I don’t think the 2 photos from the previous post are really doctored, but they are indeed taken with cameras of different F-stop. I am not really a photography person, but this is what I can do with my Sony T9 camera:

This is the “normal view” that we see usually.

And this simulates a camera with a different F-stop. I’m not sure if it’s higher or lower. Haha… sorry, very unprofessional ya? But that’s about all that I can do. The first picture makes the 2 objects look very far apart, but the second one makes them look very close together - and the objects are not moved.

So if you look at this:

And this:

It’s probably the same effects as what I was trying to achieve - by playing with the F-stop; so there really isn’t really any doctored photos. Yet. =)

I’m not quite sure what kind of chaos my previous entry generated, but I suspected that the blogger of http://www.leuchtturm3.blogspot.com/ could have been badly flamed, judging from his last entry:

Dear Fellow Bloggers,
I am surprised that my blog has seen harsh and four letter word comments from some bloggers. And the problem is that I don’t really know which part of my blog has resulted in these comments. If any of you think that my blog is offending , please be specific in your comments on parts which you think is offending. Please do not use four letter words in the comment section as my younger sibling, who is 11 years old, also visits my blog and these words are not appropriate for her.

By the way, I have to admit that I do not know well the region where Singapore and Malaysia are located. Maybe some of the bloggers would want to educate me a little of the region and its people. I am always thrilled to meet new friends from all parts of the world and to learn their culture and history. Maybe someday when I have enough money, I can visit Singapore and Malaysia.

I would appreciate positive, constructive and civil comments from all of you out there.

Leuchtturm3

Really, the only thing questionable were:

• the first post of just a picture of Pedra Branca
• the now not so recent post of “Pulau Batu Puteh Lighthouse”
• plagiarism from wikipedia (which really isn’t so bad… yet)
• changing the name from Cape May Lighthouse to Pulau Batu Puteh but forgetting to change the hyperlink (that’s how I knew it was Cape May Lighthouse)
• the timing of the blog, which started just before the court hearing

Actually, it could all jolly well be a coincidence. It could be… bad timing. The blogger could jolly well be an innocent party in this entire event; which reminded me of this Just-for-Laughs snippet where the cashier (one of the actors) took out the cash till and handed over to an unsuspecting customer and when the latter turns around, there was a policeman (an actor too) and when the customer turns around to face the cashier, the cashier’s hands were raised as if he was being robbed.

So the blogger (Leuchtturm3) could jolly well be the customer, the policeman could be the courts and the cashier… erm… better not say.

However, if the blogger’s sister really read the comments, then I would really feel bad. Nonetheless, despite all these “harsh and four letter word comments from some bloggers”, I am quite surprised at his composure. I think this is something that I should learn from him.

By the way, have you seen:

• http://leuchtturm3.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-have-been-interested-in-lighthouses.html#comments; and
• http://www.blogger.com/profile/09585189645991820549; and
• http://pulaubatuputeh.blogspot.com/?

Hmm… come to think of it, how many people knows that Pedra Branca is also known as Pulau Batu Puteh? Or am I a frog in a well?

This was originally a long and tedious post because there are quite a fair bit of details, but I have since separated the chain of events into smaller manageably posts, from which, some absurd points of the case are highlighted.

To cut a long story short, Temasek had some indirect stakes (via Singtel, ST Telemedia and others) in the mobile telcos in Indonesia. This deal was apparently carried out with the approval of the Indonesian government. However, for some reasons, the Indonesian competition watchdog, KPPU, has now decided that Temasek has now broken anti-competitive laws and is ordered to sell of its stakes in the telco and to pay fines of $3.88 million.

However, this sparked off a whole range of arguments which basically centered around the laws, which seemed to create an uncertainty of the safety of the money that foreign investors have put in. Indirectly, foreign investors now fear that they cannot expect fair treatment from Indonesian government agencies and the judicial.

