30.NOV.2007 11:55 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.6
CASE CONCERNING SO"VEREIGNTY OVERPEDRABRANCAl
PULAUBATUPUTEH, MIDDLEROCKS ANDSOUTHLEDGE
(MALA YSIA/SINGAPORE)
RESPONSE OF SINGAPORE TO THE QUESTION POSED BY
JUDGE KEITH TO SINGAPORE ON 23 NOVEMBER 2007
Question
What response, iany,does Singapore wish to make in reply to the
submission made yesterdayby the Attomey~Gen oe rallysia,
expressly by reference to provisionseJohor Agreement of 1948
and the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948! that the Acting
StateSecretary of Johor "was definitely not authorized" and did not
have ''the legal capacity to write the 1953 letter, or to renounce,
disclaim, or confirm title of any part of the territories of Johor"?
Response
1. Singapore notes as a preliminary point that the submission of the
Attomey~Ge nfM aaalsia is a new argument, presented for the very first
time by Malaysia o22 November 2007.
2. The Court will recall that Singapore's Memorial expressly put the
capacity of the Johor State Secretary into issue by asserting Ullequivocally that
"[h]e had the power to make a disclaimer oftitle on behalfof JohInall
tbree rounds of written pleadings, Malaysia did not dispute Singapore's
assertion that the Johor State Secretai)'bad the power to make the disolaimer.
3. The first time that Malaysia referred to the capacity of the State
Secretary in connection with the 1953 letter was in Sir Elihu Lauterpacht's
submission during Malaysia's fttst round of oral presentatioSir Elihu
mentioned in passing that the State Secretary "lacked the capacity to dispose of
1MS,p.167parall.l5.
1
~~-11-2007 13=24 99% P.0530.NOV.2007 11:57 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.7
2
Johor's territory", which is a completely different argq.ment from that
advanced by Malaysia's Attorney-General in the second round. In itssecond
round presentation, Singapore responded to Sir Elihu's argument by a reminder
that it is not Singapore's case that the 1953 letter amounted to a cession of
territory.
4. The Malaysian Attomey-General's new argument is that the Johore
Agreement of 1948 ("Johor Agreement'') and the Federation of Malaya
Agreement of 1948 ("Federation Agreement") somehow deprived the Johor
State Secretary of the capacity to "write the1953 letter orto renounce, disclaim
or confirm title oany partof the territories of Johor".
5. This very late change in Malaysia's position on the capacity of the Johor
State Secretary must surely weigh. heavily against the credibility and veracity
ofMalaysia's new argument. This new argument is no more thanan attempt to
muddy the waters over a very sttaightforward issue - that a high official of
Johor gave an unequivocal, unconditional disclaimer of title to Pedra Branca,
i.e., by infonning Singapore officially that Johor did not claim ownership of
Pedra Branca.
Recapitulation of Malaysia 's New Argument
6. Malaysia's new argument is as follows:
(a)By the Johor Agreement and the Federation Agreement, Johor had
no competence to deal with extemal affairs as it had transferred
control over its extemal affairs to Britain.
(b) The Acting State Secretary of Johor "undertook himself' to write
directly to Singapore in 1953, without the k.nowledge or consent of
2
CR2007/24,l3 November2007,p.54,parq.63(Lauterpacht).
3CR20071292, 0November2007,p. 46,parn.13(Pellet),
2
30-11-2007 13:24 99% P.0730.NOV.2007 11:57 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.B
4
the High Coromissioner of the Federation (or his Chief Secretary).
The way the correspondence was conducted was ''procedurally
5
irregular and incorrect",
(c) The Acting State Secretary of Johor "was definitely not authorized or
had the legal capacity to write the 1953 letter, or to renounce,
disclaim, or confirm title any part of the territories of Johor".
The Johor State Secretary had the Capacity to Issue the1953 Disclaimer
7. The Malaysian Attorney-General's argument is difficult to follow.
While itis clear that the argument hinges on the transfer of control over
extemal affairs by Johor to Britain, it is not clear from his argument how this
would have deprived the Johor State Secretary of the authority or legal capacity
to write the 1953 letter and/or to disclaim title ithe sense or the manner
describedintheSingaporepleadings.
8. It is useful to begin by examining the difference between the
terminology used by the Malaysian Attorney-General and the terminology used
by Singapore. The Malaysian Attomey~Ge argurea hat the Johor State
Secretary had no capacity to '{renounce,disclaim or confl!IDtitle to any part of
Johor's territory!l, But that has never been Singapore's argument. Singapore
has never argued that Johor renounced title to Pedra Branca for t11esimple
reason that Johor had no title to Pedra Branca to renounce or abandon. As for
confinnation of title, it is not Singapore's argument that the Johor State
Secretary confirmed Singapore's title to territory. Singapore's argument is
sim.ply that, by declaring that Johor did not claim Pedra Branca, the Johor State
Secretary'sletter had the effect of confmning Singapore's title to Pedra Branca
and of confmning that Johor had no title, historie or otherwise, to the island.
4CR2007130,22November2007,p. 18,para.23 (GaniPatail).
5
Ibid.
6CR2007/30, 22 November2007,p. 18,para.22 (GaniPatail).
3
30-11-2007 13=24 99% P.0830.NOV.2007 11:57 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.9
As for the tenn "disclaimer of title", Singapore has explained in its Memorial
tbat:
"8.16 Itshould be emphasised that it is not Singapoca~s tat Johor
abandonedor relinquishedtitle to PeclraBrancai1953. Abandonment
orrelinquishmentof title is possibonlyif theris a pre-existingtitle,
What Johor did by her 1953 letter was not to renounce title (since she
did not have title) or a "claim" to ownership,but rather to pronounce
explicitlythat Johordidnot havea claim.to ownershipofPedra Branca.
It must also be emphasised that, in the context of Singapore's
posse~~ ofiohnisland and in the absenceofany claim or interesby
third States, Johor's disclru.meronlybe regarded as an unequivocal
recognitionof Singapore'stitle."
As will be ex.plained later, neitb.er the Johor Agreement nor the Federation
Agreement precluded the Johor State Secretary from giving such a disclaimer.
9. In his submission, the Malaysian Attorney-General first referred to
Clause 3(1) of the Johor Agreement which vested control of Johor's extemal
affairs in the British Crown. The Malaysian Attorney-General then referred to
Clause 3(2), under whicl1Johor "undertakes that, without the knowledge and
consent of Hi$ Majesty 's Governrrzent,he will not make any treaty. enter into
any engagement, deal in or correspond on political matters yvith or send
envo,Ysto, anyforeign State".
