Sunday, December 28, 2008

DEMOKRASI DI MALAYSIA AKAN SAMPAI KE PENGHUJUNGNYA JIKA…..

Demokrasi di Malaysia akan sampai “ke penghujungnya” jika empat peruntukan asas dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan –Islam sebagai agama rasmi, Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan, Raja-Raja Melayu, dan hak serta keistimewaan Bumiputera – terus diungkit dan dicabar oleh segelintir pemimpin politik minoriti di negara ini, kata Presiden Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (PERKASA), Datuk Ibrahim Ali.

Ibrahim menghuraikan perkara ini sewaktu berucap di satu majlis mengenai isu-isu semasa anjuran PERKASA dan Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO Bahagian Kapar, di Taman Meru Tiga, Meru, Kelang, pada malam 26 Disember 2008. Turut hadir adalah Datuk Abdul Rahman Palil, selaku Ketua UMNO Bahagian Kapar merangkap Ketua Penaja PERKASA Selangor, dan Hamdan Taha, aktivis politik yang pernah mengangotai PKR.

“Demokrasi di Malaysia akan sampai ke penghujungnya jika empat peruntukan asas dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan terus diungkit dan dicabar oleh segelintir pemimpin politik minoriti hingga menyebabkan Pribumi hilang sabar dan perpaduan negara jadi lumpuh.

“Saya tidak mahu ini berlaku. Saya mahu Malaysia terus aman damai. Saya mahu perpaduan negara ini kukuh dan terus dipelihara oleh semua pihak,” kata Ibrahim.

Tapi, kalau segelintir pemimpin minoriti di negara ini - dalam komponen Barisan Nasional (BN) atau sebaliknya - tidak berhenti mempertikai dan mencabar empat peruntukan asas dalam Perlembagan Persekutuan ini, kata Ibrahim lagi, “demokrasi di Malaysia akan sampai ke penghujungnya.”

Seterusnya, Ibrahim meminta pihak terbabit supaya memberhentikan provokasi mereka terhadap perkara-perkara teras dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan ini “jika tidak mahu demokrasi di negara ini sampai ke penghujungnya.”

“Jika mereka terus mencabar seluruh perkara ini, tidak mustahil tindakan mereka menjejaskan keamanan yang dikecapi oleh masyarakat berbilang kaum di negara ini.

“Mereka juga harus sedar bahawa teras keamanan negara ini juga bertunjangkan kepada kesejahteraan orang Melayu dan Pribumi.

"Jika hak Melayu dan Pribumi terancam, tidak mustahil demokrasi yang banyak memberi kemakmuran kepada seluruh penduduk Malaysia akan tercabar,” kata Ibrahim.

Antara perkara lain yang dihuraikan oleh Ibrahim di majlis berkenaan adalah soal sebuah kerajaan negeri memberikan tanah kepada penduduk kampung baru dan kampung tersusus selama 999 tahun, isu penggunaan pelbagai bahasa di papan tanda jalan di Pulau Pinang, tindakan segelintir pemimpin komponen BN yang baru-baru ini mempersoalkan status Melayu dan Pribumi, usaha segelintir pihak mempersoalkan kedaulatan Raja-Raja Melayu, serta usaha sesetengah pertubuhan memperlekehkan kemuliaan Islam menerusi soal-soal murtad dan sebagainya.

Ibrahim membuat kenyataan di atas di khalayak ramai buat pertama kalinya. Kenyataan itu mencerminkan tahap kesabaran beliau dan PERKASA kepada pelbagai polemik, kenyataan serta tindakan segelintir pemimpin minoriti di negara ini sekarang terhadap pelbagai fasal teras yang termaktub Perlrembagaan Persekutuan. – Ruhanie Ahmad

22 comments:

shahbandarmalakat said...

Salam Datuk.
Tertarik dengan bagai mana mereka yang duduk di ‘kampung Baru’ di Perak tu boleh di bagi hak milik sampai 999 tahun…sedangkan sebuah kawasan di namakan ‘kawasan Melayu di Petaling jaya hanya di bagi 99 tahun lease.
Bukan kah ‘kampung Baru’ ini adalah penepatan ‘sementara’ kepada simpati parti komunis Malaya oleh British .? Mereka mereka ini telah di angkut dari segenap penjuru dan di letakkan disatu tempat di panggil kampong baru. Asal mereka tentu tidak ada tanah dan menunpang di merata rata..bukan begitu Datuk?

Sepatutnya Kampung Baru ini setelah Negara aman mesti di gubarkan…ianya hanya penempatan sementara…jadi silap kita juga kerana tidak bertegas.

Saya tertarik hati dengan penulisan Tun M dalam blognya baru baru ini ,yang memaparkan Ucapan, ‘Enche (sic) Tan Siew Sin, at the Delegates' Conference of the Hokkien Association of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur on 22nd May 1965’. mengatakan sebelum merdeka hanya 200 ribu rakyat Cina yang dapat kerakyatan.. Ini kerana British begitu strict dalam memberi kerakyatan, hanya orang yang mempunyai ‘good character’yang layak…bunyi ‘good character’ tu senang tapi sebenarnya satu halangan yang besar. Tetapi sebaik saja merdeka “orang Melayu “ lulus kan sejuta kerakyatan kepada orang Cina sebabnya ialah ‘ a provision was inserted in the constitution itself to the effect that "good character" meant any person who had not been in jail during the period of three years preceding his application for citizenship.Ini memudahkan process memberi kerakyatan

maka dari saat itu numbornya bertambahlah…

Kita ini sudah banyak sangat buat silap dan bermurah hati…Dahlah bila merdeka kita Melayu tak bersedia..tak mempunya modal nak beli estate estate yang di tinggalkan oleh British..contoh masa itu dalam kampong saya di Melaka…estate orang putih di tepi kampung di beli orang Cina..dalam sekelip mata orang tua bertukar tuan..dulu bertuankan orang putih lepas tua bertuankan Cina pula..hehehe .walau pun sebagai anak jati bercita cita nak miliki estate tersebut dari saat itu hingga sekarang masih tak tercapai..

tok iskandar said...

