Konsert Akhir AF6

Malam ni merupakan konsert akhir Akademi Fantasia ke 6. Bagi aku musim ke 6 AF ni dah semakin hilang taringnya. Dah semakin bosan. Aku pun dah tak tengok sangat. Tak terkilan kalau terlepas konsert mingguan mahu pun akhir. Dulu semasa musim pertama dan kedua terasa gak ralatnya kalau terlepas konsert.

Memandangkan aku "update" blog ni pun di depan TV dan wife aku pun tengah tengok konsert akhir AF, so kita nantikan keputusannya.

Keputusan Rasmi AF6

Juara : Stacy
N Juara : Rizz
Ke 3 : Nubhan
Ke 4 : Toi
Ke 5 :Nadia

CYC batal akhirnya.

CYC (Club Youth Champinship) akhirnya dibatalkan penganjurannya. Bagi pendapat aku ini ialah satu tindakan yang bijak daripada FAM. Semenjak daripada tahun lepas lagi penganjuran CYC ini memberikan banyak masalah dan isu-isu panas. Tahun lepas alasan penganjuran adalah sempena sambutan 50 tahun kemerdekaan Malaysia. Tahun ini?? sempena 51 tahun merdeka kot.

Apa-apa pun penganjuran CYC ini TIDAK memberikan faedah langsung terhadap perkembangan bola sepak Malaysia. Sambutan peminat pun amat dingin. Kalau setakat pasukan remaja kelab ternama, peminat bola Malaysia tidak lah ghairah sangat untuk menontonnya.

Apa-apa pun, aku lebih rasakan penganjuran CYC ini lebih kepada kepentingan peribadi sahaja.

Petikan dari UTUSAN ONLINE :-

CYC batal - Sultan Ahmad Shah

23/05/2008 11:20pm

KUANTAN 23 Mei – Muktamad. Persatuan Bola Sepak Malaysia (FAM) tidak akan membenarkan penganjuran Kejohanan Piala Juara-Juara Belia (CYC) di negara ini seperti yang dijadualkan pada Ogos ini.

Demikian keputusan tegas Presidennya, Sultan Ahmad Shah setelah mengambil kira pelbagai faktor termasuk tindakan penganjur kejohanan itu, Gifted Group Limited (GGL) yang membelakangkan peranan FAM dalam penganjuran kejohanan tersebut.

Sultan Ahmad Shah bertitah, apa-apa kejohanan yang ingin diadakan di Malaysia perlu mendapat persetujuan FAM dan bukannya Konfederasi Bola Sepak Asia (AFC) seperti mana yang dilakukan GGL.

``Sebagai Presiden FAM, saya berhak tentukan sama ada untuk membenarkan kejohanan dibuat atau tidak, mungkin penganjur fikir FAM tidak berhak buat keputusan, mungkin juga mereka terlupa, mereka rasa AFC sahaja yang ada kuasa,'' titah baginda ketika ditemui selepas Majlis Penyerahan Bendera Kontinjen Sukma Pahang 2008, di Wisma Belia, di sini hari ini.

CYC batal - Sultan Ahmad Shah

KUANTAN - Muktamad! Persatuan Bola Sepak Malaysia (FAM) tidak akan membenarkan penganjuran Kejohanan Piala Juara-Juara Belia (CYC) di negara ini seperti yang dijadualkan pada Ogos ini, lapor SHAMSIAH ZULKAFLI.

Demikian keputusan tegas Presidennya, Sultan Ahmad Shah setelah mengambil kira pelbagai faktor termasuk tindakan penganjur kejohanan itu, Gifted Group Limited (GGL) yang membelakangkan peranan FAM dalam penganjuran kejohanan tersebut.

Sultan Ahmad Shah bertitah, apa-apa kejohanan yang ingin diadakan di Malaysia perlu mendapat persetujuan FAM dan bukannya Konfederasi Bola Sepak Asia (AFC) seperti mana yang dilakukan GGL.

''Sebagai Presiden FAM, saya berhak tentukan sama ada untuk membenarkan kejohanan dibuat atau tidak, mungkin penganjur fikir FAM tidak berhak buat keputusan, mungkin juga mereka terlupa, mereka rasa AFC sahaja yang ada kuasa," titah baginda ketika ditemui selepas Majlis Penyerahan Bendera Kontinjen Sukma Pahang 2008, di Wisma Belia, di sini semalam.

