Talk:Pedra Branca, Singapore/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A page for the case

I feel the case should have its own page named Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) as named by the ICJ. It could later be listed at List of International Court of Justice cases. __earth ^(Talk) 06:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this at this point in time. On the one hand what you suggest makes sense and appears to be in line with the treatment of other ICJ cases. On the other, taking out the information on the case will shrink the article to little more than a stub. After all, the island is currently only notable for two things: the Horsburgh Lighthouse on it (which has its own article), and the current international dispute. I suggest that we continue to update this article with information about the ICJ case as it unfolds and monitor the situation, and if there is a lot of material then a separate article can be spun off and a summary of the case put into this article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would draw caution over using that page name. It is clumsy, and a fair number of articles in List of International Court of Justice cases actually do not use ICJ case names either.--Huaiwei 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are free to suggest a NPOV name if you disagree with its official title. __earth ^(Talk) 02:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I expressed concern over its clumsiness, and not on POV issues.--Huaiwei 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, all the same. __earth ^(Talk) 14:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is not the same. I do not have to, and do not see the need to suggest a NPOV name, since that wasent a concern to me in the first place.--Huaiwei 11:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read again, I was merely asking for an alternative name (which must be NPOV per Wikipedia) if the official name is unacceptable to you. I neither suggested nor said that you were expressing "NPOV issues". __earth ^(Talk) 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What about "Case concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia v. Singapore)"? I think, though, we should wait to see how the case name is officially reported after the ICJ renders its decision. It doesn't make sense to choose a name that is different from the official name. I also reiterate my concern about this article becoming a stub if the portion about the court case is prematurely spun off into a separate article. I suggest a decision not be taken on the issue until the article has been updated to include Malaysia's presentation of its case and the ICJ's ruling on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good enough and your concern is legitimate. I am happy to stick with your suggestion to wait until further development =). __earth ^(Talk) 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone knows the official case name? IMHO, the case section is getting longer and longer and deviate further than the main topic in the article page, which is the islands and the light house. i think we should expedite the creation of a new page concerning the case.

--erwinkarim (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Further, the case is about the other two rocks as much as the main island itself. __earth ^(Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my comments above. The article will become a stub if not for the case section; we should wait till the case is over before making a decision. The complete official case name should be stated on the ICJ website, but a shorter official name will not become available until the case has been reported (another reason to wait for the decision in the matter). On another matter, it's my understanding that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh includes Middle Rocks and South Edge. Does anyone have evidence to confirm or disprove this? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my initial understanding too but further reading on the matter made me to rethink the matter. Two reasons for that:

1. The official name includes three names. If the main island does take into account the other two rocks, wouldn't it make sense just to mention just the name of the main island?
2. Claim dates for the main island and the other two rocks differ. If the two rocks are considered part of the main island, shouldn't the claim dates be the same?

__earth ^(Talk) 01:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading recent Singapore newspaper articles on the matter, it seems that the point is a disputed one. According to the closing speech made in rebuttal by Singapore:

... Malaysia has argued that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge should not be treated as a group but as three separate and distinct maritime features. This is an untenable argument.

The truth is that for reasons of proximity, geology, history and law, the three features are inseparable and must be treated together. Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks constitute a group.

South Ledge is a low-tide elevation within the territorial sea of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks and its fate must necessarily follow that of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.

See "All the pieces in Singapore's case 'fit perfectly together'". The Straits Times. 2007-11-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (The article, unfortunately, is only accessible on-line by paid subscription). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the case is done. It's time to revisit about having the case's own page. __earth ^(Talk) 15:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an Observer

