REPORT THREE

 

Period 1852-1952, “..Johor.. took no action at all.. from June 1850 for the whole of the following century..” (ICJ Judgment, Para 275)

  

 

This was the most unkindest cut of all

Julius Caesar, Act 3

 

Introduction

 

In this long century, 1852-1952, of Johore’s alleged silence, conversely it was the period that Johore did much to contribute to the wealth creation and security of the Settlement of Singapore and later the Crown Colony of Singapore, 1946-1959.  This was a period of shared destiny between Johore and Singapore. Any schoolboy from the State and Territory of Johore would know this symbiotic relationship as they frequently visit the Johore Archives to read the Annual Reports of the State and Territory of Johore and the Royal Museum in Johore Bharu.  The chronology of the first 50 years of the twentieth century would read as follows:

 

In 1901, the Singapore-born Sultan Ibrahim, 1895-1959, negotiated with the Colonial Office to raise a loan for the construction of the Johore Railway that linked the Federated Malay States Railway with the Port of Singapore by a Railway Ferry across the Straits of Tebrau.  The Johore Railway was completed in 1909.

 

In February 1915 the Sepoy Mutiny broke out in Singapore and threatened the security of Singapore.  The Sultan personally led his 150 strong Johore Military Force (JMF) across the Straits of Tebrau and returned when he heard that some of the Mutineers had crossed over the Straits of Tebrau into Johore.  The JMF was responsible for the capture of 180 men and the Sultan himself was personally credited for the surrender of 4 soldiers at Kulai and transported them back to Johore Bahru in his own personal car.  The Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements is on record personally thanking the Sultan on behalf of His Majesty for his role in quelling the Uprising.

 

The State of Johore contributed financially to the construction of the Tambak Johore (Johore Causeway) that carried road and railway traffic between the Mainland and the Settlement of Singapore and later the water pipe-line that provided unprocessed water for Singapore’s residential communities; commercial enterprise; military and the shipping sectors.  The Causeway was opened in June 1924 and in December 1927 the State and Territory of Johore signed the Water Agreement with the Municipality of Singapore.   In 1931 Johore legislated the “Naval Base Waters (Johore) Enactment, Number 112” which provided for British War Ships manoeuvring in the Admiralty Base Waters of the Colony of the Straits Settlements to pass through Johore Territorial Waters in the Straits of Tebrau.

 

The Sultan of Johore had developed a personal relationship with the British Royal Family.  He made a cash donation of 500,000 Pounds Sterling for the Silver Jubilee of King George V, much of it was used to fund the Imperial Naval Base at Sembawang in Singapore.  In 1935 he was decorated with the Knight Grand Cross which entitled him to use the title of “Sir” before his name. In 1939 when the Second World War broke out the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlement tried to raise funds for the war effort.  Sultan Ibrahim rejected the proposal and made of 250,000 Pounds Sterling cash gift to King George VI when he was in Europe and in 1940 he wrote a personal cheque of 100,000 Pounds Sterling as an interest free personal 10 year loan to His Majesty’s Government.

 

The Republic of Singapore would have us believe that against this close knit special relationship between the State and Territory of Johore and the Settlement of Singapore and later the Crown Colony of Singapore that in 1953 Johore’s sovereignty was compromised.  It is ironical that in 1953, the very year that Sultan Ibrahim was decorated with the Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal, that a British Civil Servant of the Crown sent a letter to the British Adviser, Johore that triggered processes that led to the ICJ and its 2008 Judgment.

 

This long century of silence has been dealt with earlier in 2009 (See Attachment One. On June 15^th, 2009 I posted “The Silent Long Century, 1850-1952” on this blogspot) and more recently in part when the Case was made for Appeal based on New Facts hitherto unknown.  There are a couple of Facts made by the Republic of Singapore that needs addressing in this Report.  The repeatedly running theme that vibrates through this century of silence is that Johore and its successor Governments did nothing on the Island Rock of Pedra Branca and its Territorial Waters.  The claim was advanced by the Republic of Singapore and echoed by the ICJ in its 2008 Judgment.

 

The single fact that is advanced by the Republic of Singapore for this one hundred year period in making its claim of continued exertion of sovereignty is the 1920 collision between a British vessel and a Dutch ship.  It is claimed by the Republic of Singapore that its predecessor Government, the Crown Colony of the Straits Settlements, investigated the shipping incident and heard it the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Enquiry, Port of Singapore.  In contrast, the Republic of Singapore claimed that the State of Johore and its Territory and its successor Government, the Federation of Malaya never carried any sovereign act of its own on Pedra Branca in this period 1852-1952. 

 

One shipping incident heard in a Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Enquiry in 1920 against an alleged background of Johore’s silence in a hundred year period was enough to catch the attention of the Court as will be set out the narrative below.  The silence haunts the Court as even in its concluding remarks of its Judgment the Court again draws attention that Johore and its successor Government did nothing in this one hundred year period. 

 

No one asked the obvious question did the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Enquiry in the Port of Singapore not investigate and hear any other Shipping casualties in this one hundred year period.  Were all these shipping casualties investigated and heard were predicated on the territorial waters of the Settlement of Singapore and later Crown Colony of Singapore?

 

In this long century, this Report will draw attention to Johore-Britain Treaties and Agreements with Maps and Admiralty Charts attached that reflected the intentions of the parties involved.  With the exception of the 1927 which was commented by the ICJ, the other Treaties and Agreements were never addressed in the Judgment.  These documents formed the solid spine of continuity of Johore’s historical title over Pedra Branca which the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements knew and the Colonial Office knew.  It is advanced that these documents had all the intentions of Sovereign Acts by the State and Territory of Johore on Pedra Branca. It is the Republic of Singapore that chose to plead ignorance of these weighty legal engagements done by the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements.  But was quick to recognise the “legal significance” of the same Office of the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements when that office convened the single Marine Court of Investigation in 1920 over a one hundred period. 

 

The reader is asked to judge the evidence that is the Pleadings before the Court.  There is no new evidence, hitherto unknown, introduced in this Report.  The young undergraduates of Malaysian and Singaporean Universities are invited to weigh the facts.  There is a website on the History Department, National University of Singapore which conducts an internet discussion on historical issues.  This effort is highly lauded and perhaps could be a platform for us to engage in an investigation and interrogation of our historical sources.  A decision has to be made without prejudice which fact is light as the down feather of a fighting cockerel blowing in the wind and which fact is as solid and anchored as the granite rock that built the Horsburgh Lighthouse.

 

Singapore Pleadings

 

Singapore Memorial Para 6: “The Investigation by Singapore of Navigational Hazards and Shipwrecks in the Territorial Waters of Pedra Branca.” (pg. 118)

 

Singapore Memorial Para 6.76: “Singapore and her predecessors-in-title have also exercised sovereign authority over Pedra Branca by investigating and reporting on maritime hazards and shipwrecks within the island’s territorial waters.”

 

Singapore Memorial Para 6.77: “As early as 1920, a Court of Investigation of the Straits Settlement, Port of Singapore, held a formal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a collision between a British vessel and a Dutch ship about 1½ to 1¾ miles north of Pedra Branca (footnote266). The Master of the British vessel was reprimanded by the Court for his actions.”

 

Footnote 266 “Report of the Court of Investigation to Examine into the Circumstances Attending the Collision between the British s.s. Chak Sang and the Dutch s.s. Ban Fo Soon about 1.5 to 1.75 Miles North of the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the Night of the 9th July 1920, dated 5 Aug 1920, attached to this Memorial as Annex 78.” (See Singapore Memorial)

 

Singapore Memorial Section IV. “In Contrast to Singapore, Malaysia has Never Carried Out any Sovereign Acts on Pedra Branca.” (pg. 132)

 

Singapore Memorial Para 6.112 “If the documentary record is striking in demonstrating that the United Kingdom and Singapore carried out extensive State functions on Pedra Branca ever since its acquisition, it is equally striking in revealing the complete absence of any similar activities on the part of Malaysia. Quite simply, Singapore does not believe that Malaysia can point to a single example of State activity that Malaysia undertook on Pedra Branca at any time after the island had been acquired by the United Kingdom in 1847-1851.”

 

Singapore Memorial Section I. “Malaysia’s Implicit and Express Recognition of Singapore’s Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca.” (pg. 140)

 

A.   MALAYSIA’S ELOQUENT SILENCE IN THE FACE OF SINGAPORE’S ACTS OF SOVEREIGNTY

 

2. Legal Effects of Malaysia’s Silence

 

Singapore Memorial Para 7.25 “The case-law cited in this award is impressive. When applied to the present case, there is no doubt that Malaysia’s long and persistent silence – in the face of a continued, peaceful and public pattern of acts of Singapore as sovereign – is an unequivocal recognition of, or at the very least clear acquiescence in, Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca.”

 

Singapore Reply

 

Singapore Reply Para 4.30 “Any assessment of the legal value of State conduct with respect to Pedra Branca depends on the overall context of the case, not on a fragmented approach to the evidence as adopted by Malaysia. It is not enough for Malaysia to provide affidavits from outside consultants discussing the tasks that might, in any given situation, be entrusted to the administrator of a lighthouse. The facts must be viewed in the light of all the relevant circumstances. In the present case, the overall context within which Singapore’s conduct falls to be considered encompasses the following key elements:”

 

(h) “Throughout this period, and consistent with all of the factors mentioned above, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever carried out any sovereign act of their own on the island.”

