Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.29 pm

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

The civil aviation sector is a key component of Singapore’s economy, contributing 6% of Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP). Changi Airport’s excellent connectivity to the world makes Singapore a global city and a vibrant economic hub. It also enables Singaporeans to fly to various parts of the world for business and leisure.

Unruly passengers can affect the safety of air travel. According to International Air Transport Association (IATA), between 2007 and 2016, airlines reported more than 58,000 incidents involving unruly passengers on flights, or about one incident every 1,000 flights. There was an increasing number of serious incidents that resulted in injury to air crew or other passengers. As air travel grows, the problem of unruly passengers may worsen.

Given the importance of civil aviation to Singapore, it is crucial that we uphold Singapore's reputation as a safe and secure aviation hub for all passengers travelling through Changi Airport. Also, as a responsible member of the international civil aviation community, Singapore must do its part to address unruly passenger incidents.

That is why the Government will accede to the Protocol to Amend the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, also called the Montreal Protocol 2014 to the Tokyo Convention 1963. The Montreal Protocol 2014 expands the jurisdictional scope of the Tokyo Convention 1963, which Singapore is a party to, by extending the criminal jurisdiction of a Contracting State to include both the State of landing jurisdiction and the State of the operator jurisdiction.

The Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill will give effect to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol 2014 and strengthen Singapore's ability to address unruly behaviour on board an aircraft. It will enable Singapore to exercise the State of landing jurisdiction for offences committed on board an aircraft that lands in Singapore, and the State of the operator jurisdiction for offences committed on board an aircraft leased without crew to a lessee whose principal place of business, or whose permanent residence, is in Singapore. These jurisdictions are in addition to the State of registration jurisdiction which enables Singapore to exercise jurisdiction over offences committed on board an aircraft that is registered in Singapore.

I will now highlight the key provisions of the Bill.

Clause 3 enables Singapore to exercise the State of the operator jurisdiction. The definition of "Singapore-controlled aircraft" is revised to include an aircraft that is leased without crew to a lessee whose principal place of business, or whose permanent residence, is in Singapore.

Clause 4 enables Singapore to exercise the State of landing jurisdiction over offences committed outside Singapore on board an aircraft that is not a Singapore-controlled aircraft, which subsequently lands in Singapore with the offender still on board. With this amendment, Singapore can treat any act or omission committed on board an aircraft outside Singapore by an offender who is still on board the aircraft when it lands in Singapore as though it is an offence in Singapore, provided that the act or omission constitutes an offence in Singapore, and take action against the offender accordingly.

Clause 6 empowers the commander of an aircraft to take certain actions, such as restraining an unruly passenger, if the commander has reasonable grounds to believe that a serious offence has been committed on board the aircraft. The commander can also obtain the assistance of a member of the crew, a passenger or an air marshal on board the aircraft in restraining a person whom the commander is entitled to restrain. In addition, any crew member, passenger or air marshal on board the aircraft, can, without authorisation of the commander, take measures under the Act against a person on board the aircraft to protect the safety of the aircraft, or persons or property on the aircraft.

Clause 7 accords protection from personal liability to certain persons, for example, the commander of an aircraft, a member of the crew, a passenger or an air marshal, when such persons take action permitted under the Act to protect the safety of the aircraft, or persons or property on the aircraft.

Consequential amendments will be made to the Air Navigation Act and the Police Force Act.

The Bill will be brought into force in two phases. The provisions establishing Singapore's State of landing jurisdiction will be brought into force after the Bill is passed. This will enhance Singapore's ability to manage incidents of unruly passengers on flights travelling to, through and from Singapore, and give added protection to passengers on these flights before the Montreal Protocol 2014 comes into force.

The remaining provisions will be brought into force on the date the Montreal Protocol 2014 comes into force, which will take place after 22 ratifications have been made. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

4.35 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Tokyo Convention signed on 14 September 1963 covers certain offences and other acts committed on board planes and aircraft. With the current practice and guidelines, Singapore can only take action if the person or persons arrive on a Singapore Airlines (SIA) plane or other Singapore carriers. If they are on other airlines and land here, they may get off scott-free. That is the loophole. Thus, this is a very timely update to the Bill as we continue to tackle the growing issue of unruly passengers on board aircraft.

