T

he Norgas Cathinka tanker collided head-on with the KMP Bahuga Jaya ferry in the Sunda Strait early on Sept. 26 following a turn by the tanker (in accordance with UN’s IMO [International Maritime Organization] rules
to avoid a vessel approaching from the right) and a sharp near u-turn by the ferry.

The tanker followed standard procedure — sailing a safe distance away to make sure its flammable cargo was safe, and immediately returned, only to be arrested by the police within less than two hours.

The ferry sank within 30 minutes with the loss of eight lives. Following the event the tanker has been examined as part of various investigations and its captain and chief officer, already named suspects, have undergone questioning while the parent company’s cooperating with the investigation.

Questions remain as to what caused the collision, which appears to be human error.

The question: Why did the ferry sink? Requires a more complex answer than “because the ships collided”, as it appears to relate to the condition of the ferry that included extensive modifications, a 20-year falsification of age from 1972 to 1992, as well as unsecured vehicles that would have unbalanced the ferry during the sharp turn.

Finally, what was the cause of the loss of life? The answer to this is also more complex as it appears to relate to emergency procedures and life- saving equipment.

The tanker was filled with over 3,000 tons of propylene that is a flammable, odorless, heavier than air gas kept at below -45 degrees celcius. If released it would spread for a number of kilometers over the neighboring port, industrial area and the city (a search for “propylene tanker explosion” demonstrates the consequences, albeit with a fraction of the gas).

The tanker’s safety equipment was more than a month overdue for overhaul and one of the relief valves had already failed. The information on the danger of the tanker’s cargo, the inability to safely unload or to conduct the overhaul has been made public and reported to the relevant authorities, whose inaction comes as a surprise considering not only the immediate threat but also the legal and political consequences that will follow an explosion.

The tanker has been detained in excess of what was required for any investigation. Nonetheless, the police detention continues without a coherent reason or a possibility to challenge it, which goes against maritime protocols and international practice.

Even when it is released by the police the detention will continue on the basis of a pending arrest warrant issued by the Serang District Court in the context of a civil case brought by the ferry’s owners. The court’s action lacks legal basis and appears to be for an indefinite duration, relying on the 2008 Shipping Law, which leaves detention procedures, including duration, challenge and provision of security, to be implemented by means of a not yet issued ministerial regulation.

The Maritime Court has also approached the case with a preconceived position, lecturing the crew with leading questions and not allowing responses to be provided. Even more disconcerting is the unavailability to the court of the key evidence contained in the voyage data recorder (black box) that is held by the National Transportation Safety Committee.

The prolonged detention of the tanker, and hence the exposure of the public to the risks of such detention, indicates a level of inappropriate conduct, aimed to further the bargaining position in a civil case, which is no longer acceptable in reform era Indonesia.

The collision occurred in the Sunda Strait, an international maritime lane that is routinely crossed by domestic ferry traffic without any oversight from traffic control, in fact domestic crews are unable to communicate with international vessels. The ferries are often in a dire state, with falsified records of their age and condition. Unless this is resolved we will be left to deal with future disasters.

Unlike collisions, excessive and unpredictable detention of ships with dubious motivations, in contravention of international norms, is not something that the shipping industry has had to deal with outside of the Somalia piracy problem.

Detention in accordance to rules and procedures, even if opaque, may not seem readily comparable to piracy on the high seas, but the reality is that the impact on business is nearly identical — prolonged and uncertain detention of a vessel in dangerous conditions with underlying demands for payment.

Once this case is settled, it will set a precedent, both for how domestic ship operators behave in Indonesia’s shipping lanes of global importance and how the international community views the risks of sailing in Indonesian waters, including whether the risk of such misconduct is insurable.

Finally, the case will be noted as either a step in the right direction toward progress in legal reforms or yet another nail in the coffin of entrenched and systemic corruption.

The writer is public policy observer and consumers protection activist.