JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 OVERVIEW, IMPLICATIONS AND LESSONS OF THE CASE OF BATU PUTEH ISLAND: SOVEREIGNTY VIRTUE OF A COUNTRY AT STAKE

KHAIRUL AZMAN SUHAIMY1, NURUL AIMI RAZALI2, ABDUL SHAKOR BORHAM3, KHAIROL ANUAR KAMRI4, SHAH RUL ANUAR NORDIN5, NAJAH RAMLAN6, HANI SURAYA AZIZ7

1,3,4,5Centre of General Studies and Co-Curricular, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn , , . 2 Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, Johor. 6,7Centre of Languages Studies, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, Johor. Email- [email protected],

Received: 14 March 2020 Revised and Accepted: 8 July 2020

ABSTRACT: Losing territory will undermine the sovereignty of a country. Sovereignty is a symbol of power to many countries. On May 23, 2008, Malaysia lost her sovereignty over Batu Puteh Island to as ruled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by 12 votes to 4. The corresponding letter by the Acting Secretary of Johor dated September 21, 1953 stated that Johor does not claim ownership of Batu Puteh Island or Pedra Branca. The ICJ claimed that the letter as a sign that Johor had handed over its sovereignty on Batu Puteh Island over to the British. This article aims to elucidate the overview of territorial dispute over Batu Puteh Island between Malaysia and Singapore and its implications on sovereignty as well as to explicate the lessons to be learnt from the event. This qualitative study employs content analysis and literature study methodology. Content analysis examines the documents and previous literatures related to the Batu Puteh Island dispute and sovereignty in exploring the background of the dispute and finding the lessons to be learnt from the dispute. This study finds that there are various questions arise regarding the letter. The questions that are yet to be answered and documentation is vital. Furthermore, this study discusses lessons to be learnt from the event as such learn from history; learn from the administrative weaknesses and individual mistakes, be careful when making any decisions, inattention led a country in losing the island‟s sovereignty to other nation and remember that history repeats itself in the future. The mistakes cost Malaysia to lose an island which was originally her for centuries. The social implications of this article are such it provides the general about the overview of the dispute, which may not have the whole idea about this event. Also, it enlightens on the implication of the event to the involved parties as well as the lessons to be learnt from the event which closely relate to the sovereignty of a country and the importance to learn from history.

KEYWORDS: Batu Puteh Island; Pedra Branca, sovereignty; history; Malaysia-Singapore Relations

I. INTRODUCTION In the territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Batu Puteh Island, sovereignty of a country is the main issue that involved and concerned by the two countries. Although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled out the result on the dispute, which noted that Singapore is the owner of Batu Puteh Island and both countries have accepted the result with open heart, nevertheless there are important lessons learnt from the event. This is because according to historical evidences, the Sultanate of Johor rightfully owned Batu Puteh Island before it was given to the British to manage and control the lighthouse in the island (Mutalib & Dahari, 2017). However, due to the negligence of the then authority and the lack of efforts to maintain and exercise the right on the island by the later Malaysian government after the independent, compared to efforts made by Singapore hence Malaysia has lost to Singapore in this dispute (Okano, 2010). This event is one of the important events in Malaysia history and lessons should be learnt by the government and the people in order to prevent the same occurrence that involved sovereignty of the country to be happening again in the future. This article aims to elucidate the overview of territorial dispute over Batu Puteh Island between Malaysia and Singapore and its implications on sovereignty as well as to explicate the lessons to be learnt from the event.

2107

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Batu Puteh Island and the Dispute Batu Puteh Island or was known as Pedra Branca has a total area of 0.2 hectares. It is about 12.8 km from , Johor and 46 km from Singapore. At the onset, the Sultanate of Johor had the rights over Batu Puteh Island but tendered it over to the British to handle Horsburgh Light-house since the mid 19th century (Sumner, 2003). There are two coral reef areas; the first one is known as the Middle Rocks, located 1.1 km south of Batu Puteh Island, and the second one is known as the South Ledge which was naturally formed rocks which is visible only during low tide in a distance of 3 km from the Middle Rocks and 4 km to the south Batu Puteh Island. The claim of Middle Rocks and South Ledge were made by Singapore in 1993, 13 years after the claim on Batu Puteh Island was made.