It appears that even as the case is being heard in the ICJ, Wikipedians of differing nationalities have already begun a mini phony war due to nationalist/patriotic sentiments. Can't we all just revert everything back to the start where it was before it was disputed and get along with it? --121.7.140.49 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what "mini phony war" are we talking about? I don't think there's any dispute as to the current content of the article (though it may need a cleanup). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the edits are quite civil at the moment, and hence, I agree with Jack. Besides, the contributions made since the case was first heard at the Hague last week have been tremendous in value and volume. It does not make sense to revert such edits. __earth ^(Talk) 01:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the article, the content of the talk page. Attack, defend, counterattack... Got allies as well. And it's over such a trivial thing like naming conventions, not even anything to do with the content. --121.7.140.49 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion may be heated but that is typical when there are differences in opinion. There's little need to revert though archiving may be warranted given the current length of the talk page. __earth ^(Talk) 12:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the name of the islands are themselves disputed, this is nothing trivial as made out to be. We do not have a policy of deleting talkpage comments, because they serve a permanent record of what has been discussed, and provides details on whatever decisions may have been made before.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that it's thought the debate on this talk page is heated. I would have thought that it has generally been carried out in a civil, reasoned manner. (If you want to see what a heated debate looks like, see "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?" – now that was pretty uncomfortable at times.) I also don't see any evidence that editors have been influenced by "nationalist/patriotic sentiments"; in fact, it's not even very clear what the nationalities of the editors involved in the discussion are (nor should that be relevant). I agree with Huaiwei that the proper naming of the article is not a trivial issue as it can affect how easily the article is located as well as readers' perceptions of the content. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just found it a little amusing. --121.7.140.49 (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1824 document

Does anyone have a reference to the text of the 1824 document signed by the Johor Sultanate and British? --Vsion 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

that document has no bearing on pedra branca.

the document never attributes the island of pedra branca to johor.

since that document did not touch on pedra branca, thus it is of no value in the court. since the british could by its power grant singapore control of any other territories within the british empire to singapore, just as the british granted the christmas island (formerly under singapore administration) to the australian govt, even though the island is 20 times closer to the island of java then to the australian mainland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.89 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 February 2008) (UTC)

Page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In accordance with the 2008 ICJ ruling and the end of the dispute, I suggest that this page be moved to Pedra Branca, Singapore instead of the current title. --165.21.154.109 (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, the {{WikiProject Malaysia}} template on the talk page should stay, since the article is relevant to Malaysia's history. The article also needs to make clear that Malaysia has sovereignty over Middle Rocks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I too agree. But there's a need to have a page for the case that is separate from this article. __earth ^(Talk) 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can move over the redirect. Ping me on my talk if there is consensus for this. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT. InfernoXV (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support move. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 07:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. There's no reason not to since the island belongs to Singapore now. 60.230.200.22 (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Apologies, that comment was made by me. 리지강.wa.au _talk 04:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

i am in favour of the move to reflect the judgement passed by the ICJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.72 (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is consensus that this article should be renamed "Pedra Branca, Singapore", and Rifleman 82 has done so. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion. Do express your views on whether the information about the ICJ case should be spun off into a separate article in the section below, remembering to sign your posts with four tildes ("~~~~"). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedra Branca, Singapore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

with the judgement of the ICJ on 23rd may 2008.

shouldnt the title be changed to reflect the ownership of pedra branca to singapore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.75 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is under discussion. Do indicate whether you agree or disagree with the proposal in the section "Page move" above. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Singapore's rebuttal

I have removed the following text from the article inserted by an anonymous editor (most recently at IP address 165.21.155.76) on 12 April 2008 for the following reasons:

• Wikipedia articles must be written in a summary style. Therefore, long quotations of source material do not belong in articles.
• The text below is in fact a complete opening statement delivered by one of Singapore's counsel in the case. As such, reproducing it in its entirety is a breach of copyright as well.

If it is felt that the information merits inclusion in the article, it should be summarized. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

---

DPM S Jayakumar:Opening Statement for Singapore's Sovereignty over Pedra Branca,Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rock on 19 Nov 2007

Mr President and Members of the Court, it is my privilege to commence Singapore's second round of oral pleadings.

Distractions by Malaysia

2 During Singapore's first round oral pleadings, we have focused our presentations purely on legal and factual issues in dispute between the parties. We have carefully avoided mentioning extraneous matters that may affect the integrity of the proceedings before this honourable Court. In view of the good relations between the two countries, we had expected Malaysia to do likewise.

