As expected, Singapore to claim territorial waters and EEZ

As expected, Singapore is to claim its new extended territorial waters and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) after it succeeded in obtaining ownership of Batu Puteh or Pedra Branca (white rock or batu puteh in Portuguese). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded Batu Puteh's ownership to Singapore while confirming Malaysia's authority over Middle Rocks.

According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it, this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over an seabed below.

According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including also internal waters, the contiguous zone, the EEC and potentially the continental shelf.

The baseline from which the territorial sea is meaured is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. This is either the low-water mark closest to the shore, or alternatively it may be unlimited distance from permanently exposed land, provided that some portion of elevations exposed at low tide but covered at high tide is within 12 nautical miles (22 km) of permanently exposed land.

A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles from its baseline. If this would overlap with another state's territorial sea (as in the Malaysia-Singapore case), the border is taken as the median point between the states' baselines, unless the states in question agree otherwise.

Singapore's present territorial sea (excluding Johor Straits) is 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) while Malaysia covers 12 nautical miles (22.2 km).

An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extends for 200 nautical miles (370 km) beyond the baselines of the territorial sea, thus it includes the territorial sea and its contiguous zone. The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.

A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its EEZ, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot regulate or prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea, whether innocent or belligerent (war-like, within that portion of its exclusive zone beyond its territorial sea.

The NST correctly described Singapore's claims of its "territorial waters and EEZ" as "Lion's share". The Singapore Lion or Merlion is claiming its share of the meat.

It is very clear that the ICJ's judgement was never a "win-win situation" for Malaysia but a major victory for Singapore. From a territorial sea of 3 nautical miles or 5.6 km, the island republic is now claiming a 12 nautical-mile or 22 km territorial sea, not from main its main island, but from Batu Puteh and 200 nautical miles or 370 km EEZ, also from Batu Puteh.

The question now is to clarify whether Batu Puteh is an island as defined by international laws. If it is not an island, can Singapore lay claim to extend its territorial sea and EEZ? The ball is now in Wisma Putra's court.

DNA profiling is never too old

Prime Minister Abdullah Haji Ahmad has urged opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim to give his blood sample for a DNA test and prove his innocence, saying that the police want to complete their investigations as soon as possible but was unable to do so because of Anwar's "unwillingness" to co-operate.

Anwar, who is facing sodomy allegations as claimed in the police report by his former employee, refused to entertain any request for blood samples because he believed that the police would fabricate evidence against him. He said the police can look at his DNA profile taken some 10 years ago when he faced similar charge.

However, Abdullah or Pak Lah, who is not an expert in this subject, claimed that the DNA "sample" mentioned by Anwar "is too old, so they need a new sample, what is wrong in giving?"

You are not entirely correct, Pak Lah. DNA or Deoxyribonucleic Acid, a complex chemical substance found in the nucleus of each cell and carries information required for the development of an individual, remains the same and will never be too old.

I was privileged to accompany former de-facto law minister Dr. Rais Yatim when he visited the Department of Chemistry Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, in particular the DNA section under its Forensic Division where the minister was briefed on the subject by the experts including serology/DNA head Primulapathi Jaya. The serology/DNA section is tasked to identify evidence through DNA profiling.

DNA profiling is a technique implemented in forensic laboratories all over the world and can be applied to determine whether evidentiary biological substances found at the crime scene came from the suspect, victim or both. Materials that can be subjected to DNA analysis are substances that are biological in nature and not necessarily from blood, but from saliva, urine, tears, nail, hair and bone.

In October 2003, the government was scheduled to table the DNA Identification Act in Parliament, however it did not do so. The proposed Act would allow police and the Chemistry Department to quickly trace and confirm suspects in cases of rape, murder and other violent crimes. The Act will allow the Chemistry Department to set up a data bank to store DNA profiles of convicts and suspects.

The Act would also empower police to collect blood specimens or take oral swaps from convicted criminal and suspects to be stored in the data bank, to be known as Forensic DNA Data Bank of Malaysia. It will be a fully integrated law enforcement system of DNA records and will establish four files of DNA records for population, forensic (crime stains) index, convicted offender index and missing persons index.

