Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That in view of the economic downturn and political transition in Indonesia, the Government should do more to help control and prevent fires in Indonesia that impact Singapore with haze pollution and affect the environment, human health and economic activity. Sir, many will remember the grey months in 1997 and early 1998. We all suffered from the haze pollution. It was more than an inconvenience. The elderly and those among us with respiratory problems were particularly affected. Our young children were especially vulnerable. One of the world's worst ecological disasters; that is how the Chief of the United Nations Environment Programme described the fires and haze in our region. Yet, some have short memories. In preparing this motion, some ask why I should seek to move this motion now. Our skies are quite clear, and the latest meteorological predictions are that rain in the region is likely to keep haze pollution levels lower than they were last year. Moreover, some have asked me to feel that the economic crisis of the region should take precedence. Yes, it is true that the rains have put down most of the fires for the moment. I also recognise the great and turbulent times Singapore and the region face, especially our neighbours. Yet, I also believe that it is more important and timely for us to focus on the issue of fires in the region and the haze pollution. We must do this because the fires and haze are a recurrent problem. In the 1990s alone, heavy haze was experienced in 1991, 1994, 1997 and this year. Each time, concern and anger arose. Then the sentiment evaporated when the skies cleared, and in our inaction, the fires and haze have happened again. So we must not be inactive this time when the skies are clear. We should act before the haze is upon us again. It may be good politics to talk about this when the skies are grey outside, but it will be too late to solve the problem. We should discuss the issue and set out what we need to do now, so that we will not have to suffer the same fate again next year or in future years. If we postpone our actions again, it will be too late. We must act preventively. We should act when the skies are clear, to make sure they stay that way. Yes, Sir, I recognise the economic crisis in the region is serious. In fact, it is the background of the fires and haze, which originate largely from Indonesia, our neighbour. We have to understand that the environmental problem is tied up with economics. It is the unscrupulous big businesses and companies who are behind the fires, not the natural El Nino phenomenon alone. Experts agree that the dry weather makes things worse. But the origin and underlying causes of the fires are man made. Moreover, because we are learning that El Nino is a cyclical event, we must be prepared for the next time it comes. And even the experts do not know exactly when that will be. Weather forecasts have been wrong before. We cannot therefore depend on the vagaries of rain to save us. The economic crisis is both a threat and an opportunity for the haze and fires. The crisis may lead to a worsening of the fires and haze. There are three threats. The first threat is that Indonesia will lack administrative and financial wherewithal to deal with the fires. The second threat is that Indonesia will give low priority to the fires. Singaporeans will remember that the former Environment Minister of Indonesia placed the issue no higher than fifth in his list of priorities. The third threat is that the economic necessity to increase exports and gain foreign currency for Indonesia will lead to more unscrupulous, unsustainable and illegal logging and clearing of plantations by fires. The crisis and political transition in our region and Indonesia also create a window of opportunity. The opportunities are two-fold. First, that in the economic and political reform, policies with negative environmental impacts may be corrected. For example, the previous IMF package set out a number of conditions, including reform on the allocation of forest concessions. If transparency is brought to the system, more responsible land users can be preferred over those who use fire to clear land. The second opportunity is that among the reformers in Indonesia today, there are those who have cared and still care for the environment. There may therefore be more people in Indonesia itself who will work with us in Singapore and others to safeguard the environment of our region. Sir, I believe that the recovery for Indonesia and the region should aim to be on the basis of sustainable development, rather than one that needlessly destroys nature and natural resources, and harms our environment and human health. We must prioritize actions against fires and haze. Let me emphasise that this is not just an environmental issue about forests, about nature, about animals. The human and health costs are high. Moreover, the fires and haze are also economic phenomena. An international study has estimated that US$4.4 billion was lost by Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore in the 1997 fires alone. This is a considerable amount of money, especially in these bad economic times. This sum, moreover, does not consider possible longer-term health effects. It also estimates the loss of tourist arrivals for just one year, 1997. If the haze is a recurrent problem and our region has a bad reputation among tourists, we do not know how much more our economy may lose in the future. I therefore urge our Government to consider how it can do more to deal with the fires and haze. In calling for them to do more, I acknowledge the work that the governments of ASEAN, including Singapore's, have done to