几天前，我在国会外接获数个公民社会组织提交的备忘录。我们或许来自不同背景，但对一个问题有著共同看法：烟霾不能再被视为马来西亚人必须忍受的季节性不便，只能等到下雨或风向改变，问题才会自然消散。
坦白说，看到烟霾再次恶化至如此严重的程度，我感到愤怒。
马来西亚人还要面对多少次同样的危机？每当天空转灰，我们总是重复同样的劝告：减少户外活动、戴口罩、关上窗户，以及关注空气污染指数。情况改善后，公众注意力便转向其他事情，而这个问题也随之被搁置，直到下一轮烟霾来袭。
但对普通马来西亚人而言，烟霾带来的后果并不会随著空气质量改善而消失。
儿童被迫在受污染的空气中上课，甚至因此无法上学；年长者，以及患有哮喘、肺部疾病或心脏疾病的人，面对更高的健康风险。外送骑士、小贩、执法人员、建筑工人，以及所有必须在户外谋生的人，并没有条件选择留在家中。
当我们劝告人民避免接触污染空气时，也必须诚实面对一个现实：不是每个人都有同等能力保护自己。
因此，烟霾不仅是环境问题，也是公共卫生、职场安全、教育和社会公义的问题。
家庭必须承担医疗费用，工人可能因此失去收入，学校和日常活动受到干扰。那些从经济活动中获利的人或许远离烟雾，但真正被迫吸入污染空气的，却是普通人民。
因此，我认同应以共同责任的方式应对烟霾问题。马来西亚、印尼和新加坡必须加强合作。政府、国会、企业、执法机构和公民社会，都有各自应承担的责任。
印尼的社区同样是这些火灾及污染的受害者。这不应该演变成一场争论，彼此追究到底哪个国家应该承担更多责任。
但是，所谓“共同责任”，不能意味著没有任何人需要承担责任。
如果有企业被证实涉及其中，就必须采取行动——无论该企业来自马来西亚、印尼还是新加坡。企业招牌上的国旗不能成为逃避责任的保护伞，复杂的股权安排、子公司或国界，也不应该成为保护责任人的工具。
烟霾可以跨越国界，我们搜集证据和执法的能力，也必须能够跨越国界。
公民社会组织所提交的调查结果显示，数以千计的地点可能是烟霾源头，其中包括位于森林及种植园特许经营区内的地点。
当然，特许经营区内出现热点或火灾，并不能单凭这一点证明是谁引发火灾。正当程序仍然至关重要。
然而，这些调查结果已经足以构成严肃理由，展开透明、独立及全面的调查。我们不能以“需要确凿证据”为理由，反过来成为完全不调查的借口。
长期以来，最大的障碍之一就是资料取得，包括火灾地点、特许经营地图、企业实际受益拥有人、企业控制结构，以及调查结果。
东盟信息共享机制
因此，第一步应该是建立一套永久性的东盟信息共享机制，让相关资料能够及时共享，而不是等到公众压力达到最高点时才采取行动。
卫星证据应该与企业所有权记录、土地状况、火灾历史及实地调查结果进行比对。当一个国家掌握涉及另一国家企业的证据时，有关证据必须通过正式渠道共享，让相关国家能够在其司法管辖范围内采取行动。
第二，马来西亚需要制定针对跨境烟霾污染的专门法律。
外交及东盟合作必须继续，但如果责任人最终不需要面对法律后果，仅靠外交手段仍然不足够。
有关法律应该赋予马来西亚当局调查相关实体的权力，尤其是当这些实体在马来西亚经营，或与马来西亚存在企业联系，而可信证据显示其活动可能导致影响马来西亚人民的烟霾。
法律也应该规定信息披露要求，明确母公司的责任，并要求企业对旗下子公司及供应商进行适当的尽职调查。同时，应建立相称的民事及刑事责任、保护举报者、提供索赔渠道，并确保公平的司法程序。
马来西亚可以参考新加坡的经验。新加坡自2014年起便制定了处理跨境烟霾问题的相关法律。不过，我们也必须根据自身的法律制度和实际情况，建立适合马来西亚的法律框架。
第三，保护公众不能等到所有调查完成后才开始。
政府需要建立明确且一致的公共卫生应对机制，包括让人民容易理解的空气质量信息、及早发出的警告、学校统一的应对指南、为高风险群体提供适当的口罩，以及让人民能够获得医疗服务。
雇用户外工作者的雇主，也必须在空气质量达到不健康水平时提供防护装备及调整工作安排。工人的安全不应该完全取决于雇主是否有善意。
与此同时，马来西亚也必须加强国内针对露天焚烧及污染行为的执法。
我们不能要求邻国提高透明度，却对自己的执法记录保持沉默。马来西亚应该定期公布执法数据、调查进展，以及针对企业所采取的行动。
问责必须从国内开始。
无烟霾区域目标
政府近期再次重申，将推动东盟集体行动，并以在2030年实现无烟霾区域为目标。这项承诺很重要，但马来西亚人民同样需要明确的时间表、可衡量的指标，以及看得见的成果。
政府还要研究制定专门法律多久？
什么时候会提呈相关法案？
马来西亚与邻国之间什么时候能够达成共享证据的机制？
谁将向国会及公众汇报有关进展？
这些问题必须得到回答，因为我们已经不再只是处于“确认问题存在”的阶段。
如今，我们已经拥有可以进一步调查的线索和证据、监测技术、数十年的经验，以及大量政策建议。
现在所欠缺的，是让责任能够在法律上真正得到落实的政治勇气。
我将继续在国会下议院提出这一课题，并促请政府加强外交接触、区域合作及马来西亚的法律框架。
我们不应该等到更多人严重患病，或再让下一代在成长过程中认为，灰暗的天空和有毒空气只是生活中“正常”的一部分。
