Transboundary Haze Pollution Bill

Mdm Speaker, I fully support this Bill and the efforts of the Ministry in tackling the haze problem that Singapore faces.

This Bill is an important step in targeting the culprits behind the haze. And it addresses the urgent need to hold such culprits accountable. I fully agree with the Minister that Singapore and this Parliament want to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate the actions of errant companies who put the health of our citizens at risk. But, as the Minister himself points out, the actual implementation of the Bill can be challenging.

For this Bill to be truly effective in protecting Singaporeans from haze pollution, there are other facets to the problem that we may need to take into consideration. Firstly, we need to better understand the background behind why these fires are started in the first place. Secondly, we need to ascertain how to clearly identify the perpetrators and bring the right parties to justice. Thirdly, there are the obvious issues of how to enforce Singapore's territorial laws against entities outside of Singapore. Finally, whilst we all agree with the principles enunciated in the Bill, we may need to be mindful of legislative over-reach.

Let us begin by understanding the background behind how these fires are caused. Some are caused by natural causes, others by annual slash-and-burn carried out by small farmers for land preparation. These small farmers usually hold so-called "customary rights" to the land. I believe there are clear guidelines in Indonesia governing burning. Small farmers are actually allowed to burn up to two hectares of land. However, it is illegal to burn on larger industrial scale land that is zoned for logging, these are the so-called HPH/HTI holders and plantation, HGU holders. Hence, as it is not illegal for smaller farmers to burn their land, how would this Bill then be compatible to what is currently permissible in our neighbouring countries?

If it is not illegal under their law to burn their customary land for land preparation, Singapore cannot make it illegal. So, whilst some larger companies now clear land using mechanical means in view of strict rules in Indonesia, smaller farmers are unable to afford

Page: 42

such mechanical means to clear land and so, they resort to slash-and-burn. We do not know how many of such small farmers are out there but the numbers could add up to potentially millions. It will not be easy or practical to try to stop them or even prosecute them. Neither will it solve the issue in the long term. Perhaps, a better solution here is to provide education and direct help to these farmers and to help them to adopt better methods to clear land.

My second point raises the issue of how to ensure the right party responsible is prosecuted. Under the Bill, one of the ways to identify the party responsible is based on "satellite information, wind velocity and direction and other meteorological information". This means that the HGU/HPH/HTI holders are made liable for the occurrence within their boundary based on maps and satellite information, even though they may not have full control of all the areas in their concession areas. Complications arise when the small farms I talked about overlap with industrial scale development within the boundaries of such licence holders. Not all big concession owners own or have control over the small farms around them. Hence, they cannot be held responsible for the action of these small farmers.

Overlapping can be an issue and this results from the same land being given to more than one party. Hence, the wrong party here may be targeted and this could put a heavy burden of proof on them to prove that they were not responsible. We may need to be mindful of the perception that the main culprits behind the haze last year are just large companies. This may not necessarily be the case. For example, Riau is fairly well developed in terms of logging and plantation concessions. These logging areas and plantations are planted usually for the long term – some 25 years or so, in the case of palm trees. In view of the substantial investment by HTI/HGU holders in their planted areas, fire is actually a threat to their investment. Therefore, it is necessary for a thorough investigation to be carried out before pointing fingers at these companies as they may, in fact, themselves be victims of the annual slash-and-burn carried out by the small farmers.

The third issue is the enforceability of the Singapore laws outside of Singapore. So, whilst we can take comfort in the news report that incoming President Joko Widodo is backing Singapore's plan to levy heftier fines against overseas polluters, it is no surprise that they are also asking for detailed protocols to "guarantee the sovereignty of Indonesians". This Bill also allows for judicial presumptions. This means that the accused is assumed guilty, until proven otherwise. The fear here is whether this will open the door to an avalanche of frivolous or unfair accusations.

The other issue is that the Bill now places an obligation under public international law on private entities. It seeks to punish entities that do not even have a presence in Singapore by seeking to punish executives personally whenever they set foot here. And because actual individuals could be punished as a result of their company's transgressions, any person holding a management position, who may not be the key decision maker, could be made a

Page: 43

scapegoat. This raises the issue of fairness. The other issue is the question of legislative over-reach. Will the negative reach of this Bill have the potential to discourage companies from setting up a holding company here or to prevent good companies from listing here on our stock exchange?

Mdm Speaker, even if we implement this Bill, there is no full-proof guarantee that the issue of the haze will be resolved. And we would certainly not want this Bill to create any friction or misunderstanding with our neighbours or, worse still, cause them to adopt retaliatory measures against us. Hence, it is important that we continue to engage and work with these countries to resolve some of the root causes of the issues first. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Since 1991, Singapore has endured recurring haze episodes resulting from land and forest fires in Indonesia, with last year's being the worst ever. While I appreciate the efforts of our officials over the many years in trying to find workable solutions with our ASEAN neighbours on this issue, I have been concerned about our lack of ability to take more actions that are within our control.

Hence, two years ago, I had asked the Government to consider legislative measures to allow us to prosecute companies found guilty of causing haze in Singapore through illegal burning, even if the acts were committed outside of our shores. This Bill now gives us a new legal lever to exercise our rights to clean air, covering both criminal and civil liabilities for commercial entities responsible for land clearance if their actions outside of our territorial boundaries cause haze pollution in Singapore.

This Bill signals Singapore's seriousness in combating this issue. Agricultural companies that wish to do business with Singapore or have their operational headquarters here will have to think seriously about their practices if they are not already practising good land clearing practices.

My speech will focus on some details of the Bill and the potential challenges to put it in place, which the Minister and other Members had also pointed out.

Presumptions. First, there is a string of sweeping presumptions under clause 8 of the Bill which we need to especially convince our regional neighbours that these are fair and reasonable.

Page: 44

Clause 8 contains a series of legal presumptions to assist the prosecution to pin guilt on entities. There will be much controversy surrounding clause 8(4), which presumes the accuracy of land maps obtained by the Singapore Government from the foreign government or any person requested by the Singapore Government to furnish a map. If the Singapore Government decides to rely on that map, it is presumed under clause 8(4) that the entities reflected on the map as occupying particular geographical areas will be presumed to be doing so unless the entity proves otherwise. Is this presumption from a map reasonable? Therein lies a potential minefield.

