1.    Distinguished guests, colleagues and friends,

2.    Good morning. It is a pleasure to join you at the Maritime Traffic Safety Forum.

The Tragedy of the Commons

3.    More than half a century ago, ecologist Garrett Hardin popularised the concept of the Tragedy of the Commons.

4.    The idea is simple. When people share a common resource, each has an incentive to maximise their own benefit. But if everyone acts only in their own interest, they risk undermining the very resource they all depend on.

5.    The oceans are among the world's great commons. Ships compete for business, but share the same waterways. They depend on common rules and infrastructure to operate safely.

6.    Yet keeping the seas safe requires collective action. And collective action is not always easy.

7.    There are three reasons for this: divided authority, misaligned incentives and unequal burdens.

8.    These give rise to three tensions I would like to explore today.

First: National Interests vs Global Commons

9.    Let me begin with the first tension: National Interests versus Global Commons.

10.    Freedom of navigation is fundamental to global trade. But keeping waterways safe and open comes at a cost. Navigational aids must be maintained. Vessel traffic must be managed. And emergencies must be responded to.

11.    Much of this responsibility falls on coastal states, even though the benefits are enjoyed by the wider maritime community.

12.    Recent developments in the Strait of Hormuz, including proposals for tolls or fees imposed on transiting vessels, have brought this issue into sharper focus. 

13.    These proposals have raised serious concerns because they are inconsistent with international law. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and as reflected in customary international law, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage through Straits Used for International Navigation.

14.    No tolls, charges or levies should therefore be imposed on vessels transiting such straits, including the Strait of Hormuz.

15.    For the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, or SOMS, the three littoral states — Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia — remain committed to keeping the SOMS open and safe for international shipping, in accordance with international law. We have long held that the right of transit passage must be upheld in both principle and practice. Vessels therefore transit the SOMS without fees or compulsory pilotage.

16.    How, then, do the three littoral states work with user states and industry to share the burden of safeguarding one of the world’s busiest waterways?

17.    One way is the Co-operative Mechanism on Safety of Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, established by the three littoral states in 2007. For the first time, it gave practical effect to the spirit and intent of Article 43 of UNCLOS.

18.    Through its various components, user states and industry can contribute expertise and voluntary funding to improve navigational safety and environmental protection in the straits.

19.    The same principle applies to piracy and armed robbery against ships: the threats cross borders, but enforcement powers remain largely national.

20.    Singapore hosts the ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre and the Information Fusion Centre, which enable countries to share information and strengthen their responses. It is another example of how cooperation helps overcome the limits of national jurisdiction.

21.    Our jurisdictions may be national. But the benefits of safe and open seas are shared. So too must be the responsibility to safeguard them.

Second: Private Incentives vs Public Risks

22.    This brings me to the second tension: Private Incentives versus Public Risks.

23.    Shipping is a competitive industry. Companies face constant pressure to cut costs and improve efficiency. But problems arise when one party enjoys the benefits of a decision, while others bear the risks.

24.    Container fires are a good example.

25.    According to industry figures cited in Allianz Commercial's 2026 Safety and Shipping Review, a container ship fire occurs somewhere in the world approximately every 17 days.

26.    One contributing risk is misdeclared or improperly packed dangerous goods. A shipper may save money by avoiding additional handling requirements. But if a fire breaks out, it is the crew, shipowner and potentially the port that bear the consequences.

27.    Singapore has experienced these risks firsthand.

28.    On 10 April this year, a fire broke out among containers on board the EVER LENIENT, berthed at our Pasir Panjang Terminal.

29.    Our emergency responders worked through the night. The Singapore Civil Defence Force led the firefighting, supported by PSA and MPA. We deployed patrol craft to secure the surrounding waters and drones for aerial surveillance.

30.    The fire was extinguished the following day. Thankfully, there were no reported injuries or oil pollution. Port operations continued without disruption.

31.    The cause of the fire has not been publicly established. But the incident reminds us that cargo risks do not stop at the ship's rail.

