Malaysian’s unhappiness over ICJ’s Pedra Branca verdict
Written by ED on May 25, 2008 – 7:06 pm - Posted in Current Affairs, Singapore |I felt it is absolutely IMPERATIVE to defend my own country when unfair allegations (that are less than factual) are thrown at Singapore, arising out of the final verdict passed down by ICJ. The leaders of both countries have declared that they will accept the judgement even before it was announced, and I wonder why some Malaysians can’t.
In the very last comment left by Mr Chan Chin Chow (in this post), he asked in his first line “Singapore acts aggressively in controlling what is not theirs. Do you all agree?” My answer, “No, I do not agree.” I am drawing a bold assumption that Mr Chan is a Malaysian, based on the context he has written in. I can understand the differences in opinions, but while this is so, it is in my beliefs that when allegations are thrown it had better be factual.
It is not my wish to discuss other unrelated issues like water treatment plants and airspace, but since Mr Chan has provided an elaborated list of issues he is unhappy with, I guess I can do my part as a Singaporean to defend my own country too, even in the smallest way. In which, Mr Chan indicated several specific issues which he found disturbing.
1. Claiming of ownership over Pulau Pisang, following the successful claim of Pedra Branca.
2. Restriction of Malaysian’s access onto Pulau Pisang.
3. Access of Malaysia’s forces and citizens into Singapore assets residing in Malaysia.
4. Control of Malaysia airspace.
5. Dr Mahathir’s claim of “not being a good neighbour”.
6. SAF controlled the territory aggressively even when it is not confirmed.
I believe there are much more outstanding issues between Malaysia and Singapore beside those mentioned above. What disturbed me even more, is Mr Chan’s hinting that Singapore WILL claim Pulau Pisang in years to come. It is partly due to this over-confidence that led to the less-than-desirable judgement from the Malaysian’s point of view. This isn’t my conclusion, but try reading the comments left behind in Lim Kit Siang’s blog entry as referred by Mr Chan himself. Even Malaysians themselves are saying that.
Allow me to briefly run through the issues brought up by Mr Chan now.
1. Claiming of ownership over Pulau Pisang.
Professor S. Jayakumar has openly replied in Parliament,
“Let me say upfront Pulau Pisang belongs to Malaysia. We have never disputed Malaysia’s sovereignity over Pulau Pisang but our MPA however has a right to operate the lighthouse there and the plot of land as well as the road leading to lighthouse has been granted in perpetuaty so long as Singapore operates that lighthouse. It’s in an indenture between Johor Sultanate and the Straits Settlements in 1900; so Pulau Pisang we never contested the sovereignty.”
There is no need for us to decipher such a direct message. The fears are completely unfounded, for the fact that an open declaration was made in Parliamant and publicized without restriction, unlike the contesting of the Johor State Government’s official statement (in disclaiming Pedra Branca) by none other than Malaysia’s very own citizens and ministers many years later.
2. Restriction of Malaysian’s access onto Pulau Pisang.
For this, I would like to draw up the analogy of a Malaysian renting an apartment in Singapore. Assuming that a Malaysian has done so with a proper agreement with a Singaporean landlord, does the Malaysian tenant not have control over who is allowed into the premises? The truth is, yes the Malaysian tenant can still reject any unauthorised person from entering the apartment. It is also advised by many housing agents and lawyers, that the tenant should be kept informed beforehand even if it’s the landlord who is wanting to gain entry into the apartment.
With this analogy, is it not perfectly legitimate for Singapore to restrict access to Pulau Pisang when we are the operators of the lighthouse? Given the expensive equipments in the lighthouse catered to the safety of seafarers, who will pay for any damages should casual landings on Pulau Pisang result in such situations? I am sure Malaysia will be quick to distant herself away, by citing Singapore as the operator and hence responsible for the safeguarding of these equipments. If that’s case, why should Singapore even accept such risks?
Also, it is a known fact among both our countries of the high piracy rate in our region. Should Singapore take the risk of endangering the lives of personnels manning the lighthouses? As a reasonable measure, access must be restricted and enforced. If a restriction is not enforced, then it’s all nothing but paper-talks.
3. Access of Malaysia’s forces and citizens into Singapore assets residing in Malaysia.
I cite a second example (based on facts) of Malaysia’s railway in Singapore. The small plots of land running alongside the railways are openly known to belong to Malaysia. For many years, Singapore has actively enforced that no local structures should be built on those lands. Similarly, the railway station is manned by Malaysian authorities and regulations within the railway station is in accordance to the Malaysian authorities. Is it not the same then, that we control our own assets in Malaysia?
