International Law, History & Policy - Centre for International Law

Singapore in the Early Years 73
all questions of succession and that Singapore is still entitled to
state its position and to express its willingness to succeed or to
make reservations.’ 156
Chao – who by 1979 was the senior-most government legal
officer specialising in international law matters and who had the
benefit of the work of the International Law Commission on the
matter – also arrived at the same conclusion. He opined that the
effectiveness of a devolution agreement – specifically section 13
of the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act –
appears doubtful since ‘such an agreement cannot establish any
treaty relation between the successor State and third States.’ 157
Chao added:
It seems to be no more than a purported assignment by the
predecessor to the successor State of the former’s obligations
and rights under treaties previously having application to the
territory. But such an assignment by itself cannot change the
legal position of any of the interested parties.
…
In so far as Singapore is concerned she does not appear to
consider the devolution clause in the Separation Agreement of
1965 as constituting an obligation on her part to accept all previous
treaties which applied to Singapore. In response to the usual
letter of inquiry from the UN Secretary-General Singapore did
not reply that she considered herself bound by all previous treaties.
Instead she said that Singapore was reviewing her position
vis-à-vis multilateral treaties entered into by either the UK or
Malaysia and whose application was extended to Singapore at
a time when those countries were responsible for the external
relations of Singapore. 158
156 Ibid at 407.
157 See Chao, n 152 above, at cxxviii.
158 Ibid at cxxviii–cxxix.