10. Clearly, the phra13"foreign State" in the context of Clause 3(2) did not
include Britain. lt would be absurd to require Johor to seel( Britain's
peilllission to correspond with Britain itself. It follows that, as Singapore was a
British colony in 1953, Clause 3 did not prohibit Johor from corresponding
with Singapore. Very clearly, nothing tums on the Johor Agreement.
11. Next, the Malaysian Attorney-General referred to Clause 4 of the
Federation Agreement which gave Britain control over the external affairs of
7MS,p.167,para.8.16.
4
~~-11-?~~? 1~:?4 99% P.09 30.NOV.2007 11!58
EMBRSSY OF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.10
the Federation. He also referred to the Second Schedule of the Federation
Agreement, which set out "Extemal Affairs" as a subject over which the
Federation had legislative and executive authority. It is well known that the
term "Extemal Affairs" appearing in constitutions of the Commonwealth is
imprecise in meaning and has been differently interpreted in different
jurisdictions and at different periods of time. The Federation Agreement itself
did not define the term "External Affairs'', except by way of inclusion of three
specifie classes of matters as part of extemal affairs. Under the Federation
Agreement. the power to interpret the agt·eementwas vested exclusively in an
Interpretation Tribunal set up under Clause 153 of the Federation Agreement. 8
The Interpretation Tribunal was convened only once during the nine years that
the Federation Agreement was in operation (1948 - 1957) 9 and the term
"External Affairs" did not come up for consideration on that occasion. In the
circumstances, there was no authoritative interpretation of the term "Extemal
Affairs" in the Federation Agreement.
12. The Malaysian Attomey-General's argument therefore finds no support
in authority. It is also not supported by actual official practice under the
Federation Agreement. During the period when the Federation Agreement was
in force, Johor of.ficials continued to correspond routinely with their
counterparts in Singapore on matters under their charge. Thus, the J ohor State
Secretary continued to conespond directly with the Singapore Govemment on
matters conceming the supply of water to Singapore. 10 Similarly, the Chief
Police Officer of Johor continued to correspond direct! y with his counterpart in
Singapore on cooperative policing of the Johor Strait. 11 Other examples
8
RelevantextractSfromthe FederationAgreementfl.reattachedas Annex1to this Response.
9InterpretationTribunal,FcderacionofMalayaAgreemJ948[1950]Malaya.nLawReports3S.
10Lettefrom$çateSecretary,Johorto President,CityCouncil,SingaporedaNov 1952,attached
asAnnex2 to thiResponse.
11
LetterfromtheSingaporeDeputyCommissionerofPoliceto theChiefPoliceOfficer, Johordated2
July1948(SCMArmex30) (also attachedasAnnex3 to thisResponsefor ease of reference).
5
30-11-2007 13!2S
99% P.1030.NOV.2007 11=58 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.ll
12
include the Johor Harbour Master and the Johor Controller of Supplies.
Evidently, such direct communications between Johor officiais and their
Singapore counterparts were never regarded as an encroachment on the power
of the Federation over "Extemal Affairs".
13. By the same token, the 1953 letter did not encroach on the external
affairs power of the Federation.By no stretch of the imagination can th1953
letter be construed as an exercise of "executive authority!! over "Extemal
Affairs'!.J. D. Higham (from the Singapore Colonial Secretary's office) did
not write directly to the Johor State Secretary. He wrote to the British Adviser
in Johor and copied his letter to the Chief Secretary of the Federation.
Evidcntly, the Chief Secretary of the Federation did not think that Higham's
letter encroached on matters of~'Exte Afnars!! over which he had exclusive
autbority. Otherwise! he would have intervened and assumed the responsibility
for replying to Higham' s letter.
14. The reaction of the British Adviser was equally telling. Contrary to
Malaysia's argwnent, the Johor State Secretary did not "undert[ake] himselfto
13
issue the letter to J. D. Higham'! • It was the British Adviser who passed
Higham's letter on to the Johor State Secretary. Clearly, the British Adviser
did not think that the Johor State Secretary lacked the capacity to deal with
Higham's inquiry. Similarly, the .TohorState Secretary himself did not think
that therewa~ any1hing procedurally wrong about his responding to Higham.
Finally, Higham referred the Johor State Secretary's response to the Singapore
Attorney-General. Far from pointing out any supposed procedural irregularity,
the Singapore Attorney-General agreed with Higham that, on the strength of
Johor State Secretary's response, Pedra Branca may be claimed as Singapore
territory.
12Letterfrom HarbourMaster, Johorto FisheryOfficer,Singaporeda.teq& Letterfrom
AsstÇontroller of Sqpplies,Johor to Ag DepucyDirectorof Fisheries,Singaporedated15 Oct 1953,
attachedas Annex4tothis Response.
n CR2007/30, 2November2007,p. 18,para.23(GaniPatail).
6
99% P.ll 30.NOV.2007 11!58 EMBR55Y OF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS
N0.210 P.12
15. The entire process involvedfour seniorBritish officiais onthe one side
(Higham,the Chief Secretary of the Federation, the British Adviser in Johor
andthe SingaporeAttorney-General)andthe highestJohor official onthe other
side(theActing State Secretaryof Johor). Malaysiahas produced no evidence
that any one of them thought that Higham's inquiry should be handled by a
differentofficialrthatthe inquiryandresponseinvolveda breach oftheJohor
Agreementor the FederationAgreement. Giventhat the five persons involved
in the correspondencewere aUhigh of:ficials,the maxim omniapraesumuntur
riteesseacta applies to the 1953letter. The conduct of these officiais speaks
much louder than any expostfacto attempt by Malaysiatoday to interpretthe
1953 letter as being inconsistentwith the Johor Agreement or the Federation
Agreement.
The Johor State Secretary's 1953Letter Remains Binding on Johor even if
It Were Issued in a Manner Inconsistent with the Johor Agreement or
Federation Agreement
16. The foregoing discussion clearly establishes that the Johor State
Secretary's1953letter was not issuedin breach of the Johor Agreementor the
FederationAgreement. However,even assumingfor the saleeof argumentthat
the MalaysianAttomey"General is rightin sayingthat the 1953 correspondence
was ''procedmallyi.rregularand incorrect", Singapore's subm.issionis that it
wouldmalceno differenceto the effectofthe 1953letterin internationallaw.