A third example (again, based on facts) can be found in ex-Malaysia Naval Base in Woodlands. Malaysia vacated the premises more than 10 years ago when they can no longer cope with the rising rental rate due to Singapore’s limited land. Allegations that we were victimizing Malaysia were totally unfounded, because many Malaysians whom have migrated to Singapore will agree with me that the price hikes affected Singaporeans even more. Coming back to the point, wasn’t Malaysia in control of the naval base which sat on Singapore’s land? How is that different from Singapore restricting access into Singapore-run assets? Or, is Mr Chan unable to put into practice of what he is demanding at the same time, based on the above historical locations?
4. Control of Malaysia airspace.
As far as my resources tell me, Singapore shares airspace with Malaysia due to our limited airspace, and not control in Sovereignty terms. How does one not control operationally when regulating a certain purpose? This airspace is important for the safety of airliners coming into the region. I cannot comment much on this, because I am not working in the airline industry. Given so, I believe Mr Chan will be grateful one day when Malaysia comes under attack and Singapore can quickly scramble our latest jets into the air to assist Malaysia, due to our close proximity.
Perhaps, some aviators can shed better light on this even though I used to play around with remote control turbine jets. That doesn’t mean I study indepth into airspace issues.
But I will draw reference from Pulau Pisang, that controlling a certain asset in Malaysia run by Singapore does not necessary means we are claiming ownership.
5. Dr Mahathir’s claim of “not being a good neighbour”.
Talking about Dr. Mahathir, he’s a very entertaining character even until today upon his resignation from UMNO. I guess the lack of support from the members of UMNO in his childish’s resignation is in itself a good indication of how seriously we should digest his remarks on Singapore. He was not only ridiculed in Singapore, but also Malaysians. With that in mind, what does Dr. Mahathir or perhaps in Mr Chan’s understanding, that makes a “good neighbour”? By giving in to demands of Malaysia, or rather Dr. Mahathir, without legitimate causes? As and when Malaysia deemed fit to change the rules of the game? If a smaller country is expected to have a tiny voice compared to another country with bigger land mass, I am afraid that’s not going to happen.
It is not my Right to interfere in Malaysia’s politics, but given the “reform” we have seen in Malaysia’s recent election, I think that is good enough a standing statement. Having relatives in Melaka, Kuala Lumpur, Port Dickson, Pahang and Segamat, I am happy for them that they have found a voice for themselves through votes. Perhaps, this shows how satisfactory the nation is under the reigns of Dr. Mahathir?
I don’t feel that Singapore should give in to just about any demands that Malaysia asks for, because Singapore is an independent country with her power to negotiate too. I also don’t feel that to victimize Singapore just because of our limited land and airspace should be the conduct of a “good neighbour”. Therefore, is Mr Chan advocating to be a “good neighbour”? Or perhaps Good Neighbour Chan can direct us as to why Indonesia is being involved in a dispute over Pedra Branca, which is between Malaysia & Singapore?
6. SAF controlled the territory aggressively even when it is not confirmed.
It is important to note that, Malaysia is unable to produce the original deed that indicates Pedra Branca belongs to Malaysia. However, understanding the history of how Dutch and the British took control of the region, the land itself did belong to Malaysia once upon a time. Take note again, that the Johor administration at that time had denounced ownership or claims of the said land. Therefore, armed with the agreements and official statements (of Johor administration), it is as good as a confirmed case. What eventually brought the issue up to ICJ at Singapore’s initiative is Malaysia’s inability to accept the confirmed facts.
In that light, Singapore has every reason and Rights to defend the territory based on NOT hear-say or statements made without hard evidence, but hard facts that can be presented to the panel of judges in ICJ. Coming to that, isn’t using a blog to prove its case silly and naive?
The second error is, it is not only SAF which is controlling the territory. I am not sure if Mr Chan has even been to the area, but it is safeguarded by multiple agencies. Given an asset of Malaysia, I believe Malaysian authorities will also safeguard them aggressively. If the Malaysian authorities are not, then I guess Malaysians should seek an answer from their own Government.
==================================================
I wish I didn’t had to do this, but with so many baseless accusations put forth by Mr Chan, it had better be set right in my hopeful attempt. Over the years, both countries have been in numerous disputes. I figured that being so close to each other. Now, the proximity of Pedra Branca (Singapore) and Middle Rocks (Malaysia) should enhance cooperation and networking between both countries. Yet, we still have individuals who can’t wait to tear down any possibilities of both countries working together.
