Hansard Explorer

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.

6.29 pm

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The objectives of this Bill are commendable. Singapore should not be a passive victim of irresponsible land clearing practices. Neither should businesses that profit from environmentally harmful activities be allowed to escape accountability, simply because those activities take place beyond our shores.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today, I will focus on three areas: the expansion of liability and the importance of legal certainty; the strengthening of enforcement powers, including higher penalties and the proposed assessor regime; and protecting responsible businesses whilst supporting those that bear the economic consequences of haze.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the most significant changes is the expansion of liability from actual haze pollution to the risk of haze pollution, as well as the extension of regulations to businesses across the supply chain. This changes the threshold liability and the range of entities that may be held responsible.

Under the existing framework, the focus is on conduct that causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore. Under the proposed framework, liability may arise even where haze never materialises here.

I understand the policy rationale. If we wait until haze reaches our shores before intervening, we may already be too late. But when we move from regulating actual harm to regulating the risk of harm, the law must be clear about what that risk means. Is the risk required to be substantial? Must it be reasonably foreseeable, probable or imminent? What distinguishes a legally significant risk from a mere possibility? And should the risk be assessed based on information reasonably available at the time, or with the benefit of hindsight after a fire has taken place?

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

This distinction matters. Businesses and individuals should not be judged against circumstances that could not reasonably have been anticipated or controlled. This is particularly important given the Act's extraterritorial reach. Businesses may operate in different jurisdictions, under different regulatory environments and with varying access to information.

The Bill also extends beyond entities directly involved in the relevant conduct. It seeks to reach businesses involved in arrangements to source, purchase or supply goods and services, whether directly or indirectly.

I understand the reasoning. Environmentally harmful practices may be supported by a network of producers, intermediaries, traders, manufacturers and buyers. Businesses should therefore exercise proper care over their supply chains.

But we must recognise the practical realities. A manufacturer may deal with hundreds of suppliers. A trader may purchase through multiple intermediaries. A retailer may have little visibility over activities several tiers removed from its immediate suppliers.

So, the question is not whether businesses should exercise due diligence. They should. The question is what constitutes reasonable and sufficient due diligence. What checks should businesses conduct and how frequently? What happens when information is incomplete or unavailable? How do we distinguish between a business that deliberately ignores warning signs and one that has made genuine efforts but cannot uncover wrongdoing deep within a complex supply chain?

Mr Speaker, I suggest a clear principle. Businesses should be held accountable for what they knew, what they ought reasonably to have known and the steps they took in response. A company that deliberately turns a blind eye should not be able to hide behind the complexity of its supply chain. But neither should a company that has acted responsibly be held to an impossible standard of guaranteeing the conduct of every party, at every tier, in every jurisdiction.

The law should incentivise responsible conduct, not demand the impossible. The earlier the law intervenes and the wider its reach, the greater the need for clarity about the boundaries of legal responsibility.

My second point, Mr Speaker, relates to the substantial increase in penalties and the introduction of the assessor regime. I recognise that environmental offences can cause extensive and sometimes irreversible damage. Penalties must be serious enough to deter conduct that puts public health and the environment at risk.

But deterrence cannot simply be measured by the size of the maximum penalty. We must consider how the different enforcement mechanisms under the amended Act interact. An entity may face criminal penalties, civil penalties and other regulatory consequences. While each may serve a legitimate purpose, the overall outcome must remain fair and proportionate. In assessing penalties, how will the authorities take into account the seriousness of the conduct, the entity's degree of responsibility, the extent of harm or risk, and the steps taken to prevent or mitigate it?

There is an important distinction between a company that knowingly participates in irresponsible land-clearing practices and one whose involvement is more remote, or whose failure occurs despite reasonable precautions. A strong enforcement framework must recognise different degrees of culpability. That is how penalties remain credible, consistent and proportionate.

I would also like to address the proposed assessor regime. Under the Bill, the Director-General may require an entity to appoint assessors to evaluate its involvement in activities linked to overseas fires. I appreciate that investigating overseas activities can be technically complex and may require specialist expertise. However, the regulated entity may be required to appoint and fund the very assessors examining its own conduct.

How will independence be ensured in substance and not merely in name? Will there be an approved pool of assessors, clear qualification requirements and professional standards? How will the scope of an assessment be determined? What recourse will an entity have if it considers an assessment incomplete, inconsistent or procedurally unfair?

The credibility of this regime must rest on the integrity of the process. Assessors must be independent and accountable, with transparent methodologies, clear professional standards and findings capable of proper scrutiny.

It is not about making enforcement more difficult. It is about ensuring that enforcement decisions can withstand scrutiny and command confidence.

My third point, Mr Speaker, is about businesses and workers affected by this legislation, as well as those who bear the consequences of haze despite having played no part in causing it.

As we strengthen accountability, we must recognise the practical realities faced by businesses, particularly our small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). They may not have the financial resources or operational flexibility of larger companies, and compliance can carry significant costs.

A business that deliberately ignores warning signs should be held accountable. But a business that has put proper checks in place, sought information from suppliers and taken reasonable steps should not be treated in the same way simply because it cannot guarantee the conduct of every party several tiers down its supply chain.

The law should encourage better traceability, supplier screening and responses to credible warnings. It should not discourage legitimate businesses from participating in international trade because the risk of liability has become too uncertain.

There is another important consideration. When haze affects Singapore, our local businesses and workers suffer too. Outdoor worksites may face disruption. Logistics and transport operations may be affected. Tourism-related businesses may see fewer customers, while employers may need additional measures to protect their workers.

These businesses have not caused the haze, yet they bear part of its economic cost. Several East Coast business owners had reached out to me recently to highlight how impacted their business have been, as patrons choose to stay indoors. For a small business, even a short interruption can affect cash flow, customer relationships and employees' livelihoods. We should consider how to help SMEs prepare for and manage such disruptions, through practical business continuity guidance, access to information and advisory resources and targeted assistance where appropriate. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Transboundary haze is more than just an environmental issue. It is also a matter of public health, the economy and the well-being of everyone, particularly in our region of Southeast Asia.

Whenever haze strikes, we all feel its effects. Parents worry about their children's health. The elderly and those with existing health conditions may face greater risks. Workers who perform tasks outdoors are also exposed to unhealthy air quality.

Small businesses are also affected. When outdoor activities must be reduced, customer numbers fall or operating costs rise, their income is inevitably affected.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I support the Government's efforts to strengthen the law so that those responsible cannot escape enforcement simply because their activities take place overseas.

the law must be implemented fairly and reasonably.

We must distinguish between those who deliberately neglect their responsibilities and companies that have taken reasonable steps but still face difficulties obtaining information from complex supply chains.

We do not want responsible companies to feel that their efforts to comply with the law offer them no protection. At the same time, we do not want SMEs to face excessive compliance burdens that could affect their ability to grow.

Our goal is not simply to impose heavier penalties. It is to prevent the haze, protect public health, encourage responsible business practices and ensure that those at fault are held accountable.

We must be firm with those who break the law, but fair to those who have made genuine efforts to conduct their businesses responsibly and prudently.

This is the balance that we must strike.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the question before us is not whether Singapore should strengthen its response to transboundary haze. We must. We have a responsibility to protect our people, safeguard our environment and hold those who contribute to environmental harm accountable, even when their activities take place beyond our borders.

The Bill takes important steps in that direction. We need clarity in the law, proportionality in enforcement, independence in investigations and practicality in the obligations imposed on businesses. And we must not forget the SMEs, workers and communities that bear the consequences of haze despite having played no part in causing it.

Effective environmental protection and fair treatment of businesses are not competing objectives. They must reinforce one another. A law that is clear, fair and consistently enforced will command confidence. It will encourage businesses to do the right thing, give regulators the tools they need and strengthen Singapore's ability to protect her people.

Ultimately, we should aspire towards a framework that is firm against wrongdoing, fair to responsible businesses and effective in preventing harm. That is the clarity that this Bill should seek to achieve alongside clear skies and fluffy white clouds. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Kuah Boon Theng.

6.41 pm

Ms Kuah Boon Theng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the THPA Bill.

As a practising lawyer, I will focus my remarks on the legal enforcement aspects of the Bill, which are aimed at, amongst other things: strengthening our ability to conduct effective investigations, both in terms of ongoing as well as future investigations; providing additional tools to facilitate a more effective response to the threats of haze pollution in Singapore, including dismantling unnecessary barriers and simplifying legal and administrative procedures to ensure that proceedings are able to proceed expeditiously; enhancing powers to deal with entities that are either engaging in offending conduct or failing to render cooperation or comply with directions and notices; and substantially increasing the penalties to be meted out to those who fail to uphold their responsibilities, thereby providing a stiff economic disincentive to entities that may otherwise continue with their breaches, including continuing business arrangements with those whose acts or omissions lead to fires that give rise to haze pollution affecting Singaporeans.

First of all, I agree that there is a need to allow for intervention where there is a risk of haze pollution, and not have to wait until haze pollution has engulfed Singapore and affected the health and well-being of Singaporeans.