17. TheMalaysianAttorney-General' s argumentdidnotmake clearwhether
he wasrelying on the FederationAgreementas a constitutionin municipallaw
or as an international treaty between Britain and Johor. The Federation
Agreement is a treaty betweenBritain and nine Malay States, includingJohor.
However,it may also be regarded as a constitutional document in municipal
7
30-11-2007 13!25
99% P.12 30.NOV.2007 11:59 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210
P.13
lawY On either basis, the effect of the 1953 letter in international law remains
unchanged.
TheFederationAgr,eementas Treaty
18. Despite transferring control of its defence and external affairs to Britain,
it is an undisputed fact that Johwas a sovereign State during the period 1948
15
to 1957, when the Federation Agreement was in force. The sovereign status
of Johor is clear from Clause 15 of the Johor Agreement and Clause 155 of the
Federation Agreement. It was also confumed by the decision of the Privy
Council in 1952 in the case SultanofJohor v TunkuAbubakar. 16
19. Since the Federation Agreement was a treaty between sovereign States,
the Malaysian Attomey~Gen errua lntsm.ountsta an assertion that Johor
had acted in breach of her treat(ies) with Britainindee sdch a breach had
occurred, quod non, it would be up to the other treaty party to object to the
breach. The facts show that Britain did not abject to the "breach" but in fact
adopted it - the Attorney-General of the British Colony of Singapore reacted
by agreeing with Higham that ç'we can claim Pedra Branca as Singapore
territory". If indeed, Johor had committed such a breacl1,quod non, it was
not open ta Johor (or Malaysia as Johor's successor) to plead her ovm wrong,
i.e., a breach of a treaty with Britain, against Britain to resile from the
unequivocal, unconditional disclaimer which Johor had given to Singapore, a
JSee Roberts-Wray, Commonwealthand Colonial L1966) which described the Fecferation
Agreement as ''thenew Constitution" (p.Seealso Allen, Stockw&lWright (eds.A,
CollectionofTreatiesandOtherDocumentsAffeartngtheStatesof Malaysia1761-1963(1981),which
commenteet!hatthe FederationAgreementwas"morethanan agreWFISa forma]constitution
forthenewFederation...,,(p, 98).
IInhis speech,the MalaysianAttorney-Generalnoted!hat Singaporepasstatedin no uncertainterms
thatJohor was a sovereignState in 1953and madeno attemptto disputeSingapore'sstatement. (CR
2007/30,22November2007,p. 14,para.7).
ISultanofJahorv TunJububakar[1952]AppealCases318 (Judgmentof the Privy Council of 22
Apr1952)(Malaysiabas also referredto ether Britishcases con' sovereignty,.suchas
MighellvSultanofJohor(1894]1QB149.).
1IntemalMemorandumfrom the Colonip.tSecretary,Sitotherttorney-General,Singapore,
andreply,1[2sic)October1953(MMAnnex70).
8
30-11-2007 13=26 99% P.1330.NOV.2007 11:5g EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.l4
British colony. As stated by the Pennanent Court in its Advisory Opinion on
JurisdictionoftheDanzigCourts:
"Poland could notavailherself of an objection which ... would amount
to relying uponthe non~fulfi of am ebltation imposed upon her
by an international agreeme..lB
The Federation Agreement as a Municipal Constitution
20. Ifthe Federation Agreementwere viewed as a municipal constitutional
documentthen, following the decision in the Eastern Greenland case, it does
not matter what municipal limitations there were on the powers of the Johor
StateSecretary,as long as itis establishedthat the 1953letterwas 'Linregardto
a question falling within his province''.19 The Permanent Court in Eastern
Greenland did not inquire into Norway's argument that Norwegian
constitutional law did not authorize the Foreign Minister to make the
declaration. Instead, the Court focused on the character of the act in question
andthe funetionsofthe officialinvolved.
21. Given that Johor was a sovereignStatebetween 1948and 1957with its
own territory, it would certainly be within its competence to make inqu.iries
into the extent of its territory. Indeed, Johor was in the best position to know
the extent of its own territory. It was clearlywithin the province of the State
Secretaryto make and respondto inquirieson suchmatters. The 1949Stateof
Johor Annual Report describedthe Johor State Secretary as "the Government's
officialspokesman" andfurtherrecordedthat:
"The State Secretary who is appointed by H. H. the Sultan is the
PrincipalOf:ficerin Charge of the Administrationof the Government.
Heads of State Departments) including District Officers and
Administrative Officers,are d;rectlyresponsibleto the StateSecretary
15
Jurisdtcrionofrhe DaTgoures,AdvisoryOpinion(1928) P.C.I.J.Reports, Ser. B.No. 15,at pp.
26~27.
19LegalStatus of EasternGreenlandCase(Denmarkv. Norway), Judgment (1933) P.C.I.J,Rcport:s,
Ser.AIB,No. S3,atp.71.
20
SrareofJohoreAnnualReportfor 1949(writbynData Wan Idris bin IbraAg.Mentri Besar
[i.e.,ChiMinisre1],hore,printbyGovernmentPrintiDep~Utm Johor,),at p.60,attachedas
A.nnex 5 to tR~~ponse.
9
99% P.1430.NOV.2007 11:59 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.15
21
for the proper conduct of ail matters affecting thdepartrnent~."
[Emphasisadded]
The Johor State Secretary was obviously in a better position than the Chief
Secretary of the Federation to know the extent of Johor's territory and to give
an answer in that respect. The BritishAdviser stated express!y that Higham's
inquiry "should, in the British Adviser 's opinion, have been addressed" to the
Johor State Secretary.2 Indeed, all five senior officiais involved were of the
view that the 1953 correspondence fell within thetate Secretary's province.
Conclusion
22. The Malaysian Attomey-General's argument concerning lack of
capacity is devoid of merit and completely irrelevant. Singapore has shown
that the writing of the 1953 letter did not contravene the Johor Agreement or
the Federation Agreement. Certainly, the relevant officiais at thetime (both
British and Johorean) did not think therea$ anything "procedurally irregular
and incorrect" about the way the disclaimer came to be issued. But, as
explainedin paragraphs 16 to 21 above, even if the procedures followed by the
Johor State Secretary were somehow inconsistent with the Johor Agreement or
the Federation Agreement, that would not in any way diminish the effect of the
1953 lettein international law and its significance as an admission that Johor
didnot have title to Pedra Branca.
