Unhealthy air quality in S’pore enough to trigger haze pollution law; NEA is monitoring situation
Shabana Begum
The Straits Times
Oct 12, 2026
Since air quality in Singapore first dipped into unhealthy levels on Sept 4 after a couple of haze-free years, the country has faced several haze episodes that crossed the threshold for its Transboundary Haze Pollution Act to be enacted.
Asked if Singapore will be taking legal action against companies that could be responsible for the haze-belching fires in Indonesia, a spokeswoman for the National Environment Agency (NEA) said only that it “has been closely monitoring the haze situation, gathering information on fire hot spots, their sources and impact on Singapore’s air quality”.
The law, enacted in 2014, targets those responsible for causing or condoning fires if the haze causes the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI), a measure of air quality here, to stay in the unhealthy range in any part of Singapore for 24 hours or more. Air quality is considered unhealthy when PSI levels are 101 and above.
Satellite information, wind speed and direction and meteorological information are used to determine if the smoke from a fire is likely to move in the direction of Singapore.
Those guilty under the Act can be fined up to $100,000 a day, capped at a total of $2 million.
The NEA spokeswoman added that regional cooperation within ASEAN remains crucial in resolving transboundary haze pollution.
She pointed to the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre, hosted by the Meteorological Service Singapore under the NEA. The centre provides early warning advisories and assessments of the current hot spot and smoke haze situation.
Such efforts support ASEAN member states’ prevention and mitigation efforts, she said.
NEA is also in touch with the Jakarta-based Interim ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Transboundary Haze Pollution Control, which is coordinating information sharing among ASEAN member states on the regional fire and haze situation, the NEA spokeswoman added.
While the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre focuses on early warning and hot spot monitoring, the new coordinating centre aims to strengthen preparedness among ASEAN countries and reduce the impact of land and forest fires in the region. It can also mobilise resources to tackle the problem.
On Oct 10, Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu told the media that Singapore stands ready to assist Indonesia amid the worsening haze conditions.
Indonesian officials later welcomed offers of assistance from Singapore and Malaysia, with one disaster management official saying firefighters on the ground could be more useful than helicopters.
Legal threshold breached
The haze episode on Sept 4 had already breached the threshold for Singapore’s anti-haze law to be enacted, when the PSI crept into the “unhealthy” range in the central region at 7am and lingered there until 8pm on Sept 5.
Since then, The Straits Times has counted at least five other instances of unhealthy air quality lingering for more than 24 hours.
Singapore is facing its longest episode of unhealthy air that started on Oct 5; the PSI crept close to the “very unhealthy” range of 201 and above on Oct 9.
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.”
See something interesting? Contribute your story to us.