Where action is based on a risk of haze pollution but before haze pollution in Singapore has actually materialised, the evidence to be relied upon to establish such a risk must be well-grounded and capable of withstanding close scrutiny. In this respect, I note that the Minister has explained that NEA will continue to maintain indicators to determine if any fires pose a risk to Singapore, such as distance, extent of the fire, meteorological conditions and so on. And I also note that several Members of this House have asked for further details.

There are, in fact, various instances in the Bill where the Director-General or authorised officer will be permitted to take decisive action based on a reasonable belief or suspicion. Since the effect of such actions will have detrimental consequences to the entities concerned, again, it is only fair that the reasonable belief or suspicion must be backed by adequate prima facie evidence. As for the entities concerned, they should be given sufficient time to provide potentially exculpatory information to the authorities, or evidence of appropriate action that the entity has already taken to address the specific issue.

In this regard, I note that the 10 Singapore-based companies that were served with statutory notices were given 10 days to respond to those notices by providing documents and information. The new sections 8D and 8H will allow the Minister to designate the entity as a designated person, or specify an entity as a person on notice if there is sufficient basis to do so, including where the entities are known or reasonably suspected to carry on business or have business relationships or arrangements with certain prohibited entities.

Under both sections, before giving the notice, the entity must now be given at least 14 days to make representations and the representations will then be considered, save in situations where it is impracticable or undesirable to do so.

I would imagine that one possible scenario that may present itself is when the entity has already demonstrated that it has no intention of responding to the notice, and the 14 days will simply serve to delay the inevitable action. But there will also equally be cases where 14 days may not be sufficient time to prepare representations. I would seek the Minister's assurance that extensions of time will be granted if the requests are reasonable.

As for the panel of assessors, the involvement of qualified and experienced professionals with the requisite expertise to carry out investigations is a step in the right direction. Given that there should be no question regarding the independence of the investigators and law firms on the panel, I would like to ask if this panel of assessors will be expanded to include other firms. This will provide more options for those who are required to engage these assessors and reduce the risk of potential conflicts of interest. As for who will have the onus of conducting conflict checks, I presume the individual investigators and law firms on the panel will perform such checks.

Will a prior professional engagement or relationship with a competitor of the entity be deemed to be a conflict of interest for the purposes of the assessor's work? After all, the company will be required to allow the assessor wide access to information relating to its internal business operations and supply chains. It goes without saying that all the information must be kept confidential and used only for purposes related to the Act, but even so, not having enough assessors could mean that these uncomfortable situations would arise when they are best avoided.

There is also the issue of the cost of the assessors' services. Since these targeted entities must bear the full financial expense of hiring these investigators and law firms to conduct what will likely be exhaustive audits of their own operations, supply chains and cross-border corporate ties, the expense of engaging these professionals may end up being financially crippling for the company, whether in the form of the costs of directly engaging the assessors, or because the agency is seeking to recover outstanding sums owed to an assessor or other person coordinating or assisting in the assessor's evaluation, by way of a civil debt. Will there be transparency regarding the cost of these services and will the targeted entities have much say over who is to be engaged?

With the expanded scope of the new Bill I do not think we should assume that targeted entities in future will always be well-resourced companies.

Finally, I wanted to seek clarifications about cases in which entities may unwittingly enter into business arrangements with those who are engaged in offending conduct, and only become aware of this in the course of the investigations.

Requiring these companies to promptly extricate themselves from contractual commitments may not be such an easy thing. These businesses may find themselves caught between the prospect of heavy fines, or face lawsuits for breach of contract.

I would like to seek the Minister's clarifications if such entities will be allowed to fulfil their current contractual commitments and will it be acceptable for them to simply avoid entering into new business arrangements with those parties in the future? It is not clear to me that the law would automatically void these contracts, and certainly not if the contractual commitments are to be performed in a different jurisdiction.

I wish to conclude by saying that I am in full agreement that our regulatory levers to deal with haze pollution in Singapore, must be enhanced. This Bill will do that. It will significantly expand the powers that our authorities currently have, facilitate purposeful measures to determine the extent to which local companies are complicit, whether directly or indirectly and hold these entities to account.

But with greater powers come greater responsibility. Our legislation is pioneering in its use of the objective territoriality principle of international law and extending it to the specific context of tackling regional air pollution. The emphasis is on moderating the behaviour and conduct of corporate actors in Singapore. The manner in which we exercise these powers will be keenly watched, and we must be fair and measured in how we deal with local companies, especially those who find themselves unwittingly caught up in the actions of others.

I look forward to receiving the Minister's assurances and clarifications. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

6.50 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I wish to first declare that I am a director of a law corporation whose areas of practice include criminal and regulatory matters.

I rise in support of this Bill, that represents the Government's swift, decisive and considered step towards protecting Singapore and Singaporeans against transboundary haze.

I use the word "step" deliberately. What must follow, if this Bill is passed, is our unwavering determination and unyielding commitment to preventing the recurrence of transboundary haze or, where it cannot be avoided, mitigating its effects.

As the House debates this Bill today, the air quality reading is in the "normal" range. We are thankful for the present conditions, but that does not render this Bill or Singaporeans' concerns otiose.

I wish to raise the following clarification.

First, under the current THPA, preventive measure notices were issued to various companies in 2015. In some cases, the matters remain open and investigations are ongoing. Are the amendments proposed under this Bill sufficient to plug the statutory gaps and thereby ameliorate the investigative as well as enforcement challenges?

To be clear, Mr Speaker, I do not expect this Bill to be a silver bullet to the haze issue. As I have said earlier, it is a step in our permanent mission to prevent or mitigate the haze for the protection of Singapore and our Singaporeans. Notwithstanding that, this House and Singaporeans seek the confidence that this Bill will arm our agencies with sufficient teeth and bite to meet its objectives.

Second, under the new framework NEA may with the consent of the public prosecutor, bring a civil action in court, carrying a maximum penalty of up to $10 million, to ensure entities are not penalised twice, and entity cannot be subject to both civil and criminal penalties for the same case.

In this regard, I wish to seek clarifications on the rationale of capping the civil penalty at $10 million, rather than aligning it with the maximum penalty of $20 million for criminal prosecutions. The disparity may potentially allow shrewd entities to evade criminal prosecution and await extra territorial civil action instead.

Third, while our pre-emptive and remedial actions must be robust, there is so far no jurisprudence on the THPA. In this connection, will the Government provide clarity and guidance on, amongst other matters, the manner in which the amended Act will be administered? How alleged offences will be investigated and prosecuted, and how our Courts ought to calibrate the attendance sentences?

Parliamentary intent is a key tenant to which our public agencies, the Judiciary, the people and corporations will look.

Fourth, I reiterate the Parliamentary Questions that I have filed for this Sitting. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, as with past national crises, Singaporeans must stand united against the haze. When conditions were at their worst, I am heartened to witness how our local community coming together to pack and distributed masks, while grassroots and community partners worked with agencies to provide timely support for the vulnerable groups.

This Bill further ensures that companies in Singapore act responsibly or face economic and reputational consequences. May I ask the Minister: how will the Ministry ensure companies are made aware of this social responsibility early, rather than only when the haze peaks, so they can help mitigate its impact?

( In English ): Despite my clarifications, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Azhar bin Othman.

6.55 pm

Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to speak in support of the THPA Bill. Before I address the specifics of this legislation, allow me to share some personal experiences that shape my perspective on why this Bill matters – not just as a legal instrument, but as a reflection of our shared humanity.

Mr Speaker, I have had the privilege of travelling to many countries. I spent a year in Japan, two years in Iran and two years in the United Kingdom. And in the course of my professional life, I have travelled to more than 30 countries. These experiences have been enriching, but they have also exposed me to circumstances I would describe as both fortunate and unfortunate.

I have encountered riots that placed entire countries under curfew, confining me indoors and making it unsafe to walk the streets. I have heard bombings in a country I was visiting. I had my bag nearly snatched away by young children who sped off on a motorcycle. I have suffered food poisoning that had me vomiting in the middle of the night, far from home and family.

Mr Speaker, what I am trying to say is this. When you face danger, when you are vulnerable, far from home, and uncertain of what tomorrow brings, the best person to help you is still the local people of that country. They will ensure that you get the help you need. They will drive you to the hospital. They will ensure you are taken care of.

Time and again, I have witnessed the extraordinary kindness of ordinary people who did not know me, who owed me nothing, yet who chose to help. This is the fundamental truth about our world, Mr Speaker. No one can live alone, no matter how rich or powerful of stature you may be. We need everyone to help and support each other.

There is only one world, and in this world, when a crisis happens in one country, the neighbouring countries and eventually the whole world will be affected. We need one another and we have to care for one another. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is precisely why I stand before this House today in support of the Bill.

The haze that blankets our region year after year is not merely an environmental nuisance – it is a crisis that respects no borders. It chokes our children, disrupts our economies and strains the relationships between nations that must learn to cooperate, not merely coexist. Just as local people helped me in my moments of vulnerability in foreign lands, so too must we, as a nation, be prepared to help our neighbours and to work with them to address this shared challenge. And just as I learned that we cannot survive alone, so too must we recognise that no country can solve transboundary pollution alone.

