Transboundary Haze Pollution Bill

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Transboundary haze pollution has been a perennial problem in the region for the past two or more decades. The root of this problem is misaligned commercial interests where companies burn forests and engage in unsustainable degradation of land in order to maximise short-term profits. It is clear that it is only in the recent decades, when the presence and operations of companies in the region's forests and lands have grown significantly, especially oil palm plantations, that the haze situation has become much more severe and widespread.

I would like to point out that the main victims of this man-made disaster who have suffered the most are the local indigenous people living in and directly adjacent to forests that are being burnt. We, in Singapore, are, in a sense, secondary victims, but the damage to our health and economy is real and significant.

The persistence of this problem in this region despite the obvious harm shows the enormity of the challenge. There is therefore an urgent need for governments, non-governmental organisations, responsible companies and local communities to collaborate more effectively, to insist on transparency and to pursue investigations in order to hold the culprits accountable for their actions and for effective enforcement actions.

The question is: why are we now enacting the Transboundary Haze Pollution legislation? After all, do the countries in whose forests are being burned not already have their own laws? The reality is that it is not a lack of laws. It is a lack of enforcement action. There is inadequate enforcement on the ground to deter such illegal land clearing and we, in Singapore, cannot simply wait and wishfully hope that the problem will be resolved on its own. The Singapore Government, and, I hope, this House, would want to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate the actions of errant companies that harm our environment and put at risk the health of our citizens.

We have, therefore, tabled this Bill to introduce a new Transboundary Haze Pollution Act. This legislation will make it an offence for any entity – Singaporean or non-Singaporean – to cause or to contribute to transboundary haze pollution in Singapore. This Bill is not

Page: 86

intended to replace the laws and enforcement actions of other countries, but it is to complement the efforts of other countries to hold companies to account.

Given the very strong economic incentives today for companies to adopt the cheapest methods of clearing land for plantations, we need to tilt the playing field in favour of companies that do the right and responsible thing and deter the companies that do the wrong and irresponsible thing. We must not allow companies to ignore the environmental and health impacts of their actions. Our transboundary haze pollution legislation will add to the slate of deterrence measures by enabling us to hold these companies accountable for their irresponsible behaviour and will send the signal that we will not tolerate such misconduct.

Specifically, the following are the objectives of the Bill.

First, it creates an offence for an entity to engage in conduct, or to engage in conduct that condones the conduct of another entity, which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore. It is also an offence if an entity participates in the management of another entity which owns or occupies land overseas, and that other entity engages in conduct, or engages in conduct that condones the conduct of another, which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore.

Secondly, it creates a new statutory duty for an entity not to engage in conduct, and not to engage in conduct that condones the conduct of another which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore. There is also a statutory duty for an entity, which participates in the management of another entity which owns or occupies land overseas, to ensure that the foreign entity does not engage in conduct, and does not engage in conduct that condones the conduct of another, which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore.

Thirdly, this legislation creates a liability regime making such entities and their officers who had played a part in the proscribed conduct, liable to pay compensation for such conduct which have caused or contributed to transboundary haze pollution within Singapore, resulting in harm to any person, property or the environment here.

Mdm Speaker, I shall now highlight the key features and provisions of this Bill.

This Bill is designed to apply to entities whose conduct causes or contributes to transboundary haze pollution in Singapore, regardless of whether these entities have a connection to Singapore. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for such extraterritorial reach.

Page: 87

Let me assure the Members of this House that this is not something that we enter into lightly. Because we are addressing transboundary haze pollution, an extraterritorial approach is necessary for the law to be effective. This exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction under this Bill is in line with international law, specifically the objective territorial principle.

Mdm Speaker, in order to allow the Bill to have a deeper reach to the real perpetrators behind any land and forest fire overseas that leads to haze pollution in Singapore, this Bill has been designed to catch entities that are directly or indirectly involved in slash-and-burn activities overseas that result in haze pollution in Singapore. In short, a party does not need to have started the fire itself in order to be held liable for the act. A party would be liable if it participates in the management of the actual offending party. That is what I referred to as the second entity. Clause 3 lists out the three circumstances when an entity is regarded under the Bill to have participated in the management of another entity. By participating, we mean the entity is (a) being involved in the management or operational affairs of the second entity, (b) exercising decision-making control over any business decision by the second entity, or (c) exercising control at a level comparable to that exercised by a manager of the second entity.

