Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.26 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill amends the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act to: (a) enable Singapore to give effect to the 2018 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention; and, (b) provide a statutory basis for an approved financial security provider who has paid a seafarer for certain liabilities owed by a shipowner to the seafarer, to acquire the seafarer's rights against the shipowner in respect of the liabilities.

Let me highlight the key provisions of the Bill.

First, clauses 3 to 5 amend the Act to enhance employment protection for seafarers in captivity. Should a seafarer be held captive on or off a ship as a result of an act of piracy and armed robbery against the ship, the seafarer's employment agreement continues to have effect during the period of captivity. This is regardless of whether the date fixed for the expiry of the seafarer's employment agreement has passed or either party to the seafarer's employment agreement has given notice to suspend or terminate it.

Further, a captive seafarer's wages and entitlements must continue to be paid during the period of captivity, until the day the seafarer is released and duly repatriated, or until the seafarer's death while in captivity. The seafarer's employer is also obligated to repatriate the seafarer upon release from captivity.

Besides enhancing employment protection for seafarers in captivity, we are making another amendment to facilitate the acquisition of a seafarer's rights by an approved financial security provider which provides insurance or other financial security required under the Act to shipowners. Clause 6 facilitates the transfer to and vesting in the financial security provider of a seafarer's rights against a shipowner as a result of any liability arising from the shipowner's obligation to repatriate the seafarer. For example, the liability to pay the seafarer's wages and entitlements. It amends the Act to provide a statutory basis for the financial security provider to acquire such rights if the provider has paid the seafarer under a contract of insurance or other financial security for such liability.

To conclude, the provisions in this Bill will help protect seafarers' welfare and enhance Singapore's international reputation as a responsible maritime nation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.29 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill, which seeks to enhance protection for seafarers who have been held captive on or off a ship as result of an act of piracy or armed robbery against the ship. My comments today on the Bill are from an employment perspective.

While the amendments to the Employment Act last year are no doubt commendable, the EA does not cover seafarers. Seafarers' employment rights and obligations are governed by the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act which is to be amended this time round. I have spoken to my sisters and brothers at the Singapore Maritime Officers' Union and the Singapore Organisation of Seamen and am pleased to share that they stand in full support of this deck of amendments.

Broadly speaking, the amendments to the Bill provide that where seafarers are held captive due to acts of piracy or armed robbery against the ship, the following will apply, during the period of captivity: first, the seafarer's employment agreement continues to have effect during the period of captivity; second, the seafarer's wages and other entitlements under their employment contracts or collective agreements must continue to be paid; and third, the seafarer will be entitled to repatriation upon his or her release.

The amendments to the Bill are timely in view of the recent sea robbery incidents. In December 2019, The Straits Times reported that pirates launched two attacks on separate vessels in the Singapore Strait within two hours of each other.

In the first incident, three perpetrators had entered the engine room and one of them was armed with a knife. Two of the crew members were subsequently discovered to be tied up. In the second incident, six intruders had attacked the ship and tied another two crew members up in the engine room.

CNA also reported that sea robbery incidents in the Singapore Strait had hit a four-year high in 2019, with a grand total of 31 such incidents, which is in stark contrast to the 17 reported incidents from 2016 to 2018.

Collectively, these incidents show how seafarers are increasingly vulnerable to acts of piracy or armed robbery on board the ship as well as the risks they undertake to perform their jobs as well. Accordingly, it is necessary that the laws be enhanced to offer protection to seafarers in terms of continuity of employment, payment of wages, benefits and repatriation entitlements during such periods of captivity. That is the least we can do to alleviate the financial and emotional burdens of seafarers held captive at sea through no fault of theirs.

While I am fully supportive of the amendments to the Bill, I have the following questions for the Senior Minister of State.

First, is there a reason for the sudden spike in sea robbery incidents in 2019 as compared to the previous years? I understand it is attributable in part to lack of enforcement measures. What would be the other reasons and would the Senior Minister of State be able to provide more details on that?

Second, does the Senior Minister of State foresee that the rising number of sea robbery incidents is a cause for concern, especially in view of Singapore's prominence as a global maritime hub? If so, would the Senior Minister of State be able to share some of the enforcement measures that are to be implemented to combat such crimes such that seafarers and vessels sailing through Singapore waters are assured of their safety. It is crucial that the measures implemented are effective as there would be knock-on effects on Singapore's position as a financial hub as well as the livelihood of seafarers.