This Bill strengthens our legal framework to address the sources of haze. It is a step toward the kind of mutual care and shared responsibility that I have witnessed firsthand; the kind that reminds us that we are all connected, that we all breathe the same air and that we all share the same world. We are not merely amending legislation. We are affirming our commitment to one another – as neighbours, as nations and as members of one human family. No one can live alone. Not a person. Not a country. We need one another and we must care for one another.

Safeguarding one another begins with understanding what has happened and where responsibility lies. The proposed amendments seek to strengthen NEA's ability to establish those facts through assessments of company operations, corporate relationships and supply chains. I support that purpose, but accountability must be both firm and fair. A concern that warrants investigation is not the same as wrongdoing that has been established.

Protecting those most at risk. At the heart of this discussion is health. The World Health Organization explains that fine particulate pollution can reach deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream. It can harm the heart and respiratory system. Children, older people and those living with chronic conditions are among those most at risk. Behind these findings are people. They are our parents, our children and our neighbours. Their well-being must remain at the heart of our response.

Responsibility with fairness. Mr Speaker, care for people must guide how we approach businesses. Meeting new requirements takes resources and effort. We should recognise that at the same time, protecting public health remains a shared responsibility. Our purpose is not to cast suspicion on every company. It is to establish the facts and encourage responsible practices. Businesses should have a fair opportunity to show that they have done to prevent their operations and supply chains from contributing to haze.

This Bill can benefit businesses too. By supporting transparency and accountability, the proposed amendments can give reasonable companies an opportunity to earn the trust of the public. Open cooperation and clear efforts to prevent harm give people a stronger reason to believe in them. This goes beyond meeting a legal requirement. It means showing care for the communities whose lives their decisions may affect.

We should therefore see public protection and responsible business as shared goals. We should expect meaningful cooperation, examine the evidence carefully and not prejudge the outcome. Firm standards and fair treatment belong together. They help ensure that responsible companies have a fair opportunity to demonstrate their conduct.

Caring for our shared future. That trust connects the responsibility we ask of businesses with the hopes we share as families – healthy children, secure livelihoods and a safe place to call home. These hopes are shared across our region, whatever our race or nationality.

Haze does not stop at a border. Our care for one another should not stop there either. Singapore and the countries in our region must work together to safeguard one another. We should listen, share responsibility and seek lasting solutions in a spirit of mutual respect. This is not about placing one country against another. It is about protecting people across our region, whatever their race and wherever they call home.

For future generations, concern alone is not enough. We owe them patient, sustained efforts to protect the air they breathe and the environment they will inherit. Stronger accountability and regional cooperation should go hand in hand.

Mr Speaker, I hope this Bill will help us move towards that shared goal of protecting families, encouraging responsible business and working with our neighbours for cleaner air. Let us be clear in our expectations, fair in our judgement and compassionate in our purpose. Clean air should not be a privilege. It should be part of the everyday life we strive to protect for everyone, across borders and across communities. With that hope, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

7.03 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, Singapore's Transboundary Haze Pollution Act is an important piece of environmental legislation. It holds companies accountable for activities outside Singapore that cause or contribute to haze pollution here. Its significance lies in extraterritorial liability. Singapore can pursue companies responsible for transboundary haze even when the offending activities occur overseas.

When the Act was debated in 2014, this House examined eight substantive areas: extraterritorial enforcement, adequacy of fines, accuracy of evidence, corporate responsibility, fairness and due process, civil compensation, ASEAN diplomacy and broader environmental accountability. Yet, although Singapore has invoked THPA on multiple occasions since 2014, as of 1 November 2026, no company, corporation or company director has been prosecuted or convicted under the Act.

CNA has reported that 26 legal notices have been issued. Yet, there have been no criminal prosecutions, no corporate convictions and no fines imposed while we still experience the haze. On 12 October 2026, NEA also confirmed that four Indonesian companies under investigation since 2015 still had open cases.

To be clear, these companies have not been convicted. An open investigation does not establish wrongdoing. Legal experts cited by CNA identified three principal obstacles to prosecution: first, obtaining cross-border evidence; second, complex corporate ownership; and third, the difficulty of establishing legal proof.

While the law may have had some deterrent effect, recent events make clear that we must strengthen it. Before this amendment Bill was introduced under a Certificate of Urgency, recognising these challenges, I filed a Parliamentary Question for this Sitting, asking: first, whether the Government will establish a coordinated framework involving NEA, MAS, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, the Singapore Exchange and other relevant agencies to investigate companies linked to transboundary haze, trace their ultimate owners and financial relationships, and pursue accountability; second, how effective existing efforts have been; and third, what legal evidentiary, jurisdictional or institutional obstacles remain.

I am therefore heartened by the developments over the past week and by the amendments introduced today, because they confront that reality directly.

The amendments attach liability to the risk of haze, not only to haze that has already reached us. The aggregated fine rises from $2 million to $20 million. They also introduced assessors, designated persons, persons on notice, civil penalties, profit disgorgement and the power to cut off financing and business dealings. These are serious tools and I commend the Ministry for them.

But, Sir, the companies behind these fires are not simple organisations. Many are groups of holding companies, intermediaries, nominees and suppliers often structured, deliberately or not, so that profit sits in one place and their liability in another.

My concern is simple. The Bill must reach the decision-makers and the money, not just the shell that holds the land title.

In that spirit, I seek the Minister's clarification on six areas.

First, control through money, not just operations. Section 3 says an entity takes part in managing another if and only if it controls operations or decisions. It expressly excludes financial or administrative functions.

Sir, in the real world, control is often exercised through the purse. A parent company may never direct a worker to light a fire, but if it sets aggressive land clearing targets, controls the budgets and approves the capital spending, it is shaping the outcome just as surely. Will the Minister consider whether a parent that exercises decisive financial control should be treated as taking part in management? Should the words "if and only if" be replaced with "includes" so the Courts are not confined to a narrow test?

Second, on layering. Liability through management at the presumption in section 8 reaches only one level – from the managing entity to the landowner. A group may simply insert an intermediate holding company, perhaps offshore, between the parent and the concession holder. How will the Act reach the ultimate controller where there are two, three or more layers in between? Will the Ministry consider a provision that follows control through the whole chain as the Companies Act already does for holding companies?

Third, ownership below the threshold and non-corporate vehicles. The related entity test for assessors, designated persons and persons on notice rely largely on section 6 of the Companies Act, which turns on majority control. A 49% stake, a joint venture or control exercised through a shareholder agreement may fall outside. For trusts, foundations, family offices and partnerships, the Bill leaves the relationship to be prescribed. Can the Minister assure the House that these regulations will be ready when the control comes into force, and that they will cover beneficial ownership and actual control, not just legal form? If not the most sophisticated players will simply arrange their holdings to sit just outside these definitions.

Fourth, nominee smallholders and unrelated third parties. The defence in section 7 is available when the fire was started by someone not related to the accused. "Related" covers employees, contractors and holders of customary rights with an agreement. It does not expressly cover sister companies, entities with common beneficial owners or suppliers that depend almost entirely on the accused for their business.

Mr Speaker, that could be a pattern. Land is placed in the hands of nominees or cooperatives, and the produce is bought at arm's length. When fire breaks out, the company points to its zero-burning policy and says the burning was done by others. Will the Minister consider widening the definition of "related" to cover affiliates, common beneficial ownership and economically dependent suppliers?

Fifth, moving assets out during the notice period. Before a designation or a person on notice decision, the entity is giving at least 14 days to make representation. That is fair. But it also opens a window. A determined group can use it to move concessions to a new company and strip assets from the old one. The fine, the designation and the publication then land on an empty shell. Will designation and orders extend to successors, transferees and entities that take over the asset, and will the agency have powers to preserve assets once a notice of intention is issued?

Six, reaching the real decision-makers. Notices for information under section 10 must still be served "in the following manner and no other manner". For an entity with no place of business here, that generally means personal delivery to an officer while that officer is in Singapore. Officer liability under section 16 applies to directors and formal offices and to those "purporting to act" as such. The person who really controls the group may hold no formal office and may take care never to act in an official capacity in Singapore. Will the Minister consider allowing the new electronic and substituted service options in section 15 to apply to section 10 notices as well, and will shadow directors and beneficial controllers be brought within section 16?

On supply chain and safeguards. Mr Speaker, Sir, I also welcome the extension on liability to those who knowingly benefit through the supply chain. But defences, such as "all reasonable measures", must not become a box ticking exercise built on certificates no one checks. Will the Ministry set out clear minimum standards for traceability and due diligence? I would also ask the Minister to explain how the independence of assessors will be protected when they are appointed and paid by the entity being assessed. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, every time haze affects Singapore, our people bear the consequences. Their health is affected, our children cannot play outside, and the elderly and those with respiratory problems are the most affected.

It has been more than 10 years since the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act was introduced, but until today, no company has been charged under the Act.

I support the Government's efforts to strengthen the law, but a tough law must be accompanied by effective enforcement.

We also recognise the hard work of neighbouring countries in preventing forest fires and enforcing their own laws.

This Bill complements these efforts. We must ensure that no one can use Singapore's markets, financial system or corporate structures to profit from activities that cause haze and then escape responsibility.

