Deputy minister flags challenges in proving firms' liability for cross-border haze pollution

KUCHING, 13 OCTOBER 2026 —

Malaysia’s push to hold Malaysian firms accountable for overseas haze-linked fires faces critical evidentiary and diplomatic hurdles, Deputy Minister Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh said in Parliament today, warning that securing key data—including fire hotspot coordinates and land ownership records—remains a major obstacle.

The admission underscores the government’s struggle to enforce accountability for transboundary pollution, despite renewed public and environmental group pressure amid worsening haze conditions over the past two months. Syed Ibrahim’s response to Dr. Kelvin Yii (PH-Bandar Kuching) revealed that even if a Transboundary Haze Act were enacted, Malaysia would lack the legal tools to compel foreign jurisdictions to share critical evidence, potentially derailing enforcement efforts.

The deputy minister disclosed that the Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability Ministry had assessed the feasibility of such legislation, identifying three core challenges: evidentiary requirements, enforcement jurisdiction, and diplomatic repercussions with neighboring countries. He emphasized that proving Malaysian companies’ involvement in haze-causing fires abroad—particularly in Indonesia—would require sensitive information, including fire hotspot coordinates, land ownership details, and operational records from the affected regions.

“Such information typically involves issues of confidentiality and the sovereignty of the countries concerned,” he stated, adding that Malaysia would struggle to obtain these without cooperation from foreign authorities.

Syed Ibrahim also clarified that the ministry had not yet received official confirmation from the Foreign Ministry or the Plantation and Commodities Ministry regarding Malaysian firms allegedly linked to fires in Indonesian Kalimantan. While he acknowledged that most fires in the region stem from traditional farming practices—a far larger issue than corporate allegations—he did not rule out summoning Malaysian companies operating in Indonesia if evidence emerged.

“If the allegations were substantiated, the government could consider issuing them a stern warning,” he said, though he provided no timeline or mechanism for such action.

The deputy minister’s remarks revive a long-stalled debate over Malaysia’s 2019 proposal for a Transboundary Haze Act, which was shelved by the Perikatan Nasional administration in 2020. The previous government had cited Singapore’s legal experience and feedback from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, including concerns over evidentiary gaps and the risk of a “cosmetic” solution.

Then-environment minister Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man had argued that securing proof of corporate involvement—particularly in countries like Indonesia—would be nearly impossible without foreign cooperation. His predecessor under Pakatan Harapan, Yeo Bee Yin, had criticized the decision, urging Malaysia to address Singapore’s enforcement weaknesses rather than abandon its own legislative efforts.

The haze crisis has intensified in recent weeks, prompting Greenpeace Malaysia to renew calls for legislative action. Campaign manager Heng Kiah Chun stated last week that the proposed law could no longer be delayed, given the health impacts on Malaysian communities. The deputy minister did not directly address the renewed urgency, but his acknowledgment of enforcement hurdles suggests that even if political will exists, legal and diplomatic barriers remain insurmountable without foreign collaboration.

For Malaysian firms operating in Indonesia’s palm oil and plantation sectors—where haze-linked fires are a recurring issue—the deputy minister’s comments carry significant implications. While no specific companies were named, the Plantation and Commodities Ministry’s involvement in verifying allegations indicates that scrutiny may extend to firms with overseas operations.

However, without a clear legal framework or foreign cooperation, enforcement risks remaining symbolic, leaving Malaysian businesses exposed to both reputational damage and potential foreign regulatory action if haze links are proven.

The outlook for a Transboundary Haze Act remains uncertain, with Syed Ibrahim’s remarks suggesting that the government is prioritizing diplomatic solutions over legislative ones. His emphasis on traditional farming practices as the primary cause of fires in Kalimantan further shifts focus away from corporate accountability, at least for now.

Without concrete steps to address evidentiary gaps or secure foreign cooperation, Malaysia’s ability to hold overseas-linked firms responsible for haze will depend on ad hoc warnings rather than enforceable legal action. The next critical step will be whether the Foreign Ministry and Plantation and Commodities Ministry provide the deputy minister’s office with verified allegations against Malaysian companies—though even then, enforcement would hinge on Indonesia’s willingness to share data.