.png)
Clearing the Air: Singapore’s Haze Pollution Law (Part 1)
- Anuja Dhoot, Kevin Chew, and Tan Ding Rui
- Nov 19
- 7 min read
In this Explainer, find out...
How acute has Southeast Asia’s issue of transboundary haze been in the past?
Why was the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014 (THPA) an essential response to transboundary haze?
What are the key features of the THPA?
Introduction
On 21 June 2013, Singapore’s three-hour Pollution Standard Index (PSI) reached a record high of 401, surpassing the previous record high of 226 set in 1997. Given the five-point scale on which PSI readings are assessed – ranging from Good (0-50) to Moderate (51-100), Unhealthy (101-200), Very Unhealthy (201-300) and Hazardous (above 300) – the unprecedented reading of 401 signalled a worrying event.
This incident was a crucial turning point in Singapore’s fight against haze and environmental pollution in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The instances of agricultural burning from neighbouring countries revealed Singapore’s vulnerability towards haze pollution, and heightened the dire need to tackle this regional issue.
Originally, the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) – a response to the severe haze episodes of the late 1990s and early 2000s – was signed in 2002 by all ASEAN member states. However, the ASEAN community only fully ratified the agreement up until 2014, and it was ineffective in resolving transboundary haze. This was due to weak enforcement and lacklustre legal provisions, which ultimately prevented countries like Singapore from taking legal action against foreign companies operating outside of its jurisdiction.
To contribute to the global effort against transboundary haze, Singapore took more proactive steps domestically to address the issue. This was done through the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014 (THPA), which criminalises and allows for legal action against stakeholders contributing to environmental pollution.
In Part 1 of this two-part Policy Explainer, we explain the context behind the ASEAN haze crisis, the rationale for the THPA and its key provisions that help to tackle the haze crisis in the region.
The Issue of Transboundary Haze
Transboundary haze has been a persistent issue in Southeast Asia, driven largely by large-scale fires on Indonesian forests and peatlands, often set to clear land for commercial crops such as oil palm.
Major haze episodes in 1997 and 2013 were key turning points, in the lead up to the THPA. In 1997, the PSI rose to 226 and visibility in the worst-hit Western region of Singapore plummeted to a few hundred metres. This incurred hefty losses for the country, costing Singapore an estimated US$163.5-286.2 million in economic losses.
A second major spike in the PSI index occurred in 2013, when the PSI hit 401, plunging air quality into the ‘Hazardous’ range on the PSI scale and prompting nationwide disruption. Long queues formed outside across Singapore, with many outlets selling out N95 masks within minutes. The city-state’s economy also faced substantial losses, with a report estimating a loss of US$1 billion a week.
More significantly, the 2013 episode followed after the AATHP had been signed. As noted above, this was a response to the severe haze episodes of earlier years. It set out an ambition to prevent and monitor haze arising from land and forest fires “through concerted national efforts and intensified regional and international co-operation”.
Flaws Inherent in the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution
Quite telling from the events of 2013 was the flaws of the original ASEAN Agreement. In practice, the agreement struggled to gain traction. Prominently, Indonesia’s delayed ratification hindered early implementation while Singapore’s offers of assistance, ranging from aircraft for cloud-seeding to satellite data and firefighting resources, were often left unused.
A more fundamental flaw lay in the agreement itself. The AATHP did not contain any provision for sanctions against non-compliance. This was a reflection of ASEAN’s longstanding non-interference principle, where ASEAN members avoid involvement in other members’ internal affairs. In turn, compliance depended largely on goodwill and was not imposed as a formal obligation. The problem was compounded by the technical challenges of linking individual fires to specific companies or concession holders.
Despite these gaps, Singapore did not abandon ASEAN-level engagements. This is evident from its participation in the ministerial reviews of AATHP as well as the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre (ASMC), where Singapore’s National Environmental Agency (NEA) worked with ASMC to “monitor and provide assessments of forest fires and transboundary smoke haze affecting the ASEAN region”.
Nonetheless, as haze episodes continued to adversely affect Singapore, it became clear that the regional agreement alone would not suffice to protect the country’s air quality. Confronted with this impasse, Singapore legislated its own solution, the THPA, in 2014. This Act was designed to impose liability on entities whose actions abroad cause or contribute to the haze situation within Singapore. It is the features of this Act to which we now turn.
Enabling Features Of The THPA
First, the THPA consists of various provisions that empower the Government with the legislative power to penalise perpetrators of haze pollution, including those outside Singapore’s jurisdiction.
The THPA asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction by making it an offence to engage in or condone actions that contribute to transboundary haze. This is based on the principle of “objective territoriality” in international law, which allows a state to prosecute acts committed outside of its territory, for acts having a harmful effect in its territory. Justifications for this concept will be further discussed in the second part of this Explainer.