The Tokyo Convention 1963 was updated through the Montreal Protocol signed on 4 April 2014. That is 51 years later, and a lot of technological changes and also aviation changes have come on since then. This will now serve as a better, more widespread deterrence and will help to enhance our standing as a safe and secure air hub. This is necessary, as there is substantial air traffic growth every year.

I have a few clarifications to make. One, this unruly behaviour usually happens not just when airborne. In fact, in many cases and case studies, it was noted that the negative behaviour commenced even at check-in, at the airport and waiting lounges. Thus, how are we training our frontline staff to recognise and take the relevant actions, such as reporting and highlighting these characters and their suspicion? This is also where frontline staff will need to have some communications channel with airport Police and security.

Secondly, there are a few organisations involved in aviation mentioned in the Act, namely, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), the Air Accident Investigation Bureau under the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and also the National Civil Aviation Security Committee under the MOT as well. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State to help delineate clearly the roles and responsibilities of these different organisations and bodies for the purpose of understanding and clarity? Do they work together? Which then means there could be no wrong-door policy approach towards reporting and handling the incidences.

Thirdly, as we move into the future, will the same rules apply to unmanned aircraft, and also what about military customs and Police aircraft?

Fourthly, have there been any case or cases that have arisen in Singapore to date which can be cited as an example where the upgrade to the Montreal Convention will be helpful for us?

Fifth, will the sentence or punishment with the new Act be served in the passenger's own country or the country where the aircraft landed, or where the aircraft is at, that is, the state of the country of offence or the country of registration? In the same context, who will claim extradition, and would extradition law and treaties in existence have to be evoked as well?

The sixth point, on the clause on the powers of the aircraft commander, can the Senior Minister of State clarify, in particular, the role of the aircraft commander ascribed to flights that commence or terminate outside the country of registration? With that, Sir, I support the Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.39 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill seeks to introduce new laws dealing with unruly passengers on board aircraft arising from the Montreal Protocol of 2014 to the Tokyo Convention.

The incidence of unruly passengers on board aircraft continues to be an important concern in the industry as the number of passenger flights around the world are increasing each year, and, especially with the proliferation of budget airlines all over the world, the safety of passengers and crew on board all passenger aircraft should remain a priority.

We have read news of unruly passengers causing flight delays, flight cancellations and even unscheduled landings, not to mention distress and annoyance among crew and passengers on board flights having to put up with unruly behaviour.

The lives and safety of passengers and crew should not be easily put at risk or be endangered by any unruly passenger. Neither should crew and passengers have to put up with unnecessary delays or inconvenience caused by unruly and unreasonable passengers, unreasonably or wilfully uncompliant with the instructions of the flight commander, that is, the captain, or their crew. Having good and enforceable laws, as well as solid enforcement procedures, in this respect may also assist in dealing with, or preventing disruptions by passengers with terrorism-related intentions. I, therefore, support the adoption of the provisions to the Montreal Protocol of 2014 giving Singapore the jurisdiction as a state of landing or the state of the operator to take punitive action against unruly passengers who may have committed offences against penal law or carried out acts which may jeopardise the safety of an aircraft or of persons or property in such aircraft, or which jeopardise good order and discipline on board.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to share with this House how many cases of unruly passengers Singapore has experienced in the past five years, whether for inbound or outbound flights. What are the nationalities of such unruly passengers? How many of these cases would have come under the provisions of this amendment Bill had such provisions been in force earlier?

Next, while I suppose after the passing of this Bill, Singapore may be able to seize jurisdiction for applicable cases, as the state of landing or as the state of the operator, how would Singapore resolve the conflicts of another jurisdiction wanting to exercise jurisdiction, for example, Singapore can be a state of landing while the state of registration or the state of the operator is another country who also wants to exercise jurisdiction?

The Montreal Protocol introduced in the Tokyo Convention the concept of in-flight security officers. Under this Bill, we call such "in-flight security officers" by the name "air marshals". The new section 5(3)(b) under this Bill provides that the aircraft commander may, "request or authorise but not require any ... air marshal to render assistance in restraining any person".

So, under this provision, it seems that the aircraft commander does not need to seek the help of air marshals onboard if he does not wish or, presumably, when he thinks that it is not necessary.