Inilah Melayu UMNO....bila kalah teruk dalam PRU12 mulalah cakap pasal ketuanan Melayu.
Sebenarnya dah 51 tahun UMNO tipu Melayu untuk kaya-raya
Bila Melayu dah sedar dan tak mahukan lagi UMNO,barulah UMNO gelabah dan sibuk pasal ketuanan Melayu.
Semua dah tahu UMNO parti luput tarikh dan menunggu masa untuk berkubur
Ibrahim Ali dan penulis kuda kepang sepatutnya sedar perkara ni dan buatlah sesuatu yang bermanfaat daripada berkokok menunjukkan kejaguhan membela Melayu sedangkan hakikatnya tidak

slyderrose said...

Siapa yg mencabar?.Ada sesiapa ingin merubah perlembagaan ke?. Yg jelas bahasa melayu telah terpinggir. Olih siapa? Kedudukan sultan melayu telah tercabar sekitar 1990-1992 lagi. Olih siapa? Ingat kes Sultan Kelantan membeli kereta mewah, sekitar 1991-1992, siapa yg hebat mempersoalkannya?, Ibrahim Ali kena jawab soalan ini dengan jujur dan ikhlas. Jangan disebabkan umno kalah di lima negeri baru nak ungkit benda ini. Target beliau dan Perkasa mesti betul. Jangan nak cuba nak buat cerita yg tak pasti. Yg pasti sekitar tahun 1991-1992 itu jelas dan nyata.

kudakepang said...

Tok Iskandar,

Pandangan anda cukup hebat. Ini contoh segelintir anak Melayu yang berjiwa moden.

Tetapi, anda salah tafsir. Apa yang saya tulis dan apa yang dikatakan oleh Datuk Ibrahim Ali adalah mengenai EMPAT FASAL ASAS DALAM PERLEMBAGAAN PERSEKUTUAN YANG TIDAK BOLEH DIROBAH OLEH SAPA-SAPA MELAINKAN DENGAN PERKENAN RAJA-RAJA MELAYU.

Anda akan faham hal ini jika anda sudi mendalami apa yang saya katakan tanpa sebarang mental block.

Jadi, apa yang saya tulis dan apa yang dikatakan oleh Ibrahim bukan soal KETUANAN MELAYU. Ini soal Islam, soal bahasa jiwa bangsa, soal Raja-Raja payung negara dan soal keistimewaan Pribumi. Kalau anda tak setuju saya kesal dengan anda kerana terkeliru.

Salam takzim - Ruhanie Ahmad

putera bentan said...

Saya setuju dengan komen Datuk kepada Tok Iskandar. Saya hairan macam mana ada anak Melayu (kalau betul dia Melayu dan tak gunakan nama Melayu sebagai topeng) macam ni.

Saya seru Tok Iskandar insafi sejarah, jangan buta sejarah. Akibat peristiwa 13 Mei 1969, bukankah demokrasi di negara ini digantung dan mati? Ingat tak sejarah ni? Kalau waktu tu anda belum dilahirkan, pergi mintak emak bapak anda ceritakan sejarah ni.

Saya pencinta damai di negara yang berbilang kaum. Tapi kalau empat peruntukan asas dalam perlembagaan tu diungkit-ungkit, lidi saya jadikan pengayuh, membujur lalu, melintang patah, demi keseluruhannya, saya rela patah sayap, tapi saya akan berusaha untuk terbang jua!

akal ask said...

datuk,sya tak tau di mana silapnya,namun bagi bagi saya,tok iskandar kata tu ada jua betulnya walaupun sedikit.

saya tak pandai dalam politik ni,umurpun baru baru nak capai angka 40,namun saya amatlah terkilan kerna bangsa melayu sebenarnya telah,sudah dan akan terus ditipu oleh kelicikkan bangsa asing,kerana apa? bukannya kerana melayu tu bodoh,tidak melayu tak bodoh,melayu bangsa yang bijak, bijak dalam apa jua,
cuba kita lihat kembali zaman kerajaan langkasuka,kerajaan islam terengganu dan lastnya kerajaan melaka,kita terbilang,tersohor,namunkerana sedikit perasaan hasad,perasaan tamak,yang dibiarkan membiak makanya ia semakin lama semakin layu.
siapa yang membiakkan semua gejala itu?rakyat berterusan di sogok dengan segala tipu demi nama dan pangkat.tak kiralah apa partipun .selagi utamakan "temolok"sendiri,beginilahseterusnya,layu cuma ada pada bahasa saja nanti,"bunga layu"

maaf datuk sekadar luahan perasaan seorang insan kerdil baru belajar menjengok blog.

odeen said...

KEMELESETAN EKONOMI DUNIA TERMASUK DI MALAYSIA MENAMPAKKAN KELEMAHAN PEMERINTAH YANG SEBELUM INI BEGITU TAMAK DAN RAKUS MENGIKIS WANG RAKYAT SEHINGGA RAKYAT LEMAS TIDAK BERNAFAS AKIBAT DIHIMPIT HUTANG DAN KENAIKAN HARGA BARANG. NAMUN APABILA RAKYAT MEMINTA PERTOLONGAN TERUTAMA PARA NELAYAN DAN PETANI MAKA MEREKA MEMBUAT PELBAGAI ALASAN HINGGA MENAMPAKKAN SIKAP TIDAK SERIUS MEREKA SEPERTI GOLONGAN RAKYAT BAWAHAN INI TIDAK PENTING LANGSUNG...PERSOALANNYA KENAPA RAMPAS WANG RAKYAT KALAU TAK MAMPU BANTU RAKYAT...???? SEKARANG BANTULAH RAKYAT YANG DALAM KESEMPITAN NIE...

Jiwa Merdeka said...

Apakah maksud "demokrasi di Malaysia akan sampai ke penghujungnya"?

Adakah bermakna orang Melayu akan bangkit mengamhil-alih kuasa dan menjadi pemerintah dengan mengenepikan sistem demokrasi?

