HAZE POLLUTION (Motion)

7.05 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: This motion requires the signification of support by at least one Member.

Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin: I support.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That in view of the economic downturn and political transition in Indonesia, the Government should do more to help control and prevent fires in Indonesia that impact Singapore with haze pollution and affect the environment, human health and economic activity.

Sir, many will remember the grey months in 1997 and early 1998. We all suffered from the haze pollution. It was more than an inconvenience. The elderly and those among us with respiratory problems were particularly affected. Our young children were especially vulnerable. One of the world's worst ecological disasters; that is how the Chief of the United Nations Environment Programme described the fires and haze in our region. Yet, some have short memories. In preparing this motion, some ask why I should seek to move this motion now. Our skies are quite clear, and the latest meteorological predictions are that rain in the region is likely to keep haze pollution levels lower than they were last year. Moreover, some have asked me to feel that the economic crisis of the region should take precedence.

Yes, it is true that the rains have put down most of the fires for the moment. I also recognise the great and turbulent times Singapore and the region face, especially our neighbours. Yet, I also believe that it is more important and timely for us to focus on the issue of fires in the region and the haze pollution.

We must do this because the fires and haze are a recurrent problem. In the 1990s alone, heavy haze was experienced in 1991, 1994, 1997 and this year. Each time, concern and anger arose. Then the sentiment evaporated when the skies cleared, and in our inaction, the fires and haze have happened again. So we must not be inactive this time when the skies are clear. We should act before the haze is upon us again. It may be good politics to talk about this when the skies are grey outside, but it will be too late to solve the problem. We should discuss the issue and set out what we need to do now, so that we will not have to suffer the same fate again next year or in future years. If we postpone our actions again, it will be too late. We must act preventively. We should act when the skies are clear, to make sure they stay that way.

Yes, Sir, I recognise the economic crisis in the region is serious. In fact, it is the background of the fires and haze, which originate largely from Indonesia, our neighbour. We have to understand that the environmental problem is tied up with economics. It is the unscrupulous big businesses and companies who are behind the fires, not the natural El Nino phenomenon alone. Experts agree that the dry weather makes things worse. But the origin and underlying causes of the fires are man made. Moreover, because we are learning that El Nino is a cyclical event, we must be prepared for the next time it comes. And even the experts do not know exactly when that will be. Weather forecasts have been wrong before. We cannot therefore depend on the vagaries of rain to save us.

The economic crisis is both a threat and an opportunity for the haze and fires. The crisis may lead to a worsening of the fires and haze. There are three threats. The first threat is that Indonesia will lack administrative and financial wherewithal to deal with the fires. The second threat is that Indonesia will give low priority to the fires. Singaporeans will remember that the former Environment Minister of Indonesia placed the issue no higher than fifth in his list of priorities. The third threat is that the economic necessity to increase exports and gain foreign currency for Indonesia will lead to more unscrupulous, unsustainable and illegal logging and clearing of plantations by fires.

The crisis and political transition in our region and Indonesia also create a window of opportunity. The opportunities are two-fold. First, that in the economic and political reform, policies with negative environmental impacts may be corrected. For example, the previous IMF package set out a number of conditions, including reform on the allocation of forest concessions. If transparency is brought to the system, more responsible land users can be preferred over those who use fire to clear land. The second opportunity is that among the reformers in Indonesia today, there are those who have cared and still care for the environment. There may therefore be more people in Indonesia itself who will work with us in Singapore and others to safeguard the environment of our region.

Sir, I believe that the recovery for Indonesia and the region should aim to be on the basis of sustainable development, rather than one that needlessly destroys nature and natural resources, and harms our environment and human health. We must prioritize actions against fires and haze. Let me emphasise that this is not just an environmental issue about forests, about nature, about animals. The human and health costs are high. Moreover, the fires and haze are also economic phenomena. An international study has estimated that US$4.4 billion was lost by Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore in the 1997 fires alone. This is a considerable amount of money, especially in these bad economic times. This sum, moreover, does not consider possible longer-term health effects. It also estimates the loss of tourist arrivals for just one year, 1997. If the haze is a recurrent problem and our region has a bad reputation among tourists, we do not know how much more our economy may lose in the future.