Kemelut penganjuran CYC bermula apabila GGL bertindak membelakangkan peranan FAM dalam kejohanan tersebut.

Ia bertambah serius apabila penganjur kejohanan itu dikatakan meminta kos tambahan dari hos venue iaitu Pahang dan Terengganu walaupun peruntukan sebanyak RM17 juta telah diberikan Kementerian Belia dan Sukan (KBS).

Bukan sahaja kecewa dengan tindakan GGL yang mengendahkan peranan FAM, Sultan Ahmad Shah turut mempertikaikan 'pemberian' wang RM17 juta oleh KBS kepada GGL berhubung penganjuran itu yang dibuat tanpa meminta persetujuan badan bola sepak itu terlebih dahulu.

''KBS telah beri RM8 juta buat permulaan dan masih ada baki lagi RM9 juta, wang ini diberikan sewenang-wenangnya, ini satu jumlah yang banyak.

''Bagaimana wang ini boleh diberi, sedangkan FAM masih belum membenarkan penganjuran kejohanan, penganjur juga belum tentu akan bermain di sini, ini bukan jumlah yang sedikit, wang ini wang rakyat," titahnya.

Sedih dengan tindakan menonong KBS itu, Sultan Ahmad Shah bertitah, baginda pernah membangkitkan mengenai pemberian wang itu, namun tiada pihak yang tampil menjelaskan isu tersebut.

Sultan Ahmad Shah bertitah, FAM tidak terlibat dengan penganjuran kejohanan itu sejak dari mula lagi, malah baginda juga tidak mengetahui tentang persetujuan kejohanan yang dibuat antara Majlis Sukan Negara (MSN) dan GGL.

Baginda dalam pada itu mengakui menerima surat daripada penganjur CYC yang meminta kerjasama FAM menganjurkan kejohanan tersebut, namun baginda menyifatkannya sudah agak terlambat.

''Nasi sudah jadi bubur, sepatutnya perkara ini perlu dibincang bersama dari awal lagi, sekarang sudah terlambat, kita (FAM) pun ada maruah, saya tak kecil hati, tapi ini bukan cara yang betul," titah baginda.

Ditanya bilakah keputusan tersebut akan dimaklumkan kepada KBS, Sultan Ahmad Shah bertitah, ia tidak semestinya akan dimaklumkan kepada kementerian itu, tetapi menurut baginda, timbalannya, Khairy Jamaluddin mungkin akan diminta berjumpa dengan Menteri Belia dan Sukan, Datuk Ismail Sabri Yaakob.

''Jika CYC tak diadakan di Malaysia, kerugian bukan di pihak kita, biarlah mereka adakan kejohanan di tempat lain," titah baginda.

Dalam perkembangan lain, baginda turut bertitah, kontinjen Pahang ke Sukan Malaysia ke-12 (Sukma XII) di Terengganu hujung bulan ini mensasarkan 45 pingat emas.

Titah baginda, jangkaan itu dibuat berdasarkan prestasi cemerlang kontinjen negeri pada kejohanan Sukma dua tahun lalu di Kedah yang menyaksikan Pahang menduduki tempat kedua berdasarkan kutipan pingat dengan 39 emas, 36 perak dan 32 gangsa.

''Pencapaian tersebut adalah yang terbaik sejak kejohanan Sukma diadakan, saya yakin Pahang akan membawa lebih kejayaan pada edisi kali ini.

''Saya yakin Pahang dah bersedia untuk menghadapi kejohanan dwi tahunan ini, saya juga percaya atlet Pahang mempunyai kelebihan dan mampu meraih kejayaan membanggakan pada Sukma Terengganu," titah baginda.

petikan http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2008&dt=0524&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Sukan&pg=su_01.htm

Pedra Branca, South China Sea (Pulau Batu Putih) Wikipedia

Pedra Branca (Malay: Pulau Batu Puteh) is an outcrop of rocks situated where the Singapore Strait meets the South China Sea. The Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island was built in 1851. The island, together with nearby islands Middle Rocks and South Ledge, was the subject of a territorial dispute between Singapore and Malaysia that was eventually passed to the International Court of Justice. On May 23, 2008, the ICJ decided that Pedra Branca is under the sovereignty of Singapore while the Middle Rocks belong to Malaysia.^[1][2] The other outcrop, South Ledge, is subject to interpretation of the ICJ's judgement. In their Judgement, South Ledge will belong to the country whose territorial waters the outcrop currently resides in. This ambiguous ruling is due to the fact that the outcrop lies in overlapping boundaries.

