Isu tuntutan Pulau Batu Puteh @ Pedra Branca

Syd

Batu Puteh Dispute At ICJ Begins Nov 6

PUTRAJAYA, Nov 2 (Bernama) -- The International Court of Justice (ICJ)will hear the dispute between Malaysia and Singapore concerning thesovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, locatedin waters off Johor, starting November 6 in The Haque in theNetherlands.

The hearing will kick off with an opening address by both sides beforethe presentation of oral arguments by Singapore on the first day.

Singapore has been given four days (November 6-9) to wrap-up the firstround of the oral argument, while Malaysia will have its turn onNovember 13-16, according to a press release in the ICJ website.

This will be followed by the two-day second round of oral arguments bySingapore on November 19 and 20 and Malaysia on November 22 and 23.

The decision is expected to be delivered before June next year.

In 2003, the two countries jointly submitted to the ICJ the disputeconcerning sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and SouthLedge.

They notified the ICJ of the case through a special agreement signed byMalaysia and Singapore on February 6, 2003, in Putrajaya and enteredinto force on May 9, 2003.

The Malaysian delegation will be headed by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad,Ambassador at Large, who is also the Prime Minister's Adviser onForeign Affairs. He will be Malaysia's agent for the case while DatukNoor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands, willact as co-agent.

The Malaysian legal team will be headed by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

[ Last edited by  Syd at 27-5-2008 09:13 AM ]

Syd

Spotlight on Batu Puteh

With one territorial dispute resolved, Malaysia is gearing up to face another at the International Court of Justice. CAROLYN HONG looks at the Pulau Batu Puteh dispute.
                 
New Straits Times
January 2, 2003


IN hindsight, it should have been easy to foresee that the public reaction in Malaysia after the Sipadan/Ligitan victory would not have focused on Indonesia.

That would have been unseemly gloating, and besides, even the most triumphant victory quickly becomes stale news. The next challenge beckons, and it's Pulau Batu Puteh, the football-field-sized island off Johor, which is claimed by Singapore.

The only surprising thing, perhaps, was the speed with which the spotlight turned to Singapore and the intensity of it.

Singapore first laid claim to Pulau Batu Puteh around 1979, along with two adjacent rocky outcrops - Middle Rocks and South Ledge - which are so small that they are referred to as mere "marine features".

And again, in hindsight, all the fuss turned out to be a good thing. It pushed Singapore to finally commit to signing the Special Agreement to begin the process of bringing the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

The Special Agreement is necessary because neither Malaysia nor Singapore accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. It spells out the dispute, and provides a time frame for the various legal processes such as the submission of written pleadings.

After the Special Agreement is signed, it will have to be ratified by both Governments before being submitted to the ICJ at The Hague.

Singapore had inexplicably dragged its feet in responding with suitable dates for signing, to the bafflement of Wisma Putra which had made several requests.

Singapore's Foreign Minister Shunmugam Jayakumar has now proposed January, and it's up to Malaysia to accept.

If the Special Agreement is signed and submitted to the ICJ within the next few months, the case could be heard in three years.

The fluster over Pulau Batu Puteh is, of course, linked to Malaysia's Sipadan/Ligitan victory at the ICJ on Dec 17. That verdict was a reminder of unfinished business but more than that, it was seen as having a significant impact on this case.

The judgment is relevant but not necessarily in support of Singapore's position vis-a-vis Pulau Batu Puteh, called Pedra Branca by the Singaporeans. In fact, it does not significantly affect either party's legal position.

The ICJ decision was notable for its emphasis on "effectivites", which refers to the exercise of authority in the capacity of a sovereign on disputed territory. But this does not help Singapore's case.

In the judgment awarding Sipadan and Ligitan to Malaysia, the turning point was Malaysia's (and its predecessor's) administration of the islands for more than a century, without protest from any party.

Malaysia and its colonial ruler, Great Britain, had considered themselves sovereign over the islands, and behaved accordingly. They made laws, enforced them, and adjudicated disputes.

The authorities then never doubted that they had a legal title to the islands, dating back to the Sulu Sultanate. Indeed, it came as a bit of a shock to Malaysia when the ICJ found that the treaty evidence was too vague and unspecific to confer it a treaty-based title.

But in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh, the Sultan of Johor in 1844 allowed the British to construct and upkeep the Horsburgh lighthouse there, solely with permission.

(The island had been part of the Johor Riau-Lingga Sultanate since the early 16th century.) The lighthouse was completed in 1851, and is today maintained by Singapore's port authority, along with four other lighthouses. Another one of these four lighthouses is also on Malaysian territory - Pulau Pisang in the Straits of Malacca.