Kalau itu maksudnya, mampukah orang Melayu berbuat demikian?

Saya tidak pasti.

Bagaimanapun, sambil menghormati pendapat Ibrahim, saya bimbang pendapat Ibrahim itu sebenarnya merupakan "gertak harimau kertas" saja, kerana Ibrahim adalah orang yang berada "di luar struktur kuasa".

Jadi berapa kuat pun beliau mengaum, ngaumannya mungkin tidak akan didengar oleh sesiapa, khasnya oleh pemimpin minoriti yang dimaksudkannya.

Sepatutnya yang lebih bertanggungjawab menjaga dan mempertahankan empat perkara penting dalam peruntukan Perlembagaan itu ialah parti Melayu yang sedang berkuasa, dan ketika berkuasa, bukan Ibrahim.

ChengHo said...

Pelajarilah sejarah Melayu mengenai cerita Kitul dan Raja Mandaliar di Melaka..

tok iskandar said...

dalam sistem demokrasi,rakyat ada hak undi sesiapa yang dia hendak.kudakepang dulu ambik public admin.ada baca buku ahmad atory husin tak?ini junior tok.ambik public admin dan belajar kat uitm.
kalau rakyat dah tak nak umno dan bn,apa salahnya mereka pilih pakatan rakyat?kalau tak nak kalah,buat ajelah sistem satu parti dan perintahlah negara ni sesuka hati

tok iskandar said...

Jika UMNO betul kenapa semua bekas presiden UMNO tinggalkan umno.Pengasas umno,arwah onn jaafar keluar umno tubuhkan parti baru.tak salah tok parti negara.begitu juga arwah tunku abdul rahman dan arwah husein onn.last sekali dr mahathir 3 kali keluar umno.lebih teruk daripada ibrahim ali lagi.
nak kata tok melayu moden,katalah
yang penting tok tahu umno sekarang bukan perjuangkan nasib melayu
buktinya tengok kampung plentong tengah,johor yang tanahnya dirampas biarpun puluh tahun penduduknya tinggal di situ.penyokong umno pulak tu.

kudakepang said...

Tok Iskandar

Tak payah kita berpolemik jauh begini. Pokoknya yang saya pertikaikan ialah mengenai empat FASAL ASAS DALAM PERLEMBAGAAN dan bukannya soal ketuanan Melayu seperti yang anda bangkitkan. Itu saja. Yang lain tak jadi masalah. Anda tuduh UMNO, itu hak anda. Tapi PERKASA bukan UMNO.

Salam takzim - Ruhanie Ahmad

wira said...

YBhg Datuk Ron,

Artikel ini sangat penting untuk saya ketepikan kerana paparan yang mempunyai asas kesilapan yang dilakukan oleh atuk nenek bapak kita memberi kerana mereka tidak semahir orang orang yang meminta.

Kita tibalah masanya untuk kita semua meningkatkan keimanan kita supaya kita senantiasa sejahtera dunia dan akhirat supaya kesinambungan demokrasi berkekalan hingga keakhir zaman.

dizzy boy said...

Salam Datuk,
Sekiranya tidak mahu semuanya terjadi apa yg datuk usulkan tajuk kali ini,senang saja sy nak huraikan disini,KEMBALIKAN SAJA KUASA RAJA-RAJA MELAYU PERLEMBAGAAN.Semua akan terjamin perkara2 yg sebodoh sebegini tidak akan dibangkitkan dimasa akan datang.UMNO jgnlah terlalu rakus untuk mencabut kuasa Raja-Raja Melayu.Apabila kuasa Raja-Raja Melayu dah tiada,bangsa asing kini sibyk memperkatakan kpd org melayu,Jgn ingat UMNO terlalu kuat buat selamanya.Sedarlah wahai UMNO,ENGKAU YG JAHANAMKAN KUASA RAJA-RAJA MELAYU,KEMBALIKAN SAHAJALAH.JGN SAMPAI UMNO DAH REBAH BARU NAK TERHENGEH2 NAK KEMBALIKAN KUASA RAJA-RAJA MELAYU.

Alias Mohd Yusof said...

Saya tak berapa faham apa kena mengena demokrasi dengan 4 peruntukan itu. Ini demokrasi mazhab Ibrahim Ali ke?

tok janggut said...

Salam,

Memang demokrasi di Mallaysia akan sampai ke penghujungnya jika Melayu sekarang terus berperangai seperti Melayu sekarang.

Masalah di Malaysia sekarang bukannya datang dari bangsa lain tapi datang dari bangsa Melayu sendiri. Andaikata Malysia terdiri daripada bangsa Melayu sahaja pun, masalah yang sama akan berlaku kerana budaya Melayu itu sendiri. Bukan semua tapi mejoriti golongan bangsawan Melayu.

tok iskandar said...

Fasal asas dalam perlembagaan sejak kita sekolah rendah dah hafal.

bab kepercayaan kepada tuhan tak ada kontoversi.

bab kesetiaan kepada raja dan negara tok nak ulas.
setahu tok umno juga yang hilangkan kekebalan raja-raja melayu time mamak mahathir jadi PM.berpunca daripada kes jurulatih hoki Perak ditampar Sultan Johor.

Yang hina Yang Di Pertuan Agong ketika berdemo depan kediaman Idris jusoh pegang banner natang sultan tu bukan orang umno ke.Sungguh biadap menghina yang Di Pertuan Agong sebagai binatang.sampai sekaarng polis tak tangkap orang umno tu.
Isu MB Perlis,Shahidan Kasim sendiri tak hadir upacara perlantikan MB Perlis yang baru dan jelas menghina Raja Perlis.
Pak Lah yang pertikaikan Sultan Mizan lantik Ahmad said sebagai MB terengganu tak biadap ke.
Sebenarnya dah 51 tahun UMNO mempergunakan raja-raja melayu untuk kepentingan sendiri

kudakepang said...

Tok Iskandar, jutaan terima kasih.

Pokoknya di sini PERKASA bukan UMNO. Walaupun saya orang UMNO, sewaktu dalam PERKASA kita tidak mencorakkannya mengikut kacamata dan citarasa UMNO.

