingly consented to cede it gratuitously to the
East India ~ompan~.""'
132. It is worth comparing this letter with the Temenggong's reference to the building
of the lighthouse "near Point Romania.. . or any spot deeined eligible". Butterworth
refers to rnaivdand Johor. He was of course aware that Johor extended also to the
islands. He mentions other insular locations envisaged for the construction of the
lighthouse: one of the Romania Islands (Peak Rock) or Pedra Branca. He goes on to
stress that Peak Rock is "part of the territories of the Rajah of Johore". He does so
because what was at issue was Captain Belcher's survey for the erection of the
lighthouse choosing Peak Rock as the best location. The letter concludes by stating that
the Sultan and the Teinenggong of Johor "consented to cede it gratuitously" to the East
India Company. Si~nilarly,the report of the BotnOayTimes and Jourizal of Co~m~~ercoef
10January 1846quoted above explains:
"The Malayan Authorities of Johore, in whose territory the Rornania
Island is situated, not only offer the Island for a lighthouse, but express
satisfaction at the prospect of its erection".'"
133. It is thus beyond doubt that perinission was given by Johor and acknowledged by
Britain. In its context the cession Governor Butterworth referred to did not involve
transfer of sovereignty. It was simply a permission to construct a lighthouse.
134. The British authorities in Singapore understood the extent of the consent given
by the Sultan and the Temenggong as being applicable to Pulau Batu Puteh. This can be
seen from the letter from Governor Butterworth to Mr. G.A. Bushby, the Secretary of the
Government of India, dated 26 August 1846. Writing about Pedra Branca as the final
site chosen instead of Peak Rock, the Governor stated that:
"the whole of the details for the case of Light Houses as set forth in my
letter under date the 2~'~November 1844, with reference to its being
Ill Annexes, vol. 3, Annex46.
112 "Erection of a Light-House onRomania Island": Annexes, vol.3, Annex48. erected on Peak Rock will be equally applicable to the new Position
[Pedra ~ranca] ."l
135. Amongst the "details" of the letter of 28 November 1844 can be found the
consent given by the Sultan and the Temenggong of Johor to the construction of the
lighthouse. Governor Butterwort11clearly explained to the Government of India that "tlze
wlzoleof the details" related to Peak Rock are "eqzrnllyapplicable" to Pulau Batu Puteh.
136. The British authorities in India were also aware that the consent given by the
Sultan and the Telnenggong included Pulau Batu Puteh, as emerges from the exchange
of letters between the Government of India and the Marine Department in 1846 with
regard to the request to send an iron lighthouse from England. This exchange includes
the reports that Pedra Branca has been approved as the position for erecting Horsburgh
Lighthouse and contains the letters of the Sultan and the Temenggong referred to
above.li4
137. The material referred to above confirms that the permission of Johor included
different locations envisaged for the construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse, amongst
them Pulau Batu Puteh. There is nothing in it to show that the Sultan and the
Temenggong did more than approve the building of a lighthouse on Johor's territory.
C. The role of the Temenggongof Johor
138. As has been mentioned, the Temenggong played a decisive role in Johor.
Indeed, he was vested with the real authority over his territory. This no doubt explains
the more elaborate answer given by him to the British request for the construction of the
lighthouse.
139. The relations between the British authorities of Singapore and the Temenggong
were based on the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824. They were characterised by mutual respect
ll3 Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 51.
I14 Letter from the Government of India, 3 October 1846 and attachments. British Library,
India, Marine Department Collection,F/4/2166:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 54.and by the cooperative attitude of the Temenggong with regard to British interests.
Explaining the results of the negotiation of the 1824 Treaty to the Government of India,
Resident J. Crawfurd pointed out that the conduct of the Temenggong "has been highly
respectable and steady throughout the whole of the present negotiation, and I owe in a
great measure to his support such success as I nlay venture to anticipate as the result of
my own efforts". l
140. In particular, the Teinenggong's contribution to combating piracy in the region
in the areas under his jurisdiction was much appreciated by the British authorities. By
the Crawfurd Treaty, the parties stipulated that:
"The contracting parties hereby engage to use every means within their
power respectively, for the suppression of robbery and piracy within the
Straits of Malacca, as well as the other narrow seas, straits, and rivers
bordering upon, or within their respective territories, in as far as the
same shall be connected with the dominions and immediate interests of
their said~ighnesses.""~
141.
As stated in the 1843 article of the Singapore Free Press quoted in Chapter 5,"'
the islands which pirates used as bases for their activities or in order to seek shelter -
including Pulau Batu Puteh - were under Johor's sovereignty. Moreover, most of the
pirates were considered to be subjects of Johor, in particular those who were "Orang
Laut" or "Orang Selat" by origin.
142. Just one year before the laying of the foundation stone of the Horsburgh
Lighthouse, it was reported that a Cochin Chinese PI-alzuleaving Singapore requested for
a gunboat to escort it "beyond Pedra Branca". Mr. Church, the Resident Councillor,
"stated that one of the gunboats had already gone to that quarter with four boats
belonging to the ~uinong~ong".'l~
1l5 Letter of 18 November 1823 from J. Crawfurd to G. Swindon, Esq., Secretary to the
Government, in (1853) 7 Jo~~niulof The I17dianAvcl~ipelagoand EasrerriAsia 352.
116
Article XI of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between the Honourable East India
Company and the Sultan and Telnenggong of Johor of 2 August 1824,74 CTS380, 383: Annexes,
vol. 2, Annex 6.
"' Singapore Free Press, 25 May 1843,Annexes, vol. 3, Annex40: see paragraph 95
118 C.B. Buckley, An A~zecdotalHistory of Old Times in Singapore, Singapore: Fraser &
Neave, 1902,vol. II 505.143. The Temenggong's activities against piracy constitute a manifestation of Johor's
exercise of sovereignty in the region under consideration. As testimony to the
Temenggong's contribution to the suppression of piracy in the region, the British
Government confel~edhim a sword, at a time when the construction of the lighthouse in
Pulau Batu Puteh had already been firlllly decided.lL9 It is not surprising that J.T.
Thomson, on arrival at Pulau Batu Puteh for the construction of the lighthouse, warned
against the visit of the Orang Laut, subjects of Johor, to the island. In particular, he drew
a distinction between their frequent visits to the island and their potential admission into
the building:
"... I hardly need suggest that strict rules should be carried out against
those half fishing half piratical sect called the Orang Ryot or Laut, being
allowed to obtain admittance into the building - they frequently visit the
rock so their visits should never be encouraged nor any trust be put in
them as they would be sure to pillage the building if they found
themselves strong en~ugh.""~
144. Accordingly, the Rules for Light-keepers provided that "No natives of the Orang
laut tribe should on any account be admitted into the house. Their character is piratical
and they might take advantage of the opportunity to pillage the building.""'
145. Evidently the Orang Laut, subjects of Johor, frequently visited the island. But
their visits to the island were not to be encouraged and their entrance into the building
was not allowed. If the island were under British rule (or if the purpose of the
construction had been to establish it), it would have been logical to deny them the
possibility of visiting the island itself, not only the lighthouse. This is further evidence
..
that a clear distinction existed, in the minds of those involved, between sovereignty over
the island and the ownership of the lighthouse. . .
. .
II9
120 StrrritsTinzes5 September 1846: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 52.
Letter from J.T. Thornson to Resident Councillor, Singapore, 2 November 1850:
Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 58.
IZI Rules for Light-keepers, Rule No. 17, in J.T. Thomson, "Account of the Horsburgh
Lighthouse", (1852) 6 Jounzal of the lrzdiairAi-chipelago arid Easterr?Asia, Appendix V:
Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 61.146.
Worried about the piratical activities in the region, J.T. Thomson also proposed
the establishment of a station or a military presence near Point Romania, for the purpose
of offering assistance to the lighthouse keepers. The Resident Councillor of Singapore,
commenting on this proposal to Gove~norButterworth, wrote:
"I doubt whether such is absolutely necessary, or comnlensurate with the
permanent expense which such an Establishment must necessarily
occasion, Romania moreover belongs to the Sovereign of Johore, where
the British possess no legal jurisdiction, it will, of course be necessary
for the Steamer or Gun boats to visit Pedro Branca weekly, some benefit
would also accrue by requesting His Highness the Tamoongong to fonn
a village at Romania under the control of a respectable Panghooloo to
render assistance to the inmates of the Light House in a case of
emergency.""'
147. Thus for the British authorities in the Settlement of Singapore, the establishmerit
of a naval force in the vicinity of Point Romania would have required the Temenggong's
authorisation. The other alternative envisaged for the accomplishment of acts of
undisputable public character, such as maintaining or restoring order at Horsburgh
Lighthouse "in a case of emergency", was the request to the Temenggong to form a
village in that region and to put it under the authority of a reliable village chief.
148. J.T. Thomson, after the laying of the foundation stone of the lighthouse on 24
May 1850,returned to Pulau Batu Puteh on 2 June 1850,meeting the Te~nenggongthere.
He relates:
"On the same day his highness the Tulnungong of Johore visited the
rock, accompanied by 30 of his followers. He is the most powerful
native chief in these parts, allied to British interests. He remained at my
house for two days, employing his leisure in fishing, to which sport he is
greatly devoted; he and his followers were very successful with the hook
and line. He would have made a longer stay had not the nlosquitoes
been so numerous, a singular circumstance, seeing that the rock is so
exposed to all winds ... [The mosquitoes] infested every nook and
corner of the houses and chinks of the rock, neither night nor day
brought any relief from them, it was almost impossible to sit, and the
only refuge, if rest were required, was under the mosquito curtains.
These his highness had not brought, so he did not stop to experience the
122 Letter from T. Church,Resident Councillor of Singapore, to Governor Butterworth7of
November 1850:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 59. tortures of another night.. . On the evening of the 3rd of June, the
Tornungong took his departure. He came in a beautiful fast sailing
sampan.. . rigged with graceful latteen sails. About ten other small
sampans composed his fleet, which with their mat sails as they stretched
over the coast of Bintang, produced rather a picturesque effect. The
Singapore sampan is famed over the world for its fleetness in either
pulling or sailing; manned with the orang laut (men of the sea) they have
successfully competed with the fastest gigs or wherries from England,
brought outon purpose for the ~ontest.""~
149. The visit of the Temenggong with 30 of his subjects to Pulau Batu Puteh, the
fact that it took place only nine days after the laying of the foundation stone of the
lighthouse, and his initial intention to stay for an indeterminate period of time are all of
significance. His stay on an island of such a small surface with such a numerous troop,
spending most of his time fishing, suggests that he considered himself as being on his
own territory. Thomson's attitude also illustrates the British perception of the situation.
The Temenggong stayed in Thomson's house. No objection was raised either to his
presence with his followers or to their activities on Pulau Batu Puteh. It would be easy
to understand that such a presence could constitute an obstacle to the construction work.
Tho~nsondid not appear surprised by this visit. No reference is made to any permission
being sought or given for the Temenggong's presence.
150. Both the activities of the Temenggong against piracy in the region - including
Pulau Batu Puteh - and his visit to the island soon after the beginning of the construction
of the Horsburgh Lighthouse confirm that Pulau Batu Puteh was under Johor's
sovereignty before and after the per~nissionwas given for the building of the lighthouse.
They also show that his consent to the building of a lighthouse extended to Pulau Batu
Puteh and that this consent only related to its construction and operation.
113
J.T. Thomson, "Account of the Horsburgh Lighthouse", (1852) 6 Jo~11-17oaflthe Indian
Archipelago a17dEaster17Asia 375, 430: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 60. The original report was
submitted to the Resident Councillor and was published by permission. See also J.A.L. Pavitt,
First Pharos of the Eastenz Seas. Horsb~~l-ghighthouse, Singapore, Singapore Light Dues Board,
D. Moore Press, 1966,32. Copies of this work have been lodgedwith the Court. D. The Inauguration of the Lighthouse didnot involve a Cessionor Claim of
Sovereignty
151. Further evidence that the British authorities in Singapore did not consider that it
had acquired sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh can be derived from the forin of the
ceremonies that took place for the construction and operation of the Horsburgh
Lighthouse. This section will demonstrate that the ceremonies that took place for the
construction and operation of the Horsburgh Lighthouse were of a completely different
lund froin those which involved the assulnption of sovereignty in British practice.
Moreover, no.attempt was made to incorporate Pulau Batu Puteh into the Colony of the
Straits Settlements at any time.
(i) Tlzeceremony of tlzelaying of thefirst stone and tlzeirza~lg~(ratioonf tlze
lightlzouse
152. The only ceremony that took place on Pulau Batu Puteh was the laying of the
first stone of Horsburgh Lighthouse. It took place on 24 May 1850, the date of Queen
Victoria's birthday. It was a Masonic cerern~n~.~~~overnor Butterworth asked the
Lodge "Zetland in the East" to lay the foundation stone. In his speech requesting M.F.
Davidson, Worshipful Master of the Lodge, to open the ceremony, Governor
Butterworth stressed that the lightho~isewill "be erected on this spot for the safety of the
Mariner". Explaining the reasons why the Lodge was requested to carry out the
ceremony, he went on by saying: "The philanthropic object of the building appears
especially to call for the exercise of that craft which has charity and goodwill to all
inankind as its ground work".125The saine explanations can be found in the letter sent
by Governor Butterworth to the Worshipful Master of the Lodge "Zetland in the East" of
23 April 1850."~ Clearly, this ceremony was not at all concerned with sovereignty. On
the contrary, Governor Butterworth expressly pointed out that the construction of the
I24 Freemasonry is a universal initiation association based on ideals of fraternity and
philanthropy. It appeared in Britain during the'century and was much in vogue in the British
Settlements in Asia.A group of Freemasons constitutes a lodge. Its symbols include T-squares,
compasses, trowels andother building tools.
125 Sri-airsTimes, 28 May 1850:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 57, also reproduced in Pavitt, 23-25,
who quotes theSingapore Free Press.
126 Annexes, vol.3, Annex 56.building had the only purpose - putting aside the celebration of Captain James
Horsburgh - of helping navigation and characterised it as ayhilalztlzropicenterprise.
153. The limited object of the activity on Pulau Batu Puteh was reiterated at the time
of the inauguration of the lighthouse on 15October 1851. The 1851inscription plate set
into the wall reads as follows:
"A.D. 1851. THE HORSBURGH LIGHTHOUSE is raised by the
enterprise of British Merchants and by the liberal aid of the East'India
Con~pany, to lessen the dangers of Navigation and likewise to hand
down so long as it shall last in the scene of his useful labours The
Memory of the great Hydrographer whose name it bears. Col. W.J.
BUTTERWORTH. C.B. Governor in the Straits of Malacca. J.T.
Thomson Architect".
Again, not a single reference to sovereignty was made. Rather, the private origin of the
endeavour was highlighted, together with the "liberal aid" of the East India.Company
and the reiterated purpose of assisting navigation.
154. Something similar can be said about the copper plate placed in the cavity of the
foundation stone. It bore the followinginscription:
"In the year of our Lord 1850and in the 13'"year of the reign of Victoria
Queen of Great Britain and Iseland; The Most Noble James Andrew
Marquess of Dalhousie K.T., being Governor General of British India;
The Foundation Stone of the Light-house to be erected on Pedro Branca
and dedicated to the memory of the celebrated Hydrographer Jaines
Horsburgh F.M.S. was laid on the 24Ihday of May, the anniversary of
the Birth day of Her Most Gracious Majesty, by the Worshipful Master
M.F. Davidson Esq. and the Brethren of the Lodge Zetland in the East
No. 748, in the presence of the Governor of the Straits Settlements, and
many of the British and Foreign Residents of Singapore. J.T. Thomson,
Architect".l''
155. It is true that the ceremony was carried out by the Worshipful Master of the
Lodge "Zetland in the East" in the presence of the Governor. But there is no indication
127
See the photograph in Pavitt, 47.
128 Straits Tin~es,28May 1850:Annexes,.vol.3, Annex 57that the latter had any particular role to perform. A Masonic ceremony does riot
constitute an official act, even if public agents attend or even ifthey actively participate.
156. It ]nay be noted that an identical Masonic ceremony took place in the course of
building the Raffles Lighthouse on Coney Island (Pulau Satumu) in 18~4."~ This
uninhabited island had undoubtedly been ceded by Johor to the East India Company in
1824. It is located more than three miles further south from the main Island of
Singapore, but within the ten-mile radius. On that occasion, a ceremony which was in
all essentials the same as that conducted for the Horsburgh Lighthouse was celebrated,
and this was done on an island already under British sovereignty.'30 This is a further
indication that the Masonic ceremony on Pulau Batu Puteh in 1850 was not conducted
with the intention of either establishing or confirming British sovereignty.
(ii) CotzsisterztBritish practice oftaking possession and itzcorporntionof
territory andits nbsenceirzPulnuBntu Putel?
157. This conduct with regard to Pulau Batu Puteh may be contrasted with the
traditional and consistent British practice of formnallytaking possession of territories
under its sovereignty.
158. British practice of taking possession of territory as an act of establishing
sovereignty was formal and rather standardised. The principal reference work in this
field covers the period between 1400and 1800. Keller, Lissitzyn & Mann state:
"THE CEREMONIES which were performed by explorers in the service
of the English Crown in taking formal possession of terl-a nullius
displayed no great variation in either content or effect over a
considerable period of time, i.e., from the reign of Queen Elizabeth until
at least the last quarter of the eighteenth century.
Such ceremonies or acts, furthermore, partook very little of the
. simplicity so characteristic of Portuguese and French practice in
performing symnbolicacts and resembled rather those of the Spanish in
regard to ceremoniousness and formality of pr~cedure."'~~
129 Pavitt, 23.
I30 Buckley, 520-6.
l?l Keller, A.S., Lissitzyn, O.J. and Mann,J.,Creation of Rights of Sovereignty thro~lgll
Sy~nbolicActs 1400-1800, New York, Columbia University Press, 1938,p. 49.159. This practice also extended beyond the period covered by Keller, Lissitzyn &
Mann. During the 191hcentury British sailors, whether officially in the Crown's service
or acting simply as British subjects, continued to perform formal acts of taking of
possession of the territories they claimed for the British Crown. Someexamples follow.
160. The British applications instituting proceedings in the Anrnrcticn cases
mentioned several "acts of annexation by British Nationals" in the contested territories
between 1775 and 1843. All of them were formal takings of possession in the name of
the crown.'" Between 4 and 8 August 1825, John Crawfurd, British Resident of
Singapore, took formal possession of the Island of Singapore and its dependencies,
planting the Union Jack and firing a 21 gun salute in different parts of the new
sett1ement.l" On 3 January 1833, Captain Onslow took possession of the
FalklandIMalvinas Islands, hoisting the Union Jack and requesting the Argentine
officials to withdraw, hauling down their flag.13"n 24 May 1842, Lieutenant Lapidge
took possession of the island of Bularna, through a military parade, the reading of the
official declaration of taking of possession and the hoisting of the British flag.'35On 16
October 1849, the British Consul General in Central America, Mr. Frederick Chatfield,
took formal possession of the island of El Tige in the name of the ~ueen."~ -
161. The contrast with the approach of the British authorities responsible for the
construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse is clear. In all the cases in which Britain's
intention was the establishment or the assertion of British sovereignty, i.e. on territory
ceded by the previous sovereign (as was the case of Singapore), on a territory deemed
term rzullius(Antarctica) or even considered to be British but occupied by another power
(Bulama, FalMandsIMalvinas), that act was accomplished in a formal manner, involving
I32 ICJ Pleadings, A~~tur.cricCases (United Kingdom IJ.Argentinu; United Kingdon7 v.