  

Singapore Reply Para 4.161 “The next incident taken up by Malaysia's Counter-Memorial concerns the investigation carried out by a Court of Investigation sitting in Singapore into a collision in 1920 between a British vessel s.s. Chak Sang and a Dutch vessel s.s. Ban Fo Soon some 1 1/2 miles north of Pedra Branca. Malaysia contests this example of the exercise of territorial jurisdiction by the authorities in Singapore on the grounds that the jurisdictional basis of the inquiry had nothing to do with sovereignty over Pedra Branca.”

  

Singapore Reply Para 4.162 “While the report of the investigation does not state the exact basis on which it was convened, the significance of Singapore's investigation of an accident occurring so near (i.e., 1 1/2 miles) to Pedra Branca is undeniable. The incident further illustrates that Singapore authorities were diligent in investigating incidents of this kind which took place in Pedra Branca's territorial waters while Malaysia, and her predecessor Johor, were not.”

 

ICJ Judgment

 

The Court assessed the evidence during this one hundred year period in Paragraphs 165 to 191 before moving on to the 1953 Correspondence as another subject.  The Court took pains to dismiss the claims of both parties on their specific conduct on Pedra Branca and its Territorial Waters and bearing in mind the “extensive aid” of the period of construction and commissioning of the Horsburgh Lighthouse, 1847-1851 and its “sovereign character” in Report Two; the Court in its Judgement extended that trend and tilted in favour of the Republic of Singapore’s version of its predecessor’s conduct on Pedra Branca.  Based on a single act in 1920 the Court accepted the Republic of Singapore’s claim that similar Investigations were conducted and heard in 1963 and 1979 and continued even in the 1980’s.

 

In its final concluding remarks of its Judgment the Court again re-visited this period and again echoed the Republic of Singapore’s claim that Johore and its successor Government took no action at all on Pedra Branca during this one hundred years. 

 

The reader is posed with the question what weight would you put on a single act in 1920 in a Colony of Straits Settlements Marine Court of Enquiry in favour of the Republic of Singapore’s claim of continuous sovereign acts in this long century. Conversely, in the silence that the Republic of Singapore alluded to and the Court in its Judgment concurred, there were sovereign acts taken by the State and Territory of Johore with Britain in its Treaties and Agreements accompanied with Charts/Maps.  These documents were placed with the Court and Singapore had responded to Malaysia’s claim. That is to say would the reader be inclined to read that by including Pedra Branca in the Maps/Charts of Treaties and Agreements that Johore was confirming its historical sovereignty over Pedra Branca and that this established fact in advancing the State and Territory of Johore’s claim is far superior to that of a single Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Enquiry decision.  Surely Treaties and Maps attached to illustrate the intention of both parties is an enshrined legal principle to establish sovereignty as in previous ICJ Judgments.

 

ICJ Judgment 5.4.4. The conduct of the Parties, 1852-1952

 

ICJ Judgment Para 164. “The Parties refer to activities undertaken by them and their predecessors in title between 1852 and 1980, and indeed beyond. Given the nature of the conduct, the changing constitutional position of the Parties and their predecessors and an exchange of correspondence in 1953 to which the Parties have given a great deal of attention, the Court finds it convenient to divide the conduct between events occurring before 1953 and those occurring after. The division is not precise since some conduct runs through the whole period.”

 

ICJ Judgment Para 165. “At this stage it is also convenient for the Court to put to one side as not relevant to sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh a number of matters mentioned by Singapore but which relate essentially to the maintenance and operation of the lighthouse and nothing more — the improvement of the lighthouse, the exercise of authority over its personnel, and the collection of meteorological information (on the last matter see also paragraph 265).”

 

ICJ Judgment Para 233. “The first investigation to which Singapore refers was into a collision within 2 miles of the island in 1920 between British and Dutch vessels.(This is one of the instances referred to in paragraph 164 above where it is convenient to consider pre-1953 conduct at this stage.) The report of the investigation does not identify the jurisdictional basis on which it was undertaken. Of some significance for the Court is that the enquiry was undertaken by Singapore and not Johor.”

 

ICJ Judgment Para 275. “Further, the Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from June 1850 for the whole of the following century or more.”

 

Points of Fact

 

Shipping Casualties

 

This Century, 1852-1952, is crucial in shaping the Court’s final Judgment, especially since Malaysia had in the Court’s Judgment historical title to Pedra Branca.  In this one hundred years the Court evaluated the evidence of conduct by both parties on Pedra Branca and its Territorial Waters. In arriving at some early conclusions the Court referred to legal principles in International Law which were established in earlier Judgments:

 

ICJ Judgment Para 121. “Under certain circumstances, sovereignty over territory might pass as a result of the failure of the State which has sovereignty to respond to conduct à titre de souverain of the other State or, as Judge Huber put it in the Island of Palmas case, to concrete manifestations of the display of territorial sovereignty by the other State (Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands/United States of America), Award of 4 April 1928, RIAA, Vol. II, (1949) p. 839). Such manifestations of the display of sovereignty may call for a response if they are not to be opposable to the State in question. The absence of reaction may well amount to acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence “is equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the other party may interpret as consent . . .” (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 305, para. 130). That is to say, silence may also speak, but only if the conduct of the other State calls for a response.”

 

ICJ Judgment Para 122. “Critical for the Court’s assessment of the conduct of the Parties is the central importance in international law and relations of State sovereignty over territory and of the stability and certainty of that sovereignty. Because of that, any passing of sovereignty over territory on the basis of the conduct of the Parties, as set out above, must be manifested clearly and without any doubt by that conduct and the relevant facts. That is especially so if what may be involved, in the case of one of the Parties, is in effect the abandonment of sovereignty over part of its territory.”

 

Long before the claimed Republic of Singapore that its predecessor Government took possession of Pedra Branca, 1847-1851, and exercised the will of the Crown in the construction and commissioning of Horsburgh Lighthouse; the Settlement of Singapore had investigated and reported shipping casualties on Pedra Branca and its Territorial Waters; on Point Rumenia in the State of Territory of Johore and on Pulau Bintang, which formed part of the Territories of the Rhio-Lingga Sultanate under the Dutch sphere of influence. 

 

In this long century, the Settlement of Singapore and later Crown Colony of Singapore investigated and reported annually shipping casualties.  The following Attachment TWO lists out the various shipping cases heard in the Courts of the Port of Singapore.  It would be evidently clear that the Jurisdiction of the Settlement of Singapore Court and its successor Courts were not based on territorial sovereignty.  The list of case after case of annual evidence was never placed in either the Malaysia nor the Singapore Pleadings.  Nonetheless it is very much in the public domain.  It is in the Colony of the Straits Settlements Government Gazettes; Annual Reports of the Marine Department, Colony of the Straits Settlements and in contemporary Singapore newspapers and more recently with the advancement of technology it is readily available on the internet. See http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/ made possible by the National Library of Singapore.

 

The one shipping incident that the Republic of Singapore established occurred in 1920 and advanced the point that the Colony of the Straits Settlements Court, Port of Singapore heard the case because it occurred within the Territorial Waters of Pedra Branca:

 

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, SEPT. 10, 1920.

1451

 

 

 

No. 1612.-COURT OF INVESTIGATION TO EXAMINE INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE BRITISH s.s. Chak Sang and THE DUTCH s.s. Ban Fa Soon ABOUT I 1/2 to l 3/4 MILES NORTH OF THE HORSBURGH LIGHTHOUSE ON THE NIGHT OF THE 9TH JULY, 1920.

 

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

PORT OF SINGAPORE.

Report of Court.

 

 

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE, 1910.

(SECTION 288 (4) AND RULE 19 OF RULES UNDER SECTION 295)'.  

[Emphasis Added]

 

 

In the matter of a formal investigation held at Singapore on the 5th day of August, 1920, before PAUL FELIX DAVID, assisted by BERTIE ANGELO CATOR, Commander, R.N., MAURICE LLEWELYN TONKIN and JOHN BAXTER, Master Mariners, into the circumstances attending the collision between the British s.s. Chak Sang and the Dutch s.s. Ban Fo Soon about 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 miles North of the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the night of the 9th July, 1920.

 

The Court having carefully enquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned casualty makes answers to the questions put to it as follows, namely :-

 

Question 1.-Was the s.s. Chak Sang properly found and equipped and in a seaworthy condition on leaving Hong Kong on the 3rd July, 1920?

Answer.- Yes.

 

Question 2.- Did the s.s. Chak Sang carry her proper complement of Officers as required by law?

Anwer.-Yes.

 

 

Question 3.- Was a proper lookout kept on board both the s.s. Chak Sang and the s.s. Ban Fo Soon ?

Answer.-Yes.

 

Question 4.-Were proper Navigation Lights exhibited by both vessels?

Answer.-Yes.

 

Question 5.-How long before the collision did each vessel observe the others lights?

Answer .-The s.s. Chak Sang saw the masthead and side lights of s.s. Ban Fo Soon 20 minutes before the collision. The side lights and masthead lights of the s.s. Chak Sang were sighted by the s.s. Ban Fo Soon about 33 minutes before collision.

 

Question 6.-Were proper steps taken by the Officer in charge of each ship, after sighting each other's lights, to ensure the safe navigation of their respective ships?

Answer.-No. The Master of the s.s. Chak Sang did not take proper steps to ascertain the bearing of the approaching vessel.

 

Question 7.-Were the vessels crossing vessels within the meaning of Article 19 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea? .

Answer.-Yes.