清洁空气不是政府赐予我们的礼物，也不是只有买得起空气净化器的人才享有的奢侈品。
清洁空气是属于每一个人的权利。
每当烟霾再次来袭，我们已经听够了各种声明和承诺。
马来西亚人民不应该为了呼吸的权利，而必须不断斗争。
瑟丽娜《呼吸的权利，不应该成为一场斗争》原文： The Right to Breathe Should Not Be a Fight
A few days ago, I received a memorandum from several civil society organisations outside Parliament. We may come from different backgrounds, but we share the same view: haze can no longer be treated as a seasonal inconvenience that Malaysians must endure until the rain arrives or the wind changes direction.
Let me be frank. I am angry that the haze has become this severe again.
How many more times must Malaysians face the same crisis? Whenever the skies turn grey, we repeat the same advice: reduce outdoor activities, wear a mask, close the windows and monitor the Air Pollutant Index. When conditions improve, public attention moves elsewhere and the problem is neglected until the next episode.
But for ordinary Malaysians, the consequences do not simply disappear.
Children are forced to study in polluted air or miss school. Older persons and those living with asthma, lung disease or heart conditions face greater health risks. Delivery riders, hawkers, enforcement personnel, construction workers and everyone else who earns a living outdoors do not have the luxury of simply staying home.
When we advise people to avoid exposure, we must be honest: not everyone has the same ability to protect themselves.
The haze is therefore more than an environmental issue. It is a matter of public health, workplace safety, education and social justice. Families bear the cost of medical treatment. Workers lose income. Schools and daily activities are disrupted. Those who profit from economic activity may be far away from the smoke, but ordinary people are the ones forced to breathe it.
That is why I agree that tackling the haze requires shared responsibility. Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore must work together. Governments, parliaments, corporations, enforcement agencies and civil society all have a role to play. Communities in Indonesia are also victims of these fires and the resulting pollution. This should not become a contest over which country deserves the most blame.
