Screenshots: Malaysia uses plagiarist's blog to claim Pedra Branca at ICJ?

We all know that the Abdullah Administration hates blogs and bloggers, incessantly calling them lies and liars.

We also know that in the last three weeks, among others, Foreign Affairs Minister Syed Hamid Albar and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail -- and the AG's son, junior Federal Counsel Faezul Adzra Tan Sri Gani Patail (who graduated from UiTM, September 2005) -- have been setting camp in The Hague arguing Malaysia's case to lay claim on Pulau Batu Putih, or what Singapore calls Pedra Branca.

But, is this a subliminal yet hypocritical reflection of the Abdullah Administration that it truly endorses blogs and bloggers?

Lo and behold, last week, Malaysia referred to an anonymous blog, anchored against plagiarised content and depth-of-field-suspicious photo, to present its case at all places, the International Court of Justice.

And here's the nightmare for Syed Hamid and Gani. It took ( 1 ) none other than Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister Professor S. Jayakumar to call Malaysia's bluff, ( 2 ) none other than Singapore’s Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin to contextualise the photographic illusion gathered from the anonymous blog as inadmissible, and ( 3 ) none other than blogger Simply Jean to put paid to the plagiarist's blog that Malaysia relied on in its arguments in the CIJ.

Singapore's rebuttal, its final arguments in the Pedra Branca case, was published in today's edition of the Straits Times, titled: Now you see it, now you don't. Quote:

Malaysia's photo on top and Singapore's photo at the bottom.
SOURCE: Singapore Straits Times Nov 20, 2007

AT A glance, the two pictures look alike. Both have Horsburgh Lighthouse and Pedra Branca in the foreground.

But look again - at the background which shows the Johor mainland, with Point Romania and a hill named Mount Berbukit. In one picture the hill is highly visible; in the other, it is hardly visible.

Therein lies the photographic illusion that Malaysia had created to exaggerate the closeness of Pedra Branca to Johor, Singapore said yesterday at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

The first photograph, which Malaysia had shown the court last week, was taken by a camera using a telephoto lens.

The second photograph was taken by Singapore, using a camera lens that approximates what the human eye sees. As a result, the Malaysian photograph exaggerated the height of Mount Berbukit by about seven times, Singapore’s Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin said when he presented the two photos before the court.

He described it as ‘an attempt to convey a subliminal message of proximity between Pedra Branca and the coast of Johor’.But it was not an accurate reflection of what visitors to Pedra Branca would see if they were looking towards the Johor mainland, he said.

Malaysia's referred blog

Yesterday was the first day of Singapore’s rebuttals against Malaysia’s oral arguments made last week.

The hearing over the Pedra Branca at the ICJ dispute entered the third week yesterday.

Last week, Malaysia had claimed the photo in question was taken from a weblog on Blogspot.com: http://leuchtturm3.blogspot.com. Leuchtturm means lighthouse in German.

Malaysia's lawyers had implied that the photo it uses came from an independent source. (Yes! An anonymous blog on Blogspot is an independent source!)

But yesterday, Singapore's AG, Chao, raised questions about the blog.

SOURCE: ICJ transcript, Nov 19, 2007 (Page 21 of 67)

Quote from Singapore Straits Times:

‘This blog site is a most unusual one. It was created only last month.

There is no information on the identity of the blogger and the photograph used by Malaysia was only put on the website on Nov 2 2007, four days before the start of these oral proceedings,’ he said.

True enough, there are only 12 blog entries in the blog -- four in October, and 8 in November 2007.

It's also convincing that Malaysia has retrieved one of the the photos in the blog -- enlarged picture available here -- and presented in the ICJ to argue on the Pedra Branca case.

Strangely too, all pictures used in the blog are resized to thumbnails, except the two particular pictures of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca -- one of which was tendered by Malaysia -- are against the norm. They were planted at higher resolution at 280k and 309k, respectively.

