REPLY OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER I — INTRODUCTION ........................................................................
...1
A. The Case in Perspective...................................................................1
1. S INGAPORE’SCASE ........................................................................
.... 2
2. M ALAYSIA S CASE........................................................................
..... 3
B. The Structure of this Reply..............................................................5
CHAPTER II — MALAYSIA HAS FAILED TO PROVE
AN “ORIGINAL TITLE”.........................................................................
............7
Section I. Malaysia’s Claim that Pedra Branca “Was Not Terra
Nullius” Has No Basis .....................................................................7
A. M ALAYSIA S ARGUMENT THAT PEDRA B RANCA WAS PART
OF THE“M ALAY WORLD ”ISM EANINGLESS...................................... 9
B. T HEL ABUAN CESSION IIRRELEVANT TO DETERMINING THE
STATUS OFPEDRA BRANCA ............................................................. 11
Section II. The 1824 Treaties Do Not Confirm Any “Original
Title”........................................................................
......................16
A. T HEA NGLO-DUTCH T REATYD IDNOT DEAL WITH THE
TERRITORIALSTATUS OFPEDRA B RANCA....................................... 16
1. The 1833 Vietnamese Envoy’s Report is Irrelevant.................. 19
2. The 1842 van Hinderstein Map Shows that Pedra Branca
was not Regarded as Part of the Johor-Riau-Lingga
Sultanate ........................................................................
............ 21
B. T HEC RAWFURD T REATYD IDNOT LIMITBRITISHCAPACITY
TOA CQUIREA DDITIONALTERRITORIESIN THEREGION................. 27
Section III. Other Malaysian Arguments..........................................................28
A. C ERTAINM ISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS WHICH D ON OT
HELPM ALAYSIA’SC ASE.................................................................. 28
1. Malaysia’s Claim based on 17th Century Dutch
Communications and the 1843 Singapore Free Press
Article has been Rebutted in Singapore’s Counter-
Memorial........................................................................
............ 28
2. Raffles’ Observations Do Not Prove Johor’s Title.................... 29
B. M ALAYSIA S CLAIM TOORIGINAL TITLEBASED ON
“POSSESSIONMMEMORIAL ” SAN ADMISSION THAT SHE
HAS NO EVIDENCE TOPROVE H ERC LAIM...................................... 30
Section IV. Conclusion........................................................................
.............32
i REPLY OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER III — THE REAFFIRMATION OF THE BASIS OF
SINGAPORE’S TITLE TO PEDRA BRANCA...............................................35
Section I. Introduction........................................................................
............35
Section II. The Status of Pedra Branca as Terra Nullius.................................36
Section III. The Alleged Permission of Johor...................................................38
Section IV. The Taking of Possession..............................................................44
A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................
......... 44
B. THE BASIS OFTITLE........................................................................
. 44
C. THE BASELESS M ALAYSIAN ASSERTION THAT THERE W AS
N OINTENTION TO ESTABLISHSOVEREIGNTY ON THE PART
OF THEB RITISHCROWN ................................................................... 45
D. THE BASELESS M ALAYSIAN ASSERTION THAT THEA CTS
INVOKED AS EVIDENCE OF TAKING POSSESSION“ARE N OT
R ELEVANT” ........................................................................
.............. 53
1. The Methodology Adopted by Malaysia ................................... 53
2. The Process of Selection of Pedra Branca as the site for
the Horsburgh Lighthouse ......................................................... 54
3. The Construction of the Lighthouse was not (according
to Malaysia) a Taking of Possession.......................................... 61
4. Malaysia asserts that the activity of gunboats does not
constitute a manifestation of sovereignty .................................. 67
5. The Control of Public Order in the Region................................ 69
6. Malaysia asserts that the visits of British officials are not
evidence of sovereignty in respect of Pedra Branca.................. 72
7. The Cutting of Rain Channels on Pedra Branca........................ 73
8. The Display of the Marine Ensign on Pedra Branca.................. 74
Section V. Ancillary Questions Raised by Malaysia Relating to the
Legal Basis of Title........................................................................
76
A. M ALAYSIA CONTENDS THAT THE TAKING OF POSSESSION
R EQUIRES AFORMAL A CT................................................................ 76
1. The Malaysian Contention and the Applicable Law.................. 76
2. Malaysia Provides No Evidence of a Requirement of a
Formal Act of Taking Possession Either in British
Practice or in General International Law.................................. 77
3. The Examples Cited by Malaysia are Irrelevant........................ 79
4. Conclusions: There was No Legal Condition of
Formality in Taking Possession Either in Municipal Law
or in the Principles of General International Law..................... 84
B. THE CRITERIA OFPOSSESSION ORE FFECTIVEOCCUPATION ........... 86
C. THE A SSERTION OFMALAYSIA THAT N OPROTEST O R
R ESERVATION OFRIGHTS W ASC ALLED FOR.................................. 88
D. N AVIGATIONAL AIDS ASEVIDENCE OFS OVEREIGNTY .................... 91
Section VI. The Contemporary Attitude of Johor and the Dutch
Government........................................................................
............91
Section VII. Conclusion........................................................................
.............92
ii REPLY OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER IV — SINGAPORE’S CONTINUOUS, PEACEFUL
AND EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF STATE AUTHORITY
OVER PEDRA BRANCA.........................................................................
..........95
Section I. Introduction........................................................................
............95
Section II. The Exercise by Singapore of State Functions on Pedra
Branca Was Undertaken in Confirmation of
Singapore’s Pre-Existing Title.......................................................98
A. T HE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENS INGAPORE’SACTS OF
ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL AND ISSUES OFTITLE................. 98
B. S INGAPORE’SC ONDUCT ON PEDRA BRANCA IN THE
CONTEXT OF THEC ASE.................................................................. 101
Section III. The Legal Relevance of Lighthouse Activities............................108
A. T HE EXAMPLES OFS TATEPRACTICE RELIED UPON BY
M ALAYSIA........................................................................
.............. 110
B. L EGAL AUTHORITIESS UPPORTINGSINGAPORE S CASE................ 118
Section IV. The Sovereign Nature of Singapore’s Continuous
Exercise of Authority over Pedra Branca....................................128
A. L EGISLATIVEA CTIVITYUNDERTAKEN WITH R ESPECT TO
PEDRA BRANCA ........................................................................
...... 132
B. ISSUANCE OF NOTICES TOM ARINERSR EGARDING PEDRA
BRANCA ........................................................................
.................. 138
C. S INGAPORE’SC ONSTANT MAINTENANCE , PGRADING AND
MPROVEMENT OF THE LIGHTHOUSE AND THEJETTY ON
PEDRA BRANCA ........................................................................
...... 139
D. U SE OFPEDRA BRANCA FOR THE COLLECTION OF
M ETEOROLOGICAL DATA AND M ALAYSIA’S ADMISSIONS
AGAINSTINTEREST IN THIRESPECT ............................................. 142
E. T HE FLYING OF THB RITISH ANS INGAPOREE NSIGN ON
PEDRA BRANCA ........................................................................
...... 145
F. S INGAPORE’SC ONTROL OFA CCESS TOPEDRA BRANCA ,
OFFICIALVISITS BS INGAPOREO FFICIALS ANDGRANTS OF
PERMISSIONTO CARRY O UTS URVEYS.......................................... 151
1. Official Visits to Pedra Branca................................................ 152
2. Control of Visits by Malaysian Nationals................................ 153
3. Permissions Granted by Singapore to Third Parties................ 155
G. S INGAPORE’SN AVAL PATROLS AND THEINSTALLATION BY
SINGAPORE OFM ILITARYCOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON
PEDRA BRANCA ........................................................................
...... 156
1. Navl atrols........................................................................
.... 156
2. The Installation of Military Communications Equipment
on Pedra Branca...................................................................... 159
H. S INGAPORE’SINVESTIGATION OFNAVIGATIONAL H AZARDS,
SHIPWRECKS AND NCIDENTS OF ACCIDENTAL DEATH
AROUND PEDRA B RANCA ............................................................... 160
I. S INGAPORE’SR ECLAMATION PLANS AROUND PEDRA
BRANCA ........................................................................
.................. 168
Section V. Conclusions as to Singapore’s Conduct.......................................169
iii REPLY OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER V — ABSENCE OF ANY MALAYSIAN ACTS OF
SOVEREIGNTY.........................................................................
.......................171
Section I. Introduction........................................................................
..........171
Section II. Fishing in Waters around Pedra Branca.......................................172
Section III. Royal Malaysian Navy Patrols in Waters around Pedra
Branca........................................................................
..................174
Section IV. Other Aspects of Alleged Malaysian Practice in the
“Maritime Context” .....................................................................184
Section V. Conclusion........................................................................
...........185
CHAPTER VI — SINGAPORE’S SOVEREIGNTY HAS BEEN
RECOGNISED BY MALAYSIAN CONDUCT.............................................187
Section I. Introduction........................................................................
..........187
Section II. Malaysia’s Recognition of Singapore’s Sovereignty
over Pedra Branca........................................................................
187
A. M ALAYSIA S REQUESTS F ORP ERMISSION TOV ISIP EDRA
BRANCA ........................................................................
.................. 188
1. Malaysia’s Request for Permission to Visit by Malaysian
Personnel as Part of a Joint Hydrographic Survey in 1974...... 188
2. Malaysia’s Request for Clearance of Malaysian Vessel
M.V. Pedoman for Tide Gauges Inspection in May-June
1978 ........................................................................
................. 191
3. Request for Permission to Enter the Waters around Pedra
Branca with regard to the Underwater Power Cable
Project in 1980........................................................................
. 192
4. Conclusion on Malaysian Requests for Permission................. 194
B. M ALAYSIA S CONDUCT UNDER THE STRAITS ’ IGHTS
SYSTEM RECOGNISED S INGAPORE’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER
PEDRA B RANCA ........................................................................
...... 195
1. Malaysia’s Conduct under the Straits’ Lights System............. 196
2. Conclusion on Malaysia’s Conduct under the Straits’
Lights System ........................................................................
.. 199
C. BASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PEDRA B RANCA AND PULAU
PISANG ........................................................................
.................... 200
Section III. Malaysia’s Silence in the Face of Singapore’s Acts of
Sovereignty........................................................................
..........203
A. M ALAYSIA S INACTION WITH REGARD TO THE
INSTALLATION OF MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT ........................................................................
............ 204
B. M ALAYSIA S INACTION WITH REGARD TO THE FLYING OF
ENSIGNS ON PEDRA BRANCA ......................................................... 205
C. M ALAYSIA S INACTION W ITHR EGARD TO SINGAPORE ’S
PLANS TO RECLAIM AREAS A ROUND P EDRA BRANCA .................. 208
iv REPLY OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER VI (continued)
D. M ALAYSIA S NACTION WITH REGARD TO SINGAPORE ’S
INVESTIGATION OF NAVIGATIONAL H AZARDS AND
SHIPWRECKS ........................................................................
........... 210
E. C ONCLUSION ON M ALAYSIA’SINACTION W ITHREGARD TO
O THER NON -LIGHTHOUSE ACTIVITIESBY SINGAPORE
A UTHORITIES........................................................................
.......... 211
Section IV. Official Malaysian Maps Recognising Singapore’s
Sovereignty over Pedra Branca....................................................214
Section V. Conclusion........................................................................
...........218
CHAPTER VII — MALAYSIA’S FORMAL DISCLAIMER OF TITLE........221
A. The Letter of 12 June 1953 Does Not Undermine
Singapore’s Title over Pedra Branca ...........................................222
B. The Letter Does Not Show that Singapore Was
“Aware” that Horsburgh Lighthouse was Built
Pursuant to Permission Given by Johor......................................224
C. No Adverse Conclusion for Singapore’s Sovereignty
Can Be Drawn from the Statement that Singapore Can
“Claim” Pedra Branca..................................................................227
D. Conclusion........................................................................
...........232
CHAPTER VIII — EVIDENCE OF GENERAL REPUTE OF
SINGAPORE’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA......................233
Section I. Introduction........................................................................
..........233
Section II. The Legal Significance of the Attitude of Third States...............234
Section III. The Perception of Third Parties Confirming Singapore’s
Sovereignty over Pedra Branca....................................................237
A. T HED UTCH RECOGNITION OF BRITISHSOVEREIGNTY IN
1850........................................................................
........................ 238
B. T HE1983 TRIPARTITETECHNICAL E XPERTSG ROUP
M EETING ........................................................................
................ 239
C. PERMISSIONS GRANTED BY SINGAPORE TOT HIRDPARTIES.......... 241
D. R ECOGNITION OFSINGAPORE ’SSOVEREIGNTY O VER PEDRA
B RANCA BY THE PHILIPPINE........................................................ 244
Section IV. Third States’ Maps as Evidence of General Repute ....................244
Section V. Conclusions........................................................................
..........249
v REPLY OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER IX — THE MAP EVIDENCE SUPPORTS
SINGAPORE’S TITLE........................................................................
.............251
Section I. Introduction........................................................................
..........251
Section II. The Early Cartography.................................................................254
Section III. Maps Showing Ill-Defined Lines at Sea......................................256
Section IV. The Official Maps Issued by Malaysian Governmental
Authorities which Constitute Admissions Against
Interest................................................................
..........................257
Section V. Other Maps Issued by Johor/Malaysian Authorities....................258
Section VI. Official Maps Issued by Singapore Authorities...........................260
Section VII. Conclusion........................................................................
...........261
CHAPTER X — MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE...............................263
Section I. Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks Form a Single Group
of Islands........................................................................
..............265
A. SPATIAL R ELATIONSHIP ................................................................. 267
B. C OLLECTIVE NAME ........................................................................
268
C. L INES ONM APS........................................................................
...... 269
D. E XISTENCE OFN AVIGATIONAL CHANNELS AND
G EOMORPHOLOGY ........................................................................
.. 270
E. C ONCLUSIONS W ITH REGARD TO PEDRA BRANCA AND
M IDDLE ROCKS AS A GROUP .......................................................... 271
Section II. Middle Rocks and South Ledge Have Always Been
Recognised to Share the Same Legal Fate as Pedra
Branca........................................................................
..................271
Section III. Conclusions........................................................................
..........272
SUMMARY OF REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................275
SUBMISSIONS.........................................................................
...............................281
CERTIFICATION........................................................................
...........................283
APPENDIX A — THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE “THE TAKING
OF LAWFUL POSSESSION”........................................................................
..285
APPENDIX B — THE 1861 CORRESPONDENCE............................................291
APPENDIX C — EXAMPLES OF ACTUAL CASES OF BRITISH
PRACTICE PROPOSED BY MALAYSIA.....................................................301
LIST OF ANNEXES (VOLUME 2).......................................................................309
LIST OF ANNEXES (VOLUME 3).......................................................................312
vi LIST OF INSERTS
Insert
No. Title Page
1 Early 19th Century Malay World according to Milner after p. 10
2 Pre-Colonial Malay World according to Andaya after p. 10
3 Extract from British Admiralty Chart of area around after p. 14
Labuan annotated by Singapore to show that there are
no islands to the west and north of Labuan within 10
geographical miles
4 Topony Mmap after p. 20
5 Extract from 1842 Van Hinderstein Map after p. 22
6 Chart of the Vicinity of Horsburgh Lighthouse and after p. 40
Adjacent Malayan Coast, by J.T. Thomson (1851)
annotated to show distances from the Malayan coast
7 Photograph of Pedra Branca showing Various after p. 104
Structures on the Island
8 Comparison of the Johor State Flag with British after p. 148
Ensigns
9 Map showing Singapore Navy’s Patrol Sector F5 and after p. 158
location of Naval Incidents Mentioned in this Chapter
10 Map showing location of Shipping Accidents after p. 160
mentioned in this Chapter
11 Sketch map attached to the Malaysian High after p. 192
Commission’s letter of 26 March 1980 (SM Annex
145), annotated to show mainland Singapore, the
approximate position of Pedra Branca, and the intended
routing of the submarine cable
12 Photographs of Official Plaque at Cape Rachado after p. 200
Lighthouse
13 Malaysian Map Admission Against Interest (from after p. 218
Series L7010)
14 Extract from Map Sheet in Series L7010 showing area after p. 218
around Pulau Pisang
15 Dutch Chart showing Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks after p. 270
surrounded by a single line
vii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Reply is filed in accordance with the Order of the Court dated
1 February 2005. Pursuant to Article 49( 3) of the Rules of Court, Singapore’s
Reply is directed to bringing out the issues which continue to divide the Parties.
To this end, Singapore will summarise he r case and will respond to arguments
made by Malaysia in her Counter-Memorial.
A. The Case in Perspective
1.2 When viewed in its overall context, the present case is straightforward.
The positions of the Parties have been set out in thei r previous pleadings and
the factual record is well documented.
1.3 Singapore has shown that her pr edecessor in title, the United Kingdom,
acquired title to Pedra Branca in the period 1847-1851 when the British Crown
took lawful possession of the island in connection with building a lighthouse on
it. Thereafter, the United Kingdom a nd, subsequently, Singapore, have
engaged in the effective administration and control of the island for over 150
years in the maintenance of that title.
1.4 Malaysia bases her claim on an “original title” said to have vested in the
Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate from “time immemorial”. 1 Quite apart from the
fact that there is no evidence supporting this “original title”, Malaysia has not
been able to point to a single sovereign act either she, or her predecessors, ever
took on Pedra Branca whether before 1847 or afterwards.
1 Following the usage in the Singapore Counter-Memorial (“SCM”), this Reply will use the
term “Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate” to refer to the political entity which existed from 1511 to
1824 and the term “State of Johor” or “mainland Johor” to refer to the new political entity
emerging in the Malay Peninsula after 1824. Unless the context indicates otherwise, the
single word “Johor” is used in this Reply to refer to the State of Johor. See also SCM pp. 14-
15, paras. 2.8-2.10.
– Page 1 –1.5 ThfellowiCghapters will review these matters in further detail. For
present purposes, it may be helpful to summarise the essential elements of each
Party’s case.
1. S INGAPORE ’S CASE
1.6 Singapore’s case is based on seven basic propositions. Each of these
propositions is fully suppo rted by the contemporaneo us evidence and by the
relevant legal authorities. The seven propositions are:
(a) During the period from 1847-1851, the British Crown established
sovereignty over Pedra Branca on the basis of the lawful
possession and effective occupation of the island. Prior to 1847,
Pedra Branca, which is a very small feature, was uninhabited and
had never been the subject of a prior claim or act of State
authority by any sovereign entity.
(b) The British possession of Pedra Branca was open and peaceful.
It did not depend on the permissi on of Johor or any other State,
and it was not protested. Ther e were no competing acts on the
island by any other State.
(c) Following the acquisition of title by the British Crown, that title
has been confirmed on the grou nd by an open, continuous and
effective display of State authority undertaken, first, by the
United Kingdom and, subsequen tly, by Singapore. These
activities have been undertaken à titre de souverain on and
around Pedra Branca. They were adapted to the nature of the
territory concerned, and they continue to the present.
(d) At no time prior to 1979, when Malaysia advanced a claim for the
first time, did Johor or Malays ia protest any of Singapore’s
– Page 2 – effectivités on Pedra Branca. Neither Johor nor Malaysia ever
carried out a single sovereign act on the island.
(e) Singapore’s title was recognised by various Malaysian acts as
well as by the conduct of third parties.
(f) In 1953, Johor expressly disc laimed ownership over Pedra
Branca in formal written correspondence to Singapore.
(g) Both Middle Rocks and South Ledge, the latter of which is a low-
tide elevation, are situated within Pedra Branca’s territorial sea.
Neither feature has been the subj ect of any Malaysian sovereign
act, and both belong to Singa pore by virtue of Singapore’s
sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
1.7 Singapore has thus presented a coherent case which flows naturally from
the entire factual record relating to Pe dra Branca. Sovere ignty was acquired
over Pedra Branca from 1847-1851, and Singapore has acted in her capacity as
sovereign ever since. Malaysia’s cond uct – both her silence in the face of
Singapore’s activities and the disclaimer of ownership to Pedra Branca in 1953
– is fully consistent with Singapore’s title. Prior to 1979, Malaysia and her
predecessors never claimed the island and never acted in any way which
suggested that she possessed title. Indeed, Malaysia published a series of
official government maps which ex pressly attributed Pedra Branca to
Singapore.
2. M ALAYSIA S C ASE
1.8 Malaysia’s case is based on a sole proposition: that Johor possessed an
“original title” to Pedra Branca and that nothing has happened to change that
situation. This thesis has no support on the basis of the facts. Malaysia has
failed to produce any eviden ce of a claim by the J ohor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate
or the State of Johor to Pedra Branca, or any evidence of an act of sovereign
– Page 3 –authority that Johor (or Malaysia) carried out on Pedra Branca at any time. In
short, there is not a shred of evidence that Johor ever had the intention (animus)
to claim sovereignty over Pedra Br anca or engaged in State activities ( corpus)
on the ground.
1.9 Once Malaysia’s plea of “original title” is dismissed – as it must be –
there is nothing remaining of her case. This underscores a remarkable feature
of this case. Malaysia claims title to territory on which neither she, nor her
predecessor Johor, ever set foot in any sovereign capacity. She also claims title
to territory as to which she expressly disclaimed ownership in 1953. At the
same time, Malaysia challenges Singapore’s title when that title is based on the
effective occupation and possession of th e island, and more than 130 years of 2
unimpeded administration of the territory thereafter.
1.10 Given the absence of any “original title” to Pe dra Branca, Malaysia’s
claim to Middle Rocks and South Ledge mu st also fail. Malaysia strangely
argues that these two features are separa te and distinct from Pedra Branca, and
that Singapore is simply trying to enlarg e her territory as much as possible by
claiming them. There is no justification for this contention, and no independent
basis of title over either feature other th an as a result of th eir appurtenance to
Pedra Branca and location within Pedra Branca’s territorial sea. Singapore can
only surmise that Malaysia has been forced to separate Middle Rocks and
South Ledge from Pedra Branca becaus e she recognises the fundamental
weakness of her claim to Pedra Branca. The effort is artificial and does
nothing to advance Malaysia’s case.
2 Two time periods – “130 years” and “150 years” – will be referred to in thiUnlessy.
the context indicates otherwise, the phrase “130 years” refers to the period from the initial
occupation of Pedra Branca by the British Cr(1847) to the date Malaysia first made a
paper claim to Pedra Branca (1979), while the phrase “150 years” refers to the period from the
initial occupation of Pedra Branca by theitish Crown to the signing of the Special
Agreement to refer the present dispute to the Court (2003).
– Page 4 – B. The Structure of this Reply
1.11 Singapore’s Reply is divided in to ten chapters including this
introduction. The remaining chapters are organised as follows:
(a) Chapter II will address the lack of any basis for Malaysia’s claim
to an “original title”.
(b) Chapter III then turns to the underlying basis of Singapore’s title:
the lawful possession and effectiv e occupation of Pedra Branca
by the British Crown in 1847-1851.
(c) Chapter IV discusses the wide range of State activities that
Singapore engaged in on Pedra Br anca and within its territorial
waters after 1851, and rebuts Ma laysia’s contention that these
activities were not undertaken à titre de souverain.
(d) Chapter V then examines the total absence of any Malaysian acts
of sovereignty on Pedra Branca, in contrast to Singapore’s
conduct.
(e) Chapter VI addresses Malaysia ’s conduct, including her own
officially prepared maps, wh ich recognised Singapore’s
sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
(f) Chapter VII takes up the significance of Malaysia’s specific
disclaimer of ownership of Pedra Branca in 1953.
(g) Chapter VIII reviews the practice of third States and parties
which further evidences Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra
Branca as a matter of general repute.
(h) Chapter IX deals briefly with maps and shows how, with the
exception of the official Malaysia n maps specifically attributing
– Page 5 – Pedra Branca to Singapore, the map evidence adds nothing to the
case.
(i) Chapter X completes Singapore’s Reply by addressing the
question of sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
1.12 A Summary of Reasoning is provi ded at the end of this Reply in
accordance with the Court’s Practice Direction II. This is followed by
Singapore’s Submissions.
1.13 In addition, the Reply is accomp anied by 2 volume s of documentary
annexes containing materials which have been recently-discovered or which
are necessary to rebut new arguments in Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial. Also
enclosed with this Reply is a compac t disc containing a sound recording of
remarks made by Malaysia’s Prime Mini ster at a press conference held on
13 May 1980.
– Page 6 – CHAPTER II
MALAYSIA HAS FAILED TO PROVE AN “ORIGINAL TITLE”
2.1 Malaysia’s entire case rests on he r contention that Johor possessed an
“original title” to Pedra Branca. Singapore’s Counter-Memorial has
demonstrated how Malaysia has failed to produce a single piece of evidence to
support that contention. 3 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial repeats the same theme
4
of an “original title”, but adds nothing new of subs tance to assist her case.
Thus, despite two rounds of written pleadings, Malaysia has still been unable to
produce any evidence whatsoev er that Johor had ever di splayed an intention to
claim sovereignty over Pedra Branca or ever carried out a single sovereign act
on the island, whether before 1847-1851 or at any time after that.
2.2 The present Chapter will respond to the additional points raised in
Chapter 2 of Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial. In particular, this Chapter:
(a) shows once again that not only has Malaysia failed to substantiate
her claim to an “original title” over Pedra Branca, she has also
effectively admitted that there is no such evidence; and
(b) reinforcSsingaporec’ontention, as amply demonstrated in her
Counter-Memorial, that Pedra Branca had never been at any time a
territorial possession of Johor.
Section I. Malaysia’s Claim that Pedra Branca “Was Not Terra
Nullius” Has No Basis
2.3 In Chapter 2 of her Counter-Memorial (Section A), Malaysia reiterates
her claim to an “original title” over Pedra Branca and, as a corollary, that Pedra
Branca was not terra nullius. The additional elements purporting to support
3 SCM Chapter IV.
4 MCM Chapter 2.
– Page 7 –Malaysia’s claims are set out in paragraphs 16-26 of her Counter Memorial, and
may be summarised as follows:
5
(a) Pedra Branca “was part of the Malay world”, “in the centre of the
6
region that constituted the Sultanate of Johor” and a well known
geographical feature, much used by mariners as a navigational
6
guide; and
(b) the 1847 Anglo-Brunei treaty concerning Labuan ceded a 10-mile
territorial sea, leading Malaysia to surmise that all islands within
7
10 miles of peninsular Johor were not terra nullius.
2.4 The remainder of Chapter 2 of Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial comprises:
(a) a repetition of Malaysia’s argum ents based on the social and
8
political consequences of th e 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty,
augmented by a totally misleading reference to an irrelevant
9
account of a voyage by a 19th century Vietnamese envoy;
(b) a reiteration of Malaysia’s arguments on the territorial limits of the
10
Crawfurd Treaty; and
(c) an attempt to dismiss as insignifi cant evidence, the attribution of
Pedra Branca as a dependency of Singapore during the official
11
ceremony for laying the Horsburgh Lighthouse foundation stone.
5
MCM pp. 3-4, para. 5.
6
MCM p. 11, para. 19.
7
MCM p. 16, para. 26.
8 MCM pp.21-22, paras.33-36, basically repeating arguments made earlier in MM pp.22-24,
paras. 49-53.
9 MCM pp. 22-23, para. 37.
10 MCM pp.24-25, paras.39-42, basically repeating arguments made earlier in MM pp.24-26,
paras. 54-56.
– Page 8 –2.5 Singapore will first address Malays ia’s new points as summarised in
paragraph 2.3 above and then address the remaining points.
A. M ALAYSIA S A RGUMENT THAT PEDRA BRANCA WAS P ART OF
THE “MALAY WORLD ”IS M EANINGLESS
2.6 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia reasons that Pedra Branca was not
terra nullius because it:
“was part of the Malay world; its waters were fished by Malay
fishermen; Malay pilots used it for navigational purposes; it was on
12
almost every map.”
The matters mentioned in this statement have no probative value as evidence of
the status of Pedra Branca, especially when Malaysia has failed to provide the
relevant historical context. First , the expression “Malay world” has only a
vague geographical connotati on and no political or lega l significance. It has
come into general use as a convenient way to describe parts of South East Asia –
i.e., most of present-day Malaysia, Si ngapore, Brunei, Indonesia and southern
Philippines – which are inha bited by Muslim peoples w ith a similar life-style
13
and speaking Malay-type languages. Secondly , the reference to fishing by
Malay fishermen also adds nothing to Ma laysia’s case as Singapore has shown
11
MCM pp. 26-27, paras. 43-47. This point will be addressed in Chapter IIIbelow.
12 MCM p. 4, para. 5.
13 See Tarling N., Piracy and Politics in the Malay World (1962), at p. 20, where the Malay world
is described as including Johor, Aceh, Brunei, Sulu and Mindanao. Relevant extracts are
attached to this Reply as Annex 32. See also:
(a) the sketch map in Milner’s Kerajaan entitled The Malay World of the Early Nineteenth
Century (Insert 1 overleaf) which stretched from southern Thailand in the north to
Java in the south, and from Aceh (Sumatra) in the west to beyond Borneo and includes
the Sulu Sea and Celebes in the east.
(b) a similar sketch map in Andaya’s A History of Malaysia entitled Pre-Colonial Malay
World (Insert 2 overleaf) which stretches all the way to the Philippines and New
Guinea.
– Page 9 –that the waters of Pedra Branca were accessible to fishermen from all parts of the
region and in any case the fishing referred to by Malaysia is of a private nature. 14
2.7 Thirdly, the assertion that Malay pilots had used Pedra Branca as a
navigational reference point has no bearing on whether the island was terra
nullius. A navigational reference point is just that – a navigational reference
point. There is no rule of international law that usage of a physical feature as a
navigational reference point supports a claim to sovereignty. In any event, in the
case of Pedra Branca, that island has, fro m the earliest times to the present day,
served as a navigational refe rence point to mariners of all nations, not just
subjects of Johor. Hence no conclusion concerning sovereignty can be drawn
from such non-exclusive usage of Pedr a Branca as a navigational reference
point.
2.8 Fourthly, the claim that Pedra Branca “was on almost every map” is
irrelevant, even if true. What is notewo rthy for the purpose of this case is the
fact that, of the many maps which depict Pedra Branca, none attributed Pedra
Branca to either the Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate or the State of Johor. 15
Malaysia’s reliance on these factors me rely demonstrates the absence of
evidence supporting her claim that Pedra Branca was not terra nullius.
2.9 Malaysia’s assertion that “[e]vidently” Pedra Branca was not terra nullius
as it “... is clearly situated in the cen tre of the region that constituted the
16
Sultanate of Johor...” is vague and in any case amounts to a non sequitur – the
mere location of Pedra Branca within an ill-defined “region” has no implications
for the question of soverei gnty. As Singapore has po inted out in her Counter-
Memorial, even where an island at Point A and another island at Point B
14 See at paras. 5.4-5.7 below; and SCM p. 68, para. 4.57.
15 See analysis of early maps in SCM pp.217-219, paras. 9.7-9.11; and SCM pp.237-238,
paras. 9.42-9.44; as well as Chapter IX of this Reply below.
16
MCM pp. 11-12, para. 19.
– Page 10 –belonged to a sultanate, it did not follow that all islands in between also
belonged to that sultanate.7
2.10 Malaysia cites the cases of Western Sahara and Island of Palmas . 18
However, both of these cases are entirely consistent with the notion that Pedra
Branca was terra nullius. The Island of Palmas case involved an inhabited
island. The Western Sahara case decided that “territories inhabited by tribes or
peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as terra
19
nullius”. In comparison, Pedra Branca was an uninhabited island which had
never been the subject of any prior claim or acts of ownership by any sovereign
entity. It was, in the wo rds of the Court in the Western Sahara case , “terra
nullius – a territory belonging to no-one”.
2.11 For the reasons given above, Malays ia’s assertions that Pedra Branca
“was part of the Malay world; its waters were fished by Malay fishermen; Malay
20
pilots used it for navigational purp oses; it was on almost every map”, are
wholly irrelevant to determining whether Pedra Branca was terra nullius. What
is relevant is that Malaysia has been unable to point to any claim or activity
which relates specifically to Pedra Branca or shows that it was not terra nullius.
B. T HE LABUAN C ESSION IS IRRELEVANT TO D ETERMINING THE STATUS OF
PEDRA B RANCA
2.12 Malaysia next relies on the clause confirming the cession of Labuan in the
treaty of 27 May 1847 between Britain and the Sultan of Brunei (“the Brunei
17
SCM p. 48, para. 4.20.
18
MCM p. 11, paras. 17-18.
19
Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion [1975] ICJ Rep 6, at p.39, para.80, cited in MCM p.11,
para. 17.
20
MCM pp. 3-4, para. 5.
– Page 11 –Treaty”). 21 Malaysia argues that because this clause relating to Labuan, like the
Crawfurd Treaty in relation to Singapor e, refers to the distance of 10
geographical miles:
“... it can already be concluded that islands within ten geographical
miles from the coast in this region were not considered terra nullius.
This applies as much to PBP, Mi ddle Rocks and S outh Ledge and the
islets and rocks22round Singapore as it does to Labuan and the islets and
rocks around it.” [emphasis added]
In this passage, Malaysia employs th e vague and amorphous phrase “not
considered terra nullius ”. She appears to be suggesting that there was an
established regional custom that all is lands within 10 mile s from an inhabited
coast were not terra nullius. Any such suggestion would be baseless as the truth
is that there was no such regional cu stom, and the British Government never
recognised the existence of any such regional custom.
2.13 The fact that the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824 and the Brunei Treaty of 1847
both contain expressions re ferring to 10 geographical miles from the coast of
Singapore and Labuan respectively does not support Malaysia’s conclusion. As
the discussion which follows demonstrates:
(a) out of the many treaties conclu ded by various European powers
with the rulers of this region, Ma laysia is able to find only two
treaties which refer to the distance of 10 geographical miles – these
two isolated treaties cannot support the very sweeping conclusions
which Malaysia seeks to make;
(b) the two treaties each referred to the distance of 10 miles for its own
particular reasons, and not out of any general British recognition of
21
MCM pp. 13-16, paras. 22-26.
22
MCM p. 16, para. 26.
– Page 12 – a regional custom concerning th e distance of 10 geographical
miles.
2.14 In the case of the Crawfurd Treaty , the geographical consideration was
that there was a continuous chain of is lets to the south of Singapore. The
southern-most islets in this chain were Rabbit and Co ney islets, lying 10 miles
from the coast of the main Island of Singapore. As Crawfurd explained in his
letter of 3 August 1824 to the Government in India:
“Government will have the goodness to notice that the ce ssion made is
not confined to the main island of Singapore alone, but extends to the
Seas, Straits and Islets (the latte r probably not less than 50 in number)
within ten geographical miles of th is coasts; not however including any
portion of the Continent. Our limits will in this manner embrace the Old
Straits of Singapore; and the important pass age of the Rabbit and
Coney, the main channels th rough the Straits of Malacca , and the only
23
convenient one from thence into the China Seas.” [emphasis added]
2.15 The case of Labuan is entirely different. The Brunei Treaty specifies a
24
limit of 10 geographical miles to the north and west of Labuan. However,
25
there is not a single island to the north and west of Labuan within these limits.
There is therefore no basis at all for Mala ysia’s assertion that the drafting of the
Labuan Treaty was motivated by any thou ght or consideration concerning the
status of islands within 10 miles of the mainland coast.
2.16 This conclusion is confirmed by the negotiating history of the Brunei
Treaty. Prior to the signing of the tr eaty, the British Foreign Office gave the
23 Letter from Crawfurd J. (Resident of Singapore) to Swinton G. (Secretary to the Government in
India) dated 3 Aug 1824 (SCM Vol. 2, Annex 3, p. 28).
24 See Treaty of Friendship and Co mmerce between Great Britain and Borneo (Brunei), 27 May
1847: in J. de V. Allen, A.J. Stockwell and L.R. Wright (eA Collection of Treaties and
Other Documents Affecting the States of Malaysia 1761-1963 (Oceana Publications Inc.,
London, 198l), vol. 11, pp. 401-405 (MCM Vol. 3, Annex 21), at Art. X.
25 See extract from British Admiralty Chart in Insert 3 overleaf, annotated by Singapore to show
that there are no islands to the west and north of Labuan within 10 geographical miles.
– Page 13 –following instructions to Commissioner James Brooke, the official on the scene,
when transmitting the draft treaty to him:
“You will observe that in the 10th article, which confirms the cession of
Laboan, it is proposed that an additional district should be ceded
extending to a certain distance from the coast of that Island. The object
of this cession is to prevent any interference of any kind with Laboan.
The extent to be given to such additional cession is left to be fixed by
you; of course it ought to be reasonabl e and moderate. If however you
should find it more easy to attain security for the commercial and
military position of Laboan in any other way you are at liberty to make
the necessary alteration in that article.” [emphasis added]
2.17 It is significant that the letter of instructions from the Foreign Office to
James Brooke did not mention 10 geographical miles. Instead it left the
determination of the limits of the cession entirely to Brooke, the official on the
scene. Brooke chose 10 geographical miles, but he did not explain why he made
27 28
the choice. Unlike Crawfurd who explai ned his decision in a letter, Brooke
did not explain his decision in any of hi s letters, journals or other papers.
Therefore, the conclusion which Malays ia attempts to draw from Brooke’s
29
decision is pure speculation. What is significant is that neither Crawfurd nor
Brooke ever indicated that their choice of 10 miles was based on or motivated by
26
Letter from British Foreign Office to Brooke J. dated 25 Jan 1847, attached to this Reply as
Annex 4. The draft treaty enclosed contains a blank space for James Brooke to fill in the
number of miles. See pp. 13 and 16 (transcript); 28 and 38 (manuscript) in Annex 4.
27 In his report to the British Foreign Office on the Brunei Treaty, which Brooke sent from
Singapore about one month after the treaty was signed, he merely stated that: “In article X in
defining the limits of our possession, I have used Captain Bethune’s chart for the purpose, as
some confusion exists as to the names of the islands ceded to Her Majesty.See Letter from
Brooke J. to Viscount Palmerston dated 30 June 1847, attached to this Reply as Annex 5.
28 See Letter from Crawfurd J. (Resident of Sing apore) to Swinton G. (Secretary to the
Government in India) dated 3 Aug 1824 (SCM Vol. 2, Annex 3, p.28) quoted in para.2.14
above.
29
Singapore notes that James Brooke, far from acting on the belief that islands within 10
geographical miles were not terra nullius, was acting purely out of a desire to comply with his
instructions to choose a “reasonable and moderate” distance. It is a known historical fact that
Brooke spent a lot of his time in Singapore.An official in Brooke ’s position would find less
difficulty defending his choice as a “reasonable and moderate” one if he simply followed the
reference to 10 geographical miles found in the Crawfurd Treaty, an available precedent.
– Page 14 –any recognition of a regional custom that “islands within ten geographical miles
from the coast in this region” were not terra nullius.
2.18 In fact, the letter of instructions from the British Foreign Office did not
ascribe any significance to “ten geographical miles” . As such, it does not
constitute evidence of a British policy re cognising that “islands within ten
geographical miles from th e coast in this region” were not terra nullius . The
British Government merely wanted a mar itime security zone to protect Labuan,
and left it to the official on the scene to decide how far this security zone should
extend.
2.19 The fact that there was no regional custom relating to “islands within ten
geographical miles”, no consistent British practice of asking for cessions of up to
10 miles, and consequently no British re cognition of an y such custom, is also
amply demonstrated by a review of other treaties of cession in the region. Out of
the many treaties concluded by various European powers with the rulers in this
region, Malaysia is able to find only two isolated treaties which refer to the
distance of 10 geographical miles – one with the Sultan of Johor relating to
Singapore, the other with the Sultan of Brunei relating to Labuan, 600 nautical
miles away. Given the historical backgrou nd of these two treaties, they lend no
support whatever for Malaysia’s very sweeping conclusion that:
“... islands within ten geographical m iles from the coast in this region
were not considered terra nullius. This applies as much to PBP, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge and the islets and rock s around Singapore as it
30
does to Labuan and the islets and rocks around it.” [emphasis added]
2.20 Malaysia has attempted to draw another parallel between Labuan and
31
Pedra Branca – i.e., that Labuan was also uninhabited. The evidence does not
32
support such a sweeping assertion.
30
MCM p. 16, para. 26.
31
MCM p. 13, para. 23.
– Page 15 –2.21 Finally, even if there is any merit in Malaysia’s speculation (and there is
none), it cannot form the basis of any Malaysian claim to “original title” in
relation to Pedra Branca. Singapore ha s shown in Chapter IV of her Counter-
Memorial that neither Sultan Hussein nor the Temenggong of Johor nor the State
of Johor ever had any claim of title to Pedra Branca, or acted on it in any manner
consistent with such a claim, prior to 1847 when the British took possession of
the island. The complete lack of evidence to substantiate Johor’s “original title”
cannot be remedied by Malaysia’s reliance on vague and amorphous expressions
such as “not considered terra nullius” or “part of th e Malay world” to describe
Pedra Branca.
Section II. The 1824 Treaties Do Not Confirm Any “Original Title”
2.22 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia repeats her arguments concerning the
33
1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty and the 1824 Crawfurd Treaty. As Singapore has
34
rebutted these arguments comprehe nsively in her Counter-Memorial, this
Section will deal only with the new arguments presented in Malaysia’s Counter-
Memorial, in connection with these two treaties.
A. T HE ANGLO -DUTCH TREATY D IDN OT D EAL WITH THE
T ERRITORIAL S TATUS OF P EDRA B RANCA
2.23 As a preface to her discussion of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, Malaysia
asserts in her Counter-Memorial that th e British and the Dutch had “agreed that
32 See description of Labuan by J.A. St. John, quoteThe New Colony of Labuan
dated 9 Oct 1847, attached to this Reply as Annex 6 (“The sea in the vicinity of the island
abounds with fish of a superior quality, and between two and three hundred men, who subsist
entirely by fishing, constituted before our arrival its only population”). See also Military Report
on the Straits Settlements (1915), at p. 100, attached to this Reply as Annex 14 (“When ceded to
Great Britain in 1846, the island was sparsely inhabited”).
33 MCM pp. 21-23, paras. 33-38; and pp. 24-25, paras. 39-42 respectively.
34 On the Anglo-Dutch Treatysee SCM pp.27-33, paras.3.16-3.See also , SM p.74,
para.5.5. On the 1824 Crawfurd see SCM pp.7-8, para.1.15; p.190, para.7.16; and
pp. 190-191, para. 7.18.
– Page 16 –the entire passage of the Strait of Singapo re would fall within the British sphere
35
of influence”. This is another instance of Malaysia being cavalier with the
historical facts. The historical facts and indeed the text of the Anglo-Dutch
Treaty itself, contradict Malaysia’s asse rtion that the Dutch and the British had
agreed that the entire passage of the Strait of Singapore would fall within the
British sphere of influence.
2.24 As explained in Singapore’s Counte r-Memorial, the text of the Anglo-
Dutch Treaty left the entir e Singapore Strait undivide d and open to access by
36
both the British and the Dutch. To quote once again the relevant text, Articles
X and XII of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty provide as follows:
“10. ... 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.
...
12. ... His Britannick Majesty, however, engages, that no British
Establishment shall be made on the Carimon Isles, or on the Islands of
Battam, Bintan, Lingin, or on any of the other Islands south of the
Straights of Singapore, nor any Treaty conclude by British Authority
with the Chiefs of those Islands.” 37
The language of the Treaty is clear. Noth ing in the text of the Treaty provides
that the parties had “agreed that the en tire passage of the Strait of Singapore
38
would fall within the British sphere of influence”.
2.25 In fact, at no stage in the ne gotiating history did the Dutch ever
contemplate surrendering the “entire pass age of the Strait of Singapore” to
35 MCM p. 20, para. 32.
36 SCM pp. 30-31, paras. 3.23-3.24.
37 Treaty between His Britannick Majesty and the King of the Netherlands, Respecting Territory
and Commerce in the East Indies, London, 17 Mar 1824, 74 CTS 88 (MM Vol. 2, Annex 5).
38 MCM p. 20, para. 32.
– Page 17 –British influence. Doing so would have defeated the entire objective of the
Anglo-Dutch negotiations, which was to se cure the mutual commercial interests
of both powers in a way that would not lead to further conflict.
2.26 The travaux préparatoires of the treaty are instructive in this regard.
When the Dutch negotiators first proposed the division of the region into two
spheres of influence, they proposed it in the form of a secret article providing for
a line of demarcation in the following terms:
“Et afin de mieux atteindre le principal but de la dite convention les
parties contractantes ont résolu de regarder leurs possessions aux
Grandes Indes comme séparées par une ligne de démarcation partant de
l’entrée du détroit de Malacca à la hauteur de Queda ou du 6me degré de
lat. sept. et se terminant vers la mers de la Chine, à la sortie du détroit de
Sincapour en laissant l’île de ce nom au nord et celles de Carimon ,
Battam et Bintang ou Rhio au midi. Des ordres positifs et invariables
seront donnés pour que de la part de s Pays Bas on s’abstienne de toute
intervention dans les affaires des peuplades et princes indigènes établis à
l’est et au nord de cette ligne et pourquoi réciproquement, les officiers et
agents Britanniques ne s’immiscent en rien de ce qui concerne les
relations ou les arrangements intérieu rs des îles situées à l’ouest et au
39
midi.” [underlining in original]
[Singapore’s Translation, with emphasis added in italics:
“And with the objective of better attaining the principal end of the said
agreement, the contracting parties have resolved to regard their
possessions in the Greater Indies as separated by a line of demarcation,
starting at the entrance of the Straits of Malacca at the height of Kedah
or at 6 degrees Northern Latitude and terminating toward the China Sea
at the exit of the Strait of Singapore , leaving the island by that name
toward the north, and those of Carimon , Batam and Bintan or Riau to
the South. Positive and invariable orders w ill be given to the effect that
the Netherlands on its part abstain from all intervention in the affairs of
the indigenous peoples and princes established to the East and the North
of this line, and for this reason, reciprocally, the British officers and
agents shall not in any way interfere with what concerns the internal
relations or arrangements of the islands to the West and the South.”]
39
Extracts from Dutch-Proposed Draft of Anglo-Dutch Treaty dated 17 Jan 1824 (Dutch Records
Series “A”, XXXI, No. 9), 2nd Separate and Secret Article, attached to this Reply as Annex 1.
– Page 18 –This proposal makes it clear that the Dutch wanted to draw a line, with the island
of Singapore to one side and the islands of Carimon, Batam and Bintan on the
other side, but leaving the entire passage of the Straits of Singapore, from “the
entrance of the Straits of Malacca” to “the exit of the Strait of Singapore”, free
for equal access by both nations.
2.27 The Dutch proposal for the secret article was rejected by the British and
ultimately both agreed to th e formulation set out in the text of Articles X and
40
XII, which contain no provisi ons for a line of demarcation. The final treaty
text, when compared with the Dutch draft secret arti cle, expresses even more
clearly the parties’ intention that the entire passage of the Strait of Singapore
was to be left un-demarcated, and open to navigational access by both parties.
1. The 1833 Vietnamese Envoy’s Report is Irrelevant
2.28 To support her claim that the 18 24 Anglo-Dutch Treaty placed Pedra
Branca within the British sphere of in fluence, Malaysia quoted a passage from
an account of a mission to Batavia (now Jakarta) undertaken by a Vietnamese
41
envoy in 1833. Malaysia contends that this passage shows that the Vietnamese
envoy “was well aware that the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh was to
the north of where one en ters the Dutch territory at Riau and the Lingga
archipalego [sic]”. 41
2.29 Presumably, Malaysia’s logic is th at, since Pedra Branca lies “north of
where one enters the Dutch territory”, it must lie north of the Dutch sphere of
influence and thus fall within the British s phere of influence. This argument is
40
SCM p.30, para.3.22-3.23. The reason for jecting the proposal was the fear that any such
demarcation line would invite the jealousy of other powers.
41
MCM pp. 22-23, para. 37; and Extract from Phan Huy Chú, Un émissaire vietnamien à Batavia,
Re'cit sommaire d'un voyage en mer, traduit et présenté par Phan Huy Le , Claudine Salmon &
Ta Trong Hiep (Paris: Association Archipel, 1994, original text in Sino-Vietnamese, translated
into modern Vietnamese and French), p. 46 (MCM Vol. 3, Annex 9).
– Page 19 –logically flawed. It confuses the conc ept of “territory” with the concept of
“sphere of influence”. It does not follow that because Pedra Branca lies north of
Dutch territory, it must fall within the British or any ot her country’s sphere of
influence.
2.30 Quite apart from this logical flaw , it is clear from the quoted passage
itself that it does not refer to the isla nd which is the subject of the present
dispute. A reference to the original Sino-Vietnamese text of the 1833 report will
show that the passage describes a feature called “ 白石港 ”.42 This is a Chinese
ideogram (pronounced Bạch Thạch Cảng in Vietnamese) which literally means
43
White Rock Harbour or White Rock Port . There are several reasons why
“白石港 ” (Bạch Thạch Cảng) or White Rock Port/Harbour cannot be a reference
to the Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh presently in dispute between Singapore
and Malaysia. First, Pedra Branca is neither a port nor a harbour, nor does it
resemble a port/harbour. Secondly, the White Rock Port/Harbour described in
the passage was surrounded by mountains and located near wooded slopes which
were lined with numerous houses. Pedra Branca is not surrounded by mountains
and there were no settlements or houses near Pedra Branca.
2.31 Given this gulf between the physical characteristics of Pedra Branca and
the White Rock Port/Harbour described in the 1833 account, the Vietnamese
envoy could not have been referring to Pedra Branca. He must have been
referring to some other geographical feature. As shown in Insert 4 opposite,
there were many features in the area wh ich had the term “white rock”, “batu
44
puteh” or a variant thereof in its name.
42
Malaysia has not annexed the original Sino-Vie tnamese text of this document with Annex 9 of
her Counter-Memorial. Singapore annexes the original Sino-Vietnamese text to this Reply as
Annex 2, together with an English translation made directly from the original text.
43
By comparison, traditional Chinese sources have, since the 14th century been referring to Pedra
Branca as “ ”, meaning White Reef.
44
Singapore notes that the French and Vietnamese scholars who republished the 1833 Vietnamese
– Page 20 –2.32 Finally, Malaysia has made a serious error when transl ating the passage
into English. This translation error completely invalidates Malaysia’s argument.
In concluding that the Viet namese envoy located this White Rock Port/Harbour
as lying “to the north of where one enters the Dutc h territory at Riau and the
45
Lingga archipalego”, Malaysia is obviously relying on the following part of her
translation:
“To the south, once past Lingga archipela go, one turns to take the
45
maritime route to Malaka and Pinang Island.” [emphasis added]
However, this is a mistranslation. The word which Malaysia translates into
English as “south” actually reads “east” both in the original Sino-Vietnamese
46
text and its 1994 French translation. Since no other sentence in the passage
uses the words “north” or “south”, this error goes to the heart of the argument.
2.33 In the result, Malaysia’s relianc e on this irrelevant report and her
erroneous translation of it fails to supp ort her arguments in any way, and is
entirely misleading.
2. The 1842 van Hinderstein Map Shows that Pedra Branca was not
Regarded as Part of the Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate
2.34 The other document which Malaysia has sought to rely on to shore up her
argument (that Pedra Branca was placed in the British sphere of influence by the
account in 1994 with an annotated translation surmi白石港 th” (Bạch Thạch Cảng) could
have been a reference to Pedra Branca. Without intending to devalue the work of the scholars
who undertook the task of producing the 1994 translation, Singapore notes that their decision to
equate白石港 ” (Bạch Thạch Cảng) with Pedra Branca is a reasonable error which any scholar,
relying only on the Vietnamese text, and without the benefit of a thorough knowledge of the
geography around Pedra Branca, could have easily made. It is widely recognised that the
correlation of old toponyms in oriental languages with European toponyms is never an easy
task.
45 MCM pp. 22-23, para. 37.
46 The original Sino-Vietnamese text uses the w東r” which means “east”. The 1994 French
translation published by the Association Archipel uses the word “ l’est”, also meaning “east”.
Malaysia, in providing her unofficial English translation, has mistranslated this word as “south”.
– Page 21 –Anglo-Dutch Treaty) is a map published in 1842 by G.F. von Derfelden van
Hinderstein (“the van Hinderstein Map”). Malaysia asserts that the Anglo-Dutch
Treaty drew an imaginary line of demarcation and that:
“This line is reflected in the map of Riau in the extensive 8-sheet Map of
the Dutch East Indies issued by order of the King, which is Map 1 in the
Map section in this volume [ i.e., the van Hinderstein Map ]. PBP is
clearly to the north of the line,47s part of the territory of Johor and within
the British sphere of influence.”
First, Malaysia is wrong to assert that the Anglo-Dutch Treaty drew a line of
demarcation. As demonstrated in pa ragraph 2.24 above and in Singapore’s
Counter-Memorial, the Anglo-Dutch Treaty di d not prescribe a line of
demarcation. In fact, the Dutch proposa l for a line of demarcation was rejected
by the British and this proposal did not form part of the final text of the Anglo-
Dutch Treaty. 49
2.35 Secondly, Malaysia has misinterpreted the significance of the 1842 van
Hinderstein Map: the red line in the map running south of Pedra Branca is not, as
Malaysia claims, a line reflecting the demarcation of the Anglo-Dutch spheres of
influence. Malaysia does not refer to any legend in the map explaining what the
line means. However, a careful study of the map reveals that the red line merely
reflects the outer limits of the Dutch Residency of Riau . 50 This is obvious from
the fact that the line on th e map curves southwards towards both ends of the
Strait of Singapore to encircle the en tire Riau-Lingga Arch ipelago – see the
extract from the van Hinderstein Map, reproduced as Insert 5 opposite. If it
were a line showing the division of Angl o-Dutch spheres of influence, it would
47 MCM pp. 21-22, para. 35.
48 SCM pp. 30-31, paras. 3.22-3.23.
49 See para. 2.25 above.
50 Under the administrative system of the tiin the Netherlands East Indies, the Riau-Lingga
Sultanate came under the purview of the Dutch Resident in Riau.
– Page 22 –have curved northwards into the Strait of Malacca instead, and extended all the
way to the northern end of Sumatra.
2.36 Thirdly, while Pedra Branca is depicted as lying north of the red line it is
certainly not true that the map depicted Pedra Branca “as part of the territory of
Johor and within the British sphere of influence”. In fact, all that the map does
is to show Pedra Branca as lying outs ide the limits of the Dutch Residency of
Riau. This simply means that the Dutch did not regard Pedra Branca as forming
part of the Riau Residency. It does not show nor does it imply that Pedra Branca
fell within the British sphere of influenc e, much less that it was a territorial
possession of Sultan Hussein or of the Temenggong of Johor. 51 Malaysia’s
assertion to the contrary is another leap in logic that is not supported by the 1842
map.
2.37 What is in fact noteworthy about th e map is that the navigational passage
denoted as Straat Singapoera (i.e., “Singapore Strait”) is located between Point
52
Romania to the north and Pedra Branca to the south. This places Pedra Branca
53
south of the Strait of Singapore. The fact that this map (a) places Pedra Branca
south of the Strait of Singapore; but (b) places the island outside the limits of the
Riau Residency, gives rise to anothe r important conclusion. Why would the
Dutch cartographer place Pedra Branca south of the Strait and yet not include it
with the limits of the Riau Residency? The only reasonable conclusion is that
the map demonstrates that the Dutch authorities did no t regard Pedra Branca as
ever belonging to the Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate.
51 The political ramifications of the 1824 Treaty and subsequent events is discussed in SCM p. 34,
para. 3.31 et seq.
52
This passage starts, at the western end, the Carimon Islands and ends, at the eastern end,
north of Pedra Branca.
53
The Dutch understanding of what constituted the navigational passage known as the Strait of
Singapore is significant as the navigational channel between Point Romania and Pedra Branca
was also the channel preferred by mariners because of its See further, SCM pp.32-33,
para. 3.27.
– Page 23 –2.38 This conclusion is also consistent with the fact that, after 1824, the Dutch
regarded the Riau Residency (as opposed to the State of Johor) as the true
successor to the former Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate. This is confirmed by the
actions of the Dutch, as well as acti ons taken by their vassal, Sultan Abdul
Rahman, after the signing of the Anglo-Du tch Treaty. Prior to its signing, both
the Dutch and Sultan Abdul Rahman (together with the Malay chiefs of the
Sultanate) did not recognise Sultan Husse in as the legitimate Sultan. However,
after the signing of the Treaty, Sultan Abdul Rahman’s inab ility to rule his
territories in the Malay peninsula mean t that the former Johor-Riau-Lingga
Sultanate was effectively divided into two political entities – with Sultan
Hussein as the titular Sultan of peninsular Johor within the British sphere of
influence, and with the rest of th e Sultanate, now called the Riau-Lingga
Sultanate, under Sultan Abdul Rahman (which later became the Dutch
Residency of Riau).
2.39 As a result of this, the Dutch took the trouble to send an envoy, Christian
van Angelbeek, to advise Sultan Abdul Rahman to “donate” (or cede) his
possessions on the Malay peninsula to hi s brother Hussein to formalise the
54
political reality. The Dutch action demonstrated that they re garded Sultan
Abdul Rahman as the one who had succee ded to all the possessions of the old
Sultanate, including its insular possessi ons. Sultan Hussein would have had no
claim of title whatsoever to any of these possessions but for the fact that his
brother donated them to him.
2.40 If the Dutch had believed Pedra Bran ca to be part of the Johor-Riau-
Lingga Sultanate, they woul d have included it as part of the Riau Residency.
Yet, in preparing the 1842 map, the Du tch did not do so, even though Pedra
Branca is depicted as lying south of the Strait. The inevitable conclusion is that
Pedra Branca was not considered by the Dutch as ever forming part of the Johor-
Riau-Lingga Sultanate.