It is disappointing that Mr Chan placed up so many inaccurate accusations, what’s new to Singapore anyway? Singapore is no angel, that we know. Malaysia ain’t any angel as well.
May the two devils work well together then?
May 25th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
A case of “Calling the grapes sour just because the grapes can’t be reached.” I seem to recall the railway doesn’t belong to Singapore and is in a desperate need of maintenance from the wild grass.
Reply
May 25th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
A question to ask those who are unhappy over the verdict:
Did the verdict directly affect our daily lives in any way?
If it does not then just let it be. If it does then state how it affect and why the unhappiness due to it.
The unhappiness should be directed from something which affect our lives rather than just to “help spread the fire”.
Reply
May 26th, 2008 at 1:10 am
You did not answer all my questions. Will Sg give up controls over places like Pulau Pisang and let My manage their own airspace? No? Sg will try their best to ousted My from Sg land and Sg did it with RMN base and now KTM land. My officials who had been discussing matters with Sg said Sg is difficult to dealt with and wanting more than Sg willing to give. Like my example of the proposed bridge to replace the causeway, My just wanted to built a bridge but Sg wanted airspace for its military and sand for reclaimation. What those things have to do with a bridge?
Pulau Pisang - If Sg did not want its precious equipment to be damaged by casual landings and did not want to endanger personnel manning the lighthouse, just let My manage the lighthouse. My have many modern lighthouses but still tourist can get near to it and enjoy the scenery. Will Sg give up Pulau Pisang?
Mahathir was a PM and he knows well My foreign relationship. During Mahathir’s reign, his party never lose this much. Why they lost? Because silent majority share the same view as Mahathir on My current gov. Silent majority still listen to him but they are silent.
As neighbour, My always wanted Sg to be prosperous and willing to help in any situation. Both citizens has relative in both countries. Just look at the price of water taken from My. It is a lot cheaper than water sales between states in My. My did its part by providing Sg some drinks but asked Sg to help by increasing Johor’s income with slightly higher price of water. It should be no problem for rich country like Sg who sells back the water to ships with a lot higher price. My still agreed to sign water deals for years to come even below from what they expected because they knew those lives in the island needs water even though Sg now is fully capable of producing their own water.
We can work close together but be sincere. Why My and Sg has problems but My and Thai soldiers can patrol borders in a team. my Indon example is to waken you citizens of Sg why Sg has problems with its neighbours. Indon President once wanted to wipe out the red dot (Sg) in SEA.
Sg voice is bigger in international stage even though it is a dot in SEA and its land smaller than My. People of the world knows Sg better than My. This survey has been done. Thanks to Mahathir My is now known to more people.
my accusation may seems baseless. Dont uncermine me with this baseless statement. Look at your examples. The My Navy base in Woodland has been given a hard time by Sg to operates there. If Sg is sincere, then just let them operates with minimal fees just like My did with its water to Sg.
Your examples on house rental. I’m not talking about relation and agreement between landlord and tenants but between landlords/tenants and law enforcer/authority. Law enforcer has the right to enter any premises in their territory. Warrants gives the law enforcer more power.
Sg always picture themself being bullied by those big guys (My and Id) but what those big guys can do with this little kid with a lot of money, being superpower in SEA economy, massive amount of advanced weaponary, advanced defence strategy and close ally to big brother US???
Reply
Dearest Chan;
Spore may be small but rich in advance weaponry & defense technology wz close tie up wz other nations, not to say it’s capital reserves. So, do u or My hv a problem wz it?. If u hv, then ask yrself how did Spore who started wz almost nothin come to be so envious to the eyes of My?. Afterall, My has many natural resources while Sg has none!. Yr post is pure rubbish, just like what comes out fm Mr. 10% mouth!. U r too naive!.
Cheers!.
Reply
May 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
The International Civil Aviation Organization “delegates” the administration of FIRs. Singapore does not unilaterally “control” Malaysian airspace (which is quite a questionable statement).
It is also not uncommon for another country’s territorial airspace to fall under the FIR under another country’s administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Information_Region
Singapore’s FIR is largely over the South China Sea, with a section under the responsibility of KL ACC. So I don’t really understand what you mean by Singapore “controlling” Malaysian airspace.
Reply
May 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Hmm sounds like a war is brewing. Actually what is the big deal with all these? In any case, it is not Singapore bully Malaysia or what not. This matter went up to the ICJ, and if anyone thinks they are biased then flame them. In fact, reading about the judgement makes me feel that it is a fair one, and the arguments on how sovereignty can be passed from one to another is justifiable and believable. In fact, using the same argument, they awarded the two rocks to Malaysia isn’t it?