23. The 1953 letter is clear evidence that Johor did not have title to Pedra
Branca. It was a solemn declaration by the highest official of the Johor
Govemment given to the Colonial Secretary of Singapore, after he had made
ample and ~tensi iqeuiries (he took three months to reply). He came to the
conclusion that"the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra
~lba rd.61.
2LeJ!erfromTurnerJ.D.(SecretarytotheBritishAdviser,Johor)tothe ColonialSGcretary,Singapore,
reccived on 18 June 1953 (MS Annex 95).
10
30-11-2007 13:26 99% P.15 --- 1
EMBRSSY OF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS NO.210 .. P.16
30.NOV.2007 12:00
Branca". It was not a one-off mistake as Malaysia now very belatedly alleges
without proof. This reply is consistent with ali that has gone on before and
after. It is consistent with Malaysia's inability to produce any evidence of a
transmitted original title. It is consistent with the complete absence of any
public assertion of sovereignty over Pedra Branca by Johor (and its successor,
Malaysia) before 1979. It is consistent with the fact that neither
Johor/Malaysia nor Britain/Singapore once mentioned any alleged
"permission" granted by Jobor during the 130-year period between 1847 and
1979. It is consistent with the series of official maps published by Malaysia
attributing Pedra Branca to Singapore, and with the many other acts on the part
of Malaysia recognizing Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca. Malaysia
cannat now attempt to disown the 1953 letter on the pretext of lack of authority
and capacity on the part of the State Secretary of Jobor.
ni umar Nayar
Co-Agent of the Republic of Singapore
11
99% P.16 30.NOV.2007 12:00
EMBRSSYOF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.17
Annex 1
FederationofMalaya Agreement,1948(Extracts)
(Source:CompleteDocumentsofCertain
AnnexesContainedinthe
MalaysianMemorial)
30-11-2007 13=27
99% P.17 30.NOV.2007 12:00
EMBASSY OF SINGAPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.18
THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA
A.GREE~fEN T948.
AGREEl!E~T DATED the twenty.first da.yof Jalluary,
1948, AND ).IADE BETWEEN Sm GERARD EDWARD
JAMES GENT, R.c.~.G o.so., o.B.E., :\t.c., ol;lehs.lf
of HIS MAJESTY and His Highness IBRA.Hn.! ibni
Almarhum Sultnn ABU B.-\K.'\.R, o.K., s.P.M.J., a.c.:d.o.,
~.B.E (J.1i1.G.B.E., G.c.o.c.·(1). Sul~o .En the State
and Territoey of JOHORE, His E:igb.Iless ABU BAKA.R
RI'Al:"ATU'D-DIN AL-MUADZAM SHAH ibni Alrna.rhum
ALM:U'TAS!M: BI'LLA.R ABDULLAH, x.c.M.a.,Sulta.nof
the Stata of :PAHANG, His Highnesa TU A~KU ABDUL
RAR~f.A Nbni Almo.rhum TUANKU MUHAMMAD, :K.c.ll.o.,
the Yang di-Pertu:m Beel!r, o.nd the Ruling Cbiefs of the
Territoriegwhiah form the Sta.te knowll as the NEGRI
SEMBILAN, His Higbness RISAMUDDIN ALAM SHAH ibni
A.lmarhum Sultan ALA-IDDIN SULAIMAN SHAH, x.c.::.~.a.,
Sultan of the Sta.te of SELANGOR, His Highness Paduka Sri
Sultan ABDUL A..ZIZ ALMU'TASIM BILLA.B. SHAH,
x.o.M.G.,lt.B.BSultan of the State of PERAK, His Righnesa
TUNKU BADLISHAR ibni Almarbum Sultan ABDUL H.AM.ID
HALIMSI!A:S:, x.c.M.a.,lt.B,ESultan of the Sta.te of KEDAH.
Hia Righness SYED PUTBA ibni Almarhu:ro SYED RA.SSAN
JAMALULLAIL, the Raja of P:ERLIS, Ria RighneR.a
TENGKU IBRAHIM ibni Almru:hum Sultan MOHAMED IV,
D.K., s.P.:M.lt.s.:J.M.X.c,'M.G.Sultan of the S~ate of
KELANTAN, and Ris Higbness Sul~ aSM.AIL ibni .Almarhum
Sulte.n ZA.INAL ABIDI:l.'i,c.M.G.,Sultan of the State of
TRENGGANU for Themsehes and Their Suo:cesSQrs:
W.REllEASithas been representetoRia Majesty the.t fresh
arrangements should be made for the peace, arder and gaod
government of the Malay States of Johore,Pahang, Negri
SembilB.J'.l, SelangoPerak, Kedah, :Perlis,Kelantan and
Trengganu, the Settlement ol Pennng and the Se.ttlement of
Malacca:
.AND WEŒREAB His Majesty in token of the friendahip He
beats towa.rds TheRighness the:sbjecta of TheHighnena~a.
and the inha'Pi ~fa:hnt sM'alayStates, is pleased ta
make fresh s.rrnngementa aaforesaJto takeeffecon suc.bday
as Hia Maje.!Jty may, bOrder in Council, appoint (hereinfl.fter
ca.Ued"th.è~app ~oain't'ed:
ANDWB'EREAS His Ma.jest:h!l.Sl!-Ccordiente:reinto a
fresb Agreement with each of Their Highnesses and in the csae
of Negri Sembilan witb Ris Highness the Yang di·:Pertue.n
Besar and the Rulillg Chiefs (which Agreements hereina.fter
referred to together as "the State Agreements")thepurpoee
of enau.rillg that power and jurisdiction shtùl be exercised b:y
Their severa.! Righnesses in their several States and it is in eacb
of such Agreements providedtba t shs.ll come in.to operation
on the appointed da.y:
30-11-2007 13=27 99%
P.18 30.NOV.20012:00 EMBASSOF SINGAPORIN BRUSSELS N0.210
P.19
53
StatOlSettlemenshtdlaGftQmths1l~poi dns.eede~med
to ha'Vebeen e:nterbyio-cmbenalattheFède:rGov~m
J:t;o:by oten behalf of G-overn mtht MahrrSta.ta
oreettl~ este osse sna.ybe.,..~~.eexte.l:tt:e~at
t"~a J.'ll.pet:tel.conti ~ntlmforCs}.~aff~asof
the FecleGo'V~t orth~G9'Ve~6 f;th~MalayBtll.tr>
or Setfïlement, a.s tJ;te l:nh,,b~etihe.co:nt~e~n~
parly.
