By: Staff Writer
December 09, Colombo (LNW): The MV X-Press Pearl tragedy of May–June 2021 remains one of the most devastating maritime disasters Sri Lanka has faced in modern times. The Singapore-flagged vessel caught fire off the coast of Colombo, spilling hazardous chemicals, plastics and debris into the Indian Ocean, causing immense environmental and economic damage. Sri Lanka’s coastal communities, marine ecosystems and fisheries sector felt the effects almost immediately, while the global shipping industry watched closely as the situation unfolded.
More than four years later, the legal and financial consequences continue to reverberate. In 2025, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka ruled that compensation should be paid in connection with the disaster. Yet Singaporean public relations and legal agencies, acting on behalf of the involved parties, have maintained that Singapore cannot comply with the compensation order. Their reasoning, as outlined in official communications, rests on a series of legal, jurisdictional and systemic arguments rather than an outright rejection of Sri Lanka’s environmental suffering.
1. Jurisdictional Complexity and the Limits of National Rulings
At the heart of Singapore’s refusal lies a fundamental jurisdictional issue. Singaporean authorities argue that Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court ruling, while binding within Sri Lankan legal territory, has no automatic force under Singaporean law. International maritime incidents typically fall under multi-layered legal frameworks that include flag-state responsibility, international conventions and contractual obligations between insurers and shipping companies.
Singapore’s position is that any enforcement outside Sri Lanka requires a recognised legal route—such as arbitration, treaty-based cooperation, or reciprocal enforcement mechanisms—which, in this case, they argue does not exist. From their standpoint, accepting the ruling would create a precedent allowing domestic courts elsewhere to impose liabilities unilaterally on foreign companies, a scenario Singapore considers incompatible with its own legal norms and the broader international maritime framework.
2. Concerns Over Legal Precedent and the Global Shipping Industry
Singapore is keenly aware of its status as one of the world’s most important maritime and logistics hubs. Its agencies—reflected indirectly in the PR documents—suggest that compliance could undermine the predictability of the global shipping environment. If shipping firms could be compelled to pay damages based on rulings from any jurisdiction, without internationally accepted adjudication processes, the resulting uncertainty would reverberate across global supply chains.
Furthermore, the Sri Lankan ruling orders compensation of unprecedented magnitude—around USD 1 billion. Singaporean agencies warn that accepting such unilateral liability could deter vessel operators from routing through or registering in Sri Lanka, creating ripple effects in regional shipping competitiveness, especially at a time when ports such as Colombo face strategic challenges from emerging hubs like Vizhinjam in India.
3. Contestation Over Responsibility and the Chain of Failures
The narrative emerging in Singapore emphasises a shared international responsibility rather than sole liability. As highlighted in the documents, the X-Press Pearl was turned away by ports in Hamad and Hazira when a dangerous, leaking chemical container was first identified.
These earlier refusals to allow the vessel refuge—prior even to entering Sri Lankan waters—form a key part of the argument that the disaster was not caused solely by corporate negligence but by cumulative failures across multiple jurisdictions.
In Singapore’s view, this diffused chain of events reduces the justification for a single, large-scale compensation demand placed solely upon the operator or its insurers, absent a broader international fact-finding and liability-sharing process.
4. The Need for Global Maritime Reform, Not Isolated Penalties
Singaporean agencies frame the issue as larger than the X-Press Pearl case, calling instead for systemic reform. They emphasise that the absence of a binding international obligation for ports to assist vessels in distress—highlighted also in Sri Lankan analyses—has allowed preventable disasters to occur.
Singapore’s refusal to pay, therefore, is positioned as an insistence on proper global procedures rather than a rejection of accountability.
Conclusion
Singapore’s position is rooted in legal jurisdiction, industry safeguarding and the complexities of shared international responsibility. While Sri Lanka seeks justice and restoration for its devastating losses, Singapore maintains that compensation of this scale must follow internationally recognised pathways. The impasse highlights the urgent need for global maritime reform—so that tragedies like the X-Press Pearl are met with clear, enforceable and cooperative mechanisms rather than fragmented national responses.
