Will Singapore take action against companies responsible for haze? NEA says it’s monitoring situation

The PSI hit 192 in central Singapore at 6pm on Oct 9, the highest so far in 2026.

The haze scourge is a perennial problem for South-east Asia.

For decades, it has come from forest and land fires in Indonesia, including provinces such as South Sumatra and Kalimantan, largely due to the clearing of land through fires for agri-businesses such as oil palm and pulp plantations.

In 2026, the annual fire season has been worsened by a super El Nino that makes the weather in equatorial ASEAN countries drier and hotter – resulting in longer-lasting fires that are harder to put out.

Other El Nino years in 1997 and 2015 also resulted in severe haze over Singapore and Malaysia.

The law was introduced after the 2013 haze crisis, when thick, toxic smog drifted to Singapore, pushing the PSI to a hazardous high of 401.

When the law was passed in Parliament in 2014, several MPs insisted that the fines were too low compared with the size of the errant companies’ profits and the harm caused by the haze.

They also pointed to the difficulty of pinpointing the culprits responsible for setting fires to clear agricultural land, amid Indonesia’s complex, often overlapping land ownership.

On Oct 5, environmental group Greenpeace said it had identified around 20 plantation companies with the most haze sources, and several are linked to business groups based in Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the concessions is Damai Agro Sejahtera, which is affiliated with Bumitama Agri, an oil palm company headquartered in Singapore, Greenpeace said.

As at end-September, the Indonesian authorities have named 138 individual suspects involved in the fires and has sealed 68 companies holding concessions.

On Sept 27, the Indonesian National Police said it is investigating the alleged involvement of 16 corporations and 43 individual suspects in the South Sumatra fires, and has detained them.

Four 2015 cases remain open

The law was wielded for the first time in 2015, when the PSI breached hazardous levels with readings of over 300. No fines have been meted out yet.

NEA had identified fires on plantations, or concession lands, associated with six Indonesian companies and issued legal notices to them.

Those were preventive-measure notices that requested the companies to extinguish the fires, stop any burning activities and submit to NEA plans to extinguish the fires or prevent their recurrence.

Asked for an update on these cases, the spokeswoman said investigations into four companies remain open. “As such, NEA is unable to disclose further details,” she added.

The four are pulpwood plantation companies: Bumi Andalas Permai, Bumi Mekar Hijau, Sebangun Bumi Andalas Woods Industries and Rimba Hutani Mas. Past reports showed that they were suppliers of Asia Pulp and Paper, which has a presence in Singapore.

The cases against the other two companies – Bumi Sriwijaya Sentosa and Wachyuni Mandira – were closed.

The NEA spokeswoman said these companies had informed the agency that they were no longer associated with the affected lands before the fires occurred in 2015. She added: “Following further investigations, NEA accepted their explanations and closed the cases.”

The value of the law

Experts interviewed say the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act can serve as a deterrent to companies, but can be challenging to enforce.

International law expert Simon Tay, chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, told ST that the Act is still useful even if a case does not end in prosecution as it can trigger questions, investigations and accountability.

But he noted that Indonesia has the primary responsibility to tackle the fires, and the priority should be cooperation between governments and with companies to control the fires.

He added that Indonesia has had reservations about Singapore enforcing its laws outside its borders through the Act.

“Act first on the fires. Establish accountability when the facts are clearer,” said Tay.

Sean Tseng, an adjunct senior research fellow at the Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Law at the National University of Singapore, said the law does not address the root cause of the burning and fires.

Another challenge is whether the law would have any real consequence even if a successful prosecution was brought under it, added Tseng, who co-authored the latest edition of Environmental Law in Singapore.

He said: “The Act can impose fines and allows for damages, but it would matter only if the errant entity had physical assets or subsidiaries in Singapore. Oftentimes, they may not.”

Singapore will also need to weigh the diplomatic consequences if it contemplates prosecution against non-Singapore entities.

Under the Act, individuals or organisations can hold polluting companies accountable if they can prove that the haze led to injury or economic loss – if a sporting event had to be cancelled, for example.

But there have been no known reports of such civil lawsuits under the Act so far, said Tseng.

He said: “We will likely need to contend with the reality that the Act best serves as a deterrent.”