Minister: Morning, thank you. What I wanted to do this morning is to give an update on our efforts with Indonesia to deal with this transboundary problem. We all know this affects not just Singapore but also Indonesia, Malaysia. In fact, on a regular basis, the PSI exceeds 400 in Indonesia, we are told. We have had this problem over several years. But this year has been the worst so far. Let’s be clear about it: this is not just slash-and-burn. This is not an act of nature by itself. These are actions by companies for commercial profit. In 1997, we also had severe impact and studies suggest that CO2 emission from the peat fires contributed to a substantial part of the global CO2 emission in that year. So this problem not just has impact in Indonesia, not just the region, but it has a global environmental impact. Therefore, we have urged Indonesia to take decisive action. And we have had a number of meetings.
Earlier this week, I had two good conversations with my counterpart, Indonesian Foreign Minister. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has had conversations with his counterpart as well. On Thursday, the CEO of National Environment Agency made a trip to Jakarta to set out in concrete terms what we want to see and yesterday, Dr Balakrishnan went to Jakarta to meet with his ministerial counterpart, again to emphasise that. We made the points: this is a recurring issue, the plantation companies had to be called to account, accountability and transparency in how steps are taken is important for international confidence, and really, quick action has to be taken to put out the fires. We have on our part, offered all assistance at all levels - aircraft, technical assistance, offers of manpower. It has yet to be taken up. Since 1991, we have been giving assistance on training, air quality monitoring, other equipment. In 2005 we offered assistance of our aircraft and that was accepted. But this time, that offer has not yet been accepted.
I want to emphasise that this is a transboundary problem arising from burning in Indonesia. Our primary duty has to be safeguarding the health, security of Singaporeans. We cannot allow the situation to continue and do nothing and say nothing. In international law, countries have a duty to control actions within their own boundaries when such actions have international implications or impact outside of their country. For example, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development adopted at the UN conference in 1992 outlines two key principles. Principle 2 states the responsibility to ensure that activities within a country do not cause damage to the environment of other countries, and Principle 10 states that countries shall inform and consult with others whose environment may be negatively affected by these activities. So it’s clear. International law imposes obligations on countries to make sure that whatever is done within their boundaries is such that it has no impact, environmental impact, outside. And when they do, that is not consistent with international law. Dr Balakrishnan has asked for the ASEAN environment ministers meeting to be brought forward and Indonesia has agreed. We will continue to press these points there.
Next week, the ASEAN ministerial meetings are taking place in Brunei. I will be going but this time, accompanying me will be my Second Minister who is also Second Minister in Environment, Grace Fu. We have decided that this matter has to be discussed at ASEAN ministerial meetings because it is a regional problem. Depending on what steps are taken, we have to see concrete results in terms of the impact on us. We will have to decide in what other fora this has to be discussed. Thank you.
AFP: I just wanted to ask you, you mentioned other fora, maybe you can give some details of what kind of fora this could be brought up to.
Minister: Over the rest of the year, there are many other meetings that are coming up, both at the regional level as well as the international level. We will calibrate and decide where else needs to be raised. I think it’s not productive to outline what exactly these are, but everyone knows the different fora and meetings that are coming up.
AFP: I just want to ask you, with regards to ASEAN, there's been some disenchantment among Singaporeans that the organisation is a paper tiger, that there is nothing that has come out of it in the past decade with regards to haze. I just wanted your response to that about Singaporeans' feelings about ASEAN.
Minister: I can understand the feelings that people have and these are not feelings that are unique to Singaporeans. Very often, people in individual countries get upset with international organisations, be it the United Nations or in this case, ASEAN. But you know, in international law and international relations - as I have explained previously, there are limits to what regional bodies can do vis-à-vis the territorial sovereignty and the right of countries to take steps within their own countries. Nevertheless, ASEAN, international organisations, prove [to be] a useful and important platform for issues to be raised, and countries have to then account for their actions. That by itself, has had - in the past - effect, impact on the conduct of countries.
Nikkei: For the way how ASEAN countries discuss this issue, how does it have to be changed for it to come out with a better result or workable solution?
Minister: Well, ASEAN actually has looked at it and there is a treaty in place - the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. All countries have signed it. All have ratified it except Indonesia. It is the only country that remains to ratify it. Of course, if it ratifies the treaty, then these become binding obligations. But for some reason which is difficult for us to understand, the Indonesian Parliament has taken the view that this treaty is not in the interest of Indonesia. I say difficult to understand because it helps the Indonesian people as much as it helps everyone else because they are also suffering from the haze.
