Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said none of his Cabinet members raised objections in 2018 when Malaysia decided not to proceed with applications to review or interpret the 2008 International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision on Pulau Batu Puteh (or Pedra Branca).
Dr Mahathir said this in response to the findings of last week’s Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into sovereignty issues involving Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge. The report suggested that the former prime minister may have acted unilaterally in deciding not to file applications to review or interpret the 2008 ICJ ruling on the Batu Puteh territorial claim.
Speaking at a press conference today, Dr Mahathir, said members of his Cabinet in 2018 were informed of Malaysia’s decision not to pursue the review and interpret application.
“All those present at the Cabinet meeting could have raised any complaints or objections, but none did. We can assume they all agreed with the decision,” he said.
“Some of them should be called as witnesses.”
Among those present in the Cabinet meeting Dr Mahathir was referring to included former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, former finance minister Lim Guang Eng, former home affairs minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, former defence minister Mohamad Sabu, transport minister Anthony Loke and former economic affairs minister Datuk Seri Azmin Ali.
“If I was treacherous, then the whole Cabinet, including the deputy prime minister (at the time), was also treacherous,” Dr Mahathir added.
Dr Mahathir had also said that the RCI into Batu Puteh was politically motivated, adding he welcomed a criminal investigation against him as it would be an opportunity to clear his name.
The RCI findings, tabled in the Dewan Rakyat last week, proposed that a criminal investigation be brought against Dr Mahathir. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim later said the RCI’s findings on Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge revealed a failure tantamount to treachery.
Dr Mahathir today said that legal experts had also opined that any proposed review of the ICJ’s decision would fail as there was a slim chance of success. He also said the decision not to pursue the applications was made for Malaysia’s benefit as the Middle Rocks awarded to Malaysia were considered to be more valuable than Pulau Batu Puteh, which was awarded to Singapore.
Earlier, Dr Mahathir explained that when Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia decided to refer territorial claims on Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge to the ICJ, all three nations had given an undertaking that they would accept whatever decision was made by the ICJ.
The ICJ had in 2008 ruled that Batu Puteh belonged to Singapore while Middle Rocks belonged to Malaysia. It also ruled that the ownership of South Ledge would be determined based on the delimitation of territorial waters.
“So when we got the results on Pedra Blanca or Pulau Batu Puteh, we were bound to accept the ICJ’s decision. If we don’t accept and we queried the finding, then we are not honouring our promise,” Dr Mahathir said.
Malaysia had filed an application to review ICJ’s ruling in 2017 but it was withdrawn in May 2018.
According to the RCI report, Dr Mahathir had a briefing with international consultant Dr Brendan Plant on May 17, 2018.
Following the briefing, Dr Mahathir informed through a letter dated May 21, 2018, to then-solicitor-general Datuk Engku Nor Faizah Engku Atek, of the decision not to proceed with a move to review and interpret the ICJ decision.
The report said Dr Mahathir subsequently informed the Cabinet of the decision in its May 23 meeting in 2018,and it took note of the matter.
“On the morning of May 23, before the Cabinet met, Engku Nor Faizah had acted on the prime minister’s letter and written to the Attorney-General of Singapore informing of the Malaysian government’s intention not to proceed with the application for review and interpretation,” the report said.
In his witness statement to the RCI, Dr Mahathir said he did not decide on the matter in his May 21 letter to the solicitor-general but had only voiced his opinion.
Dr Mahathir also claimed that the decision not to proceed with the review and interpretation applications was made by the Cabinet at its May 23 meeting. The RCI determined that the Cabinet “simply confirmed” Dr Mahathir’s view.
The report also said Dr Mahathir decided not to proceed with the application because of the Special Agreement between Malaysia and Singapore to abide by the ICJ’s decision and not file an appeal.
Dr Mahathir had during the RCI hearing said Malaysia had a weak case in convincing ICJ to review its decision based on three facts.
He said the conclusion that Malaysia had a weak case was based on legal opinions from international consultants furnished by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) and the meeting and briefing with Plant.
However, the RCI report concluded that based on the witness statements, no such legal opinions were given either by the local or international consultants appointed by the government.
The commission also said that it was of the view that what Dr Mahathir had told the Cabinet (that the basis to convince the ICF to review its decision was weak) was his personal opinion.
The RCI added that the Cabinet was also not furnished with the consultants’ legal views or any related documents to the appeal.