That sparks the inquisitive mind of a Singapore blogger, Simply Jean -- no relation to PM Abdullah's second wife -- and she sensed plagiarist at work.

Singapore Blogger exposes plagiarist blogger

Simply Jean said: "In view of such discrepancies, Simply Jean decided to do some investigative work. So, she searched the Internet for sentences located in the middle of a paragraph for plagarism. Heh heh… people who plagarise usually change the fronts and ends of a paragraph of *insignificant* portions - and this is where the evidence lies!!!

Precisely, that's one of my methodologies when I read of Mitch Albom's (plagiarised) article last November! (But that's another story by itself.)

With internet search engine and by employing the plagiarist-uncovering methodologies, Simply Jean discovered the original text in Wikipedia, and the plagiarist's work on leuchtturm3.blogspot.com.

It was the same way how Mitch Albom was plagiarised.

Simply Jean discovered that the author of the blog had changed the name of Cape May Lighthouse to Pulau Batu Puteh Lighthouse.

"Actually, if you click on the link at Pulau Batu Puteh Lightouse, it goes to Cape May Lighthouse at Wikipedia. That’s where the cat is out of the bag," she said.

"There’s nothing wrong with copying from Wikipedia, but when you decide to copy from Wikipedia, and don’t credit it, and changed the wordings, then that’s… not very right," she added.

Why did Simply Jean have to expose it? She said: "Well, I actually have not much interest in this court case, but, when they decided to bring the blogosphere into the news, then I felt that I had to do some justification for the community."

On the larger picture, Simply Jean has a question for us in Malaysia that I feel too ashamed to answer:

I was somewhat wondering - how can Malaysia - such a big country with so much resources (including good photographers), rely on a photograph from a blog to present their case to the courts?

But what actually hurts our maruah bangsa is that we had allowed Jayakumar to rub it in for us.

'Persuasive legal arguments' VS 'Unfounded political statements'

When Singapore started its rebuttals against Malaysia's claims yesterday, they were launched by Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar.

He highlighted five ‘baseless allegations and insinuations’ that Malaysia had lobbed against Singapore and rebutted each in turn, so said the Straits Times. Quote:

Among them was Malaysia’s charge that Singapore wished to ’subvert’ long-established arrangements in the Singapore Strait.

On the contrary, he said, it was Kuala Lumpur that tried to alter the status quo through the publication of a map in 1979 that altered its maritime boundaries with seven of its neighbours.

That was also the map that sparked the current dispute.

Prof Jayakumar said he was disappointed that Malaysia had resorted to such allegations in its bid to win the case. ‘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,’ he said.

Straits Times has a recap of yesterday's Singapore rebuttal: S'pore calls Malaysia's claims 'baseless and unnecessary', in which Jayakumar debunked Malaysia's insinuation that Singapore had hidden two letters from the ICJ, a charge he described as 'the most disturbing' of the lot.

The verbatim transcript of the November 19 Singapore rebuttal is available in PDF on CIJ's website.

Thanks reader Hanim for the heads-up. But gua manyak manyak malu woh.

From Singapore Straits Times

Now you see it, now you don't
by Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
November 20, 2007

IN THE HAGUE - AT A glance, the two pictures look alike. Both have Horsburgh Lighthouse and Pedra Branca in the foreground.

But look again - at the background which shows the Johor mainland, with Point Romania and a hill named Mount Berbukit. In one picture the hill is highly visible; in the other, it is hardly visible.

Therein lies the photographic illusion that Malaysia had created to exaggerate the closeness of Pedra Branca to Johor, Singapore said yesterday at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

The first photograph, which Malaysia had shown the court last week, was taken by a camera using a telephoto lens.

The second photograph was taken by Singapore, using a camera lens that approximates what the human eye sees. As a result, the Malaysian photograph exaggerated the height of Mount Berbukit by about seven times, Singapore’s Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin said when he presented the two photos before the court.

He described it as ‘an attempt to convey a subliminal message of proximity between Pedra Branca and the coast of Johor’.But it was not an accurate reflection of what visitors to Pedra Branca would see if they were looking towardsthe Johor mainland, he said.