'(2}Fçthe rel;O..t.clon tebRigqComPlissionrn
OouncllJ:ll.y Ord<9.eclare w'hem:Jparbioula.rOOZ!.ttnct
Πcla.&so~Qnt; reettd'11ll fiUb.c'(l} ot icla.u,lie
ahall bdé~Ir ~.;)b~lb!--f)llt i~~aby or on ®htlQff
t.heFedeŒGQvermn oltb;yŒ o;t beoftheGov~rnm ofnt
a :Mal ~tte Πaettlem~t.
l?.A:XlV.
M;rSOELLANEPUS.
m1!1ni.b~1le:&~a;y~.ersan f:tuthoh~lawrtomske an ll•~ItlLtIl\~1..\crn
a'f!hmafimateadoftali:ian oat.h :ir~iünnl\1 may
m~b oJa.fJir:z:ou.teeermsmstsadofthe âiŒth..
lj9.(1.)Any _pelwho--
(4) h"vmgb~n s,~~qi D.elceeds..IOCIO Cl~ny t11'1l.Ultetl
Cl)'\:elD.l&t.\eder thiAgreement, bufin11•noal~trn,
lps.$Jl;l ae ~entme cfIUlçappcJntm.(l:tr~"fll~,
e~tio u,lifitobe 8(appoint~èelect.shall
eiP1votè is~~ Couneil; or
(à) s'hallsit oÜlBUQh Cowcil a:fterhis r;ea.ttbe:rein
ha"b,ep~ açant or he habecoml)disqunllilecl
frol.ittior veting "thueip;;
k.nbw~ o,ha.vi~aapna} gple&dfÇJc:nqwitha.hews.s.
aïaquo.litiet'hhissaat hb~om, v~a~nt~s~e~at tey:
be.ahal.e liabfl~p~alt nottœl~cf tmog]+~ad QQllats
f-arevedayupon whiohha&osibΠ'fotes.
(2'l'I;id penaltJi.hbBlrecoverabyes.ctiinthe
SupreiiJ. o's,thesqitof.thAtto~ .Qy or tlta Lagnl
Ad:riaera~y Sta:l;e...
15(}. No C()uncilconatund~this.A~emt llal heV•c; nQ;tse{~
diiqu&li~m.d tb.~ranJ; ofçu;ieos)y~~~q ofn~.t~'.~'laqa.:l'IT)'.
~{l'I alD1~tn=)(f;)mbm, ana. yroo~e hi$D,sg1~1-
b~VMd ~otwi.ilh ta.t1t!QpUtomg.howas nQt rmtitled
aotdo ~1orwtsçl or otherwiuepiJiQ t~,élltO~eainSfJ.
lf$1. Fot a.void ofsounoi.ial:tarrie~ls b.aeBe~t'Oipe<:t.l~c
any law, Prodatq,arulo:regul1,1n.l UUDd&thl~~e- ;:r.11~sa,.
m~n tay be I!lade to Qeet"l-alilpoyafl.ydate. nlll1ll\~t~~s.
l5~-AU pe~o l)~hatso a(&inthe!l'S~de& ini;hfl1111ttl*t
sem~ .ot:F P.C~lGeorvnlan 'balsupj t~Jht texm.roc •~
Mla eou.diijotheiempi~:p e~heba~Œaparlially.
1~, {l~t asothet' p1osiein thi.Agro{u or:p'.&:t~tnr..~tpD
in anlawt.o.be made thereupft;<towto ·~t:J t}isP~~;~.r..tron
Âgl'Be'Jana ~·n. pl'VÏtiit~re. ~Db:~l:;e~l}}~A a-l'rV'~el.;"
e~e:tr Qits~tnbl~r.:et ~ldlili:~rJ.la.J&!iiitiQJled
~~-11-?~~7 13=27 99%
P.19 30.NOV.200712:01
EMBRSSYOF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.20
54
whoseQ.ccW s tQtlllllli~ t®~~(J,lt~co.nai~u.lfW.-on
or eftQitmysu~ :+9vlfOsha ~~hl'l loni~'h6l'erli~a
tc,th.A.grt.e;Jt~.P!;alQ~'b ~~JP~®d &bM !o.b~.~
~\\1 1~~ueai ;iaO.CJP-tt.
{2) The Interprf}~bun~n oball consist'qChièf
Justice if in. fca.~\-e~una.bl&acf;,Judga othe
Suprerne Cpurt to he a.byQblJ:s QP.a.:it,n~t-wo
othe.rMemhel'a,ane a.:Fpo bm h~:cl;iCo~uion~t
and onby Theimglme.nBethe :Rula~al;VlltBil OOCBISÎOD
.Rhau.is&, Thesatwoothe:Memb~ shalBit'b~rJudges
of thSuprmn C~urtÇJ:poia ~h~gualifte lal~qtu~ed
~w tl>bpo~e!i .esdJuàge theSQpré'm'ou',t!t.
(8)Ifa.nqueJ$tiinvol~ te mes:omgittte~~ation,
conetructiŒeffeoftanyaf tprQ.vi ~fthi.AgJ:~eemeut
shal~tû n.thcouraq:ap~pt'Oéleepia.Co'QltfCourt
fiha(lunl~;~ ~~chstçh~.Pll'tlvliLvbeen,decidbyl
thel~tapl'et 'a.1,o1S.beWl4hqne,tif.Q~e depieiOll
o.th" Interpl'eta.tiQnT.r:ibunalt.nd,.upon -reaeiptof ;suchdecision.
sh,.Ulptooeed to &termim~tthsblfoŒltm acoprd.anee
thetewitll.
(4~heae~on af9.tD,Jl,yftbInterpf:atlJ;Iribuntil
upoue~ questioref~nteQitUlld tiscla~~ ,t~!~~ll
daemetobe& decis i:the.'ln"blnd andeoiaiof tho
TriJ:nmlha.l~bWJ:"itgna&hal e J;l1lbeiitGr~~ett.~
~-qdll'cy ~ p~bdptQductiontheGt:UI6tf".
