Etymology and Pedra Branca

I was so puzzled after I read Janadas Devan's column On Words on Sunday about the etymology of "sovereignty" and the context in which Malaysia used the word that I emailed him to clarify. He took the time to explain in detail and even cite examples, that I was able to think through what confused me myself. This I am very grateful. So here are my thoughts...

No, you don’t have sovereignty over Tibet. Sovereignty as we understand it today, did not exist at that time, so you cannot use the argument that we have sovereignty over this piece of land.

China’s reasoning is flawed.

So ICJ’s reasoning is flawed. Johor Sultanate did not have the sovereignty over PB.

The context of those times are fixed, we cannot project today’s context back into those days. Those days should have been understood by those days terms.

China has tributary relationships, vassalships, overlordships with many neighbouring states, but they did not have sovereignty over them, these states did not belong to China.

Johor Sultanate did not have sovereignty over PB as according to the terms of those days, to rule over a land, meant ruling over people there, but no one inhabited PB, hence, it was “no man’s land” as Singapore understood it.

Hence Singapore is etymologically correct

Singapore’s argument – PB doesn’t belong to anyone, no one is sovereign over it, until British took lawful possession of it in 1847

M’sia’s argument – PB part of Johor Sultanate

Hence, ICJ is flawed etymologically to support M’sia’s argument that PB is part of Johor Sultanate since 1512

What is etymology?
From Merriam-Webster: The history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language

The root of the issue is that both country do not agree on the ownership of the land. Malaysia thinks it belongs to the Johor Sultanate, by virtue of its location. Singapore thinks it is no man's land as in those days rulership meant ruling over people, but there were no inhabitants on PB, until British took hold of the island, building Horsburgh Lighthouse on it.

But to me, I am so involved in this case, not for political reasons, but simply because Horsburgh Lighthouse is a historical architecture and gem. It was built by J. T. Thomson (the man we named Thomson Road after) in 1850, recorded in books, served a very practical and important function. This is a functional, important, historic piece of art, set on an island that is a paradise for bird watchers. There can be no better paradise island! For the hermit of course. I guess it will be pretty lonely as a lighthouse keeper.

I would want this lighthouse to be gazetted as a conservation site!