Saya pasti Saudara faham dan hormat akan perkara ini, sebagaimana saya menghormati komen anda biarpun posting ini agak bukan sasarannya!

Salam takzim - Ruhanie Ahmad

tok iskandar said...

Cuba keluar UMNO dan jadi bebas macam dr mahathir barulah boleh corak PERKASA ikut acuan bebas dan bukannya umno

dizzy boy said...

Dlm PERKASA juga ada yg ahli UMNO jugak,betul kat Tok Iskandar itu,PERKASA semestinya bukan ahli UMNO dan org UMNO yg menerajuinya,barulah PERKASA nampak hebat.Sy syor apa kata PERKASA bebaskan kuasa Raja-Raja Melayu Perlembagaan.gunakan kuasa yg ada pada PERKASA,himpun dan laungkan.Sy berpendapat PERKASA tidak akan berani dalam isu ini kerana boleh dikatakan semua kepimpinan PERKASA datangnya dari UMNO,kecuali Datuk Paduka Ibrahin Ali(BEBAS)itupun akan melompat jika kerajaan beri pangkat dan darjat kpdnya.Cuba Datuk dan PERKASA bahaskan isu mengenai kuasa Raja-Raja Melayu Perlembgaan.ADAKAH DATUK BERANI????

Mika Angel-0 said...

Sdr Ruhanie Ahmad,

Cerita raja-raja melayu ini macam cerita bangsawan modenkah?

ahmad said...

THE CASE OF BATU PUTEH, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE
AT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Abdul Kadir Mohamad







INTRODUCTION


On 23 May 2008, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague handed down its Judgment on the country’s territorial dispute with Singapore, many people in Malaysia reacted with dismay that Pulau Batu Puteh (BP) had been lost to Singapore. As a piece of the national territory, BP was indeed sacred property. The Judgment particularly hurt because in the eyes of Malaysians the claim made by Singapore, ever since the problem surfaced in 1980, had come to symbolize the height of Singapore’s arrogance in the conduct of its relations with Malaysia and insensitivity towards the feelings of Malaysians.

In 1979, Malaysia had published a map entitled “Territorial Waters and Continental Shelf Boundaries of Malaysia” in which BP was shown as forming a part of Malaysian territory. That inclusion was, in fact, a deliberate step taken by the cartographers to reaffirm Malaysia’s sovereignty over BP which had always been a part of the original Sultanate of Johor since ancient times.

In February 1980, Singapore lodged a protest against the inclusion of BP in the 1979 Map. That began a protracted dispute between Malaysia and Singapore, spanning almost three decades. Much effort was extended to settle the dispute bilaterally but without any success. In 1994, the Leaders of Malaysia and Singapore agreed to refer the question of sovereignty over BP to the ICJ for peaceful adjudication by a third party.

Before then, the dispute concerned only one feature, namely BP. However, by the time the two sides had agreed to refer the matter to the ICJ, the dispute had enlarged to include two other features in the same vicinity, namely Middle Rocks (MR) and South Ledge (SL). The case was formally registered by the ICJ as the “Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)” .

A proper appreciation of the case requires careful reading of the written pleadings and oral submissions of Malaysia before the Court as well as the text of the Court’s Judgment including the dissenting opinions of four Judges, all of which are easily accessible on the website of the International Court of Justice, (http:// www.icj-cij.org).

This account is necessarily a brief rendition of a very lengthy and truly national effort spanning nearly 30 years. In particular, it does not reflect the thousands of hours of research and other work done by the Malaysian Team to prepare a good case on behalf of Malaysia. For more than 18 years, a total of more than 50 people were engaged in the search for historical and documentary evidence in 63 archives and libraries in no less than 10 countries throughout the world.


BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS DID NOT SUCCEED


Following its protest in 1980, Singapore continued to raise the issue with Malaysian leaders on several occasions:

• In May 1980, Lee Kuan Yew raised the issue of ownership of Pedra Branca with Dato (Tun) Hussein Onn. The two leaders agreed to settle the matter peacefully.

• In December 1981, Lee Kuan Yew raised the same issue with Dr. (Tun) Mahathir Mohamad. They agreed to have a formal exchange of documents to prove ownership.

• In October 1991, Goh Chok Tong and Dr. (Tun) Mahathir Mohamad reaffirmed the 1981 understanding to resolve the matter by a formal exchange of documents, for the purpose of determining the ownership of Pedra Branca/BP based on legal principles.

• In February 1992, Singapore submitted to Malaysia a Memorandum to support its claim to ownership over Pedra Branca. In June 1992, Malaysia responded with a written Memorandum of its own.

During the first round of official talks in 1993 in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore gave the first hint that it was claiming sovereignty not only over BP but also over MR and SL. Although a second round of bilateral talks was held in 1994 in Singapore, it became clear that neither side was going to succeed to convince the other about who owned what.

The inclusion of two additional claims by Singapore was the main factor which closed the possibility of reaching any form of bilateral solution.

Following the 1994 agreement to refer the dispute to the ICJ, several rounds of meetings at the level of officials were held to negotiate a Special Agreement to jointly submit the case for adjudication by the Court. Such an agreement was required because neither Malaysia nor Singapore was a signatory to the Statutes of the ICJ.

In 1998, consensus was reached on the text of the Special Agreement. At this juncture, however, Malaysia and Singapore mutually agreed to shelve the issue of BP for some time to enable Malaysia to attend to a separate and unrelated “Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan” between Malaysia and Indonesia. The two countries had agreed, in 1997, to refer that dispute for international adjudication, also by the ICJ.

The interregnum lasted nearly five years until the dispute with Indonesia was finally settled in December 2002 when the ICJ adjudged both Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan as belonging to Malaysia.

In February 2003, the outstanding dispute with Singapore was revisited and the Special Agreement was finally signed by the Foreign Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore in Putrajaya.

Article 2 of the Special Agreement says, “The Court is requested to determine whether sovereignty over (a) Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh; (b) Middle Rocks; (c) South Ledge belongs to Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore”.