Under the THPA, legislative mechanisms are deployed to hold corporate entities accountable for their actions, through a combination of liability clauses and legal notices. Outside of the THPA, capacity building measures also seek to build the overall resilience of communities against haze.
Liability for Haze Pollution
The THPA enables the Government to criminalise conduct that causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore, holding companies and their subsidiaries accountable. To do so, the Act makes several presumptions:
If there are maps which show that any land is owned or occupied by an entity, it is presumed that that entity owns or occupies that land;
If Singapore experiences haze pollution, and there is a fire causing smoke moving towards Singapore at or about that time, it is presumed that the haze pollution in Singapore involves smoke from that fire; and
If an entity owns or occupies the land in question, it is presumed that that entity has engaged in conduct or condoned any conduct by another, which caused or contributed to haze pollution in Singapore.
Mainly, the legislative intent behind the presumptions was to introduce a practical and robust evidentiary mechanism, and compellingly convict errant companies. For errant companies to overcome these presumptions, they must produce proof of internal records and evidence and show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent and put out the fires at their concessions.
Nonetheless, there are also safeguards and guardrails in place, to ensure that statutory defences are made available to the accused entities. These defences allow companies to escape liability under specified circumstances.
Notably, one defence arises in the form of Third-Party Conduct. Under the THPA, the accused can claim that there was a third-party involved, who was acting without the accused's knowledge or consent, contrary to their wishes and instructions. Ultimately, however, the “burden of proof” lies with the company, which means that the company has to shoulder the burden of providing concrete evidence to show that it was the third-party that caused the pollution, without their consent.
Issuance of Legal Notices
Beyond the legal presumptions within the THPA, harsher methods were also employed in the form of legal notices to compel foreign entities to abide by the Act.
Under Section 9 of the THPA, the National Environmental Agency (NEA) can send “Preventive Measures Notices” to foreign companies that are contributing to haze pollution in Singapore. A Preventive Measures Notice seeks to prevent, reduce or control haze pollution in the region.
This is enforced two-fold, via the imposition of fines, and further extraterritorial reach to gather evidence and pursue legal action against the perpetrators.
One prominent instance wherein such a provision was used was in September 2015. Based on investigations conducted by NEA through the monitoring of hotspots and meteorological data, four companies from Indonesia were served a Preventive Measures Notice. NEA proceeded to request that the companies deploy firefighting personnel and neutralise the agricultural burning, discontinue the burning activities and submit a concrete plan-of-action to curb future instances of pollution.
The investigated company, Asia Pulp & Paper Company, was handed a notice pursuant to Section 10 of the THPA. This legally compelled information on its subsidiaries in Singapore and Indonesia, as well as measures taken by its suppliers in Indonesia to put out fires in their land.
Investigation and Enforcement
Investigations of haze pollution will commence if the 24-hour PSI reaches 101 or higher, for a period of 24 continuous hours or longer. The main driver behind investigation and enforcement efforts for haze pollution is conducted by NEA, which uses satellite imagery and meteorological data to closely monitor hot spots and smoke plumes from fires, and identify the perpetrators involved in contributing to haze pollution. NEA can also legally request information from foreign companies and their concessions, even if the activities are based outside Singapore, to investigate suspected offences.
Stiff penalties in the form of hefty fines and imprisonment are meted out, to curb haze and take legal action against the perpetrators. Perpetrators who are prosecuted under the THPA will be imposed a fine of S$100,000 for every day or part thereof of haze pollution in Singapore. For failing to comply with the Preventive Measures Notices, a fine of S$50,000 will be imposed. Entities who are found guilty under the THPA are subject to a maximum cumulative fine of S$2 million. Additionally, parties affected by the haze pollution are entitled to file civil lawsuits to recover damages for personal injury, property damage or economic loss.
Capacity Building
Besides the THPA, other measures, such as capacity building efforts have played a key role in regional cooperation towards the fight against transboundary haze. Singapore continues to support initiatives to prevent future occurrences of haze, conducting workshops under the Regional Haze Training Network. These workshops are conducted in conjunction with the United Nations Environment Programme.
This programme facilitates the exchange of good practices and successful case studies to address transboundary haze. It showcases innovative tools to help curb haze pollution, identifies regional opportunities for ASEAN member states to focus on sustainable land management, to co-create solutions and address the transboundary impacts of air pollution.
Conclusion
In the THPA, Singapore seems to have formulated a strong response to the issue of transboundary haze. However, some questions remain. What gives the THPA bite over foreign entities? What have been the legal, political and environmental implications associated with the THPA? Find out in the second part of this Policy Explainer.
This Policy Explainer was written by members of MAJU. MAJU is a ground-up, fully youth-led organisation dedicated to empowering Singaporean youths in policy discourse and co-creation.
By promoting constructive dialogue and serving as a bridge between youths and the Government, we hope to drive the keMAJUan (progress!) of Singapore.
The citations to our Policy Explainers can be found in the PDF appended to this webpage.
Comments