Mr Speaker
For the last two months, Singapore has experienced the worst haze seen in over a decade. Like with previous haze episodes, this is not just natural phenomena. The haze this year is caused by slash-and-burn clearance and peatland fires, as was the case with many previous haze episodes. Exacerbating these conditions is a Super El Niño phase ultimately made worse by human-caused climate change.
Like everyone on this island, Sengkang residents experienced weeks of choking, smog-filled air. Some needed medical treatment for airway issues and infections.
Haze was unsurprisingly the dominant topic on Saturday during our Sengkang Conversations Town Hall. Under much missed blue skies, participants openly shared their thoughts and one thing that struck me was how many of our residents spoke about commonality; they emphasised that we were all fellow inhabitants of the region, that Indonesians and Malaysians too were badly affected, and that they felt that pointing fingers and stirring up anger against one another would yield limited results. While accountability is important, residents believed that it would be more helpful to look at shared responsibility and benefits across an interconnected region when tackling fires and the haze they create.
Another thread that came up was who bears the burden of the haze, and whether we learn from it. Our residents felt strongly that resilience must be equitable, remembered, and not feel reactive each time we are hit by a crisis.
How then, can those of us in the region better build lasting systems to prevent and mitigate this longstanding problem, rather than focus on measures to relieve suffering in the short-term, and hope for favourable wind directions? After all, this year, conditions were decidedly not favourable to us: a preliminary assessment by Eco-business suggests that the haze will cost us between $3.2B and $3.9B this year, up to twice the $1.8B cost from 2015. This works out to a lower bound figure of approximately $750 for each Singapore resident.
The haze exacts other costs, such as a lasting effect on health. I struggled to find data on the years of healthy life lost here due to the haze, but saw that the Ministry of Health recently refuted a study which estimated that haze from 2015 caused 100,000 premature deaths across the region. A Finnish study estimated that toxic fire smoke caused 3,560 deaths in Indonesia last September. Kementerian Kesehatan Indonesia reported more than 280,000 cases of acute respiratory infections in fire- and haze-affected provinces.
Local experts interviewed by CNA were clear in their views that the health impact is there. They noted air pollution is a major cause of mortality, with a correlation between seasonal short-term fluctuations in PM2.5 levels to mortality. Academic research further indicates that “out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are more frequent during periods of seasonal haze exposure”, while in the elderly, the risk of cardiovascular death is up to twice as high after exposure to severe haze episodes. Such effects are worse for those who work outdoors and other vulnerable groups.
Transboundary haze is no ordinary policy challenge. It involves highly entrenched issues ranging from economic incentives, climate vulnerabilities, and political sensitivities. These are complex, but that is not a reason to shy away. We can do more by first, renewing our international efforts to solve the problem, second, expanding our current approach to supply chains, and third, improving our preparedness for future haze events, with an eye on vulnerable groups.
Updating the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act
Since my adjournment motion was filed in the middle of last month, the government has held a widely publicised session with senior executives from companies linked to burning land in Kalimantan. It seeks to introduce urgent legislation to amend the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act. I intend to participate in the debate tomorrow.
ASEAN’s work on haze
Central to our efforts to tackle haze should be working via ASEAN to prevent fires at source through sustainable land management and effective enforcement. ASEAN members signed the ASEAN Agreement on Transnational Haze Pollution in 2002. ASEAN’s Haze-Free Roadmap 2023–2030 delineates science-based strategies, targets, and progress indicators that lay out how we can achieve our haze prevention targets. We also have the complementary ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy 2023–2030. Last month, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights called on ASEAN members to strengthen cooperation to safeguard ASEAN citizens’ right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
We should use the upcoming ASEAN meetings in November, as well as our 2027 ASEAN chairmanship to work on operationalising the strategies laid out in the already agreed-upon roadmap and strategies. This could involve exploring how to work with those on the ground to deliver on specific strategies that have been proven difficult to implement. As Minister Grace Fu said earlier, Singapore will be seeking ratification of an agreement to establish a coordinating centre in Indonesia and working with Jakarta on a joint task force to probe firms linked to the fires. That is a start.
International work can also be done in Singapore, leveraging our strengths. For instance, ASEAN’s Specialised Meteorological Centre is already hosted here under the Meteorological Service Singapore. But capabilities can be beefed up, and government institutions should consider boosting support for more accurate accounting for the health and social costs of haze, which tend to be harder to calculate than the economic costs. In Malaysia, the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturing commissioned research which modelled that short-term exposure to fine particles from the fires contributed to an estimated 1,700 premature deaths there. Given the preponderance of pre-eminent research institutions here, we should use these to provide a more granular count for other ASEAN countries, as well as offer other social, health and economic data that can inform how we all respond to haze events.