In simple English, the laws that the Indonesian government comes up with must be easily understood by foreign investors so that any money that they invest with the country will not be in the danger of being lost - especially when they are forced to sell off whatever stakes they have in the local firms that they have invested in - should the same verdict be past on to them. This potentially devalues whatever shares they may have since the sale is no longer strategic but involuntarily enforced.

What made the entire episode absurd was that Temasek was apparently invited to buy shares in Indosat in 2002 but is now accused of holding a monopoly, and through KPPU’s ruling, business competition in Indonesia are not only not maintained, but entirely killed. Indonesian business owners have also denounced the verdict, and is joined by the Jarkarta Post in criticising KPPU for its decision.

JAKARTA - THE Indonesian competition watchdog’s verdict that Temasek Holdings’ stakes in the country’s two largest mobile telcos broke anti-monopoly laws has been branded a ‘death knell’ for foreign investment.

Business-oriented Indonesian NGOs joined forces with the Federation of State Enterprises Employees Union to level the charge, adding that the ruling robs investors of the certainty that any money they put into the country is safe.

At the same time, a former watchdog member said the verdict had ‘killed competition’.

Indonesian presidential spokesman Dino Pati Djalal yesterday told The Straits Times that he hoped the ruling would not affect continuing Singaporean investment in his country.

But foreign investors now fear that they cannot expect fair treatment from Indonesian government agencies and the judiciary.

Reacting to the KPPU verdict, Mr Peter Fanning, chairman of the International Business Chamber in Jakarta, said investors expect competition to be regulated ‘under rules which are easily understood, and which are applied consistently and impartially’.

He added: ‘That fairness must include its treatment of foreign investors.’

Otherwise, he said, investors would not be able to act with the confidence that their commitments will be honoured and protected.

Also yesterday, economist Pande Raja Silalahi said the verdict appeared strange because ‘the KPPU’s function is to maintain business competition, but through its decision it has killed competition’.

‘I can’t see what the reason is for any of its decisions against Temasek,’ said Dr Pande, a senior economist at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and a KPPU commissioner until January.

Meanwhile, three non-governmental organisations yesterday held a joint press conference denouncing the verdict.

They were the Indonesia Development Monitoring Group, the Business Competition Monitoring Group and the Federation of State Enterprises Employees Union.

The union had triggered the original investigation by lodging a complaint against Temasek in October last year, but later reversed its stance after realising it was ‘being made use of’ by ‘certain parties’ against the Singapore company.

Yesterday, a spokesman for the trio said the verdict was a ‘death knell’ for foreign investment.

‘There is no legal certainty for investment. Temasek was invited to buy shares in Indosat some years ago but is now being accused of holding a monopoly,’ Mr Habiburrahman said.

The Jakarta Post also joined in the chorus of criticism of the KPPU yesterday.

In an editorial, the paper said the ‘questionable’ ruling has just added ‘more evidence of the legal uncertainty that has kept most foreign investors away from Indonesia’.

salim@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 21st November 2007

Temasek has claimed that the Indonesian panel’s arguments are “fatally flawed” and that it will seek international redress if necessary. Somehow, I smell another International Court case in the making.

Singapore had been bogged down recently with a lot of claims from its neighbours - claim of Pedra Branca by Malaysia, claim of corruption in the Shin deal from Thailand and now claim of anti-competitiveness from Indonesia. Who’s next? Philippines?

I had always thought that Singapore is good with her PR and all, it’s no wonder that we need compulsory national service and reservists to return for 10 cycles (or more if they recycle!).

TEMASEK Holdings said yesterday it will go all the way to international arbitration, if need be, to contest a verdict that it broke Indonesia’s anti-monopoly laws.

The Singapore investment company, which is under fire for its indirect stakes in Indonesia’s top two telcos, said the country’s competition watchdog, KPPU, has produced no real evidence to back its claim, only ‘fatally flawed’ arguments.

Temasek also said the KPPU has to explain why it is blatantly contradicting previous rulings by the Indonesian government on exactly those issues it is now finding fault with, when nothing has changed since the government approved the investments.

‘We know we are right and we will fight all the way,’ said Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, whom Temasek has engaged to help fight the case.