WHY MALAYSIA TOOK THE ICJ OPTION


Following the announcement of the Judgment which did not fully meet Malaysia’s expectations, there were those who questioned Malaysia’s logic for agreeing to go to the ICJ in the first place, without having a ‘sure-win’ legal case in this matter. Actually, the Government took that decision after much deliberation, with full cognizance of the risks involved.

In fact, Malaysia agreed to refer the dispute to the ICJ only after many years of escalating tension in the area around BP. It all began in 1986 when Singapore mounted certain naval operations in the area. Singapore had changed its diplomatic stance and begun to station gunboats near BP and made the waters around it a “no-go area”. Johor fishermen, who had operated in those waters for generations, were barred from entering the area.

Malaysia could have resorted to military action to assert control over BP and the seas around it. However, in their wisdom, the Malaysian political leadership at that time decided against this course of action. Instead, they chose to adopt a policy of non-confrontation and to act in a peaceful manner in the spirit of neighbourly relations and in the spirit of ASEAN. Both Malaysia and Singapore are Parties to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia which requires all disputes to be settled by peaceful means.

It was not a question of being afraid to go to war with Singapore. It was a deliberate decision which took into account that the wider interests of Malaysia and the region would be better served by seeking a peaceful solution, rather than resorting to the use of force.

In the wake of Singapore’s intransigence and as tensions had risen to a high point by 1994, Malaysia decided to keep the peace by going to the ICJ. Adjudication by the ICJ was the best assurance of securing a credible, lasting solution that would be respected by both parties.

In summary, Malaysia had two good reasons for taking the ICJ option. Firstly, the decision to seek a peaceful solution through adjudication by a third party served the interest of maintaining peace and stability in the region and contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. Secondly, Malaysia believed it had a sound case and had at least a 50% probability of regaining control over BP, MR and SL via the international legal process. The possibility of regaining control by other peaceful means had become non-existent in view of Singapore’s inflexible attitude. Malaysia was confident it could prove that Johor had original title to BP, MR and SL and that nothing had happened to cause Johor/Malaysia to lose that title.


MALAYSIA HAD A CREDIBLE CASE


Malaysia consistently maintained - in the three rounds of Written Pleadings processed in 2004 and 2005, and during the three weeks of Oral Hearings before the Court in November 2007 - that it had original title to BP, MR and SL. This argument was based on the historical fact that BP,MR and SL had always been part of Johor’s maritime possessions ever since Sultan Mahmud established in 1512 what became the Sultanate of Johor .

The Court did accept Malaysia’s arguments regarding its original title to BP,MR and SL, and ignored Singapore’s thesis that Pedra Branca/BP was terra nullius (belonged to no one) when the British initiated action to build a Lighthouse on that piece of territory in 1847.

The Court concurred with Malaysia because it was the finding of the Court that the territorial domain of the Sultanate of Johor did cover in principle all the islands and islets within the Straits of Singapore and thus included Pedra Branca/BP. This possession of the islands by the Sultanate was never challenged by any other Power in the region; and that it therefore satisfied the condition of continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty. The Court also said that this ancient title was confirmed by the nature and degree of the Sultan of Johor’s authority exercised over the Orang Laut, the people of the sea, who inhabited or visited the islands in the Straits of Singapore, including Pedra Branca/BP and made this maritime area their habitat.
In support of the original-title argument, Malaysia cited two Treaties signed in 1824 which reinforced this fact.

First, the March 1824 Anglo/Dutch Treaty which established the spheres of influence of the two Powers in the East Indies - and which caused the maritime possessions of the Sultanate of Johor to be split into two (northern and southern) parts - had placed Pedra Branca/BP in the British sphere of influence in the north. In other words, BP continued to be with the northern part of the Sultanate of Johor in peninsula Malaysia instead of being with the southern part of the Sultanate based in Riau-Lingga (which later became part of Indonesia).

Second, the August 1824 Crawfurd Treaty, in which Sultan Hussein ceded to the English East India Company the island of Singapore together with its adjacent seas, straits, and islets to the extent of only 10 geographical miles from the coast of Singapore, did not include BP, MR and SL. BP is 25.5 nautical miles away, east of Singapore.

The Court examined historical developments in the period between 1824 and the 1840s, and arrived at the conclusion that none of them brought any change to the original title of Johor over BP, MR and SL .

Malaysia argued that the selection of BP as the site and the construction of the Lighthouse on BP, which began in 1847 and completed in 1851, were carried out with the consent of the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor. The consent was conveyed in two separate letters of permission, dated 25 November 1844, from both of them to Governor Butterworth in Singapore .

Malaysia also argued that Horsburgh Lighhouse was part of the Straits lights system in which various Lighthouses were managed by the governments of the Straits Settlements in Singapore, Malacca and Penang. Horsburgh Lighthouse had a status similar to another Lighthouse in the system located on Pulau Pisang, where Singapore operated a Lighthouse on an island which belonged to Malaysia. That arrangement continues until this day. Therefore, nothing has changed which could have an effect on Johor’s original title to BP.

The Court examined the events surrounding the selection process of the site of the Lighthouse and the construction of the latter, as well as the conduct of the Parties’ predecessors between 1852 and 1952, in particular with respect to the British and Singapore legislation relating to Horsburgh Lighthouse and in the context of the Straits lights system; constitutional developments of Singapore and Malaysia; and Johor’s regulation of fisheries in the 1860s. But the Court decided that it was unable to draw any conclusions from these events for the purposes of the case .

In adopting this position, the Court in fact inferred that Johor’s original title to BP,MR and SL remained undisturbed until 1952.

However, it did not assist Malaysia’s case when the Court did not make a ruling on the issue of “consent”. The Court neither rejected nor accepted Malaysia’s submission that Singapore and its British predecessor were present on BP with the permission and consent of the rulers of Johor as the sovereign over BP.

The Court turned next to a controversial letter of 21 September 1953. It noted Singapore’s assertion that the letter from the Acting State Secretary of Johor in reply to an enquiry from the Colonial Secretary in Singapore, in which the Acting State Secretary stated that “the Johor Government [did] not claim ownership of Pedra Branca”, was a formal express disclaimer of title, an estoppel, and a binding unilateral undertaking on the part of Malaysia .