133le),4 May 1955,paras. 11-13,51-3.
J.H. Moor, Notices of the 117diu~t-chipelagoand Adjacent Cozrntrzes,Singapore, 1837,
269-73.
I34 See correspondence printed in 20 BFSP1197-8.
See the complete description of the ceremony i1BFSP 457-8.
See Case Col~cerning Lnrld, Islulzd and Maritirne Frontier Disp~~te (El
Salvador/Hond~ir-asN:~caruguainteri~er7ing), J Reports 1992, p. 351at 567, para. 351.a formal claim,of sovereignty, the hoisting of the Union Jack and other ~nanifestationsof
that intention,13'followed by some official proclamation of annexation.
162. Of particular interest are the cases of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the
Christmas Island. In 1857, Captain Fremantle in colmnand of HMS Jurzo took
possession of the Cocos Islands on behalf of the British Crown. In 1878, the British
Government authorised its colonial authorities in Ceylon to exercise administrative
control over the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. On 1February 1886, Letters Patent appointed
the Governor of the Straits Settlements to be Governor of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands
and authorised the transfer of those islands to the Colony of the Straits ~ettlernents.'~"
Ordinance XVIII of 18 September 1903 provided that "for administrative purposes [the
Cocos Islands] be incorporated with and form part of the Settlement of Singapore",
quoting the Proclamation of 15July 1903, by which "the boundaries of the Colony of the
Straits Settlements should be extended so as to include the Cocos ~slands."'~~
163. Christmas Island was taken in possession for Great Britain by Captain W.H.
May, Commander of HMS Iinper-ieusein 1888. Pursuant to a Proclamation dated 23
May 1900,the island was "annexed" to the Colony of the Straits Settlements on 10June
1900. By Ordinance No. 14 of 3 August 1900 "Christmas Island shall fcr administrative
purposes be incorporated with and form part of the Settlement of ~inga~ore".'~~
137 Such as the deposit oa cylinder in which there was a document taking possession of the
territory see ICJ Pleadmgs, Antarctica cows, 12,52.
'" Acts and Oi-dinunces of the Legislative Co~tncilof the Straits Settlements, fiorn the Is'
April 1867 to the I" June 1886, complied by J.A. Hanvood, Eyre and Spottiswood, London. 1886,
vol.I, 71.
Ordinances Enacted by the Governor of the strait^ Settleinents with the Advlce and
Consent of the Legi~lative Cozllzcilthereof during the Year 1903, Singapore: Government Printing
Office, 1904, 68-9.
Ovdirzances Enacted by the GoL~emorof the Straits Settleineizts with the Advice and
Consent oj the Legislative Council thei-eofduring the Year 1900,ngapore: Government Printing
Office, 1901,59-60.164. Nothing of this sort occurred on Pulau Batu Puteh. The absence of a British act
taking possession of Pulau Batu Puteh testifies to the fact that at no time did Britain have
the intention of establishing sovereignty over it. Unlike Cocos (Keeling) Islands and
Christsnas Island, no further incorporation of Pulau Batu Puteh into the Colony of the
Straits Settlements by way of Letters Patent, Order in Council, Proclamation or
otherwise occurred. At no time did Pulau Batu Puteh become part of the territory of
Singapore.
E. DistinctionbetweenOwnershipof LighthousesandSovereigntyover
Territory
165. The distinction between sovereignty and ownership was well known during the
19'~century, and indeed, even before then. The former indicates the suplpremp aotestas of
the State (inzperiunz),the latter a proprietary relationship with regard to land or real
estate (dominium). While the former is by definition an attribute of the State, the latter
can be vested both in private individuals and in governments: in other words, ownership
may be public as well as private. Leading authors who were writing around the time of
the building of the lighthouse explicitly refer to this possibility. A.W. Heffter wrote in
1855 that:
"the State and the Sovereign may possess or acquire private property
both within the State and abroad, in a foreign territory. In this last case,
the property cannot detract froin the foreign jurisdiction and legislation,
unless it has acquired the quality of a State
166.. - Professor John Westlake, who published between 1853 and 1913, distinguished
territorial sovereignty from prop.rty, .tating that they: , ,. ,- ' ;, .,.. -.
,.: ... . ...- .:
IJI
A.W. Heffter, Das eui-opci~scheVolkerrecht der Gegenwart, 3rd. ed., Berlin, Schroeder,
1855, 123 (translation by Malaysia); (French version: A.G Heffter, Le droit i1?ten7atzonap lublic
de /'Europe, transl. by J Bergson, Berlin, Schroeder, Paris, Cotillon, 1857, 141). In the same
sense, J.L. Kliiber, Europd~sclies Viilkenacht, 2"" ed., Schaffaussen, Fmter, 1851, 100, French
version: Droit des geru model-nede ELL^-ope2 ,'lded., transl. by M.A.Ott, Paris, Guillaurnin, 1874,
132, J.C. Bluntschli, Das modei+i~e Volkerrecht der cii~ilisirteilStaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt,
Nordlingen, Beck, 1868, "article 277", 163, French translation: Le droit i~ite~rzatio~za clodifiit,
transl. by M.C.Lardy, 3rded., Paris, Guillaumin, 1881, 175, Rivier, Alphonse, Pril~cipesdu droit
des gens, Paris, A. Rousseau, 1896,vol.I, 138. "play widely different parts in the system of acts and purposes which
makes up civilised life, and sometimes they are contrasted with one
another in circumstances which would make it very inconvenient to say
that a statehas the property in its
He went on to say:
"A government may assume the power to cede land to a foreign state in
property as well as in sovereignty, taking on itself the burden of
expropriating the private owners".'43
167. An important element showing that the distinction between sovereignty and
property was envisaged by the parties is their own conventional practice. As depicted in
Chapter 4, the first agreements concluded between the East India Company and Johor in
1819 were related to the obtaining by the Company of certain land in Singapore for the
establishment of a factory.l4 It was only by the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824 that Johor
transferred sovereignty over the Island of Singapore and its dependencies to the East
India Company. Itis significant that by this Treaty Johor.. .
"cede[s] in full sovereignty and property to the Honourable the English
East India Company, their heirs and successors for ever, the Island of
Singapore, situated in the straits of Malacca, together with the adjacent
seas, straits, and islets, to the extent of ten geographical miles, from the
coast of the said main Island of ~in~a~ore."'~'
168. The use of the conjunction "and" shows that the terms "sovereignty" and
"property" were not considered synonyms. The ordinary meaning of this phrase is that
the cession comprised both sovereignty arid property of Singapore. The Treaty also
dealt specifically with the property of the Sultan and Temenggong, who, it was
contemplated, would continue to reside in Singapore. Article VTIstipulated that in case
they decided to move permanently to their own State, they relinquished to the East India
Company "all right and title to every description of immovable property, whether in
142 Oppenheim, L., ed.,The Collected Papers of Jol71zWestlak011Public I17ten7ntio?zlaw,
Cambridge, UniversitP yress,1914,131-2.
141 Ibid., 132,fn 1. See also:J. Westlake, Internntiol~aLLIM )a~t I Peace, Cambridge,
UniversityPress, 1910,88.
I4l
I45 Seeabove, paragraphs 45-47.
Article11,emphasisadded.SeeAnnexes,vol. 2, Annex 6.lands, houses, gardens, orchards .ortimber trees, of which their said Highnesses may be
possessed within the Island of Singapore or its dependencies".'46
169. Once the construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse was finished, the conduct of
the British authorities was consistent with the distinction between property and
sovereignty. What the East India Company claimed was property, not sovereignty.
Thus, the Indian Act No. V1of 1852proclaims:
"The Light-House on Pedra Branca aforesaid shall be called 'The
Horsburgh Light-House,' and the said ~ight-House, and the
appurtenances thereunto belonging or occupied for the purposes thereof,
and all the fixtures, apparatus and furniture belonging thereto, shall
become the property of, and absolutely vest in, the East India Company
and their su~cessors."'~'
170. This Act does not proclaim sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh. Rather it
concerns the declaration of property in the lighthouse and its appurtenances. Again,
there was no British nairnusoccupnndi or intention to acquire sovereignty.
171. The practice of Great Britain as well as other States - and the jurisprudence of
the Court - testify that the construction and maintenance of lighthouses or other aids to
navigation are not per se considered manifestations of sovereignty.
172. In the Minquiers alzdEcrahos Case, the French Government argued that, since
1861 and for more than 75 years, it had assumed the charge of the lighting and buoying
of the Minquiers, without having encountered any objection from the United Kingdom.
Some of these buoys fell within 3 nm from the Minquiers. The British Government
explained its conduct as follows. , r
"His Majesty's Government have not objected to the establishment of
these buoys, being unwilling, unless in case of absolute necessity and in
rebuttal of a direct claim of right, to assert British sovereignty in
lJ6
ArticleVII,CrawfurdTreaty1824.
147 See Annexes ,ol. 3,Annex84. opposition to a work of public utility which per seprejudiced in no way
British interest^."'^^
The Court said:
"such acts can hardly be considered as sufficient evidence of the
intention of that Government to act as a sovereign over the islets; nor are
those acts of such a character that they can be considered as involving a
manifestation of State authority in respect of the islets."'49
Indeed, the main purpose of those French constructions was to assist navigation to the
French ports of the mainland.
173. The Eritredemerz arbitration is a striking. case on. the impact of the
establishment or maintenance of lighthouses on sovereignty. The Arbitral Tribunal
presided over by Sir Robert Jennings rejected the assertions that the establishment or
maintenance of lighthouses constituted acts of sovereignty. As the arbitral award
affirms: .
"The operation or maintenance of lighthouses and navigational aids is
normally connected to the preservation of safe navigation, and not
normally taken as a test of sovereignty. Maintenance on these islands of
lighthouses by British and Italian companies and authorities gave rise to
no sovereign claiin or con~lusions."'~~
174. This case is also relevant to show that Britain did not hesitate to propose the
construction and the maintenance of lighthouses in territories under other States'
sovereignty during the century and even at the beginning of the 2othcentury. The
sole purpose of this practice was to assist navigation in areas of the seas of particular
interest for British trade.I5' The acquisition of sovereignty was not at issue. Nor did
Britain try later to invoke the existence and maintenance of these lighthouses as a means
of establishing sovereignty.
Extract from Foreign Office Memorandum of 17 August 1905 to the French Government
cited by the United Kingdom in its Reply, 3 November 1952. ICJ Pleadings, The Minq~tiersand
Ecrehos Case, UnitedKingdo~n/F~-ance v,ol.,555.
'49 ~inquiers and Ecrehos Case,ICJReports 1957, p. 47 at 71.
Yenzen-EritreaArbitration, Phase One: Territorial Sovereignty and the Scope oj the
Dispute, 9 October 1998, 114ILR 1,88, para. 328.
15' Ibid., 61-6, paras. 203-224.175. This jurisprudence has been confirmed by the judgment of the Court in the
Ligitnn alzd Sipndnrz case, in which this Court observed that "the construction and
operation of lighthouses and navigational aids are not normally considered
nlanifestations of State a~thorit~".'~' Recalling its previous decision in the Qntar. v.
Bahmin case, the Court affirmed that "[tlhe construction of navigational aids.. .can be
legally relevant in the case of very small islands".'i3 The Court decided in favour of
Malaysia not merely on account of the construction of the lighthouses. It included this
fact amongst other activities including legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts,
showing "a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the
two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands."'i4 But the
impact of the Horsburgh Lighthouse with regard to sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh is
completely different from that of the lighthouses operated on Pulau Ligitan and Pulau
Sipadan. On Ligitan and Sipadan, Malaysia and their predecessors constructed and
operated the lighthouses because they considered they were performing acts on
territories they regarded as falling under their sovereignty. In respect of Pulau Batu
Puteh, by contrast, an authorisation to erect the lighthouse was requested from the
sovereign of the territory. On Ligitan and Sipadan, the maintenance of the lighthouses
was coupled with the public display of state activity on other fronts, in particular, control
over natural resources. On Pulau Batu Puteh, no evident exercise of sovereignty
accompanied the construction and maintenance of Horsburgh Lighthouse. -
176. As was demonstrated in Chapter 5, Pulau Batu Puteh was not terrn nullius, but
part of Johor's territory. There is not a single piece of evidence in the history of the
construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse that this edifice was considered or perceived
either as being constructed on British territory or as a further acquisition of sovereignty
over territory. The only goal pursued was to facilitate navigation. Upon constructing the
lighthouse, all that the East India Conlpany acquired was the property therein.
157 Case Concerning Sovereignty over P~llaz~ Ligita17 and Pulu~~ Sipadan,
h~do~zesia/Malnysic Jr,dgment, Merits, 17 December 2002,para. 147.
151 Ibid., citing Qutarv.Bal7rair1p,ara. 197.
I54
Ibid., para 148. F. Conclusions
The material presented above demonstrates that:
The initiative to erect the Horsburgh Lighthouse was a private one, without any
link whatsoever to matters of sovereignty. in order to honour the hydrographer
and to aid navigation.
Pulau Batu Puteh was envisaged as the most likely location of the lighthouse
from the very beginning and at every stage of the decision-making process.
The British authorities sought and obtained consent from the Temenggong and
the Sultan of Johor for the construction of the lighthouse at the entrance of the
China Sea in the Strait of Singapore, because Johor was sovereign in that region.
That authorisation included Pulau Batu Puteh.
The construction of the lighthouse was neither accompanied nor followed by a
taking of possession of the island on behalf of the British Crown.
No other claim of sovereignty was advanced on behalf of the British Crown.
The mere construction and maintenance of the lighthouse does not constitute an
act of, nor display of, sovereignty; nor does it implyizirnusoccuparzdi.
The East India Company acquired ownership of the Horsburgh Lighthouse, but
not sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.
Consequently, Johor retained its sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh after the
construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse. Chapter7
THECONDUCTOF THEPARTIES SUPPORTSMALAYSIA'S
TITLE
Introduction
178. In Chapters 4- 6 of this Memorial, Malaysia addressed the basis of its claim to
title over Pulau Batu Puteh. This rests on Johor's original title to the island and
Malaysia's succession thereto. At no time did Johor, either by act or by omission,
alienate its sovereignty over the island, including in the course of the exchanges leading
to the construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse. On the contrary, the granting by Johor
of permission for the construction of the lighthouse was itself a sovereign act.
179. Nor was any claim to sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh made by Singapore in
the period following the granting of permission for the construction of the lighthouse.
Indeed, no suggestion was made at any time that title to the island rested anywhere other
than with Johor. Thus, at the point at which Johorjoined the Malayan Union in 1946 it
had neither alienated sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh nor been faced with a
competing claim to title.
180. The salient point is that, in the period following the granting of permission for
the construction of the lighthouse in 1844 right up to the point of the crystallisation of
the dispute in 1980,Singapore neither claimed sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh nor, in
its management of the lighthouse, acted in any way outside the scope of the permission.
Malaysia's original title was never questioned. As this chapter will show, Singapore's
conduct prior to 1980 is fully consistent with, and in no way overrides, Malaysia's title
over the island. Malaysia's conduct, too, confirms this appreciation.181. On 21 December 1979, Malaysia published a map indicating the extent of its
territorial waters and continental shelf. As earlier maps had done, this map showed
Pulau Batu Puteh as part of Singapore objected to this inap by a Diplomatic
Note dated 14 February 1980."~ This was the first time that Singapore asserted a claim
of title of its own. Since this date- which, as noted in Chapter 2, constitutes the point of
crystallisation of the dispute between the Parties and hence the critical date for purposes
of these proceedings - Singapore has assiduously objected to Malaysian conduct relative
to Pulau Batu Puteh on grounds that the island belongs to Singapore. The inultiple
Diplomatic Notes sent by Singapore to Malaysia on this issue in the period February
1980 - January 2004 are listed in Annex ~2.'~'Througho~ltMalaysia has firmly rejected
Singapore's claims to sovereignty.
182. Given the recent character of Singapore's claim to Pulau Batu Puteh, it is not
surprising that it has publicly objected to Malaysia's conduct relative to the island in the
period since the dispute crystallised. What is striking, however, is that in the 136 years
between the 1844granting of pernllssion by Johor to the British authorities in Singapore
to build a lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh and Singapore's Note of 1980, Malaysia has
been unable to discover even a single protest by Singapore (or its antecedent authorities)
concerning Malaysian conduct relative to Pulau Batu Puteh or any claim by Singapore
itself to title. This absence of protest or claim is evidence of Singapore's understanding
during this 136 year period that title to Pulau Batu Puteh remained in Johor and, by
succession, in Malaysia.
183. The present Chapter examines developments since the late 19'~century,
including constitutional developments and official descriptions of Singapore, and
Singapore's practice relevant thereto, as well as examples of Malaysian conduct relative
to Pulau Batu Puteh. As will be shown, this is all confirmatory of Malaysia's claim to
title.
155
Map Atlas, Map 44.
Annexes,vol. 3, Annex80.
157 Annexes,vol. 3, Annex 82.184. Although aspects of Singapore's conduct will be addressed in this Chapter,
Malaysia will not attempt to anticipate arguments that Singapore may advance in its
Memorial. Such as they may be, they will be addressed in due course in Malaysia's
Counter-Memorial.
A. The Legal Frameworkfor Considering the Conduct of the Parties
185. A preliminary observation is necessary to frame the subsequent discussion. The
context for this observation is the close, often intertwined, relationship between
Malaysia and Singapore over two centuries.