Physical attributes

Pedra Branca has an area of 2,000 m², and during the low water spring tide it measures, at its longest, a mere 137 m. It does not include Middle Rocks, which are two clusters of rocks situated 0.6 nautical miles (1.1 km) south of the island that is owned by Malaysia, and South Ledge, a rock formation visible only at low-tide, 2.1 nmi (3.9 km) to the south.^[3]

Singapore refers to the island as Pedra Branca ("white rock" in Portuguese), and Malaysia as Pulau Batu Puteh ("island of the white rock" in Malay); the island is so named for whitish bird droppings that were seen on the rock in the past.

History

The island first appeared in navigational records as early as 1583. Dutch voyager Johann van Linschoten then recorded that Pedra Branca is "where ships that come and go to and from China pass in great danger and some are left upon it". The rocks get their name from years of accumulated bird droppings which hardened upon the rock.^[4]

In 1851, the Horsburgh Lighthouse was built on the island and named after Captain James Horsburgh,^[5] a Scottish hydrographer to the British East India Company who mapped the waters of the area.

The rocks have long been a navigational hazard. For example, between 1824 and 1851, at least twenty-five sizeable vessels met with disaster on those rocks. Between 2000 and 2004 there were two reports of ship collisions.

RSS Courageous collision

On 4 January 2003, RSS Courageous of the Republic of Singapore Navy collided with a 293.5 m long Dutch merchant ship, ANL Indonesia, near to the disputed island.^[6] While no one sustained injuries on the merchant ship, which was relatively undamaged, the 57.84-m 44-crew anti-submarine patrol vessel had a rear section sheared off.^[7] In addition, three of its crew died, eight suffered injuries, and one person's body was never found. Subsequently, the navy ship's crew was found to be largely responsible for the accident.^[8][9]

Territorial dispute

Ownership of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh is disputed by Singapore and Malaysia and is the only formal dispute over the maritime Malaysia-Singapore Border.

The dispute dates back to early 1980, when Singapore lodged a formal protest with Malaysia in response to a map published by Malaysia in 1979 claiming the island. In 1989 Singapore proposed submitting the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Malaysia agreed to this in 1994. In 1998 the two countries agreed on a Special Agreement that was needed to submit the dispute to the ICJ. The Special Agreement was signed in February 2003, and the ICJ formally notified in July that year.^[3]

Claims

Singapore has been administering Pedra Branca and managing Horsburgh Lighthouse as early as 1851.

Singapore had been under British rule following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 and most of Malaya were colonised by the British by the end of the 19th century. Singapore, was ruled as a Straits Settlement from 1826 and later as a British crown colony from 1867. Singapore gained self-rule in 1959 and later became part of independent Malaysia in 1963. On 7 August 1965, the Parliament of Malaysia voted to expel Singapore from Malaysia; the secession was effected two days later and Singapore became a sovereign, independent nation. The Separation Agreement in 1965^[10] did not address the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca. Singapore continues to administer the island and manage the lighthouse. Singapore states that it has exercised full sovereignty over the island since the 1840s without any protest from Malaysia.^[11]

Malaysia first claimed the island officially in 1979 when the country published new official maps, which included the island of Pedra Branca in its territory. The Malaysian state of Johor asserts that when Johor Sultanate ceded Singapore to the British in 1824, the island was not part of the secession and that the Sultan of Johor only allowed the British to construct a lighthouse on the island in 1844.^[12] This follows a letter dated November 25 1844 from the Sultan and the Temenggung of Johor to the British which gave the British a permission to build a lighthouse on an island.^[13]

In 1824, Sultan of Johor ceded Singapore and the surrounding 10 nmi (18.5 km) to the British East India Company.^[14] Pedra Branca is located 25 nmi (46.3 km) away from Singapore; the island is 7.7 nmi (14.3 km) away from Johor.^[15]

ICJ dispute resolution proceedings

In 2004, both sides agreed to bring the matter to the ICJ in The Hague, following an agreement by the two countries on 6 February 2003.^[11]