Our objective is clear – to protect the health of Singaporeans while working with neighbouring countries for cleaner air across our region.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, this Bill is about accountability. The question is not whether the law looks strong on paper, but whether it can reach the people who make the decisions and keep the profits.

Clean air is not a privilege. It is a basic expectation of every Singaporean. We also recognise that our neighbours have made real efforts to prevent fires and enforce their own laws. This Bill complements that work. It makes sure that no one can use Singapore's markets, financial systems or corporate structures to profit from the haze while escaping responsibility for it.

With these clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

7.14 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I support the Bill's expansion of our ability to act when overseas fires pose a risk of haze pollution in Singapore, including before the haze reaches us. The aim should be to prevent harm and secure accountability from businesses that cause or condone it.

The costs are substantial. In 2015, the Government provided more than $3.3 million in subsidies through supporting over 77,000 haze-related medical attendances. Our outdoor workers have few options to avoid exposure while lower-income families may struggle to afford air-conditioning. Even our support for lower-income families in managing haze is also uneven – some kind corporations provide air purifiers to families in certain areas, but this support does not reach every area in Singapore. Effective protection matters especially to those with the least means to protect themselves.

So, my response to this Bill will span across three connected issues: first, when we intervene; second, how we enforce responsibility; and third, who ultimately bears the costs.

First, earlier intervention requires a clear scientific basis and the resources to act on it. Under proposed section 22A, the Director-General's certificate constitutes conclusive evidence that an overseas fire poses a haze risk to Singapore. Given that legal effect, companies and residents will ask what threshold must be met for a fire to be considered a haze risk to Singapore? What is the process of issuing such a certificate?

As the Minister mentioned earlier, addressing haze risk is complex because the movement of smoke depends on several factors, including the location and intensity of the fire, wind patterns and atmospheric condition. A remote possibility and substantial likelihood are both risks but may warrant different responses. I understand that the Minister earlier mentioned that we will focus our resources where there's credible risk of haze.

However, could the Minister clarify what does credible risk of haze entail? What yardsticks are we looking at? Specifically, what minimum information must support the assessment, particularly when overseas data are sometimes incomplete? At the same time, what scientific criteria will be used? Furthermore, will independent expert review the assessment before a conclusion is reached that the risk of haze is spreading to Singapore? Such a process will assure firms that the certificates that are issued only have gone through a rigorous and an independently verified assessment.

Furthermore, organisations would also like to know whether the certificate can be reconsidered if credible new evidence changes the assessment. This judgement becomes even more demanding when many fires occur simultaneously.

Therefore, I would like to ask whether NEA has the sufficient specialised manpower, technical system, investigative capacity and what additional resources will be provided for these expanded responsibilities? What would implementing this amendment mean for our current capacity? The ability to intervene earlier must be matched by capacity to make timely and credible assessment.

Second, responsibility must be clearly defined and capable of enforcement across borders. While the Bill has extraterritorial reach, enforcing it against foreign companies may be difficult, if they have no assets in Singapore and limited reliance on our banks, customers or supply chain. In this case, how will compliance be secured when commercial leverage is limited, and what cooperation will be needed to obtain evidence and recover penalties overseas?

I welcome the agreement to establish the Singapore-Indonesia joint task force, because families in both countries suffer from haze and corporations serve our shared interests. This cooperation should support effective action within our respective jurisdiction and Singapore must hold businesses based here to the same standards.

While extending accountability through supply chains can strengthen enforcement, businesses need to understand their obligations. Under this Bill, accountability may extend beyond companies directly responsible for haze to businesses that purchase goods from them, including through indirect supply chains. This means Singapore businesses sourcing products from overseas suppliers linked to haze-producing activities could come under scrutiny, even if they did not directly contribute to the fires.

So, let us consider a case of a Singapore SME buying a product from a supplier whose separate businesses causes a haze-producing fire, and this product purchase is unrelated to the fire, and the SME has limited visibility over the suppliers' other operations. How would the Government determine whether the buyer has condoned the harmful conduct, and what separate thresholds would trigger commercial restrictions or duties on a person placed on notice?

Commercial pressures on offending companies, as a whole, may be justified because its business lines support the entire enterprise. Buyers nevertheless need workable guidance on supplier checks, disengagement and responsible transition periods, particularly when purchasing through intermediaries. Given the exclusion of general responsible care defence for principal offences, what protection remains for businesses that have reacted responsibly? In other words, what I am asking is, what does the Government reasonably expect of an SME to do and how would the law recognise that businesses have genuinely tried to act responsibly?

For smaller operators, compliance raises a question of capacity. How will urgent firefighting and appointment of assessors be secured when a company genuinely lacks means? I note that the Bill allows NEA to pay an outstanding assessment fee and subsequently recover them as debt. How would this work when the company is unable to repay? More importantly, when a smaller company is part of a larger corporate group, can its parent company be required to provide financial or operational support, particularly if it exercises control over its subsidiary activities?

This is important to ensure that companies cannot avoid responsibilities simply by operating through subsidiaries with limited financial resources. Any exemption under the proposed section 23D should also be governed by published criteria and publicly explained reasons, so businesses and residents can see and understand how the framework is being applied consistently.

Third, financial consequences must address both gains from offending and the cost borne by residents. I welcome the increase in a maximum aggregate fine from the principal offence from $2 million to $20 million together with section 16A, additional penalties matching accessible profits, gain or losses avoided following conviction. However, I would like to ask what informed the $20 million ceiling and how the Government has assessed its adequacy as a deterrent for large corporate groups?

For a firm earning $5 million in annual profit, the $20 million ceiling represents 400% of their profits, compared to 4% for a firm earning $500 million in terms of profits. Were turnover base fines, which is a maximum set as a percentage of a company's revenue, or profit-linked fines, which is a maximum set percentage of its annual profit, considered?

The key principle, in my view, is that the financial consequence of causing haze should be significant enough to change corporate behaviour, regardless of how large the company is.

Section 16A is particularly important because it seeks to ensure that companies do not profit from environmentally harmful practices. However large corporations operate through multiple subsidiaries. For example, one may clear the land, another might produce the commodities and the third might sell finished products. In such circumstances, the financial benefits arising from land clearing may be spread across different companies within the same corporate group. How would the Government determine the financial benefits attributed to the offence, particularly when the company responsible for burning is not the company that is ultimately earning the profits? And how would the Government ensure that companies cannot avoid additional penalties simply by distributing their operations and profits across different subsidiaries?

But here in Singapore, residents, meanwhile, will continue to incur additional expenses, regardless of whether the enforcement succeeds. The new civil penalties are paid into the consolidated fund and do not automatically reimburse into households for medical bills or higher electricity costs in reducing the exposure.

The recently activated Haze Subsidy Scheme provides important medical support at an affordable price, and many of my residents are grateful for the subsidies. However, they still have to bear some medical expenses of $5, even though they are not responsible for the haze. I note that section 6 of the existing Transboundary Haze Pollution Act allows individuals or businesses to pursue civil claims for personal injury, property damage and economic loss from haze pollution.

However, having legal avenue for compensation is different from being able to access it in practice. For residents seeking to recover a relatively small amount in medical expenses, pursuing legal action on an overseas company would be costly, complex and potentially disproportionate to the amount involved.

Would the Government consider providing targeted support for necessary medical and productive expenses, particularly for lower-income household and medically vulnerable residents? While I recognise that the Government has provided assistance through the recent Haze Subsidy Scheme, affected residents may still incur out-of-pocket costs through no fault of their own. While this Bill rightly strengthens accountability for offending companies, I believe we should also consider how those affected by haze can receive meaningful support.

Mr Speaker, recurring haze can deepen societal faultlines if people believe that wealth and influence can shield businesses, while ordinary families absorb the cost. Therefore, consistent enforcement, transparent decision and regular public updates on investigations and outcomes can help to maintain confidence in fairness. The Bill's success should be judged by whether it changes harmful corporate behaviour and protects people in practice. This requires sustained regional cooperation, effective enforcement and support for affected households, even long after the sky is clear.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

7.27 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm with investments in financial institutions and agribusiness.

A few weeks ago, I went door-to-door in Yio Chu Kang distributing N95 masks. At one flat, an elderly resident opened her door. She was already wearing one, inside her own home. She has difficulty breathing and had no air-conditioning. Because she struggles to leave her home, given her medical condition, the haze shelter at our community club might as well have been kilometres away. She is the person least able to prevent the forest fire. Yet, she carries the burden of surviving it.

For 12 years, our law has had reach, but no company has been prosecuted under it. The Bill lets Singapore act when there is a risk of haze, not only after the smoke arrives. It can pierce through complex corporate structures, reach through supply chains, restrict business and financing, direct remediation action and recover unlawful gain.

That is the right direction. But a larger fine is not the same as a solved problem. A fine may punish yesterday’s wrongdoing but companies will simply budget for it as tomorrow's cost of doing business. The real question is whether this Bill moves responsibility from the resident forced to protect herself to the companies and decision makers with the power to prevent, stop and repair the harm.

Our concern is not with any country or its people. Communities across the region suffer from the same smoke. Our focus must be the irresponsible business conduct that turns private gain into a public cost. Effective enforcement will therefore require strong Singapore law, fair process and practical cooperation across borders.