Experts in agrarian land laws have cited the complexity of the law relating to land in Indonesia and the need for reforms in land registration. There are reportedly ambiguities in land rights between the customary law or "adat", which deems land as belonging to communities, and the formal law called the Basic Agrarian Law giving individual title to land. There are thus unregistered but valid land rights which would not show up in maps as they are generally not recognised by the State.

A further complication is that, under the Basic Forestry Law of 1967, all forest land is deemed to belong to the State, even when communities recognise their customary rights to the forest land among themselves. The Basic Agrarian Law of Indonesia recognises four types of land tenures that can be registered: (a) the right of ownership; (b) the right to use; (c) the right to exploit; and (d) the right to build. Different entities can hold the four different rights to the same piece of land. Many of the rights given to the urban and rural land in Indonesia have not been registered. In addition, foreign entities also team up with local entities to get de facto rights to the land, making it unclear as to who is the actual entity that is in charge of activities on the land parcels.

Given the state of affairs, how reliable would land maps from Indonesia be? Do the Indonesians themselves accept their government maps as accurate? This may call into question the reasonableness of the presumptions under clause 8(4).

Besides clause 8(4), the rest of clause 8 also places the burden of proof on a suspected entity to disprove its guilt. Clause 8(1) presumes that haze pollution in Singapore is caused by a land or forest fire outside Singapore if the meteorological data suggest so. Clause 8(2) presumes that an owner or occupier of the land alleged to have caused haze pollution in Singapore had engaged in conduct that caused or condoned the haze pollution. Clause 8(3) presumes that if any entity is believed to have caused or condoned haze pollution in Singapore, any other entity that participates in the management of the first entity has also caused or condoned haze pollution in Singapore.

While presumptions have been used in Singapore laws before, such as in the Misuse of Drugs Act, shifting the burden of proof to persons is likely to be more demanding, and even

Page: 45

more so when the evidence is overseas. Where a legal presumption operates against an accused, it is not sufficient for the accused to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case; instead, the accused has the burden of proof to rebut the legal presumption on a balance of probabilities. In order to do so, the accused entity is expected to bring its witnesses and documents to Singapore and foot the expenses of such. Even assuming that a foreign entity does all these things and is acquitted, there is no provision for it to recover its expenses or legal costs, since this is a criminal proceeding. A challenge will be that some foreign entities may not be interested to clear their name at their own expenses in Singapore.

Next, on the defences provided in the Bill. The Bill provides as defence to condoning haze pollution that if the accused Primary Person proves on a balance of probabilities that the Primary Person took "all such measures reasonable" to prevent or stop or reduce substantially such conduct by the Secondary Person, if the haze pollution has already happened.

It will be good for Parliament to clarify what standards of behaviour are the Primary Persons expected to implement to constitute a good defence. It would be a perverse policy outcome if Primary Persons are able to get away by simply inserting clauses in their contracts with their supplier Secondary Persons that the Secondary Persons must not engage in conduct that causes haze, and with the rights to terminate their contracts in the event of a breach.

Should we expect a higher standard of behaviour to be met before the clause can be invoked, such as for the Primary Persons to conduct regular audits of their contractors, plus provide resources to fight fires once they have broken out and to do everything possible to prevent and fight haze fires?

The Bill provides for a fine of $100,000 per day if a party is found guilty of causing haze, plus $50,000 per day for failing to comply with preventive measures, up to a cap of $2 million. This was an increase from the earlier draft for caps of $300,000 to $450,000.

The Minister had said that we need to increase the overall level of deterrence. For the purpose of clarity to the public, I would like to know the processes which the Government had used to arrive at these figures. Were other methods of computations for caps considered? I feel it is important for the Government to have a principled basis for these figures so that there will be greater acceptance of this Bill by our regional neighbours.

Enforcement. The Bill provides for the Director-General of Environmental Pollution or an authorised officer to give notice to any person, whether within or outside of Singapore, to furnish information or documents. The challenge is to get the cooperation of contractors

Page: 46

or sub-contractors, when the persons or corporations do not have a presence in Singapore or are not even managed from Singapore. Large plantation companies often work through contractors. Our Courts will need to have concrete evidences if we wish to prosecute these plantation companies. Would this make it vulnerable for prosecution under this Act to fail due to the lack of evidence because of the lack of cooperation?

There are provisions under sections 4, 6(3) and 6(4) for "extraterritorial application". Singapore currently does not have any umbrella extradition treaty with Indonesia. If the accused person fails to appear in Court, a warrant of arrest is issued under section 17. This will likely have little or no effect if the person is not in Singapore. We have many examples of such cases in other aspects of our laws. For example, in divorce-related maintenance issues, there are many cases that have stalled for indefinite periods at this stage of the legal process because the accused is in a country which Singapore does not have an adequate extradition treaty with, such as Indonesia.

Good evidence is needed, given the complex nature of the ownership and operations of plantations in Indonesia. Last year, in the midst of the haze, several large plantations were flagged out publicly as possible culprits. The press reported that several of the named companies said that they followed strict no-burning policies, demanded their contractors to do the same and had, in fact, worked to put out fires in neighbouring areas. They also stated that while the permits for lands may be listed as belonging to them, they were not conducting activities on these concessions, or the permits have expired, or were not under their control as parts of the land may be occupied by others.

Regional cooperation. While having this new legislation is good for signalling Singapore's strong intent to fight transboundary haze, we will still have to rely heavily on good old-fashioned diplomacy and extending our strong support to our neighbours to help them prevent and fight forest fires. We also need their cooperation to ensure that prosecution and the enforcement of punishment can be carried out.

In this respect, it is very encouraging that Indonesia's President-elect, Mr Joko Widodo, who also happens to be a forestry graduate, has backed our plans to impose heftier fines on transboundary polluters, but with the caveat to respect the sovereignty of Indonesia.

Ultimately, the fires are burning in a sovereign foreign country. We need to have accurate and up-to-date land concession maps in order to have evidence against the companies implicated in unlawful forest fires. Most of all, it is best to be able to prevent these fires from starting.

Page: 47

An important step to solve the regional haze problem is for Indonesia to ratify the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. Indonesia has remained the only ASEAN country not to have ratified the Agreement, with some officials citing the need for detailed protocols to guarantee Indonesia's sovereignty. As the Minister and others had also pointed out, the haze, unfortunately, affects ordinary Indonesians even more than it does to their neighbours, as those in Riau and Kalimantan are where the most intense fires are. Our diplomacy efforts can extend towards helping Indonesia achieve their stated aim for a more sustainable agro-industry.