(5) Tbe BOo~lXLi;s w~pneha.sse~f',rh$gh
nesses the :R%Q&yü-Pm timtp ti!pm~e ~enà and
revokrule:r~gul ~btproc~r tlb~fo.Uo ;Ji~~ing
and determinin.gque1,1:t0ac~l~'ll$18:,
lM. Nothin~:ths !greeme:~IJa]lt'teepoierof
HisMaj~s :rtbe l:JnpPn.rl~ oemak~ls.ws:h;'omtime
to titelatito the de{enç~tern ailaof tbFeçlers..
tion, or shalRis.Ma.je'<Jsover~gadty.risdicinon
and over SefltlettleDtfl.
!ïovar~t ,5. &v~ asf!l~l: h~(eii}ssAgte'PlltXh~:,l'Ii
:,'rl,etatet helI!OY~t {llj.~l.iiyoiTah.tiW,~b n~te ses
~~,~- to'Rtùeanth~ sever~tates.
'b~11e~:qn 15&.::L'~l~ee~xnen'ali b~,;p-r. iesbseat_e
~t.;r cnlihandtheMalayls~ag betsfrpurpo t nterpreta:
tiore::rardshabadbonl;yto Euglish version.
IN W;r]2-"EfiS ·WSir Gerar;Edwa r$lles Gent,
x.c.M.G.,l).s.o., o.:n.E.,x.c.t>hB.I:r~ad !ieal
on bèha~lfsMnj~st n.;'.I',i~ness t~s:Rul ;rbve
nsmefi nnd the RCJ»cfshave here1?t~h~i:.r.~np.(h~
Se1lh.
Dona th2~t day oJanuary1948. corres.Jto theg
l()tda.of :Ra.lw41, 1367.
30-11-200713!28 99%
P.20 30.NOV.2007 12:01 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.21
Annex2
LetterfromStateSecretary,JohortoPresident,CityCouncil,Singapore
dated27 Nov 1952
30-11-2007 13=28
99% P.21 30.NOV.Z007 lZ:01
EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS NO.Zl0
P.ZZ
.....
'. ... •1
....
. ,.
STAT.ESECRE'l!.ARYJ'O 1 • SFFICE,
·jo:a;oRE,. " .
,.
··:r
."tj'•L..1
...
·.
t.
30-11-2007 13=29
99%
P.22 30.NOV.2007 12:02 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.23
Annex3
Letter from the Singapore Deputy Comm.issioner of Police to the
Chief Police Officer, Johor dated 2 July 1948
(Source: SCM Annex 30)
30-11-2007 13=29
99% P.23 At a M&~tt~n Qgtt:t~Jearenoe C~,it"f;o tit morning
1t \'lA4eo1ded to 1ç1)111a Ourtew QD the Jon pe St~1 t.
batween B1ngapore I~~~~ ~nd thema1nland, tQllqwtng thm
Johore-!f.1ngaporbound&ry J.ae t'rom ife.rmrang to th ft'te
o~ 81ngapore :t$l4ltola pQ1#t Nort;h ot al#.n ~rawn
1"1a'tweOhan~ P1ointand Penssarang. Ths Cru~r 1e1w!1Ulofo~Si.
2;, ~h1e w.U1 enabl•· ua. to t'ire on an3'QneŒŒ1ng at
n1ght ~d !'CU.Mf w11h to 1Japo1• a 1~1:r. aurtew on yaur
11de or th• Strait•.
3. Colonel Little, c.e. laval Base Pol1oe. bas ~de
enqulritll!a ae t\rihŒauqh a Qur.rew wouldat:teQ:tand ~e
ot the Oj1.1n19nthnt tt 'll~ lnls-a:r.teat ~w lt}oa:l :t,tehemen
uP4 t~•owne~• ot t1~1aB atakea. ~er~ 1• one ~xQapt1 on
t!"ltl1&(;Ons1~~x-a tr~e!'loup tqe Kota.TA.ngglr1vel:ATi
ni~:mo'to on.'t:s ""l.th J011nstp!l'nt~~ œ~.t.1l.a 1dJ
le~1t1mat ta!f1c at n1ght, yo"QMY ;,~~th~ l.eaveyttW'
aide {)tth•b.f)~d a.7n ~:tth1• po1t'lt sa$ to allow
tbi.s trntt'1G togo.1:hi'o~g Iq.~.ontbe ,otllehtt.ndt·•er~
1~ ,nopar~'-QU~ PfJa.I!toDRJ,lovth~l trro.t'ftQ move at
rU.ght.1t wuld be to our &dlt~a.t t;~k~ep Pen{!gnrangJJ'hut.
as we t'egal 1"~aR th" moet da:nfl'~ p~otuoa tho 'lihol&
boun.dAt'!r.
"· I waula 11elcomeyout"Ji"!!!l•aataotmr 8oheme a.s
early aa posa1ble.
s. Ac th• Na~al ~•e Pollce ~Q~&~ the Jqho~a Strs1te
b~~tt. tt.,-ae•se1~,-~~ PUlau Ub1n~mo~ Qdi~!ltta' •:a.,.ly,
have PQ;tlc plsta •'f'.rn.nJ1'nf:'Prmand Be)l'laneoonPolioff
Stat~c; n-h!nbPC!t• reMin Qp~t alt nlr~ ..
e~ '1'bn -ou tD'ryQur meman.l;routhe 11W.t on to.J' cr
Jo ore, bu1lding,fhColonel Bi.Cbàrd$on,G..c:1.0 !:11n~:r.n.pore
D1atr1ot,. 'f~lelndea~ul t" get t!IO IInn~h or the ArmY
to us• 1.tto e'!f ~:thP1fld'•ot th~ et~1tl. 4.rn1aw11l
nta.ke the J'obo~tern-on ook ltltt9n.!lOUJ"',.OOd'-ptr<1m~cre
l:n~~t "'1llJ!l,ve thpubl~o on 'bothaid;&$0~ thfJth~:~t:JQ~·t.l\i
the :realng ~hat aoiJlftthing t)~in gfQna.