I therefore urge our Government to consider how it can do more to deal with the fires and haze. In calling for them to do more, I acknowledge the work that the governments of ASEAN, including Singapore's, have done to date. Credit should go to ASEAN governments that they have continued to meet to discuss the Haze Action Plan and other responses to the fires despite the economic crisis. There has been some progress, which I leave to the Minister for the Environment to explain. I believe that many Singaporeans still do not know fully what our Government is doing to protect and care for them on this issue. I believe too that more can be done by Singapore, in addition to what has been done already. There are, of course, many things that Indonesia can and should do for itself. After all, the use of fires is illegal under Indonesia's own laws and the bulk of damage is suffered by her own people and environment.

In making these suggestions, I draw from a policy dialogue which was organised in early June 1998, by the Singapore Environment Council on which I serve as a director. This dialogue brought together some 40 non-governmental organisations (NGOs), think-tanks and experts. Many of these NGOs are working in Indonesia and have experience on the ground there. There were also representatives from the private sector, the Asian Development Bank, ASEAN Secretariat and the United Nations Environment Programme. I chaired the dialogue which issued a statement with some 30 suggestions for governments, international donors and the private sector. I wish to highlight just a few suggestions here today and add some of my own.

As I speak in the Singapore Parliament, I shall focus more today on what I hope Singapore and our Government may do. I shall divide my suggestions between, first, Singapore as part of ASEAN; second, bilateral measures between Singapore and Indonesia; and, third, self-help, ie, what Singapore can do for itself.

First, ASEAN. I urge that the Singapore Government work with ASEAN members to extend and strengthen the existing Action Plans. These Action Plans rely too much on goodwill without binding obligations, and I urge our Government to work with partners towards a binding treaty, which must accept the principle of state responsibility that Indonesia or other countries which cause the fires are responsible for them, and then to create a system for dispute resolution among ASEAN members.

Secondly, I call on ASEAN to recognise that Indonesia has acted contrary to International Law and Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration. Indonesia is causing great damage not only to our region but also to global climate change and biodiversity, and these are subject to two international treaties to which Indonesia and Singapore are members. Singapore and ASEAN should therefore work to focus international attention and assistance on the problem. And this proposal, in some senses, is like our response to the economic crisis. Singapore can serve by being a focal point on this issue.

The third suggestion on how Singapore should work with ASEAN is a negative one. I believe our Government and ASEAN should not over-emphasise water bombing, throwing water on the problem. Sir, the experts we have consulted have advised that this is of great expense and of little effect, especially without sufficient fire-fighting on the ground. Given the economic crisis, I have no doubt that the Singapore Government may come under pressure, alongside Brunei, to fund such spectacular but really quite unproductive efforts. I urge our Government not to take this step.

On bilateral measures between Indonesia and Singapore, my suggestions are four. First, we have refrained from emphasising state responsibility of Indonesia and their liability for damages suffered by our people and economy. We have shown good neighbourliness and understanding of their circumstances. This is good. But our friends in Indonesia must recognise that there are limits. This is especially because the fires are caused, not by the poor in Indonesia, not by the Government, but by large companies. The poor in the affected areas of Indonesia suffer even more than Singaporeans. We must ask Indonesia to recognise its responsibility and to fulfil its duty to cooperate to prevent a recurrence of the fires. Indonesia must recognise its responsibility for transboundary pollution that affects us.

My second plea on the bilateral relations is that Singapore should not necessarily conduct itself only on the level of country to country, government to government. Sir, I urge that the Government consider means to make these disputes at their natural level, ie, largely between citizens and corporate offenders. Our Government can, with Indonesia's consent and cooperation, set up a special court between the countries or, alternatively, to allow special access to courts in either country. Examples of such courts exist in the Nordic Convention among the Nordic countries in Europe and in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Thirdly, on bilateral issues, Singapore has promised billions of dollars in loans to Indonesia for their economy and for trade guarantees, in particular. Sir, I urge the Government to consider that any further assistance to Indonesia must be tied first to their environmental performance. We are Indonesia's friends. I think in giving those first loans, that is clear. But the Indonesian government must do its utmost to help its own people and environment, and the people of the region, including Singaporeans. Indonesia should implement its own laws against the use of fire. It should investigate and name offending companies and enforce those laws against the use of fire, against all companies equally and effectively. Foreign investors may be among those offending shareholders, including Singaporeans. There have been statements by Indonesian ministries to that effect.