 

Question 8.-Where and at what time did the collision occur?

Answer.- The evidence as to the exact place of the collision is conflicting but the Court is of opinion that it occurred about 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 miles North of Horsburgh Lighthouse. The time of collision was 8.9 P.M. on 9th July.

 

Question 9.-Were any lives lost as a result of the collision and from which vessel?

Answer.-No.'

 

Question 10.-Did the Master of the s.s. Chak Sang render assistance to the s.s. Ban Fo Soon as required by Section 422 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894?

Answer.-Yes.

 

Question 11.-(i) What damage was caused to the s.s. Ban Fo Soon?

                       (ii) What damage was caused to the  s.s. Chak Sang?

Answer.-(i) and (ii) As stated in the report of Government Surveyor of Ships-Exhibit B.,

 

Question 12. By whose wrongful act or default was the collision caused?

Answer. - The Master of the s.s. Chak Sang. .

 

Question 13. -Decision of the Court in respect to Certificate of the Master of the s.s. Chak Sang.

Answer. - The Court decides not to deal with the Certificate of the Master of the s.s. Chak Sang but reprimand him for failing to take bearings of the s.s. Ban Fo Soon after sighting her. .

 

The Assessors' fees to be paid by the Attorney-General.

 

Dated at Singapore, this 5th day of August, 1920.                          P. F. DAVID,

                                                                                                                    President.

 

We concur in the above report.

B. A. CATOR,

M. L. TONKIN,. Assessors.

John Baxter

 

 

The following are cases heard in the Colony of the Straits Settlements, Marine Court of Investigation, Port of Singapore based on the same Merchant Shipping Ordinance and same Sections and Rules and the same Court of Investigation at the Port of Singapore and the Reports were published in the same Colony of the Straits Settlements Government Gazettes as the 1920 Horsburgh case documented above. The Colony of the Straits Settlements Court of Investigation, Port of Singapore on shipping incidents heard cases occurring in Dutch, Johore and Philippine Territorial Waters.  In the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Courts of Investigation, jurisdiction was not based on territorial sovereignty.   

 

 

Case One

 

This involves the sinking of the vessel s.s. Hong Wan off Muar, in the State and Territory of Johore in the Straits of Malacca.  There are several other cases heard by the same Court at the Port of Singapore of shipping causalities in the territorial waters of the State and Territory of Johore.  The British Adviser of Johore did not raise any objections that shipping casualties in Johore’s territorial waters were heard by the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Investigation with the High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur or with the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements.  This fact speaks volumes on the nature and function of the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Investigation, Port of Singapore.  There was no reason; as such Courts of Investigation had nothing to do with the territoriality of where the Shipping Casualties occurred. 

 

 

8- STRAITS SETTLEMENTS GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, JAN. 4, 1918

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

No. 8.-COURT OF INVESTIGATION into the circumstances attending The Loss OF the s.s. Hong Wan IN THE STRAITS OF MALACCA.

 

Report.

 

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE, I9I0

 

(SECTION 288 (4) AND RULE 19 OF THE RULES MADE UNDER SECTION 295). [Emphasis added]

 

 

In the matter of a formal investigation held at Singapore on the 22nd, 23rd, 28th and 30th days of November, 1917, before RALPH SCOTT, Esq., District Judge, assisted by Commander B. A. CATOR, R..N.,  Mr. A. SNOW and Mr. H. J. HENDERSON, Master Mariners, into the circumstances attending the loss of the s.s. Hong Wan.

 

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above mentioned shipping casualty, finds for the reasons stated in the Annexe hereto that :-

 

Question 1.-Was the s.s. Hong Wan properly found and equipped and in a seaworthy condition when she left Singapore on the 10th October, 1917?

 

Answer.-The ship was properly found and equipped. There may have been a little more deck cargo than was admitted by the ship's officers but not enough to endanger her, if properly secured. The Court is of the opinion that it was not properly secured. According to one passenger the ship was leaking when she left, his evidence is uncorroborated and this cannot be accepted as proved.

 

Question 2. Have the vessel her proper complement?

 

Answer.-Yes. The number of the crew according to the articles was 30, 37 appear to have been actually on board.

 

Question 3.-What was the number of the passengers?

 

Answer.--3 for certain. There may have been a few more, but in any case the number was well below her licensed capacity of 139.

 

Question 4.-Was the ship navigated in a prudent and seamanlike manner up to the time of foundering- ?

 

Answer.-The Court is of the opinion that course was altered some time after 4-30 A.M., on October 11^th from  North-west by West to go into Muar, probably onto a North-easterly course. The master must have had some good reason for altering his original intention of proceeding direct to Malacca and was justified in his change of course. Up to this time the vessel had been navigated in a prudent and seamanlike manner, but having decided that it was necessary to go into and having set his course for Muar-his further change of course back to North-west by West was not a prudent one, as it brought the wind and sea onto his port beam. The Court does not believe the vessel was ever put onto a South-west course, as stated. The second change was influenced by the chinchew or his clerk.

 

Question 5.-Were the engines in good working order up to the time of floundering?

 

Answer.-Yes.

 

Question 6.-What was the cause of the floundering of the vessel?

 

Answer.-The cause of the foundering was the list to port which began at some time after 4-30 A.M. It is impossible to decide on the evidence what the original cause of this list was ; it was accentuated by water pouring into the engine room, and probably assisted by the shifting of the cargo, caused by the list itself. The Court cannot accept the evidence of the vessel's people that the foundering was caused by seas breaking over her when on a South-west course. The Court considers that the list may have been due to the ship springing a leak some time during the voyage. The Court does not consider that the evidence shows that the state of the wind and sea were sufficient to account for the list to port : both wind and sea were on her port beam until she altered course to go into Muar.

 

Question 7.-Where did the vessel flounder?

 

Answer.-Somewhere between the Muar River and Pulau Undan, probably nearer to the former.

 

Question 8.-Were proper steps taken to save the passengers and crew?

 

Answer.-An attempt was made to distribute life-belts and clear the boats. The ship appears to have floundered before these steps were completed.  The starboard boat was not cleared.

 

Question 9.-How many passengers were lost?

 

Answer.-At least 8 persons.

 

Question 10.-How many members of the crew were lost?

 

Answer.-Three.

 

Question 11.-By whose wrongful act or default (if any) was the floundering occasioned?

 

Answer.-The Master's, for the following reason:-

If he had kept on his course to Muar he might have saved the ship, the second change of course to proceed to Malacca risked her safety. The fact that he wished, to go into Muar leads the Court to believe that he considered it was necessary for her safety that he should get into the nearest port, and as soon as possible.

 

Question 12.-Decision of the Court in respect to the Certificates of the Master and Officers concerned.

 

Answer.-The Master's Certificate is suspended for six months.

 

Question 13.-Costs, by whom to be paid?

 

Answer.-The costs of the witnesses to be paid by the ship's owners.

 

Dated this 4th day of December, 1917.

 

 

R. SCOTT,

Judge.

We concur in the above report.   }

B. A. CATOR, COMDR. R.N.,           }

Master Attendant, s. s.   

ALEX. SNOW,                                    }           Assessors,

H. J. HENDERSON,                            }

 

 

                                                      Annexe

 

The S.S. Hong Wan left Singapore at 4-30 P.M., on October 10^th bound direct for Malacca. According to the declaration signed by the Boarding Officer she had a crew of 29 and 73 passengers, including 6 women and 2 children ; she also had a certain amount of deck cargo and firewood on the main deck, and her Plimsoll mark was 3 inches above the water line. The evidence of the ship's officers and crew was all most unsatisfactory; there is no doubt that they have not only kept the real reason for the ship's loss concealed as far as possible, but they have also concocted a new story to account for it since their return to Singapore. It is difficult to decide what the actual events were which occurred and the uncertainty begins with the Boarding Officer's declaration. The evidence of the Muar authorities and various passengers' statements make it clear that the figures in the declaration are incorrect and that the Boarding Officer did not count the numbers on board at all, he also probably never went up into the shade deck as he states he did. This makes it impossible to say how many passengers were actually lost.

 

The Master remained in charge until midnight when he handed over to the Gunner. At 4 A.M., the Master was roused by the wind and took over charge again; the ship's position being between Pulau Undan and Kuala Kesang about 6 miles from the former place and on a course of North-West by West. According to him he altered course to South-West at 4-30 A.M. and slowed down on account of the wind and sea getting up, the wind being South-West. The wind and sea increased and washed the ship over the bows, he found at 5 A.M. that she was in a bad way and ordered life-belts to be served out and the boats cleared. At 5-15 A.M., he altered course North to try to get into shallow water before she sank and two or three minutes after she had steadied on her new course she sank. He denied that he ever tried to get into Muar. The conclusion which the Court arrived at was that this story was untrue and that the actual facts were probably as follows.

 

Somewhere about 4-30 A.M. the Master considered that it was advisable to go into Muar instead of going on to Malacca. His reasons for this are unknown, but were probably connected with the state of the weather and the fact that the ship had begun to list. He sent for and informed the chinchew, or his clerk, of his intention and was told to do what he thought proper. Course was altered for Muar but shortly after he was told by the chinchew, or the clerk, that he must proceed to Malacca and against his own better judgment he complied. The ship which had already begun to list to port, took a further list, water poured into the engine room and put out the fires in furnace, the deck cargo and possibly the cargo in the hold, shifted under the influence of the list and the vessel sank shortly after. The original cause of the list cannot be found.