‘Temasek is entitled to take this matter further under international law and reserves the right to do so,’ he told a press conference.

Temasek is linked to Telkomsel and Indosat via minority stakes held by its subsidiaries - SingTel and ST Telemedia.

The KPPU on Monday ruled that the Singapore company used its control over the two telcos to fix prices in the country’s mobile-phone market at the expense of consumers.

It has ordered Temasek to sell off at least one of these holdings within the next two years.

The next step for Temasek is to fight the ruling in Indonesia’s courts. It will have 14 days to appeal to Jakarta’s district court after the KPPU puts up the full judgment on its website.

A decision will be reached within the next 30 days, after which the losing party can file an appeal with the Supreme Court, which will also have 30 days to make its ruling.

Temasek’s Indonesian lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis said all this will be completed by the middle of next year at the latest.

Should these efforts prove unsuccessful, Temasek will seek international redress, a process that can take one to three years.

Mr Singh said that while arbitration will not overturn the Indonesian court’s rulings, Temasek can get compensation.

Calling it a matter of ‘common sense’, Temasek executive director Simon Israel said the KPPU’s findings were illogical.

‘The entire case is based on the premise that Temasek has majority shares in both Telkomsel and Indosat,’ said Mr Israel.

‘The fact is, we have no shares in either company and the KPPU has produced no evidence to support this allegation.

‘We do not direct or control the investment and operational decisions of ST Telemedia or SingTel, much less those of Indosat and Telkomsel.’

He stressed: ‘These companies are directed by their own independent boards of directors and management.’

Mr Singh pointed out that the issues raised by the KPPU had been debated four years ago when the Indonesian government was mulling over ST Telemedia’s investment in the country.

Coming a year after SingTel bought its stake in Telkomsel, the government approved the Indosat deal, with blessings from the KPPU.

‘The facts have not changed, so how could KPPU ignore those findings and reach the current conclusion?’ said Mr Singh.

Mr Todung said Temasek did not receive due process in the investigation.

‘Statements were made about Temasek’s guilt even before it had the chance to present its case…Temasek was not given the opportunity to cross-examine any of the so-called ‘evidence’ used against it,’ he said.

He added that Temasek was given barely a day to file its defence.

bryanlee@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 21st November 2007

Is there political agenda behind the Indonesian KPPU decision? Apparently Temasek has listed its holdings in whatever stakes it has and is claiming that Indonesia is not making any sense in the claims since the Indonesia government apparently approved the arrangements.

Then again, it doesn’t help that people have the impression that Temasek is a government entity (I’m not sure if it is), and having Ho Ching up there isn’t going to help debunk that image at all - not that it matters, but it’s just an observation.

Hmm… By the way, I thought Singapore signed some agreement with Indonesia earlier on? What happened?

TEMASEK Holdings said yesterday it is not guilty of breaking competition laws or price-fixing in Indonesia and vowed to fight the ruling by the country’s anti-monopoly watchdog.

‘We are not guilty. The decision makes no sense. It ignores the facts,’ said Temasek executive director Simon Israel in a tersely worded statement.

Indonesia’s Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition, known also as KPPU, yesterday ruled that Temasek must sell one of its two indirect stakes in the country’s top two mobile phone operators within the next two years.

One Temasek subsidiary, SingTel, owns a 35 per cent stake in market leader Telkomsel while another unit, Singapore Technologies (ST) Telemedia, owns an effective 30 per cent interest in Indosat.

The allegation is that Temasek abused its indirect ownership of both operators to fix phone tariffs high.

Mr Israel said yesterday this charge is groundless. ‘Temasek has no shares in Indosat and Telkomsel and we play no role in their business decisions and operations.

‘Telkomsel is controlled by the Indonesian government, which also has a golden share in Indosat,’ he added, referring to veto rights that protect the Indonesian government’s interest in Indosat.

Mr Israel also noted that Indonesia’s telecoms sector is regulated. So it is inconceivable that the Indonesian government or the regulator would allow prices to be fixed at the expense of consumers.