According to Salleh, Razali & Jusoff (2009), on February 14, 1980, through a diplomatic note, Singapore objected over the insertion of Batu Puteh Island as fragment of Malaysia‟s territory claimed in Peta Baru. Due to the objection, Malaysian and Singaporean Foreign Ministry held a meeting to undertake the dispute consensually through bilateral negotiation. As the first negotiation met unending decision, the then prime ministers of both countries, Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew decided in principle to defer the case to the ICJ in September 1994. The ICJ was chosen to be the third party resolution by Mahathir Mohamad because the failure of bilateral negotiation to settle the dispute, although he was against the idea in the first place.

Malaysia and Singapore later involved in several meetings from 1995 to 1996 in finalising the procedures for the submission of the case to the ICJ. After a thorough preparation on submission by both parties, Hamid Albar and S. Jayakumar, Malaysian and Singaporean Foreign Ministers signed the conciliation to settle the disputes through the ICJ on February 6, 2003 in , Malaysia. In the span of 5 years, the ICJ ruled that the sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to Singapore with 12 votes to 4, on May 23, 2008 (Idrus, Nor, Ismail, 2014).

2.2 Sovereignty Sovereignty acts as a symbol of power to all independent countries worldwide. It is important to defend the independence and supremacy of a country to prevent any forms of colonisation (Bodin, 1992). Sovereignty also implies an imperative role in protecting the country‟s security and stability, in fighting against external threats as well as being respected by others. In the context of Malaysia, despite its strategic location that serves as active maritime economy, the geographical condition of Malaysia embodies numbers of boundary problems usually experienced by coastal countries particularly Southeast Asian countries. According to Salleh, Razali and Jusoff (2009), Malaysia entangled in intersecting maritime claims and territorial disputes with practically all its neighbours. The claims and disputes outspread from the Celebes Sea, the Sulu Sea, the South China Sea, the Straits of Singapore, the Straits of Melaka, the Andaman Sea and to the Gulf of Thailand (Salleh, Razali, & Jusoff, 2009).

National security in particular is an important aspect on sovereignty of a country. The role of government and people in protecting the sovereignty of the country is vital to permit the steadfast obedience as to safeguard national security (Agnew, 2005). Moreover, it is imperative in the determination to take along a more solid concept of unity towards building a resilient nation. As an important aspect of a country, sovereignty is not easy to be abused, however, the negligence and failure of state leaders or the relevant parties to conduct effective negotiations in the event of any disputes such as the demands of two or more other countries over a territory can threaten sovereignty. This not only causes the country to lose its sovereignty over the country or a particular region but also affects other beneficial issues involving the economic, political and social aspects of the country. Therefore, it is important for all citizens and leaders to learn and apply the lessons or history of an event to be more cautious in dealing with any situation affecting the country‟s future sovereignty (Onuf, 1991). This is also important to do for the good of the nation and the citizens in the future.

Jean Bodin, a French scholar, in his book „Six Books of the Commenwealth‟, first presented the idea of sovereignty. Before the introduction of sovereignty, kings had the utter authority of ruling the nation or known as supreme power. The context then improved to „statehood‟ and far ahead deliberately changed towards a greater notch of power or „sovereignty‟.

The physiognomies of sovereignty bestowing to Bodin can be summarised as follows (Bodin & Jean, 1992): i. Original, not tendered by any other power whether from inside or outside of the country, ii. The utmost, there is no other greater authority that can bound its power,

2108

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 iii. Permanent, the authority of the state goes on uninterruptedly devoid of interference even when the administration, the frontrunners and the direction of the state change, iv. Undividable, there is merely one supreme authority, v. Nontransferable to another party, in either the form of tender or discharge. Sovereignty plays a significant role for the future generation who will prime the country in the future. They can lead and administer the country at liberty without any restraints or control from other countries. Sovereignty also permits them to develop the country in all aspects without being exploited by prominent nations with concealed agenda. The future generation will also be adept of preserving our national resources and inheritances as well as avoiding ascendency and colonisation of external countries.