The Anwar Ibrahim episode (of not giving his blood specimen) will not be a legal hindrance had the DNA Act tabled in Parliament in October 2003. It is five years too late for the government to regret.

The DNA Act was then actively pursued by Dr Rais, however, after the 2004 general elections, he was moved to the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry and the law portfolio handed over to Radzi Sheikh Ahmad, then to Nazri Aziz and now to Zaid Ibrahim.

Why was the DNA Act kept in cold storage by the government? Who is responsible? Is it Radzi, Nazri, or Gani Patail (the AG)?

TNB and the IPPs

When Information Minister Ahmad Shabery Cheek and former deputy prime minister and de-facto opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim took the stage for the recent debate, the name of former Tenaga Nasional Berhad's (TNB) executice chairman was mentioned.

Anwar said that Tan Sri Ani Arope resigned because he was not in favour of the government' s stand on the independent power producers (IPPs). Tan Sri Ani was TNB's executive chairman from 1990 to 1996 and it was during his tenure that the first generation IPPs were created.

Tan Sri Ani is known for his honest and no nonsence way of doing things and former high court judge, Dato Syed Ahmad Idid justly described the Penang-born scientist as follows:

"Tan Sri Ani was and remains an upright person and had to suffer because he did not agree with the IPPs getting away with too much ... and consumers have to pay."

"I am not anti-IPPs per se. It is good to have other players but it has to be done fairly. It has to be fair to the consumers, not just TNB, which is a conduit. TNB, because of the electricity hike, has been treated as the whipping boy. The focus should be on the consumers," Tan Sri Ani once told StarBiz in an exclusive interview.

When the generous terms were given to the IPPs, Tan Sri Ani said all of his other peers around the world asked what was happening. They said they would like to have a share in the IPPs. They said (the contracts to IPPs) were "too darn generous."

When Anwar touched on the IPPs, Shabery Cheek replied that it was implemented when Anwar was Finance Minister. It is interesthing to note that in the StarBiz interview, Tan Sri Ani was asked "How was the Malaysian model of IPPs created?" and he answered "Ask our Prime Minister."

He was also asked "How was the process of negotiations with IPPs conducted?" and he replied: "There was no negotiation. Absolutely none. Instead of talking directly with the IPPs, TNB was sitting down with the EPU (Economic Planning Unit of the Prime Minister's Department). And we were harassed, humiliated and talked down every time we went there. After that, my team was disappointed. The EPU just gave us the terms and asked us to agree. I said no way I would."

Tan Sri Ani also said the pricing and terms of the contracts was all fixed up. "This is the price, this is the capcity charge and this is the number of years. They said you just take it and I refused to sign the contracts. And then, I was put out to pasture."

He described the terms agreed by the EPU as "grossly unfair.

" At 16 sen per unit (kWh) and with the take or pay situation, actully it was 23 sen per unit. With 23 sen, plus transmission and distribution costs, TNB would have had to charge the consumer no less than 30 sen per unit. If mix with TNB's cost, Tan Sri Ani said the cost would come down but that was at TNB's expense because the utility company were producing electricity at 8 sen a unit. "We can deliver electricity at 17 sen per unit," he said.

Tan Sri Ani also said that "nobody produces excess electricity like Malaysia and it goes to waste because there are no batteries to store that power. TNB only needs a reserve of 15 per cent to 20 per cent."

In the interview, Tan sri Ani told StarBiz that he felt sick of the process of awarding the IPP contracts. "It was morally wrong and not fair. If it is legal and not fair, I will not do it. If it is fair and illegal, I still won't do it. It has to be legal and fair. We work for the consumers, workers and shareholders. TNB is morally obliged to these three, but the consumers come first, otherwise we won't be around. It is then the workers and the shareholders."

