Singapore's stronger haze law: How it might work and what it may not fix

analysis Singapore

The gaps in transboundary haze prevention require measures beyond legislation, says one expert.

New: You can now listen to articles.

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

06 Nov 2026 11:55AM

SINGAPORE: While Singapore’s enhanced haze law may address some enforcement issues, the gaps in tackling transboundary haze cannot be closed by legislation alone, experts said. 

Environmental law experts noted that the amendments could help improve accountability of firms linked to forest fires that cause haze.

However, its effectiveness will depend on consistent enforcement, corporate cooperation and access to evidence across jurisdictions. Cooperation among countries will also be key to stopping transboundary haze, said the experts.

The amendments strengthen the tools available to Singapore to act against errant companies, said Mr Simon Tay, chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA), adding that government agencies will have the power not only to investigate and punish, but also to order companies to prevent such fires.

Adjunct senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Sean Tseng, who specialises in environmental law, said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the amended legislation effectively addressing transboundary haze. 

It introduces "very real commercial consequences" for companies involved in irresponsible burning, especially those with business or financial connections to Singapore, he added. 

Singapore strengthened its enforcement powers after amendments to the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act were passed in parliament on Wednesday (Nov 4). 

Under the new rules, companies linked to transboundary haze could face fines of up to S$20 million (US$16 million) and the government could designate companies or individuals. 

This could include those who have committed or are suspected of committing offences, failed to comply with notices or directions, or received an adverse assessment report. 

Business dealings with designated firms or people would be restricted, with those doing so subject to a maximum fine of S$1 million.

The amendments to the law also introduced a civil penalty framework with a maximum penalty of S$10 million.

Criminal trials in the absence of the accused would also be allowed under the enhanced law, and officers would have arrest powers.

WHAT THE CHANGES WILL DO

The changes are “clearly directed” at issues around collecting evidence that have hindered prosecution so far, said Associate Professor Michelle Lim, who specialises in sustainability and biodiversity law at Singapore Management University (SMU). 

But more could be done on a preventive level, she added. 

Since the Act was first passed in 2014, its criminal prosecution framework has produced no convictions. During the last severe haze crisis in 2015, the National Environment Agency (NEA) served statutory notices to six Indonesian plantation companies – two of these cases were closed in 2017 without any penalties and the other four remain unresolved. 

The amendments will give authorities greater investigatory powers, including independent assessors, as well as higher penalties and restrictions on business dealings, said Assoc Prof Lim. 

49:41 Min

Under the previous version of the Act, serving notices to individuals or corporations overseas, getting evidence and the cooperation of those with suspected links to activities causing haze were common challenges, said Ms Danielle Yeow, an adjunct senior research fellow at NUS and a consultant at KGP Legal.

Investigating complex corporate structures and business relationships to identify the “controlling mind” or responsible actor was also an issue, she added.   

NUS' Mr Tseng, who is also an environmental lawyer, said the amendments improved the prospects of a successful prosecution. The key is strengthening evidence-gathering powers, as well as the difficulties and repercussions companies face should they try to evade legal notices.

"That being said, I wouldn't necessarily measure the law's success by the number of convictions," he added. 

 Associate Professor Razwana Begum from the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) called the amendments a “significant improvement” to Singapore’s legal framework.

“These are meaningful developments because environmental offences involving large corporations cannot always be addressed effectively through criminal prosecution alone,” she added. 

“However, legislation is only one part of the solution.”

She emphasised that corporate accountability should extend beyond compliance with minimum legal requirements, and businesses should be expected to demonstrate ethical decision-making, environmental responsibility and effective internal compliance systems. 

The changes also recognise that responsibility may extend beyond the companies directly managing the affected land.

Parent companies, business partners and financiers can influence commercial practices, said Assoc Prof Razwana. 

Under the new rules, companies could be put on notice not to deal with those that cause or contribute to fires posing haze risks to Singapore. 

