WAS it treachery on the part of twice former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to unilaterally withdraw the government’s appeals against the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision in May 2008 which recognised Singapore’s sovereignty over the island of Batu Puteh?

Such a characterisation may not be entirely accurate. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s recent statements seem more politically-charged than a neutral analysis of the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the appeals.

While Dr Mahathir made the final decision, it was reportedly based on the advice of a group of experts. Blaming him solely for the outcome may oversimplify the issue.

As the head of government at the time, Dr Mahathir ultimately bore responsibility for the decision. However, it is worth considering whether the appeals should have been left to the ICJ for a final resolution.

The ICJ’s 2008 ruling granted sovereignty over Batu Puteh to Singapore, recognised Middle Rocks as Malaysian territory, and deemed South Ledge to belong to the nation in whose territorial waters it was located.

Politically-motivated

However, Dr Mahathir’s choice to withdraw the appeals may have been a political misstep given the potential for it to be weaponised against him later. Whether this action constituted treachery, however, is debatable.

The purpose of the recent Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Batu Puteh remains ambiguous.

Was it intended to review the ICJ’s decision or was it aimed at scrutinising Dr Mahathir’s administration from 2018 to 2020?

While the sovereignty of Batu Puteh is undoubtedly significant, whether Malaysia had a strong case for sovereignty is another matter altogether.

Dr Mahathir has previously stated that based on expert advice, Malaysia’s chances of regaining sovereignty over Batu Puteh were slim.

This, combined with concerns over the financial burden of pursuing the case, reportedly influenced the decision to withdraw the appeals.

Anwar’s criticism of Dr Mahathir seems politically motivated, especially in light of the findings of the RCI report recently presented to Parliament.

However, Anwar’s certainty about the outcome had the appeals proceeded is speculative. Would Batu Puteh have been returned to Malaysia? This remains unclear.

It is also worth noting that Batu Puteh’s future is not necessarily sealed. Through diplomatic efforts, Malaysia might still have a chance to reclaim the rocky island off the coast of Johor.

Historically, it was part of the Johor Empire and was used by Johorean fishermen.

Singapore’s claim that it was a no-man’s island can be contested, similar to how colonial powers historically dismissed the presence of indigenous populations, as seen with Captain James Cook’s disregard for the aboriginal people of Australia.

While Dr Mahathir’s decision to withdraw the appeals might have been unwise, branding it as treachery is a step too far. The debate surrounding Batu Puteh reflects larger questions about sovereignty, political accountability and the complexities of international law. – Dec 7, 2024

Former DAP stalwart and Penang chief minister II Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is chairman of the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) interim council. 

https://focusmalaysia.my/tun-m-batu-puteh-the-politics-of-sovereignty-treachery-misjudgement-or-vendetta/