Sir, I do not urge that our Government should protect Singaporean investors abroad if they are truly offenders. But I do urge our Government to ensure that Indonesia's prosecution of such corporate offenders should be equal and that Indonesian offenders should also be prosecuted on par with foreign investors.

Fourthly, Sir, I call on the Singapore Government to engage the Indonesian government more broadly, not just the Minister for the Environment but also the Indonesian Ministries of Forestry, Agriculture, Trade and Industry and Finance. And these engagements should be at the highest level.

Sir, as many experts, and I believe the Minister too, have recognised, there is a lack of coordination in Indonesian authorities on this issue. The power of the Ministry of Environment in Indonesia to control forest and agricultural lands is not at all clear.

I move on to my suggestions on how Singapore can help itself, ie, self-help. The first proposal I hope the Government will consider is to promote and facilitate eco-labels. Sir, this is not jargon. Basically, it is a certification process by which we can discover which products have a good environmental background and which are manufactured or produced in an environmentally harmful way, in ways that use fire and result in haze. Certification processes are already used by our Government for a range of products. I urge that the certification of products be applied to those connected with the fires and haze, which are timber and oil palm. Certification would allow Singaporean consumers and those environmentally-minded consumers in Europe and America and elsewhere to vote with their dollar signs, to punish the corporate offenders directly in the market place.

The second measure for self-help I propose is that there should be an advisory to all Singaporean companies investing, lending or trading with Indonesian companies. The advisory should spell out at least their obligations to observe Indonesian laws against the use of fire to clear land. If we do not do this, Sir, we are polluting ourselves. If we do not do this, Sir, it will also be a political embarrassment to Singapore, if our companies pollute overseas and flout laws.

The third self-help measure, I hope the Minister and the Government will consider, is to assist in investigating Singaporean companies, if requested by the Indonesian government.

Sir, when we face a large problem, such as the fires and haze, some among us may shrug our shoulders and say, "We are a very small country, what can we do?" It is true. We cannot change our geography. But I urge against this counsel of apathy and fatalism. That is not the response of Singapore when faced with so many crises such as the regional economic crisis. In that case, we have been among the countries that have sought to focus international attention and assistance, and we have done our share, some say more than our share, with the loans, to help our neighbour. This same positive, proactive and helpful response should be used for the fires.

There are also some who say that Singapore can indeed do more. But their version of what we should do is to give money and keep quiet. I do not share this view. I do not recommend that we throw money at the problem. Nor do I say that we must interfere in our neighbour's internal politics. I want to stress that this, as I see it, is not a case of Singapore against Indonesia, or Indonesia against Singapore. There are those in Indonesia who genuinely wish to solve the problems of the fires and haze and to enforce their own laws. After all, as I have said, the Indonesians are the ones who suffer the most, not us. If such people have the will and the skill, but lack equipment, know-how and funding, Singapore should assist them. It is the right thing to do and it is in our national interest to do it.

There are others in Indonesia who wilfully set the fires or who close one eye to those who set the fires. These people profit from flouting the laws and causing damage to others. These people are no friends of mine, nor should they be friends of anyone in Singapore, I hope. It is not help or funding that we should give such people. We have to find legal sanctions and trade and other measures that can press such people to do the right thing.

What I am saying as such, Sir, is that we need a mix of help and sanctions, of carrots and sticks. We need to help those who genuinely want and need our help, and pressure and impose sanctions on the bad guys.

Sir, the motion is that the Singapore Government should do more. I have given some specific suggestions, but these are not part of the motion itself. The precise measures can and should be left to the Minister for the Environment. The more fundamental question, I urge upon the House, is whether we have done enough today, whether our people perceive that our Government has done all it can and all it should. If not, then we should do more. And all those who wish the Government should do more, including the Government itself if it plans to do more, should support this motion.

I believe that we should do this and not sit passive. We should do this because this is a transboundary issue, not a domestic matter, but a matter of common concern, of great relevance to all of us. We should do this because the international law is on our side, and against the fire starters. We should do this as part of our contribution to help save the global environment from further climate change gases and loss of biodiversity. We should do this because our economy needs more stimulus and growth, not further strain and grey skies from the haze. We should do this because Singapore is our home, and in our home, we, especially our elderly parents and grandparents, our young children and grandchildren, should be kept safe.

Question proposed.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of Mr Simon Tay.