On the other hand, the new proposed section 5(3B) under this Bill also allows an air marshal onboard to take any measures against any person onboard the aircraft without being authorised by the aircraft commander when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is necessary. Under the existing unamended section 5, the aircraft commander appears to have the ultimate command or responsibility to take suitable actions during the flight. The above-mentioned new provisions may well give rise to an element of conflict leading possibly to both the aircraft commander and the air marshal taking independent actions without coordination. The new provisions introduced in Article 6 by the Montreal Protocol and in the proposed amended section 5(3B) stopped short of stating that the air marshals must always defer to the ultimate authority and instruction of the aircraft commander. Will there also be complications affecting states assuming jurisdiction in cases where there is a conflict or disagreement between the aircraft commander and the air marshal?

Next, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether our existing laws, together with the proposed amendments and inclusions under this Bill, are adequate to include all offences listed in the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO's) Circular 288? Do we foresee any further changes required to adopt all offences in Circular 288?

Finally, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State why Singapore has taken four years to introduce this Bill. Has there been some apprehension, perhaps shared by the many countries which have yet to ratify the Protocol? Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

4.44 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The statistics from IATA are alarming. Over 58,000 unruly passenger incidents were reported on aircraft in flight between 2007 and 2016. An IATA survey in 2015 also found that handling unruly passengers is one of the key concerns of cabin crew, along with unexpected turbulence and inadvertent slide deployment.

As highlighted by the Senior Minister of State, Singapore is a major air transport hub with more than 7,000 weekly scheduled flights. This means an aircraft takes off or lands at our Changi Airport roughly once every 90 seconds.

It is timely, therefore, that our legislation is updated to ensure that flight delays due to unruly passengers are minimised.

Every delay is precious time and resources wasted, affecting not only the airlines, but also passengers and corporations. The amendments will also serve to ensure the safety of both passengers and cabin crew in a closed environment.

Having said that, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Senior Minister of State. First, is there a clear definition of an unruly passenger and what must he or she do for enforcement actions to be taken against him or her? Let me explain.

On 9 April last year, United Airlines wanted to bump four passengers off the flight as it was overbooked and Dr David Dao was one of the selected passengers. He refused and airport security was alerted. He was then forcefully dragged off the plane. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of United Airlines deemed the screaming passenger as "disruptive" and "belligerent" in the initial press release. In his definition, Dr David Dao was an unruly passenger, though the CEO later issued an apology when the video went viral on social media. In my view, it is important to have a clear definition of what constitutes “an unruly passenger” and having a clear list of offences or what would be deemed as “unruly behaviour” would certainly be useful to set the out-of-bound (OB) markers.

Next, I would like to touch on enhancing training for our aviation workers. Is the current training sufficient? According to IATA, the top three factors causing an unruly behaviour inflight are intoxication through alcohol and narcotics, compliance with smoking and other regulation, and disputes between passengers. While cabin crew today are trained to handle unruly behaviour on board the flight, I think training should address the primary causes of unruly behaviour so that we can equip cabin crew to prevent an unruly incident from happening in the first place.

As my colleague, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, has mentioned, what about training for ground staff and even retailers at the airport? Can these frontline staff be trained to identify potential “problematic” passengers before they board the plane? For example, are food and beverage (F&B) retailers at the airport trained to look out for passengers who already appear to be intoxicated while in transit or while waiting to board?

Mr Deputy Speaker, unruly passengers are not confined to one airline or one airport. Would the aviation authorities consider working together to establish a common database among airlines to centralise details of recalcitrant unruly passengers? Such a database would allow the airlines to take appropriate precautionary actions against these passengers, including refusal of service. The database could also serve as a forewarning system for cabin crew and ground staff to pay particular attention to these passengers on board the aircraft. Unruly behaviour, in extreme cases, can threaten the safety of everyone on board the aircraft.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the aviation industry is a key driver of Singapore’s economy, providing more than 160,000 jobs and contributing to about 6% of Singapore’s GDP. The steady growth in our aviation industry is expected to continue, with Asia as the centre of economic growth in the next decade. The amendments to this Bill are timely and essential in ensuring the safety and security of both the passengers and our workers in the industry. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State.

4.49 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Melvin Yong for their comments and support for the Bill. Let me address the points raised.