We should work together to develop a standard framework for measuring haze-related health effects, building a better understanding of how haze pollution impacts our people and the effectiveness of our mitigation efforts.
In addition to ASEAN, Singapore should work bilaterally with our neighbours who the fires and haze most affect, notably Indonesia and Malaysia but others such as Timor Leste and Brunei as well.
Traceability and the link to corporate and consumer behaviour
Turning to corporate and consumer behaviour, it would be remiss not to leverage our corporate and financial frameworks, and historical experience in supply chain management. Having many smallholders working the land adjacent to large plantations with vaguely defined boundaries undoubtedly makes the problem more complex, but also provides a tempting target group to blame. We will no doubt be discussing this in fuller detail tomorrow, but having previously worked in a listed company which owned agri-commodity assets through the entire value supply chain with assets in the region, I know that there is no need to reinvent the wheel: there have been efforts made over the years to tackle traceability and supply chain transparency and sustainability in industries such as cocoa, natural rubber, pulp, and also palm oil.
In Ghana, the cocoa regulator’s traceability system has mapped over 40,000 farms and registered more than 20,000 farmers in its pilot, with women making up 40% of participants, and has trained the clerks, depot keepers and transporters who handle the beans. In Indonesia, rubber smallholders use a mobile app to map their plantations and register transactions, with the data linked to physical shipments so that buyers can verify compliance. For palm oil, companies are now able to trace fruit down to individual smallholder plots, because fruit passing through collectors and intermediaries becomes harder to trace at every stage.
Singapore, as a commodities hub, should develop this type of plot-level transparency across the supply chains that run through our companies, banks and markets. Some of these approaches have already been initiated by environmental NGOs, sometimes with industry, and can be improved upon by states, including Singapore. Traceability is a first step by making fires visible and attributable, and thus improving our ability to attach consequences and incentives.
We should also use our financial system to build in incentives and traceability conditions as a first step towards our efforts to stop the problem at source. We should use our financial institutions through disclosure rules, covenants and information undertakings, to ensure that financing through syndicated loans or money market instruments are only made available to responsible businesses, and set standards here in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, residents have also raised comments about our role as consumers who may be indirectly contributing to the haze crisis. While we have the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme, which requires palm oil products to be active members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil alongside other requirements, awareness of the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme appears to remain low based on anecdotal observations.
Given the difficulty in ensuring visibility of this scheme amidst other green claims and even greenwashing by corporates, could the government work with supermarkets and other retail outlets to ensure the offering of Singapore Green Labelling Scheme products becomes progressively mandatory? Palm oil products are a clear example of where this could be expanded to.
The government should ensure that its agencies and affiliated institutions prioritise the purchase of Singapore Green Labelling Scheme products to increase manufacturers’ awareness and interest in the scheme. After all, it has already done so by only procuring paper products certified under the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme.
Companies appear to respond to the Singapore Green Labelling Scheme certification to some extent, for instance, with Asia Pulp and Paper's response to media queries recently that it is working to fulfil reporting requirements again. But lack of certification must have financial consequences for companies, since bottom lines and shareholder value seem to be the most understood language.
Our sovereign wealth funds and government-linked companies too can exert further pressure by stopping investment in firms whose actions directly or indirectly through subsidiaries or intermediaries create fires and haze, and use their shareholdings to demand direct accounting from such firms. For example, the Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, clearly lays out eight core expectations on its website, with additional expectation documents which it applies to inform its ownership activities. Having been on the opposite side of the table receiving a request from the NBIM for a direct meeting with company leaders to discuss concerns, I can confirm that it is a way to direct executives’ attention to the issues being brought up. Putting public monies into firms that are ultimately harming Singaporeans makes little sense.
Firms involved in forestry activities, with influential people on their boards, may seek to frame discussions about policies and their implementation. Such lobbying should be made public information, given that it can enable the powerful, rich, and well-connected to have disproportionate voice opportunities. Lobbying is not inherently wrong–it happens in all societies–but should be made transparent through regular, open reporting so the public can at least be duly informed.
Our domestic approach
Finally, while we addressed some of these issues earlier today during Question Time, the topic bears repeating, as we have to protect our people and most vulnerable groups. We do so with both knowledge from our neighbours, and lessons learnt domestically. Sharing knowledge should facilitate better prevention, preparation and mitigation on the ground for future haze episodes, particularly the inequities that arise from its adverse effects. Domestic lessons learnt can also inform regional efforts and standards.