2.3 History History is an essential element to a nation. Issues or events that have happened in the past have some effect on the actions or decisions taken by leaders of a government in matters pertaining to the country including decisions on the economic, political and social aspects over time (Lemay-Hébert, 2009). Meanwhile, the actions or decisions taken in the present times will determine the future of the country whether to be enjoyed or feared by future generations. The historical aspects, the current development process and the future prospects of a country are continuous and interrelated processes (Fukuyama, 2004). Therefore, it is important for leaders in the leadership of the state to learn, understand and reflect on the history of each decision on the action they wish to take for the good and well-being of the nation. If history presents a regrettable situation, by understanding and reflecting on it, the nation‟s leaders will be able to choose and make the best decision on the current state of affairs. Through past mistakes and failures, improvements can be made and the future of the country and future generations can be well-defined. History is one of the fundamental matters that should be given attention to in developing a stable and strong nation. History is the aspirations and philosophies that make up a nation.

George Santayana, a world historian, also stated the importance of history in human life, “Those who did not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it”. History is a true and vivid reminder to an individual, a community, a nation and even the world (Nunn, 2009). Without reflection on past history, detrimental mistakes are likely to be made in the future. However, without reflecting on the successes that were achieved in the past, much greater and forward successes cannot be achieved. Thus, history plays an important role in determining failures and successes in the future. If history is a failure, the failure can be overcome, and if it is a success, the success can be maximised. Therefore, in the face of failure in particular, to recover from the failure, sufficient reasoning must be made, good planning must be put in place and due diligence must be made to overcome past failures. Edward Hallett Carr, an American historian stated that understanding history is like driving a car by looking into the rear-view mirror (Carr, 1984). History will go far over time but it will not leave us behind. Every community, regardless of age, religion, or race, needs to be aware of the history because each individual has a significant role to play in a national institution. If a misunderstanding in the history occurs among the people of a country, there is a great potential for harm and impediment in the processes of socialisation and development of the country. Individuals who value the history of their country will understand, appreciate and love their country regardless of age, religion and race.

Definition of history by Carr (1982) displayed that history obliges as an archive to carry on accumulating the experiences from one generation to another, and accordingly leads to continuing process of enculturation and socialisation. Indeed, history has great value and importance to individuals, communities and nations. Collections of past events or history can guide and teach humankind about life‟s challenges, difficulties as well as success (Kuzio, 2002; Nunn, 2009). Humankind must be aware of the reality of life and act accordingly to overcome it. Therefore, history is important as an indicator to the individual, the community and the country to handle current and future situations effectively and with confidence.

III. METHODOLOGY This qualitative study employs content analysis and literature study methodology. Content analysis examines the documents and previous literatures related to the Batu Puteh Island dispute and sovereignty in exploring the background of the dispute and finding the lessons to be learnt from the dispute. According to Insch, Moore and Murphy (1997) as well as Hsieh and Shannon (2005), content analysis is a systematic methodology to examine and analysis data from texts. Through this methodology, the overview and the lessons that should be learnt from the dispute were analysed and determined.

IV. FINDINGS The territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Batu Puteh Island has been going on for 28 years. This has led to the two countries agreeing to resolve the conflict in the ICJ in 1993. In reading the intersecting claims, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, the acting President of the ICJ, stated that the sovereignty of Batu

2109

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 Puteh Island was based on a 12-4 majority vote in favour of Singapore, meanwhile, the 15-1 majority said that The Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia (Idrus, Nor & Ismail, 2014). The Middle Rocks is located just 1.1 km south of Batu Puteh Island. The South Ledge was granted sovereignty to the country with the nearest territorial waters, which is Singapore.

The transient of sovereignty of Batu Puteh Island, which is traditionally the possession of the Sultanate of Johor, was ruled by the ICJ based on the agreeing letter by the Acting Secretary of Johor dated September 21, 1953 (Sumner, 2003), which indicated that Johor does not defend ownership of Batu Puteh Island. The response was not only linked to the lighthouse but the island as a total. When the letter was recited in the Singapore perspective about the stand of Batu Puteh Island, it was verified that the letter is discoursing the matter of the island sovereignty. Shawkat who presided the ICJ conference to resolve on the intersecting claims on Batu Puteh Island, Middle Rocks and South Ledge said that “…therefore, the court concluded that the letter clearly indicates that since 1953, Johor has declared that it no longer had sovereignty over Pedra Branca,” (The International Court of Justice, 2008).

