Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
I dun think LKY, Jayakumar or Tommy Koh saw it before. Neither has the Malasian Foreign minister.Originally posted by SBS3625D:Who got see Horsburgh lighthouse before?
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
The misleading picture issue does not carry much weight in either countries' cases.
[b]Blog with disputed photo lifted Wiki content
Netizens hit out at KL legal team in Pedra Branca case after plagiarism is uncovered
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
22 November 2007
Home
IN THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - A PICTURE Malaysia produced to argue its case in the Pedra Branca dispute has sparked a controversy on the Internet.
Several netizens, notably Malaysian bloggers, are chiding the country's legal eagles for relying on an anonymous blog that has been shown up for plagiarism.
Some have also gone onto the blog www.leuchtturm3.blogspot.com to post harsh criticisms of the author, who pleaded with them yesterday not to use four-letter words.
'My younger sibling, who is 11 years old, also visits my blog and these words are not appropriate for her,'' he wrote in a posting titled 'Why the anger?'.
Malaysia had cited the blog as the source of a photograph it produced last week in an international court, to show Pedra Branca's supposed closeness to Johor.
Singapore, in its response, raised questions about the blog and this was reported in The Straits Times on Tuesday.
The report led the writer of a Singapore blog called Simplyjean to analyse the blog.
Simplyjean found its author had lifted chunks of text from Wikipedia, whose contents can be edited by anyone.
The discovery fired up several Singaporean and Malaysian blogs.
One blogger, Malaysian Jeff Ooi, yesterday bemoaned in a post his country's use of a suspect photo from an anonymous blog containing plagiarised content to 'present its case at all places, the International Court of Justice'.
Another Malaysian Tony Yew said on his website muststopthis.blogspot.com: 'How lame can our guys be?
'Putting up an argument with plagiarised work from Wikipedia! Sheesh...there goes Pulau Batu Puteh!'
Pulau Batu Puteh is Malaysia's name for Pedra Branca.
Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, an island 40km east of Singapore and which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.
On Monday, Singapore's Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin said the photo Malaysia produced was shot using a camera with a telephoto lens, which exaggerated the closeness of Pedra Branca to the Johor coast.
In questioning the blog, Mr Chao saidthe photo had been put up just four days before the start of the ICJ hearing.
In the blog, its author claims to be a lover of lighthouses and 'leuchtturm' is the German word for lighthouse.
Simplyjean found the following sentence on the design of lighthouses was lifted from Wikipedia: 'Often these are cylindrical to reduce the effect of wind on a tall structure on less stable soil. An example of this is Pulau Batu Puteh Lighthouse.'
The only change the author of leuchtturm3 had made was to use Pulau Batu Puteh Lighthouse in place of Cape May Lighthouse. But it was done in a way that anyone who clicks on the hyperlinked words Pulau Batu Puteh is led to a page on Cape May Lighthouse in Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, some netizens posted criticisms on the leuchtturm3 blog of what they called the 'doctored picture'.
Yesterday, its author confessed he knew little about Singapore or Malaysia and hoped to visit the region one day when he had the money.
As for Simplyjean, its writer confessed in a post that the Pedra Branca case held little interest initially. 'But when they decided to bring the blogosphere into the news, then I felt that I had to do some justification for the community.'
Simplyjean has this message for the person behind the leuchtturm3 blog: 'To the author (and all other implied parties), you suck.'
[email protected]
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited[/b]
Why did it become an issue at all?
One key thrust of the Malaysian legal team's case is aimed to show that the British did receive explicit permission to use PB/PBP from the Johor sultanate thereby proving that the British had recognised Johor's sovereignty over PB/PBP 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 PB/PBP.
However, this insinuated that Singapore's National Archives had been dishonest. This is unfair because if such a letter did exist, it should be in the possession of Johor's archives as the Johor sultanate was the receipient. The Singapore legal team expressed dissappointment with prinicpally this insinuation. See report - http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20071119-37527.html
In retaliation, the Singapore legal team highlighted the inconsequential but juicy misleading picture issue.
Clearly, it was just a case of tit-for-tat. -
Its a little bit more than that... I've skimmed through the transcripts... Jaya was PISSED OFF manOriginally posted by fairwind:The misleading picture issue does not carry much weight in either countries' cases.
Why did it become an issue at all?
One key thrust of the Malaysian legal team's case is aimed to show that the British did receive explicit permission to use PB/PBP from the Johor sultanate thereby proving that the British had recognised Johor's sovereignty over PB/PBP 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 PB/PBP.
However, this insinuated that Singapore's National Archives had been dishonest. This is unfair because if such a letter did exist, it should be in the possession of Johor's archives as the Johor sultanate was the receipient. The Singapore legal team expressed dissappointment with prinicpally this insinuation. See report - http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20071119-37527.html
In retaliation, the Singapore legal team highlighted the inconsequential but juicy misleading picture issue.
Clearly, it was just a case of tit-for-tat.
I may disagree with the govt but i'll say one thing: this old man has principles and any suggestions that they're flexible is likely to be met with extreme prejudice...
The only other time he reacted in this manner was when he was thoroughly cheesed off with the water negotiations and decided to make public the correspondences.
Anyway, there were serious allegations that Malaysia raised through sly "non-statements" and insinuations that might have prejudiced the court against us. The irritating photo was just one of them.
In itself, the photo has very little weight as evidence and it actually proves nothing but kicking up a bit of dust damages the credibility of the other side and throughout this time, SG had consistently made an effort to do that.
No sympathies there as I expect both countries to conduct themselves with dignity and integrity before the ICJ... If SG had been the one caught using rubbish evidence, I would not have sided with them.
It might be the Malaysian's tactic to distract the SG side so that we had to devote time for the rebuttal and less time for the main issues.
In any case, I thought the case was properly summed up through the written memorials and presentations already so it was pretty appropriate to rebut the more damaging allegations.
The Malaysian side however, pretty much stuck to their script for the rebuttal even though the Court Rules quite clearly stated that it should not be a repetition of points already raised in previous presentations... sigh... -
what is the latest?