The stronger laws may encourage businesses to adopt stronger internal compliance practices – reviewing supplier relationships, conducting environmental risk assessments and maintaining proper records of preventive measures, said Assoc Prof Razwana. 

The civil penalties and restrictions on specified business dealings with designated entities can create meaningful consequences even if criminal prosecution is difficult, she added. 

WHAT THE CHANGES CAN’T DO 

Territorial jurisdiction remains the fundamental limitation of the law, said NUS' Mr Tseng. 

Singapore cannot, through domestic legislation alone, compel investigations or enforce its laws on foreign soil without regard to another country's sovereignty, he added.

Companies without meaningful commercial or financial connections to Singapore may also remain difficult to reach, he said.

"But these issues are inherent in seeking to address a transboundary environmental issue, and not something a domestic piece of legislation is inherently equipped to resolve completely," Mr Tseng said.

The Act’s scope will also widen to include the “risk of haze”, which means an entity can be held liable for contributing to an overseas fire that poses a risk of haze pollution in Singapore, even if the haze has not reached the country.

While the amended laws aim to extend the timeline to before Singapore sees significant levels of haze, prevention is still being discussed at the stage where a fire is already present, said SMU’s Assoc Prof Lim. 

She called for more consideration at the ecosystem level, acknowledging that this was “more difficult”. 

For example, this could include restoring and protecting peatland ecosystems so that they are less flammable, and drawing on indigenous knowledge of communities that practise swidden farming, she added. 

Swidden farming is a traditional agricultural method where forest plots are temporarily cleared and burnt to create nutrient-rich ash for growing crops, then left to regenerate while farmers move to a new area. 

Assoc Prof Lim also stressed that Indonesia has the “primary responsibility” for regulating, monitoring and restoring peatland ecosystems, and holding perpetrators responsible.  

“Much still depends on Indonesia, including the extent to which it doesn't stand in the way of what Singapore is trying to achieve,” she added. 

The amendments add more tools and “considerable muscle” to Singapore’s powers, but they are not a “magic bullet on their own”, said SIIA’s Mr Tay.

They do not guarantee that haze will never recur. “Cooperation within the ASEAN framework and with Indonesia and other neighbouring countries will also be essential,” he added.

Several challenges remain, such as access to overseas evidence, corporate transparency and the underlying incentives from unsustainable land-use practices, said SUSS’ Assoc Prof Razwana. Tackling these would require measures beyond legislation.

Stronger information-sharing arrangements across the region could improve access to concession maps, corporate ownership records and fire investigation findings, she added. 

“Singapore's amended framework provides stronger legal tools, but lasting progress will depend on aligning enforcement with responsible business practices, environmental protection and regional cooperation,” she said.

Listen:

POSSIBLE CIVIL ACTION?

The Act allows civil proceedings against errant companies. “Increasing the capacity to collect evidence will also enhance the capacity of individuals to sue corporations for compensation,” said SMU’s Assoc Prof Lim. 

But these amendments do not automatically open the door to class-action lawsuits, said SUSS’ Assoc Prof Razwana.

Class-action lawsuits arise in situations where a large number of people have been wronged in the same way by the same person or company. Such suits are popularly used in the United States.

In Singapore, it is usually referred to as a representative action, which allows one person or more people to represent a larger group in a suit.

“The new civil penalty framework allows NEA, with the public prosecutor's consent, to initiate civil proceedings against entities that contravene the THPA,” said Assoc Prof Razwana. 

“This is a public enforcement mechanism, not a new right for individuals to seek compensation.”

The amended laws are aligned with developments in international law, said NUS’ Ms Yeow. 

For example, it is no longer unusual or exceptional for states to exercise jurisdiction in cases where severe transboundary environmental impact is caused.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the amended legislation will be judged by its outcome and the impact it makes, she said. 

“Does this lead to (fewer) incidents of land and forest fires overseas? Will we see more cooperation and successful prosecutions? Time will tell,” said Ms Yeow.

Source: CNA/hw(mi)