Mr Chao was speaking before the ICJ as the hearing over the Pedra Branca dispute enters the third week. Yesterday was the first day of Singapore’s rebuttals against Malaysia’s oral arguments made last week.

Both countries are appearing at the ICJ to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of the island 40km east of Singapore and which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.

Last week, Malaysia had also claimed the photo in question was taken from an online blog or weblog. The implication was the photo came from an independent source.

But yesterday, Mr Chao raised questions about the blog.

‘This blog site is a most unusual one. It was created only last month. There is no information on the identity of the blogger and the photograph used by Malaysia was only put on the website on Nov 2 2007, four days before the start of these oral proceedings,’ he said.

Mr Chao also sought to debunk Malaysia’s claim that Pedra Branca was near Point Romania in Johor. The phrase ‘near Point Romania’ was used in an 1844 letter from the Temenggong of Johor to Governor Butterworth in Singapore.

In that letter, the Temenggong gave permission for the British to build a lighthouse on any island near Point Romania.

Malaysia claimed the phrase included Pedra Branca, and that the letter showed Britain acknowledged Johor’s sovereignty over the island.

Mr Chao said the letter did not refer to Pedra Branca but to Peak Rock which, in 1844, was where the British planned to build a lighthouse.

He pointed out the distance between Pedra Branca and Point Romania was six times that between the latter and Peak Rock.

In an 1846 letter, Governor Butterworth explained his original preference for Peak Rock as the site of a lighthouse because Pedra Branca was ‘at so great a distance from the main land’.

Singapore’s rebuttals yesterday were launched by Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar. He highlighted five ‘baseless allegations and insinuations’ that Malaysia had lobbed against Singapore and rebutted each in turn.

Among them was Malaysia’s charge that Singapore wished to ’subvert’ long-established arrangements in the Singapore Strait.

On the contrary, he said, it was Kuala Lumpur that tried to alter the status quo through the publication of a map in 1979 that altered its maritime boundaries with seven of its neighbours.

That was also the map that sparked the current dispute.

Prof Jayakumar said he was disappointed that Malaysia had resorted to such allegations in its bid to win the case. ‘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,’ he said.

lydia@sph.com.sg

Comments

Prof Jayakumar said he was disappointed that Malaysia had resorted to such allegations in its bid to win the case. ‘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,’ he said.

But Jayakumar had failed to understand how our ministers do their job in the Parlaiment. WHenever our Ministers are cornered with questions that they dont hv any answers to, they will either shout or start to call names. But of cos this cant be done in ICJ. Since when we see our inept Ministers use facts to win an argument?

Kudos to the Singaporeans! 1-0

Posted by: groo | November 20, 2007 10:49 PM

They most likely assumed ICJ as kangaroo court

Posted by: gunnena | November 20, 2007 11:29 PM

What a shame!

We're being screwed upside down by the tiny little red dot down there for fighting a case not only without telling the truth, but also defaming the other party?

Err, did they realise that they were actually presenting the case at the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, not Malaysia's court? Don't they feel shameful?

Posted by: skthew | November 21, 2007 01:42 AM

Mat Photoshop. I wonder,is this an act of contempt?

No more NEP to hide behind, no FRU or ISA to threaten them, no special rights, maybe this will start the water issue all over again. BN style - lack of substance.

Posted by: calvin_fernandez | November 21, 2007 02:39 AM

I actually find the plagiarism style typical among students or fresh graduates who think they can pull the wool over uninformed people. I've seen it happen several times and it's disheartening when I can so easily Google select key sentences to find out the original source. Geez, at least be a little smarter when plagiarizing. Or learn to paraphase; at least you're not copying word-for-word.

Another thing I find suspicious about the blog: why are there three separate blog entries on the Pedra Branca lighthouse alone? Wah, that lighthouse must hold quite a lot of meaning to the blogger.

