THE Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) is out, and among others, it had recommended that a criminal no probe be initiated against former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

While it can be debated whether there is merit for such a probe, the reactions from some personalities do merit attention.

Of interest would be the reaction from former Attorney General Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali who supported the recommendation of the RCI in initiating a probe on Dr Mahathir.

But if Apandi had read the RCI report in its entirety, he would have discovered that the RCI found him wanting.

This is especially over Apandi’s move to confine the research and legal team he headed to only those he chose and appointed. The RCI believed that for such an important matter involving the sovereignty of the nation, all relevant Government agencies should have been involved.

The RCI was also of the opinion that Apandi had committed a detrimental act which should never be emulated.

Apandi is central in the whole issue as he originally initiated the move to file for review and interpretation of the Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the time he was AG under the Najib administration.

However, when Najib Razak was ousted as the Prime Minister following the loss of Umno/Barisan Nasional in the 2018 polls, Dr Mahathir became the PM, and Apandi was asked to go on garden leave.

Dr Mahathir had asked Apandi to go on leave primarily because he was perceived to have been actively involved in the cover-up of the 1MDB scandal.

(Note: The perception was affirmed during Apandi Ali’s suit against Lim Kit Siang whereby the High Court judge Azimah Omar gave a damning verdict of Apandi’s culpability in the 1MDB scandal, describing him as having abetted the crime and covering it up. The Appeals Court judges unanimously upheld Azimah’s decision).

If the public had taken time to reflect on what led to the RCI in the first place, Dr Mahathir would have opposed the setting up of the initial special task force because it was headed by Apandi.

To him, Apandi, who by then had already been implicated by the courts for his complicity in the 1MDB scandal, had no moral standing nor integrity to be part of a Government initiative.

And today, Apandi, who the RCI had pointed out to be incompetent, had the gall to back the probe initiated against Dr Mahathir.

That is Apandi.

Equally baffling is Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s use of the word treachery when commenting on the RCI’s recommendation and said that the previous Government, namely the Dr Mahathir-led PH (Pakatan Harapan) administration should have fought for every inch of Malaysia’s territory.

“The RCI revealed weaknesses, and from a certain angle, treachery. This is not something to be taken lightly. Any misconduct related to the handing over of our sovereignty is major treachery.

“But the legal process must be respected, so we will allow that to take place.”

Firstly, the decision not to proceed with the review and interpretation has nothing to do with the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh.

Pulau Batu Puteh was already lost in 2008 when the then legal team failed in their bid at the ICJ against the Singapore representatives.

However, the ICJ decided that the Middle Rocks belonged to Malaysia while the Southern Ledge was still up for grabs.

The basis for Malaysia’s loss of Pulau Batu Puteh in 2008 was pinned on a 1953 letter from the Johore Acting State Secretary to the Colonial Secretary in Singapore which among others stated:

“Johor does not claim ownership over Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh.”

So, what the Apandi legal team was trying to do was to seek a review and interpretation of the 2008 loss of Pulau Batu Puteh.

What Dr Mahathir did was disagree with the effort to seek a review and interpretation because the possibility of Malaysia getting its way is highly improbable.

That is the crux of the RCI of whether Dr Mahathir had made the right decision on not wanting to pursue the review.

Dr Mahathir had, according to his lawyer Rafique Rashid, pointed out that apart from the possibility of the ICJ agreeing to Malaysia’s request was quite thin, there was also concern that the interpretation may go against Malaysia meaning that what Malaysia had been awarded in the 2008 decision may be reversed.

It is against this backdrop that Dr Mahathir came to the decision which he conveyed to his Cabinet to which the members during the meeting had agreed with his opinion.

Of course, the opinion of one member, who chose to be silent during the Cabinet meeting but attempted to influence Dr Mahathir on the sidelines, is of no consequence.

No member of the Cabinet or the Government who is of consequence would want to do things behind the backs of his or her colleagues.

And Dr Mahathir had, be it from the Cabinet meeting to the RCI, always wanted everything to be open and not kept in secrecy.

Anyone planning to deceive and mislead would opt for secrecy, not openness.

Also of essence, since certain people are concerned about treachery, they may have forgotten that those close to them were part of the administration alleged to be treacherous.

A number of those in the current administration are privy and party.