In adjudicating this case, the ICJ focused only on the corresponding letter by the Acting Secretary of Johor dated September 21, 1953. The ICJ held that Johor did not claim rights to Batu Puteh Island based on the letter because the letter indicated that Johor had agreed to give Batu Puteh Island sovereignty to the British (Okano, 2010; Tanaka, 2008). This issue, if properly understood, showed that indeed the Johor Sultanate and, later, Malaysia had lost control over Batu Puteh Island since 1953. The ICJ court also emphasised that the circumstances wherein the six official maps published by Malaysia between 1962 and 1974 did not indicate that Batu Puteh Island was located in Malaysia (Kohen, 2013). This has indirectly reinforced the ICJ‟s judgment that Batu Puteh Island belongs to Singapore, as there is no Batu Puteh Island within the Malaysian area in the maps.

However, the ICJ set that Batu Puteh Island fit in to the Johor government based on the historical viewpoint and the application of international law in reference to other cases like Eastern Greenland and Island of Palmas (Tanaka, 2008). Batu Puteh Island was initially under the sovereignty of the Johor government. Furthermore, the ICJ also recognised and took into account the role of Sea Gypsies who profited from the island and proximate locations for their economic activities, and their connection with the of Johor (Tanaka, 2008). The ICJ consequently deprived of Singapore‟s claim that Batu Puteh Island was „terra nullius‟ or land belonging to no one before 1847 and was not acceptable as an argument (The International Court of Justice, 2008). This in line with Malaysia argument that „… (to say) Batu Puteh Island is without owner is (actually) vague‟ (Tanaka, 2008). Batu Puteh Island cannot be claimed as a land that is not owned as defended by Singapore since there is some evidence to suggest that it was once part of the Johor government. The first evidence is that there was an early map that showed Batu Puteh Island as a sea marker and also a dangerous point area for the Johor government (Mutalib & Dahari, 2017). Further evidence is that there was an old Portuguese document which recorded that the island was inhabited by the natives as early as 1552. Besides that, John Crawford, a British Resident in Singapore, stated that in 1862, there were sea gypsies occupying Batu Puteh Island under the custody of the Johor government (Mutalib & Dahari, 2017).

Some important questions really need to be addressed and raised in the matter of giving Batu Puteh Island to Singapore from Johor: First Question: The has absolute control over Johor‟s land and its territories. Where was the role, power and sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor having jurisdiction over Johor‟s lands and its territories when M. Seth bin Saaid, the Acting Secretary of Johor, signed a letter dated September 1953? Second Question: The Sultan of Johor serves as the head of a sovereign state. Can matters of sovereignty, land and territorial rights be decided by other individuals such as the Acting Secretary of State besides the Sultan as the head of a sovereign state? Third Question: Was the decision made in the letter dated September 21, 1953, a decision made because of external influence from certain parties or the direct consent of the Sultan? Fourth Question: From the point of view of the constitution, the Johor Treaty 1914 and the Agreement 1948 have indicated that all the rights and authority regarding Johor foreign affairs were reassigned to the British and enforced through by the Federal Commissioner. The Federal Commisioner was selected under the consent of His Majesty while the two agreements were effective until 1957 when the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 inaugurated to run. Hence, the letter deal out had controverted the Johor Treaty 1914 and the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 which valid until 1957 (5). Therefore, should not the ICJ consider using both agreements; the Johor Treaty 1914 and the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 on the issue of Batu Puteh Island? Fifth Question: Batu Puteh Island is situated nearer to Johor coast (7.7 nautical miles), much nearer than Singapore (25 nautical miles). Even though the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

2110

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 which recognised by both Malaysia and Singapore, indicated that a nation territorial waters outspreads up to 12 nautical miles from its baseline but the distance of within 12 nautical miles between Batu Puteh Island and the Johor coast was not taken into attention during the hearing. Based on this 12 nautical miles argument, the ICJ decision appeared to be more favourable to Singapore and Malaysia seemed to have no sovereignty over its territorial waters even when Batu Puteh Island is situated just 7.7 nautical miles from its shoreline. Therefore, should not the ICJ also be able to use UNCLOS to address the Batu Puteh Island issue?

