Round-Up Speech by Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Law, Mr Murali Pillai, at the Second Reading of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

1.          Mr Speaker, I thank Honourable Members for their support of and thoughtful comments on the Bill.

2.          In my opening speech, I said that Singapore’s maritime landscape has changed profoundly and this Bill allows us to keep pace with these changes. The Honourable Member Mr Yip Hon Weng’s moving story about his father’s contributions as a PSA operations supervisor at the Keppel Terminal brings to focus how profoundly our maritime sector has evolved. Over four decades in the maritime sector, Mr Yip’s father witnessed first-hand the transformation of our port and dedicated his working life to its success.  His story reminds us that Singapore’s success as a maritime hub is due to the blood, sweat and tears of generations of maritime workers and our sisters and brothers of our unions. Thanks to the firm foundation that they laid, our maritime sector now contributes more than 6% to our GDP and provides in excess of 140,000 jobs. As we adopt new technologies and respond to new shifts to retain our competitiveness, our people will remain at the heart of our transformation plans.

3.          I thank Honourable Members for their suggestions pertaining to the operationalisation of the Bill, once passed and enacted. I do not propose to deal with all the suggestions in my speech save to assure them, including Honourable Member Ms Mariam Jaafar that MPA will closely study them. 

4.          Sir, I will now address the key points raised by them in their speeches.

Emerging Technologies and the Future of Maritime Operations

Impact on Maritime Workforce

5.          Honourable Members Mr Edward Chia, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Ms Mariam Jaafar, and Mr Yip Hon Weng emphasised the importance of supporting workers amidst the adoption of new maritime technologies.

a.          I agree with them. Our maritime workforce is the backbone of the industry, and we must equip workers to capture the opportunities that technology brings.

b.          New technologies can enable safer operations, longer careers and greater prospects for progression.

i.            For example, underwater robots allow operators to conduct underwater surveillance remotely, reducing the exposure to hazardous conditions.

ii.           Experienced seafarers can apply their expertise to monitor, manage or remotely operate vessels in new onshore roles.

c.           To support our maritime workers as they upskill or undergo redeployment, MPA has put in place a suite of programmes. This includes the Career Conversion Programme for the Sea Transport Sector, which has redesigned and trained workers for roles such as Cargo Officer and Operations Manager. It also provides salary co-funding to ensure that workers continue to be paid throughout the training.

d.          Beyond job redesign, MPA also supports continuous upskilling through the Maritime Cluster Fund, which subsidises up to 50% of course fees for a wide range of courses open to maritime professionals across shipping, port operations, and related services.

e.           We will continue to work closely with our tripartite partners to support our workers so that all share in the benefits of technological adoption.

Supporting Maritime Innovation

6.          Apart from creating new opportunities for our workers, technological transformation also drives innovation across the maritime sector. MPA will support this on two key fronts — facilitating technological adoption and providing regulatory clarity.

7.          Honourable Members Mr Edward Chia, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Ng Shi Xuan had asked how MPA supports the adoption and commercialisation of emerging maritime technologies.

a.          MPA adopts a progressive and calibrated approach to foster innovation while upholding safety and regulatory standards. We assess each technology's maturity, safety and risks within its operational context. At the same time, MPA actively supports innovation that advances the maritime sector. 

b.          This can be seen by how MPA supported innovation in relation to the electric harbour craft; an example that Mr Ng Shi Xuan raised in his speech. MPA first launched an Expression of Interest for electric harbour craft designs in July 2023 to validate and improve early designs, recognising that this would help drive the sector’s net-zero transition by 2050. As the technology matured, MPA announced the Early Adopter Scheme for Electric Harbour Craft, last month which incentivises owners to acquire e-harbour crafts through a grant, with the aim of creating a scale for the nascent market.

c.           MPA is also working with agencies to develop an electric harbour craft charging masterplan to progressively scale charging capacity. We will leverage expertise and experience within the MOT family in building up charging infrastructure for electric vehicles on land. Studies on the required infrastructure upgrades are ongoing, and we will share more details when ready.