Source: StarBiz (The Star)

Anwar ditangkap depan rumahnya

Terkini 17 Julai: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dibebaskan pagi ini dengan jaminan polis. Bagaimanapun, beliau tidak dikenakan sebarang pertuduhan sama ada di bawah Kanun Keseksaan atau Kanun Acara Jenayah.




Penasihat PKR Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ditangkap polis di hadapan rumahnya di Bukit Segambut tengah hari tadi.

Shabery Cheek gagal dan mengecewakan dalam debat

Menteri Penerangan Ahmad Shabery Cheek yang mempertaruhkan jawatannya apabila berdebat dengan penasihat Pakatan Rakyat Anwar Ibrahim mengenai isu kenaikan harga minyak yang diadakan di Balai Budaya Tun Syed Nasir, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) malam ini (15 Julai), jelas telah gagal mempertahankan institusi yang diwakilinya iaitu kerajaan.

Ahmad Shabery bukan sahaja gagal tetapi cukup mengecewakan dalam perdebatan yang dipancar secara langsung ke seluruh negara oleh dua buah stesen tv, TV9 dan Bernama TV.

Ahmad Shabery gagal menyentuh, menjawab dan memperincikan topik yang ditetapkan tetapi lebih cenderong menyindir dan menghentam peribadi Anwar termasuk mengungkit-ungkit perkara yang sudah hampir 35 tahun berlalu.

Nampaknya, Ahmad Shabery menggunakan peluang debat untuk tujuan politik murahan dan sikapnya itu tidak memberi faedah atau kelebihan kepada kerajaan yang diwakilinya selaku menteri penerangan. Tepukan dan sorakan yang diberi oleh para penyokongnya bukan bermakna ianya betul. Biasalah, itu kerja penyokong dan sekiranya pegawai dan kakitangan di Angkasapuri memujinya, itupun sesuatu yang biasa. Di depan menteri cakap lain, di belakang lain bicara.

Ahmad Shabery jauh menyimpang daripada tajuk atau persoalan pokok yang diperbahaskan dan ini adalah satu kesilapan. Yang jelas, dia bukan seorang pemidato apatah lagi pendebat atau pembahas yang baik. Nampaknya dia gagal menimba ilmu dan mempelajari sesuatu daripada mantan bosnya, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah semasa cergas dalam Semangat 46.

Syabas dan tahniah kepada Anwar Ibrahim yang walaupun sedang menghadapi ancaman untuk ditangkap oleh pihak berkuasa, masih mampu tenang dan tersenyum menerima serangan peribadi dan tidak pula menyerang balas. Anwar tidak banyak lari daripada topik dan hujah-hujahnya mudah difahami oleh majoriti rakyat yang menonton siaran langsung itu.

Oh ya, Ahmad Shabery juga kurang bijak dalam memilih "wakil" untuk mengemukakan soalan. Dr Nordin Kadri, mantan Ketua Pengarah Biro Tata Negara dan kini Naib-Canselor Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) bukan orang yang sepatutnya dilantik.

Perdebatan ini tidak sama dengan kem-kem motivasi dan sesi untuk mempengaruhi orang supaya mengubah pendirian atau menghapuskan kepercayaan lama yang saya percaya salah satu bidang kepakaran beliau, tetapi satu perdebatan yang membabitkan dua orang tokoh politik yang memperkatakan satu isu yang penting dan genting.

Cara Dr Nordin mengajukan soalan selepas membuat sedikit syarahan adalah tidak kena pada tempat dan majlis. Ini bukan satu program Biro Tata Negara. Mungkin dia terbawa-bawa dengan cara kerjanya semasa di BTN.

Jika anda alami renjatan emosi, jumpa Datuk Seri Najib

Kompleks Jabatan Perdana Menteri (JPM) di Parcel A yang menempatkan pejabat-pejabat Perdana Menteri, Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Menteri-menteri di JPM, Ketua Setiausaha Negara dan Ketua Pengarah Bahagian Keselamatan Negara, antara lain, di Bangunan Perdana Putra.
Datuk Seri Mohamad Najib bin Abdul Razak, TPM yang berpejabat di Aras 4, Blok Barat, Bangunan Perdana Putra, Kompleks Jabatan Perdana Menteri. Bukan mudah nak jumpa tanpa urusan rasmi dan temujanji terlebih dahulu.