V. DISCUSSION ON IMPLICATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT The Batu Puteh Island case is an example of the situation that is full of lesson for Malaysia, especially in terms of preserving the country‟s sovereignty. The implications of this situation need to be known and understood by the people and the state leaders of Malaysia so that lessons can be taken and used as a guide for future on national sovereignty. Mistakes made in the past or today are just black episodes that will pass if the lessons are not taken. These errors, in turn, have a negative impact on the development of the nation and future generations.

Although the verdict was not in favour of Malaysia, the key step in accepting this decision openly is important. Losing sovereignty over an area that was once part of the country is a big deal but accepting this decision respectfully is the best way to maintain good relations between the two countries: Malaysia and Singapore (Askandar & Sukim, 2016). It is also the main reason why Malaysia has agreed to submit this dispute to the ICJ. Peace and good relations between two countries, especially neighbouring countries, are important for the long- term welfare of both countries. Furthermore, the government and the people of Malaysia well known for their courtesy and kindness. A peaceful and good approach is often the choice of the Malaysian government especially in the face of any situation or conflict involving other countries (Salleh, Razali & Jusoff, 2009). Although the Malaysian people and government are known to accept this openly, there are some clear lessons that need to be known and understood for the benefit of all and to serve to guide future generations. The public in general and the Malaysian government in particular have to take this resolution positively and learn from the territorial dispute over Batu Puteh Island so that the sovereignty of the country will remain to be well-preserved (Askandar & Sukim, 2016). The whole world discerns that the island belongs to Malaysia (precisely Johor) with all related documents are comprehensive and antiquity has verified it (Mutalib & Dahari, 2017; Tanaka, 2008). The carelessness of certain parties had led Malaysia in losing the island sovereignty to other nation. The inattention of former administrators, who permitted Singapore to exercise authority over the island and the lighthouse, had cost Malaysia the possession of the island. Furthermore, without further and comprehensive thinking and discussion, Malaysia had promptly confirmed that Johor did not claim possession of the island though the endorsement was made by black and white document only (Mutalib & Dahari, 2017; Okano, 2010).

In contrast to Singapore‟s effort and conduct that show their dedication to claiming Batu Puteh Island, Malaysia has also made claims but no follow-up has been made since the issue was first raised 28 years ago. Singapore‟s commitment to claiming Batu Puteh Island is clear and significant effort such as spending huge funds to develop the island have been underway since the claim began (Tanaka, 2008; Kohen 2013). They used this effort as an argument that they were the rightful owners of Batu Puteh Island. Also, the action of Singapore in granting approval in any instance of Malaysian officials want to visit Pedra Branca claimed by the court as an imperative support to the claim of Singapore on sovereignty over Batu Puteh Island (Okano, 2010). Hence, the resolution made by the ICJ was in favour to Singapore as they multiplied the advantages of carrying out numerous acts of sovereignty in respect of the island and this was permitted by Malaysia. As a result, they get to the top in this claim over their capability to administer the island for long.

In addition, Singapore also defended the claim of sovereignty over Batu Puteh Island by stating the legal occupation by the British during the Hosburgh Lighthouse was built on the island. The effort to defend Batu Puteh Island was further strengthened by Singapore‟s argument that Malaysia failed to issue a permit issued by the Johor government to the British (Lathrop, 2008). Singapore also sent evidence regarding the statutory and administrative authority over Batu Puteh Island, as well as matters concerning the control, facilities and access to Batu Puteh Island (Tanaka, 2008). In addition, Singapore questioned Malaysia‟s rights over Batu Puteh Island by stating why Malaysia had not taken any action in the past when Singapore undertook various activities there. Singapore stated that Malaysia did not carry out administrative and law enforcement responsibilities as would normally be done by the rightful authorities in such circumstances, which is contrary to Malaysia‟s claim on Batu Puteh Island (Askandar & Sukim, 2016). This argument is an extension of the situation in which Batu Puteh Island was given by the Johor government to the British through the Acting Secretary of Johor. The Acting Secretary of Johor can learn something from the weaknesses in terms of the administration and the letter in 1953. In history, Batu Puteh Island and the surrounding islets belonged to Johor government. ICJ admitted the rights based on Agreement 1819, Agreement March 1824, Agreement August 1824 and Agreement 1927.

