The challenges facing Singapore’s haze law — and where it can gain more teeth

“The overarching objective is to demonstrate to the region that our government has the will and means to enforce the desired behaviour to prevent haze and pollution in Singapore.”

Ahead of the tabling of the amendment Bill, CNA spoke to legal experts about what has stalled prosecutions for over the years, what legal changes are needed to overcome existing barriers, and how Singapore can bring every lever it has to bear so errant firms are held accountable.

EXISTING LAW ALREADY ESTABLISHES LIABILITY

Noting that the THPA in its current form is already broad in scope, legal experts said the law is not limited to the holders of Indonesian concessions behind the haze-causing fires and other companies that directly cause the fire.

“An entity that condones another’s fire-causing conduct, for instance by permitting it to occur, is also caught (under Section 2(3)),” said Mr Mark Mangan, partner at law firm Lindsay Francis & Mangan.

This means that the law can also apply to parent entities participating in the management of a firm that occupies the plot of affected land, said Mr Kenneth Pereire, managing director of KGP Legal LLC.

That said, however, liability for a company does not arise simply out of a corporate relationship, said Mr Tan of RHT Law.

“Liability of a parent or other related entity is not automatic merely because of its corporate relationship and would depend on the statutory requirements being established,” he said.

In other words, a company’s liability must be proven under the law, and not be assumed automatically based on its corporate link to an entity responsible fora haze-related act.