The civil aviation sector is a key contributor to Singapore’s economy. Thus, it is important for us to ensure that Singapore remains a safe and secure air hub.

The Government is committed to maintaining high standards of aviation security in Singapore. This includes ensuring that aviation security measures are coordinated and consistently applied across the aviation sector. Civil aviation security policies and implementation of new measures are discussed and decided collectively by a multi-agency committee known as the National Civil Aviation Security Committee, which comprises various Government agencies, such as MOT, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and CAAS. The recommendation for Singapore to ratify the Montreal Protocol 2014 was made by this Committee. The Government agencies also engage with the industry on aviation security issues and measures. Mr Dennis Tan asked why did it take four years before we introduced this new amendment Bill. That is because there is a need to consult the industry widely. At the same time, there is also a timeline for the legislative calendar, and we tried to put this legislation up as soon as possible.

The security measures are implemented by the civil aviation operators, such as Changi Airport Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd, ground handling agents, and the airlines operating in Singapore. Compliance with the measures is closely monitored and enforced by SPF.

I agree with Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Melvin Yong that the airport staff have a role to play in ensuring the airport and aircraft security in Singapore. The Government has included all airport personnel, from airport security screeners to check-in counter staff as part of the Threat Oriented Passenger Screening Integrated System (TOPSIS). Airport personnel that are in the TOPSIS are trained to look out for and to notify SPF when they detect any passenger displaying suspicious behaviour. With TOPSIS, airport personnel have become our eyes and ears. They support our security agencies in ensuring that Singapore remains a safe and secure environment for air passengers.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about the incidences of unruly passengers in Singapore. Based on the information that I have, there are, on average, about less than 10 cases per year over the last five years, and many of these took place on SIA Group aircraft. And because they occurred on SIA Group aircraft which are Singapore registered, we have the jurisdiction to actually take action against these unruly passengers.

The Montreal Protocol 2014 will enhance Singapore’s ability to handle unruly incidents on board a non-Singapore controlled aircraft. This is particularly important as most aircraft operated by foreign airlines are not registered in Singapore. For example, if an unruly passenger commits an offence on board such aircraft while in airspace outside Singapore en route to Singapore, we will be able to deal with the offender when the aircraft lands in Singapore.

There are overseas cases of unruly passenger incidents that have caused disruption to flights to the extent that the pilot decided to divert the plane to land and disembark the unruly passengers. For example, on 9 September 2016, a British Airways flight from London, the United Kingdom (UK), to Orlando, the United States (US), was forced to land in Boston in the US after a drunk passenger had tried to get off the aircraft in mid-air. While interventions had been made by the air stewards and pilot to keep him seated, it was subsequently decided to divert the flight to Boston to deplane the drunk passenger. The Bill will enable Singapore to have the relevant legal capacity to exercise enforcement powers and take the necessary action as warranted in such cases.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked who would be punishing the unruly passenger, that is, the state of landing based on where the aircraft lands, the state of registration based on where the aircraft is registered, or the state of nationality based on the nationality of the passenger, or any other jurisdictional bases that are not mentioned here. Clause 5 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 4 to provide for the application of the Extradition Act to offences committed on board an aircraft in flight. With the change, any offence committed on board an aircraft in flight is treated as if it had been committed not only in the place at which the offence occurred, but also within the countries exercising the state of registration jurisdiction, state of the operator jurisdiction or the state of landing jurisdiction. Any of these states in whose territory the unruly passenger arrives would be able to take enforcement action to punish him. Extradition of the unruly passenger can happen when there is an extradition treaty in place between Singapore and the state that is requesting the extradition of the unruly passenger and the requirements under the Extradition Act are satisfied.

Mr Melvin Yong asked what would constitute as “unruly passenger”. ICAO's guidance material on this matter refers to "unruly passengers” as passengers who fail to respect the rules of conduct on board aircraft or to follow the instructions of crew members and thereby disturb the good order and discipline on board aircraft. ICAO has provided guidance to identify the incidents which involve various types of offences, ranging from assault on cabin crew or passengers, sexual assault, to illegal consumption of drugs on board the aircraft.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked for clarity on the powers of the aircraft commander under the Montreal Protocol 2014. The aircraft commander can impose measures, including restraint, on an unruly passenger and obtain the assistance of the cabin crew, passengers or air marshals. The aim of doing so is to ensure the safety of the aircraft, other passengers and their properties on board.