2111

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 Nevertheless, when enquired by Singapore about the status of the island, the Johor government reacted that the island was no longer fit in to the state. The letter supported the argument made in the court that by 1953, Johor sovereignty over the island had been passed over to Singapore. Although the final decision on Batu Puteh Island was not in Malaysia‟s favor, the rights to The Middle Rock were recognised by the ICJ. This fact has indirectly and undeniably acknowledged Malaysia‟s role in the waters and areas nearby (Askandar & Sukim, 2016). This victory is a blessing to Malaysia as at least Middle Rock, previously known as a non grata for Malaysian fishermen, can now be entered and fisheries activities can be undertaken.

The situation was still in favour to Malaysia (15 – 1) since the „whole‟ Batu Puteh Island and the nearby areas were not handed on to Singapore. This is certainly a blessing as Malaysia was able to claim its right on the other maritime features around Batu Puteh Island. The decision was unanticipated because the whole situation had been focused a total loss over the island (Askandar & Sukim, 2016). Hence, Malaysians and the Malaysian government must to accept the decision positively and learn from this experience so that the sovereignty of the nation can be kept. The decision made by the ICJ on the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh, if observed, is indeed a win-win situation for both Malaysia and Singapore (Idrus, Nor & Ismail, 2014). Malaysia lost its sovereignty over Batu Puteh Island, while Singapore lost its right to The Middle Rock. Moreover, if UNCLOS were used to settle this claim, South Ledge‟s rights will also fall to Malaysia due to the maritime delimitation of about 0.6 nautical miles from The Middle Rocks. But, since it argued that South Ledge is a right of a country with territorial waters in which the island is located, therefore South Ledge is a right of Singapore. Malaysia‟s sovereignty over The Middle Rock also indicates that Singapore does not have a full monopoly over the Batu Puteh Island waters and its surroundings because at only 0.6 nautical miles, Singapore has neighbours to be respected. Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the Prime Minister of Malaysia back then, despite being disappointed by the ruling by the ICJ, however, urged Malaysians to view the matter as a favourable situation for both Malaysia and Singapore where both did not win in total and lose in total (Salleh, Razali & Jusoff, 2009). Batu Puteh Island is given to Singapore, The Middle Rock is given to Malaysia while South Ledge is given to Singapore because it is located on its coast.

VI. CONCLUSION Based on the results of the Batu Puteh Island dispute, the most important lesson that administrators and citizens need to know is that the sovereignty of the nation must be safeguarded and strengthened with realistic actions. Issues that have happened despite the bitterness must be accepted with open heart but never forgotten. Instead, it needs to be understood and rooted in memory so that the same thing will never happen again. Can Malaysia and its people face a sense of loss of sovereignty over related areas again in the future? Therefore, it is important for national leaders and citizens to appreciate and learn from this history. If this history were left untouched, it would be a loss to country and its future, in case the same thing happens in the future. The mistakes made by leaders in the past have caused Malaysia to lose its sovereignty over the area in which it had rights. Another lesson that can be learned is to be careful and that a transparent discussion between relevant parties must be taken before any action is taken. Tun Hussein Onn‟s philosophy is in line with this situation where he once said, “It is better to be safe now than to be sorry later” (Morais, 1981). He was well known for his cautious attitude and for taking the right time before making any decisions. His careful, meticulous, disciplined, silent and unique personality played a significant role in handling various issues that may affect national security and future.

