REPLY OF SINGAPORE CHAPTER I — INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................1 A. The Case in Perspective...................................................................1 1. SINGAPORE’S CASE ............................................................................ 2 2. MALAYSIA’S CASE ............................................................................. 3 B. The Structure of this Reply..............................................................5 CHAPTER II — MALAYSIA HAS FAILED TO PROVE AN “ORIGINAL TITLE”.....................................................................................7 Section I. Malaysia’s Claim that Pedra Branca “Was Not Terra Nullius” Has No Basis .....................................................................7 A. MALAYSIA’S ARGUMENT THAT PEDRA BRANCA WAS PART OF THE “MALAY WORLD” IS MEANINGLESS...................................... 9 B. THE LABUAN CESSION IS IRRELEVANT TO DETERMINING THE STATUS OF PEDRA BRANCA ............................................................. 11 Section II. The 1824 Treaties Do Not Confirm Any “Original Title” ..............................................................................................16 A. THE ANGLO-DUTCH TREATY DID NOT DEAL WITH THE TERRITORIAL STATUS OF PEDRA BRANCA....................................... 16 1. The 1833 Vietnamese Envoy’s Report is Irrelevant .................. 19 2. The 1842 van Hinderstein Map Shows that Pedra Branca was not Regarded as Part of the Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate .................................................................................... 21 B. THE CRAWFURD TREATY DID NOT LIMIT BRITISH CAPACITY TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL TERRITORIES IN THE REGION................. 27 Section III. Other Malaysian Arguments..........................................................28 A. CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS WHICH DO NOT HELP MALAYSIA’S CASE.................................................................. 28 1. Malaysia’s Claim based on 17th Century Dutch Communications and the 1843 Singapore Free Press Article has been Rebutted in Singapore’s Counter- Memorial.................................................................................... 28 2. Raffles’ Observations Do Not Prove Johor’s Title.................... 29 B. MALAYSIA’S CLAIM TO ORIGINAL TITLE BASED ON “POSSESSION IMMEMORIAL” IS AN ADMISSION THAT SHE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE HER CLAIM...................................... 30 Section IV. Conclusion .....................................................................................32 i REPLY OF SINGAPORE CHAPTER III — THE REAFFIRMATION OF THE BASIS OF SINGAPORE’S TITLE TO PEDRA BRANCA ...............................................35 Section I. Introduction....................................................................................35 Section II. The Status of Pedra Branca as Terra Nullius.................................36 Section III. The Alleged Permission of Johor...................................................38 Section IV. The Taking of Possession ..............................................................44 A. INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 44 B. THE BASIS OF TITLE ......................................................................... 44 C. THE BASELESS MALAYSIAN ASSERTION THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO ESTABLISH SOVEREIGNTY ON THE PART OF THE BRITISH CROWN ................................................................... 45 D. THE BASELESS MALAYSIAN ASSERTION THAT THE ACTS INVOKED AS EVIDENCE OF TAKING POSSESSION “ARE NOT RELEVANT” ...................................................................................... 53 1. The Methodology Adopted by Malaysia ................................... 53 2. The Process of Selection of Pedra Branca as the site for the Horsburgh Lighthouse ......................................................... 54 3. The Construction of the Lighthouse was not (according to Malaysia) a Taking of Possession.......................................... 61 4. Malaysia asserts that the activity of gunboats does not constitute a manifestation of sovereignty .................................. 67 5. The Control of Public Order in the Region................................ 69 6. Malaysia asserts that the visits of British officials are not evidence of sovereignty in respect of Pedra Branca .................. 72 7. The Cutting of Rain Channels on Pedra Branca ........................ 73 8. The Display of the Marine Ensign on Pedra Branca.................. 