54 This is episode is explained more fully in SCM pp. 34-35, paras. 3.31-3.34.
– Page 24 –2.41 This conclusion is reinforced by an important and contemporaneous
Dutch internal communicatio n. In November 1850, eight years after the
publication of the van Hinderstein Ma p, and six months after the Horsburgh
Lighthouse foundation stone cerem ony (during which Pe dra Branca was
described in a solemn, public cerem ony as a dependency of Singapore), the
Government of the Netherlands East Indies in Batavia, in a letter to the Dutch
Resident in Riau, described Pedra Bran ca unequivocally as “British territory”
(Britsch grondgebied). The letter reads:
“As commissioned, I have the honour of informing Your Excellency that
the government has found no grounds fo r granting gratuities to the
commanders of the cruisers stationed at Riau, as proposed in your
despatch of 1 November 1850, number 649, on account of their shown
dedication in patrolling the wate rway between Riau and Singapore,
lending assistance to the c onstruction of a lighthouse at Pedra Branca
on British territory. And they deserve it so much the less because the
cruiser crews have failed to perform their actual duties which is to cruise
against pirates whose brutalities have been repeatedly complained of in
the vicinity of Lingga.” [emphasis added]
55 Letter from C. Visscher (General Secretary, Neth erlands East Indies) to Dutch Resident in Riau
dated 27 Nov 1850, attached to this Reply as Annex 8. English translation provided by
Singapore. The actual Dutch text reads:
“Daartoe gelast, heb ik de eer Uw.Ed.G. te kennen teg even, dat bij de regering geene
termen zijn gevonden, voor de toekenning van de bij Uw.Ed.G. Schrijven van 1
November 1850, No.649, voorgestelde gratificatien aan de Gezaghhebers van de te
Riouw gestationneerde kruisbooten, wegens hunnen betoonden ijver in het bekruisen
van het vaarwater tusschen Riouw en Sincapore in het verleenen van hulp bij den
opbouw van eenen vuurtoren te Pedro Branca op Britsch grondgebied , en zulks te
minder, om dat deze opvarenden alzoo ge ruimen tijd ontrokken zijn aan hunne
eigenlijke bestemming, het kruizen voor al tegen de zeerovers omtrent wier
geweldenarijen, ook in den omtrek van Linga herhaaldelijk wordt geklaagd.”
[underlining in original, emphasis in italics added]
The background to this letter is that, since May 1850, the Dutch Resident in Riau had offered
Thomson the assistance of Dutch g un boats, which Thomson accepted. See Thomson J.T.,
Account of the Horsburgh Light-house , 6 Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia
376 (1852) (hereafter, “Thomson’s Account”), at p.424 (SM Vol.4, Annex61, p.527). On 1
Nov 1850, the Dutch Resident in Riau wrote to Batavia for additional gratuity to be paid to the
commanders of these Dutch gun boats for their service in assisting the British with the
construction of the lighthouse. The reply of the Netherlands East Indies Government came in
the form of this 27 Nov 1850 letter, which rejected the request for additional gratuities. In the
process, the Government of the Netherlands East Indies acknowledged unequivocally that Pedra
Branca was British territory.
– Page 25 –2.42 This letter expressly and unequivoca lly refers to Pedr a Branca as British
territory. To put the significance of th is letter in its historical and legal
perspective, it is useful to note that it was signed by C. Visscher, the Dutch
General Secretary in Batavia. The General Secretary ( Algemeene Secretaris) in
Batavia was the highest ranking civil servant in the Netherlands East Indies. He
was the secretary to the Governor-General of the Netherlands East Indies and his
letters carried the authority of the Governor-General in Council. The General
Secretary who signed this particular le tter, C. Visscher, was himself a trained
lawyer, having served as a member of the High Court of Netherlands East Indies
in Batavia from 1834 to 1841, before being made the General Secretary. By the
time he penned the 27 November 1850 letter, C. Visscher had served as the
56
General Secretary for nine years.
2.43 The Dutch General Secretary’s lette r is direct, cogent and irrefutable
evidence of Dutch recognition of British sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
56
See List entitled “Officers at the Central Administration in the Netherlands Indies in 1837 and in
1847”, attached to No te for Cornets de Groot van Kraayenburg, J. P. (Dutch Minister of
Colonies) dated 15 Jan 1847, attached to this Reply as Annex 3. (“Visscher , General Secretary
since 1841. In 1832 he joined service as a member of the Council of Justice, in 1834 member of
the High Court.”)
– Page 26 – B. T HE CRAWFURD T REATY D IDN OT LIMITB RITISH C APACITY TO A CQUIRE
A DDITIONAL T ERRITORIES IN THE R EGION
2.44 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia repeats her idée fixe that the territorial
extent of Singapore is determined forever by the terms of the Crawfurd Treaty.
This fixation has already been rebu tted in Singapore’s Counter-Memorial,and
Singapore will not repeat what has been said there. The only point which
Singapore wishes to call the Court’s atten tion to is the misleading statement by
Malaysia that “Singapore acknowledges that the Crawfurd Treaty precluded any
assertion of title to islands beyond those within the 10 geographical mile limit of
57
Singapore”, which Malaysia supports by refere nce to a passage in Singapore’s
Memorial. This is what the passage in question actually says:
5.5 It will be helpful to the Cour t if the basis of Singapore’s claim to
Pedra Branca is indicated as a preface to the present chapter.
Singapore’s claim is not based on the Treaty of Cession of 1824. That
treaty dealt only with the main is land of Singapore and its immediate
vicinity. It did not extendthe area around Pedra Branca.Instead,
Singapore’s case is that the events of 1847 to 1851 (to be elaborated in
due course) constituted a taking of lawful possession of Pedra Branca
by agents of the British Crown . In the years that followed, the British
Crown, and subsequently, Singapore, continually exercised acts of State
authority in respect of Pedra Brca. This effective and peaceful
exercise of State authority confirmed and maintained the title gained in
the period 1847 to 1851 by the taking of lawful possession on behalf of
59
the Crown. [emphasis added, footnotes omitted]
In fact, the meaning of this paragraph is theexact opposite of what Malaysia
claims it to be. The paragraph clearly explains that the Crawfurd Treaty does
not preclude the British from asserting an inde pendent basis of title outside the
Treaty’s limits. This is yet another clea r instance of Malaysia’s misrepresention
of Singapore’s arguments.
57 MCM pp. 24-25, paras. 39-42.
58 SCM pp. 187-191, paras. 7.13-7.18.
59
SM p. 30, para. 5.5.
– Page 27 – Section III. Other Malaysian Arguments
A. C ERTAIN M ISCELLANEOUS D OCUMENTS W HICH
D O NOT H ELP M ALAYSIA S C ASE
1. Malaysia’s Claim based on 17th Century Dutch Communications and
the 1843 Singapore Free Press Article has been Rebutted in
Singapore’s Counter-Memorial
2.45 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia refers once again to the Dutch
communication of 1655 and the Singapore Free Press article of 25 May 1843 as
evidence of her claim to orig inal title to Pedra Branca.gapore has already
shown in her Counter-Memorial that these two documents are of no assistance to
Malaysia:
(a) The former does not, by any stre tch of the imagination, constitute
recognition of Johor’s title to Pedra Branca.1 If anything, it
demonstrates that 17th century Du tch officials felt they were
entitled to place cruisers near Pe dra Branca without the need to
seek permission from Johor.
(b) The latter is an isolated newspape r article which is inaccurate and
unreliable.2
In contrast to the foregoing materials, Singapore draws the Court’s attention to
the letter dated 27 November 1850 from the Government of the Netherlands East
60 MCM p. 12, para. 20, citing MM p. 38, para. 78 and p. 46 para. 95.
61 SCM pp. 47-48, paras. 4.16-4.19.
62 The article neither meets “high standards of objectivity” (to quote this Court’s dicta concerning
the probative value of newspaper artCase concerning Military and Paramilitary
Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America ) (Merits) [1986]
ICJ Rep 14, at p. 40, para. 62) nor is it capable of corroborating Seeer sources of evidence.
SCM p.59, paras. 4.38-4.39 for full arguments, in this regard. The article also erroneously
attributed Pulau Tinggi to the Temenggong of Johor at a time when iSeeelonged to Pahang.
SCM p. 59, para. 4.39, at note 132.
– Page 28 –Indies in Batavia to the Dutch Resident in Riau, referred to in paragraph 2.41
above. This was an official communi cation which expressly and unequivocally
acknowledged that Pedra Branca was British territory. 63
2. Raffles’ Observations Do Not Prove Johor’s Title
2.46 Malaysia next refers to a note from Raffles which states, with regard to
Sumatra and Borneo, that:
“The European Settlements on the Co asts of Sumatra and Borneo are
confined to Commercial objects, and the interiors of these large islands,
have never felt the effects of European influence. A large portion of
their Coasts and the whole of the smaller islands as well as the States on
the Malay Peninsula are exclusively under Native Authority ”.64
[emphasis added by Malaysia]
Malaysia then jumps to th e completely untenable conclusion that “[o]bviously,
Raffles is here referring to the auth ority of the Sultan and Temenggong of
Johor”. 64 Raffles was just referring to na tive authority generally and was not
attempting to link any specific island with any specific ruler. In fact, in the
entire 19-page extract of the Raffles not e annexed by Malaysia to her Counter-
Memorial, not a single word was written by Raffles about the extent of the Johor
rulers’ territory or influence.
2.47 More importantly, it is noteworthy that, apart from very large islands like
Sumatra and Borneo (each of which is la rger than Britain itself), this passage
names no islands at all. From the over all context of the letter, there is little
doubt that the “smaller islands” Raffles had in mind are islands which, although
smaller than Sumatra and Borneo, have thei r own reasonably-sized populations
(such as Singapore and Bintan) for the principles of feudal government to
63
See note 55 and para. 2.42 above for the background and context of this letter.
64
MCM p. 20, para. 32, quoting from MCM Vol. 3, Annex 8.
– Page 29 –operate. This is evident from a later pa ssage in the same letter, where Raffles
stated:
“The Government of these states, whic h are established in more or less
power on the different ri vers, on the Eastern Coast of Sumatra, and on
the Malay Peninsula, as well as on the Coast of Borneo, and throughout
the smaller islands is founded on principles entirely feudal.”
Clearly, Raffles’ descriptions were not in tended to and did not include a very
small uninhabited island like Pedra Br anca. Therefore, like Crawfurd’s
description and Presgrave’s report, which were dealt with in Singapore’s
65
Counter-Memorial, Raffles’ observations offer no assistance for determining
the status of Pedra Branca.
B. M ALAYSIA’SC LAIM TO ORIGINAL TITLE BASED ON
“POSSESSION IMMEMORIAL ”SIA NA DMISSION THAT SHE H AS
N O EVIDENCE TO P ROVE H ER C LAIM
2.48 Finally, in her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia puts forward a new argument
66
– that Malaysia’s claim to origin al title existed fro m time immemorial.
doing so, Malaysia relies on a single sentence from theMeerauge Arbitral
Award which states:
“Possession immemorial is that whic h has lasted for such a long time
that it is impossible to provide evid ence of a different situation and of
which anybody recalls having heard talk”.
However, when the entire arbitral awar d is examined, it becomes obvious that
Malaysia has quoted a single sentence out of context from an award which does
not support her case at all.
65 SCM pp. 48-53, paras. 4.20-4.28.
66 MCM pp. 12-13, para. 21.
67
MCM p. 13, para. 21, note 45 (English translation provided by Malaysia).
– Page 30 –2.49 First, the tribunal in that case found that the parties had failed to
demonstrate possession immemorial. Secondly, the single sentence quoted by
Malaysia is part of a longer passage which supports Singapore’s case and not
Malaysia’s case. The passage reads:
“Il ne serait pas possible non plus de baser la sentence sur le fait d’une
possession immémoriale d’après laquelle la frontière aurait été fixée. La
possession immémoriale est celle qui dure depuis si longtemps qu’il est
impossible de fournir la preuve d’une situation différente et qu’aucune
personne ne se souvient d’en avoir entendu parler. En outre cette
possession doit être ininterrompue et incontestée. Il va sans dire qu’une
telle possession devrait aussi avoir duré jusqu’à l’époque où il y a eu
contestation et conclusion d’un comp romis. Au cas présent aucune de
ces circonstances ne s’est réalisée...”68 [Footnotes omitted. Italicised
text is the single sentence quoted by Malaysia in MCM paragraph 21.]
[Singapore’s translation, with th e single sentence quote by Malaysia
highlighted in italics:
“It would likewise not be possible to base the award on the fact of a
possession immemorial according to which the boundary would have
been established. Possession immemorial is that which has lasted for
such a long time that it is impossibl e to provide evidenc e of a different
situation and of which anybody recalls having heard talk. Furthermore,
this possession must be uninterrupted and not contested. It goes without
saying that such possession also mu st have lasted up until the period
when it was contested and a compromise reached. In the present case
none of these circumstances occurred...”]
2.50 In the present case, possession of Pedra Branca was taken in 1847-1851
by the British Crown who went on to exercise sovereign authority on and over it
for 130 years without protest from Johor or Malaysia. British sovereignty over
Pedra Branca was recognised by the Dutch authorities as early as 1850, and this
was never contested by Johor. 69 In fact, in 1953, the State of Johor effectively
acknowledged British sovereignty over th e island by issui ng an unequivocal,
68
Meerauge Arbitral Award (1906) 8 RDILC (2nd ser.) p. 161 at p. 207.
69
Johor’s failure to protest supports Singapore’s contention that Pedra Branca was never regarded
as part of Johor.
– Page 31 –unconditional and binding disclaimer of title. 70 When the Meerauge Arbitral
Award is understood in light of these fact s, the conditions fo r Malaysia’s claim
of “possession immemorial” simply do not exist.
2.51 Malaysia’s decision to raise th e plea of immemorial possession is
important in another respect . In resorting to such an argument, Malaysia is
effectively conceding that she is unabl e to produce any evidence to prove her
claim of original title to Pedra Branca. This is an admissi on that there is no
evidence whatever to support her claim of original title.
2.52 There are thousands of archival doc uments in existence, in Portuguese,
Dutch, French, English, Spanish and Mala y, even in classical Chinese, that
recorded the history of th e Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate and its relations with
outside powers. Historians have writte n extensively about the history of the
region. Yet no evidence can be found by Malaysia to prove that Pedra Branca
was ever a territorial possession of Malays ia’s predecessors, or that they had
ever acted in a sovereign capacity in relation to the island.
Section IV. Conclusion
2.53 In spite of Malaysia’s efforts, he r Counter-Memorial adds nothing to her
claim based on “original title”. She has found no evidence to substantiate her
case. Reality has compelled her to i nvoke, as a last resort, the plea of
immemorial possession to explain her in ability to prove original title. By
resorting to this plea, Malaysia has effectively admitted that she has no evidence
of, and no case based on, “ori ginal title”. In contrast, Singapore has produced
conclusive and irrefutable evidence of British (and later, Singapore) sovereignty
over the island.
70 See SM Chapter VIII, SCM Chapter VII and Chapter VIIbelow.
– Page 32 –2.54 To sum up the arguments set out both above and in Singapore’s Counter-
Memorial:
(a) Malaysia has still not explained and is unable to explain how her
alleged “original title” came about . There is clearly no such
“original title” on any basis.
(b) Neither the Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate before 1824 nor Johor
after 1824 had ever taken any interest in Pedra Branca or displayed
an intention to claim the island . Neither political entity ever
exercised any State authority on or in relation to Pedra Branca.
Malaysia has not provided a single piece of evidence to the
contrary.
(c) At the time when the British to ok possession of it in 1847-1851,
Pedra Branca was not regarded as a territorial possession of Johor
as shown by the 1842 van Hinderst ein map, by the description of
Pedra Branca as a dependency of Singapore during the 1850
Horsburgh Lighthouse foundation stone ceremony, and in
particular by Dutch official corre spondence later in the same year
describing Pedra Branca as “British territory”.
– Page 33 – CHAPTER III
THE REAFFIRMATION OF THE BASIS OF SINGAPORE’S
TITLE TO PEDRA BRANCA
Section I. Introduction
3.1 This Chapter responds to the sect ions of Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial
which seek to challenge the basis of Singapore’s title to Pedra Branca, and,
principally, to the first sec tion of Chapter 2 (relating to terra nullius), and the
whole of Chapter 3.
3.2 Singapore also wishes to reaffirm the statement of the case on the taking
of lawful possession set forth in Chapter V of her Memorial and in Chapter V
of her Counter-Memorial. In particul ar, Singapore reiterates the following
basic elements of her case:
First: Prior to the taking of possession of in 1847-1851, the
island had the status of terra nullius;
Second : by public activities in the period 1847-1851, the British
Crown established title on the basis of lawful possession
(or occupation);
Third : the British possession of Pedra Branca did not depend
upon or arise from any permission from Johor; and
Fourth : the taking of possession was peaceful and was not
protested by Johor. Moreover, there were no competing
acts by any other sovereign.
– Page 35 – Section II. The Status of Pedra Branca as Terra Nullius
3.3 It is obvious that the status of Pedra Branca in 1847 was that of terra
nullius.71 No doubt the Malaysian pleadings contend that Malaysia had a prior
original title: this is simp ly the counterpart of the assumption by the British in
1847 that there was no prior claimant.
3.4 In forensic terms it has been necessary to wait and see if Malaysia would
satisfy the appropriate standard of proo f in respect of her claim to “original
title” – it is not the function of the Sing apore Memorial to anticipate and rebut
Malaysia’s case. This sh e has signally failed to do. 72 In particular, Malaysia
has failed to establish an historic title to the specific territory in question: that
is, to Pedra Branca. As the Tribunal found in the Eritrea/Yemen case (Phase
One):
“In the end neither Party has been ab le to persuade the Tribunal that
the history of the matter reveals the juridical existence of an historic
title, or of historic titles,of such long-estab lished, continuous and
definitive lineage to these particular islands, islets and rocks as would
be a sufficient basis for the Tribunal ’s decision. And it must be said
that, given the waterless and uninhabitable nature of these islands and
islets and rocks, and the intermitt ent and kaleidoscopically changing
political situation, and interests, this conclusion is hardly surprising.”3
[emphasis added]
3.5 A key element in the situation is the evidence that the British officials
engaged in setting the project on its feet, and selecting an appropriate site, were
well aware of the question of title, and of which islands belonged to Johor. The
71 See para. 2.10 above.
72
See generally, Chapter II above.
73
Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration , Award of the Arbitral Tribual in Phase One: Territorial
Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute, dated 9 Oct 1998, 114 ILR 2, at para.449 (the Award
is also published in (1998) 22 RIAA 215).
– Page 36 –relevant officials did not consider that Johor had title to Pedra Branca. The
following documents involve references to the question of title:
(a) the Letter from Butterworth to the Government in India, dated 28
November 1844 in which Butterworth expressly refers to the fact
that Peak Rock “is part of th e territories of the Rajah of
74
Johore...”.
(b) the Letter from Church to Butterworth, dated 7 November 1850
in which Church rejected a pr oposal (from Thomson) for the
building of an outstation near Po int Romania, while noting that
the location “belongs to the So vereign of Johore, where the
British possess no legal jurisdiction”. 75
3.6 As Singapore has observed in both her Memorial and her Counter-
Memorial, once the focus had shifted to Pedra Branca, the issue of third party
title became irrelevant.
3.7 In the present context, these docum ents relating to the sovereignty of
Johor justify the inference that the British Crown proc eeded on the basis that
Pedra Branca, the site finally chosen, was terra nullius. This understanding
remained unchallenged in the period 1847-1851 and, indeed, until 1980. 76
74 See Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and
Malacca) to Currie F. (Secretary to the Government of India) dated 28 Nov 1844 (SM Vol. 2,
Annex 13).
75
See Letter from Church T. (Resident Councillor at Singapore) to Butterworth W.J. (Governor
of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) dated 7 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3, Annex 48).
76
See Malaysia’s Note EC 87/80 dated 14 Apr 1980 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 146) in which Malaysia
advances, for the first time, the theory that “from time immemorial this island has been part of
the territory of the State of Johore”. Prior to th at, Malaysia’s theory appears to be that Pedra
Branca formed part of Malaysia because of Malaysia’s extension of her territorial sea to 12
miles in 1969 – see Notes of Meeting of 14 April 1978 recorded by Kishore Mahbubani,
Counseller, Singapore High Commission to Malaysia attached to this Reply as Annex 51.
– Page 37 – Section III. The Alleged Permission of Johor
3.8 MalaysiaC ’sounter-Memoria ll, e her Memorial, maintains the fiction
that the permission given by Johor in the letter dated 25 November 1844
77
included Pedra Branca. This issue has been addressed in considerable detail
78
in Singapore’s Counter-Memorial, and Singapore reaffirms this analysis, to
which the Court is respectfully referred.
3.9 The central point in th is controversy is that th e British recognised that
Peak Rock belonged to the Sovereign of Johor, 79 but the same cannot be said
for Pedra Branca. Once it was decided th at the site of the lighthouse would no
longer be Peak Rock, the issue of permission became irrelevant. 80
3.10 This is made clear by the fact that the correspondence clearly
distinguishes Peak Rock and Point Romania from Pedra Branca. See in
particular:
(a) The letter from Butterworth to the Government of India, dated 28
November 1844; 81and
(b) The letter from Church to Butterworth dated 7 November 1850.
77
MCM pp. 69-72, paras. 135-141.
78 SCM pp. 82-92, paras. 5.28-5.50; and pp. 95-108, paras. 5.58-5.90.
79 See Letter from Church T. (Resident Councillor at Singapore) to Butterworth W.J. (Governor
of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) dated 7 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3, Annex 48);
and Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and
Malacca) to Currie F. (Secretary to the Government of India) dated 28 Nov 1844 (SM Vol. 2,
Annex 13).
80 SCM pp. 105-107, paras. 5.86-5.87; and p. 108, para. 5.90.
81 Indeed, Malaysia’s Memorial expressly recognises that Butterworth, in his letter dated 28
November 1844, was referring to Peak Rock. See MM, pp. 64-65, paras. 131-132.
– Page 38 –3.11 The picture which emerges is c onfirmed by the relevant documents
listed in Singapore’s Counter-Memorial, which contain no reference to the
question of permission. 82
3.12 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial argues that as the Sultan and
Temenggong’s letters only refer to permission to build a lighthouse, there is no
83
basis for presuming that Butterworth requested a cession of sovereignty. This
is true and Singapore has accepted this. But this does not help Malaysia’s case.
3.13 Malaysia’C s ounter-Memoriap lroceeds to argue that as neither party has
been able to produce Butterworth’s letter of request, the Temenggong’s answer
of 25 November 1844 furnishes the only available indication of the extent of
the permission sought, viz., “the erection of a lighthouse near Point Romania”,
and this answer does not permit Singap ore to assume that the request for
84
permission was limited only to Peak Rock. Malaysia’s suggestion is that the
permission extended to Pedra Branca as it was also “near Point Romania”.
3.14 Malaysia’s argument is purely spec ulative. Whether a feature may be
described as “near” another feature depends on the context. Malaysia’s citation
of descriptions given in other contex ts (such as Thomson’s remark that
Romania is the nearest main land to Pedra Branca) is of no assistance in
construing the meaning of “near” in the context of Butterworth’s request to the
Temenggong. Singapore has shown that , in the context of Butterworth’s
85
request, Pedra Branca was not by any measure a place “near Point Romania”.
82
See SCM pp. 106-107, para. 5.87.
83
MCM p. 70, para. 137.
84
MCM pp. 70-71, para. 138.
85
SCM pp. 96-99, paras. 5.64-5.70. In summa ry, Peak Rock is, according to Thomson, located
1.5 nautical miles from Point Romania (on the Johor mainland). It is the outermost island in
the Romania group of islands. There are other islands in the Romania group, even nearer to
– Page 39 –3.15 The only reliable evidence of the sc ope of Butterworth’s request is his
report of 28 November 1844 to the Go vernment in India concerning his
86
correspondence with the Temenggong. This report make s it clear that
Butterworth did not consider that Pedra Branca was an eligib le site at this
stage. The report expressly identified Peak Rock (and only Peak Rock) as the
site for the lighthouse. Further confirma tion of this understanding is found in
Thomson’s report to Butterworth dated 20 November 1844 (i.e., five days
before the Temenggong’s answer). 87 In it, Thomson states that his instructions
were “to examine Peak Rock Romania in order to ascertain the probable cost of
building a Light House thereon”. 88 He reported that, besides Peak Rock, he
also took the “opportunity of visiting ot her Islands and Rocks in its vicinity”,
including North Rock and South Island (now known as Pulau Mungging), both
of the Romania Group. 89 No mention was made of Pedra Branca at all.
3.16 In paragraph 139 of her Counte r-Memorial, Malaysia invokes the
Higham letter of 12 June 1953 to bolster her argument that the British regarded
Pedra Branca as Johor territory. This correspondence of 1953 does not provide
any assistance to Malaysia and does not affect the construction of the earlier
90
correspondence.
the Johor mainland than Peak Rock, which are eligible sites for establishing a light. (In fact, a
light stands today on Pulau Mungging, an island in the Romania group lying 1 nautical mile
off the Johor mainland.) Pedra Branca, on the other hand, is lo7.7 nautical miles from
the Johor mainland and was rejected by Butterworth as being an unsuitable site in 1844 partly
because it was “at so great a distance from the Main Land” – see Letter from Butterworth W.J.
(Governor of Prince of Wales Is land, Singapore and Malacca) to Bushby G.A. (Secretary to
the Government of Bengal) dated 26 Aug 1846 (SM Vol 2, Annex 16). Insert 6 opposite
illustrates the distances mentioned in this footnote.
86
SM Vol. 2, Annex 13.
87
SM Vol. 2, Annex 12.
88 Ibid, at p. 69.
89 Ibid, at p. 70, para. 2.
90 This is fully canvassed in SCM pp. 88-92, paras. 5.43-5.50; and p. 95, para. 5.58et seq.
– Page 40 –3.17 In paragraph 140 of her Counter-M emorial, Malaysia touches upon two
distinct issues. The first issue is raised in this way:
“As Butterworth himself explained to Mr. G.A. Bushby, the Secretary
of the Government of India, in the letter of 26 August 1846, “the whole
of the details for the case of Light Houses as se t forth in my letter
under dated the 28 thNovember 1844, with re ference to its being
erected on Peak Ro91 will be equally applicable to the new position
[Pedra Branca]”.
3.18 Malaysia’s argument is unfounded. It is premised on an incorrect
transcription of the passage from Butte rworth’s 1846 lette r. All manuscript
copies available establish that the word transcribed by Malaysia as “case”
actually reads “care”. Singapore has provided copies of the different
manuscript versions. 92 The question is examined in some detail in Singapore’s
Counter-Memorial. 93 In addition, as a matter of syntax, the phrase “details for
the case of Light House s ” makes no sense whereas the phrase “details for the
care of Light House s” makes perfect sense. 94 More importantly, British
officials of the time who made manuscr ipt copies of the letter, both for
retention in Singapore and for onward tr ansmission to London, read the word
as “care”. 95 Furthermore, as Singapore explains in her Counter-Memorial:
“Even if the word in Butterworth’s 1846 letter is ‘case’, this does not
help Malaysia’s claim. As Singa pore has shown in paragraphs 5.43 to
91 MCM p. 72, para. 140.
92 Three Manuscript Copies of the Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales
Island, Singapore and Malacca) to Bushby G.A. (Secretary to the Government of Bengal)
dated 26 Aug 1846 (to resolve transcription discrepancy between Annex SM16 and Annex
MM51) (SCM Vol. 2, Annex 12).
93
SCM pp. 103-105, paras. 5.80-5.84.
94
From a comparison of the three manuscript copi es in SCM Vol. 2, Annex 12, it is clear that
the final word in the quoted phrase is “Houses ”, not “House”. Singapore had initially
transcribed this word as “House” in SM Vol. 2, Annex 16 because that transcript was based on
the manuscript copy found in the Straits Settlements Records where the faded ink made the
final “s” in the word “Houses” barely discerniblSee SCM Vol.2, p.105; and SM Vol.2,
p. 140.
95 See SCM Vol. 2, Annex 12, at p. 105 and p. 109.
– Page 41 – 5.50 above, in the first place those lette rs of permission cannot be read
as extending to Pedra Branca. Moreover, many aspects of
Butterworth’s letter of 1844 are simply not applicable to Pedra Branca,
for example, Thomson’s survey of Peak Rock. By making the
simplistic argument that everything in the 1844 letter relating to Peak
Rock applied to Pedra Branca in 1846, Malaysia is simply seeking to
evade the difficulties of 96owing that the 1844 letters of permission
applied to Pedra Branca.”
3.19 Paragraph 140 of Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial makes further
assertions as follows:
“The letter of 28 November 1844 included as annexes the
authorisations of the Sultan a nd the Temenggong. Moreover, the
exchange of letters between the Go vernment of India and the Marine
Department in 1846 with regard to the request to send an iron
lighthouse from England includes th e reports that Pedra Branca has
been approved as the position for erecting the Horsburgh Lighthouse
and it too contains the permission letters of the Sultan and the
Temenggong.” 97
3.20 Malaysia’s argument that the 1846 exchange of letters “too contains the
permission letters of the Sultan and the Temenggong” is disingenuous. The
permission letters are found amongst th e 1846 exchange of letters for one
reason only: Butterworth’s letter of 28 November 1844 is enclosed in the India
Office file containing the 1846 exchange of letters, and th e permission letters
are also enclosed because they happen to be attachments to the 28 November
1844 letter. This by itself cannot be ev idence that the letters of permission
operated on the minds of the British offi cials in approving the construction of
the lighthouse on Pedra Branca two years later, in 1846.
3.21 This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that there is other
correspondence enclosed with the 1846 exchange of letters for no reason other
96
SCM p. 105, para. 5.84.
97
MCM p. 72, para. 140.
– Page 42 –than because they were attachments to Butterworth’s 28 November 1844 letter,
such as:
(a) Belcher’s letter of 1 October 184 4 reporting on his survey of
Peak Rock (Attachment B to the 28 November 1844 letter); and
(b) Thomson’s letter of 20 November 1844 containing an estimate of
the cost of constructing a lighthouse on Peak Rock (Attachment E
to the 28 November 1844 letter).
Like the permission letters, these attachments were relevant only to Peak Rock
and had nothing to do with Pedra Branca.
3.22 The picture which emerges from the correspondence is clear:
(a) from 1836 to 1844, when the proposed site for the lighthouse was
Pedra Branca, no reference was made in any correspondence to
any need for permission from Johor;
(b) this changed with Belcher’s recommendation in October 1844
that the lighthouse be built on Peak Rock instead. Once
Governor Butterworth accepted Belcher’s recommendation, he
moved quickly in November 1844 to obtain Johor’s permission
for the use of Peak Rock;
(c) when the choice of site was changed from Peak Rock back to
Pedra Branca in 1846, once again no mention was made of any
need for Johor’s permission.
Quite clearly, the question of permission was irrelevant to Pedra Branca.
– Page 43 – Section IV. The Taking of Possession
A. INTRODUCTION
3.23 In spite of the reiterations of he r “original title” in respect of Pedra
Branca, Malaysia appears to lack confidence in her claim of a prior title and in
her denial of the status of Pedra Branca as a terra nullius. Consequently, a
considerable effort is made to minimise the substantial evid ence of the taking
of possession by the British Crown in the period 1847-1851.
B. T HE B ASIS OF TITLE
3.24 The basis of claim is the taking of lawful possession of Pedra Branca by
agents of the British Crown in the peri od 1847-1851. The intention of the
British Crown was to establish sovereignty, that is to say, an exclusive title
under general international law. The ex istence of the requisite intention was
dependent upon the provisi on of evidence but no pa rticular formalities were
required. The taking of possession and effective occupation accompanied by
the intention to establish sovereignty was sufficient to create title in accordance
with the inter-temporal law.
3.25 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia seeks to caricaturise Singapore’s use
of the term “lawful possession” as a “complete equivocation”, 98and as a
“hybrid”. 99 Malaysia’s argument on the nomenclature is both surprising and
time-wasting. The term “lawful posse ssion” is synonymous with effective
occupation of terra nullius. This is perfectly clear from the quotations from the
100
standard works set forth in the Singapore Memorial. Singapore will not
98
MCM p. 3, para. 4.
99
MCM p. 4, para. 6.
100
See SM, pp. 81-86, paras. 5.108-5.111.
– Page 44 –dwell any further in this Chapter othis futile Malaysian argument. A full
discussion of the issue is provided in Appendix A to this Reply.
C. T HE BASELESS M ALAYSIAN A SSERTION THAT T HERE W AS N O NTENTION
TO E STABLISH SOVEREIGNTY ON THE PART OF THE B RITISHC ROWN
3.26 Singapore’s Memorial and Counter-M emorial present the full record of
the events and of the planni ng which led up to the sel ection, in 1846, of Pedra
Branca as the site of the lighthousecommemoration of James Horsburgh.
As Singapore points out in her Coun ter-Memorial, the entire process of
planning, choice of site, a nd construction, was subject to the exclusive control
and approval of the British Crown and its representatives.
3.27 In spite of the existe nce of such a full record of the role of the British
Crown in planning and funding the cons truction of the lighthouse, Malaysia
seeks to deny the existence of aintention to acquire sovereignty. This
denial is based upon a number of self-serving and unrealistic suppositions.
3.28 Ithe first place, it is contrary mmonsense to suppose that the
British Crown, or any other sovereig n would claim only property in the
lighthouse itself. In the absence of re strictions imposed by a licensor – and
there was no licensor – legal and political security would demand that title and
possession applied to the entire feature, given Pedra Branca’s size and location.
3.29 Secondly, Malaysia insists that “none of the various formalities
undertaken in the course of the contruction of the light house or after its
completion... manifested any intention to acquire sovereignty, either explicitly
101
SCM p. 127, para. 5.135.
102
MCM pp. 33-37, paras. 63-72.
– Page 45 –or implicitly”. 103 This assertion is typical of the self-serving methodology
adopted by Malaysia according to which each event is a “formality”, and each
event is treated as being unconnected to other events, in the overall process of
taking of lawful possession, the legal si gnificance of which Malaysia ignores.
On the contrary, it is evident that the pattern of decision-making and
governmental activity presupposes an intention to acquire sovereignty, that is, a
title good against other States . In the circumstances, this would be the
assumption of a third State and this especially in the absence of any evidence of
the involvement of any other claimant or licensor.
3.30 The suggestion of Malaysia that “the formalities” reveal “only an
intention on the part of the East I ndia Company to own the lighthouse” does
not make political sense.
3.31 The Malaysian pleading refers to the account of the laying of the
foundation stone appearing in the Straits Times and Si ngapore Journal of
Commerce, in which there is a reference to “the Horsburgh Testimonial, or
Lighthouse for all Nations”. 104 Malaysia hastens to su ggest that this locution
was somehow at odds with an intention to take exclusive possession on behalf
of the British Crown. 105 This argument calls for several remarks. First,
Malaysia fails to acknowledge that the words “Lighthouse for all Nations”
came from the journalist writing the article in the Straits Times, and not from
the speeches of the Governor or the Worshipful Master. Secondly, there is
simply no contradiction between the construction of a lighthouse for the benefit
of all nations, and the intention to clai m exclusive possession over the site of
the lighthouse. Thirdly, this argument is the perfect paradigm of Malaysia’s
103 MCM pp. 34-35, para. 66.
104 The Horsburgh Lighthouse in the Straits Times and Singapore Journal of Commerce (28 May
1850) (SM Vol. 3, Annex 45).
105
MCM p. 34, para. 66.
– Page 46 –style of reasoning. The substance of the matter is that the laying of the
foundation stone was not an isolated ev ent. The newspaper account relied
upon by Malaysia makes it clear that the ceremony was held under the auspices
of the Governor of the Straits Settleme nts. The Governor had requested the
Worshipful Master and Brethren of the Lodge Zetland in the East to lay the
Foundation Stone, and the distinguished visitors listed were there at the
invitation of the Governor. In fact, th e laying of the foundation stone formed
part of a long process of decision-mak ing and preparation for the construction
of the lighthouse under the control of and on behalf of the British Crown.
3.32 In the context of the Malaysian focus upon the concept of activity à titre
de souverain , there is a serious misconstruction of the concept. Malaysia
argues that activity, such as the “mere” administration of a lighthouse, is
106
somehow entirely divorced from any question of sove reignty or title. But
this is a clear deformation of thinki ng about sovereignty. The motivation
involved in taking possession of territory may be to acquire access for space for
an airfield, or port facilities, or natura l resources, but the vehicle for acquiring
access is the acquisition of title.
3.33 In each case the precise legal cont ext, including the intention of the
actor, is paramount, and not facile typo logies about lighthouses, navigational
aids, and “best practice” by lighthouse auth orities. Malaysia insists, wrongly,
on divorcing conduct from the legal context.
3.34 Malaysia also seeks to argue that Act No. VI of 1852, which vested the
Horsburgh Lighthouse in the East Indi a Company and vested its management
and control in the Governor of the Stra its Settlements, merely manifested an
106 MCM pp. 99-100, para. 203. See also MCM pp. 121-122, para. 247.
– Page 47 – 107
intention to own the lighthouse. As on other occasions, Malaysia prefers to
treat the relevant evidence as a series of unconnected items. The Act of 1852
follows the taking of possession and makes provision in the normal way for the
incorporation of the lighthouse into the municipal legal system.
3.35 Malaysia applies the same type of logic to the Notice to Mariners of
108
24 September 1851. The Malaysian pleading de nies that this constitutes
109
evidence of title. But, as must be obvious, the Notice to Mariners represents
the end of the long chain of prepar ations and activities leading to the
commissioning of the lighthouse as the culmination of this major project of the
British Crown. The Notice was, of course, signed by th e Governor and
received appropriate publicity in the Singapore newspapers.
3.36 In this context it is to be noted that this well-publicised Notice to
Mariners failed to attract any protest or reservation of rights by any other State
in the region relating to the British title to Pedra Branca.
3.37 The logic adopted by the Malaysian pleading is artificial in the extreme,
and thus it is assumed that the quality of the lighthouse as an asset is
antithetical to the sovereignty already acquired in respect of the island which is
the site of the lighthouse. There is no reason why it should be.
107
MCM p. 35, para. 67.
108
See Relevant Extracts from the Straits Times and Singapore Journal of Commerce (23 Sep
1851, 30 Sep 1851 and 7 Oct 1851), and the Singapore Free Press & Mercantile Advertiser (3
Oct 1851 and 6 Oct 1851) (SM Vol. 3, Annex 56); and SM pp. 72-73, paras. 5.87-5.88.
109
MCM p. 35, para. 68; and p. 63, para. 126.
– Page 48 –3.38 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia concedes that at the foundation
stone laying ceremony, Pedra Branca was referred to as a dependency of
Singapore in the following words:
“The only reference in the Singapore Me morial that could possibly be
construed otherwise is the passage from the speech of the Worshipful
Master of the Lodge ‘Zetland and in the East’, Mr Davidson, at the
ceremony laying110e foundation stone that ‘this Rock is a
dependency’...” [emphasis added]
Malaysia then immediately seeks to minimise the significance of this statement
by arguing that:
“... As noted already, the term ‘dependency’ does not necessarily entail
‘sovereignty’. All of Johor could have been viewed as a ‘dependency’,
since it was under the protection of the British Crown and within its
110
sphere of influence.”
3.39 This ceremony is described in detail in Singapore’s Counter-
Memorial. 111 As the Court will appreciate, in the context the attribution of
dependency status would ma ke sense, and Mr Davi dson was well-qualified to
understand the significance of the attr ibution. Moreover, in the context the
term “dependency” did connote sovereignty, beca use what the Worshipful
Master actually said was:
“May the All Bounteous Author of Nature bless our Island, of which
this Rock is a dependency...”
3.40 The reference to “our Island” can only be a reference to the main island
of Singapore from whence the Governor’s party had just come. The standard
dictionary definition of a dependency is: “The cond ition of being dependent,
110
MCM p. 36, para. 70.
111
SCM pp. 115-119, paras. 5.107-5.117.
– Page 49 –contingent logical or causal c onnection... something dependent or
112
subordinate.”
3.41 The connotation of the term in public international law is essentially the
same. Thus, the authoritative Dictionnaire de droit international public, edited
by Jean Salmon, provides the following guidelines:
“Dépendance: ... Partie d’un terr itoire se rattachant de manière
subordonnée à un autre. Ainsi:
- le territoire maritime, dépendance du territoire terrestre :...
- une île, dépendance d’une autre île ou d’un groupe d’îles :
«Quand l’ambassade britannique à Paris, dans une note du 12
novembre 1869 au ministre français des Affairs étrangères,
s’est plaint de prétendus vols par les pêcheurs français aux
Minquiers et s’est référé à ce groupe en disant : ‘cette
dépendance des Îles de la Manche’ (...)» (C.I.J. Minquiers et
Ėcréhous (Grande-Bretagne/France), arrêt du 29 janvier 1953,
Rec. 1953, p.71).
«L’exiguïté de Meanguerita, sa pr oximité de la plus grande île
et le fait qu’elle est inhabitée permettent de la qualifier de
‘dépendance’ de Meanguera, au sens où il a été soutenu que le
groupe des Minquiers était une ‘d épendance’ des îles de la
Manche» (C.I.J., Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et
maritim113arrêt du 11 septembre 1992, Rec. 1992 , p.570, §
356).”
[English translation: “Dependency: ... Part of a territory linked with
another in a subordinate way. Thus:
- maritime territory, dependency of the land territory...
- an island, dependency of another island or group of islands:
‘When the British Embassy in Paris, in a Note of November
12th, 1869, to the French Foreign Minister, had complained
about alleged theft by French fishermen at the Minquiers and
referred to this group as “this dependency of the Channel
112 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1974), at p. 521.
113
Salmon J., Dictionnaire de droit international public(2001), at. p. 322.
– Page 50 – Islands”...’ (ICJ, Minquiers and Ecrehos ( France/United
Kingdom), Judgment of 29 January 1953, Reports 1953, p. 71)
‘The small size of Meanguerita, its contiguity to the larger
island, and the fact that it is uninhabited, allow its
characterisation as a “dependency” of Meanguera, in the sense
that the Minquiers group was claimed to be a “dependency of
the Channel Islands”’ (ICJ, Land, Island and Maritime Frontier
Dispute, Judgment of 11 September 1991, Reports 1992,
p. 570, para. 356).” ]
3.42 Malaysia makes one last thrust on the use of the term “dependency”
during the laying of the foundatio n stone on 24 May 1850 under the
supervision and control of the Governor. For this last thrust Malaysia states:
“There is further evidence of th e irrelevance of the Worshipful
Master’s words in the report on the ceremony sent by Governor
Butterworth to the Governor of Bengal. It contains no reference at all
to any acquisition of sovereignt y or to the island becoming a
‘dependency of Singapore’. Rather , the report is limited to the
statement that the ceremony concerne d ‘the first stone... with masonic
honours’.” 114
3.43 The report referred to is Butterw orth’s Report to the Government of
India, dated 9 November 1850 (i.e., written six months after the ceremony), 115
“giving cover to a Report on this Season’s operations at the Light House, under
construction at Pedra Branca” from Mr Thomson, the Government Surveyor.
Thomson’s Report, dated 2 November 1850, is addressed to Thomas Church. 116
Neither the Governor’s Report to th e Government of India nor Thomson’s
Report to Church can be described as a report “on the ceremony” of the laying
of the foundation stone. However, whilst it is true that the term “dependency”
does not appear in either document, this is of no consequence whatever. Both
114 MCM p. 37, para. 71.
115
Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) to
Annex 49). W. (Under Secretary to the Government of Bengal) dated 9 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3,
116
Letter from Thomson J.T. (Government Surveyor at Singapore) to Church T. (Resident
Councillor at Singapore) dated 2 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3, Annex 47).
– Page 51 –Reports confirm that the British Crown wa s in control of th e whole enterprise
and regarded the project as being of the first importance. In this same general
connection, Church, in forwarding Thom son’s Report to the Governor (letter
dated 7 November 1850) draws a clea r contrast between Pedra Branca and
Point Romania, the latter belonging to the Sovereign of Johor. 117
3.44 In a similar vein, Malaysia also argues that:
“Notably, J.T. Thomson in his long Account on the Horsburgh
Lighthouse did not mention, either expres sly or by inference, that the
British Crown acquired sovereignty over PBP through the construction
of the lighthouse... It is difficult to imagine that, had Thomson’s first
arrival on the island in 1847, or the end of the construction of the
lighthouse in 1851, or indeed the whole process between 1847-1851,
meant acquisition of sovereignty by Britain, Thomson wou118not have
mentioned it at all, either in his Account or elsewhere.”
This argument is a non sequitur. Singapore notes that Thomson’s Account also
did not mention any alleged prior Johor title or, for that matter, any alleged
permission from Johor. By Malaysia’s own logic, Thomson’s silence on these
issues in “his long Account on the Horsburgh Lighthouse” would be proof that
no prior Johor title exists and that there was no permission from Johor as
alleged by Malaysia. In reality, Thomson’s Account did not expressly address
the question of title because the Account was “intended merely for the
information of the [British] Authorities” 119 and therefore “confined... to giving
a description of the work s and a recital of the operation and occurrences
connected with the construction”. 119 Nevertheless, an indication of Thomson’s
117 Letter from Church T. (Resident Councillor at Singapore) to Butterworth W.J. (Governor of
Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) dated 7 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3, Annex 48).
118 MCM p. 64, para. 128.
119
Thomson’s Account, supra note 55, at p. 495 (SM Vol. 4, Annex 61, p. 598).
– Page 52 –own perception concerning the question of title may be found in his reference
120
to the establishment on Pedra Branca as “our settlement on the rock”.
3.45 These are the disparate arguments offered by Malaysia in support of the
proposition that the intention of the British Crown was not to acquire
sovereignty but only to construct a lighthouse on Pedra Branca. These
arguments are not only intrinsically weak , but Malaysia also ignores much of
the evidence of British intention se t forth in Singapore’s Memorial.
Furthermore, Malaysia’s argument relating to intention relies additionally upon
the proposition that, in the absence of ce rtain formalities (which were alleged
to be part of British practice) intention could not be proved. This aspect of the
121
Malaysian pleading will be examined later on.
D. T HE BASELESS M ALAYSIAN ASSERTION THAT THE A CTS INVOKED AS
E VIDENCE OF TAKING P OSSESSION “ARE N OT RELEVANT ”
1. The Methodology Adopted by Malaysia
3.46 In a substantial section of her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia seeks to
demonstrate that the acts invoked by Singapore to prove the taking of
possession are “not relevant” for this purpose.Malaysia defines the task as
follows:
“This section will examine whethethe relevant acts leading to the
construction of the lighthouse can be considered, individually or as a
whole, as a taking of possession an d therefore a basis for Singapore’s
claim.”122
120 Thomson’s Account, supra note 55, at p. 405 (SM Vol. 4, Annex 61, p. 508).
121 See para. 3.94 et seq, below.
122
MCM p. 49, paras. 94.
– Page 53 –3.47 This definition of the task Malays ia has set herself encapsulates the
essentially flawed character of her methodology. In the first place the question
of intention is artificially separate d from the process of the “taking of
possession”. This is not th e way in which the basis of Singapore’s claim has
been pleaded and Malaysia’s approach is illogical. Singapore has in her
Memorial pleaded the manifestation of the will of the British Crown as a
sufficient mode of lawful possession. 123 Consequently, the element of intention
and its manifestation by the conduct of the agents of the British Crown are
complementary and should be viewed holistically.
3.48 It is Malaysia’s tendency to fragment the eviden ce and to divorce
intention from the manifestation of intention. This preference for
fragmentation of the eviden ce leads to some astonishing results. Thus the
episode in which T homson places the brick pillars on Pedra Branca is taken
124
completely out of context. Malaysia here fails to recall that the building of
the brick pillars on Pedra Branca was preceded by the deci sion of the British
Crown to select Pedra Branca as the site of the lighthouse.
3.49 In order to deal with the multifarious distortions and conundrums to be
found in the pertinent section of Mala ysia’s Counter-Memorial, Singapore will
examine the material item by item.
2. The Process of Selection of Pedra Branca as the site for the
Horsburgh Lighthouse
3.50 It was the British Crown which decided to proceed with the building of a
lighthouse near the eastern entrance to the Singapore Strait and which, after
considerable study of the technical requi rements, selected Pedra Branca as the
123 SM pp. 74-77, paras. 5.90-5.98; and pp. 86-87, para. 5.112.
124 MCM p. 54, para. 106.
– Page 54 –most appropriate site. The entire proc ess of planning, choice of site and
125
construction is examined in Singapore’s Memorial. The position of
Singapore on the taking of possession is reaffirmed in Singapore’s Counter-
126
Memorial.
3.51 In face of the substantial body of evidence of the all-embracing role of
the British Crown in the funding and co nstruction of the lighthouse and the
selection of Pedra Branca as the site, Mala ysia is content with making a series
of debating points.
3.52 First of all, Malaysia states that the idea to build a lighthouse was the
private initiative of certain merchants in Canton to commemorate the life and
127
achievements of James Horsburgh. This is, of c ourse, true and the
128
background is fully described in Singapore’s Memorial. The point however,
is that it was the British Crown which was responsible for taking the
operational decision whether to build th e lighthouse. This is accepted by
Malaysia:
“In fact, the East India Company tw ice rejected the proposal to build
the lighthouse. The Court of Dir ectors only acted in response to
repeated requests by the merchants.” 129
3.53 In fact the final decision to proceed was based upon a number of
political and economic considerations c onnected with the issue of levying a
duty on shipping. The levying of duty on shipping is of course only possible
through governmental action.
125 SM pp. 33-69, paras. 5.13-5.80.
126 SCM Chapter V.
127 MCM p. 50, para. 95.
128 SM pp. 35-36, paras. 5.18-5.19.
129 MCM p. 50, para. 95.
– Page 55 –3.54 The next debating point presented on behalf of Malaysia is the denial
that the Court of Directors of the East India Company decided on the name of
the lighthouse:
“While the East India Company concurred with the name ‘Horsburgh’,
it was the private merchants who thought of commemorating the name
of James Horsburgh by building a lighthouse.” 130
This is pure obfuscation. It was th e British Crown wh ich commenced the
project and made it a practical enterprise, and which necessarily had to approve
131
the name of the lighthouse. The letter from the Governor to the Government
of India, dated 13 February 1850, includes this passage:
“I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter under date
the 12 November last No 784 with it s enclosure from the Government
of India giving cover to a despat ch from the Honble the Court of
Directors authorizing the immediate construction of the Light House
on Pedra Branca to be called after the celebrated Hydrographer James
132
Horsburgh Esquire.”
3.55 Malaysia, in her Counter-Memorial, then invokes the merchants again
and makes the following claim:
“97. A group of Bombay merchants went even further by requesting
that ‘Horsburgh’ be used as the na me for the lighthouse. By letter to
the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce in Singapore, the Bombay
merchants made this a condition of their financial support: ‘... we beg
to acquaint you that we are willing to place the above sum (ie 4308
Rupees collected in Bombay) at the disposal of the Singapore
Committee, under the proviso that th e L133thouse in question shall be
called “The Horsburgh Lighthouse”.’”
130
MCM p. 50, para. 96.
131 SM pp. 46-47, paras. 5.45-5.46.
132 See Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and
Malacca) to Seton Karr W. (Under Secretary to the Government of Bengal) dated 13 Feb 1850
(SM Vol. 3, Annex 39).
133 MCM pp. 50-51, para. 97.
– Page 56 –3.56 When the letter is read as a piece it can be seen that the merchants had
not been a part of the decision-making process:
“We are (sic) undersigned are the remaining members of a committee
formed in 1837 to receive subscriptions towards erecting a Testimonial
of respect in Bombay to the memory of the late James Horsburgh Esq.
The sum collected for this purpos e having only amounted to Rupees
(4308) four thousand three hundred and eight, the idea of erecting such
testimonial was abandoned but observing by the papers that there is to
be a Lighthouse erected at Singa pore to commemorate the deceased,
and that you are the Channel of communication: we beg to acquaint
you that we are willing to place that above sum at the disposal of the
Singapore Committee, under the proviso that the lighthouse shall be
called the ‘The Horsburgh Light’.
If this proposition is complied with you can communicate same to
Messrs. Pinnington & Co., the treasu rer for the subscription, and who
have been requested to pay the above sum. We would suggest that
such be drawn for the Singapore and our xxx [ sic] authorised by your
Committee.” 134
3.57 Notwithstanding this letter, it was clear that the Government at all times
retained the right to name the lighthouse. The name of the lighthouse is not a
result of the letter, as Malaysia suggests. The letter is dated 22 January 1846.
The name “Horsburgh Lighthouse” was already used by Governor Butterworth
to describe the project as early as 1844. 135
3.58 The next item of obfuscation is the complaint by Malaysia that:
“It is incorrect to say that the co nstruction work was financed by the
136
East India Company.”
134
Letter from the remaining members of a Committee of Merchants formed in 1837 to the
Secretary of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce dated 22 Jan 1846 (MCM Vol. 3, Annex
14). The sum of 4,308 rupees offered in this letter did not even cover one-tenth of the cost of
Horsburgh Lighthouse. (The cost of construction was 53,134 rupees see SM p.54, para.
5.60.)
135 See e.g., Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and
Malacca) to Belcher E. (Captain of H.M.S. Samarang) dated 2 Oct 1844 (SCM Vol. 2, Annex
9).
136 MCM p. 51, para. 98.
– Page 57 –The Malaysian pleading first argues that:
“The Court of Directors of the Ea st India Company was reluctant to
advance funds and referred to th e funding deficit that the Company137
would cover for the construction of the lighthouse as a ‘loan’.”
And then concludes that:
“This opposition by the Court of Dir ectors to any public spending on
the lighthouse is inconsistent with Singapore’s argument that public
financing is evidence of the intention to acquire territorial
sovereignty.” 138
3.59 The Malaysian argument is self-cont radictory. Malaysia admits that
funds for construction of the lightho use were advanced by the Court of
Directors of the East India Company, an d yet she claims that the construction
work was not financed by the East India Company. Similarly, Malaysia admits
that a tax, in the form of light dues, was levied with the approval of the Court
of Directors to defray the costs of th e construction of the lighthouse, and yet
she claims that the Court of Directors was opposed to “any public spending on
the lighthouse”. This self-contradiction in the Malaysian pleading is a natural
consequence of her attempt to distort the actual funding situation.
3.60 First, on the question of the “loan”, it is abundantly clear from the letter
relied on by Malaysia that this was a loan from a superior government to a
subordinate government to fund the financial needs of the subordinate
139
government. An intra-governmental loan of this nature does not detract from
137
MCM p. 51, para. 98.
138
MCM p. 52, para. 99.
139 Letter from the Court of Directors of the Est India Company to the Governor General of
India in Council dated 5 Sep 1849 (SM Vol.3, Annex 31), quoted in SM p.39, para.5.27.
Paragraph 3 of the letter reads:
“3. The subscriptions hitherto recei ved for the Light House amount to22,194
leaving a deficit of RS.28,723, which you proposed should be advanced by
Government, and to ensure payment of this loan, you further propose that the duty
authorised by us to be levied on Vessels touching at Singapore or clearing out from
– Page 58 –the public character of the funding arrangement. This point appears even more
clearly from an earlier letter in which th e Government of Bengal informs the
Government of India that:
“3. It will be observed that in his present report, Col Butterworth has
submitted an estimate which with the addition of a Cupola for the
Light House, and the extra allowan ce for the Superintendents of the
work during the period of two years, will rather exceed the sum of Rs
50,000.
4. To meet this the Governor of the Straits has only the Sum of Rs
22,196-6-7, or not quite one half of the estimated expense.
5. It would thus be necessary for the completion of this work, so long
delayed, but so urgently required for the preservation of our Shipping
to advance the requisite funds fr om the Revenues of Ind140 and
afterwards seek repayments from the Light House dues. ” [emphasis
added]
3.61 Secondly, on the question of “public spen ding”, it is disingenuous of
Malaysia to suggest that funding through a special tax on shipping, as opposed
to funding from the general tax revenues of India, is not “public spending”.
The choice between fundin g through a shipping levy (where the tax burden
falls on shipowners only) and funding th rough the general revenue (where the
tax burden falls on the general populatio n) is simply a policy choice between
using different public means to meet the same public end. Both methods
require the use of government authority to levy taxes and both are equally
methods of public finance.
3.62 What was clear throughout the deba te about the method of funding and
the wisdom of a levy was that the projec t was to be controlled and financed by
the Government of India. Contrary to the impression that Malaysia’s Counter-
Memorial seeks to foster, th e private interests fully re cognised these realities.
Indian ports to China or the Eastward of Singapore, should be raised from one rupee
to two dollars or 4½ rupees per 100 tons.” [emphasis added]
140
Letter from Seton Karr W. (Under-Secretary to the Government of Bengal) to Grey W.
(Under-Secretary to the Government of India) dated 6 Oct 1848 (SM Vol. 2, Annex 28).
– Page 59 –Thus, in the letter dated 1 March 1842, in which Jardine Matheson reports the
proposal to the then Governor, Bonham, the following appears:
“We beg to acquaint you that we hold in our hands a Sum amounting
with interest to Sp anish Dollars Five t housand five hundred and
50 50
thirteen / 100($5,513 / 100)rising from a Public Subscription collected
in China with some small additions from India, in the years 1836-37
for the purpose of erecting a testimoni al to the memory of the late
celebrated Mr James Horsburgh.
At a General Meeting of the Subscribers a wish was expressed that the
contributions should if possible be devoted to the building of a Light
House, bearing the name of Horsburgh on Pedra Branca , at the
entrance of the China Sea, but nothing definitive was resolved on.
As this is a design which can on ly be carried into effect and
maintained under the immediate auspi ces of the British Govt, we beg
to express our readiness to hand over the above amount to you in the
hope that you will have the goodness to cause a Light House (called
after Horsburgh) to be erected either on Pedra Branca or on such
other locality as the Govt of the Hon’ble East India Company may
deem preferable.
