THERE was a lot of back-slapping among Malaysian officials when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its decision on claims by both Malaysia and Singapore to the cluster of islands close to their shorelines.

The 16-member court — after hearing oral submissions from both parties — awarded Singapore (by a 12-4 majority) sovereignty over the disputed Pulau Batu Puteh (White Stone Island) located at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits but gave Malaysia (by a 5-1 majority) ownership of Middle Rocks, a smaller uninhabited outcropping. The court also decided (by a 5-1 majority) that sovereignty over a third disputed cluster of rocks known as Southern Ledge be determined a later stage when both countries meet on territorial water demarcation.

Within the country generally, the reaction to the ruling, especially the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh, is more subdued … and understandably so. It’s a reaction not directed at the judges’ findings but — from all media accounts – at the step we had taken in asking the ICJ to determine the case, given, as has now become apparent, the rather weak evidential proof we had in hand, particularly in light of a letter sent by the acting state secretary of Johor in 1953 to the Singapore government that the Johor government “does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca” or Pulau Batu Puteh.

Public reaction to the judgment is perhaps best illustrated by Lat’s cartoon in the New Straits Times on May 26, showing a Malaysian marine patrol plying the waters around Middle Rocks and their boat getting stuck on a cluster of rocks at low tide.

The general feeling – with the benefit of hindsight — is that we should have negotiated with the Singapore authorities to allow the city state to keep the Horsburgh Lighthouse on that tiny rocky outcrop through a 99-year lease or even in perpetuity to symbolise neighbourly relationship. But now, we have, to all intents and purposes, not only lost a lighthouse but a whole island as well.

There is no point crying over spilt milk. According to ICJ rules, an appeal is out of the question. So Malaysians will have to learn to live with the outcome and take a lesson from it. Nothing should be taken for granted when it comes to dealing with issues of national sovereignty and international bilateral relations.

There are reportedly political parties in the country that want to hold those involved in presenting Malaysia’s case at the ICJ to account for having done what the former deem as a poor job. Whether or not this will happen is left to be seen. But what has to be remembered is that a case before the ICJ is not case before a local but an international court, and logically, in this regard, only the best legal brains – picked, if need be, from both the public and private sectors, and backed by strong evidence — can present arguments powerful enough to build a solid (and winning) case.

Although the ICJ has awarded Middle Rocks to Malaysia and left the question of the Southern Ledge to the two countries to sort out, the fact remains that the main feature – Pulau Batu Puteh – has now been confirmed to be under the sovereignty of Singapore even though it was owned by Malaysia, Malaya and the Sultanate of Johor for a very long time. Losing sovereignty over the rocky outcrop, tiny though it is, may also give rise to some far-reaching economic ramifications. Reports say the waters in and around it are rich in fishery and mineral resources (oil and gas).

A former Singapore-based senior Malaysian academic is perhaps right to point out that the problem was Malaysia had been adopting what he called a lackadaisical attitude in exercising its sovereignty rights over the outcrop.

This appears to backed by ICJ findings that after 1953, Malaysia did not undertake any activities on the island compared with Singapore and did not protest when Singapore installed military communication equipment in 1977 and proposed reclamation plans to extend the island.

The court drew the conclusion from the evidential proof presented that the conduct of Singapore and its predecessor and the failure by Malaysia to respond, showed that by 1980, sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh had been passed to the island republic.

The implication is that the department concerned within the civil service which prepared most of the groundwork for our case is itself in need of urgent reform. The could-be-better handling of submissions, resulting in the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh, may be said to have stemmed from many factors, among them a civil service with room for further improvement in dealing with cases such the island claims that had gone before the ICJ for a decision.

The country has lost a good opportunity to further enhance its status in the maritime world, considering its ports, especially Port Klang and the Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP), are rated among the top 20 internationally in terms of container handling.

Malaysians from both sides of the political divide are, therefore, justified to feel disappointed with the outcome of the ICJ deliberations. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had expressed sadness over the decision but accepted it on the ground that it was based on hard facts and evidence. There are different schools of thoughts on whether the ICJ ruling presents a win-win situation. Some quarters have argued how could it be when the main subject matter had been lost?

Equally pointless is flogging a dead horse. We need to accept the fait accompli and take the ICJ’s decision as a valuable lesson in sovereignty laws to avoid having to give up more than necessary in future.