Last year, the Minister shared about Singapore's collaboration with the province of Jambi. He had termed it as one of our more successful efforts that saw a greater reduction in the number of hotspots in Jambi Province during our years of collaboration, compared to other fire-prone provinces in Sumatra. He attributed the success to the strong support given by the then Governor of Jambi, Pak Zulkifli Nurdin. The collaboration was not renewed, unfortunately, after 2011.

I believe our officials must be hard at work trying to build up that same level of close collaboration that we had back then with Jambi province and with other Indonesian provinces. This is a tireless effort that must not stop. With the signal of support sent by President-elect Mr Joko Widodo to have greater ASEAN collaboration on various environmental issues, let us hope the Minister can soon share more success on this front of preventing fires at the frequent hotspot areas.

Mdm Speaker, notwithstanding the challenges to operationalise this Bill, I am pleased that we now have the legislative means to allow us to do more in the fight for our right to clean air.

Mdm Speaker, I welcome this proposed law, which is much anticipated and which could be emulated by other jurisdictions seeking to deal with transboundary air pollution.

This Bill adds to our legislative muscle to deal with transboundary haze even though the actual impact, which remains to be seen, may be more apparent than real.

The Bill's extra-territorial reach, provided for in clause 4, is a double-edged sword. Given that the serious episodes of air pollution we experienced in 1994, 1997, 2006, 2010 and 2013 were transboundary in nature, this law will not be of any use if it does not provide for extraterritorial application. Hence, it is appropriate that this Bill covers acts as well as omissions, whether such conduct occurs within or outside of Singapore's territorial boundaries which result in haze pollution in Singapore.

Extraterritoriality is double-edged because it can be regarded by another state as an infringement of its national sovereignty. In the Southeast Asian context, the maintenance of national sovereignty is a cornerstone of ASEAN and is enshrined in the ASEAN Charter.

It must be noted that this Bill does not seek to provide our Courts with jurisdiction to determine if a foreign state is responsible for transboundary haze pollution in Singapore. Neither does it seek to impose liability on a foreign state for the damage caused to Singaporeans as a result of the haze pollution.

It is also highly significant that this Bill not only creates an entirely new offence but also broadly expands the notion of extraterritorial reach: this is the criminalisation of a first entity's failure to prevent transboundary haze caused by a second entity to which the first entity participates in the management of the second. This is a significant extension of jurisdiction well beyond what is found in our general criminal law and existing legislation with extraterritorial reach.

Nevertheless, I am confident that the relevant agencies, including NEA and the Attorney-General's Chambers, will exercise due prudence when prosecuting using this law. To be sure, tough times call for tough measures. But this still does not take away the possibility that our neighbours may strenuously object to this law having such an extensive extraterritorial reach, if not now, certainly later.

Madam, I welcome the Bill's broad jurisdictional reach to overseas entities with a presence in Singapore for failure to prevent transboundary haze affecting Singapore. This

Page: 50

ability to investigate and prosecute companies carrying on part of the business here in Singapore, irrespective of where they are registered, is important for better regulation.

I regard this as part of a larger effort in ensuring that there is a level playing field requiring foreign companies having to adhere to the same standards of care and responsibility as our own companies. I hope companies registered in Singapore with interests and/or stakes in the palm oil business, in particular, will promptly clean up their supply chains, including demanding fully traceable palm oil from their suppliers. Ignorance cannot be pleaded as an excuse; it is a shirking of their responsibility and an attempt to privatise their gains while socialising their costs.

For this law to be successful, the cooperation of the country from which the transboundary haze pollution originates would be necessary for any successful enforcement actions and prosecutions. So, I hope that the Ministry will engage and explain to our foreign counterparts about this proposed law before it comes into force, to allay any concerns that they may have.

A Bloomberg report last week, also highlighted by several Members, mentioned that Indonesia's president-elect Joko Widodo backs our plans, embodied in this Bill, to impose heftier fines against polluters so long as Indonesia's sovereignty is respected. So, the initial signs look good and we should demonstrate how this law would also benefit our neighbours in ASEAN even though it is primarily designed to meet Singapore's interests and concerns.

In this connection, I welcome the Ministry's announcement yesterday that the Singapore Government will provide additional haze assistance to Indonesia in the form of a helicopter equipped with heli-bucket to fight fires, to complement Indonesia's fire-fighting capabilities in anticipation of an extended dry season due to the El Nino phenomenon this year. This is in addition to the haze assistance package offered by Singapore earlier in June, comprising several aircraft, a Singapore Civil Defence Force team and high-resolution satellite pictures and hotspot coordinates. This assistance recognises the complexities and constraints in Indonesia and that we are not merely pointing fingers but also seeking to assist within our means and being sensitive to the domestic political dynamics.

As mentioned earlier, this Bill does not just cover landowners whose lands are the sources of transboundary haze pollution but also extends to those engaged in starting the fires and those involved in the management of an offending entity.

This enlightened attempt to deal with the chain of causation of transboundary air pollution is necessary if the proposed law is to have sufficient enforcement "bite". It also does not seek to identify a sole perpetrator, recognising that transboundary haze pollution

Page: 51

is very much the culmination of a series of deliberate acts in a conscious decision-making process that may be cross-border in nature and involving different parties. There should, therefore, be a broader conception of responsibility.

I would like now to turn to a few specific provisions in the Bill. First, may I suggest that the Bill be broadened in its application? As I understand it, the Bill covers a specific type of transboundary haze pollution. Clause 2 states that the Bill covers transboundary air pollution "involving smoke from any land or forest fire wholly outside Singapore".

Why not enlarge its scope to cover all forms of transboundary air pollution? The Bill ostensibly does not cover transboundary air pollution from factories, power plants or other types of smoke emissions. Neither does it cover, say, transboundary air pollution from raging fires on an offshore oil rig or from a gas pipeline near Singapore.

While I appreciate that this Bill is designed to deal with a specific form of transboundary haze pollution that has been long-standing, why limit the scope of this Bill? I understand that this Bill's extraterritorial reach means that it should and would be used judiciously but we are unduly curbing our enforcement ability by specifically confining this legislation to a particular type of transboundary air pollution.