Written pleadings were submitted by both parties to the ICJ from March 2004 to November 2005,^[16] with public hearings scheduled to commence on 6 November 2007.^[17] Singapore will present its case from 6 November to 9 November 2007, followed by Malaysia which will present from 13 November to 16 November 2007. Each country will then be given two days to respond, with 19 November to 20 November 2007 assigned for Singapore and 22 November to 23 November 2007 assigned for Malaysia.^[18]

The case will be presided by ICJ vice-president Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, alongside 13 other judges and two ad-hoc judges appointed by the two countries. The judges are Raymond Ranjeva from Madagascar, Shi Jiuyong from the People's Republic of China, Abdul G. Koroma from Sierra Leone, Gonzalo Parra Aranguren from Venezuela, Thomas Buergenthal from the United States, Hisashi Owada from Japan, Bruno Simma from Germany, Peter Tomka from Slovakia, Ronny Abraham from France, Kenneth Keith from New Zealand, Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor from Mexico, Mohamed Bennouna from Morocco and Leonid Skotnikov from Russia. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao from India and Christopher S.R. Dugard from South Africa were appointed by Singapore and Malaysia as ad-hoc judges respectively.^[19]

Singapore's case

Singapore commenced the hearing on 7 November 2007 by disputing Malaysia's claims over the island and demonstrating Singapore's consistent exercise of authority through various acts since 1847.^[20][21][22] The Singapore delegation is led by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law Shunmugam Jayakumar, with Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin and Ambassador at Large Tommy Koh forming up the rest of the delegation. They are accompanied by a legal counsel team formed by international experts, namely Queen's Counsel Ian Brownlie from the University of Oxford, Professor Alain Pellet of the University of Paris X: Nanterre, and two law specialists from English firm Eversheds, Mr Rodman Bundy and Ms Loretta Malintoppi.^[23]

[edit] Malaysia's claims prior to 1847

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong produced evidence disputing Malaysia's portrayal of a stable Johor Sultanate from the 16th to the 19th century with an established territorial border spanning the same period, including that of the disputed islands. Works by Carl Trocki and Richard Winstedt wrote that the Sultanate has been "in a precarious state since its foundation". The Annual Report of the State of Johor Government published in 1949 stated that the Sultanate was in a "state of dissolution" by the start of the 19th century.

Singapore argued that traditional Malay sovereignty was exercised through the allegiance of the people to the ruler, rather than the demarcation of physical territory. That the islands were uninhabited thus gave little certainty over the Sultanate's exercise of control over them. Malaysia's use of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 to back up its claims was also dismissed as a misinterpretation of the treaty.

Singapore's demonstration of ownership since 1847

Singapore's territorial claims over the islands formally began in 1847, when the British government, through the Straits Settlements government, decided to build a lighthouse on Pedra Branca. When the foundation stone was laid in 1851, the island was referred to as a "dependency of Singapore". Singapore had on two occasions stated its entitlement to claim the sea around the islands as its territorial waters: in 1952 prior to independence in 1965 by the Chief Surveyor, and after independence in 1974 by the Marine Department of Singapore. Reclaimation works were considered to expand the islands in the early 1970s, with public tenders called by 1978.

For over 130 years since 1847, Malaysia had been silent over Singapore's activities and exercise of sovereignty over Pedra Branca. No other state had challenged Singapore's claims, and she had done so without having to seek approval from any other state. Ambassador at Large Tommy Koh highlighted this, saying

“

A key feature of this case is the constant stream of Singapore's acts of administration in relation to Pedra Branca, contrasted with the complete absence of Malaysian activities on Pedra Branca or within its territorial waters, and with Malaysia's silence in the face of all these state activities of Singapore... Such silence on Malaysia's part is significant and must be taken to mean that Malaysia never regarded Pedra Branca as her territory.[22]

”

Malaysia's disclaimer of ownership since 1953

Even prior to Singapore's attainment of full independence, the Johor State Government had stated in an official letter that Johor "does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca" in response to an inquiry from Singapore in 1953. Two official maps published by the Federation of Malaya showed the islands as belonging to Singapore in 1962, as was also the case in official maps published in 1965 and 1975.

