Hijacking of Aircraft and Protection of Aircraft and International Airports (Amendment) Bill
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill gives effects to Singapore’s obligations under the Beijing Convention.
The Bill proposes to criminalise certain dangerous actions relating to aviation, including the use of aircraft as a weapon. Even in this time of reduced air travel, it is a necessary update to our law and helps enhance aviation safety. With the passage of this Bill, Singapore is once again standing with the international community and showing its commitment to the international rule of law.
I have just two short clarifications on how we can help the airline industry comply with the requirements under this Bill.
My first point has to do with the technical guidance to assist compliance by the airline industry. The Bill introduces offences relating to the transport of certain dangerous materials and BCN weapons.
Airlines routinely transport dangerous goods. This is why the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has in place Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. When drafting the Beijing Convention, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) had proposed to deem an airline carrier as compliant with the Beijing Convention as long as they can show compliance with the Technical Instructions. This was not accepted by the delegates at the Beijing Diplomatic Conference where the Beijing Convention was drafted.
Nevertheless, to provide guidance to airlines in navigating the implementation of this Bill, can Minister share if and how the ICAO’s Technical Instructions should be considered by the Courts in Singapore in the interpretation of this Bill?
My second point is on support extended to the airlines to ensure compliance with the provisions in this Bill. This Bill tackles serious crimes and exposes airlines to significant criminal liability. Can Minister share if the Government has worked with the airline industry to ensure proper review of their cargo processes so that airlines do not inadvertently expose themselves to criminal liability under the Bill?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Baey Yam Keng (The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their comments and support for this Bill. Let me address the points raised.
The amended section 3(1) provides that "a person who unlawfully and intentionally seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service by the use of force or by threats of any kind, or by any technological means, commits the offence of hijacking, whatever his nationality or citizenship, whatever the state in which the aircraft is registered and whether the aircraft is in Singapore or elsewhere."
Depending on the facts and circumstances, this provision could potentially cover acts by malicious hackers to take control of an aircraft by hacking into the aircraft systems.
The broad wording of this provision also helps to ensure that the Act continues to remain relevant and keeps pace with modern technological developments, including the use of new technological means, to endanger the safety and security of aviation.
I would like to provide some clarifications on the provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for Singapore to exercise criminal jurisdiction on broad grounds and allows Singapore to prosecute offenders for various offences regardless of where the offence was committed, in line with international law. The realignment of the Flight Information Region (FIR) boundaries relates to aviation safety and efficiency of air traffic and not sovereignty. It does not affect the provisions of this Bill and, in general, is not relevant to criminal prosecution matters.
Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a pertinent point that the prevalence of drones and unmanned technology certainly brings about aviation safety and security concerns. The Act can apply to certain types of unlawful and intentional acts involving unmanned aerial vehicles, such as drones. For example, depending on the circumstances, the flying of a drone to intentionally collide with a landing aircraft may potentially fall under the scope of section 5(1)(a) of the Act, which covers acts, regardless of the means used, which damage an aircraft so as to render it incapable of flight or as to be likely to endanger its safety in flight.
MOT had consulted other agencies on the penalties mentioned in the new section 9. In relation to the penalties for the offences under new sections 5A to 5D, MOT is of the view that by benchmarking the penalties against the existing penalties in section 9 of the Act, it is commensurate with the severity of the newly introduced offences. Singapore stands ready against current and future safety and security threats to Singapore’s civil aviation system. Should there be a need for a stronger deterrent effect in future, we can introduce new or amend existing legislation.
I would now turn to the query regarding the applicability of the Bill to military, customs or Police aircraft. The offence creating provisions in the Bill apply to aircraft used in military, customs or Police service in certain circumstances. For example, under the amended section 3, the offence of hijacking can be applied to such aircraft if (a) the person seizing or exercising control of the aircraft is a citizen of Singapore; (b) his act is committed in or over Singapore; or (c) the aircraft is used in Singapore’s military, customs or Police service. This approach balances the immunity enjoyed by the state aircraft of other countries under international law, with the need to protect Singapore and Singaporeans in certain situations. Nonetheless, the Government stands ready to detect, handle and neutralise any safety and security threats to our civil aviation system, including in relation to any aircraft used in military, customs or Police services, in accordance with domestic and international law.
I would like to share with Ms Poh Li San that, as of today, 42 countries have agreed to each of these treaties. However, it will be difficult to benchmark the response of the international community towards the Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 against the earlier treaties as those had been concluded and came into force much earlier.
I believe other States are also seriously considering the provisions of these treaties, just as we did, and, in due course, we should see more countries becoming party to both treaties.
Ms Poh Li San has also noted that Singapore has robust existing security measures and procedures for transporting dangerous goods in place to ensure the safe and orderly operation of Singapore’s aviation industry. However, these are separate matters and we have been working to ensure that we are ready to accede, including ensuring that under our domestic laws, Singapore can implement what is required when the Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 come into force for Singapore after accession.
The civil aviation industry plays a significant role in the global economy. Therefore, aviation safety and security continue to be the highest priorities for states and the global aviation community to ensure the undisrupted and reliable operations of the aviation industry. States that have ratified or acceded to the two treaties have already indicated their commitment to collaborate with like-minded states, as provided for in the treaties.
Mr Yip Hon Weng has queried how collaboration between the involved Ministries to enforce this Bill will be well-integrated and seamless. Indeed, working across multiple agencies, administrative boundaries and organisation priorities are challenges that public officers face daily. This is one of the key reasons why the Singapore Public Service adopted the whole-of-Government (WOG) approach to improve collaboration among officers when working on cross-agency projects. I would like to assure Mr Yip Hon Weng and the House that our public officers will work together closely with the WOG mindset to achieve the collaboration necessary to enforce this Bill.
Mr Louis Ng had earlier queried how the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Technical Instructions should be considered by the Courts in Singapore in the interpretation of this Bill and was concerned that airlines might inadvertently expose themselves to criminal liability under this Bill. Similarly, Ms Poh Li San also expressed concern that our security forces may be subject to legal actions should there be unintended injuries or deaths to innocent parties during their operations. Let me address both concerns.
The Technical Instructions are published by ICAO to ensure that dangerous materials are subjected to the necessary acceptance, packaging, documentation and loading processes for safe transport by air. We have to keep in mind that the Act, as amended by the Bill, is intended to address the separate matter of unlawful acts which intentionally endanger aviation safety. Therefore, the Technical Instructions are not, in themselves, relevant for the purposes of assessing such criminal liability.
Singapore also implements a rigorous cargo screening regime that is compliant with international standards. Our public agencies work closely with the industry stakeholders to ensure that the required safety and security standards are met.
If the industry partner was found to be non-compliant with the relevant standards during the course of the investigation, they can be taken to task based on appropriate legislation, but not the provisions of the Act as amended by the Bill.
Similarly, for our security forces executing high-risk rescue operations, with the intention to neutralise the threats posed by the perpetrators, the provisions of the Act, as amended by the Bill, are not relevant for assessing liabilities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore’s security agencies have, over time, worked on the implementation of security measures to both detect and deter terror-minded individuals. With the provisions of this Bill, the effectiveness of these measures would be enhanced further through international cooperation, including allowing Singapore to prosecute such individuals once they are apprehended.
To safeguard our reputation as a safe and secure air hub, Singapore has to continue its role as an active and responsible global citizen through our participation in the international aviation safety and security initiatives. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Source: Hansard