In order to make it clear, the Bill defines an entity as a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation or other body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate. As I have stated earlier, the root of the transboundary haze pollution problem is companies that burn forests and engage in unsustainable degradation of land. That said, where offences are committed by a body corporate, an unincorporated association or a partnership, clause 16 of the Bill will hold individuals in positions of responsibility liable for offences committed by such entities. To avoid liability, such an individual must prove that the offence was committed without his consent, connivance or privity. He must also prove that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence as he ought to have exercised.

Some countries have a more complex land holding and control system and land ownership may not be confined literally to mean the physical ownership of land. We have, therefore, in clause 2 defined "owner" broadly, taking into account the different ways of land holding and control in other foreign countries and territories. The definition is not exhaustive, but mentions specifically any person who holds a valid lease, licence, permit, concession or other similar authorisation from a foreign government , as regards land in that foreign State or territory, for the purpose of farming or forestry operations on that land. The definition also covers any person who has an agreement or arrangement with another person who is the supposed "owner" of such land, where ownership is the broad definition as described before.

I apologise for the substantial amount of legalese, but I need to make this point because, sometimes, ownership and control structures can be complex. And our law has to be

Page: 88

sufficiently comprehensive to catch all relevant culprits.

Let me move on to defences. The Bill needs to take into account the complex land ownership structure in overseas countries and commercial relationships in this space. Therefore, the defences stipulated under clause 7(2) and 7(4) of this Bill cannot be used by the accused or defendant if the haze pollution was caused or contributed by his or her employee or agent, or any person and the person's employees that have been engaged, directly or indirectly, by the accused to carry out work on the land that the accused owns or occupies.

The defences in clause 7 also cannot be used by any person who has a customary right under the foreign law over the foreign land with whom the accused or defendant has an agreement or arrangement that relates to any farming operations or forestry operations. However, clause 7(2) and 7(4) provide that it shall be a defence if it is proved that the conduct which caused or contributed to the transboundary haze pollution was by any other person. Clause 7(1) is also available to owners, occupiers and operators if they can prove that the haze pollution is caused solely by grave natural disaster or an act of war.

I will move on now to the criminalisation of offences. The Bill criminalises acts in relation to any conduct carried out in Singapore or outside Singapore which causes or contributes to any haze pollution within Singapore. Mdm Speaker, in what follows, I will outline the details of the criminal penalties provided under this Bill.

Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the offences in the Bill which seeks to deter entities from being involved in activities which cause or contribute to haze pollution. It is an offence if an entity engages in conduct, whether in or outside Singapore, or engages in conduct that condones any conduct of another, again, whether in or outside Singapore, that causes or contributes to any haze pollution within Singapore. Similarly, it is also an offence for an entity to indirectly cause or contribute to haze pollution in Singapore through its participation in the management of another entity which owns or occupies land outside Singapore and where that other entity engages in conduct, or engages in conduct that condones the conduct of another, which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore.

The penalty for the offence is a fine not exceeding $100,000 for every day or part thereof that there is haze pollution in Singapore arising from that entity's conduct. The maximum aggregate fine that can be imposed under this clause is capped at $2 million. The fine's per-day formula is intended to disincentivise an entity from continuing its errant conduct and to incentivise it to put out any fires within its jurisdiction at the earliest possible time so as to mitigate the adverse impact any prolonged haze might bring.

Page: 89

Similarly, an entity which fails to comply with the preventive measures notice given in relation to that haze pollution in Singapore would be liable to an additional fine not exceeding $50,000 for every day or part thereof that the entity failed to comply with the preventive measures notice.

In our public consultation exercise of the Bill, we received strong support for a penalty regime that would place a substantial financial penalty on the errant entity, in order to act as an effective counter against the very strong economic motivations of the companies.

To give greater clarity as to when an offence is deemed to have occurred under the Bill and its regulations, we will define this as when the air quality in any part of Singapore reaches a Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) of 101 or higher; and that this has lasted for a continuous period of 24 hours or longer. These become the threshold. Both these conditions must hold at the same time. This is a reasonable benchmark, as a PSI of 101 or more reflects air quality in the Unhealthy range or worse. The state will use this information along with satellite data and other meteorological evidence, to determine who may be responsible for causing the haze.