On penalties for an entity convicted of an offence under this Bill, much as I welcome the significant enhancement of the maximum fine from $300,000 originally to $2 million, I share the sentiments expressed by other Members that the quantum is probably on the low side. There must be sufficient deterrent in this Bill. My question is whether the top-line figure of $2 million carries enough of a big stick. Could the Minister clarify how the figure of $2 million was arrived at?

When one considers the profits to be made and the market value of some of the companies involved in the oil palm business, $2 million might just be a slap on the wrist. To give an indication of the scale of business, I would just cite Wilmar International, a leading agribusiness group headquartered in Singapore and one of the largest listed companies by market capitalisation on the Singapore Stock Exchange. It had revenues of US$44.1 billion and equity and liabilities worth US$46.6 billion in 2013.

On this issue of penalties upon conviction, would the Minister consider imposing jail terms for key officers of the offending entity which is culpable?

We have the doctrine of limited liability in our corporate laws but, ironically, this provides incentives for environmental irresponsibility. This is because the parent companies' limited liability creates a potential moral hazard through the reduced economic incentive to

Page: 52

ensure that its subsidiary company exercises its due care when taking environmentally-risky activities. Put another way, because the parent company obtains the financial rewards from environmentally-risky activity but is relatively insulated from the subsidiary's liabilities, there is the incentive for the parent company to use its management and control to make profit-maximising decisions for the subsidiary, including environmentally-damaging ones.

Thus, in addition to fines, perhaps the Bill could also require offenders to provide financial security, such as insurance, performance bonds or guarantees, to enable them to cover their future potential environmental liabilities. As a variation, this requirement could also extend to companies with palm oil business concerns in neighbouring countries and having the necessary nexus with Singapore, such as being listed here, to provide such financial security.

This can provide incentives to motivate such entities to reduce their environmental risk and the likelihood of causing further transboundary air pollution. The details, of course, need to be worked out but they can augment the monitoring and enforcement framework, resulting in a more robust regulatory framework.

I hasten to add that not all entities act, respond and are motivated solely by economic concerns. But I see the provision of financial security as part of a wider regulatory framework comprising fines and jail terms to motivate companies to balance the competitive quest for profits with environmental risk.

Madam, clause 6(3) of the Bill also provides for the imposition of civil liability, on top of the criminal liability, for haze pollution in Singapore. While I welcome the provision for civil liability, I question if this clause is a paper tiger, a remedy in form but not in substance.

Victims of haze pollution could find it onerous to take out an individual civil law suit against a company with far deeper pockets to defend itself. This would be the classic "haves" versus "have-nots" in the litigation arena. For this provision to be fit for purpose, could the Bill facilitate the injured parties to mount a class action suit, and could the state provide the requisite legal support as part of the larger effort to protect the public interest?

Madam, this Bill's success should not be measured by the number of successful prosecutions. I agree with the Minister that we should not expect an overwhelming number of prosecutions when the law comes into force.

More importantly, I see this Bill as nudging companies with business interests in palm oil and other commodities to be more mindful and to be more proactive about preventing transboundary haze pollution, especially if they use industrial scale slash-and-burn methods

Page: 53

to clear land. This Bill can have a direct impact on their operations and reputations. I hope these companies will rise to the occasion as it cannot be business as usual, in which there is a race to the bottom. Instead, it should be an endeavour to be responsible stakeholders.

Such businesses should strongly consider implementing effective anti-air pollution programmes and evaluating the sustainability of their supply chains, including detecting and responding to improper environmental conduct. Implementing and maintaining a sustainable and responsible business plan remain a prudent and recommended course of action. This is not just to simply avoid the long arm of this proposed law but because it is the right thing to do.

Consumers are becoming savvy and discerning in their purchasing choices. If businesses are not able to show a sustainable supply chain, then their sales could be detrimentally affected. Unilever and Procter & Gamble are two major companies that have thrown their weight behind sustainable and responsible sourcing of palm oil. In this regard, can the Ministry consider requiring companies to disclose to consumers the relevant information about their supply chains?

In similar vein, I hope the Government will show its resolve in enforcing this law because Singaporeans expect no less. Would the Government take the lead and adopt a procurement policy that ensures that goods and services procured are from sustainable and responsible sources? What about our Government-linked companies, including Temasek Holdings and GIC? Will they ensure that their investments and business partners are not engaging in conduct that is detrimental to the health of Singaporeans and our economy?

In this connection, businesses and governments should adhere to the precautionary principle in order to reduce the risk of violating this law and to demonstrate that they are responsible stakeholders.

I sense that there are high public expectations that this Bill will be a game-changer in that there will be clear skies and clean air henceforth, and that haze from land-clearing fires will now be consigned to the dustbin of history. If only a complex problem like the haze can be solved so easily by legislative fiat!

Thus, it is important to highlight that the Bill is by no means the silver bullet to combating transboundary air pollution. Managing public expectations will have to go hand-in-hand with enforcement actions under this Bill.

Bilateral cooperation and multilateral cooperation within the ASEAN framework and, more specifically, the 2002 ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, will

Page: 54

continue to play a far bigger and more important role in ensuring that transboundary haze pollution does not continue to pose a serious annual health and economic concern.

For this law to work, the cooperation of our neighbours is necessary since the evidence, including geospatial information, such as the ownership and occupation of land, that is needed to mount successful prosecutions will not be in Singapore but where the companies and individuals were allegedly conducting such illegal activities.

Our law enforcement officers may also have to travel to neighbouring countries to gather evidence, assuming that permission is granted for such investigations in foreign jurisdictions. This is notwithstanding clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill which provide for the power to obtain information, the power to examine and to secure attendance of those who may know of matters related to an alleged offence under this Bill.

Madam, I must admit that I am sceptical whether there will ever be a successful prosecution when this law comes into force. Land use and land tenure in Indonesia are governed by a complex web of national, provincial and customary laws that often compete and, perhaps, even conflict with one another. As such, it is not at all clear who might own a piece of land. This Bill recognises that legal reality.

Further, as fire moves across the landscape, propelled by topography and wind, one cannot assume that burning within concessions is caused by the owners. Overlaying concession maps with hotspot locations may not be sufficient to meet the burden of proof required for a successful prosecution.

What all this means is that ground realities are a lot more complex. The Bill is bold in its approach but it does also show the limitations of the law. Despite the statutory presumptions, an enlarged conception of extraterritorial reach and an enlightened understanding of legal responsibility, it is going to be a major feat to hold an entity accountable and to penalise offenders. The defences to prosecutions found in clause 7 are necessary to prevent prosecutorial over-exuberance and over-reach and demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law even as we tackle the scourge of transboundary air pollution.