Adalah lebih sukar untuk menemui beliau di kediaman rasminya yang di kawal ketat. Seseorang itu tidak boleh sesuka hati pergi ke kediaman rasmi TPM untuk menemui beliau.

Menteri Kabinet juga tidak dengan senang sahaja boleh menemui TPM tanpa terlebih dahulu membuat temujanji.

Setelah Najib dilantik TPM, saya pernah hanya sekali ke pejabatnya di Aras 4, Blok Barat, Bangunan Perdana Putra pada tahun 2004 untuk menyerah teks ucapan sempena salah satu majlis Rumah Terbuka Malaysia yang dihadiri oleh beliau selaku wakil Perdana Menteri. Pada waktu itu saya bertugas di Pejabat Menteri Kebudayaan, Kesenian dan Warisan yang berpejabat di Kuala Lumpur. Semasa berkhidmat di JPM sebelum itu, saya berpejabat di Aras 3, Blok Barat, Bangunan Perdana Putra (satu aras di bawah pejabat TPM) dan tahu mengenai kawalan keselamatan yang ada di JPM.

Oleh itu, saya hairan bagaimana seorang anak muda yang kononnya "traumatized" atau mengalami satu kejutan yang amat teruk dan renjatan emosi akibat kononnya di liwat oleh mantan TPM boleh dengan senangnya menemui Najib di kediaman rasminya yang dikawal ketat iu.

Adakah ini bermakna bahawa sesiapa sahaja rakyat Malaysia yang mengalami masalah yang sama boleh dengan mudahnya pergi sama ada ke JPM atau ke kediaman rasmi TPM untuk mengadu dan meminta bantuan seperti yang dilakukan oleh pemuda berkenaan?

Sudah tentu tidak boleh! Tetapi itulah alasan yang diberikan sendiri oleh Najib kepada pihak media yang ingin tahu kenapa pemuda berkenaan menemuinya. Sekiranya apa yang diucapkan oleh Najib itu benar dan betul, maka rakyat Malaysia yang mengalami renjatan emosi atau "traumatized" atas apa alasan sekalipun, pergilah mengadu kepada Najib sama ada di pejabatnya atau di kediaman rasminya di Putrajaya.

Saya tidak ingin menyentuh mengenai tuduhan liwat kerana ia sedang di siasat oleh polis. Saya melihat alasan Najib tentang kenapa pemuda berkenaan menemui beliau agak meragukan kerana saya tahu bukan senang untuk memasuki sama ada Kompleks JPM (Perdana Putra) ataupun kediaman rasmi TPM.

Saya pernah bertugas di Bangunan Perdana Putra dari tahun 2000 hingga 2004 dan tahu bahawa bukan mudah untuk orang ramai memasuki kompleks itu tanpa kebenaran atau mempunyai urusan rasmi yang ditetapkan lebih awal. Seseorang yang ingin memasuki kawasan Bangunan Perdana Putra perlu mendapat pas keselamatan dari Bilik Pengawal yang dilengkapi pintu pengesan logam dan kamera tv litar tertutup. Pihak keselamatan tidak akan mengeluarkan pas keselamatan sebelum mendapat pengesahan daripada pejabat yang hendak dikunjungi. Selepas mendapat pengesahan barulah pas keselamatan diberikan. Ini bermakna bahawa seseorang itu perlu membuat temujanji atau dijemput atas urusan rasmi dan tidak boleh sesuka hati meminta pas keselamatan untuk masuk. Kawalan keselamatan adalah ketat.

Kawalan yang ketat juga dilaksanakan di kediaman Perdana Menteri dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri. Sesiapapun tidak boleh masuk tanpa kebenaran atau temujanji terlebih dahulu.

