The Hague - Singapore hammered home the point of how it consistently carried out activities and maintained public works on Pedra Branca since the 1800s till today.
The island-state argued that this is a clear display of a state authority exercising its sovereignty over the island.
These were the points made by Singapore`s International Counsel Rodman Bundy, when he began the third day of hearing on Thursday at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
His points were backed by two other International Counsel representing Singapore, who also spoke on Thursday.
The aim of the three-week hearing at the ICJ is to settle a dispute between Singapore and Malaysia over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca and its outcrops of Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Mr Bundy said Singapore built facilities like crew quarters at the Horsborough lighthouse, and in 1977 even installed military communications equipment on Pedra Branca.
He said Malaysia never displayed any reaction to all these works being done on the island.
Mr Bundy said, "… the activities that I have discussed were long-standing and continuous, they were undertaken on an open and notorious basis, they were acts of an official nature not private acts, and they went totally unopposed by Malaysia at least until well after Malaysia raised a claim to the island in 1979."
He also cited how in 1974, Malaysian officials actually sought permission from Singapore to visit Pedra Branca to carry out some scientific studies.
Mr Bundy said this attested to Singapore acting in a sovereign capacity for Pedra Branca.
Singapore`s government officials such as ministers also made visits to the island without seeking permission to do so because they did not have to. And Malaysia never once protested this.
Mr Bundy added, "The evidence on the record relates to concrete activities on the ground, not woolly and generalised assertions of alleged jurisdiction over undefined areas. They leave no doubt as to which party considered itself to be sovereign over Pedra Branca and acted as such."
Speaking in French, Professor Alain Pellet also cited more evidence to support Mr Bundy`s arguments.
He pointed out that Malaysia`s non-objection and own actions had in fact showed that they were convinced then that Singapore had sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
Professor Alain Pellet said Malaysia also did not react when in 1977, "Singapore installed heavy-duty military communications equipment on the island. This is a superb example of state activity, which required a military helicopter, which could not remained unnoticed, not only at the time of the construction itself, but also after the installation of the relay station, for purposes of its maintenance. This silence is even more significant given the station was built two years before the publication of the 1979 map."
He cited an example in 1980, when Malaysia sent a note to Singapore requesting for approval to lay a power cable between Indonesia and Malaysia in the territorial waters of Singapore. That territorial waters was that of Pedra Branca, he added.
So Singapore has over the course of some 160 years carried out sovereign activities on Pedra Branca confirming its title of the island.
And this is a clear contrast to Malaysia who cannot seem to point to a single act of administration and control over the island.
Malaysia`s failure to do so represents a fundamental defect in its case to claim sovereignty over Pedra Branca, argued Miss Loretta Malintoppi, another foreign counsel for Singapore.
Miss Malintoppi said based on all the facts, the conclusion must be that Pedra Branca is and has been subject to the territorial sovereignty of Singapore.
She said, "The fragmented and vague activities that Malaysia adduces to support its claim are so remarkably thin and unpersuasive that they do not rise to the level of effectivites (French word for activities) on Pedra Branca, and cannot, a fortiori, be confirmatory of any title to the island."
In the territorial dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia, the ICJ awarded the Sipidan and Ligitan islands to Malaysia in 2002 on the basis of "effective occupation" displayed by Malaysia predecessor Britain and the absence of any other superior title. So Singapore is using the same arguments to show that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
One of the arguments that had won Malaysia the case was that it had sovereignty over the islands because it had conducted activities there and administered them.
Mr Bundy argued then that this "applies with even greater force in the present case where Singapore has shown both a prior legal title stemming from the activities of Great Britain in the period of 1847-1851, and sovereign acts in confirmation of that title that are far more intensive than the scattered examples" of activities shown by Malaysia in the earlier case.
But Malaysia seems to disagree on this argument by Singapore, prompting Mr Bundy to say that "consistency appears to have its limits for Malaysia when territorial questions are at issue."
Another issue raised in court - Singapore operates and maintains a lighthouse on Pulau Pisang on behalf of Malaysia.
Until 1968, Mr Bundy said Singapore flew her Marine Ensign over the lighthouse on Pulau Pisang. But when Malaysia protested and asked that Singapore lower her flag on the island, she did so, knowing that the island unquestionably belongs to Malaysia.
Mr Bundy said "what is significant is that Malaysia made no similar request concerning the identical ensign that Singapore flew at Pedra Branca. There was not even a hint of a suggestion from Malaysia at the time that Singapore should lower the flag at Pedra Branca as well because the island belonged to Malaysia."
So it goes to show that Malaysia`s "inconsistent attitude is that it did not regard itself as possessing sovereignty over Pedra Branca."
On Friday, the three speakers will continue to defend Singapore`s ownership of the island and its outcrops.
After that, Singapore`s Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister S. Jayakumar will sum up the first round of the nation`s oral presentation.
A panel of 16 judges will deliberate at the close of the hearing, and a decision will be made by a majority vote.
The judgement, which is final and without appeal, will be read out in court. The outcome of this case is expected to be announced in about six to nine months.
Source: www.channelnewsasia.com (9 November 2007)
