Mr Speaker, I support the objectives of this Bill. Singapore cannot simply accept transboundary haze as a regular inconvenience. Haze has real consequences for public health, outdoor workers, schools, businesses and our quality of life. The recent haze episode and public concern have also reminded us that, despite years of regional cooperation and improvements, the underlying risks have not disappeared.
The Government is therefore justified in reviewing whether the existing framework remains sufficient. The economic and public health costs of haze are substantial, and Singaporeans rightly expect that those responsible should be held accountable.
I note that the Bill seeks to strengthen the regime in three major ways. First, it seeks to strengthen Singapore's ability to obtain evidence and information. Second, it extends responsibility beyond direct landowners to related entities, financiers and supply-chain participants. Third, it introduces new regulatory tools, including assessors, designated persons, persons on notice, civil penalties and remedial directions.
I broadly support these objectives, but I have a few questions.
First, the current Act has been in force for more than a decade. Yet despite investigations dating back to 2015, no publicly reported prosecution, conviction or successful civil claim appears to have resulted under the Act. The Government previously stated that investigations into four of the six companies identified following the 2015 haze episode remained open. This suggests that, while the Act may have had some deterrent effect, significant enforcement challenges remain.
Can the Minister elaborate on the principal obstacles to successful enforcement thus far? Do they relate mainly to obtaining admissible evidence overseas, identifying beneficial owners and controlling parties, tracing corporate relationships, securing cooperation from foreign authorities, or enforcing against entities without a meaningful presence in Singapore? More importantly, how will these amendments materially address those obstacles?
Second, some of the new powers appear to be triggered by a "risk of haze pollution in Singapore" rather than actual haze pollution. The Bill also provides that a certificate by the Director-General that such a risk exists is conclusive evidence.
Can the Minister clarify what level of risk is intended? What objective criteria will be applied before the Government exercises these powers? Why does the Bill adopt a conclusive certificate instead of a rebuttable presumption?
I have a further question on how these new powers will operate in the context of Singapore's cooperation with Indonesia. In recent weeks, both Singapore and Indonesia have reaffirmed their commitment to tackling transboundary haze through cooperation, preventive measures, information-sharing and enforcement. Public statements from ministers on both sides have also emphasised the importance of working together to address fire risks before they develop into major haze incidents. Against this backdrop, can the Minister explain how the measures in this Bill are intended to complement these ongoing bilateral efforts?
Recent announcements by the Foreign Ministers of Singapore and Indonesia have referred to enhanced bilateral cooperation, including stronger collaboration in investigating entities linked to haze-causing activities. Can the Minister clarify how the powers under this Bill will interact with these new arrangements, and whether the Government expects the Bill to facilitate or support them?
For example, where Singapore seeks to identify related entities, business arrangements or persons contributing to a risk of haze pollution, what forms of cooperation and assistance does Singapore hope to receive from the Indonesian authorities? Will there be enhanced arrangements for the sharing of concession maps, ownership information, corporate records, fire investigation findings and other evidence that may assist enforcement under this Act?
While this Bill strengthens enforcement, prevention remains equally important. Some fires may arise from land-clearing practices that are difficult to address through enforcement alone, as my honourable friend, Aljunied GRC MP Kenneth Tiong, has spoken on in much detail a short moment ago. Can the Minister update the House on whether Singapore is working with Indonesia on practical fire-prevention measures, including technology, monitoring systems, training programmes and alternatives to open burning? Are there opportunities for Singapore to support efforts that help reduce the incidence of land and peat fires at source?
Finally, where Indonesian authorities have already taken enforcement action against particular entities, how will this interact with Singapore's own enforcement framework? Will there be information-sharing, mutual assistance or coordination mechanisms to avoid gaps, inconsistencies or duplication?
Third, the Government has explained that one purpose of the amendments is to address difficulties in obtaining evidence and information.
The Bill introduces a new assessor framework under which companies may be required to appoint assessors from a Government-approved panel. Can the Minister explain how the Government determined who should be placed on this panel, and what criteria were used in its selection?
Given that these assessors may ultimately gather evidence, make findings and submit reports that could be relied upon in enforcement proceedings, what safeguards are in place to ensure their independence and impartiality?