Not too long ago, Singapore was blanketed with an unusual haze phenomenon on a scale never before experienced here. It immediately brought to our attention that what was previously thought of as an unrelated seasonal problem, miles away from Singapore, can bring about serious consequences to our lives and economic activities. The forest fires in Indonesia certainly made life in Singapore difficult, from respiratory ailments to other health problems, falling tourist arrivals, which consequently affected businesses in the hotel and retail sector at a time when these businesses are heavily dependent on tourism. It frustrated efforts to promote Singapore as a region, as an equatorial paradise. Now blanketed by smoke and haze, Southeast Asia quickly became a destination to be avoided.

The haze problem brought home the point that Singapore cannot ignore issues like forest fires raging in a neighbouring country. These problems have wide, geographic and economic ramifications. These problems respect no boundary. Despite these problems, Singaporeans have reacted to the situation with its usual calm and matured manner, aware of the sensitivities and appreciate the good relationship with its neighbours. In fact, there were calls for more assistance to be given to Indonesia to help poor farmers cope with the situation. After all, you cannot blame anyone for the changing weather condition that is wreaking havoc across many countries.

However, it later became apparent that forest fires are not merely the result of bad weather or poor methods of shifting cultivation, but the involvement of major business conglomerates engaged in pre-meditated burning with total disregard for the environment, simply for commercial gains. Quietly, and quite quickly, Singaporeans were upset and fed up with the situation. While they may see the need and urgency to help in terms of both expertise and equipment and financial resources, others doubt the efficacy and the effectiveness of such efforts without a clear demonstration on the part of these businesses to stop the practice of burning as a convenient but irresponsible means of clearing land. Now that the skies have become clearer, albeit temporarily, another type of storm is raging throughout Asia.

With the economic and political reforms now taking place in Indonesia, environmental issues may appear less pressing. On the contrary, with the onset of the dry season, renewed threat of fire and haze is ever present. The haze that has blanketed us since the middle of last year may not be visible now. But it is by no means a closed chapter. Therefore, as good friends and neighbours, we must help Indonesia, not only in its efforts towards economic and political reforms, but in environmental reforms, and putting in place measures to prevent future fires from taking place. By coordinating resources through the national haze action plan and changing the mindset about the environment, that while the forest may be geographically a national interest and responsibility, the environment is for all mankind.

For a country that is heavily dependent on external assistance to stabilise and reform its economy, as it does not have the resources to tackle a huge environmental problem with the same urgency, as we think it deserves, therefore, it is in our own interest that this matter is given the attention that is needed. I am glad for the active role that Singapore is playing through the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on haze.

We should continue to do more in terms of providing the equipment and financial resources from ourselves and persuading other donor countries to help. But amidst scarce resources and competing needs brought about by the economic crisis, we must ensure that resources and assistance will bring about the desired outcomes in terms of preventing forest fires and the renewed commitment towards a more responsible attitude towards the environment. Clearly assistance must be tied to firm plans and commitment. After all, for this assistance to be effective, what is really needed are national plans for public education effort and strict enforcement against open burning, mobilisation of ground fire fighting forces and transmission of information on fire outbreaks, matters which only the Indonesian Government can and must do, for no amount of international effort will be sufficient if the will and commitment are lacking at places where they are most needed - at the grassroots levels, within the business, the farmers, the villagers and local officials.

Having said that, Singaporeans must continue to be aware not to be too critical, for it is easy for us to talk about forest fires, because we do not have any forest to talk about. But it is precisely because of this that Singapore should remain involved and active, and demonstrate our willingness to help solve this problem. We should do more to help our neighbours to be better equipped and prepared to tackle the environmental problem. Never before has it been clearly demonstrated that even for environmental issues, unless we take a firm and active action, the clean air, water and equatorial forests for which we are so dependent upon and for which we have taken for granted for so long may be a thing of the past.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, let me say to the two NMPs that I do understand their concerns and, indeed, I fully share their concerns about the haze situation in Indonesia and the potential for the haze to return to Singapore again when the dry season starts in the coming months.

Sir, as pointed out by Mr Simon Tay, we have actually been doing quite a fair bit. Before I reply to his specific points, it would be good for me to explain the approach the Government has taken so far, what we have done, and what we intend to do in the coming months.

First, let me assure Members that Singapore, together with our ASEAN members, are continuing to pay close attention to the threat of fires and haze, even though the skies are now very clear. We fully realise that a repeat of the 1997 fires and haze disaster will certainly aggravate the region's already bad economic situation.

