Malaysia failed to claim Pulau Batu Putih despite strong historical credentials
By Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy
MALAYSIA’s sixth prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had lambasted his mentor-turned-nemesis, Malaysia’s fourth and seventh prime minister Tun Mahathir Mohammed, for giving up the claim on Pulau Batu Putih.
The rocky island off the coast of Johor has no economic value but is of strategic importance.
The long maritime dispute between Singapore and Malaysia as to who is the rightful claimant was referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
This was after numerous diplomatic efforts failed to resolve as to who was the rightful claimant to the island.
In 2008, the verdict of the ICJ turned the island over to Singapore.
Why the matter was referred to the ICJ remains a mystery until today, as it happened during the Mahathir administration.
Mahathir must answer the question as to why the matter was jointly referred to the ICJ when other diplomatic paths could have been pursued.
Since Singapore stands to gain much from its long term relationship with Malaysia, such an advantage could have been pursued diplomatically to bring Pulau Batu Putih within Malaysia’s control.
In fact, appearing before the court to argue its case, Singapore’s legal team was more thoroughly prepared than Malaysia.
The island was given to Singapore not because the island state had any strong historical claims but rather because the city state could put a fine and competent defence team to win the case.
I was even told that although Malaysia had a strong case and could have had possibly won the island, the facts presented was not watertight and lacked competency.
Mahathir has to answer for this colossal failure.
He should not try to blame others, which is a familiar trait of his if something goes wrong.
(Photo credit: JohorKini)
When he was the seventh prime minister, Mahathir again did not attempt to appeal for a judicial review of the matter, or in other words, appeal the earlier decision of the ICJ.
Mahathir was wrongly advised that Malaysia had no chance of winning the appeal and that the cost of the appeal was too high.
Mahathir had the chance, but again he fumbled on the matter.
It was not for the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government or Mahathir to decide against the appeal on grounds that they had no chance whatsoever.
They should have left the appeal to be decided by the ICJ or the Appeals Court.
Who knows, Malaysia might have won the appeal.
It was not for the government under Mahathir to decide as to whether the matter was winnable or not.
For failing to appeal by citing irrational arguments, Mahathir must answer to the Malaysian public as to why he failed to retrieve Pulau Batu Putih.
I am not sure how a task force is formed to ascertain whether the government of Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob can proceed with the judicial review of the earlier decision by the ICJ to give the Pulau Batu Putih to Singapore.
I am not sure if Malaysia has a chance after a gap of 13 years.
But it is certainly worth the try, although I have my doubts that the hurriedly-formed task force can address the matter.
It is not really a task force in the usual sense of the concept but a hastily formed committee tasked to perform a political drama.
The task force on Pulau Batu Putih seems more politically motivated rather than genuinely being interested in addressing the issue Pulau Batu Putih that has symbolic and strategic value to Malaysia.
I still think it might be too late to pursue a diplomatic line in working on the long term interests of both Malaysia and Singapore.
Anyway, if it is still possible to appeal the earlier decision of the ICJ, then it must be done.
All legal avenues must be exhausted before the diplomatic option is considered again.
Alternatively, Malaysia might even want to think of the future possible scenario of joint ownership for the promotion of the geo-political interests of both countries.
I hate to say this, but Najib might be right in saying that it was none other than Mahathir who is responsible for losing Pulau Batu Putih to Singapore.
Not that he (Mahathir) willingly gave it up, but he failed to mount a serious challenge to Singapore’s claim to the island.
Malaysia lost the matter in the ICJ because the legal case was not well prepared and articulated compared to Singapore.
When Mahathir was the seventh prime minister, he had failed to appeal the matter on grounds of winnability and cost.
It is not too late to revisit the case of Pulau Batu Putih again but time might not be on Malaysia’s side. – Oct 13, 2021
When he was the seventh prime minister, Mahathir again did not attempt to appeal for a judicial review of the matter, or in other words, appeal the earlier decision of the ICJ.
Mahathir was wrongly advised that Malaysia had no chance of winning the appeal and that the cost of the appeal was too high.
Mahathir had the chance, but again he fumbled on the matter.
It was not for the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government or Mahathir to decide against the appeal on grounds that they had no chance whatsoever.
They should have left the appeal to be decided by the ICJ or the Appeals Court.
Who knows, Malaysia might have won the appeal.
It was not for the government under Mahathir to decide as to whether the matter was winnable or not.
For failing to appeal by citing irrational arguments, Mahathir must answer to the Malaysian public as to why he failed to retrieve Pulau Batu Putih.
I am not sure how a task force is formed to ascertain whether the government of Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob can proceed with the judicial review of the earlier decision by the ICJ to give the Pulau Batu Putih to Singapore.
I am not sure if Malaysia has a chance after a gap of 13 years.
But it is certainly worth the try, although I have my doubts that the hurriedly-formed task force can address the matter.
It is not really a task force in the usual sense of the concept but a hastily formed committee tasked to perform a political drama.
The task force on Pulau Batu Putih seems more politically motivated rather than genuinely being interested in addressing the issue Pulau Batu Putih that has symbolic and strategic value to Malaysia.
I still think it might be too late to pursue a diplomatic line in working on the long term interests of both Malaysia and Singapore.
Anyway, if it is still possible to appeal the earlier decision of the ICJ, then it must be done.