Third, what is presently being done and what more can be done to help families and relatives of seafarers who have been held captive at sea? I am sure they experience a deep sense of helplessness and despair in such situations.

Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.

6.33 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. In 2016, we amended our laws in accordance with the Maritime Labour Convention or MLC, to improve protections for crew abandoned by their shipowners by mandating shipowners' procuring of financial security. This ensures that seafarers are fairly compensated in the event of death or long-term disability due to occupational injury, illness or hazard.

In view of last year's spate of sea robberies in our waters, which has reached a four-year high, it is commendable that we are seeking amendments to this Act to duly compensate seafarers in the event of an abduction in an armed robbery or piracy incident. I am supportive of this move to bolster the labour protection for seafarers, a vulnerable group of workers who are exceptionally excluded from the Employment Act.

To the proposed amendments, I would like to raise five clarifications.

My first clarification is on the reporting of abductions. Given that captive seafarers must continue to be paid wages and other entitlements during their captivity, errant shipowners may make false claims of the whereabouts of the abducted seafarer in the event of an armed robbery or piracy incident.

Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what measures will the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore or MPA put in place to ensure all cases of crew abductions are truthfully and accurately reported? What punitive measures does the MPA intend to take against errant shipowners?

My second clarification is on the period of salary payment. The new section 20(7A) provides that the seafarer's wages and other entitlements must continue to be paid during the seafarer's period of captivity until the seafarer's release and repatriation, or the date of the seafarer's death. Further, the effect of the new section 12A is that the seafarer's employment agreement continues to have effect during the captivity period regardless of the date of expiry of the agreement or any termination notice.

It is possible that a seafarer's life, safety and whereabouts will be unknown while in captivity. It appears from the Bill that in the instance that a seafarer is held captive for an extended period and it cannot be confirmed if he or she is dead, the shipowners will be required to continue paying wages and other entitlements indefinitely.

While I am supportive of the protective rationale of these amendments, shipowners have a strong incentive to avoid making these payments for an abducted seafarer.

How will the MPA ensure that shipowners will continue to make these payments? In the event that shipowners are unable to make payment, what funds are available to cover the shortfall in wages and entitlements to be paid to the abducted seafarer?

My third point is on terrorism-linked kidnappings. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill seek to protect the seafarer in the event of an abduction related to an armed robbery or piracy incident.

We have seen kidnap-for-ransom incidents perpetrated by terrorist organisations in the region. Notably, the Philippines-based Abu Sayyaf terrorist group has carried out a number of kidnappings of seafarers in regional waters. Most recently, in June 2019, 10 gunmen from Abu Sayyaf kidnapped 10 fishermen off the coast of Sabah, Malaysia.

Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if these amendments will cover abductions linked to terrorism? In other words, will the abducted seafarer be remitted his due wages and entitlements in the case of terrorism?

The fourth issue I would like to raise is a proposal on post-release support programmes for abducted seafarers. A study titled "The Long-term Impact of Maritime Piracy on Seafarers' Behavioral Health and Work Decisions" found that one in four former hostages showed symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Given that victims of other types of trauma, such as assault and sexual harassment, can tap on numerous avenues for counselling and support, the same should be made available for abducted seafarers, even if such victims are rarer.

Will the Senior Minister of State consider introducing post-release support programmes for abducted seafarers?

My fifth and final point is on protections for Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that various parts of the Act will cover Singapore ships wherever they may be and non-Singapore flagged ships in Singapore. The Act does not seem to apply to Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if the protections accorded by these amendments will be extended to Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships if they are abducted in a piracy incident outside of Singapore's territorial waters? If not, what protections and recourse are available to them?

Sir, with more than 1,000 ships passing through the Singapore Strait every day and more than 4,400 Singapore-flagged ships on our registry, this amendment will ensure that abducted seafarers and their families will be adequately compensated. This Bill will align Singapore with the 2018 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention or MLC. As such, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min.

6.38 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay for their comments and support of the Bill. Let me address the points they have raised.

To address Mr Louis Ng's query on MPA's measures against errant shipowners who wilfully misreport abductions, there are existing measures to address this. Currently, all Singapore-registered shipowners are required to put in place procedures for reporting shipboard security incidents, including incidents of abduction, under Chapter XI-2 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Regulations.