I propose three moves – open the books and fix the harm; make responsibility follow the decision; and stop residents paying twice.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, make companies open their books. The Bill's most important innovation may not be its larger fines. It is the assessor. A company can be required to appoint and pay for an assessor from a Government panel. The assessor must report fully and frankly to the Director-General, can demand documents, explanations and statutory declarations, and is not stopped by commercial confidentiality. In plain English, companies should open their books before residents are forced to close their windows.

Every serious assessment should produce a Corporate Responsibility Map – who controlled the land, who managed operations and which related companies, contractors, buyers and financiers connected the chain. Not every name on that map will be guilty. A list must not become a verdict. But no material link should remain hidden.

As Chair of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), I welcome stronger regional cooperation on transboundary haze. But section 11A itself provides a route for sharing information with assessors, not foreign enforcement authorities. The Government should clarify the legal mechanism through which evidence may be shared across borders and if the present framework is inadequate, provide an express gateway with safeguards for authentication, confidentiality and use in legal proceedings. One fire should not leave two incomplete evidence files.

Disclosure must then lead to repair. International due diligence practice, including the OECD's guidance on responsible agricultural supply chains, follows a simple discipline: identify the risk, prevent it, stop the harm, repair it, hear complaints, and report. We should borrow the discipline, not the bureaucracy.

Where an assessor finds material involvement, the company should be directed to carry out a Haze Prevention and Remediation Plan across its operations and supply chain. Today, section 11B covers preventing and controlling fires. It should be widened to cover restoration. A company should not be able to shrug and say, "It was the subcontractor." A fine can become a cost of doing business. A remediation plan must change the business.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, make responsibility follow the decision, the assets and the money. The Bill makes every offence arrestable. The Act already holds company officers liable unless they prove they did not consent and took due care. Yet the principal offence remains punishable only by a fine.

Jail should not be the default penalty merely because someone holds the title of chief executive. But Parliament should create an aggravated offence for a key officer who knowingly or recklessly directs the conduct behind that offence, or knowingly conceals it. Imprisonment should be available to the court. Begin with officers of Singapore-incorporated and Singapore-listed companies. That is where our leverage lies and where accountability should start. A corporate fine changes the accounts. Personal liability changes the boardroom.

Responsibility must also survive restructuring. When business or assets move to a related entity, penalties and remedial directions should follow them. And unless a designation proves unfounded, the Minister should require a clean exit certificate before cancelling it: directions complied with, records preserved, restoration funded, liabilities secured. No clean exit without clean-up.

Finally, the money. An order under section 8E works, in substance, as a targeted sanction, and will fall mostly on companies in a neighbouring country. Each order should come to this House with a statement of reasons. Where an order touches finance, banks should complete a documented review within 60 days, building on MAS' Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management, with aggregate outcomes published.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, protect the home while enforcement catches up. The Haze Subsidy Scheme helps with treatment. It does not pay for a purifier, replacement filters or extra electricity. Those who breathe the smoke should not pay twice: first with their health, then to protect it.

As Vice Chair of the Health GPC, I propose an automatic Clean Air Credit whenever the Haze Subsidy Scheme is activated. Disbursed within 48 hours. No fresh application needed. Start with the groups which the scheme covers at GP clinics, and add a referral route for medically vulnerable residents. The Ministry of Social and Family Development, and the Community Development Councils can deliver utility credits or vouchers, with assisted support for those who are not online.

The core scheme should be funded through normal Budget appropriations. When penalties are collected, the Government should seek Parliament's approval for a capped dollar-for-dollar top-up. A dollar recovered from polluters should unlock a dollar of protection for vulnerable households.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill should reverse the chain of responsibility. Unmask the corporate chain, share the evidence and fix the harm. Make liability follow the decision-maker, the assets and the money. Protect the home while enforcement catches up.

Let me return to my resident in Yio Chu Kang. She was not the only one behind a mask. For 12 years, the companies behind these fires wore one too. Not to breathe, but to hide behind subsidiaries, subcontractors, contracts and financiers. My resident wore her mask because she had no choice. They wore theirs because they had every choice. This Bill must take off that corporate mask. Presumptions can open the case. Only proof should close it. And proof must lead to repair.

Today, the wrong person is wearing the mask. We will know this Bill has worked when the company cannot hide behind a subcontractor, the officer cannot hide behind the company. And my resident in Yio Chu Kang can finally take off her mask in her own home. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

7.36 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, last month in Toa Payoh East, I joined our community in handing out masks to Town Council cleaners, vulnerable elderly residents and neighbours with respiratory sensitivities. Between 16 and 28 October, NEA recorded seven days when air quality reached the "unhealthy" range and three when it reached the "very unhealthy" range.

Even in the same block, those figures can mean quite different things. Where one of us might put off a walk, an older neighbour with asthma or a chronic heart or lung condition may have to ask someone to bring lunch upstairs. For our cleaners, much of the job is outdoors, so staying inside is rarely a decision they can make on their own.

As we handed out our masks, I kept thinking about how little say these workers and residents have in the decisions that expose them to smoke. I support this Bill because it lets us act on a Singapore-based company when an overseas land or forest fire puts Singapore at risk, before the smoke reaches our estates.

In 2014, Members asked whether the penalties would deter large companies based in Singapore. As we raise fines, provide for independent assessments and allow restrictions on commercial and financial dealings, I would ask much the same question today.

Before a dry season, especially when strong El Niño conditions are forecast, a grower has to pay to keep peatland wet and fire crews nearby and ready. A competitor who cuts corners keeps the savings while families and workers across the region bear the cost. I want prevention to make business sense for that grower. My focus is on the economic and financial incentive to invest in prevention before the next fire season.

Mr Speaker, before I give my three suggestions, I would like to declare that I am working in a foreign bank in Singapore.

My first suggestion is to ask for proof of fire prevention before a bank lends. On 28 October, MAS asked banks to consider NEA information and check how customers potentially linked to haze prevent, detect and stop fires. Banks can tighten terms or limit lending, and a clear breach of environmental law can warrant ending the relationship.

The companies have agreed to a review of their overseas operations, corporate ties and supply chains by the Panel on Transboundary Haze. Under proposed sections 8A and 8C, companies directed to undergo an assessment must appoint assessors from an established panel at their own expense. Those assessors owe a duty of full and frank disclosure to the Director-General, overriding obligations to the companies appointing them. Given this arrangement, I would welcome the Minister's assurance on how their independence will be safeguarded and whether verified findings could be shared with lenders.

Could MAS strengthen its guidance so banks actually require independent checks when approving or renewing high-risk plantation and forestry loans? Peatland water-level records and a crew's performance in a fire drill give a lender something concrete to check. I would like to know whether findings change loan terms or lead to deadlines for repairs, and whether banks check for financing through affiliates or intermediaries. A bank can make those decisions itself, while a binding restriction under the Bill requires a Ministerial order.

Mr Speaker, there is also a broader economic consideration. Singapore is an important regional hub for commodities trading and financing, attracting international companies because of our stable, predictable and trusted business environment. As we strengthen enforcement, we must ensure that responsible companies are not inadvertently burdened by overly broad restrictions or disproportionate compliance requirements, which could encourage businesses to relocate without necessarily improving environmental conditions and outcomes.

Could the Minister clarify how these measures will be implemented in a targeted, proportionate and risk-based manner, so that companies with strong environmental safeguards can continue operating with confidence in Singapore, while those responsible for environmental harm are held accountable? Environmental responsibility and economic competitiveness should reinforce rather than undermine each other.

My second concern is whether a company keeps the savings from cutting corners. Take a Singapore based company that burns land because safe clearing costs more. If it is convicted under the Act and the court can assess the profit gained or loss avoided through the offence, proposed section 16A requires an additional penalty equal to that amount. The penalty is recoverable as a fine, but would savings on clearing or fire prevention count as a loss avoided, and how could the court value them from incomplete records?

With the Public Prosecutor's consent, NEA may seek a civil penalty of up to $10 million under section 8K(2) for a contravention proved on the balance of probabilities. Section 8K(4) also allows a consent order on agreed terms. Section 16A separately requires the court, following a criminal conviction, to recover assessable profits gained or losses avoided through the offence. Where the financial benefit for misconduct exceeds $10 million civil penalty ceiling, how will the Government ensure that companies cannot retain the proceeds of wrongdoing, particularly where criminal prosecution may be difficult?

A Singapore-based company with assets overseas may still think those assets are beyond reach. Since a civil penalty is treated as a judgement debt due to the Government, how would we work with overseas authorities to trace those assets and recover what is owed?

Third, we need to keep urgent work going when a company's financing is restricted. A fire crew still needs fuel and a contractor restoring peatland still has workers to pay. Section 8E allows an order restricting commercial or financial dealings to include exceptions or safe harbours. Could these be used to keep essential firefighting and peatland restoration work going, including through payments directly to verified service providers, with independent checks that the work was done? That would make it harder to divert the money without stopping the work.