 

An attempt was made to serve out life-belts and clear the boats. The port boat got away but the starboard one did not. Later on the starboard boat, came up and about 22 people got into her. The passengers and crew were rescued by launches which came out from Muar on receipt of the news of the disaster. A muster was held at the Police Station and according to the list made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police the number of crew present was 34, passengers 65, and one dead woman who had been picked up from the floating wreckage. No other bodies were recovered.

 

There is no doubt that three of the crew were lost and at least eight passengers: in all probability this is not full number.

 

The Master, Gunner, Quartermaster, Chinchew and Clerk gave very unreliable evidence. The passengers' evidence and that of the Muar officials showed this up, but all their allegations could not be accepted as proved.

 

There is no doubt at all that the course was altered to go into Muar, and, whatever the Master's reasons were he must have known that by altering course again on the chinchew's instructions he was increasing the danger to the ship. There appears to have been a fairly stiff squall with some sea but not enough to endanger the ship under ordinary circumstances. His action possibly deprived the vessel of a good chance of getting safely into Muar or at all events of getting into shallow water and near the shore before she sank. If he had frankly accepted liability for his error and given all the assistance he could in elucidating the facts of the disaster, the Court would have felt it could recommend him to His Excellency the Governor for some consideration in respect to his suspended certificate, but in view of his evidence is unable to do this.

 

The chinchew's, or clerk's, interference with the Master's discretion in his navigation of the vessel must be held to be a contributory cause to the disaster.

 

In such cases it cannot be doubted that a native master is more or less under the chinchew's thumb, unfortunately the Court cannot deal with him.

 

Dated this 4th day of December, 1917.

 

R. SCOTT,

Judge

B A. CATOR, COMDR. R. N.,          }

Master Attendant, S. S.,                 }

ALEX. SNOW,                                   }         Assessors.

H. J. HENDERSON,                           }

 

                                          ----------------------------------------

 

 

Case Two

 

This case investigated the stranding of s.s. Anamba off Sabang, in Northern Sumatra, Dutch Territories.  It involved the same Merchant Shipping Ordinance; the same Sections and Rules of that Ordinance as in the case of the 1920 Horsburgh Shipping collision.  There were many other shipping casualties in Indonesian Territorial Waters heard in the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Enquiry. The Dutch authorities did not object that the Court of Investigation in the Settlement of Singapore heard such cases.

 

Straits Settlements Government Gazette, Jan. 3, 1919

 

 

No.14.-COURT OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE STRANDING OF THE BRITISH S. S. Anamba  NEAR SABANG ON THE 26^th September, 1918

 

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

Report of Court.

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE, 1910.

 

(SECTION 288 (4) AND RULE 19 OF THE RULES MADE UNDER SECTION 295).

[Emphasis added]

 

 

In the matter of a formal investigation held at Singapore on the 28th day of November, 1918, before WILLIAM LANGHAM-CARTER, District Judge and First Magistrate, assisted by A. A. CHALMERS, R.N.R., W. DAWSON and J. E. FARRFLL Master Mariners, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British s.s. Anamba near Sabang on the 26th September, 1918

 

The Court having carefully enquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned stranding makes answer to the questions put to it as follows, namely:-

 

Question 1.-Was the s.s. Anamba properly found and equipped and in a seaworthy condition on leaving Soesoe for Sabang (Pulo Weh) on the 25th September, 1918?

 

Answer 1.-yes.

 

Question 2.-Had the vessel the requisite charts, sailing directions and navigating instruments?

 

Answer 2.-Yes. I

 

Question 3.- Where and when were the compasses last adjusted?

 

Answer 3.-By the Captain himself last September-in Sabang Bay.

 

Question 4.-Had the vessel her proper complement or certificated officers?

 

Answer 4.-Yes.

 

Question 5.-Was the vessel navigated in a prudent and seamanlike manner after leaving Soesoe on the 25th September, 1918, up to the time of stranding?

 

Answer 5.-The vessel was so navigated up to the time when the course was changed at 9-52 and after that the Master did not take sufficient care to keep her on the bearing S. 30.2 which must have been safe and which must have opened up the red lights and ensured the safety of the ship.

 

Question 6.-Were the engines in good working order up to the time of stranding?

 

Answer 6.-Yes, as regards the main engines, but the steering gear was not satisfactory, and it being within the knowledge of the Master that this was so, was an additional reason for caution in navigation.

 

Question 7. -Where did the vessel strand?

 

Answer 7.-On the N.W. point of Pulau Way?

 

Question 8.-After the vessel struck were proper steps taken to save the ship?

 

Answer 8.-Yes.

 

Question 9.-By whose wrongful act or default (if any) was the stranding occasioned?

 

Answer 9 - By that of the Master who should have exercised greater caution in navigation.

 

Question 10.-Decision of the Court in respect of the Certificates of the Master and Officers concerned.

 

Answer 10.-The Court cannot deal with the certificates of any of the officers except that of the Master. As regards his certificate, the Court has by a majority decided not to suspend it, but considers him deserving of severe censure.

 

Question 11. Costs, by whom to be paid?

 

Answer 11.-The Court orders that the costs be paid by the Master.

 

Dated this 20th day of November, 1918.

               

W. LANGHAM-CARTER,

President.

 

We concur in the above report.

 

W. DAWSON,                }

A. A. CHALMERS,         }         Assessors.

J. E. FARRELL,                }

 

 

Annex to the Report.

 

 

The British s.s. Anamba, Official No. 123917 of London, Gross Tonnage 1835, Nett Tonnage 1159; Master CLAUDE PHILIP ARNOLD, Certificate No. 0. C. 038145, owned by Messrs The Anglo-Petroleum Company, Limited, of London, left Pangkalan Soesoe at 2-07 P.M. on the 25^th September 1918, for Sabang with a cargo of case oil of the weight of about 1,783 tons and a crew of 42 all told, On September 26th the Master set the course West true from noon and bearings were taken by him between 8 P.M. and 9-50 P.M. of that date of Tapa Gaja Light and Ujong Bahu Point; all of which bearings put the vessel a little over a mile from the shore. At 9-52 P.M. being then about two miles from the shore the Master headed the ship for Kellas Light the bearing being S. 30 E. by Co1npsi which was supposed to be true. The Red Light on Masam Point was not then visible. At 10-4 P.M. the steering gear jammed, the vessel being then about one mile from the shore, and at about 10-7 P.M. the steering gear cleared again and the helm was put “Hard a Port " but the ship failed to answer it and at 10-11 P.M. the vessel took the ground near Penimpuan with Penimpuan Point bearing  about S.S.E. by Standard Compass. The weather at this time was fairly clear with moderate Westley wind, and moderate to heavy swell. The vessel remained fast for 5 days and was subsequently to cut off by the Company's tug boat Neptune. Some of the cargo was discharged into Company lighters, whilst the vessel was aground. The vessel put into Sabang under her own steam where temporary repairs were effected and afterwards she proceeded to Singapore arriving there on the afternoon of October 26th, 1918, for docking and repairs.

 

LANGHAM-CARTER.

President

 

 

 

 

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

PORT OF SINGAPORE.

 

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COST OF INVESTIGATION.

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE, 1910.

(SECTION 288 (7) AND RULE 18 OF RULES UNDER SECTION, 29).

 

 

In the matter of a formal investigation held at Singapore on the 28th day of November, 1918 WILLIAM LANGHAM-CARTER District Judge and 1st Magistrate, assisted by A. A. CHALMERS Lieut., R.N.R.,  W. DAWSON and J. E. FARRELL, Master Mariners, into the circumstances attending the Stranding of the British S.S. Anamba near Sabang on the 26th September, 1918.

The Court orders that :- C. P. ARNOLD, Master of s.s. Anamba, do pay to the Attorney-General the sum of forty-eight dollars ($48) on account of the expenses of this investigation.

 

Given under my hand this 28th day of November, 1918.

 

W. LANGHAM-CARTER

Judge

 

   ----------------------------------------

 

 

Case Three

 

The Straits Settlements Court of Investigation, Port of Singapore heard the case of the stranding of s.s.Kajang, off Taganak Island in the Sulu Seas, Philippine Territorial Waters which was under American Administration,.

 

No. 638. – Court of Investigation to Examine into the circumstances attending the stranding of the s.s. Kajang on a voyage from Sandakan to Kudat on January 23^rd, 1920

 

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

PORT OF SINGAPORE.

 

Report of Court.

 

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE, 1910.

(SECTION 288 (4) AND RULE 19 OF RULES UNDER SECTION 295).

[Emphasis added]

 

 

In the matter of a formal investigation held at Singapore on the 9th day of March, 1920, before RALPH SCOTT, assisted by BERTIE Angelo Catok, Commander, H.N., ARTHUR STANLEY FULLAM and HUGH LLOYD PRITCHARD, Master Mariners, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the s.s. Kajang on a voyage from Sandakan to Kudat on January 23rd, 1920.

 

The Court having carefully enquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned stranding makes answer to the questions put to it as follows, namely :-

 

Question 1.-Was the s.s. Kajang- properly found and equipped and in a seaworthy condition on leaving Sandakan for Kudat on the 23rd January, 1920 ?

 

Answer 1.-Yes.

 

Question 2.-Had the vessel the requisite charts, sailing direction and navigating instruments?

 

Answer 2.-Yes.

 

Question 3.- Where and when were the compasses last adjusted ?

 

Answer 3.-In Singapore in September, 1919.