186. International law will be slow to presume either the abandonment of title or the
displacement of the sovereignty of the original titleholder in the absence of clear
evidence to this effect. The principle is illustrated by theCase Concer~zingSovereignty
Over Certain Frontier Land (Belgiu~dNetherla~zds), where the Court rejected the
contention that Belgian sovereignty derived from a treaty of 1843 had been displaced by
subsequentconduct by the Netherlands on the following grounds:
"The weight to be attached to the acts relied upon by the Netherlands
must be determined against the background of the complex system of
intermingled enclaves which existed. The difficulties confronting
Belgium in detecting encroachments upon, and in exercising, its
sovereignty over these two plots, surrounded as they were by
Netherlands territory, are manifest. The acts relied upon are largely of a
routine and administrative character performed by local officials and a
consequence of the inclusion by the Netherlands of the disputed plots in
its Survey, contrary to the Boundary Convention. Tlzey are iasuflcierzt
to displace Belgian sovereignty establislzed by that ~orzvenrion."'~~
187. TWO propositions of general application emerge from this analysis. First, there
is a presun~ption against the easy abandonment or displacement of title to territory. A
claim based on the abandonment of sovereignty requires proof of an intent to abandon on
158 Case Co1zcen7irzSgovel-eigrztyOvev CertainFvor7tierk~nd, ICJ Reports 1959, p. 209 at
229, emphasis added. See also the ClippertonIsland case in which the Arbitrator upheld France's
claim to title notwithstanding the absence of conduct since France had "never had the~usof
abandoning the island". Avbitval Award 017 tlie Subject of the Dzfserence Relative to the
Sovel-eigrzover ClippertonIsland,(1932) 26AJIL 390, 394.the part of the original titleholder. A claim based on the displacement of sovereignty
requires evidence of conduct on the part of the putative successor that is manifest,
extensive and official, and is, in all the circumstances of the case, opposable to the
original titleholder. Second, the nature of the relationship between the parties and the
character of the territory in question will be material to an assessment of the weight to be
attributed to conduct that is claimed to be fl titrede souverrriiz.Conduct "of a routine
and adniinistrative character" will not be sufficient to found title particularly in (a)
circumstances in which such conduct may be explained by reference to the intertwined
nature of the relationship between the parties and the character of the territory in
contention, or (b) where such conduct is undertaken pursuant to per~nissiongranted by
the territorial sovereign. Conduct performed in such circumstances cannot provide any
basis fir a claim to title.
. .
188. Johor's title to the neighbouring islands, including Pulau Batu Puteh, was
confirmed by the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty and by the 1824 Crawfurd Treaty which
specified the boundary limits of the Island of Singapore. Pulau Batu Puteh fell well
outside the area constituting the territory of Singapore under these treaties and remained
with the Sultanate of Johor. There is no evidence of any ani~nusto abandon that title by
Johor or Malaysia. Nor is there evidence of conduct by Singapore sufficient to displace
that title. On the contrary, Singapore's practice prior to 1980 acknowledges Malaysian
sovereignty.
B. ConstitutionalDevelopments and Official Descriptions of Singapore and
. .
.. . ,;. Malaysia
189. Chapter 4 described the historical background of the Sultanate of Johor, the
emergence of the Island of Singapore as a separate administrative entity during the early
decades of' the 19" century and the creation 'of the Straits Settlements (including
Singapore), initially by the English East India Company in 1826 and subsequently, in
1866, as a Crown Colony administered by the Colonial Office in London. The Straits
Settlements remained a separate Crown Colony throughout the latter part of the 19Ihcentury and into the first half of'the20" century. ~hroughbut this period, Johor retained
its sovereign status.
(i) The Straits Settlements and Johore Territorinl WatersAgreement, 1927
190. The boundary between the territorial waters of the "Settlement of Singapore"
and those of Johor was described in detail in the Straits Settlements and Johore
Territorial Waters Agreement, 19October 1927 ("the 1927 ~~reement")."~ The object
of the 1927 Agreement, which in its preambular paragraphs referred expressly to the
1824 Crawfurd Treaty, was to retrocede back to Johor "certain of the said seas, straits
and islets" that had originally been ceded by Johor to the English,East India Company.
This was achieved by Articles I1 and III of the 1927 Agreement. The retrocession
arrangements did not concern Pulau Batu Puteh as the island was never part of the
territory of Singapore.
191. Article I of the 1927 Agreement defined the boundary between the territorial
waters of the Settlement of Singapore and those of the State and Territory of Johor in the
.-
following terms:
"The boundary between the territorial waters of the Settlement of
Singapore and those of the slate and Territory of Johore shall, except as
hereafter specified in this Article, be an imaginary line following the
centre of the deep-water channel in Johore Strait, between the mainland
of the State and Territory of Johore on the one side and the Northern
Shores of the Islands of Singapore, Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong Kechil,
and Pulau Tekong Besar on the other side. Where, if at all, the channel
divides into two portions of equal depth running side by side, the
boundary shall run midway between these two portions. At the Western
entrance of Johore Strait, the boundary, after passing through the centre
of the deep-water channel Eastward of Pulau Merambong, shall proceed .
seaward, in the general direction of the axis of this channel produced,
until it intersects the 3-mile limit drawn from the low water mark of the
South Coast of Pulau Merambong. At the Eastern entrance of Johore
Strait, the boundary shall be held to pass through the centre of the deep-
water channel between the mainland of Johore, Westward of Johore
Hill, and Pulau Tekong Besar, next through the centre of the deep-water
channel between Johore Shoal and the mainland of Johore, Southward of
Johore Hill, and finally turning Southward, to intersect the 3-mile limit
-
159 Annexes,vol. 2, Annex 12. drawn from the low water mark of the mainland of Johore in a position
bearing 192degrees from Tanjong ~ita~a."'~~
A version of the map attached to the 1927 Agreement showing the arc of the boundary
definition is reproduced opposite as Insert 17.
192. Pulau Batu Puteh lies some 25.5 nm from the nearest point on Singapore's coast.
It was not included within the territorial waters of the Settlement of Singapore pursuant
to the 1927 Agreement. If there had been any understanding at that time that Pulau Batu
Puteh was part of the territory of the Settlement of Singapore, this could have been easily
reflected in the terms of the Agreement. The 1927 Agreement, with its link back to the
. . 1824 territorial arrangements of the Crawfurd Treaty, is evidence of the continuing
S : appreciation that Pulau Batu Puteh and its surrounding waters were not part of the
territory of Singapore.
(ii) EstnOlislz~~zer ofrrlzeColony of Sirzgnpore,27Mnrclz 1946
193. After the Second World War, the Colony of the Straits Settlements (including
the Island of Singapore, Penang and Malacca) was dissolved. Singapore was established
as a separate entity, beconling the Crown Colony of Singapore. The Singapore Colony
Order in Council 1946defined "the Settlement of Singapore" as "the Island of Singapore
and its dependencies, Christmas Island, the Cocos or Keeling Islands, and all islands and
places which, on the'fifteenth day of February, 1942, were known and administered as
part of such Settlement, and the territorial waters adjacent thereto".'" This definition
may be contrasted with that given for the "Settlement of Singapore" in section 2 of the
5 Transfer of Powers and Interpretation Ordinance 1946, as including..
:l
I6O Straits Settlementsand Johore Territorial Waters Agreement, 19October 1927,Article I:
Annexes, vol.2, Annex 12.
161
Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1946(UK),SR & 0 and SI revised to December 31,
1948, vol. XXI, S.2(1): Annexes, vol.3, Annex 92. "the town and island of Singapore, all other islands heretofore
administered as part of the Settlement of Singapore, and all British
waters adjacent thereto, but does not include the Cocos Islands and
North Keeling ~sland."~~'
By section 4 of the Transfer of Powers and Interpretation Amendment Ordinance 1948,
the definition of the "Colony" of Singapore was amended to read:
"'Colony' includes the Island of Singapore and its dependencies, the
Cocos or Keeling Islands, Christmas Island, and all British and
territorial waters adjacent thereto".16'
There is no suggestion in these descriptions that the territorial limits of Singapore were
any different from those described in Article I of the 1927Agreement. Pulau Batu Puteh
was not in any way part of this Settlement.
(iii) TlzeCurfew Order of1948
194. The territorial limits of Singapore falling within the boundary arc of the 1927
Agreement were explicitly reflected in later developments contemporaneous with the
establishment of the Colony of Singapore. For example, on 21 July 1948,in response to
civil unrest in the Colony, the Singapore Commissioner of Police made the Curfew
(Johore Straits) (Singapore) Order 1948 which imposed a curfew ''withi11the boundary
of the territorial waters of the Island of Singapore". Paragraph 2 of the Order provided
that:
. "No person shall be within the area specified in the Schedule hereto
between the hours of 6.30P.M. and 6.30 A.M. unless in possession of a
written permit in that behalf issued by a police officer of or above the
rank of ~ns~ector."'~
195. The evident intention was to restrict movement anywhere on Singapore territory
- including within its territorial waters - during the hours of darkness for purposes of
combating civil unrest.
162 Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 93.
163
Annexes, vol.3, Annex 94.
The Curfew (Johore Straits) (Singapore)Order, 1948, para.: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 95.196. The Schedule to the Order went on to describe the "area lying within the
boundary of th. .>eiritorial waters of the Island of Singapore" by reference to virtually the
precise language of the 1927 Agreement as follows:
"All that area lying within the boundary of the territorial waters of the
Island of Singapore, that is, within an imaginary line following the
centre 'ofthe deep-water channel in Johore Strait between the mainland
of the State and territory of Johore on the one side and the northern
shoreiof the Islands of Singapore, Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong Kechil
and ~ulau Tekong Besar on the other side. Where, if at all, the channel
divides into two portions of equal depth running side by side, the
boundary shall run midway between these two portions. At the western
entran.deof Johore Strait, the boundary, after passing through the centre
of the-deep-water channel eastward of Pulau Merambong, shall proceed
seaward in the general direction of the axis of this channel produced,
until it intersects the three-mile limit drawn from the low-water mark of
the south coast of Pulau Merambong.
At the'~astern entrance of Johore Strait, the boundary shall be held to
pass through the centre of the deep-water channel between the mainland
of Johore, westward of Johore Hill, and Pulau Tekong Besar, next
through the centre of the deep-water channel between Johore Shoal and
the majnland of Johore, southward of Johore Hill, and finally turning
southward to intersect the three-mile limit drawn from the low-water
mark of the mainlkd of Johore in a position bearing 192"from Tanjong
Sitapa."
6
1
197. The scope of the Curfew Order expressly covered the land territory and
territorial waters of Singapore and was evidently drafted with care. Pulau Batu Puteh
and its surrou&ing waters did not come within the scope of the Order. The appreciation
of 1927, that Pulau Batu Puteh was not part of the territory of Singapore, thus remained
in 1948. Indeed, insofar as Malaysia has been able to discover, there is nothing in the
considerable number of British and Singapore legislative measures which contain
detailed geographic descriptions and definitions of Singapore that includes Pulau Batu
Puteh within the territorial scope of Singapore.
(iv) Establishinelzt of the Malayan Uniolzand tlzeFedemtion of Malaya
198.
On the same date as the Colony of Singapore was established on 27 March 1946,
the Malayan Union was established by the Malayan Union Order in Council 1946. By
this Order, the Malayan Union was described as "comprising the Malay States and theSettlement of Malacca and the Settlement of ~enan~".'~' The Malay States, for this
purpose, comprised both the Federated Malay States, of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan
and Pahang, and the Unfederated Malay States, of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu
and oho ore. "^y operation of this Order, the territory of the Sultanate of Johor, which
included Pulau Batu Puteh, became part of the Malayan Union.
199. By the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 21 January 1948, the Malayan Union
was replaced by the Federation of ~alaya.'" This comprised the "Malay States",
defined in the Agreement as "the States of Johore, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Selangor,
Perak, Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu and all dependencies, islands and places
which, on the first day of December, 1941, were administered as part thereof, and the
territorial waters adjacent thereto".'"Bythis Agreement, Johor (including Pulau Batu
Puteh) became part of the Federation of Malaya.
200. By the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 5 August 1957, Article 3 provided
that "As from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, the Malay
States and the Settlements shall be formed into a new Federation of States by the name
of Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, or in English, the Federation of Malaya......".lG9For
purposes of the reformed Federation, "the Malay States" were defined in Article 2 of the
Agreement as "the States of Johore, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Kedah, Perlis,
Kelantan, Trengganu and Perak, and all dependencies, islands and places which,
immediately before the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, are
administered as part thereof, and the territorial waters adjacent thereto". By this
Agreement, Johor (including Pulau Batu Puteh) remained part of the Federation of
Malaya.
'" Malayan Union Order in Council, 1946, No. 463 of 1946, section 3: Annexes, vol. 3,
Annex 91, see also SR & 0 1946, vol. I, 543.
Malayan Union Orderin Council 1946,recital: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 91.
'"
Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948,recitals&14: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 96.
Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948,Article(1): Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 96.
Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957, Article Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 100. (v) Establishment of tlzeState of Singapore, l August 1958
201. The definition of "Colony of Singapore" was first given in section 2 of the
Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 195 1 :
"the Island of Singapore and its dependencies, the Cocos or Keeling
Islands, Christmas Island, and all British and territorial waters adjacent
thereto".170
202. This definition was amended by section 2(l)(d) of the Interpretation and General
Clauses (Amendment) Ordinance 1952 to read:
5 "the -Island of Singapore and its dependencies, the Cocos or Keeling
Islands, Christmas Island, and all British waters adjacent thereto, and
shall be deemed to include territorial waters."I7'
In fact maps published by the Surveyor General's Office in Singapore and entitled
"Island of Singapore and its Dependencies7'consistently showed only the immediately
surrounding islands and not Pulau Batu puteh.17'
203. On l August 1958, by the State of Singapore Act, provision was made for the
establishment of the State of Singapore. Section l(1) of the Act describes the "State of
Singapore" as comprising "the territories included immediately before the passing of this
Act in the Colony of singapore".17"
204. By the Interpretation and General Clauses (Amendment) Ordinance 1960, the
definitions of "Colony" and "Colony of Singapore" in the principal Ordinance were
deleted and the following definitions of "Singapore" and "State of Singapore"
substituted: "the State of Singapore established under the State of Singapore Act, 1958,
and shall be deemed to include the Island of Singapore and all islands and places which
on the 2"*day of June, 1959, were adininistered as part of the Colony of Singapore and
I7O Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1951,S.1:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 97.
171
Interpretation and General Clauses (Amendment) Ordinance 1952, S. 2(l)(d): Annexes,
vol. 3, Annex 98.
172 See, e.g., the map of 1898:Map Atlas, Map 13,and see also Maps 8, 12, 14.
171 State of Singapore Act, 1958,S.l(1): Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 103.all territorial waters adjacent thereto".'74 This definition of Singapore was repeated in
section 2(1) of the Interpretation Act 1965.17'
(vi) Malaysia arzdSirzgapore,1963-1965
205. By an Agreement Relating to Malaysia dated 9 July 1963 between the
Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore, the
Federation of Malaysia was e~tab1ished.l~~ his was given effect by Malaysia Acts of
1963 by both the Malaya and United Kingdom ~ar1iaments.l~~Section 4 of the Malaysia
Act 1963 of the Federation of Malaya addressed the States and territories of the
Federation in the following terms:
"(1) The Federation shall be known, in Malay and in English, by the
name Malaysia.
The States of the Federation shall be -
(2)
(a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan,
Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak,
Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu; and
(b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak; and
(c) the State of Singapore.
(3) The territories of each of the States mentioned in Clause (2) are
the territories comprised therein immediately before Malaysia
Day."
206. The State of Singapore, which had becolne part of the Federation of Malaysia on
16 September 1963, left the Federation on 9 August 1965 to becolne an independent
Republic. These events did not affect the territorial extent of Singapore, or the property
rights of Singapore in Malaysian territory.
17' Interpretationand General Clauses (Amendment) Ordinanc 1e960,S.2(l)(b): Annexes,
175. 3,Annex104.
176 InterpretationAct 1965(Singapore):Annexes, vol.3,Annex109.
AgreementRelatingtoMalaysia, 9 July 1963:Annexes, vol. 2,Annex 14.
177 Malay~iaAct 1963(Federationof Malaya):Annexes, vol.3, Annex 106;MalaysiaAct
1963 (UK): Annexes, vol.3,Annex107. (vii) Tlzeplzrase "island...ad~ni~zisteuedspart of rlzeColony of Sirzgrrpore"
207. It might be argued that the reference to "islands..administered as part of the
Colony of Singapore" in the various instruments cited must be read to include Pulau
Batu Puteh as Singapore operated the Horsburgh Lighthouse. Any such argument would
be flawed for a number of reasons.
208. First,Singapore did not administer the island: it managed and controlled the
lighthouse. As already noted, the construction and operation of a lighthouse is not
determinative of ~overeignty."~
Second, even if Singapore might be said to have administered the island, it did
209.
not administer it as part of itsritory but simply in consequence of its management and
control of the Horsburgh lighthouse.
210. Thir dh,re is no suggestion, prior to the crystallisation of this dispute, that
Singapore itself took the view that Pulau Batu Puteh formed part of Singapore on the
ground of its management of the Horsburgh Lighthouse. On the contrary, official
publications of the Government of Singapore which describe the territory of Singapore
are notable for the absence of any reference to Pulau Batu Puteh amongst the
approximately 60 islands that are included in descriptions of the territory of Singapore.
21 1. One such publication is the official series entitled Singapore Facts and Pictufes
published by the Singapore Ministry of Culture. Its 1972 edition opens by noting that
"Singapore consists of the Island of Singapore and some 54 small islands within its
territorialwater^."" A^footnote to this sentence refers the reader to Appendix I of the
publication, entitled "Islands Within Territorial Waters". This in turn lists the small
islands in question, noting that they "are under the administration" of a "District Officer
(Islands)" or of the "Commissioner of Lands" depending on whether they are "Southern
179 See paragraphs 171-176 above.
Singapore Facts and Pictul-es, 1972, Singapore Ministry of Culture, Singapore, 148:
Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 79.Islands" or "Northern and other islands". The list of islands, which also includes details
of their area in acres and in square metres, is as follows:
"Pulau Brani Pulau Satumu
Sentosa Pulau Salu
Pulau Selegu (Sarong Island) Pulau Berkas
Pulau Hantu Pulau Senang
Pulau Sekijang Pelepah Pulau Seraya
Pulau Sekijang Bendera (St.John's Island) Pulau SeburusDalam
.Pulau Kusu (Peak Island) Pulau Seburus Luar
Pulau Tekukor Pulau Mesemut Laut
Pulau Bukorn Besar Pulau Mesemut Darat
Pulau Bukom Kechil Pulau Ayer Merlimau
Pulau Ular Pulau Pesek
Pulau Busing Pulau Meskol
Pulau Hantu Besar Pulau Buaya
Pulau Hantu Kechil Pulau Ayer Merbau
Pulau Semakau Pulau Ayer Chawan
Pulau Sekeng Pulau Sakra
Pulau Jong Pulau Bakau
Pulau Sebarok Pulau Semulon
Pulau Sudong Pulau Damar Laut
Pulau Pawai Sisters' Islands (2)
Pulau Biola
Northern and OtlzerIslands Reef Islands
Pulau Tekong Kechil Sajahat Kechil
Pulau Tekong Besar Sekudu
Pulau Pergam Unum (formerly Umin)
Pulau Merawang Bajau (formerly Bajan)
Pulau Seletar Malang Panpan
Pulau Serangoon Batu Belalai
Pulau Ketam Malang Saijar (formerly
Pulau Sanyonkong Melang Saijao)
Pulau Sajahat
Pulau Ubin"
212. It is notable that this list of islands forming part of Singapore includes islands
which are even smaller than Pulau Batu Puteh, islands that are uninhabited and islands
on which lighthouses are constructed. Notable by its absence from this list, however,
given Singapore's present claim to title, is Pulau Batu Puteh (or Pedra Branca). It
continued to be absent from the list of Singaporeislands published in successiveeditions
ISO SillgaporeFactsand Pictclres,1972,Appendix I, 149-150:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 79.of this book. It was only in 1992, long after the present dispute had arisen, that Pedra
Branca was first referred to.'8' Both its absence from the earlier lists and its inclusion in
lists from 1992 attest to an absence of any belief on the part of Singapore, before 1992,
that Pulau Batu Puteh was part of Singapore.