Oleh itu, bagaimana seorang pemuda yang "traumatized" begitu mudah memasuki kediaman TPM untuk mengadu dia diliwat. Kenapa perlu mengadu kepada TPM sedangkan TPM berkata dia tidak mengenali pemuda itu?

Sekiranya begitu mudah untuk menemui TPM di kediaman rasminya, maka eloklah bagi rakyat Malaysia yang mempunyai masalah supaya berduyun-duyun ke kediaman rasmi TPM untuk mengadu dan meminta pertolongan.

Pendek kata: Jika anda alami renjatan emosi akibat daripada melalui sesuatu pengalaman yang amat perit, menakutkan, mengejutkan dan amat memeranjatkan, jangan bimbang, pergi ke Putrajaya dan temuilah Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohamad Najib bin Abdul Razak.

Itulah mesej yang disampaikan sendiri oleh Najib melalui media elektronik dan media cetak. Bagi pihak rakyat Malaysia yang teraniaya dan yang "traumatized" saya panjangkan ucapan terima kasih kepada YAB Datuk Seri Mohamad Najib bin Abdul Razak atas kepedulian anda.

Strategi Pak Lah mengena dan kena pada sasaran

Apabila Perdana Menteri Abdullah bin Ahmad (Pak Lah) umum yang dia akan letak jawatan pada Jun 2010 dan menyerahkan kepimpinan kerajaan dan parti kepada timbalannya, Najib Tun Razak, ramai yang pasti lega dengan harapan krisis kepimpinan yang sedang menghantui UMNO akan selesai.

Mungkin ada kebenarannya jika kita lihat atau amati dari satu sudut. Tetapi, jika ditinjau dari sudut lain, kita akan dapati bahawa strategi Pak Lah cukup bijak dan kena pada sasaran.

Pak Lah sedar dan tahu bahawa kepimpinannya sedang dan akan dicabar pada perhimpunan agung UMNO hujung tahun ini bukan sahaja oleh Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah tetapi oleh Najib sendiri. Jika dicabar, Pak Lah belum pasti akan dipilih semula bahkan ada yang percaya bahawa Pak Lah mungkin tidak akan mendapat 30 peratus pencalonan daripada bahagian UMNO.

Satu jalan keluar yang dapat menjamin kedudukan Pak Lah ialah dengan mengumumkan bahawa dia akan letak jawatan pada Jun 2010 dan Najib pula meminta (mengarah?) semua bahagian UMNO supaya menyokong Pak Lah sebagai presiden parti pada Disember ini. Dengan itu, kedudukan Pak Lah adalah selamat selain kedudukan Najib terjamin.

Dengan sokongan kuat daripada bahagian-bahagian UMNO, Pak Lah akan dapat dengan mudah mempertahankan jawatannya dan sekali gus mematikan hasrat Tengku Razaleigh untuk mencabarnya kerana agak sukar bagi Ku Li memperolehi pencalonan dalam keadaan yang diwujudkan itu.

Pak Lah bijak dalam mengatur strategi yang menjamin kedudukannya sehingga Jun 2010, memberi kelegaan dan harapan kepada Najib dan memendekkan kerjaya politik Ku Li.

George Town and Melaka - new sites added to UNESCO's World Heritage List

Eight new sites, from the Straits of Malacca (Melaka), to Papua New Guinea and San Marino, added to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orgnization's (UNESCO) World Heritage List.

The World Heritage Committee meeting in Quebec City has added the new cultural sites to UNESCO's World Heritage List on the morning of the 7 July. UNESCO said in a statement that with these inscriptions, Papua New Guinea and San Marino enter the World Heritage List for the first time.


Melaka and George Town, historic sites of the Straits of Malacca.

Melaka and George Town have developed over 500 years of trading and cultural exchanges between East and West in the Straits of Malacca. The influences of Asia and Europe have endowed the towns with a specific multiultural heritage that is both tangible and intangible.

With its government buildings, churches, squares and fortifications, Melaka demonstrates the early stages of this history originating in the 15th-century Malay sultanate and the Portuguese and Dutch periods beginning in the ealy 16th century.