Starting with our youngest, many have voiced worries about haze-related school closures as well as how schools are ensuring haze exposure is limited. While the logistics of school closures are complex, we have a responsibility to minimise our children’s exposure to the haze as the science is clear that children, with developing immune systems and lungs and higher rates of respiration, are more adversely affected by bad air. What are our own studies and data telling us about how our children are affected by such prolonged and severe haze episodes?
The health of workers amid the haze also brings up inequities. Office workers are largely shielded, while those doing outdoor work will be hit harder. MOM’s inspection of worksites found that about a quarter of employers fell short of standards. How will employers be required to carry out remedial action? While employers may be charged under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, enforcement must be more active, as the protection of our workers is non-negotiable.
Construction workers also contend with air pollution generated at the worksite, yet the MOM guidelines seem to rule out stop-work orders even at hazardous PSI levels. Would the government consider stop-work measures at pre-determined hazardous levels? While we were told earlier that employers who suspend operations due to the haze are advised to bear the cost instead of deducting from the workers’ salary, could this be made mandatory? If not, what considerations hinder it? This also affects cleaners, many of whom are elderly, and other outdoor workers.
Food delivery workers, whose income depends on trips taken, sometimes end up having to make choices that weigh up their health versus their livelihoods. We need more data about the haze’s impact on this group and evaluate measures such as requiring platform operators to factor the health hazard into riders’ payouts. Interestingly, China’s law requires that gig riders receive a monthly allowance in the case of extreme heat. This is especially important, as demand for take-out and delivery spikes during episodes of bad weather, including haze.
The haze has also affected outdoor businesses. Echoing data shared earlier, hawkers at Buangkok Hawker Centre shared with me that they observed a drop in footfall in the last two months due to diners opting to stay home due to the haze. Other freelancers who work in outdoor conditions such as some sports coaches, have also raised their struggles with me. What is our assessment of the economic impact on these businesses? Quantifying this would help us understand why additional support is currently being ruled out – at least for hawkers.
There are also some within our community – such as the elderly and rental flat residents – who lack easy access to a haze shelter or whose homes are not equipped with air-conditioning, and air purifiers were snapped up everywhere. Some haze shelters were activated but not all were opened, according to site visits conducted by CNA. Others might be inconvenient to reach for those with mobility difficulties.
How can we better leverage existing infrastructure and the lessons learnt from Covid to ensure that our most vulnerable groups are not the ones bearing the brunt of our haze? Moreover, we should take a leaf out of the good work of organisations such as the Red Cross, who delivered air purifiers to senior citizens, by looking to see how we can ensure that vulnerable households have one? One suggestion during our town hall was to explore a leasing scheme, especially as air purifiers are sold out islandwide during the height of the crisis.
Also, given the amount of time that has elapsed, is there a reason why we retain PSI as a measurement, as international health guidelines now focus more on PM2.5 and to a lesser extent, PM10, which describe the tiny particulate matter that penetrates deep into our lungs and bloodstream?
When haze comes calling, Singaporeans like myself who are not technical experts are presented with three numbers: a PSI forecast, a 24-hour PSI and, and a 1-hour PM2.5 reading, all of which appear to measure different things. Many have shared that this is confusing, especially when the numbers sometimes seem to tell a different story than what we here directly experience, and particularly when there are other readings of other internationally prevalent indicators published publicly. This is made psychologically worse and confusing when these websites log that Singapore earns yet another – this time unenviable – first, of being the world’s most polluted city.
Could there be a better way to explain to Singaporeans what we are breathing? First, when were our PSI and PM2.5 bands last reviewed against the WHO global air quality guidelines, and what was the outcome? Why do we call 55 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic metre "moderate," when this is more than three times the WHO's guidelines? Second, will the government revise these indicators, and explain where we rely on indicators that differ from international norms. Third, will the government consider consolidating its haze advisories into clearer and actionable messages so that Singaporeans can more easily go about their daily lives?
Mr Speaker, we may not have full control over many matters. But we have it within our power to make certain choices, whether it be improving the transparency of our palm oil and paper supply chain, working with our ASEAN counterparts to boost bilateral cooperation, or to protect the lives and livelihoods of our vulnerable.
Yet, people – both here and beyond our shores – have to repeatedly bear with the haze and the massive effect it has on our lives, communities, and economies. Climate change is surely an accelerant to this problem, and like with other challenges put forth by the climate emergency, we must act quickly and with impact. We cannot wait until the next time we feel wistful for a day with precious blue skies, where we can go out and breathe clean air.
Thank you.