 

Question 4.-Had the vessel her proper complement of Certificated Officers?

 

Answer 4.-Yes.

 

Question 5.-Was the vessel navigated in a prudent and seamanlike manner after leaving Sandakan on the 23rd January, 1920, up to the time of stranding ?

 

Answer 5.-The vessel was not navigated in a prudent and seamanlike manner, as the Master failed to take steps to verify his exact position with re regard to Pulau Taganak when he was called on deck by the Second Officer at 3 A.M.

 

Question 6.-Were the engines in good working order up to the time of stranding?

 

Answer 6.-Yes.

 

Question 7.-Where did the vessel strand?

 

Answer 7.-On the reef on the South-east side of Pulau Taganak.

 

Question 8.-After the vessel struck, were proper steps taken to save the ship?

 

Answer 8.-Yes.

 

Question 9.-By whose wrongful act or default (if any) was the stranding occasioned?

 

Answer 9.-The Master's for the reason given in reply to Question 5.

 

Question 10.-Decision of the Court in respect to the Certificates of the Master and Officer concerned.

 

Decision 10.-The Master's certificate is not dealt with.

 

Question 11.-Costs by whom to be paid?

 

Answer 11 .- Government.

 

Dated the 9th March, 1920.

 

 

R. Scott,

President

 

We concur in the above report.

 

B.A. CATOR                  }

A.S. FULLAM                 }         Assessors

H.L. PRITCHARD           }

 

 

The Court in its 2008 Judgment paid much attention to the 1920 Ship collision within the Territorial Waters of Pedra Branca and the investigation and hearing by the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Enquiry, Port of Singapore. In Paragraph 233 of its Judgment the Court observes that the Report as submitted by the Republic of Singapore does not provide the jurisdictional basis on which it was undertaken.  Nonetheless the Court notes that it was within the Territorial Waters of Pedra Branca and the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Enquiry investigated and heard the shipping case and the State and Territory of Johor did nothing. 

 

The clear implication of the above statements of the Court is that it judged that the Investigation had territorial implications.  The case was heard by a Court at the Port of Singapore under The Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1910.  (Section 288 (4) and Rule 19 of Rules under Section 295). [Emphasis added] The Report of the Court was published in the Colony of the Straits Settlements Government Gazette, 10^th September 1920.  The three cases noted above decisively showed that neither the Dutch Indonesian nor the American Philippines did anything for the Investigation and neither did they object that the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court which were discharging their international obligations under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance.  Neither did the British Adviser, responsible for the 1885 Territorial Integrity of the State and Territory of Johore under Treaty obligations advise the Sultan and his State Council that the Settlement of Singapore was intruding into its Sovereign Waters.

 

The Court had ruled that it is the responsibility of the party that wants to establish a fact to provide the evidence to establish that claim.  The threshold of evidence is very low in this case as under the same Merchant Shipping Ordinance and same Sections and Rules and the same Court of Investigation at the Port of Singapore heard 3 other similar cases and the Reports were published in the same Colony of the Straits Settlements Government Gazettes.  Malaysia might be held negligent for not providing the details of shipwrecks for the period 1852 – 1952.  Malaysia depended on the affidavits of maritime experts who attested that investigating and hearing such cases in Marine Courts does not reflect territorial sovereignty.

 

In the context of the legal weight of significance that the single 1920 shipping incident within the Territorial Waters of Pedra Branca is assigned by the Court there must be some responsibility of the Republic of Singapore.  The Republic of Singapore pulled out this single 1920 shipping collision from the legal records of the Colony of the Straits Settlements Gazettes.  Their researchers would have had to dredge over hundreds of pages to find this one incident. They should take responsibility of the party that advanced the fact when the Republic of Singapore only singled out one shipping incident from the Colony of the Straits Settlements Government Gazette and presented the evidence to its best advantage.  Who is to be accountable for the other brushed over facts that are in the same Government Gazettes; Annual Reports of the Marine Department, Colony of the Straits Settlements and later Crown Colony of Singapore and in the Singapore based newspapers?  A manufactured fact by the Republic of Singapore shaped the final decision of the Court.

 

There is another dimension of the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Investigation held in the Port of Singapore.  This involves an Appeal against the Judgment of the Court.  The Higher  Court that heard an Appeal as in the case of Captain McLeod of s.s. Royalstar was not a Colony of the Straits Settlements Court but the High Court in London.  The details of this case was revealed in 2003 publication of “Beyond the Harbour Lights”, authored by Chris Mills, Whittles Publishing, Dundurn.

 

 

The Colony of the Straits Settlements Government Gazette published the Report of a Formal Investigation held at the First Magistrate’s Court, Settlement of Singapore on 25^th and 26^th January 1927.

 

----------------------------------------

 

Case Four

 

FOR OFFICIAL USE

(No. 7856.)

"ROYALSTAR" (S.S.).

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
ORDINANCE No. 125 (MERCHANT SHIPPING)

REPORT OF COURT.

In the matter of a Formal Investigation held at the First Magistrate's Court, Singapore, on the 25th and 26th January, 1927, before me, assisted by Captain GEOFFREY FREYBERG, O.B.E., R.N., Master Attendant, Straits Settlements, Captain ALFRED HENRY BARNES, D.S.C., Master Mariner and Pilot, Singapore, and Captain ROBERT WILLIAM MORRIS, Master Mariner, Singapore, into the circumstances attending the grounding of the S.S. "Royalstar" near Batu Beranti in Singapore Strait on the 13th January, 1927.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto, that the casualty was caused by the negligence of the Master.

1. In omitting to satisfy himself personally that his charts were up to date.

2. In neglecting to read the instructions on page 170 of the Malacca Strait Pilot, 1924.

3. In neglecting to have any bearings taken or the position fixed between 6.14 a.m. and 9.05 a.m.

The Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the Master's certificate, but severely censures him for the acts of negligence stated above.

Dated this 27th day of January, 1927.

P. F. DAVID, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

GEOFFREY FREYBERG. A. H. BARNES. R. W. MORRIS.

Assessors.

---

 

 

ANNEX TO REPORT.

 

The S.S. "Royalstar," Captain John McLeod, Master, entered the Singapore Strait from the eastward in the early morning of 13th January, 1927, Horsburgh lighthouse being abeam to port distant about one mile at 6.14 a.m., course S. 75° W. (true), speed about 11 knots, the vessel drawing about 28 feet water (aft).

 

Both the Master and another Officer were on duty on the bridge from when the vessel passed Horsburgh lighthouse until the time of the accident, which occurred at 9.13 a.m., close north-eastward of Batu Beranti lighthouse. The weather was fine and clear with smooth sea.

 

The ship's position was not fixed from 6.14 a.m. until 9.05 a.m., when bearings taken by the 3rd Officer and plotted by the Master gave Peak Island (centre) N. 70° W. (compass), and Batu Beranti S. 54° W. (compass), the compass error being 2° E. The vessel was then about two miles from Batu Beranti.

 

At 9.11 a.m., as the vessel was apparently being set down towards Batu Beranti, the Master gave the order "hard-a-port," and at 9.13 a.m., while still swinging to starboard, the ship struck a reef or obstruction on the starboard side forward abreast of Nos. 2 and 3 bulkheads. As the "Royalstar" was making water the Master decided to proceed to Singapore Roads for assistance, where he anchored at 9.40 a.m. the same morning and docked later.

 

Owing to the lack of fixed positions there is not sufficient evidence to show whether the vessel struck the 13 feet submerged rock situated at a distance of about 2½ cables north-eastward of Batu Beranti or an uncharted reef or rock in this vicinity.

 

The Admiralty large scale chart of the locality was not in use, the ship being navigated by an out-of-date and uncorrected copy of Admiralty chart No. 2,403, Singapore Strait, on which the rock first-mentioned is not shown.

 

The Master stated in evidence that before leaving Liverpool he gave directions for his charts to be sent ashore to be corrected; but he took no steps to satisfy himself that his instructions had been carried out. The Court considered that it was clearly the duty of the Master personally to make sure that his charts were up to date, especially as it is admitted that the officer into whose charge they had been given left the ship a few days before she sailed.

 

The 13 feet submerged rock, which was discovered in 1923, is shown on the latest Admiralty Charts, and is also referred to in the Malacca Strait Pilot, 1924, a copy of which was in the Master's possession.

 

As stated in the finding, the Court was unable to determine whether the obstruction encountered by the "Royalstar" was actually this rock, or some other still uncharted rock or reef in the vicinity. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that if the Master had been in possession of a chart showing the 13 feet rock, lie would have given Batu Beranti a wider berth from the start.

 

In any case, if the Master had read and followed the directions given on page 170 of the Malacca Strait Pilot, he would have kept to the Northern side of the Strait and avoided this dangerous region with regard to which a very definite warning is given.

P. F. DAVID, Judge.

List of Questions and Answers.

1. Was the "Royalstar" properly equipped and in a seaworthy condition as regards her hull and machinery? Answer: Yes.

2. Where and at what time did the casualty occur? Answer: At 9.13 a.m. on the 13th January, 1927, near Batu Beranti Light in the Singapore Strait.

3. Was the "Royalstar" provided with her proper complement of officers as required by Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894? Answer: Yes.

4. Was the "Royalstar" provided with the requisite charts, sailing directions and navigating instruments? Answer: Yes, with the exception that the charts in use had not been corrected up to date.