What a national embarassment if Malaysia is resorting to such fakery and deviancy to support their case. I hope this isn't what they're teaching in local Law schools these days.

Posted by: Fat Cat Lim | November 21, 2007 03:07 AM

When Malaysia loses the case, be ready to face the reality how the BN govt would twist and turn to exploit the outcome to their advantage... none other than inciting sentiment against Singapore. When any opposition party goes against such tone by pursuing the loss of the case with Attorney Chamber, it will be labeled 'traitor'. How familiar...

Posted by: Pratamad | November 21, 2007 06:44 AM

That reminds me of how Samy Vellu "penned" a poem for Pak Lah.

Posted by: swee_ann_tweety@hotmail.com | November 21, 2007 07:08 AM

The singaporeans knows our weak spot. hence Prof Jeyakumar's remarks.

Pedra Brance cannot be lost to Singapore due to stupidity and negligence. How could the lawyers pin hope on such a flimsy defence?

Can we live with ourselves to allow a piece of Malaysia be lost due to the incompetence of the governemnt?

Posted by: Jefus | November 21, 2007 07:40 AM

Our leaders hoodwink everyone in the Nation so often that it becomes second nature.

When they leave our shores, they continue to use the same tactics thinking that foreigners would fall for the same.

No place to put our face is all I can say. Creditibility is GONE in the eyes of the world!

Posted by: clk | November 21, 2007 08:25 AM

Malaysia's delegation is not in the hague to fight for Malaysia. They are there for an extended paid holiday. I bet you they are there in rented apartments with whole families in tow.

[ DELETED - Irrelevant ]

Posted by: sydput | November 21, 2007 09:37 AM

ever wonder why this blog is created? from the way i see it, this blog is probably created by singaporean goverment to trick our dumb minister to plagiarise, knowing full well what their education level is, and also what "research" meant for this people. These people probably think that using google search engine is called "research". Now it backfire at them...LOL...

Posted by: pgkia | November 21, 2007 09:52 AM

You have to excuse the lack of understanding or knowledge by the Malaysian team of how blogs operate and what information others can get out of postings as after all the attitude of the Malaysian Bloggers is that they are not to be trusted and that they are mostly run by bored unemployed women.

The comedy of errors the Malaysian side is displaying is all that Singapore needs to rely on to win their case. I would imagine that would have been an assumption and expectation on the part of Singapore that they could depend on the Malaysian side to display an array of comedic errors to do themselves in. And this they did like the fabled scorpion.

Not that Singaproe itself has much of a case. Indeed I cannot see how Singapore's position even has any kind of standing without first making irrelevant or dismissing of that part of the Malaysian case that is not part of the comedy of errors. There are some very strong arguments that have been made on behalf of Malaysia and really there is no real evidence adduced by either said that clearly spells out sovereignty. Occupation, use of, maintenace of these rocks in themselves only prove tenancy and occupancy. You could even have title to the property. So what? But sovereignty is something else altogether.

In the absence of any definite acts of the past or claims of the past then I would think geographical proximity should decide what nature intended. Singapore as well as the rest of Malaya was colonised by the crown. Thta letter from the temmengong of Johore permitting the construction of a lighthouse was obviously a response to a request made by the British. So what if finally the lighthouse was moved to another piece of rock in the sea? That new piece of rock too nature would have decided a long time ago to be an extension of Johore.

Somehow, I guess the law does not bother looking at what nature had intended. instead it looks at the acts and ommissions of man. Singapore has to basically rely on a lot of ommissions on the part of Malaysia, like going in there and whacking them off the rock a long time ago, and the rejection or dismissing of other acts and claims made by Malaysia as irrelevant.

But then again was it not our courts that made relevant the declaration of irrelevance of anything that might just be relevant to take out of the equation that that just might be relevant?

Ah!!!...Let the Singaporeans eat that rock la!!!! we lost..Shamefully so when we are also now accused of plagiarism? And citing of that blog? Shameful man!!!!