32.    As a major transshipment hub, Singapore handles cargo packed and declared by parties far beyond our shores. Yet when something goes wrong, we may have to deal with the consequences.

33.    The gains from cutting corners may be private. But the risks are shared.

34.    Container safety must therefore begin further upstream, with accurate cargo declarations, proper packing and greater accountability across the supply chain.

35.    We need better information sharing, stronger enforcement and closer cooperation among shippers, freight forwarders, shipping lines, terminal operators and regulators.

36.    Efficiency should never come at the expense of someone else's safety.

 

37.    My third tension is the reverse of the second: Individual Costs versus Collective Benefits.

38.    Sometimes, we are called upon to bear costs not because we have created risks for others, but because others need our help.

39.    Search and rescue illustrates this well. A vessel responding to a distress call may face delays, additional costs and operational risks. Yet every seafarer depends on others being prepared to come to their aid.

40.    We saw this recently.

41.    On 22 September this year, Singapore's Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre received a distress alert from Liberia-registered container vessel MSC HERMES III, which experienced water ingress within Singapore's Maritime Search and Rescue Region. 

42.    Our officers called for nearby vessels to assist. Three responded. One of them rescued all 25 crew members who had abandoned their vessel in a lifeboat. We then worked with our Vietnamese counterparts to facilitate their safe return to shore.

43.    Just days earlier, on 17 September, there was a collision between China-registered fishing vessel Lu Qing Yuan Yu and a bulk carrier in the Singapore Strait. The fishing vessel took on water but remained afloat. The Singapore Civil Defence Force helped transfer crew members ashore, while MPA escorted the vessel as it was towed into port. Thankfully, no injuries were reported.

44.    These incidents show maritime cooperation in action. Singapore coordinated the response. Vessels and rescue agencies came to the aid of those in need, regardless of nationality or flag.

45.    Such operations also come at a cost to Singapore. We maintain a round-the-clock Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre, deploy personnel and assets, and work with neighbouring countries to coordinate rescues. 

46.    Since 2025, the Centre has coordinated over 30 operations in Singapore’s Maritime Search and Rescue Region. The Centre is also responsible for coordinating helicopter medical evacuations for critically ill seafarers and passengers on vessels within the Region. All these require resources, even when the vessels and seafarers involved are not Singaporean.

47.    But Singapore remains committed to doing our part and fulfilling our international responsibilities.

48.    No shipowner expects to need rescuing. No seafarer begins a voyage expecting to be in distress. But should the worst happen, everyone hopes that another vessel or coastal state will come to their aid.

49.    We all benefit from a system in which others are prepared to help us. But that system only works if we are equally prepared to help others.

50.    The costs of providing assistance may fall on individual vessels and coastal states. But the benefits belong to the entire maritime community.

Closing: Keeping the Commons Safe

51.    Let me return to the tragedy of the commons.

52.    We have seen three tensions today that we must overcome to keep the maritime commons safe.

53.    National Interests versus Global Commons. We need international rules and cooperation to safeguard shipping.

54.    Private Incentives versus Public Risks. We must ensure that commercial decisions do not put others at risk.

55.    Individual Costs versus Collective Benefits. We must be prepared to contribute to a system that benefits us all.

56.    Keeping the maritime commons safe requires more than looking after our own interests. It requires us to look out for one another.

57.    We may compete for business. But when it comes to maritime safety, we must succeed together.

58.    Let me conclude with a few words in Chinese.

59.     维护海上安全，需要我们在三个方面凝聚共识、共同努力。

60.    第一，共守规则，共护航道。航道连接各国，也服务全球航运。保障航道安全畅通，离不开国际规则与合作。

61.    第二，共担责任，共防风险。航运环环相扣，企业在追求效率的同时，也需要考虑可能给整个航运链条带来的风险。因此，无论是准确申报，还是规范操作，都需要大家共同承担责任。

62.    第三，共伸援手，共享安全。海上遇险时，任何船舶都可能需要帮助。相互援助，也让海上的每一份安全多一份保障。

63.    海域有界，安全无界。我们共享同一片海洋，也共担同一份责任。

64.    谢谢大家。Thank you.