Navigating Sovereignty: Exploring Land Legitimacy in Singapore and Israel

One common accusation leveled against Israel regarding its legitimacy stems from the contention that the British lacked the authority to partition and allocate land to establish the State of Israel. Critics argue that the British, acting as administrators under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, did not possess the rightful sovereignty to unilaterally determine the fate of the territory. The accusation asserts that the British mandate was an administrative arrangement, and therefore, the British did not have the legal or moral authority to allocate land to Israel. But how about in the case of Singapore? Could similar doubts be raised regarding the legitimacy of British actions in transferring sovereignty over the territory?

The transfer of land and the legitimacy of such transfers have significant historical, legal, and political implications. This essay aims to analyze and compare whether there is a good root of title in the transfer of land from Malay rulers to the British and then to Singaporeans with the transfer of land that subsequently became Israel following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and British Mandate.

A "good root of title" refers to a legitimate and legally recognized basis for ownership or transfer of land. It establishes the rightful ownership or authority over a particular piece of land, providing a clear and unambiguous chain of ownership or transfer. In essence, it ensures that the current owner or possessor of the land can trace their title back to a lawful source or origin. A good root of title is crucial in real estate and property law to prevent disputes over ownership and to establish the validity of transactions involving land. It typically involves documentation such as deeds, titles, or other legal instruments that demonstrate the lawful acquisition or transfer of property rights

Israel: From the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate to Israeli Statehood

1. End of Ottoman Rule:

        - Following World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the land that would become Israel was left without a clear sovereign authority.

2. British Mandate:

    - In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain the Mandate for Palestine, giving them administrative control but not ownership. The mandate aimed to establish a national home for the Jewish people while protecting the rights of existing Arab inhabitants.

    - Britain's authority came from an international mandate, not from ownership, complicating the legitimacy of any land transfers they facilitated.

3. Partition and Conflict:

     - In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition plan to create separate Jewish and Arab states. The plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to conflict.

    - The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 followed the end of the British Mandate and a war of independence. The resulting state was recognized by many international actors, though the legitimacy of the initial transfer remained contested.

Singapore: From Malay Rulers to the British to Singaporeans

1. Initial British Acquisition:

        - In 1819, Sir Stamford Raffles of the British East India Company negotiated with local Malay leaders to establish a trading post in Singapore.

    - The agreement was made with Temenggong Abdul Rahman and Sultan Hussein Shah, who was recognized by the British as the Sultan of Johor, though his legitimacy was contested.

2. Treaties and Legitimacy:

        - The Treaty of 1819 and subsequent treaties in 1824 solidified British control over Singapore. However, Sultan Hussein Shah's legitimacy was questionable since the recognized ruler by the Dutch who was the the de facto ruler was the younger brother Sultan Abdul Rahman.

    - This situation can be likened to the principle of "nemo dat quod non habet" (no one gives what they do not have), raising doubts about the legitimacy of the British claim.

3. Post-Colonial Transfer:

     - After World War II, Singapore gained self-governance in 1959. It became part of the Federation of Malaya in 1963, alongside Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak, forming the new nation of Malaysia. Yet, the merger proved to be short-lived, as tensions between the Malaysian federal government and the PAP-led Singaporean government escalated. Fundamental ideological differences, particularly over issues of race and governance, strained the relationship between Singapore and the central government in Kuala Lumpur. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia on August 9, 1965, just two years after joining the federation. This gave rise to an independent and sovereign Singapore.

Comparative Analysis

1. Source of Authority to transfer land rights and/or ownership:

        - In the case of Singapore, the British negotiated treaties with local rulers, though the legitimacy of those rulers was contested. 

    - In the case of Israel/Palestine, the British acted not as sovereign owners but as administrators with varying degrees of legitimacy. 

1. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet" Principle:

        - In the case of Singapore. the principle "nemo dat quod non habet" could potentially apply. In Singapore, the British negotiated with rulers who may not have had legitimate authority. 

    - In Israel/Palestine, the British possibly administered land without owning it, raising questions about their right to facilitate land transfers.

Conclusion

The legitimacy of land transfers in both Singapore and Israel involves complex historical and legal contexts. In Singapore, despite initial legitimacy issues, a clear transition to independence solidified the root of title. In Israel, the contested nature of British authority and the resulting conflict led to ongoing debates about the legitimacy of the land's transfer. Both cases highlight the intricate interplay of local authority, colonial administration, and international law in determining the root of title and the legitimacy of statehood.

An approach akin to the concept of indefeasible title in the Torrens System, such as UN recognition of statehood of member states, may present a more desirable alternative to solely relying on the traditional notion of a 'good root of title.' While the latter emphasizes a strict legalistic framework focused on historical documentation and title deeds, the former prioritizes international recognition and legitimacy, which can contribute to greater stability and consensus in resolving disputes over land ownership and statehood.

Whichever system is adopted, there will always be parties who benefit from it and others who feel disadvantaged. Those who stand to gain from a particular system are likely to support it, while those who stand to lose may feel aggrieved or discontented. This presents the inherent challenge of finding a universally acceptable approach to resolving land ownership and statehood disputes.