3 We are therefore surprised and disappointed that Malaysia has in her oral pleadings, made a series of allegations and insinuations against Singapore. These are of a nature which, unless rebutted, would impeach or diminish Singapore's integrity or could impress on the minds of the Members of the Court that there could be dire consequences for relations in the region if the dispute were decided in favour of Singapore.

4 It would not be right for Singapore to embark on our second round pleadings with these extraneous and prejudicial remarks remaining unanswered. These include:

• an insinuation that Singapore may have concealed a letter from the Court;

• an allegation that Singapore is subverting the existing legal order, and that stability in the region will be affected if sovereignty over Pedra Branca is awarded to Singapore;

• an attribution of sinister motives to Singapore;

• an accusation that Singapore moved its navy belatedly to Pedra Branca and used aggressive methods to assert Singapore's claim; and

• a gratuitous "offer" to continue respecting Singapore's "right" to operate the lighthouse should Malaysia win the case.

5 I am therefore compelled this morning to point out how baseless and tendentious Malaysia's allegations are and to set the record straight. My colleagues, who will follow after me, will deal in detail with the other issues raised by Malaysia.

Malaysia's insinuation of concealment of letter

6 Let me begin by addressing the most disturbing insinuation. During last week's proceedings, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht insinuated that Singapore may have "deliberately concealed" Butterworth's 1844 letters of request addressed to the Sultan and the Temenggong of Johor.

7 Sir Eli Lauterpacht said:

"Like many other documents in this case, these must originally have been in the Singapore archive. Malaysia has requested their production by Singapore but Singapore has given no reply. In the circumstances we are obliged to consider two possible inferences that may be drawn from the available correspondence read as a whole. And I leave entirely aside any suggestion of a third inference, namely that Singapore has deliberately concealed these letters."

8 This carefully contrived "non-statement" was expressed in public and came after both sides had said they were unable to locate the letters in their written pleadings and after Singapore repeated this in the first round of our oral pleadings.

9 Malaysia's Agent also claimed that, in 1994, Malaysia requested Singapore to furnish a copy of the letter but Singapore did not respond to the request .

10 Firstly, Singapore does not have a copy of Butterworth's letters. Singapore had searched for the letters over the years, at various archives but to no avail. In fact, I was personally involved in the search when I was then Dean of the Faculty of Law.

11 It is a matter of public record and knowledge that Singapore's archives are incomplete. In Dr Mary Turnbull's history of The Straits Settlements, from which Malaysia has also extracted for her own Judges' Folder last week, she states very clearly that many volumes in various series of files in the Singapore archives are missing or in poor condition. The relevant extracts can be found in Tab 1 of our Judges' Folder. In any case, Malaysia would be aware that microfilm copies of Singapore's archival records are available in various institutions outside Singapore. For example, the microfilm copy of the Series "Governor's Letters to Native Rulers" from 1817-1872 has been bought by Monash University in 1961. The Butterworth letters are also missing from this microfilm copy.

12 In fact, Singapore has already explained why our records are incomplete in our written pleadings . That was why Singapore decided in 1953 to ask the Johor Government whether they had any documents relating to Pedra Branca.

13 Secondly, it is not true that Singapore did not respond to the request from Malaysia. After the second round of bilateral consultations between Singapore and Malaysia in January 1994, Malaysia sent a diplomatic note in May 1994 to Singapore asking for copies of various documents. Singapore replied to that request orally in June 1994, through our High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, by asking whether it was Malaysia's intention to continue the work of the bilateral consultations through correspondence, and suggested instead that the parties should convene a third round of bilateral consultation for this purpose. In the event, the idea of convening a third round of consultations was not pursued because a decision was taken by both Governments in September 1994 to refer the dispute to this Court .

14 Thirdly, let us look at the facts. This letter was sent to Sultan Ali and to the Temenggong of Johor. Why should Malaysia say that "these must originally have been in the Singapore archive"? Would it not be more logical for the original of the letters to be in Johor, not Singapore? However, Malaysia has stated that she also does not have the letters. Singapore has accepted that in good faith.

Malaysian claims that Singapore seeks to subvert the long established arrangements.

15 I turn now to Malaysia's claim that Singapore "seeks to disrupt the long established arrangements in the Straits" and "subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Great Britain over 150 years ago" .