Straits Times: Yesterday night and this morning, the Indonesian side named some of the firms who were involved in the burning. There have been some links to Singapore firms. Can I just check what kind of powers would the Singapore government have to go after these firms or what kind of sanctions does it have?
Minister: I would like to make two points there. The first and foremost is, these companies - if indeed it is true that they are the cause of the problem - are operating within Indonesia. So we would like to see strong, firm, effective action taken against them in Indonesia. Because that's where they are, that's where the actions are taking place, that's where their offices are, the senior people. We would really like to see firm, quick action. Any assistance we can render in that respect, we will do so. There is no doubt about that. Second, I have asked the Attorney-General to consider what is it that we can do in Singapore if such companies can be proven to have contributed in some way. We will do everything that we can. We will offer no succour or refuge if the actions of the companies have, indeed, been illegal in Indonesia and impacted on Singapore. Nevertheless, I do want to emphasise there are serious issues of international law and private international law, that need to be considered and issues of jurisdiction, because you will appreciate that if companies take steps in the rest of the world, that doesn't make it automatically actionable in Singapore. That is why the Attorney-General has been asked to look at it. We will do what we can. Thank you.
WSJ: Of the two companies that were named yesterday, they are owned by Indonesian nationals. Just wondering, do you foresee any kind of complications from that and if so, what can Singapore do about it if we want to pursue these companies?
Minister: Well, I'm not sure if I can add to the answer that I have given. But certainly, we all appreciate that Indonesia will be in a position to do a lot, and so we hope that steps will be taken. Two, I am waiting for the Attorney-General to revert to me on whether there is anything that we can do. There are issues - I do not put it as difficulties, but there are issues - in international law about pursuing companies in Singapore in respect of their actions outside of Singapore. That has to be studied. We will know what we can or cannot do by this weekend. But really, the primary action, primary ability to act, is really in Indonesia.
Bloomberg: Can you just confirm that the two companies named by Indonesia are in fact proven to be responsible for the burning -- Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Asia Pacific Resources International?
Minister: Sharon, you know, the international satellite photographs will tell you where the hot spots are. Who owns the title to that land, who is doing what on the ground are matters of proof, and really, somebody needs to be on the ground. Indonesian investigative authorities need to be on the ground. I cannot send my police officers in there to investigate. That will be a breach of Indonesian sovereignty and the Indonesians will not agree to that. So we have to depend on Indonesia to give us the evidence, to tell us what is happening. I am not in a position to tell you that I can confirm. I am dependent on Indonesia giving me the evidence.
TODAY: Just some latest comments from the Indonesian ministers. I mean they have been saying that they are not going to apologise for the haze and that they are going to wait for nature to take its course because artificial rain takes two weeks to create. So do you think that they are taking this situation seriously? And you know we have been pressing them, so what else do you think can be done to convey the seriousness of this situation to them? Thank you.
Minister: Well, there are two parts to your questions or maybe three. One, what do we think of their comments and two, are they taking this seriously and three, what else we can do? What we think of their comments? I think Prime Minister has said what he thinks and so has Dr Balakrishnan. I think it’s really not so productive to be trading accusations. You know, we are used to being called the "little red dot" and previously when the haze problem occurred, another minister said that - another Indonesian minister I should add - said that we should be thankful for the oxygen that the Indonesian forests give us, so why are we complaining about the haze? I mean those sorts of attitudes, I think people can see are not best designed to deal with the problem. And likewise are comments saying that we are childish because we are complaining when the haze reaches levels, hazardous levels. I think people can judge for themselves. Our primary focus really is, solve the problem. Are they taking this seriously? I think my colleague, counterpart, Foreign Minister Marty has said that Indonesia will not apologise. I am not sure that we are asking for an apology. What we want is for the problem to be solved and that is really the point.