74 Section V. Ancillary Questions Raised by Malaysia Relating to the Legal Basis of Title........................................................................76 A. MALAYSIA CONTENDS THAT THE TAKING OF POSSESSION REQUIRES A FORMAL ACT................................................................ 76 1. The Malaysian Contention and the Applicable Law.................. 76 2. Malaysia Provides No Evidence of a Requirement of a Formal Act of Taking Possession Either in British Practice or in General International Law.................................. 77 3. The Examples Cited by Malaysia are Irrelevant........................ 79 4. Conclusions: There was No Legal Condition of Formality in Taking Possession Either in Municipal Law or in the Principles of General International Law..................... 84 B. THE CRITERIA OF POSSESSION OR EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION ........... 86 C. THE ASSERTION OF MALAYSIA THAT NO PROTEST OR RESERVATION OF RIGHTS WAS CALLED FOR .................................. 88 D. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AS EVIDENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY.................... 91 Section VI. The Contemporary Attitude of Johor and the Dutch Government....................................................................................91 Section VII. Conclusion .....................................................................................92 ii REPLY OF SINGAPORE CHAPTER IV — SINGAPORE’S CONTINUOUS, PEACEFUL AND EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF STATE AUTHORITY OVER PEDRA BRANCA ...................................................................................95 Section I. Introduction....................................................................................95 Section II. The Exercise by Singapore of State Functions on Pedra Branca Was Undertaken in Confirmation of Singapore’s Pre-Existing Title.......................................................98 A. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SINGAPORE’S ACTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL AND ISSUES OF TITLE ................. 98 B. SINGAPORE’S CONDUCT ON PEDRA BRANCA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 101 Section III. The Legal Relevance of Lighthouse Activities............................108 A. THE EXAMPLES OF STATE PRACTICE RELIED UPON BY MALAYSIA ...................................................................................... 110 B. LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING SINGAPORE’S CASE ................ 118 Section IV. The Sovereign Nature of Singapore’s Continuous Exercise of Authority over Pedra Branca ....................................128 A. LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN WITH RESPECT TO PEDRA BRANCA.............................................................................. 132 B. ISSUANCE OF NOTICES TO MARINERS REGARDING PEDRA BRANCA.......................................................................................... 138 C. SINGAPORE’S CONSTANT MAINTENANCE, UPGRADING AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE LIGHTHOUSE AND THE JETTY ON PEDRA BRANCA.............................................................................. 139 D. USE OF PEDRA BRANCA FOR THE COLLECTION OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA AND MALAYSIA’S ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST IN THIS RESPECT ............................................. 142 E. THE FLYING OF THE BRITISH AND SINGAPORE ENSIGN ON PEDRA BRANCA.............................................................................. 145 F. SINGAPORE’S CONTROL OF ACCESS TO PEDRA BRANCA, OFFICIAL VISITS BY SINGAPORE OFFICIALS AND GRANTS OF PERMISSION TO CARRY OUT SURVEYS.......................................... 151 1. Official Visits to Pedra Branca ................................................ 152 2. Control of Visits by Malaysian Nationals................................ 153 3. Permissions Granted by Singapore to Third Parties ................ 155 G. SINGAPORE’S NAVAL PATROLS AND THE INSTALLATION BY SINGAPORE OF MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON PEDRA BRANCA.............................................................................. 156 1. Naval Patrols............................................................................ 156 2. The Installation of Military Communications Equipment on Pedra Branca...................................................................... 159 H. SINGAPORE’S INVESTIGATION OF NAVIGATIONAL HAZARDS, SHIPWRECKS AND INCIDENTS OF ACCIDENTAL DEATH AROUND PEDRA BRANCA ............................................................... 160 I. SINGAPORE’S RECLAMATION PLANS AROUND PEDRA BRANCA.......................................................................................... 168 Section V. Conclusions as to Singapore’s Conduct.......................................169 iii REPLY OF SINGAPORE CHAPTER V — ABSENCE OF ANY MALAYSIAN ACTS OF SOVEREIGNTY................................................................................................171 Section I. Introduction..................................................................................171 Section II. Fishing in Waters