16 Malaysia's allegations are another attempt to impress upon the Court that Malaysia is the victim and Singapore the perpetrator of some historic wrong against Malaysia. In fact, it is Malaysia who is trying to alter the status quo by suddenly claiming title to Pedra Branca after 130 years of inaction in the face of Singapore's exercise of Singapore's sovereignty over the island.

17 This is evident from Malaysia's telegram of 20 December 1979 informing all her overseas Missions that her 1979 map would "affect":

• Thailand; • Vietnam; • Singapore; • Indonesia; • Brunei; • The Philippines; and • China.

18 As Malaysia had anticipated, her map indeed attracted protests from all seven countries. Who then, may I ask, was seeking to upset the existing legal order?

19 Malaysia's Agent also says that if this Court finds in favour of Singapore, the stability of Malaysia's relationship with Indonesia will be affected . This is another attempt to influence the Court with extraneous considerations which have no foundation.

Malaysia attributing sinister motives to Singapore

20 The Agent of Malaysia has also alleged sinister intentions on the part of Singapore. He speculates that Singapore may reclaim the sea around Pedra Branca to create a "maritime domain" with potential adverse impact on the environment, on navigation and on security . He also alleged that Singapore wants to create "a military presence" .

21 Malaysia's reference to the impact of possible reclamation plans is an attempt at scaremongering. Singapore is a law abiding country and is proud of its record in this respect.

22 Singapore's economic well-being and, indeed, Singapore's very survival depends on its status as a major port of call, which in turn is dependent on the smooth flow of maritime traffic through the Singapore Strait. We have never taken, and will never undertake, any action which would endanger the marine environment, the safety of navigation and the security situation in the Singapore Strait.

23 Malaysia has also alleged that Singapore has adopted in the present case "an attitude which is more colonialist than the colonial power herself" . This as well as their claim that Singapore is attempting to create a "maritime domain" on Pedra Branca is ridiculous. Only last Thursday, Malaysia dismissed Pedra Branca as a tiny rock, which in relation to Pulau Pisang, is like "the nail of a little finger is to the hand as a whole" .

Malaysia's accusation on Singapore Navy's methods

24 Next, Malaysia complains about Singapore's "military presence" and alleges that Singapore sent its naval vessels to Pedra Branca in 1986, well after the critical date, raising tensions in the area and chasing away Malaysian fishermen .

25 Mr President and members of the Court, Singapore's naval presence around Pedra Branca is not a recent development. Since 1975, when the British navy withdrew from Singapore, the Singapore Navy has established a specific patrol sector around Pedra Branca and has regularly patrolled there.

26 The presence of the Singapore Navy around Pedra Branca is no different from its presence in any other part of Singapore's territory. It has always been peaceful and non-confrontational and has enhanced security and safety in the area. Singapore's policy towards fishermen in Pedra Branca waters was clearly stated in our diplomatic note to Malaysia dated 16 June 1989:

"Singapore Marine Police and Navy patrols often find Malaysian vessels in Singapore territorial waters, fishing in what they claim to be traditional fishing grounds. Singapore has not arrested these boats. Wherever possible, it has allowed them to continue fishing. Where this is not possible for security or other reasons, the Singapore authorities have asked them to leave instead of arresting them" .

This note can be found in Tab 2 of the Judges' Folder.

27 Singapore has never arrested any Malaysian fishermen in Pedra Branca waters. On the other hand, it is Malaysia which has been aggressively arresting Singapore's fishing vessels and raising tensions , including through the use of physical violence against Singapore fishermen in the vicinity of Pedra Branca . All these are documented in our written pleadings and can also be found in Tab 3 of the Judges' Folders.

28 As for Malaysia's complaint that its officials could not go anywhere near Pedra Branca without being challenged by the Singapore Navy , I would like to remind my Malaysian friends that, way back in 1989, Singapore had indicated to Malaysia that we would be happy to invite Malaysian officials to visit Pedra Branca if they wished to do so . This can be found in Tab 4 of the Judges' Folders.