Regulating Emerging Technologies

8.          Honourable Members Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about how maritime devices and their operations in our Port will be regulated.

a.          The Bill provides the legislative foundation to ensure the safe adoption of maritime devices in our Port by enabling MPA to regulate them. The detailed regulations will be promulgated subsequently as subsidiary legislation.

i.            Mr Dennis Tan in his speech mentioned that the Bill purportedly was supposed to provide a legal basis for regulating the use of artificial intelligence by reference to a press release issued by MPA. I checked the press release and it does not go so far. It basically mentions that new technologies such as autonomous surface vessels, aerial drones and artificial intelligence are increasingly being used in maritime operations.  What we are doing here is to regulate vessels or maritime devices that are operated remotely and autonomously. So, the regulations focus on remote and autonomous use of vessels and maritime devices.

ii.           So these are the areas for regulation which include the use and navigation of these devices, the circumstances and conditions under which they may be operated remotely or autonomously, and requirements for human supervision where necessary.

iii.         To address Ms Lee Hui Ying’s question on whether all maritime devices must allow for some degree of human intervention, the Bill does not impose a blanket requirement for human intervention in the operation of maritime devices. Instead, the amendments empower MPA to require interventions when necessary, under the circumstances and conditions which the device is permitted to operate.

(1)         For example, a device that is approved for both autonomous and remote operations may be required to operate remotely if necessary.

b.          The development of regulations for new maritime technologies and devices will be an iterative process, informed by close industry consultations and keeping pace with international developments.

i.            On Honourable Members Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Lee Hui Ying’s questions on alignment with international standards and best practices, MPA is actively involved in the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) development of a regulatory framework for autonomous vessels, including the non-mandatory International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, or MASS Code, which was adopted earlier this year.

ii.           In drafting the   regulations, we will review the principles agreed upon at the IMO, including standards and requirements, to provide a framework suitable for the unique operating conditions in our port.

c.           I would like to underscore the point that safety will remain the foremost consideration guiding the formulation of these regulations. We will carefully consider Honourable Members’ other suggestions, including emergency-response arrangements and human oversight, while enabling the industry to realise the benefits of emerging technologies.

9.          Turning specifically to the operation of autonomous or remotely operated vessels, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked how we would deal with the responsibility for their operations that may give rise to incidents causing injury or damage.

a.          This is an important question.

b.          Discussions on liability for the operation of autonomous vessels are ongoing at the IMO, as with similar discussions across other transport sectors.

c.           At present, the IMO’s MASS Code establishes clear requirements for a human master to remain responsible for autonomous vessels, with the means to intervene, when necessary. This principle will continue to be applicable here. This means every vessel will continue to have a human master, retaining authority and command.

d.          MPA's existing regulatory requirements will continue to apply to vessels operating within Singapore's waters. The Bill also does not change the existing principles for civil liability arising from maritime incidents.

e.           MPA will monitor developments at the IMO and in other jurisdictions closely to develop the appropriate regulations in consultation with industry. Our central principle is that autonomy must not create a lacuna in liability or diminish accountability, regardless of whether the functions are performed onboard, remotely or by automated systems. We will also ensure that technological adoption moves in step with workforce training and readiness.  In this regard, in response to the Honourable Member, Mr Dennis Tan, on how remote pilotage would be dealt with, MPA will take reference from international developments from other ports, and he mentioned the Scandinavian ports in his speech, as requirements for remote operations evolve and develop new training, assessment, and certification standards for the conduct of remote pilotage.

10.        To Mr Dennis Tan’s question about the regulation of drones or unmanned aircraft, CAAS will remain the lead agency regulating safety and navigation-related matters.

a.          MPA will work closely with CAAS on the use of drones in the port for the provision of services, to ensure vessel navigational safety and manage safe interactions between vessels and drones in the port.

11.        We recognise that both regulatory clarity and targeted support are essential to enable the safe deployment of emerging technologies in our port. As regulations are put in place, MPA will ensure that the requirements and how to meet them are clearly communicated.

Strengthening Cybersecurity Through Requirements Under the Important Information Infrastructure (Iii) Framework

12.        Let me now turn to the proposed Important Information Infrastructure (III) framework and the corresponding cybersecurity requirements.

