Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
I support the Bill.
议长先生，我支持这项修正法案。
It will help us make progress on investigations related to this year’s haze. And it will let us act earlier in future, when there is a risk of haze, instead of waiting until the haze reaches us.
修正法案将有助相关部门推进与今年烟霾相关的调查工作，也让我们今后在出现烟霾风险时，就能及早采取行动，而不必等到烟霾飘到我国后才应对。
Companies can no longer simply ignore our letters. Notices can go by email, trials can go ahead in absentia, and refusing to cooperate with investigators can cost them up to $20 million. NEA can seek a civil penalty with a lower standard of proof, as my colleague Mr Gerald Giam had called for. And banks, insurers and buyers in Singapore can be told to stop dealing with a company, without waiting years for a court case to conclude.
今后，公司不能再对相关部门发出的信函置之不理。这些通知可以通过电邮发出，法庭可以进行缺席裁决，拒绝配合调查的公司，最高可被罚款2000万元。国家环境局也可以寻求举证门槛较低的民事罚款。此外，当局也可以指示新加坡的银行、保险公司等方，停止和有关公司往来，不必等待多年的法庭诉讼结束。
Now these amendments will not prevent every haze episode in the future, or remove all the challenges of conducting cross border investigations. But we take heart that they will improve accountability, increase deterrence, and strengthen the incentives for companies to do the right thing.
当然，这些修正不能杜绝未来所有的烟霾事件，也无法消除跨境调查的所有挑战。但我们感到欣慰的是，修正法案将加强问责、提高威慑作用，并给予公司更大的动力来做正确的事。
As the final Workers' Party speaker today, I would like to bring our points together in three parts: the timing of this Bill, how its new tools will work, and what we must invest in beyond it.
作为今天最后一位发言的工人党议员，我想从三个方面总结我们的观点：法案的时机、法案新工具如何有效发挥作用，以及我们在法案以外必须做出的投资。
Part 1: Why did it take ten years?
First, timing. We understand why the amendments come before us under a Certificate of Urgency. After waking up to grey skies for most of October with no idea when the haze will clear, Singaporeans want action now. The harder question is why it took the Government ten years to move these amendments.
首先是时机。我们理解政府为什么会通过紧急程序修正法案。十月的大部分时间，国人每天醒来都看到灰蒙蒙的天空，不知道烟霾几时才会散去。大家希望政府马上行动。但更难回答的问题是：为什么政府花了十年，才提出这些修正？
In 2015, after one of the worst haze episodes in our history, we went after six companies. Two of those cases were closed. The other four are still open today. More than ten years later, there has been no prosecution, no conviction and no fine. This year, NEA issued notices to ten companies in Indonesia. Three of the 10 companies are repeat offenders who were also issued notices in 2015.
2015年，在我国历来最严重的烟霾之后，我们对六家公司展开行动。其中两起案件已经结案，其余四起至今仍未了结。十多年过去了，没有一宗提控，没有一个定罪，也没有一分罚款。今年，环境局向十家印尼公司发出通知，其中三家在2015年也接获通知。
Various MPs had, in the past decade, filed parliamentary questions to ask how effective the THPA has been in mitigating the haze and for progress updates on the ongoing investigations. Yet in 2019, in response to some of these questions, then-MEWR Minister Masagos Zulkifli confirmed the Government had "no plans to amend the THPA at this moment", even though by then, we had already seen that companies could fail to respond to THPA notices or cooperate with the Government’s investigations. The haze returned in 2019, again in 2023 and again this year.
过去十年，多位议员曾在国会提问，询问《跨境烟霾污染法令》在减少烟霾方面的成效，以及针对6家公司的调查进展。然而在2019年，时任环境及水源部长马善高在回答相关问题时明确表示，政府“目前没有修改法令的计划”。但其实当时就已经看到，一些公司可以不回复，或不配合政府的调查。 结果，烟霾在2019年卷土重来，2023年再次出现，今年又再度来袭。
Singaporeans deserve to know: why did it take ten years? Was the problem the law, or our own ability to investigate complex cases across borders? If it was the law, why did it take ten years to table amendments to it? If it was capabilities, how have we invested in building it up in the past decade? Can the Minister also elaborate on when and how the four open cases from 2015 will be concluded, since the new and heavier penalties cannot be applied retrospectively?
国人有权知道：为什么要等十年？问题出在法律，还是出在相关部门调查复杂跨境案件的能力？如果是法律的问题，为什么等了十年才修法？如果是能力的问题，过去十年我们做了哪些投资来加强这方面的能力？既然新的、更重的刑罚不能追溯既往，部长能否说明，2015年仍未了结的四起案件，将在何时、以什么方式结案？
Part 2: Making the new tools work
Second, clarifications on how the new tools will work as intended.