Malaysia's "offer" to continue to respect Singapore as lighthouse operator

29 In another attempt to influence the Court with extraneous considerations, Malaysia's Agent told the Court that Malaysia has always respected the position of Singapore as operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse and wished to place on record that it will continue to do so .

30 There is no need, and certainly no basis for Malaysia to do so. Singapore's rights in relation to Pedra Branca are the rights of a country having sovereignty over the island, not that of a lighthouse operator. Singapore's activities in relation to Pedra Branca go well beyond the operation of a lighthouse operator. They include various sovereign acts on the island and in its territorial waters. Singapore's sovereign status over Pedra Branca had been recognised as such by Malaysia, until December 1979.

31 The questions for the court, as agreed by both countries in the Special Agreement, concern sovereignty. This case is not about the right to operate the Horsburgh Lighthouse.

32 Mr President and Members of the Court, Singapore has had no choice but to rebut Malaysia's baseless allegations and insinuations. I have done so with much reluctance. Every State which appears before this honourable Court in a dispute would of course do all it can to persuade this Court to decide in its favour. That is perfectly legitimate. However, we should seek to win by stating objective facts and submitting persuasive legal arguments, and not by resorting to unfounded political statements and making insinuations damaging to the integrity of the opposite party.

33 Having said this, let me reiterate what Singapore's Agent said on 6th November, namely that both countries agreed to submit our case to this honourable Court instead of allowing the dispute to adversely affect our overall good relations . I have no doubt that both countries are committed to maintaining our friendly and peaceful relations.

34 I thank you for your patience and attention. I now request that you please invite the Attorney General Mr Chao to address the Court. http://app.mfa.gov.sg/generator/asppages/pedrabranca/press/read_content.asp?View,8878,

Decision is not final yet

Can be appealed, and I added these 3 links to support the facts: The 16 judges tribunal in the Hague ruled by 12-4 votes, that the former British colony of Singapore has been acting as the sovereign power on the island since the British built the lighthouse in 1851. In the 29-year dispute, ICJ Vice-President Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, Acting President in the case, also found 2 smaller disputed islands Middle Rocks, and South Ledge belong to Malaysia, in whose territorial waters it is located.ap.google.com, Singapore wins world court battle over islandnews.bbc.co.uk, Court favours Singapore on isletbernama.com.my, Singapore Has Sovereignty Over Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia Owns Middle Rocks --Florentino floro (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And more facts: The judgment never totally resolved the dispute for it only determined the ownership of the main islet but not where the maritime boundary is. But the two countries set up a joint technical committee to enforce the judgment.reuters, World court says disputed isle belongs to Singaporearthtimes.org, Singapore awarded sovereignty over strategic disputed islandin.reuters, FACTBOX-Maritime disputes in Asia --Florentino floro (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Decision is Final. Article 60 of the Statute of the ICJ provides that "The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party." The news article cited in note no.38 in support of the statement "The decision of the ICJ is not yet final and subject to appeal" says "Both countries have pledged to abide by the decision of the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, whose decision is final and not subject to appeal.", which is contrary to the statement it is supposed to be supporting. 60.254.199.184 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Separate article for the ICJ case?

Earth has suggested that the information on the ICJ case should be moved to a separate article. We need to have a discussion about this and see whether there is consensus. As far as I can see, these are the advantages and disadvantages (feel free to add additional points):

• Advantages
  1. This is possibly in line with how other ICJ cases are treated (someone should check this).

• Disadvantages
  1. If the ICJ information is spun off into a separate article, the present article will shrink dramatically. Essentially, it will consist of (1) a physical description of the island – its location, dimensions and notable features (of which there are very few); (2) a description of Horsburgh Lighthouse (but this is already the subject of a separate article); (3) information about incidents involving the island (the article refers to a number of 19th-century shipwrecks – this could be expanded upon, and mention could be made of incidents involving both Singapore and Malaysian personnel if any, but I feel the information about the RSS Courageous collision should be removed as this only happened near the island); and (4) a summary of the ICJ case.

Therefore, at the moment, I am inclined to think it would be better to keep the article as it is (cleaned up, of course), and create a redirect with the official name of the ICJ case that points to this article (presumably renamed "Pedra Branca, Singapore").

