Speech by Mr. Louis Ng Kok Kwang, MP for Nee Soon GRC at the Second Reading of the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill [Bill No. 20/2017]
Introduction
Madam, I am heartened that this is yet another Bill read during my first two years as an MP, which ensures Singapore remains a global maritime hub that is not just efficient and effective but also responsible.
In October last year, we passed a Bill which brought about stronger protection for seafarers, and in this sitting alone, we are debating on two new Bills to strengthen marine protection in our shipping industry.
I applaud our efforts to bring environmental protection in line with international standards, and the attention to which the government is bringing to our responsibilities as a responsible global citizen.
Treating untreated ballast water as pollution
I am encouraged that with this Bill, the discharge of untreated ballast water will be treated with the same level of penalty as all other forms of sea pollution (e.g. discharge of oil, plastics, garbage).
Shipping has been identified as a major contributor of invasive aquatic species and pathogens into new environments, when ballast water is collected and discharged at different locations.
According to a study conducted in 2014, Singapore alone accounts for 26% of cross-region species exchange, out of 818 ports in the Pacific region.
Thus, Singapore’s ports – with one of the highest traffic in the world – should take the lead to limit the negative environmental impacts brought about by the shipping industry.
As the volume of trade and traffic continues to expand, it is timely for us to place greater attention on this issue.
By giving effect to the new international regulations brought about by the Ballast Water Management Convention, Singapore can also encourage the speedy ratification by other states.
Strengths of the Bill
I am also encouraged by the strength of the Bill in various clauses.
For example, the amendment to Section 22 gives authority to inspectors to inspect ballast tanks, on top of other parts of the ship, while the amendment to Section 34 allows surveyors to also conduct surveys.
Furthermore, I commend that the new Section 5A prohibits the discharge of “sediment” from untreated ballast water on top of “residues and mixtures”, while the new Section 7(c) confers it the same level of penalty and requirements for reception facilities.
Lastly, the bill goes beyond environmental protection, recognising the risks to public health which can be brought about by the transfer of pathogens across the oceans. This is reflected in the amendment to Section 27 which considers the damage which untreated ballast water can cause to public health or welfare.
Lowering or increasing penalties?
Madam, notwithstanding these strengths, I would like to ask a question on the rationale behind some of the changes to penalties.
In various sections, we are increasing the maximum fine from $10,000 to $20,000, but reducing the maximum imprisonment term from 2 years to 6 months.
If the spirit of the Bill is to strengthen protection of marine environments and public health, could the Minister clarify the rationale for this reduction since imprisonment usually serves as a stronger deterrent than fines?
I note that the exception is for Section 11, where we are retaining the length of maximum imprisonment of 2 years. This is regarding the power for Authorities to make regulations on the provision of reception facilities. I would like to enquire if this reflects the difference in severity between the varying offences?
Clarification on exemptions to the new regulations on the discharge of ballast water
Further, on exemptions to the new regulations on the discharge of ballast water – the new section 10A states that the “authority may, with the approval of the Minister, make regulations to exempt any ship”… under “any prescribed conditions”, for “particular classes of ships”, or “in relation to particular areas of the seas”.
Can the Minister share why the new Section 10A is written in such a vague manner? Can the Minister provide some examples of conditions, classes of ships or areas of the seas which could be exempt from the new regulations?
Verifying ‘mixed’ ballast water
The new Section 10B also creates an exemption for individuals who are able to prove that the discharged ballast water and sediments comprised the same water/sediments that had been taken up, or that it had not been mixed with ballast water from other locations. I would like to ask if this is something we can realistically verify?
Conclusion
Madam, on the whole, I am highly supportive of this Bill. I hope that the Ministry will be providing support to the shipping industry to help them adjust to the new regulations, in particular to implement a new ballast water management system.