In reality, it will be challenging to establish a clear nexus between the transboundary haze affecting Singapore and the responsible parties involved. Any such evidence would be circumstantial at best. To facilitate this, clause 8 therefore provides the necessary legal presumptions to allow the establishment of a causal link through the use of reasonably probative circumstantial evidence with the help of technology, such as high-resolution satellite images and meteorological information at or near the time that the transboundary haze pollution occurs in Singapore.

Further presumptions are also provided under clause 8 to facilitate identification of an entity responsible for the haze pollution in Singapore; the establishment of the causal link between an entity that participates in the management of another entity and where the other entity is responsible for the haze pollution in Singapore; and for the identification of the owner or occupier of land through maps from recognised sources. All these presumptions are assumed to be true until the contrary is proved. The use of rebuttable presumptions has precedents in Singapore law and their inclusion here paves the way for Singapore to use the new law effectively to deter and to hold companies accountable.

Similarly, NEA must be given effective investigative powers to establish a case. Penalties are therefore created under clauses 10(6) and 10(7) for failure to comply with the notice to furnish documents and information required for investigation, or where one wilfully alters, suppresses, destroys or provides false information. The penalties for both offences can be a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment or both. Clause 14 further provides the penalty for obstructing the Director-General of Environmental Protection or any authorised officers

Page: 90

during their investigations. Clause 17 allows the Court to penalise any person who failed to comply with the notice to attend Court. Where a Court is satisfied that a person served with a notice intends to leave Singapore, the Court may also by order require the person to remain in Singapore. We hope that these penalties will lead to more cooperative behaviour during the investigation phase.

Let me move on now to civil liability. Mdm Speaker, we know that some groups of people especially those with health problems and the operations of some businesses such as those in the tourism industry, can be severely affected by the onset of haze in Singapore. Hence, we need to provide a legal recourse for affected persons in Singapore who have suffered from the haze to seek redress from the responsible party or parties. Clause 6 creates new statutory duties. Where an entity engages in conduct that is in breach of the new statutory duties, this will give rise to a civil claim.

Civil damages recoverable under the Bill may include damages for: (a) any personal injury or disease; (b) any mental or physical incapacity; (c) any damage to property; and (d) any economic loss, including loss of profits. There is no stated cap on the liability and the Court will determine the quantum of damages to be awarded. However, the Court will use legal principles and case law to do this and this means that the claimable amount is, in effect, limited by the extent of harm, loss or damage actually suffered by the plaintiff. The civil liability provided for in this Bill will only take effect in relation to haze episodes occurring after the date of coming into force of this Bill. In other words, this Bill will not operate retrospectively.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to reiterate the importance of evidence gathering in the process of investigation so as to establish the culpability of the offending entity. This is the reason why the Bill allows us to serve a notice on a body corporate, an unincorporated association or a partnership which does not have any place of business in Singapore, to assist NEA in its investigations under clause 10(3).

After giving notice, NEA may enter any building in Singapore and seize or take extracts from copies and documents. Clause 11 of the Bill empowers the Director-General or an authorised officer to examine witnesses and to require their attendance for statement taking. Clause 13 provides immunity for the Director-General and his officers, for anything which is done in good faith and with reasonable care while performing any function or duty under the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, it is my Ministry and the NEA's mission to protect the public health of all Singaporeans – public hygiene, food safety and the quality of air and water that we all share. This commitment extends to the mitigation of transboundary haze pollution, even when we have no direct sight of the source. People in the region have been suffering from the bane

Page: 91

of haze pollution arising from illegal commercial land and forest clearing through slash-and-burn practices for many decades. It is necessary for us to table this Bill to hold such irresponsible entities accountable for their actions.

However, I want to be upfront. This Bill will be challenging to implement. You would have noted from the elaboration of the clauses in the Bill, which aims to strike a balance between addressing the difficulties of identifying the culprit while ensuring that the Bill does not over-reach such that companies that are doing the right thing also feel threatened.