The amount is far from adequate, but we trust the well known
munificence of the Hon’ble Company will supply what additional funds
may be wanting for an object of such eminent public utility intended at
the same time, to do Honour to t141memory of one of the most
meritorious of their Servants.” [emphasis added]
3.63 In her Counter-Memorial Malaysia relies upon the alleged reluctance of
the Court of Directors (in 1847) to agre e to public spending as the basis for
saying that this is inconsistent w ith Singapore’s argument “that public
financing is evidence of the intention to acquire territorial sovereignty” (this is
142
Malaysia’s wording of the argument). Of course, Singapore does not express
an argument in such terms. The pos ition of Singapore is that the public
funding is a significant part of the overall pattern of government planning and
control.
141 Letter from Jardine Matheson to Bonham S.G. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island,
Singapore and Malacca) dated 1 Mar 1842 (SM Vol. 2, Annex 8).
142 MCM pp. 51-52, para. 99.
– Page 60 –3.64 When Malaysia finally deals with the process of the selection of the site
for the lighthouse, she suggests that the selection of Pedra Branca “had nothing
143
to do with concerns about sovereignty”. This fragmented analysis ignores
the fact that the selection formed part of the process of the appropriation of the
144
island for the purposes of the British Crown.
3. The Construction of the Lighthouse was not (according to Malaysia)
a Taking of Possession
3.65 Malaysia’s arguments disputing that the British took possession of Pedra
Branca in 1847 prov ide further examples of the eccentric mode of argument
relating to the substantial pattern of ev idence of the acquis ition of title by the
145
British Crown. One good example of the genre is this paragraph:
“The point at issue here is not who constructed the lighthouse and
operated it, but whether this construction can be considered as an act of
taking of possession of the island. There is no question that Horsburgh
Lighthouse was constructed by the Ea st India Company and that it
belonged to it. Understandably, this construction was carried out and
supervised by British authorities. The question at issue is whether the
constructio146as conducted with the intention to acquire sovereignty
over PBP.” [emphasis added]
3.66 This passage involves a series of helpful admissions to the effect that the
“construction was carried out and supervised by British authorities”. Precisely
so: the whole process invo lved the British Crown. The defensive move by
Malaysia is then to propose that the construction was not accompanied by an
intention to acquire sovereignty. This is yet another example of the device of
fragmentation, which is accompanied by th e highly artificial concept that each
143 MCM p. 52, para. 100.
144 See para. 3.50 above.
145 See MCM pp. 53-54, paras. 103-107.
146 MCM p. 53, para. 103.
– Page 61 –factual element must have a title badge. Thus, Malaysia states that the
selection of Pedra Branca as the site of the lighthouse, “is not, as such ,
evidence of an intention to acquire sovereignty over it”. 147 But this assertion
has no logical value, because the legal significance of any particular act will
inevitably depend upon the context, the releva nt documents, the reactions of
other sovereigns, and so forth. Furthe rmore, in the real situation of Pedra
Branca, it is ludicrous to treat the li ghthouse project in isolation from the
lengthy and detailed documentary record of British intentions.
3.67 Another striking example of the st range logic adopted by Malaysia can
be found in her treatment of the ac tivities of the Gove rnment Surveyor,
Thomson. Malaysia makes strenuous e fforts to minimise the significance of
his activities. Thus, her Counter-Memorial contains the following assertions:
“Singapore’s attempts to attribute a sovereign quality to the enterprise
of J.T. Thomson, Government Su rveyor at Singapore, during the
construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse is contradicted by the facts.
In particular, Thomson received remuneration fo r the construction of
the lighthouse independently of his salary as Government
Surveyor.” 148
3.68 This reasoning is extraordinary. Thomson, it is suggested, was some
kind of interloper. The Malaysian technique of fragmentation is thus applied to
the individual officials. As Singapore has explained in her Memorial:
“5.13... As a preliminary, it is necessary to describe the general
character of the evidence. This c onsists, to a very great extent, of
correspondence between three linke d pairs of officials of the
Government of India, who were in strumental in the planning of the
enterprise and, in due course, in the execution of the instructions of the
Court of Directors of the East Indi a Company when these were issued
in 1847.
5.14 The three pairs of officials functioned in this way:
147
MCM p. 53, para. 104, emphasis added.
148
MCM p. 54, para. 105.
– Page 62 – (a) The Government of India, through the Bengal
Presidency, had authority ove r, and corresponded with,
Colonel W.J. Butterworth, Governor of the Straits
Settlements (hereinafter referred to as “Governor
Butterworth”);
(b) Governor Butterworth had authority over, and
corresponded with, Thomas Church, Resident
Councillor at Singapore; and
(c) Thomas Church had aut hority over, and corresponded
with, J.T. Thomson, the Government Surveyor at
Singapore, who was the ar chitect and engineer
responsible for planning and constructing the lighthouse
on Pedra Branca (hereinafter referred to as “Thomson”).
5.15 Governor Butterworth was directly involved from early on, and
it is recorded that he visited Pedra Branca in 1847. Governor
Butterworth was present at the fo rmal laying of the Foundation Stone
on 24 May 1850; his name appears on the panel in the Visitors Room
of the lighthouse; and he it was who signed the British Notice to
Mariners dated 24 September 1851. It was also Governor Butterworth
who was in charge of the fi nal commissioning ceremony on 27
September 1851.
5.16 But the authoritative witness is clearly Thomson. Apart from
the correspondence involving Thom son, a major resource is the
Account of the Horsburgh Light-house , written by Thomson and
published, in 1852, in the Journal of the Indian Archipelago and
Eastern Asia. This is in fact the text of the official report prepared by
Thomson, in his role as Government Surveyor at Singapore, after
completion of the project. It is dated 14 August 1852. As the preface
explains, the account had been prep ared at the wish of Governor
Butterworth. On the panel in the Visitors Room, Thomson is described
as the “Architect” and it was Go vernor Butterwort h who selected
149
Thomson for that position.”
3.69 It is hardly surprising that Malays ia should seek to minimise the role of
Thomson, who was directly involved in the planning of the construction on
Pedra Branca, and the preparation of estim ates. The issues raised by Malaysia
are all clarified in the letter from Govern or Butterworth to the Government of
149
SM pp. 33-35, paras. 5.13-5.16.
– Page 63 –India, dated 12 June 1848, which Malaysia could have quoted, but did not. The
letter reads, in material part, as follows:
“With reference to the several communications noted in the margin
regarding the construction of a Li ght House on Pedra Branca at the
entrance of the China Sea to the memory of the celebrated
Hydrographer James Horburgh Esquire, I have now the honour to
submit the accompanying full Report on the subject for the final orders
of the Right Honble the Governor of Bengal.
2. In accordance with the views stat ed in the 3rd Para of my letter
dated the 1st October 1847 and approved of by the Honble the
Governor of Bengal, Brick Pillars were erected on Pedra Branca, the
site determined upon for the Horsburgh Light House, for the purpose
of ascertaining the effect of the waves on the Rock during the N.E.
Monsoon which usually prevails here from October to Feby the result
is detailed in Mr Thomson’s Repor t a copy of which is herewith
transmitted.
3. The exposed position of Pedra Branca renders it subject to the full
force of the N.E. Monsoon, and the heavy swell which rolls in from
that side, causes the waves to beat over the Rock to the height of 15
feet above the level of high Wa ter Mark, whilst the spray rises
therefrom to so great an elevation as to make a structure of Granite set
in Cement for a facing with a b ackwork of Brick, imperatively
necessary to the security of its inmates and the permanency of the
Light House.
4. Having satisfied himself on this point I directed that indefatigable
and valuable public Servant Mr Thomson to prepare a Plan,
Specification and Estimate, for a Building of the description proposed,
which with this Gentleman’s observa tions therein I beg to enclose for
the favorable consideration and sanction of the Right Honble the
Governor of Bengal in the hope that I may receive timely instructions,
so as to enable the Contractor to send to China for Stone Masons, and
to make such other preparations as will ensure this important work to
the safety of the mariner in these Seas, being commenced upon, at the
earliest practicable period.”50
150
Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) to
Seton Karr W. (Under Secretary to the Government of Bengal) dated 12 June 1848 (SM
Vol. 2, Annex 27).
– Page 64 –3.70 This letter, along with much other documentation, establishes the central
role of Thomson. The same letter also contradicts the assertion in Malaysia’s
Counter-Memorial that:
“What is presented by Singapore as either the beginning of the taking
of possession of PBP, or the comp leted act of ‘taking of lawful
possession’ in 1847, was nothing more than Thomson’s visit to study
the feasibility of the constructi on of the lighthouse and place seven
brick pillars to test the strength of the waves.”1
3.71 As the letter of 12 June 1848 makes clear, the placing of the brick pillars
related to the modalities of construction a nd not to the selection of the site.
This had already take n place. The same letter (i n paragraph 6) explains why
the Government was pleased to pay Th omson a special remuneration for the
management of the construction, as well as other ancillary needs:
“6.In a work of such vast importance, so far removed from all
resources, requiring such constant supervision, and involving so much
anxiety and responsibility, I am persuaded that the remuneration
solicited by Mr Thomson for himsel f viz 150 Rupees per mensem in
addition to his salary of 350 Rs as Govt Surveyor, the general duties of
which Office he undertakes to pe rform also, making 500 Rupees per
mensem whilst employed on the Light House, will be cheerfully
granted. To this I think may fairly be added Table Allowance at the
Rate of 5 Rupees per Diem wh ilst on board the Steamer when
proceeding to and from Pedra Branca, the total amount to be so drawn,
during the period the Light House is under construction being limited
to 500 Rupees – an Overseer on 100 Rupees per Mensem will also be
necessary. Mr Thomson suggests in lie u of the latter an allowance of
50 Rupees to the Commander of the Gunboat, but as this vessel and all
the limited marine resources of this Settlement will be required in aid
of this humane undertaking, I would pr efer the former being at once
allowed.” 152
151
MCM p. 54, para. 106.
152
Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) to
Seton Karr W. (Under Secretary to the Government of Bengal) dated 12 June 1848 (SM
Vol. 2, Annex 27).
– Page 65 –3.72 Malaysia’s Counter-Memoriac lonten ds that a visit or a “mere landing”
153
by an official “does not constitute taking of possession”. But this is not what
Singapore has contended in her pleadings. Once again Malaysia refers to an
episode in isolation and then observes that this does not constitute a taking of
possession. This is, as usual, to miss the point. The placing of the brick pillars,
as the documents reveal, formed an im portant constituent in the process of
planning and in determining the m odalities of the construction of the
lighthouse. The various activities were pa rt of an ongoing pattern of activity
carried out on the instructi ons of the British Crown an d its agents. The brick
pillars are referred to in the following documents.
154
(a) Thomson to Church, 8 March 1848;
155
(b) Letter from Butterworth to Seton Karr, dated 12 June 1848;
156
(c) Letter from Butterworth to C. Beadon, dated 1 October 1847;
3.73 To sum up, Thomson’s additional remuneration does not detract from
the governmental character of his duties. The additional remuneration was paid
by the Government, and had to be specifi cally approved by the Government in
India. Moreover, Thomson’s action in the construction of the lighthouse was at
all times done under the direction of Governor Butterworth, either personally or
through the agency of Resident Councillor Church.
153 MCM pp. 54, paras. 106-107.
154 Letter from Thomson J.T. (Government Surveyor at Singapore) to Church T. (Resident
Councillor at Singapore) dated 8 Mar 1848, attached to this Reply as Annex 7.
155 Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) to
Seton Karr W. (Under Secretary to the Government of Bengal) dated 12 June 1848 (SM
Vol. 2, Annex 27).
156 Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) to
Beadon C. (Under Secretary to the Government of Bengal) dated 1 Oct 1847 (SM Vol. 2,
Annex 24).
– Page 66 – 4. Malaysia asserts that the activity of gunboats does not constitute a
manifestation of sovereignty
3.74 The precise assertion on the part of Malaysia is that “[t]he activity of
gunboats or the presence of a gun does not in itself constitute a manifestation of
157
sovereignty”. But Singapore has not expressed such a view in her pleadings.
In her Memorial, Singapore describes the logistical support provided by
158
Government vessels. The Memorial also refers to the provision of protection
by gunboats and makes the following key point:
“The provision of a government stea mer and gunboats to assist in the
movement of building materials a nd to provide protection against
pirates formed a regular feature of the consecutive plans and financial
estimates relating to the constructio n of the lighthouse. The relevant
documents are as follows:
(a) 20 November 1844 letter from Thomson to Governor
Butterworth; 159
(b) 9 July 1847 letter from Thomson to Church (three references to
the gunboats); 160
(c) 20 May 1848 letter from Thomson to Church; 161
(d) 12 June 1848 letter from Gover nor Butterworth to W. Seton
Karr; 162
163
(e) 3 March 1849 letter from the Government of India;
(f) 20 December 1849 letter from Th omson to Church (a detailed
account of the arrangements); 164
157
MCM p. 55, para. 108, emphasis added.
158 SM pp. 61-62, paras. 5.69-5.70.
159 SM Vol. 2, Annex 12.
160 SM Vol. 2, Annex 21.
161
SM Vol. 2, Annex 26.
162
SM Vol. 2, Annex 27. See, in particular, para. 6.
163 SM Vol. 2, Annex 30. See, in particular, para. 2 of the letter.
– Page 67 – (g) 24 December 1849 letter from Governor Butterworth to
165
Church;
(h) 29 December 1849 letter from Governor Butterworth to
166
Church;
(i) 22 February 1850 letter from Governor Butterworth to
Church; 167
(j) 4 April 1850 letter from Governor to the Resident Councillor at
Malacca; 168
(k) 19 April 1850 letter from169vernor Butterworth to the Resident
Councillor at Malacca; and
(l) 2 November 1850 letter from Thomson to Church. 170”171
3.75 As on other occasions, Malaysia only sees the gunboats in isolation and
observes:
“In no way did these activities mani fest the exercise of sovereign
172
functions”.
3.76 The context is ignored, and the relation of the special provision of
gunboats to the overall planning and ex ecution of the lighthouse project is not
recognised as an exercise of sovereign functions. And yet Malaysia’s Counter-
Memorial expressly accepts the anc illary functions performed by the
164
SM Vol. 3, Annex 34.
165
SM Vol. 3, Annex 35.
166 SM Vol. 3, Annex 38.
167 SM Vol. 3, Annex 40.
168
SM Vol. 3, Annex 43.
169 SM Vol. 3, Annex 44.
170 SM Vol. 3, Annex 47.
171 SM pp.62-64, para.5.72, with consequent ial amendments to the footnotes to facilitate
location of Annexes.
172
MCM p. 55, para. 108.
– Page 68 – 173
gunboats. An observer not cabined with in the logic of the Malaysian
argument would find this argument impossible to follow.
5. The Control of Public Order in the Region
3.77 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia responds to the relevant section of
the Singapore Memorial 174with the following commentary:
“What is presented by Singapore as the maintenance by J.T. Thomson
of ‘public order’ on PBP was nothing but the control of the builders’
performance of their contractual en gagements and the exercise of the
normal authority of the master architect or engineer of a construction
work. Singapore provides no evid ence that Thomson ‘had general
authority to maintain public order in the vicinity’. The one incident
related in support of the contention in its Memorial concerned the wish
of the commander and crew of the Nancy to leave the service and
return to Singapore. The decision of Thomson to wait until the arrival
of the Hooghly instead shows that he was not invested with any public
authority. As stated in his Account, Thomson requested the Captain of
the Hooghly to place his gunner and some of his crew in charge of the
Nancy ‘until the orders of the 175ident Councillor were obtained as to
the disposal of the mutineers’.”
3.78 This description reflects, yet ag ain, the tendency of the Malaysian
pleading to ignore the context. As the documentary record shows in
abundance, Thomson’s operations were carried out under the orders of Church,
the Resident Councillor, and the Governor , Butterworth. It is ludicrous to
suggest that Thomson was just another “master architect or engineer of a
construction work”. He was the agen t of the British Crown and was acting
exclusively under its authority. In re lation to the incident involving the
Hooghly, as Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial accepts, Thomson was acting under
the authority of the Crown in the person of Chur ch, the Resident Councillor.
173
MCM p. 55, para. 108.
174
SM pp. 68-69, para. 5.79.
175
MCM p. 56, para. 110, footnotes omitted.
– Page 69 –The very fact that Thomson was in a position to detain the commander and
crew of the Nancy until the Hooghly arrived was evidence that Thomson had
the necessary public auth ority. That Thomson described the commander and
crew who disobeyed his orders as “mutineers” showed that he believed that his
authority was of a public character.
3.79 Malaysia’C s ounter-Memoriatlhen embarks on a misconstruction of two
series of correspondence in an attempt to show th at it was the Temenggong
who was responsible for controlling public order around Pedra Branca. In
neither case does Malaysia’s attempt stand up to scrutiny.
3.80 The first series of correspondence concerns Thomson’s suggestion to
establish an aid station at Point Romani a, described in Resident Councillor T.
Church’s letter of 7 November 1850. 176 Malaysia misconstrues Church’s letter
as suggesting that “it was for the Teme nggong to establish a station in Point
Romania to protect the light-keepers an d bring them assist ance in case of
177
emergency”. Building on this misconstruc tion, Malaysia jumps to the
conclusion that “the reco gnised authority to ‘control public order’ was Johor
177
and not the Straits Settlements”. But it is clear from the letter that Church
never suggested that it was the Teme nggong’s responsibility to “establish a
station in Point Romania to protect the light-keepers”. In fact, Church never
178
suggested the establishment of any such station by the Temenggong.
176 Letter from Church T. (Resident Councillor at Singapore) to Butterworth W.J. (Governor of
Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Mal acca) dated 7 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3, Annex 48;
MM Vol. 3, Annex 59).
177 MCM pp. 56-57, para. 111.
178
The actual words used by Church were:
“... I doubt whether such is absolutenecessary, or commensurate with the
permanent expense which such an estab lishment 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 bene fit would also accrue by requesting His
– Page 70 –3.81 The true purport of Church’s letter is as follows. Th e responsibility for
protecting the light-keepers lay with the British authorities, not the
Temenggong. One way of discharging this responsibility was to establish a
British station at Point Romania, but this would have been costly, and Point
Romania was under the Temenggong’s jurisdiction. It was therefore better to
rely on weekly visits by British gun boats to Pedra Branca. However, if the
Temenggong could be persuaded to fo rm a village at Romania to provide
assistance when called upon, “some benefit would al so accrue”. As explained
179
above and in Singapore’s Memorial and Counter-Memorial, Church’s letter
is clear evidence that th e Temenggong possessed no ju risdiction on or around
Pedra Branca.
3.82 The second series of correspondence concer ns certain conflicts in 1861
between Chinese fishermen from Si ngapore and Malay fishermen from
180
Johor. Malaysia interprets the corre spondence as indicating that the
181
Temenggong controlled fishing in the neighbourhood of Pedra Branca.
Singapore has referred to the same seri es of correspondence in her Counter-
Memorial and demonstrated how the corre spondence actually reveals that both
the Singapore fishermen and the Singapore authorities did not regard the
Temenggong as having any author ity on or around Pedra Branca. 182 Thereis
no need to repeat those arguments here . However, since Malaysia has devoted
six pages in her Counter-Memorial to discuss this episode, Singapore will
examine the correspondence in detail in Appendix B of this Reply to point out
how Malaysia has misconstrued the correspondence.
Highness the Tumongong to form a village at Romania under the control of a
respectable Panghuloo to render assistance to the inmates of the Light House in
a case of emergency.” [emphasisadded]
179
See paras. 3.5, 3.6 and 3.10 above; SCM pp. 67-68, paras. 4.55-4.56; SM p. 77, para. 5.99.
180
MCM Vol. 3, Annex 24; SCM Vol. 2, Annex 19.
181
MCM pp. 57-62, paras. 112-122.
182
SCM pp. 70-71, paras. 4.61-4.62.
– Page 71 – 6. Malaysia asserts that the visits of British officials are not evidence of
sovereignty in respect of Pedra Branca
3.83 Malaysia contends that the visits of the British officials to Pedra Branca
during the relevant period “are not evid ence of sovereignty over the island”. 183
In the well-documented record it can be re adily seen that the visits were an
integral part of the process of construc tion and the exercise of the authority of
the British Crown. The visits were by officials and for th e purposes of the
British Crown.
3.84 In a section of the Singapore Memo rial not referred to or examined in
184
Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial, deta ils are provided about 19 visits. n
addition, Singapore’s Memorial includes the section entitled “Official Visits to
Pedra Branca after the Completion of th e Construction: the Commissioning of
the Lighthouse”. 185 As the Memorial points out, these official acts constituted
the final acts in the process of taking lawful possession of the rock and the
installation, at Government expense and for Government purposes, of the
lighthouse.
3.85 The Malaysian approach, as so ofte n before, is to treat the visits in
isolation from the general pattern of pl anning, of instructions from the British
Crown, and the construction of the light house. The visits were the necessary
and natural part of a process. In th ese circumstances the Malaysian reference
to Minquiers and Ecrehos does not help her case. 186 It isthe overall evidence
183 MCM p. 62, para. 123.
184 SM pp. 58-61, paras. 5.66-5.68.
185 SM pp. 70-71, paras. 5.81-5.84.
186
Minquiers and Ecrehos [1953] ICJ Rep 47, at p.71, cited by Malaysia in MCM p. 63, para.
124.
– Page 72 –of intention which is significant, and that, in fact, is what the Court is saying in
the passage quoted by Malaysia.
7. The Cutting of Rain Channels on Pedra Branca
3.86 Singapore’s Memorial records the cutting of rain ch annels around the
higher rocks. 187 The proposal to make the ra in channels is documented in
Thomson’s letter to Church, dated 2 November 1850, 188and the proposal was
approved by Governor Butterworth, in his Report dated 9 November 1850, to
the Government of Bengal. 189 Malaysia’s response is to assert that the cutting
of rain channels had no bearing on th e question of sovereignty and to claim
that:
“Permission for the construction of the lighthouse extended to all
necessary measures related to it.” 190
3.87 This observation is erroneous on two counts. First, it wrongly assumes
that the lighthouse was constructed w ith the permission of local rulers.
Secondly, it ignores the reality that Thom son himself did not regard his
mandate to construct the lighthouse as encompassing the digging of rain
channels, and thus had to obtain spec ific permission from the Resident
Councillor of Singapore to do so. 191
187
SM p. 69, para. 5.80.
188
Letter from Thomson J.T. (Government Surveyor at Singapore) to Church T. (Resident
Councillor at Singapore) dated 2 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3, Annex 47).
189 Letter from Butterworth W.J. (Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca) to
Seton Karr W. (Under Secretary to the Government of Bengal) dated 9 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3,
Annex 49).
190 MCM p. 63, para. 125.
191 Letter from Thomson J.T. (Government Surveyor at Singapore) to Church T. (Resident
Councillor at Singapore) dated 2 Nov 1850 (SM Vol. 3, Annex 47, pp. 361-362).
– Page 73 – 8. The Display of the Marine Ensign on Pedra Branca
3.88 In the Singapore Memorial, as part of the substantial body of evidence
of the taking of lawful po ssession of Pedra Branca, reference is made to the
practice, since the lighthouse began to f unction, of flying the marine ensign. 192
Malaysia has made a considerable issue of this fact in her Counter-Memorial,
devoting no less than five pages to th is single issue. Malaysia begins by
arguing that:
“... in actual cases of taking of po ssession by Great Britain of different
kinds of territories, including uninhab ited islands, a formal raising of
the British flag, i.e., the Union Jack, was involved. This formality –
accompanied by others – was explicitly recorded, either in the legal
instruments related to the act of taking possession, i.e. the
proclamation, or in the reports of the event made later to the relevant
authorities. There is not one single reported case in which the flag
displayed as part of the act of taking possession was a Marine
193
Ensign.” [emphasis added]
Malaysia’s argument misses the point. Singapore has never argued that the
Marine Ensign was displayed as part of the act of taking possession. Instead,
Singapore’s argument is that the subsequent flying of the Marine Ensign is
evidence that possession had already been taken – a manifestation of
194
sovereignty already acquired. This is consistent with Singapore’s point (to
be developed in detail below) that neith er public international law nor “British
192 SM pp. 73-74, para. 5.89.
193 MCM p. 64, para. 129.
194 For ease of reference, the full text of SM pp. 73-74, para. 5.89 is reproduced here:
“5.89 The practice since the lighthouse first began to function was for the marine
ensign to be flown: see further , Chapter VI,below. This was adverted to in
Thomson’s letter to Church dated 20 July 1851, in which he wrote: ‘The Lighthouse
flag I presume is different from the national one’. The use of the marine ensign was
in accordance with contem porary British practice.See overleaf, for a painting
showing the flying of the ensign at Pedra Branca (Image 15See also, the images
after page 10 (Image 2), and after page 61 (Image 3).”
– Page 74 –practice” requires the hoisting of the nationa l flag “as part of the act of taking
possession”.
3.89 Malaysia is clearly uncomfortable about Singapore’s arguments
concerning the display of the British (a nd, subsequently, Si ngapore) Marine
Ensign on Pedra Branca. This can be seen from her Counter Memorial, where
she incorrectly asserts that “the onl y evidence provided by Singapore of the
195
raising of the Marine Ensign over PBP is a single drawing”. The plain fact
196
is that Singapore’s Memorial referred to three drawings. Furthermore, these
are supplemented by other evidence su ch as photographs and the lighthouse
197
Standing Orders. Another sign of Malaysia’s discomfort appears when she
argues that:
“Moreover, contrary to what is st ated by Sin†apore, there was no flag
of any kind flying over PBP in 1847. The only things that J. T.
Thomson planted on PBP in Nove mber 1847 were the seven brick
pillars to test the strength of the waves.” 198
This is nitpicking. The reference to “1847” in paragraph 7.12 of Singapore’s
Memorial is an inconsequential erro r – Image 15 in Singapore’s Memorial
(after page 74) shows that the flag wa s flown during the construction of the
199
lighthouse. Other parts of the Singap ore Memorial make this very clear.
195
MCM pp. 68-69, para. 133.
196
See SM p. 74, para. 5.89, extracted in full in note 194 above.
197 SM pp. 107-108, paras 6.47-6.51.
198 MCM, p. 69, para. 133. A footnote at † refers to SM p. 143, para. 7.12.
199 SM p. 143, para. 7.12 reads:
“7.12oreover, Malaysia’s long silence regarding this clear and public
manifestation of Singapore’s sove reignty over Pedra Branca since 1847 is in sharp
contrast to Malaysia’s response to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on the
lighthouse administered by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, an island which belongs to
Malaysia. In 1968, Malaysia objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over Pulau
Pisang Lighthouse. Following Malaysia’s objection, Singapore ceased flying her flag
– Page 75 –The nub of the matter is simply that the Ensign wa s flown for more than a
century without any reaction from Malaysia . This is a point which Malaysia
has not addressed.
3.90 Malaysia’s discomfort is unders tandable, given that, Malaysia’s own
State practice concerning the flying of the Singapore Marine Ensign on Pulau
Pisang confirms that Malaysia regarded the flying of the Marine Ensign as an
200
unequivocal display of sovereignty. This inconsistency between her written
pleadings and her own State practice is something from which Malaysia no
doubt wishes to divert the Court’s attention.
Section V. Ancillary Questions Raised by Malaysia Relating to the
Legal Basis of Title
A. M ALAYSIA C ONTENDS THAT THE TAKING OF P OSSESSION REQUIRES A
FORMAL ACT
1. The Malaysian Contention and the Applicable Law
3.91 Malaysia’s Memorial adopts the position that the absence of any formal
act of possession of Pedra Branca constituted evidence to the effect that Britain
201
had no intention of estab lishing sovereignty over it. It is significant that
Malaysia makes no reference to the contemporary principles of public
international law, although these principles constitute the applicable law. The
on the Lighthouse. In contrast, at no time had Malaysia ever protested against
Singapore’s flying of her flag over Pedra Branca.”
The reference to “1847” in this paragraph is an obvious, but inconsequential error. This is
clear from SM pp.73-74, para.5.89 and p.107, para.6.47. (SM para. 5.89 states: “The
practice since the lighthouse first began to function was for the marine ensign to be flown...”.
SM para. 6.47 states: “During the construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse, and subsequently for
more than a century , a British Marine Ensign flew continuously over Pedra Branca...”,
emphasis added)
200 See paras. 4.132-4.137 below.
201
MM pp. 73-76, paras. 157-164.
– Page 76 –reference is exclusively to what is desc ribed as “the traditional and consistent
British practice of formally taking possession of territories under its
sovereignty”. 202
203
3.92 This position is adhered to in Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial. At this
stage also, no reference is made to the general principles of public international
law but exclusively to “the British practice” of taking possession.
3.93 The unwillingness of Malaysia to relate this matter to the pertinent inter-
temporal law is odd and the explanation mu st be that the general principles in
question do not support the Malaysian thesis.
2. Malaysia Provides No Evidence of a Requirement of a
Formal Act of Taking Possession Either in British Practice
or in General International Law
3.94 The remarkable fact which emer ges from the lengthy exposition in
Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial is that no source is indicated which recites the
alleged requirement of a formal act of taking. The standard sources are
invoked in Singapore’s Counter-Memorial. 204 The sources quoted by Malaysia
are as follows:
(a) Lord McNair, International Law Opinions (1956) Vol1 . ,
205
p. 285; and
(b) T.JL.awrence, The Principles of International Law (1895),
206
p. 147.
202
MM p. 73, paras. 157.
203
MCM pp. 37-49, paras. 73-92.
204
SCM pp. 74-75, paras. 5.5-5.9.
205
Cited by Malaysia at MCM p. 43, para. 84.
– Page 77 –3.95 However, neither of these works indicates that a formal taking is
necessary. Like the doctrine generally, these sources make the assumption that
a formal taking is only a sufficient (but not necessary) proo f of intention. As
explained by Waldock, the requirement of “intention and will to act as
sovereign” in public international law:
“... seems to mean no more than that there must be positive evidence of
the pretensions of the particular state to be the sovereign of the
territory. This evidence may consis t either of published assertions of
207
title or of acts of sovereignty.” [emphasis added]
3.96 Singapore, in her Memorial, qu otes Sir Kenneth Roberts-Wray, a
208
leading authority. This is dismissed in Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial as a
209
“doctrinal quotation”, wh atever that might mean. But the passage from
Roberts-Wray makes the position absolutely clear: the unilateral manifestation
of the will of the Crown is sufficient. Roberts-Wray then adds:
“... in municipal law ownershi p should somehow be asserted,
preferably by formal document, such as an instrument of
annexation.” 210 [emphasis added]
3.97 Therefore the municipal law pos ition is related to what is only
“preferable”. There was no general requi rement of formality in the “British
practice”. There is no evidence to support Malaysia’s position that formality is
a legal requirement. Roberts-Wray, the source of the “doctrinal” quotation,
was a distinguished lawyer in the Colo nial Office, and Legal Adviser in the
Commonwealth Relations Office. Can Malaysia find a more authoritative
source in order to assist the Court?
206 Cited by Malaysia at MCM p. 44, para. 85.
207 Waldock H., Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Island Dependencies, 25 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int’l
L. 311 (1948), at p. 334.
208 SM p. 74, para. 5.90.
209 MCM p. 38, para. 74.
210 Roberts-Wray K., Commonwealth and Colonial Law (1966), at pp. 107-108.
– Page 78 – 3. The Examples Cited by Malaysia are Irrelevant
3.98 Malaysia has provided examples of allegedly relevant cases in her
Memorial, and does so again in her Counter-Memorial. According to her
Counter-Memorial these cases:
“... demonstrate that the British practice of taking of possession
included certain formalities which were the concrete manifestation of
the intention to acquire sovereignty, and that these practices extended
to small, isolated and/or uninhabited islands akin to PBP. The further
examples provided below confirm that the formal taking of possession
of small uninhabited islands, including rocks, followed by some public
declaration of British sovereignty, was standard practice.”11
Amidst all the assertions and the verbiage, it is necessary to identify some firm
ground. Malaysia’s argument is studiously vague, and the locutions chosen are
vague: “certain formalities”, “these prac tices”, “standard practice”. Thus, in
this passage introducing the “actual cas es”, Malaysia does not insist that
formality is necessary, only that it is “standard practice”.
3.99 Moreover, the evidence is not even presented as evidence of a legal
principle. No suggestion is made th at third States would accept these
“practices” as reflecting a principle of general international law.
3.100 When the various actual cases are examined, it will be seen that they are
inconclusive. The sources contain no evidence of a conscious compliance with
an alleged requirement of formality and, in particular, the practice is entirely
compatible with the u nderstanding that the pa rticular formality is sufficient to
establish intention, but not necessary.
211 MCM p. 38-39, para. 76.
– Page 79 –3.101 While many examples can be found of British officials performing some
formalities, this does not prove that, in the absence of formalities, an
acquisition of territory will somehow be regarded as defective. What is legally
relevant is the actual display of State authority. The ava ilable evidence does
not suggest that British officials cons idered formalities to be always
“necessary” or “required”.
3.102 The example of Pitcairn Island is a case in point. In 1893, a British
Foreign Office official made the following note regarding Pitcairn Island:
“Settled by the mutineers of the ‘Bounty’, 1789. No record of the
hoisting of the British flag, or of its having been declared British
212
territory, but so considered.”
Earlier on, when the inha bitants of Pitcairn Isla nd petitioned the Queen for a
document confirming the status of the island as British territory, the British
Colonial Office expressed the view that:
“there is no need for, but on the contrary would be some inconvenience
in, any further measure to declare Pitcairn’s Island a British
possession. It might suggest a doubt wher e none at present exists. ” 213
[emphasis added]
Following this decision of the British Co lonial Office, the Pitcairn Islanders
were informed by the relevant British Consul that:
“The Earl of Clarendon [ i.e., the Foreign Secretary ] had lately
received the copy of a Memorial addr essed by the Pitcairn Islanders to
the Queen requesting to be furnished with a Document declaring them
to be under Her Majesty’s protectio n and constituting Pitcairn’s Island
a British possession.
212
The British official who prepared this notehad some of his facts wrong (a flag-hoisting
ceremony did take place in 1839 on Pitcairn Is land). However, notw ithstanding this factual
error, the note serves as clear evidence that Br itish officials considered that an island could
become British territory even if there was no hois ting of flag and no formal declaration. See
Reply as Annex 13.fice Internal Minute on Pitcairn Island dated 19 May 1902, attached to this
213
Letter from British Colonial Office to British Foreign Office dated 6 Apr 1854, (FO 58/80
Folio 272), attached to this Reply as Annex 9.
– Page 80 –
. The manner in which England has al ways responded to the Pitcairn
Islanders, when she was claimed and claimed justly by them, as their
Fatherland, is the best proof that no doubt has ever existed as to the
Sovereignty of your Island, and I will trust be accepted by you as a
sufficient answer”.214
3.103 Sir Kenneth Roberts-Wray, the l eading authority on British colonial
practice, described the foregoing episode in the following words:
“But in 1853, after a vis it by a Frenchman, they [ the Pitcairn
Islanders] sent a petition to the Qu een, asking for a document
confirming the status of Pitcairn Island as part of Her Majesty’s
dominions and that of themselves as British subjects. The reply gave
the necessary assurance but did not send a formal document since it
might imply a doubt where there was none. While there is no good
ground to question the validity of these conclusions, it is surprising that
nothing was t215 done to place Pitcairn on a sound constitutional
foundation.” [emphasis added]
The example of Pitcairn Island provides clear evidence that British officials
never regarded formalities as either “necessary” or “required” for the
acquisition of territory. As the passa ge from Roberts-Wray quoted above
makes clear, “there is no good ground to question the validity of” the
conclusion that territory can be acquired without the need for formalities.
3.104On other occasions the Britis h Crown decided that a formal
incorporation was desirable and, for example, promulgated an Order in Council
in the case of Christmas Island in 1919. Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial
considers that the formal incorporati on took place in 1888, when the British
216
flag was raised on Christmas Island. However, the relativism and legal
ambiguity of the so-called “British practice” is highlighted by the reaction of
214
Letter from British Consulate of the SocieIslands to The Pitcairn Islanders dated 6 Oct
1854, attached to this Reply as Annex 10.
215
Roberts-Wray, supra note 210, at p. 908.
216
MCM p. 67, para. 130.
– Page 81 –the United States Department of State to the British claim to Christmas Island.
This reaction had two facets. First, the United States ig nored the flag-raising
altogether. Secondly, the British Order in Council of 1919 was categorised as a
formal incorporation but such formal acts were not regarded as conclusive of
the question of title by the United States.
3.105 The Christmas Island case indicates the problematical nature of the
Malaysian examples in the context of general international law. Thus, in
Hackworth’s Digest the other side of the history is set forth as follows:
“On July 30, 1925 a geographic publishing firm was informed by the
Department [of State] that –
the title to Christmas Island, as between Great Britain and the
United States, may be regarded as somewhat uncertain. Christmas
Island was bonded as an American Guano Island December 29,
1859 ...
According to information available to the Department, Christmas
Island has been occupied at one time or another by American
citizens and by British subjects. By a British Order in Council,
made public on November 28, 1919, it was set forth that from and
after the proclamation of the Order by publication in Western
Pacific Gazette, the boundaries of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands
Colony shall be extended to include Christmas Island. The
Department has not made any formal protest or claim in respect of
the British Order in Council of November 28, 1919. On the other
hand, this Government has never relinquished such claims as it
may have by virtue of the former occupancy of Christmas Island by
American citizens.
You are further informed that on a map which was compiled for the
Department in 1921, Christmas Island was indicated as ‘Status
undetermined – U.S., Br.’
The Assistant Secretary of State (Harrison) to A.J. Nystrom and
Company, July 30, 1925, MS. Department of State, file
841.014/27.
– Page 82 – Later on October 12, 1929 the Department said:
... Christmas Island, however, has fo rmally been incorporated in
the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony by an Order-in-Council
issued in 1919 and the Department understands that the Island was
leased to the Central Pacific Cocoanut Plantations, Limited, for a
term of eighty-seven years beginning in January, 1914. The United
States has neither admitted nor questioned this latest claim of
British Sovereignty of Christmas Island, although as stated in the
account of the Island, contained in Moore’s International Law
Digest, Volume I, page 573, the United States by formal
communications addressed to the British Government in 1879 and
1888 reserved all questions wh ich might grow out of the
occupation of the Island by Great Britain.
The Assistant Secretary of St ate (Johnson) to William Hard,
Oct. 12 1929. MS. Department of State, file 811.014/167.” 217
3.106 The cases of Pitcairn and Christ mas Island are helpful in emphasising
that the resort to formalities was not re garded as a necessary basis of title in
British practice and, furthe rmore, that the presence of a formal taking of
possession, when this occurred, was not regarded as conclusive by third States.
In relation to Pitcairn Island, the abse nce of formalities did not prevent British
officials from regarding the island as Br itish territory. In relation to Christmas
Island, the presence of formalities was not regarded as conclusive by the
United States Department of State. In relation to Pedra Branca, the Dutch
authorities had no difficulty in according recognition of Pedra Branca as British
territory.218
3.107 The specific examples invoked by Ma laysia in this regard are examined
in detail in Appendix C to this Reply. As the Court will see, these cases
simply confirm the view that British practice was pragmatic.
217
See Hackworth G.H., Digest of International Law (Vol. 1, 1940), pp. 507-8.
218
See paras. 2.41-2.43 above; and paras. 3.128-3.129; 8.13-8.15below.
– Page 83 – 4. Conclusions: There was No Legal Condition of Formality in
Taking Possession Either in Municipal Law or
in the Principles of General International Law
3.108 A range of significant factors st rongly militate against the Malaysian
thesis that formality was the British “standard practice” in taking possession (or
occupation of territory).
First: the available evidence contra dicts the assertion that there
was any such consistent pr actice in the context of
municipal law.
Secondly: the principle in question is not plausible as a political
concept. Formality appears onl y when there is a practical
and political reason. Thus, for example, formality is
necessary, as a practical matter, to mark the transfer of
possession and control subsequent to a treaty of cession, as
in the case of Labuan. An other reason would be to
advertise the change of sovereignty in the case of
relatively remote features in face of an expectation of
competing claims.
Thirdly: the “British practice” as alle ged by Malaysia would have
been incompatible with th e principles of general
international law at the material time. Acts of formal
taking by the British Governme nt were not automatically
opposable to third States.
3.109 The attempt by Malaysia to conjure up a “British practice” out of the
pragmatic conduct of the British Crown in the colonial era is hollow. None of
the instruments invoked refer to the a lleged practice. A further source of
confusion is the failure to distinguish between symbolic acts, such as raising a
flag, and the taking of po ssession which would create title in accordance with
the principles of general international law.
– Page 84 –3.110 It is to be emphasised, for the bene fit of the Court, that the key sources
on the subject of territorial status durin g the colonial period make no reference
to a legal requirement of formality. Thus, the authoritative opinion of Roberts-
Wray may be quoted once again. U nder the heading “Annexation of Ceded
Colonies”, he states the position thus:
“When a territory is ceded by treaty or formal agreement, an
instrument of annexation is not necessary. Cession consists of transfer
by the former owners and acceptance by the Crown and these together
complete the transaction. It is,however, probable that nowadays it
would always be perfected by a unilateral instrument annexing the
territory to Her Majesty’s dominions . That course was adopted in
1946, when agreements ceding Sarawak and British North Borneo to
the Crown were immediately followed by Orders in Council annexing
the territories.
In a case of less formal cession, not evidenced by treaty or agreement,
e.g. Malta and Basutoland, annexati on or some similar formal act
would normally be advisable as evid ence of the fact and the date219nd
as manifestation of the intention of the Crown to accept the cession.”
3.111 Thus, Roberts-Wray, the authority who examines these issues, and does
so in the context of international law, regards resort to a formal document as
merely advisable or preferable in terms of municipal law. The standard works
on British constitutional or colonial law do not espous e the view that
formalities were either “necessary” or constituted a “standard practice”. Apart
from Roberts-Wray, the following authorities confirm this position:
(a) AnsoWn.R., The Law and Custom of the Constitution (Part II,
4th Edition, 1935), at pp. 61-67;
(b) Holdswort Wh.S., A History of English Law (Vol. XI, 1938),
passim;
(c) TarriCg.J., Chapters on the Law Re lating to the Colonies (4th
Edition, 1913), passim.
219 Roberts-Wray, supra note 210, at pp. 104-105.
– Page 85 – B. T HE C RITERIA OF P OSSESSION OR EFFECTIVE O CCUPATION
3.112 In the course of an argument to the effect that the British Crown never
“took possession” of Pedra Branca, Mala ysia produces a subsidiary thesis.
This takes the form essentially of the assertion that if the date of the taking of
possession is not precisely determined, this constitutes evidence that the taking
220
of possession was not accomplished.
3.113As a preliminary matter, the Malaysian argument has weak legal
foundations. In this part of the written pleading Malaysia insists on a wholly
artificial dichotomy between the taking of control of territory (physical
possession) and the intention to acquire sovereignty (animus). This analysis is
flawed. The key point is the assessment of the evidence as a whole . In the
result the physical and administrative ac tions of the officials of the British
Crown form a part of the evidence of in tention. The eviden ce of intention is
also, and perhaps primarily, available in the ample documentary record.
3.114 There can be no doubt that the process of acquisition began at least in
1847 when Thomson began operations which involved the assumption that the
island as a terra nullius was available for the exclusive use of the Crown. The
first evidence of such occupation wa s reinforced and confirmed by the
subsequent and entirely logical sequence of acts of use and possession.
3.115 In reality there is no reason what soever why the taking of possession
221
should not be “a complex act”, cont rary to what Malaysia suggests. Inthe
Clipperton Island Arbitration the Award contains the following passage:
“Il est hors de doute que par un usage immémorial ayant force de loi
juridique, outre l’animus occupandi, la prise de possession matérielle
et non fictive est une condition nécessaire de l’occupation. Cette prise
220
MCM pp. 31-32, paras. 59-61.
221
MCM p. 32, para. 61.
– Page 86 – de possession consiste dans l’acte ou la série d’actes par lesquels l’État
occupant réduit à sa disposition le te rritoire en question et se met en
mesure d’y faire valoir son autorité exclusive.”
[ English translation: “It is beyond doubt that by immemorial usage
having the force of law, besides the animus occupandi, the actual, and
not the nominal, taking of posse ssion is a necessary condition of
occupation. This taking of po ssession consists in the act, or series of
acts, by which the occupying state reduces to its possession the
territory in question and takes step s to exercise exclusive authority
there.” ]222
3.116The normal aspect of cases relating to possession (or effective
occupation) is the evidence of a pattern of activities and administration which,
even apart from explicit expressions of in tention, create the strong inference
that a title has been created. In the absence of such ev idence of title, the
incidence of symbolic acts such as burying cylinders or raising flags, will
create merely contingent titles which other States will be reluctant to recognise.
3.117 In many cases involving title the critical evidence includes patterns of
evidence of acts of juri sdiction. Thus, in the Beagle Channel Arbitration the
issue of interpretation of the 1881 Treaty was addressed in part on the basis of
the evidence of the acts of jurisdiction performed by Chile. 223 In that case, as
in many others, there was competing activ ity by another State. In the present
case, the activities of the British Crown evinced no opposition.
222
Subject of the Difference Relative to the Sovereignty over Clipperton Islan(France v.
Mexico), Arbitral Award dated 28 Jan 1931, (1928) 2 RIAA 1107, at p. 1110 (for the original
emphasis added.d 26 Am. J. Int’l L. 390 (1932), at p.393 (for the English translation),
223
See Beagle Channel Arbitration (Argentina v. Chile) (Award of 18 Feb 1977), 52 ILR 97, at
pp. 220-226, paras. 164-175.
– Page 87 – C. T HE A SSERTION OF M ALAYSIA THAT NO P ROTEST O R
R ESERVATION OF RIGHTS W AS CALLED FOR
3.118 In her Memorial, Singapore made the point that the taking of possession
224
by the British Crown elicited no opposition from other powers. This point
was reiterated in Singapore’s Counter-Memorial.5
3.119 The response of Malaysia is as follows:
“Singapore remarks that ‘[t]here is no record of any opposition to the
British taking of possession of Pedra Branca’ nor any ‘protest or
reservation of rights’. It has been shown that there was no formal or
informal taking of possession of PBP on behalf of the British Crown at
all. Consequently, ther e was nothing to protest and no need to make
any reservation of rights. Johnot only did not protest against the
construction of the lighthouse; gave the British authorities the
required permission to do it.”
3.120 This is a very limited response, which relies on unproven assumptions
that there was no taking of possession othat the British authorities had the
permission of Johor. Apart from these elisions, Malaysia accepts that there was
no protest and no reservation of rights.
3.121 The failure to protest in face of the flow of public activity, and
especially the continuous operations attending the construction of the
lighthouse, must cast a deep shadow upon Malaysia’s cl aim to “original title”.
Johor had very complete knowledge of the intentions of the British Crown
through the correspondence conc erning the site for a li ghthouse. The visit of
the Temenggong is significant in this resp ect, and the laying of the foundation
stone was reported in the local pressAs Malaysia has herself indicated, the
227
time frame was a period of four years.
224 SM p. 77, paras. 5.99-5.100.
225 SCM p. 125, para. 5.130; p. 126, para. 5.134; and p. 128, para. 5.137.
226 MCM p. 69, para. 134.
227
MCM p. 32, para. 61.
– Page 88 –3.122 The criteria indicating that a prot est is called for have been stated
succinctly by Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice:
“There must of course be knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the
events or circumstances calling for a protest... Subject to that, it might
be said generally that a protest is called for whenever failure to make it
will, in the circumstances, justify the inference that the party concerned
is indifferent to the question of title, or does not w228 to assert title, or
is unwilling to contest the claim of the other party.”
3.123 And Fitzmaurice describes the consequences of silence:
“... a failure to protest, where a protest is called for, must have a
detrimental effect on the position of the party concerned and may
afford evidence of non-existence of title.” 229
3.124 In this context the absence of any protest or reservation either during the
Temenggong’s visit to Pedra Branca in 1850 or subsequent to it provides a
confirmation of the indifference of Johor in relation to title. It was above all
clear that the host was the British Crown. The transport for the distinguished
visitor had been provided by the Governor of the Straits Settlements and the
host was Thomson, acting on behalf of the British authorities. The situation is
in its essentials a reflection of the visit of Prince Damrong to the Temple in the
Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear . The relevant passages in the
Judgment are these:
“With one or two important excepti ons to be mentioned presently, the
acts concerned were exclusively the acts of local, provincial,
authorities. To the extent that these activities took place, it is not clear
that they had reference to the su mmit of Mount Preah Vihear and the
Temple area itself, rather than to places somewhere in the vicinity. But
however that may be, the Court finds it difficult to regard such local
acts as overriding and negativing th e consistent and undeviating
attitude of the central Siamese au thorities to the frontier line as
mapped.
228
Fitzmaurice G., The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (Vol. 1, 1986),
at p. 299, note 3.
229
Ibid.
– Page 89 – In this connection, much the most significant episode consisted of the
visit paid to the Temple in 1930 by Prince Damrong, formerly Minister
of the Interior, and at this time President of the Royal Institute of Siam,
charged with duties in connection w ith the National Library and with
archaeological monuments. The visit was part of an archaeological
tour made by the Prince with the permission of the King of Siam, and
it clearly had a quasi-official charac ter. When the Prince arrived at
Preah Vihear, he was officially rece ived there by the French Resident
for the adjoining Cambodian provin ce, on behalf of the Resident
Superior, with the French flag fl ying. The Prince could not possibly
have failed to see the implications of a reception of this character. A
clearer affirmation of title on th e French Indo-Chinese side can
scarcely be imagined. It demanded a reaction. Thaila nd did nothing.
Furthermore, when Prince Damrong on his return to Bangkok sent the
French Resident some photographs of the occasion, he used language
which seems to admit that France, through her Resident, had acted as
the host country.
The explanations regarding Prince Damrong’s visit given on behalf of
Thailand have not been found convincing by the Court. Looking at the
incident as a whole, it appears to have amounted to a tacit recognition
by Siam of the sovereignty of Ca mbodia (under French Protectorate)
over Preah Vihear, through a failur e to react in any way, on an
occasion that called for a reaction in or der to affirm or preserve title in
the face of an obvious rival claim. What seems clear is that either
Siam did not in fact believe she had any title – and this would be
wholly consistent with her attitude all along, and thereafter, to the
Annex I map and line – or else she decided not to assert it, which again
means that she accepted the French claim, or accepted the frontier at
Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map.” 230
3.125 In the circumstances this visit had adverse legal consequences for
Thailand. There is no reason to assume that the silence of the Temenggong in
the present case should be accorded less significance. The Memorial of
Malaysia reports that at the relevant period “the office of the Temenggong
came to be more important than that of Sultan”. 231 Moreover, the
Temenggong’s visit took pl ace nine days after the la ying of the foundation
232
stone.
230 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Merits) [1962] ICJ Rep 6, at pp. 30-31.
231 MM p. 61, para. 123.
232
SCM pp. 113-115, paras. 5.102-5.106.
– Page 90 – D. N AVIGATIONAL AIDS AS EVIDENCE OF S OVEREIGNTY
3.126 In her Counter-Memorial, in the di scussion on “the subsequent conduct
of the parties”,33Malaysia makes a general asse rtion “that conduct relating to
lighthouses has special features which mean that it is not a reliable indicator of
sovereignty”.234 The issue had already been raised in Malaysia’s Memorial and
Singapore has presented a substantia l response in her Counter-Memorial, 235to
which the Court is respectfully referred.
3.127 The basic element in this context is the characterisation of the legal
criterion concerning acquisition of sovereignty. This criterion is not based on
abstract propositions as to whether navigational aids are, or are not,
manifestations of sovereignty per se, but consists of the intention to acquire
sovereignty as revealed by all the re levant circumstances, including the
documentary record.
Section VI. The Contemporary Attitude of Johor
and the Dutch Government
3.128 In order to complete the general picture of events in the years 1847-1851
it is necessary to refer to the attitude of third States. No other State expressed
any reservation in face of the continu ous public activities of the British Crown
over a period of four years. In partic ular, no reservation of any kind was made
by Johor.
233
MCM, Chapter 5.
234
MCM pp. 85-86, para. 172.
235
SCM p. 120-125, paras. 5.121-5.130.
– Page 91 –3.129 In this same context it was natura l that the Dutch General Secretary in
Batavia, in November 1850, writing to the Dutch resident in Riau, should refer
236
to “the construction of a lighthouse at Pedra Branca on British territory”.
Section VII. Conclusion
3.130 Singapore will now reiterate her conclusions on the basis of her claim to
sovereignty in respect of Pedra Branca:
(a) The basis of the claim to sovere ignty in respect of Pedra Branca
is the lawful possession of Pedra Branca effected by a series of
official actions in the period 18 47-1851, beginning with the first
landing on Pedra Branca by Thomson some time between 21
June and 9 July 1847, and ending with the ceremonial official
commissioning of the lighthouse on 27 September 1851.
(b) The decision to build the lighth ouse on Pedra Branca was taken
by the Court of Directors of the East India Company as an
official organ of the British Crown.
(c) The entire process of planning, choice of site, and construction,
was subject to the exclusive cont rol and approval of the British
Crown and its representatives.
(d) The pattern of activities and offi cial visits in the period 1847-
1851 constitutes an unequivocal ma nifestation of the will of the
British Crown to claim sovereignty in respect of Pedra Branca for
the purpose of building the Horsburgh Lighthouse and its
appurtenances and its maintenance, on a permanent basis.
236 Letter from C. Visscher (Gener al Secretary, Netherlands East Indies) to Dutch Resident in
Riau dated 27 Nov 1850, at tached to this Reply as Annex 8, emphasisSee detailed
discussion at paras. 2.41-2.43 above, and paras. 8.13-8.15 below.
– Page 92 –3.131 The particular manifestations of the intention of the British Crown to
take lawful possession of Pedra Branca include the following:
(a) The ceremonial laying of the fo undation stone in 1850 under the
authority and control and auspices of the Governor of the Straits
Settlements and in the presence of other senior officials.
(b) The logistical support and protection provi ded by British
Government vessels during the pr eparation for construction and
the construction itself.
(c) The maintenance of public order by the British Crown during the
process of preparation and construction.
(d) The official commissioning of the lighthouse on 27 September
1851 which involved a visit by the Governor of the Straits
Settlements and other officials.
(e) The panel placed in the Visito rs’ room within the lighthouse
confirms its official characte r and bears the names of the
Governor and of J.T. Thomson, the Government Surveyor.
(f) The flying of the Marine Ensign in accordance with
contemporary British practice. It is also clear that the Marine
Ensign was flown during the process of construction, 1850-1851,
and then, of course, after completion.
3.132 In addition, the acts of taking possession were peaceful and public and
elicited no opposition from other powers.
3.133 In consequence, title to Pedra Branca was acquired by the British Crown
in accordance with the legal principles governing acquisition of territory at the
material time.
– Page 93 –3.134 The evidence and relevant legal cons iderations establish that the British
Crown acquired soverei gnty in the period 1847- 1851, an entitlement
subsequently inherited by the Republic of Singapore. The maintenance of this
title, on the basis of the effective and peacef ul exercise of State authority since
1851, is described in Chapter VI of Si ngapore’s Memorial, Chapter VI of her
Counter-Memorial, and in Chapter IV of the present Reply.
– Page 94 – CHAPTER IV
SINGAPORE’S CONTINUOUS, PEACEFUL AND EFFECTIVE
EXERCISE OF STATE AUTHORITY OVER PEDRA BRANCA
Section I. Introduction
4.1 Chapter VI of Singapore’s Memorial documented the extensive ways in
which Singapore and her predecesso r in title, the United Kingdom, have
exercised continuous sovereignty over Pedra Branca from 1847-1851, when the
British Crown acquired possession of the is land for purposes of constructing a
lighthouse on it, to the present. By any standard, and bearing in mind the
nature of Pedra Branca and its small size , the acts of State authority performed
by Singapore on Pedra Branca in confir mation of her pre-existing title are
impressive. This is so whether such acts are measured by their scope (which
included both light house and non-lighthouse rela ted activities), their long
duration (over 150 years), and their open and notorious nature, or in the light of
the fact that such activities went tota lly unopposed by Ma laysia until 1979
when Malaysia belatedly raised a claim to the island for the first time.
4.2 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial exhi bits considerable sensitivity to
Singapore’s long-standing and extensiv e conduct carried out on and around
Pedra Branca. This sensitivity is illust rated by the extravag ant language that
Malaysia employs in an attempt to denigrate the obvious significance of
Singapore’s conduct. In a statement wh ich aptly sums up Malaysia’s attitude
towards acts of administration and control on the disputed territory in this case,
Malaysia asserts:
“The essential proposition concerning Singapore’s conduct is
straightforward: there is nothing – not a single item – in the conduct on
which Singapore relies that is capab le of sustaining Singapore’s claim
to sovereignty.”37
237 MCM p. 164, para. 339.
– Page 95 –4.3 This is a very bold statement coming from a Party which has been
unable to document a single claim of her own to Pedra Branca at any time prior
to 1979 or a single sovereign act that she took on the island at any time. It is
also a bold statement coming from a Party which, in 1953, expressly disclaimed
ownership over the very island presently in dispute. 238
4.4 Reduced to its essentials, Malays ia’s Counter-Memorial has attempted
to rebut the significance of Singapore’ s conduct undertaken on Pedra Branca
by advancing the following propositions:
(a) Acts of administration and control on a territory in dispute cannot
be divorced from the legal status of that territory, in particular
from considerations of whether th ere exists a prior title to the
territory. In this case, Malaysia claims to have sovereignty over
Pedra Branca based on an alleged, but totally unproven, “original
title” of Johor. Malaysia argue s that this title cannot be
“displaced” by any subs equent activities of Singapore or her
predecessor.