13.        Honourable Members Mr Edward Chia, Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the process of designating a computer or computer systems as an III system.

a.          As I mentioned in my opening speech, the threshold question for designating a system, that is owned or operated by a maritime entity, as an III is whether it is necessary for the continuous delivery of an essential transport service, and whether its loss or compromise will substantially affect or impair the availability of that service. Simply using an MPA digital platform does not warrant designation.

b.          Prior to designation, MPA will engage the owners and operators to better understand their systems and risk profiles, and may, if necessary, require them to provide information about their systems to determine whether they meet the criteria to be designated as an III.

c.           At the point of designation as an III, MPA must notify the owner and operator of the designation and give them at least 14 days to make representations against this designation or their status as a notified owner or operator. If there is more than one person who is the owner, operator or owner-operator, MPA will determine the person who has effective control over the given system.

d.          To the question posed by Mr Sharael Taha about overseas systems and foreign vessels, the proposed amendments also empower MPA to designate systems located or hosted overseas as designated IIIs, if they meet the criteria. While this can potentially include computer systems onboard foreign vessels that are in, or intending to enter, Singapore’s territorial waters, it is ordinarily unlikely that they would meet the threshold for the designation.

14.        Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin raised concerns about the potential for cybersecurity regulations imposed by the MPA and CSA to be duplicative.

a.          The intent is to avoid this duplication.

b.          The III framework is designed to complement the existing cybersecurity regulatory framework under the Cybersecurity Act 2018.

c.           The Critical Information Infrastructure regime safeguards systems that are necessary for the continuous delivery of essential services, or the very “core” of Singapore’s digital systems. MPA’s III regime safeguards systems that are essential to the maritime sector that may be linked to, but are not part of, this “core” – the penumbra, if you like.

d.          The thresholds for designation therefore correspondingly differ.

i.            Critical Information Infrastructure are systems whose loss or compromise would have a debilitating effect on the availability of an essential service in Singapore.

ii.           For III on the other hand, the threshold level is lower; whether the loss or compromise would substantially affect or impair the availability of an essential transport service.

e.           Hence, both frameworks are intended to be complementary and not duplicative. In fact, the Bill provides that the same computer system cannot be concurrently subject to being regulated under both under the MPA Act and the Cybersecurity Act.

i.            MPA and CSA will also establish standard operating procedures to coordinate future designations.

15.        Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Nadia Samdin, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Mr Edward Chia also asked about the requirements expected of an operator of an III.

a.          Notified operators of IIIs have various obligations including putting in place measures to monitor and detect abnormal behaviours that may indicate possible cyber-attacks on the III. They are also required to report cybersecurity incidents to MPA and comply with Standards of Performance for Cybersecurity issued or adopted by the MPA.

i.            To Mr Sharael Taha’s question on whether the cybersecurity standards and controls that MPA adopts will be internationally recognised, this will indeed be the case. MPA’s standards will be benchmarked against standards such as the IMO Guidelines on Maritime Cyber Risk Management.

b.          The proposed amendments also provide powers for MPA to periodically conduct cybersecurity exercises on III systems to test business continuity and systems recovery plans. Mr Yip Hon Weng, in his speech, highlighted the value of holding regular drills to test readiness. And I fully agree.

c.           In designing the cybersecurity requirements, MPA adopts a risk-based and proportionate approach. This approach takes into consideration the potential impact to business costs while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

d.          MPA will also support owners and operators of IIIs in meeting these requirements.

i.            For example, the Maritime and Cyber Assurance and Operations Centre (or MCAOC) provides subscribing companies regular cybersecurity threat information and advisories for timely implementation of protection measures. This is especially useful for small and medium-sized enterprises, a concern of the Honourable Member Lee Hong Chuang, and these enterprises may not, on their own, have the ability independently monitor cybersecurity threats.

ii.           I appreciate Mr Lee Hong Chuang’s suggestions to help SMEs fulfil the requirements — we will consider them in close consultation with III operators.

e.           MPA will continue refining the cybersecurity requirements to improve the sector’s preparedness to manage cyber threats over time.