The ASEAN countries also appreciate the economic problems facing Indonesia. We recognise that we must actively help Indonesia to prevent fires and haze. The regional economic turmoil also means that such help must come not just from ASEAN members, but also from the larger international community.

In this respect, I share Mr Simon Tay's and Mr Zulkifli's views that international assistance must be directed towards measures that can indeed be effective in dealing with the problem, both in the short, medium and long term.

A few months ago, when fires were raging in Kalimantan, the priority then was to internationally mobilise equipment to fight those huge raging fires. Fortunately, rains have returned to the region, and have helped to put out the large-scale fires in most parts of Indonesia. Our focus has consequently changed. What is most pressing now is to help Indonesia in its effort to prevent fires, to detect fires early, and to put in place a system to put fires out as soon as they are detected. The focus of regional and international assistance should therefore be shifted from efforts to put out huge raging fires to funding ground-level activities aimed at putting out fires when they are still small and manageable.

Since the last haze episode, Singapore has, in fact, taken a lead role in forging a regional response to the fires and haze problem. We hosted the very first ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Haze (AMMH) in December last year and initiated the ASEAN Regional Haze Action Plan (RHAP).

The Regional Haze Action Plan has provided a broad framework for the region to tackle the haze problem. It encompasses short-, medium- and long-term solutions. Through the Action Plan, ASEAN countries have since concluded their respective national haze action plans, identified resources available and the additional resources needed to fight fires, and set out various mechanisms for greater intra-regional cooperation on fires and haze.

A key development under the Regional Action Plan was the agreement to quickly implement two sub-Regional Fire-fighting Arrangements - one to prevent fires from developing in Kalimantan and the other in Sumatra.

The Sub-Regional Fire-fighting Arrangements (RFAs) deal with ground level cooperation needed to detect, monitor and fight fires. They involve the sharing and mobilisation of resources within a sub-region to pre-empt and fight fires. The objective is to ensure that fire outbreaks are detected early and put out quickly before they can expand to a disaster level. Malaysia is the lead country in the Sumatra RFA, with Indonesia and Singapore as members, while Brunei is leading the Kalimantan RFA, with Indonesia and Malaysia as the other two members.

At the recent ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Haze held in Singapore on 19th June, the ASEAN Environment Ministers felt that aerial water bombing is not only extremely expensive, but may not be that effective in heavily forested areas. So in this respect, I think Mr Simon Tay is correct. This is our conclusion too. The Ministers agreed that Sumatra RFA would involve two key activities. The first is an aerial surveillance regime to detect fires. Why do we need this? We have found that the existing satellite monitoring system that we have in place now can only detect fairly sizeable fires. Very often, these fires are already too large to be easily put out. A monitoring regime using aircraft will help to overcome this limitation.

Aerial surveillance, however, is also a very costly operation. Fortunately, Indonesia plans to use her own hardware resources, thereby significantly reducing the cost. But because of economic problems, Indonesia will need help in funding out-of-pocket expenses, especially fuel costs. During the Ministerial meeting, both UNEP and the USA, fortunately, had indicated their interest in participating in the aerial operations and we do look forward to their funding support for these operations.

The second activity under the Sumatra RFA is to improve the communications network among agencies at the provincial and district levels in Sumatra. The objective is to ensure that information on fires can be quickly disseminated to the ground fire-fighting forces. This is an area where Singapore has the expertise. We will be providing Indonesia with communication and computer equipment to support the aerial surveillance and fire fighting operations. The key is to ensure that the information picked up by the aerial spotters can be very quickly fed down to the ground forces because every hour that is lost will result in the fire only getting much larger. We will focus our assistance on four priority provinces in Sumatra, namely, Riau, Lampung, Southern Sumatra and Jambi. These are the four provinces with significant fire-prone forest land.

To make the RFAs effective, Indonesia will need help in other areas too. These would include fire-fighting equipment and the training for their firemen. These are areas where other countries have the necessary expertise. Malaysia has offered to provide training on fire fighting and ASEAN countries will continue to seek international assistance through UNEP and bilaterally.