(b) The conduct of Singapore on Pedra Branca was limited to the
administration of the lighthouse and nothing more, and was
consistent with the kind of activ ities that any lighthouse operator
would have undertaken regardless of the question of sovereignty.
Administration of a lighthouse ca nnot be equated with conduct
à titre de souverain — a conclusion which is said to be supported
by the fact that there are other instances around the world where
lighthouses are administered by a St ate or entity which is not the
title holder to the territory on which the lighthouse is situated.
238 See Chapter VII below. See also SCM Chapter VII; and SM Chapter VIII.
– Page 96 – (c) In the present case, Singapore also fails to appreciate the
significance of the Straits’ Lights System which, Malaysia
contends, demonstrates that administration of a lighthouse in the
Singapore Straits was not determinative of the issue of
sovereignty over the underlying territory.
4.5 In this Chapter, Sing apore will respond to thes e Malaysian contentions.
In so doing, Singapore will once agai n demonstrate that her conduct on Pedra
Branca was entirely consistent with, and confirmatory of, the sovereignty she
had acquired over Pedra Branca in the pe riod 1847-1851. The numerous State
activities undertaken by Singapore with respect to Pedra Branca were precisely
the kinds of activities that any title holder w ould have performed on territory
having the characteristics of Pedr a Branca. These activities went far beyond
the scope of conduct that this Court and other tribunals have found legally
relevant when considering questions of title over small islands in the past.
Furthermore, the fact that Malaysia explicitly disclaimed ownership over Pedra
Branca in 1953, and never ra ised the slightest objection to any of Singapore’s
activities until well after the dispute had crystallised in 1980, is entirely
consistent with the conclusion that Singapore possessed sovereignty over Pedra
Branca and acted accordingly.
4.6 In Section II, Singapore will once ag ain place her conduct in the proper
legal context in order to reply to th e ill-conceived argumen ts advanced in
Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial on this point.
4.7 In Section III, Singapore will show th at none of the examples cited by
Malaysia in Chapter 6 of her Counter-Memorial, where lighthouses have been
operated by a private or public entity which is not the s overeign over the
underlying territory, are analogous to the situation regarding Pedra Branca.
Singapore will also recanvass the lega l authorities which support her position
and which Malaysia has attempted to distinguish.
– Page 97 –4.8 In Section IV, Singapore will ag ain demonstrate, in response to
Chapter8 of Malaysia’s Counter-Memor ial, that the activities she performed
on Pedra Branca were undertaken à titre de souverain, and that such activities
confirmed and maintained the title that had been acquired in 1847-1851.
4.9 In Chapter VI of this Reply, Singapore will respond to Malaysia’s
comments advanced in Chapter 7 of her Counter-Memorial on the relevance of
the Straits’ Lights System fo r purposes of this case. As Singapore will show,
while the mere funding of the StraitsLights System may have been without
prejudice to the question of sovereignt y, Malaysia made it clear at various
times which islands she possessed. Th ose islands included Pulau Pisang, but
not Pedra Branca.
Section II. The Exercise by Singapore of State Functions on
Pedra Branca Was Undertaken in Confirmation of
Singapore’s Pre-Existing Title
A. T HE R ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN S INGAPORE S ACTS OF ADMINISTRATION
AND CONTROL AND ISSUES OF TITLE
4.10 In her Memorial, Singapore pointed out that the significance to be
attributed to the effectivités of the Parties on Pedra Branca (or lack thereof, in
Malaysia’s case) should be assessed in the light of the Chamber’s well-known
dictum in the Burkina Faso/Mali judgment. To recall what the Chamber said in
that case:
“Where the act corresponds exac tly to law, where effective
administration is additional to the uti possidetis juris, the only role of
effectivité is to confirm the right derived from a legal title. Where the
act does not correspond to the lawhere the territory which is the
subject of the dispute is effectivel y administered by a State other than
the one possessing the le gal title, preference should be given to the
– Page 98 – holder of the title. In the event that the effectivité does not co-e239t
with any legal title, it must invariably be taken into consideration.”
240
4.11 Malaysia professes to fully accept this analysis. However, her
Counter-Memorial then goe s on to accuse Singapore of disjoining her
240
“effective administration of the light house” from any consideration of title.
In Malaysia’s view, Singapore’s acts of administration and control over Pedra
Branca cannot displace a prior Malaysian (Johor) title which is said to have
existed.
4.12 In effect, what Malaysia argues is that the consideration of Singapore’s
effectivités over Pedra Branca falls within the second category addressed by the
Chamber in the Burkina Faso/Mali case – situations where the acts concerned
are carried out by a State other than the one possessing the legal title. The
notion that Malaysia has even begun to demonstrate that Johor possessed an
“original title” to Pedra Branca has been thoroughly rebu tted in Singapore’s
Counter-Memorial (Chapters III and IV) an d in Chapter II of this Reply.
Suffice it to recall that there is not a shre d of evidence that Johor ever had the
intention (animus) to claim sovereignty over Pe dra Branca or carried out any
acts of sovereignty ( corpus) on the ground. In shor t, there was no Malaysian
title which could in any way be displaced.
4.13 At the same time, Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial also accuses Singapore
241
of failing “to state a coherent legal basis for its claim of sovereignty”, and of
242
equivocating on the relevance of subsequent conduct. This is an unfortunate
mischaracterisation of Singapore’s case . Far from addressing the role of her
239 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 554, at pp. 586-587, para. 63.
240 MCM pp. 5-6, para. 9.
241 MCM p. 5, para. 7.
242
MCM p. 84, para. 169.
– Page 99 –continuous and unopposed administration of Pedra Branca in a legal vacuum,
Singapore’s position on the legal relevance of her conduct could not be clearer.
In order to avoid any further misunder standing, Singapore will briefly restate
her position here.
4.14 Prior to 1847, there was no territorial sovereign over Pedra Branca. The
island was barren and had no t been occupied, claimed or administered by
anyone. As explained in Singapore’ s previous pleadings and again in
Chapter III above, from 1847-1851 the British Crown took lawful possession of
the island for purposes of building a lighthouse on it. Indeed, there was little
room for anything else on the island. After 1851, the United Kingdom and,
subsequently, Singapore engaged in a cons tant stream of State (as opposed to
private) activities on the island and within her territorial waters as part of the
natural administration of territory over which Singapore possessed lawful title.
These activities were of a varied and fa r reaching nature and were entirely
commensurate with the nature of the te rritory on which th ey were performed.
They had the legal effect of maintaining and confirming Singapore’s previously
acquired sovereignty on the ground, and they were unopposed by Malaysia or
anyone else until Malaysia raised a claim in 1979.
4.15 It is thus apparent that the role of Singapore’s effectivités over the island
after 1851 falls within the first cate gory discussed by the Chamber in the
243
Burkina Faso/Mali case. The acts of Singapore and her predecessor in title
were acts which corresponded exactly with the law. They were confirmatory
acts – acts of administration and control fully consistent with the possession of
title that had been acquired in 1847-1851.
243 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) (Merits), supra note 239.
– Page 100 –4.16 Yet even if this had no t been the case – even if, arguendo, it could be
assumed that the British Crown had not taken possessi on of Pedra Branca by
virtue of its official acts performed from 1847-1851 – Singapore’s subsequent
conduct would still be legally relevant.In that situation, the third category
articulated by the Chamber would come into play. Singapore’s effectivités
would have to be taken into account and balanced against any competing
Malaysian acts on the island.In any balancing of competing acts, Malaysia
would still face an insurmountable ta sk. Not only wo uld Malaysia be
confronted with the fact that neithershe nor her prede cessor, Johor, ever
carried out a single sovereign act on Pe dra Branca, she would continue to be
bound by the clear-cut ad mission made in 1953 th at Johor did not claim
ownership over the island.
4.17 In the light of the above, Singapor e trusts that the Court will appreciate
that there is no confusion as to the role of Singapore’s conduct on Pedra Branca
in this case. Singapore has not “dis joined” the issue of its effective
administration of Pedra Branca from the consideration of title, but has
specifically taken that title into account in discussing her conduct. Any
confusion in the mind of Malaysia is en tirely self-induced and a product of the
impossible situation Malaysia finds herself in when forced to address the
question of actual State activities on the island – she has performed none.
B. S INGAPORE S C ONDUCT ON PEDRA BRANCA
IN THE C ONTEXT OF THE C ASE
4.18 Malaysia’s principal argument in re sponse to the continuous display by
Singapore and her predecessor of State authority over Pedra Branca is that such
activities are no more than what would be expected from any administrator of a
lighthouse regardless of title. Significa ntly, Malaysia does not challenge the
accuracy of most of the facts adduced in Singapore’s Me morial documenting
the actions that the United Kingdom and Singapore undertook on Pedra Branca
or within its territorial waters. Instea d, Malaysia contends that “the practice
– Page 101 –cited by Singapore concerns its administration of Horsburgh Lighthouse which
has nothing whatever to do with sovereignty over PBP [Pedra Branca].” 244
4.19 There are three fundamental flaws to this line of reasoning.
4.20 First, Malaysia addresses the issue of Singapore’s conduct on Pedra
Branca in isolation from the fact th at sovereignty over the island had already
been acquired by the United Kingdom in 1847-1851. This aspect of the matter
has been discussed in Chapter III of this Reply.
4.21 Secondly, Malaysia simply assumes th at just because in certain
instances, which are not applicable here (as will be seen in Section III of this
Chapter), lighthouses are operated by an entity which is not the sovereign over
the territory where the lighthouse is situ ated, the same situation must apply to
Pedra Branca. This is nothing more than a non sequitur. In the overwhelming
majority of cases, States administer lighthouses that are located within their
own territory. Even Malays ia’s Counter-Memorial is forced to concede that
“the administration of a lighthouse ma y coexist with sovereignty over the
territory on which the lighthouse is located”. 245 In such circumstances – and
this is the case with Pedra Branca – th e administration of a lighthouse, and
other non-lighthouse related activities, ar e a perfectly normal display of State
authority, in the same manner that State functions carried out over other parts
of a State’s territory constitute the ordinary exercise of sovereign authority over
such territory.
4.22 Thirdly, in her discussion of the signifi cance of Singapore’s control of
access to Pedra Branca, Malaysia purports to attach significance to the nature
of the territory in question. However, Ma laysia then fails to take this element
244 MCM p. 89, para. 177.
245 MCM p. 88, para. 175.
– Page 102 –into account in her appreciation of th e facts. For example, her Counter-
Memorial states that, “the character of PBP [ Pedra Branca] cannot be ignored
in this discussion.” 246 This is a proposition with which Singapore fully agrees.
However, Malaysia then goes on to assert that:
“Singapore advances its claims as if the island was inhabited and had
something on 246other than the light house for which Singapore alone is
responsible.”
The first part of Malaysia’s comment is completely misplaced. Pedra Branca
was uninhabited, at least until the isla nd began to be staffed from Singapore
following the completion of Horsburgh Lighthouse in 1851 . Singapore has
never suggested the contrary. The second part of Malaysia’s assertion – that
Singapore acts as if there was some thing else on the island besides the
lighthouse structures – is also mislea ding, and must be placed in proper
context.
4.23 If the Court refers to the photograph that appears overleaf ( Insert 7), 247
it will see that there is virtually no room on the island to construct any
additional facilities or to carry out any other functions other than those that can
be accommodated within the structures that Singapore built, maintained and
administered. In short, Singapore has already made the absolute maximum use
of the island that is possi ble, given Pedra Branca’s ph ysical characteristics.
Singapore’s administration and control of Pedra Branca was adapted to the
nature and physical extent of the isla nd, and a natural cons equence of the title
she had acquired in 1847-1851.
246
MCM p. 196, para. 401.
247
This photograph was also produced in larger format as SM Image 16, after pSee also
the photographs in SM, after p. 10.
– Page 103 – 248
4.24 This does not mean, as Singapore has previously shown, that her acts
on Pedra Branca were limited to the ope ration and upkeep of the lighthouse.
Singapore’s conduct embraced many othe r non-lighthouse related activities as
well. Nonetheless, Singapore’s conduct must be viewed in relation to the
actual characteristics of Pedra Branca. It is obvious that the nature of the
functions that Singapore carried out on Pedra Branca had to be tailored to the
physical characteristics of the island and the facilities it could accommodate.
4.25 The proposition that the degree of State authority which is required to
establish or maintain a legal title to territory depends on the nature of the
territory in question is uncontroversial in international law. The point was put
in the following way by Judge Max Huber in the Island of Palmas case:
“Manifestations of sovereignty assu me, it is true, different forms,
according to conditions of time and place. Although continuous in
principle, sovereignty cannot be exer cised in fact at every moment on
every point of territory. The intermittence and discontinuity compati-
ble with the maintenance of the ri ght necessarily differ according as
inhabited or uninhabited regions ar e involved, or regions enclosed
within territories in which sovereig nty is uncontestably displayed or
again regions accessible from, for instance, the high seas.” 249
4.26 The Tribunal in the Eritrea/Yemen case made a similar observation in
connection with determining sovereignt y over small islands in the Red Sea.
The Tribunal stated:
“The modern international law of the acquisition (or attribution) of
territory generally requires that there be: an intentional display of
power and authority over the territ ory, by the exercise of jurisdiction
and State functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The latter two
criteria are tempered to suit the nature of the territory and the size of its
250
population, if any.”
248 SM pp. 109-124, paras. 6.54-6.90.
249 See Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v. U.S.) (1928) 2 RIAA 829, at p. 840.
250
Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at para. 239.
– Page 104 –4.27 Inaddressing Singapore’s effectivités performed on Pedra Branca, it is
also appropriate to recall what the Permanent Court had to say in the Legal
Status of Eastern Greenland case where the Court observed:
“It is impossible to read the record s of the decisions in cases as to
territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the
tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of actual exercise
of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a
superior claim. This is particular ly true in the case of claims to
sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.”251
4.28 Malaysia’s failure to appreciate th ese considerations gives rise to a
fundamental contradiction in Malaysia’s case:
On the one hand, Malaysia argues that all of Singapore’s effectivités on
Pedra Branca were no more than normal activities associated with
running a lighthouse and were with out prejudice to the question of
sovereignty. As Malaysia’s Counte r-Memorial asserts, “conduct in the
administration of a lighthouse cannot, in the absence of other factors, be
252
taken as evidence of sovereignty.” This argument fails to take
account of the fact that Singapore’s conduct maintained and confirmed a
pre-existing title. It also contains an implicit criticism that Singapore
should have done more on the island.
On the other hand , Malaysia herself agrees that the character of Pedra
Branca cannot be ignored. In fact, Mala ysia goes so far as to argue that
given Pedra Branca’s “tiny surface”, the only conduct that could have
been expected of Malaysia would be conduct within the island’s
253
maritime spaces, not conduct on the island itself.
251
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Cas(Denmark v. Norway ), Judgment (1933) P.C.I.J.
Reports, Ser. A/B, No. 53, at pp. 45-46.
252
MCM p. 99, para. 201.
253
MCM p. 229, para. 489.
– Page 105 –4.29 Apparently, Malaysia expects much more from Singapore in terms of
conduct than she does from he rself. Yet, it is precis ely the character of the
island which dictated the uses to which Singapore could put it. Given the fact
that Pedra Branca is an extremely modest feature, the nature and extent of
Singapore’s conduct thereo n was extensive in the circumstances and clear
evidence of Singapore’s sovereignty.
4.30 Any assessment of the legal value of State conduct with respect to Pedra
Branca depends on the overall contex t of the case, not on a fragmented
approach to the evidence as adopted by Malaysia. It is not enough for
Malaysia to provide affidavits from outside consultants discussing the tasks
that might, in any given situation, be entrusted to the administrator of a
lighthouse. The facts must be viewed in the light of all the relevant
circumstances. In the present case, the overall contex t within which
Singapore’s conduct falls to be cons idered encompasses the following key
elements:
(a) Prior to 1847, sovereignty over Pedra Branca was not vested in
any power. Notwithstanding her invocation of an “original title”,
Malaysia has not and cannot point to a single claim to the island
on the part of Johor (or anyone else) or a single act of
administration and control on the island.
(b) From 1847-1851, the British Crown took lawful possession of
Pedra Branca in connection with the building of a lighthouse.
This act of possession did not re quire, and was not accompanied
by, the permission of any other power, including Johor. Unlike
the situation that existed with respect to the lighthouses on Pulau
Pisang and Cape Rachado, where the local Malay rulers granted
their express permission to the British authorities to construct a
lighthouse, there is no indenture, deed or treaty from Johor
– Page 106 – granting the British Crown the right to construct the lighthouse
on Pedra Branca. None was needed.
(c) Neither in 1851, nor at any time afterwards, did Johor or
Malaysia ever so much as intimate that sovereignty over Pedra
Branca rested with them or that the lighthouse was being
operated under an indenture or servitude. Malaysia’s claim to the
island only surfaced in 1979, and even then it was no more than a
paper claim in the true sense of the word, given that it was based
on a unilaterally promulgated map.
(d) Following the completion of th e lighthouse in 1851, the United
Kingdom and Singapore maintain ed the sovereignty that had
been acquired over the island, by means of a constant, open and
peaceful display of official Stat e authority. That administration
and control continues to this day.
(e) These activities were undertaken in a manner that was entirely
consistent with, and adapted to, the nature of the territory on
which they were performed. Th ey included both lighthouse and
non-lighthouse related acts.
(f) For more than 130 years, neith er Johor nor Malaysia protested
any of Singapore’s activities on or around Pedra Branca.
(g) Quite to the contrary, in 1953 Johor specifically disclaimed
ownership over Pedra Branca in written correspondence to
Singapore governmental authorities.
(h) Throughout this period, and cons istent with all of the factors
mentioned above, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever carried out any
sovereign act of their own on the island.
– Page 107 –4.31 In these circumstances, and with all due respect to the experts who have
filed written statements appended to Mala ysia’s Counter-Memorial, the
practice of third States or private partie s in other parts of the world relating to
lighthouses which operate under entirely different legal regimes is of no
relevance to the circumstances of this case. What matters is the nature of
Singapore’s (and Malaysia’s) conduct in relation to Pedra Branca. And what
is also revealing is the fundamentally different position that Malaysia adopted
with respect to lighthouses on islands such as Pulau Pisang, where Malaysia
did possess sovereignty, when compared with Malays ia’s attitude vis-à-vis
Pedra Branca. 254 As Singapore will continue to show, her own conduct on
Pedra Branca was carried out à titre de souverain , as a natural part of the
administration of her own territory.
Section III. The Legal Relevance of Lighthouse Activities
4.32 Chapter 6 of Malaysia’s Counte r-Memorial is entitled “The Law and
Practice Concerning Lighthouses”. This ambitious title implies that there is an
established body of international law and State practice relating to lighthouses
which has a bearing on the present case. The main thrust of Malaysia’s
argument is that there are many instan ces of lighthouses constructed on the
territory of one State that are administ ered by an author ity other than the
territorial sovereign, and that this pr actice somehow applies to the situation
concerning Pedra Branca. 255
4.33 As Singapore will show in Subsec tion A below, the impression that
Malaysia seeks to convey by her reliance on examples of “State practice” is
seriously misleading. Not only does Malaysia pass over in silence the
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples of State practice where a State, in
254 See paras. 6.32-6.43 below.
255 MCM p. 99, para. 201.
– Page 108 –the normal course of business, administers a lighthouse which is situated on its
own territory as part of its inherent sovereign prerogatives, but also the
examples that Malaysia does cite bear no resemblance to the facts relating to
Pedra Branca.
4.34 Before embarking on details, a pre liminary comment is in order. When
it comes to State practice, caution has to be exercised as to how such practice is
deployed. With respect to the administration of lighthouses, there is no “settled
practice” which is “virtually uniform”, to use the terms employed by the Court
in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases to identify one of the essential criteria
256
that has to be met for State pr actice to be legally relevant. Nor is there any
indication that States which engage in lighthouse administration, whether on
their own territory or on the territory of others, consider themselves bound to a
pre-existing rule of law regulating such ad ministration. This, of course, is the
other condition that the Court identified in the North Sea Cases as a
257
prerequisite for State practice to be legally germane. The examples of State
practice upon which Malaysia relies must be analysed with these caveats in
mind.
4.35 The second leg of Malaysia’s argumen t consists of trying to distinguish
the judicial precedents which have held that the construction and maintenance
of a lighthouse can be legally relevant for purposes of asse ssing questions of
sovereignty especially where small is lands are concerned. Singapore will
address these authorities in Subsection B below.
256 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Rep 3.
257
Ibid, at p. 45, para. 77.
– Page 109 – A. T HE EXAMPLES OF S TATE P RACTICE RELIED UPON BY M ALAYSIA
4.36 Malaysia’s ounter-Memoriap lrefaces its discussion of State practice in
the following way:
“... although the construction and ad ministration of lighthouses was
usually a matter for the State on whose territory the lighthouse was to
be located, this was not always the case.”
4.37 This statement contains an impor tant admission. It is that the
construction and administration of lighthouses is usually a matter for the State
on whose territory the lighthouse is lo cated. In other words, Malaysia
recognises that in most cases it is the State which is sovereign over a particular
piece of territory that carries out the construction, maintenance and
administration of a lighthouse situated onthat territory. Pedra Branca falls
within this category. The lighthous e was built, staffed, maintained and
administered by first, the United Kingdom and, subseq uently, Singapore. The
effective occupation of Pedra Branca by the British Crown in 1847-1851 forms
the basis of Singapore’s title which was thereafter maintained by sovereign acts
performed on the ground.
4.38 Malaysia tries to place the lighthouse on Pedra Branca in the exceptional
category – the category where ownership of the underlying territory is divorced
from the State or entity that constructand administers the light. Since she
relies on exceptional practice, Malaysia bears a heavy burden to prove that
Pedra Branca is such an exception – a burden she has not even begun to
discharge.
4.39 Malaysia next quotes from the concurring opinion of Judge van Eysinga
in the Lighthouses in Crete and Samos case. 258 The first part of the passage
258 MCM p. 103, para. 212.
– Page 110 –from Judge van Eysinga’s opinion cite d by Malaysia deserves to be
reproduced:
“The administration of lighthouses is a service which in most States
belongs to their domestic jurisdiction.
But there are cases in which, on the one hand, lighthouses are
imperatively demanded in the intere st of international navigation,
while, on the other hand, the State in whose territory the lighthouse
would have to be operated, is not in a position to provide for its
administration and maintenance. As a result of this situation, it
sometimes happens that the Mar itime Powers come to an agreement
with the territorial State in regar d to the operating of a lighthouse. A
classic example is the light on Cape Spartel which marks the entrance
to the Mediterranean for ships coming from the Atlantic; the operation
of that light was regulated under a Convention concluded at Tangiers
in 1865 between the Maritime Powers and Morocco .”59 [emphasis
added]
4.40 Judge van Eysinga’s observations c ontain three important points which
Malaysia has chosen to ignore. First, Judge van Eysinga affirmed at the outset
that the administration of lighthouses is a service which in most States belongs
to their domestic jurisdiction. This was precisely the manner in which the
United Kingdom and Singapore acted w ith respect to the construction,
maintenance and administration of the lighthouse and other facilities on Pedra
Branca. It was the normal situation.
4.41 Secondly, Judge van Eysinga alluded to other cases where a State might
not be in a position to operate a light on its own. In these circumstances, Judge
van Eysinga pointed out that other maritime powers would come to an
agreement with the territorial State regardin g the operation of the lighthouse.
The crucial point is that, in these exceptional cases, an agreement with the
259 Lighthouses in Crete and Samos(France v. Greece ), Judgment (1937) P.C.I.J. Reports,
SerA/B No. 71, at pp.23-24 (concurring opinion of Judge van Eysinga), cited at MCM pp.
103-104, para. 212, emphasis added.
– Page 111 –sovereign on whose territory a lighthouse was to be bui lt and administered by
others was sought and concluded. 260
4.42 In the present case, the United Ki ngdom was in a position to build and
operate the lighthouse on Pedra Bran ca on her own, and she sought no
agreement from Johor when she took possession of Pedra Branca and
constructed the Horsburgh Lighthouse. As Chapter III of this Reply has
discussed, the British Crown saw no need for such an agreement since Johor
did not possess sovereignty over Pedra Branca, and J ohor did not solicit such
an agreement or protest the United Kingdom’s actions.
4.43 At the same time, both the United Kingdom and Malaysia’s
predecessors knew how to enter into such agreem ents when they were
necessary. In other word s, whenever it was recognised that permission was
required for the British to construct a lig hthouse on territory which was under
Malay sovereignty, that permission wa s sought and obtained. As Malaysia
notes in her own Memorial:
“Indeed, there was a consistent pattern: whenever the British
authorities wanted to construct a li ghthouse outside the territory of the
Straits 261tlements, they sought the permission of the relevant Malay
rulers.”
4.44 For example, in 1860 the Sultan of Selangor wrote to the Governor of
the Straits Settlements expressly consenting to the construction of a lighthouse
by the British at Cape Rachado. 262 Similarly, when it was proposed in 1885 to
build a lighthouse on the island of Pulau Pisang – an island which
unquestionably fell under Johor’s sovere ignty – the specific permission of the
260
See para. 4.45 below.
261
MM p. 60, para. 119.
262
See Sultan of Selangor - Governor of the Straits Settlements, correspondence concerning
Cape Rachado lighthouse, Oct-Nov 1860 (MM Vol. 3, Annex 62).
– Page 112 –Sultan was obtained and a written Indenture signed between the Sultan of Johor
263
and the Government of the Colony of the Straits Settlements. Nothing of the
kind ever occurred with re spect to the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra
Branca. This is a fundamental weakness in the Malaysian case. 264
4.45 The third point that stands out from Ju dge van Eysinga’s opinion is his
reference to the light at Cape Spartel off the coast of Mo rocco. The Cape
Spartel lighthouse is given pride of place in Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial as a
prime example of a light which was built and operated by someone other than
265
the title holder to the territory where the light was located. The necessary
implication is that Malaysia consider s the Cape Spartel situation to be
analogous to that concerning Pedra Branca.
4.46 Nothing could be further from th e truth. As Judge van Eysinga
observed, and as the Cape Spartel Convention of 31 May 1865 clearly records,
the International Commission whic h undertook the construction and
administration of the lighthouse on Cape Spartel did so with the specific
agreement of the State possessing sovereignty over the territory where the light
was placed (Morocco). Since Malaysia has not annexed a copy of the Cape
Spartel Convention to her Counter-Memorial, Singapore is providing a copy in
Annex 11 of this Reply. Article I of the Convention clearly records the fact
that the Sultan of Morocco expressly consented to the construction by the other
263 See Indenture between Ibrahim, Sultan of Johore, and Sir James Alexander
Swettenham, Officer Administering the Government of the Colony of the Straits
Settlements, 6 Oct 1900 (MM Vol. 3, Annex 89), and Letter from Ibrahim (Sultan of Johore)
to the Officer Administering the Government, Straits Settlements dated 25 Apr 1900 (SCM
Vol. 3, Annex 24).
264
Wchiefs, but formal land grants were not sought because the British did not proceed with the
project. See SCM p. 61, para. 4.43.
265
MCM pp. 105-106, para. 214.
– Page 113 –Contracting Parties of a lighthouse at Ca pe Spartel and that this consent was
given subject to the following proviso:
“It is well understood that th is delegation does not import any
encroachment on the rights proprietary and of sovereignty of the Sultan
whose flag alone shall be hoisted on the tower of the Pharos.”
4.47 Malaysia can point to no similar agreement regarding Pedra Branca.
Obviously, there is a world of difference between a situation where a sovereign
State takes possession of an island not hitherto claimed or possessed by another
State and builds, operates, and main tains a lighthouse and carries out non-
lighthouse related activities for over 150 years, and the situation where a third
party builds a lighthouse on the territory of a State with the specific consent of
that State.
4.48 It is in this same context that Malaysia’s reference to the Cape Race
266
Lighthouse in Newfoundland falls to be examined. Malaysia raises this as an
example of “a lighthouse which was administered sequentially by the
267
authorities of two States, neither of which was the territorial State”. The key
point, however, noted by Malaysia he rself, is that “the lighthouse was
268
administered by Britain with the consent of Newfoundland”. Moreover, the
Cape Race example is completely irrele vant because, contrary to Malaysia’s
assertion, it was not a transaction which involved “two States”. At the relevant
time, Newfoundland was a British colony . 269 The “consent” which the
metropolitan (or central) government in London sought from the British
colonial government in Newfoundland wa s one which operated strictly within
the context of the United Kingdom’s constitutional order. It was not an
266
MCM pp. 102-103, paras. 210-211.
267
Ibid, emphasis added.
268
MCM p. 103, para. 211.
269
See Roberts-Wray K., Commonwealth and Colonial Law (1966), at pp.830-831, attached to
this Reply as Annex 34.
– Page 114 –international transaction. Such “consent” presuppo ses that Cape Race was
already part of the Britis h colony of Newfoundland and thus already under
British sovereignty. The Ca pe Race lighthouse is in fact yet another example
of a territorial sovereign building and maintaining a lighthouse on its own
territory.
4.49 If the Cape Race example had any relevance at all, it is in the difference
between that case and Pedra Branca. In the case of Cape Race, where the
consent of another authority was felt to be necessary (alb eit, in this case, as a
requirement of domestic law), the consent was granted in a formal and explicit
manner (in this case, by way of legislative acts). 270 The difference between the
Cape Race lighthouse and the lighthouse on Pedra Branca is self evident; in the
case of Pedra Branca, the issue of consent never arose.
4.50 Malaysia also points to examples of lighthouses that are administered by
private parties under a concession from the sovereign State to support her
argument that the administration of a li ghthouse does not necessarily coincide
with sovereignty over the territory on which the light house is situated. The
particular example cited by Malaysia concerns a private concession granted by
the Ottoman Empire to the Fren ch firm Collas & Michelle. 271 Once again, the
example cited bears no similarity with Pedra Branca. First, the private firm in
question, the Administration générale des P hares de l’Empire ottoman ,
enjoyed its rights of administration as a result of a specific concession granted
by the sovereign State – the Ottoman Empire. Secondly, a private entity was in
no position to claim sovereig nty over an island in any event. The example is
simply irrelevant to the present case.
270 See the Preamble of the 1886 Act for theansfer of the Cape Race Lighthouse to the
Dominion of Canada (MCM Vol. 3, Annex 26).
271 MCM p. 106, para. 215. This concession resulted in the Lighthouse Case between France and
Greece (France v. Greece), Judgment (1934) P.C.I.J. Reports, Ser. A/B, No. 62.
– Page 115 –4.51 A similar comment can be made regarding Malaysia’s reliance on
certain lighthouses operated in the Arabian/Persian Gulf by the private
272
company MENAS. With respect to a number of these lights, Malaysia
herself admits that they were constr ucted with the permission of the local
rulers.273 This was certainly the case with respect to the light on the island of
Tunb – a specific example cited by Malaysia. An official memorandum
prepared by the India Office in 1928 reveals that, with respect to this light, the
consent of the Sheikh of Sharjah was obtained. 274 As for other lights in the
Gulf, Malaysia is equivocal. Her Coun ter-Memorial simply states that: “[i]n
other cases, no such permission seems to be given”, without providing any of
the essential factual or legal background.
4.52 Nor is Malaysia’s case advanced by her reference to the British practice
of assuming administration of variou s lighthouses in the Red Sea in the
1930s. 275 The danger of simply citing a seri es of examples without analysing
their legal context, as Malaysia does, is highlighted by this example. Malaysia
argues that the United Kingdom’s administration of various Red Sea
lighthouses after 1930 is another exampl e of lighthouses administered by the
authorities of a State other than the terr itorial sovereign. Malaysia fails to
disclose, however, that this administ ration was specifically agreed by the
relevant States to be without prejudice to the question of sovereignty.
4.53 In actual fact, under Article 5 of an agreement that had been reached in
1927 between Great Britain and Italy – the two colonial powers with interests
272 MCM p. 106, para. 216.
273 MCM p. 109, para. 223.
274
See Letter from Seymour H.J. to Parr R.C. dated 30 Aug 1928, enclosing an India Office
published in Islands and Maritime Boundaries of the Gulf, 1920-, (Schofield R., ed.)
(1990), at p. 331, attached to this Reply as Annex 15.
275
MCM p. 107, para. 217.
– Page 116 –on both sides of the Red Sea – both par ties agreed that none of their acts
undertaken on islands in the Red Sea, including the operation of lighthouses,
would assume a political character. As the Tribunal in the Eritrea/Yemen case
noted:
“This article [of the 1927 agreement] can only be understood to mean
that acts which might otherwis e be construed as providing an
incremental acquisition of sovereig nty were by the agreement of the
parties not to be so construed.”76
In other words, the administration of lighthouses in the Red Sea during this
period could well have been construed as having implications for sovereignty
but for the fact that such acts were expressly recognised to be without prejudice
to the question of sovereignty, which was left in abeyance following the break-
up of the Ottoman Empire. As the Tribunal noted in these particular
circumstances: “To seek to identify acts ‘having a sovereign character’ thus
276
became without legal purpose”.
4.54 From the foregoing, it can readily be seen that any attempt to draw
sweeping conclusions as to issues of sovereignty relating to Pedra Branca, from
isolated examples of State practic e relating to the construction and
administration of lighthouses elsewhere in the world, is misplaced. Each case
has to be examined on its own facts. In the overwhelming majority of cases, a
State constructs and administers a lighthou se on its territory in precisely the
same way it carries out State functions on any other part of its territory. Where
the administration of a lighthouse is separate from the entity which possesses
sovereignty over the territory in question, this is the result of agreement with
the sovereign State (as was the case, for example, with the lighthouse on Pulau
Pisang), or on the basis of an agreemen t that such acts are not sovereignty-
related (as was the case with the Red Sea lights).
276 Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at para. 171.
– Page 117 –4.55 In the present case, there is no evidence that either Johor or Great
Britain considered Pedra Branca to be su bject to Johor’s jurisdiction or that it
was necessary for Britain to obtain the consent of J ohor for the occupation of
Pedra Branca and construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse. The discussion in
Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial rests at a highly generalised level without taking
into account the pre-exis ting title acquired by thBritish Crown during the
period 1847-1851; the subsequent maintenance and confirmation of that title on
the ground by the United Ki ngdom and Singapore; th e failure of Johor or
Malaysia ever to object to Singap ore’s activities on Pedra Branca; or the
specific disclaimer of ownership proffered by the authorities of Johor in 1953.
B. L EGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING S INGAPORE S C ASE
4.56 There is ample legal authority supporting the proposition that the
construction and maintenance of lightho uses or similar structures on small
islands is relevant when it comes to de termining sovereignty over the territory
where such facilities are located. Mala ysia has attempted to distinguish a
number of these authorities in her Counter-Memorial. 277The present section
will review the relevant precedents once more, and will show that the exercise
by Singapore of an unopposed and wi de range of Stat e activities on Pedra
Branca is an important element confirming Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra
Branca.
4.57 Before addressing the case-law, a pr eliminary point deserves mention.
In most of the cases where sovereignt y over small islands has been submitted
to third party adjudication, the tribunas have been unable to make a firm
finding concerning pre-existing title agai nst which the subseq uent conduct (or
lack thereof) of the partie s fell to be considered. Thus, in cases such as
277 MCM pp. 111-116, paras. 228-237.
– Page 118 – 278
Minquiers and Ecrehos, Indonesia/Malaysia (dealing with the islands of
279
Ligitan and Sipadan), Qatar/Bahrain (dealing with the island of Qit’at
280 281
Jaradah), and Eritrea/Yemen (dealing with the Red Sea Islands), the Court
or arbitral tribunal had to assess the re lative weight of the official functions
carried out by the contesting parties on the disputed territory. The issue was
essentially which party could show the better title.
4.58 The present case is fundamentally different in as much as Singapore has
demonstrated a pre-existing title based on the activities of the British Crown
during the period from 1847-1851. This as pect of the case has been addressed
282
in Chapter III of this Reply, and need not be repeated here. The significance
of this fact is that Singapore’s effectivités over Pedra Branca carried out from
1851 to the present must be viewed as acts which confirmed and maintained its
pre-existing title.
4.59 Seen in this light, Singapore’s case is much stronger than those in other
disputes where a party’s effectivités were dispositive of the question of title
because of their greater intensity or weight. Singapore’s continuous exercise of
State authority over Pedra Branca for over 150 years was not undertaken in
isolation, but rather as a natural cons equence of the acts of the British Crown
from 1847-1851.
278
Minquiers and Ecrehos (United Kingdom v. France), supra note 186.
279
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment 17 Dec
2002.
280 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), Judgment of 16 Mar 2001.
281 Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73.
282 See also, SM Chapter V; and SCM Chapter V.
– Page 119 –4.60 At shPermanent Court stated in the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland
case, a claim to sovereignty involves tw o elements which must be shown to
exist: “the intention and w ill to act as sovereign, an d some actual exercise or
display of such authority”. 283 This Court has specifically endorsed this
approach, most notably in its recent decision in the Indonesia/Malaysia case
284
where it recalled this same passage from the Permanent Court’s Judgment.
4.61 In assessing the conduct of the Par ties in this case, it is instructive to
apply this test to their resp ective claims and conduct. On the one hand ,
Singapore has shown both the intention of the British Crown to acquire
sovereignty over Pedra Branca in 1847 -1851, and the actual exercise and
display of State authority on an open, continuous and unopposed basis for more
than 150 years afterwards. On the other hand, Malaysia has shown neither the
intention on the part of Johor ever to acquire sove reignty over Pedra Branca,
nor the slightest evidence of any actua l display of authority on the island,
whether before 1851 or subsequently. In fact, the intention and will of
Malaysia (and Johor) are evidenced by:
(a) Johor’s express disclaimer of ownership over Pedra Branca in
official correspondence in 1953; and
(b) the absence of any protest or re servation of rights in the face of
Singapore’s unimpeded administration of the island for over 130
285
years from 1847.
283
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment (1933) P.C.I.J. Reports,
Ser. A/B, No. 53, at pp. 45-56.
284
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), supra note 279, at
para. 134.
285
These aspects are discussed in Chapters VI and VII below.
– Page 120 –4.62 Turning to the cases cited in Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial, the first two
precedents referred to are the Perm anent Court’s decisions in the Lighthouses
Case between France and Greece and the Lighthouses in Crete and Samos case
286
discussed above. These are curious authorities for Malaysia to rely on.
Neither of them was concerned with ques tions of sovereignt y, and neither of
them addressed the role of conduct for purposes of establishing or maintaining
sovereignty over disputed territory. They are utterly irrelevant to the question
of sovereignty over Pedra Branca, which is the subject matter of this case.
4.63 The Indonesia/Malaysia case is obviously highly problematic for
Malaysia. In the present case, Malays ia completely disowns the position that
she had previously adopted in the Indonesia/Malaysia case regarding the legal
relevance of the construction, notification and administration of lights on small,
uninhabited islands.
4.64 Inhewr ritten pleadings in the Indonesia/Malaysia case, Malaysia went
to considerable lengths to emphasise th at her actions with respect to light
structures that the Nort h Borneo Government built on both islands were
important evidence of her governmental presence on, and administration over,
the islands in dispute. Malaysia maintained that th e construction and
maintenance of such lighthouses is “a pa rt of a pattern of exercise of State
authority appropriate in kind and degr ee to the character of the places
involved”. 287 Two quotes from the Malaysia n Reply in that case further
illustrate the point. First, Malaysia stressed that:
“As further evidence of British/Malaysian governmental activity in
relation to Sipadan and Ligitan, Malaysia refers to the construction,
notification and maintenance by the North Borneo Government of
navigational aids and lights on the islands from 1962 onwards.” 288
286
Paras. 4.50 and 4.39 above, responding to MCM pp. 111-112, para. 228.
287
See the Court’s Judgment in Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan
(Indonesia/Malaysia), supra note 279, at para. 146.
288
PIeJdings, Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipada, Reply of Malaysia , at
p. 74, para. 5.23.
– Page 121 –Next, Malaysia concluded:
“The construction of the lights was a straightforward reflection of the
sovereign authority of Britain/Mal aysia. That auth289ty was duly
publicised and was never challenged by Indonesia.”
4.65 Why these considerations are any less applicable in the present case
goes unexplained by Mala ysia. To adopt Malaysia’s terminology, the
construction and administration of th e lighthouse on Pedra Branca was a
straightforward reflection of the sovereign authority of the British Crown. That
authority was duly publicised and was never challenged by Malaysia.
4.66 Whatever the shifts in position that Malaysia now elects to embrace for
purposes of expediency, the fact remains that the Court in the
Indonesia/Malaysia case did find that the construction and maintenance of the
lights on Ligitan and Sipadan was legally relevant. While the Court observed
that the construction and operation of lighthouses and navigational aids are not
normally considered as manifestations of State authority, the Court recalled its
Judgment in the Qatar/Bahrain case, where it had held that in the case of very
small islands the construction of navigatio nal aids “can be legally relevant”,
and concluded that the same considerations applied with respect to the question
of the light structures on Ligitan and Sipadan. 290 Pedra Branca is also a very
small island to which this ruling must apply. 291
289PeaJdings, Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan , Reply of Malaysia , at
p. 75, para. 5.26.
290 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), supra note 279, at
para. 147. Para. 14 of the Judgment describes Ligitan as “a very small island” while Sipadan
is described as “bigger than Ligitan” and “having an area of 0.13 sq. km”.
291 Thomson’s Account, supra note 55, at p. 383 (SM Vol. 4, Annex 61, p. 484), states that ( a) at
low tide, Pedra Branca measures 450 feet (or137 metres) at its longest with an average
breadth of 200 feet (or 61 metres), ( b) at high tide, it measures 140 feet (or 43 metres) by 90
feet (or 27 metres).
– Page 122 –4.67 As noted above, it is apparent that the Qatar/Bahrain case also
undermines Malaysia’s argument as to th e role of lights in the assessment of
title. The feature in issue in that case, Qit’at Jaradah, was another very small
292
island. Although Bahrain had advanced private activities, such as the
drilling of artesian wells on the island, as conduct evidencing its sovereignty,
the Court was skeptical of this evidence. The Court noted that these acts, taken
by themselves, would be considered controversial as acts performed à titre de
souverain. However, in referring to the erec tion by Bahrain of a light beacon
on the island, the Court took a different view. It stated:
“The construction of navigational aids, on the other hand, can be
legally relevant in the case of very small islands.”2
4.68 Unlike the situation regarding Pedra Branca, the light fixture on Qit’at
Jaradah was an unmanned facility of mo dest size and recent construction.
There was no evidence of conduct relatin g to the island or the light fixture
remotely comparable to that in the present case. In particular, and unlike in the
present case, there was no evidence th at the island had been effectively
occupied and possessed in the past, that the light fixture had been the focus of
150 years of extensive administration, that non-light related governmental
activities had taken place on th e island, that the island had been the subject of
official visits by Bahrain governmental authorities, that it had been used to
collect meteorological data, that a Bahrai ni flag flew over it, that there was a
jetty, helicopter pad or any other structur es on the island, that it had been the
subject of internal Bahraini laws and regulations, that it had been used for
military, scientific and search and rescue purposes, or that Qatar had expressly
disclaimed ownership of the island in official correspondence addressed to
Bahrain. There was simply a light. Nonetheless, the Court found this
292 Concerning the size of Qit’at Jaradah, the Court’s Judgment states: “at high tide its length and
breadth are about 12 by 4 metres, whereas at low tide they are 600 and 75 metres. At high tide,
its altitude is approximately 0.4metres.” ( Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions
between Qatar and Bahrain, supra note 280, at para. 197.)
– Page 123 –sufficient for the purpose of determining that Bahr ain possessed sovereignty
over the island.
4.69 Notwithstanding these factors, Malaysia advances the following
contention in connection with the Court’s finding in the Qatar/Bahrain case:
“Read in context, and against the background of earlier jurisprudence,
this [ the Court’s ] observation underscores the point that the
construction of aids to navigation may be relevant to questions of
sovereignty in cases where there is no other basis of title and the
construction and administration of th e aids to navigation 293dence the
intention of the State concerned to act à titre de souverain.”
4.70 Two comments can be made in response to this argument. First, in the
present case there is a prior basis of title. This is the lawful possession of Pedra
Branca by the British authorities dur ing the period 1847-1851. Secondly,
Malaysia is unable to explain why Bahr ain’s conduct with re spect to the light
structure on Qit’at Jaradah, which involved no more than building the structure
with no associated acts of administrati on or control over the island generally,
can be viewed as conduct à titre de souverain , whereas Singapore’s far more
extensive conduct performed over a period of 150 years on Pedra Branca is not.
4.71 What is significant is that in the two most recent cases decided by the
Court involving sovereignt y over islands on which lig hthouses were located,
the Court has had no hesitation in finding that the construction and
maintenance of such facilities was a le gally relevant factor for purposes of
determining sovereignty.
4.72 Malaysia’s reliance on the Court’s decision in the Minquiers and
Ecrehos case also merits comment. Malaysia relies on the part of the Court’s
Judgment where the Court found that the placing of buoys by Fran ce outside
293 MCM p. 115, para. 234.
– Page 124 –the reefs of the island group could not be considered as a manifestation of State
authority in respect of the islets. 294
4.73 This finding must be viewed in context. As the passage from the
Court’s Judgment quoted by Malaysia ma kes clear, what the Court dismissed
as irrelevant was buoying undertaken by France outside of the reefs of the
Minquiers and Ecrehos group. In other words, the French buoying did not take
place on the islets or within their reefs. When it came to assessing the conduct
of the United Kingdom, on the other hand, the Court did place significance on
the fact that the Jersey authoritie s had carried out various works and
constructions on both isla nd groups, including “a s lipway in 1907, a mooring
buoy in 1913, a number of beacons a nd buoys in 1931 and later years and a
winch in 1933”. 295 The case therefore hardly stands for the blanket proposition
that navigational aids are invariably co nsidered as irrelevant for sovereignty
purposes. The navigati onal aids established by the Jersey authorities were
considered by the Court to be pertinent.
4.74 Malaysia has been similarly selective in the manner she has treated the
Arbitral Tribunal’s Award in the first (sovereignty) stage of the Eritrea/Yemen
case. Malaysia’s citation to that case is based solely on what the Tribunal had
to say regarding the question of lighthouses in the Red Sea during the 1930s. 296
Singapore has pointed out earlier in this Chapter how the lighthouse activities
of the colonial powers in the Red Sea in the 1930s were speci fically agreed to
294
MCM p. 112, para. 229, citing Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom), supra note
186, at p. 71.
295
Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom), supra note 186, at p. 66 and p. 69.
296
MCM p. 113, para. 230.
– Page 125 –be without prejudice to questions of sovereignty, which remained to be
determined in the light of Article 16 of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. 297
4.75 While it is true that the Tribunal in Eritrea/Yemen indicated that the
operation and maintenance of lighthouses is normally connected with the
preservation of safe navigation and not normally taken as a test of
298
sovereignty, the Tribunal added a number of further observations which
indicate that lighthouses did have a role to play in the final disposition of
sovereignty.
4.76 For example, the Tribunal drew attention to the fact that Yemen relit the
lighthouse on Centre Peak (one of the islands ultimately awarded to Yemen) in
1987, and that this action “appears to have occasioned no protest by Ethiopia,
which could not have assumed that such acts were rendered without
299
significance...”. Although Eritrea maintained that Ethiopia was under no
duty to protest given that Yemen’s act ions were said to be simply a
continuation of prior British practice, th e Tribunal disagreed. It noted the
following:
“But Yemen was not in the same le gal relationship with Ethiopia over
the matter of lights as had been Gr eat Britain and, if such was the
reasoning for a failure to reserve claimed Ethiopian sovereignty, it was
misplaced.” 300
4.77 Elsewhere in its Award, the Tribunal pointed to the fact that Yemen had
maintained lighthouses on the islands of Greater Hanish and Jabal Zuqar - two
other islands which were awarded to Yemen. As the Tribunal stated:
297
See paras. 4.52-4.53 above.
298
Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at para. 328.
299
Ibid, at para. 231.
300
Ibid, at para. 238.
– Page 126 – “It can hardly be denied that these lights, clearly intended to be
permanent installations, are cogent evidence of some form of Yemeni
presence in all these islands.”301
4.78 Similarly, the fact that Yemen o ffered to take responsibility for the
lighthouses on Jabal al-Tayr (a furthe r island awarded to Yemen) at an
international conference convened in 1989 to discuss the lighthouses (but not
entrusted to deal with matters of sovere ignty) was considered to be significant
by the Tribunal. It stated:
“Nevertheless, the decision of th e conference to accept the Yemeni
offer over the lights does reflect a confidence and expectation of the
member governments of the conference of a continued Yemeni
presence on these lighthouse islands for, at any rate, the foreseeable
future. Repute is also an important ingredient for the consolidation of
title.”02
4.79 Malaysia’s current reliance on the previous decisions in the Minquiers
and Ecrehos and Eritrea/Yemen cases, to support the proposition that
navigational aids are invariably without prejudice to questions of sovereignty,
stands in stark contrast to the po sition that Malaysia adopted in the
Indonesia/Malaysia case. Malaysia conveniently forgets that in that case she
had emphasised the following:
“It is true that in those two cases the Arbitral Tribunal and this Court
respectively did not find that the construction of the lights was
sufficient evidence of the intention of the Government concerned to act
as sovereign over the territorial location of the lights. But that
conclusion was reached on the basis of the facts particular to each of
303
the two cases, and cannot be applied to the two islands here.”
This is correct. Each ca se, including the present one, must be assessed on the
basis of its own particular facts. Wh en Singapore’s conduct with respect to
301 Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at para. 492.
302 Ibid, at para. 516.
303PeJdings, Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, Reply of Malaysia , at
pp. 74-75, para. 5.25.
– Page 127 –Pedra Branca is viewed in the context of all the surrounding circumstances, it is
clear that such conduct manifested the continuous intention of Singapore to act
as sovereign over the island.
4.80 The recent legal author ities clearly endorse the legal significance of the
construction and administration of li ghthouses in assessing questions of
disputed sovereignty, especially wher e small islands are involved. In the
present case, the legal significance of Singapore’s acts is heightened by the fact
that they were performed in the maintenance of a pr e-existing title acquired in
1847-1851. Even those decisions referred to by Malaysia, where the Court or
arbitral tribunals have taken a more cautious approach to the role of
lighthouses, do not contradict this position; nor do they deal with the situation
where there was a pre-existing title by the party that performed the acts in
question.
Section IV. The Sovereign Nature of Singapore’s Continuous
Exercise of Authority over Pedra Branca
4.81 In Chapter VI of Singapore’s Memorial, Singapore documented the
extensive array of State activities that Singapore and her predecessors carried
out on Pedra Branca starting in 1851 and continuing to the present. Those
activities include the following:
(a) enacting legislation specifically referring to Pedra Branca and the
Horsburgh Lighthouse;
(b) assuming sole responsib ility for the maintenance and
improvement of the lighthouse and other facilities on the island;
(c) exercising regulatory authority and jurisdiction over personnel
residing on the island and main taining peace and good order
thereon;
(d) collectingeteorologiinl formation from Pedra Branca;
– Page 128 – (e) building and upgrading a jetty on Pedra Branca;
(f) flying the British and, subseq uently, the Singapore Marine
Ensign on the island;
(g) vetting applications for persons (including Malaysian nationals)
to visit Pedra Branca and otherwise controlling access to the
island;
(h) regular visits by civil and military officials from Singapore to the
island without seeking any permission from Malaysia;
(i) granting permission for Malays ian authorities to undertake
scientific and technical surveys on Pedra Branca and within Pedra
Branca’s territorial waters;
(j) carrying out naval patrols and c onducting naval exercises within
Pedra Branca’s territorial waters;
(k) investigatinandreporting on hazards to navigation and
shipwrecks in the waters around the island;
(l) investigating incidents of accident al death in the waters of Pedra
Branca; and
(m) considering sea reclamation plans to extend the island.
4.82 Singapore does not propose to re-canvass the details relating to these
activities here. The Court will find full doc umentary support for all of them in
304
Singapore’s Memorial. However, there are several important characteristics
304 See SM Chapter VI, Section II (pp.93-124, paras.6.10-6.90) and the documentary materials
cited there.
– Page 129 –of this conduct which deserve to be br iefly recalled. These include the fact
that:
(a) Singapore has only relied on acts of State authority performed by
government representatives or ha ving an official character.
Singapore does not rely on any acts of a private nature to support
her position.
(b) Singapore’s conduct on Pedra Branca has been open, continuous
and peaceful and has lasted for over 150 years.
(c) The conduct undertaken was of a remarkable breadth and scope
given the nature and size of the island on which it was performed.
(d) For more than 130 years, Malays ia never protested any of this
conduct.
(e) Malaysia never carried out a single competing act on the island at
any time.
4.83 Chapter 8 of Malaysia’s Counter-M emorial addresses this conduct and
makes a vain attempt to pl ay down its significance. As previously noted,
Malaysia advances the extraordinary contention that:
“there is nothing – not a single item – in the conduct on which
Singapore relies that is capable of sustaining Singapore’s claim to
sovereignty”. 305
Apparently, in Malaysia’s view, a St ate which never claims a particular
territory, never carries out a single sovereign act on that territory, never protests
the activities of another State on the sa me territory, and expressly disclaims
ownership over the territory in question, somehow possesses a superior claim to
the territory than one which takes la wful possession of the territory, and
305 MCM p. 164, para. 339.
– Page 130 –administers and controls that territory in an unimpeded and unopposed manner
for over one and one-half centuries. The absurdity of the proposition speaks
for itself.
4.84 Much of Malaysia’s attack on Si ngapore’s conduct rests on statements
provided to Malaysia by outside cons ultants whose basic premise is that
Singapore’s conduct is no more than that which any operator of a lighthouse
would undertake regardless of who owns the territory where the lighthouse is
located. The conclusion Malaysia seeks to draw from these statements is that
Singapore’s conduct is not conduct à titre de souverain because some of that
conduct involved the administration of a lighthouse.
4.85 Singapore has previously explained that these views disregard two
fundamental points. First, Singapore’s conduct is precisely what would be
expected from any State in the “usual” s ituation – that is, in a situation where
the State concerned administers facilities and undertakes sovereign activities on
its own territory. In such circumstances, the State’s conduct is conduct à titre
de souverain . Secondly, generalised statements about lighthouse practice
elsewhere in the world have no relevanc e to this case when they do not take
into account the specific legal and f actual circumstances regarding Pedra
Branca. This aspect of the matter is not even considered by Malaysia’s
consultants. Moreover, there is a third point that also warrants mention. It is
that none of Malaysia’s consultants have identified an example taken from
“State practice” where the non-sovereign administrator of a lighthouse carried
out the full panoply of activities over a similar period of tim e that Singapore
undertook on Pedra Branca. Malaysia picks and chooses from other examples
around the world to show that various individual activities carried out by
Singapore were routine. But nowhere does Malaysia cite an example of
lighthouse practice undertaken by an en tity, which does not hold title to the
underlying territory, where the scope, intensity or duration of the activities
– Page 131 –undertaken without obtaining the cons ent of the title holder are comparable
with the activities undertaken by Singapore.
4.86 Having made these introductory points, Singapore will now turn to some
of the individual examples of State c onduct addressed in Malaysia’s Counter-
Memorial.
A. L EGISLATIVE A CTIVITY UNDERTAKEN WITH RESPECT TO P EDRA B RANCA
4.87 Unlike Malaysia, which has been un able to cite a single example of
legislative authority she carried out specifically relating to, or mentioning,
Pedra Branca, Singapore has pointed to several such measures adopted by her
predecessor, the United Kingdom, and herself. Such measures or, in
Malaysia’s case the lack thereof, are legally important. As Singapore has noted
in her Memorial, the Permanent Court ha s made it clear that “[l]egislation is
one of the most obvious forms of the exercise of State power”. 306This is
especially the case where the legislation in question refers to the precise
territory in question, as it does in this case with respect to Pedra Branca.
4.88 Singapore has already explained how the British Crown acquired lawful
possession of Pedra Branca in the years 1847-1851. 307 Just four months after
the lighthouse at Pedra Branca was co mmissioned by the Governor of the
Straits Settlements, the Government of India enacted Act No. VI of 1852 which
was specifically concerned with the lighthouse at Pedra Branca. Section I of
the Act provided:
“The Light-House on Pedra Branca af oresaid shall be called ‘The
Horsburgh Light-House’, and th e said Light-House, and the
appurtenances thereunto belonging or occupied for the purpose thereof,
and all fixtures, apparatus, and furniture belonging thereto, shall
306
SM p.128, para.6.102, citiLegal Status of Eastern Gree(Denmark v. Norway ),
Judgment (1933) P.C.I.J. Reports, Ser. A/B, No. 53, at p. 48.
307
See SM Chapter V; SCM Chapter V; and, in this Reply, Chapter III above.
– Page 132 – become the property of, and absol308 tely vest in, the East India
Company and their successors.”
4.89 As Singapore’s Memorial explained, this was a straightforward example
of territorial legislation expressly concerned with Pedra Branca. The 1852 Act
makes no mention that the lighthouse on Pedra Branca was subject to an
indenture granted by the Sultan of Johor as would be expected if such a grant
had existed. It was an act undertaken in consequence of the lawful possession
of Pedra Branca by the British Crown, and it represented a quintessentially
sovereign act undertaken on territory wh ich appertained to the British Crown.
The Government in India had no authority to pass extra-territorial legislation,
as was made clear by the intervention of the Advocate General of India during
the travaux préparatoires of the 1852 Act when he indicated that the Indian
Legislature “has no power to legislate for the high seas”. 309
4.90 The Malaysian Counter-Memorial has no response to the territorial
nature of the 1852 Act. Instead, it advances the woolly and essentially
meaningless argument that the 1852 Act focused on the ownership and control
of the lighthouse as a matter of “private law”. 310
4.91 This contention is unfounded. The 1852 Act was a public act taken by
the Indian Government directly ves ting the lighthouse in the East India
311
Company. Contrary to Malaysia’s suggestion, the 1852 Act was not the
beginning of the Straits’ Lights System, but a piece of legislation dealing solely
with Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pedra Branca. The vesting of property on Pedra
Branca was a sovereign act undertaken à titre de souverain. This contrasts, for
308 See Act No. VI of 1852 (India) (SM Vol. 3, Annex 59).
309 See Extracts from travaux préparatoires of Indian Act No. VI of 1852 (SCM Vol.2, Annex
16), at p. 149. See also SM p. 96, paras. 6.17-6.19.