‘Temasek will fight this decision,’ he declared.

SingTel and ST Telemedia also issued strong statements expressing disappointment at the ruling and denying any wrongdoing.

SingTel said SingTel Mobile is only a minority shareholder in Telkomsel and does not control Telkomsel.

In any case, SingTel has an independent board of directors and as a shareholder, Temasek does not control its operations.

‘In addition, the commission failed to accord fundamental due process rights to SingTel and SingTel Mobile,’ it added.

ST Telemedia chief executive Lee Theng Kiat said: ‘The KPPU decision calls into serious questions the application of the rule of law and whether foreign investors can safely invest in Indonesia.’

Citibank economist Chua Hak Bin said the ruling seems to go against Asean integration: ‘There seems to be a lot of obstacles and suspicion with regard to investments from neighbouring countries.

‘Onlookers will regard this verdict with some cynicism about whether it is objective or if there could be political considerations behind it.’

BRYAN LEE

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 21st November 2007

With all the news about Pedra Branca, I missed this one entire. Heh. Apparently, Temasek is charged with anti-monopoly laws in Indonesia and was fined $3.88m for anti-competitive practices. In addition, Temasek was asked to sell of its shares in one of the two top telcos in which it had stakes in.

I am not familiar with Indonesian laws, or what constitutes anti-competitiveness, but apparently, the purchase of the stakes were cleared by the Indonesian government.

Singapore is getting herself involved in a local of regional trouble recently. Hmm…

JAKARTA - JAKARTA yesterday said Singapore’s Temasek Holdings had violated anti-monopoly laws and ordered it to sell its shares in one of the two top Indonesian mobile telcos in which it has indirect stakes.

Indonesia’s competition commission also fined Temasek and eight linked companies 25 billion rupiah (S$3.88 million) each for unfairly dominating and manipulating the cellular communications market, and said the share sale had to be completed within two years.

The eight affiliated companies include SingTel and its mobile subsidiary. SingTel, which is 54 per cent owned by Temasek, in turn has a 35 per cent stake in Indonesia’s biggest mobile telco, Telkomsel.

The other six are Singapore Technologies (ST) Telemedia and companies linked to it. ST Telemedia is wholly owned by Temasek and owns 75 per cent of Asia Mobile Holdings, which in turn has a 40 per cent stake in Indonesia’s No. 2 mobile telco Indosat.

Under Indonesian law, businesses cannot own majority shares in more than one firm in the same sector if it gives them more than half the market share. They are also barred from owning majority stakes in more than one firm in the same sector.

The commission said a controlling stake could be treated as a ‘majority stake’ and classed Temasek and its affiliates as a single business group, a classification Temasek said after the verdict has ‘no basis’.

It has been left up to Temasek to decide which of the two companies it wants to sell its stake in.

But in a move observers say is likely to drive down the value of the sale, the commission also ruled that no more than 5 per cent of the shares can be sold to any one party, and buyers cannot be affiliated to each other or to Temasek.

And, creating a further headache for Temasek, it claimed price fixing has cost consumers up to 30.8 trillion rupiah in excessive charges, an accusation observers say opens up the possibility of a future class action suit.

The verdict delivered by the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU), also included a fine of 25 billion rupiah for Telkomsel. The company has also been ordered to reduce its phone tariffs by at least 15 per cent within two years.

All the parties have up to 14 days to appeal before the sanctions kick in.

The verdict - marking the end of a year-long saga which began when a union accused Temasek of monopolistic behaviour - was read out to a packed audience of reporters and lawyers.

It was delivered after a lengthy four-hour preamble in which the KPPU panel sought to take apart arguments that Temasek and the other accused parties had submitted in their defence.

These covered the merits of the case, including whether Temasek was an active player in Indonesia or just a passive investor, as well as alleged procedural lapses.

But panel chairman Syamsul Maarif concluded that Temasek and its affiliates ‘are legally and convincingly proven to have violated Article 27 of the anti-monopoly law’.

He said: ‘If they don’t file their objection within the stipulated period, the ruling will take immediate effect.’