Posted by: Observer | November 21, 2007 09:58 AM

Regardless of the photo evidence submitted, the indisputable point is that the little rock is a lot nearer to Malaysia.

http://sophiesworld-sophiesworld.blogspot.com/2007/11/pictures-dont-tell-thousand-words.html

Posted by: sophie | November 21, 2007 10:29 AM

Singapore is represented at the CIJ by their DPM Prof Jayakumar, a former law professor, Chao Hick Tin, their Attorney General and Prof Tommy Koh, their Ambassador at Large. All men who earned their positions through merit.

I knew the moment I saw this Dream Team that Singapore was playing for keeps. And yet we have a bunch of kampung mentality idiots trying to con them with plagiarised photos from a dubious blog, and at an international court to boot.

As one blog commentor here pointed out, these cheapskate underhand tactics are second nature to them in the local scene and they are so used to it they did it without hesitation even when in international forums. When they screw up locally, they had NEP, ISA, OSA etc to save their crummy necks.

If we have to lose, then we lose honourably. To lose in this manner is shaming the whole nation. And Raja Zainuddin blames the Nov 10 marchers for driving investors away. Look no further than your HP6 Govt.

Posted by: Justice Bao | November 21, 2007 11:04 AM

IMHO. Malaysia are many times bigger than Singapore.

I don't see a chance that Singapore able to extend their sea border with the Island, otherwise a lot of country can create an artificial island near the border and "eat up" neighborhood country border.

So why "big" Malaysia waste so much resource to claim the small piece of land from "little" Singapore?

It seems Malaysia government still holding this pathetic "little Malaysia" mindset. For 50 years. Sad.

Posted by: moo_t | November 21, 2007 11:13 AM

I am very saddened with this exposé. I build and repair lighthouses for a living. Many of us, me included, have great pride in this profession. Just one glance tells me that photo sbumitted by Malaysia is a fake. Why make us look like idiots and cheats?

Posted by: whispering9 | November 21, 2007 11:51 AM

/// Regardless of the photo evidence submitted, the indisputable point is that the little rock is a lot nearer to Malaysia. ///

Sophie - this is extremely simplistic and simple-minded. The law doesn't work that. Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean used to belong to Singapore until it was sold to Australia. And it is still very far from Australia. The Falkland Islands belong to UK, and not Argentina. Nearer home, Should Sabah and Sarawak belong to Indonesia then? And you forgot about Litigan and Sipadan...

Posted by: TheWrathOfGrapes | November 21, 2007 12:57 PM

Malaysia Boleh!

Posted by: Kinsy | November 21, 2007 02:35 PM

According Google Earth, the island is here:
1° 19.063'N
104° 24.289'E

Google seems to recognize it as Pedra Branca, rather than Pulau ...

Posted by: mickl | November 21, 2007 02:50 PM

They need to setup a tribunal to confirm on the authenticity of the photo.

Posted by: mickl | November 21, 2007 02:53 PM

So...can our jokers be charged with contempt of court or trying to mislead the court?

Posted by: dr.strangelove | November 21, 2007 04:43 PM

may be Leuchtturm3 and eschede is the same person or same group of persons(cybertrooper)?
both are german word id. eschede left some messages at kennysia blog.
anyone can cross reference the ip?

Posted by: ctruth | November 21, 2007 05:30 PM

The photo illusion is achive with the technique call "dolly zoom". See sample.

Posted by: cold_Zero | November 22, 2007 03:06 AM

LOL those photos were hilarious and it did spice up the ICJ hearings!

Posted by: The Void Deck | November 22, 2007 11:33 AM

Blog with disputed photo lifted Wiki content ©The Straits Times, Singapore (Used by permission)
by Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent, 22 Nov 2007

Posted by: ktak | November 22, 2007 12:21 PM

Folks

A real bunch idiots.

Yet we have our own Village Idiot saying in our Parliament that Singapore is not a country !!.