I would like to assure Mr Melvin Yong and the House that the aircraft commander as well as the cabin crew, passengers and air marshals must act reasonably. Protection of the aircraft commander from personal liability would only apply if the aircraft commander had reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger has either committed an offence or is about to commit an offence or an act which may jeopardise the safety of the aircraft or of persons, property or order and discipline on board. The measures taken must also be reasonable.

Training is important to prepare the aircraft commander and the cabin crew in properly assessing the situation and responding to unruly incidents in an appropriate manner. Airlines have internal guidelines which would prevent unnecessary escalation of a dispute or misunderstanding into a serious unruly incident that would require more serious intervention. Airlines also have in place training programmes for their cabin crew. Such programmes equip them with restraint techniques aimed at not imposing unnecessary harm to the unruly passengers as well as to other passengers on board the aircraft. IATA has also provided guidance materials to assist their member airlines with the aim of preventing unruly passenger incidents from happening in the first place and to manage them effectively when they do occur. The guidance provides information on significant risk factors and recommendations to assist in the prevention and management of such events.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about the role of air marshals. The air marshal, just like the commander and the other passengers, may also take measures if the air marshal has reasonable grounds to believe that the measures are immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft or persons on board the aircraft from any act of unlawful interference or commission of any serious offence. However, these measures taken by air marshals are subject to any agreement between Singapore and the country that is party to the Montreal Protocol 2014 relating to the deployment of air marshals on board an aircraft for ensuring the safety and security of the aircraft and persons on board the aircraft.

Mr Melvin Yong asked if it is possible that a common database of unruly passengers be maintained among aviation authorities. Indeed, some countries that have experienced serious unruly passenger situations have introduced “No-Fly List”. For example, India introduced a national No-Fly List in 2017, which identifies unruly passengers and prohibits them from boarding flights. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, the flight ban on the passenger ranges from three months to a possible life ban. We are currently monitoring the development of such No-Fly Lists by the other countries and will assess if it is feasible to introduce and address some of our context in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I agree that we need to stand ready to handle future safety and security threats to Singapore’s civil aviation system. The Montreal Protocol 2014 does not apply to aircraft used in military, Police and customs services. However, we can introduce new or amend legislation if the need arises.

In the area of unmanned aircraft, Singapore is actively participating in international discussions on the issue of security for remotely piloted aircraft systems, including at ICAO. We will continue to ensure that we are ready to protect our aviation system from current and future threats, so as to safeguard our reputation as a safe and secure air hub. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

5.01 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarifications on some of the points I have raised. On the point I raised about the aircraft commander and the air marshal, I am not sure that the Senior Minister of State understood my question correctly. I think I was raising this possibility that there is an element of conflict between the aircraft commander and the air marshal because section 5(3B) stopped short of stating that the air marshal must always defer to the ultimate authority and instruction of the aircraft commander. So, I am raising the concern and the question whether there will be complications if there is a conflict or disagreement between the two persons.

There is one other question I would like the Senior Minister of State to confirm. Does he foresee there will be any further changes to include further offences which are listed in ICAO's Circular 288 which may not currently be in our Penal Code?

The other question I would like to ask is: how would Singapore deal with the situation when the states of landing – assuming Singapore is the state of landing – the state of landing, the state of the operator or the state of registration, more than one state wants to exercise jurisdiction, how would Singapore, as a state of landing, for example, deal with a situation like this?

Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the clarifications. With regard to the last question, there are existing procedures between and among states concerning the exercise of jurisdiction where more than one has jurisdiction. So, I think there is some understanding whereby the contracting states can decide who should be the country that actually prosecutes the unruly passenger.

As to Circular 288, currently, we do have similar offences in our legislation but we do review them regularly and, if necessary, we can also include some of them where necessary.

With regard to the role of the air marshal as well as the aircraft commander, the air marshals are deployed in the aircraft for a certain reason, and they have very strict rules of engagement. However, should there be a conflict, the commander of the aircraft will take control because he is, ultimately, the overall in-charge of the aircraft. I hope I have answered Mr Dennis Tan's queries.

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.