If a company disagrees with an assessor's conclusions, will it have an opportunity to respond before those findings are relied upon by the authorities? And where evidence is located overseas, how does the Government envisage assessors overcoming restrictions arising from local laws or the absence of cooperation from foreign authorities?
I also have a question on section 23C. I declare my interest as a Consultant in a Singapore law firm.
Section 23C provides that duties of confidentiality or privacy or rule of professional conduct will not excuse a failure to comply with notices or requirements under the Act. Can the Minister clarify whether this provision is intended to affect legal professional privilege in any way?
In particular, would a lawyer served with a notice still be entitled to assert legal professional privilege on behalf of a client, and would a client remain entitled to withhold privileged legal advice or communications? If privilege is intended to be affected, what is the justification for doing so, why is it necessary to depart from the usual protection afforded by legal professional privilege, and what safeguards will apply to ensure that any intrusion into privileged communications is no broader than necessary?
Fourth, the Bill significantly expands its reach into supply chains and business relationships. A company may potentially face consequences not because it directly started a fire but because it is connected through procurement, financing or other business arrangements.
Can the Minister elaborate on how far down the supply chain the Government intends these provisions to extend? For example, what due diligence measures would be expected of a Singapore importer, trader, financier or manufacturer seeking to demonstrate that it has acted responsibly? Will there be published guidance so that legitimate businesses know what standards are expected of them?
Before I leave the topic of supply chains, I would also like to ask about stakeholder engagement on these proposals. The Bill introduces significant new obligations and potential liabilities for companies potentially involved in agriculture, agritrade, commodity trading, financing, procurement and other commercial activities connected to affected supply chains. Can the Minister update the House on the consultations that were conducted in developing these amendments? In particular, were any concerns or implementation challenges raised by industry stakeholders regarding the scope of the supply-chain provisions, business arrangement restrictions, due diligence requirements or compliance costs? If so, how has the Government addressed those concerns?
Finally, I would like to ask about the new designation regime under Part 2B. A designation may carry significant consequences for an entity's business relationships, financing arrangements and reputation. Can the Minister clarify what principles will guide the exercise of these powers in practice? In particular, where an entity is connected through ownership structures, financing arrangements or commercial relationships, how will the Government determine whether designation is warranted? What safeguards are in place to ensure that the regime remains proportionate and focused on those genuinely responsible for haze-causing conduct?
Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
议长先生，我支持这项法案，加强新加坡应对跨境烟霾的能力。烟霾不只是环境问题，也影响公众健康、户外工作者、学校运作和经济活动。因此，我支持政府检讨现有框架，以应对新的挑战。
不过，我有几点关注。
第一，这项法令实施超过十年，但至今似乎没有成功检控或罚款案例。请问部长，过去执法最大的障碍是什么？这次修法将如何解决这些问题？
第二，法案把执法范围扩大到存在“烟霾风险”的情况。请问部长，什么程度的风险才足以触发这些权力？会否有清楚和客观的标准？
第三，法案也扩大到供应链、融资机构和商业伙伴。请问部长，企业需要做到什么程度的尽职调查，才算履行责任？政府会否提供明确指引？
第四，近几个星期，新加坡和印尼都强调会加强合作，共同应对烟霾问题。我想请问，法案中的新措施将如何配合这些双边合作机制？
例如，新加坡是否会获得更多来自印尼的支持，包括公司资料、土地特许经营权资料及火灾调查结果？如果印尼已经对有关企业采取行动，新加坡又会如何协调执法工作？
我希望部长进一步说明，新加坡预期会获得哪些具体合作与支持，使这项法案能够有效落实。
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I support the objectives of this Bill and the Government's efforts to strengthen Singapore's response to transboundary haze. Those responsible for conduct that threatens public health and the environment should be held accountable.
At the same time, as Parliament grants broader powers affecting businesses, financiers, supply chains and individuals, it is important that the thresholds, safeguards and avenues for review are clear, transparent and proportionate.
Ultimately, the success of this framework will depend not only on the powers we enact today, but also on how effectively they are implemented, and how closely Singapore can work with our regional partners in preventing and addressing haze incidents. I look forward to the Minister's clarifications on these issues. Notwithstanding my questions and clarifications, I support the Bill.
