MPs Debate Haze Law Amendments and Increased Penalties
Parliament passed amendments to strengthen Singapore’s haze law after a six-hour debate, raising maximum fines and expanding legal scope. MPs questioned penalty adequacy and timeline for enforcement.
The amendments, passed following extensive parliamentary discussion, grant authorities enhanced powers to investigate and act against firms linked to regional fires. Under the changes, the maximum fine for those found guilty of causing or contributing to fires increased from $2 million to $20 million. A civil penalty framework with a maximum fine of $10 million was also added, providing an alternative route when criminal proof standards are not met.
MPs raised concerns about the penalty level relative to company profits. For a corporation earning $500 million annually, the $20 million fine represents just 4% of revenue. The minister noted turnover-based fines were considered but an absolute figure was chosen due to difficulties obtaining entity financial information. The amendments are not retroactive, leaving ongoing investigations from 2015 cases unaffected.
The legal scope now includes the risk of haze, allowing authorities to act based on scientific and meteorological data even when smoke plumes have not drifted to Singapore. Proving “reasonable likelihood” of air quality deterioration through unfavorable weather and significant forest fires triggers wider enforcement options. The law can be triggered when haze causes the Pollutant Standards Index to remain unhealthy for 24 hours or more.
MPs addressed root causes, particularly peatland drainage in Indonesia for plantation agriculture. Sustainable land management, fire prevention, and ecosystem restoration were recommended as long-term complements to enforcement. The minister clarified the law is not restricted to peatland fires and details like water table requirements can be developed for specific cases.
The government acknowledges limitations in investigating all landowners and securing evidence. While the new tools provide more paths for action, successful prosecution depends on satisfying court elements and available proof. The amendments give agencies more options but cannot guarantee prosecution of all potential offenders.