30-11-2007 13:29 99% P.2430.NOV.2007 12:02 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.25
Annex4
LetterfromHarbomMaster,JohortoFishezyOfficer,Singapore
dated3 Sep 1949 & LetterfromAsstContl.'Olle rfSupplies,Johorto
Ag Depqty Director ofFisheries, Singaporedated15 Oct 1953
30-11-2007 13=29 99% P.25 30.NOV.2007 12:03 EMBASSO YFSINGAPORIE N BRUSSELS N0.210 ·--..P.26-
14Dl'1neD~pal~t:m ent,
'
J'OhOJ;~bx'Uj
,3r·l sà..:: 1949.en;'l:ll9l.1
'..:;!~.:s.•::t icc~;~.•,
:e:i~h• ;::,w!:J~~;r:-·t::r.em.t
3!:-:~t.;.~o.;~.:s.
-t•t':r('~•-.:J..i!'ial~&.:'!f:,._,
I ~!'. tlV~r:;llQloi ·,o;::;\i1.l,-':e:tlh.net,
;~ot,i~ t!'!&r~.·r.~.tl tozelietenat::i.el'{\Ctthe'site .
ol'J~~~~ 65,/.t. ·~'i Y'J~\U-a:.o1<la'hle\lue l!zy"'pr~"t~ ·e.n.ce~
'!.W:!i,;'f'H.:::t.~r::ee· lt:t~:'Jlo.:~;Stc\i"'aecl"•ï:>ta
l':!E!l~t":e-~r.: JJe\er..:J ot·'V.?ih x·~ec!i mceûlli!.'te
uh~ ~~rt;v'! rr'~'tm\.:;·n.
\
2. ;,~ :r tm.~.:, ·vh.clt•a';!!i'16l:! &f::;ï..'_~.l"
vi\-f"!;-t:-:~::~i:;ü w~1.7·1~1tt..;rol:'t th'!is.oon
3. ·.·:~·,.~.· :·~::tl1't;ta' ~".7 ->.J.eJ,'I,i;l:t'OS.O.hed
:·,'>.:~ in!t~··. .a·..:rIMt':t haye a~v~.!H lid tt't!IG.lce
:'_.J.'!... tc•..r''t':ln~::;>a' 'J.'at.nw~ste al:!thCJ.r,•.;:
U..>·<::tr,l.c.~a ~l,'.'J. 13;UttnJlJ:::~e \Va:terwhich
•~r·i-··~s.
l tm!,
. 3il,, '
Yc;l.l." clhuclicJ'lt !1l('.l::!'VEU'lt
'fJtt,~
.. ... .
~.D .~tc~w ChQ.l".6r~}
.il.l\:i(!!t\S!~'Ri.è~
. .rouo~~B.
".''\·..• :._. :,:i'.:.d.S!!~.p.it..::t,
..:~•!- .:~r'::.~,;,~·ttt.
• !t~;.:ï::ç•O:::'~,
j ;:~~j:.~
.
.
30-11-2007 13=30
98% P.26 EMBRSSY OF SINGAPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.27
<@-@
{'
i!tll{ l'l) lu .&OS(J)QOJŒ.flU52•
j
O:t.tice at tJte
Austs Coat~olle o~Smp~1aa,
Jollozte Bouth,Jobol"a ;BIIbN. 1
l-'tb Oatobel!, 1953· 1
1
1
Ml'·!b• Ab Xow, !
Al• :Da~Q MVreator ot Jl1anr1oa, 1 0
DepoJ'tant ot'001811tl'& Itldu&t'qr 1
m1r~.rœm·
Youl'lotte!' :Ratlfo.D.c.:t.(Pialt) o• lh46'~.5Yl!i0
l3th 1nat•a ~e:.r•·
1
2. . I can •••u:re 70u th~t •t no t~e ••u 1t ~~ed that 1·
wouldrm1'0oa1Ta 111otb•n 5 tettias..at :r1copel'•••t.•wb1obta!ab1i* 1
onrtll rotioa 11:the 8tew ot JohoN. Jlr. su:r4o414 d:Laoauathil 1
w1th •• •n4 I tol4 h1mtb•t •• ooul4 not mata ·~ oxôaptioa in th•
aaBe ot t'-•hel"'l8a• ·
J• I .a alaa aura tbat tba Johor• B•hl'ŒD11tr1ct ••~
~xaoutiv OChaittae did not •sree tc tbia beca~at .he~ tqow tbe~
lil..,.enotba :pow•rto do ao. · ·
Natu::!!lcritngcBoo.nl
]'.jatAr~cbi ofYieapoŒ
l Cam~i nic
$.ingcp179868
30-11-2007 13=30 99% P.27 t.JYIJ Ut-~1N~l:ifI-N1tRU)ELS<:E N0.210 P.28
AnnexS
ExtractsfromStateofJohoreAnnualReportfor 1949(writtenby
DatoWanIdris binIbrahim,ActingMentriBesar,Johore)
P.28
30-11-2007 13:30 99%...1 v c;,Jt.LC~..:> r:..I'IOH:::.ll'll:>Htl:l~U:ï:ïELSN N0.210 P.29
-r.,
··.
ANNUAL
REPORT
FOR
1 9 4 9
BY
DATOWAN IDRIS BIN IBR-AHIM,
-.AG.MENTRI BESAR,
J'OORE•
.P:rinted at the GovcPrinentDèpfr;e1:Jobere,
byMAAKOM B1NH.r,~'!S.IDSUPlmi!'iTENDEN'l',·
1950
30-11-2007 99% P.29 ...•V • tC.JJ.~.;:1 I:.I'IJ:lH::>ll'fl:>Htl:!I"<U:i:lELS N0.210 P.30
Ttthe:i~.a differeofolrln:ionbetween the Sultan
nnd theGe~er AdliseiitW$ agreedthatthe ownion o:r
'!:S~t~ Couneilshoube taken ancommuro~t tithd
Iil&"Oommis~io alen:with the views of tGeneral
Adviser.
J'ol'then also ag'lto~ve European Ju(lges, at\d
to a-ppoinEuropeano:ffi m~mabera oni~sExeeuth~e
Council1\[alaalul~Ul"'p ofani~wersto be treated
ontetm.s equ~ity E~;ropeoffi.cfll"ese11ot. the
Sta.t:fromthe 1VftJ..afn~$erv!ee anth<3bigjoint
d~Bl'"t Qtltet staits Settlemenand FedEWaterl
Malay States.Botl:Mala~nd E)nglim·~ officlaug~l
a,gEfortilil iteCourf:s.
Under the afQl•esnconstitutioll mita severn!