With regard to UNEP and international assistance, UNEP has participated in most of the ASEAN haze meetings and is playing an important role in mobilising international assistance. It has formulated a US$10 million short-term plan to contain fires in Kalimantan, and this plan was drawn up when there were about 1,000 fires raging in Kalimantan. However, as recent rains have helped to put out the Kalimantan fires, the donor countries have quite understandably not been very forthcoming in responding to UNEP's appeal. At the recent Ministerial meeting, UNEP's representative agreed that it would now try to get the donor countries to contribute towards preventive measures instead. ASEAN will continue to maintain close contact and work with UNEP on this.

What about our role? Singapore will continue to provide assistance to Indonesia on the forest fire problem, both bilaterally and as part of regional and international efforts.

Last year, we provided about $300,000 to install an Intranet system that enables ASEAN countries to expeditiously share satellite information on fires and haze. We also provided the Jakarta Command Post, which monitors fires and haze, with various hi-tech communication equipment and computers, and trained its staff on their use.

This year, at Indonesia's request, we intend to provide further assistance under the RFAs. These would include computer and communication equipment to support aerial surveillance and fire-fighting operations, as I have mentioned just now. We will also train key ground staff from these provinces on the use of these and other equipment.

Another key element which the Ministers have identified is public education. Public education must go hand-in-hand with other efforts to deal with the haze. Indeed, public education is an important aspect addressed under the Regional Haze Action Plan and the Ministers have agreed that public education and incentives against open burning should be widely conducted at the local levels. These measures have, in fact, been included under the respective National Haze Action Plans, and we will have to develop them into the implementation stage subsequently.

On enforcement, ASEAN Ministers have also urged Indonesia to step up its enforcement against illegal burning activities. We noted that the Association of Indonesian Forest Entrepreneurs was prosecuted in court recently, and fined 50 billion rupiah. It is only through effective enforcement, coupled with heavy penalties that reflect the true cost of the fires to the Indonesian and regional economies, and to the health of the people, that Indonesia can deter plantation owners from continuing their highly irresponsible activities.

At our recent meeting, the Ministers also agreed that ASEAN countries should include presumptive provisions in their national laws to make it easier to successfully prosecute owners of burnt land. This arose from the explanation that it is very difficult to catch people who are setting fires to the land red-handed, and therefore the burden of proof is a very difficult one to fulfil. At that discussion, both Brunei and Malaysia shared with us their experience and they told us that they have such presumptive provisions in their laws and that these presumptive provisions turn out to be very effective in deterring illegal open burning activities.

The Ministers also urged countries which are converting large tracts of forest and peat lands into plantations to carefully review their land-use policies so as to discourage open burning practices.

Mr Tay has also mentioned some other points. I will take them up separately. He has asked that Singapore work with the other ASEAN countries to strengthen the action plans. We are doing that. In fact, the Sub-Regional Fire-fighting Arrangement is a result of the Regional Haze Action Plan that was put in place. As we continue with the discussions, we were able to translate some of those information sharing plans into actual action plans on the ground. So the RFA was one of the very important outcomes of the Regional Haze Action Plan and we will continue to strengthen those action plans and ensure that resources can be found to implement them.

He has also talked several times about the need to have binding treaties. Sir, treaties result only when all the parties involved are prepared to even consider the possibility of such treaties. I do not think we have come to that stage yet. In fact, we are very, very far from that stage where we can even talk about the possibility of treaties. Let us focus on things which are productive, things which do not divide the whole meeting and make the meeting acrimonious. Let us work on things that all parties can agree with and where effective outcomes can be found. Therefore, I do not think his suggestion about Singapore coming out with binding treaties with Indonesia or, in fact, with the other ASEAN countries is something which is viable at this present stage.

He has asked that the ASEAN countries and Singapore ask Indonesia to recognise its responsibility to prevent fires. Sir, indeed, that is what we have been doing very actively. As a result, we have been able to make progress in terms of bilateral and regional cooperation on ways to tackle the fires and haze.

He has asked us to set up a special court to prosecute offenders, if I get it right. Is that what he proposes?

Mr Simon Tay: It is a special court which will allow Singapore citizens or people who damage their companies to sue Indonesian companies directly.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, I am not a lawyer. I do not know whether this is a feasible approach. I shall consult our legal experts. But, as a layman, I would expect that any arrangement of this sort must have the agreement of our Indonesian counterparts. As I said just now, I do not think it is something that is going to be very viable at the present moment. In fact, we may actually be souring up the environment.