A May 1980 audio recording of Malaysia's former Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn had him admitting that the question of sovereignty over Pedra Branca was "not very clear" to Malaysia during a news conference with Singapore's then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.^[24]

Malaysia's case

The Malaysian delegation is headed by Abdul Kadir Mohamad, the Prime Minister's adviser on foreign affairs with the Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands, Noor Farida Ariffin as co-agent. The Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail leads the legal team.^[25] The Malaysian team is aided by Elihu Lauterpacht, James Crawford and Penelope Nevill of Cambridge University, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver of Leiden University and Marcelo Kohen of Graduate Institute of International Studies at Geneva.^[19] Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail expressed optimism in winning the case for Malaysia, saying

“

We are well prepared and our team has all the documents and evidence to win the dispute... InsyaAllah [God willing]... Everyone is in high spirit... especially myself. This is one of the most anticipated disputes after Malaysia won the tussle over the Ligitan and Sipadan Islands in 2002.[19]

”

No Formal Claims by British

Malaysia's lead counsel states that there was no formal claim by the British prior to 1851 that shows that the islands are British. This is despite repeated claims by Singapore to the contrary. Furthermore, he said that there is no evidence to support the notion that the British conducted activities to claim the island under their rule. He added that building the light house is not a testament of sovereignty over the island^[26].

Britain, while governing Singapore, did not make any attempts to proclaim sovereignty over the island. This is due to the fact that during that period, Britain was known to conduct a formal actions proclaiming the sovereignty of a land. Such action was demonstrated when the British landed on Pulau Ubin where they read out a formal declaration and fired a 21-gun salute. Such action did not occur in Pulau Batu Puteh.^[27]

The counsel further added that correspondence between the British governor and the Sultan did not indicate any intention that Britain was going to annex the island for the construction of the light house or proclaim sovereignty over the islands between 1844 to 1851. Although not denying that Britain build the light house, the counsel emphasized that Britain did not claim the island as her own, but merely operated on the island for maritime purpose only. All Singaporean activities, including the building of the heliport, military installation and additional naval navigation equipment, are merely following Britain's act.^[27]

Singaporean Case

Singaporean claim over the islands is based on the fact that the island belonged to nobody while the rocks have always been part of Johor .^[28]

The issue of sovereignty over the islands was only raised by Singapore on April 13 1978. In a meeting on December 21 1979, Singapore did not officially object to the 1979 Malaysian map. Instead of making its objection clear, Singapore in its pleadings only downplayed the publication of the Malaysian map and only officially claimed the island on February 14 1980. As for Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Singapore only claimed sovereignty in 1993.^[28]

The Attorney General of Malaysia informed the court that in a press conference in Singapore, former Malaysian Prime Minister Hussein Onn was merely being friendly and respectful as a guest when he responded to an inquiry regarding the sovereignty of the island made by Lee Kuan Yew. The inquiry by the latter is based on a document which Singapore has yet to produce to the court.^[28]

Operation of Lighthouse

The Lead counsel said that the purpose for the construction and operation of the light house was for naval navigation and safety instead of evidence of sovereignty. He further added that when the British built the light house, they had no intention of claiming the island but to form the Straits Light system at that time. The Malaysian team asserted that Great Britain operated the light house with the consent of Johor.^[29] On top of that, Singaporean activities on the islands are only relevant to the operation and well being of the light house. Singapore is said to be the sole administrator of the light house.^[26]

The Lead counsel added that British activities on the light house were carried out as the operator of the light house, although Singapore claims that Britain was exercising state function of the islands. He further added that construction and operation of light houses worldwide by Britain were never considered as acts of establishing sovereignty by Britain. Britain asked permission from the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor for the construction of the light house, strenghthening the notion that Britain's interest in the light house concerned maritime safety, not the establishment of sovereignty.^[30]

Johor Sultanate's sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh

The lead counsel claimed that the islands were a part of the Johor Sultanate prior to 1824.