When a company is named, workers and suppliers should be able to tell whether it is under assessment, has failed to cooperate or has been found responsible. Section 8D ordinarily gives a company at least 14 days to make representations before designation. If the Minister considers prior notice impracticable or undesirable, how could a company promptly correct a factual error?

Under section 8F, the Minister may cancel a designation on the Minister's own initiative, although an application made within 12 months of designation, or of an earlier rejection on its merits, may be dismissed without further consideration. If a company's remedial work has already been independently checked, what circumstances would prompt an early review?

An annual update to Parliament could show what penalties were imposed and collected, whether companies completed the remedial work and whether the same land burned again.

To understand why a site burns again, NEA will need the help of its regional counterparts. I welcome our countries' agreement to establish a joint task force and would like to hear how it could help investigators match hotspots to concession records, trace responsibility and verify what companies have done on the ground.

Yesterday, we heard that Singapore intends to ratify the agreement establishing the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Transboundary Haze Pollution Control in Indonesia. At least six ASEAN members must ratify the agreement before it takes effect. When we chair ASEAN in 2027, I hope we can agree with our neighbours on targets for reducing repeat fires and improving peatland management, so that before each dry season people can see what has changed.

Mr Speaker, the people we handed masks to in Toa Payoh East may never hear about a loan whose terms changed or a patch of peatland or growth restored. What matters to them is whether they can go about their daily lives without worrying about the air they breathe, whether our cleaners can finish their shift safely, parents can send their children to school with peace of mind, and families can leave their elderly parents and loved ones at home without fear for their health.

For their sake, I hope our efforts to prevent transboundary haze continue long after the skies have cleared. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

7.45 pm

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Members for their unanimous support for the Bill and also for their very heartfelt plea to protect Singapore and Singaporeans so that our people can have fresh air again.

Members have raised important questions about the scope of our powers, how these will be implemented, why we did not implement these changes earlier, and the impact we hope to achieve. I will respond to these points in turn.

Members have asked for more details about how the expanded powers will be scoped and implemented. They have also provided many suggestions on how we can implement these powers more effectively.

First, the risk of haze pollution and how we will determine it. Broadening the offence to "a risk of haze pollution" rather than "haze pollution" in Singapore will give us more options to direct preventive measures before the haze reaches us. But even as we do so, we will continue to use an evidence-based approach in deciding when to act.

Members, Dr Choo Pei Ling, Ms Kuah Boon Theng and Prof Kenneth Goh and others, have asked for more details on how we will determine this risk and the safeguards in place.

NEA monitors fires and smoke haze in the region, as well as meteorological conditions such as rainfall, wind direction and speed. It is deepening its capabilities to assess whether fires and smoke are likely to cause haze in Singapore. We have been getting those forecasts, bi-weekly, weekly, daily and those are based on scientific evidence, coupled with modelling and we have accumulated significant experience in modelling.

Having said so, forecasting is still science with art and, therefore, it is not 100% accurate. So, we have to make some judgement and we will use the judgement based on the scientific data that we have in our hands.

We will take action under the THPA when this nexus to Singapore is clear. In practice, if the air quality is stable and in the healthy range, and the meteorological conditions do not indicate any risks of haze pollution in Singapore, NEA will not have any interest or reason to act, even if there are fires.

However, should we forecast that there is a reasonable likelihood of air quality deteriorating because of unfavourable meteorological conditions, and that the extent of land and forest fires is significant, NEA will have the basis to exercise a wider range of options without having to prove that the fire in a specific location has indeed caused haze pollution in Singapore.

The certification of risk and deeming it conclusive ensures that our agencies are not delayed or obstructed by arguments about the level of risk affecting Singapore. Our aim is to allow agencies to move and react in a timely manner. To be clear, the certification does not mean or signify that an offence has been committed. The Government will still have to satisfy the Court that all elements of the offence are made out.

Assessing the risk of haze pollution in Singapore resulting from acts which may be a considerable distance away requires specialised scientific expertise, access to meteorological and other specialised data, and the ability to analyse this data. The Director-General will decide whether there is risk of haze pollution supported by the expertise of NEA and based on the available data. There will be a robust process in place to support the Director-General's decision which includes empowering NEA to appoint a panel of experts to advise the Director-General.

On penalties, Members, such as Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr David Hoe and Mr Gerald Giam, have spoken about the calibration of our penalties. I would like to assure Members that we have calibrated the penalties under the Act carefully to ensure that they are fair and practical while providing a suitable deterrent. Turnover-based fines were considered, but we decided to go with an absolute figure given the potential difficulties in obtaining information on turnover for every entity we may want to go after.

On the maximum fine defined in the legislation, penalties are ultimately decided by the Courts, based on the circumstances in each case. We do not expect that the maximum fine will always be imposed.

Our proposals aim to neutralise the economic incentive to be non-compliant. We increased our penalties but also introduced a disgorgement provision which will allow us to impose additional penalties to reflect the profits earned or losses avoided by committing the offence where appropriate. The disgorgement ensures that errant companies cannot retain the benefit of their irresponsible conduct.

Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Eileen Chong suggested that the penalties on individuals who do not comply with notices under section 10 are too low at $50,000. We peg the penalties carefully to ensure proportionality and that our policy objectives are met. We have proposed enhanced penalties to increase the deterrent effect of the TPHA. With regard to non-compliance to section 10 notices, the proposed $50,000 penalty is several times higher than similar offences in other regulatory contexts.

We should not focus on this particular offence alone. Section 10 relates to a general power to obtain information, including from third parties. This means that anyone, including those who may not be related to the entities that burn, could be liable under this offence. The culpability can be quite low. Conversely, penalties for offences which attract higher culpability are correspondingly higher. For example, under the proposed section 8C, directors and officers of companies who do not comply with the assessors' directions can face penalties up to $20 million. Thus, the penalties framework in this Bill needs to be seen as a whole.

On Mr Vikram Nair's question about whether the enhancements to legal service extend to civil actions under section 6, they do not, as the focus of section 15 is on service of official orders and notices by NEA to carry out its duties under the Act.

Ms Poh Li San has asked whether and how these new powers will apply to the investigations we have opened. The amendments to the offences and defences will not apply retroactively. Conduct before these amendments come into force can only be prosecuted under the existing THPA, with its existing penalties.

However, in making decisions under the new regimes for assessors, designation and putting on notice, we can look at past conduct. And if we do want to investigate or prosecute existing THPA offences, the improved procedures will remove hurdles that might stand in the way.

Let me stress again that these procedural amendments do not retrospectively create new offences or increase the penalties applicable to the conduct that occurred before the amendments come into force. Any offences pre-dating the refreshed THPA will be liable for existing penalties.

Many Members, including Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, have also asked for more details on how the assessment and designation process will work, including how we will ensure they are effective and targeted at the right entities. I would like to reassure Members that NEA will implement these powers in a measured and targeted manner.

Let me start with the direction to appoint assessors.

We will have clear criteria for issuing directions to appoint assessors. Broadly, these will apply to three categories of entities.

The first are those which have been convicted of an offence or failed to comply with directions under the THPA. This also extends to entities that the Director-General knows or has reason to suspect have engaged in conduct amounting to an offence, or who are unlikely to comply with any direction or notice under the THPA.

The threshold of "having reason to suspect" is not satisfied by mere speculation or an unsubstantiated allegation. It requires the Director-General to have a basis for the suspicion based on information and input received, from a wide range of sources, possibly including credible reports from other organisations and views of experts. The objective is to enable timely and proportionate action, while ensuring decisions are credible rather than based on conjecture.

The second group are those that the Director-General knows or has reason to suspect have business dealings with the entities in the first category. This extends to supply chain or business arrangements. However, we have expressly excluded certain regulated entities, leaving it to the regulator to enforce discipline where required.

For regulated entities, their respective regulators are better placed to make the necessary enquiries into such business dealings and take appropriate regulatory or supervisory action. For example, MAS can engage the financial institutions it supervises on their exposures and business relations with such entities, and the steps they are taking to identify, assess and manage the associated risks.

The last category of entities is those that the Director-General knows or has reason to suspect are sufficiently related to entities in the other two categories, whether through control or management, or through being a parent, subsidiary or sister company.

We will be measured and targeted in who we issue these directions to. The goal is to ensure that we have the means to assess the risks posed by entities operating in sectors or industries that tend to contribute to haze pollution in Singapore.

For example, we know that certain agricultural and forestry activities, particularly where land clearing and plantation operations are involved, can give rise to risks of land and forest fires. Entities involved in such activities, or which have significant commercial relationships or supply chains connected to such activities, may therefore warrant scrutiny.

We will also be clear in what the assessors will need to do, and how they will work with identified entities. Detailed rules concerning this process will be set out in subsidiary legislation.

Assessor reports will be given to the Director-General and NEA to study. Depending on the results, NEA may issue a direction to the entity to take remedial action, publish the fact that the entity has received an adverse or qualified report, prosecute the entity for a section 5 offence, designate the entity under the new designation regime, or put the entity on notice.

Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Dennis Tan asked if the proposed section 23C would override legal professional privilege. The answer is no; it does not override legal advice or litigation privilege.