Co-qneiadmini.matiowas carrionby tho MlilMentri
Besa:ror Prime Miniwiththe~lay Statf;:)eët•est].ray
th~Q4V~r:Ql onfcfl$po~es nananumber ol!'other
Malay offlcials; pandcex.~cu 4itonbei11~:tubject
to thesc:ruti~nd apfJto.lftl\eG~@.' fdvU)erwho
was asslsted ;.·ar :irt~soffl~ lJ'ey~Leu~a~d
FinaneSal Advxs1:Oommi~one rs Landsand Mines,
'1\' ~RXJ~q~to !ndls?ol iW~.dén "oMi}'le,~in·
cipalMe.Qicl fficer,St~gri~ul tflléraalupen..
tendent oEducation,Chief Sul'veyora ChieEieci:.rl
cal Engineer.AUthese heads o:fdepa:1.aa4ifturn,
theil"assistants, Ella.nMa}&.y.The;rewereMalay
Treasorer .and a llAqdftoiboth with the Fina.:ncial
Ccfmmissi to.ân~ièthe:rn. The1wu~ Mal~y State
C!)'lllliÙ1'J.ou~ly Üit.itsMalay;DistrietOffice:rs,
Colle*t• of Lan:ae~~ Oe.stomOffl~ I~se.ctOlof
Police and so on.
The powe1:of:~.•e vathinegnten ~a~with the
Sultan a.dv'fey~ Exeetttive Councll, Land was held
:from thSultanin C9uncil.
'the effeet of tho M"QnionQrli~nOoqneil1946
creating the Malayan Union was abrogatethis old
Collstit byutino~c,orp t!~St.t&ttitsh~IV,(ahtyan
Unionalc;mthe çonstitutional lînes sm.a·uWhite
Pa;perj;sueèf1~46 b~ the British QQvemment. The
Senio:trExecutive Oton the Sf.ate 'WbetknQwnas
the Re&i9entCommisaioner,apen~~ the wo1·ldngout
of fuldets.ofthe newConstitutiaUthe formepoweJTS
invested in him.-Coumüland ofSta.tSOCJ.• ·etral•~r
This newCoustitlltional Sclteme aroused Jr.t-eatopposi
tio~ parlicularly l:!.tb..lV!~y wsho fol"n:Jedthe
trmt® MalanNati~ rruamsat}o.ndet thleadeï·ahip
of ~to 0rm bin Ja'af<t1i!n 1eomhtoah.~cheme and
to optain the cancellthereof~fthe British Govern
ment. 4~ a :resuat protracted neg:otiatbetween
represent oftieBvristitlernm.e1ttheHi.s'lu,esses
30-11-2007 13=31 99%
P.30 30.NOV.2007 12:04
EMERSSYOF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.31
61
theRulers@(( the Unite,M:a.ll.atia~ O;r,p:nisa.tion
a.new~fll :'foe~flonstitutiwas èlrab fe~eptre~
end of 1946, anpupli.Shfo-,: pttblie eomm.elililthereon.
This aew OonsW.tutionwstoincludethe~e.ati ofon
Federa-tiofMalayawith e~e hta.formmg Bllintegrtù
part oitwhile reta.inizurits own ùulividsovêre~and
ignstatua. , The quesofcitisensbip in t1è Federation
~nd w'hoQf'lille:JlQ;n-métouesnshoulb~@title~
thel-reto-w~ls\ol,n3d~thcte!lSid~ a:tieonndot
1946. 1 •• .:.
Durin ~he wholecourseof 1947 activ17or lr
aa:ratotathe h:Qnginin of.the new Constitwa~in
bandiap.dby the end Qf thyea;~lmatters in Johol.'e
Stater~lat hvrto were ®mpleted and l>eady th~
officjalchangea4min1tltr whth to, pla.eeon lat
F-ebruary1948 when the Fede;rat;.on of Ma.Jeya. wa.s
inaugured.
l;ti.Highne,sth~ S11lt®~~,s~ the Executioqe
.Authoriei'l;ller.directl:Yor thDouOfticainhia;~
:na.meA StateExecutivCo~;n eis~~d ru:lvisliis
Highness as Presideilltheexerci of~he eJtecutive
functïqn~.
The CoÙncllQfSta.tofWllich thMen~ :iaa:r, the
Chief MinistandSeniorE."':~ ~mtivo:t'ilSttfi..t~
the PresiO:entislegisl ~tlh'Vtin the 8tateTh~
Counclllil~~s.a.won al~qbjee oth~rtlum i'l"espect
of whiah tFederalLegisla OQu.nil~ power tp~s
law.
The State Seç:retal-yWhois a.ppobyt:a:a the
Sultan is the PJ;'Qffi~~nChru:gott~1AeflmiuistJ.·a
tian Qt the Qpvemment. lieads·St~ De.parbneuts
eincludi!Di~tr OifierEJnd.A,d.mi.n Ojfiersa:ive
direetly l'eBPonostheSU1.tSec'J.'efort'hepi'o~r-
CQ~co l~.4t:l?-tt~:1t.i~~'lq .~eilti·lfW ·t$~
There are sevan AdministrA;Distri4tthe Sta.te
nam~J :y :u.i·eludinT~lœk~ ).:Satu PahaSega:rnat.
:Kluan;, Mersinl{o~ Talri1tand ·PontianIn ~a.ch
distdct there is a District ~:nane.Admi~s~ative
Officm· who are as13istedeeveraAssistantD.iatl".iet
O:ffi.cers. The Pe'M'bulu Mu~eacin the.distdis
again~s~is byeh1assis~ anl~t~!ultiComroit ot~~
wbiclhe l·~ Chairma:n,CQll&iqs'the racl'esiding;
in the Mult:im. At tme~tï nfrth.ia Committee the
ra,ya.wil~t~n dnd ~11have tbe opportun.taven::..
t&.te their vie'·D~n .sri~ce s.bjeçtscoverm,w
v~Iou .spectein thX~porm -w.vb~ discu~ s<lA..
the.m01'im.po~ otes:whlcn~ed eodvenunenàtten~
tion ha:vebeen reported tpro~e athalitiea. .
0will8toill-hŒlth H.theSultan sailedE~land
on ~th M4Y~'19~. In lùs ahsencH. :a:the Tenku
Mablcota,J'obOfewas pt'oel'Res.rQtfJohore.
30-11-2007 13:31
99% P.31
Written response of Singapore to the question put to it by Judge Keith at the public sitting held on 23 November 2007