• Keep: thus, my vote is presently to keep the article as it is. But I'm happy to change my mind if convincing reasons are provided. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Split. Three reasons: 1. consistency with other ICJ cases. 2. the case is about the island as well as middle ledge and south ledge. The ICJ treated them differently. To have that case at this article assumes that the other two features are part of the island, which they are not. 3. There is an undue weight about the case in the article. This article is supposed to be about the island, not the case per se. Short primer on the case could be mentioned in this article with a link to the case page itself. __earth ^(Talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Split: OK, am coming round to the idea that there should be a separate article for the ICJ case. What should it be named? As you pointed out earlier, and the ICJ website confirms, the official case name is Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (see http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/130/14492.pdf?PHPSESSID=e5dc0baf91086da004883db261c90796), but applying the naming convention that seems to be applied at "List of International Court of Justice cases", it seems the article should be named "Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia v. Singapore)". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody moved the case to another page already. I believe the discussion on the name of the article could be done there. __earth ^(Talk) 14:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The move was a bit premature, in my view, as an appropriate name for the new article had not been decided upon. Further, the summary of the ICJ case put in place of the section split from this article is too brief. Finally, an editor has inserted an unfree image of Horsburgh Lighthouse into the article – that will have to go. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The attention of editors working on this article is drawn to the fact that there is a discussion over at "Talk:Pedra Branca dispute" as to what that article should be called. Do give your views on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Malay name for the island

There is disagreement over the Malay (as opposed to Malaysian) name for the island – "Pedra Branca" or "Pulau Batu Puteh". Is there any reference that may help to resolve the matter? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you need to find a popular Malay media in Singapore and see which name they're using. __earth ^(Talk) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I had a look at the website of the main Malay-language newspaper in Singapore, Berita Harian. I don't read Malay, but it appears that the term "Pedra Branca" is used instead of "Pulau Batu Puteh": see, for instance, Puad Ibrahim (2008-05-28), "Surat Tahun 1953 Jadi Penentu Hak Milik Pulau. ICJ: Surat buktikan Johor memahami ia tidak mempunyai kedaulatan terhadap Pedra Branca", Berita Harian {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't read Malay either, but I found two articles in Berita Harian using what appears to be Pedra Branca primarily, noting the Malaysian usage of Pulau Batu Putih: [1] and [2]. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is without a doubt that all mainstream Singapore-based publications will refer to the island as Pedra Branca in Malay, and many of these would specify that Pulau Batu Puteh is a Malaysian name, not just a Malay name. In Singapore's context, although Pedra Branca origin is portuguese, its use in English and Malay publications means it is a transliterated proper name in both languages, just as is the case with countless other placenames.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If any sources can be found specifically stating that "Pulau Batu Puteh" is a Malaysian rather than Malay name for the island, these should be referred to in a footnote after the term "Pedra Branca" in the infobox. If necessary, what Huaiwei has said in the second sentence of his posting above can be summarized in a hidden comment in the infobox as well. That will help to avoid future disputes. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider it neccesary to include a foreign name for a physical feature in an infobox, just as we do not start including Chinese names in articles on French islands.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand how your last comment follows from the discussion so far. Are you suggesting that we not use the {{SG neighbourhood}} infobox in the article at all? If so, that may not be a bad idea. Perhaps we should use {{Infobox Islands}} instead. That avoids the issue of how the island should be translated into the four official languages. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is conflating two things. The official Malay name of the island in Singapore (only) is, apparently, Pedra Branca (do we have a source other than the mention in Berita Harian for this?). However, the most common name in Malay, the language, is Pulau Batu Puteh.