Mdm Speaker, we have a right to breathe air that does not sicken or kill us or harm our economic livelihoods. Indeed, Article 28(f) of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration provides for "the right to a safe, clean and sustainable environment". Although this Bill does not give us the rock-solid assurance that we will be able to enjoy this right immediately or in the foreseeable future, it is an important step in the right direction. As such, I support the Bill.

Page: 55

Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. It gives credence to the fact that when it comes to the environment, there are no borders. Damaging activities in one place affect another area beyond its shores, just as much as in the place of origin. The concept of "transboundary environment damage", as a platform for legal redress, Mdm Speaker – something that I first learnt about way back when I was studying environment law 20 years ago – is only now in the consciousness of Singaporeans.

The Bill also gives credence to the fact that, contrary to earlier narratives that the fires are caused by smallholders and slash-and-burn farmers, these are actually the work of – in the words of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – "errant companies".

It also gives credence to the fact that, as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan rightly emphasised, "the root cause is commercial" and the fault lies with big business having, he said, "total disregard for their social and environmental responsibilities".

This Bill also stands out for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that it includes Singaporean entities as well as non-Singaporeans as potential offenders and defendants who could be prosecuted and/or sued. It is foreseeable that even financial institutions will now have to be more circumspect when granting loans or investments in case they, too, get implicated. This is a powerful tool to remind the corporate world that it has obligations and responsibilities beyond that of profit-making for their shareholders.

That said, Mdm Speaker, I seek clarifications for the following concerns.

Firstly, for the entity to be liable, and for the Bill to be truly effective, a strong ground mapping of concession areas to pinpoint responsibility for the fires is needed.

Therein lies the rub. We know that such fires occur in peat swamp forests. It is in the nature of such forests that it is the soil below that burns sometimes for years and it is the layers of burning peat soil that are difficult to put out or control once the fires start.

In a situation where the local politics may be hazy – no pun intended – as to who actually owns and is in charge of the land, how does the Bill ensure that the real power behind it is the one that is called to answer? For example, should there be a change in ownership or control of the land which may or may not be transparent or recorded formally, how does the Bill envisage the gathering of proof that a particular entity is the one that caused the fire? Further, such evidence calls for cooperation and collaboration with the countries concerned. Could the Minister clarify how the Bill envisages such cooperation and collaboration to be

Page: 56

sought?

The gathering of such evidence would also include the use of technology for veracity, authenticity and accuracy. Could the Minister clarify what sort of technology is envisaged and whether there may be potential issues relating to infringement of privacy and sovereign rights in the use of such technology? I say this because I note that even as the incoming President of Indonesia supports the proposed law, he also cautions that this must not be at the expense of his country's sovereignty.

Secondly, with regard to civil action, could the Minister clarify how are the parties envisaged by the Bill who may take action, are to do so? If, theoretically, it is open to any individual who has suffered damage or injury to do so, would this not potentially be burdens on our Court system? Further, for individuals or groups who may rightfully take Court action but may not necessarily have the funds to do so, how does the Bill envisage the way they may move forward? Does the Government see the possibility of the creation of a single special public interest litigation agency for this specific issue which may, perhaps, be funded wholly or partly by the Government?

Thirdly, criminal prosecution entails the payment of fines up to a maximum of $2 million. For the big agri-business conglomerates, even this amount is but a dent in their profit margins, compared to the damage they have caused, which may be beyond dollars and cents, for example, the loss of not just human lives but animal lives, too; loss of global bio-diversity and severe destruction of one's tropical rainforest. Could the Minister explain where the fines will be channelled towards? As a way of showing that we in Singapore are equally concerned for the well-being of the Indonesian people who suffer the worst effects of the haze, being at the epicentre, so to speak, as well as the animals like the orang utan and the elephants who are often poached as the forests are opened up, or left to die in the fires, can such monies be set aside in a special fund and used for restoration, reforestation, rehabilitation of the forest, the animals and for humanitarian support for the Indonesian people?

In addition, the ultimate goal that we should be striving for is that pressure be brought to bear on big business to actually change their business practices and become more ethical. I am concerned that the amount of fines stipulated in the Bill alone will not go that far. There is also the possibility that big business might pass on the cost of the fines to the consumer in the form of higher prices of products. Should the Bill have gone further and demanded that big businesses involved be forced to be part of that reparation, restoration and rehabilitation process of the people and the forest? Could the Minister also clarify if there are, in tandem with the Bill, plans to incentivise and motivate companies to take the ethical route and to acknowledge the good ones that have already done so?

Page: 57

In addition, may I seek the Minister's assurance that there will be greater scrutiny of Singaporean-owned and Government-owned businesses that are involved in such businesses, to ensure that the high ethical standards that we expect start from our own backyard?

Mdm Speaker, I started out by noting that destructive activities that affect the environment know no borders. I want now to focus on other fundamental issues.

For some time now, I have noted with concern how quick we are to blame another country for the problem, and, even then, only when the haze occurs literally right in front of our eyes. I am concerned that there is not as much self-reflection and introspection of how this is also a good time to be cognisant of our own contribution to the problem, to our own consumer lifestyle and our responsibility as individual citizens and as a country, to come up with more life-affirming and empowering solutions.

While we hold another country or commercial entity to task for the negative impacts of its activities on our citizens and our country, let the haze not blind us to the fact that we, in a developed country, are, in fact, the beneficiaries of the products of the oil palms through our ability to afford such products. These products are everywhere – in our food, in our homes, in our shops, in our offices – and in all the ways that make our lifestyle the comfortable one that it is, a lifestyle, I might add, that many want to maintain.

Every time we take our money out from our wallets, we are either contributing to the profits of these companies and to the problem that we complain about, or we can opt to make the world a better place by being conscious consumers and demand a higher standard from big business and the Government. If, indeed, the root cause of the haze problem is commercial, as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan rightly pointed out, then I call upon all Singaporeans and our Government to be aware and conscious of their own consumption patterns.

In a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I submitted in April this year and heard in the House, addressed to the Minister for Finance, I had asked what measures are in place to strengthen and reinforce the commitment to the initiative called the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environment Sustainability (PSTLES). I also asked a supplementary question in the House to the effect that in view of reports that paper commonly used in offices that are procured or manufactured by companies that do not practise sustainable oil palm production, should there not be greater vigilance, scrutiny and commitment over this aspect of green procurement on the part of the Government. Senior Minister of State for Finance, Mrs Josephine Teo, in her response, assured the House that "if the source of this supply could be

Page: 58

made known to us, I think we should take a closer look at it".