In the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824, Johor transferred sovereignty over Singapore Island to the East India Company together with the islets and rocks within 10 geographical miles of Singapore. Pulau Batu Puteh is 25.5 miles (41.0 km) away from Singapore. (Opening speech by the agent of Malaysia, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad at the ICJ on 13 Nov 2007)

The chief reason that the island belonged to Johor was laid in the Treaty of Cession of Singapore, between the British East India Company and the Sultan and the Temenggong of Johor. It implied that Johor had sovereignty over islets beyond 10 miles (16 km) of its coast. The island is located 25.5 nautical miles (47.2 km) from Singapore.^[31] This is further strengthened by the fact that the British government had requested approval from the Sultanate of Johor to build a lighthouse on the island, which Johor agreed to provide in 1844.^[29] Apart from that, the Singaporean claim on the island violates the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824.^[29]

Singapore's rebuttal

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong rebutted Malaysia's claim that she had original title over Pedra Branca. He pointed out that Malaysia had provided "no evidence that Pedra Branca belonged to the Johor Sultanate at any point in its history". He also pointed out that Malaysia had glossed over historical facts which undermined Malaysia's case and had also misinterpreted the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824.

Professor Alain Pellet spoke next on the irrelevance of the few pieces of historical evidence that Malaysia had relied upon to support her claim. Professor Pellet also showed that the British did not seek, and did not need to seek, the permission of the Sultan or the Temenggong of Johor in taking possession of Pedra Branca to build Horsburgh Lighthouse.

On the second day of the proceedings on 7 November 2007, Mr Ian Brownlie, Q.C., showed in detail how the British authorities in Singapore took possession of Pedra Branca and exercised acts of sovereignty over the island. At this time, Pedra Branca belonged to no one. The British acts were of an official nature. They were public and were not protested by any other powers during the entire period from 1847 to 1851. He also highlighted to the Court that in 1850, official Dutch correspondence had described Pedra Branca as British territory. In the same year, Pedra Branca was described as a dependency of Singapore at the ceremony for the laying of the foundation stone of Horsburgh Lighthouse.

Malaysia's rebuttal

The Attorney General said that Singapore failed to produce concrete legal evidence that the islands is no man's land. He further added Singaporean activities after December 1979 was not normal act of administrating the light house but to further strengthen Singapore's claim on the islands.^[32]

Johor has no power to disown territories

Singapore has claimed that in 1953, Johor acting state secretary, M. Seth Saaid, wrote a letter to the Singapore government claiming that the island is no man's land. The Attorney General countered this claim by declaring that Johor is not a sovereign state in 1953 due to Johor Agreement and Federation of Malaya Agreement enforce in 1948 by the British government. Due to this agreement, Johor has no power to disown ownership of any territory in general and the islands in particular as these kind of powers has been transferred to the British. He further added that the state secretary is acting out on his own because he only wrote it to the Singaporean authorities, without submitting a copy to the chief secretary.^[32]

Johor Sultanate still exists today

One of Singapore arguments is the Johor Sultanate that controls the island disappeared after it was attacked by the Dutch. Malaysia's counsel, Professor Nico Schrijver, countered that argument by stating that Johor's name, dynasty, allegiance of her people and control of territory still exists to this date. As the result of the Dutch attack, the Sultan did flee from Johor to Riau and Lingga but was in control of new subjects named Orang Laut. The Johor sultanate at all times was in the vicinity of the islands. The Johor empire was split into two which one which is headed by Sultan Hussein who signed the Crawfurd Treaty which Johor agree to cede Singapore and her surrounding areas to the extent of 10 nautical miles (19 km) from the main island. The 1844 permission to build the light house did not include transfer of sovereignty.^[33]

Controversies

Photograph controversy

In the course of the court hearing, Malaysia produced a picture of Pedra Branca. However, Singapore raised questions regarding the reliability of the source, which was taken from an allegedly independent blog.^[34] In the picture produced by Malaysia, the background depicting a Johor mountain was seven times larger than a picture taken by a camera that simulates the human eye. Furthermore, a portion of the blog's text was plagiarized from the Wikipedia page Lighthouse, with the only modification being the replacing of "Cape May Lighthouse" with "Pulau Batu Puteh Lighthouse", with the Wikipedia link still intact.^[34]

Missing letters controversy

One key thrust of the Malaysian legal team's case is aimed to show that the British did receive explicit permission to use Pedra Branca from the Johor sultanate thereby proving that the British had recognised Johor's sovereignty over Pedra Branca all along.

The Malaysian legal team submitted that there existed an important letter which had requested for explicit permission. This letter was said to have been sent from the British governor of Singapore to the Johor sultanate. However, the legal team said that Malaysia does not have possession of the letter and alleged that it is in the possession of Singapore's National Archives which had not replied to their requests for the letter. As Malaysia could not produce the evidence (the letter), this allegation actually counts for very little weight in the overall consideration of sovereignty over Pedra Branca.