4A. Was the Master justified in proceeding on his voyage through the Singapore and Malacca Straits without proper Admiralty charts of the latest possible date? Answer: No. The Court is of opinion that it was the duty of the Master to ascertain that all his charts had been brought up to date before sailing.

5. Was there a qualified officer of the watch on the bridge prior to and at the time of the casualty? Answer: Yes.

6. Was a proper lookout kept on board this ship? Answer: Yes.

6A. What was the state of sea and weather at the time of the casualty? Answer: The weather was fine and clear, calm and smooth sea.

7. Were proper steps taken by the Master to ensure the safe navigation of the ship? Answer: No (see reply to Question 9).

7A. If the Court is of opinion that the "Royalstar" struck a reef, was that reef properly charted on the latest Admiralty charts? Answer: There is no doubt that the "Royalstar" struck a submerged rock, but owing to the vagueness of the evidence with regard to the position of the ship it is impossible to say whether the obstruction in question was the 13 feet rock shown in the latest Admiralty charts about 2¾ cables N.E. of Batu Meranti or an uncharted rock further to the northward.

8. Did the ship sustain material damage affecting her seaworthiness? Answer: Yes.

9. Was the casualty caused by the negligence, error of judgment or unskilful navigation of John McLeod, Master of the S.S. "Royalstar"? Answer: The Court is of opinion that the casualty was caused by the negligence of the Master”

1. In omitting to satisfy himself personally that his charts were up to date.

2. In neglecting to read the instructions on page 170 of the Malacca Strait Pilot, 1924.

3. In neglecting to have any bearings taken or the position fixed between 6.14 a.m. and 9.05 a.m.

10. Was the casualty caused by the negligence, error of judgment or unskilful navigation of Thomas MacDonald, Third Mate of the S.S. "Royalstar"? Answer: No.

11. Is any action required with regard to the certificate of John McLeod, Master of the S.S. "Royalstar"? Answer: The Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the Master's certificate, but severely censures him for the acts of negligence stated above.

12. Is any action required with regard to the certificate of Thomas MacDonald, Third Mate of the S.S. "Royalstar"? Answer: No. The Court considers that the Third Officer is in no way to blame.

13. Costs of the Court by whom to be paid? Answer: The costs of the Inquiry to be paid by the Attorney-General

The Colony of Singapore Marine Court of Inquiry found Captain McLeod guilty of negligence but his Master’s Certificate was neither cancelled nor endorsed.  Captain McLeod felt that the verdict was unjust and in London he set out to clear his name.  He raised an Appeal in the High Court, London and after consulting Shipping Acts, the High Court allowed his appeal.  In 1928 the High Court Judge, London provided the basis of its jurisdiction and ruled:

 

Description:	Board of Trade wreck report for 'Royalstar', 1927. This records the appeal against the original wreck report.
Creator:	UK Board of Trade
Date:	1927
Copyright:	Out of copyright
Partner:	SCC Libraries
Partner ID:	Unknown

 

Transcription

FOR OFFICIAL USE

(No. 7856A.)

"ROYALSTAR" (S.S.).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

(Admiralty.)

DIVISIONAL COURT.

Before the Right Honourable Lord Merrivale,
President, and
The Honourable Mr. Justice Hill.

1927. Folio 198.

On Appeal from a Court of Formal Investigation into a shipping casualty.

 

In the matter of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894-1906, and Rule 19 of the Shipping Casualties and Appeals and Re-hearings Rules, 1923, and

In the matter of an Appeal from the Finding of a Court of Formal Investigation held at Singapore on the 25th and 26th days of January, 1927, into the stranding of the Steamship "Royalstar," of London, in the Straits of Singapore, on the 13th day of January, 1927.

 

23rd March, 1928.

The Divisional Court, being assisted by Captains OWEN-JONES and A. H. MORRELL, two of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, and having heard Counsel for John MacLeod, Appellant, and Counsel for the Board of Trade, Respondents, pronounced in favour of the appeal of the said Appellant from the finding, judgment or decision of a Court of Formal Investigation or Inquiry held at Singapore on or about the 25th and 26th days of January, 1927, whereby the said Court held the said John MacLeod to be in default and censured him in respect of the damage occasioned to the S.S. "Royalstar" in the Straits of Singapore on the 13th January, 1927, set aside the finding, judgment or decision and set aside the censure, and condemned the Board of Trade in the costs of the Motion dated the 22nd November, 1927, but made no order as to the costs of this appeal.

(Sd.) MERRIVALE.

(Sd.) MAURICE HILL.

---

LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE

To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses:
Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh;
York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff;
15, Donegall Square West, Belfast;
or through any Bookseller.

1928.

Price 3d. Net.

(Source:  http://www.plimsoll.org/WrecksAndAccidents/wreckreports/  )

 

The above mentioned website contains several other nineteenth century cases of shipwrecks that were heard by the Court of Investigation, Port of Singapore and its members were assembled under the authority of the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements and formed a Court held in accordance of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act and its subsequent Amendments.  The Reports of Investigation of the Straits Settlements Court were reported as Reports of the Board of Trade and published by Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.  For continuity the convening of these Marine Courts of Investigation which were once under the orders of the Governor continued later through the Minister of the relevant Ministry.

 

 

Points of Fact

 

Treaties and Agreements with Charts/Maps Attached.

 

This section of the Report will draw attention to what is even more deadly silent in this one hundred years which the Court in its Judgment never referred when it gave its learned verdict.  Treaties and Agreements and Maps/Charts attached to these Treaties and Agreements during this period between Johore and Britain that were advanced as facts by Malaysia in its Pleadings were never considered.  Each Treaty and Agreement had Maps/Charts which clearly showed Pedra Branca as part of the State and Territory of Johore.  There was continuity of Johore’s historical sovereignty over Pedra Branca from the time of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 17^th March 1824 which divided the Straits of Singapore into a Dutch sphere and British sphere of influence and the subsequent Crawfurd Treaty of 2^nd August 1824 with Map attached through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

 

In this long century, 1852-1952, there were several Treaties and Agreements signed between the State and Territory of Johore and Britain that had direct relevance to territorial title.  Malaysia in its Pleadings drew attention to the Johore-Pahang, First Boundary and Friendship Treaty, 17^th June 1862; the Pahang and Johore, 1868 Award made by Governor of the Crown Colony of the Straits Settlements,  Sir H. ST George Ord, under the provisions of the Treaty between Pahang and Johore of 17^th June, 1862 with an Admiralty Chart attached to illustrate the intention; the Agreement on Certain Points Touching the Relations of Her Majesty’s Government of the Straits Settlements with the Government of the Independent State of Johore, London, 11 December 1885 with Admiralty Charts attached in the following year and the Colony of the Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters Agreement, 19 October 1927 with Map attached.

 

There is at least one Agreement during this long century between Johore and the War office, UK in 1923 which is not published in the standard textbooks of Treaties which again confirm that Britain knew that the State and Territory of Johore had sovereignty over Pedra Branca.  In addition, in the years after 1952 there is an Agreement between the Surveyor General Federation of Malaya and the Assistant Director of Survey, Far East Land Forces (FARELF) to produce the one inch mapping of Malaya in 135 Map Sheets of Malaya/Singapore under the Series L 7010 and L 8010.  The Chief Surveyor, Singapore, has agreed that the Series will include Singapore.  This Agreement too does not appear in the standard textbooks on Treaties and was signed in the early 1960’s and “A Map Specification” manual was published. This publication detailed how the Map Sheets were to represent District, State and International Boundaries and even the Font size to be used with the intention to show Sovereignty over Territory from that of a Font size that is smaller that has no such legal meaning. There were even provisions for any of the signatories to the Agreement to appeal should they consider that their territorial sovereignty were not properly represented.

 

The reason why the Court never considered Malaysia’s evidence on Treaties and Agreements is perhaps Malaysia’s own misleading admission on the legal standing of these Treaties and Agreements.   Malaysia never built a solid chapter in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries highlighting all Johore-Britain Treaties and Agreements accompanied by Maps or Admiralty Charts. This would have clearly established Johore’s continuous sovereignty over Pedra Branca and its surrounding features and of the stability and certainty of that sovereignty. Britain knew that sovereignty over Pedra Branca by engaging into these unbroken chain of Treaties and Agreements accompanied by Maps and Charts continued to rest with Johore. Successive Governors of the Colony of the Straits Settlements were signatories to these Treaties and knew that Johore continued to have historic title over Pedra Branca.  These Treaties were concrete manifestations of the display of territorial sovereignty recognised by Britain and the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements.  There was no passing of sovereignty from Johore to Britain nor to the Colony of the Straits Settlements in the Articles of these Treaties.  Nor was there any abandonment of sovereignty by the State and Territory of Johore.

 

Malaysia Pleadings

 

Malaysia Memorial

 

MM Para 302. “The authority of maps as evidence in boundary cases has been discussed by the Court on a number of occasions. In particular in the Frontier Dispute Case (Burkirza Faso/Mali) the Chamber said: ". . .maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial title, that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights. Of course, in some cases maps may acquire such legal force, but where this is so the legal force does not arise solely from their intrinsic merits: it is because such maps fall into the category of physical expressions of the will of the State or States concerned. This is the case, for example, when maps are annexed to an official text of which they form an integral part. Except in this clearly defined case, maps are only extrinsic evidence of varying reliability or unreliability which may be used, along with other evidence of a circumstantial kind, to establish or reconstitute the real fact."

 

MM Para 303. “This passage was cited and applied by the Court in both the Kasikili/Sedudu case and in the Ligitan and Sipadan case.”