Both Temasek and ST Telemedia plan to contest the verdict, which analysts say will have been closely watched by foreign investors concerned about the risks of doing business in Indonesia.

University of Diponegoro law professor Joko Priyono told The Straits Times: ‘It’s shocking that Temasek can be found guilty of cross-ownership when the purchases of the stakes in Indosat and Telkomsel had been cleared by the government.

‘This doesn’t augur well for the future of foreign investments in the country.’

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 21st November 2007

I came across this article in the Prime News section and it mentioned about worries of development work in Mandai affecting the nature reserve and it set me thinking - how important are forests to Singapore? Does Singapore bother about whether we lose our nature?

No doubt Singapore is boasted as a Green City, with trees and shrubs to help provide a nice environment and to turn the overwhelming concrete jungles of Shenton Way into a seemingly nicer place to live in, but when it comes to preserving nature, how well does the government/statutory boards consider it?

I was following the concerns that the Nature Society had put forth to the Minister of State for Trade and Industry and his reply hinted of higher costs, which he probably felt could be circumvented by asking the developer to be sensitive to the environment.

I wonder what constitutes that “sensitivity to the environment”, or does it matter at all?

THE Nature Society has deep reservations about the Government’s plan to release a new site in Mandai for a new tourist attraction.

Dr Ho Hua Chew, who chairs the society’s conservation sub-committee, told The Straits Times yesterday that although the site was not part of the island’s nature reserve, it was an important buffer zone for it.

He noted that a section of the reserve was already in bad shape, with gaps in the forest that robbed the animals of shelter.

Mandai Lake Road, for example, slices right through the area and has created the lack of ‘connectors’ that enable wildlife to move from one part of the reserve to another to forage for food, mates and shelter.

Any new development, therefore, will only further upset the fragile eco-balance of the nature reserve, which is home to rare animals like the leopard cat, the pangolin, the mouse deer and the sambhur deer, said Dr Ho.

When some of the Nature Society’s concerns were put to Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Mr S. Iswaran, he replied that the new development should have minimal impact on the environment since that was going to be its key feature.

He added that the Government had consulted the relevant authorities and interest groups for their views, and would ensure that the developer understood that the place had to be ’sensitive to the environment’.

He added, however, that this would make costs ‘a lot higher’.

The Nature Society is unconvinced that this ’sensitivity to the environment’ is possible.

Dr Ho, who oversees the drawing up of a feedback report, said the society will submit it to the authorities by the middle of next week.

LIM WEI CHEAN

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 21st November 2007

Since I started on the issue of Pedra Branca, I thought I might as well follow up with the case. Apparently, the photographic evidence obtained by the Malaysia side is no longer brought up and no one seemed to be harbouring on it. The Singapore side seemed to be rather diplomatic when it came to questioning the credibility of the photograph that was apparently obtained from the Internet.

Again, the reason why I brought up the issue in the previous post is not to take sides, but rather, to highlight the possibility dangers of people using “evidences” from blogs and how others should react to it.

However, because there are no formal regulations of blogs in each country, it is highly possible that blogs may just spring up out of the blue just to support a particular case - which I don’t think should be allowed unless given special situations (which I won’t dive into but perhaps Kevin might). Personally, I would like to see how well maintained the blog will be after the court case. I wonder if anyone could trace back to the IP address of the blog owner. =P

THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - SINGAPORE played its trump card in the Pedra Branca case yesterday as it wrapped up its oral pleadings before an international court.

It argued that its claim to the disputed island stands on two legs - lawful acquisition of title between 1847 and 1851 when the British built Horsburgh Lighthouse there, and sovereign acts carried out over 150 years.

Malaysia’s claim, however, stands on only one leg: its claim that the Johor sultanate had original title to the island since time immemorial.

Singapore proposed to the court that if neither side has proven it had title to the disputed island in 1851, then Singapore’s claim must prevail over Malaysia’s because it alone has carried out state activities on the island.