Malaysia argued that the 1953 letter did not prejudice Malaysia’s continuing sovereignty over BP for the following reasons:

(a) The letter of 21 September 1953 was manifestly not an instrument of cession
or a "disclaimer" of sovereignty because of its terms;

(b) The Acting State Secretary of Johor simply did not have the legal capacity to
effect such a cession or disclaimer because the 1948 Johor Agreement and
the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement removed from Johor all powers of
conducting international business;

(c) The British did not view the letter as an instrument of cession - the letter was
never acted upon by either party at that time; and

(d) Singapore itself was uncertain about the exact relevance of the letter-which
it variously referred to as a confirmation, a renunciation, a waiver, an
estoppel and a disclaimer. This inconsistency showed that Singapore could
not decide on any determinate view regarding the status of the 1953 letter,
which in fact it had none .

Although the Court conceded that the 1953 letter could not be considered as having a binding undertaking on the part of Johor , the Court considered that this correspondence and its interpretation were of central importance “for determining the developing understanding of the two Parties about sovereignty over Pedra Branca/BP” and found that the reply by Johor showed that as of 1953 Johor understood that it did not have sovereignty over Pedra Branca/BP.

The Court gave no weight to Malaysia’s arguments in dismissing the significance of the 1953 letter.

The Court proceeded, instead, to examine the conduct of the Parties after 1953 with respect to BP. It found that certain acts, inter alia the investigation of shipwrecks by Singapore within the island’s territorial waters and the permission granted or not granted by Singapore to Malaysian officials to survey the waters surrounding the island, may be seen as conduct à titre de souverain (a pattern of behavior revealing an intention to exercise State functions).

The Court also considered that some weight could be given to the conduct of the Parties in support of Singapore’s claim, i.e, the absence of reaction from Malaysia to the flying of the Singapore ensign on BP, the installation by Singapore of military communications equipment on BP in 1977, and the proposed reclamation plans by Singapore to extend the size of BP as well as a few specific publications and maps.

Six maps published by Malaysia in 1962/65/74/75 had carried the word “Singapore” underneath the words “Horsburgh Lighhouse”. These maps were considered supportive of Singapore’s case although Malaysia had argued that the maps in question did not in fact carry the meanings attributed to them by Singapore.

To counter the argument about Singapore’s effectivités (regulatory and administrative assertions of authority), Malaysia had in fact presented to the Court its own set of effectivités over BP and the areas around it post 1953 - as evidence to prove that Malaysia too had continued to exercise jurisdiction over BP and the surrounding areas even post 1953. The effectivités cited by Malaysia included the following:

(a) The Malaysia-Indonesia Continental Shelf Agreement 1969;

(b) The 1968 Oil Concessions Agreement with Continental Oil Company;

(c) The publication of many Maps which showed Batu Puteh as part of
Malaysian territory;

(d) The Emergency (Essential Orders) Ordinance, No. 7 of 1969 which
extended the limits of Malaysian territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical
miles [BP is only 7.7nautical miles from the Johor coast] ;

(e) The enforcement of fisheries regulations and policing.

However, Malaysia’s case became finally damaged when the Court gave full weight to Singapore’s effectivités with respect to BP after 1953. The Court did not give any weight to (a) the effectivités and (b) the Map evidence adduced by Malaysia in support of its arguments that Malaysia did continue to exercise jurisdiction over BP and the areas surrounding it even after 1953.

The Court thereby concluded, especially by reference to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors à titre de souverain, taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors, that by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca/BP had passed to Singapore.

The year 1980 was the date when the dispute crystallized as a result of the protest made by Singapore, in that year, against the Malaysian Map of 1979.

Therefore, as it turned out, Malaysia did not succeed in retaining sovereignty over BP not because Malaysia had weaker arguments or insufficient evidence to support its case, but because the Court held the view that certain non-erasable facts of history - particularly those events which took place between 1953 and 1980 - had destroyed Malaysia’s sovereign position on BP, Johor’s original title notwithstanding.

In relation to MR and SL, the Court accepted Malaysia’s argument that MR, SL and BP did not constitute an identifiable group of islands in historical or geomorphologic terms although Singapore had advocated that the three features formed one single group. Neither did the Court contend Malaysia’s stand that MR and SL were always considered part of Johor and thus, now, part of Malaysia.

The Court subsequently ruled in favour of Malaysia regarding the status of Middle Rocks. However, the Court refrained from taking a position on the status of SL as it noted that SL fell within the apparently overlapping territorial waters generated by the mainland of Malaysia, Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks and as such, left the status of SL to be subsequently determined by negotiation between Malaysia and Singapore.


RESERVATIONS ON THE COURT’S REASONING


Indeed, Malaysia had agreed, under Article 6 of the Special Agreement, to accept the Judgment of the Court as final and binding. Nevertheless, certain questions have been raised regarding the Court’s reasoning for its decisions.

Four Judges who voted against the Judgment recorded their reservations separately as follows:

In his Dissenting Opinion, Judge Ad Hoc Dugard recorded his view that “the Court fails to explain how sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh passed from Johor/Malaysia to Singapore in terms of traditional or accepted rules governing the acquisition of territorial title”.

It was indeed unprecedented for the Court not to state the exact mode by which Johor lost sovereignty over BP and the exact date on which Singapore acquired sovereignty over BP. It simply said that by 1980, sovereignty over Pedra Branca had passed to Singapore. In past cases, the Court had always specified how and when a state lost or acquired sovereignty.

In his Separate Opinion, Judge Parra-Aranguren said that the effectivités cited by Court as favouring Singapore case “concern a period far too short and for this reason are not sufficient to undermine Johor’s historical title to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”.