 

MM Para 304. “In the present case there is no map having legal force as such, but there is a substantial record of depictions of the three features on maps from the 17^th century onwards. This record will be briefly described before any conclusions are drawn.”

 

                                            

ICJ Judgment

 

ICJ Judgment Para 120. “Any passing of sovereignty might be by way of agreement between the two States in question. Such an agreement might take the form of a treaty, as with the 1824 Crawfurd Treaty and the 1927 Agreement referred to earlier (paragraphs 22, 28 and 102). The agreement might instead be tacit and arise from the conduct of the Parties. International law does not, in this matter, impose any particular form. Rather it places its emphasis on the parties’ intentions (cf. e.g. Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 1961, pp. 17, 31).”

 

ICJ Judgment Para 121. “Under certain circumstances, sovereignty over territory might pass as a result of the failure of the State which has sovereignty to respond to conduct à titre de souverain of the other State or, as Judge Huber put it in the Island of Palmas case, to concrete manifestations of the display of territorial sovereignty by the other State (Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands/United States of America), Award of 4 April 1928, RIAA, Vol. II, (1949) p. 839). Such manifestations of the display of sovereignty may call for a response if they are not to be opposable to the State in question. The absence of reaction may well amount to acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence “is equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the other party may interpret as consent . . .” (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 305, para. 130). That is to say, silence may also speak, but only if the conduct of the other State calls for a response.”

 

ICJ Judgment Para 122. “Critical for the Court’s assessment of the conduct of the Parties is the central importance in international law and relations of State sovereignty over territory and of the stability and certainty of that sovereignty. Because of that, any passing of sovereignty over territory on the basis of the conduct of the Parties, as set out above, must be manifested clearly and without any doubt by that conduct and the relevant facts. That is especially so if what may be involved, in the case of one of the Parties, is in effect the abandonment of sovereignty over part of its territory.”

 

ICJ Judgment Para 125. “The Court accordingly will now examine the relevant facts, particularly the conduct of the Parties, relating to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, to determine whether or not sovereignty over it has passed and is now with Singapore.”

 

ICJ Judgment Para 223. In the Court’s view, the Johor reply is clear in its meaning: Johor does not claim ownership over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. That response relates to the island as a whole and not simply to the lighthouse. When the Johor letter is read in the context of the request by Singapore for elements of information bearing on the status of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, as discussed above (see paragraphs 204-209), it becomes evident that the letter addresses the issue of sovereignty over the island. The Court accordingly concludes that Johor’s reply shows that as of 1953 Johor understood that it did not have sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. In light of Johor’s reply, the authorities in Singapore had no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom had sovereignty over the island. [Emphasis added]

 

ICJ Judgment Para 230. The above findings on Singapore’s three additional arguments relating to the 1953 correspondence do not affect the Court’s conclusion stated in paragraph 223 that as of 1953 Johor understood that it did not have sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and that in light of Johor’s reply, the authorities in Singapore had no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom had sovereignty over the island. [Emphasis added]

 

ICJ Judgment Para 267. “The Parties referred the Court to nearly 100 maps. They agreed that none of the maps establish title in the way, for instance, that a map attached to a boundary delimitation agreement may. They do contend however that some of the maps issued by the two Parties or their predecessors have a role as indicating their views about sovereignty or as confirming their claims.”

 

                                            

Point of Fact

 

It is clear that Malaysia took a crucially misguided legal stand that none of the Treaties had Maps attached such that it reflects a physical expression of the will of the State as stated in the text of the Treaty or Agreement.  A similar stand was adopted by the Malaysian Team in the earlier Ligitan-Sipadan Case (ICJ Judgment, 17^th December 2002).  All major text books on Treaties on Malaya/Malaysia/Brunei/British North Borneo/Sarawak and Singapore do not mention that there were Maps/Charts attached to the Treaties.  The standard text books are: C. Aitchison, “A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads relating to India and neighbouring countries”;  William G Maxwell and William S. Gibson, “ Treaties and Engagements affecting the Malay States and Borneo”, 1924; and more recently J de Y. Allen, A.J. Stockwell, L.R. Wright, “A Collection of Treaties and other Documents affecting the States of Malaysia  1761-1963”, 1981.

 

A few examples will illustrate the point.  The 2^nd August 1824 “Crawfurd Treaty” had a Map accompanying it when the Treaty was sent from the Settlement of Singapore to the Government of India.  The instruction to draw such a Map was reported by John Crawfurd in the Journal of Indian Archipelago and the said Map was found in an obscure Map Collection of the New Delhi Archives.  This Treaty and Map attached the Court records the surrender of sovereignty from one State to another.  In this case the surrender of sovereignty from the State and Territory of Johore to the newly formed Settlement of Singapore. (ICJ Judgment, Para 120).  A similar observation is made by the Court with reference to the 1927 Treaty which is the retrocession of territories of the Settlement of Singapore to the State and Territory of Johore.

 

In the Archives it is a standard practise that when its officers process original files and come across Maps these Maps are removed and placed in the Map Room separated from the original Treaty.  The reason being that Maps require special treatment in its preservation from that of handwritten/typed documents.  Even in the Map collection there is a difference between Colonial Office Maps and that of Foreign Office Maps.  It is of great significance as to where the Map Sheets are located in the National Archives, U.K. which is officially explained in the Archival Notes describing the Map Series. 

 

The Malaysian documents made in the Pleadings in the form of Treaties and Maps and Agreements and Admiralty Charts attached were not dealt with in the Judgment.  This is most extraordinary given that the standard International Law practise recognises that there is a physical expression of the will of the State when Maps are attached to a Treaty. 

 

The first of the Treaties in this long century of alleged claim that Johore and its successor Governments did nothing on Pedra Branca is the Governor of the Colony of Straits Settlements Award in 1868.  In this 1868 Award, Governor Ord attached an Admiralty Chart 2041, Malay Peninsula Eastern Coast, Singapore to Tioman, drawn by J.T. Thomson, Government Surveyor,  dated 1849 to the Treaty to show the off shore islands boundary between the neighbouring States of Pahang and Johore on the East Coast of the Malay Peninsula. (See MR pg. 45 para 99 for the Admiralty Chart attached to the Award) The text of the Treaty reflected the intentions of the Admiralty Chart attached.  That all islands and features south of the line drawn on the Admiralty Chart 2041 belonged to the State and Territory of Johore.  There is nothing to quibble about the text and the Admiralty Chart attached.  Britain and the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements knew that Johore was sovereign over Pedra Branca.  There was never any intention in the Treaty to show that Johore had an intention to abandon sovereignty over Pedra Branca nor was there any indication in the Award that Britain nor the Colony of the Straits Settlements had intentions to take possession of Pedra Branca.

 

In its Pleadings the Republic of Singapore tried to point out that the dispute was only a few off-shore islands at the sea boundary between the two states and do not extend so far south until Pedra Branca and South Ledge as shown on the Admiralty Chart.  Had that been the intention of the Award to be reflected in the Chart then the Governor could have easily cut up the Chart to show the “few islands” North and South of the sea boundary to make his narrow intention.

 

The Republic of Singapore overlooked that in the CSO 11293/52 file (MM 68) the Admiralty Chart was Admiralty Chart Number 2403: “Singapore Straits and Eastern Approaches” covering parts of the State and Territory of Johore; the Colony of Singapore and the Province of Rhio-Lingga, Republic of Indonesia.  The Chief of Survey Department, Colony of Singapore, who prepared the Chart showing the Territorial Waters of the Colony of Singapore as understood in 1953 extracted the said Chart from the larger Admiralty Chart 2403 which extended into the China Sea to include that of Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.  The Chief of Survey did not include Pedra Branca and the other two features as part of the Territorial Waters of the Colony of Singapore which was defined by the following Treaties:  The Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 17^th March 1824; the Crawfurd Treaty of 2^nd August 1824; the 1927 Territorial Waters of Johore Treaty and more recently the decision of the ICJ on the Norwegian Fisheries.

 

The Republic completely disregarded the historical context that started in 1857 when the deposed Sultan Mahmud IV of Rhio-Lingga crossed the 17^th March 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty and went to stay in the Settlement of Singapore and began moving into the State of Pahang and took sides in the civil war between two brothers in Pahang and dragged in the ambitious Sultan Ali, son of Sultan Hussien of Singapore, one of the signatories  of the 2^nd August 1824 Cession and engaged the Sultanates of Trengganu, Kelantan and even Selangor and threatened to bring into play the Kingdom of Thailand.  There was a real possibility that there could have erupted a conflagration of the east coast of the Malay Peninsula disrupting trade of the Settlement of Singapore.  It makes complete sense for the Governor to use the Admiralty Chart 2041 in full as to the North he demarcated the sea boundary with the State of Pahang with Johore and to the south the Chart stopped at the Main Straits of Singapore to show Pedra Branca and South Ledge as part of the Islands and features assigned by the Treaty to the State and Territory of Johore.  (See Attachment THREE CO 700/Eastern28, Eastern Archipelago and China Sea,Index Admiralty Published Charts.)  The other Admiralty Charts 1355 and 3543 were not suitable as it went southwards beyond the Straits of Singapore to include in part Pulau Bintang under Dutch sphere of influence.