The claim insinuated that Singapore's National Archives had been dishonest. However, if such a letter did exist, it should be in the possession of Johor's archives as the Johor sultanate was the recipient. The Singapore legal team expressed disappointment with this insinuation.^[35]

Decision of the ICJ on 23 May 2008

The outcome of the dispute resolution, as mentioned by the ICJ, is that the "Sovereignty of Pedra Branca shall be passed to Singapore" on 23 May 2008. The pivotal matter which the ICJ dwelt on was the 1953 letter by the Acting State Secretary of Johor which stated that Johor "does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca". However, the Singaporean contention that Pedra Brance was terra nullius was rejected by the ICJ.

Singapore received sovereignty over Pedra Branca while the Middle Rocks was ruled to belong to Malaysia. Middle Rocks was given to Malaysia simply because it was shown that Johor and Malaysia as its successor state continued to retain sovereignty there, while Pedra Branca was maintained in Singaporean control because Johor had essentially disclaimed sovereignty over it. The South Ledge has been ruled to belong to the state that owns the waters around it, essentially an open decision which will depend on the outcome of discussions between Malaysia and Singapore on the implementation of the ICJ ruling.

The 16 judges tribunal in the Hague by 12-4 votes, ruled that the former British colony of Singapore has been acting as the sovereign power on the island since the British built the Horseburgh lighthouse in 1851. In the 29-year dispute, ICJ Vice-President Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, Acting President in the case, also found 2 smaller disputed islands Middle Rocks, and South Ledge belong to Malaysia, in whose territorial waters it is located: "The court concludes ... that by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Banca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore."^[36][37]

Implication of the ICJ Decision

The decision by the ICJ to award Pedra Branca to Singapore but to decide that Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia is seen as a Pyrrhic victory. This is because the issue now turns to ownership of the surrounding territorial waters which would be hotly contested due to the close locations of both geographical feature. Nevertheless, it is estimated that Malaysia has lost 13km² of territory due to the ICJ decision.

The Malaysian Foreign Minister, Dato Sri Rais Yatim, on 23 May 2008 in a live interview after the ICJ's announcement, described the ICJ decision as a "win-win" situation. Further, he announced that a technical committee would be set up between Malaysia and Singapore to decide whether South Ledge falls withing the the territorial waters of either Malaysia or Singapore. It may be argued that the ICJ ruling construes a partial victory for Singapore given that while it affirmed its sovereignty over Pedra Branca, the ICJ decided to give Middle Rocks to Malaysia while the ownership of South Ledge is in dispute. The decision is not yet final and subject to appeal.^[38] The judgment never totally resolved the dispute for it only determined the ownership of the main islet but not where the maritime boundary is. But the two countries set up a joint technical committee to enforce the judgment

Pulau Batu Putih Akhirnya Milik Singapura

Pulau Batu Putih milik Singapura

23/05/2008 6:01pm

THE HAGUE 23 Mei – Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di sini hari ini memutuskan bahawa Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik Singapura.

Bagaimanapun, dalam penghakiman itu yang dibacakan oleh Hakim Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, ICJ memutuskan Middle Rocks dimiliki oleh Malaysia.

Pulau Batu Putih, yang berukuran lebih kurang separuh daripada keluasan sebuah padang bola sepak, terletak 7.7 batu nautika di luar pantai Tanjung Penyusoh di Johor.

Singapura memanggil pulau kecil itu dengan nama Pedra Branca (perkataan Portugis yang bermaksud Batu Putih).

Pertikaian antara Singapura dan Malaysia mengenai Pulau Batu Putih bermula pada 14 Februari 1980, apabila republik itu membantah tindakan Malaysia menerbitkan sebuah peta pada 1979, yang dengan jelas menunjukkan pulau itu terletak dalam wilayahnya.

Pada Februari 1993, Singapura meluaskan tuntutannya ke atas Middle Rocks dan South Ledge, yang terletak berhampiran pulau itu.

Pada 6 Februari 2003, kedua-dua negara menandatangani satu perjanjian khas bagi merujuk perkara itu kepada ICJ. - Utusan

Majoriti 12 - 4, Pulau Batu Putih milik Singapura.

