Singapore proposed on Wednesday to raise the maximum fine for causing transboundary haze tenfold to S$20 million (US$15.6 million), and to let the government order suppliers, buyers and banks to stop dealing with companies suspected of links to the fires behind it.
The Transboundary Haze Pollution (Amendment) Bill came before Parliament under a rarely used Certificate of Urgency, which lets a bill pass all three readings in one sitting. Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu told the House that Singapore had to act quickly because evidence in ongoing investigations could be lost or altered over time.
The bill follows what the National Environment Agency (NEA) called Singapore’s most severe haze since 2015. This year’s episode could cost Singapore up to S$3.9 billion (US$3.1 billion), about double the S$1.83 billion (US$1.30 billion) lost in 2015, according to Eco-Business calculations.
Passed in 2014, the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act, targets conduct anywhere that causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore. But it has yet to result in a penalty. NEA served notices on six Indonesian companies over the 2015 haze; two investigations closed in 2017, while four remain open.
Fu said enforcement has been hampered by difficulties gathering evidence and securing cooperation from companies outside Singapore.
Strengthening existing provisions
The bill would raise maximum fines tenfold, from S$100,000 (US$78,200) to S$1 million (US$782,000) a day, and the overall cap from S$2 million (US$1.56 million) to S$20 million (US$15.6 million). Courts would also have to order convicted companies to pay any assessable profit gained or loss avoided through the offence.
The proposed changes would also allow action before haze reaches Singapore. Under the existing law, an offence requires actual haze pollution, defined as a poor air quality episode lasting at least 24 hours.
Under the new bill, a company could commit an offence once there is a risk of haze in Singapore. Smoke moving towards Singapore would be presumed to pose a risk unless the company proves otherwise, while a certificate from the Director-General of Environmental Protection confirming that risk would be conclusive evidence in court.
Defences would narrow as well. Companies could no longer argue that haze was caused solely by a grave natural disaster or an act of war. A company blaming someone else for a fire would have to prove that the person was unrelated to it and acted without its knowledge or consent, and that it took all reasonable measures to prevent that conduct and to fight the fire.
“It will no longer be sufficient to simply claim that another person caused the fire,” Fu said.
Companies could not withhold documents on grounds of self-incrimination or confidentiality, and could be presumed to own or occupy land if named in documents granting a concession.
Notices could be served by email and, where other means are impractical, through news media or NEA’s website. Courts could try an accused who ignores a notice to attend court.
New powers target companies’ commercial ties
The Director-General could order a suspected company, or one linked to it through business or corporate ties, to hire private assessors from an official panel to investigate its involvement in fires outside Singapore.
Assessors could enter the company’s land at any time and demand documents and explanations. Although company-funded, they would answer to the Director-General, and their reports would be admissible in court.
Failing to hire assessors or refusing them access would carry a fine of up to S$20 million. An assessment order would not itself establish that a company had committed an offence.
This would give legal force to assessments already under way. NEA served notices on 10 Singapore-registered companies on 23 October. As of Saturday, five had agreed to engage assessors and two more had expressed willingness, the agency said.
The minister could also designate companies and individuals, which would let the government order others to stop supplying, buying from, lending to or insuring them, and to end existing contracts. No conviction would be needed, as the power would cover anyone the minister “knows or has reason to suspect” of an offence. It would also cover those that ignore a notice or receive an adverse report from an assessor, along with their business partners and related companies.
Breaching an order would carry a fine of up to S$1 million (US$782,000). Companies would normally have 14 days to contest a designation.
The minister could also put companies “on notice”, particularly those in forestry and agriculture, according to NEA. They would have to ensure that they do not deal with anyone whose conduct amounts to an offence under the Act, or source goods made using that party’s products. The same penalties would apply.
A separate civil penalty framework would allow NEA, with the Public Prosecutor’s consent, to seek penalties of S$100,000 (US$78,200) to S$10 million (US$7.8 million). Courts could impose these on a balance of probabilities, a lower standard of proof than in criminal cases.
“There are clear provisions to ensure that the entity is not doubly punished – the civil penalty framework cannot be used in tandem with criminal prosecution in any single case,” Fu said.
Amended law could apply to this year’s haze
The assessor, designation and arrest powers would apply retroactively, covering conduct before the law takes effect, such as during this year’s haze.
The bill contains no equivalent wording for the expanded haze offence or higher fines, suggesting they would apply only to conduct after the law takes effect. For this year’s fires, that would leave companies facing the old S$2 million (US$1.56 million) cap in court, but the full commercial curbs outside it.
Fu cautioned that the changes would not guarantee successful prosecutions and that legislation alone would not solve the problem.
“But we must do what we can within our own jurisdiction to protect our people from the harmful effects of haze,” she said.