213. This serieslisting the islands which form part of the territory of Singapore is not
the only official publication of Singapore which fails to make any reference to Pulau
Batu PutehPedra Branca. In 1953, the Annual Report of tlzeRural Board of Singapore,
published by the Colony of Singapore, opened with a General Review which noted that:
"THE AREA controlled by the Board was enlarged during the year, vide
Gazette Notification No. S 188 published on 19IhJune, 1953, to include
-ll the other small neighbouring islands whether inhabited or not, falling
within the territorial waters of the Colony of ~inga~ore."'~'
214. The Report went on to list in detail all the islands which came within the area
controlled by the Board. Those added in 1953 were listed in italics in the Report, which
read as follows:
"The Rural Board area at the end of the year comprised the following,
the additional islands brought into the Rural Board area during the year
being shown in italics: that portion of Singapore Island outside
Municipal Limits and also the outlying islands of Pulau Ubin, Pulau
Tekong, Pulau Brani, Pulau Sebarok, Pulau Blakang Mati, Pulau
Sudong, Pulau Pesek, Pulau Merlimau, Pulau Ayer Chawan, Pulau
Sakra, Pulau Seraya, Pulau Seburus Luar, Pulau Seburus Dalam, Pulau
Mesemut Darat, Pulau Meseinut Laut, Pulau Bukoln Kechil, Pulau
Bukom Besar, Pulau Hantu, Pulau Batu Berd~iarz,Pulau Clzichir,Pulau
Damar hut, Pulau Peropok, Pula~iSel~zulun,Pulau Merawaizg, PuIau
Pergam, Pulau Sarilnbuiz, Pulau Seletar, Pulau Serarzgoon, Pulau
Kitarn, Pulau Sekudu, Pulau Tekong Keclzil, Pulau Sajalzar, Pulau
Sunjurzgkong, Pulau Unum, Pulau Semeclzeck, Pulau Baru Belalai,
Pulau Selegu, Pulnu Tekukor, Pulau Sakijang Bendera, Pulau Sakijaizg
Pelepah, Pulau Tenzbakul,PulrruSubar hut, Pulau Subar Darat, Pulau
Busing, Pulau Ular, Pulau Joi~g,Pulau Sakeng, Pulau Semakau, Pulnu
Salu, Pulau Berkas, Pulau Pawai, Pulau Senaizg,Pulau Biola arzdPulau
Sarunzuincluding the foreshore contiguous to the said portion and to the
said islands, the whole subject to specified sections of the Municipal
l*' Singapore Facts and Pictures, 1992, 1, 178:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 83.
ArznualReport of theRum1 Board Singapore, 1953, p. 1, emphasis added: Annexes, vol.
3, Annex 71. Ordinance (Chapter 133) and the whole of the main Island outside City
Limits together with the Islands of Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin - the
Building Control area - to additional section^."'^"
215. The same list of islands was repeated in subsequent Annual Reports of the Rural
Board at least up to 1956.18"o reference is made to Pulau Batu Puteh in any of these
lists. '
216. The Rural Board of Singapore was not responsible for the management of
lighthouses within the Colony of in gap ore Itis^striking, however, that the above list
includes islands with lighthouses, such as Pulau Satumu; it also includes islands which
were uninhabited. The language of the 1953 Report is plain. The intention behind the
enlarged geographical competence of the Rural Board in 1953 was to include &l the
islands falling within the territorial waters of the Colony of Singapore. Pulau Batu Puteh
was not included amongst them. There is no trace of any belief on the part of Singapore,
throughout this period, that Pulau Batu Puteh was an island belonging to Singapore .
217. The list of islands produced by the Rural Board assumes greater significance
when it is placed alongside the antecedent territorial descriptions of Singapore in the
1927 ~~reement"~ and the Curfew (Johore Straits) (Singapore) Order 1948,18'and the
subsequent lists of islands in Singapore Facts nrzd Pictures in 1972and following.1x8All
were official texts carrying the imprimatur of the Government of Singapore. In none of
these cases was there even any hint of a suggestion that Pulau Batu Puteh formed part of
the territory of Singapore.
IS3 Ibid.
184 See, e.g., Arir~~laleport of the R~~ralBoard of Sil~gapor-e,1956, p. l: Annexes, vol. 3,
Annex 72.
Is5 The Color~yof Sir~gapol-e Ar~r~~lRalpor-t1954, 216 describes the Rural Board as follows:
"The Rural Board ... is the local authority outside the city area.. The Board carries out in its
area some of the local government functions which are performed by the City Council in the city
area. It also has powers similar to the City Council for the levying of rates and the making of by-
laws and is subject to thesame control by the Governor in Council."
lS6 See paragraphs 190- 192above.
Is' See paragraphs 194-197above.
ISS
See paragraph 211above.218. As this account shows, Singapore has had a consistent and highly detailed
appreciation of the extent of its territory.The four documents noted in the preceding
paragraph span a 53 year period straddling the crucial developments in the transition of
Singapore from (a) the Settlement of Singapore, part of the Straits Settlements, prior to
1946, to (b) the Colony of Singapore from 1946 to 1958, to (c) the State of Singapore,
from 1958 to 1963, through (d) the period of Singapore's participation as part of the
Federation of Malaysia between 1963-1965, to (e) the Republic of Singapore, from the
point of Singapore's exit from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 to the period
immediately prior to Singapore's objection to Malaysia's map on 14 February 1980.
Throughout this 53 year period, in which the authorities in Singapore have evidently
paid very close attention to the extent of their territory, there was never any indication
that Pulau Batu Puteh was part of Singapore.
C. Bilateral Conduct Confirmatoryof MalaysianTitle
219. Three examples of the conduct of the Parties in a bilateral context warrant
mention. The first, the 1927Agreement, has already been mentioned but requires further
brief comment. The second concerns the management of the system of Straits Lights.
The third is an exchange of correspondence of 1953. The bilateral nature of the conduct
is material and it shows that the absence of any perception on Singapore's part that it had
title to Pulau Batu Puteh was not siinply a matter of private appreciation but was
manifest in its relations with Malaysia. Until 1980, Malaysia's title to Pulau Batuuteh
was not siinply unchallenged by Singapore, but Singapore failed to assert any claim
notwithstanding that there was bilateral interaction in which, had Singapore been of the
view that it was sovereign over the island, that view should and would have been
expres'sed. (i) Tlze1927Agreenzerzt
220. The 1927 Agreement has already been referred to above. The material feature of
the Agreement for present purposes is the detailed definition in Article I of the boundary
between the territorial waters of the Settlement of Singapore and those of the State and
Territory of Johor. As the map annexed to the Agreement shows (see page 89), the
Article defines an arc within which falls the land territory and territorial waters of
Singapore and outside of which falls the land territory and territorial waters of Johor or
of third States. Given the geography of the area, the way in which the delimitation is
achieved is by a detailed description of the territory and waters of Singapore rather than
by the plotting of a line of geographic coordinates. Its definition thus constitutes strong
evidence of the limits of the land territory and territorial waters of Singapore, not simply
of the curve of the line of delimitation.
221. Pulau Batu Puteh and its surrounding waters did not form part of Singapore
under the 1927Agreement. Had there been any understanding at all at this time that title
to the island vested in Singapore it would have been a simple matter to reflect this in the
Agreement, but no such indication was given. This suggests that neither Party
considered Pulau Batu Puteh to be part of the territory of ~in~a~ore."~
(ii) The Straits Lights System
222. The collection of Light Dues in respect of the Horsburgh Lighthouse dates back
to 18.52.'~'By the Indian Act No. XI11of 1854, Britain established a system of Lights in
the Straits of Malacca and Singapore known as "The Straits' Lights" and vested their
management in the Governor of the Straits ~ettlements.'~' These Lights included the
Horsburgh, Pulau Pisang, Raffles and Sultan Shoal lighthouses. Insert 18, opposite,
shows the location of these lighthouses. Although administered from
Is9 On 7 August 1995, after the crystallisation of this dispute, Malaysia and Singapore .
concluded an Agreement Between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the
Republic of Singapore to Delimit Precisely the Territorial Waters Boundary in Accordance with
the Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters Agreement, 19 October 1927. This
Agreement very largely tracks the arcof the 1927 Agreement. See Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 19.
Act No. VI, 1852 (India): Annexes,vol. 3, Annex 84.
191 Act No. XIII, 1854 (India), Article VIII: Annexes, vol.3, Annex 85.LIGHTHOUSES OFFTHE COASTOF THE MALN PENINSULA
- rlpnbm.
X UYIWaW
D LWlan
EREUCCAYUSingapore, the lighthouses comprising the Straits Lights system did not all fall within the
territory of the Straits Settlements, still less of Singaporeitself. Forample, in addition
to the Horsburgh Lighthouse which was situated on Johor territory, the Cape Rachado
Lighthouse was situated on the territory of Malacca, the Pulau Pisang Lighthouse was
situated on Johor tei-ritory,and the Screw Pile Lighthouse, later known as One Fathom
Bank Lighthouse, was situated on a bank in the Straits of Malacca then in the high seas
but now, pursuant to a subsequent delimitation agreement with Indonesia, in Malaysia's
territorial sea. The fact that a lighthouse was managed by the Governor of the Straits
Settlements as part of the Straits Lights system thus had no bearing on the sovereignty
over the territory on which the lighthouse was situated. Nor were such lighthouses
"administered as part of the territory" of Singapore.
223. The point is confirmed by an exanlination of the arrangements relating to the
management and control of the Straits Lights. This was addressed by Ordinance No.
XVII of 1912 ("The Light-Houses Ordinance 1912")"' following arrangements agreed
upon between the Governments of Colony of the Straits,Settlements and the Federated
Malay States. The key provisions of this Ordinance are as follows:
"WHEREAS with the view of abolishing the tolls leviable under the
provisions of the Indian Act No. XLIIof 1854upon ships departing from
or entering the ports harbours or roadsteads of the Colony an
arrangement has been made between the Governments of the Federated
Malay States and the Colony whereby the Government of the Federated
Malay States has agreed to contribute to the cost of maintaining the
Straits lights. And whereas it is expedient to abolish the said tolls.
3. The light-house known as the Horsburgh Light-house situate on
the Island rock called Pedra Branca at the eastern entrance of the Straits of
Singapore and all such other light-houses as are now established in or near
to the Straits of Malacca or Singapore together with the appurtenances
thereof and allthe fixturesapparatus and furniture belonging thereto shall
remain the propertyof and be absolutely vested in the Government.
4. The light maintained at the Horsburgh Light-house and all such
other lights or beacons as are now or shall hereafter be maintained by
192
Ordinance No. XVLIof 19 12of the Colony of Singapore to repeal in part Indian Act No.
XI11of 1854 and make new provisionfor the maintenance of the Light-houses in theStraits of
Malacca: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 90. the Government in or near to'the Straits of ~'alacca or Singapore shall as
heretofore be called 'The Straits Lights'.
5. (1) The management and control of the Horsburgh Light-
house and other light-houses established in or near to the Straits of
Malacca or Singapore as aforesaid and of the Straits Lights shall remain
vestedin and be maintainedby the Government.
(2) No tolls shall be paid for any of the Straits Lights in
respect of any vessel entering or departing from any port harbour or
roadstead of the Colony whether such vessel has passed or would pass
any of the said lights or not but all necessary sums of money required to
pay the cost of the maintenance shall after taking into account the
alnount of any contribution paid towards such cost by the Government
of the Federated Malay States be provided for out of the revenues of the
Colony."
224. As both the preambular paragraph and section 5(2) of the Ordinance indicate,
the Straits Lights system involved cooperative arrangements between the Straits
Settlements and the Federated Malay States, including the payment of a monetary
contribution from the Federated Malay States towards the management of the Straits
Lights. For example in 1914, the Federated Malay States contributed $20,000 to the
total cost of maintenance of the Straits Lights system, which in that year was
$41,020.52.'~'
225. More significantly, the formulation in section 3 of the Ordinance, in which
explicit reference is made only to the Horsburgh Lighthouse, is such as to leave little
doubt that the proprietary interest of the Straits Settlements in Horsburgh was limited to
the "light-house... together with the appurtenances thereof and all the fixtures apparatus
and furniture belonging thereto" and not to sovereignty over the island as such.
191
Blue Book joy the Colony of the Srrait~ Settlements, 1914, Singapore, Government
Printing Office,1915, V3: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 66. Although the Federated Malay States
specifically mentioned two lighthouses, One Fathom Bank and Cape Rachado, the amount
contributed was considerably more than these two lighthouses cost to maintain and was in effect a
contribution to the Straits Lights as a whole. See Federated Malay States, Proceedingso? the
Federal Council, 8July 1913,B8: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 65.226. This understanding of the limited nature of the interest of the Straits Settlements
in the Horsburgh Lighthouse receives further support from the language of section 5(1)
of the Ordinance which refers to "[tlhe management and control of the Horsburgh Light-
house", again singling out Horsburgh for explicit reference. The evident object of this
reference appears to have been to guard against the risk of the new arrangements in
respect of Straits Lights being taken to have affected a transfer of the Inanagementand
control of the lighthouse back to Johor as the territorial sovereign.
227. That the management and control of the Horsburgh Lighthouse was at no point
considered to be conduct ci titre de souverain on which Singapore can now base a claim
to title is illustrated by correspondence between the Director of Marine, Malaya and the
Director of Marine, Singapore of May 1964.
228. On 1May 1964,the Director of Marine, Malaya, R.E. Gee, addressed an enquiry
to his counterpart, the Director of Marine, Singapore. The enquiry was brief and to the
point:
"Television for Lighthouses
I would be grateful if you could supply me with particulars of your sets,
and whether purchase outright or rented, in order that I may take action
for the 1965Light Dues ~stimates.~"~~
229. A response followed on 13 May 1964 on letterhead of the "Government of the
State of Singapore", signed by J.A.L. Pavitt, the Director of Marine, singapore.19' It
stated as follows:
. .
19' Letter from the Directorof Marine, Malaya, to the Directorof Marine, Singapore, 1May
1964, and reply,13May 1964:Annexes, vol.3, Annex 73.
195 In addition to his official position, Pavittis notable as the author of the chronicle First
Pharos of the Eastern Seas:Horsburgh Lighthouse, published by the Singapore Light Dues Board
in 1966. This addresses the history of the planning, construction and operationof the Horsburgh
Lighthouse, which is treated throughout as extraterritorialto Singapore. See paragraphs 257-263. "Television for Lighthouses
1. I refer to your letter reference (145) dlm. Mar.181157dated lSt
May, 1964.
2. When we decided to put Television sets at the lighthouses, we
made a number of inquiries to rent these sets, but were unable to arrive
at any satisfactory agreement with rental companies. We therefore
decided to purchase the sets and the details of these and approximate
costs are as follows:-
Horsburgh Lighthouse
Hitachi Mains T.V. set 14". Cost $398.00, plus 12 element Channel
Master Aerial (wiring etc.) at $200.00. . ,
Pulau Pisann, Raffles & Sultan Shoal lighthouses
Fitted with 8" Sony battery T.V. sets. Net cost was $420.00 each set,
plus $1501-for 12element Channel Master Aerial for PO.Pisang, and 10
and 5 element aerials for Raffles and Sultan Shoal at a cost of $60/- and
$351-respectively."
230. The significance of this correspondence lies not in its reference to the Horsburgh
Lighthouse or any suggestion that might be derived from it as to sovereignty over the
lighthouse. The correspondence does not go to questions of sovereignty over Pulau Batu
Puteh directly. It does, however, attest to the fact that the management of the Horsburgh
Lighthouse, as with other lighthouses within the Straits Lights system, was not a
sovereign act from which Singapore can now somehow derive title. This conclusion
follows from two considerations.
231. First, as the correspondence indicates, the enquiry from the Director of Marine,
Malaya, was concerned to elicit information necessary for purposes of the 1965 Light
Dues Estimates. This referred to the statutory responsibility of the Light Dues Board,
chaired by the Director of Marine, to expend the moneys of the Light Dues Fund on "theestablishment, maintenance and improvement of lighthouses, buoys, beacons and other
navigational aids in the waters of the Federation and for purposes ancillary thereto".'96
The Light Dues Estimates were financial projections relating to the income and
expenditure of the Fund. As the preceding review indicates, the collection and
expenditure of Light Dues, including in respect of the Horsburgh Lighthouse, rested on
long-standing cooperative arrangements between Singapore and Malaya which had no
bearing on the sovereignty of the territory on which the lighthouses were situated.
232. Second, the refirence to Pulau Pisang in Pavitt's reply of 13 May 1964 shows
that the management of these lighthouses was not then and cannot now be regarded as a
sovereign act from which Singapore can derive title.
233. Pulau Pisang is a Malaysian island located about 7 nm off the west coast of
Johor in the Straits of Malacca. It was originally part of the Sultanate of Johor.
Malaysia's sovereignty over Pulau Pisang is not disputed by Singapore. The lighthouse
on Pulau Pisang is, however, managed and controlled by the Port of Singapore Authority
on the basis of a grant of a plot of land by Johor to the Government of the Straits
Settlements for the construction and maintenance of a lighthouse in 1885. This grant
was confirmed by an Indenture of 6 October 1900.'~'
234. The reference to the Pulau Pisang lighthouse in Pavitt's response, alongside
reference to the Raffles and Sultan Shoal lighthouses, both situated on Singapore
territory, attests that the management of these lighthouses had no bearing on the
sovereignty of the territory on which they were located.
196 Malayan Federation Light Dues Ordinance 1953, s. 6(3), as amended by Malayan
Federation Light Dues (Amendment) Act 1961, S.4: Annexes, vol. 3, Annexes 99, 105. The
establishment of a Light Dues Board and a Light Dues Fund by Malaya in 1953 was followed by
the establishment of a parallel Board and Fund by Singapore by the Light Dues Ordinance 1957:
Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 101. The terms of this Ordinance, as subsequently amended, evidences an
appreciation by Singapore that Pulau Batu Puteh was not part of Singapore.
Iy7 Indenture of 6 October 1900between Ibrahim, Sultan of Johore and Sir James Alexander
Swettenham, the Officer Administering the Government of the Colony of the Straits Settlements:
Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 89.235. On 12June 1953, the Colonial Secretary, Singapore wrote to the British Adviser
to'the Sultan-of Johor on the subject of Pulau Batu Puteh. The operative part of the
col-respondenceread as follows:
"I am directed to ask for information about the rock some 40 miles from
Singapore known as Pedra Branca on which the Horsburgh Lighthouse
stands. The matter is relevant to the determination of the boundaries of
the Colony's territorial waters. It appears this rock is outside the limits
ceded by Sultan Hussain and the Dato Tu~nunggongto the East India
Company with the island of Singapore in the Treaty of 1824 (extract at
'A'). It was however mentioned in a despatch from the Governor of
Singapore on 28'hNovember 1844 (extract at 'B'). Thelighthouse was
built in 1850 by the Colony Governnlent who have maintained it ever
since. This by international usage no doubt confers some rights and
obligations on the Colony.