Mdm Speaker, this is but one small way the Government can take the lead beyond the Bill and show its commitment to take back responsibility for its own consumption patterns and to send a strong signal to big business of which companies it is willing to support and which it will not, in keeping with the principles of this Bill.

The Government can also continue to work with environment civil society that has been involved on this issue because these groups have existing networks beyond our shores that can be harnessed to gain ground information for a more accurate picture of the situation. For example, a young man by the name of Tan Yi Han, has taken the initiative to start a ground-up movement of young people called the "People's Movement to Stop the Haze", or PM Haze for short, and has even recently travelled to the affected areas in Jambi and Riau with his team where he met not only the local NGOs, but also saw first-hand the impact of the devastation on the villagers who have lost everything in the fires, people who are like us in Singapore but do not have the luxury of being the consumers of the products of the oil palm plantations. Yi Han saw for himself the complexity of the situation and realised there is much more that needs to be done and can be done by the ordinary Singaporean, a project he has continued to take responsibility for, and all because he saw the need to do more than complain or wait for the Government to do something.

Civil society, on their part, should continue to educate citizens of the individual's responsibility to reflect on their role, as conscious consumers, to choose products that have an ethical origin as far as possible and to boycott the renegade ones, and I would argue, to go so far as to even reduce consumption. Schools, in their curriculum, should not only teach about oil palm production and the haze, but also the alternative sustainable methods, as well as to empower students in the ways they can take action to change the status quo through a more conscious consumer lifestyle.

The ordinary citizens, as consumers, should be made aware that they have the power to change a business model that has thus far been more concerned about profits than about people or the planet, provided citizens start by taking back responsibility for their own part in the problem. It is no use playing the blame game when there is no sense of personal responsibility for the consumer choices that we make individually and collectively as a country.

After all, if there is one thing that this Bill shows us, it is that we cannot not have an impact on the environment. It, therefore, behooves us to walk lightly on the earth. A sign that I saw while travelling along the busy London highway is most instructive. It says "You

Page: 59

are not stuck in traffic; you are traffic."

Madam, this is a significant Bill for a very serious issue. Why so? It is because it causes an acute state of emergency in Singapore and our neighbours every year for the last 20 years or so. Secondly, it has both short- and long-term effects on our health and development and, thirdly, it has significant economic and business impact.

Fires will remain fires, but what is needed is a sense of ownership, responsibility and sustainable change in behaviour and practices. Only then will the fines, which are up to $2 million, be worth its value.

All parties involved must render full cooperation and collaboration to sort out the root causes and come to a mutual agreement conducive to all. This Bill contemplates both civil and criminal liabilities. It cuts across national boundaries. Thus, we need clarity on its execution. Affectedly, public members must know their rights.

What will be its recognition by countries in the region and their law-making bodies? There will be variations, we know, from the differing practices, culture, laws and legislation in the various countries. With its extraterritorial scope, how consistent will it be with international public law or health laws?

If a person or company is convicted, will they have to come to Singapore to be tried? Questions like this will arise. Can a member of the public file a civil suit, in this case, in a foreign court? What about a whistle-blower? What kind of protection are we able to offer him or will he be entitled to?

On previous occasions, Madam, we have encountered a struggle to get ownership data. With the passing of this Bill, will it facilitate this? Or will it be a matter of investigations taking too long, such that the haze would have come, passed and even been blown over before we come to something concrete?

Will Singapore or NEA be appointing a team of trained negotiators and facilitators to investigate and verify issues and data? Also, can I ask the Minister how we plan to obtain objective data on ownership and thus responsibility? Will we be accessing the NASA Landsat 8 satellite for the data and details, or are we utilising other resources from Indonesia?

Page: 60

Another issue, Madam, is that the owners of the land may sub-contract these out to locals to manage and run. What stand will we take in the event that the person or company claims and counter-refutes that they do not know the errant and illegal practices of the locals that they have engaged? How do we plan to extend the liabilities to these companies or persons who own the accused entity or burnt land? Will there be specific clauses included to ensure clarity so that we can execute these?

Finally, the haze causes numerous health-related effects which cannot really be measured and quantified easily, not forgetting the greenhouse effects and the gas emissions generated yearly. Importantly, follow-up is critical. This cannot be just a one-off fine for the errant companies. Recalcitrant cases must be dealt with adequately and appropriately.

Legislation is one aspect. Education must continue. Commitment must be inculcated. Mutual trust must continue to be strengthened. After all, it is also a matter of regional and ASEAN co-operation. Challenging as it is, Madam, if this Bill works for us, it can serve as a model for ASEAN to implement on a variety of transboundary and regional issues. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I am grateful to all the Members of the House who have spoken. I am gratified that there has been unanimous support for this Bill – from the Nominated Members of Parliament, the Opposition Members of Parliament as well as, of course, the PAP Members of Parliament.

Page: 61

I am also gratified by the fact that in all your very thoughtful speeches, it was very clear that you appreciate how difficult it is, both to formulate this Bill as well as, ultimately, to implement and to execute this Bill. I think that is important because it ensures that, at least in this House, we set the expectations right.

I will be addressing the points that Members have brought up and I would try to cluster the questions which arose – first, what is the source of the fires; secondly, how will the extraterritorial application work, what do we do about maps, about overlapping concessions, the issue of fairness. There were questions on whether the penalties are sufficient. There were also questions on class action suits and whether we could facilitate the pursuit of civil actions in Court. And there were questions also on how we would utilise the fines and also questions on the role of consumer power, on the role of civil society, on financial institutions and, finally, a very important set of issues on diplomacy and cooperation. So, allow me to address these issues in sequence. And if I miss anything, you can clarify after my formal speech.

First, the source of the fires. This is not due to small farmers embarking on slash-and-burn cultivation. Slash-and-burn cultivation has probably been around for several thousand years, but transboundary haze of the severity that we now experience has been around only for the past couple of decades and more so in the last decade.

In fact, it is noteworthy that in the period from 2000 to 2012 – in the space of 12 years – the area in Indonesia which has been deforested is larger than the entire land area of England. That gives you an idea of the scale of deforestation. So, it is not the small farmer engaged in traditional slash-and-burn cultivation that is the culprit. It is the industrial-scale deforestation in pursuit of profits from plantations and, in particular, palm oil plantation. That is the big elephant in the room.

