00:00Thank you for coming to this BC. This BC is about the claim that Pulau Batok Bukit or Petrobranka
00:14should, we should appeal to the ICJ for definition, explanation, etc. The decision to drop the
00:26decision to review the ICJ's decision was on the advice of experts. There were several
00:39experts who gave their opinion. The most important expert is Professor Shaw, QC. And there is
00:55also Dr. Brendan Plante, but he's not the principal. The principal is Professor Shaw, QC.
01:05And this man is an expert in international law. And their view is that, on the other
01:21hand, this is Shaw's view, that says something potentially adverse to Malaysia's interests.
01:31If we follow with questioning the ICJ, the ICJ might very well reverse their decision
01:41and we will lose even middle ground. So that is why we took time to consider. And as usual,
01:53whenever the Prime Minister, in that case, I was the Prime Minister, when I studied it,
02:00I felt that we should drop the claim. And this was conveyed to the Cabinet. The Cabinet
02:08sometimes debates, sometimes they don't. Unless if they have anything to complain or object
02:17to the decision that should be taken, they could have spoken against it. But none of them said
02:26anything. So we have to assume that all these ministers agree. And they are still in the
02:32government. These ministers are still in the government. They should actually be called as witnesses
02:39to verify whether they said anything or not. As far as we know, they didn't. Some of them should be
02:54called as witnesses. And at the hearing, the same thing is that the hearing is secret. And I wasn't
03:04called as a, I was called only as a witness. But apparently, the whole objective of the RTI was to
03:16point out that I made a wrong choice without consulting the Cabinet. That is not true. I mean, we
03:25consulted the Cabinet, we consulted the experts, and then make a decision. You have to make a decision.
03:35You can't just leave it open like that. But they are trying to say that although I informed the Cabinet,
03:45it is not valid. I don't know what they mean by being not valid. Because they were there. These were people
03:55who are ministers, and ministers normally talk. I have had instances, I've been Prime Minister twice,
04:04I had instances where my proposal was rejected by Cabinet. Members of the Cabinet rejected it.
04:13So, these people were in a position to reject my proposal, but they did not. And therefore, the decision is
04:24by the Cabinet, not just by me alone. Although they seem to keep on repeating that I made the decision all by
04:35And that is not true at all. And you know, this publication, a lot of these things are blanked out.
04:4347 pages.
04:4447 pages. So, even this document, lots of things are hidden. I mean, it should be a full document.
04:58I mean, it is something that is of interest to the public. But they issued this with this cancellation.
05:08So, this paper is presented seeming to pinpoint that I was the one who was responsible. It was not me alone.
05:22It was the Cabinet. But of course, they cannot very well charge the whole Cabinet. So, they want to charge me
05:30under criminal law. I mean, what do I gain from that? I gain nothing. It is in the interest of the country
05:40that I made that decision. And I know that middle road is valuable to us, and we can develop it.
05:49The point I would like to make here, but to charge me as a criminal, under criminal law, I have never worked for Singapore.
06:01Everybody knows that I have been very difficult with Singapore. Singapore is difficult to deal with
06:10because they keep on postponing decisions or demanding that all the problems we have with Singapore
06:17must be solved at one go. And that was not possible. So, with Singapore, we should continue talking with them
06:27to get these things resolved. But as far as Petrobranka is concerned, we have already decided to go to the ICJ
06:37and the decision of the ICJ must be accepted by us.
06:47For more UN videos visit www.un.org
Comments