310 MCM p. 168, para. 349.
311
MCM p. 167, para. 347.
– Page 133 –example, with the 1886 Ca nadian legislation concerning the transfer of Cape
312
Race Lighthouse, referred to by Malaysia. Obviously, the Canadian
legislature had no jurisdiction over Cape Race which was part of
Newfoundland. 313 Thus, the Canadian legislation contains no vesting language
along the lines found in India’s Act VI of 1852, but merely authorised the
Government of Canada to “accept the transfer” of the lighthouse.
4.92 At the relevant time, all property of the East India Company was held in
314
trust for the British Crown for the se rvice of the Government of India. The
status of the East India Company was sim ilar to that of the former Dutch East
India Company, as to which Judge Huber in the Island of Palmas case had the
following to say:
“The acts of the East India Company ... in view of occupying or
colonising the regions at issue in the present affair must, in
international law, be entirely assimilated to acts of the Netherlands
State itself.”15
Whether the rights transferred to the Ea st India Company were “private law
316
rights of ownership” as maintained by Malaysia, or not, the transfer of these
rights by legislation emanating from the Government in India was the exercise
of rights of a sovereign nature. The Government in India assumed the power to
legislate on the status of the Hors burgh Lighthouse precisely because it
considered Pedra Branca to be British territory.
312
Act of the Government of Canada, respectingthe transfer of the Lighthouse at Cape Race,
Newfoundland, and its appurtenances, to the Dominion of Canada, 49 Vict. c.20 (1886)
(MCM Vol. 3, Annex 27).
313
At the relevant time (1886), Newfoundland wa s a separate British colony. It became part of
Canada only in 1949. See Roberts-Wray K., Commonwealth and Colonial Law (1966), at
pp. 830-831, attached to this Reply as Annex 34.
314 SM p. 95, para. 6.15.
315 Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v. U.S.), supra note 249, at p. 858.
316 MCM p. 168, para. 350.
– Page 134 –4.93 In considering the legal effects of the 1852 Act, as well as the other
effectivités Singapore has referred to in her pleadings, it is important to bear in
mind that Pedra Branca was the subject of the measures in question and was
expressly referred to. Malaysia’s Count er-Memorial quotes with approval the
Court’s ruling in the Indonesia/Malaysia case where the Court stated that it
“can only consider those acts as constitu ting a relevant display of authority
which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as
317
such.”
4.94 Singapore invites the Court to apply this test to the evidence adduced by
the Parties in this case. Not only did the 1852 Act make specific reference to
Pedra Branca, the numerous other exampl es of State conduct on Pedra Branca
produced by Singapore are equally specific as to their reference to the island.
Malaysia, in contrast, cannot refer to a single sovereign act she undertook
which makes any reference to Pedra Branca itself.
4.95 It is also instructiv e to compare the legal s ituation concerning Pedra
Branca in 1852 with that pertaining to another light fixture – the 2½ Fathom
Bank light – that was established by the British at the same time in the region.
4.96 The “2½ Fathom Bank Light” was or iginally established in 1852 by the
placing of the light vessel Torch at a location on the North Sands known as 2½
Fathom Bank. Contrary to Malaysia’s assertion, the British sought no
permission from local Malay rulers to establish this light because the site of the
light was some 15 nautical miles off the mainland coast and the light was
317 MM p. 225, para. 483, citing Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan
(Indonesia/Malaysia), supra note 279, at para. 136.
– Page 135 –placed on top of a submer ged bank not susceptible to appropriation at the
318
time.
4.97 As described in Singapore’s Memorial, Act No. XIII of 1854 was passed
two years later. 319 Amongst other things, the 1 854 Act provided only for the
management and control of the floating li ght at 2½ Fathom Bank to be vested
in the Governor of the Straits Settlement s. In contrast, the 1854 Act provided
that the lighthouse and all it appurtances on Pedra Branca would continue to be
vested in the East India Company.
4.98 Other aspects of the Straits lightho uses addressed by Malaysia will be
dealt with in Subsection D below. For present purposes, it is only necessary to
respond to what Malaysia’s Counte r-Memorial has to say about another
example of legislative authority that Singapore has introduced dealing with
Pedra Branca – Singapore’s Protected Places (No. 10) Order 1991. As
Singapore has shown, this Order repres ented a clear example of a legislative
320
measure adopted by Singapore directly concerning Pedra Branca.
4.99 It will be recalled that under the 1991 Protected Places Order, Singapore
designated several additional places in Singapore as Protected Areas. Two of
those places were the Port of Singapor e on the main island of Singapore and
318 The light vessel was later moved to another location in the North Sands called “One Fathom
Bank” and was replaced, in 1874, by a screw pile lighthouse which was named the “One
Fathom Bank Lighthouse”. Malaysia has asserted in MCM p.155, para.325, without any
evidence, that in the case of One Fathom Bank lighthouse “permission from the local Malay
Ruler for the construction and/or adminstration of the lighthouse was apparent”.
319 SM pp. 96-97, paras. 6.20-6.21.
320
SM pp. 98-99, para. 6.25; and Singapore’s Protected Places (No. 10) Order 1991 (SM Vol. 7,
Annex 178).
– Page 136 –the island of Pedra Branca. A sketch map was appended to the Order showing
the limits of both Protected Places. 321
4.100 Malaysia is dismissive of this Order. Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial
argues that the Order post-dates the critic al date and was adopted in a self-
serving manner after Singapore and Malaysia had already commenced
negotiations over the matter. Malaysia then concludes by accusing Singapore
of “casting around for ways in which to advance its claims by reference to
322
conduct in the absence of any other reliable practice.”
4.101 There are several responses to thes e contentions. With respect to the
critical date, the Court has made it clear that it will take acts performed after
the date on which the dispute crystallis es between the parties into account if
such acts are the “normal continuation of prior acts and are not undertaken for
the purpose of improving the legal position of th e Party which relies on
323
them.”
4.102 In the present case, Singapore’s 1 991 Order must be viewed against a
backdrop of what was, at the time, at least 140 years of prior, unimpeded State
conduct on Pedra Branca. Singapore’s ad ministration of all forms of activity
that took place on the island was clearly continuous. The issuance of the 1991
Order was simply one more element in what was a long string of governmental
authority exercised over the island. It was, to use the Court’s words, a normal
continuation of prior acts on the island.
321
The sketch map may be found attached to Singapore’s Protected Places (No. 10) Order 1991
(SM Vol. 7, Annex 178).
322
MCM p. 170, para. 353.
323
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), supra note 279, at
para. 135.
– Page 137 –4.103 There was also nothing self-serving about the 1991 Order. Malaysia
neglects to mention that the 1991 Order did not concern Pedra Branca alone. It
also covered the Port of Singapore wh ich was similarly designated a Protected
Place. Pedra Branca was hardly singled out for special trea tment. The Order
was issued in the normal course of business and was not protested by Malaysia.
Moreover, the suggestion that Singa pore has to “cast about” for effectivités on
the island is nonsense. Singapore has documented a large number of official
actions of various types on and with respect to Pedra Branca. She did not need
to manufacture another.
B. I SSUANCE OF N OTICES TO M ARINERS R EGARDING P EDRA B RANCA
4.104 Singapore has documented the fact that on numerous occasions she
issued Notices to Mariners regardin g Pedra Branca. Such Notices were
published in 1851, 1887, and 1981. 324 Malaysia’s response is that Notices to
Mariners are normally issued by any entity in charge of a lighthouse, but that
325
they are without relevance to issues of sovereignty. But this general
observation, as Singapore has already e xplained, does not mean that when a
State issues such Notices concerning parts of its ow n territory, those Notices
are not regarded as normal State activities undertaken à titre de souverain.
4.105Once again, Malaysia appears to have a short memory. In the
Indonesia/Malaysia case, Malaysia herself consid ered the issuance of Notices
to Mariners – in that case by Malays ia’s predecessor in connection with the
lights on the islands of Ligitan and Si padan – to be legally significant.
324
See Relevant Extracts from the Straits Times and Singapore Journal of Commerce (23 Sep
1851, 30 Sep 1851 and 7 Oct 1851), and the Singapore Free Press & Mercantile Advertiser (3
Oct 1851 and 6 Oct 1851) (SM Vol.3, Annex 56); “Notice to Mariners”, Straits Settlements
Goverment Notification No. 321 dated 29 June 1887 (SM Vol.5, Annex 72); and Singapore
Notices to Mariners dated 1 Jan 1981 and Singapore Notices to Mariners dated 1 Oct 1981
(SM Vol. 7, Annex 150).
325
MCM pp. 179-181, paras. 366-371.
– Page 138 –Malaysia annexed Notices for the lights at both islands to her pleadings, and
she drew attention to th e fact that such Notices “elicited no reaction from
326
Indonesia”. Malaysia obviously viewed th e “notification” of navigational
aids and lights as evidence of Malaysia n governmental activity in relation to
327
the islands in dispute.
4.106 At the very minimum, Malaysia (or Johor) should have reacted to the
Notices concerning Pedra Branca, if onl y to reserve her pos ition, if she truly
considered that they related to territo ry over which she possessed sovereignty.
This was certainly Malaysia’s view in the Indonesia/Malaysia case with respect
to Indonesia’s silence.
C. S INGAPORE S C ONSTANT M AINTENANCE , UPGRADING AND
IMPROVEMENT OF THE L IGHTHOUSE AND THE JETTY ON P EDRA B RANCA
4.107 As set out in Singapore’s Memo rial, Singapore and her predecessors
engaged in a long-standing series of activities concerned with the maintenance,
328
upgrading and improvement of the li ghthouse and jetty on Pedra Branca.
Singapore also provided for the stationing of personnel on the island to operate
the lighthouse and regulated their activities. Prior to the taking of possession of
Pedra Branca and the undertaking of these measures, no one had ever lived on
the island and no structures had been built on it.
4.108 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial make s the facile comment that these
activities, while seemingly impressi ve, are all “smoke and mirrors”. 329This
32PIeJdings, Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan , Malaysia’s Memorial, at
p. 70.
327 See also, paras. 4.63-4.65 above.
328 SM pp. 99-102, paras. 6.28-6.32.
329 MCM p. 172, para. 355.
– Page 139 –comment ignores the obviou s point that the actions concerned all represented
concrete examples of State authority take n on the ground, i.e ., on the territory
presently in dispute. Malaysia cannot point to any similar activities of her own
on Pedra Branca.
4.109On another note, Malaysia rais es three arguments in response to
Singapore’s manifestation of sovereign authority. First, Malaysia repeats her
constant theme that such activities fell within the ordinary tasks that any
lighthouse administrator would undertake. 330 However, this does not detract
from their sovereign nature in this case.
4.110 Secondly, Malaysia complains that certain of Singapore’s activities took
place after the critical date. In particul ar, Malaysia points to the automation of
the lighthouse performed by Singapore in 1988, the installa tion of radar for
tracking vessels in 1989, the constructi on of a helicopter landing platform on
the island in 1992, and further upgrades made to the light in 1996 as post-
331
critical date activities.
4.111Once again, all of these activitie s represented a perfectly normal
continuation of the kind of actions Singapore had take n on Pedra Branca well
before 1979. The automation of the li ghthouse in 1988, an d its upgrade in
1996, were natural steps in keeping with previous improvements to the
technical capabilities of the light. They were no different in character from the
new lighting equipment that the United Kingdom had installed on Pedra Branca
332
in 1887. The installation of vessel track ing radar was also a technical
330
MCM pp. 173-174, paras. 356-358.
331
MCM pp. 178-179, paras. 363-365.
332
See “Notice to Mariners”, Straits Settlements Goverment Notification No. 321 dated 29 June
1887 (SM Vol.5, Annex 72); “Notice to Mariners”, Straits Settlements Government
Notification No. 449 dated 2 Sep 1887 (SM Vol. 5, Annex 73).
– Page 140 –upgrade over the manual surveillance of maritime traffic in the Singapore
Straits which had been carried out fro m Pedra Branca since 1851. And the
construction of a helicopter landing pad was similar in character to the original
building of a jetty on the island in the 19th Centur y. Both installations
facilitated transportation to Pedra Branca. Even Malaysia’s outside consultants
confirm that lighthouse development commonly includes the erection of
helidecks and vessel traffi c service (VTS) towers. 333 One wonders why
Malaysia felt obliged to protest such “n ormal” activities after 1979, when she
did not do so beforehand. All of thes e activities were practical in nature,
represented a normal continuation of previous works carried out by Singapore
on the island, and were not self-serving in any way.
4.112 In fact, if there was any conduct that was self-serving, it was that of
Malaysia – Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial points out that she protested aspects
of these post-1979 events. 334 But these are nothing mo re than efforts to build
up a paper claim to the island after the critical date.
4.113 Malaysia’s third argument is that many of Si ngapore’s acts, particularly
in so far as they relate d to the maintenance of the facilities on Pedra Branca,
were identical to the kinds of work that Singapore carried out on the lighthouse
on Pulau Pisang where Singapore did not possess sovereignty. 335 This may be
so, but as will be discussed more fully in Chapter VI of this Reply, they do not
detract from the sovereign nature of the acts undertaken on Pedra Branca.
333
See Conduct Forming Part of the Normal Administrative Responsibilities of a Lighthouse
Operator and Singapore’s Claims in Respect of the Horsburgh Lighthouse and Pulau Batu
Puteh, Report by Captain Duncan Glass and David Brewer (MCM Vol. 2, Annex 1), at paras.
34-37; and MCM p. 134, para. 279.
334
MCM p. 178, para. 364.
335
MCM pp. 174-176, paras. 359-360.
– Page 141 –4.114 It was recognised by Great Britain , Singapore, Johor and Malaysia that
Pulau Pisang was under an entirely diffe rent legal regime from that of Pedra
336
Branca. Pulau Pisang was subject to Malaysian sovereignty, and the
lighthouse there had been erected with th e permission of the Sultan of Johor.
That permission only extended to the lighthouse and a roadway to the beach for
landing supplies, but not to the island a whole. In contrast, Pedra Branca
was under the sovereignty of Singapore. This was well-established even before
1953, and it was certainly uncontested af terwards given that Johor disclaimed
ownership over the island in that year. Many of the references cited by
Malaysia to Singapore’s acts date from after 1953. In short, Singapore’s
activities undertaken on Pedra Branca were of a fundamentally different nature
than those on Pulau Pisang. The former were sovereign in character; the latter
were not.
D. U SE OF PEDRA B RANCA FOR THE COLLECTION OF
M ETEOROLOGICAL D ATA AND M ALAYSIA ’S
A DMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST IN THIS R ESPECT
4.115 Malaysia does not take issue w ith the evidence that Singapore has
produced showing that one of the non-li ghthouse uses to which Singapore put
Pedra Branca was for the collection an d dissemination of meteorological
information.337Instead, Malaysia argues that such activities are routinely
undertaken by lighthouse operators.38Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial adds that
336 See SCM pp. 156-158, paras. 6.63-6.66; and paras. 6.32-6.43 below.
337
See SM pp.105-107, paras.6.42-6.46; Letter from Thomson J.T. (Government Surveyor at
Singapore) to Church T. (Resident Councillor at Singapore) dated 20 July 1851 (SM Vol.5,
Meteorological Data Taken from Horsburgh Lighthouse (SM Vol.5, Annex66); Rainfall, showing
records of Pedra Branca from 1953 to 1988 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 92).
338
MCM p. 184, para. 376.
– Page 142 –until 1965, these ki nds of matters were addre ssed on a cooperative “pan-
339
Malayan-Singapore” basis.
4.116 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial is striking for what it omits. First,
340
Malaysia fails to men tion that pan-Malayan meteorological cooperation
341
began only in the 1920s. Before that, meteorological observations were
undertaken by individual governments on their own territories without
342
coordination with other governments in Malaya – in this regard, it is relevant
to note that the Straits Settlements Government began meteorological
observations on Pedra Branca in 1851. Secondly, even after pan-Malayan
cooperation began, the Malayan Meteorological Service was divided into a
Singapore branch and a Federation of Ma laya branch. More importantly, the
Malayan Meteorological Service co llected and recorded their data on a
territorial basis.
4.117 In Annex 16 to this Reply, the C ourt will find the Annual Report of the
Malayan Meteorological Se rvice for 1948 which explai ns the organisation of
the Service and its division into Singapore and Federation of Malaya branches.
If the Court then turns to the Summary of Observations published by the
Malayan Meteorological Service for the year 1959, a representative example of
339 MCM p. 201, para. 413.
340
The term “pan-Malayan” was used by local officials of the relevant period to refer to matters
which involved the whole of British Malaya,i.e., the entire Malayan Peninsula including
Singapore. See Singapore Legislative Assembly Deba tes on the Immigration (Amendment)
Bill 1959, attached to this Reply as Annex 26, which refers to “pan-Malayan” immigration
arrangements.
341
See Annual Report of the Ma layan Meteorological Service , 1949, at p.8, attached to this
Reply as Annex 19 (“The first active steps towards unifying meteorological work in the
Peninsula were taken about 1920 or 1921...”).
342 Ibid. (“In addition to these stations which were maintained by different Governments,
numbers of rainfall stations were establishedivately, principally on the rubber estates.
While this network of observing stations re presented a very considerable effort in
establishment and maintenance, it could not by any means be described as a meteorological
service. Each administration carried on its observation without reference to any other: it may
almost be said, in fact, that each station was carried on independently of any other.”)
– Page 143 –this publication from before the forma tion of Malaysia, attached in Annex 28
hereto, it will see that the various repor ting stations are listed on a territorial
basis. Horsburgh Lighthouse is specific ally listed as one of “29 Rainfall
Stations in Singapore”. The 17 First Order Stations and 43 Auxiliary Stations
stated to be “in the Federation of Ma laya” are listed separately and do not
include Horsburgh Lighthouse.
4.118After Singapore’s independence fro m Malaysia in 1965, the 1966
Summary of Observations , now published jointly by the Meteorological Ser-
vices of Malaysia and Singapore, main tains the same presentation of listing
Horsburgh Lighthouse as one of “29 Rainfall Stations in Singapore”. 343 This
was a clear admission by an official Malaysian institution that Horsburgh
Lighthouse, and by necessa ry implication Pedra Branca, was located “in
Singapore”.
4.119 If the Court next refers to the 1967 Summary of Observations published
two years after Singapore’s independen ce by the Meteorological Service of
Malaysia, it will see that meteorological data is no longer listed from locations
344
in Singapore. h Summary lists readings from Malaysia only.
Significantly, there is no listing for Horsburgh Light house. This was for the
obvious reason that Horsburgh Lighthouse was not considered to be located on
Malaysian territory.
4.120The evidence, coming as it do es from an official Malaysian
governmental source, could not be more compelling. It clearly demonstrates
that Malaysia was under no doubt that Horsburgh Lighthouse was situated on
343 Extracts from Meteorological Services Malaysia and Singapore, Summary of Observations for
1966, attached to this Reply as Annex 35.
344 Extracts from Meteorological Service Malaysia, Summary of Observations for 1967 , attached
to this Reply as Annex 36.
– Page 144 –Singapore territory. Of course, this fact is entirely consistent with the famous
1953 disclaimer by Johor that it did noclaim ownership over Pedra Branca.
But it totally contradicts the contentions that Malaysia now tries to advance in
this case regarding her claim over Pedra Branca. And it also demonstrates that
Singapore’s conduct in using Pedra Bran ca for meteorological purposes was
conduct à titre de souverain.
E. T HE FLYING OF THE B RITISH AND SINGAPORE ENSIGN ON
PEDRA B RANCA
4.121 Malaysia exhibits considerable sens itivity over the fact that, ever since
Horsburgh Lighthouse was completed in 1851, a Br itish and, subsequently,
Singapore Marine Ensign has flown over the island . As Singapore has
previously explained, this was a clea r display of sovereign ownership over
345
Pedra Branca. Needless to say, no Johor or Malaysian flag has ever been
raised on the island, whether before 1847 or afterwards.
4.122 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial tries to play down the significance of this
fact by advancing two main arguments. The first is legal, and consists of trying
to distinguish the Temple case where the flying of a flag was viewed by this
Court as legally relevant for purposes of attributing sovereignty over the
temple. The second is general, and cons ists of asserting, based once again on
the views of Malaysia’s outside consultants, that the flying of an ensign over a
lighthouse is a normal occurrence. Mala ysia also tries to explain away her
reaction to the Singapore Ensign whic h flew over Pulau Pisang until 1968,
when it was protested by Malaysia and lowered by Singapore, as compared
with her complete silence with respect to the same Ensign which flew at Pedra
346
Branca. As will be presently seen, this attempt is totally unavailing.
345
SM pp. 107-109, paras. 6.47-6.53.
346
MCM pp. 185-195, paras. 378-399.
– Page 145 –4.123 With respect to the significance of flags, Malaysia’s principal contention
is the following:
“The significance of the flying of flags or the display of national
emblems in territorial disputes hinges on the conduct in question being
open and notorious and demanding o347 a reaction: it is not, in the
abstract, evidence of sovereignty.”
4.124 Before addressing Malaysia’s reasoni ng, it is worth mentioning that the
Temple case does not stand alone when it come s to the relevance of flags or
national emblems in sovereignty disputes. In the Island of Palmas case, the
arbitrator, in ruling in favour of the Netherlands, attached importance to the
fact that “external signs of sovereignty, e.g., flags and coats of arms” had been
348
proved by the Netherlands on the island.
4.125 The totality of the ev idence in this case, in cluding (i) the evidence
demonstrating the British Crown’s intention to acquire sovereignty over Pedra
Branca in 1847-1851, (ii) the subsequent display of State authority on Pedra
Branca by the United Kingdo m and Singapore, (iii) Malaysia’s silence in the
face of such conduct, and (iv) Johor’s express disclaimer of ownership,
supports the conclusion that the disp lay of the Ensign on Pedra Branca was
intended as an act à titre de souverain . The question, to use Malaysia’s
formulation, is whether the display of a Singapore Ensign in these
circumstances demanded a reaction.
4.126 In her discussion of the Temple case, Malaysia refers to the visit paid in
1930 by a Siamese Prince to Preah Vi hear where the Fren ch flag was on
display, and quotes from the Court’s Ju dgment where the Court stated: “The
Prince could not possibly have failed to se e the implications of a reception of
347
MCM p. 185, para. 379.
348
Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v. U.S.), supra note 249, at p. 870.
– Page 146 –this character.” 349 Malaysia then tries to distinguish the Temple case from the
situation on Pedra Branca by arguing that Singapore’s Marine Ensign,
apparently in contrast to the French fl ag at Preah Vihear, was not displayed in
an open and notorious manner. In par ticular, Malaysia contends that the
Singapore Ensign looks similar to the Johor State flag, is small and is difficult
350
to see or identify.
4.127 There are several deficiencies in this line of argument. First, the flying
of the British and Singapore Ensigns over Pedra Branca was not an isolated
occurrence. The Ensign has been on display for over 150 years without
eliciting any reaction from Johor or Mala ysia. Johor, which Malaysia claims
held a long-standing historical title to Pedra Branca, could not have been
unaware of the Ensign unless, of course, the authorities of Johor had no interest
in the island, which was un doubtedly the truth of th e matter. Malaysia’s
argument that the Singapore Ensign looks similar to the Joho r state flag does
not explain why Johor t ook no action during the year s before Singapore’s
independence when the flag used was the British Ensign, which bore no
similarity with the Johor State fl ag. See, in this connection, Insert 8 overleaf,
showing the Johor state flag and the various British ensigns.
4.128 Secondly, relying on an affidavit supplied by Rear-Admiral
Thanabalasingam, Malaysia maintains that her navy “patrolled this area [i.e., in
the vicinity of Pedra Branca ] routinely from the very first days following
independence in 1957”. 351 If this was the case, then there would have been no
excuse for Malaysia not noticing the Singapore Ensign. Yet Malaysia made no
reaction.
349 Temple of Preah Vihear , supra note 230, at p. 30. The relevant passages are extracted and
quoted at para. 3.124 above.
350
MCM p. 189, para. 385.
351
MCM p. 252, para. 541.
– Page 147 –4.129 Thirdly, Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam al so claims that he personally
landed on Pedra Branca in 1962. Just as the Siamese Prince who visited the
temple at Preah Vihear could not have failed to notice the French flag
displayed there, Rear-Admiral Thanabal asingam could not have failed to see
the Singapore Ensign flying over the light house. Nonetheless, there was still
no reaction from Malaysia.
4.130 Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam trie s to excuse this silence by stating
that, while he is not an expert on light houses, as a naval officer he would have
understood the flying of the Ensign only as an indication that Singapore
managed the lighthouse, not that Sing apore had sovereignty over the island. 352
This explanation does not bear up to scrutiny when it is compared with how
Malaysia reacted to the flying of an identical Singapore Ensign over Pulau
Pisang.
4.131 Pulau Pisang is Malaysian territory . Nonetheless, pursuant to a written
Indenture agreed between the Sultan of Johor and the Governor of the Straits
Settlements in 1900, the lighthouse on Pulau Pisang was operated by British
authorities and subsequently by Singap ore. Until 1968, Singapore flew her
Marine Ensign over the lighthouse at Pulau Pisang.
4.132 Singapore’s Memorial recounted th e fact that, on 3 September 1968, a
Singapore diplomat from the Singapo re High Commission in Malaysia was
summoned to the Malaysian Foreign Mi nistry, where he was requested to
communicate to the Government of Si ngapore, Malaysia’s request that
Singapore issue instructions to bring down the flag as soon as possible. 353
352 MCM p. 192, para. 391.
353 See Letter from Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Singapore to Attorney-General, Singapore dated
4 Sep 1968 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 113).
– Page 148 –4.133 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial now se eks to convey the impression that
this request had nothing to do with issues of sovereignty, and that Malaysia did
not view the flag on Pulau Pisang as a mark of sovereignty. Instead, Malaysia
suggests that she was only acting unde r pressure from an internal Malaysian
Youth Movement. 354
4.134 This explanation is unconvincing. The letter from the Malaysian Youth
Movement to the Permanent Secretary of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs urged the Government of Malays ia “to bring down the Singapore flag
from Malaysian soil at Pulau Pisang”. 355 Clearly, the concern of the Youth
Movement was cast in terms of sovereignty. Moreover, Singapore’s internal
memorandum on the incident records the fact that Malaysia’s representations to
Singapore were directly premised on an explanation from Ma laysia’s point of
view as to what the status of sovereignty was over Pulau Pisang. 356
4.135 Singapore’s written record of the 3 September 1968 meeting also reveals
that one of the arguments raised by Malaysia’s representative was that in 1951,
the British had reaffirmed that sovereig nty over Pulau Pisang remained with
Johor. 357 It is not known to which docum ent Malaysia’s representative was
referring, although in all probability it was to the 1953 co rrespondence which
dealt with both Pulau Pisang and Pedra Branca. 358 What is clear is that, if
354 MCM p. 193, paras. 395-396.
355MACM40.x
356
See Letter from Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Singapore to Attorney-General, Singapore dated
4 Sep 1968 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 113).
357
Note by Kajapathy A. (First Secretary, Singapore High Commission in Malaysia) regarding
meeting with Hamzah bin Majeed (Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia)
on 3 Sep 1968, attached to this Reply as Annex 40.
358 See Letter from Higham J.D., on behalf of tSingapore Colonial Secretary to the British
Adviser, Johor dated 12 June 1953 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 93) which states: “... Pulau Pisang was
granted to the Crown for the purposes of ilding a lighthouse. Certain conditions were
– Page 149 –Malaysia was at the time conversant w ith the 1953 documentation relating to
Pulau Pisang, she would also have been well aware of the letter of 21
359
September 1953 in which Johor disclaimed ownership over Pedra Branca.
4.136 Remarkably Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial fails to explain why, if there
was a danger that internal constituencies in Malaysia might misunderstand the
Singapore Ensign flying at Pulau Pisang to represent a display of sovereignty,
such constituencies would not have had exactly the same concerns with respect
to the Ensign flying at Pedra Branca. Normal prudence would have dictated
that Malaysia, if she genuinely consid ered that she possessed sovereignty over
Pedra Branca, make the same request to Singapore to lower her flag there, so as
to avoid any similar complaints fro m the Malaysian Youth Movement or
anyone else in Malaysia. After all, the Malaysian Government viewed the
matter concerning Pulau Pisang with su fficient seriousness to warrant the
making of representations to Singapore at the diplomatic level. Yet, Malaysia
made no representations whatsoever about the Singapore Ensign at Pedra
Branca, which continues to be displayed.
4.137 This incident illustrates the manne r in which Malaysia herself viewed
flags and ensigns as external manifestations of sovereignty. With respect to the
Ensign at Pulau Pisang, Malaysia felt compelled to protest. With respect to the
Ensign at Pedra Branca, Malaysia did nothing. The obvious implication is that,
consistent with her 1953 correspondence, Malaysia considered Pedra Branca to
be Singapore territory.
attached and it is clear that there was no abr ogation of the sovereignty of Johore. The status
of Pisang is quite clear.” [emphasis added]
359 See Letter from M. Seth Bin Saaid (Acting State Secretary of Johor) to the Colonial Secretary,
Singapore dated 21 Sep 1953 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 96).
– Page 150 – F. S INGAPORE S C ONTROL OF ACCESS TO PEDRA B RANCA ,
O FFICIALVISITS BS INGAPORE O FFICIALS AND
G RANTS OF P ERMISSION TO CARRY O UT SURVEYS
4.138Singapore’s Memorial contains considerable docum entary evidence
demonstrating that Singapore was tsole Party responsible for vetting and
controlling access to Pedra Branca, thnumerous Singapore government
officials visited the island, that Mala ysian nationals were excluded from Pedra
Branca unless expressly authorised by Si ngapore, and that Singapore was the
only Party to regulate and issue grfor carrying out surveys around the
island. As Chapter V will show, Malaysia carried out no similar activities.
4.139 Malaysia attempts to dismiss the re levance of these acts in a number of
ways. Without re-canvassing all of the details previously set out in Singapore’s
Memorial, Singapore will deal in th is section with Malaysia’s main
contentions.
4.140To the extent that Malaysia re peats her argument that many of
Singapore’s actions, such as reguting activities on Pedra Branca, were
360
standard activities undertakby most lighthouse operators, Singapore
reiterates that this in no way detfrom their sovereign nature. A State
which carries out even routine functions on its own territory acts in the capacity
of sovereign. A State that does absolute ly nothing with respect to a piece of
disputed territory does not. There is no need to belabour the point.
360
MCM pp. 196-199, paras. 402-410.
– Page 151 – 1. Official Visits to Pedra Branca
4.141 What is striking from the evidence on the record, including the logbooks
361
produced by Singapore with her Memorial, is the number of visits that were
paid by Singapore officials to Pedra Branca over the years and the broad scope
of their authority. In addition to Singapore staff who constantly travelled to the
island to inspect, maintain, and upgrade the facilities, the island was the subject
of visits by:
(a) the Minister for Communications;
(b) the Minister for Home Affairs;
(c) a Member of Parliament;
(d) police officials; and
(e) militaryrsonnel.
4.142 Whether it is normal for lighthouse keepers to maintain a logbook of
362
visits, as Malaysia’s consultants suggest, the fact remain s that Singapore
officials conducted themselves on the ba sis that Pedra Branca was Singapore
territory. Not once did any anyone s eek permission from Malaysia to visit
Pedra Branca. Malaysia has not ad duced any evidence that Malaysian
Ministers or other senior officials visite d the island. There is only an alleged
landing by Thanabalasingam in 1962. 363 Over the course of 150 years, the least
that would be expected from a party th at considers it holds title would be to
361
See Selected Entries from the Horsburgh Lighthouse Visitors Logbook (including
transcriptions) (SM Vol. 5, Annex 87).
362
MCM p. 199, para. 410.
363
See para. 5.16 below. Thanabalasingam’s alleged landing was based solely on his own
affidavit and not substantiated by any documentary evidence. This is to be contrasted with the
Singapore Navy’s well documented activities on and around Pedra Branca – see paras. 4.149-
4.158 below.
– Page 152 –visit its territory and express some intere st in it. Neither Johor nor Malaysia
took such steps, at least not until a paper claim was made to the island in 1979.
4.143 With respect to visits to Pulau Pisang , research by Singapore has
revealed that only one Singapore Minist er, the Minister for Communications,
made a visit to that island. The ci rcumstances surrounding this visit are
revealing when compared to the manne r in which Singapore officials acted
when visiting Pedra Branca. Before embarking on his visit, the Minister
inquired internally as to whether it was necessary to obtain a visa given that the
lighthouse on Pulau Pisang was situated on Malaysian territory. The response
provided was that there was no immigra tion or customs checkpoint on Pulau
364
Pisang. Nonetheless, the Minister was advised to carry a passport. In
contrast, with respect to visits to Pedra Branca, there was never any suggestion
that Singaporean officials or visitors should carry their passports.
2. Control of Visits by Malaysian Nationals
4.144 Singapore’s Memorial also shows that when Malaysian nationals wished
to visit Pedra Branca, such visits entailed permission from the Singapore
authorities.365 One such example was a joint survey undertaken in 1974 with
representatives from Malaysia, Indonesia and Japan to make tidal observations.
In that case, a Commanding Officer of the Malaysian Navy complied with
Singapore’s request to furnish the par ticulars of the individuals concerned
366
before permission could be given.
364
See Correspondence concerning Visit of Minister for Communications (Singapore) to Pulau
Pisang in Sep 1971, attached to this Reply as Annex 41.
365
SM pp. 111-113, paras. 6.60-6.64. For the attitudes of third parties,see Chapter VIII below.
366
See Letter from Lieutenant Commander Mak S.W., KD Perantau to Hydrographic
Department, Port of Singapore Authority dated 22 Apr 1974 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 122).
– Page 153 –4.145 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial point s out that Singapore’s original
request for the details of the members of the survey team was issued to the
Commanding Officer of the survey vessel, and that it was entirely fortuitous
that the survey wound up having Ma laysian members on it. This argument
misses the point, which is that Singapo re controlled access to Pedra Branca by
367
foreigners no matter what their nationality. In acting in this way, Singapore
was exercising sovereign authority. Mala ysia also advances the argument that
permission was only sought to stay at the lighthouse and that “[t]his had
368
nothing whatever to do w ith access to the island”. The argument is ill-
conceived. The letter of the Singapor e hydrographic officer and that of the
Malaysian naval officer bot h referred to individuals who were “to land at
369
Horsburgh Lighthouse”. The phrase “to land at Horsburgh Lighthouse” was
obviously a reference to la nding at Pedra Branca since it was not possible to
land “at the lighthouse”.
4.146 Malaysia also tries to minimise the significance of the fact that, when
two of her officials landed on Pedra Br anca four years later in 1978 without
prior authorisation from Singapore, they were sent off. 370 Once again,
Malaysia offers the facile comment that it was not landing at Pedra Branca that
was the problem, but rather access to the lighthouse. 371 Unfortunately for
Malaysia, her own official has expre ssly admitted that the problem was the
367
As will be discussed in Chapte r VIII of this Reply, the event in question is also relevant as
evidence of general repute that Pedra Branca fell under Singapore’s sovereignty. In addition
to representatives from Singapore, three other countries were involved in the project, and all
three had to furnish the particulars of their delegates to Singapore to obtain authorisation.
368 MCM pp. 202-203, paras. 418-419.
369 See Letter from Hydrographic Department, Port of Singapore Authority to Commanding
Officer, K.D. Perantau dated 26 Mar 1974 (SM Vol.6, Annex 120); Letter from Lieutenant
Commander Mak S.W., KD Perantau to Hydrographic Department, Port of Singapore
Authority dated 22 Apr 1974 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 122).
370 SM p. 112, para. 6.63.
371 MCM p. 205, para. 425.
– Page 154 –“refusal of Singapore authorities to allow a Malaysian Survey team to land on
372
Pulau Batu Puteh on which the Lighthouse is situated ”. This is confirmed
by the corresponding Singapore internal no te of the same conversation, which
explained that the Malaysian side was upset by the fact that, “when certain
Malaysian marine boa ts tried to dock on the island recently for some survey
work, they were refused permission to land”. 373 The documentary record
makes clear that the issue was access to the island, not access to the lighthouse.
The lighthouse keepers promptly expelled the two Malaysian officials from the
island and the Malaysian officials complied.
4.147 A further episode evidencing Singapore’s control over matters involving
Pedra Branca concerned Malaysia’s pr oposal in 1980 to undertake a
hydrographic survey within Pedra Branca’s waters. The details of this event
374
were recounted in Singapore’s Memorial and are addressed again in Chapter
VI below.
3. Permissions Granted by Singapore to Third Parties
4.148 Malaysia also tries to pass over th e significance of two instances where
Singapore granted permission to third parties to carry out research on Pedra
Branca and salvage operations within its territorial waters. These events
concerned an application from a member of the American Piscatorial Society to
372 Notes on Discussion Between Mr. M. Kishore, Counsellor, Singapore High Commission and
PAS (Principal Assistant Secretary) Southeas t Asia on 13 Apr 1978 at Wisma Putra, 14 Apr
1978 (MCM Vol. 3, Annex 45), at pp. 1-2, emphasis added. Mr. Halim Ali was the Principal
Assistant Secretary in charge of the South-East Asia desk at Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (Wisma Putra).
373
See Note by Kishore Mahbubani (Counsellor, Singapore High Commission in Malaysia)
Foreign Affairs, Malaysia) on 13 Apr 1978, attached to this Reply as Annex 51, emphasistry of
added.
374
SM p. 153, para. 7.34.
– Page 155 –land at Pedra Branca to study the migrator y habits of fish and an application
from a British firm, Regis Ltd, to make a sonar scan of undersea areas lying off
Pedra Branca. Both are discussed in furt her detail in Chapter VIII below. For
present purposes, their significance liethe fact that they provide further
evidence that Singapore acted in a sove reign capacity with respect to Pedra
375
Branca.
G. S INGAPORE ’SN AVAL P ATROLS AND THE INSTALLATION BY S INGAPORE
OF M ILITARYC OMMUNICATIONS E QUIPMENT ON PEDRA B RANCA
1. Naval Patrols
4.149 Both Parties have argued that they carried out naval patrols in the
vicinity of Pedra Branca. Malaysia is fo rced to rely on this kind of indirect
evidence relating to Pedra Branca because she has nothing to show in terms of
activities on Pedra Branca itself. This aspect of Malaysia’s case will be
addressed in Chapter V of this Reply.As for Singapore, she has introduced
evidence of naval patrolling as simply one of many State actions she undertook
with respect to Pedra Branca.
4.150 There is a basic qualitative differen ce with respect to the evidence the
Parties have introduced on naval patrols. As Chap ter V will show, Malaysia’s
arguments rely on highly generalised assertions of patrolling discussed
376
primarily in the affidavit of Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam.Singapore, on
the other hand, has produced documentary evidence that her naval patrols took
375
See paras. 8.21-8.26 below. See also SM p. 111, para. 6.59; and p. 113, para. 6.66.
376
See para. 5.13 below.
– Page 156 –place within a designated area circumscri bed by specific coordinates and can
point to actual examples of enforcement in the vicinity of Pedra Branca. 377
4.151 Singapore’s naval patrols took place within an area designated as “Area
F5” set out in Operating Instructions i ssued in 1975 – four years before the
dispute emerged. In defining Sing apore’s patrol areas, the Operating
Instructions make specific reference to Horsburgh Light in two places. If
Insert 9 overleaf is consulted, it will be seen that the southern limits of Area F5
passed less than 0.4 nautical miles fro m Pedra Branca. Th e designation of a
naval patrol area so close to Pedra Branca was a clear indication that Singapore
considered herself to possess sovereig nty over the island and its territorial
waters. Prior to 2003, Malaysia did no t protest those patrols – a reaction that
would have been called for if Malaysia considered th at she held title to Pedra
Branca and had sovereign rights over her territorial waters.
4.152 A specific example of enforcemen t activities undertaken by Singapore
naval vessels in the waters around Pedra Branca is provided by an incident that
occurred on 26 June 1977. On that day, a Republic of Singapore naval vessel,
the RSS Sea Lion, was on patrol about two miles north of Pedra Branca when it
received reports from Singapore fishing ve ssels that they ha d been robbed by
378
personnel on board an Indonesian boat. The RSS Sea Lion gave chase and
apprehended a small Indonesian craft which had been involved in the incident.
The boat was detained and brought ba ck to Singapore wh ere the crew was
handed over to the Singapore Marine Po lice. The incident demonstrates that
Singapore actively patrolled the areas around Pedra Branca and that Singapore
377
See Republic of Singapore Navy Operations Instruction No. 10/75 dated 18 Sep 1975 (SM
Vol.6, Annex 123), and see Map 10 facing SM p.116, where these coordinates have been
plotted on a maritime chart of the area (also reproduced in this Reply as Insert 9).
378
See Report from Singapore Police Force concerning Arrest of 3 Indonesians by Singapore
Navy Vessel RSS Sea Lion for Committing Piracy on Singapore Fishing Vessels Near
Horsburgh Lighthouse on 26 June 1977, attached to this Reply as Annex 50.
– Page 157 –fishermen regularly fished in these waters. (See Insert 9 for the location of this
incident as juxtaposed against patrol sector F5).
4.153 Another example of Singapore’s Stat e activity undertaken with respect
to Pedra Branca and its territorial wate rs concerns the visit by Singapore’s
Minister of State for Communications to the island in September 1974. On this
occasion, the Minister was accompan ied by a naval patrol craft, the RSS
Justice.379 The same arrangements were repeat ed when the Senior Minister of
State for Communications visited Pedra Br anca two years later – the Minister
was conveyed to Pedra Branca by the RSS Sea Scorpion , a missile gun boat,
which remained in the vicinity of Pedra Branca throughout the Minister’s visit,
which lasted 22 hours. Following th is visit, a letter was written to the
commander of the Singapore Navy on beha lf of the Minister, expressing the
Minister’s appreciation for the arrangements made for his visit to the island. 380
4.154 Finally, two instances of evacuati on of personnel from Pedra Branca by
Singapore navy ships may also be menti oned. On 18 June 1975, a contractor
was injured while installing new generators for the Horsburgh Lighthouse. He
was promptly evacuated from Pedra Branca by RSS Sovereignty, a Singapore
Navy patrol craft, which was patrolling in the vicinity. On 3 November 1975,
four distressed Singapore fishermen lande d at Pedra Branca to seek help and
were evacuated from the island by another Singapore Navy ship, the RSS Sea
Dragon. These were yet further acts undertaken à titre de souverain by
Singapore with respect to Pedra Branca. 381
379
See Correspondence concerning Visit of Minister of State for Communications (Singapore) to
Pedra Branca in Sep 1974, attached to this Reply as Annex 43.
380
See Correspondence concerning Visit of Senior Minister of State for Communications
(Singapore) to Pedra Branca in May 1976, attached to this Reply as Annex 49.
381
See Letter from Ravendran T. (on behalf of Controller of Navigational Aids) to Director
Engineering Services Division, Port of Singapore Authority dated 19 June 1975, attached to
this Reply as Annex 45; and Letter from Ravendran T. (on behalf of Controller of
Navigational Aids) to Hydrographer, Port of Singapore Authority dated 4 Nov 1975, attached
to this Reply as Annex 48.
– Page 158 –
. 2. The Installation of Military Communications Equipment on
Pedra Branca
4.155Singapore’s Memorial described how, in 1977, Singapore installed
military communications e quipment on Pedra Branca. No less than nine
documents were provided in support. 382 This action was obviously a display of
State authority. It was equally obviously disassociated with the operation or
maintenance of the lighthouse – in other words, it was a non-lighthouse
activity. In fact, the Port of Singapore Authority approved the proposal on the
express condition that the communi cations relay station should not interfere
with the operation of the light and that the Authority would have no
383
responsibility for the operation or maintenance of the equipment.
4.156 Malaysia obviously cannot allege that this activity was a self-serving act
taken after the critical date. In 1977, Malaysia had advanced no claim to Pedra
Branca. Instead, Malaysia’s Counter-M emorial complains that the act was
undertaken secretly. 384 Malaysia also attempts to raise a spectre of menace
with respect to Singapore’ s conduct. Her Counter-M emorial asserts that the
installation of such equipment raises “serious concerns about Singapore’s use
of Horsburgh Lighthouse for non-light (and especially military) purposes.” 385
4.157 Malaysia’s alleged “concerns” are a regrettable red-herring. Indeed,
they run counter to the ve ry report filed by Malaysia’s own consultants who
indicate that amongst the “traditional non- light uses of lighthouse property” is
382 See SM pp.116-118, paras.6.72-6.75. The source documents cited there include SM Vol.6,
Annexes 124-132.
383 Letter from Hydrographic Department, Port of Singapore Authority to the Head of Operations
Department, Ministry of Defence dated 8 July 1976 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 125).
384 MCM p. 213, para. 449.
385
Ibid. See also MCM p. 92, para. 185 where a similar false alarm is raised.
– Page 159 – 386
the installation of antenna and transponder locati ons and military outposts.
Thus, while elsewhere in her Counter -Memorial, Malaysia argues that
Singapore made the same use of th e facilities on Pedra Branca that any
lighthouse operator would, in this instance, she argues that such uses somehow
constitute a threat.
4.158 It is patently obvi ous that nothing Singapore has done on Pedra Branca
is remotely threatening to Malaysia. A ll that was involved in this particular
project was the installation of comm unications equipment – a perfectly
ordinary act according to Malaysia’s c onsultants – and an act that was in
keeping with Singapore’s sovereignty over the island.
H. S INGAPORE S INVESTIGATION OF N AVIGATIONAL H AZARDS , SHIPWRECKS
AND NCIDENTS OF A CCIDENTAL D EATH AROUND PEDRA B RANCA
4.159 Singapore has previously documented her investigation of a number of
387
shipwrecks that occurred in Pedra Branca’s territorial waters. In as much as
Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial takes issue with the legal implications of these
events, Singapore will discuss their relevance again here.
4.160 Malaysia starts out by referring to a Tripartite Technical Experts Group
Meeting that was convened in May 1983 amongst representatives of Singapore,
Malaysia and Indonesia. Singapore’s Memorial pointed out that, at this
meeting, Singapore informed the Group that two wrecks had been identified in
the vicinity of Horsburgh Lighthouse and that Singapore had issued Notices to
388
Mariners notifying the position of the wrecks. While further details of this
386 MCM p. 136, para. 283.
387
SM pp. 118-122, paras. 6.76-6.83.
388
Report made by Singapore to Twelfth Tripartite Technical Experts Group Meeting on Safety
of Navigation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore dated 5-6 May 1983 (SM Vol. 7, Annex
156).
– Page 160 –incident will be discusse d in Chapter VIII, dealing with general repute, the
evidence is clear that Si ngapore took an active role in investigating shipping
incidents that occurred within Pedra Branca’s territorial waters.
4.161 The next incident taken up by Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial concerns
the investigation carried ou t by a Court of Investig ation sitting in Singapore
into a collision in 1920 between a British vessel SS Chak Sang and a Dutch
vessel SS Ban Fo Soon some 1½ miles north of Pedra Branca. Malaysia
contests this example of the exercise of territorial jurisdiction by the authorities
in Singapore on the grounds that the jurisdictional basis of the inquiry had
389
nothing to do with sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
4.162 While the report of the investiga tion does not state the exact basis on
which it was convened, the significance of Singapore’s investigation of an
accident occurring so near (i.e., 1½ miles) to Pedra Branca is undeniable. The
incident further illustrates that Singa pore authorities were diligent in
investigating incidents of this kind which took place in Pedra Branca’s
territorial waters while Malaysia, and her predecessor Johor, were not.
4.163 Similar remarks can be made about another two shipping incidents that
occurred in the territorial waters of Pedra Branca. These involved the stranding
of the British vessel MV Woodburn on a reef adjacent to Pedra Branca in 1963,
and the running aground of the Panamanian cargo vessel MV Yu Seung Ho off
390
Pedra Branca in 1979. In both cases the inves tigation was carried out by
Singapore, not Johor. With re spect to the stranding of the MV Woodburn,
389
MCM pp. 216-217, para. 457.
390
See SM pp. 119-120, paras.6.77-6.80; Preliminary inquiry conducted by Master Attendant,
Singapore dated 14 Nov 1963 (SM Vol.6, Annex 109); Letter of Appointment of Court of
Investigation under Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Cap. 207) regarding “MV Woodburn” by
Deputy Prime Minister dated 4 Dec 1963 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 110); and Letters from Director
of Marine, Singapore, to Bang No Hyeon and Bak Jong Hak, dated 8 Jan 1980 (SM Vol.6,
Annex 142).
– Page 161 –Singapore’s Master Attendant prepared a report in addition to the report issued
by the Court of Investigation. In th e latter case, Singapore’s Minister for
Communications ruled that two officers on the MV Yu Seung Ho would
henceforth be unfit for employment on a Singapore vessel.
4.164 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial prov ides no response to Singapore’s
arguments concerning the Woodburn incident. As explained in paragraph 6.78
of Singapore’s Memorial, a proviso in section 315 of the Singapore Merchant
Shipping Ordinance places express limits on the Minister’s powers to appoint a
Court of Investigation to investigate shipping casualties. This proviso reads as
follows:
“Provided that a Court of Investigation shall not be appointed for the
purpose of holding a formal investigation into any shipping casualty
occurring to a ship not registered in the Colony , unless either the
casualty occurs on or near the coast of the Colony or whilst the ship is
wholly engaged in the coasting trade of the Colony, or the appointment
of the Court is requested or consen ted to by the Government of that 391
part of the British Commonwealth in which the ship is registered.”
[emphasis added]
In other words, in respect of a shipping casualty which does not concern a ship
registered in Singapore, a Court of Investigation may be convened only if:
(a) the casualty occurs on or near the coast of Singapore; (b) the ship is wholly
engaged in the coasting trade of Singapore; or (c) the government of the ship’s
registry agrees to jurisdiction being exercised.
4.165 The Court of Investigation for the Woodburn incident could only have
been appointed on the basis that Pedr a Branca is Singapore territory. The
Woodburn – a vessel registered in the United Kingdom 392 – was bound for
Japan at the time of the incident. 392 It was thus not “engaged in the coasting
391 Section 315(1) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (SM Vol. 6, Annex 98), at p. 943.
392
See Preliminary inquiry conducted by Master Attendant, Singapore dated 14 Nov 1963 (SM
Vol. 6, Annex 109), at p. 988.
– Page 162 –trade of the Colony”. Th e appointment of the Court of Investigation was not
“requested or consented to by the Government of” the United Kingdom.
Therefore the only basis of jurisdiction was that the incident had occurred “on
or near the coast of [ Singapore]”. In this connection, it should be pointed out
that this phrase (“on or near the coast”) has been interpreted as not extending to
any distance of upwards of 20 miles. 393 The Woodburn incident occurred less
than a mile from Pedra Branca but more than 25 miles from the main island of
Singapore. 394
4.166 Malaysia does not confront this argument in her Counter-Memorial.
Instead, she seeks to dismiss the Woodburn incident on the grounds that:
(a)Singapore was part of the Federation of Malaysia at the relevant time, and
(b) Singapore exercised jurisdiction because the expression “shipping casualty”
in the Singapore Merchant Shipping Or dinance was defined so widely that
395
“jurisdiction can be exercised in a wide range of cases”. Neither argument is
correct or relevant.
4.167 First, the fact that Singapore was (at the time) part of the Federation of
Malaysia does not detract from the fact that the incident wa s investigated by
393 See The Fulham [1898] P 206 (High Court of England & Wales), attached to this Reply as
Annex 12, discussing the UK Merchant Shipping Act which is in this regard, in pari materia.
The UK High Court held at p. 214 that:
“I cannot, however, read the words ‘near the coasts’ as covering a place twenty miles
off the coasts... Some limits must be placed on the term, and having regard to all the
sections dealing with wreck and salvage, as at present advised, I think the limit
should be the territorial limit, though it is not necessary in this case to express a final
opinion on the point.”
The Fulham case was still cited in the 1963 edition of Temperley on the Merchant Shipping
Acts as authority for the interpretation for the phrase “on or near the coast” – see Extracts from
Temperley on The Merchant Shipping Acts (6th ed., 1963), attached to this Reply as Annex
31.
394 Woodburn “struck one of the off-lying rocks ad jacent to the lighthouse” (SM Vol.6,
Annex 109), at p. 989.
395 MCM pp. 217-218, paras. 459-460.
– Page 163 –Singapore and not by Joho r. The only reasonable explanation is that, even
when Singapore was part of the Federation, Malaysia regarded Pedra Branca as
part of the territory of Singapore and not Johor. Secondly, the fact that
“shipping casualty” was widely defined in the Singapore Merchant Shipping
Ordinance does not detract from the fact that not all “shipping casualties” were
subject to the jurisdiction of a Court of Investigation. The real issue is not
whether Woodburn was or was not a “shipping casualty”, but whether
Woodburn was a shipping casualty coming within the lim ited class set out in
the proviso to Section 315(1) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. In short,
jurisdiction was exercised because a shipping casualty had occurred “on or near
the coast of [ Singapore]”. In failing to address the relevant legal point,
Malaysia has implicitly accepted that there is no rebuttal to Singapore’s
arguments.
4.168With respect to the incident involving the MV Yu Seung Ho ,
surprisingly, Malaysia’s Counter-Mem orial criticises Singapore for only
providing three documents about the incident involving the MV Yu Seung Ho
and for not making clear whether the vessel involved was a Singapore-
registered vessel or whether there wa s any other connection to Singapore.
Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial then assert s that, “the inform ation provided by
Singapore is so sketchy and so lack ing in precision that it should be
396
disregarded.”
4.169 Malaysia’s complaints are as surp rising as they are misplaced. As
Singapore’s Memorial clearly shows, the MV Yu Seung Ho was a Panamanian-
397
registered vessel with no particular connection to Singapore. To supplement
the file on this matter, Singapore is producing in Annex 52 of this Reply a copy
396 MCM p. 219, para. 462.
397 See SM p. 120, para. 6.79; and SM Vol. 6, Annex 139.
– Page 164 –of the Investigation Report which her au thorities prepared in connection with
the incident. This Report also confir ms that the vessel was Panamanian and
none of the crew members were of Sing aporean nationality. The significance
of any “connection” to Singapore lie s in the fact that Singapore fully
investigated the vessel’s grounding, whic h took place near Pedra Branca, and
subsequently issued orders that the se nior officers on the vessel be prohibited
from serving on Singapore-registered ships due to their irresponsible conduct.
4.170 These examples attest to Singapore’s continued vigilance over accidents
occurring in Pedra Bran ca’s territorial waters and her assumption of
jurisdiction to investigate such incident s. Malaysia may now try to question
the jurisdictional basis for Singapore’s actions, but she cannot avoid the fact
that Singapore consistently took resp onsibility for these kinds of incidents
occurring around Pedra Branca while Malaysia simply did not.
4.171 Singapore’s Memorial also referre d to five more examples of cases
where Singapore exercised exclusive ju risdiction for inves tigating shipping
accidents in the vicinity of Pedra Branca and disc iplining, where necessary,
398
members of the crew. Malaysia elects not to discuss these events other than
to say that they post-dat e the critical date and that they do not constitute
continuity of pre-critical date conduct. Malaysia adds that each of the incidents
had some connection to Singapore. 399
4.172 These explanations do not help Ma laysia, given the pre-1979 examples
that Singapore has cited where she exer cised the same State authority. After
1979, Singapore simply continued her prac tice of investigating all accidents
taking place within Pedra Branca’s territorial waters that came to her attention.
398 SM p. 121, para. 6.82; and SM Vol. 7, Annexes 157, 159, 184, 198 and 200.
399 MCM pp. 219, paras. 463-465.
– Page 165 –The fact that each of the incidents t ook place in Pedra Branca’s waters was
precisely the essential link to Singapore.
4.173 In this connection, it is also appropriate to mention the investigation that
Singapore conducted into the accidental drowning off Pedra Branca in 1980 of
three of her military pers onnel who were on a missi on to maintain military
400
equipment there. Singapore’s Memorial pointed out that, according to
applicable Singapore legislation, in a case where a body cannot be found, the
authority of the Singapore Coroner’s Court, which investigated the matter, only
extended to deaths which occurred within Singapore’s jurisdiction. 401 Clearly,
the Coroner’s Court considered the wate rs off Pedra Branca to meet this
requirement since it exercised jurisdiction over the matter.
4.174 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial asse rts in response that it is a long-
established principle under internationa l law that warships – and Malaysia
assumes that the individuals who died we re on such a warship – have absolute
immunity from the jurisdicti on of the foreign State w ithin whose waters they
are found. 402 Malaysia seeks to invoke this principle to explain why she did
nothing to investigate these deaths.
4.175 The striking aspect of this argument is that it is entirely inconsistent with
Malaysia’s own subsequent conduct when she sought , belatedly, to bolster her
claim. In January 2003, a Singapore Naval vessel RSS Courageous collided
with a Dutch-registered vessel ANL Indonesia within the territo rial waters of
Pedra Branca, resulting in the deaths of four Singapore naval personnel. Under
400
SM pp. 122-123, paras. 6.84-6.87.
401
SM p.123, para. 6.85, referring to Criminal Procedure Code (Singapore), sections 270-278
(SM Vol.7, Annex 149). See also newspaper reports of the incident and the Coroner’s
Court’s findings, attached to this Reply as Annex 55.
402
MCM p. 221, para. 468.