23/05/2008 6:28pm

THE HAGUE, Belanda 23 Mei - Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) memutuskan kes tuntutan bertindih ke atas Pulau Batu Putih yang menjadi pertikaian antara Malaysia dan Singapura sejak 1980 adalah milik Singapura.

Namun ICJ memutuskan Pulau Middle Rocks diberi kedaulatan dan menjadi milik Malaysia sementara South Ledge pula tertakluk kepada wilayah perairan di mana ia terletak.

Dalam keputusan majoriti 12-4, penghakiman bertulis yang dibacakan Naib Presiden ICJ, Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, pada pendapat para hakim keputusan itu dicapai berdasarkan fakta sejarah, perundangan antarabangsa serta kesan-kesan pertindihan berkaitan tuntutan tersebut.

Awn Shawkat mula membacakan penghakiman tersebut tepat pukul 4 petang waktu Malaysia dan berakhir dua jam kemudian.

Keputusan mahkamah itu adalah muktamad dan tiada mekanisme rayuan bagi keputusan ICJ yang merupakan badan perundangan tertinggi Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu.

Tuntutan ke atas Pulau Batu Putih bermula sejak 28 tahun lalu iaitu selepas Malaysia melakukan pemetaan sempadan maritim yang meliputi Pulau Batu Putih sebagai wilayahnya pada tahun 1979.

Tuntutan terhadap Middle Rock yang terletak kira-kira 0.5 batu nautika dari Pulau Batu Putih dan South Ledge, yang berada 1.7 batu nautika dari Middle Rock, dibuat Singapura pada 1993.

Secara rasminya Singapura (yang mengendalikan Rumah Api Horsburgh di atas Pulau Batu Putih) mempertikaikan pulau tersebut milik Malaysia menerusi nota bantahan yang bertarikh 14 Februari 1980.

Tuntutan terhadap Middle Rock yang terletak kira-kira 0.5 batu nautika dari Pulau Batu Putih dan South Ledge, yang berada 1.7 batu nautika dari Middle Rock, dibuat Singapura pada 1993.

Pada 1994, Malaysia dan Singapura bersetuju membawa pertikaian ke ICJ melalui Perjanjian Khas untuk memuktamadkan kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih.

Perjanjian Khas yang ditandatangani pada 9 Februari 2003 dan berkuat kuasa pada 9 Mei tahun sama itu antara lain berbunyi, ‘’Melalui Perjanjian Khas, kedua-dua pihak memohon kepada ICJ untuk menentukan kedaulatan Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Putih; Middle Rocks dan South Ledge milik Malaysia atau Singapura’’.

Proses demi proses telah dilalui oleh kedua-dua negara selepas perjanjian khas itu dimeterai untuk menyempurnakan tuntutan terhadap ketiga-tiga bentuk maritim itu.

Malaysia diwakili Menteri Luar, Datuk Seri Rais Yatim; Duta Tugas-Tugas Khasnya, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail dan Agen Bersama, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin. - Utusan

Terima keputusan ICJ walau berat – Muhyiddin

23/05/2008 8:14pm

KUALA LUMPUR 23 Mei – Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin berharap rakyat menerima keputusan Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) ke atas Pulau Batu Putih yang memihak kepada Singapura walaupun ia agak mengecewakan.

“Sebagai rakyat Johor, saya juga sedih kerana walau apa juga asas undang-undang antarabangsa yang digunakan ICJ, dari segi nilai sejarah, kedaulatan dan moralnya kita sudah kehilangan sebahagian wilayah kita,” katanya.

Beliau yang juga Naib Presiden UMNO berkata demikian melalui Khidmat Pesanan Ringkas (SMS) kepada Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

Muhyiddin mengulas keputusan ICJ di The Hague, Belanda hari ini yang memutuskan kedaulatan Pulau Batu Putih adalah milik Singapura.

Kedaulatan Middle Rocks pula diputuskan menjadi milik Malaysia sementara South Ledge menjadi milik negara di mana terletaknya kawasan perairan pulau tersebut.

“Keputusan ICJ mengenai Middle Rocks itu bagaimanapun, menghilangkan sedikit kekecewaan kita.

“Apa pun kita harus terima keputusan itu dengan hati yang berat,” katanya. – Utusan.