In 1824, the Sultan of Johor ceded Singapore and the surrounding 10 nautical miles to the East India Company. This did not include Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks or South Ledge.

Pulau Batu Puteh is a good 25 nautical miles from Singapore, and only 7.7 nautical miles from Johor.

Furthermore, the ICJ has clearly stated that the construction and operation of lighthouses and navigational aids are not normally considered as a manifestation of State authority, although they may be legally relevant in the case of very small islands.

After the lighthouse in 1851, the next major structures to be built were the communications tower in 1989 and helipad in 1992. These do not strengthen Singapore's case.

The ICJ, in the Sipadan/Ligitan judg-ment, made that clear when it disregarded all activity undertaken on the islands after the dispute had crystallised in 1969.

As for Pulau Batu Puteh, the critical date will be decided by the court but it is likely to be around 1979, when Malaysia published its continental shelf map showing the island as Malaysian. Singapore protested in 1980.

Furthermore, Malaysia had sent official protests each time major construction was undertaken by Singapore.

Both countries will, of course, have a large number of maps to back their case. But as in the Sipadan/Ligitan case, maps are not necessarily the strongest evidence.

Many of these maps would have been produced for specific purposes such as marine navigation and, as such, have limited legal value for territorial disputes. Besides, not all maps would have been accurately drawn.

Their legal value, says the ICJ, is that they constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case.

They cannot constitute a territorial title, that is "a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights". Only certain maps have such legal force; for instance, those annexed to official treaties.

And both countries will, of course, also have historical records.

Pulau Batu Puteh, tiny as it is, is sig-nificant for its strategic position, impact on the delimitation of territorial sea boun-daries and, most of all, for national pride.

This case can be expected to be more complex than the Sipadan/Ligitan matter which, by comparison, was an open-andshut case.

Wisma Putra has been working on this for more than a decade. The first bilateral negotiations were held in 1993, and the second in 1994. Both talks broke down. In 1995 and 1996, negotiations were held on the referral of the case to the ICJ.

In April 1998, the text of the Special Agreement was agreed upon. However, the Sipadan/Ligitan case came up first, and Pulau Batu Puteh went on the backburner.

Its time has now arrived. It's worth remembering that once the case has gone to the ICJ, there's no turning back.

Syd

Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Puteh?


Summary of all points on final day of argument for Singapore and Malaysia.


Singapore抯 final argument.

1) Pedra Branca was no man抯 land in 1847, when the British went there to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse. This meant that Malaysia抯 claim that it owned the island even before 1847 is untrue.

2) Malaysia has failed to produce any evidence to show that it owns the island.

3) British possessed Pedra Branca without permission from anyone.

4) Malaysia had claimed it gave Britain permission to construct the lighthouse on the island. But again, they had not shown any evidence to prove that.

5) In 1953, when Johor was a sovereign state under international law, the state secretary of Johor, writing in an official capacity, informed the Singapore government that 憈he Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca

Syd

Syd

Soal Jawab: Kita terlepas Batu Puteh kerana cuai

PELBAGAI reaksi diberikan banyak pihak selepas Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di The Hague, Belanda, memutuskan bahawa Singapura mempunyai hak kedaulatan terhadap Pulau Batu Puteh (Pedra Branca), manakala Malaysia berhak terhadap Batuan Tengah (Middle Rocks). Kedudukan Tubir Selatan (South Ledge) pula bergantung kepada persempadanan perairan negara yang menguasainya. Ada pihak melihat keputusan ICJ lebih menyebelahi Singapura dan merugikan Malaysia. Bagaimanapun, ada yang berpendapat negara tidak tewas sepenuhnya. Bagi menilai keputusan di ICJ secara menyeluruh, wartawan Berita Minggu, Ziauddin Sharuddin dan Rohaniza Idris, mendapatkan penjelasan pakar sejarah dari Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Prof Dr Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud, yang menganggotai pasukan Malaysia di The Hague dan penganalisis politik, Dr Ahmad Nidzammuddin Sulaiman, juga dari UKM.

Adakah keputusan ICJ berhubung hak kedaulatan Pulau Batu Puteh yang memihak kepada Singapura sudah dijangka berdasarkan bukti dan penghujahan?

Dalam kes Pulau Batu Puteh, saya sudah menjangka kita akan menghadapi masalah untuk mempertahankannya sejak awal lagi.