第二，我想就新工具如何有效运作，提出几点澄清。
One: penalties that actually bite, for companies and for the people who run them. Because criminal cases across borders are challenging to prove, the new civil route may become a key tool. Yet its maximum penalty is capped at $10 million, half the criminal maximum of $20 million. For a large plantation group, that can simply be priced in as a cost of doing business. As my colleague Mr Gerald Giam pointed out, for stock market misconduct our law lets the regulator seek up to three times the profit made. Why not here? At the very least, should the civil cap not match the $20 million criminal maximum?
一、罚则必须有分量，对公司如此，对经营公司的人也一样。由于证明跨境刑事案件的门槛较高，新的民事途径或将成为一项主要工具。然而，民事罚款的上限，只有刑事罚款上限2000万元的一半。对大型集团来说，这笔钱可能只被当作做是生意成本。正如严燕松议员指出，在证券市场的不当行为方面，我国法律允许的罚款上限是盈利的三倍。政府为什么不选择也这么做？至少，民事罚款的上限，是否应该与刑事罚款的2000万元相同？
Additionally, companies alone do not make decisions; people do. An executive who refuses to cooperate faces only a fine of $50,000, yet several of them make more than a million dollars a year. Will the Government review this?
此外，做决定的不只是公司，而是个人。一名拒绝配合调查的高层主管，最多只会被罚款5万元，但他们当中许多人年薪超过100万元。政府会否检讨这一点？
Two: clear rules for strong powers. Much now rests on assessors: experts that companies must appoint from a Government-approved panel, whose reports can be used as evidence. As my colleague Mr Dennis Tan asked, how was this panel chosen, and what keeps the assessors independent? Can a company respond before their findings are used against it? And how will assessors reach evidence that sits overseas? Will the assessors’ reports be made public? The same goes for the power to cut off a company's banks and buyers: what level of risk triggers it, and can a company appeal? A hotspot on a company's land does not by itself prove who started the fire.
二、强有力的执法能力，需要建立在清楚的规则之上。修正法案很大程度上依赖评估员。公司所委任的专家，必须是从政府批准的名单中委任，而他们的报告才可以作为证据。正如陈立峰议员提问：评估员名单是如何拟定的？如何确保评估员的意见是独立的？公司能否在评估结果被用来对付它之前作出回应？评估员如何索取位于海外的证据？评估报告会否公开？当局切断公司与银行和买家往来的权力也是一样：公司土地上出现热点，本身并不能证明是谁引发了火灾。那什么程度的风险会触发这项权力？公司能否上诉呢？
Part 3: Investing in addressing the root causes, because geography is not a choice
Third, this Bill helps us deter and punish. But to prevent future episodes of severe haze, we must also invest in addressing root causes, which lie beyond this set of amendments.
第三，这项法案有助我们阻吓和惩罚违规者。但要防止未来再出现严重的烟霾，我们也必须投资解决根本问题，而这也超出了这次修法的范围。
Sir, as a sovereign country, Singapore can choose many things: our laws, our partners, our solutions. But we cannot choose our geography. When fires burn in our neighbourhood, the smoke will reach us. So investing in our region is not charity. It is an investment in the quality of air Singaporeans breathe and our people’s health.
议长先生，身为独立的主权国家，新加坡能作出的选择很多，例如立法、选择合作伙伴，以及推出解决方案。但我们唯一无法选择的是我们的地理位置。邻近地区一旦发生火灾，烟雾就会飘到我们这里。因此，投资我们所在的亚细安区域，不是施舍，而是投资于国人呼吸的空气，投资于人民的健康。
Let us start with the land. Most of the fires burn on peatland that has been drained dry. Peat is like a sponge. While it is wet, it does not burn. Once drained, it dries into fuel, and when it catches fire, it smoulders underground for weeks, like a giant mosquito coil. Yet the words "peat" and "drainage" do not appear anywhere in this Bill. My colleague Mr Gerald Giam asked whether companies will be ordered to block drainage canals and re-wet their peat. My colleague Mr Kenneth Tiong asked whether assessors will check how wet the peat is, in line with Indonesia's own rules.
投资应该从土地开始。大部分火灾发生在已被排干的泥炭地。泥炭就像一块海绵，湿的时候不会燃烧；一旦被排干，就会变成燃料。着火之后，它会在地底下闷烧好几个星期，就像一个巨型蚊香。然而，这项法案中并不含“泥炭”和“排水”这两个词。当局会否指示公司堵住排水渠，让泥炭地重新湿润？评估员会否按照印尼本身的法规，检查泥炭地的湿润程度？
We should also invest in local communities. About half the land that burned this year lay outside any company's land, much of it on small farms. For these farmers, burning costs about 20 times less than clearing land by machine. Many of them have already borrowed against their next harvest. If they cannot clear the land now, they may lose everything next year. They want to know: what will they be offered instead? My colleague Mr Kenneth Tiong has offered one answer. As we work with partners like Indonesia on carbon credits, we can prioritise projects that pay communities to keep their peat wet and keep the water sensors running, with payment only when the results are measured and real. Then protecting the land pays better than burning it.
