Singapore employers face enforcement risk under haze guidance, lawyer warns

Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has told Parliament that adherence to its haze guidelines is now mandatory, moving haze planning out of the seasonal advisory file and onto the compliance agenda for HR leaders, according to one expert.

The guidelines set out how employers should protect outdoor workers during haze, from planning work around the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) forecast to adjusting outdoor activity as one-hour fine-particle (PM2.5) readings rise. Since September 2026, MOM has carried out more than 500 worksite inspections to check compliance.

For Thomas Choo, