Period
1847-1851, Construction
and Commissioning of the
Lighthouse: Its
Sovereign Characterization (Source: ICJ Judgment para 162 and para 161)
Uneasy lies the Head that wears a Crown
Henry IV
Introduction:
It is during this initial period of construction and commissioning of
the Lighthouse, 1847-1851 that the Court in its review of the evidence sounded
the warning bell that is to vibrate through its impending Judgment in the
different unfolding historical periods to come.
This period is a narrative of the events that went into the construction
process and the eventual commissioning of the Horsburgh Lighthouse. The main source material which the Court
referred in extracting its evidence and drawing its conclusions was the Article
written by J.T. Thomson, “Account of the Horsburgh Lighthouse”, Journal
of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, Vol. 6, 1852, Singapore
Memorial, Annex 61. Each of the selected facts that became the cornerstone of
the Court’s judgment of sovereign characterization in the conduct purportedly
by the predecessor of the Republic of Singapore needs to be dealt with
accordingly.
This Report draws attention to two different published contemporary
Accounts dealing with the “taking of possession” by representatives of the
British Crown. These Accounts are
attached to this Report so that future generations of undergraduate students in
Malaysia and the Republic of Singapore can make the comparisons and come to
their own unbiased conclusions. Any
student of English in their Literary Criticism class would have been drummed
into their heads to examine the intentions of the author and contextualise the
facts evaluated.
The same applies to students of History in their Theory and Method Class
and would also be the basic tenants for Law Students. The contrast of intentions between the two
Accounts and the actions taken in pursuit of their stated objectives is so
stark.
The first Account is that of J. Crawfurd, the British Resident of the
Settlement of Singapore, who was responsible under direction of the Court of
Directors of East India Company to enter into Treaty engagement with the Johore
authorities on the Cession of Singapore in full property and sovereignty on 2nd
August 1824. In the following year to
the date he sailed around the Main Island of Singapore in the ship Malabar accompanied with Mr. Forrester
and Lieut. Jackson and took possession for the British Crown the Main Island of
Singapore and its Dependencies as expressed in the Treaty. He went on to author an Article “Journal of a
Voyage round the Island of Singapore” that was published in the local newspaper
– the Singapore Chronicle, November
1825 which was then republished in J.H. Moor, “Notices of the Indian
Archipelago and Adjacent Countries: ….”, Singapore, 1837. (See attachment). This Article was referred
to in Malaysia Memorial paragraph 57, footnote 30 but was never annexed to the
Pleadings. Nothing is more explicit of the author’s intentions than the opening
lines of the Article:
“The Resident, having received instructions from government to take
formal possession of the island of Singapore and its dependencies, in virtue of
the recent treaties with the king of the Netherlands and the native princes,
left Singapore with his party for this purpose on the 2nd of
August in the ship Malabar, of about 380 tons burthen”.
The second Account is by J.T.
Thomson, Government of the Straits Settlements Surveyor, who published his
Article “Account of the Horsburgh Lighthouse”, Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, Vol. VI, 1852,
pp. 376-498. In the opening lines of his
Preface to the Account he states:
“The following account of the
Horsburgh Light-house, has been drawn up at the desire of the Honorable Colonel
Butterworth, C.B., Governor of the Straits Settlements, as expressed before he
left his Government to proceed to the Australian Colonies for the benefit of
his health. In laying the same before
the Government, I must apologize for the imperfect manner in which the task has
been accomplished, as I am but little accustomed to express my ideas in writing
and consequently cannot pretend to illustrate the various topics and subjects,
which have been thought worthy of recording, with the conciseness and
perspicuity of more experienced writers”.
After thanking his superiors in
this Account, namely Governor of the Straits Settlements, W.J. Butterworth for
entrusting him to construct the Lighthouse and T. Church, Resident Councillor,
Settlement of Singapore, for expediting the process of construction. J.T. Thomson went on to further dwell on the
intention of his Article:
“In the account of our
operations, the position of the Pharos is described, and the mode of
construction and other matters therewith detailed”.
In each of the FIVE parts of the
Article he provides the reader an outline of the topics he elaborates on the mode
of construction and other matters in that Part.
The Account has Seven Appendices attached.
In his last Appendix VII, J.T.
Thomson begins by reiterating his intentions of writing this Account:
“This account of the Horsburgh
Light-house, having originally been intended merely for the information of the
Authorities, I have confined myself in it to giving a description of the works
and a recital of the operations and occurrences connected with the construction
thereof; but in laying the same before the public, under the kind sanction of
the Straits Government, the paper would be incomplete in a very essential
point, were mention not made of what had been done with reference to the illumination
of the Straits of Singapore previously, and particular the measures taken by
Government to advance the views of the promoters of this public work”.
J.T. Thomson in writing Appendix
VII that the intention of his Article was to give “..a description of the works
and a recital of the operations and occurrences connected with the construction
thereof…” In addition, Appendix VII was
written to give an account of the various measures taken by the Government “..to
advance the views of the promoters of this public work”. The intention or “claim” made by J.T. Thomson
was to describe the process of construction and commissioning of the Horsburgh
Lighthouse and in an Appendix to draw attention the role of the Government of
the Straits Settlements in that process.
He then wrote his Article substantiated with facts to reflect his
intentions. There is no evidence that he
advanced any claim in his writing that he consciously took possession of Pedra
Branca for the British Crown under instructions and established facts to
support that point of view.
In plain English the narrative
was that in Canton a meeting was convened by Merhants to honour the
contributions of the late Hydrographer James Horsburgh. The suggestion was a Lighthouse named after
him and a subscription was raised. The
promoters of this enterprise for Public Good approached the Governor of the Straits
Settlements to take the initiative and different locations were suggested as
the possible site for the Lighthouse in the Straits of Singapore. They suggested Pedra Branca at the eastern
entrance of the Straits of Singapore. The Straits Settlements Governor W.J. Butterworth
on advice favoured Peak Rock. However,
the British Admiralty overruled and favoured Pedra Branca and advised the Court
of Directors of the East India Company.
The decision was taken by the Court that the East India Company will
meet the difference in cost between the subscription and that of the actual expenditure
with the provision that the money advanced to be reimbursed by the collection
of Lighthouse Tolls. At no point of time
there was in the official documents instruction to “take possession” of Pedra Branca
for the Crown. J.T. Thomson landed on Pedra Branca in 1847 for the first time
under instruction to collect data on the wave size which will help him in
determining the building materials to be used and cost of construction.
It is the Republic of Singapore
in its own interpretation that made the claim that the intention of each major
step in the construction and commissioning of the lighthouse were acts of “taking
possession” for the British Crown. The
Judges were swayed by the constant repetition and barrage of “facts” advanced
by the Republic of Singapore and the Court even went so far as referring to Appendix
VII of J.T. Thomson’s Article on the role of the Government of the Straits
Settlements in the professed advancement of a work for “public good” as
evidence that had “sovereign characterization”.
The Republic of Singapore in its Pleadings never referred to Appendix
VII in marshalling its point of fact. It
was the Court that drove this point across in its Judgment.
The narrative below demonstrates
how the Republic of Singapore converted the Account of J.T. Thomson together
with official correspondence into acts with sovereign intentions and the conclusions
arrived by the Court in its Judgment.
Before going into the details of
the argument it would be well to remind ourselves of the noble intention as
engraved on the Tablet that is placed in a panel of the wall of the Visitor
Room:
“A.D. 1851
THE HORSBURGH LIGHT-HOUSE
Is raised by the enterprise of British Merchants,
and by the liberal aid of the East India Company,
to lessen the dangers of Navigation,
and likewise to hand down,
as long as it should last,
in the scene of his useful labours,
The memory of the great Hydrographer,
Whose name it bears
-------------------
Colonel W.J. Butterworth, C.E.
Governor in the Straits of Malacca
---------------------------
J. T. Thomson
Architect"
(J.T. Thomson, Account, pg. 474)
Section
VII. Conclusion
Singapore
Reply Para 3.130
“Singapore will now reiterate her conclusions on the basis of her claim
to sovereignty in respect of Pedra Branca:
(a)
The basis of the claim to sovereignty
in respect of Pedra Branca is the lawful possession of Pedra Branca effected by
a series of official actions in the period 1847-1851, beginning with the first
landing on Pedra Branca by Thomson sometime between 21 June and 9 July, and
ending with the ceremonial official commissioning of the lighthouse on 27
September 1851.
(b)
The decision to build the lighthouse
on Pedra Branca was taken by the Court of Directors of the East India Company
as an official organ of the British Crown.
(c)
The entire process of planning,
choice of site, and construction, was subject to the exclusive control and
approval of the British Crown and its representatives.
(d)
The pattern of activities and
official visits in the period 1847-1851 constitutes an unequivocal
manifestation of the will of the British Crown to claim sovereignty in respect
of Pedra Branca for the purpose of building the Horsburgh Lighthouse and its
appurtenances and its maintenance, on a permanent basis.”
Singapore
Reply Para 3.131 “The
particular manifestations of the intention
of the British Crown to take lawful possession of Pedra Branca include the
following:
(a)
The ceremonial laying of the
foundation stone in 1850 under the authority and control and auspices of the
Governor of the Straits and in presence of senior officials
(b)
The logistical support and protection
provided by British Government vessels during the preparation for construction
and the construction itself.
(c)
The maintenance of public order by
the British Crown during the process of preparation and construction.
(d)
The official commissioning of the
lighthouse on 27 September 1851 which involved a visit by the Governor of the
Straits Settlements and other officials.
(e)
The panel placed in the Visitors’
room within the lighthouse confirms its official character and bears the names
of the Governor and of J.T. Thomson, the Government Surveyor.
(f)
The flying of the Marine Ensign in
accordance with contemporary British practise.
It is also clear that the Marine Ensign was flown during the
construction, 1850-1851, and the, of course, after completion.”
Singapore
Reply Para 3.132 “In
addition, the acts of taking possession
were peaceful and public and elicited no opposition from other powers.”
Singapore
Reply Para 3.133 “In
consequence, title to Pedra Branca was acquired by the British Crown in
accordance with the legal principles governing acquisition of territory at the
material time.”
Singapore
Reply 3.134 “ The
evidence and relevant legal considerations established that the British Crown
acquired sovereignty in the period 1847 – 1851, an entitlement subsequently
inherited by the Republic of Singapore.
The maintenance of this title, on the basis of the effective and peaceful
exercise of State authority since 1851, is described in Chapter VI of Singapore
Memorial, Chapter VI of her Counter-Memorial, and in Chapter IV of the present
Reply.”
The Judgment
ICJ Judgment Para 155: “The Court observes that no Johor authorities were
present at the ceremony. There is no indication that they were even invited by
the Governor to attend. That might suggest — the
Court puts it no higher than that — consistently with the references to the
Queen and the role of the Singapore Governor, Architect and the East India Company, that the British and Singapore
authorities did not consider it necessary to apprise Johor of their activities
on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.”
Points of Fact
In the above observation there
are two basic “Wrong in Facts”. The
first is the reference of the Singapore Governor and Singapore Architect. This constant slipping reference,
occasionally Governor of the Straits Settlements and other times Governor Singapore,
and the constant reference to J.T. Thomson as Singapore Architect as distinct
from an Architect at Singapore or as he correctly as author of the Article
records himself as Government Surveyor at Singapore. (See J.T. Thomson, Account, pg. 376) The Government here refers to the Government of the Straits
Settlements made up of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca. J.T. Thomson was a Surveyor of the Straits Settlements
Government and also an Architect of the Straits Settlements. His survey and architect work while he was in
service would have covered all of the Settlements that formed the Straits Settlements.
The construction and commissioning of the Horsburgh Lighthouse was never an
exclusive Singapore Settlement project
[Emphasis added] undertaken by a Singapore
Architect [Emphasis added] under the direction of a Singapore Governor. [Emphasis added] The point of fact advanced is
not supported by facts established. There is no sovereign characterization as a
Singapore project.
Governor W.J. Butterworth is the
Governor of the Straits Settlements and he is referred as such in the copper
plate which carried this inscription and inserted under the foundation stone
that was laid down on 24th May 1850 (J.T. Thomson, Account, pg. 428) while on the engraved
Plate in a panel of the wall of the Visitor’s room in 1851 he is styled
Governor in the Straits of Malacca (J.T. Thomson, Account, pg. 474) and on other occasions as Governor of Prince of
Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca. (J.T. Thomson, Account, pg. 495). He never
was Governor Singapore. There was no
Governor of Singapore until almost a 100 years later in 1946 when Britain
established the Crown Colony of Singapore. The Court itself in an earlier paragraph
had acknowledged that in 1826 the East India Company had established the
Straits Settlements as a single entity. (See ICJ Judgment para 24) The construction and commissioning of the lighthouse
was never a sovereign characterization associated with the Governor of Singapore.
The second “Wrong in Fact” is to
draw inference that Johor authorities were not present at the ceremony and were
not invited by the Governor of the Straits Settlements to attend. This notice by the Court of the absence of
Johore is to be constantly referred in the next one hundred years in the Court’s
Judgment; more to anticipate the case of abrogation and abandonment of
sovereignty by Johore as to be concluded by the Court. The silence echoes through the text of the
Judgment. It is vital to address this
early observation of the Court and correct its misconception of the facts.
It will be noted that there was
another Straits Light in the State and Territory of Johore that was inaugurated
in 1886. The delegates included the then Governor Frederick Weld of the Colony
of the Straits Settlements and other officials attached to the Office of the Governor
of the Colony of the Straits
Settlements; Mr Ayre, of the P.W.D.; Mr T.S. Thomson and Mr Buckely. The delegation arrived on the Government
Vessel Sea Belle. The contractors for
the lighting apparatus were Chance Brothers and Co. of Birmingham, and the
contractors for the building and erection Riley, Hargreaves and Company of the Settlement
of Singapore.
There was much sickness and
deaths amongst the coolies and the Government of the Colony of the Straits
Settlements addressed it by placing a government owned tongkang off the island and the coolies slept on board her. Ayre of the P.W.D. occasionally supervised the
construction of the Lighthouse at the cost of $20,000 for the building and
$25,000 for the lighting gear. His Excellency
lit the lamp and opened a visitor’s book with the date of the opening of the
light, and all present wrote their names in it.
(The Singapore Free Press and
Mercantile Advertiser, 3rd July 1886, pg. 5) and in that
instance of commissioning the lighthouse as in the case of the earlier Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh the Sultan of the State and Territory of Johore never
graced the occasion nor was the Sultan invited.
These conducts had no relevance to the acts of conduct in which it could
be inferred that Britain was carrying out the commissioning as a sovereign personality. The point of fact is advanced without being substantiated
and corroborated. The Republic of Singapore should have known this fact as it
is published in the Singapore Free Press.
The construction and commissioning of a Lighthouse in the Straits Lights System
for Public Good were never acts having sovereign characteristics confirming the
acquisition sovereignty .
ICJ Judgment Para 160: “Thomson concluded his Account of the Horsburgh Lighthouse(1852), published in the Journal of the Indian Archipelago and
Eastern Asia (Vol.
6, p. 376), with an Appendix “particularly [about] the measures taken by Government
to advance the views of the promoters of this public work”. He mentioned the principal subscribers and
said this in the final paragraph of Appendix VII to his Account: “The remainder of the funds necessary to the
completion of the Testimonial was advanced by the Government, to be repaid by a
Light-house due on shipping. There was otherwise extensive aid afforded in the
employment of their Steamers, gun-boats and officers, none of the expense of
which was charged against the works. I have already had the pleasure of
mentioning the highly gratifying assistance of the Dutch Authorities of Rhio,
in placing gun-boats as tenders to the operations.”
It is revealing that it was the Court that
paid particular attention to Appendix VII and not the Republic of Singapore in
its Memorial, Counter-Memorial and Reply to advance a point of fact in support of
its Judgment by establishing that fact.
ICJ Judgment Para 161: “Again it may be said that these actions, too, are
primarily directed at the construction of the lighthouse, but the “extensive
aid” mentioned In the Appendix VII of Thomson’s Account quoted
above may be seen as having a sovereign character — British Government vessels
made a major contribution to the whole process of the construction of the
lighthouse, a contribution which was at no charge to the potential commercial
users of the light. That sovereign characterization may also be applied to the
tablet in the Visitors Room on which is inscribed the names of W. J. Butterworth
as “Governor” and J. T. Thomson as “Architect”.
John Horsburgh is also mentioned and again reference is made to “the
enterprize of British merchants and . . . the liberal aid of the East India
Company”. As at the laying of the foundation stone, the Sultan of Johor and
Temenggong of Johor had no role. But, as also on that occasion, no specific
acts of proclamation of sovereignty, as frequently appeared in British
practice, were to be seen.
ICJ JUDGMENT Para 162. “The Court does not draw any conclusions about
sovereignty based on the construction and commissioning of the lighthouse.
Rather it sees those events as bearing on the issue of the evolving views of
the authorities in Johor and in Singapore about sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh. Malaysia contends that Johor, having permitted the building of the
lighthouse, had no reason to have any involvement in its construction and
commissioning. The Court however notes that the only time the Johor authorities
were present throughout that process was the two-day visit of the Temenggong
and his followers in early June 1850.”
ICJ Judgment Para 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.”
There is no written facts in the official
correspondence nor from the Account of J.T. Thomson that the Court of Directors
of the East India Company through the command chain of the Government of India
and the Government Straits Settlements had given instructions to occupy and
take possession of Pedra Branca and henceforth demonstrate the will of the
Crown in all its activities. Furthermore
there is no report or recording by J.T. Thomson; T. Church, the Resident
Councillor of the Settlement of Singapore nor W.J. Butterworth, Governor of the
Straits Settlements that either one of them or collectively have taken
possession of Pedra Branca. The facts
cannot be documented to establish the claim that officials of the Straits
Settlements had taken possession of Pedra Branca for the Crown.
That leaves this Report to deal with the
advancement of the claim that Johore did nothing to support the point of fact
that there was sovereign characterisation in the actions of Straits Settlements
officials.
Points of Fact
(1)
Johore and Construction
The Court in its Judgment repeated the
Republic of Singapore’s claim that Johore authorities were not involved in the
process and except for one instance never visited the Rock during the construction
and commissioning process. The evidence
from J.T. Thomson’s Account makes
reference of Johore’s contribution in terms of supply of portable water for
drinking and bathing (J.T. Thomson, Account,
pp. 408, 412 and 423). In fact wells
were dug at Point Romania for that purpose. (J.T. Thomson, Account, pg. 443). Fire-wood
and timber spars were taken from Point Romania for various
purposes of lighthouse construction (J.T. Thomson, Account, p. 412) and quartz for cement strengthening from Sidili
(J.T. Thomson, Account, pg. 448). J.T.
Thomson did not acknowledge this fact in his Appendix VII that the Court referred
to in assessing the role of the Government of the Straits Settlements that were
provided gratis.
As stated in the introduction of Appendix
VII, J.T. Thomson’s intention was to draw attention of the contribution of the Government
of the Straits Settlements. He also paid
tribute to the role of the Dutch authorities of providing a gun-boat for the protection
of the lighthouse in the construction process.
He was silent on the material contributions of the State and Territories
of Johore and neither did he acknowledge that Johore authorities had given
permission to construct a lighthouse and operate it on any spot deemed eligible
within its territories gratis.
(2)
Johore and Anti-Piracy Campaign in its Territorial
Waters
In addition to providing materials for the
construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse, the Temenggong was involved in anti-piracy
campaigns to keep the seas open and safe for International Trade in the Port of
Singapore. The following facts as
presented in Malaysia Pleadings are all known and acknowledged by the Republic
of Singapore and the Court. Article XI
of the 2nd August 1824 Treaty states:
“The contracting parties hereby engage to use every
means within their power respectively, for the suppression of robbery and
piracy within the Straits of Malacca, as well as the other narrow seas,
straits, and rivers bordering upon, or within their respective territories, in
as far as the same shall be connected with the dominions and immediate
interests of their said Highnesses.”
In 1843 Pedra Branca, Pulau Tinggi and Point
Romania were identified as places within the State and Territory of Johore where
pirates launched their attacks and go for shelter and concealment. (MM, Para
96; Singapore Free Press, 25 May
1843, MM Annex 40) The Temenggong was
personally involved together with the British authorities in suppressing
piracies. His boats together with the
Straits gunboat provided at least on one reported occasion escort service for a
Cochin prahu leaving Singapore Port
to Pedra Branca and beyond. (MM, Para 142)
Surely all these acts were contributions of the Temenggong to keep his
coastline and outlying islands that formed the eastern and western entrances
into the Port of Singapore Port free and open without obstacles. The Straits Government
acknowledged this fact. In 1846,
Governor Butterworth presented a sword to the Temenggong of Johore as “…a
testimony of the high estimation of the Government of India for his service in
the suppression of piracy.” (MM Para 62; MM Annex 52, Straits Times, 5
September 1846). The Temenggong was very
much present in the territorial waters of the State and Territory of Johore,
inclusive of Pedra Branca. He continued
his anti-piracy campaign well beyond the receiving of the Sword Gift. In May
1849 in J.T. Thomson, Account, Appendix II, the Temenggong was reported to be on board a British vessel,
H.C. Hooghly, in the pursuit of pirates.
It is misleading to suggest that the
Temenggong, except for the 2 nights stay on Pedra Branca, was never present. There is no marginalisation and
misunderstanding of the role of Johore once all Johore acts are
contextualised. There is no evolving
views between Johore authorities and Straits Settlements officials on the ambiguous
status of sovereignty over Pedra Branca. Johore knew its Treaty obligations and
Straits Settlements officials undertook directives coming from the Court of Directors
the East India Company and the Government of India. This ambiguity of intentions
was initially generated by the Crown Colony of Singapore in 1953 and decades
later continued by the Republic of Singapore.
(3)
Cede it Gratuitously
On 28 November 1844 in forwarding
the letters of Johore authorities to the Government of India for further
action, the Governor of the Straits Settlements, W.J. Butterworth stated that the
Johore authorities had:
“…willingly consented to cede it
gratuitously to the East India Company”
(MM, Annex 46)
This letter and the facts it contained
should be contextualised and discussed in this period of construction and
commissioning, 1847 – 1851, rather than in the Period of 1953 when there was an
exchange of letters between the Crown Colony of Singapore and the State and
Territory of Johore. It should not be
forgotten that Johore authorities not only gave permission to construct a lighthouse
on any spot deemed eligible and did not charge any annual fees. Surely this contribution of Johore has no
less weight than that of the Government of the Straits Settlements in providing
free services that the Court recognised as “…a contribution which was at no
charge to the potential commercial users of the light.” Johore was there in providing free use of a
Rock over which Johore had original title.