date. Credit should go to ASEAN governments that they have continued to meet to discuss the Haze Action Plan and other responses to the fires despite the economic crisis. There has been some progress, which I leave to the Minister for the Environment to explain. I believe that many Singaporeans still do not know fully what our Government is doing to protect and care for them on this issue. I believe too that more can be done by Singapore, in addition to what has been done already. There are, of course, many things that Indonesia can and should do for itself. After all, the use of fires is illegal under Indonesia's own laws and the bulk of damage is suffered by her own people and environment. In making these suggestions, I draw from a policy dialogue which was organised in early June 1998, by the Singapore Environment Council on which I serve as a director. This dialogue brought together some 40 non-governmental organisations (NGOs), think-tanks and experts. Many of these NGOs are working in Indonesia and have experience on the ground there. There were also representatives from the private sector, the Asian Development Bank, ASEAN Secretariat and the United Nations Environment Programme. I chaired the dialogue which issued a statement with some 30 suggestions for governments, international donors and the private sector. I wish to highlight just a few suggestions here today and add some of my own. As I speak in the Singapore Parliament, I shall focus more today on what I hope Singapore and our Government may do. I shall divide my suggestions between, first, Singapore as part of ASEAN; second, bilateral measures between Singapore and Indonesia; and, third, self-help, ie, what Singapore can do for itself. First, ASEAN. I urge that the Singapore Government work with ASEAN members to extend and strengthen the existing Action Plans. These Action Plans rely too much on goodwill without binding obligations, and I urge our Government to work with partners towards a binding treaty, which must accept the principle of state responsibility that Indonesia or other countries which cause the fires are responsible for them, and then to create a system for dispute resolution among ASEAN members. Secondly, I call on ASEAN to recognise that Indonesia has acted contrary to International Law and Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration. Indonesia is causing great damage not only to our region but also to global climate change and biodiversity, and these are subject to two international treaties to which Indonesia and Singapore are members. Singapore and ASEAN should therefore work to focus international attention and assistance on the problem. And this proposal, in some senses, is like our response to the economic crisis. Singapore can serve by being a focal point on this issue. The third suggestion on how Singapore should work with ASEAN is a negative one. I believe our Government and ASEAN should not over-emphasise water bombing, throwing water on the problem. Sir, the experts we have consulted have advised that this is of great expense and of little effect, especially without sufficient fire-fighting on the ground. Given the economic crisis, I have no doubt that the Singapore Government may come under pressure, alongside Brunei, to fund such spectacular but really quite unproductive efforts. I urge our Government not to take this step. On bilateral measures between Indonesia and Singapore, my suggestions are four. First, we have refrained from emphasising state responsibility of Indonesia and their liability for damages suffered by our people and economy. We have shown good neighbourliness and understanding of their circumstances. This is good. But our friends in Indonesia must recognise that there are limits. This is especially because the fires are caused, not by the poor in Indonesia, not by the Government, but by large companies. The poor in the affected areas of Indonesia suffer even more than Singaporeans. We must ask Indonesia to recognise its responsibility and to fulfil its duty to cooperate to prevent a recurrence of the fires. Indonesia must recognise its responsibility for transboundary pollution that affects us. My second plea on the bilateral relations is that Singapore should not necessarily conduct itself only on the level of country to country, government to government. Sir, I urge that the Government consider means to make these disputes at their natural level, ie, largely between citizens and corporate offenders. Our Government can, with Indonesia's consent and cooperation, set up a special court between the countries or, alternatively, to allow special access to courts in either country. Examples of such courts exist in the Nordic Convention among the Nordic countries in Europe and in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Thirdly, on bilateral issues, Singapore has promised billions of dollars in loans to Indonesia for their economy and for trade guarantees, in particular. Sir, I urge the Government to consider that any further assistance to Indonesia must be tied first to their environmental performance. We are Indonesia's friends. I think in giving those first loans, that is clear. But the Indonesian government must do its utmost to help its own people and environment, and the people of the region, including Singaporeans. Indonesia should implement its own laws against the use of fire. It should investigate and name offending companies and enforce those laws against the use of fire, against all companies equally and effectively. Foreign investors may be among those offending shareholders, including Singaporeans. There have been statements by Indonesian ministries to that effect. Sir, I do not urge that our Government should protect