To ensure timely reporting of abductions, MPA has issued shipping circulars to the shipping community to remind shipowners and ship-masters to send reports of any attacks or attempted attacks on board their ships immediately to the Rescue Coordination Centre for the area and to MPA. A shipowner who knowingly or recklessly makes a false report of a shipboard security incident commits an offence under section 194 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Such an offence is punishable with a fine not exceeding $10,000, or an imprisonment term not exceeding two years, or both.

Mr Ng also asked if shipowners will be required to continue paying for wages and other entitlements indefinitely for cases where the seafarer's whereabouts are unknown and the seafarer's death cannot be confirmed, and whether there would be a sunset clause built into the subsidiary legislation.

The intent of the amendment is that the shipowner must continue to pay the wages of the captive seafarer until the seafarer is released from captivity and repatriated or until the death of the seafarer while in captivity. In circumstances where it is believed that the seafarer has died, a presumption of death certificate may be applied for through the court.

Mr Ng also asked if the amendments will cover abductions related to terrorism, for example, kidnapping for ransom by a terrorist group. The Bill seeks to enable Singapore to implement the 2018 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention, which require shipowners to continue to pay seafarers their due wages and entitlements in the event of an abduction in an "armed robbery" or "piracy" incident. Under international law, whether a specific terrorist act can fall within the definitions of "armed robbery" or "piracy" depends on the facts of the case.

Shipowners may further take on additional insurance cover for terrorism, in which case, seafarers will be compensated their wages and entitlements in instances of abductions related to terrorism. Seafarers also have a right to terminate their contracts upon giving notice, which they could choose to exercise if the ships they are on will traverse or journey through high-risk areas.

On Mr Ng's fourth point about post-release support programmes, we will bring that back and study the proposal.

On his last query on whether Singaporeans on non-Singapore-flagged ships will be protected under this amendment, I am happy to update Mr Ng that actually, most other shipping companies also need to abide by the MLC, whether they operate Singapore-flagged ships or not. As many countries are MLC countries, Singaporeans who are working on non-Singapore-flagged ships should be covered under the 2018 amendments.

Next, to address Mr Patrick Tay's query on reasons for the spike in piracy and armed robbery (PAR) incidents in the region in 2019 as compared to previous years, there could be several reasons for these incidents. The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against ships in Asia or ReCAAP, cited crew members' lack of vigilance and highlighted the need for strong collaboration among the littoral states in information sharing and enforcement. The Minister for Defence mentioned in Parliament on 3 February this year that perpetrators are based and operate outside of Singapore territorial waters. Therefore, the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) is working closely with our neighbours to share information and collect intelligence to better tackle these threats, and to step up enforcement in the region. MPA is also encouraging the shipping community to be vigilant when travelling along the Singapore Strait.

Mr Tay also asked what are the enforcement measures that are to be implemented. Should any suspicious vessel enter Singapore territorial waters, our maritime agencies will respond strongly to safeguard Singapore's security and take the necessary action against the perpetrators.

For incidents outside our waters, we have to work with our neighbours to counter this transnational threat. As I have mentioned in my COS speech, the Malacca Straits Patrol (MSP), involving our military and the militaries of Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, conduct air and sea patrols in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. This also involves regular information exchange and updating suspicious indicators to assist investigation efforts of sea robbery incidents. MINDEF has reached out to its counterparts in Malaysia and Indonesia to propose that the MSP initiative be extended to other areas in our surrounding waters. Discussions are on-going. RSN's Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF) will also be enhancing its capabilities to deal with maritime threats, including piracy and armed robbery.

In addition, Singapore is part of a region-wide initiative called ReCAAP, which facilitates timely and accurate information sharing so that the respective littoral states and the shipping community can take prompt remedial actions.

Mr Tay also asked what is presently being done and what more can be done to help families and relatives of seafarers who have been held captive at sea. The 2018 amendments will require shipowners of Singapore-registered ships to continue to honour the employment agreements of seafarers who have been taken captive by pirates or armed robbers regardless of whether the date fixed for the expiry of the seafarer's employment agreement has passed. Shipowners will be obliged to continue paying captive seafarers their wages and entitlements until the seafarers are released from captivity and repatriated, or until the seafarer's death, should the seafarer die while in captivity. This would allow the seafarer's next-of-kin to seek compensation from shipowners for wages during the period of captivity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill will improve seafarers' welfare and strengthen our standing as a responsible maritime nation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the House.