The Hague, Netherlands - Singapore has said it does not need to formally show that it owns Pedra Branca, a disputed island referred by Malaysia as Pulau Batu Puteh.
Queen‘s Counsel Ian Brownlie, a Foreign Counsel for Singapore, said Malaysia‘s suggestion "that a formal annexation was required, or that possession was not obtained, is the product of wishful thinking."
He said even third States did not protest to the British authorities‘ public activities on the island.
But Malaysia had said if Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore, then the Republic should have claimed it publicly.
Malaysia had questioned why Singapore did not print maps attributing the island to her.
One of the examples Singapore cited in showing that it exercised sovereignty over Pedra Branca was the foundation-laying ceremony of the Horsburgh Lighthouse in May 1850.
Mr Brownlie said Malaysia had been anxious to assert that the episode did not amount to a formal annexation.
But Mr Brownlie rebutted that "the ceremony was undeniably official. It was a governmental occasion and it was a Singapore occasion."
Another of Singapore‘s counsel, Professor Alain Pellet, supported Mr Brownlie‘s points by adding that Malaysia itself did not identify Pedra Branca in any of its documents.
Speaking in French, Professor Pellet said this showed how Malaysia did not think it owned Pedra Branca.
Professor Pellet also reiterated Singapore‘s standpoint that the British never asked for permission to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pedra Branca.
But the Malaysians insist that the British did.
A third counsel for Singapore, Rodman Bundy, started off his rebuttal by stating that Singapore‘s numerous and continuous activities on Pedra Branca are a clear display of sovereignty over the island.
He picked up on a Malaysian counsel‘s point last week that zero multiplied by any number would always result in zero.
Malaysia had said that if Singapore had no title over the island, whatever it did would still not result in the ownership of Pedra Branca.
Mr Bundy, however, rebutted: "The problem with this argument is that the situation we have here is not one of multiplication - zero times some number.
"It is a question of addition involving the fact that, while there is nothing on the Johor or Malaysia side of the equation, on Singapore‘s side there are the actions of the British Crown during the period 1847-1851 plus the numerous activities that Britain and Singapore carried out thereafter on the island - in other words, one plus much more than one."
Mr Bundy will resume his rebuttal to Malaysia‘s statements on Tuesday.
Source: www.channelnewsasia.com (20 November 2007)