– Page 166 –Malaysia’s theory, the Singapore wars hip should have enjoyed absolute
immunity from foreign States. Yet, Malaysia, through a Note Verbale dated 14
January 2003, insisted that Singapore “declare the circumstances leading to the
collision” and fill out a Report of Shipping Casualty. 403 Had Malaysia
genuinely considered that Pedra Branca fell within her sovereignty 23 years
earlier, she should have demanded the same thing with respect to the earlier
incident. In fact, at no time prior to 2003 did Malaysia attempt to investigate
any shipping accident in Pedra Branca’s waters.
4.176 These events underscore the difficu lt situation in which Malaysia found
herself after she decided to claim Pedra Branca. Malaysia obviously
considered that she had to make up for 150 years of inaction by seeking to
assert jurisdiction over ex actly the same kind of matter which she, in her
pleadings, now inconsistently claims pr operly belonged to Singapore. As has
been seen, many of Malaysia’s other pr otests after 1979 concerned the same
kinds of activity that Singapore had been carrying out for decades before.
4.177 Lastly, in this connection, referenc e must be made to a recent maritime
accident which occurred in the vicinity of Pedra Branca. On 4 June 2005, the
Maritime and Port Authority of Sing apore received a report from a Taiwan-
registered container ship, Uni Concord , that she had co llided with the
Malaysian bulk carrier, Everise Glory, about 7.5 nautical miles northeast of
Pedra Branca. The Uni Concord was able to proceed to Singapore while the
Everise Glory sank. As with previous incide nts of this nature, the Singapore
Maritime and Port Authority coordinated the search and rescue operations. Of
the 24 crew members on board the Everise Glory, 23 were rescued by vessels
belonging to the Republic of Singapor e Navy and the Singapore Police Coast
403 Malaysia’s Note EC 8/2003 dated 14 Jan 2003, attached to this Reply as Annex 57.
– Page 167 – 404 405
Guard. Regrettably, one crew member – a Philippine national – died. The
Maritime and Port Authority issued na vigational warnings on the position of
the sunken ship.
4.178 After being informed by Singapore of the incident, Malaysia also
launched an investigation into the ma tter. A number of issues then arose
between Singapore and Malaysia over whether the sunken vessel should be
fully or only partially removed. Fortunately, the two Parties were able to agree
on the full removal of the wr eck without prejudice to th e matters raised in the
current proceedings before this Court. The full removal of the wreck was
completed on 30 October 2005. A copy of the Joint Statem ent issued by
Singapore and Malaysia reflecting this agreement, as well as the full diplomatic
file relating to the incident, is included in Annexes 58 to 66 of this Reply.
I. SINGAPORE ’S RECLAMATION P LANS AROUND P EDRA B RANCA
4.179 Thefinal effectivité addressed by Malaysia c oncerns Singapore’s study
of the feasibility of reclaiming sea area s around Pedra Branca in 1978, and
Singapore’s publication of an in vitation to tender for such plans.406 Malaysia
raises a number of issues relating to this proposal which merit comment.
4.180 Malaysia’s principal complaint seem s to be that this plan was nothing
more than a self-serving action undertaken after “Singapore initiated an internal
407
process to begin to prepare its claim to PBP” sometime in 1977. This
argument is clearly untenable. As early as 9 May 1973, Singapore had already
404 See Maritime and Port Authority ofapore Press Release on Collision betM.V.
Everise Glory and M.V. Uni Concord dated 4 June 2005, attached to this Reply as Annex 58.
405 For further details relating to the reaction of the Philippines Governmeseeto the incident,
para. 8.27 below.
406 SM pp. 123-124, paras. 6.88-6.89.
407
MCM p. 222, para. 472.
– Page 168 –considered reclamation projects around Pedra Branca, or “Horsburgh Island”,
408
the term used in the 1973 memorandum. The idea of reclaiming the sea area
408
around Pedra Branca was br ought up again in 1974. The 1978 public
invitation to tender for a feasibility st udy regarding reclamation of the low-
lying areas off Pedra Branca merely ev idences the long-standing belief on on
the part of Singapore that she is entitle d to undertake land reclamation in those
areas.
4.181 The reclamation project was clear ly a continuation of the kind of
improvements that Singapore had unde rtaken on Pedra Br anca since the
lighthouse was completed in 1851. By any measure, the proposal represented
another action taken at the State level evidencing Singapore’s sovereignty over
Pedra Branca. It was classic conduct à titre de souverain.
Section V. Conclusions as to Singapore’s Conduct
4.182 The extensive ev idence on the record demons trates that Singapore has
exercised a steady stream of State activities in the confirmation and
maintenance of the title she acquired over Pedra Branca in 1847-1851. In her
Counter-Memorial, Malaysia has attempte d to diminish the significance of
Singapore’s actions by treating them as discrete events. The foregoing
discussion has shown that these attempts are doomed to fail. As Singapore has
demonstrated:
(a) The exercise of State authority on and with respect to Pedra
Branca by Singapore spans a period of over 150 years.
(b) The activities in question were undertaken à titre de souverain in
the maintenance of Singapore’s pre-existing title.
408 See Correspondence from 1972 to 1974 concerning plans for land reclamation in the sea areas
off Pedra Branca, attached to this Reply as Annex 42.
– Page 169 – (c) Singapore’s activities were open and notorious, and they went
totally unopposed by Malaysia for 130 years until Malaysia
belatedly raised a claim to the island in 1979.
(d) Singapore’s activities compri sed both light house and non-
lighthouse related conduct, an d were commensurate with, and
adapted to, the nature of the territory concerned.
4.183 In contrast, Malaysia not only carried out no competing activities on
Pedra Branca of any kind, she also expressly and through her conduct
recognised Singapore’s title to the island on numerous occasions. This will be
elaborated upon in Chapters V, VI and VII.
– Page 170 – CHAPTER V
ABSENCE OF ANY MALAYSIAN ACTS OF SOVEREIGNTY
Section I. Introduction
5.1 In Chapter 9, Section C, and Ch apter 10, Section B of her Counter-
Memorial, Malaysia argues that the va rious activities described therein are
“confirmatory” of an alleged original title.
5.2 This argument has no merit. As es tablished in Chapter II of this Reply,
Malaysia has failed to prove an original title, and indeed has acknowledged that
she has no evidence in that respect. 409 The activities that Malaysia claims to be
“confirmatory” are not only incapable of confirming a ny original title
(assuming that such title exis ted in the first place, quod non), they instead
demonstrate that Malaysia and her pr edecessors were never the sovereign
410
owner of Pedra Branca or had any belief that they were such.
5.3 Malaysia invokes the following activities as confirmatory acts of
sovereignty:
(a) Johor fishermen fishing in the waters around Pedra Branca;
(b) Royal Malaysian Navy vessels patrolling in the waters around
Pedra Branca; and
(c) a so-called “Malaysian practice” in relation to the “maritime
context”.
Singapore will address each of these points in turn.
409 MCM p 13, para. 21.
410 As for the previous argument of Singapore on thisee SM pp. 132-136, paras. 6.112-
6.121; and SCM pp. 163-173, paras. 6.74-6.94.
– Page 171 – Section II. Fishing in Waters around Pedra Branca
5.4 Malaysia has alleged, relying so lely on affidavits from two Johor
fishermen, 411that “the waters around PBP have been traditional fishing waters
for Johor fishermen for generations.” 412
5.5 This claim that the waters ar ound Pedra Branca have been the
“traditional” fishing waters for Johor fishermen (including those from a village
named “Sungei Rengit”) for “generations” is not only vague, but extravagant.
Apart from the affidavits, Malaysia has pr ovided no evidence for the assertion.
To put this matter in its prope r perspective, Thomson, in his Account of the
Horsburgh Light-house, recorded that there were no villages within 20 miles of
413 414
Pedra Branca. Sungei Rengit is only ten nautical miles from Pedra Branca
and therefore the village could not ha ve been in existence when Thomson
wrote his Account. In other words, the purpor ted fishing activities from that
village cannot be used to prove a pre-existing Johor title.
5.6 In any event, Singapore has no qua rrel with the assertion that fishermen
from Malaysia have fished in the wate rs surrounding Pedra Branca. However,
no legal conclusion can be inferred from this. Malaysia admits that these
fishing activities were “private acts”. 415 Such fishing therefore has no bearing
on the question of sovereignty in respect of Pedra Branca and does not advance
411 Affidavits of Idris Bin Yusof and Saban Bin Ahmad, MCM Vol.2, Annexes 5 and 6
respectively.
412 MCM p. 240, para. 517.
413 Thomson’s Account, supra note 55, at p.379 (SM Vol.4, Annex 61, p.480). It is not clear
whether Thomson was referring to 20 English miles or 20 nautical miles. Singapore’s
argument remains valid either way since both are more than ten nautical miles.
414 MCM p. 240, para. 517.
415 MCM p. 246, para. 530.
– Page 172 –Malaysia’s case at all. The Court has explained in the case concerning
Sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan (Indonesia/Malaysia) that:
“... activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do
not take place on the basis of official regulations or under
governmental authority.” 416
Malaysia has herself acknowledged th at private acts are incapable of
evidencing “conduct à titre de souverain by Malaysia as regards PBP”. 417 It
should be noted that Malaysia has not alleged, still less provided any evidence,
that the fishing activities of these fisher men, in the vicinity of Pedra Branca,
were based on “official regulations or un der governmental authority.” Neither
has Malaysia established that fishing in the vicinity of Pedra Branca was
418
exclusive to Malaysian fishermen. In fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
5.7 Neither can it be inferred that beca use they fished in those waters, the
fishermen had any belief that Pedr a Branca belonged to Malaysia. 419
Fishermen fish where there are fish. It is not unusual for fishermen to fish in
the waters of neighbouring countries. Contemporaneous documents establish
that Malaysian fishermen are known to have fished in the terr itorial waters of
other States. 420
416
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), supra note 279, at
p. 683, para. 141.
417 MCM p. 246, para. 530.
418 For evidence that Singapore fishermen fish at Pedra Branca, see Annexes 50 and 48. For
evidence that Indonesian fishermen also fish at Pedra Branca, see Thomson’s Account, supra
note 55, at p. 457 (SM Vol.4, Annex 61, p.560), where he mentions the visit of five fishing
boats from Bintan (an Indonesian island) to Pedra Branca.
419 Malaysia tangentially argues that Johor fishermen “had an appreciati on... of the limits of
Malaysian waters”. See MCM p. 247, para. 530.
420
In a document issued by the Royal Navy and the Royal Malaysian Navy in 1965, it is recorded
that:
“Most fishing fleets that fish in International and Malaysian Territorial waters leave
for the fishing grounds at about 1600 [ i.e., 4:00pm]... There are a few boats that
prefer to fish in Indonesian claimed waters, these boats stay out for about 6 days; and
– Page 173 – Section III. Royal Malaysian Navy Patrols in Waters around
Pedra Branca
5.8 Malaysia also relies on the alleged patrols of the Royal Malaysian Navy
around the waters of Pedra Branca , said to have started from 1957, 421as being
evidence confirmatory of her claim to sovereignty.
5.9 It would not escape the Court’s no tice that this argument is based
entirely on the recollections of Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam
(“Thanabalasingam”). 422 He was formerly the Chief of the Royal Malaysian
Navy, the highest ranking officer in the naval arm of the Malaysian armed
forces. It is therefore appropriate to bear in mind what the Court said in
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua:
“A member of the government of a State engaged, not merely in
international litigation, but in litigat ion relating to armed conflict, will
probably tend to identify himself with the interests of his country, and
to be anxious when giving evidence to say nothing which could prove
adverse to its cause. The Court th us considers that it can certainly
retain such parts of the evidence given by Ministers, orally or in
writing, as may be regarded as contrary to the interests or contentions
of the State to which the witness ow es allegiance, or as relating to
matters not controverted. For th e rest, while in no way impugning the
honour or veracity of the Ministers of either Party who have given
evidence, the Court considers that the special circumstances of this
case require to treat such evidence with great reserve.” 423
usually go out twice a month, within periods to coincide with the rising of the new
and full moon. There is all year round fishing in Indonesian claimed waters,
International and Malaysian Territorial waters but the monsoons do have an effect on
the catch in International and Malaysian Territorial waters.”
See Extracts from Orders for Ships Patrolling in Defence of West Malaysian Seaboard, 2nd
Edition, promulgated by the Naval Officer-in-Charge, West Malaysia of the Royal Malaysian
Navy and the Commander, Far East Fleet of the Royal Navy on 25 Mar 1965 (MALPOS II),
at p. K.4, para. 2, attached to this Reply as Annex 33.
421 MCM p. 252, para. 541.
422 Affidavit of Rear Admiral (Rtd) Dato’ Karalasingam Thanabalasingam dated 9 Dec 2004
(MCM Vol. 2, Annex 4), (hereafter, “Affidavit of Thanabalasingam”).
423 Nicaragua v. United States of America, supra note 62, at p. 43, para. 69.
– Page 174 –Whilst this case does not involve armed conflict, and Thanabalasingam was not
a Minister, the fact that he admits that he “reported directly to the Minister of
Defence”, 424 makes it clear that the same caution should be applied in
considering and assessing the credibility of his evidence. In this instance, he is
called upon to recall events going back more than 40 years in a situation where
he would very clearly tend “to identif y himself with the interests of his
country”.
5.10 The first observation to be made co ncerning Thanabalasingam’s
affidavit is that its sole purpose is to justify his confidential “Letter of
Promulgation” dated 16 July 1968 and the attached Charts No. 2403 and 3839
purporting to show Pedra Branca and its dependencies as being within
Malaysian territorial waters. The affidavit is nothing more than the expression
of an opinion, and, as explained by the Court in its 1986 Judgment:
“[t]estimony of this kind, which may be highly subjective, cannot take
the place of evidence. An opinion expressed by a witness is a mere
personal and subjective evaluat425 of a possibility, which has yet to be
shown to correspond to a fact.”
5.11 Secondly, as regards the alleged patrol s around the waters of Pedra
Branca, the following relevant background is instructive:
(a) In 1948 Singapore was a British colony while the Federation of
Malaya (which became indepe ndent in 1957) was a British
Protectorate. The Federation did not have a navy, but the British
colonial Government in Singapore established the Malayan Naval
Force “for the defence of the Colony within its territorial
waters”. 426
424
See Affidavit of Thanabalasingam, supra note 422, at p. 10, para. 27 (MCM Vol. 2, Annex 4).
425
Nicaragua v. United States of America, supra note 62, at p. 42, para. 68.
426
Section 3 of the Malayan Naval Force Ordinance 1948 (Colony of Singapore), attached to this
Reply as Annex 17, emphasis added. As was the common practice during this period, the
– Page 175 –
. (b) In 1949, the Legislative Coun cil of the Colony of Singapore
extended the scope of the activitie s of the Malayan Naval Force,
by enacting the Malayan Naval Force and Defence Ordinance
1949, to “operate within or without the limits of Singapore”. 427
(c) In 1952, the Malayan Naval Force changed its name to the Royal
Malayan Navy. 428 It was based in Singapore and financed
entirely by Singapore until it was tr ansferred to the Federation of
429
Malaya in 1958, following the grant of independence to the
Federation in 1957.
(d) During this period, the (British) Royal Navy was also based in
Singapore which was the headquar ters of the British Far East
Command and the British Pacific Fleet. As such, when the Royal
Malayan Navy was transferred to the Federation, Singapore
continued to be protected by the Royal Navy based in Singapore.
term “Malayan” was used in this context to describe the entire Malay Peninsulincluding
Singapore.
427 Section 4 of the Malayan Naval Force and Defence Ordinance 1949 (Colony of Singapore),
attached to this Reply as Annex 18, emphasis added.
428 Malayan Naval Force (Change of Name) Ordinance 1952 (Colony of Singapore), attached to
this Reply as Annex 22.
429 See Legislative Council Debates (Federation of Malaya) on the Navy Bill 1958, attached to
this Reply as Annex 25, where the Defence Minist er of the Federation of Malaya stated that
“it is proposed that the present Royal Malayan Navy raised in Singapore should be transferred
to the Federation”. The Minister also thanked the “Singapore Government for the very
generous contribution which they are making” and went on to remark that:
“The Singapore Government is transferring to us a trained Navy, which has been
built up in the years since the war as Singapore’s contribution towards the defence of
the Malayan area, (Applause) and I would like to point out to Honourable Members
that if the Federation had had to start its own Navy from scratch, it would have cost
us a considerable sum of money to have established and trained a comparable force.
I would like, Sir, to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the Chief
Minister of Singapore, the Honourable Mr. Lim Yew Hock, who has been largely
responsible for this generous gesture, which will go a long way towards maintaining
the good relations and co-operation between our Government and the Singapore
Government. (Applause)”.
– Page 176 – (e) After the Federation gained independence, she entered into a
security agreement with Brita in, viz., the Anglo-Malayan
Defence Agreement of 12 Oct ober 1957, which provided for
cooperation with Britain to protect Britain’s territories in the Far
East, including Singapore. 430 In this capacity, the Royal Malayan
Navy continued to patrol the territorial waters of Singapore. 431
(f) Singapore also had a volunteer naval force called the Straits
Settlements Royal Naval Voluntee r Reserve, formed in 1934
432
when Singapore was part of the Straits Settlements. The name
was changed to “Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve” in
1941. In 1952, this volunteer naval force was divided into a
Federation Division and a Singapo re Division, reflecting its dual
433
responsibilities.
(g) Singaporo ebtaineidnternal self-government in 1959, whilst
responsibility for external affairs and defence remained with
434
Britain. On 23 August 1961, Singapore and the Federation
430 Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement (12 Oct 1957), attached to this Reply as Annex 23, which
obliged the Government of the Federation of Malaya to cooperate with the United Kingdom in
the event of any armed attack or threat of armed attack against “any territories or protectorates
of the United Kingdom in the Far East” (i.e., including Singapore).
431 See Letter from Ministry of Defence (Federatio n of Malaya) to Ministry of Home Affairs
(Singapore) dated 27 Aug 1959, attached to this Reply as Annex 27, stating that “in
accordance with the agreement between our two Governments, the Royal Malayan Navy has
been carrying out patrols of the territorial waters of Singapore”.
432
It is interesting to note that, while Rear-Adm iral Thanabalasingam made the effort to mention
the establishment of the Straits Settlements Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in his affidavit, he
failed completely to acknowledge that the Royal Malayan Navy was raised and solely
maintained by the Colony of Singapore from 1948 to 1958.
433
See Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Ordinance 1952 (Federation of Malaya),
attached to this Reply as Annex 20. The preamble of the Ordinance recounts the history of the
Volunteer Reserve. See also Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Ordinance 1952
(Colony of Singapore), attached to this Reply as Annex 21.
434 This was well before Thanabalasingam’s purported landing on Pedra Branca in 1962. See
MCM p. 250, para. 538.
– Page 177 – agreed to merge into a federal State and Britain sanctioned the
merger in November 1961, resulting in the formation of Malaysia
on 16 September 1963. 435
(h) Upon merger, control over the Singapore Division of the
Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Re serve was transferred to the
Royal Malaysian Navy, with the Royal Malaysian Navy
defending Singapore’s territorial waters by virtue of Singapore
436
being a constituent state of Malaysia.
437
(i) Singapore separated from Ma laysia in August 1965, following
which Malaysia transferred to Singapore command and control of
the Singapore Division of the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer
Reserve. This naval force was renamed “Singapore Naval
438
Volunteer Force” in 1966.
(j) The Separation Agreement of 196 5 underscored the inter-related
nature of the defence of Singapore and Malaysia. It created a
Joint Defence Council “for the pur poses of external defence and
mutual assistance” 439 and required Malaysia to render to
435 On that date, the Federation also included Sabah and Sarawak. See Malaysia Act 1963
(United Kingdom) (SM Vol. 6, Annex 107); and the corresponding Malaysia Act 1963
(Federation of Malaysia) (SM Vol. 6, Annex 108). For the 23 Aug 1961 agreement in
principle between Singapore and the Federation, see Annex 29 of this Reply, p.202, para.2.
For the British sanction of Nov 1961,see Annex 30 of this Reply.
436
The Republic of Singapore Navy , Naval Archives (Singapore) (1988), at p.5, attached to this
Reply as Annex 56.
437
Separation Agreement between Malaysia and Singapore dated 7 Aug 1965 (SM Vol.6,
Annex 111).
438 The Republic of Singapore Navy, supra note 436, at p. 6, attached to this Reply as Annex 56.
439 Separation Agreement between Malaysia and Singapore dated 7 Aug 1965 (SM Vol.6,
Annex 111), at Art. 5(1).
– Page 178 –
. Singapore “such assistance as ma y be considered reasonable and
adequate for external defence”. 440
(k) Singapore’s naval force was renamed “Sea Defence Command”
in 1968 and further renamed th e “Maritime Command” later that
year.441 In April 1975, it became the Republic of Singapore
Navy. 442 The last British naval units withdrew from Singapore in
September 1975, 443and in the same month the Republic of
Singapore Navy formally establishe d five patrol sectors, one of
444
which was Sector F5 (Horsburgh Lt extending North-East).
5.12 It can be seen from the above account that after World War II, the
defence of Singapore and Malaysia and their respective territorial waters was
inextricably linked. As late as June 1968, the governments of Malaysia and
Singapore formally declared in a join t communiqué that “the defence of the
two countries was indivisible and requi red close and continuing co-operation
between them”. 445 The same communiqué also recorded that Malaysia and
Singapore “would cooperate effectively on coastal defence”. Later in the same
month, the Malaysian Minister of Defenc e told the Malaysian Parliament that
“the defence of Malaysia and Singapor e is a matter that cannot be separated
440 Separation Agreement between Malaysia and Singapore dated 7 Aug 1965 (SM Vol.6,
Annex 111), at Art. 5(2).
441 The Republic of Singapore Navy, supra note 436, at p. 7, attached to this Reply as Annex 56.
442
Ibid, at p. 11.
443
See Royal Navy says goodbye to Singapore in Times of London dated 25 Sep 1975, attached
to this Reply as Annex 47.
444 Republic of Singapore Navy Operations Instruction No. 10/75 dated 18 Sep 1975 (SM Vol. 6,
Annex 123).
445 Communiqué on the Five-Power Conference on Far East Defence dated 11 June 1968,
attached to this Reply as Annex 37.
– Page 179 – 446
from the geographical viewpoint”. Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam’s Letter
of Promulgation of 16 July 1968 should therefore be understood in light of the
cooperative atmosphere in defence matters that was prevailing at the time.
5.13 Given the historical background outlined above, two observations may
be made about Thanabalansi ngam’s claims concerning patrol activities of the
Royal Malayan Navy/Roy al Malaysian Navy. First, vessels of the Royal
Malayan Navy (and, subsequently, the Royal Malaysian Navy) were based at
447
the Woodlands Naval Base in Singapore . For these vessels to reach
Malaysia’s eastern seaboard from their Singapore base, it would be necessary
for them to transit the area around Pedra Branca. Transit of this nature can
448
hardly be described as “patrols” in the vicinity of Pedra Branca.
5.14 Secondly, apart from statements in his own affidavit (on which little
weight can be placed 449), the documentary evidence which Thanabalasingam
relied on is highly generalised and eq uivocal. Except fo r one example, no
specific co-ordinates were gi ven in any of the ships’ logs he relied on – they
used vague terms like “off Horsburgh”, “Horsburgh Light to Jason Bay”, “Pu.
Yu to Horsburgh Light House area” a nd “area from Horsburgh Lighthouse to
Tanjung Gelang”, without indicating how closely the vessels approached Pedra
446
Malaysia Parliamentary Debates, Dewan Rakyat, 14 June 1968, at cols. 1441-2, attached to
this Reply as Annex 38. See also the article Singapore Orders Six Fast Patrol Boats in Straits
Times dated 19 June 1968, attached to this Reply as Annex 39, in which the question of the
Singapore Navy conducting “joint defence operations with the Royal Malaysian Navy” was
discussed.
447 MCM p. 249, paras. 535-536.
448 For example, MCM p. 255, para. 544(d) quotes the following passage from the log of K.D. Sri
Trengganu: “... the ship sailed MBJ under the Tactical Command of K.D. SRI NEGRI
SEMBILAN (LT. CDR. PANG MENG KUNG, RMN, Senior Officer Second Patrol Craft
Squadron) at 1725. On arrival at Horsbrough [ sic] Light at 2050, the ship was detached to
proceed for patrol north of Pulau Aur ” (emphasis added). This passage shows that Pedra
Branca was only used as a navigationa l reference point to mark where K.D. Sri Trengganu
should leave K.D. Sri Negri Sembilan to begin its patrol of the Malaysian eastern seaboard
north of Pulau Aur (which is itself more than 65 nautical miles north of Pedra Branca). K.D.
Sri Trengganu sailed through the Horsburgh Light area only in transit.
449 See paras. 5.9-5.10 above.
– Page 180 – 450
Branca on such “patrols”. The only docu ment which provided specific co-
ordinates is Attachment 2 to Thanabalas ingam’s affidavit. This referred to a
rendezvous at “position 063 Horsburgh Li ght 15.5” – i.e., 15.5 nautical miles
north east of Pedra Branca. 451 Obviously this position is too far away to be of
any relevance to the question of sove reignty. The Horsburgh Lighthouse was
merely used as a navigational referenc e point to identify the position of the
vessel.
5.15 Even if Thanabalasingam conducted naval patrols around the waters of
Pedra Branca, such patrolling would no t be helpful to Malaysia’s case.
Patrolling during this period was a pan-Malayan affair that was dictated by,
among other things, the Federation’s obligation under the Anglo-Malayan
Defence Agreement (and, later, Malays ia’s obligation under the Separation
Agreement) to protect Singapore’s territorial waters.
5.16 A specific episode plays an important part in Rear-Admiral
Thanabasingam’s affidavit and in Mala ysia’s Counter-Memorial: his alleged
452
landing on Pedra Branca in 1962. In itself, this is a very banal episode: the
Commander of a small ship makes a s hort, one-off, stop on the island since,
exceptionally, weather conditions allow. It should be remembered that this
“incident” occurred when the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement was in full
force and there was close cooperation be tween the British Royal Navy and the
Royal Malayan Navy, the latter only having been recently transferred from the
453
Colony of Singapore Government to the Federation of Malaya Government.
450 In order to understand the generalised nature of these descriptions, it is useful to note that the
approximate distance from Pedra Branca to Jason Bay is 35 nautical miles; to Pulau Yu, 47
nautical miles; and to Tanjung Gelang, more than 160 nautical miles.
451 The relevant passage is quoted in MCM p. 255, para. 544(a).
452 See MCM p. 250, para. 538; and Affidavit of Thanabalasingam, supra note 422, at pp. 17-18,
paras. 52-56.
453
See, para. 5.11 (c) and (e) above.
– Page 181 –5.17 Therefore, it is rather disingenuous of Thanabalasingam to claim that he
would not have landed on Pe dra Branca in 1962 “if [h e] thought, even for a
454
moment, that Pulau Batu Puteh was not Malayan territory.” It is simply not
credible and further illustrates why his statements must be viewed with the
greatest caution. Moreover, during this period, residents in Singapore and the
Federation were free to move between th e two territories without the need for
455
passports or visas. In the circumstances, it c ould not have been expected of
Singapore to protest an innocuous episode which ( a) was in line with the
patrolling arrangements then in place, 456( b) lasted for merely “a short
while”, 457 and (c) caused no tension or inconvenience with the light-keepers. 458
5.18 Equally incredible is Thanabalas ingam’s suggestion that he had used
Pedra Branca as a navigational point to plot his way back to the Naval Base
and that he would not have used Pedra Branca – a prominent landmark used by
mariners as a navigational aid for cen turies – if the island had not been
459
“Malayan territory”. This assertion becomes even more absurd in the light
of Thanabalasingam’s own admission that during his navigational exercises,
459
“[w]e were not directly concerned with the status of the island”.
5.19 Next, Thanabalasingam refers to a survey done by the British Royal
460
Navy’s ship, HMS Dampier . He claims that the Royal Navy requested
permission from Malaysia to survey the waters off Pedra Branca. Reliance is
454 See Affidavit of Thanabalasingam, supra note 422, at p. 18, para. 52.
455 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates on the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 1959,
attached to this Reply as Annex 26.
456 See para. 5.11-5.15 above.
457
See Affidavit of Thanabalasingam, supra note 422, at p.18, para. 56 (“After a short while, I
returned to my ship and continued patrolling”).
458
Ibid, where Thanabalasingam said that: “When I was on the rocks, I recall looking up at the
lighthouse and seeing a man on the viewing platform above looking at me. He was evidently
the lighthouse keeper. I waved to him and he waved back”.
459 Ibid, at p. 20, para. 61.
460 Ibid, at p. 21, para. 63.
– Page 182 –placed on Attachment 6 (the letter of request which sets out the co-ordinates of
the proposed survey) and the survey fair sheet (which sets out the areas actually
surveyed) annexed to his affidavit. Th anabalasingam is very careful in not
actually saying that the co-ordinates given in the letter of request covered Pedra
Branca. Indeed, they do not as the letter gives only tw o co-ordinates of points
situated along the Malaysian coast without specifying any area of sea near to
Pedra Branca. However, just because HMS Dampier happened to subsequently
survey the waters around Pedra Branca, Malaysia conveniently makes the
claim that the request necessarily covered Pedra Branca.
5.20 This claim has no merit for the following reasons. First, nothing in the
request shows that the Royal Navy actu ally sought Malaysia’s permission to
survey the territorial waters around Pedra Branca. As explained above, the co-
ordinates provided do not approach the proximity of Pedra Branca. Any ex
post facto supposition that the sc ope of the permission sought was intended to
include Pedra Branca is clearly speculative. Secondly, the fact that HMS
Dampier surveyed the waters around Pe dra Branca does not lead to the
conclusion that the Royal Navy actually sought permission to do so. HMS
Dampier was part of the British Fleet that was protecting Si ngapore and her
territorial waters. The Fleet, based in Singapore, was always at liberty to travel
to and from, and within Singapore territorial waters. Finally, the survey fair
sheet shows that HMS Dampier also surveyed waters that were clearly high
seas or Indonesian waters. Obviously, the Dampier did not restrict herself to
the areas for which permission was sought from Malaysia.
5.21 Before leaving the subject of Th anabalasingam’s affidavit, it may be
usefully noted that his strangely firm be lief in Malaysia’s title to Pedra Branca
is in stark contrast with the circumspection and hesitation displayed by his own
Prime Minister when the latter was questioned about Malaysia’s claim to Pedra
Branca during a press conference held on 13 May 1980. During that press
conference, the Prime Minister of Ma laysia stated that the question of
sovereignty over Pedra Br anca “is a question of going back to whatever
documents there are to prove who, to which nation, to which country this island
– Page 183 – .really belong” and that “[w]e [i.e., Malaysia] are also looking into the question
because it is not very clear to us with regard to this island”. 461
Section IV. Other Aspects of Alleged Malaysian Practice in the
“Maritime Context”
5.22 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia first referred to a list of “items of
unilateral Malaysian conduct... also confirmatory of Malaysia’s title”, 462and
again referred to the same list as constituting Malaysia’s practice in the
“maritime context”. Singapore does not find it necessary to re-canvass in detail
the rebuttal which has been made in her Counter-Memorial.
5.23 However, it is worthwhile to reiter ate, briefly, Singapore’s response to
three of Malaysia’s arguments:
(a) in respect of the 1968 petroleu m concession to the Continental
Oil Company of Malaysia, Singa pore has shown conclusively
that the concession area does not encompass Pedra Branca and no
exploration was done within its waters. On the contrary, the
concession expressly excluded islands and also contained a
without prejudice clause on in ternational boundaries “wherever
they may be established”; 463
(b) in respect of the 1969 delimitation of Malaysia’s territorial sea in
the area around Pedra Branca, Singapore has shown that the
Malaysian Ordinance only set out the method of delimitation for
her future negotiations and that it expressly left open the question
461
Emphasis added. A sound recording of excerpts from this press conference is provided with
this Reply. The transcript of these excerpts is attached to this Reply as Annex 54.
462
MCM p. 235, para. 502.
463
SCM pp. 167-171, paras. 6.82-6.89.
– Page 184 – of the delimitation between Ma laysia, Singapore and her
464
neighbours;
(c) in respect of the 1969 Cont inental Shelf Ag reement with
Indonesia, Singapore has sh own that the agreement carefully
avoided any intrusion into the waters around Pedra Branca, and
that the agreement is, in any case, res inter alios acta as far as
465
Singapore is concerned.
Section V. Conclusion
5.24 In conclusion, the very few allege d “acts of sovereignty” invoked by
Malaysia are:
(a) fishing in the vicinity of Pedr a Branca by Johor fishermen, done
on a purely private and non-exclusive basis, and without any form
of governmental regulation;
(b) Rear-AdmirT ahanabalasingam’s actions in the vicinity of, and
an alleged isolated landing on, Pedra Branca, at a time when there
was full cooperation between the navies of the United Kingdom
and the Federation of Malaya for the defence of Singapore waters
and when there was freedom of movement by the residents of
Singapore and the Federation between the two territories; and
(c) other conduct said to be in the “maritime context” (i.e., the 1968
Petroleum Concession, the 1969 Ordinance extending Malaysian
territorial waters to 12 miles, and her 1969 Co ntinental Shelf
Agreement with Indonesia), all of which have been shown by
464 SCM pp. 171-172, paras. 6.90-6.91; and SM p. 21, note 33.
465 SCM pp. 172-173, paras. 6.92-6.94.
– Page 185 – Singapore in her Counter-Memorial to neither create nor confirm
title for Malaysia.
5.25 These alleged “acts of sovereignt y” are incapable of establishing
Malaysia’s “original title” to Pedra Bran ca – much less capable of neutralising
Singapore’s well-established title. More over, they do not even qualify as
effectivités which this Court considers to be “the conduct of the administrative
authorities as proof of the effective exercise of territorial jurisdiction”. 466 In the
final analysis, these acts have no be aring on the question of sovereignty in
respect of Pedra Branca and do not advance Malaysia’s case at all.
466
See e.g., Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali ) ( Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 554 , at p.586,
para. 63; See also Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Disput(El Salvador/Honduras:
Nicaragua Intervening) (Merits) [1992] ICJ Rep 351, at p. 389, para. 45.
– Page 186 – CHAPTER VI
SINGAPORE’S SOVEREIGNTY HAS BEEN RECOGNISED BY
MALAYSIAN CONDUCT
Section I. Introduction
6.1 As can be seen in the previous Chapters of this Reply, not only has
Malaysia been unable to rebut the ove rwhelming evidence of Singapore’s acts
of State authority over Pedra Branca , she has also, both expressly and
implicitly, recognised Singapore’s sovereignty over the island.
6.2 This was indeed the cas e in 1953, when the State of Johor, Malaysia’s
predecessor, formally ackno wledged that “the Johore Government does not
467
claim ownership of Pedra Branca”. However, given the special significance
of this formal disclaimer in the presen t case, Singapore will ag ain deal with it
briefly in the next Chapter of this Reply.
468
6.3 The present Chapter will confine itself to recalling that both by her
actions (Section II) and her omissions or inactions (Section III), Malaysia has
recognised Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca. This conclusion is also
confirmed by other materials, includin g several maps issued by Malaysia,
which constitute clear admissions against interest (Section IV).
Section II. Malaysia’s Recognition of Singapore’s Sovereignty over
Pedra Branca
6.4 In her Memorial, Singapore has shown that, Malaysia has, on several
occasions, clearly behaved in such a way as to leave no doubt that she
467 Letter from M. Seth Bin Saaid (Acting ecretary of Johor) to th e Colonial Secretary,
Singapore dated 21 Sep 1953 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 96).
468
See in particular SM pp.139-160 (Chapter VII, “Malaysia’s Recognition of Singapore’s
Sovereignty over Pedra Branca”).
– Page 187 – 469
considered Pedra Branca to be under Singapore’s sovereignty. nhr
Counter-Memorial, Malaysia tries to show that her requests for permission to
470
visit Pedra Branca did not amount to recognition of Singapore’s sovereignty.
Malaysia is wrong. These requests follow a pattern of recognition of
Singapore’s sovereignty (see Subsection A below), as does her conduct under
the Straits’ Lights System (see Subsection B below).
A. M ALAYSIA S R EQUESTS F OR P ERMISSION TO V ISITP EDRA B RANCA
1. Malaysia’s Request for Permission to Visit by Malaysian Personnel
as Part of a Joint Hydrographic Survey in 1974
6.5 In 1974, the Malaysian Navy requested permission for several officers to
stay on Pedra Branca as part of a joint survey team wishing to undertake tidal
observations. In response, the Singapore authorities asked for the particulars of
471
the personnel involved. The Commanding Officer of the survey vessel,
K.D. Perantau, complied with Singapore’s reque st, and provided information
472 473
about his personnel. These facts are agreed by both Parties.
6.6 Malaysia tries to downplay the significance of this request by submitting
that it was merely accidental that the pe rsons wishing to stay on Pedra Branca
were of Malaysian nationality 474and that the survey team included Japanese,
469
See e.g., SM pp. 111-112, paras. 6.61-6.62; and pp. 151-154, paras. 7.31-7.37.
470 See e.g., MCM pp. 202-208, paras. 416-435.
471 Letter from Hydrographic Department, Port of Singapore Authority to Commanding Officer,
K.D. Perantau dated 26 Mar 1974 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 120, p. 1027).
472 Letter from Lieutenant Commander Mak S.W., KD Perantau to Hydrographic Department,
Port of Singapore Authority dated 22 Apr 1974 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 122, p. 1031).
473 See SM pp. 111-112, para. 6.61; and MCM pp. 202-203, paras. 417-418.
474 MCM p. 203, para. 419.
– Page 188 –Indonesian and Singapore nationals as well. The presence of persons of other
nationalities in the survey team does not detract from the fact that this was a
survey done under the ausp ices of the Malaysian Navy. It was the Malaysian
Navy which made the request to the competent Singapore authorities. This is a
clear recognition of the controlling author ity of Singapore over Pedra Branca.
It is Singapore, not Malaysia, which regulated access to the island regardless of
475
the nationality of the visitors. It was in order to co mply with these controls
that Malaysia sought authorisation for the joint survey team members – and she
476
never objected to Singapore’s requirement for permission.
6.7 Malaysia further tries to downplay the implications of the 1974 request
to stay on the island by alleging that “the permission was sought and granted to
477
members of the join t survey team to stay at the lighthouse ”. However, a
closer look at the correspondence between the Hydrographic Department of the
Port of Singapore and Lieutenant Commander Mak S.W., the Commanding
Officer of K.D. Perantau, clearly shows that this allegation is incorrect. While
the introductory paragra ph of the letter of 26 Marc h 1974 from Singapore’s
Hydrographic Department noted that the Malaysian-led jo int survey team
478
wished “to stay at Horsburgh Li ghthouse for tidal observations”, the second
paragraph of the letter asked for particulars of the members of the team “who
479
will be landing on Horsburgh Lighthouse”. Singapore’s Hydrographic
Department gave permission to the te am to land on Pedra Branca, and as
475 See para. 8.26 below.
476 See SM p. 152, para. 7.31.
477 MCM p. 203, para. 419.
478 Letter from Hydrographic Department, Port of Singapore Authority to Commanding Officer,
K.D. Perantau dated 26 Mar 1974 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 120, p. 1027), at para. 1.
479 Ibid, at para. 2, emphasis added.
– Page 189 –further confirmation of its effective cont rol of the island, also requested “a
480
proposed programme of [the team’s] survey”.
6.8 In his response, the Ma laysian Commanding Officer of K.D. Perantau
not only provided the names, passport numbers, nationality and duration of stay
of the Malaysian personnel involved, but also, in full co mpliance with the
request, gave information concerning the op erations to be carried out. In this
regard it needs to be hi ghlighted that the Commandi ng Officer informed the
Singapore Port Authority that “[ o]ther personnel will likely to [ sic] land at
481
Horsburgh Lighthouse” and he continued: “It is proposed that list of
personnel carrying out on and off landing at Horsburgh Lighthouse be
exempted and each landing will be esco rted by your representative as the
481
landing will normally be a few hours”. In the context of this request, both
Parties clearly equated Horsburgh Lighth ouse with Pedra Branca, as is often
the case. 482
6.9 It is absolutely clear that this re quest in 1974 implie d much more than
mere access to the island or to be housed in the lighthouse. It went far beyond
the “standard procedure for anyone going to Horsburgh Lighthouse”, as
483
Malaysia alleges. The request concerned the entire programme of research
activities to be carried out on Pedra Branca in addition to permission to use the
facilities of the lighthouse. This is confirmed by the wording of the letter
issued by the Singapore Hydrographic Department which makes clear that,
apart from the approval which that Department could give, other approvals had
480 Letter from Hydrographic Department, Port of Singapore Authority to Commanding Officer,
K.D. Perantau dated 26 Mar 1974 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 120, p. 1027), at para. 4.
481 Letter from Lieutenant Commander Mak S.W., KD Perantau to Hydrographic Department,
Port of Singapore Authority dated 22 Apr 1974 (SM Vol.6, Annex122, p.1031), at para.2,
emphasis added.
482 See paras. 4.145-4.146 above.
483
MCM p. 204, para. 423.
– Page 190 –to be given “by various governmental mi nistries concerned”, and not only by
the Port of Singapore Authority as alleged by Malaysia.
2. Malaysia’s Request for Clearance of Malaysian Vessel
M.V. Pedoman for Tide Gauges Inspection
in May-June 1978
6.10 Malaysia’s argument concerning the Malaysian High Commission’s
request for clearance “for the Malaysian Government vessel MV ‘Pedoman’ to
enter Singapore territorial waters” and to carry out inspecti ons of tide gauges
484
therein is equally ill-founded. According to Malaysia, this request did not
relate to the territorial waters accruin g to Pedra Branca but was formulated in
general terms and “included areas which fell within the territorial waters of
485
Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore” with several stops being made on the
main island of Singapore. Consequently , Malaysia suggests that this request
cannot be considered as recognition of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra
Branca and its waters.
6.11 Once again, Malaysia tries to avoid the legal implications of her request
for permission by presenting a partial picture. What is significant is the timing
of the request to “enter Singapore territo rial waters”. The request is dated
486
9 May 1978. On that date, M.V. Pedoman was already within the territorial
486
waters around the main island of Singapore. Singapore’s permission was
granted on 12 May 1978, the date on which M.V. Pedoman was scheduled to
487
go to Pedra Branca.
484 MCM p. 203, para. 421.
485 MCM p. 204, para. 422.
486 Malaysia Note EC 219/78 dated 9 May 1978 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 137).
487
Singapore Note MFA 115/78 dated 12 May 1978 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 138).
– Page 191 – 3. Request for Permission to Enter the Waters around Pedra Branca
with regard to the Underwater Power Cable Project in 1980
6.12 The 1980 request for access to Singapore territori al waters to conduct
survey and feasibility studies concerning Malaysia’s underwater power cable
project is also presented in a distorted way by Malaysia. 488 The significance of
this episode lies not in the actual route of the hydrographic survey that was
eventually undertaken two years after the request. 489 Instead, the crucial point
is that, at the time the request for pe rmission was made, Malaysian officials
assumed that there were Singapore te rritorial waters somewhere between
Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak – the permission wa s sought because “the
above project will covers [ sic] also your [ i.e., Singapore’s ] territorial
490 491
waters”. As has been shown in Singapore’s Memorial, this could only be
a reference to the waters around Pedra Branca. (See Insert 11 opposite, which
is the sketch map attached to the Malaysian High Commission’s letter of 26
March 1980 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 145), annotated in red to show the approximate
location of Pedra Branca.)
6.13 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial atte mpts to explain the reference to
Singapore territorial waters on the basis th at “various legs of the survey ended
492
in Singapore, the port at which the survey vessel was based”. Nothing in the
correspondence supports this contrived in terpretation. At the time the request
for permission was made (28 January 19 80), the terms of reference for the
488 MCM pp. 205-208, paras. 426-434.
489 Ibid, at para. 433.
490 Letter from the Malaysian High Commission to the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs
dated 28 Jan 1980 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 143), at p. 1095.
491 SM p. 153, para. 7.34.
492
MCM p. 208, para. 434.
– Page 192 – 493
proposed hydrographic survey were still in draft form. It is inconceivable
that, at that time, the Malaysian authorities could have predicted that the survey
vessel to be used two years later for the survey would be a vessel based in
Singapore. 494
495
6.14 Malaysia next refers to the letter of 26 March 1980 to which was
appended a map indicating the “likely point [ sic] where the survey would take
496
place”. She argues that the 26 March 1980 letter does not refer to Singapore
territorial waters but seeks clearance for a power market survey in Singapore to
497
examine the possibilities of onward tr ansmission of power to Singapore.
This argument ignores entirely the fact that the March letter is simply a sequel
to the 28 January 1980 letter which expre ssly refers to the terms of reference
498
for a hydrographic survey. The argument also ignores the purpose of the
map attached to the 26 March 1980 le tter and its significance in showing the
“likely point where the survey would take place” – this is clearly a reference to
the proposed hydrographic survey. Singapore’s interpretation is also
corroborated by the cross reference, at the head of the 26 March letter, to the
letter of 28 January.
6.15 Malaysia also refers to a le tter dated 26 February 1980 from the
Economic Planning Unit of Malaysia to the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. This letter quotes a tele x from the Sarawak Electricity Supply
493
See Letter from the Malaysian High Commission to the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs
dated 28 Jan 1980 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 143), at p. 1096.
494
The hydrographic survey was eventually conducted in 1982. See MCM p. 208, para. 433.
495
Letter from the Malaysian High Commission to the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs
dated 26 Mar 1980 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 145), at pp. 1101-1102.
496 Ibid, at p. 1101 (second paragraph).
497 MCM p. 206, para. 430.
498 Letter from the Malaysian High Commission to the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs
dated 26 Mar 1980 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 145), at p. 1101 (first para).
– Page 193 –Corporation which states that “it is envisaged that only Indonesian water would
be involved”. 499 The same telex also seeks to explain the objective of the
hydrographic survey. It is not clear wh y this explanation was needed by the
Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affa irs when the objective was already
explained in the Terms of Reference attached to the 28 January 1980 letter sent
by Malaysia’s High Commission to the Si ngapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The letter of 26 February 1980, written two months after the publication of the
1979 Map and barely two weeks after Si ngapore’s protest Note of 14 February
1980, can only be seen in self-serving te rms. It does not de tract from the fact
that Malaysia did seek Singapore’s permission in January 1980.
6.16 Finally, and again contrary to Ma laysia’s contention, Singapore has
never been “unclear which of its territori al waters would be the subject of the
500
survey”. What the letter of permis sion does is to ask Malaysia to provide
501
exact coordinates of Singapore territorial waters to be surveyed – and it must
be kept in mind that these waters we re not and could not have been those
around the Island of Singapore.
4. Conclusion on Malaysian Requests for Permission
6.17 The cases discussed above, datin g from 1974 up to 1980 (that is, after
the publication of the 1979 Malaysian Map), clearly show a consistent pattern
of Malaysian recognition of Singapore’ s sovereignty over Pedra Branca. It
cannot be credibly argue d that the authorities of a State would act so
ludicrously as to request permission to land on, or to make surveys in the
499
MCM p. 207, para. 431. See also MCM Vol. 3, Annex 47.
500
MCM p. 208, para. 432.
501
Letter from the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Malaysian High Commission
dated 7 June 1980 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 147).
– Page 194 –surrounding waters of, an island coming under its sovereignty. If Malaysia had
really believed that Pedra Branca werehers, she would not have requested
permission to carry out these activities, notwithstanding the fact that Singapore
was administering the lighthouse on the island.
B. M ALAYSIA S C ONDUCT UNDER THE S TRAITS’ LIGHTS SYSTEM
RECOGNISED SINGAPORE S S OVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA B RANCA
6.18 Another aspect of Malaysia’s conduct which warrants discussion
concerns the arrangements made for the financing and operation of lighthouses
under the Straits’ Lights System. Malays ia devotes an entir e chapter to this
502
topic to make the point th at the “establishment a nd administration of the
Straits’ Lights was not regarded as detrminative of the sovereignty of the
503
underlying territory”.
6.19 Malaysia’s treatment of this issue is incomplete and misleading. There
is no dispute between the Parties that Singapore and her predecessors built and
operated certain lighthouses situated on the territory of Malaysia. However,
the conduct of Malaysia and her prede cessor in this respect shows beyond any
doubt that Malaysia treate d the lighthouses built on her own te rritory, and, in
particular, Pulau Pisang (where she possessed sovereignty), in a fundamentally
different way from what she did with respect to the lighthouse on Pedra Branca
(where she did not possess sovereignty)This difference of treatment will be
discussed in the following sections.
502
MCM Chapter 7.
503
MCM p. 143, para. 298.
– Page 195 – 1. Malaysia’s Conduct under the Straits’ Lights System
6.20 Singapore has previously descri bed how the 1852 Act vested the
Horsburgh Lighthouse and its appurtenances in the East India Company in trust
for the British Crown, and that this was maintained under the 1854 Act. 504 The
lighthouse on Pedra Branca was the first to be built in the area and was singled
out for special treatment in this manner.
6.21 In contrast, when the Cape Rach ado lighthouse was constructed on the
coast of Malaysia in 1860, no legislation was enacted vesting property rights in
this lighthouse in Great Britain as had been done with respect to the Horsburgh
Lighthouse under the 1852 and 1854 Acts. The Cape Rachado light was built
505
with the written permission of the lo cal ruler, the Sultan of Selangor.
Similarly, when the floating light at One Fathom Bank was replaced by a
permanent structure in 1874 , no similar legislation was enacted. And, by the
same token, when the lighthouse at Pu lau Pisang was established in 1886, no
legislation was enacted vesting property ri ghts in Great Britain. The light was
constructed with the permission of the Sultan of Johor in 1885, as confirmed by
an Indenture in 1900. 506 There was no such permission or Indenture with
respect to the lighthouse at Pedra Branca.
507
6.22 The 1854 Act was repealed in part by Ordinance No. XVII of 1912.
That Ordinance abolished light dues a nd provided for funding through direct
contributions from the Governments of the Straits Settlements (which included
504 See paras. 4.88-4.97 above. See also SM pp. 94-98, paras. 6.11-6.22.
505 Sultan of Selangor - Governor of the Straits Settlements, correspondence concerning Cape
Rachado lighthouse, Oct-Nov 1860 (MM Vol. 3, Annex 62).
506 Indenture between Ibrahim, Sultan of Johore, and Sir James Alexander Swettenham,
Officer Administering the Government of te Colony of the Straits Settlements, 6 Oct
1900 (MM Vol. 3, Annex 89).
507 The Light-Houses Ordinance No. XVII of 1912 (Singapore) (MM Vol. 3, Annex 90).
– Page 196 –Singapore) and the Federated Malay Stat es. What is significant about this
Ordinance was the reaction of the Fe derated Malay States to the funding
arrangements for the maintenance of the lights.
6.23 On 13 July 1913, the Chief Secretary to the Government of the
Federated Malay States tabled a motion before the Federal Council for a special
appropriation of $20,000 “t o meet a share of the cost of maintaining One
Fathom Light, off the coast of Selango r, and Cape Rachado on the coast of
Negri Sembilan”. 508 The Chief Secretary explained the position in the
following way:
“I think it is an intern ational obligation that e ach country should bear
the cost of maintaining all lights considered necessary on its coasts,
and I think there can hardly be any question now that we should not be
doing our duty if we did not come fo rward and offer to maintain these
two very useful light-houses.”509
6.24 The motion was agreed to, and it wa s also agreed th at such funding
would not change the management of th e lights which continued to be carried
out from the Straits Settlements. What is striking is that the funding proposal
was confined to the lighthouses along the coasts of the Federated Malay States.
The two lighthouses concerned were the One Fathom Bank lighthouse and the
lighthouse at Cape Rachado. The Straits Settlements government never
claimed to exercise sovereign authority ov er either of these features. No offer
was made to fund the lighthouse at Pedra Branca.
6.25 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial has a ttempted to argue that, at the time,
Johor was not one of th e Federated Malay States and that Horsburgh
Lighthouse was situated on th e territory of Johor. It th en states that “it is not
508
MCM pp. 149-150, para. 313. See also Federated Malay States, Pr oceedings of the Federal
Council, 8 July 1913, pp. A1-A2, B8 (MM Vol. 3, Annex 65).
509
Federated Malay States, Proceedings of tFederal Council, 8 July 1913, pp. A1-A2, B8
(MM Vol. 3, Annex 65), at p. 8.
– Page 197 –clear” whether Johor made any contribu tion to the funding of the lighthouses
on Pedra Branca or Pulau Pisang. 510
6.26 On the contrary, the facts are very clear. Malaysia has failed to disclose
that she did subsequently make an offer to fund the lighthouse at Pulau Pisang,
but made no similar offer with respect to Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pedra
Branca. This is clear from the propos al that was sent on 23 September 1952
from the Director of Marine of the Federation of Malaya to the Master
Attendant of Singapore. The relevant part of this letter reads as follows:
“I have the honour to raise the subj ect of maintenance of the Pulau
Pisang Lighthouse and to say that as it is close to the coast of the
Federation it would seem appropriate that it should be a commitment
of this Government, and to suggest that responsibility for it should be
assumed by us, in the same way as we have assumed responsibility for
Pulau Merambong.” 511
6.27 It can thus be seen that at vari ous times, Malaysia made proposals to
assume responsibility for the funding of lighthouses that fell within her
jurisdiction and off her coasts. This was the case with respect to the lights at
Cape Rachado, One Fathom Bank and Pulau Pisang. In contrast, Malaysia
never made such a proposal concerning the lighthouse on Pedra Branca. This
is further evidence that Malaysia did not consider that she possessed
sovereignty over Pedra Branca, but rather that she regarded Pedra Branca as
being vested in Singapore.
6.28 The foregoing discussion also undersc ores the point that, regardless of
the fact that the operation of the Stra its’ Lights remained under Singapore’s
510
MCM p. 150, para. 315.
511
Letter from the Director of Marine, Federation of Malaya to the Master Attendant, Singapore
dated 23 Sep 1952 (SM Vol.6, Annex 89). Merambong is a small island at the western
entrance of the Johor Strait lying close to the Singapore-Johor boundary. It was one of the
islands retroceded to Johor by the 1927 Agreem ent and is therefore in disputably Malaysian
territory.
– Page 198 –responsibility, the interested parties had a clear idea as to where sovereignty lay
with respect to the territory where each individual light was located. Pulau
Pisang and Cape Rachado were part of Malaysia’s territory and Malaysia
therefore offered to fund the lights thereon; Pedra Branca belonged to
Singapore, and Malaysia made no offer to fund the light thereon.
2. Conclusion on Malaysia’s Conduct under the Straits’ Lights System
6.29 Just like her requests for permission to act on or around Pedra Branca,
Malaysia’s and her predecessor Johor’s conduct in respect of the Straits’ Lights
System is clear evidence of her firm a nd consistent belief that the island was
under Singapore’s sovereignty.
6.30 This is also confirmed by Malaysia’s attitude vis-à-vis the Cape
Rachado lighthouse, now called the Tanju ng Tuan Lighthouse. An inscription
on an official plaque put up at the entrance of that lighthouse, and shown
overleaf as Insert 12, reads:
“Tanjung Tuan Lighthouse (Rumah Api Tanjung Tuan) is the oldest
lighthouse in Malaysia. It stands on the highest point of the cape and
was built in 1860 after the original was destroyed during a war in the
16th century”. [emphasis added]
As Horsburgh Lighthouse is older than the Tanjung Tuan Lighthouse,
Malaysia’s description of the latter as the “oldest lightho use in Malaysia”
contradicts her “belief” that Horsburgh Lighthouse is on Malaysian territory.
6.31 Malaysia has amply demonstrated th at she has acted consistently with
her sovereignty over Pula u Pisang, Cape Rachado and the One Fathom light.
In contrast, she has clearly acted in a contrary manner where Pedra Branca and
its lighthouse are concerned. This di fference is further acknowledgement of
Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
– Page 199 – C. B ASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P EDRA B RANCA AND P ULAU PISANG
6.32 At this juncture, it is helpful to recall numerous differences between the
way in which the administration of Pedr a Branca was undertaken and the way
in which the lighthouse on Pulau Pisang was managed. Singapore’s Counter-
512
Memorial touched upon so me of these differences, but in the light of the
513
contentions raised in Ma laysia’s Counter-Memorial, a systematic
recapitulation is in order. The matters that will be highlighted below confirm
that the two islands were under entirel y different legal regimes, and that
Singapore and Malaysia have always re garded Pulau Pisang as subject to
Malaysia’s sovereignty and Pedra Branca as s ubject to Singapore’s
sovereignty.
Different Legal Regimes
6.33 The lighthouse on Pulau Pisang, just as the light at Cape Rachado, was
subject to a written grant by the local rule r. There is no such grant or lease for
the lighthouse on Pedra Branca. As Singapore’s Master Attendant explained:
“Horsburgh Lighthouse, some 35 mile s to the eastward, is Colony
territory whereas at Pulau Pisang, some 50 miles to the north-
westward, Singapor514as only a l ease of the land on which the
lighthouse is built.”
This is a point that has been fully established in Singapore’s Memorial and
515
Counter-Memorial.
512 See SCM pp. 151-153, paras. 6.52-6.56; and pp. 156-158, paras. 6.63-6.66.
513 MCM pp.175- 176, para. 360. These arguments have been dealt with by Singapore. See SCM
pp. 156-158, paras. 6.63-6.66.
514 Letter from Rickard R.L. (Master AttendSingapore) to Perman ent Secretary of the
Ministry of Commerce & Industry dated 15 Feb 1958, attached to this Reply as Annex 24.
515 SM pp. 36-37, paras. 5.20-5.24; and SCM pp. 82-108, paras. 5.28-5.90.
– Page 200 –Disclaimer of Ownership
6.34 Malaysia (Johor) expressly discla imed ownership over Pedra Branca,
but she has never disclaimed ownershi p over Pulau Pisang. Singapore never
disclaimed ownership over Pedra Bran ca, and she has always recognised
Malaysia’s sovereignty over Pulau Pisang.