Anyway, no matter what, contracts cannot be signed with only one name. Negotiations will always take place, and it is the government’s responsibility to negotiate a good agreement for their own country. If citizens are unhappy, blame their own government. IIRC, Indonesia also package many things together during negotiation, but it is up to Singapore to decide whether to agree or not. If they are so unhappy, then bring it up to their goverment and change things.
Reply
May 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Chan Chin Chow:
I think that you are trying too hard to paint grey matters into black and white.
SG control on Pulau Pisang is similar in nature to MY control on KTM land. I think that the SG government have as much interest in giving up Pulau Pisang as the MY government in giving up the KTM land. So, according to you, Singapore is unreasonable and unneighbourly for not giving up control over Pulau Pisang, but Malaysia on the other hand is the perfect neighbour by hanging on to the KTM land and letting it rot without development?
What about Malaysia’s intention to demolish the Causeway, is it not motivated by the intent to reroute shipping so that it will bypass Singapore direct to Johor ports? Why should Singapore act directly against it’s interest without any other conditions? So when Singapore acts in its own interest, then Singapore is not being a good neighbour. But when Malaysia act in its interest it is being reasonable and a good neighbour?
What about the Singapore bashing that comes with the various Malaysian elections during Mahathir’s time. Is he being a good neighbour by using Singapore as a whipping boy and a bogeyman for his political goals? Or how the Johor Mentri Besar complains about how Singaporeans are creating problems in Johor by flooding in and increasing prices, and yet complains about the Singaporean government discouraging Singaporeans to go Johor the next moment when the numbers lessen and his state’s income from tourism drop.
The list goes on and on, and the truth is that there are much historical baggage between the two nations - both have acted unneighbourly many times in the course of history due to conflicting interests, and it will be extremely hypocritical to point fingers at others when one is guilty of the same sins.
Reply
May 27th, 2008 at 6:51 am
I think a lot of the confusion stems from the interpretation between Ownership and Sovereignty. Many people confuse between the two concepts.
Foe example, just because an individual owns a piece of land, he cannot create his own set of laws for that land.
This is a common fallacy in these arguments that people fail to distinguish between the two concepts.
So let me make this clear, Malaysia owns the KTM land but Singapore has sovereignty over it. Singapore owns the light house and the road leading towards it but Malaysia has sovereignty over it.
What the owner chooses to do in his own land is his own business provided that it doesn’t break the laws of the country that has sovereignty over it. So Singapore has a right to decide who should enter the light-house.
Reply
May 27th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Sorry the light house I was referring to was Pulau Pisang not Pedra Branca.
Reply
May 27th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Let me add qwerty post. Malaysia owns KTM land so they deserve what to do on it. Everyone can enter the station. Singapore own the lighthouse and road leading to it but Malaysian authority don’t have authority in it.
Reply
May 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Chan Chin Chow :
KTM land is a train station - of course you need to open a train station to the public. You are comparing apples with oranges.
Was surfing around on the topic of Singapore-Malaysia relations, and came across a faq on SG/MY issues by Singapore’s MFA. Let me frame some answers to your earlier questions by rephrasing parts of the faq - perhaps you can provide the Malaysian perspective and correct any factual error or inconsistency.
Chan Chin Chow : “Singapore acts aggressively in controlling what is not theirs…”
Singapore has exercised exclusive control and sovereignty of Pedra Branca since the 1840s. This is the status quo. Until Malaysia’s claim is decided by the ICJ, the status quo must remain.
Malaysia took this same position against Indonesian naval intrusions over the Sipadan and Ligitan dispute. In that case, Malaysia took the position that as they were in possession of the islands, the status quo should prevail. But Malaysia now conveniently disregards the status quo in the case of Pedra Branca by intruding into Singapore waters.
Chan Chin Chow : “As neighbor, My always wanted Sg to be prosperous and willing to help in any situation… …My did its part by providing Sg some drinks but asked Sg to help by increasing Johor’s income with slightly higher price of water…”
The provision of water and the price of the water that was granted to Singapore was not the result of Malaysian charity and generosity, but by the agreements brokered during the time when British granted independence to both nations.
The water treaty stipulated the provision of waters for 100 years to Singapore at a price, which is open to bilateral review at 25 year intervals - which is in 1986 and 1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at those times.
It was a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : “There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor.” So, Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it would not benefit them at that time.
Was Singapore profiteering from the water agreement?
