Hey everyone! As discussed in our previous post, trans-boundary haze pollution is a regional problem here in South East Asia. Thus, the Singapore government has taken steps to address the issue, such as entering the 2002 ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP), setting up the ASEAN Co-ordinating Centre for Transboundary Haze Pollution Control and more recently, enacting the Trans-boundary Haze Pollution Act 2014 (THPA).
Definitions
Under Article 1 of the AATHP, “haze pollution” means
“smoke resulting from land and/or forest fire which causes deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human health, harm living resources and ecosystems and material property and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment.” (ASEAN, 2002)
On the other hand, THPA’s “haze pollution in Singapore” means
Section 2: “pollution of the environment in Singapore comprising any poor air quality episode involving smoke from any land or forest fire wholly outside Singapore” (SSO, 2014)
where pollution means
“a wide-scale direct or indirect alteration of the environment to (a) its detriment or degradation or potential detriment or degradation; or (b) to the detriment or potential detriment of its use or other environmental value” (SSO, 2014)
As we have colour coded, both definitions are rather similar. Both define haze pollution to
- Be smoke produced by land or forest fire (Red);
- Cause harm (Blue); and
- Reduce benefits (Orange).
Thus far, everything has been similar to our definition of air pollution. Are there any differences? In this case, the difference lies not within the definitions, but with the causality of air pollution.
“Presumption of innocence”
Under section 8(1) of the THPA, it is sufficient as evidence (until contrary is proven) to deem a person liable should:
(a) haze pollution occurs here,
(b) land or forest fires occur outside Singapore and
(c) meteorological evidence suggests that the smoke is moving in the direction of Singapore.
Normal laws operate under the assumption of “Innocent until proven guilty”. This presumption turns the table around, making the defendant “Guilty until proven innocent”, making it extremely strong and powerful. Regardless of whether the haze is truly from a specific forest fire, the owner (and everyone related) will be deemed liable under the THPA unless they can find evidence to rebut the presumption itself (SSO, 2014).
Out of all the laws we have seen thus far, this is the strictest of them all. The defendant is automatically guilty under the THPA and has to prove himself otherwise. Some may question if such a powerful presumption is warranted. We feel that while it may seem strict, it is necessary due to the context of trans-boundary pollution. Due to its nature, places affected by trans-boundary pollution are far away from the source and the pollutants involved can even transform into secondary pollutants. This difficulty to prove causality between culprit and crime inherently benefits the polluters. THPA presumption accounts for this problem by requiring the defendant to disprove such causality, turning the tides of the lawsuit back to the favour of the prosecutors.
Conclusion
Phew, what a long journey! Over the past few posts, we have looked at multiple types of air pollution, domestic and international laws to govern them, and even learnt about the presumptions of the law! It is about time we conclude this long case. Next post, we shall compare the differences between the multiple laws we have seen and our own definition of air pollution. We will also discuss any discrepancies between the two. For readers with any questions or comments for anything we have discussed over the last few posts on air pollution, do comment down below and we will try our best to clarify!
Stay tuned ~
Lee Yang
References
ASEAN. (2002). ASEAN AGREEMENT ON TRANSBOUNDARY HAZE POLLUTION Retrieved from https://haze.asean.org/?wpfb_dl=32.
SSO. (2014). Transboundary Haze Pollution Act. SSO: Singapore Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/THPA2014.