But “shared responsibility” cannot mean that nobody is held responsible.
If a company is proven to be involved, action must be taken—regardless of whether it is Malaysian, Indonesian or Singaporean. The flag on a company’s signboard cannot be used as a shield. Neither should complicated ownership arrangements, subsidiaries or national borders protect those responsible.
The haze crosses borders. Our ability to gather evidence and enforce the law must be able to cross borders too.
The findings presented by civil society organisations identified thousands of possible haze-source points, including points located within forestry and plantation concessions. The presence of a hotspot or fire within a concession does not, by itself, prove who started it. Due process remains essential.
Nevertheless, these findings are serious enough to justify transparent, independent and comprehensive investigations. We cannot use the need for conclusive proof as an excuse not to investigate at all.
One of the greatest obstacles has always been access to information: the locations of fires, concession maps, the beneficial owners of companies, corporate control structures and investigation findings.
The first step must therefore be a permanent ASEAN procedure for sharing this information promptly—not only when public pressure reaches its peak. Satellite evidence should be matched against ownership records, land conditions, fire histories and investigations on the ground. When one country possesses evidence involving a company connected to another country, that evidence must be shared through official channels so that action can be taken within the relevant jurisdiction.
Second, Malaysia needs specific legislation on transboundary haze pollution. Diplomatic and ASEAN cooperation must continue, but diplomacy alone is insufficient if those responsible face no legal consequences.
Such legislation should empower Malaysian authorities to investigate entities operating or maintaining corporate links in Malaysia when credible evidence suggests that their activities contributed to haze affecting Malaysians.
The law should also impose disclosure requirements, establish the responsibilities of parent companies, and require proper due diligence concerning subsidiaries and suppliers. It should provide proportionate civil and criminal liability, protect whistleblowers, create avenues for compensation and guarantee a fair judicial process.
Malaysia can learn from Singapore, which has had legislation addressing transboundary haze since 2014. However, we must develop a framework suited to our own legal system and circumstances.
Third, protecting the public cannot wait until every investigation is completed. The government needs a clear and consistent public-health response: understandable air-quality information, early warnings, uniform guidance for schools, suitable masks for vulnerable groups and accessible medical treatment.
Employers with outdoor workers must also provide protective equipment and modify work arrangements when air quality reaches unhealthy levels. A worker’s safety should not depend entirely on an employer’s goodwill.
At the same time, Malaysia must strengthen enforcement against open burning and pollution within our own borders. We cannot demand transparency from neighbouring countries while keeping our own enforcement record hidden. Malaysia should regularly publish enforcement data, the status of investigations and actions taken against companies.
Accountability must begin at home.
The government has recently reiterated its commitment to collective ASEAN action and the goal of achieving a haze-free region by 2030. That commitment matters. But Malaysians also need a timeline, measurable indicators and visible results.
How much longer will the government study the need for specific legislation? When will a draft be presented? What mechanism will be agreed upon for sharing evidence with neighbouring countries? Who will report the progress to Parliament and the public?
These questions must be answered because we have moved beyond the stage of merely identifying the problem. We now possess leads and evidence that can be investigated, monitoring technology, decades of experience and numerous policy recommendations.
What remains missing is the political courage to make responsibility legally enforceable.
I will continue to raise this issue in the Dewan Rakyat and press the government to strengthen diplomatic engagement, regional cooperation and Malaysia’s legal framework. We should not wait until more people become seriously ill or another generation grows up believing that grey skies and poisonous air are simply a normal part of life.
Clean air is not a gift from the government. Nor is it a luxury reserved for people who can afford air purifiers.
It is a right that belongs to everyone.
We have had enough statements and promises whenever the haze returns. Malaysians should not have to fight simply for the right to breathe.
本文观点，不代表《东方日报》立场。
要看最快最熱資訊，請來Follow我們 《東方日報》WhatsApp Channel.