Hence, you will notice in this Bill that we recognise it is a matter of commercial interest and we are targeting the commercial operators who, directly or indirectly, are causing or contributing to or condoning activities which lead to transboundary haze.

There were quite valid questions raised on the extraterritorial application of this Bill. I think it was Assoc Prof Eugene Tan who said, well, by definition that we are dealing with transboundary haze, and, therefore, by definition, there has to be an extraterritorial element to it. I think they are valid questions but, first, how does this square with international law?

Under international law, states have a sovereign right to exploit their own natural resources, pursuant to their own policies. But states also have a responsibility to ensure that the activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of

Page: 62

other states or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

In other words, yes, there are sovereign rights but there are also responsibilities to your neighbours. This is a principle in international law. For the lawyers in this House, you will also be aware of this principle called the Objective Territorial Principle, which, basically, gives us the right to take action against people whose irresponsible actions elsewhere have caused harm within Singapore.

There were also questions on how exactly we are going to apply the extraterritorial provisions. Maybe, it might be best explained by me citing a hypothetical example. For instance, this Bill allows us to act against errant foreign entities and gives us the legal power to serve notices on these entities – and this is an important point – including those with no assets in Singapore and no presence in Singapore. The notice will be served personally on an officer of the entity when the officer or the partner of that entity is within Singapore. NEA will work closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), so that we will know when such a person is in Singapore. We will serve the notice to him or her when he or she enters Singapore. Where necessary, the Public Prosecutor could apply for a Court order to require the person to remain in Singapore to assist in investigations. Failure of the entity or of the officers of that entity to furnish information and the documents which we require for investigations – if they fail to furnish information and documents without a reasonable excuse – would be an offence and the officers of such companies who come into Singapore may be charged in Court and be liable, on conviction, to a fine or imprisonment, or both. I think Members of the House will appreciate that this will have a salutary effect on key office-holders and decision-makers of companies, even if those companies have no assets or physical presence in Singapore.

There is also the related question of fairness of the Bill. Some people initially said, "Well, just target the companies with assets in Singapore." After all, they are easier to go after. But that raises the issue of fairness, because if you only expose companies which have a presence in Singapore, are incorporated or listed in Singapore to the potential liabilities of this Act, you will inadvertently or potentially scare such companies from basing themselves in Singapore. And that is not fair and does not make sense. Hence, we have to make sure that this Bill, in its extraterritorial application, also reaches all companies, a level playing field, a level set of liabilities.

Foreign investors and local companies that adopt environmentally sustainable practices should not hesitate to set up shop in Singapore. So long as you do the right thing, you are not the target. In fact, what we really want to do is, on one hand, to tilt the playing field against those who are irresponsible but, on the other hand, where a company has done the right thing, is engaged in sustainable practices, you also want to uphold the company, uplift

Page: 63

the company and burnish its credentials.

Next, there were questions about whether the penalties were sufficient. Members will recall that, in the original version of the Draft Bill, we provided for a criminal penalty of $300,000. The almost unanimous feedback we received then was that this was clearly and grossly insufficient.

There was also a suggestion that it should be pegged to the duration of the haze pollution that it has caused. Hence, we changed the formulation to peg it at $100,000 per day, and then impose the limit of $2 million as an aggregate limit. I have heard all the Members loud and clear. In fact, the majority of you feel that this $2 million aggregate cap may be insufficient. But I want to make this point, that this is a new legislation, we do not know yet how this will work in practice. We want to be very careful that we do not over-reach or have unrealistic penalties. So, we will start now at this level, but we will review the Act when it comes into effect and assess whether it has sufficient deterrence.

It is also worth highlighting that it is not only the criminal penalty that the company will be exposed to but the civil liability, and there is no limit to the civil liability, except what the Court decides to award. So, that could be potentially a much higher sum. Bear in mind that the Bill provides for you to make a claim if there is personal injury or health issues, including if you are a company, even a loss of profits. That computation can be a very large sum. So, let us move cautiously with this level of penalties first and see how we can operationalise the Bill and whether it has the impact that we hope it will have.

There were questions, I think from Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, on the possibility of mounting class action suits. Well, I am not a lawyer but I have been informed that, in Singapore, we do not have class action suits. But under Order 15, rule 12 of the Rules of Court, we have "representative action". Where there is more than one person who has the same interest in any proceedings, any one or more of them may represent all in order to commence proceedings. This is pursuant to Order 15, rule 12 of the Rules of Court. I hope Assoc Prof Tan will agree. So, this does provide for our version of collective action in pursuit of civil liabilities.

There were questions, I think from Mrs Lina Chiam and Ms Faizah Jamal, about the use of fines. I think this is a far more general principle and I would need to remind the House that the Government does not use criminal fines as a means of taxation. So, that is why, also as a matter of principle, we do not hypothecate fines. So, we do not impose a fine and then say the fines that are collected will be used for a specific purpose. All fines imposed by all Government agencies enter the Government Consolidated Fund. It does not even enter into the revenue stream of the public agencies. So, this is a matter of public policy. I do not think

Page: 64

we should change it for the purposes of this Bill.

Nevertheless, if we need money to safeguard our population's interest, money to embark on cooperative action, money to work with civil society and other consumer groups, in pursuit of these objectives, we will do so and, if need be, we will come to Parliament and seek approval from you when my Ministry's annual Budget is presented. So, let us not get into this argument about hypothecating fines for specific uses, even if those uses are good.

There were questions, I think from Mr Christopher de Souza and also Ms Faizah Jamal and, indeed, many of you, on the role of consumer power. I asked my colleagues in my Ministry, "Please go to the supermarket and identify all the products with palm oil", and they came back and said, "I cannot give you that list because more than half of the products you find on the shelves have palm oil", including, you will be surprised, Swiss chocolates of the highest quality. So, the point is, we should not go on this wild goose chase and say, "I am going to exclude and eliminate all palm oil from our consumer consumption." That is not possible.

But I think the larger point that Members have made is that greater transparency and knowing the source of the products and making companies invest in brand equity and, therefore, making them have a stake in ensuring that their supply chains are legitimate and derived from sustainable sources, is one way to apply consumer pressure. That is something which we can encourage but that is something which should be done not just by the Government – in fact, preferably not by the Government – but really by consumer groups, by non-government organisations. And this is more of a kind of grassroots bottom-up approach to apply consumer pressure. I think consumer pressure on commercial companies will have a salutary effect.