In inviting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to look at the case in this light, Singapore’s Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh said it was an approach that was bound to cause Malaysia concern.

‘Malaysia has repeatedly argued that this case is about title and not about competing effectivites. That is not correct,’ he said.

The legal term effectivites refers to a state’s activities that are an exercise of sovereignty over a territory.

Singapore has produced a wealth of evidence of its effectivites on Pedra Branca, and they include control of access to the island and naval patrols in its surrounding waters.

Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the ICJ to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, an island 40km east of Singapore which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.

As the hearing enters its third and final week, the court has heard Malaysia mount a claim based on the Johor sultanate’s alleged title to Pedra Branca from time immemorial.

But Singapore has pointed out that Malaysia has failed to produce any documents to prove such a title.

Singapore’s claim is that Pedra Branca was terra nullius, that is, belonged to no one, in 1847 when the British took lawful possession of it and built Horsburgh Lighthouse there.

But Malaysia has called into question the depiction of Pedra Branca as terra nullius since the island is located at the centre of what used to be the Johor sultanate.

Professor Koh argued yesterday that the court should not make a decision based on title alone, as Malaysia has repeatedly asked it to.

‘Malaysia has repeatedly argued that this case is about title and not about competing effectivites. That is not correct,’ he said.

‘Should this court find that title to Pedra Branca were indeterminate in 1851, and were to examine the competing effectivites of the two parties, Singapore has clearly shown it has sovereignty.

‘I can understand why Malaysia would be concerned if the court were to decide to walk down this path. The reason is that Malaysia has zero effectivites,’ he added.

Essentially, Singapore is saying that its case stands even if the first of the two legs upon which it rests is a little wobbly.

Malaysia’s case, on the other hand, must collapse if the one leg upon which it rests is shaky.

Yesterday, Singapore’s international counsel Rodman Bundy pointed out that the ICJ has ruled on the basis on effectivites in four recent cases when neither side could prove it had title over the disputed territory.

One of those cases was the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan, which Malaysia won on the basis of its activities on the islands.

‘In every one of these cases - every one - the conduct of the parties was assessed to determine which one had demonstrated a greater intensity of state activities undertaken on the islands,’ Mr Bundy said.

He also argued that if the court ruled in Malaysia’s favour on Pedra Branca, it would produce an ‘unprecedented result’.

‘It would be the first time sovereignty over disputed territory would be found to lie with a party which never carried out a single sovereign act on the actual territory at any time,’ he said.

In drawing Singapore’s arguments to a close yesterday, Prof Koh laid out the 10 key points of Singapore’s case.

He said they were like the pieces of a puzzle that fit perfectly together to show that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.

The picture that emerged, he said, was that of British activities from 1847 to 1851 amounting to the taking of lawful possession of the island which belonged to no one.

That was followed by Singapore’s continuous stream of sovereign activities on the island from 1851 to the present.

On the reverse side of the coin, he said, was the ‘complete absence’ of any Malaysian activities on the island.

‘The whole story fits together. There can therefore be no doubt that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belong to Singapore,’ he said.

Malaysia will rebut Singapore’s arguments tomorrow and on Friday, when the hearing ends.

A verdict is expected next year.

The following article highlights the points that the Singapore side has presented to the court.

FIRST, Singapore has shown that in 1847, Pedra Branca was terra nullius. Malaysia disputes this and argues that it was not terra nullius but was part of the Sultanate of Johor.

Malaysia has, however, failed to produce any evidence that this particular island, Pedra Branca, was subject to the sovereignty of Johor. Malaysia has failed to prove her only argument, that she has a historic title to Pedra Branca.

She has failed to show that: (a) Pedra Branca was part of the Johor Sultanate; and (b) that any original title had been transmitted to the State of Johor.

Second, Singapore had shown that from 1847 to 1851, Britain was in possession of Pedra Branca without the consent of any native ruler.

Malaysia argues that she had given permission to Britain for the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca.

Again, she has not provided any evidence of such permission. All that Malaysia relies on are indirect inferences from letters which do not even mention Pedra Branca.