Developing a More Comprehensive Licensing Regime

16.        I now turn to the proposed licensing framework under the new Part 12 of the MPA Act.

17.        Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Dennis Tan raised concerns that the new Part 12 licensing framework will increase the compliance burden on the maritime companies.

a.          We will be mindful of this potential to safeguard the competitiveness of our port.

b.          Should there be any new requirements or changes to future renewal processes, these will be carefully calibrated to balance regulatory oversight with compliance costs.

c.           To Mr Lee Hong Chuang’s question on whether other services such as bunkering are being considered for future inclusion under the new part 12, MPA will consider the merits in due course. Should there be any new inclusions to the licensing framework, MPA will carry out the necessary industry consultation prior to implementation.

d.          To Mr Edward Chia’s suggestion for information reporting to the Government to be consolidated, I agree with the underlying principle. To this end, MPA has rolled out initiatives to streamline clearances across agencies, such as the digitalPORT@SG.

i.            However, doing so may not always lead to net efficiency gains if frontloading reporting ends up creating a bottleneck. We will study where such an approach would be applicable and beneficial.

ii.           I also invite Mr Edward Chia to separately share any proposals he may have based on his engagements with the trade association of which he is an adviser to.

18.        Mr Edward Chia and Ms Mariam Jaafar raised concerns that setting ‘capped services’ risks unduly restricting competition and asked how MPA will ensure that the incumbents are not unnecessarily entrenched or new entrants impeded. MPA will be guided as follows:

a.          First, “capped services” will be prescribed selectively. For instance, emerging marine services may be prescribed as capped services to manage the entry of operators into emerging marine service markets in a calibrated manner, ensuring that supply keeps pace with demand.

i.            We may also decide to cap the number of licences to avoid the duplication of services and to increase the efficiency of resource allocation. As certain maritime services require substantial infrastructure, scarce land and sea space must also be allocated judiciously.

ii.           In determining whether to impose a cap, under the new Section 84A, MPA may consider relevant factors including whether existing licensees are able to meet the market demand and the availability of space and other scarce resources.

b.          Second, MPA will regularly review whether the number of licences for each capped service can be increased to allow more entrants. Where it is no longer necessary, MPA will remove the cap. These reviews will not only consider market conditions, but also the potential for new entrants to introduce innovative solutions, improve service quality, enhance operational efficiency and bring greater value to port users. 

c.           Industry stakeholders may provide feedback to MPA on the need to increase the number of licensees. This will ensure that the framework remains responsive to industry needs while maintaining a competitive and sustainable operating environment.

19.        Mr Edward Chia and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how MPA would assess that voluntary arrangements to gain access into facilities and infrastructure needed for port development have failed, and that statutory powers under the new Section 12AA should be exercised.

a.          I would like to emphasise that MPA will only exercise the statutory powers  as a last resort. We will first engage affected parties and seek to facilitate voluntary arrangements where possible.

b.          Whether statutory intervention is necessary will depend on the circumstances of each case, including the availability of alternatives, the progress of negotiations and the implications of further delay.

c.           Where statutory powers are exercised, the aggrieved persons will have avenues of recourse.

d.          Should MPA temporarily occupy a licensee’s premises for the purposes of installing essential port infrastructure, the licensee may claim compensation from MPA. If the occupation results in substantial impairment of rights, they may also request that the Government acquire the premises under the Land Acquisition Act.

e.           Similarly, in the event MPA issues directions to a person to allow licensees on to their premises, the affected owner can seek compensation from the licensee for losses suffered because of the licensee’s installations or use of its facilities.

i.            Affected parties may also request for the Minister to establish an Appeal Panel to hear appeals against MPA’s decision or determine reasonable terms of agreements between parties.

ii.           In response to Ms Lee Hui Ying’s query on how the Panel can also be perceived as a “fair” tribunal, the Minister may determine the terms and conditions of membership and procedures to be adopted by the Panel. This allows the Minister to place safeguards to ensure the Panel's independence and impartiality, including measures to address potential conflicts of interest. I would also like to highlight that the Appeal Panel performs two different functions under Section 85Y – a point that Ms Lee raised. The requirement for publishing the reasons for the Panel's decision differs based on the nature of these functions. Under Section 85Y(1a), the Panel hears appeals against specified regulatory decisions made by MPA. The Bill does not expressly require the Panel to provide reasons, but they may nevertheless provide reasons, depending on the circumstances of a case. However, under Section 85Y(1b), the Panel determines reasonable terms of an agreement where the contracting parties have been unable to reach an agreement, here the Bill expressly requires the Panel to provide reasons for the basis of the terms determined by the Panel to ensure clarity of the contracting parties. This approach is modelled after the Electricity Act .