Many have also told me that this Bill is novel and introduces new legal concepts to our Singapore law which we may not have prior experience to guide us. Therefore, I do not anticipate that we will, immediately or in the near future, have an overwhelming number of prosecutions against companies once the Act comes into force. In fact, I expect NEA to be thorough and to exercise careful judgment when implementing the legislation and when it is time to identify the company that should be subjected to the full consequences of the law. At this point, I would also like to reassure responsible businesses that adopt environmentally sustainable practices that they will have nothing to fear.

I am also heartened that in the course of the one-month public consultation exercise that we held in February and March this year, we received much support for this Bill from members of the public and other concerned parties such as academics and NGOs. Even companies that will themselves be subject to the Bill understood our motivations and gave us useful feedback. The feedback from the consultation was used to improve our Bill and I want to thank all those who have contributed to this process. Members of the House would be aware that the version which you have now is different from the version which we first put up months ago. This shows the benefits of the public consultation process.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate that this Bill is not meant to replace the enforcement actions that should be taken by other countries, but rather to complement their investigative and enforcement efforts. While this legislation is a step in the right direction, it is not a silver bullet. It is only one of a slate of measures that we must put in place in order to tackle the transboundary haze that has plagued our region for many years. I strongly believe that regional cooperation within ASEAN is still a critical pillar of the ultimate solution. Enacting this legislation is just one step to re-align commercial interest. We still need the support and cooperation of many other stakeholders – the foreign governments, the companies, the NGOs and fellow Singaporeans – in order to make this region and Singapore safe from haze pollution. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

*Question proposed.*

Page: 92

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Transboundary Haze Pollution Bill. The Bill that is before Parliament today is a clear indication of the Government's determination and effort to try to put an end to the increasingly hazardous and harmful haze pollution that has enveloped Singapore at various points in the past few years.

By enacting this piece of dedicated legislation, the Government hopes to punish errant companies that insist on engaging in illegal means of clearing their land, through the traditional slash-and-burn method, by imposing stiff criminal penalties and civil liability for their irresponsible actions. This firm and decisive approach by the Government to punish these companies is necessary because if such actions are left undeterred, the haze pollution situation in Singapore will only get worse in the coming years.

Although the yearly haze has been a reality that Singaporeans have had to cope with in the past, typically during the months of May to August, the unprecedented levels of the haze pollution that blanketed Singapore in 2013 and its consequent effects are still fresh in the minds of Singaporeans.

Beginning on 13 June 2013, just a little more than a year ago, mild haze began to be seen over parts of Singapore. Before long, air quality worsened and rapidly entered the "unhealthy" and "very unhealthy" zones of the PSI Index. By 10.00 pm on 19 June, the PSI reading of 321 breached the "hazardous" zone for the first time in Singapore's history, surpassing the previous record PSI level of 226, in 1997. Although PSI levels began to fall temporarily, the PSI reading once again reached a new record level with a reading of 371 at 1.00 pm on 20 June.

After further fluctuations, the PSI levels eventually hit a record of 401 at 12.00 pm on 21 June 2013. This was an unprecedented level of haze pollution in Singapore, with PSI levels reaching more than 150 index points higher than record PSI levels from previous years. By then, it was clear that the PSI levels were well within the "hazardous" zone. PSI levels continued to fluctuate between the "very unhealthy" and "hazardous" zones for the next day, before eventually tapering off into the moderate zone by 24 June.

During the course of the haze, everyday aspects of life in Singapore were affected. Many experienced the inconvenience of being confined indoors at home or at their workplace due to the hazardous PSI levels. The productivity of local companies was affected and construction projects had, in some cases, come to a standstill, as the high levels of haze pollution made working outdoors for prolonged periods too hazardous and harmful to health.

Page: 93

The Government stopped short of issuing a Stop Work Order, but made it clear that it would do so if the haze situation were to worsen severely. The unprecedented levels of haze pollution shrouding Singapore clearly had an adverse effect on our economy.

Further, the hazardous levels of haze caused many Singaporeans, both young and old, to periodically experience watery eyes and coughing. The elderly and those with heart and lung problems were particularly susceptible to respiratory difficulties.

In the constituency that I am responsible for – Ulu Pandan – we ran a free community haze clinic to help residents cope with the debilitating health effects of the haze. Volunteer doctors and residents came together to provide medical consultations and assistance to residents who were experiencing respiratory problems and breathing difficulties.