We not only have UMNO MPS who should have detergents in their mouths when they speak (especially about women), we also have stupid idiots fronting on the international stage on OUR behalf, defending our sovereign interests and making Malaysians look like fools, and worst of all, in the International Court of Justice.

These lawyers who are at The Hague should have their faces sandpapered before they return home.

Posted by: Frank&Honest | November 23, 2007 05:29 AM

Dear Leuchttuerm3,

I will assume that you are truthful when you said you have been interested in lighthouses since you were a little boy, and not lying through your fangs.

That means you should know quite a bit about lighthouses, ya? Sprechen Sie Englisch?

So, what would be the first thing you, as a lighthouse enthusiast, should do? That's right - go to a site called World Lighthouse Society. Click on the link below.

http://www.trollo-leuchttuerme.com/english/wls.html

And you would find on this site has several photos of lighthouses, with their countries of origin. One of which is Horsburgh lighthouse and in brackets, it says "Singapore".

Now, isn't this a better picture of Pedra Branca than the ones you posted? The quality is better.

Why did you not choose this photo? Or link this site to your blog? Is is because it says Horsburgh lighthouse belongs to Singapore? BTW, if you go to Google Earth or any international maps, you will find the reference to this little island as Pedra Branca and not Pulau Batu Puteh.

You sure you sprechen Sie Deutsches? Methinks you sprechen Sie Malaiianer.

Come on, fes up.

Posted by: TheWrathOfGrapes | November 23, 2007 09:13 AM

what have we done as a nation to deserve such imbeciles as leaders... sigh...

Posted by: Patroit | November 23, 2007 01:03 PM

The misleading picture issue does not carry much weight in either countries' cases.
Why did it become an issue at all?

One key thrust of the Malaysian legal team's case is aimed to show that the British did receive explicit permission to use PB/PBP from the Johor sultanate thereby proving that the British had recognised Johor's sovereignty over PB/PBP all along.

The Malaysian legal team submitted that there existed an important letter which had requested for explicit permission. This letter was said to have been sent from the British governor of Singapore to the Johor sultanate. However, the legal team said that Malaysia does not have possession of the letter and alleged that it is in the possession of Singapore's National Archives which had not replied to their requests for the letter. As Malaysia could not produce the evidence (the letter), this allegation actually counts for very little weight in the overall consideration of sovereignty over PB/PBP.

However, this insinuated that Singapore's National Archives had been dishonest. This is unfair because if such a letter did exist, it should be in the possession of Johor's archives as the Johor sultanate was the receipient. The Singapore legal team expressed dissappointment with prinicpally this insinuation. See report - http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20071119-37527.html.

In retaliation, the Singapore legal team highlighted the inconsequential but juicy misleading picture issue.

Clearly, it was just a case of tit-for-tat.

Posted by: ngyt | November 23, 2007 11:49 PM

/// The misleading picture issue does not carry much weight in either countries' cases.
Why did it become an issue at all? ///

This surely qualify as the understatement of the year. Typical denial from the same bunch of people. If fabricating evidence in a court of law, an international court at that, is a non issue, I don't know what is. And the learned agent for Malaysia tried to brush it off as been taken from a small boat. Go on try to go to Pedra Branca and take the same photo from a sampan and see if you can take such a photo with such a looming mountain in the background.

Sure, having been so used to such tactics at home, fabricating evidence carries no weight. Malaysia Boleh!!!!!.

Posted by: TheWrathOfGrapes | November 24, 2007 09:20 AM

singapore has 'pipped' malaysia in pedra branca claim

http://sophiesworld-sophiesworld.blogspot.com/2007/11/singapore-pips-malaysia-in-pedra-branca.html

Posted by: sophie | November 25, 2007 06:52 PM

Posted by: TheWrathOfGrapes [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 23, 2007 09:13 AM

Answer: We voted the wrong government --> BN, into power. That's why we have a Bodoh Negara. Time to change folks! Time to change...

Posted by: Kenneth | May 25, 2008 02:26 PM

INTERNET does not operate in a legal vacuum.
Read this before you post a comment in this blog!