Marine Ensigns
6.35 Malaysia protested the flying of th e Singapore Marine Ensign at Pulau
Pisang. Because Singapore did not po ssess sovereignty over Pulau Pisang,
Singapore lowered her flag. Malaysia ma de no similar request with respect to
the same Singapore Ensign on Pedra Br anca, and the flag continues to be
displayed there just as it has for over 150 years.
Control of Access to the Islands
6.36 Singapore has consistently contro lled access to Pedra Branca both in
relation to Malaysian nationals and nationals of third States. When Malaysian
nationals arrived at Pedra Branca without a Singapore permit, they were sent
off. Singapore exercises no similar control over access to Pulau Pisang.
Visits by Singapore Officials and Passports Control
6.37 Singapore government officials made frequent visits to Pedra Branca.
They did so in the normal course of business and without needing passports.
Only once did a Singapore Minister visit Pulau Pisang, and on that occasion he
was advised to take his passport with hi m. In fact, soon after the introduction
of passport control and hence immigra tion procedures betw een Malaysia and
Singapore in 1967, the Singapore Direct or of Marine instructed all Marine
– Page 201 –Department staff to carry valid travel documents when travelling to Pulau
Pisang. 516 No such instructions were ever issued in respect of Pedra Branca.
Approval of Surveys and Issuance of other Permits
6.38 Singapore routinely controlled the i ssuance of permits to individuals or
companies wishing to carry out surveys on Pedra Branca or within its territorial
waters. These were not protested by Malaysia. Singapore took no similar steps
regarding surveys on or around Pulau Pisang.
Meteorological Data
6.39 Singapore routinely collected rainfall and other meteorological
517
information from Pedr a Branca since 1851. She undertook no similar
activity on Pulau Pisang. Malaysia, on the other hand, expressly listed the
rainfall station situated at Pedra Bran ca as being located “in Singapore”.
Following Singapore’s independence, Malaysia discontinued the compilation
and publication of meteorological readings from Pedra Branca.
Installation of Military Equipment and Naval Patrols
6.40 Singapore installed non-lighthous e military communications equipment
on Pedra Branca. She took no such action on Pulau Pisang. Singapore also
conducted naval patrols around Pedra Branca and specifically designated a
patrol area just off Pedra Branca. No such patrols were conducted by
Singapore off Pulau Pisang and no patrol areas were designated there.
516 Minute from Brown D.T. (Director of Marine, Singapore) to Marine Department Engineer
dated 27 May 1968 (SCM Vol. 3, Annex 45).
517
SM p. 106, para. 6.43.
– Page 202 –Investigation of Shipwrecks and Accidents
6.41 Singapore consistently investig ated and assumed jurisdiction over
shipwrecks occurring within Pedra Bran ca’s territorial waters. She also
investigated incidents of accidental death off Pedra Branca. She carried out no
similar actions in the waters off Pulau Pisang. Malaysia only began protesting
Singapore’s actions in this respect after the critical date.
Maps
6.42 Malaysia issued a series of official maps prior to the emergence of the
dispute indicating that Pedra Branca belo nged to Singapore. Malaysia’s maps
never showed Pulau Pisang as appertaining to Singapore.
Funding for Lighthouses
6.43 Malaysia expressly offered to a ssume responsibility fo r the funding of
the lighthouse on Pulau Pisang. Ma laysia never offered to assume
responsibility for the funding of the lighthouse at Pedra Branca.
Section III. Malaysia’s Silence in the Face of
Singapore’s Acts of Sovereignty
6.44 That Singapore has title to Pedra Branca is reinforced by Malaysia’s
eloquent silence in the face of Singapore’ s constant display of sovereignty on
518
or with respect to the island. This silence has legal consequences. Singapore
has in her Memorial referred to th e well-established jurisprudence of
international tribunals, including this Cour t, that silence in such circumstances
is good evidence of Malaysia’s lack of title to Pedra Branca and its surrounding
waters.
518 SM pp. 140-150, paras. 7.5-7.28.
– Page 203 –6.45 Malaysia has tried to dispute th e significance of her inactions on the
ground that she was not awar e, or could not have been aware, of the events
calling for protests from her part, or that open action or protest was not
required with regard to several Sing apore activities as they did not imply
sovereign authority over Pedra Branca. It is once again convenient to deal with
each of the Malaysian inactions to show that there is no merit whatsoever in
these arguments.
6.46 However, one preliminary point dese rves particular emphasis in this
respect: since Malaysia’s case is that the Temenggong gave permission for the
construction and operation of the lighthouse only, she should have vigilantly
protested non-lighthouse activities. Her failure to do so shows that Malaysia
never believed that such permission was ever given and that her theory of
permission is merely an ex post facto rationalisation.
A. M ALAYSIA ’S INACTION WITH REGARD TO THE INSTALLATION OF
M ILITARY C OMMUNICATIONS E QUIPMENT
6.47 The installation of military equipment on Pedra Branca three years prior
to Malaysia’s first claim of sovereignty over the island, i.e., in 1976-1977, was
carried out without any reaction from Malaysia. She now argues, in a footnote,
that she had neither been notified of an y such installation taking place, nor
519
could have been aware of it. She further claims th at she “only [became]
520
aware of this on receipt of Singapore’s Memorial”.
6.48 This argument is obviously unte nable. The circumstances under which
the military communication equipment wa s installed on Pedra Branca have
521
already been clarified by Singapore. In this regard, it is important to note
519
MCM p. 92, para. 185, note 247.
520
MCM p. 213, para. 449.
521
SM pp. 116-117, paras. 6.72-6.74.
– Page 204 –that even if the correspondence between the Singapore Ministry of Defence and
the Hydrographic Department was not in the public domain, the installation
process could not have been unknown to Malaysia’s authorities.
6.49 The installation involved multiple trips between Singapore Island and
522
Pedra Branca, using both naval vessels and military helicopters Malaysia
could not have been unaware of such military activity in the area, especially if,
as she now alleges, she carried out regular patrols in the waters surrounding the
island.523 If that were true, her naval offi cers could not have failed to note
these activities, and the Malaysian G overnment should have been put on
enquiry.
B. M ALAYSIA ’S NACTION WITH REGARD TO THE F LYING OF E NSIGNS ON
P EDRA B RANCA
6.50 Singapore has shown in her Memo rial that since the beginning of
construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse, and continuously for more than a
century, the British Marine Ensign flew over Pedra Branca. After 1952, the
Ensign of the Colony of Singapore was flown, followed, after independence, by
the Ensign of the Republic of Singapore. Malaysia does not dispute these facts
but argues that the flying of ensigns on lighthouses “has no special significance
for questions of sovereignty” over th e territory on which the lighthouse is
erected.524 She argues that ensigns are marks of nationality and not sovereignty
and that they merely show that the lighthouse is manned. 525
522 See SM p.118, para.6.75; and Minutes of Discussion (held on 7 Nov 1976) on
Communications Installation for Horsburgh Lighthouse dated 29 Nov 1976 (SM Vol.6,
Annex 130).
523 For a discussion of this untenable claim, see Chapter V above.
524 MCM p. 140, para. 294; and pp. 190-192, paras. 386-392.
525
MCM pp. 139-141, paras. 288-296.
– Page 205 – 526
6.51 As has been discussed in Chapter IV above, these arguments lack
substance in the light of Malaysia’s own state of mind as regards the flying of
the Ensign. She protested against the fl ying of the Singapore Ensign on Pulau
Pisang (which belongs to Malaysia) but at the same time made no protest
against the flying of the same Ensign on Pedra Branca. This difference of
attitude amounts to a clear recognition of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra
Branca.
6.52 As recorded by the First Secretary of the Singapore High Commission in
Malaysia, the Malaysian views were as follows:
“2. He started off by asking me if I knew of an island called Pulau
Pisang and I said: ‘No’. He then went on to say that this is a very tiny
island worth nothing at all. There is a lighthouse on it and for the past
few months a Singapore flag has been seen flying in the island. The
Malaysians would like the flag taken down as soon as possible in order
not to provide opportunists with something to talk about.
3.He told me that in 1900 unde r a treaty between the Sultan of
Johore and the British, the British we re allowed to use the island as a
lighthouse. Subsequently in 1951, the British had stated that there was
no question of the sovereignty of th e island which rested in the hands
of the Sultan of Johore.
4. Hamzah then told me that there have been a few statements in the
Utusan Malayu on this s ubject recently. Further, he said: ‘You know
what it is, these chaps will start sa ying that the Philippines is claiming
part of Malaysia and now even a Singapore flag is flying on what is
527
actually Malaysian territory.’ ”
6.53 Singapore is therefore entirely ju stified, contrary to Malaysia’s
argument, 528 in relying, by analogy, on the Temple case, in which the Court
526 See paras. 4.121-4.137 above. See also paras. 3.88-3.90 above.
527
Nmeeting with Hamzah bin Majeed (Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia)
on 3 Sep 1968, attached to this Reply as Annex 40.
528
MCM pp. 185-187, paras. 379-382.
– Page 206 –deduced Cambodia’s sovereignty over th e Temple of Preah Vihear from the
flying of the French flag during the official visit by Siamese Prince Damrong:
“When the Prince arrived at Preah Vi hear, he was officially received
there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, on
behalf of the Resident Superior, with the French flag flying. The
Prince could not possibly have faile d to see the implications of a
529
reception of this character.”
And the Court added:
“Looking at the incident as a whole, it appears to have amounted to a
tacit recognition by Siam of the sovereignty of Cambodia (under
French Protectorate) over Preah Vihear, through a failure to react in
any way, on an occasion that called fo r a reaction in order to affirm or
530
preserve title in face of an obvious rival claim.”
6.54 For the sake of completeness, it must be noted that:
(a) it is bizarre for Malaysia to alle ge that the flying of the Ensign
was not open and notorious 531 – one does not fly an Ensign
covertly;
(b) it is unfathomable that Malaysia n naval officers who (allegedly)
regularly sailed past whilst patrolling around Pedra Branca would
have confused the Johor State fl ag with the Singapore Marine
Ensign. It is even more unfatho mable for them to have confused
532
the Johor State flag with the British Ensign; and
(c) if indeed the future Rear-Adm iral Thanabalasingam had landed
on Pedra Branca in 1962 as allege d, and seen the lighthouse in
close proximity, he could not possibly have confused the two
flags.
529 See Temple of Preah Vihear, supra note 230, at p. 30.
530 Ibid, at pp. 30-31.
531 MCM p. 189, para. 385.
532
See paras. 4.126-4.127 above.
– Page 207 –In short, it is simply untenable for Mala ysia to argue that her authorities could
have difficulties identifyin g what flag or ensiwas being flown on Pedra
Branca.
6.55 There can be no doubt that if Mala ysia had considered Pedra Branca to
be under her sovereignty, she would have protested against this open and
notorious flying of the Br itish, and subsequently Singa pore, Marine Ensigns.
She failed to do so for more than 130 years.
C. M ALAYSIA ’S NACTION W ITH R EGARD TO SINGAPORE ’S PLANS TO
RECLAIM AREAS A ROUND PEDRA B RANCA
6.56 As explained in her Memorial, Si ngapore envisaged the reclamation of
part of the sea around Pedra Branca. A tender notice was published in The
Straits Times on 27 January 1978.33This was a public advertisement made in
full conformity with the usage in su ch circumstances. Three companies
tendered for the project.4There can be no doubt that if Malaysia had, at the
time, been convince d that she had sovereignty over Pedra Branca she would
and should have protested.
6.57 Ithe Temple case, this Court has recalled that States have a duty to
react to acts encroaching upon what they consider their sovereign authority:
“... it is clear that circumstances were such as called for some reaction,
within a reasonable period, on the pof the Siamese authorities, if
they wished to disagree with the map or had any serious question to
raise in regard to it.”
533
SM pp. 123-124, paras. 6.88-6.90.
534
See paras. 4.179-4.181 above.
535
See Temple of Preah Vihear, supra note 230, at p. 23.
– Page 208 –6.58 Malaysia, which did not react in a ny manner whatsoever to Singapore’s
public call for tenders to reclaim part of the area around Pedra Branca – a clear
action à titre de souverain – now raises a number of issues relating to this
project that merit comment, some of whic h have been discussed in Chapter IV
of this Reply. 536
6.59 Malaysia attempts to minimise th e significance of the public tender by
537
arguing that the newspaper advertis ement appeared on one day only. This
was the normal practice. Malaysia fails to appreciate that the tender resulted in
three different proposals being submitte d by three different construction
companies. 538 Evidently, unlike Malaysia, th ese companies had no difficulty
reacting to the invitation. Moreover, if reference is made to the Report on the
tenders subsequently prepared by the Engineering Services Division of the Port
of Singapore Authority, it can be seen th at the proposed works were extensive
in nature and involved the reclamation of large areas around and attached to the
539
island. The reference to “Horsburgh Li ghthouse”, as frequently was the
case, was simply a convenient term for the island as a whole.
6.60 Quite clearly, considerable preparation went into both the original tender
documents and the subsequent analysis of the tenders received. The tenders
quoted amounts as high as 16 million Singapore Dollars for the project,
attesting to the substantial nature of th e proposal. They all took place before
Malaysia first raised a cl aim to the island in 1979 . By any measure, the
proposal represented another action taken at the State level evidencing
Singapore’s possession of sovereignty ov er Pedra Branca. It was classic
536
See paras. 4.179-4.181 above.
537
MCM p. 224, para. 477.
538
See Tender Evaluation Report, at p. 5 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 135, p. 1072).
539
See Tender Evaluation Report (SM Vol. 6, Annex 135, p. 1080).
– Page 209 –conduct à titre de souverain . Had Malaysia thought at that time that she had
sovereignty over Pedra Branca, she woul d surely have protested. She kept
silent.
D. M ALAYSIA ’S NACTION WITH REGARD TO S INGAPORE S INVESTIGATION OF
N AVIGATIONAL H AZARDS AND S HIPWRECKS
6.61 Singaporehasrecount ed in Chapter IV of this Reply the numerous
investigations she has conducted on shipwrecks and marine hazards around the
540
waters of Pedra Branca from 1920 up to today. Such activities demonstrate
the exercise of sovereign authority. Th ese investigations were publicly and
openly conducted and publicised but they did not elicit any protest from
541
Malaysia until 2003 when she started to protest such activities by Singapore,
542
in sharp contrast with her persistent inactivity until then.
6.62 Malaysia tries to explain her persistent silence in this regard by alleging,
in substance, that these investig ations did not amount to conduct à titre de
souverain in respect of Pedra Branca. 543 If it were so, it cannot be understood
why, in January 2003, she felt obliged to take the unprecedented step of
initating her own investigations into a collision in Pedra Branca waters between
a Dutch-registered container vessel, ANL Indonesia, and the Singapore Naval
vessel RSS Courageous. 544This is all the more surprising since the collision
involved a Singapore naval vessel, a factor which by itself, as Malaysia herself
540 See Chapter IV, Section IV, Subsection H above. See also SM pp. 118-123, paras. 6.76-6.87.
541 See paras. 4.175-4.176 above.
542 See SM pp. 118-122, paras. 6.76-6.83; and SCM Insert 13, after p. 212.
543 See MCM p. 215, para. 455; p. 218, para. 460; p. 219, para. 464; p. 220, para. 465; and p. 221,
para. 469.
544 See Malaysia’s Note EC 8/2003 dated 14 Jan 2003, attached to this Reply as Annex 57.
– Page 210 – 545
has acknowledged, is sufficient to give jurisdiction to Singapore. Similar
remarks may be made about why, in No vember 2003, Malaysia felt obliged to
protest an investigation carried out by Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority
into the grounding of M.V. APL Emerald between Middle Rocks and South
Ledge.546
6.63 These very recent protests constitute a desperate but vain attempt by the
Malaysian authorities to build up a be tter factual background to support her
547
case. Ironically, these recent protestalso undermine her own arguments
that Singapore’s investigations of shipping accidents are not actà titre de
souverain.
E. C ONCLUSION ON M ALAYSIA ’SINACTION W ITH R EGARD TO O THER N ON -
LIGHTHOUSE A CTIVITIESB Y SINGAPORE AUTHORITIES
6.64 In the cases discussed above, the s ituation is quite similar to that which
has been commented upon by the Court in the Fisheries case where the United
Kingdom tried to excuse her inaction with respect to the Norwegian Royal
Decrees on the ground of their lack of “notoriety”. The Court concluded:
“The Court is unable to accept this view. As a coastal State on the
North Sea, greatly interested in the fisheries in this area, as a maritime
Power traditionally concerned with the law of the sea and concerned
particularly to defend the freedom of the seas, the United Kingdom
548
could not have been ignorant of the Decree of 1869.”
6.65 This reasoning is equally applicable where Pedra Branca is concerned.
If Malaysia had been reasonably diligen t or observant, sh e would not have
545 See MCM p. 221, paras. 468-469.
546 See SM pp. 121-122, para. 6.83.
547 See e.g., Malaysia’s Notes No. EC 65/2003 dated 30 June 2003 (SM Vol.7, Annex 202);
EC106/2003 dated 6 Nov 2003 (SM Vol.7, Annex203); and Malaysia’s Notes No. EC
74/2005 dated 2 Aug 2005, No. EC 75/2005 dated 2 Aug 2005, and No. EC 76/2005 dated 2
Aug 2005, annexed to this Reply as Annex 63. See also SM p. 134, para. 6.116.
548 See Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 116, at p. 139.
– Page 211 –
.failed to notice the conspicuous helicopt er movements in connection with the
installation of military communications equipment. The further argument that
she did not have the opportunity or the means to inspect Singapore’s activity on
the lighthouse without “risk of a potentially serious confrontation” 549 is simply
ludicrous and irreconciliable with he r claim that she knew nothing about
Singapore’s activities. In any case, th e point is not the need to inspect
“Singapore’s activity at the lighthouse”, 549 but the failure to make appropriate
enquiries in a manner consistent with her claim to sovereignty over Pedra
Branca.
6.66 Malaysia now seeks to distract the Court’s attention from her inaction by
alleging that she has “serious concerns about Singapore’s use of Horsburgh
Lighthouse for non-light (and especially military) purposes”. 550 This is a mere
smokescreen thrown up by Malaysia to attribute sinister motives to Singapore,
in order to hide the fact that she has no credible explanation for her inaction.
6.67 As the Arbitral Tribunal stated in the Dubai-Sharjah Border Arbitration,
after having extensively cited international case law:
“... a State must react, although using peaceful means, when it
considers that one of its rights is threatened by the action of another
State.
Such a rule is perfectly logical as lack of action on a situation like this
one can only mean two things: either the State does not believe that it
really possesses the dispute551ight, or for its own private reasons, it
decided not to maintain it.”
549
See MCM p. 92, para. 185, note 247.
550
MCM p. 92, para. 185; and p. 213, para. 449.
551
Dubai-Sharjah Border Arbitration, 91 I.L.R. 543 (1993), at p. 623. This case was discussed
in SM pp. 148-150, para. 7.24.
– Page 212 –6.68 Inthe Honduras Borders Award, the Arbitral Tribunal made a similar
observation:
“... it is equally true that these a ssertions of authority by Guatemala...
shortly after independence, with respect to the territory to the north and
the west of the Motagua river, embracing the Amatique coast region,
were public, formal acts and sh ow clearly the understanding of
Guatemala that this was her terri tory. These assertions invited
opposition on the part of Honduras if they were believed to be
unwarranted. It is theref ore pertinent to inquire as to what action, if
any, was taken by Honduras at or n ear the time of independence in
relation to the territory now under c onsideration and in answer to the
above-mentioned proceedings of Guatemala.” 552
6.69 In its recent Judgment in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pulau
Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), the Court made a similar
ruling with regard to the inaction of the Netherlands (and subsequently,
Indonesia) in the face of Malaysia’s activities:
“The Court moreover cannot disregard the fact that at the time when
these activities were carried out, ne ither Indonesia nor its predecessor,
the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest. In this
regard, the Court notes that in 1962 and 1963 the Indonesian
authorities did not even remind the au thorities of the colony of North
Borneo, or Malaysia after its independence, that the construction of the
lighthouses at those times had take n place on territory which they
considered Indonesian; even if th ey regarded these lighthouses as
merely destined for safe navigation in an area which was of particular
importance for navigation in the waters off North Borneo, such
behaviour is unusual.” 553
A fortiori, in the present case, Malaysia’s to tal inaction and absence of protest
in the face of Singapore’s overt, cons tant and clear exercise of sovereign
authority over Pedra Branca must, to say the least, be regarded as unusual.
552
See Honduras Borders (Guatemala v. Honduras) (1933) 2 RIAA 1322, at p. 1327.
553
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), supra note 279, at
para. 148.
– Page 213 – Section IV. Official Malaysian Maps Recognising Singapore’s
Sovereignty over Pedra Branca
6.70 The earlier sections of this Chapte r have reviewed the relevant evidence
attesting to Malaysia’s recognition of Singapore’s title over Pedra Branca.
However, a further aspect of Malaysia’s conduct confirmatory of Singapore’s
title remains to be treated in this final section, i.e., the issuance of official maps
depicting Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore. 554
6.71 In this respect, Malaysia has reso rted to a number of highly tenuous
arguments in Chapter 10 of her Counter-Memorial. She has questioned
whether maps could ever amount to admissions, except when they are
incorporated in treaties or used in inter-State negotiations, because – in and of
themselves – they cannot c onstitute territorial title. From this proposition,
Malaysia contends, with an extraordin ary leap of logic, that maps “cannot
555
constitute definitive State admissions either”. Malaysia adds that this is
particularly true of maps containing a disclaimer, and th at it is irrelevant that
such disclaimer is limited to boundaries because attribution of sovereignty and
delimitation of boundaries are closely linked concepts.
6.72 Malaysia’s arguments in this respect are not new and Singapore has
556
already dealt with them in her Counter-Memorial. There is thus no need to
dwell at length on this issue here, a lthough a few points are worth making in
light of Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial.
6.73 Singapore agrees with Malaysia that maps can only constitute territorial
title in specific circumstances and that th e official Malaysian maps attributing
554
These maps have been reproduced by both Parties. Reference can be made to SM Maps 12 to
15; and Malaysia’s Map Atlas, Maps 32, 33, 34, 38, 39 and 41.
555
MCM p. 268, para. 572.
556
SCM pp. 230-232, paras. 9.30-9.31.
– Page 214 –Pedra Branca to Singapore do not per se create title. In any event, Singapore
does not contend that these maps confer title. Singapore’s claim is firmly
grounded on the taking of lawful possession of Pedra Branca in 1847-1851 and
the uninterrupted maintenance of that title by Singapore and her predecessors
in title. What Singapore does contend, nonetheless, is that the cartographic
material in this case has considerable significance in that it provides evidence
of the official views held by the Malaysian government regarding sovereignty
over Pedra Branca prior to the emergence of the dispute. A number of official
Malaysian maps show that Malaysia did not consider the island as being under
Malaysian sovereignty, but, rather, th at it was specifically attributed to
Singapore. 556
6.74 As to the second leg of Malaysia’s argument, i.e., that if maps do not
constitute territorial title, by the same token they also cannot constitute
admissions against interest, this conclusion is a non sequitur which runs
contrary to international doctrine and the case law . It is well-established that,
when a State produces and distributes maps which contradict its position and
confirm the position of the opposite Stat e party in a territorial or boundary
dispute, such maps can be proof of recognition. 557 For instance, in the
Minquiers and Ecrehos case, the record contained an official French letter
which stated that the Minquiers were “ possédés par l’Angleterre ”, with an
enclosed chart which depicted them as British territory. The Court observed
that the Note and attached chart could be invoked as admissions against interest
as they were “a statement of facts tr ansmitted to the Foreign Office by the
French Ambassador, who did not express any reservation in respect thereof”
557 See case law and doctrine cited in SCM p.237, para.9.42, note 5See also Frontier
Dispute (Benin/Niger), ICJ Judgment of 12 July 2005, at para. 44.
– Page 215 –and, as such, they should “be considered as evidence of th e French official
view at the time.” 558
6.75 Similarly, in the Beagle Channel case, the Arbitral Tribunal noted:
“Where there is a definite preponderance on the one side – particularly
if it is a very marked preponderan ce – and while of course every map
must be assessed on its own merits – the cumulative impact of a large
number of maps, relevant for a partic ular case, that tell the same story
– especially when some of them emanate from the opposite party, or
from third countries, – cannot but be considerable, either as indications
of general or at least widespread repute or belief, or else as
559
confirmatory of conclusions reached... independently of the maps.”
6.76 Although the factual context of the present case is different, the dictum
cited above applies to this case as well. Here, too, Malaysia’s official maps,
published before 1979, tell the same stor y and furnish importa nt evidence of
Malaysia’s opinion at the time with resp ect to sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
Such maps indicate Malaysia’s own be lief that Pedra Branca belonged to
Singapore.
6.77 There can be no doubt as to the fact that a significant number of official
Malaysian maps – particularly Maps 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Singapore’s
Memorial, 560and Maps 32, 33, 34 , 38, 39 and 41 in th e Map Atlas submitted
with Malaysia’s Memorial – show Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore:
(a) First, Pedra Branca is indicated both with the lighthouse symbol
and as an area of land. Furthermore, it is labelled with the Malay
name given to the island (P. Ba tu Puteh), which dispels any
558
Minquiers and Ecrehos (United Kingdom v. France), supra note 186, at p. 71.
559
Beagle Channel Arbitration, supra note 223, at pp. 203-204, para. 139.
560
These maps have also been reproduced as Maps No. 26-28 and 30 in SCM Map Atlas.
– Page 216 – confusion as to whether the attri bution to Singapore refers to the
lighthouse alone.
(b) Secondly, the appurtenance of the island to Singapore is not
indicated by means of dotted lines or in other unclear terms, but,
rather, it is unequivocally done by reference to Singapore, in
capital letters appearing under the island’s name.
(c) Thirdly, the fact that this labe lling was intended by the map
makers to indicate that the is land belongs to Singapore is
confirmed by the appearance of the exact same attribution for
another island, Pulau Tekong Besar, sovereignty of which
undisputedly belongs to Singapore. It is also significant that none
of Malaysia’s maps carry a sim ilar annotation with respect to
Pulau Pisang, thus confirming that the legend “ SINGAPORE ”
relates to the island’s territorial status and is not a mere reference
to the ownership of the lighthouse that is built on the island. (See
the relevant maps reproduced as Insert 13 and Insert 14,
overleaf.)
6.78 The significance of these six maps is enhanced by the fact that they
constituted a pattern of recognition, over a period of 14 year s, by the highest
cartographic authority of Malaysia, of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra
Branca. This is entirely consistent w ith the other evidence of recognition in
561
this case.
6.79 With respect to Malaysia’s argume nts on disclaimers, it may be that
boundary delimitation and attribution of territory are legally related concepts.
But the fact remains that if a map cont ains an express stat ement excluding its
561 See Sections II and III above; and SM Chapter VII.
– Page 217 –authority for boundary delimitation purposes , that statement is clearly limited
to boundary delimitations and not concerned with the attribution of territorial
title.
6.80 In any event, even assuming that the disclaimer could be read to
encompass attribution of territory as well, this does not detract from the
significance of these maps because, as noted by the Boundary Commission in
the Eritrea/Ethiopia arbitration:
“... a disclaimer cannot be assumed to relieve [a State] of the need that
might otherwise exist for it to protest against the representation of the
feature in question. The need for reaction will depend upon the
character of the map and the signif icance of the feature represented.
The map still stands as a statement of a geographical fact, especially
when the State adversely affec562 itself produced and disseminated it,
even against its own interest.”
Section V. Conclusion
6.81 As shown above, not only is Malaysia unable to prove original title over
Pedra Branca, her conduct confirms Singapore’s title over the island. In the
face of the open, peaceful and public display of sovereignty over Pedra Branca
carried out by Singapor e and her predecessor in title the United Kingdom,
neither Malaysia, nor her predecessor, Johor , ever reacted. Indeed, Malaysia’s
conduct is strong evidence of Singapore’s title on two levels. At one level, she
has failed to protest Singapo re’s activities on the island. At another level, her
admissions (by conduct or through the maps she issued) are clear recognition of
Singapore’s title.
6.82 In fact, Malaysia’s eloquent silence is particularly significant in light of
her theory that the ligh thouse on Pedra Branca was constructed with Johor’s
562 Decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission Regarding Delimitation of the Border
between the State of Eritrea and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Decision of 13
Apr 2002, reprinted in 41 Int’l L. Materials 1057 (2002), at p. 28, para. 3.27, emphasis added.
– Page 218 –permission. If that were the case, Malaysia should have vigilantly protested the
wide range of non-lighthouse activities performed by British, and subsequently,
Singapore authorities. Her failure to do so shows that she never believed that
any such permission was given. The theo ry of permission was invented solely
to prop up her paper claim to Pedra Branca.
6.83 Finally, it should be pointed out that Malaysia’s conduct is also
consistent with her 1953 disclaimer of ownership over Pedra Branca. This will
be elaborated upon in Chapter VII below.
– Page 219 – CHAPTER VII
MALAYSIA’S FORMAL DISCLAIMER OF TITLE
7.1 In the previous Chapters of this Reply, Singapore has recalled that she
has acquired title over Pedra Branca 563 and that this title has been confirmed by
the actions of both Parties, 564including an impressive pattern of actions and
silence by Malaysia. 565 Among those acts, one is of particular importance:
Johor’s formal disclaimer of title of 1953.
7.2 In a desperate attempt to minimise the legal significance of this crucial
566
disclaimer, Malaysia has, in a s hort section of her Counter-Memorial,
provided an economical response to the detailed arguments in Chapter VIII of
567
Singapore’s Memorial. This Chapter will comme nt on this minimalist
defence.
7.3 Reiterating what she has already a sserted in her Memorial, Malaysia
contends that:
(a) the letter from the Colonial Secr etary, Singapore, to the British
568
Adviser, Johor, dated 12 June 1953 undermines Singapore’s
position concerning her acquisition of title over Pedra Branca;
563 See Chapter III above.
564
See Chapter IV above.
565
See Chapters V and VIabove.
566
MCM pp. 235-239, paras. 503-514 (Chapter 9, Section B, “The 1953 correspondence”).
567 SM pp. 161-178, paras. 8.1-8.41 (Chapter VIII, “Johor’s Express Disclaimer of Title to Pedra
Branca”).
568 See Letter from Higham J.D., on behalf of tSingapore Colonial Secretary to the British
Adviser, Johor dated 12 June 1953, including Annex A (Extract from Mr John Crawford’s
Treaty of 1824) and Annex B (Extract from a despatch by the Governor of Prince of Wales
Island, Singapore and Malacca to the Secretary to the Government of India dated 28 Nov
1844) (SM Vol. 6, Annex 93).
– Page 221 – (b) the letter shows that Singapor e was aware that Horsburgh
Lighthouse was built with the permission of the local rulers;
(c) the only consequence of the 21 September 1953 letter was that
Singapore could “claim” Pedra Branca.
It will be convenient to respond to each of these surprising propositions in turn.
A. The Letter of 12 June 1953 Does Not Undermine
Singapore’s Title over Pedra Branca
7.4 According to Malaysia, this le tter “undermines the position that
Singapore is now advancing, namely th at Singapore acquired title to PBP by
the ‘taking of lawful possession’ of the island by Britain in the period 1847 to
569
1851”. Interestingly enough, this contra sts with the even more categorical
assertion made in the Malaysian Memori al according to whic h “it is evident
from the letter... that Singapore did not hold the view that Pulau Batu Puteh
was part of the territory of Singapore”. 570
7.5 As a matter of fact, the letter of 12 June 1953 says and does nothing of
the kind. It neither u ndermines nor contradicts Singapore’s position. As
Singapore has explained in some de tail in her Memorial and Counter-
Memorial: 571
(a) Singapore had a clear sense that she had rights over the island:
“This [the building of the lighthouse in 1850 and its maintenance
569
MCM p. 236, para. 506.
570
MM p. 108, para. 237.
571
See SM pp. 162-164, paras. 8.4-8.8; and SCM pp. 184-186, paras. 7.6-7.11.
– Page 222 – since then] by international usage no doubt confers some rights
572
and obligations on the Colony”;
(b) she was somewhat un certain as to the exact scope of those
573
rights – and for good reasons:
(i) Singapore did not have in her possession, nor was she
574
aware of, any grant or leas e relating to Pedra Branca;
and
(ii) given the close and fri endly relationship between
Singapore and Johor, it was only natural for Singapore to
seek clarification as to the status of Pedra Branca on which
the lighthouse was built;
(c) the letter of 12 June 1953 wa s a pure inquiry: “I am directed to
ask for information... ”; 575 it simply sought cl arification: “It is
now desired to clarify the status of Pedra Branca...”. 576
7.6 Contrary to Malaysia’s interpreta tion, what the letter clearly shows is
that Singapore considered that, absent any document showing a lease or a grant
of the island by Johor, Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore. This is evident not
only from the penu ltimate paragraph of the letter (“ I would therefore be most
grateful to know whether there is any document showing a lease or grant of the
572
See Letter from Higham J.D., on behalf of thSingapore Colonial Secretary to the British
Adviser, Johor dated 12 June 1953, supra note 568 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 924).
573 As the Parties agree, the simple fact that a lighthouse is built and/or maintained may or may
not, depending on the facts, confer sovereignty over the territory on which the lighthouse
stands, even though it can have such an effect.
574 See SCM p. 185, para. 7.8; Letter from Pavitt J. A.L. (Director of Marine, Singapore) to the
Hydrographic Department in London dated 18 Mar 1966 (SCM Vol. 3, Annex 41).
575 SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 923, at para. 1.
576 Ibid, at para. 3.
– Page 223 – 577
rock...” ), but also from the contrast drawn with Pulau Pisang in the previous
paragraph:
“This shows that a part of Pulau Pisang was granted to the Crown for
the purposes of building a lighth ouse. Certain conditions were
attached and it is clear that there was no abroga tion of the sovereignty
of Johore. The status of Pisang is quite clear.”578
B. The Letter Does Not Show that Singapore Was “Aware”
that Horsburgh Lighthouse was Built Pursuant
to Permission Given by Johor
7.7 Malaysia contends that the Coloni al Secretary was “... aware that PBP
was part of the Sultanate of Johor [and] that the pe rmission to construct the
lighthouse included PBP”. 579 This contention cannot be correct since these
were precisely the issues on which the Colonial Secretary sought clarification.
If indeed the Colonial Secretary had th e “awareness” which Malaysia seeks to
impute upon him, he would not have sought the clarification. Moreover by
referring to the undisputed status of Pu lau Pisang – where he noted that “it is
clear that there was no abrogation of the sovereignty of Johore” 580– it is
obvious that the Colonial Secretary did not consider that the same could be said
for Pedra Branca.
7.8 In support of her arguments, Malays ia places much reliance on the two
581
documents annexed to the Colonial Secretary’s letter. The first is an extract
of the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824 by wh ich the Sultan and the Temenggong of
577 SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 923, at para. 3.
578 Ibid, at para. 2.
579 MCM p. 237, para. 508.
580 SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 923, at para. 2.
581 MCM p. 237, para. 508.
– Page 224 – 582
Johor ceded Singapore to the East India Company. As Singapore has shown,
this treaty is irrelevant to the status of Pedra Branca, as the island is, quite
583
simply, outside the territorial limits indicated in the treaty. The reason why
the extract was appended to the letter of 12 June 1953 is clearly explained in
the letter itself: it shows that Pedra Bran ca is outside the limits indicated in the
584
treaty and explains why the inquiry was being made.
7.9 The second document is the typewritten “Extract from a despatch by the
Governor of Singapore to the Gove rnor-General in Bengal, 28.11.1844”
mentioning that:
“This Rock is part of the Terr itories of Johore, who with the
Tamongong have willingly consented to cede it gratuitously to the East
India Company.” 585
In this extract, the words “i.e. Pedr a Branca” had been interpolated, in
manuscript, after “This Rock”.
7.10 Malaysia makes much of this inter polation and contends that the extract
shows that the Colonial Secretary, Singapore, “c onsidered that the 1844
permission to construct the lightho use on PBP implied a transfer of
586
property”. Two points must be made here:
(a) first, in 1953, the British authorit ies in Singapore clearly did not
consider that the 1844 desp atch settled the question of
582
See Letter from Higham J.D., on behalf of thSingapore Colonial Secretary to the British
Adviser, Johor dated 12 June 1953, supra note 568 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 924).
583 SCM pp. 187-191, paras. 7.13-7.18.
584 Since Pedra Branca lies outside the treaty limits, its status is not governed by the treaty –
questions concerning Pedra Branca’s status ther efore cannot be answered by reference to the
treaty, but must be sought somewhere else.
585 See Letter from Higham J.D., on behalf of thSingapore Colonial Secretary to the British
Adviser, Johor dated 12 June 1953, supra note 568 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 925).
586 MCM p. 237, para. 508.
– Page 225 – sovereignty over Pedra Branca – if they did, the inquiry would
have been redundant;
(b) secondly, and more importantly, the manuscript interpolation of
“Pedra Branca” in the despatch was wrongly made: the 1844
587
despatch did not concern Pe dra Branca but Peak Rock. When
the extract was originally typed out for the letter of 12 June 1953,
it did not bear the interpolation. There is no evidence as to when
the interpolation was made.
7.11 Malaysia is certainly right in stre ssing that “[t]he answer of the Acting
Secretary of State, Johor, must be read in the context of the letter to which it
588
was replying”. But, as shown above, this c ontext is not that which has been
sinuously constructed by Malaysia. The relevant context is this – the Colonial
589
Secretary, Singapore sought “to clarify the status of Pedra Branca”, in a
letter which:
(a) expressly mentions that “[t]he status of Pulau Pisang is quite
590
clear” and gave assurance that the authorities in the Colony of
Singapore were not questioning Johor’s sovereignty over Pulau
591
Pisang; and
587 See paras. 3.8-3.22 above. See also SM p. 36, para. 5.20; and SCM pp. 96-97, para. 5.62-5.64.
588 MCM p. 237, para. 508.
589 See Letter from Higham J.D., on behalf of tSingapore Colonial Secretary to the British
Adviser, Johor dated 12 June 1953, supra note 568 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 923, para. 3, 1st
sentence), emphasis added.
590 Ibid, para. 2, final sentence, emphasis added.
591 Ibid, para. 2, penultimate sentence, emphasis added.
– Page 226 – (b) specifically alerted Johor to the fact that the in quiry about the
status of Pedra Branca was “relev ant to the determination of the
boundaries of the Colony’s territorial waters”. 592
Given the foregoing context, and afte r three months of careful study, the
answer of the Acting State Secretary, Johor, is clear and straightforward:
593
“... the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca”.
C. No Adverse Conclusion for Singapore’s Sovereignty
Can Be Drawn from the Statement that
Singapore Can “Claim” Pedra Branca
7.12 By itself the answer given by the Acting State Secretary, Johor, is a clear
and unequivocal disclaimer of title. It binds Malaysia as Johor’s successor
without any need for a particular reaction by Singapore. 594
7.13 Malaysia attempts to dilute the un equivocal nature of her disclaimer by
harping on the notation of the Singapore Attorney-General that Singapore “can
592 See Letter from Higham J.D., on behalf of theSingapore Colonial Secretary to the British
Adviser, Johor dated 12 June 1953, supra note 568 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 923, para. 1, 2nd
sentence).
593 Letter from M. Seth Bin Saaid (Acting State ecretary of Johor) to th e Colonial Secretary,
Singapore dated 21 Sep 1953 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 96). It should be noted that the MCM no
longer repeats Malaysia’s earlier argument that the letter “does not refer to sovereignty but to
ownership”. The implication of this argument is clearly untenable, in light of the context
highlighted above. This is also a point fully addressed in SCM p. 197, para. 7.34. As
Singapore puts it in SM p. 166, para. 8.13:
“[i]t is immaterial that the letter speaks of ‘ownership’ rather than ‘sovereignty’. In
this particular context, the two expressioare indistinguishabl e... For a State to
disclaim ownership of an island is to disclaim sovereignty over it”.
If any example is needed of usage of the word “ownership” to mean sovereignty, one needs
look no further than the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitral Award (Phase I), supra note 73, at paras. 19,
187, 474 and 510, where the Tribunal used the word “ownership” to mean sovereignty.
594 See SM pp. 176-177, paras. 8.37-8.39.
– Page 227 – 595
claim it [ Pedra Branca ] as Singapore territory”. Timnis
overwrought. Singapore was well-aware when the letter was written in 1953
that:
“This [the building of the lighthouse in 1850 and its maintenance since
then] by international usage no doubt confers some rights and
596
obligations on the Colony.”
Thus, the underlying assumption of the Colonial Secretary was that Singapore
would have had sovereignty over Pedra Branca, in the absence of any contrary
treaty or agreement. 597
7.14 Given thisssumption, the inquiry to ascertain that there was indeed no
such contrary treaty or agreement was only prudent. On ce Johor expressly
disclaimed title, Singapore could auth oritatively regard Pedra Branca as
Singapore territory. It was therefore en tirely reasonable for Singapore to have
stated that she could claim Pedra Bran ca as Singapore territory after she
received the disclaimer from Johor.
7.15 In a final attempt to cast a doubt on the scope and consequences of the
said disclaimer, Malaysia alleges that “Singapore did nothing subsequent to
598
this correspondence to assert a claim to PBP”. To this end, she has relied on
the Straits’ Lights arrangements, the lists of islands given in some Singapore
599
publications and the Annual Reports of the Marine Department of Singapore.
595 MCM p. 238, para. 509.
596 See Letter from Higham J.D., on behalf ofSingapore Colonial Secretary to the British
Adviser, Johor dated 12 June 1953, supra note 568 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 93, p. 923).
597 See SCM p. 185, para. 7.8.
598 MCM p. 239, para. 514.
599
MCM pp. 238-240, paras. 511-513.
– Page 228 –Singapore has already answered these misconceived arguments in her Counter-
Memorial 600and elsewhere in this Reply. 601 There is no need to repeat them.
7.16 Malaysia also makes the point that, after the 1953 correspondence,
“[t]here was not the slightest change in Singapore’s conduct: it continued to act
602
as it had done before...”. This is certainly true. Singapore had no reason to
change her behaviour – sh e had continuously acted à titre de souverain vis-à-
vis the island after her acquisition of title in 1847-1851, and Johor’s disclaimer
only reinforced the position. A fortiori, Singapore continued to act as such
after the 1953 disclaim er, including by peacefu lly maintaining and
administering the lighthouse and by using the island for various other purposes.
7.17 Lastly, Malaysia asserts that “there is no evidence at all to show that”
Singapore “did indeed rely upon th e statement by the Johor Acting State
Secretary”. Malaysia then contends that “[o]n the contrary, the further activity
of Singapore clearly shows that it continued to treat PBP as not being part of
Singapore.” These are assertions made without regard to the facts. For ease of
reference, the following is a non-exhau stive list of both internal and public
Singapore acts, after the 21 September 1953 disclaimer of title by Johor, which
demonstrate that Singapore both relie d on the disclaimer and treated Pedra
Branca as being part of Singapore:
SM Vol. 6,
1953 Advice from the Singapore Colonial Secretary to Annex 97
the Singapore Master Attendant that:
“On the strength of this [ i.e., the Johor disclaimer ],
the Attorney-General agrees that we can claim it
[i.e., Pedra Branca] as Singapore territory”
600
See e.g., SCM pp.147-150, paras.6.42-6.49; pp.176-180, paras.6.100-6.106; and pp.195-
196, paras. 7.28-7.31.
601
See paras. 4.113-4.114 and paras. 6.18-6.31 above.
602
MCM p. 238, para. 510.
– Page 229 – 1958 Statement by the Singapore Master Attendant that: Annex 24 of
this Reply
“Horsburgh Lighthouse, some 35 miles to the eastward,
is Colony territory whereas at Pulau Pisang, some 50
miles to the north-westward, Singapore has only a lease
of the land on which the lighthouse is built.”
1963 Convening of a Court of Investigation into the SM Vol. 6,
Annex 110
stranding of MV Woodburn about half a mile from
Pedra Branca.
1967 Statement by D. T. Brown (the Singapore Marine SCM Vol. 3,
Annex 42
Department official who succeeded J.A.L. Pavitt as
Director of Marine in 1968) that:
“... in addition to the waters immediately surrounding
Singapore, I have been advised that the waters within 3
miles of Horsburgh lighthouse (at the eastern entrance of
Singapore Strait) may be considered to be Singapore
territorial waters”
1971
June Visit by Singapore’s Minister for Communications SM Vol. 5,
to Pedra Branca. Annex 87,
pp. 787-788
Aug Visit by Singapore’s Minister for Home Affairs to SM Vol. 5,
Pedra Branca. Annex 87,
p. 789
1972 Idea for land reclamation in the sea areas off Pedra Annex 42 of
Branca was mooted. this Reply
1973 Plans made for land reclamation in the sea areas off Annex 42 of
Pedra Branca. this Reply
1974
Sep Visit by Singapore’s Minister of State for Annex 43 of
this Reply
Communications to Pedra Branca in a Singapore
naval patrol craft.
Nov Statement by Singapore Director of Marine Annex 44 of
referring to this Reply
“our island territory at Horsburgh Lighthouse and the
territorial sea which it will be entitled to”,
and commenting that:
“[b]ecause of our geographical situation there is no
possibility of our getting an Economic Zone except to a
limited extent at Horsburgh Lighthouse.”
– Page 230 – 1975
Annex 45 of
June Evacuation of personnel from Pedra Branca by this Reply
Singapore navy vessel whic h was patrolling in the
vicinity.
Annex 46 of
Aug Statement by Hydrographer, Port of Singapore this Reply
Authority that:
“Being an Island, Horsburgh has its own territorial sea.
Territorial waters in its vicinity have not yet been agreed
upon between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore .
Principle of median line will be applied in delineating
territorial waters around Horsburgh.”
Sep Promulgation of Operations Instructions by the SM Vol. 6,
Republic of Singapore Navy to formally establish a Annex 123
patrol sector off Pedra Branca (Sector F5 –
Horsburgh Lt extending North-Easterly).
1976 Visit by Singapore’s Senior Minister of State for Annex 49 of
Communications to Pedra Branca in a Singapore this Reply
Navy missile gunboat. Th e gunboat stay ed in the
vicinity of Pedra Branca throughout the 22-hour
visit.
1977
May Installation of military communications equipment SM Vol. 6,
on Pedra Branca. Annex 132
Annex 50 of
June Enforcement action by RSS Sea Lion in protection this Reply
of Singapore fishermen in the vicinity of Pedra
Branca.
1978
Jan Public tender for reclamation works off Pedra SM Vol. 6,
Branca. Annex 135
Annex 51 of
Apr Unequivocal assertion of Singapore sovereignty this Reply
over Pedra Branca by Counsellor, Singapore High
Commission in Malaysia when this issue was
raised en passant by a Malaysian Foreign Ministry
official at a meeting.
1979 Investigation into the grounding of MV Yu Seung SM Vol. 6,
Ho about 600 metres off Pedra Branca. Annex 139
– Page 231 – D. Conclusion
7.18 In the light of what Singapore has reiterated on the significance of
Johor’s 1953 disclaimer, there is no doub t whatsoever that Singapore has title
over Pedra Branca and Malaysia does not.
7.19 Moreover the heart of the questio n is not so much whether Singapore
can “claim” Pedra Branca on the basis of Johor’s disclaimer, but rather that, for
her part, Malaysia cannot now claim Pedra Branca given her predecessor’s
formal disclaimer.
– Page 232 – CHAPTER VIII
EVIDENCE OF GENERAL REPUTE OF SINGAPORE’S
SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA
Section I. Introduction
8.1 Chapter 10 of Malaysia’s Counte r-Memorial deals with various issues,
603
most of which have been answ ered elsewhere in this Reply. The present
Chapter responds to Section C of that Chapter, which bears the section heading
“The position of third States”.
8.2 In that Section, Malaysia bases he r arguments exclusively on a series of
maps, and concludes that “[t]he perceptio n of third States is that Singapore
604
does not have a maritime boundary in the area around PBP”. Ti
conclusion is carefully crafted by Malaysia in the negative form so as not to
allege that those third party maps actu ally recognise that she, herself, has a
maritime boundary in the ar ea around Pedra Branca. Indeed they do not (see
Section IV of this Chapter). Singapore will show that the “perception of third
states” is clearly that Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore, not to Malaysia. This
is also clearly demonstrated by third States’ attitudes confirming their belief
that Pedra Branca is under Singapore’s sovereignty through specific actions.
This perception is also shared by privat e parties who, at one time or another,
had been involved in activities in the area (see Section III of this Chapter).
603 See paras. 5.22-5.23 above (which answer Sections A and B of MCM Chapter 10, relating to
Singapore’s and Malaysia’s delimitation practice); and paras. 6.70-6.80 above (which answer
Section D of MCM Chapter 10, relating to Singapore’s reliance on certain Malaysian maps).
604
MCM p. 264, para. 557; see also MCM pp. 267-268, para. 569.
– Page 233 –8.3 However, by way of intr oduction, it is appropriate to state the legal
significance of recognition by third partie s where title to territory is concerned
(see Section II of this Chapter).
Section II. The Legal Significance of the Attitude of Third States
8.4 There can be no doubt that thir d States’ behaviour cannot create a
territorial title: “there is no evidence from practice to sugg est that recognition
by third States can by itself operate to create a title to territory not in
possession”. 605 Singapore does not base he r title over Pedra Branca on
recognition by third States: her sovereig nty over the island is rooted in her
taking of possession in 1847-1851 and her “peaceful and continuous display of
State authority over the island” 606 since then.
8.5 Nonetheless, the attitude and reco gnition of third St ates can provide
important evidence of title, espe cially in the case of a State that is already in
possession. As Sir Robert Jennings put it:
“... in a context of effective possession [as is the case here] recognition
of a situation by third States can be a mode of consolidation of title. It
may, so to speak, assist and accelerate a process for which th605
condition sine qua non is an existing effective possession”.
Professor Joe Verhoeven’s position is that the “ tolérance” of the international
607
community “consolide l’effectivité, et, par là, la validité, d’une occupation”.
As explained by Professor Ian Brownlie, as far as title to territory is concerned,
“[a] category of evidence recognized by professional international lawyers and
605
Jennings R., The Acquisition of Territory in International Law(1963), at p. 41.
606
See Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v. U.S.), supra note 249, at p. 839.
607
La reconnaissance internationale dans la pratique contemporaine – Les relations publiques
internationales (1975), at p.27. Singapore’s translation of this quotation is that
“[toleration]... consolidates the effectiveness and therefore, the validity, of occupation”.
– Page 234 – 608
also by international tribunals is that of ‘general repute’.” To use the words
of Judge Levi Carneiro:
“... such evidence is not always deci sive in the settlement of legal
questions relating to territorial sovereignty. It may however constitute
proof of the f609 that the occupati on or exercise of sovereignty was
well known.”
This is precisely the situation in the present case.
8.6 International arbitral tribunals have, on several occasions, relied on
recognition by third partie s and general knowledge or repute in order to
reconfirm a State’s legal title or pos ition otherwise established. In the
Eritrea/Yemen case the Arbitral Tribunal deemed it relevant to refer to a 1989
meeting at which Yemen had offered to assume responsibility for certain lights
situated on islands in the Red Sea which were disputed between the parties. As
the Tribunal observed, that meeting did not address matters of sovereignty at
all. Nonetheless, it found that the Conf erence’s decision to accept the Yemeni
offer “does reflect a confidence and expectation of the member governments of
the conference of a continued Yemeni pr esence on these lighthouse islands”.
The Tribunal added that “[r]epute is also an important ingredient for the
consolidation of title”. 610 Similarly, the Tribunal noted that several maps
issued by third parties which “cannot be used as indicative of legal title”,
constitute “nonetheless ‘important evidence of general opinion or repute’”. 611
8.7 The Permanent Court too attributed considerable probative value to third
party recognition. In the Eastern Greenland case, it paid attention to bilateral
608 “International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations – General Course on
Public International Law”, 255 Recueil des Cours 9 (1995), at p. 163.
609 Minquiers and Ecrehos (United Kingdom v. France ), supra note 186, Individual Opinion of
Levi Carnerio, p. 85, at p. 105.
610 Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at paras. 515-516.
611
Ibid, at para. 381.
– Page 235 –treaties concluded between Denmark and third parties which contained clauses
excluding their application to Greenland. The Court considered that:
“[t]o the extent that these treaties constitute evidence of recognition of
her sovereignty over Greenland in general, De nmark is entitled to rely
upon them”. 612[emphasis added]
8.8 The present Court has also relied on general repute in order to reconfirm
a legal title over a given territory. In Qatar/Bahrain, the Court found
substantial evidence in th e views expressed by the United Kingdom and the
Ottoman Empire – both being third par ties to the dispute – concerning the
factual situation prevailing in the area it had to rule upon. It found that:
“[i]n the circumstances of this case the Court has come to the
conclusion that the Anglo-Otto man Convention does represent
evidence of the views of Great Brita in and the Ottoman Empire as to
the factual extent of the authority of the Al-Thani Ruler in Qatar up to
1913”. 613
8.9 General knowledge as a means of proof of the existence of a given
situation is not limited to territorial disputes, as has been accepted by the
Court’s Judgment in the Fisheries case between the United Kingdom and
Norway. In that case, the Court considered:
“The notoriety of the facts , the general toleration of the international
community, Great Britain’s position in the North Sea, her own interest
in the question, and her prolonged abstention would in any case
warrant Norway’s enforcement of her system against the United
614
Kingdom”. [emphasis added]
612 See Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment (1933) P.C.I.J.
Reports, Ser. A/B, No. 53, at p. 52.
613 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain(Qatar v.
Bahrain), Judgment of 16 Mar 2001, at p. 68, para. 89.
614
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), supra note 548, at p. 139.
– Page 236 –8.10 Such public knowledge or repute does not necessarily have to be
expressed by States. The perception of a given situation by private persons can
also have some probative value. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice noted:
“Both sides in the Minquiers case adduced evidence tending to show
what was the view taken on sovereignty by what might be called non-
official but professional opinion – geographers, scientists, publishers of
standard atlases, well-known authors, the evidence of maps, &c. Such
considerations can never be c onclusive. But they furnish important
evidence of general opinion or repute as to the existence of a certain
state of fact, and pro tanto, therefore, may support the conclusion that
615
the state of fact does actually exist”.[emphasis added]
8.11 The legal principles discussed in the foregoing paragraphs have
important implications for the present case:
(a) Malaysia, which is not in possession of Pedra Branca, cannot
avail herself of any kind of recognition by third States;
(b) on the contrary, Singapore, whic h has been in possession of the
island for more than 130 years be fore the first Malaysian claim,
can avail herself of the general toleration of the international
community as a confirmation of her well-established title;
(c) moreover, specific recognition by a number of States also
confirms Singapore’s well-established title.
Section III. The Perception of Third Parties Confirming
Singapore’s Sovereignty over Pedra Branca
8.12 There exist several clear episodes showing that third States expressly
recognise Singapore’s sovereignty over the island. One of them is of particular
615 Fitzmaurice G., The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice(Vol. 1, 1986), at
p. 315. See also Fitzmaurice G., “ The Law and Procedure of the International Court of
Justice, 1951-4: Points of Substantive Law. Part II ” 32 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int’l L. 20 (1955-1956),
at pp. 75-76.
– Page 237 –importance: that of the Netherlands, ma de as early as 1850 (see Subsection A
below). Another episode demonstrating the “perception” that Pedra Branca
was actually under Singapore’s sovereig nty involves the Tripartite Technical
Experts Group Meeting in May 1983, with representatives from Malaysia,
Indonesia and Singapore (see Subsectio n B below). Moreover, on several
occasions, third parties asked for pe rmission from Singapore to carry out
activities on the island or in its surround ing waters (see S ubsection C below).
Most recently, the Philippines clearly re cognised Singapore’s sovereignty over
Pedra Branca (see Subsection D below).
A. T HE DUTCH R ECOGNITION OF BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IN 1850
8.13 As noted earlier in the present Reply, 616the Dutch General Secretary in
Batavia expressly acknowledged that Pedra Branca was “B ritish territory”
(Britsch grondgebied). Given the far reaching impor tance of this recognition,
the full text of the letter must be recalled:
“As commissioned, I have the honour of informing Your Excellency
that the Government has found no grounds for granting gratuities to the
commanders of the cruisers stationed at Riau, as proposed in your
despatch of 1 November 1850, number 649, on account of their shown
dedication in patrolling the wate rway between Riau and Singapore,
lending assistance to the c onstruction of a lighthouse at Pedra Branca
on British territory. And they deserve it so much the less because the
cruiser crews have failed to perfor m their actual duties which is to
cruise against pirates whose brut al617es have been repeatedly
complained of in the vicinity of Lingga.”[emphasis added]
8.14 With this letter, the Netherlands unequivocally recognised British
sovereignty over Pedra Branca in 1850, i. e., just months after the Horsburgh
Lighthouse foundation stone cerem ony (during which Pedra Branca was
616
See para. 2.41 et seq above.
617
Letter from C. Visscher (General SecNetherlands East Indies) to Dutch Resident in
Riau dated 27 Nov 1850, attached to this Reply as Annex 8 (English translation provided by
Singapore). For the background to this letter and the actual Dutch text,see note 55 above.
– Page 238 –described in a solemn, public ceremony as being a dependency of Singapore).
Moreover, given the presence of the Neth erlands as a colonial power in the
region and her political and economic intere sts, particularly in the area of the
Straits of Singapore, this express r ecognition of British sovereignty over the
island reveals the perception of the state of facts and law by a particularly well-
informed and interested State.