Cost of appointing assessors. It is reasonable for entities to bear the costs of the directions. Members have asked about how we will ensure costs are fair. The entities we have appointed to the panel are known industry experts, with well-established rates. We will set out the terms of payment clearly in the directions issued by the Director-General. If entities do not pay for the assessors according to the terms of the direction, NEA may make payment of the sum owed to the assessor, which NEA can then recover from the entity as a civil debt. We believe this is a fair approach to both assessors and the entities subject to the direction.

Next, on designation. We recognise that this is a broad set of powers. We will be measured and focused in how we apply it.

Before considering designation, we will consider all available information, such as satellite imagery, available concession ownership information and corporate data, including information contained in the assessor's report, if available. Based on our findings, we will determine whether the entity should be designated and ascertain the type of restrictions to be put in place.

Designation can apply to four categories of entities. These include the three categories of entities who may be subject to directions to appoint assessors, as well as any entities who do not comply with our directions or who obtain an adverse assessment report. Entities will be given the opportunity to clarify their circumstances and make a case why they should not be designated. After designation, entities can also make an application to cancel their designation.

Designation serves a different purpose from criminal prosecution. While criminal prosecution seeks to establish responsibility for offences committed and impose appropriate punishment, designation allows us to impose economic and financial restrictions on entities that fall within the statutory grounds of designation. The objective is to create real commercial consequences for irresponsible conduct and incentivise entities to comply with the obligations and standards under THPA. It also enables us to act preventively, without having to wait for a criminal conviction, to discourage business arrangements that may sustain irresponsible burning.

We will bear in mind the potential impact of the business restrictions imposed. When imposing restrictions, we will be judicious when specifying the extent of how far these restrictions will apply. We will also provide reasonable transition arrangements where appropriate, to minimise unnecessary disruptions to legitimate business activities.

Many Members, including Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Dr Charlene Chen, have also asked about the potential burden of complying with the restrictions, especially if companies need to do more due diligence. In cases where the businesses did not know or did not have reason to believe they were engaged with a designated entity; they will not be penalised. As far as possible, we will minimise the compliance cost on SMEs.

Members have asked how MAS will direct financial institutions to act in relation to a designated entity. I understand from MAS that they take a risk-based and proportionate approach.

MAS is concerned with errant entities and activities, not the agricultural commodities sector as a whole. Banks are already expected to identify and manage environmental risks across their portfolios. Where risks are heightened, banks should respond accordingly. This could include imposing conditions, reviewing financing terms, limiting further exposures or even exiting the customer relationship.

If NEA identifies an entity of concern, MAS will pay closer attention to how banks with exposures to that entity assess and manage the risks, and whether they have taken appropriate steps in response. What is appropriate will depend on the nature and materiality of the exposure and the risks involved.

Designation goes a step further. Where an entity is designated and specific restrictions on financial services are warranted, MAS will prescribe what financial institutions are required to do. These requirements can go beyond our existing environmental risk management expectations, and the relevant orders will be made public so that financial institutions are clear about what is and is not permitted.

We recognise that financial arrangements can be complex. That is precisely why MAS is involved. Any order will be drafted sensibly, taking into account practical constraints, such as syndicated financing, where an individual bank may not be able to act unilaterally.

Persons on Notice. Members have also spoken about the importance of tracing accountability through the supply chain and avoiding a situation where companies use subsidiary relationships to evade the law. We agree. To clarify, the main THPA offence already allows us to go after entities who condone conduct which causes or contributes to a risk of haze in Singapore.

However, tracing these connections may not always be easy. So, to give us an alternative way to take action, the Bill gives us an additional power to put entities on notice. This puts them under an obligation to take appropriate steps to ensure that their businesses and supply chains do not involve errant entities. This forms a complementary approach to designation. Instead of relying on the Government to identify and designate individual entities, the persons-on-notice regime allows us to put the responsibility on these larger entities to ensure that their supply chains are clean.

Some Members, including Ms Lee Hui Ying, have asked about whether the remedial actions will include environmental restoration. The Act allows the Director-General to impose remedial actions to prevent land or forest fires, such as peatland restoration.

In summary, our measures are targeted at entities responsible for causing or contributing to the haze, while avoiding onerous obligations for businesses operating legitimately and responsibly. We will implement these changes carefully and proportionately. NEA will continue to work closely with other agencies, including MAS, to effectively implement these powers.

Many Members have proposed various operational changes to the amended THPA. I really appreciate all Members for the very thoughtful suggestions, including terms of reference for the assessors, how do we apply the costs and so on and so forth. There are many, many operational details that we have to work through and we need the time to go through them after the Bill is passed. I would like to thank all Members for their thoughtful suggestions.

We share their aim of ensuring that these powers can be and will be exercised fairly and effectively. We will consider these ideas as we develop guidance frameworks and subsidiary legislation as part of our implementation of THPA.

Members have also asked for more detail about what we have learnt from the past decade of implementing THPA. Let me provide more context on why we are amending THPA now on an urgent basis, and answer questions about whether we could have done so earlier, especially for the key enhancements to existing THPA powers.

I believe Members remember the various concerns raised by our counterparts in the region after the passing of THPA in 2014 and as we tried to progress on investigations related to the 2015 haze episodes. Over the years, we pursued bilateral and regional cooperation to address the underlying causes of transboundary haze, while gaining practical experience of the challenges involved in enforcing the existing THPA levers.

The 2026 haze episode highlighted the complexities and persistent challenges of addressing transboundary haze, notwithstanding the national, bilateral and regional efforts of the past decade. It reinforced the need to strengthen our domestic legal framework alongside these cooperative efforts.

This set of changes to THPA is significant. It gives us the power to impose economic and financial costs on errant entities, in addition to legal penalties. This is not a decision to take lightly. We are dealing with complex corporate structures and arrangements, and our laws must give us sufficient flexibility and reach to investigate and act effectively.

We discussed these issues extensively amongst Ministers at the Homefront Crisis Ministerial Committee before we made a deliberate decision to change the powers of THPA with a set of enhancements that are practical and targeted. Once we decided, the various agencies involved worked tirelessly to draft the amendments you see today.

We are making these amendments urgently as investigations into the 2026 haze episodes are underway. The expanded legal powers are critical in giving agencies the tools they need to make progress on these investigations.

And let me, at this point, provide an update on the ongoing investigations and how we will use these new powers.

Regarding the four outstanding cases arising from the 2015 haze episode, our investigations remain open although time has lapsed because of procedural issues. We do not have a lot to work with, but we will continue to explore available avenues to obtain the evidence. Three of the four entities investigated have also been identified in our investigations in the current haze episode. Their past actions will be considered as we investigate the current case.

All 10 of the Singapore-listed companies have responded to our section 10 notices and agreed to appoint assessors. [Please refer to the clarification later in the debate.] We will continue to follow up with these entities.

Members may ask, or some Members have suggested, that with these changes, will we solve the haze problem once and for all. While the amendments will give us more tools and powers, we should be clear-eyed about what legislation can achieve. There may be some companies that we can go after, but there are many more landowners or occupiers, including many small landowners that we are not able to. We would not be able to investigate all of them.

We should also expect to continue to face challenges with securing and verifying evidence. There is no guarantee of a successful prosecution. And even if we do secure evidence and get a conviction, there is no guarantee that the practices will stop.

The underlying causes of land and forest fires will require sustained efforts by governments, businesses and communities across the region. The most effective solution remains to prevent and control fires at source, through close international cooperation, and individual efforts from businesses and the community. We would need to do so in cooperation with other countries and based on their environmental standards.

Many Members, including Ms Nadia Samdin, also spoke about the importance of bilateral and regional efforts to support the amendments to THPA. We agree. We remain committed to dealing with the haze through international cooperation, underpinned by constructive engagement. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan; Minister for Law, Mr Edwin Tong; and I, have remained in continued conversations with our counterparts throughout this process.

Singapore and Indonesia stand together in tackling this shared challenge, which affects millions on both sides of our borders. We recognise and appreciate Indonesia's commitment and efforts to address the haze, including through our newly established Joint Task Force. We will continue to work closely with Indonesia and other regional partners to strengthen information sharing and evidence gathering.

In strengthening THPA, we are doing our part to help tackle a common problem. Our measures are directed at all errant entities, including Singapore-linked companies. This complements efforts undertaken by the Indonesian authorities, in their own fight against haze.

Looking ahead, will continue to work with our partners including in our role as the host of the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre and using our ASEAN Chairmanship in 2027 to support efforts to strengthen ASEAN's long-term capacity to address transboundary haze.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, THPA is not a silver bullet. It is one of many tools we must use to address the transboundary haze situation. Even with the expanded powers, we can expect challenges ahead of us in exercising these powers. Transboundary haze is complex, but we are committed to doing what we can, within our powers, to reduce the incentives for unsustainable forestry and agriculture practices.

I emphasise that, in doing so, the realities require us to accept the limitations of our laws and our agencies' reach on conduct outside of Singapore. We seek to work collectively with foreign agencies. Our law enforcement powers do not extend into other countries' borders and we respect the laws and sovereignty of every state, just like how we would not accept foreign laws infringing on our sovereignty. The amendments we are making show our commitment to ensuring traceability of our supply chain and curtailing economic benefits of companies engaged in or linked to unlawful practices.