All legal avenues must be exhausted before the diplomatic option is considered again.
Alternatively, Malaysia might even want to think of the future possible scenario of joint ownership for the promotion of the geo-political interests of both countries.
I hate to say this, but Najib might be right in saying that it was none other than Mahathir who is responsible for losing Pulau Batu Putih to Singapore.
Not that he (Mahathir) willingly gave it up, but he failed to mount a serious challenge to Singapore’s claim to the island.
Malaysia lost the matter in the ICJ because the legal case was not well prepared and articulated compared to Singapore.
When Mahathir was the seventh prime minister, he had failed to appeal the matter on grounds of winnability and cost.
It is not too late to revisit the case of Pulau Batu Putih again but time might not be on Malaysia’s side. – Oct 13, 2021
 |
everything he touched - Proton, Forex, Maminco, Makuwasa, BMF, UMNO, Pakatan, Perwaja, Pulau Batu Putih, Bangsa Malaysia, etc etc etc - turned upside down into sh*t |
Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also deputy chief minister II of Penang
I think "Professor" Ramasamy is infected, like a number others, with "Hentam Mahathir by any means and on any subject necessary".
ReplyDeleteWhy investigate only the failure to appeal? Why not investigate the original tribunal hearing which was bungled by the earlier BN gomen who was caught trying to deceive the ICJ?
ReplyDeleteQUOTE
In May 2008, the (ICJ) court, comprising 16 eminent judges, ruled in Singapore's favour.
....Mat Zain's SD contains details of his Aug 10 dinner meeting with former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and former Commercial Crime Investigations Department chief Ramli Yusuff.
Among other issues, the meeting saw the posse of high-profile individuals discussing the Anwar's black eye incident as well as Batu Puteh, according to Mat Zain's SD.
The SD states that Shafee had informed Mat Zain of Mahathir's displeasure with Gani, who led Malaysia's legal team at the ICJ, for allegedly concealing some vital facts.
Back in 2008, Mahathir had made his disapproval known, stating that "Singapore sent their chief justice and a lawyer who used to work with the United Nations. We only sent our attorney-general, who is not very famous".
Caught red-handed
Mat Zain said the Malaysian delegation to the ICJ led by Gani had submitted, as evidence, a controversial photograph that was retrieved from, of all places, an anonymous blog.
This photograph depicted Batu Puteh in close proximity to Johor, but another photograph submitted by the Singapore delegation disputed the authenticity of the photograph.
Mat Zain described the submission of the "concocted" photograph as a form of deception that severely hurt Malaysia's case.
"I am of the view that we did not lose the island because of a lack of evidence or facts, historical or otherwise.
"The team was ill-prepared, coupled with the fact that they were caught red-handed by ICJ while attempting to deceive them into believing that the island is within close proximity to our mainland by introducing a photograph that was ‘concocted'.
"I would not think the ICJ would be so unkind to us to award Singapore the outright ownership of Batu Puteh.
"At the very most, they would have formulated some kind of mechanism for a joint-ownership, or ‘twin sharing', of the island. This would come if the court recognised that Johor once had sovereignty over the island," Mat Zain said.
He then drew parallels to the submission of the ‘doctored' photograph with his allegations that Gani had fabricated evidence in the course of investigations into Anwar's black-eye incident. At the time, Mat Zain was the investigating officer.
....Gani, who was then a senior deputy public prosecutor, introduced a medical report by Dr Abdul Rahman Yusoff that states Anwar's injuries could have been self-inflicted.
"Having dealt with Gani many times in the past, including the black eye case, where I was the investigating officer, I know what he is capable of," Mat Zain told Malaysiakini.
The contents of a book titled 'Pedra Branca: The Road to the World Court' written by former Singapore minister S Jayakumar and lawyer Tommy Koh, seem to concur with Mat Zain's claim.
The authors claimed, as highlighted in a Free Malaysia Today report, that the Malaysian delegation had employed some questionable tactics during the trial, which they claim was a display of "a certain sense of desperation".
Jayakumar and Koh claim that the Malaysian delegation deliberately translated a text wrongly, suppressed parts of quotations used to support their arguments and adduced the distorted photograph as evidence.
On the preparedness of the Malaysian delegation, Mat Zain said the inclusion of Gani's son, Faezul Adzra, who graduated from UiTM no more than two years earlier, in the ICJ hearing seemed to suggest that the Malaysian team lacked the necessary experience and firepower.
"This leads to another question: Are there no other capable or senior persons to assist Malaysia's legal team?" he said....
UNQUOTE
KT's title is misleading. Toonsie did not "lose" the island. It was already lost by the BN gomen in 2008. Toonsie did not try to gain it back in 2018, for that he must explain.
ReplyDeleteMalaysia is looking like sore losers. Unfortunately, the decision was against Malaysia and so, Pedra Branca was awarded to Singapore.
ReplyDeleteNow we talk about judicial review, diplomacy and joint ownership.
When will our incompetent elites wake up that they were bested. As Zaid said Singapore won their case fair and square.
Anyone who thinks that Singapore will hand over 50% ownership of Pedra Branca must have his head examined. And don't hope for Singapore to agree to reopen the case since the 10-year period to adduce new information is over.
We cannot ride roughshod over Singapore the way the Malay establishment ride roughshod over the nons in Malaysia.