8.15 Furthermore, the 1850 letter contra dicts the Malaysian interpretation of
the 1824 Treaty that “all islands and othe r maritime features in the Strait of
Singapore”, i.e., including Pedra Branca, were Johor’s possessions. As has
been demonstrated at length by Singap ore, the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty did
not purport to allocate territories betwee n the two Sultans under the respective
protection of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It was
only aimed at determining the respective spheres of influence as between the
two powers. The entire Strait of Singapore was left undivided and
consequently Pedra Branca was never attributed, or recognised as belonging, to
Johor.618The Dutch 1850 letter confirms this interpretation by acknowledging
that the island was under British sovereignty.
B. T HE 1983 T RIPARTITE TECHNICAL EXPERTS G ROUP M EETING
8.16 In her Memorial, Singapore has already referred to the Tripartite
Technical Experts Group Meeting that was convened in May 1983 involving
expert representatives of Singapore,Malaysia and Indonesia. During the
meeting, the experts were informed that two wrecks had been identified in the
618 See SCM pp. 30-31, paras. 3.22-3.24.
– Page 239 –vicinity of Horsburgh Lighthouse and that Singapore had issued Notices to
Mariners notifying the position of the wrecks. 619
8.17 Malaysia now argues that the sa lient point that emerged from this
meeting was that the focu s was on issues of maritime safety regardless of
620
issues of sovereignty. It is true that the mee ting did not discuss issues of
sovereignty, but this is not the point that Singapore wishes to make.
8.18 What emerges from this episode is that, as a matter of general repute, the
Parties assumed that Singapore had ju risdiction to deal with matters of
maritime safety falling within Pedra Branca’s territorial waters. In this regard,
the 1983 Tripartite Meeting resemble d the 1989 London Conference on
Lighthouses referred to by th e Arbitral Tribunal in the Eritrea/Yemen case,
during which Yemen had offered to assu me responsibility for certain lights
situated on islands in the Red Sea. The absence of any discussion of
sovereignty at the 1989 London Conferen ce did not prevent the Tribunal from
finding, in the decision of that Confer ence, an expression of “confidence and
expectation” of the participants about the “continued Yemeni presence on these
621
lighthouse islands”.
8.19 The Tripartite Meeting similarl y reflected the confidence and
expectation of the participants that Si ngapore was best placed to deal with
wrecks found in the vicinity of Pedra Branca and to issue Notices to Mariners.
As to the latter, while such notices may primarily be concerned with safety of
navigation, the Tribunal in the Eritrea/Yemen case noted that, “[t]he issuances
619
See Report made by Singapore to Twelfth Trip artite Technical Experts Group Meeting on
Safety of Navigation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore dated 5-6 May 1983 (SM Vol. 7,
Annex 156).
620
MCM p. 215, para. 453.
621
Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at paras. 513-516. The 1989 London Conference is
also discussed at para. 8.6 above.
– Page 240 –of such notices, while not dispositiv e of the title, nevertheless supposes a
presence and knowledge of location”. 622 Because of Singapore’s long-standing
presence on Pedra Branca, it is not surprising that Singapore was, and is, in the
best position to know of incidents that occur in Pe dra Branca’s territorial
waters. This was clearly recognised by the participants at the meeting.
C. P ERMISSIONS G RANTED BY S INGAPORE TO THIRD P ARTIES
8.20 In her Counter-Memorial, Malays ia also tries to minimise the
significance of two instances where Singapore granted permission, to nationals
of third States, to carry out research on Pedra Branca and to conduct salvage
operations within its territorial waters.
8.21 The first example involved an app lication received by Singapore from a
member of the American Piscatorial So ciety to land on Pedra Branca in order
to study the migratory habits of fish. Given the nature of Malaysia’s criticism
that most of Singapore’s conduct is only related to the lighthouse, the request is
significant because it indicated that the in tention was to stay “completely clear
of the lighthouse” by using other parts of the island. The Singapore Light Dues
623
Board granted the application.
8.22 Malaysia wonders to whom the app lication might have been sent if not
to the Singapore authority responsible for the lighthouse.624 The answer is that
it should have been sent to Malaysia if the app licant had any notion that
Malaysia was the real sovereign, quod non. The mere fact that the application
was directed to Singapore’s authorities demonstrates that the applicant was
622
Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at para. 283.
623
See Letter from the American Piscatorial Society to the Light Dues Board, Singapore dated 17
June 1972 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 117). This was discussed in SM p.111, pSee also.
para. 4.148 above.
624
MCM p. 201, para. 415.
– Page 241 –convinced as a matter of general repute that Pedra Branca was under
Singapore’s sovereignty. Malaysia also comments on the private nature of the
applicant. That may be true, but the f act that the application was directed to
Singapore, and that it was a government agency of Singapore that granted the
request, shows the public nature of th e matter. Singapore acted on the basis
that she possessed sovereignty over th e island and the applicant acted likewise
in order to respect fully this sovereignty. 625
8.23 Malaysia goes to greater lengths in attempting to dismiss the relevance
of an application that a British firm, Regis Ltd, subm itted to the Hydrographic
Department of the Port of Singapore to undertake a sonar scan of undersea
areas lying 6 to 10 miles northeast of Pedra Branca in connection with salvage
operations. After obtaining details of the proposal, the Singapore Port
Authority granted its permission subject to a number of provisos, including that
626
a Singapore official accompany the survey.
8.24 Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial again points to the private nature of Regis
627
Ltd. But, once more, the significance of the event lies not in the private
capacity of the applicant, but in Singapore’s involvement, at the governmental
628
level, of granting permission to survey areas in the vicinity of Pedra Branca.
625
See para. 8.10 above.
626
See SM pp. 113-114, paras.6.66-6.67. See also Letter from Regis Ltd. to Hydrographic
Department, Port of Singapore Authority, dated 25 May 1981 (SM Vol. 7, Annex 151); Letter
from Regis Ltd to Hydrographic Department, Port of Singapore Authority, dated 18 June 1981
(SM Vol.7, Annex 152); and Letter from Regis Ltd. to Port Master, Port of Singapore
Authority dated 1 July 1981 (SM Vol. 7, Annex 153).
627 MCM p. 210, para. 438.
628 Malaysia also speculates that Regis Ltd may have involved the Singapore authorities merely
out of concern that the survey may impede the operation of the lighthouse (MCM p.210,
para.439). This theory is ill-founded. There was nothing that an underwater sonar survey
taking place 6 to 10 miles from Pedra Branca woul d have done to even remotely affect the
operation of the lighthouse.
– Page 242 –8.25 Malaysia also alleges that, at the time Singapore, while having
previously signalled her inte ntion to extend her territo rial sea to 12 miles,
continued to apply a three-mile territori al sea limit. According to Malaysia,
this illustrates the unreliability of a private party’s appreciation of the extent of
629
territorial waters or matters of sovereignty. The fact of the matter, which
Malaysia seeks to disregard, is that Si ngapore considered herself competent to
issue the approval for the project to proceed. Neither Regis nor Singapore
raised the slightest concern that the survey might be taking place within
Malaysian territorial waters. Regis cl early considered that, as a matter of
general repute, Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore. Although Malaysia casts
Singapore’s permission as a self-serving action undertaken after the dispute had
emerged, this contention also misses th e mark. The propos al in question was
not initiated by Singapore in order to enhance her le gal position. The request
came from Regis. Moreover, the acti ons Singapore took had nothing to do
with the lighthouse. They were conc erned with activities proposed to take
place within Pedra Branca’s territorial waters. Singapore did no more than act
in the same sovereign manner she prev iously had with respect to other
activities involving Pedra Branca.
8.26 These requests for permission to la nd and stay at Pedra Branca or to
undertake any kind of hydr ographic research in its te rritorial waters are highly
relevant as evidence of general repute that Pedra Branca falls under
Singapore’s sovereignty. Malaysia trie s to play down the significance of this
evidence by alleging that it relates to only “one foreign party” (i.e., Regis Ltd)
630
and not “foreign parties”. However this is incorrect. As has been shown,
requests for permission were addre ssed to Singapore’s authorities by British
and American nationals, and similar requests were submitted and complied
629 MCM p. 211, para. 441. Malaysia is incorrect in her assertions. By this time, Singapore had
already accepted the 12-mile territorial sea – see SM p. 188, para. 9.29(c).
630 MCM p. 209, para. 437.
– Page 243 –with in the name of Malaysian, Indonesian and Japanese nationals participating
631
in the 1974 joint survey team.
D. R ECOGNITION OF S INGAPORE ’S SOVEREIGNTY O VER P EDRA B RANCA BY
T HE P HILIPPINES
8.27 It is also significant that following the collision between Everise Glory
632
and Uni Concord on 4 June 2005 in Pedra Branca waters, which resulted in
the death of a Filipino crew member, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the
Philippines issued three press releases which expressly describe the collision as
having occurred “at sea off Pedra Bran ca, Singapore”, “off the Singapore
633
coast” and “off Pedra Branca, Singapore”. As with the recognition of
634
Singapore sovereignty by th e Netherlands 155 years ago, this recognition
deserves special notice since it emanates from a State neighbouring the area
and which is particularly well-informed of the situation.
Section IV. Third States’ Maps as Evidence of General Repute
8.28 In Chapter 10, Section C, of her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia deploys a
certain number of third-State maps as evidence of third-State perception that
635
“Singapore does not have a maritime boundary in the area around PBP”.
This, according to Malaysia, has the ef fect of placing the island within
631
See paras. 4.144-4.146 above. See also, para. 6.5, et seq.
632
On this incident, see para. 4.177 above.
633 Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs Press Releases SFA-AGR-389-05 dated 17 June
2005, SFA-AGR-405-05 dated 21 June 2005 and SFA-AGR-423-05 dated 24 June 2005,
attached to this Reply as Annex 61. The relevant diplomatic correspondence in respect of this
matter is attached as Annexes 59 to 66 to this Reply.
634 See paras. 8.13-8.15 above.
635 MCM p. 264, para. 557.
– Page 244 –Malaysia’s waters, and would thus represent an attribution of sovereignty over
Pedra Branca to Malaysia.
8.29 Such an ambitious conclusion is pure speculation and finds no support
either in the maps themselves or in the factual record. First of all, as Malaysia
herself recognises, none of these maps “show any other boundary lines in the
636
area of PBP”. Secondly, the lines shown on thes e maps do not recognise
Pedra Branca as part of Malaysia or he r predecessors and thus cannot be relied
upon as informed opinion in Malaysia’s favour. Moreover, as noted by the
Arbitral Tribunal in Eritrea/Yemen, the mere existence of dotted lines on maps
– without any specific indication as to their provenance or meaning – cannot
form the basis for any conclusion as to their raison d’être. The Tribunal in that
case rejected Eritrea’s characterisation of certain maps for the following
reason:
“... the Tribunal is unwilling, withou t specific direction from the map
itself, to attribute meaning to dotted lines rather than to colouration or
to labelling”.37
8.30 Thus, even when dotted lines do appear on maps, international tribunals
are extremely cautious in assessing the relevance of cartographic evidence as
determinative of legal title. Judge H uber put this very clearly in the Island of
Palmas Award:
“[O]nly with the greatest caution ca n account be taken of maps in
deciding a question of sovereignty, at any rate in the case of an island
such as Palmas (or Miangas). Any maps which do not precisely
indicate the political distribution of territories, and in particular the
Island of Palmas (or Miangas), clearly marked as such, must be
rejected forthwith...”.38
636 MCM pp. 264-265, para. 559.
637 Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at para. 382.
638
See Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v. U.S.), supra note 249, at p. 852.
– Page 245 –Hence, a fortiori, attribution of sovereignt y cannot be established from the
absence of a line on a map.
8.31 In any event, the maps deployed by Malaysia in Section C of Chapter 10
of her Counter-Memorial cannot be properly characterised as third-State
perceptions that legal title over Pedra Br anca rested with Malaysia or her
predecessors, as explained below.
8.32 Malaysia begins by giving a lis t of nine maps in her Counter-
Memorial, 639claiming that these maps “clearly place PBP within the territorial
waters of Malaysia or its predecessors”. 639 A proper study of these maps will
show that they do nothing of the kind. An illustrative example is the very first
map on that list, which is misleadingl y labelled as a “1936 British Admiralty
Chart of the Singapore Strait”, with a footnote referring to Map 25 of
Malaysia’s Map Atlas. In reality, th e original 1936 Britis h Admiralty Chart
shows no lines at all. Map 25 is a copy of the 1936 Admiralty Chart on which
lines were subsequently added – apparently by hand – by the Malaysian Navy
in 1968 to illustrate the contents of a confidential letter to which the chart was
640
attached.
8.33 More importantly, there is further evidence in the record contradicting
and outweighing the conclusions which Ma laysia wishes to draw from this
map. In 1952, the Sing apore Chief Surveyor expr essed the opinion that
Singapore was entitled to a three-mile territorial sea around Pedra Branca. 641 In
639 MCM p. 264, para. 558.
640
For a copy of the 1936 British Admiralty Chawithout the manuscript lines subsequently
added by the Malaysian Navy, see SCM Map Atlas, Map No. 13. The same chart is enclosed
the Malaysian Navy.of the Malaysian Counter-Memorial without the hand-drawn annotations of
641
See Letter from Master Attendant, Singapore to Colonial Secretary, Singapore dated 6 Feb
1953 (SM Vol. 6, Annex 91).
– Page 246 –1958, the Singapore Master Attendant defined Pedra Branca as “Colony
territory”. 642 In 1967, one of th e officials of Singapore’s Marine Department,
on behalf of the Director of Marine J.A.L. Pavitt, stated as follows:
“... in addition to the waters immediately surrounding Singapore, I
have been advised that the wate rs within 3 miles of Horsburgh
lighthouse (at the eastern entran ce of Singapore Strait) may be
643
considered to be Singapore territorial waters” .
In 1974, the Singapore Director of Marine referred to “our island territory at
644
Horsburgh Lighthouse and the territorial sea which it will be entitled to.”
8.34 Other maps on the same list are equally inconsequential and do not
provide reliable evidence of third Stat es’ views on the matter. These maps
645
have been dealt with comprehensiv ely in Singapore’s Counter-Memorial.
The same observations also apply to Ma ps 7 and 8 in the Maps Section of
646
Malaysia’s Counter Memorial.
8.35 Malaysia next relies on Maps 9 to 17 of her Counter-Memorial in
support of her argument that “there was no perception on the part of the United
States Government during that peri od [1945-2000] that PBP was part of
647
Singapore”. This argument is misguided. As pointed out in Singapore’s
642
Letter from Rickard R.L. (Master Attendant, Singapore) to Perman ent Secretary of the
Ministry of Commerce & Industry dated 15 Feb 1958, attached to this Reply as Annex 24.
This letter is quoted more fully in para. 6.33 above.
643 See Letter from Brown D.T. on behalf of Director of Marine, Singapore to Permanent
Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 14 Sep 1967 (SCM Vol. 3, Annex 42).
644 See Letter from Lai V. (Acting Deputy Director, Port of Singapore Authority) and Goh C.K.
(Director of Marine) to Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Communications dated 20 Nov
1974, attached to this Reply as Annex 44.
645
SCM pp.227-228, paras. 9.26-9.28; pp.232-233, para.9.32; and pp.234-235, paras.9.35-
9.36.
646
These are referred to in MCM pp. 265-266, paras. 561-562.
647 See MCM p. 267, para. 568.
– Page 247 –Counter-Memorial, the United States’ view on the matter is better provided by
the database on toponyms issued by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names
648
which has – since 1970 – shown Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore. In
649
any event, none of the maps attributes Pedra Branca to Malaysia.
8.36 Ultimately, the maps produced by Malaysia in Chapter 10 of her
Counter-Memorial as opinions of third Stat es regarding the territorial status of
Pedra Branca have no relevance. In the present case, title over Pedra Branca
rests with Singapore by virtue of the title acquired in 1847-1851 and her open,
continued and unchallenged exercise of State authority thereafter.
Furthermore, the record contains signifi cant evidence that third parties have
recognised that Pedra Br anca belonged to Singapor e. The following deserve
special mention:
(a) the Dutch recognition of Pedr a Branca as “British territory”
650
which took place in 1850;
(b) the U.S. Board on Geographic Na mes Gazetteer No.10 (1970),
651
which shows Pedra Branca as appertaining to Singapore;
(c) the toponym database made av ailable by the U.S. Board on
Geographic Names which iden tifies Pedra Branca as a
652
geographic feature belonging to Singapore.
648 See SCM pp.232-233, para. 9.32; Extracts from Gazetteer No. 10, Malaysia, Singapore and
Brunei – Official Standard Names approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names
(2nd ed., 1970) (SCM Vol. 3, Annex46); Singapore and Malaysian Geographic Names
downloaded from the GEOnet Names Server maintained by the United States Board on
Geographic Names (extracts) (15 July 2004) (SCM Vol. 3, Annex 57).
649 The Court’s attention is also drawn to SCM p.227, para.9.26, note577, where Map 9 of
Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial has already been dealt with.
650 See paras. 8.13-8.15 above. See also Annex 8 to this Reply.
651 See Extracts from Gazetteer No. 10, MalaysiaSingapore and Brunei – Official Standard
Names approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names (2nd ed., 1970) (SCM
Vol. 3, Annex 46).
– Page 248 –8.37 Before ending the discussion on thir d-State maps, it is relevant to note
that when the map eviden ce is viewed as a whole, what is particularly
significant in the present case is Malays ia’s own perception as reflected in her
official maps issued before the dispute emer ged. These are the only maps that
truly matter. None of them attribute to Malaysia the island which she now
claims in these proceedings. On the c ontrary, she has published no fewer than
six official maps, over a period of 14 ye ars, which attributed Pedra Branca to
Singapore.
Section V. Conclusions
8.38 It will be readily appreciated that third States have shown, through a
variety of acts, a clear perception th at Pedra Branca was under Singapore’s
sovereignty, a perception shared by the public as shown by the behaviour of
private persons who had to deal with various matters in the area, including
matters that are not connected with th e lighthouse. In this respect it is
significant that the Netherlands and th e Philippines – States with special
interests in the area – recognised Pedra Branca as belonging to Great Britain
and Singapore, as early as 1850 and as recently as 2005, respectively. In
contrast, there is a total absence of a ny corresponding thir d party view that
Pedra Branca falls under Malaysia’s sovereignty.
652 See Singapore and Malaysian Geographic Names downloaded from the GEOnet Names Server
maintained by the United States Board on Geog raphic Names (extracts) (15 July 2004) (SCM
Vol. 3, Annex 57).
– Page 249 – CHAPTER IX
THE MAP EVIDENCE SUPPORTS SINGAPORE’S TITLE
Section I. Introduction
9.1 It is necessary at this stage to review the cartographic material
introduced by the Parties to assess its overall contribution in the present case.
In Singapore’s view, maps have a subsidia ry value and can be used as primary
evidence only in exceptional circumstances. As noted by Sir Travers Twiss in
the Venezuela-British Guyana Boundary arbitration (1897), maps “are but
pictorial representation of supposed terr itorial limits, the evidence of which
653
must be sought for elsewhere.” Sir Travers Twiss’ statement refers to
boundary delimitation cases, but it applie s equally to the determination of title
to territory. This is also consistent with Judge Max Huber’s observation in the
Island of Palmas case, cited and quoted in paragraph 8.30 above.
9.2 In the present dispute, the evidence of title resides in the historical facts,
not the maps. Title over Pedra Branca rests with Si ngapore by virtue of the
taking of possession by the British Crow n in 1847-1851. That title was
subsequently confirmed by Singapore’ s open, continued and unchallenged
exercise of State authority on the island and within its territorial waters. To the
extent that maps should be taken into ac count in this case, it is when – to
paraphrase the Permanent Cour t’s Advisory Opinion in the Polish-
Czechoslovakian Frontier (Question of Jaworzina ) case – they confirm the
conclusions drawn from the documentary evidence and from a legal analysis of
654
them, and are not contradicted by the documents.
653 Cited in Sandifer D. VEvidence before International Tribunals (1975), at p.229, and in
Kamto M., “Le matériau cartographique dans les contentieux frontaliers et territoriaux
internationaux”, Liber Amicorum Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui (1999), at p. 386.
654
See Delimitation of the Polish-Czechoslovakian Frontier (Question of Jaworzina ), Advisory
Opinion (1923) P.C.I.J. Reports, Ser. B, No. 8, at p. 33.
– Page 251 –9.3 It is in this context that the official maps issued by Malaysian authorities
depicting Pedra Branca as appertaining to Singapore have primary importance.
These maps have particular probative va lue not only because they contradict
Malaysia’s present claim, but also because they confirm Singapore’s
sovereignty over Pedra Branca in a mann er that is consistent with a legal
analysis of the documentary record. As noted by Judge Huber in the Island of
Palmas case, “official or semi-official maps ... would be of special interest in
cases where they do not assert the sove reignty of the country of which the
655
Government has caused them to be issued.”
9.4 It should be observed that Malaysia’s position with respect to maps has
evolved from her Memorial to her Coun ter-Memorial. Indeed, when it comes
to dealing with the cartographic evidence, it appears that Malaysia cannot make
her mind up.
9.5 At first, Malaysia devoted a whole Chapter of her Memorial to a review
656
of the map evidence and filed an Atla s containing 48 maps of the region.
Evidently, Malaysia believed then that the map evidence had an important role
to play in the case. The arguments a dvanced in Malaysia’s Memorial included
the following:
(a) early maps of the area are said to have depicted a “close
connection” between Pedra Bran ca, the Romania group and the
coast of Johor; 657
655
Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v. U.S.), supra note 249, at p. 852.
656
See MM pp. 135-152, paras. 301-327; and Malaysia’s Map Atlas.
657
MM pp. 137-138, paras. 307-308.
– Page 252 – (b) later maps allegedly show Pedra Branca as part of the “Malay
dominions” or, in any event, not as appertaining to Singapore; 658
and
(c) Singapore never published any map which depicted Pedra Branca
as belonging to Singapore, at least not until after the dispute
659
arose.
9.6 With Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial, the map evidence appears to have
taken a back seat. Ra ther than including a specific chapter devoted to maps,
Chapter 10 of her Malaysian Counter-Mem orial contains two sections which
have a bearing on this subject: Section C, entitled “The position of third States”
660
discusses a certain number of third-State maps; and Section D, entitled
“Singapore’s reliance on certain Mala ysian maps”, attempts to rebut
Singapore’s reliance on the official Ma laysian maps as admissions against
661
interest. There is no Atlas, but a “Maps Section” at the end of the volume
containing 17 maps reproduced in A4 format.
9.7 In the sections below, Singapore will discuss the cartographic evidence
as a whole against the backdr op of the positions advanc ed by the Parties. For
present purposes, the map evidence can be conveniently grouped under five
general headings:
(a) the early cartography (from the 17th to the 19th Century) (see
Section II below);
(b) maps showing ill-defined lines at sea (see Section III below);
658
MM pp. 140-143, paras. 311-314.
659
MM p. 150, paras. 323-324.
660
See Chapter VIII above, where this section of MCM is rebutted.
661
See MCM pp. 264-270, paras. 557-575.
– Page 253 – (c) official maps issued by Ma laysian Governmental authorities
which constitute admissions agai nst interest (see Section IV
below);
(d) other maps issued by Johor/ Malaysian authorities (see Section V
below); and
(e) official maps issued by Singa pore authorities (see Section VI
below).
Section II. The Early Cartography
9.8 None of the six maps dating from 1620 to 1826 reproduced by Malaysia
with her Memorial Atlas attributes Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks or South
662
Ledge to any particular sovereign. Furthermore, the a ccuracy of such early
cartography is suspect, an d the colour-codin g appearing on some of them is
either unclear or unfavourable to Mala ysia in as much as Pedra Branca is
depicted in a different colour from Johor.
9.9 As to the alleged “close connecti on” between Pedra Branca and Johor
which, according to Malaysia, these maps portray, Malaysia provides no
explanation why the location of Pedr a Branca shown thereon should be
regarded as any kind of proof of attr ibution of Pedra Branca to Johor. As
Singapore has explained, to the extent Pedra Branca is depicted at all on such
maps, it is as a separate feature unco nnected to any main land coast. Even
assuming, quod non , that these maps have a ny significance for present
purposes, they are contradicted by a nu mber of other maps published between
1595 and 1851 (reproduced by Singapor e with her Counter-Memorial) which
662 See Maps 1-6 of Malaysia’s Map Atlas.
– Page 254 –depict Pedra Branca as an isolated feat ure at a considerable distance from the
mainland. 663
9.10 With respect to maps produced during the early 19th Century, these are
mainly not pictorial representations of po litical attributions, but rather consist
of survey maps or illustrations, with varying degrees of accuracy, of
geographical features to aid navigation. Two of these maps warrant specific
mention. They are:
(a) the 1842 Map of the Dutch East Indies by van Hinderstein. As
discussed at Chapter II above, 664 this map shows clearly that the
Dutch authorities never considered Pedra Branca as belonging to
the old Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate;
(b) the 1887 Map of the Territories and Dependencies of Johore
presented by the Sultan of Johor to the Government of South
Australia. 665 This map is particularly significant because it
provides the first pictorial representation of what Johor’s officials
considered to be the extent of the territories of the State of Johor.
Pedra Branca is not depicted at a ll, thus showing that it was not
perceived at the time as forming part of Johor. Significantly, this
map was published after the Ord Award of 1868 and one year
663
SCM Map Atlas, Maps No. 1-10.
664
See paras. 2.34-2.40 above. This map was reproduced by Malaysia as Map 7 of Malaysia’s
Map Atlas and Map 1 in the Maps Section of Ma laysia’s Counter-Memorial. An enlargement
of the relevant portion of the map is found at Insert 5 opposite p. 22 above.
665
SCM Map Atlas, Map No. 8.
– Page 255 – after Sultan Abu Bakar wrote to th e British Colonial Office to
666
claim certain offshore islands.
9.11 In conclusion, the early cartography does not recognise any particular
connection between Pedra Branca and Jo hor. In fact, the most important
conclusion that can be drawn from these ancient maps is that not a single one
of them attributes Pedra Branca to the old Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate, to the
State of Johor or to any political entity.
Section III. Maps Showing Ill-Defined Lines at Sea
9.12 Malaysia also relies on a number of maps showing lines in the sea
dividing British Malaya/Malaysia-Singa pore from Netherlands East Indies/
667
Indonesia. None of these maps attribute Pedra Branca to the Federation of
668
Malaya or Malaysia. As noted in Singapore’s Counter-Memorial, these
maps contain no indication that the lin es drawn on them purported to allocate
territories between the different political units that were collectively referred to
as British Malaya. Certainly, nothing in these maps indicate that the lines were
drawn for the purpose of allocating territories as between Singapore and Johor.
If anything, the express disclaimers appe aring on most of these maps suggest
precisely the opposite. Examples of such disclaimers include the following:
“The delineation of international bo undaries on this map must not be
considered authoritative.” (Map 28 of Malaysia’s Atlas); or
“This map is not an authority for international boundaries.” (Map 35 of
Malaysia’s Atlas).
666 See SCM pp.220-221, para.9.15, discussing the map reproduced in SCM Map Atlas, Map
No. 9 (Map of the Territories and Dependencies of Johore , by Dato Bintara Luar, presented
by the Sultan of Johor to the Government of South Australia, 1887).
667 See Maps 27-29 and 35-36 in Malaysia’s Map Atlas and Maps 7-15 in MCM pp.286-297.
See also Chapter VIII, Section IV above.
668
SCM pp. 227-228, para. 9.27.
– Page 256 –9.13 In any event, even assuming that these maps have any relevance in the
present case, their significance woul d be vastly overshadowed by the
“admissions against interest” maps issu ed by Malaysia which expressly and
unequivocally attribute Pedra Branca to Singapore. 669
Section IV. The Official Maps Issued by Malaysian Governmental
Authorities which Constitute Admissions Against Interest
9.14 In Chapter VI above, Singapore has already addressed the significance
of the series of six official Malaysian maps, published over a period of 14 years
from 1962 through 1975, i.e ., before the critical da te, which un equivocally
670
attribute Pedra Branca to Singapore. When the totality of the almost 90
maps introduced in this case is reduced to their essentials, these six maps are
the only maps possessing a genuine legal significance for purposes of assessing
the sovereignty dispute over Pedra Branca.
9.15 Malaysia’s maps, published by her Director of National Mapping,
clearly label Pedra Branca as belongin g to Singapore. The country name
“SINGAPORE ” appears next to the island in exactly the same manner as other
territory, which is undi sputedly part of Singapore, is also labelled
671
“SINGAPORE ”.
9.16 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia asks, rhetorically , whether “it can
really be supposed that the map-maker in tended thereby to decide legal issues
of the fate of territory and maritim e zones by the (accurate) depiction of
672
Horsburgh Lighthouse as owned by Singapore?” This question misses the
669 See SCM p. 216, para. 9.4; and SM p. 158, paras. 7.47-7.50.
670 See paras. 6.70-6.80 above.
671 See the annotation against the island “Pulau Tekong Besar”. See also, para. 6.77 above.
672
MCM p. 269, para. 574.
– Page 257 –point in two ways. First, Malaysia is wrong to cl aim that the map-maker was
depicting ownership of the lighthouse. This point is canvassed exhaustively in
paragraph 9.31 of the Si ngapore Counter-Memorial and in Chapter VI above.
It can easily be verified by noting th at, when it comes to Pulau Pisang, on
which there is also a lighthouse owned by Singapore, that island does not carry
the label “SINGAPORE ” in any official Malaysian maps. Without a shadow of a
doubt, the label “SINGAPORE ” against Pedra Branca in these maps relates to the
attribution of territory, not ow nership of the lighthouse. Secondly, it is
disingenuous of Malaysia to ask whet her the map-maker intended to “decide
legal issues of the fate of the territory ”. Certainly, map-makers do not set out
to decide legal issues. Nevertheless, maps can be probative as evidence of
general repute or of opinions of info rmed persons. What the cartographer has
done in this series of maps was to depict a well-recognised fact and an
established state of affairs – namely , that Pedra Branca was Singapore’s
territory. More importantly, these were maps published by the Director of
National Mapping, Malaysia, and clear ly represented the position of the
Malaysian government.
Section V. Other Maps Issued by Johor/Malaysian Authorities
9.17 Malaysia then relies on a selecti on of maps published by Johor or by
Malaysian authorities in support of the proposition that Pedra Branca was
considered as part of Johor’s possessi ons. However, as Singapore has already
shown, the dominions of the Temenggo ng of Johor did not extend to Pedra
Branca. 673 The mere fact that Pedra Branca is depicted on certain maps of
Johor is not in itself proof of its appurtenance to Johor.
9.18 Moreover, a number of maps – which have been omitted from
Malaysia’s selective assortment of Johor/Malaysian maps – do not depict Pedra
673 See SCM pp. 36-38, paras. 3.36-3.39; SCM Chapter IV; and in this Reply, Chapter III above.
– Page 258 –Branca at all. The most notable exampl es are the 1887 Map of the Territories
and Dependencies of Johore presente d by the Sultan of Johor to the
Government of South Au stralia discussed above, 674 and the 1893 map of the
Johor territory by Harry Lake, a cartographer in the Johor Government’s
service. 675 It may be recalled that the latte r map was published in 1894 in the
Royal Geographic Society’s Geographical Journal and met with the approval of
the Secretary of the Sultan of Johor, who remarked that it “may be considered
the map of the day.” 676 It should also be reca lled that, from 1931 onwards, the
maps attached to the Joho r Annual Reports do not depict Pedra Branca at all,
demonstrating Johor’s official view th at Pedra Branca was not part of the
677
territory of Johor.
9.19 Seen in the light of the express disclaimer of ownership by Johor in
1953, and the maps publis hed by Malaysia in the 1 960s and 1970s attributing
Pedra Branca to Singapore, the maps re ferred to in the preceding paragraph
make perfect sense and are clear evidence of the fact that none of the maps
674 SCM Map Atlas, Map No. 9 ( Map of the Territories and Dependencies of Johore , by Dato
Bintara Luar, presented by the Sultan of Johor to the Government of South Australia, 1887).
675 SCM Map Atlas, Map No. 10 (Map of the Johore Territory, by Harry Lake, 1893).
676 The Sultan’s Secretary was Abdul Rahman bin Andak. He was the Sultan’s nephew and one
of his most trusted advisors. He accompanied the Sultan to London to negotiate the 1885
Treaty. In 1886, he was in London representing Sultan Abu Bakar in pursuing the Sultan’s
claim to certain islands (see SCM Vol. 2, Annex 21). According to historian Carl Trocki:
“The archetype of the new Malay elite was Enche Abdul Rahman bin Andak, the
Sultan’s personal secretary in his last years. He was also given the title of Dato Sri
Amar di Raja, made Secretary to the Jo hore Government, and sat on the State
Council. ‘Abdul Rahman, a nephew of the Sultan, was a ‘very clever’ English-
educated Malay who became the Sultan’ s private secretary... Cecil Smith [ i.e., the
Governor of the Straits Settlements from 1887 to 1893 ] suspected that it was Abdul
Rahman who drafted the Sultan of Johore’s replies to communications from the
Singapore authorities.’ ” – see Trocki C., Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and
the Development of Johor and Singapore 1784-1885 (1979), at p.201, attached to
this Reply as Annex 53, footnotes omitted.
677 See SCM Map Atlas, Maps No. 15-23.
– Page 259 –submitted by Malaysia can be interpreted to support her claim that Pedra
Branca was Johor territory.
Section VI. Official Maps Issued by Singapore Authorities
9.20 Malaysia argues that Singapore never published maps which showed
Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore, and reproduces certain maps in her
678
Atlas in support of this contention. However, the maps in question are
topographical or geological maps depic ting the main island of Singapore and
the islands in its immediate vicinity. They are not political maps, and, given
their geographical coverage, the fact that they do not portray Pedra Branca is
without any significance. For that matter, numerous maps published by
Malaysia also did not depict Pedra Branca, even though their geographical
coverage included the area in which Pedra Branca is located.
9.21 What is significant, on the other ha nd, is that none of Singapore’s maps
shows Pedra Branca as belo nging to Malaysia, unlike the official Malaysian
“admissions against interest” maps. Furthermore, the geographical facts shown
on these maps do not contradict Singap ore’s claim in any way and, similarly,
do not advance Malaysia’s case in the slightest.
9.22 Singapore’s position with respect to Pedra Branca is apparent from the
consistent pattern of evidence, spanning one and a half centuries, showing the
conviction by Britain first, and by Singa pore subsequently, that title to Pedra
Branca was vested in Britain/Singapore.
678 See MM p. 150, paras. 323-324; and Malaysia’s Map Atlas, Maps 42, 43, and 45-48.
– Page 260 – Section VII. Conclusion
9.23 In conclusion, maps are not, in a nd of themselves, capable of creating
sovereign rights over territory other than in exceptional circumstances which
are not present in this case. Nonethele ss, certain maps do play an important
role in this case because they show how the Parties themselves, and particularly
Malaysia, viewed the sovereignty issue. In this category, the official maps
issued by Malaysia over a 14-year tim e span showing Pe dra Branca as
Singapore territory are of obvious prob ative value – they demonstrate in a
singularly convincing manner that Malays ia herself, prior to the critical date,
regarded the island as belonging to Si ngapore. These maps are entirely
consistent with the historic facts, an d they confirm, in the same manner as
Johor’s 1953 correspondence, that title to Pedra Branca lies with Singapore.
– Page 261 – CHAPTER X
MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE
10.1 In her Memorial, Singapore has made the very simple and obvious point
that “sovereignty in respect of Middle Rocks and South Ledge goes together
679
with sovereignty over Pedra Branca”. Her reasoning in support of this
position is straightforward: the two f eatures fall within Pedra Branca’s
territorial waters, are not capable of independent a ppropriation and have been
treated by the Parties in the same manner as Pedra Branca. 680 In addition,
Singapore has acted à titre de souverain on all of them and in the waters
around them; Malaysia has not. In this regard, Singapore has noted that:
(a) Middle Rocks comprises two clus ters of rocks lying about 250
metres apart. These two clusters are islands in the legal sense of
the word, but th ey are insignificant wh en compared to Pedra
Branca – the western cluster lies only 0.9 metres above sea level
while the eastern cluster lies merely 1.7 metres above sea level;
(b) Middle Rocks, lying merely 0.6 nautical miles from Pedra
Branca, constitutes part of a si ngle rock formation with Pedra
Branca, both standing on a single raised section of the seabed.
Middle Rocks is clearly a dependency of Pedra Branca;
(c) South Ledge is a low tide elevati on, lying within the territorial
sea generated by Pedra Branca an d Middle Rocks. Sovereignty
over South Ledge therefore goes hand in hand with sovereignty
over Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.
679 SM p. 180, para. 9.7.
680 SM pp. 179-198, paras. 9.1-9.52.
– Page 263 –10.2 Malaysia’s Counter-Memoriam l ake s no serious attempt at addressing
the central arguments in Singapore’s Memorial. Instead, Chapter 4 of
Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial is but a co llection of self-serving affirmations
without a semblance of factual or legal basis.
10.3 What is important is that Mala ysia’s Counter-Memorial made a number
of significant admissions which narrow the issues before the Court.
Relevantly, Malaysia accepts that:
(a) South Ledge is not an island. It is a low tide elevation lying 1.7
nautical miles from Middle Ro cks and 2.2 nautical miles 681from
Pedra Branca; 682
(b) as a low tide elevation, “South Ledge would attach to Middle
Rocks”; 683 and
(c) therefore, Middle Rocks and South Ledge may be considered part
of a single group of maritime features. 683
10.4 Since the Parties are in agreemen t about the position of South Ledge
(i.e., that it forms part of a group w ith Middle Rocks), th e only issue to be
decided by the Court is whether the two clusters of Middle Rocks, together
with Pedra Branca, form a group in the sense that “the fate of the principal part
684 685
may involve the rest” or that they “shar[e] the same legal destiny”.
681 Actually, South Ledge lies 2.1 nautical miles from Pedra Branca. Malaysia’s pleadings give
the distance erroneously as 2.2 nautical miles. However, nothing turns on this discrepancy.
What is important for the purposes of this case is that South Ledge lies less than 3 nautical
miles from Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks but mo re than 3 nautical miles from the Johor
coast.
682 MCM p. 81, para. 161.
683 MCM p. 82, para. 162.
684 Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v. U.S.), supra note 249, at p. 855.
– Page 264 –10.5 This Chapter will demonstrate that:
(a) Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks form a group of islands; and
(b) consequently, Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
form a single group of maritime features.
Section I. Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks Form
a Single Group of Islands
10.6 In discussing the status of Mi ddle Rocks vis-à-vis Pedra Branca,
Malaysia offers a very formalistic and artificial conceptualisation of a “group”:
after ruling out the usual meaning of the word give n by English or French
686
dictionaries. She contends that:
“[i]n deciding whether a collectio n of islands, rocks and low-tide
elevations form an insular group, th e chief criteria are their spatial
relationships and the conviction of their initial discoverers or
subsequent users that they form a gro687 evidenced in particular by the
use of a single name for the group”.
10.7 Malaysia’s characterisation of a gr oup is not supported by the case law
of this Court or that of other international tribunals. On the contrary:
(a)tine Island of Palmas arbitration, Judge Max Huber considered
that “[a]s regards groups of is lands, it is possible that a group
may under certain circumstances be regarded as in law a unit, and
that the fate of the principal part may involve the rest”; 688
685 Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at para. 475.
686 MCM p. 75, para. 144.
687 MCM p. 77, para. 149.
688
Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v. U.S.), supra note 249, at p. 855.
– Page 265 – (b) in the case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Dispute
between El Salvador and Honduras , this Court considered that
two islands, Meanguera and Meanguerita, ought to be recognised
as having the same legal position by virtue of their contiguity and
because the latter appeared as a mere depe ndency of the
689
former;
(c) ine Eritrea/Yemen award on Territorial Sovereignty and the
Scope of the Dispute , the Arbitral Tribunal also considered
several sub-groups of the is lands involved to be units. 690For
example, the Tribunal held that “the Mohabbakahs have always
been considered as one group, sharing the same legal destiny”. 691
The Tribunal also gave little weight to whether a collection of
islands is given a collective name as a “group”. Thus, in relation
to the Zuqar-Hanish group, the Tribunal found that “the
examination of the activities mate rial itself shows very clearly
that there was no common legal history for the whole of this
692
Zuqar-Hanish archipelago” and “[i]t would be wrong to assume
693
that they must together go to one Party or the other” ; and
(d) a “group” of islands or islets can be seen as dependencies of
another, as shown by the Minquiers and Echrehos case, where
689 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, supra note 466, at p. 570, para. 356; and p. 579,
para.368. Malaysia alleges that the situation in that case “contrasts sharply with the present
dispute” since the parties had treated the two islands as constituting a singular insular unit
(MCM p. 79, para. 156); but it is revealing that the Court endorsed their view by basing itself
on the objective grounds indicated above.
690 Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration, supra note 73, at paras. 465-466.
691 Ibid, at para. 475.
692 Ibid, at para. 458.
693 Ibid, at para. 491.
– Page 266 – the Minquiers group was claimed to be a “dependency of the
694
Channel Islands”.
10.8 The international case law is based on purely empirical criteria, such as
the proximity of the maritime featur es concerned and their relations of
“dependency” (in particular in the case of a clearly smaller island related to a
bigger one). On these empirical crit eria, Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks
clearly qualify as a group which must be dealt with as a single whole in
international law.
10.9 Notwithstanding Singapore’s rejection of Malaysia’s flawed and
unsubstantiated characterisation of a grou p of islands in international law,
Singapore will show, in the next few paragraphs, that even applying Malaysia’s
own criteria, Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks undoubtedly form a single group.
A. S PATIAL R ELATIONSHIP
10.10 According to Malaysia, in assessi ng whether several features should be
treated as a group, one of the “chief cr iteria” is “their spatial relationships”. 695
Singapore notes that Middle Rocks lie s a mere 0.6 nautical miles (or
1 kilometre) from Pedra Branca, and is linked to Pedra Branca by a submerged
bank. The spatial relationship between Middle Rocks and Pedra Branca is
694
Minquiers and Ecrehos (United Kingdom v. France ), supra note 186, aSee also the
Continental Shelf case between Tunisia and Libya, where the Court treated “the Kerkennah
Islands surrounded by islets and low-tide elevations” as a single whole. See Continental Shelf
(Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Merits) [1982] ICJ Rep 18, at p. 88, para. 128. In the Gulf
of Maine case, the Court made no distinction betwee n Seal Island and “its smaller neighbour,
Mud Island” in spite of the fact that they had distinct names and were not formally qualified as
The Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States of America ) [1984] ICJ Rep 246, at p. 336,
para. 222.
695
MCM p. 77, para. 149.
– Page 267 –obvious as both are part of one single rock formation. As the Malacca Strait
Pilot puts it:
m m
“Middle Rocks, from 2 to 4 feet (0 6 to 1 2) high, and of a whitish
colour, lie about half a mile s outhward of the lighthouse and on the
south-western edge of the bank on which Pedra Branca lies.”696
This situation is represented diagramma tically in Image 23 of Singapore’s
Memorial and Inserts 11 and 12 of Singapore’s Counter-Memorial.
B. C OLLECTIVE N AME
10.11 Another of Malaysia’s key criteria is whether the features were “given a
collective name, such as Pedra Br anca Rocks or Ho rsburgh Rocks”. 697
Singapore has shown in pa ragraphs 10.7 and 10.8 above that whether or not
several maritime features are collectively named a “group” as such is of little
significance. This point has been fully addressed in Singapore’s Counter-
698
Memorial. In any event, Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks have, in fact, been
referred to as a single group. Malaysia cannot deny this, as the following
examples demonstrate:
(a) several maps employ the coll ective label, “Pedra Branca
699
Horsburgh (Middle Rock)” to describe the two features; and
(b) CommanderR.H.Kennedy’s Preparatory Document for
700
UNCLOS I refers to Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks
696
Extracts from First to Fifth editions of the Malacca Strait Pilot (SM Vol. 5, Annex 79).
697
MCM p. 77, para. 150.
698 SCM pp. 206-207, para. 8.9.
699 See e.g., Maps 27, 28 and 29 in Malaysia’s Map Atlas.
700 Commander R.H. Kennedy was the former British Naval Hydrographer and prepared this
document at the request of the Secretariat of the Conference.
– Page 268 – collectively as “Horsburgh group”, “the group of rocks on which
701
stands Horsburgh Light” and “Horsburgh group of rocks”.
C. L INES ON M APS
10.12 Another criteria employed by Mala ysia is whether the features are
702
“surrounded by a single line” on maps. Singapore does not accept that there
is any legal principle that a collection of features must be shown surrounded by
a single line on maps before they can be considered a group. In any event,
Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks are, in fact, shown surrounded by a single line
on a number of maps. For example:
703
(a) Map 5 (1799) shown after page 14 of Singapore’s Memorial;
(b) Map 3 (1803) shown on pages 2 80-281 of Malaysia’s Counter-
Memorial;
(c) Map 7 (1950) shown on pages 2 86-287 of Malaysia’s Counter-
Memorial;
(d) the British Admiralty Chart No. 2403 folded into the back pocket
of Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial also shows Pedra Branca and
Middle Rocks surrounded by a 10-fathom line; 704
701 UNCLOS I, Official Records, vol. I, Prepar atory Documents, Geneva, 24Feb-27Apr 1958,
A/CONF.13/6/Add.1 (SCM Vol. 3, Annex 37). The distances given in this document make it
clear that the author was referring to Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks. See also SCM p. 207,
para. 8.9(b).
702 MCM p. 77, para. 151.
703 This map is also reproduced as Map No. 6 in the SCM Map Atlas.
704 This is the same map that Singapore has reproduced as SCM Map Atlas, Map No. 13
(Admiralty Chart 2403, Singapore Strait, 1936).
– Page 269 – (e) Map 40 of Malaysia’s Map Atlas shows Pedra Branca and
Middle Rocks surrounded by a 5-fathom line;
(f) a 1910 Dutch official navigational chart, an extract of which is
reproduced as Insert 15 opposite, shows a 10-metre line
surrounding Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.
D. E XISTENCE OF N AVIGATIONAL C HANNELS AND G EOMORPHOLOGY
10.13The last argument deployed by Ma laysia is that the features are
“separated by navigational channels and [do] not stand on one single-raised
705
section of the sea-bed”. First, as demonstrated by th e bathymetric contour
lines in the navigational charts discussed in paragraphs 10.12(d)-(f) above and
706
by Inserts 11 and 12 of Singapore’s Counter-Memorial, Pedra Branca and
Middle Rocks are indeed standing on a si ngle raised section of the sea-bed.
Secondly, the bathymetric contour lines men tioned in the preceding sentence
also demonstrate that there is no pr acticable navigational channel between
Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks. The only recognised navigational channels in
the vicinity are Middle Channel (north of Pedra Branca) and South Channel
(south of South Ledge). 707In fact, there are no sailing directions that instruct
ships to sail between Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks for the purpose of entry
into, or exit from the Singapore Strait.
705
MCM p. 78, para. 154.
706
SCM p. 204, para. 8.7; Insert 11 after SCM p. 204; and Insert 12 after SCM p. 206.
707
See Extracts from First to Fifth editions of the Malacca Strait P ilot (SM Vol.5, Annex 79);
Thomson’s Account, supra note 55, at pp. 379-380 (SM Vol.4, Annex 61, pp.480-481);
Horsburgh J., India Directory, Vol. 1 (2nd ed., 1817), pp.192-193 (SM Vol.2, Annex3);
Dunn S. et. al., A New Directory for the East Indies (5th ed., 1780), p.509 (SM Vol.2,
Annex 2).
– Page 270 – E. C ONCLUSIONS W ITHR EGARD TO P EDRA B RANCA AND
M IDDLE ROCKS AS A GROUP
10.14 As the foregoing discussion demons trates, even by Malaysia’s own
formalistic criteria, Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks are u ndoubtedly a single
group of islands. Furthermore, as disc ussed in the next section, the Parties
themselves have consiste ntly regarded Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks as
forming part of an indivisible group.
Section II. Middle Rocks and South Ledge Have Always Been
Recognised to Share the Same Legal Fate as Pedra Branca
10.15 With respect to her own claim to Middle Rocks and South Ledge,
Malaysia simply repeats her idée fixe, based on the Anglo-Dutch Treaty and the
Crawfurd Treaty of 1824.708 Singapore has shown that both treaties have no
relevance whatsoever in the present case.09 This applies a fortiori where
Middle Rocks and South Ledge are conc erned: they are not mentioned any
more than Pedra Branca itself and it is ce rtainly not Singapore’s case that any
of the three features were ceded to the British by the Crawfurd Treaty.
Malaysia’s self-serving assertion according to which “as a matter of fact PBP,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge formed pa rt of the Sultanate of Johor, before
710
and after 1824” simply begs the question.
10.16 In her Counter-Memorial, Malaysia also takes up again her refrain that
she had a “consistent... practice of cons idering both Middle Rocks and South
Ledge as lying within her sovere ignty when dealing with maritime
708
MCM pp. 79-80, paras. 157-158.
709
See paras. 2.22-2.44 above. See also SCM pp. 28-33, paras. 3.19-3.30.
710
MCM p. 80, para. 158.
– Page 271 – 711
jurisdiction”. In seeking to prove this, she lists a series of four “examples”
712
which are exactly the same as those listed in her Memorial and which happen
to be also exactly the same as those she gives in supp ort of her claim to Pedra
Branca. 713 Singapore has repeatedly rebu tted these unfounded arguments. 714
The only conclusion which can be drawn from them is that, clearly, Malaysia
herself treats all three features in the same way and with the same arguments –
she cannot find any independent or separate arguments in respect of Middle
Rocks or South Ledge.
10.17 For her part, Singapore has consisten tly considered all three features as
715
being under her sovereignty and has treated them as a group.
Section III. Conclusions
10.18 Inconclusion:
(a) it is unacceptable to treat Pedr a Branca, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge separately for the purposes of this case;
(b) all three features clearly form a group, and this conclusion is
based both on objective factors and on the way they have
constantly been treated;
711
MCM p. 80, para. 159.
712
MM pp. 132-133, para. 295.
713 See MM pp. 117-124, paras. 268-282; and MCM p. 235, para. 502.
714 See e.g., SCM pp.165-171, paras.6.77-6.89, and pp.209-211, paras.8.12-8.16; and in this
Reply, at paras. 5.10, 5.23 above.
715 See SCM pp. 212-213, paras. 8.18-8.20.
– Page 272 –(c) they have also been consisten tly treated as a group by Singapore
which, unlike Malaysia, has been active around and on each of
them;
(d) in any event:
(i) Malaysia accepts that So uth Ledge, being a low tide
elevation, attaches to Midd le Rocks and forms a group
with Middle Rocks;
(ii) Singapore has demonstrated that even on the basis of
Malaysia’s own criteria as pleaded in her Counter-
Memorial, Pedra Branca and Mi ddle Rocks form part of
an indivisible group; and
(iii) since South Ledge attaches to Middle Rocks and Middle
Rocks attaches to Pedra Bran ca, they necessa rily form a
single group of maritime features;
(e) as sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore, the same
necessarily holds true with regards to Middle Rocks and South
Ledge.
– Page 273 – SUMMARY OF REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS
1. In accordance with the Court’s Pr actice Direction II, Singapore presents
a short summary of the reasoning as developed in Singapore’s written
pleadings, including this Reply.
A. The Basis of Singapore’s Title to Pedra Branca
2. With respect to the question of sovereignty over Pedra Branca,
Singapore possesses sovereignty over the island on the basis of the lawful
possession of Pedra Branca by Singapo re’s predecessor in title, the United
Kingdom, during the period 1847-1851. Prior to 1847, Pedra Branca was terra
nullius – the island was uninhabited, and had never been the subject of a prior
claim, or any manifestation of sovere ignty on the ground, by any sovereign
entity.
3. The lawful possession of Pedra Branca by the Unite d Kingdom during
the period 1847-1851 was effected by a series of official actions evidencing the
intention of the British Crown to es tablish an exclusive title under the
principles and rules of international law applicable at the time. These actions
began with the first landi ng by an agent of the British Crown in 1847 and
culminated with the official commissioning of the lighthouse in 1851.
4. The decision to build the lighthous e on Pedra Branca was taken by the
Court of Directors of the East India Company as an official organ of the British
Crown. The entire process of choosi ng Pedra Branca as the site of the
lighthouse, and the planning, financing an d construction of the lighthouse, was
subject to the exclusive control of the British Crown and its representatives.
– Page 275 –5. The whole pattern of activities and o fficial visits undertaken by agents
of the British Crown during the period from 1847-1851 constituted a clear and
unequivocal manifestation of the inte ntion to claim sovereignty over Pedra
Branca. The concrete manifestations of the British Crown’s intention to take
lawful possession of Pedra Branca incl uded numerous activities of an official
character described and documented in Singapore’s written submissions.
These actions were peaceful and public, and elicite d no opposition from any
other power.
6. There was no doubt in the minds of contemporary observers that the
British Crown had acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca during this period.
At the foundation stone laying cere mony for Horsburgh Lighthouse, Pedra
Branca was described as a dependency of Singapore in the presence of the
Governor of the Straits Settlements (t he most senior British official in
Singapore) and other Britis h and foreign officials. This attribution of
sovereignty, which was widely reported in the local newspapers, elicited no
response from any quarters. In partic ular, it elicited no protest from the Johor
authorities. Indeed, in November 1850, the Government of the Netherlands
East Indies expressly recognised Br itish sovereignty over Pedra Branca by
referring to the construction of the lig hthouse at Pedra Branca as being “on
British territory”.
B. Singapore’s Conduct in Maintenance of Title
7. After 1851, the United Kingdo m and, subsequently, Singapore,
confirmed and maintained the title that had been acquired over Pedra Branca by
the continuous, open and effective displa y of State authority on Pedra Branca
and within its territorial waters. These activities were wide-ranging in nature,
comprised both lighthouse an d non-lighthouse activities suitable to the nature
– Page 276 –of the territory concerned, and were undertaken à titre de souverain. All of
them have been fully documented in Singapore’s pleadings.
8. For over 130 years – in other words, from 1 847 until after 1979 when
Malaysia first advanced a claim to the island – Singapore’s effective
administration and control of Pedra Branca went unopposed by Malaysia or her
predecessor, Johor, and was recognised by third States and their nationals.
9. Singapore has thus demonstrated, with contemporary evidence, that she
had the intention to claim sovereignty over Pedra Branca ( animus occupandi)
and that she engaged in the concrete exercise of that sovereignty on the ground
on a continuous basis (corpus occupandi).
C. Malaysia’s Case Rests Entirely on a Single Unproven Assertion
10. In contrast, Malaysia’s entire case rests on the oft-repeated but totally
unproven assertion that the Sultanate of Johor possessed an “original title” to
Pedra Branca which has never been displaced. This extraordinary contention is
not supported by any evidence whatsoev er. Malaysia has been unable to
produce a single piece of evidence that Johor ever had the intention to claim
sovereignty over Pedra Branca or ever carried out a single sovereign act on the
island at any time. For this reason, Ma laysia’s claim that the British sought
permission to build the lighthouse cannot stand. In any event, Malaysia has not
provided any eviden ce whatsoever that the Britis h authorities had sought any
such permission.
D. Malaysia’s Conduct Supporting Singapore’s Case
11. Not only did Malaysia (and Johor) never protest the taking of lawful
possession of Pedra Branca by the Br itish Crown in 1847 -1851, she never
objected to any of the official Stat e actions that the United Kingdom and
– Page 277 –Singapore undertook on Pedra Branca until well after 1980. Malaysia
recognised Singapore’s sovereignty over the island by virtue of Malaysia’s own
conduct. For example:
(a) Malaysian officials sought pe rmission from Singapore to visit
Pedra Branca;
(b) Malaysia offered to fund lighth ouses that were situated on her
own territory, but never offered to contribute to the upkeep of the
lighthouse on Pedra Branca;
(c) Malaysia protested the flying of the Singapore Marine Ensign on
Pulau Pisang, which was Mala ysian territory, but not the
Singapore Ensign that flew at Pedra Branca;
(d) the Malaysian Meteorological Service listed Horsburgh
Lighthouse as a Rainfall Station “in Singapore” but when it
ceased publishing data from Sing apore in 1967, it also ceased
publishing data from Horsburgh Lighthouse;
(e) from 1962 to 1975 Malaysia issued a series of official maps
which specifically attributed Pedra Branca to Singapore;
(f) in 1953, Johor offici ally declared that it did not claim ownership
over Pedra Branca: this disclaimer is binding on Malaysia, and
must be given effect to.
Each and every one of these facts is documented on the record.
E. Conclusion on the Conduct of the Parties
12. There is thus a remarkable consistency in the conduct of the two Parties
with respect to Pedra Branca. On the one hand, Singapore has always acted in
a manner that is entirely consistent with her sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
– Page 278 –Singapore has acted as sovereign over the island for more than 150 years. On
the other hand, prior to Malaysia’s bela ted claim in 1979, Malaysia never once
intimated that she possesse d title to Pedra Branca, never once carried out any
sovereign act on or in relation to the is land, officially disclaimed ownership
over the island, issued official maps which depicted Pedra Branca as belonging
to Singapore, and remained silent in the face of Singapore’s continuous
administration and control of the island.
F. Middle Rocks and South Ledge
13. With respect to Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Singapore has shown
that both features lie with in Pedra Branca’s territori al waters. Middle Rocks,
lying only 0.6 nautical m iles from Pedra Branca, is part of the same island
group as Pedra Branca while South Ledge is a low-tide elevation incapable of
independent appropriation. Soverei gnty over both Middle Rocks and South
Ledge belongs to Singapore by virtue of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra
Branca.
– Page 279 – SUBMISSIONS
For the reasons set out in Singapore’s Memorial, Counter-Memorial and this
Reply, the Republic of Singapore reque sts the Court to adjudge and declare
that:
(a) the Republic of Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca /
Pulau Batu Puteh;
(b) the Republic of Singapore has sovereignty over Middle Rocks;
and
(c) the Republic of Singapore has sovereignty over South Ledge.
Prof. Tommy Koh
Agent for the Government of the Republic of Singapore
- Page 281 -
Reply of Singapore