In addition, there is another contentious
issue as to what exactly the Governor of
the Straits Settlements, W.J. Butterworth meant with the choice of the word
“cede”. With the passage of time when
the issue is not dealt with in its context in the period of Governor W.J. Butterworth,
August 1843 – March 1855, and that of his successor Governor E.A. Blundell,
March 1855 – August 1859, the word “cede” becomes blurred and takes the meaning
of cede as in full property and sovereignty.
That is to say when the original file was examined
from the Raffles National Library in the Crown Colony of Singapore in 1953 the Singapore
officials held the view that “cede” here had implications of surrender of sovereignty, an abandonment of sovereignty,
an acknowledgement that Johore authorities had in November 1844 given title to
the Government of the Straits Settlements which over time exercised sovereign
rights without objections from the State and Territory of Johore and it
successor Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Federation of Malaysia. The Straits Settlements Government had added
new territories by acquisition and taking possession and occupation. That is what the Republic of Singapore wants
the Court to believe.
The above mentioned file that is with the
Raffles National Library in 1953 and forms part of the collection known as
Straits Settlements Factory Records. The
series is letters from Governor of the Straits Settlements to Government of
India. In this series of letters there
are a number of letters dealing with the subject of adding new territories into
the Straits Settlements. Governor W.J. Butterworth
reported that when he went on leave his successor, the Acting Governor E.A.
Blundell had attempted to added new territories from the district of Krian into
the Settlement of Prince of Wales Island and Province Wellesley. The Acting Governor E.A. Blundell was
reprimanded by the higher authorities that no additions were to be made. When
E.A. Blundell became Governor of the Straits Settlements he wrote to the
Government of India to clear his name.
That it was never his intention to expand the territories of the Straits
Settlements.
The Crown Colony of Singapore officials of
1953 never referred to these key documents and neither did the legal researchers
of the Republic of Singapore who had at their disposal the original files of
the Straits Settlements Factory Records. Had these critical facts in the
Raffles National Library been known then it would be clear that W.J.
Butterworth had merely acquired the use of a piece of property free of charge
on the Rock known as Pedra Branca to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse. That is the original meaning and intention of
the word “cede” in Governor W.J. Butterworth’s letter.
W.J. Butterworth would never have claimed
that he had acquired new territories for the Straits Settlements. It was
expressly forbidden by the Court of Directors and they communicated this to E.A.
Blundell after a report was received from Governor W.J. Butterworth. There was never a sovereign characterisation
in the actions of the officials of the Straits Settlements in the construction and
commissioning of the Horsburgh Lighthouse.
Conclusion
The Republic of Singapore in this period,
1847-1851, put forward the claim that its predecessor Government took
possession of the Rock and all its activities were manifestations of the will
of the Crown. The Court in its Judgment
observed that the “extensive aid” without charge provided by the Government of
the Straits Settlements had a sovereign character in contrast to the Johore authorities
which it is claimed except for a two day visit did nothing.
This Report had established the fact that
indeed Johore provided material support for the construction of the lighthouse;
the Temenggong’s anti-piracy efforts included the Territorial Waters of Pedra
Branca and that the Johore authorities had given permission to build a
lighthouse on any spot deemed eligible within the State and Territory of Johore
and the Governor of the Straits Settlements, W.J. Butterworth reported that the
Straits Government need not pay for the use of the site.
Other documents not disclosed in the Pleadings
but exits as records in the Raffles National Library, Singapore shows that the
East India Company took exception to any new acquisition of territory for the
Straits Settlements. Pedra Branca was never intended to be appended into the Straits
Settlements. Neither did the Straits Settlements
officials took possession of the Rock for the Crown.
It is untenable to claim that there is
sovereign characterisation as the facts do not establish that claim.