It was also unprecedented for the Court to take into account a very limited period of effectivités (between1953-1980) as decisively supportive of Singapore’s sovereignty claim. This 27-year period of effectivités is very short a period relative to the 129 years of history behind the case which began with the completion of Horsburgh Lighthouse on BP in 1851 and ended with the crystallization of the dispute between Malaysia and Singapore in 1980.

In their Joint Dissenting Opinion, Judges Simma and Abraham said, “Whether one examines them separately or takes an overall view, the acts accomplished by Singapore cannot be considered as constituting an indisputable and public exercise of sovereign authority against which Malaysia should have protested in order to preserve her own sovereignty over the island”.

In simple language, these two dissenting Judges were not satisfied that Singapore’s effectivités as relied upon by the Court were sufficiently numerous or strong as to cause Malaysia’s sovereignty over BP to be undermined by Singapore.


THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT UNANIMOUS


From the very beginning, Malaysia insisted that the ICJ should decide separately, one by one, the question of sovereignty over BP, MR and SL. The Special Agreement was, in fact, worded accordingly. On the other hand, it was Singapore’s assertion that sovereignty over MR and SL went together with sovereignty over Pedra Branca/BP.

Procedurally, Malaysia prevailed when the ICJ made not one but three separate decisions. In the Judgment which was read out by the Acting President and subsequently presented to the Parties in writing, which was final, binding and without appeal, the Court:

• found by twelve votes to four that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to the Republic of Singapore;

• found by fifteen votes to one that sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia;

• found by fifteen votes to one that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.


THE QUESTION OF MIDDLE ROCKS


Malaysia consistently maintained its position that Middle Rocks and South Ledge, like Batu Puteh, were maritime features which remained undisturbed under Johor/Malaysian sovereignty.

With respect to Middle Rocks, the Court observed that the particular circumstances which led it to find that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/BP rested with Singapore clearly did not apply to Middle Rocks. The Court therefore found that the original title to Middle Rocks should remain with Malaysia as the successor to the Sultanate of Johor .


THE FUTURE OF SOUTH LEDGE


As for South Ledge, the Court reached the conclusion that sovereignty over SL would belong to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located as this low-tide elevation fell within the apparently overlapping territorial waters generated by the mainland of Malaysia, Pedra Branca/BP and MR, and as the Parties had not mandated the Court to draw the line of delimitation with respect to their territorial waters in the area.

The Court’s ruling means that the remaining question of establishing the sovereign ownership over South Ledge does not involve the issue of proving title but merely its geographical location in the context of maritime boundaries. On this question, certain geographical facts should predominate, such as the fact that SL is closer to MR than to BP. Furthermore SL is only 7.9 nm from the Malaysian mainland while Singapore’s nearest coast is 25.0 nm from SL.


BP WAS THE MAIN ISSUE NOT THE ONLY ISSUE
There was much emotive talk that Malaysia gained mere rocks while the main prize - the island - went to Singapore. This incomplete perception existed because Malaysians generally had little knowledge or awareness of Middle Rocks and South Ledge until the media gave extensive coverage of the proceedings in The Hague, including a live telecast by Television Malaysia of the Court’s Judgment on 23 May 2008. But it would be incorrect to view the Judgment only in terms of BP because the Judgment also conferred benefits to Malaysia. After all, the case concerned not only one but three separate maritime features.
In reality, Pedra Branca is not an island but simply another rock formation in the sea although in the Malay language that feature is known as Pulau Batu Puteh (White Rock Island). As such, what the Court has conferred upon Singapore, in addition to the “white rock”, is a certain amount of territorial waters around Pedra Branca. Similarly, Malaysia can now claim territorial waters around Middle Rocks and has excellent prospects of acquiring more of the same around South Ledge as well. The prospects are good because it can be proven that South Ledge lies within Malaysian territorial waters and should therefore belong to Malaysia.
All three features - Middle Rocks, South Ledge as well as Pedra Branca - will generate their respective maritime areas. But none of these three features qualify as an island which would entitle them to a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). That is why any unilateral declaration by Singapore that Pedra Branca is entitled to an EEZ cannot be accepted because paragraph 121 (3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. And the ICJ has in fact pronounced Pedra Branca “a granite island” and described it as “a tiny uninhabited and uninhabitable island” .

All the three features are therefore only entitled to a 12 nautical-mile territorial sea. And as Pedra Branca is surrounded by both the Johor coast as well as Middle Rocks, its territorial sea westwards, northwards and southwards will be much less than 12 nautical miles.
It has also been said that Singapore had been most keen to secure ownership not only over Pedra Branca but also Middle Rocks and South Ledge because Singapore had planned to reclaim land and join together all the three features to form a maritime domain in that area. Since Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia, and that it lies in between BP and South Ledge, it is clear that any grand design that Singapore might have had about joining together all the three features has now been forestalled.
Another important outcome of the Court’s decision for Malaysia is that Singapore must now lift its naval blockade around Pedra Branca. In fact, Singapore ships sailing to Pedra Branca will have to traverse Malaysia’s territorial waters before they can get there.

Malaysians may never want to look upon the decisions of the Court as any form of consolation prize for Malaysia. But the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would confirm that the Court’s decision to award sovereignty over Middle Rocks to Malaysia - which should consequentially include South Ledge as well - has given Malaysia an equal standing with Singapore in that part of the Singapore Straits near BP.



THE SUBJECT OF THE MISSING DOCUMENT


Malaysia had argued that Great Britain built and operated Horsburgh Lighthouse on BP only after obtaining the necessary permission from the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor. The letters of permission from the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor to Governor Butterworth in Singapore, dated 25 November 1844, were presented to the Court as the evidence of consent.

Malaysia wanted to find and furnish Butterworth’s letter/s of request as additional evidence to corroborate its argument that the consent given by the Sultan and Temenggong did include BP.

Malaysia had requested Singapore, in 1994, to provide a copy of the Butterworth letter/s of request if it had the letter/s in its possession. During the Oral Hearings, Singapore officially denied that it had in its possession the Butterworth’s letter/s of request.

Malaysian researchers left no stone unturned to find the Butterworth letter/s of request of 1844. Unfortunately, the efforts did not yield that particular piece of evidence. Although there was no certainty that the contents of the letter/s of request would serve Malaysia’s purposes, it was one document (possibly two documents) which the Team wanted very much to have sight of.