Singaporean investors abroad if they are truly offenders. But I do urge our Government to ensure that Indonesia's prosecution of such corporate offenders should be equal and that Indonesian offenders should also be prosecuted on par with foreign investors. Fourthly, Sir, I call on the Singapore Government to engage the Indonesian government more broadly, not just the Minister for the Environment but also the Indonesian Ministries of Forestry, Agriculture, Trade and Industry and Finance. And these engagements should be at the highest level. Sir, as many experts, and I believe the Minister too, have recognised, there is a lack of coordination in Indonesian authorities on this issue. The power of the Ministry of Environment in Indonesia to control forest and agricultural lands is not at all clear. I move on to my suggestions on how Singapore can help itself, ie, self-help. The first proposal I hope the Government will consider is to promote and facilitate eco-labels. Sir, this is not jargon. Basically, it is a certification process by which we can discover which products have a good environmental background and which are manufactured or produced in an environmentally harmful way, in ways that use fire and result in haze. Certification processes are already used by our Government for a range of products. I urge that the certification of products be applied to those connected with the fires and haze, which are timber and oil palm. Certification would allow Singaporean consumers and those environmentally-minded consumers in Europe and America and elsewhere to vote with their dollar signs, to punish the corporate offenders directly in the market place. The second measure for self-help I propose is that there should be an advisory to all Singaporean companies investing, lending or trading with Indonesian companies. The advisory should spell out at least their obligations to observe Indonesian laws against the use of fire to clear land. If we do not do this, Sir, we are polluting ourselves. If we do not do this, Sir, it will also be a political embarrassment to Singapore, if our companies pollute overseas and flout laws. The third self-help measure, I hope the Minister and the Government will consider, is to assist in investigating Singaporean companies, if requested by the Indonesian government. Sir, when we face a large problem, such as the fires and haze, some among us may shrug our shoulders and say, "We are a very small country, what can we do?" It is true. We cannot change our geography. But I urge against this counsel of apathy and fatalism. That is not the response of Singapore when faced with so many crises such as the regional economic crisis. In that case, we have been among the countries that have sought to focus international attention and assistance, and we have done our share, some say more than our share, with the loans, to help our neighbour. This same positive, proactive and helpful response should be used for the fires. There are also some who say that Singapore can indeed do more. But their version of what we should do is to give money and keep quiet. I do not share this view. I do not recommend that we throw money at the problem. Nor do I say that we must interfere in our neighbour's internal politics. I want to stress that this, as I see it, is not a case of Singapore against Indonesia, or Indonesia against Singapore. There are those in Indonesia who genuinely wish to solve the problems of the fires and haze and to enforce their own laws. After all, as I have said, the Indonesians are the ones who suffer the most, not us. If such people have the will and the skill, but lack equipment, know-how and funding, Singapore should assist them. It is the right thing to do and it is in our national interest to do it. There are others in Indonesia who wilfully set the fires or who close one eye to those who set the fires. These people profit from flouting the laws and causing damage to others. These people are no friends of mine, nor should they be friends of anyone in Singapore, I hope. It is not help or funding that we should give such people. We have to find legal sanctions and trade and other measures that can press such people to do the right thing. What I am saying as such, Sir, is that we need a mix of help and sanctions, of carrots and sticks. We need to help those who genuinely want and need our help, and pressure and impose sanctions on the bad guys. Sir, the motion is that the Singapore Government should do more. I have given some specific suggestions, but these are not part of the motion itself. The precise measures can and should be left to the Minister for the Environment. The more fundamental question, I urge upon the House, is whether we have done enough today, whether our people perceive that our Government has done all it can and all it should. If not, then we should do more. And all those who wish the Government should do more, including the Government itself if it plans to do more, should support this motion. I believe that we should do this and not sit passive. We should do this because this is a transboundary issue, not a domestic matter, but a matter of common concern, of great relevance to all of us. We should do this because the international law is on our side, and against the fire starters. We should do this as part of our contribution to help save the global environment from further climate change gases and loss of biodiversity. We should do this because our economy needs more stimulus and growth, not further strain and grey skies from the haze. We should do this because Singapore is our home, and in our home, we, especially our elderly parents and grandparents, our young children and grandchildren, should be kept safe. Question proposed.