There were questions also about diplomacy and on cooperative action with Indonesia. I am glad that Members have brought it up because it shows that you also appreciate how difficult the challenge is. The activities are occurring in another foreign, sovereign country much larger than us. Actually, they have rules, they have laws; it is not a shortage of policies or shortage of legislation. The problem is with investigation and enforcement.

But having said that, we need to be very careful to respect the sovereignty of our partners and not to engage in merely finger-pointing or finger-wagging exercises. That is why we have always taken a cooperative approach. I shared the Draft Bill with my colleagues from Indonesia. I invited their comments. I cannot take credit for what has been reported so far, but I think what has been reported so far on the views of the incoming administration is something which I welcome. It is useful for Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to see this as a collective problem and that we are all trying to protect the interests of all our citizens. And the most effective way to do so is to cooperate, to share data and to do so with greater

Page: 65

transparency, so that both consumers and governments can put pressure on companies to clean up their act.

Just yesterday, before I came to Parliament, I spoke to Minister Agung Laksono, who is the Coordinating Minister for People's Welfare, and he oversees the disaster relief and the firefighting efforts in Indonesia. I called him; I offered a helicopter with firefighting capability, over and above the earlier offer of assistance that we had made in June. He thanked me for it. He has got my mobile phone number and I have got his number. It shows you that there is a lot of behind-the-scenes to-ing and fro-ing, communication and coordination. And you need to understand, therefore, that we have got to keep these channels open, and cooperation is more effective than trying to give a lecture. We must remember that Singapore is a small little red dot. We are price takers, not price makers. We, therefore, have to do our best to protect our sovereignty, to protect the rights of our people, but to do so in a constructive and, hopefully, ultimately, effective way.

I want to emphasise that this Bill, as many of you have already alluded to, is not a silver bullet and it is not a complete solution in itself. But it is one step, a novel step, that we are introducing new elements into the law. Even for the decisions, the presumption clauses, we also had to calibrate that very carefully. We have to have presumptions on the validity of maps, on control and indirect control.

For lawyers, presumptions in law are not something which is preferred as a first option. Nevertheless, because this depends on circumstantial evidence at best, we needed to get the balance right between presumptions and, at the same time, providing adequate defences and providing opportunities for the companies to rebut. So, I have no illusions that this is something simple; or that this is something settled once and for all; or that this will guarantee blue skies. There are no guarantees.

This year, we have been lucky because the wind has been in our favour. But it is worth reminding this House that, in Malaysia, the air has reached unhealthy levels simply because the wind has been blowing from the south-west. So, the haze from Riau has been going into the Klang Valley and not into Singapore. But if, as in last year, there was a low pressure area in the Philippines which caused the winds to be westerly, we will get hit. So, these are the brutal realities of being "a little red dot". We are in a dynamic, economically growing but difficult region. And I thank Members for their support.

I thank the Member for that query. I do not think the simple insertion of a few clauses into a contract will be a sufficient defence. But I will leave it to the judge in the Court of law to assess whether that controlling entity has really done the best to prevent a fire, or did not know about the actions that led to the fire, or, having known that the haze has being caused, did not take adequate action to put it out. These are issues which have to be settled in Court. I do not think that just having a clause in the contract absolves you of your responsibility and liability.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister: in this Bill, does it provide a whistle-blower provision? For repeat offenders, does the fine remain the same or will there be an increase?

I do not think, in our current version of the Bill, that we have provided a specific provision for whistle-blowing. Actually, this is not common at all in our legislation. So, it is not present now. We will review it if such protection is necessary.

There are no specific provisions that elevate that penalty for repeat offenders. What we have put in place for criminal liabilities is the maximum cap but the amount will be determined by the judge. For civil liability, as I have said, it is unlimited but determined by the Court.

The Minister talks about making errant companies accountable. But what if the errant parties are not companies and lots of individuals?

I would like to ask the Minister two clarifications. First, whether he thinks the Bill is unnecessarily narrow in terms of the scope. It covers only

Page: 67

transboundary haze pollution which involves smoke of any land or forest fires. I gave the example of: what if it is water-based and that could come from a commercial entity as well? Secondly, I appreciate the point that civil society could lead in terms of trying to encourage consumers to make ethical purchases. The difficulty for consumers is always a lack of information. I do not know whether the Government has a longer term plan of requiring products to specify the supply chain to demonstrate they come from sustainable sources.

Before I answer the Member's question, Minister Heng Swee Keat has just pointed out to me that we have defined "entity" to mean a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation or anybody or persons, whether corporate or unincorporated. I think that is quite wide. I hope that addresses Ms Tan Su Shan's earlier query.

For Assoc Prof Eugene Tan's point, this Bill has been narrowly scoped. We have focused on transboundary haze pollution emanating from fires from forest or land. We did not go so far as to look at factories, burning oil platforms and the rest of it. The reason we did not is that this Bill, on its own, is already breaking new ground. I am a surgeon; I do not like making large incisions. So, let us be targeted; let us get this surgical operation done. Let us see how this works before we start taking adventures and liberty. I have deliberately scoped this narrowly.

The second point is about consumer information. This is something which both product regulators as well as NGOs can collaborate on. I will give you an example of collaboration. For instance, at the ASEAN level, we have been having difficulty operationalising the ASEAN Haze Monitoring System because, from the governments' view, civil servants tend to be very protective of data. They say, "No, we cannot share our official concession maps" or "The maps are not ready."

But this has not stopped NGOs like World Resources Institute from publishing maps which it has gained access to, through its own channels, and allowing the creation of platforms which share real-time data from satellites, meteorological data, concession maps and to give people an idea of what is really happening on the ground.

In addition to that, there is this element called "ground-truthing", meaning, yes, you can see something from the sky but what you really need is someone with a camera phone on the ground to say that, "This is the fire and this is occurring here and I saw this person". These sorts of information and information gathering, sometimes are best done through a non-government channel. You do not invoke issues of sovereignty and all the other political sensitivities. But, at the same time, sufficient transparency and sufficient information are put in the hands of consumers to apply real pressure on corporate businesses. We need a full menu of options on the table. Not everything is best done through legislation or Government

Page: 68

action alone.

*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. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].*

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

Page: 69