Certain suggestions have been made that Malaysia should continue searching for the letter/s of request from Governor Butterworth and if found, to be used as critical evidence in support of an application to the ICJ to reopen the case and conduct a retrial.
It is indeed possible to make a request for the reopening of a case, under certain conditions, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statutes of the ICJ, paragraphs 1 and 5 of which are quoted below:

• An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.
• No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.

The relevance of the Butterworth letter/s of request is in so far as it relates to the issue of “consent”. Unfortunately, the Court did not make a ruling on the issue of “consent”. For example, it did not express its view on whether the Butterworth letter/s of request referred to BP or that it did not. The Court merely observed, by way of an aside, that the letter/s was probably general in terms.

The absence of a clear ruling by the Court on the issue of “consent” has therefore rendered uncertain the value of the 1844 Butterworth letter/s of request even if the letter/s is found and the contents support Malaysia’s case.
MALAYSIA HAD A GOOD TEAM

There were also doubts raised whether the Malaysian Team as a whole had the quality and standard to match the opposition team in this case. In this regard, there should be no doubts whatsoever that the members of the Malaysian Team were very qualified and well prepared to carry out the tasks entrusted to them.

The national component of the Team consisted of senior officials who had involved themselves directly in the preparations of the case.

For example, the Leader of the Team and Agent of Malaysia at the ICJ, Abdul Kadir Mohamad, began supervising research on the subject of BP in 1990 and stayed with the preparations of the case for 18 years, without any break, until the matter was finally resolved by the Court in 2008. Both he and the Co-Agent, Noor Farida Arrifin, had experience serving in the same capacities during the earlier case of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan between Malaysia and Indonesia which came before the Court in 2002.

The international component of the Team consisted of very eminent personalities.

The most senior member of the international legal panel, Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht of Cambridge University, is a household name in the international legal fraternity, having gone through a very distinguished career in international law both as an author and advocate since 1950. He is considered the doyen of the international lawyers practising at the ICJ. His father was a Judge in the Court in the 1970s. His family founded the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at Cambridge University. Sir Elihu has been knighted by the Queen of England for his contributions to the development of international law.

Professor James Crawford, also of Cambridge University, current Director of the Lauterpacht Centre, is very highly regarded by his peers and the international law community. He was a member of the International Law Commission for two terms.

Professor Nico Schrijver occupies the Chair for International Law at Leiden University which is one of the most prestigious universities in the Netherlands. He is a consultant to the Dutch Government on questions of international law.

The Francophone lawyer on the Team, Professor Marcelo Kohen of the University of Geneva, is a highly respected professor of international law and has represented the Governments of Costa Rica, Argentina and Colombia in cases before the ICJ.

All of the four jurists are also members of the Institute de Droit International (Institute of International Law) whose members are widely considered to be the world’s leading public international lawyers.

The fifth member of the international legal panel, Penelope Nevill, Solicitor and Lecturer at Cambridge University, had been involved with the research into the case for many years in her capacity as Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre.

All of the above, with the exception of Professor Kohen and Penelope Nevill, were part of the Team which represented Malaysia at the ICJ for the Ligitan and Sipadan case against Indonesia and which case was won by Malaysia in 2002.
CONCLUSION

Those who have read the details of Malaysia’s written pleadings which were submitted to the ICJ, and the verbatim records of Malaysia’s submissions which were made during the Oral Hearings before the Judges of the Court, would have realized the amount of preparatory work done and the thoroughness of the arguments made in support of Malaysia’s case. The Team was satisfied that what needed to done had been done. Indeed, the Team did well in articulating Malaysia’s case in the best possible way. But the Court has the final say, and Malaysia has signed the Special Agreement that it would abide by the Court’s Judgment.


Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad had also been Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1996-2001), after which he was appointed Ambassador-at-Large in 2001 and Adviser for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister of Malaysia in 2003. However, the opinions expressed by him in this article are entirely his own and they do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Government of Malaysia.

REFERENCES

The hard copies of the documents listed below are available in the Library of the ICJ in the Peace Palace in The Hague, while their soft versions are easily accessible on the Court’s website: http://www.icj-cig.org

• Special Agreement for Submission to the International Court of Justice of the Dispute Between Malaysia and Singapore Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, signed on 6 February 2003, jointly notified to the Court on 24 July 2003

• Written Proceedings

Memorial of Malaysia, 25 March 2004
Memorial of the Republic of Singapore, 25 March 2004
Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, 25 January 2005
Counter- Memorial of the Republic of Singapore, 25 January 2005
Reply of Malaysia, 25 November 2005
Reply of the Republic of Singapore, 25 November 2005
• Oral Proceedings
Verbatim Records of the Oral Submissions made by the Parties during the Public Sittings of the Court
CR 2007/20, Tuesday 6 November 2007 (Singapore)
CR 2007/21, Wednesday 7 November 2007 (Singapore)
CR 2007/22, Thursday 8 November 2007 Singapore)
CR 2007/23, Friday 9 November 2007 (Singapore)
CR 2007/24, Tuesday 13 November 2007 (Malaysia)
CR 2007/25, Wednesday 14 November 2007 (Malaysia)
CR 2007/26, Thursday 15 November 2007 (Malaysia)
CR 2007/27, Friday 16 November 2007 (Malaysia)
CR 2007/28, Monday 19 November 2007 (Singapore)
CR 2007/29, Tuesday 20 November 2007 (Singapore)
CR 2007/30, Thursday 22 November 2007 Malaysia)
CR 2007/31, Friday 23 November 2007 (Malaysia)

• Judgment, 23 May 2008, inclusive of:
Declaration of Judge Ranjeva
Separate opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren
Joint dissenting opinion of Judges Simma and Abraham
Declaration of Judge Bennouna
Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard
Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao
• Summary of the Judgment
Summary No: 2008/1 of the Judgment of 23 May 2008

• Press Release
No: 2008/10 of 23 May 2008
Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)