PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTIH: Conflicts and Resolutions

By: Liyana Zahim

The word ‘Pedra Branca’ means ‘white rock’ in Portuguese and refers to whitish guano (bird dropping) deposited on the rock. This name is used by both the English-language and Malay-language press in Singapore. Malaysia formerly referred to the island as Pulau Batu Putih.

There are two maritime features near Pedra Branca. Middle Rocks and South Ledges, under the sovereignty of Malaysia; consist of two clusters of small rocks about 250 metres (820 ft) apart situated 0.6 nautical miles (1.1 km; 0.7 mi) south of the island. They stand 0.6 metres (2.0 ft) to 1.2 metres (3.9 ft) permanently above water. South Ledge, on the other hand, is a rock formation visible only at low-tide. It is 2.2 nautical miles (4.1 km; 2.5 mi) to the south-south-west of Pedra Branca.

HISTORY

In 1582, Pedra Branca was within the Johore Sultanate under Sultan Riayat Shah II. During the mid of 17th century, the Dutch Governor of Malacca had written a letter to the Dutch East India company to ask them to send two boats to the Straits of Singapore to sail to the south Singapore Straits under the Hook of Barbukit and the surrounding area of Pedra Branca in order to stop Chinese traders from entering Johore River.

On 1851, Horsburgh Lighthouse had been constructed by the East India Company with the Permission of Johore Sultanate. The approval had been given by the Sultan and Temenggong on 25 November 1844.

10 May 1847, the Government of India asked Governor Butterworth to take measures for the construction of the lighthouse. There is no evidence that the authorities in Singapore thought it necessary or desirable to inform the Johor authorities of the decision about the sitting of the lighthouse or to seek any consent for its construction.

DISPUTES: By Malaysia

On 13 November 2007, Malaysia has started its first argument at ICJ (International Court of Justice) regarding the claim of Singapore to get sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh. The disputation was said by Malaysia agent, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad at The Hague, Netherlands. According to him, Singapore is only allowed to operate the Horsburgh Lighthouse at the island with the permission of Johore State. Singapore could do the activity at the island as same as Great Britain did before: With the Johore Permission.

Just because they have some activity over the Hosrburgh Lighthouse, then they just easily say that the island is under their sovereignty. Singapore also claims that Pedra Branca is terra nullius which is means no man’s land when British built Horsburgh Lighthouse there.

Of course it becomes a big matter when Singapore urges Malaysia to give sovereignty over the island. They are just ignoring the treaty that has been made since 150 years during the British reign. Singapore’s claim as well has disregarded Federal Treaty in 1824 (Anglo-Dutch Treaty) between Britain and Dutch.

Pedra Branca was a part of Johore Sultanate. When Anglo-Dutch Treaty has divided the Johore Sultanate, it was still becoming a part of Johore Sultanate, not Riau-Lingga.

DISPUTES: By Singapore

On 6 November 2007, before Malaysia made their disputes over the Pedra Branca at The Hague, Singapore has made their disputes there. Singapore’s agent, Tommy Koh has given a few documents in form of map, pictures and recorded voice to support their claim upon of Pedra Branca, South Ledge and Middle Rock.

In his claims, Tommy Koh said that Singapore already has their sovereignty over the island since 150 hundreds years ago without any objection from Malaysia. He also emphasized on the action of Malaysia towards the island. He said, Malaysia just keeps silent whenever Singapore doing any activity at the island since the construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse in 1947 and even after four years they finished the construction. Other refutation was, pertaining to the letter of Deputy Secretary of Johore in 1953. According to the letter, Johore did not mention that they ever make any claim on Pedra Branca which administered by Singapore at that time.

Since Malaysia was just keep soundless upon Pedra Branca, then Singapore has just considered they really do not have any right to claim that Pedra Branca is actually under their sovereignty. Malaysia also did not ever raise their voice when the republic wanted to build landing helicopter site in 1992 and the other project which was radar house in 1989. Singapore wanted to control over the pirate’s activities at Singapore Strait and they never asked permission from other countries including Malaysia.

The Singapore’s agent has also reminded about the historical background of the Horsburgh Lighthouse construction while showing the pictures of Pedra Branca. Among the pictures, there’s old picture of the island before the construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse. The republic also has argued about the name of ‘Pulau Batu Putih’ that only has been heard after Malaysia claimed that the island is belonged to them since 1979.

After Tommy Koh finishes his argument, the second representative who is the State Lawyer, Chao Hick Tin has compared about the Malaysia’s concern during Singapore in charge over the lighthouse at Pulau Pisang. In the case of Pulau Pisang, Malaysia has given their official grant of the island but it was not happened for Pulau Batu Putih.

Chao Hick Tin also has mentioned about the disagreement and protest of Malaysia when Singapore waving their flag at the island (Pulau Pisang). Yet, in the case of Pedra Branca, Malaysia never did so. They just let Singapore put their flag there.

ICJ has listened the press recording between the two Prime Ministers of the countries on 13 May 1980. The 3 minutes recording was only discussing about the status of Pedra Branca.

WHO INVOLVED IN SOLVING THE DISPUTES

The case of Pedra Branca was handled by ICJ (International Court of Justice) which is located at The Hague, Netherlands. There are 16 member of the ICJ. They are; Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Parra-Aranguren, Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Judges ad hoc Dugard, Sreenivasa Rao, Registrar Couvreur (judges if ICJ).There are 33 representatives of Malaysia who were involved in this case but people might only know about a few of them such as Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar (Malaysia Foreign Affair Minister), Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (Malaysia General-Attorney). The first person is Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad (Ambassador-at-large Ministry of Foreign Affairs Malaysia and the Advisor for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister). He was starting the first verbal contention at ICJ in front of the 16 members of the court.