The number of residents who came in for haze-related symptoms was a significant number and cannot be so easily forgotten. The community haze clinic also became an avenue for us to share with the community as to how best to minimise their exposure to the haze and how to adequately protect themselves and their families.

Beyond health issues, vehicular traffic on our roads and air traffic in our skies were also affected due to poor visibility and caused safety concerns. Popular outdoor tourist landmarks were shrouded in haze, much to the dismay of tourists who were disappointed by the poor visibility and weather conditions.

MOE announced that schools would continue to open as planned after the June school holidays, but made clear that it would be taking several mitigating measures to ensure the health of students were not compromised or affected. It also had contingency plans in place to close schools if the air quality remained at hazardous levels before the starting of term.

From this, it is clear that haze pollution is a serious issue that affects Singapore and we should rightfully be vested with this. Therefore, it is timely and appropriate that this Bill be enacted to deal with companies causing or contributing to the haze pollution.

I support the enactment of this Bill as it provides an avenue for errant companies to be taken to task for cheaply clearing land using environmentally hazardous methods, like slash-and-burn.

First, the Bill provides that errant companies and individuals that engage in conduct or condone any conduct which causes or contributes to any haze pollution in Singapore would be liable on conviction to a fine of $100,000 for every day that there is haze pollution in

Page: 94

Singapore, up to a maximum aggregate fine of $2 million.

The scope of liability under this Bill falls not only on companies or firms that cause the haze in Singapore by allowing the use of such tactics on their land, but also extends to a second company that is engaged or instructed to start the forest fires.

Also, the Bill provides that these errant companies could also be liable to civil claims, where a person in Singapore sustains any personal injury, physical damage to property in Singapore, or sustains any economic loss in Singapore, in consequence to that wrongful act. This ensures that Singaporeans who are affected personally by the irresponsible conduct of these errant companies will be provided with an avenue to make a direct claim and be compensated for their own personal losses.

Lastly, the extraterritorial reach of these provisions will ensure that the criminal penalties and civil liability provided in this Bill will extend to the conduct of companies and individuals operating outside of Singapore that may cause or contribute to any haze pollution in Singapore.

Taken together, errant companies will be punished for their role in causing haze pollution, and will be levied with seemingly punitive financial penalties for their environmentally irresponsible actions.

However, while the Bill creates a clear framework to impose criminal penalties and civil liability to punish companies from engaging in conduct that cause haze pollution, more still needs to be done so that haze pollution can be tackled economically.

Presently, companies continue to resort to the slash-and-burn tactics because it is less costly. To these companies, the slash-and-burn method is economically more rewarding and beneficial.

However, until and unless consumers are made aware that certain products that they purchase are a product of these irresponsible actions then, based on a cost-benefit analysis, these companies are merely going to continue fairly undeterred by the harmful environmental effects of their actions.

While the criminal penalties imposed by this Bill may have a short-term deterrent effect on their conduct and appear punitive, the financial penalties may actually represent a small sum to these agroforestry firms, which typically earn considerably more in profits every year. With this in mind, may I ask the Minister to propose how consumers can be made more aware of products that are produced by errant companies which adopt environmentally

Page: 95

harmful methods like slash-and-burn?

Beyond the issue of empowering consumers, there is also the issue of enforcement. While having criminal penalties and civil liability clearly set out in legislation is certainly a step forward, it really is a step forward. Having said that, the real issue is whether these penalties can actually be enforced against companies and individuals that are operating beyond our jurisdiction. Therefore, could the good Minister outline how these errant foreign companies and individuals will be taken to task, and how provisions of this Bill will be enforced in Singapore courts for acts of "slash-and-burn" that are committed entirely overseas?

Coming back to consumer empowerment, if information is made known that certain products are not "environmentally clean", I think that Singaporeans will be discerning enough to make an informed choice about the type of products that they eventually purchase. With more information, consumers will be in a better position to discern what to buy and what not to buy. The only sure way to ensure that these errant companies adopt cleaner and less environmentally harmful practices is to pressure them economically and to make it clear that Singaporeans are not willing to derive small price savings at the expense of the economy, their health and, most importantly, the environment.