Pertama sekali kerana ialah kelemahan kita dari segi pentadbiran dan surat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri pada 1953. Dari segi sejarah, pulau itu dan pulau lain sebenarnya adalah milik Johor. Mahkamah memperakui hak itu bersandarkan Perjanjian 1819, Mac 1824, Perjanjian Ogos 1824, Perjanjian 1927 dan sebagainya.

Bagaimanapun pada 1953, kerajaan Johor apabila ditanya oleh pihak Singapura mengenai status pulau itu menjawab bahawa pulau itu bukan milik negeri itu. Ini yang menyebabkan mahkamah menjadikan surat itu sebagai hujah untuk mengesahkan bahawa Johor sudah menyerahkan hak kedaulatan pulau itu kepada Singapura.

Adakah penghakiman ini adalah keputusan sama menang atau hanya menguntungkan sebelah pihak?

Keputusan itu adalah sesuatu yang tidak dijangka. Boleh saya katakan bahawa keputusan itu sebagai 'Blessing in Disguise' (perkara baik yang pada awalnya tidak diketahui). Kita kehilangan Pulau Batu Puteh, tetapi menang di Batuan Tengah.

Ia membolehkan nelayan Johor menangkap ikan di kawasan sekitar pulau itu yang sebelum ini adalah kawasan non grata (tidak diterima atau dialu-alukan) kepada nelayan kita.

Apakah faktor penting dalam penghakiman ICJ?

Mahkamah mengiktiraf Pulau Batu Puteh dan semua pulau di sini sebagai milik Johor. Dalam kes Pulau Batu Puteh, kita kalah kerana kecuaian kerajaan Johor dulu yang membiarkan Singapura mengurus rumah api dan pulau itu.

Kemudian pada 1953, tanpa berfikir panjang, Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor mengesahkan kepada Singapura bahawa Pulau Batu Puteh bukan milik Johor. Pengesahan itu dibuat secara hitam putih.

Kecuaian ini menyebabkan kita kehilangan pulau itu. Pengajaran penting daripada penghakiman ini kepada setiap pihak ialah belajarlah daripada sejarah. Kita perlu berhati-hati apabila membuat keputusan agar generasi akan datang tidak menanggung kerugian penderitaan.

Siasat betul-betul asal-usul sesuatu perkara dan tidak membuat keputusan dalam keadaan tergesa-gesa.

Prof sebagai sebahagian anggota pasukan Malaysia. Bagaimana situasi di kalangan anggota pasukan selepas ICJ membuat keputusan?

Saya nampak semua anggota delegasi Malaysia gembira dengan keputusan itu. Sebab itu, saya katakan keputusan mahkamah adalah `Blessing in Disguise'.

Apakah kesan penghakiman kes ini terhadap pelbagai aspek membabitkan kedua-dua negara seperti persempadanan?

Seperti saya katakan, keputusan ini adalah kejayaan yang besar ertinya kepada kita. Singapura terpaksa mengakui bahawa kawasan yang dipertikaikan itu juga hak Malaysia. Nelayan kita bebas untuk menangkap ikan di kawasan itu. Dulu nelayan dihalang dan diugut, malah ditangkap.

Sekarang mahkamah membebaskan kepungan itu. Sudah tentu isu sempadan antara Malaysia dan Singapura berikutan keputusan itu akan dikaji oleh Jawatankuasa Teknikal kedua-dua kerajaan.

Adakah sebarang pulau atau wilayah lain yang berpotensi menimbulkan pertikaian hak kedaulatan antara Malaysia dan negara jiran pada masa depan?

Pertikaian di Kepulauan Spratly masih belum selesai. Saya percaya negara yang terbabit dalam pertikaian gugusan pulau ini akan menyelesaikannya secara damai melalui proses undang-undang dan tolak ansur demi kestabilan serantau dan kesejahteraan penduduk di rantau ini.

Apakah merujuk pertikaian membabitkan wilayah atau sempadan ke ICJ adalah suatu perkembangan yang positif atau sebaliknya dalam soal perhubungan antara Malaysia dan negara jiran?

Ini adalah suatu tindakan bijak oleh pemimpin kedua-dua negara untuk mengelakkan berlaku konfrontasi bersenjata yang boleh menjejaskan keselamatan serantau.

Akhir sekali, saya ingin mengucapkan syabas kepada pasukan Malaysia atas kejayaan di ICJ. Kita terlepas Pulau Batu Puteh, tetapi mendapat Batuan Tengah (Middle Rocks). Sesungguhnya keputusan itu suatu 'Blessing in Disguise'.