He has also asked that we release names of companies that are involved in illegal burning and ensure that the Indonesian government prosecutes both Indonesian companies and foreign companies equally. Sir, in fact, we have been asking for the names of the companies from Indonesia. But till now, we have not received any response. I think part of the problem is that they have difficulties proving guilt on the part of the companies that they have identified. As such, I think, as a lawyer, Mr Tay would realise that until guilt is proven, one should not start to penalise them. Therefore, the Indonesian authorities have not come back to us with the names of the companies. At the last meeting, the Minister told us that two companies are now in the process of being prosecuted and we await the outcome of these two cases when they come to court.

He has asked that we promote eco-labels. Sir, we already have a Eco-Labelling Scheme in place in Singapore. It is not for the Government to actively promote one class of products over another. It is for the consumers and this is where the NGOs may have a role. If the NGOs feel very strongly that eco-labelling is useful and that products with eco-labels are supported, then I would propose that the NGOs who feel that way take an active role in promoting them. But having said that, we have to be aware of the potential negative implications. One of the fears that many countries have expressed is the use of eco-labels by the developed countries as a protectionist tool against products from developing countries which may not be able to meet those high eco-standards set by the developed countries. In this respect, I would urge NGOs, even if they are interested, to be a bit circumspect and look at the full implications of the scheme rather than look at very narrow aspects of the scheme.

He has also asked us to identify and certify products which are linked to the haze and fires. Sir, we are not able to do that because, in the first place, we do not even know which companies are involved in deliberate fire setting.

He has asked us to issue advisory to Singapore companies about their obligations to comply with the laws of the countries they operate in. Sir, we have stated these repeatedly that the Government expects all Singapore businessmen and companies to fully comply with the laws of the countries they operate in, whether it is in Indonesia, other parts of South East Asia, or countries outside the region. This has been very well publicised and I am sure our companies and businessmen know this. Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all companies that are operating specifically in Indonesia to strictly comply with Indonesian laws against the use of fires for land clearing activities. I would like to remind them that, as in all cases, where companies are prosecuted for contravening laws of other countries, they cannot expect the Singapore Government to intervene on their behalf if they are found guilty of being involved in such activities and are heavily penalised.

He has asked that we assist in investigating Singapore companies if the Indonesian government requests us. Sir, the fires started and took place in Indonesia. This is where the investigations have to be carried out. I do not see what value Singapore can add to investigation into the fires that take place in Indonesia.

He also touched on those in Indonesia who want to help solve the problem and that we should help them. Sir, governments have to work on a government-to-government basis. If the NGOs in Indonesia are very much concerned about the problem, and I think they have got good reasons to be concerned about the problem, then it is up to our NGOs to see what they can do to help them. It is not possible for the Singapore Government to intervene and actively help NGOs in other countries on matters which affect those countries.

Those points raised by Mr Zulkifli are in many ways similar to what Mr Tay has mentioned and I have addressed them too.

Sir, let me conclude by stressing that, despite all of ASEAN's efforts and even with international assistance, we cannot be the ones to put out the fires in Indonesia. The fires can only be prevented and put out by Indonesia herself. Indeed, Indonesia has since indicated that she prefers to use her own firemen to fight the fires. What neighbouring countries and the international community can do is to help strengthen Indonesia's capacity to detect fires early and put them out quickly. ASEAN will also help Indonesia address efforts against slash-and-burn practices and urge Indonesia to take strong, effective enforcement actions against irresponsible plantation owners. On Singapore's part, we have been actively helping Indonesia over the past year to address some of the challenges related to forest fires and haze. In this respect, I agree with the motion by Mr Tay that we should do more and, indeed, we are doing more. But these efforts and assistance should focus on areas which are going to be productive and which will help us move the solution along rather than addressing things which may be counterproductive. But we also appreciate that our utmost efforts will still be not enough in view of the scale of challenge facing Indonesia. We will therefore also help by continuing to rally further support and assistance for Indonesia at the regional and international levels.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Deputy Speaker, if I understand the Minister correctly, he supports the motion. May I clarify that with him?

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Yes.

Mr Simon Tay: I am heartened by that. But if I may very briefly, given the hour, address some of the points. I call for basically a mix of carrots and sticks. Of course, it is for the Government of our country to determine the actual mix and, again, I see the greater experience and authority of the Minister and the Government in determining what the mix should be in its dealings with Indonesia. As I said, I myself do not feel this is a Singapore-against-Indonesia issue and I hope our Indonesian colleagues do not feel that way.