The third issue: what else we can do? That is what I have been outlining now. There are two parts - one, internationally what we can do; two, domestically what we can do. Domestically, what we can do are all the mitigation measures - you heard from last night, 200,000 households will start receiving masks free of charge. The masks are being manufactured in Singapore so there is really no need to be concerned about availability. And a million masks will be distributed to poorer households. The framework within which we do work outside, engage in outdoor activities, all those has come out; you've got to look at the 24-hour rolling PSI and we will have to give advisories on a day-by-day basis. The MPs, government, civil society, everyone got to now come together to deal with this. I mean let's not underestimate the problem. It has serious consequences, both physical as well as economic and for the country as a whole. The second aspect of it - is international. I have explained, taken some pains to explain the limits of international law, international relations, given that international laws still recognises a territorial sovereignty and supremacy of territorial sovereignty. You got to put that in simpler terms - basically, it’s difficult to intervene in the internal affairs or into another country to set right something. That principle is sacrosanct, subject to a few exceptions. And the absence of treaty obligations, and I have mentioned that Indonesia has yet to ratify that treaty. The other things that we can do? I have outlined the ASEAN ministerial meetings, the other fora - these are not without implications or consequences and everyone understands that. It’s not just raising them. There are, if we raise them and we talk about them. Then, there are consequences from raising these issues. Thank you.
Straits Times: Good morning Minister again. There was an op-ed piece in the Straits Times yesterday by Professor Ivan Png. He made a suggestion that Singapore could possibly tweak its environmental laws to deal with this haze problem. His suggestion was that, could we change our laws such that palm oil or other agricultural products be only allowed to be transhipped or imported through Singapore, only if the companies are certified to clear their lands through proper means, not through slash-and-burn or through burning? Would this be something MinLaw could consider?
Minister: …. I have asked the Attorney-General to consider whether anything can be done. I think that particular suggestion really needs to be considered by the Environment Ministry. You have to consider whether it is going to have any meaningful impact on the actions of the companies. Really, what we need are Indonesian authorities to come on board and work and cooperate with everyone else. So certainly, I am sure Dr Balakrishnan and his team will study this suggestion. Thank you.
BBC: We keep mentioning that you need the Indonesians to cooperate and they are the ones on the ground, Can you just characterise you know, your closed door meetings with them so far. Have they not been cooperating? I mean how have they been reacting to your urges and your suggestions.
Minister: Are you talking about this year or you talking about the past?
BBC: Recently, in the context of the haze issue.
Minister: If you want to put it in context. You have got to look at it in the past. I have told you in 2005, they accepted our offer of aircraft to go and help. We have sent people on the ground. We have given training. We have given assistance through equipment. And this year, we have offered all of that and they have said that they do not need such assistance. They have made clear commitments that they have an obligation and they will deal with it. Our point of course is we want to see the results as well … At the same time, to add a footnote to the question, you have had some other remarks publicly by some of the ministers - at least one of the ministers which doesn't carry the same tone of cooperation.
BBC: I guess that was my question - given that we have seen from one of the Indonesian ministers a tone that isn't very cooperative, does that characterise your dealings with Indonesian officials?
Minister: I wouldn't say that that characterises all our dealings with Indonesian officials. Thank you.
WSJ: A similar question. So we've had considered three remarks from some ministers - more hostile remarks from some Indonesian ministers; at the same time, we've seen Dr Vivian Balakrishnan mention that he spoke to Indonesian officials and they gave indications that the Indonesian Cabinet is open to ratifying the ASEAN treaty whereas Parliament might not be as willing. So, from your conversations, from your observations, what is the sense you get as to any legislative progress on, for example the ASEAN treaty or any significant Indonesian governmental effort to tackle the problem?
Minister: Well, given what the Indonesian Parliament has said, of course it will be surprising if the treaty is ratified by the Indonesian Parliament, say in the next few weeks. We have had no indication that they will do so. We have had contrary indications. We welcome the indications that the Indonesian Cabinet is open to ratification, taking the steps. We have to take the situation as it is. Indonesia is a sovereign country. The Parliament is sovereign. We will then have to react and act based on that fact, situation. And what happens on the ground in terms of the haze. That is why I have outlined the series of steps that we think we can sensibly take in the context of international relations and international law, all the time emphasising that everyone needs to understand that international law in the realm of sovereign countries is somewhat different from imposing and enforcing sanctions within a country. There is a big difference. In international law, there may be obligations but the sovereignty of every country is supreme and there are some limitations on how such international obligations can be enforced.
Nikkei: Would you consider bringing this matter to a bigger forum like the UN, as you mentioned that the environmental impact can be bigger than within a region; it will be a global impact, and also it may be easier to, or you may feel the necessity of bringing in international society rather than fighting alone.
Minister: Well, a senior UN official has made comments on the situation and the importance of making sure this doesn't happen. I think those comments were made yesterday. Will we take beyond ASEAN to other fora, regional or international? I have already indicated at my comments earlier that these options are open. I can't tell you today that I will do so. Much depends on how the situation develops. We have ruled nothing in and we have ruled nothing out. Thank you.
. . . . .