MALAYSIA wrapped up its Pedra Branca arguments by repeating its charge that Singapore was out to upset longstanding maritime arrangements.

In making the closing address, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, who is the Foreign Affairs Adviser to Malaysia's Prime Minister, resurfaced various allegations which Singapore had rebutted on Monday.

He said: 'A decision in favour of Singapore would impose another maritime regime in the area, impacting on existing maritime delimitation and jurisdiction between Malaysia and Indonesia.'

The 12-day hearing drew to a close late Friday night Singapore time, after Malaysia's rebuttals.

Tan Sri Abdul Kadir also brought up again the complaints against Singapore's reclamation plans and naval patrols in the seas around Pedra Branca.

He claimed the sea patrols had deprived Johor fishermen of their traditional fishing grounds.

'The court will, I hope, understand our concerns, which Singapore has done nothing to address before you but has in fact aggravated,' he said.

On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar had rebutted those allegations as baseless and scaremongering.

On the reclamation charge, he said Singapore would never do anything to threaten navigational safety, security or the environment in the Singapore Strait.

He also pointed out that no Malaysian fishing in the waters near Pedra Branca had ever been arrested by Singapore.

During the final sitting, Malaysia also sought to defend its map of 1979 which had sparked the dispute.

On Monday, DPM Jayakumar had told the court that Malaysia's map drew official protests not just from Singapore, but from seven of its neighbouring countries.

That map, he said, surely suggested it was Malaysia, not Singapore, which was seeking to challenge the existing legal order.

Tan Sri Abdul Kadir's response was that Malaysia published the map to make clear what it regarded as its territorial seas.

'How else to resolve maritime and boundary issues than to set out a position after due consideration and offer to negotiate unresolved issues?' he asked.

On Malaysia's insinuation the week before that Singapore may have hidden letters from the court, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir claimed that Monday was the first time Malaysia had been informed that Singapore did not possess the letters.

But Singapore had said so in its written pleadings submitted earlier to the ICJ.

Malaysia also sought to debunk Singapore's call for the court to decide the case based on which party had carried out more state activities on the island, if the issue of title should prove 'indeterminate'.

By that, Singapore meant a situation in which the court found it difficult to decide which side can claim title to the island.

On Friday, Malaysia's counsel James Crawford said that in putting forward that argument, Singapore was trying to have 'a second bite of the cherry'.

Singapore's argument was not valid in this case, he added, since title was not 'indeterminate' but clearly lay with Johor.

'It is improper at that stage for a party, having lost the argument on the substance, then to invoke indeterminacy and have a second bite of the cherry,' he said.

The verdict is expected next year.