除了投资土地以外，我们也应该投资于当地社区。今年被烧毁的土地，大约一半不在任何公司的土地范围内，而是在许多小农家庭的田地。对这些小农来说，用机器清理土地的成本，大约是烧芭的二十倍，而且许多人已经用下一季的收成作抵押借了钱。如果今年不能清理土地，明年他们可能会失去一切。 加里曼丹曾有农民提出一个合理的问题：如果不准烧芭，你们能给我们什么替代方案？张文杰议员提出了一个建议。在我们与印尼等伙伴国家商讨碳信用合作时，我们可以优先考虑那些付钱让社区保持泥炭地湿润、并维护水位监测器的项目，而且只有在成果经过测量、确实达成时才付款。这样，保护土地就会比烧芭更划算。
And this is where Singapore's strengths come in. We are a financial centre, and some of the money and trade behind these fires passes through Singapore. That part is our responsibility.
这也正是新加坡可以发挥优势的地方。新加坡是个金融中心，一些助长这些火灾的资金和贸易，都经过新加坡。这部分是我们的责任。
Singapore banks have led before by stepping back from thermal coal financing, and they already have systems to track the green promises in their loans. As my colleague Ms He Ting Ru pointed out, those same systems can check a borrower’s fire risk before the land burns, not after, and also report how many haze-linked clients they have reviewed and what they did about it. Our banks should also look at a borrower's whole group, and MAS and SGX should expect clearer disclosure from groups under investigation.
新加坡的银行过去曾带头退出动力煤融资，而且它们也已经有系统追踪贷款中的绿色承诺。正如何廷儒议员指出，同样的系统可以在土地着火之前，而不是之后，评估借款人的火灾风险，也可以报告它们审查了多少与烟霾有关的客户，以及采取了什么行动。我们的银行也应该审视贷款方的整个集团，金融管理局和新加坡交易所也应该要求受调查的集团作出更清楚的披露。
As my colleague Mr Andre Low argued, Singapore’s purchases of credits from suitable regional forest and peatland projects should take account of their credible potential to reduce haze-causing fires. The Government should consider longer-term purchase agreements to sustain fire prevention. Both Government purchases and recognition of relevant credits should also involve checks that prevention measures are adequately resourced, implemented and maintained.
正如刘宇扬议员所说，新加坡在选择购买合适的区域森林和泥炭地碳信用时，也应考虑项目是否有助降低引发烟霾的火灾风险。我们应该探讨较长期的采购协议，以更稳定的收入支持长期的防火工作。无论是政府采购标准，或是碳信用认可标准，都应核实相关项目附有经独立审核的防火计划、以及配有足够的资源支持、并能真正落实其计划。
None of the above is about telling our neighbours what to do. Clean air and good livelihoods are not opposites, and the families living closest to these fires breathe the worst of the smoke. Indonesia has said that growth must reach ordinary people. We share that goal. As my colleague A/P Jamus Lim had suggested, when Singapore chairs ASEAN next year, we should make clean air and better livelihoods a shared regional priority.
以上这些，都不是要告诉我们的邻国该怎么做。清新的空气和良好的生计并不互相矛盾，而住得离火灾最近的家庭，吸入的烟霾最严重。印尼表示，经济增长必须惠及普通百姓。这是我们的共同目标。如林志蔚议员所建议，明年新加坡担任亚细安轮值主席国时，我们应该把清新空气和改善生计，列为区域共同的优先事项。
Close: we cannot choose our geography, but we can choose to act
Sir, let me sum up. The Workers' Party supports the Bill. It gives us better tools, and Singaporeans will expect them to be used.
议长先生，总结来说，工人党支持这项修正法案。它给予我们更好的工具，而国人会期待这些工具真正派上用场。
I look forward to the Minister's clarifications: Why did it take ten years? How will the penalties bite and the rules be clear? And will the Government invest in the root causes, not just in punishment?
我期待部长就三件事作出答案：第一，为什么要等十年？第二，如何让罚则有分量、规则更清楚？第三，政府会否投资解决根本问题，而不只是事后惩罚？
And as the Bill comes into effect, we should also measure progress.This House should receive regular updates on what investigations find, and what action follows. Singaporeans should not have to guess whether the law is working. They should be able to see it.
在法令生效后，我们也应该积极衡量这些进展。国会应该定期获得最新情况，了解调查发现了什么，以及当局采取了什么行动。国人不必猜测法令有没有用，而是能亲眼看到成果。
We cannot choose our geography. But we can choose to be a good neighbour. We can choose to invest in the region so everyone can breathe clean air and earn a good living. Our elders should be able to take their morning walk. Our children should be able to play outside.
我们无法选择地理位置，但我们可以选择做一个好邻居。我们可以选择投资于亚细安区域，让每个人都能呼吸清新的空气，过上好的生活。我们的乐龄人士应该可以安心晨运，我们的孩子可以在蓝天下尽情玩耍。
Sir, I support the Bill.
议长先生，我支持这项修正法案。