Featuring residential and commercial buildings, George Town represents the British era from the end of the 18th century.

UNESCO said that these two towns constitute a unique architectural and cultural townscape without parallel anywhere in East and Southeast Asia.

Siapa yang tipu siapa?

Dunia kini sedang dihidangkan oleh satu lagi babak sandiwara politik Malaysia yang seolah-olah mengulang tayang sandiwara lama. Dalam episod awal sandiwara kali ini, jalan ceriteranya cukup menarik kerana plot tikam-menikam dari depan dan dari belakang.

Mahu tidak mahu kita menganggap apa yang sedang berlaku sekarang seakan-akan satu ceritera yang hanya rekaan semata-mata tetapi mempunyai kaitan dengan manusia yang masih hidup dan juga yang telah mati.

Betulkah apa yang dituduh dan benarkah ia hanya satu pakatan berniat jahat untuk menjatuhkan seseorang atau untuk membunuh kerjaya politik seorang yang sedang bangkit semula untuk bertarung dalam gelanggang?

Apakah dengan hati yang tenang kita boleh menerima bulat-bulat jaminan bahawa siasatan yang

adil, saksama dan tanpa gentar dan takut akan dilakukan oleh pihak yang dipertanggungjawabkan memandangkan cara penyiasatan masa lalu masih dan terus dipertikaikan?

Keraguan rakyat semakin memuncak apabila seorang penyiasat persendirian yang juga mantan anggota polis berpangkat lans-koperal membuat akuat berkanun yang kemudiannya ditarik balik dan digantikan dengan akuan berkanun kedua.

Kenapa P. Balasubramaniam berbuat demikian? Sebagai seorang penyiasat persendirian dan mantan anggota polis, dia sudah tentu berfikir panjang dan mempunyai pengalaman secukupnya untuk tidak berbuat demikian. Tetapi kenapa dia berbuat demikian?

Sesuatu akuan berkanun, bukan akuan sumpah atau akuan bersumpah seperti yang disebut oleh beberapa media arus perdana termasuk Bernama, tidak seharusnya diperkecil-kecilkan dan dengan sebegitu mudah ditarik balik dan ditukar ganti.

Akuan berkanun dibolehkan dibawah Akta Akuan Berkanun 1960 (Akta 13) dan sebarang akuan palsu boleh dihukum di bawah Kanun Keseksaan.

Fasal 3 di dalam Akta Akuan Berkanun menyebut: "Akuan yang dibuat menurut peruntukan Akta ini hendaklah disifatkan sebagai akuan yang disebut dalam seksyen 199 dan 200 Kanun Keseksaan."

Secara ringkas, Seksyen 199 dan 200 menyebut bahawa kenyataan yang dibuat dalam apa-apa pengakuan atau pernyataan yang menurut undang-undang boleh diterima sebagai bukti dan diterima sebagai benar/betul sedangkan ia adalah palsu. Dalam erti kata lain ia adalah suatu pembohongan dan boleh dikukum.

Apa yang dilakukan oleh P. Balasubramaniam agak pelek kerana, setahu saya, inilah julung-julung kali akuan berkanun ditarik balik dan diganti dengan akuan berkanun baru dalam tempoh masa yang pendek.

Apakah perbuatannya itu dibolehkan di bawah Akta Akuan Berkanun mahupun akta-akta lain dalam Undang-undang Malaysia? Setahu saya, akuan berkanun yang dibuat tidak boleh ditarik balik atau ditukar ganti kerana ia adalah satu akuan yang dibuat secara bersumpah di hadapan, paling rendah, seorang Pesuruhjaya Sumpah.

Apakah episod selanjutnya yang akan dihidangkan kepada penonton seantero dunia? Saluran-saluran berita antarabangsa seperti CNN, BBC, CNBC, CCTV, Aljazeera dan CNA Singapura tidak sabar untuk menyalur-siarnya ke seluruh dunia.