20.        Mr Edward Chia and Mr Lee Hong Chuang also asked how compensation from MPA’s occupation of a licensee’s premises would be considered.

a.          Licensees will be compensated for specified losses arising from MPA's temporary occupation of their premises.

i.            These include losses due to displacement, repair or replacement costs for damage to buildings or land, and reinstatement costs or loss from the removal of objects or structures in the land, as set out in the proposed Fifth Schedule.

b.          Financial losses arising from business interruptions and interference, such as loss of output, are not covered.

i.            However, where the operator is displaced from its part of its premises, reasonable expenses incurred in relocating its operations or equipment may be compensable as displacement costs.

ii.           This is consistent with other similar legislation.

c.           I would like to assure Ms Lee Hui Ying and Mr Ng Shi Xuan that MPA’s intent, in such matters, is to engage affected licensees early and closely coordinate with them to schedule works conducted on their premises and minimise the disruptions to their operations. We will also ensure that the necessary infrastructural works are coordinated across Government agencies.

Wreck Removal Powers

21.        I now turn to queries on the proposed wreck removal powers in the Bill.

22.        Ms Nadia Samdin asked how MPA will assess if immediate action is required to remove a wreck, when the risk to navigational safety and the marine environment have not yet materialised.

a.          These powers will not be exercised based on remote or hypothetical risks. MPA will consider both the immediate- and long-term impact of the sunken object to the marine environment and the safety of navigation.

b.          If the sunken vessel or object poses an imminent risk to navigational safety risk or the marine environment, MPA will take proportionate preventive action.

23.        Ms Gho Sze Kee also asked how the wreck removal powers under the Merchant Shipping Act interact with the proposed amendments to the MPA Act.

a.          The provisions in the MPA Act deal with the removal of ships, as well as aircraft or other objects that may be sunk, be stranded or abandoned in Singapore's waters. This is broader in scope than provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act, which are limited to ships.

b.          The powers under the Merchant Shipping Act continue to be relevant. The two Acts empower MPA to respond to different situations. The MPA Act, as amended, empowers MPA to act on risks to the marine environment and coastline, and not only to navigation. The Merchant Shipping Act empowers the Receiver of Wreck to step in immediately where a stranded ship outside port limits endangers navigation, even if the risk is not imminent.

c.           As both Acts are administered by MPA, the exercise of these powers will be coordinated within MPA and the appropriate statutory power determined based on the circumstances of the situation. Regardless, the aim remains consistent: to remove the hazard safely and expediently.

d.          To Mr Dennis Tan’s question on cost recovery, the owner of the wreck is to bear all costs for its removal. However, should the owner be unable to bear the costs, including if the owner cannot be found or is insolvent, Section 58 of the MPA Act allows MPA to use the proceeds of the sale of the wreck to reimburse itself for expenses incurred. If proceeds from the sale are insufficient, MPA may recover the balance as debt from the owner. These are existing powers set out in the Act and are not proposed under this Bill.

Enhanced Investigative and Enforcement Powers

24.        Turning to a final point on MPA’s enhanced investigative and enforcement powers, Honourable Member Mr Dennis Tan asked about the safeguards that are in place to accompany these powers.

a.          There are clear limits on when and how MPA’s expanded powers may be exercised. They may only be used to investigate offences, determine whether regulatory action is warranted or verified information is provided to MPA.

b.          More intrusive powers are subject to additional safeguards. For instance, entry into premises or vessels requires reasonable grounds, while entry into a residence requires the occupier’s consent or at least 6 hours’ prior notice.

c.           The powers are in line with best practices across other legislation and ultimately give MPA officers enforcement tools that are comparable to other regulators’ regimes. 

Conclusion

25.        Mr Speaker, please allow me to conclude by returning to the aim of this Bill.

26.        The proposed amendments in this Bill will lay the regulatory foundations to support the next chapter of Singapore’s maritime development. They empower us to keep pace with emerging technologies, and continue to thrive as a safe, trusted and competitive global maritime hub that generates good jobs for the next generation of Singaporean maritime workers.  For these reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

27.        Sir, I beg to move.