For Malaysia, the dispute over Batu Puteh Island with Singapore has brought upon a pronounced lesson and a countless deal of impact to the country particularly on the issue of sovereignty. According to ICJ decisions, Malaysia has mislaid its sovereignty over the island. The failure of Malaysia to make available robust evidences of the island possession and inattention of former national leaders were the central contributors for the loss. History does nothing but recurrences itself if the younger generation do not learn from history; overlooking or underrating the issue of sovereignty. This dispute also shows that a nation territory can change and get smaller, and this ultimately disturbs national security. The people and the national leaders must work hand in hand to find the solution to preserve national sovereignty to elude it from being colonised, which challenges the country image, position, status and dignity. This article proposes a number of recommendations for future research or practices as such first, the use of varying sources as such interview with delegations of Malaysian government to the ICJ on this dispute could be conducted to offer an insights or direct experiences of the individuals who involved in resolving the dispute. Secondly, the emphasis on lessons learnt to Malaysia counterpart in this dispute that is Singapore because there is also lessons to be learnt by the country and the people. This is because there is still a few number of study on this event despite its significance and worth to be widely discuss in regards to the advantages that could be cultivated from it. Therefore, a further study on the dispute of Batu Puteh Island or Pedra Branca between Malaysia and Singapore is relevant to carry out.

2112

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This article is based upon research supported in part by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) 1/2017, under project Vote 1650, University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia and Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. Any opinion, finding, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the supporting institutions.

VIII. REFERENCES

[1] Agnew, J. (2005). Sovereignty regimes: Territoriality and state authority in contemporary world politics. Annals of the association of American geographers, 95(2), 437-461. [2] Askandar, K., & Sukim, C. (2016). Making Peace over a Disputed Territory in . The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 3(1), 65-85. [3] Bodin, J., & Jean, B. (1992). Bodin: on sovereignty. Cambridge University Press. [4] Carr, E. H. (1984). The Comintern and the Spanish Civil War. Pantheon books. [5] Fukuyama, F. (2004). Nation-building 101. The Atlantic Monthly, 293(1), 159-162. [6] Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. [7] Idrus, M. M., Nor, N. F. M., & Ismail, I. S. (2014). Representing action: Transitivity and verb processes in Malaysian and Singaporean oral proceedings over Batu Puteh Island issue. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 180-183. [8] Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., & Murphy, L. D. (1997). Content analysis in leadership research: Examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 1-25. [9] Kohen, M. (2013). Original title in the light of the ICJ judgment on sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Journal of the History of International Law/Revue d'histoire du droit international, 15(2), 151-171. [10] Kuzio, T. (2002). History, memory and nation building in the post-Soviet colonial space. Nationalities Papers, 30(2), 241-264. [11] Lathrop, C. G. (2008). Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore). American Journal of International Law, 102(4), 828-834. [12] Lemay-Hébert, N. (2009). Statebuilding without nation-building? Legitimacy, state failure and the limits of the institutionalist approach. Journal of intervention and statebuilding, 3(1), 21-45. [13] Morais, J. V. (1981). Hussein Onn: A tryst with destiny. Times Books International. [14] Mutalib, S. K. S. A., & Dahari, S. N. S. (2017). The transition of registry system in the developed countries. International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 3(8), 598-601. [15] Nunn, N. (2009). The importance of history for economic development. Annu. Rev. Econ., 1(1), 65-92. [16] Okano, M. (2010). How to Deal With Border Issues: A Diplomat-Practitioner's Perspective. Eurasia Border Review, 1(1), 37-48. [17] Onuf, N. G. (1991). Sovereignty: Outline of a conceptual history. Alternatives, 16(4), 425-446. [18] Philpott, D. (1995). Sovereignty: An introduction and brief history. Journal of international affairs, 353-368. [19] Salleh, A., Razali, C. H. C. M., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Malaysia policy towards its 1963-2008 territorial disputes. Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, 1(5), 107-116. [20] Sumner, B. T. (2003). Territorial disputes at the International Court of Justice. Duke LJ, 53, 1779. [21] Tanaka, Y. (2008). Passing of Sovereignty: the Malaysia/Singapore Territorial dispute before the ICJ. Hague Justice Journal, 3(2), 5-15. [22] The International Court of Justice. (2008). Report of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders. Case Concerning Sovereingty over Pedre Branca/ Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/130/130-20080523-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf

2113