For every 1000 gallons of water:
Singapore pays 3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia
Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this water
Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore
Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents
Singapore pays 3 sen for raw water, but the real cost to Singapore for raw water is much higher because all the construction costs to build related reservoirs, dams and pipe works are footed by Singapore.
When the agreed timing for price review lapsed with no action from Malaysia, Malaysia have lost its legal right to review the price of water. Nevertheless, Singapore agreed to negotiate with Malaysia to adjust the pricing of water.
The documents of the bilateral exchanges released in the Singapore Parliament showed that Malaysia has repeatedly changed its mind on the price of water and shifted the goal posts whenever an agreement was close to being reached. They first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01.
But in Mar 02, they increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Later they increased their demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. The Malaysians also refused to discuss future water supplied to Singapore until 2059, two years before the 1962 Water Agreement runs out…
In Dec 98, Malaysia requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as a package. Singapore agreed. Later on, it was also Malaysia that unilaterally called off the package approach. It was clear that Malaysia did not want to sell any future water to Singapore, so there was nothing left to negotiate.
Is it fair to paint Malaysia as an innocent victim when it is clear that Malaysia is trying to be calculative to get the best deal for itself - same as Singapore is trying to?
Reply
May 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Actually, Malaysia can do whatever they want to the KTM land provided it doesn’t violate any treaty agreement or Singaporean law.
Just like Singapore has the right to keep people out of her lighthouses provided that it doesn’t violate Malaysian law or any treaty agreements.
The case of the water agreement was a legal binding contract between two nation states.
If it is anyone’s fault, it is the negotiators fault for not thinking carefully about the original terms of the agreement.
As for Singapore’s agressive demands. It is the right of negotiators (on both sides) to make any demands but ultimately you need both parties to agree to them.
That is why it is called a ‘negotiation’. Malaysia has the right to refuse signing a new contract if she so wishes. That is her perogative and Singapore ultimately has no say over that.
That said, I think rule of (international) law (following treaties etc.) is very important in the international context. Otherwise smaller countries (both Singapore and Malaysia) can easily be eaten up by bigger tyrants.
PS:Yes I know Singapore is much smaller, but here in the US, you have many states like California and Texas which can easily dwarf Malaysia.
Reply
May 30th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I think Malaysia/Malaysians are just sore loser….as always. They even argued/quarrelled over govt voting results which is very shameful and potrays unprofessionalism. You people cannot accept facts and reality..you lose so try harder dude if you wanna win. This is especially so when it involves competing with tiny Singapore. Hey!!and see even there was a report in one of the papers that Malaysians and the ministers are not happy with the ICJ decision. This is a TYPICAL SORE LOSERS attitude. Btw, only days after this episode, the “SMART ALEC” in Malaysia suggest stopping or charging singapore reg cars more when they wanna get petrol???Can you believe that? Malaysians have to accept the fact that without us singaporeans, the country will not be as prosperous as it is now. Singaporeans often shop, eat, etc in Malaysia thus directly giving gd business to their malaysian counterparts but how many malaysians come to singapore to shop?I can guarantee if Malaysians still want to pick on Singapore, the country’s economy will be sorely miserable…
Reply
May 31st, 2008 at 11:45 am
[...] Branca - Endoh’s Dungeon: Malaysian’s unhappiness over ICJ’s Pedra Branca verdict - Random Thoughts Of A Free Thinker: A quick response to the ICJ judgment on the Pedra Branca [...]
June 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
whos this MR chan? imbal loser
first of all, if u tink our 50cen water is too much, don’t blardy buy it, go drink from the pond or sth
2nd, your crooked bridge proposal is simply ludicrous….a bent bridge? HAH how revelatory of msian intellect and capabilities
3rd, wats the fish with “not gd neighbour”? u stinkers just want our money….in case u didn’t learn history, we started off with nth, no natural resources, extremely limited ppl and land (and even then when we splitted, u thieves stole the money we loaned to sabah for development)…and 40 years on, despite constant threats, snubs and bullying, we’re vastly richer than you and we earned every single cent of it, so we’ll rather burn it then leave you with some crumps and an impression of a gd neighbour
lol and wipe the “little red dot” off? pls the indonesian army doesnt even have oil to move, how to come over and wipe us? do u seriously want us to treat u like how israel treats lebanon, syria, iran before u get the picture?
Reply
June 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Dear Malaysia Leader
On Pulau Pisang, please take over the operation of lighthouse (Diplomatically ofcourse).
Are we not in control on areas beside the road leading to the lighthouse and light house itself? Grant the farmer or housing developer with land titles. If built, I will be the first person to book the house lot there!!!!
Reply