As per WP:NCGN, Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language... are permitted, and Pulau Batu Puteh obviously qualifies -- many Malaysian sources in English don't use "Pedra Branca" at all. (150,000 hits in this search.) NCGN also states Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names. So the alternate name should be mentioned in the lead, and I've listed it in the infobox as well under the (presumed) official name. Jpatokal (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

this is crazy, why is there a need to malay official and malay common names for pedra branca? should we then include a dozen chinese "common" dialect names for pedra branca and fill the whole wiki with translated names from a hundred language and thoudsand dialects?

since the island is singapore's, it SHOULD only follow the official name in the different local languages found in local newspapers and official documents.

what FOREIGN countries wanna call our land is their buissness and should not be used because similar languages are spoken within the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.75 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the {{SG neighbourhood}} template should be considered. It appears it was specifically created so that Singapore place-names can be stated in Wikipedia articles in Singapore's four official languages. If that is so, then WP:NCGN is inapplicable (in any case, that guideline seems to deal with the naming of articles). For the same reason, "Pulau Batu Puteh" should be removed from the infobox as that is clearly not the official Malay name of the island. Whether it is commonly used in Singapore (which appears doubtful, judging from the Malay newspaper articles retrieved so far) or not is irrelevant. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article name is not in dispute. However, Section 2 of WP:NCGN explicitly covers the lead, stating that relevant (their emphasis) foreign names used by at least 10% of sources in the English language (my emphasis) should be listed in the lead and its infoboxes. A quick Google (for English results only) finds 391,000 hits for "pedra.branca", 131,000 hits for "pulau.batu.puteh", and 118,000 hits for "pulau.batu.puteh -pedra.branca"; ergo, 33% of hits in English refer to the "relevant foreign name" and 30% use only this name.

As for Template:SG neighbourhood, neither the template nor its Talk page say anything about "official" names. If anything, the template already includes the option to add in Hokkien and Teochew names, which are definitely not official. That said, I would be OK with replacing the template with a standard island template, as a scrap of rock with a lighthouse is hardly a "neighborhood". Jpatokal (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the scope of WP:NCGN and {{SG neighbourhood}}. Perhaps we should go ahead and use {{Infobox Islands}} to avoid this contentious issue altogether. In any case, the disagreement is only as regards what should be stated in the infobox. There is no question that the name given to the island by Malaysia should be stated in the article proper. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The name Batu Puteh is valid until 2008 when the decision is made to award the rock to Singapore. Even after 2008, the historical name cannot be extinguish/purged from history. Yosri (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of purging history. Malay-language newspapers in Singapore were using Pedra Branca, not Pulau Batu Puteh even before 2008. InfernoXV (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article keeps getting edited and reverted over the "Malay name" for the island. This is due to an ambiguity in the {{SG neighbourhood}} template – the "Malay" parameter refers to the name of the island in the Malay language, but the island is known in the Malay press in Singapore as "Pedra Branca" and in Malaysia as "(Pulau) Batu Puteh". These distinctions cannot be fully brought out in the infobox. I've therefore decided to be bold and replace {{SG neighbourhood}} with {{Infobox Islands}}, which I think is more appropriate. I've also expanded the "Name" section. I hope this resolves the dispute. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Jpatokal (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia-Singapore border

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus was to remove "Malaysia-Singapore border" from the "See also" section and to add it as a link in the main body of the article, which has been done.

---

Huaiwei keeps removing the link to the Malaysia-Singapore border article. I think it's highly relevant, because a) the article in question has a section on Pedra Branca, and b) the entire reason Pedra Branca matters is that its sovereignty, and hence the maritime border between Singapore and Malaysia, is disputed.