In the case of Pulau Pisang which is also outside the Treaty limits of the
Colony it has been possible to trace an indenture in the Johore Registry
of Deeds dated fithOctober, 1900. This shows that a part of Pulau
Pisang was granted to the Crown for the purposes of building a
lighthouse. Certain conditions were attached and it is clear that there
was no abrogation of the sovereignty of Johore. The status of Pisang is
quite'clear.
It is now desired to clarify the status of Pedra Branca. I would therefore
be most grateful to know whether there is any document showing a lease
or grant of the rock or whether it has been ceded by the Government of
the State of Johore or in any other way disposed of.
A copy of this letter is being sent to the Chief Secretary, Kuala
~ump~r."'~~
236. The Acting State Secretary, Johor, replied to this letter on 21 September 1953
saying only that "the Johor Government does not claim ownership of Pedra ~ranca".'~~
There followed internal correspondence in Singapore in which the view was taken that,
on the basis of the letter from the Acting State Secretary, Johor, "we can claim Pedra
Letter dated 12June 1953from the Colonial Secretary,Singapore, to the British Adviser,
Johor, and appendices: Annexes,vol. 3, Annex67.
199 Letter dated 21 September 1953 from the Acting State Secretary, Johor to the Colonial
Secretary, Singapore: Annexes, vol.3, Annex 69.Branca as Singapore territory".'00 he Singapore Attorney General agreed with this
view.
237. A number of observations on this correspondence may be made. Firs itis
evident from the letter from the Singapore Colonial Secretary of 12 June 1953 that
Singapore did not then hold the view that Pulau Batu Puteh was part of the territory of
Singapore. On the contrary, the enquiry indicates the absence of any such conviction
and a desire to clarify Singapore's rights and obligations as regards the management and
l
control of the Horsburgh Lighthouse. The correspondence clearly references the
Crawfurd Treaty of 1824as determining the relevant territorial limits of Singapore, and
the 1844 permission of Johor to the building of the lighthouse. The correspondence thus
. ~ . .
stands as evidence of Singapore's recognition of s oh or original title to Pulau Batu
Puteh.
238. Second, the Singapore Colonial Secretary understood very clearly that the extent
of Singapore's sovereignty over nearby islands was determined by the Anglo-Dutch and
Crawfurd treaties of 1824 and the 1927 Agreement. This is apparent from virtually
contemporaneous corsespondence from the Colonial Secretary that has nothing to do
with Pulau Batu Puteh. The context was the Court's 1952 Judgment in the Anglo-
Norwegian Fislwries case'OLand the effect that this would have on the delimitation of
Singapore's territorial waters. Addressing this issue, the Office of the ~olonial
Secretary, Singapore wrote to the Deputy Commissioner General for Colonial Affairs,
Singapore in July 1953in the following terms:
"In general the new methods of defining the limits of territorial waters
can have little effect on the Colony whose coasts are mainly within six
miles of the coasts of neighbouring States. In the first place the extent
of the sovereignty of Singapore over nearby islets is set out in Article 12
of the Treaty of Holland, 1824 [the Anglo-Dutch Treaty], and in John
Crawford's [sic] treaty of 1824 with Johore (Attachments A & B). The
greater part of the southward boundary of the Colony's territorial waters
is therefore the mid-channel line between the most southerly of these
islets and the most northerly Indonesian islets. A mid-channel line has
20. Internal Memorandumdated 1[2 sic] October 1953 from the Colonial Secretary,
201ga,oretotheAttorney-General, Singaporaendreply:Annexes,vol. 3,Annex 70.
Fisheries Case,united Kingdomv. Norway, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 116. ..
similarly to be drawn betweenhihe most northeriy coasts of the Colony
and the coast of the State of Johore. The latter mid-channel line was
precisely defined by an Agreement of 1927 (Attachment C). There
remain only two shore stretches of the boundary of the Colony's
territorial waters which can extend to three miles from the coast. The
position is illustrated in the chart attached 'D'.""< .
239. In the light of this correspondence there can be no doubt that (a) the Singapore
authorities had a very precise understanding of the extent of the Colony's sovereignty,
(b) that this flowed from the Anglo-Dutch and Crawfurd treaties, and (c) that it did not
extend to Pulau Batu Puteh.
240. ' Thir the,reference in the letter from the Singapore Colonial Secretary to the
position of Pulau Pisang indicates an understanding on the part of the Colonial Secretary
that the management of a lighthouse was distinct from and was not determinative of the
sovereign status of the territory on which the lighthouse was constructed.
241. Fourth, the internal Singapore correspondence in response to the reply from the
Acting State Secretary, Johor, expresses the view that Singapore "can claim Pedra
Branca". It does not state that the reply of the Acting Secretary of State, Johor, confirms
that Pedra Branca was already part of the territory of Singapore. The language of this
correspondence thus clearly implies that Singapore had not previously made a claim to,
or had any sense that it was sovereign over, PedraBranca.
242. Fifth,notwithstanding the Singapore Attorney-General's observation, Singapore
at no time subsequent to this correspondence took any steps to claim Pulau Batu Puteh.
Nor, evidently, did this affect Singapore's perception that the island was not in its
territory. 'This is clear from the detailed lists of islands falling within the territorial
waters of Singapore published by the Singapore Rural Board in its Annual Reports of
1953 to 1956, i.e.; contempor~neously with the enquiry by the Singapore Colonial
Secretary which was directed at "the determination of the boundaries of the Colony's
202 LetterandattachmentsfromA.G.B.Colton,fortheColonialSecretary,Singaporet,o the
Deputy CommissioneG r eneral for Colonial AffaiS,ingapore,July 1953,para.2: Annexes, v01
3,Annex 68.territorial waters". As the review, above, of the islands listed in the 1972 Sirzgccyore
Facts and Pictures publication attests, Singapore at no time prior to 1980expressed any
conviction thatPulau Batu Puteh was part of its territory.
243. m, while the letter from the Acting State Secretary, Johor, of 21 September
1953 is not a model of clarity, it does not refer to sovereignty over Pulau Batuuteh but
to ownership.
Corzcl~lsiorzs12tlzeBilateral Cond~~cotf tlzeParties
(iv)
244. The preceding review demonstrates that at no tiine in the course of the bilateral
relations between the Parties did Singapore manifest any appreciation that it had
sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh. On the contrary, the conduct in question indicates,
to put it at its lowest, that Singapore was not clear about the extent of its rights and
obligations over the island. The 1927 Agreement confirms that Pulau Batu Puteh did not
fall within the territorialmits of Singapore and that Singapore expressed no view to the
contrary. The arrangements in respect of the Straits Lights system confirms that the
management of the lighthouses which were part of that system had no bearing on the
sovereignty over the territory on which the lighthouses were constructed. Singapore
cannot rely on the fact of its inanageinent of the Horsburgh Lighthouse to found a claim
to title. Most significantly, the 1953 correspondence evidences the absence of any
appreciation by Singapore at that time that it had title to the island. There is nothing in
Singapore's subsequent practice that shows a different understanding.
D. Unilateral Conduct by SingaporeConfirmatoryof Malaysia's Title
245. To this conduct by Singapore in a bilateral context can also be added further
practice by Singapore which is confirmatory of Malaysia's title. Three examples
warrant comment at this stage: (i) the appreciation, running through Singapore's Light
Dues legislation, that the Horsburgh Lighthouse did not fall within Singapore territorial
waters, (ii) a corresponding understanding of this position by J.A.L. Pavitt, the Director
of Marine, Singapore, and (iii) the absence of any representation of Singaporesovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh in the ~ingab6fe-~ndonesia Territorial Sea
Delimitation Agreement of 1973.
(i) Singapore's Light Dues legislatiorz confinns tlzat tlze Horsburgh
Lightlzousedid notfall witlzinSingapore's territorial waters
246. By the Light Dues Ordinance 1957, Singapore legislated to establish a Light
Dues ~oard."' It also established a Light Dues Fund, to be administered by the Board,
into which all light dues collected under the Ordinance were to be paid. Section 6(4) of
the 1957Ordinance provided that:
"It shall be the duty of the Board to expend the moneys of the Fund on
the maintenance and irnprovernent of navigational aids in the waters of
the Colony and for purposes ancillary thereto."
The term "waters of the Colony" was defined in section 2(1) of the Ordinance to
247.
mean "those parts of the territorial waters of the Colony which lie outside the limits of
any port".'04
248. By the Light Dues (Amendment) Ordinance 1958, the 1957 Ordinance, referred
to as the "principal Ordinance", was amended.''' Section 2(a) of the 1958 Ordinance
deleted the definition of "waters of the Colony" appearing in section 2(1) of the 1957
Ordinance. Section 4 of the 1958 Ordinance then went on to amend section 6(4) of the
1957Ordinance in the following terms:
"Subsection (4) of section 6 of the principal Ordinance is hereby
amended by deleting the words 'navigational aids in the waters of the
Colony' appearing in the third line thereof and substituting therefore the
following: -
'lighthouses, buoys, beacons and other navigational aids in Singapore
including those at Pedra Branca (Horsbursh) and at Pulau Pisang'."
203 Light Dues Ordinance 1957: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 101.
204 The various proclamations of Singapore relating to port limits have never included Pulau
205u Puteh.
Light Dues (Amendment) Ordinance 1958:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 102.249. These amendments amount to an una~nbiguous statement that Pedra Branca
(Pulau Batu Puteh) was not part of the territory of the Colony of Singapore. This
follows from two factors.Firs the ,isaggregation of the references to "the Colony", on
the one hand, and to "Pedra Branca (Horsburgh)" and "Pulau Pisang", on the other,
implies that Pedra Branca and Pulau Pisang were not considered to be part of "the
Colony". Were this not to have been the understanding underlying the amendments,
revision of the 1957 Ordinance could simply have proceeded by way of the addition of
the words "lighthouses, buoys, beacons and other" into section 6(4) of the 1957
Ordinance prior to the words "navigational aids".
250. Second, there is no dispute about Malaysia's title to Pulau Pisang, despite the
fact of Singapore's management of the lighthouse. The evident implication to be drawn
from the reference to both the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang Lighthouses in the revision
of section 6(4) of the Light Dues Ordinance is that the drafters were of the view that
Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Puteh) and Pulau Pisang had a colmnon status, namely, that
both islands fell outside of the territory of Singapore notwithstanding Singapore's
management and control of the lighthouses situated thereon.
251. This reading of the revisions to the 1957 Ordinance is confirmed by the
Singapore Light Dues Act 1969, which repealed and re-enacted with amendments the
Light Dues Ordinance 1957.'06 his 1969 Act, significant both because of its focus on
the arrangements concerning lighthouses and because it was adopted by the recently
independent Republic of Singapore, established the "Singapore Light Dues Board" and
defined its duties.
252. Section 2 of the Act defined "Singapore" to mean
"the Republic of Singapore and shall be deemed to include the Island of
Singapore and all the islands and places which on the 2"dday of June
1959, were administered as part of Singapore and all territorial waters
adjacent thereto".
206
LightDuesAct 1969:Annexes,vol. 3Annex 112.253. By section 7 of the ~ct,-'the duties of th; newly constituted Singapore Light
Dues Board were set out in the following terms:
"It shall be the duty of the Board to aid the safe navigation of ships by
.providing and maintaining, as the Board considers necessary,
lighthouses, buoys, beacons and other navigational aids in Singapore
and the approaches thereto, at Pedra Branca (Horsburgh), at Pulau
Pisang and at such other places as the Board may think fit."
254. The formulation employed in the Act puts beyond doubt the understanding of the
drafters of the legislation that the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang Lighthouses did not come
within "Singapore". The references to "Pedra Branca (Horsburgh) and Pulau Pisang"
are clearly additional to the references to lighthouses and other navigational aids "in
Singapore and the approaches thereto". The revised formulation of the provision,
coupled with the definition of Singapore in the Act and the uncontested status of Pulau
Pisang as an island of Malaysian sovereignty, thus attest clearly to the understanding on
the part of Singapore that Pulau Batu Puteh was not part of the territory of Singapore.
255. Singapore's Light Dues legislation is all the more significant for present
purposes in that it is special legislation which addresses the administration of the
lighthouses in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore and in the approaches to and waters
of Singapore. It is not general legislation which only addresses such matters en passaizt
or by inference.
256. The .legislation also straddles an important transitional period which saw
Singapore move from colonial status to participation in the Federation of Malaysia to
independence as the Republic of Singapore. Yet throughout this transition, the
appreciation of the status of Pulau Batu Puteh infonning Singapore's legislation on light
dues remained the same. . . (ii) J.A.L. Pavitt's Appreciation that rlzeHorsburglzLiglztlzo~eid Not Fall
WithinSirzgaporeTerritorial Waters
257. The view that the Horsburgh Lighthouse did not fall within Singapore's territorial
waters running through Singapore's Light Dues legislation was matched by a similar
appreciationon the part of Singapore's Directorof Marine,J.A.L.Pavitt.
258. As previously noted, J.A.L. Pavitt was for many years the Director of Marine,
Singapore. He was also a noted authority on the Horsburgh Lighthouse, having
produced the only monograph on the subject, under the titleFirst Plzarosof rlzeEastern
Seas: Horsburgh .Liglztlzouse,published by The Singapore Light Dues Board in 1966.
Pavitt was thus a particularly knowledgeable colnmentator on the subject of the
Horsburgh Lighthouse and its territorial status.
259. Addressing the subject of the Singapore Light Dues Board, Pavitt noted as
follows: :I
"Horsburgh is one of the group of 5 lighthouses operated by the
Singapore Light Dues Board.
The Board, formed by statute in 1957, is responsible for the provision
and upkeep of all ship navigational aids in Singapore waters, andfor rlze
outlying statioizs at Pedra Branca (Horsburgh) ii7rlzeSoutlz ClzinaSea
a~zdPuLauPisnizg i7the Malacca Strait. WitlziilSingapore waters, the
Board nzai~ztainsRafSles, Sultan Slzoal a~zdFullertolz Lightlzouses, 33
light beacons, 29 unlit beacons, 15 light buoys, and 8 unlit buoys.
Operational expenditure ismet from the income derived by way ofLight
Dues paid by ships calling at Singapore; these dues being one cent
(Malayan) per net registered ton for ships calling for bunkers, stores and
water and two cents (Malayan) per net registered tons for vessels calling
to loadfdischarge cargo or embarkldisembark passengers. During 1965,
the Board derived an income of M$701,565.10from dues and interest on
reserves and expended M$644,152.81 on the provision and upkeep, of
navigational aids."'07
260. There are three mutually supporting elements in these observations that require
comment. m, Pavitt distinguishes between the ship navigational aids "in Singapore
waters" and those at the outlying stations of Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang. The
207
Pavitt5 1,emphasis added: Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 74. I
unavoidable implication is that Horsburgh and Pulau pisang do not fall within Singapore
waters.
261. Second, is the reference to both the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang lighthouses as
(I
"outlying stations". As has already been observed, it is not contested that Malaysia has
title to Pulau Pisang notwithstanding that the lighthouse on the island is managed by
Singapore. The linkage of the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang lighthouses in Pavitt's
analysis suggests that he considered that they had a common status.
262. M, Pavitt goes on to note: "Within Singapore waters, the Board maintain
Raffles, Sultan Shoal and Fullerton Lighthouses ..." This puts beyond doubt Pavitt's
understanding that the Horsburgh Lighthouse did not fall within Singapore's waters.
263. This reading of Pavitt's observations is also consistent with the arrangements,
described in paragraphs 222-234 above, between the Governments of the Straits
Settlements and the Federated Malay States for the management and control of the
Straits Lights system. As reflected in the 1912 Straits Lights Ordinance, the Federated
Malay States contributed financially to the administration of the Straits Lights. While
management and control of the Lights remained with the Straits Settlements, this had no
bearing on sovereignty over the territory on which the Lights were situated. There were
a number of notable examples of Straits Lights located on territory which did not lie
within the territory of the Straits Settlements.
(iii) Indonesia - Singapore Territorial Sea Agreernent, 1973
264. On 25 May 1973, Indonesia and Singapore signed an agreement stipulating the
territorial sea boundary lines between them in the Strait of ~in~a~ore.'~~ The Agreement
entered into force on 29 August 1974.
208
Agreement Stipulating the Territorial Sea Boundary Lines Between Indonesia and the
Republic of Singapore in the Strait of Singapore, May 1973: Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 18.265. The Agreement delimits the boundary of the territorial sea between Indonesia
and Singapore in Singapore Strait by reference to a series of geographical coordinates.
The line connecting the points is indicated on a chart annexed to the Agreement.
266. If Singapore had considered at this time that it had sovereignty over Pulau Batu
Puteh, it might have been expected that some reference would have been made in the
Agreement to the waters around the island, in particular given the proximity of Pulau
Batu Puteh to the Indonesian island of Pulau Bintan, which lies 7.5 nm to its south. The
1973 Agreement neither refers to Pulau Batu Puteh nor purports to delimit the territorial
sea between Pulau Batu Puteh and Pulau Bintan. Further, Malaysia can find no public
statement anywhere associated with the negotiation and conclusion of this Agreement to
the effect that Singapore sought to reserve its rights in respect of Pulau Batu Puteh in the
face of a different view of the sovereignty of the island by Indonesia. The Agreement
supports the conclusion that in 1973 Singapore did not consider it had sovereignty over
Pulau Batu Puteh.
Conclusions orzthe Unilateral Conduct of Singapore
(iv)
267. As with Singapore's conduct in its bilateral relations with Malaysia, Singapore's
unilateral conduct over the crucial period of its constitutional evolution also confirms
that Singapore did not any time prior to 1980 have any sense that it had title to Pulau
Batu Puteh. The conduct noted above is particularly material as it was specifically
concerned with the management and control of the lighthouses which formed part of the
Straits Lights system. As such, it would have proceeded on the basis of a considered
understanding of the status of these Lights. The Indonesia-Singapore Territorial Sea
Agreement of 1973 shows that, even in the context of a maritime delimitation proximate
to Pulau Batu Puteh, sinbapore never considered it necessary even to reserve its rights in
respect of the island. E. Malaysia's Conduct
268. The preceding review of conduct has focused on that by Singapore, confirming
that Singapore at no time prior to 1980 manifested any sense that it had sovereignty over
Pulau Batu Puteh. Given Malaysia's original title to the island, Singapore's claim of
sovereignty can only rest on the contention that, by its conduct rititre de souvernirz in
respect of the island, Malaysian title was displaced by that of Singapore. Yet there is no
evidence of Singapore conduct to this end. Everything points in the other direction; that
is, to a well-developed understanding on the part of Singapore that title to the island
vested in Malaysia. Significantly, this conduct by Singapore was manifested both
internally and in Singapore's bilateral relations with Johor and Malaysia. Malaysia thus
had good grounds for believing that its title to Pulau Batu Puteh was not contested.