On the whole, while I support the main tenets and aims of this Bill, I believe that there needs to be some clarity on how it will be enforced, as well as some consideration as to how consumers can get involved to apply strong economic pressure to discourage environmentally harmful practices, like slash-and-burn.

Moving forward, as haze pollution is a transboundary issue, Singapore must work together with our fellow ASEAN members to curb and manage the harmful and debilitating effects that haze pollution has on the health of Singaporeans, as well as on our economy. With a concerted effort by all ASEAN members to strongly condemn the use of slash-and-burn tactics within our respective countries, haze pollution in Southeast Asia can be managed and deterred effectively. So, the real antidote to haze pollution lies in the political will of ASEAN countries, robust enforcement through legislation and an informed consumer body which supports environmentally clean products. I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I think Singapore, more than many other countries in this region, has always showed itself to be pro-business in its policies. But being pro-business cannot mean we are willing to close an eye and allow businesses which do not show responsibility towards the larger interests of the community, especially the health and

Page: 96

well-being of the people. We have seen the situation in Beijing where it is a different cause of air pollution – industrial and traffic pollution – causing thick smog to descend on the city's population. We have read of rivers where the water is poisoned by toxic waste. Ours is a different type of pollution and I feel this Bill is timely.

I understand the challenges facing the Singapore Government as it has to delicately walk the narrow path between fostering good relations with our neighbours and in protecting the interests of our people. I feel there are provisions in the Bill which should be enhanced. For example, the fines imposed may not be sufficiently deterrent against offenders, who will weigh the cost of risking a fine if they are caught against the profits that they can reap. We should double the fines imposed, if not triple, so that those who are snared will feel the bite. Why is there a cap of $2 million fine?

There should also be a progressively higher fine for repeat offenders. We have to remember that the Government has to deploy resources in order to monitor and locate the hotspots. It has to investigate, gather evidence and take the culprits through the whole process of law to bring them to justice. Thus, the fines imposed may not commensurate with the time and effort that have to be invested to stop those responsible for causing the haze.

I am, in fact, inclined to regard these people as criminals who rob the innocent people, especially the children and the elderly, of their health. There is a cost to our economy as we have to give out masks, cope with those affected by the haze, disruption to schools and daily lives of our workers and even aeroplanes cannot land or take-off. The loss is in millions of dollars from the economic standpoint. Worse is the loss of health, or even life, which money cannot buy.

In order to complement our efforts, we should also have a provision to encourage whistle-blowers to come forward with evidence to book the culprits. To gather evidence overseas is not easy, especially given that we have to respect the sovereignty of our neighbours. It is timely that the Singapore Law Review raised this question in its latest edition.

The writer, Eugene Ang, noted that even with the best of audits, we have seen how fraud was committed over a period of time, as evident in the recent corruption case at the Singapore Land Authority. Indeed, the writer noted that there are provisions in the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Companies Act which offer protection to whistle-blowers. So, should we consider such provisions for this Bill also?

I feel that this Bill is a good start, though it would have to be tested when it becomes law. The haze problem, I hope, will be somewhat contained. People should not be deprived of a fresh and clean environment. Much would depend on nimble diplomacy and a political

Page: 97

leadership that is truly willing to address this pollution issue. I am encouraged by efforts among ASEAN leaders to put in place a monitoring system and to work closely to tackle this problem.

I hope Indonesia will give all its support to address this problem and provide official concession maps to help in tracking those who practise the slash-and-burn tactic. I hope good sense will prevail. There should be sufficient goodwill between neighbours to look into how our behaviour and action are depriving others of their health.

Lastly, there is only so much that we can do from our side. The source of haze is in Indonesia's land. In fact, the haze affects the health of Indonesians much more.

I still remember seeing a photograph which showed Indonesians wearing normal surgical masks and the haze was so serious that they could not see what was in front of them. I cannot help but pity those Indonesians who have to live in such an unhealthy environment for many months in a year.

If the Indonesian government does not have the willpower to solve this problem, does not care about the health of their own people, does not care about their neighbouring countries, the problem of haze can never be solved. Let us hope that the new Indonesian leaders are wiser and can put in action to douse the fires and, hence, the haze. I support the Bill, Madam.

Page: 98