There are the others speaking team of Malaysia:

Dato’ Noor Farida Ariffin, Ambassador of Malaysia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

2. Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, C.B.E., Q.C, Honorary Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, member of the Institute de droit international, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

3. Mr. James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, member of the Institute de droit international.

4. Mr. Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Professor of Public International Law, Leiden University, associate member of the Institute de droit international.

5. Mr. Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, associate member of the Institute de droit international.

6. Ms. Penelope Nevill, college lecturer, Downing College, University of Cambridge.

7. Datuk Azailiza Mohd Ahad, Head of International Affairs Division, Chambers of the Attorney-General of Malaysia.

8. Datin Almalena Sharmila Johan Thambu, Deputy Head 1, International Affairs Division, Chambers of the Attorney-General of Malaysia.

9. Ms Suraya Harun, Senior Federal Counsel, International Affairs Division, Chambers of the Attorney-General of Malaysia.

10. Mr. Mohd Normusni Mustapa Albakri, Federal Counsel, International Affairs Division, Chambers of the Attorney-General of Malaysia.

11. Mr. Faezul Adzra Tan Sri Gani Patail, Federal Counsel, International Affairs Division, Chambers of the Attorney-General of Malaysia.

12. Ms Michelle Bradfield, Research Fellow, Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, Solicitor (Australia).

13. Dato’ Hamsan bin Saringat, Director, State Economic Planning Unit, Johor State,

14. Mr. Abd. Rahim Hussin, Under-Secretary, Maritime Security Policy Division, National Security Council, Department of the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Singapore agents are; Tommy Koh who is Ambassador-at-large. He was the one who defending that Pedra Branca is under Singapore’s sovereignty. Another two persons are Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar and Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.

I wonder why the 33 representative still could not be able to defend Pulau Batu Puteh? They are not common people. They are professional persons who are having their special achievement. People might say that it was pretty useless for Malaysia’s Government to hire them in the case of Pedra Branca but at the long last we lost in the dispute. Supposedly we could win because we got the best to defend and fight this but we have failed to protect Pedra Branca status by the 1953 letter.

Everybody already knew before the crisis of Pedra Branca, there’s no one wants to care about the Middle Rocks and South Ledge. So, should we feel proud to have the two small islands? Like our Foreign Minister, Dato’ Seri Rais Yatim said, the ICJ’s decision was a victory for Malaysia and Singapore. This statement maybe just wants to put some peaceful thinking for Malaysians that actually have lost. Someone ever told me, it’s better to lose in war rather than lose at the discussion desk or ideology. Our pride and dignity is the most important thing but what I can see in the case of Pedra Branca, Malaysia is kind of weak even they have sent the 33 prominent personalities.

The question is, are they weak because they could not manage to reach the victory in the case or they are becoming weak because Singapore has the stronger evidences to proof that Pedra Branca is theirs? Everybody got their own opinions on this question.

After long crisis between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Putih (Malaysia’s name) and Pedra Branca (Singapore’s name), at the long last the ICJ has just decided to give the sovereignty to Singapore and officially the island has been owned by the republic state. Malaysia is given the other island nearby: South Ledge and Middle Rocks.

After reviewing many articles, I start to give some contemplation regarding this case. Personally, what can I say about the disputes and resolutions of the ICJ are not bias. In my opinion, Singapore deserves the island. According to their contention and proofs, Pedra Branca is really under their sovereignty because any conduct at the island is basically run by the republic state. Malaysia only remains silent with their activity at the island. They never object when Singapore did other projects at the island.

Of course, Singapore will defend their right when Malaysia proposing their claim that Pedra Branca is belonged to them. We are actually kind of weak in protecting and proving our arguments towards the island.

Since the establishment of the Horsburgh Lighthouse, Malaysia just easily allows others to do any activity at the island but we never take any effort to show to others that we really possess Pedra Branca. And actually Johore authorities and their successor never took any action at all on Pedra Branca since June 1850.

If you are adopting a child, taking care of him/her until he/she grows up and for sure the kid is not your real child but when the parents of the child suddenly come to you and ask about the right of the custody towards the child, the court will decide that you have the fully right over the kid if you really have proofs that you have adopted him/her since he/she was a baby. His/her actual parents will not get their right when you come out with severe and reasonable reasons. Just like in the case of Pedra Branca, historically it was under Johore Sultanate and geographically in map it is in Malaysia’s territory, yet we did not take any action and keep letting anybody to control over it, the consequences will result like this. We lost our ‘thing’!

Just like the independence of our country. If we just live in our country without giving precious contribution, it is not possible others will take advantage to us because it shows the weakness of ourselves in showing our sense of patriotism. That is why we need to have efforts to maintain our stability and status of independence.

Again from my opinion, the issue of Pedra Branca is not really a big issue for us. Some have said that it is a big issue because when the sovereignty is taken by the Singapore, our fishermen will get the tougher obstacle when they want to navigate at the area. Nevertheless, it is not really a big issue as well. What we need to focus is about other issues which are more serious than Pedra Branca’s issue. Let say, currently we have an economic deterioration crisis. It is far serious compared to the case of Pedra Branca. Let us just bear in mind that, Pedra Branca has nothing to be raised as a complicated matter of our country. What Malaysians have to aware is improving and maintaining their efforts in order to reach the aspirations and objectives of Wawasan 2020............