Singapore's conduct in respect of the island remained firmly within the scope of the
per~nissiongranted to it by Johor for the construction and operation of the lighthouse.
269. For its part, Malaysia had no need actively to assert its title to Pulau Batu Puteh
as such. There are nonetheless a number of examples of Malaysian conduct which
evidence Malaysia's view that Pulau Batu Puteh was Malaysian territory. Given the tiny
surface of the island and thepermission given for its use as the location of the Horsburgh
lighthouse, the main relevant activity that can be expected from Malaysia lies in the field
of the detennination of its maritime spaces. Four items inay be mentioned briefly: (i)
internal Malaysian naval charts showing Malaysian territorial waters, including those
around Pulau Batu Puteh; (ii) the conclusion of comnercial concessions with private
contractors relating to the continental shelf in the area around Pulau Batu Puteh; (iii)
Malaysian legislation delimiting the territorial sea in the area around the island; and (iv)
the Indonesia-Malaysia Continental Shelf Agreement of 27 October 1969. (i) MalaysialzrzavalclzartsslzowilzgMalaysiaizterritorial waters, ilzcluding
arozazdPula~lBatu Puteh
270. On 16 July 1968, Cormnodore K. Thanabalasingham of the Royal Malaysian
Navy addressed a confidential "Letter of Promulgation" to the Naval Staff Division of
the Ministry of Defence in Kuala Lumpur. This reads as follows:
"1. The attached chartlets showing the outer limits of Malaysian
Territorial Waters and foreign claimed waters in West Malaysia are
promulgated for the information of Senior and Commanding Officers.
2. As can be seen, there are certain areas in which these limits have
never been properly determined or negotiated and those promulgated are
basically a deter~nination with strict regard to the 1958 ~eneva
Convention.
3. .Strict attention is to be paid to the,Notes on certain chartlets
which are also reproduced after the ~ndex."'~~
271. The Index to the chartlets attached to this Letter of Pronlulgation refers inter alia
to Chart No.2403, "Singapore Strait", and Chart .No.3839, "Horsburgh Light to Jason
Bay". A note to the entry for Chart No.2403 reads as follows:
"The pecked line south of the Horsburgh Light represents the outer limit
of Malaysian Territorial Waters [draw~z]as authorised by the 1958
Geneva Convention i.e. a three mile circle around South Ledge flattened
at the southern end by the true median line between South Ledge and the
isolated rock close north of Tanjong Sading. R.M.N. vessels are to
comply with S.O.A.I. 107in regard to this area.""'
272. The attached Charts Nos. 2403 and 3839 show Pulau Batu Puteh (as well as
South Ledge and Middle Rocks) as falling clearly within Malaysian territorial waters.
273. Although this is internal practice, it is evidence of a clear understanding on the
part of Malaysia that Pulau Batu Puteh was Malaysian territory. In the light of
sin gap ore',^practice throughout this period which fails to manifest any claim to
'09 Letter of Promulgation dated 16July 1968from Commodore K. Thanabalasingham to
Naval Staff Division, Ministryof Defence, Kuala Lumpur: Annexes, vol.3, Annex 76.
210 Letter of Promulgation dated 16July1968from Commodore K. Thanabalasingham to
Naval Staff Division, Ministryof Defence, Kuala Lumpur, 2 Notes, "Chart 2403 - Singapore
Strait", Note2: Annexes, vol.3, Annex 76.sovereignty over the island, the internal Malaysian conduct demonstrates a continuing
arzirnusoccupandi.
(ii) Tlze 1968 Petroleurn AgreenterzrBetween the Government of Malaysia
and CorztinerztrrO l il Conpany of Malaysia
274. On 16 April 1968, Malaysia concluded a Petroleum Agreement with the
Continental Oil Company of Malaysia in respect of off-shore lands comprising
approximately 24,000 square miles of the continental shelf adjacent to the east coast of
West ~alaysia."' The Agreement entitled the Company to explore and exploit a defined
area of the continental shelf - referred to as Scheduled Lands - for petroleum. The area
covered by the Agreement was described by reference to geographical coordinates set
out in the First Scheduleto the Agreement and indicated on the Map of Concession Area
attached as Appendix B to the Agreement (see Insert 19 on the following page). The
concession area extended along the South Eastern Coast of West Malaysia following a
line three miles from the baselines from which the territorial waters of the States of
Johor, Pahang and Trengganu were measured. On the seaward side, the concession area
extended to and beyond Pulau Batu Puteh, enclosing within it Pulau Batu Puteh and
other islands of Johor, Pahang and Trengganu, although the territory and territorial
waters of all these islands were expressly excluded from the concession area. The
Agreement evidences a clear understanding on the part of Malaysia that it had sovereign
authority over the entire area covered by the Agreement.
275. A similar agreement was signed on the same day between Malaysia and Esso
Exploration Malaysia Inc. covering a further area of continental shelf along the north
eastern coast of West Malaysia, i.e., an area to the north of the Continental Oil Company
concession but along the same coastline."' ..
. .
211
Petroleum Agreement Under Section 9 of the Petroleurn Mining Act, 1966 in Respect of
Off-shore Lands between the Government of Malaysia and Continental Oil Company of Malaysia
Concerning 24,000 (Approximate) Square Miles of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to the East
Coast of West Malaysia, 16April 1968: Annexe$, vol. 3, Annex 110.
212 Petroleum Agreement Under Section 9 of the Petroleum Mining Act, 1966 in Respect of
Off-shore Lands between the Government of Malaysia and Esso Exploration Malaysia Inc.
Concerning 28,000 (Approximate) Square Miles of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to the East
Coast of West Malaysia, 16April 1968.'l968 CONTINENTAL Olk CO. CONCESSION AREA
EsSlsN AREA REFERREO TO IN PH1S AGWEMENT Inser19276. On 17 April 1968, the day following the conclusion of the Agreement, the
Straits Times carried an article on the Agreement headed "Oil prospecting pact is signed
by US firms". This read in part as follows:
"Malaysia today granted rights for the prospecting of oil over the entire
continental shelf of the east coast of West Malaysia to two American
companies.. ."2'3
277. The Continental Oil Company concession, covering the area of Pulau Batu
Puteh, was also noted in the Bulletin of the Americalz Associntiorz of Petroleurn
Geologists of August 1969in the following terms:
"In April 1968 Continental .Oil. Co. obtained exploration rights to
24,000 mi' off the east coast of West Malaysia. A marine seismic
program, sparker and vibroseis, of more than 1,000 line-mj was
completed by year end. No exploratory drilling was done."'I4
278. These continental shelf agreements were concluded openly. They were widely
publicised. Singapore was in a position to know of the agreements. It not only made no
protest against the agreements but did not 'evenenquire as to their territorial extent. The
unavoidable explanation for this silence is that Singapore was content in the knowledge
that it had no territorial interests in the area off the east coast of Malaysia along the
Johor, Pahang and Trengganu coastlines and the waters thereof. The conclusion of these
Agreements thus supports Malaysia's view of its own sovereignty in respect of this.area,
and demonstrates the absence of any appreciation on the part of Singapore that it had
sovereignty.
21 Straits Tiines, 1April1968:Annexes ,ol. 3Annex 75. . .
214 (1969)53 Bulletin ofthe American A.ssociatio~of PetroleurnGeologists 1792: Annexes,
vol. 3Annex 77. (iii) The Delitnitation of Malaysia's Territorial Sea intlze Area Aro~~nd
Pulau Batu Puteh
279. Untila1969, Malaysia had claimed territorial waters of 3 nautical miles. By the
Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1969,"' Malaysia extended its territorial
waters to a distance of 12nm, although it reserved the application of the new limit in the
Straits of Malacca, the Sulu Sea and the Celebes Sea pending the delimitation of
maritime boundarie~."~ This legislation extended Malaysian territorial waters to and
beyond Pulau Batu Puteh. There was no sense at the time that Pulau Batu Puteh and its
surrounding waters were anything other than Malaysian territory. The legislation drew
no protest from Singapore. As with the Petroleum Agreements noted in the preceding
section, the legislation demonstrates two things. First, it shows Malaysia's conviction, at
a time when there was no dispute between the Parties over title to Pulau Batu Puteh, that
there was no impediment limiting its right to legislate in respect of this area. Second, it
attests to an absence of any appreciation by Singapore that Malaysia's conduct in any
way touched upon Singapore's territorial interests.
The Indonesia-Malaysia Continental SlzelfAgreement, 1969
(iv)
280. Singapore's silence in the face of the 1969 legislation is matched by its silence
in the face of the continental shelf delimitation negotiations, the fact of which was well-
known, between Indonesia and Malaysia which culminated in the Indonesia-Malaysia
Continental Shelf Agreement of 27 October 1969."' The line established by the 1969
Agreement is shown in red on Insert 20 opposite. Point 11of this boundary was only
6.4 nm from Pulau Batu Puteh. The negotiations for this Agreement were the subject of
ajoint Press Statement by Indonesia and Malaysia on 22 September 1969. This noted in
part that the parties "had reached agreement on the delimitation of the continental shelf
boundaries between the two countries in the Straits of Malacca, off the East Coast of
215
Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1969:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 11 1.
216 Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1969, S.2 & Schedule.
217 Indonesia-Malaysia: Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia
and the Government of Malaysia Relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between the
Two Countries, 27 October 1969: Annexes, vol. 2, Annex 16. The 1969 Agreement was followed
in 1970 by a Treaty Between Malaysia and the Republic of Indonesia Relating to the Delimitation
of theTerritorial Seas of the Two Countries in the Straits of Malacca, 17 March 1970: Annexes,
vol. 2, Annex 17.West Malaysia and off the Coast of Sarawak." It went on to state that the delegations of
the parties "also recognised the need for their Governments to discuss related problems
of territorial sea boundaries and the use of the seas between their two countrie~.""~
281. Singapore did not at any point assert any interest or raise any objection
regarding this maritime delimitation. Singapore's silence on a matter suggests that it did
not consider it had any territorial interest in the area affected by the delimitation. Of
course Singapore was not a party to the negotiations. But since their outcome was
public, it might have been expected to register some form of public objection or
expression of interest.
(V) Con~lusionsas to Malaysia's Conduct
282. The preceding examples of Malaysian conduct demonstrate Malaysia's
consistently held position regarding its title to Pulau Batu Puteh and surrounding waters.
This conduct, and the corresponding absence of protest by Singapore, also serves to
confirm that Singapore's management of the Horsburgh Lighthouse was not considered
- either by Singapore or by Malaysia - as in any way relevant to the question of
sovereignty over the island on which the lighthouse was located.
F. Conclusions
283. At no time following the 1844 grant of permission by Johor for the construction
of a lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh did Singapore or its antecedent authorities claim
sovereignty over the island. Singapore's conduct in the management of the lighthouse
has at alltimes remained squarely within the scope of this licence, i.e., management and
control of the lighthouse. Singapore's conduct, including its participation in bilateral
dealings with Malaysia, never manifested a conviction that Pulau Batu Puteh was
anything other than Malaysian. This conduct spans the whole of the 20" century,
including the period of Singapore's constitutional evolution from 1946 through to 1965
218
Press Statementby the Indonesian and MalaysianDelegationsto the Talks on the
Delimitationof the Continental ShelvesBetween Malaysiaandthe Republicof Indonesia,Kuala
Lumpur, 22 September1969:Annexes,vol. 3,Annex 78.and beyond during which the authorities in Singapore showed a highly developed sense
of Singapore's territorial extent.
284. Important chronological points along this continuum set out in this Chapter
include the following. All of these support Malaysia's contention that the Parties treated
Pulau Batu Puteh as Malaysian, or at any rate as not subject to Singapore's sovereignty.
o 1854:the creation by Britain of the Straits Lights system by Indian Act No. XIII
of 1854;
1912: the amendment, by the Straits Lights Ordinance, of the arrangements
concerning management of the Straits Lights system consequent upon agreement
between the Colony of the Straits Settlement and the Federated Malay States
concerning the funding of the system;
o 1927: the definition of the boundary between Singapore and Johor which
proceeded by way of a detailed statement of the territorial extent of Singapore;
1948: The Curfew (Johore Straits) (Singapore) Order, 1948 which defined the
area falling "within the boundary of the territorial waters of the Island of
Singapore";
1952:internal Singapore correspondence showing a clear understanding that the
territorial extent of Singapore was defined by the Anglo-Dutch and Crawfurd
Treaties of 1824and the 1927Agreement;
1953: the correspondence between the Singapore Colonial Secretary and the
Acting State Secretary of Johor;
1953-56: the publication, by the Rural Board of Singapore, of successive lists of
I
islands purporting to list all the small islands whether inhabited or not, falling
within the territorial waters of the Colony of Singapore;
195811969:revisions of Singapore's Light Dues legislation;
1964:correspondence between the Director of Marine, Malaya and the Director
of Marine, Singapore, concerning television sets at the Horsburgh and other
lighthouses; 1966:publication of Pavitt's monograph on the Horsburgh Lighthouse;
1968: grant of concession to Continental Oil Co. of Malaysia covering waters
inter-alia in the vicinity of Pulau Batu Puteh, without protest from Singapore;
e 1969: conclusion of the Indonesia-Malaysia Agreement relating to the
Delimitation of the Continental Shelf, inter alia in the vicinity of Pulau Batu
Puteh, without protest from Singapore;
1972-1980: publication by Singapore of the series Singapore Facts andPictures
which contain detailed lists of the islands of Singapore;
1973:signature of the Indonesia-Singapore Territorial Sea Agreement.
285. Just as Singapore's conduct is consistent in reflecting its belief that Malaysia has
title to Pulau Batu Puteh, so also has Malaysia's conduct been consistent with its view
that it is the territorial sovereign.y reference both to Singapore's conduct and that of
Malaysia, there is no basis for questioningMalaysia's original title to Pulau Batu Puteh. Chapter8
THE POSITIONOFMIDDLEROCKS AND SOUTHLEDGE
Introduction
286. On 6 February 1993, during earlier Malaysia-Singapore Consultations over
Pulau Batu Puteh, Singapore made clear for the first time that its claim to sovereignty
over Pulau Batu Puteh extends also to the two features of Middle Rocks and South
Ledge. It was for this reason that they are specifically and separately listed in Article 2
of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003."~
287. This Chapter shows that the three features do not constitute an identifiable group
of islands in historical or geomorphological termsection A). It sets out the basis for
Malaysian title over the three features (Section B). It shows that Singapore had never,
prior to 1993,made any claim to the two features, nor has it ever acted as sovereign with
respect to them (Section C).
A. The relation of the two features to Pulau Batu Puteh
288. As stated in Chapter 3, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are maritime features
located respectively at 0.6 and 2.2 nm from Pulau Batu Puteh and 8.0 and 7.9 nm from
the Malaysian mainland (Tanjung Penyusoh, formerly known as Point Romania).
Singapore's nearest coast is at 25.6 nm from Middle Rocks and 25.0 nm from South
Ledge. The geographical situation is depicted in Insert 21, opposite.
219 Seeabove,paragraph2.289. Middle Rocks consist of some iocks that are permanently uncovered and stand
0.6 to 1.2metres high. South Ledge is a low-tide elevation formed by three features. The
northernmost one dries 2.1 metres at low tide. The others do not dry. They are wholly
situated within Malaysian territorial waters.
290. The cross-section between the three features can be seen from Insert 22,
opposite. As this shows, Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are
separated by navigational channels, do not have similar structures and are not standing
on a single raised section of the seabed. J.T. Thomson's Chart of 1851 (above, p. 63)
corroborates this by showing for thk first time accurate soundings for the three features.
291. No evidence has been found on charts or in texts that the three features have
ever been referred to as a group or have been given a collective name such as the "Pedra
Branca Rocks" or the "Horsburgh Rocks". Often closely adjacent islands are given a
collective name: for example the Lima Islands off the coast of southeast Johor were
formerly called the Romania ~slands."~ The fact that this was not done in the present
case testifies to the consistent view of mariners and others that the features were separate
and distinct. Neither Middle Rocks nor South Ledge have been considered as
dependencies or appurtenances of Pulau Batu Puteh.
292. Indeed the three features were specifically named at different times. In some
early charts South Ledge was called "Galloway's Rock" (after the name of the first
European that reported the location of South Ledge), while Middle Rocks were called
"Low Rocks". It seems likely that the name South Ledge was introduced between 1826
and 1830.
220 The Hydrographer, 1971,201 ;Findlay, 1889,298293. To summarise, the historical record shows that these three features were never
formally described as a group or as an island and its appurtenant rocks, nor were they
ever given a collective title. But the three features were well known and were identified
as a danger to shipping which should be avoided by sailing well to the north or south.
By 1870, Findlay was advising navigators of a channel 1.5 nm wide and with depths of
15 to 20 fathorns between South Ledge and Middle Rocks. As the geographical
evidence is considered, it becomes apparent that with the production of accurate large-
scale charts and the introduction of steam powered vessels after the 1880s, this
dangerous locality for sailing vessels becomes dissected by safe routes for modern
traffic.
B. Basis for MalaysianTitle overthe two Features
294. Middle Rocks and South Ledge have always been considered as features falling
within JohorIMalaysian jurisdiction. They were under Johor sovereignty at the time of
the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 and fell within the British sphere of influence arising
from that Treaty. Nor were the two features included in Johor's cession of Singapore to
the East India Company of the same year. It is true that as minor features not much
separate attention was paid to them. But this was because they were considered as
belonging to a wider range of islands within Johor. Traditional fishermen from Johor
had been fishing the inshore waters around these features for as long as records show."'
295. Malaysia also exercised consistent acts of sovereignty over them, within the
limits of their character. Evidence of the exercise of Malaysia's sovereignty includes the
following: , , S
(i) In the Letter of Promulgation dated 16 July 1968, Chief of Navy,
Commodore K. Thanabalasingam attached chartlets showing Malaysian
territorial waters, and instructed naval officers to act accordingly. In the
221 See,e.g.,above, paragraphs 142, 143, 148. relevant chartlet South Ledge was taken as a base point in defining the
outer limit of Malaysian territorial waters in Chart2403.~~'
(ii) The granting of oil concessions, such as the petroleum agreement
between the Government of Malaysia and the Continental Oil Company
of Malaysia signed on 16 April 1968, which extended down to the area
of South Ledge and Middle ~ocks.""
(iii) The features were included within Malaysian fisheries waters under the
1985Fisheries AC~."~
Singapore did not protest against any of these manifestations of Malaysian sovereignty.
C. Absence of any claim by Singapore: Singapore's recognition of Malaysia's
sovereignty
296. Not only did Singapore fail to protest against Malaysia's manifestations of
sovereignty; it did not advance any claim of its own to Middle Rocks and south Ledge
either, even after it began to assert that Pulau Batu Puteh was Singaporean. On 14
February 1980, when Singapore claimed sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh for the first
time, no reference was made to South Ledge and Middle Rocks, although both features
clearly appeared within Malaysian territorial waters in the map published by Malaysia
on 21 December 1979.""he same situation was reproduced later, when Malaysia
issued a reprint of the same map in 1984. Singapore protested against it only in 1989,
and once again the protest was exclusively limited to Pulau Batu ~uteh."'
