PB claim "not over" yet replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:07:42 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:07:42 +0800

At first Idwar was funny, but now it's starting to sound a bit sad :(

PB claim "not over" yet replied by pacoboy @ Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:09:51 +0800

pacoboy — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:09:51 +0800

The ICJ had already tried and pass the verdict that Singapore has sovereignity over Pedra Branca. Until that verdict is overturned, Singapore is the sovereign where PB is concerned. As for the other two rocks, let whoever is the interested party go and fight over them.

PB claim "not over" yet replied by Atobe @ Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:51:20 +0800

Atobe — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:51:20 +0800

Originally posted by idwar:

Actually, I think it was stupid of Singapore to have brought up the issue of Middle Rocks and South Ledge to the ICJ.

Had Singapore kept quiet, she could have quietly taken over these rocks once ICJ awards Batu Puteh to Singapore. Malaysia as usual would be none the wiser.

Now Singapore bring this up to ICJ, they lose the whole of the waters at South Channel.

SO THE SINGAPORE LEGAL TEAM MADE A BIG MISTAKE .........but no one dared to speak out........

Was it stupid and A BIG MISTAKE for Singapore Legal Team to have brought the issue of Middle Rocks and South Ledge to the ICJ ?

Can Singapore quietly claim Middle Rock and South Ledge when these are territorially within Malaysian waters, as much as it is lying closer to PB ?

Malaysia has dared put up a claim on PB even ignoring the fact that Singapore has been administering sovereign acts on the island, do you think that Malaysia will allow the claiming of the Middle Rocks and South Ledge without any protest ?

For the price of one trial, Singapore has managed to get the plum cherry of the three pieces of real estate in this dispute, do we need to fret over what was and never could be Singapore ?

Are you attempting to console yourself with the loss of PB in deriding Singapore for being stupid to have brought up the other scrap outcrops and losing it to Malaysia ?

This must surely be a pityful way of consoling yourself.

Grow up and move on, and swallow the bitter fact that PB is confirmed to belong to Singapore - whatever outcome from ICJ decision to the other scraps of rocks had always been secondary interests for Singapore.

PB claim "not over" yet replied by Shotgun @ Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:33:34 +0800

Shotgun — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:33:34 +0800

Let them go dig. It doesn’t matter.

ICJ already recognized that Pedra Branca was not terra nullius and it did belong to M’sia.

It was awarded to Singapore DUE to our acts of sovereignty that was carried out on the islands, and not due to historical traces.

PB claim "not over" yet replied by idwar @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:57:58 +0800

idwar — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:57:58 +0800

Actually, I think it was stupid of Singapore to have brought up the issue of Middle Rocks and South Ledge to the ICJ.

Had Singapore kept quiet, she could have quietly taken over these rocks once ICJ awards Batu Puteh to Singapore. Malaysia as usual would be none the wiser.

Now Singapore bring this up to ICJ, they lose the whole of the waters at South Channel.

SO THE SINGAPORE LEGAL TEAM MADE A BIG MISTAKE .........but no one dared to speak out........

PB claim "not over" yet replied by gary1910 @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:10:08 +0800

gary1910 — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:10:08 +0800

LOL

What goondu statement!!! LOL

If you reclaim southward so that it will not narrow the channel, we too could also reclaim northward so that it will not narrow the channel!!!

As for SL, MY FM recent interview with press:

You head the technical committee for Malaysia to determine the South Ledge issue. What will you propose?

Actually, my idea is to propose to Singapore to let fishermen from both countries have access to the entire area. That would be the humane thing to do. Indonesian fishermen should also be allowed in as South Ledge is southward looking. This has never been proposed. But of course, I don't mean trawler fishermen. I will visit the area with my Singapore counterpart George Yeo soon.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/1/nation/21422620&sec=nation

Wow,suddenly MY became so generous!!!LOL

Do you know why?

That is becos South Ledge is a low tide elevation that does not generate it's own territorial water, EEZ and continental shelves, which means no economical value i.e. just piece of nuisance.

In fact, SG should now issue a statement that disclaim any ownership to SL, let MY has it, and if Indon want to contest it with MY, let them sort it out between themselves. :)

PB claim "not over" yet replied by idwar @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:26:50 +0800

idwar — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:26:50 +0800

Once the 2 rocks of Middle Rocks are joined together, the size of the Middle rocks would be several times that of Batu Puteh, as there is much room for expansion towards the south.

Of course, Singapura would also start to reclaim Batu Puteh, but that would affect traffic in Middle Channel.

It's strange that ther Indons are quiet up till now. I would have expected them to make noise now that they can join the party at South Ledge

Indonesian Marines ( HUT ke-59 Korps Marinir TNI AL)

Will we see them at South Ledge soon?

PB claim "not over" yet replied by the Bear @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:01:19 +0800

the Bear — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:01:19 +0800

all this is irrelevant.. as irrelevant as Malaysia's usual mantra of "semua tak pakai"

if they choose to pursue this matter further, they will just make even bigger laughingstocks of themselves...

they didn't fight the case properly with a bunch of incompetents using bad references like wikipedia for their "proof", along with their case being on shaky ground in the first place, caused this judgement..

the judgement clearly stated the whole premise of judgement was over the conduct of both parties AFTER the lighthouse was built... the letter of the Sultan was before the lighthouse... and in the words of the Malaysians, semua tak pakai..

PB claim "not over" yet replied by gary1910 @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:26:35 +0800

gary1910 — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:26:35 +0800

No, 1844 letter does not matter at all.

If you read the ICJ judgment , you will know what I mean.

5.3.5. Conclusion

117. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Malaysia has established to the satisfaction of the Court that as of the time when the British started their preparations for the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844, this island was under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor.

(pg 36 )

So as in 1844, the judges has already ruled that PB was still under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor, the context of that 1844 letter does not matter, after all the judges have already ruled in MY favour.

But in pg 49

163. In light of the above, the Court will now consider the conduct of the Parties after the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to ascertain whether this provides a basis for concluding that sovereignty over the island was passed from Johor to the United Kingdom, Singapore’s predecessor.

So what were the conduct of both parties that came into play after 1851 to 1980?

Well you could read the whole judgment on it, basically from 1851 onward, SG has exercised a titre de souverain or "acts consistent with being a Sovereign" on the 3 landmarks especially on Pedra Branca and there was no protest from MY before 1979.

And especially MY thru 1953 letters and 11 official maps prior to 1979 had admitted that Padra Branca belongs to SG, which effectively ceded Pedra Branca to SG.

(Read from pg 74 on the final judgment on PB from para 273 to 277.)

So in conclusion, if anyone actually read the entire ICJ Judgment, he will not make any stupid comment on the 1844 letter regardless of the content, becos the judges has already ruled that PB was still under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor in 1844.

The final judgment was based on the conduct of both parties on PB after 1851, which in this case the judges has ruled that MY effectively passed the sovereignty over the island from Johor to Singapore!!!

PB claim "not over" yet replied by Dr Who @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:20:08 +0800

Dr Who — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:20:08 +0800

Malaysians are now searching for a letter written to the Sultan to seek permission to use PB to build a lighthouse. If that letter is found, it may mean that the letter above was incorrectly written by the Johore State Secretary. It would mean PB belongs to Malaysia as permission was granted in writing following a written request.

Recent Posts in 'PB claim "not over" yet' | sgForums.com