Syd

Apakah kesan penghakiman ICJ yang memberikan Pulau Batu Puteh kepada Singapura dan Batuan Tengah kepada Malaysia, manakala Tubir Selatan kepada negara yang memiliki perairannya kepada hubungan antara Malaysia dan Singapura?

Kesan hubungan antara dua negara adalah tidak ketara. Hubungan Malaysia dan Singapura selama ini pun selalu pasang surut. Ada masa panas dan ada masa sangat harmoni. Isu ini akan termasuk dalam pelbagai isu yang membuatkan hubungan pasang surut itu seperti isu bekalan air, Tabung Simpanan Pekerja (CPF), Jambatan Indah dan Tanjung Pagar.

Bagaimanapun, jika dilihat dari aspek persempadanan negara dan hak perairan, ia sudah tentu sedikit sebanyak kesan yang tidak memihak kepada Malaysia atau kita tidak begitu senang. Pulau Batu Puteh kini menjadi milik Singapura sepenuhnya.

Sempadan perairan keliling pulau itu juga menjadi milik republik itu. Jika membuat penambakan tanah, pulau sebesar dua padang bola boleh menjadi 20 padang bola dan sudah tentu boleh digunakan untuk pelbagai tujuan seperti pangkalan polis marin atau tentera dan sebagainya mengikut kehendak dan kepentingan mereka.

Benarkah keputusan itu adalah sama menang, sedangkan tumpuan utama dalam kes ini ialah Pulau Batu Puteh dan bukan dua pulau lain yang lebih kecil?

Pandangan sama menang dinyatakan oleh Menteri Luar, Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim. Saya fikir kenyataan diplomatik ini mudah difahami kerana beliau mengucapkannya sebagai Menteri Luar dan bukan sebagai Dr Rais Yatim.

Beliau memiliki tanggungjawab moral dan diplomatik serta mewakili rasmi negara ini vis a vis (berdepan secara langsung) rakan sejawat dari Singapura. Bagaimanapun, sudah tentu pandangan ini tidak dapat dikongsi sepenuhnya rakyat Malaysia. Sekurang-kurangnya dari sudut sentimennya.

Pada saya sama menang hanya berlaku jika Malaysia dan Singapura berebut pulau yang tidak menjadi milik mana-mana pihak. Apabila ada dua dan diagih, setiap pihak dapat satu, barulah dianggap sebagai sama menang, tetapi semua tahu bahawa pulau itu milik Malaysia (dulu Johor) dan semua dokumen lengkap, sejarah juga membuktikannya.

Malaysia tidak membuat tuntutan, tetapi berusaha mengekalkan haknya. Singapura kemudian membuat 'tuntutan

teky

ermmm...mmg senang sgt kesimpulan nyer kiter xdpt batu puteh sebab kiya alpa n bebal..samer la skrg neh yg berlaku kat johor....pasal isu milikan tanah......mmg byak foreign direct investment kat Iskandar Malaysia tapi tanah situ byak dijual kepada org kaya singapore......

kalo korg pk nanti biler mesia da padat mcm maner kiter nak tuntut tanah kiter sendiri.......yg bersepah n kosong adlah tnah org singapore......bukan sentimen tapi ini yg berlaku......samer gak kat terengganu.....

krajaan patut buat satu enakmen ker undang2 baru pasal jual beli hartanah pada org  bukan malaysia....sebab xnak nanti kiter mengemis di tanah sendiri....

narvmarishka

suma salah org melayu yg nak kaya cepat...last2 meyesal tapi terlambat...

narvmarishka

Sejarah telah menjadikan semua ini berlaku....:re:

rempo

Selamat Tinggal Pulau Batu Putih
Nama rasminya sekarang Pedra Branca ikut sebutan penjajah portugis yg juga bermaksud batu putih(direct translation drp nama asal dlm bahasa melayu sebenarnya)

anaktoyol

'Bagaimanapun pada 1953, kerajaan Johor apabila ditanya oleh pihak Singapura mengenai status pulau itu menjawab bahawa pulau itu bukan milik negeri itu. Ini yang menyebabkan mahkamah menjadikan surat itu sebagai hujah untuk mengesahkan bahawa Johor sudah menyerahkan hak kedaulatan pulau itu kepada Singapura.'

Aku nak tahu sgt siapa org2 ni...

Syd

mahu ke orang nak dedahkan sape mamat yang ckp mcm tu?

z3t_ex

Kemudian pada 1953, tanpa berfikir panjang, Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor

org johor,tlg tgk sape Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Johor pd tahun 1983

musti anak