297.
Everything slated in Chapter 7 with regard to the various maritime delimitation
agreements between Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, is also applicable to Middle
Rocks and South ~ed~e.?"
222 See above, paragraphs 270-273; Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 76.
223
224 See above, paragraphs 274-278; Annexes,vol. 3, Annex 110.
Act 317, gazetted on 30 May 1985:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 113.
225 See the Third Party Note of 14February 1980:Annexes, vol. 3, Annex 80.
226 See the Third Party Note of 28 February 1989:Annexes,vol. 3, Annex 81.
227 See paragraphs 264-266,280-28 1.298. Similarly, the map evidence reviewed in Chapter 9 shows that Singapore and its
predecessor have never advanced any clailn of sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South
Ledge.
'299. It was not until 6 February 1993, during consultations between Malaysia and
Singapore over Pulau Batu Puteh, that Singapore claimed sovereignty over Middle
Rocks and South Ledge for the first time. This extension of its claim was made on the
basis of the argument that they constitute, together with Pedra Branca, a "group". But,
as shown above, they had never before been treated or referred to as a group, in the way
that the nearby "Lima Group" or "Romania Group" has been. This enlargement of
Singapore's clailnmet with firm rejection on the part of Malaysia.
D. Conclusion
300. The record delnonstrates that Middle Rocks and South Ledge were always
considered as part of Johor and thus, now, of Malaysia. Malaysian conduct is coherent
with its sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge. By contrast Singapore's late
claim with respect to these features only aims at supporting its clailn to Pulau Batu
Puteh. The absence of any protest against Malaysian acts of sovereignty demonstrates
Singapore's acquiescence to Malaysia's sovereignty over both features and the novelty
of the clailnade by Singapore in 1993. Chapter 9
THEMAPEVIDENCE
A. General Principles
301. In this Chapter, Malaysia will outline the cartographic history of the region,
showing how this provides general support for Malaysia's claim to the three features.
302. The authority of maps as evidence in boundary cases has been discussed by the
Court on a number of occasions. In particular in the Frontier Dispute Case(Burkirza
Faso/Mali)the Chamber said:
"...maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from
case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they
cannot constitute a tel-ritorial title, that is, a document endowed by
international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of
establishing territorial rights. Of course, in some cases maps may
acquire such legal force, but where this is so the legal force does not
arise solely from their intrinsic merits: it is because such maps fall into
the category of physical expressions of the will of the State or States
concerned. This is the case, for example, when maps are annexed to an
official text of which they form an integral part. Except in this clearly
defined case, maps are only extrinsic evidence of varying reliability or
unreliability which may be used, along with other evidence of a
circumstantial kind, to establish or reconstitute the rfact^.""^
303. This passage was cited and applied by the Court in both the Kasikili/Sedudu
case2%nd in the Ligitan and Sipadan case."'
228 ICJ Reports 1986, p. 554, at 582, para. 54.
229 ICJ Reports 1999, 11,at 1098,para. 84.
230
ICJ Repor-ts2002, at para. 88.HESSELGERRITZ, MAP OF SUMATRA, 1620(EXTRACT)
Insert23304.
In the present case there is no map having legal force as such, but there is a
substantial record of depictions of the three features on maps from the 17" century
onwards. This record will be briefly described before any conclusions are drawn.
B. Review of the MapEvidence
305. Malaysia's Map Atlas contains a selection of 48 maps of the region. It is useful
to review, first, the pre-1824 maps, which show how the political geography of the
region was viewed prior to the two Treaties of that year; and second, the later maps,
which show that neither the establishment of Horsburgh Lighthouse nor its subsequent
operation by Singapore was regarded as changing the territorial extent of Singapore.
(i) The earlynzaps
306. The earliest relevant map Malaysia has been able to locate is a Dutch map of
Sumatra dating from 1620, produced by Hessel Gerritz, cartographer of the
Hydrographic Service of the Dutch East India Company (Map Atlas, Map 1). It shows
"Pedrablanca" off the coast of "Johor", both coloured pink; P. Bintan (called "Bintam")
is to the south and is coloured green. An enlargement of the relevant sector is shown
opposite (Insert 23).
307. An early British map shows the close connection in contemporary eyes between
the Johor coast, the islands in the Romania group and Pulau Batu Puteh. This map (Map
Atlas, Map 2) is taken from Alexander Hamilton's A New Account of the East Indies: .
Being the Observationsand Remarks of Capt.Alexander Hamilton,WhoSpent his Time
there From the Year 1688 to 1723. Tradingand Travelling, bySea arzdLand, to most of
the Countries and Islnnds of Commerce and Navigation, between the Cape of Good
Hope andthe Island of Japon (1727).~~'The map, entitled "A Map of the Dominions of
Johore and of the Island of Suinatra with the Adjacent Islands" shows the "Romano"
islands and "Pedrobranco" close up to the Johor coastline and north of the "Straits of
231 2 volumes, Edinburgh, 1727,vol. 2, p. 94.Governdore". An enlargement of the relevant portion of the map is shown opposite.as
Insert 24.
308. A third early map which shows a close connection between Pulau Batu Puteh
("Pierre Blanche") and Point Romania ("Pointe de Romanie") is the "Carte rkduite des
de'troits de Malacca, Singapour et du Gouverizezrr" by the well known French
cartographer, Bellin, in 1755 (Map Atlas, Map 3). It contains illustrations of "Vues des
Terres dans les DCtroits" in which can be seen "la Pointe de Romanie Lorsqu'elle reste
au N.E. B2 50 ?h et Pedra Blanca 21'E.S.S.". Bellin was the first "IngCnieurhydrographe
de la Marine" and the Hydrogapher of the King of France, commissioned to carry out
major surveysall around the world.
309. Early 19thcentury maps are often the product of soundings and survey work in
an effort to work out accurate relationships between various features and safe sailing
passages. An 1812chart (Map Atlas, Map 4) "A Plan of Soundings from Pulo Aor to the
Southward and outside of the Reef off Point Romania towards the entrance of Singapour
Strait..." takes "Pedro Branco" as its key point and shows and describes, without
naming, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. In Horsburgh's chart for the British East India
Company in 1813 (Map Atlas, Map 5), "Pedro Branco" is discernible. In a further
version of Horsburgh's map published in 1826 (Map Atlas, Map 6), "Pedro Branco" and
"South Rock" are discernible.
(ii) Mapping of the region arfter 1824 (iizcl~tdiizgtlze period of tlze
esmblislzmeizrof HorabzrrglzLiglztlzouse)_ .-,
310. As recounted in Chapter 4 (paragraphs 49-52), in 1824 the Anglo-Dutch Treaty
divided the Sultanate of Johor into two spheres of influence, north and south of
Singapore Strait. The islands within and at the entrance of Singapore Strait, including
Pulau Batu Puteh, were always considered as within the British sphere, and this is shown
for example in the Atlas of the NerlzerlaizdsEar Indies of 1842, where a dashed line is
drawn around the islands (including P. Bintan) south of Singapore Strait (Map Atlas,Insert24Map 7; see also the Dutch maps of 1929 (Map Atlas, Map 22, an enlargement of which
is depicted as Insert 25, opposite) and 1934 (Map Atlas, Map 24)). Other examples of
the Dutch view as to the effect of the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty can be seen at Map
Atlas, Map 11(1883 map communicated to Great Britain by Count de Bylandt).
311. A German map of 1850, contemporary with the construction of Horsburgh
Lighthouse, Neueste Krrrtedev HirzterIndierz,by Captain Radefeld, shows the political
divisions in the region. The British Possessions are coloured red, the Malay Dominions
are pink. "Pedro Branco" and "P. Romania" appear in the middle of the Malay
Dominions (Map Atlas, Map 9).
312. At the same time a line of a different character was being drawn, defining
Singapore Island and its dependencies in accordance with the Agreement with the Sultan
and Temenggong of Johor of 1824. This can be seen in the 1849 map, "Map of
Singapore Island and its Dependencies Copied by Permission from Government
Surveys" produced by the Surveyor, Singapore, dated 4 January 1849 and stated to be
based on Thomson's surveys. This is shown as Insert 8 on page 27 (see also Map Atlas,
Map 8). On that map the dashed line representing the islands within 10 miles of
Singapore (and therefore constituting its "Dependencies"), is labelled "Boundary of the
British and Dutch Residencies of Singapore & Rhio". There is no suggestion (e.g. by
way of a map insert) that an additional dependency of Pulau Batu Puteh has been added
to the original territory of Singapore. The "Map of the Island of Singapore and its
Dependencies" was regularly reissued under official auspices, with or without the
dashed line but in no case showing any other islands as belongingetoSingapore: see, e.g.,
the maps signed by the Colonial Engineer and Surveyor-General, Straits Settlements in
1885 (Map Atlas, Map 12), 1898 (Map Atlas, Map 13), and 1911 (Map Atlas, Map 14;
the version shown has been annotated and signed by a British Brigadier-General). OVEWICHTSUAWT VAN SUMATRA, 1929 (EXTRACT)
+++++ +. ResidencyBoundary
C
f
Insert25313. In 1923-24, the Surveyor General of the ~ederated Malay States and the Straits
Settle~nentsproduced a series of small scale maps of Singapore, covering all of the
dependencies. The combined coverage of these 16 separate map sheets is shown at Map
Atlas, Map 15), and on the opposite page: see Insert 26. It will be seen that a double
insert has been used to cover islands lying outside the reach of the map, in particular
Pulau Tekong and surroundingislets. Further, P. Satumu, on which stands Raffles Light
House, is shown extending below the bottom margin of the map: see, in further detail,
Map Atlas, Map 16. Yet no attempt has been made to include Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle
Rocks or South Ledge. The inevitable conclusion is that these were not considered or
thought of in 1924asdependencies of Singapore.
314. In coloured maps of this period, where the Straits Settlements are shown in red
and the Malay States (federated and unfederated) in other colours, commonly no attempt
is made to show Pulau Batu Puteh in red: see e.g. the 1925 map of Malaya, again
published under the direction of the Surveyor-General. One would judge from this map
that Pulau Batu Puteh was not considered part of the Straits Settlements, unlike, for
example Pulau Ubin and other islets wilhin 10 miles of the Island of Singapore (Map
Atlas, Map 17). The point can be seen even more clearly from the enlargement, shown
on the following page as Insert 27. The contrast with island dependencies of Singapore
is clear. The same is true of the map, "Malaya 1928", published under the direction of
the Surveyor ~eneral (Map Atlas, Map 21).
315. In 1926, Sultan lbrahim produced a map of Johor, based upon new surveys. This
is Map 19 in the Map Atlas: Pedra Branca Horsburgh is shown. Even more striking is
the Sheet No. 4 1-10,"Part of Kota Tinggi District, Johore", published in the same year.
This is shown in the Map Atlas, Map 18, and as Insert 28 on page 145. There is no
suggestion from the map that "Pedra Branca Horsburgh" shown in an expanse of sea is
not itself part of Johor. Indeed the layout of the map clearly suggests the contrary: it was
clearly designed to show the island as part of the Kota Tinggi District. This map was
reprinted at intervals, for example in 1932(Map Atlas, Map 23).JOHORE, PART OF KOTA TlNGGl DISTRICT, 1926
Insert28316. On a 1927 Admiralty Chart based on surveys from HMSS Iroquois, the map
(Map Atlas, Map 20) shows Pedra Branca just below the bottom (southern) border of the
map, with no indication of its pertaining to Singapore. Subsequently this map was used
by Colnrnodore Thanabalasingham to indicate maritime boundaries, including around
Pedra Branca, with the label "Limit of M[alayan] T[erritorial] W[aters]", as already
described in Chapter 7."' Evidently Co~nmodore Thanabalasingham believed Pulau
Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge to belong to Johor. The same is true of a
1936map of Singapore Strait which clearly contrasts the Malaysian waters around Pulau
Batu Puteh and Singapore waters well to the west (Map Atlas, Map 25).
317. The same remark may be made about the boundary divisions printed and
highlighted in hand on the War Office map, "Singapore" of 1941 which is at Map Atlas,
Map 26. Lines drawn within andjust outside Singapore Strait separate Singapore from
Indonesia and from Malaya, and clearly show Pulau Batu Puteh (unnamed but shown on
the map) as within the geographical purview of Malaya. This can be more clearly seen
from the enlargement, which is Insert 29 opposite. At least one later version appeared,
to similar effect: see the War Offic& Air Ministry map, "Bintan Island (1959) (Map
Atlas, Map 31), on which the line is extended to the east of the Straits just beyond the
star reflecting the position of Pulau Batu Puteh, which is clearly to seen as part of
Malaya, not Singapore.
318. A similar line appears on the map "Malaya. Sedili Besar Sheet 4 I", dated 1944
and issued by the Survey of India (Map Atlas, Map 27). Pedra Branca Horsburgh
(Middle Rock) is clearly indicated as falling within British Malaya. The line is repeated
on a War Office map of 1950, thistime with the annotation "Federation of Malaya"
(Map Atlas, Map 29). See also the UK War Office map of 1950 (Map Atlas, Map 28),
the UK Ministry of Defence map of 1967 (Map Atlas, Map 33, and the UK Ministry of
Defence map of 1968 (Map Atlas, Map 36). These are the only maps, of those so far
discussed, which contain a disclaimer.
232
Seeabove,paragraphs270-273.c -'F'
sr.!?!l4319. In 1957, a compilation sheet produced by the Surveyor-General and entitled
"Johore" shows Batu Puteh as an inset off the east coast of Johor, with no indication of
any attribution to Singapore. The map was evidently carefully drawn and checked (Map
Atlas, Map 30).
320. In 1979 the Directorate of National Mapping, Malaysia published two map
sheets, Sheets 1 and 2, depicting the limits of Malaysian continental shelf boundaries.
Sheet 1, of Peninsula Malaysia, clearly shows that Pulau Batu Puteh is well within
Malaysian territorial waters (Map Atlas, Map 44).
321. Some maps must be referred to which may seem to point the other way. A map
. .
produced in 1962 by the Surveyor General, Federation of Malaya, entitled "Pengerang"
(Map Atlas, Map 32) has the following caption:
"Lighthouse [symbol] 28
P. Batu Puteh
(Horsburgh)
(SINGAPORE) ."
It also shows the (unnamed) features of Middle Rocks and South Ledge without any
annotation. The map contains a disclaimer. A second edition of the same map was
produced in the same year (Map Atlas, Map 33). The second edition was reprinted in
1965 (Map Atlas, Map 34). The third edition of the same map was produced in 1974
(Map Atlas, Map 39) and the fourth edition in 1975 (Map Atlas, Map 41). However the
emphasis here is entirely on the lighthouse rather than the island - the feature shown as a
symbol and not an area of land. Quite apart from the disclaimer the entry is at most
equivocal, and it does not constitutea representation as to international boundaries or the
attribution of territory. Another map with a similar indication was printed by the
Director of National Mapping, Malaysia in 1970 (Map Atlas, Map 38).
322. The maritime boundary 'position as seen by the Geographer, United States ,
Department of State, at this time can be seen from the map attached to Limitis n theSeas,
No. 60 (1974), an extract of which is shown opposite as Insert 30 (see also Map Atlas,
Map 40). The map depicts the agreed Indonesian-Singapore territorial sea boundary of1973, the agreed Malaysian-Indonesian continental shelf boundary of 1969, and what is
described as a "Malaysia-Singapore international boundary". The map also shows 3 and
12 nm territorial sea lines. There is no depiction of any actual or putative boundary
between Singapore and Malaysia around Pulau Batu Puteh. The median line drawn by
the Geographer in the Singapore Strait to the south of Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge suggests that these features were considered as Malaysian.
323. For its part Singapore never published any map in the whole of this time which
showed any of the three features as belonging to Singapore. Rather it repeatedly
published maps which showed attribution lines around the territories acquired under the
1824 Agreement with Johor. Representative is the Singapore Locality Map of 1976
published by the Singapore Director of Public Works (Map Atlas, Map 42), which shows
the 1927 territorial waters boundary between the Straits Settlement and Johor, as well as
the 1973 maritime boundary with Indonesia (unlabelled). There is no indication that
Singapore territory lies further to the east as well. Similarly the Singapore
~o~o~ra~hical Map of 1993 does label the boundaries respectively as
"MalaysiaISingapore" and "Singapore/Indonesiafl(Map Atlas, Map 46).
324. So far as Singapore is concerned, the position with maps only changed in the
1990s, well after the present dispute had arisen. It was not until after this round of
negotiations between the Parties, that Singapore for the first time published a map which
showed Pulau Batu Puteh (as an inset) as part of Singapore. It did not name the other
two features. This 1995 map is reproduced as Insert 31, opposite, and in Malaysia's
Map Atlas as Map 48. It stands in sharp contrast with the position as shown on earlier
maps produced by Singapore authorities. If they had wanted to show Pulau Batu Puteh
as part of Singapore in 1849, in 1852, in 1923-1924 or at any later time, it was clear
enough how to do so. But 1995 was far too late a date to produce any effect on the
situation.
--SINGAPORE, MAP OF 1995 SHOWING PEDRA BRANCA325. The position that can be confidently derived froin the map evidence considered
as a whole is usefully summarised in the Joint Operations Graphic published by the
United Kingdom Director General of Military Survey in 1994 (Map Atlas, Map 47), an
extract of which is shown as Insert 32, opposite.
326. The Joint Operations Graphic has the following features:
(a) hlau Batu Puteh (Horsburgh) and Middle Rocks are shown in close
proximity to a boundary between Malaysia and Indonesia.
(b) They are evidently attributed to Malaysia.
(c) Other agreed boundaries and Singapore's proclaimed port limits are
shown, not including Pulau Batu Puteh. In other words the Graphic
addresses the territorial and boundary situation on the basis of accurate
information.
(d) Despite the disclaimer, no-one would think that the Joint Operations
Graphic showed anything else than that Pulau Batu Puteh and Middle
Rocks belong to Malaysia.
C. Conclusionsin Relation to the Map Evidence
327. Thus the cartography provides broad support for the legal situation put forward
in this Memorial. In particular it is legally significant that at no time before negotiations
began for the resolution of this dispute in the early 1990s did Singapore ever produce a
map showing Pulau Batu Puteh as part of Singapore. Indeed various maps were
produced by Singapore officials and agencies showing the contrary. Moreover all the
maps showing demarcation or attribution lines in the region of the three features treat
them unequivocally as Malaysian. The only possible contrary indications (the Malaysian
maps referred to in paragraph 321 above) are equivocal and - quite apart from the
disclaimer - do not support Singapore's claim to sovereignty over the three features. It
is true that the maps have no more than confirmatory effect. But the preponderance of
the map evidence clearly supports Malaysia's claim.UNITED KINGDOM. JOINT OPERATIONS GRAPHIC (EXTRACT)
Inser32 SUMMARY
328. Malaysia's claim to sovereignty over the three features, Pulau
Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge may be summarised as
follows:
(a) These and other islands in and around Singapore Strait were
part of the Sultanate of Johor before 1824. This was
unaffected by the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, which
concerned only islands and territory to the south of the Strait.