That said, the link would probably be better in the body of the article, rather than in the "See Also" section at the end. Jpatokal (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now moved the link to the words "maritime boundary" in the "Resolution of outstanding issues" section, since the maritime boundary in question is -- drumroll please -- the Malaysia-Singapore border. Jpatokal (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support – I think a link to "Malaysia-Singapore border" is relevant. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I think that this is highly relevant to Pedra Branca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I quote from Malaysia-Singapore border: "Following the International Court of Justice decision on 23 May 2008 on the sovereignty of Pedra Branca which gave the island to Singapore, the new portion of the Malaysia-Singapore maritime border around the island will also need to be determined." Obviously there's going to be a (I assume yet to be determined) maritime border between Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks (and South Ledge, to whomever the islands go to), hence the link has a strong relevance to this article. 리지강.wa.au _talk 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Well now that I am back, it is finally time to weigh in on this issue. My reasoning for its removal is that the island itself is not an international border, and has no greater relevance to the article as it does to the Pulau Tekong article which is just as close to the border. There is simply hardly any precedence in adding a border link to entities which are close to borders, and even in entities which sits on them, be it the Niagara Falls or Lake Superior, the Alps or the Himalayas, Timor or Ireland, the Mekong or the Rhine. So just what excruciating reason can there be to add such a link in this article, when even the Pedra Branca dispute itself is primarily an issue of sovereignty, and is not an international border dispute?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An "excruciating" argument indeed. Jpatokal (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, my dearest Jpatokal.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You do know what that word means, right? Jpatokal (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And so?--Huaiwei (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose – On further reflection, I have decided to change my vote. I have been working on expanding the article "Pedra Branca dispute", and it appears from the ICJ's judgment that there is a difference in public international law between an island and a border. Malaysia had argued that maps it had published which had applied the annotation "(SINGAPORE)" or "(SINGAPURA)" to Pedra Branca could not be relied upon to support Singapore's case as the maps contained disclaimers stating they could not be considered an authority on the delimitation of international or other boundaries. The ICJ dismissed this argument on the ground, among others, that the case involved a distinct island, not a boundary. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - It should be in the body of the article, under the section of "Territorial dispute" - oahiyeel ^talk 20:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How in the world do one vote "support", yet says the link should be in the body of the article (something I would fully support as well), when this vote is on whether the link should appear in the "See Also" section?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what y'all are "voting" for or against here, even in my original comment I said it would be better in the body of the article. Jpatokal (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But the vote was setup by you, so if there were any confusions, it can only result from there. I assumed that your primary issue was over the inclusion/deletion of the border article from the "See Also" section, and that your alternative solution was just that...an alternative solution which was not voted on. Regardless of whether this assumption was right, the issue has already been resolved.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't call for a vote. It's just that JackLee started voting for some reason and then everybody followed suit. Hilarious! __earth ^(Talk) 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it a requirement for an editor to specify that other members must vote in any discussion before they can do so?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Glad to see the matter has been resolved. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad too as well. Cheers indeed! ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to "Pedra Branca, Singapore"

brother... you obviously havent been keeping in touch with the issue at hand... i refer to you this little news clipping from malaysia.

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/8196/1/

PEDRA BRANCA RULING: Rough seas or calm ahead? PDF Print E-mail

Saturday, 31 May 2008 09:53

After a 30-year tussle, the world court last week awarded the island of Pedra Branca to Singapore and nearby Middle Rocks to Malaysia. How has the judgment changed the state of play in the Singapore Strait, and ties between the two neighbours? Senior Political Correspondent Lydia Lim reports.

A WEEK after the world court's judgment that Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore, the strategising over competing maritime claims in the area has shifted gear.

With the issue of ownership settled, the issue that now seems in contention is the meaning of the terms island and rock.

Malaysia's Foreign Ministry apparently wants a subtle name change.

It has asked the media on its side of the Causeway to drop the word

'Pulau' and stick to 'Batu Puteh' or 'Pedra Branca' - white rock in Malay and Portuguese respectively.

Alternative news website The Malaysian Insider reported on Monday that checks with two national dailies confirmed such a request.

Singapore, on its part, maintains that Pedra Branca is an island.

Why make a mountain out of what seems a molehill?

One possible reason: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) says that islands generate exclusive economic zones but rocks do not.

And right now, both sides are gearing up for talks to delimit their maritime boundary in the Singapore Strait.

So, did last Friday's judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) bring closure to the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca, only to set the stage for a fresh tussle over maritime boundaries?

Did the judgment clarify matters or complicate them?

And what lessons can be drawn from this episode about turning to international courts to settle bilateral disputes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.173.203 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had included this reference when making your edit. When I last reviewed the article, you had supported your edits with references that were already in the article, all of which were dated August 2008. OK, let me see how I can restore some of your edits. However, some comments like "In an apparent counter against the Malaysia's Foreign Ministry attempt to unilaterally 'downgrade' the island status of pedra branca to that of a rock" and "thereby reinstated the island status of Pedra Branca" are not backed up by references and seem speculative, so I don't think they should be in the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)