I UNDERSTAND that the task force appointed by the present government to examine the case of Pulau Batu Puteh has come out with an interim report which was presented to Johor ruler Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar a few days ago. 

The special task force is headed by the former Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali who was sacked from his post after the Pakatan Harapan government took power in May 2018. 

The Pulau Batu Puteh (including Middle Rock and South Ledge) lies off the east coast of Johor and was under the sovereignty of the Johor Sultanate a for a few hundred years before the advent of the British colonial era that resulted in the occupation of Singapore and other places. 

With the advent of the British administration, effective control of the island went to the British in Singapore and the subsequent construction of a lighthouse on the island went ahead despite protests by the Johor Sultanate. 

I understand in a letter dated 1924 that the Johor Sultanate had recognised the British administration in Singapore as an effective authority. 

Fast forward to the present day where the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh came to question after Malaysia published a map in 1979 in which the island was included as within the territorial ambit of Malaysia. 

After a flurry of diplomatic discussions, it was jointly agreed by both Singapore and Malaysia that the matter be adjudicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands. 

In May 23, 2008, the court decided that sovereignty belongs to Singapore and not Malaysia. 

The decision was predicated on the grounds of which country held effective authority over the island and on the notion of terra nullius – in other words, it was an uninhabited island. 

The fact that the Orang Laut from Johor and other nearby places had used the island for rest had never dawned on the ICJ. 

It is just like saying that Australia was uninhabited before the arrival of the British. 

The fact was that the natives had emerged from the background to wave to Captain James Cook and his men as they left the shore was lost upon the British. 

I think that Malaysia should have withstood the pressure for the referral to ICJ by fully exploiting the diplomatic option. 

The urge to settle the matter was the reason why Malaysia had failed to secure the island of no economic value but of immense maritime and strategic value. 

The decision by the ICJ was politically problematic to Malaysia – how could such a territory be lost when it was an integral part of the once-famous Johor Empire. 

Under Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s government, there was an attempt to pursue a judicial review the ICJ’s earlier decision with the m atter being entrusted to Apandi who was then the Attorney-General. 

It was said that some new evidence had been unearthed that might be useful for the judicial review of the case. 

But then, the Barisan Nasional government fell in May 2018 and was succeeded by the Pakatan Harapan government with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as the prime minister. 

Mahathir, after being advised by experts on the matter, had then decided to put an end to the judicial appeal and said that such an appeal would have made no sense as the matter was already decided on the basis of joint appeal years ago. 

By this time the Pakatan government had removed Apandi from his position as Attorney-General. 

The special task force with Apandi as chairperson was set up to find out why Malaysia had lost its claim and what new evidence had surfaced in order to resurrect the case. 

Whether or not there is provision for judicial review after the case was already decided in 2008 remains up in the air. 

I am not sure whether the inclusion of new evidence can be permitted for a judicial review after so many years have passed. 

If international law permits, there is nothing wrong for Malaysia to pursue a judicial review although I am not sure about the nature and significance of these so-called new evidence. 

Is it a bluff or something very political nature designed to embarrass Mahathir or the former Pakatan government? 

It was previously agreed that it was bad politics on the Pakatan government’s end to not pursue a judicial review, immaterial of the case’s merits. 

However, the absence of an appeal had been seized by certain quarters in the present Government to blame the former Pakatan government for giving up on Pulau Batu Puteh without a fight. 

Apandi might be the former Attorney-General who was involved in the case, but he is hardly objective to be made the head of the task force.  

He might have an axe to grind against former prime minister Mahathir, the person behind his abrupt removal from the Attorney-General post. 

I am not sure about the contents of the interim report presented to the Sultan of Johor but it will be interesting to find out whether Apandi has come out with new evidence to be adduced to stake the country’s claim on Pulau Batu Puteh. 

Wittingly or unwittingly, Apandi might not be the right person to spearhead Malaysia’s continued and incessant quest to include the Pulau Batu Putih or Pedra Blanca as within its sovereignty. 

A line has to be drawn as to what is plausible and what is political madness. – May 17, 2022 

Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also deputy chief minister II of Penang. 

https://focusmalaysia.my/is-pulau-batu-puteh-special-task-force-out-to-shame-former-pakatan-govt/