(b) The sovereignty of the Sultanate, and its extension to the
offshoreislands, was repeatedlyrecognised by Great Britain.
(c) This situation was confirmed by the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824,
which ceded to Great Britain the Island of Singapore and all
islets and rocks within 10geographical miles of Singapore, but
otherwiseleft the territory of Johor unaffected.
(d) Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra izullius, but was used by the
local Malay population, who were subjects of Johor, for fishing
and other purposes. Johor exercised sovereignty over the
island before and after 1824, for example in the context of
piracy control.
(e) The English East India Company sought and obtained the
permission of the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor to build the
Horsburgh Lighthouse on their territory. This licence extended
to Pulau Batu Puteh, which was the preferred spot for the lighthouse. It did not involve a cession of territory in
sovereignty to the Straits Settlements.
(f) Great Britain having obtained consent to the construction and
operation of the Lighthouse never acted as sovereign over
Pulau Batu Puteh, still less the other two features. The
ownership, maintenance and operation of a lighthouse do not
as such involve an exercise of sovereign rights - n fortiori
when done with the consent of the territorial sovereign. The
period of time involved is irrelevant in this respect.'
(g) Neither Great Britain nor Singapore ever claimed sovereignty
over the three features at any time prior to the critical dates in
relation to the present dispute (1980 in the case of Pulau Batu
Puteh, 1993 in the case of the other two features). On the
contrary, Singapore's legislation and treaty practice, its
publications and maps, as well as statements by knowledgeable
Singapore officials all confirmed that the three features were
not territory of Singapore, and were not administered as part of
the territory of Singapore.
(h) By contrast, Johor and its successor, Malaysia, never
relinquished sovereignty over the three features; rather, they
exercised it in the context of their control over tlie wide; range
of islands in the region. Given the tiny surface of Pulau Batu
Puteh and the character of the other features, as well as the
continuing permission for the operation of Horsburgh
Lighthouse, this sovereignty was essentially manifested in the field of the determination and use of Malaysian maritime areas,
interalia, in the grant of oil concessions and in the conclusion
of bilateral treaties of delimitation. It is supported by
published maps. It has never been abandoned.
SUBMISSIONS
In the light of the considerations set out above, Malaysia respectfully
requests the Courtto adjudge and declare that sovereigntyover
(a) Pedra BrancaPulau Batu Puteh;
(b) Middle Rocks;
(c) SouthLedge,
belongs to Malaysia.
Agent of Malaysia
KualaLumpur
25 March 2004 LIST OF ANNEXES
VOLUME 2
Treaties and Agreements
Annex
Titleof Agreement
Number
(MM)
Convention betweenGreatBritainand the NetherlandsRelativeto the Dutch
Colonies,London,13August 1814,63 CorzsolidatedTreaty Series 322
Agreement between the Honourable East India Company and the
Temenggong of Johore, 30 January819,69 CTS 480 (English text)
Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between Sir Stamford Raffles and
Sultan Hussain ~ahummad Shah, Sultan of Johore and Dato Temenggong
Sri MaharajahAbdul-Rahman, 6 February 1819,69 CTS 481
Arrangements Made for the Government of Singapore, Singapore, 26 June
1819,70 CTS 202
Treaty between His Britannick Majesty and the King of the Netherlands,
Respecting Territory and Commerce in the Easties, London, 17 March
1824,74 CTS 88
Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between the Honourable East India
Company, and the Sultan and the Temenggong of Johore, 2 August 1824,
74 CTS 380
Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between His Highness Sultan
Alli Iskander Shah bin Sultan Hussain Mohamed Shah and His
Highness Datu Tumungong Daing Ibrahim bin Abdul Rahman Sri
Maharajah, 10 March 1855: in W.G. Maxwell & W.S. Gibson (eds.),
Treaties and Engagements Affecting the Malay States arzd Bortzeo,
London: Jas Truscot& Son, 1924,p. 127
,
Johore-Pahang, First Boundary and Friendship Treaty, 17 June 1862, in J.
Allen, A.J. Stockwell and L.R. Wright (eds.),lectiorzof Treaties and
Other Documents Affecting the States of Malaysia, 1761-1963,New York:
Oceana, 1981,vol. I, p. 343
Treaty between the Governor of Prince of Wales' Island, Singapore and
Malacca and H.H. Datoh TumungongAboobakar, Sri Maharajah, Sovereign
Ruler of Johore, concerning the Tumungong's Property in the Island of
Singapore, 19December 1862:in Maxwell & Gibson, p. 129 Agreement on Certain Points Touching the Relations of Her
Majesty's Govemment of the Straits Settlements with the
Govemment of the Independent State of Johore, London, 11
December 1885, 167 CTS82
Agreement between his Britannic Majesty's' Government and the State of
Johore making provision for the Appointment of a British General Adviser
at the Court of Johore, Singapore, 12 May 1914, 107 BFSP 519
Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters Agreement, 19 October
1927,in Allen, Stockwell & Wright, p. 114
Agreement for the Establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an
Independent Sovereign Country within the Commonwealth, Kuala
Lumpur, 5 August 1957, 163 British& Foreign State Papers46
Agreement between the'united Kingdom, the'Federation of Malaya, North
Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore Concerning the Establishment of the
Federation of Malaysia, London, 9 July 1963, 167 British & Foreign State
Papers 49
Agreement Relating to the Separation of Singapore from Malaysia as a
Separate and Sovereign State of 7 August 1965between . te Governments
of~alaysia and Singapore,,563 UNTS89
Indonesia-Malaysia:Agreement between theGovernment of the Republic of
Indonesia and the Government of Malaysia ~elatin~ to the Delimitation of
the ContinentalShelves between theTwo Countries,27 October 1969
17. Treaty between Malaysia and the Republic of Indonesia Relating to the
Delimitation of the Territorial Seas of the Two Countries in the Straits of
Malacca, 17March 1970
18. Agreement Stipulating the Territorial Sea Boundary Lines between
Indonesia and the Republic of Singapore in the Strait of Singapore, 25 May
1973: in "Territorial Sea Boundary: Indonesia-Singapore" (Department of
State,Limits in the Seas,No. 60, 1974) ,. -
19. , bgreementbetween theGovernment ofMalaysia and the Government of the
L . -3 Republic of singapore to Delimit Precisely the TerritorialWaters Boundary
in Accordance with the Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters
Agreement 1927,7 August 1995
20. Malaysia-Singapore, Special Agreement, 6 February 2003 VOLUME3
Historical andLegalDocuments
A. Correspondence,Reports,etc.
Annex
Number Titleof Document
(MM)
21. General Missive from the Governor-General and Council of the Dutch
East India Company in Batavia to the Seventeen Directors of the Dutch
.. .East India Company in Amsterdam, 26 December 1662, VOC ,1238
(translationby Professor L.Y. Andaya)
22. Missive from Governor Thijssen of Melaka to Governor-General and
Council of the Dutch East India Company in Batavia, l April 1655, VOC
1209(translation by Professor L.Y. Andaya)
23. John Crawfurd's Diary, extractof 7 December 1818
24. Letter from Resident Crawfurd to G. Swindon, Secretary to the
Government, l October 1824, (1853) 7 Jounzal of the Indian Archipelago,
pp. 356-357
25. Letter from the Resident ofhio to the Resident Councillor, Singapore, 18
August 1827 (extract), reprinted in A.C. Baker, "Some Account of the
Anglo Dutch Relations in the East at the Beginning of the 19th Century
Based on the Records Preserved in the Colonial Secretary's Office in
Singapore, and, in the Resident's Office Malacca", (1913)64 Jour. Straits
BranchR.A. Soc. l, pp. 40-42
26. Letter froni the Resident Councillor,'~'Singaporeto the Secretary to
Government, Prince of Wales Island, singapore and Malacca, 8
p September 1827, reprinted in A.C. Baker, "Some Account of the Anglo
Dutch Relations in the East at the Beginning of the 19thCentury Based on
the Records Preserved in the Colonial Secretary's Office in Singapore,
and, in the Resident's Office Malacca",(1913) 64 Jouv. Straits Bvalzch
R.A. Soc. 1,pp. 45-46
27. Report by Edward Presgrave, Registrar Imports and Exports to K.
Murchison, Resident Councillor, 5 December 1828
28. Letter from the Government Secretary to the Resident Councillor, Fort
Cornwallis, 22 December 1829
29. "Missing Vessels - Navigation to China", Singapore Free Press, 13
October 1836(extract)
30. The CantonPress, Canton, 26 November 1836 31. The Canton Press, Canton, 10December 1836
32. The CantonRegister, 10January 1837
33. Singapore Free Press, 9 February 1837
34. "The Horsburgh Memorial", Singapore Free Press, 5 April 1838
35. Letter from Jardine Matheson & Co., Treasurer to the China Fund for a
testimonial to the memory of the late James Horsburgh Esqre, care of
Messrs. John Purvis & CO,Singapore, to Governor S.G Bonham Esqre,
Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca, l March
1842
36. Letter from Governor S.G. Bonham, Governor of Prince of Wales Island,
Singapore and Malacca to Jardine Matheson & Co., Treasurer to the China
Fund for a testimonial to the memory of the late James Horsburgh, 4 April
1842
37. Letter from J.T. Thomson, Government Surveyor to Governor S.G.
Bonham, Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca, 1
May 1842
38. Letter from Governor S.G. Bonham, Governor of Prince of Wales Island,
Singapore and Malacca to G.A. Bushby, Secretary to Government, Fort
William, 23 July 1842
39. Letter from G.A. Bushby, Secretary to the Government of Bengal to
Governor S.G. Bonham, Governor of Prince of Wales Island Singapore
and Malacca, 31August 1842
40. Singapore Free Press, 25 May 1843
41. Letter from Edward Belcher, Captain of HMS Samarang to W.J.
Butterworth, Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca,
1October 1844 . .
. -
<.., , ,. ..,.'C.' ',,.C:,. . . I .
42. Letter from John Purvis & Co. to ~overndr W.J. utterw wo G otve rnor of
. ,. . ;I.Prince,ofWales Island, Singapore.and.Malacca, 31 October 1844
..: .... . -. . .' . ;,.. 3. - I , :> ., ..
... , . . . ..
43. Report of J.T. Thomson, Government Surveyor to Governor W.J
Butterworth, Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca,
20 November 1844
44. Letter from Sultan Allie, Sultan of Johore to Governor W.J. Butterworth,
Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca, 25
November 1844,translated by T. Church, Resident Councillor
45. Letter from Dattoo Tamungong of Johore to Governor W.J. Butterworth,
Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca, 25
November 1844,translated by T. Church, Resident Councillor
46. Letter from Governor W.J. Butterworth, Governor of Prince of Wales
Island, Singapore and Malacca to F. Curie, Secretary to the Government
of India, 28 November 1844 47. Letter from Governor W.J Butterworth, Governor of Prince of Wales
Island, Singapore and Malacca to Under-Secretary C. Beadon, 22 August
1845
48. "Erection of a Light-House on Romania Island, Bolnbay Times and
Journal of Commerce, 10January 1846
49. "Lighthouse at Singapore", TheTimes, Thursday, 22 January 1846
50. Letter from N.B. Hamilton, Secretary to the Admiralty to the Secretary to
the East India Company, 18 April 1846 (enclosure No. 2 to letter from
. Court of Directors to Governor General of India in Council, 6 May 1846)
51. Letter from Governor w.J.' Butterworth, Governor of Prince of Wales
Island, Singapore and Malacca to 'G.A. Bushby, the Secretary of the
Government of India, 26 August 1846
, ..., . *.... ..,.. ,. . . L _,.-.. ,,. , ).,... :,. . L,*>l.l>.~>."...i..8 . l . l ' . :
52. "Presentation of a Sword to H.H. the Tomongong Sree Maharajah of
Johore", Straits Times, 5 September 1846
53. Internal Minute of Governor W.J. Butterworth, Governor of Prince of
Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca, 30 September 1846
54. Letter froin Government of India, 3 October 1846 & attachments: British
Library, India, Marine Department Collection, F1412 166
55.
Internal Minute of Governor W.J Butterworth, Governor of Prince of
Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca, Minute No. 14,3 October 1846
56. Letter from Governor W.J Butterworth, Governor of Prince of Wales
Island, Singapore and Malacca to the Worshipful Master of the Lodge
"Zetland in the East", 23 April 1850
57. "The Horsburgh Light-House", Straits Times, 28 May 1850
58. Letter from J.T. Thomson, Government Surveyor to T. Church, Resident
- Councillor, Singapore, 2 November 1850
59. : Letter from T: Church, Resident Councillor of'singapoie to Governor
W.J. Butterworth, Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and
Malacca, 7 November 1850
60. J.T. Thomson, "Account of the Horsburgh Lighthouse", (1852)6 Jounzal
of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, Series 1,430 (extract)
61. "Rules for Light-keepers", in J.T. Thomson, "Account of the Horsburgh
Lighthouse", (1852) 6 Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastenz
Asia, Series l, Appendix V
62. Sultan of Selangor-Governor of the Straits Settlements, correspondence
concerning Cape Rachado lighthouse, October-November 1860
63. Letter from the Sultan of Johore to the Earl Granville, Principal Secretary
of State to the Colonies, 20 March 188664. - Letter of Governor, Straits Settlements to Colonial Secretary,21 May
1901,with file attachments
65. Federated Malay States, Proceedingsof the Federal Council,8 July 1913,
pp. AI-~2, B8
66. Colonyof the Straits Settlements,Blue Bookfor the Year1914, Singapore,
Government Printing Office, 1915, pp. v2, v3, (224,c52, C57, GIO,(315,
G22,G35,~38, Kl, ~28, K102
67. Letter from J.D Higham for the Colonial Secretary, Singapore,to the
British Adviser, Johor, and appendices,12June 1953
68. Letter and attachments from A.G.B.Colton, for the Colonial Secretary,
Singapore, to the Deputy Commissioner General for Colonial Affairs,
. .. Singapore;July1953 . , . .
. . :. .
69. Letter from the ActingState Secretary, Johor to the C.l.nial Secretary,
Singapore,21September 1953
70. Internal Memorandum from the Colonial Secretary, Singapore to the
Attorney-General, Singapore, and reply,1[2 sic] October 1953
71. A~znual Report of the Rui-a1 Board Singapoi-e 1953, Singapore,
Government Printing Office, ChapterOne,p. 1
72. Annual Report of the Rural Board Singapore 1956, Singapore,
Government Printing Office, Chapter One, p. 1
73. ' Letter from the Directorof Marine, Malaya, to the Directorof Marine,
Singapore, 1May 1964,andreply,l3 May 1964."
74. J.A.L. Pavitt, First Pharos ofthe Eastei+nSeas: Horsbt~i-ghLighthouse,
Singapore LightDues Board, Singapore,1966,p. 51
75. Straits Times, 17April 1968
76. Letter of Promulgation from CommodoreK.'~hanabalasinghamto Naval
Staff DivisioI" Ministryof Defe.ce, Kuala Lumpur, 16July 1968
1 ,- , 1
77. H.W. Dalton, "Petroleum Developmentsin Far East in 1968", (1969) 53
Bulletin oftheAinericanAssociation of Pet1,oleurnGeologists 1789,at pp.
1792, 1793, 1798
78. Press Statementby the Indonesian and Malaysian Delegationsto the Talks
on the Delimitationof the Continental Shelves Between Malaysia and the
Republicof Indonesia, Kuala Lumpur,22 September 1969
79. Singapore Facts andPictures, 1972, Singapore, Ministry of Culture,
1972,pp. 1-3, 148-150
80. Note, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore to Office of the High
Commissioner for Malaysia,14February 198081. Note, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore to Malaysian High
Commission, 28 February 1989
82. List of Diplomatic Notes from Singapore on Pulau Batu Puteh, February
1980 - January 2004
83. Singapore Facts and Pictures, 1992, Singapore, Ministry of Information
and the Arts, 1992,pp. 1, 178
B. Laws, Regulations,etc.
Act No. VI, 1852 (India),An Act for defraying the Cost of a Light-House
on Pedra Branca
Act No. XIII, 1854 (India),An Act to repeal Act No. V1of 1852, and to
make provision for defraying the cost of the Light-House on Pedra
Branca.. .
Award made by Governor Sir H. St George Ord, under the provisions of
the Treaty between Pahang and Johore, of 17'~June, 1862, 1 September
1868
Report of the Johbre Boundaries Commission, 18February 1898
Constitution of Johore, 14 April 1895, in J. de V. Allen, A.J. Stockwell
and L.R. Wright (eds.), A Collection of Treaties and Other Documents
Affecting the States of Malaysia, 1761-1963, New York: Oceana, 1981,
vol. I, pp.7,78, 84, 85, 101(Johore Documentof 14September 1895)
Indenture between Ibrahim, Sultan of Johore, and Sir Jaines Alexander
Swettenham, Officer Administering the Governmentof the Colony of the
Straits Settlements, 6 October 1900
.TheLight-Houses Ordinance No. XVII of-1912(Singapore).
The ~alaian Union Order in Council, No. 463 of 1946,preamble, S.3
The Singapore Colony Orderin Council, 1946(UK), preamble, ss. 2,3
Transfer of Powers and Interpretation Ordinance, 1946(Malayan Union)
Transfer of Powers and Interpretation Amendment Ordinance No. 11,
1948(Federationof Malaya)
95. The Curfew (Johore Straits) (Singapore)Order, 1948
96. Federationof Malaya Agreement, 1948(extracts)Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, No. 4 of 1951 (Singapore),
ss. 1-2
Interpretation and General Clauses (Amendment) Ordinance No. 18 of
1952(Singapore)
Malayan Federation Light Dues Ordinance No.24 of 1953
Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1957(extracts)
Light Dues Ordinance No. 6 of 1957(Singapore)
Light Dues (Amendment) Ordinance No. 20 of 1958(Singapore)
State of Singapore Act, 1958 (UK)
Interpretation and General Clauses (Amendment) Ordinance No.2 of 1960
Federation Light Dues (Amendment) Act No. 21 of 1961 (Federation of
Malaya)
Malaysia Act No. 26 of 1963(Federation of Malaya) (extracts)
Malaysia Act 1963 (UK),ss; 1-3
Proclamation of Singapore, 1965
Interpretation Act, No. 10of 1965(Singapore) (extract)
Petroleum Agreement Under Section 9 of the Petroleum Mining Act, 1966
in Respect of Off-shore Lands between the Government of Malaysia and
Continental Oil Company of Malaysia Concerning 24,000 (Approximate)
Square Miles of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to the East Coast of West
Malaysia, 16April 1968(extracts)
Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No.7 of 1969(Malaysia)
Light Dues Act No.12 of 1969 (Singapore) (extracts)
Fisheries Act, Act 317of 1985(Malaysia) (extracts)
Memorial of Malaysia