Creating a strong and predictable legal framework is important for investor confidence in Singapore. By setting out the powers, conditions and processes in our legislation, we are providing a clear legal basis for enforcement. This provides certainty for businesses and investors, while making clear that irresponsible corporate conduct will not be tolerated.

Over time, the amended THPA will strengthen Singapore's standing as a jurisdiction with credible and robust environmental standards. These changes will enable lenders, consumers and traders to better discern responsible businesses from others. Singapore companies that comply with the new laws will distinguish themselves, in governance and in repute, and ultimately, profitability and sustainability.

As a Government, we remain committed to protecting Singaporeans and Singapore as far as we can. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): THPA is not a silver bullet but one of the tools to address the transboundary haze situation. Even with the amendments passed to expand our enforcement powers, we can expect challenges in actual enforcement.

Transboundary haze is a complex problem, but we will do all we can, within our powers, to strengthen the traceability of supply chains and to curtail the benefits that companies engaged in or linked to unlawful activities can derive. A sound and legal framework is crucial to maintaining investor confidence in Singapore. It also sends a clear message: we will not tolerate irresponsible corporate conduct.

In the long term, this amended THPA will strengthen Singapore's international reputation for strictly upholding environmental standards. It will also make it easier for lenders, consumers and traders to discern responsible businesses from those that are not. Singapore companies that comply with the new law will distinguish themselves in terms of governance and reputation and ultimately, profitability and sustainability.

The Government will do its utmost to protect the environment and the health of our people.

( In English ): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [ Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Clarifications for the Minister? Ms Sylvia Lim.

8.16 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have two questions concerning the arrangements regarding the panel of experts.

The Ministry of Law has issued a statement saying that there is a law firm that has been appointed to coordinate the work of the panel of experts, and I quote, "It is to make sure that the necessary inquiries and investigations are properly conducted across the different jurisdictions." It was further mentioned that the particular law firm had certain expertise and so on.

My question is why the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) was not given the task of doing the coordination? From my limited understanding, AGC has a division devoted to international affairs. I do believe that they have some expertise there. Also, under the Constitution, the AG in general is the Government's legal advisor. So, I would like to find out what are the reasons why AGC was not appointed to coordinate.

I suppose it is not a question of capacity. We are not questioning whether AGC has expertise, but is it because it is deemed not to be appropriate for some reason? I would appreciate the Government's clarification on that.

The second question is a specific one on the Bill itself. And that concerns the fees to be paid to this particular coordinating law firm. I stand corrected, but is it the case that under the proposed section 8A(4), the entity that is required to appoint the assessor may also be required to pay the fees of the coordinating law firm under sub-limb (d)? I would like a clarification on that.

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

The Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I will respond to the two questions because I have been involved in working on this together with MSE.

On the first question as to why a private law firm has been appointed to coordinate, the answer has been given in public. The whole structure of this framework is that companies which are under investigation will appoint assessors. Why could MSE or NEA or another Government agency not do that?

The answer is very simple. They may not be able to exercise their powers in a foreign jurisdiction because they would be treated as Singapore Government agencies. It is quite likely that they would not even be given access to that country, let alone conduct investigations. So, it had to be structured as the companies appointing private firms to do the work. Investigative firms, law firms, others, are now the company's appointees, and therefore, they will have the ability to go into foreign jurisdictions. Countries may still find excuses for not allowing them, but it is less likely that they will be prevented from accessing foreign jurisdictions.

And in order to coordinate so many of them, you also need a private entity. Because if it was the AGC doing it, again, you might run afoul of foreign countries claiming sovereignty and saying that, as a result of their sovereign status, AGC should not be doing that exercise. Or that the exercise, if it was supervised by AGC, would then in some way take it out of being an exercise by the companies, and instead becomes a Singapore Government exercise.

But AGC are fully involved because they will be looking at the facts and the evidence that come out. It has been made clear that the assessor's report would be made available to the Government agencies. And AGC will look at it to see what further actions can be taken in Singapore.

We have had to think about this very carefully, and structure it very carefully and quite elegantly, so as to avoid issues relating to other countries. That is the first point.

The second point, following the same logic: that coordinating law firm is treated as doing the work on behalf of all the companies – because they are coordinating the work of the law firms and the investigating firms. Therefore, it is only right that the taxpayer ought not to be paying for it; it ought to be paid by the companies. And a provision has been made for that.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh: Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification. This is in relation to what I have mentioned earlier in my speech about the disparity in terms of the cap for civil actions, in comparison to criminal actions. For civil actions, what I understand from the Minister's speech, it is capped at $10 million whereas for the criminal one, it is $20 million. Can I seek a clarification on why there is such a disparity?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Because these two separate tracks of actions require different levels of proof. If we are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, we will definitely go for the criminal prosecution route. Therefore, the $20 million maximum fine would apply. But having an option of civil liability basically gives NEA and the prosecutor an alternative route if we do not have that level of proof.

I just want to also take this opportunity, Speaker, if you would allow me, to make a correction to my speech earlier on?

Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Earlier on, I mentioned that all 10 of the Singapore-listed companies have responded to our section 10 notices and agreed to appoint an assessor. It should be Singapore-based companies.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: I have two questions arising from my speech, which I do not think were answered. Can a company be designated while it disputes the map that names it as a concession holder or land manager, or will the dispute stall the process?

Secondly, would the Director-General ask assessors appointed under the Bill to report the water table in the land that they assess?

And arising from the Parliamentary Question that I filed yesterday, which is, does MSE know the total cost of the haze episode that we have faced this year? Thank you.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I think a lot would depend on the specifics of the case, whether the dispute has been long drawn or whether there is good evidence that we can resolve the issue. If we assess that it is really a ploy to drag out the process, we may designate even when the dispute is ongoing. But as I mentioned in my speech earlier, we will do it quite judiciously. We understand the implications on entities that are being designated, so we will have to rely on the evidence that we have. We will not do it lightly.

On the water table, it is a very specific issue. I would just like to remind Members again that this enhancement that we are making on THPA, it is not restricted to only peatland cases. I do not want to constrain ourselves or focus our attention too narrowly on whether we should have water table requirements or not. Because these are really details that we can work with later on with the specific cases in mind and work through the remedial actions or assessment actions that we will need to undertake with the assessor and with the appropriate parties.

So, I just want to remind everybody that this is not specifically on peatland only and there are many other causes of fires. I do not want to oversimplify the causes for land and forest fires. And I definitely do not want to think that we have all the answers to the problem.

The third question — sorry, can the Member remind me again?

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Total cost.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Oh, we are not out of the woods yet, although the risk of haze has actually gone down drastically. But at the appropriate time, we will do an estimation.

Many Members have suggested that as well. That there is an actual cost to the Government, but there is also intangible cost to the society. I do not want for us to think that the penalty has to be recovered, that it has to really compensate us for the cost. We just want to resolve this issue by paying attention as much as we can and go after the responsible entities to the best of our ability.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

Ms Poh Li San: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister for addressing my query on the retroactive impact of the earlier batch of companies that were investigated back in 2015. The Minister also mentioned that while it is not retroactive, these amended laws may open up some new ways to further investigate the earlier batch of companies. So, my question is, do we expect the investigation to take a few more years or do we think that with the new laws, perhaps that may be able to hasten the investigation?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I think the powers that we have built into this set of amendments are intended for us to take quick actions either through the criminal process, through the legal process, or through the economic route of identifying the suppliers, identifying businesses that have dealings with the companies. So, I hope that we have a much faster resolution of the cases.

But having said that, we are just at the start of our enforcement process. We do expect challenges. As I mentioned in my speech, we cannot guarantee a successful prosecution. But we will definitely hope that the companies, having gone through this process of appointment of assessors and understanding our expectation as the Government, will do the right thing; and the behaviour that they will adopt going forward will be one that is pointing towards more responsible agriculture as well as forestry practices.

Also, it is a very clear signal to the business community that is doing business with entities in this sector that there is risk involved if they embark on irresponsible practices and that there is awareness now in the business community about that heightened risk. I think that attention itself will actually change the behaviour of the sector.

There are also other levers that we have. For example, if we publicise some of the findings that we have and progress that we make on investigation, again, that may draw attention on companies that may affect their economic and business dealings.

So, a successful conviction is one outcome, but we think that with this set of amendments, there will be other outcomes that will be beneficial to our overall objective of ensuring better control over fires as well as better air quality in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I have two clarification questions for the Minister. Could the Minister explain why the Government omitted a civil penalty formula based on up to three times the illicit profits gained, which would strip away long-term plantation returns?

Secondly, on peatland drainage. I note the Minister's response just now to Mr Kenneth Tiong, but this clarification concerns the legislative intent. Is the legislative intent under sections 5 and 6 to treat commercial peatland drainage and canal desiccation per se as conduct causing or contributing to the fire?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As to why we have not included certain formulation, as I have explained in the speech, we have considered various factors and we felt that what we have proposed are reasonable and practicable.

The peatland issue, by themselves, practices do not cause fire but they could contribute to fires. And we will look at it in that way.

8.32 pm

Mr Speaker: Anymore clarifications for Minister? None.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.