Third, Singapore has shown that in the period, 1847 to 1851, the British acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca by satisfying the two requisite criteria: animus or intention, and corpus or activities undertaken � titre de souverain.

Malaysia has repeated ad nauseam her argument that the British lacked the animus and the corpus and that all the activities undertaken by them were merely concerned with the construction of a lighthouse.

The Malaysian argument is flawed and remains so no matter how many times it is repeated.

Fourth, from 1847 to 1979, a period of over 130 years, Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca was open, continuous and notorious. It was acknowledged by all concerned and challenged by none.

It was only in 1979, when, like a bolt out of the blue, Malaysia published her infamous map which claimed, for the very first time, that Pedra Branca belonged to her.

Fifth, 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, ‘the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca’.

This disclaimer is binding on Malaysia under international law. Malaysia is clearly embarrassed by this disclaimer.

Discarding her earlier argument that the disclaimer ‘is not a model of clarity’, Malaysia has invented a new argument, which is that Singapore is seeking to use the letter as the root of her title.

But this has never been Singapore’s case. Singapore’s case is that the disclaimer confirms Singapore’s title and is further evidence that Johor has no prior title.

Sixth, in 1968, three years after Singapore separated from Malaysia, the Malaysian government demanded that Singapore should lower its marine ensign from its lighthouse in Pulau Pisang. Since Pulau Pisang was under Malaysian sovereignty, Singapore promptly complied with Malaysia’s request.

However, Malaysia failed to make the same demand with respect to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on Pedra Branca. Malaysia’s conduct is recognition of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca.

Seventh, between 1962 and 1975, Malaysia published six maps which attributed Pedra Branca to Singapore. Singapore never published a single map, not one, attributing the island to Malaysia.

Eighth, Malaysia has argued that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge should not be treated as a group but as three separate and distinct maritime features. This is an untenable argument.

The truth is that for reasons of proximity, geology, history and law, the three features are inseparable and must be treated together. Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks constitute a group.

South Ledge is a low-tide elevation within the territorial sea of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks and its fate must necessarily follow that of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.

Ninth, Malaysia has repeatedly argued that this case is about title and not about competing effectivites. This is not correct.

Singapore’s case is that Pedra Branca was terra nullius in 1847 and that we had acquired sovereignty over the island between 1847 and 1851 and have maintained it ever since.

However, should the Court find that the title to Pedra Branca were indeterminate at that time, and were to examine the competing effectivites of the two parties, Singapore has clearly shown that it has sovereignty.

I can understand why Malaysia would be concerned if the Court were to decide to walk down this path. The reason is that Malaysia has zero effectivites.

Tenth, Malaysia has, in the first round, said that Singapore may continue to own and operate the Horsburgh Lighthouse should sovereignty over Pedra Branca be awarded to her. This may sound magnanimous, but make no mistake, it is really an attempt by Malaysia to change a legal order which has existed for 160 years.

Mr President and Members of the Court, the evidence in this case presents a remarkably consistent picture. All of Singapore’s actions are entirely consistent with that of a country that has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.

In contrast, all of Malaysia’s actions (and inactions) are entirely consistent with that of a country which has no title over Pedra Branca.

In fact, all the pieces of the puzzle fit neatly together. The picture that emerges is that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.

The British activities from 1847 to 1851, in taking lawful possession of the island, are simply the other side of the coin of the complete absence of Johor’s original title or of any sovereign acts by Johor on the island.

Singapore’s continuous stream of sovereign activities on Pedra Branca and within its territorial waters, from 1851 to the present, is the reverse side of the coin of the complete absence of any Malaysian effectivites on the island at all relevant time.

Singapore’s actions were open and public and are the counterpart to Malaysia’s silence in the face of these activities over a period of 130 years.

Malaysia’s official disclaimer in 1953 and its series of official maps attributing the island to Singapore are further confirmation of this picture. The whole story fits perfectly together.

There can therefore be no doubt that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belong to Singapore.

Both articles obtained from straitstimes.com on 21st November 2007