 

It was a standard practise amongst Britain and Dutch officials to exchange Treaty information with each other after the 17^th March 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty.  The 1868 Ord Award would have been sent by the Foreign Office to the Dutch Ambassador in London who would have forwarded the Treaty and Chart to the Netherlands and there would have been an acknowledgement from the recipient of the Treaty and Chart in the British Foreign Office records.

  

The second Treaty that was never evaluated in the Judgment was the 1885 Johore Treaty.  (See MR Para 103-105). Article V reflected the intension that Britain represented by the Governor of the Colony of Straits Settlements will defend the territories of the State of Johore.  Furthermore, Article XV provided that Johore may not surrender any part of its territories to any European State of Power, or any other State or Nation.  It is in this context that the State and Territory of Johore is to be defended by Britain. The Sultan in 1886 personally presented through his representative Admiralty Charts to outline the extent of his territories.  The Admiralty Charts were to represent what the Sultan believed is the territorial extent of his Kingdom. (See MM Para 89-92 and Annex 63). The Chart Numbers in his letter can easily be crossed checked from the readily available Index to Admiralty Published Charts, “Eastern Archipelago and China Sea” which is available in Colonial Office Series 700/Eastern28. (See Attachment Three) One of the Admiralty Charts he selected to show the off shore Islands closest to the East Coast of Johore was Admiralty Chart 2041: Malay Peninsula Eastern Coast Singapore to Tioman, by J. T. Thomson, Government Surveyor, 1849.  The Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements certainly knew how to read this Chart and the extent of Johore’s immediate off-shore Islands.  

 

In 1868 the Office of the Governor of the Colony of the Strait Settlements used this Chart to demarcate the off-shore Islands belonging to Pahang and those belonging to Johore.  Its predecessor Office under the East India Company period knew the demarcation of the Straits of Singapore under the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 17^th March 1824 and none of the Islands on this Chart were under the Dutch sphere of influence.  It certainly knew the territorial extent of the Settlement of Singapore ceded by Johore in full property and sovereignty on 2^nd August 1824.  There was no objections by Britain that these off-shore islands as depicted in Adm Chart 2041 were to be defended by Britain under the terms of the 1885 Treaty.

 

Indeed had the Settlement of Singapore had taken possession of Pedra Branca after the period 1847-1851 then the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlement should have made the qualification when he gave the Award in 1868; and again the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements should have raised objections to the 1886 submission of the Admiralty Chart 2041 by the Sultan of Johore himself in London and pointed out that the Straits Settlements or Britain had earlier taken possession of the said Rock for the British Crown.

 

The third Treaty with a Map attached was the 1927 Treaty that was rectified by the British Parliament in 1928.  This is the only case where the Court made reference to a Treaty and a Map attached and concluded based on the evidence it had before the Court that the Treaty and attached Map were specific to the overlapping territorial waters between the Settlement of Singapore and the State and Territory of Johore in the Straits of Tebrau and did not include of the overlapping claims between the Republic of Singapore’s alleged possession of Pedra Branca and the off-shore islands of Southeastern Johore.  However, recent New Facts (Emphasis added] released only in 2013 shows that intention of the 1927 Treaty was to cover all outstanding overlapping territorial waters between the Settlement of Singapore and that of the State and Territory of Johore in the Straits Of Singapore.

 

There is one other Britain-Johore Agreement in the records of the British Archives that was never published in the standard Malaya/Malaysia Treaty text-books.  This is a negotiated 1923 Agreement between the War Office directly with the Sultan of Johore representing the State of Johore for the Survey of the Southeast portion of Johore by the Military Mapping Directorate of the War Office with some financial assistance by the State of Johore.  In exchange the Sultan was promised that he would receive a copy of all the Map Sheets printed and published by the Geographical Section, General Staff (GSGS).

 

In 1928 the archival records show definitely that a red leather bound album was purchased by the War Office with the words printed “THE STATE AND TERRITORIES OF JOHORE”; “PRESENTED TO HIS HIGHNESS IBRAHIM, G.C.M.G., K.B.E., SULTAN OF THE STATE AND TERRITORY OF JOHORE” [Emphasis added]  to include Map sheets of the State and Territory of Johore.  One of the Map Sheets was Map Sheet 4 1/10 published by GSGS titled Johore, Punggai showing its off-shore islands and features including that of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks and South Ledge.  This is a decisive evidence that Britain knew that Pedra Branca belonged to Johore and its War Office went on to survey the area within the Map Sheet with the full knowledge and permission and financial assistance of the Sultan of Johore involving the British Army, Navy and Air Force.  Thirty years later during the long reign of Sultan Ibrahim, certain correspondence between the Colonial Secretary, Colony of Singapore and the British Adviser, Johore triggered processes that resulted in the Republic of Singapore advancing the point that the State and Territory of Johore had abandoned her sovereignty over Pedra Branca.

 

A search has been made without success to locate this Album and the Map Sheets that contained the decisive evidence.  It is not with the Malaysian archives; nor that of the Johore Archives.  A letter has been addressed to the Defence Ministry, UK requesting the date when the Album was presented to HRH the Sultan of Johore.  They replied that they do not have the records and asked to refer to the National Archives, UK which so far has been fruitless.  It is known that during the period when the Album was been ordered and the Map Sheets collated that HRH the Sultan was touring Europe and UK and it would be fair to assume that HRH received the gift in London and could have kept in one of the Libraries of his residence in London or in the process of time the said Album could be in one of the Rare Books collection of a British Research Institution or even a Specialised Book shop dealing with Rare Documents.  The GSGS Series for Johore was reprinted and updated and sold to the public until the late 1950’s when it was replaced by the newer Malaya led Map Series L 7010 which divided Peninsula Malaya into 135 Map Sheets.

 

Beyond this period of silence, 1852-1952, there was at least one other Agreement in the early 1960s between the Surveyor General Malaya and the Far East Land Forces (FARELF). This involves the topographical survey of the respective territories of Malaya and Singapore and in the case of Thailand, showing its common boundaries with Malaya.  There was a published Map Specification attached to this Agreement providing significant details down to the size of Fonts to represent a distinct Territory marked with the standard symbols of an International Boundary.  The Agreement resulted in the publication of the Map Series L 7010 and L 8010 and provides decisive evidence on the alleged “Against Malaysia Interest” Map Sheet 135 by the Republic of Singapore.

 

The inclusion of Singapore under Horsburgh has no International Territorial Demarcation significance.  Its FONT size were not that defined in the Map Specification and there was no International Boundary around Pedra Branca to represent Pedra Branca as a distinct Island with its own territorial waters sovereign to Singapore.   There was no reason for Malaya to object.  Furthermore, Singapore could have exercised its right to insert a cut out of Pedra Branca and its Territorial Waters when Map Sheet 134 was published for Singapore which Singapore did not.  The cut out of Pedra Branca was used in the Map Sheet 135 Series L 8010 showing  decisively that Pedra Branca was part of the State and Territories of Johore and Singapore did not object. 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The ICJ in its Judgment explained that in the light of Johore’s 1953 Reply the Singapore authorities had no reason to doubt that the U.K. had sovereignty over Pedra Branca.  (See ICJ Judgment Para 223) 

 

The evidence presented in Report Three advanced the claim and supported by facts, not assumptions interpreting silence, that Britain knew where the sovereignty over Pedra Branca was.  The Colonial Office knew.  The Foreign Office knew. The War Office knew.  The Ministry of Defence knew.  The Ministry of Trade knew. The Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements knew.  Sovereignty over Pedra Branca and its Territorial Waters continued in this one hundred period to be with the State and Territory of Johore who had the historical title.  There was no abandonment over Pedra Branca and its territorial waters by the State and Territory of Johore

 

It is the Republic of Singapore that chose not to know that these facts are embedded in the legal records of the Colony of the Straits Settlements, of which the Settlement of Singapore was one such Settlements.  It is in the records of the Colony of the Straits Settlements and Colony of Singapore, the predecessor Governments of the Republic of Singapore.  The readily available Government Gazettes of the Colony of the Straits Settlements and the Crown Colony of Singapore and the Annual Reports of the Marine Departments as well as contemporary newspapers published in Singapore during this imagined silent period illustrates the legal regime under which the Marine Court of Investigation operated. 

 

In addition to assembling the members that make the Colony of the Straits Settlements Marine Court of Investigation; the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements represented the Colonial Office in signing all the Treaties involving Johore in this one hundred year period.  The 1862 Johore-Pahang Treaty; the 1868 Governor Ord Award; the 1885 Agreement with Defence of Johore Territories obligations and 1927 Johore Territorial Waters Treaty.

 

Malaysia could well be held negligent by the ICJ rules for not advancing the “known facts” as outlined in this Report.   The next obvious question is what is the responsibility of the Republic of Singapore.  It did not disclose that the Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements convened Marine Court of Investigations pursuant to the Merchant Shipping Ordinance in the 100 year period examined in territorial waters of many nations.  Finally, which party is responsible for ignoring all the Treaties and Agreements with Maps/Charts attached in this 100 year period that led the Court to hold the view that the State of Johore and its Territory did nothing before turning to the correspondence of 1953.  The 1953 Letters will be given its due attention in Report Four.

 

The missing Album of 1928 from the War Office to the Sultan Ibrahim of the State and Territory of Johore will decisively establish that Britain knew that sovereignty over Pedra Branca continued to be with the State and Territories of Johore as represented in the GSGS Map Sheet 4 I/10.  This discovery when made will be reinforced by other “New Facts” released by the National Archives, UK after the 2008 ICJ Judgment as legal grounds for an Appeal to be lodged.