It is very much the victims of pollution against the people who created the pollution, wherever they stand on the border. But, however, I must urge the Minister that the route he is taking us down, while increasing the capacity of Indonesia to respond, will not necessarily increase the will of the Indonesian government to respond and that we should not therefore give up all sanctions and pressures. I am of course aware that ASEAN prefers to put those pressures behind closed doors. I then ask the Government to allow greater leeway for NGOs and people in Singapore to publicly express their concerns to the Indonesian people and government in their private capacities.

Secondly, I wish the Minister to consider that the eco-labels that he rejects should not be rejected out of hand. I urge that the Government study them. The Ministry of the Environment already administers all the existing eco-labels in Singapore. There are more than 20-over products under these eco-labels. We should not surrender this possibility once companies are prosecuted, once names are named. We should not abandon the power to go against the bad guys in the marketplace. If we cannot enforce Indonesian laws, we have a market for which we can ask our consumers to make their voice known.

The Minister cautioned against the danger of protectionism. I am reminded of course that our Minister for the Environment was previously the Minister for Trade and Industry and this was a very controversial issue and I share that concern. But we must see clearly that in this issue of timber and oil palm, there is no danger that Singapore has protectionist measures in mind. We have got no timber and we have got no oil palm. What we have in mind is not protectionism, but protection.

The Minister has also said that the government must work with government and I believe that it is correct. But there are many tools in international law and international relations, as the Minister well knows, to fund international agencies and to have international agencies support programmes and projects that seem workable, whether these programmes and projects come from NGOs or from Indonesia's host government.

I am encouraged by the Minister's support. I believe the Minister has more to say. Without possibly responding to him again, I just wish to add that, as Indonesia goes through this period of reconstruction in environment, I urge, and this point has not been addressed by the Minister for the Environment or, perhaps it is to be addressed by the Government as a whole, that we engage Indonesia not purely in terms of the environment but on these issues, again I stress, on forestry, on agriculture, on trade and industry and finance as a whole, because these are not about fires per se but about economic imperatives that drive Indonesian companies or Singapore investors in Indonesian companies to do these bad practices.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yeo, do you wish to clarify?

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, I would like to respond to a few of his points. First, on sanctions. I think the concept of sanctions is best exemplified by the Americans. The US is the superpower of the world, in fact, the main power in the world. They have applied sanctions to many countries and, in many cases, those sanctions have shown very minimal results, if at all. In the context of Singapore, I think the concept of sanctions would almost be laughable, and I think we should not do discredit to ourselves by doing something which would totally be ineffective.

Sir, on eco-labels, yes, we already have the Eco-Labelling Scheme. But the Eco-Labelling Scheme is one which is very well established, and the scheme recognises products which are environmentally friendly. What we have been trying to prevent is the concept of eco-labelling that labels products which are environmentally unfriendly. Because that opens up a whole Pandora's box of products which are environmentally unfriendly.

If a factory that does not reduce humidity artificially and workers are sweating away, is that an environmentally unfriendly factory to the workers? If a country which has very poor sewerage facilities thereby resulting in factories also discharging wastes which are semi-treated into the open drains which, of course, in a developed country would be an absolutely no-no, would those products be also declared environmentally unfriendly and therefore given a black eco-label?

Sir, it is not that Singapore does not have any timber and oil palms and therefore we came up with this black eco-label on timber and oil palm products. It is the principle and the whole concept of the Eco-Labelling Scheme.

Singapore has a very well established reputation in the trading world. Whatever we do, I can assure Members, will be jumped upon and distorted for their own use by other countries. Do we want to be the one to open the Pandora's box? I think the cost to us from opening such a Pandora's box will be many, many times larger than the worst haze experience we have ever encountered. So I would urge that while we have an area of concern, let us not allow our concerns to overpower our better judgment and result in a bigger problem for not just Singapore but the whole region. This will also boomerang on us, because we are so interlinked with economies of the region.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think that is a nice point to stop the debate. I have allowed you a few clarifications.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, I think I have addressed his three points.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That in view of the economic downturn and political transition in Indonesia, the Government should do more to help control and prevent fires in Indonesia that impact Singapore with haze pollution and affect the environment, human health and economic activity.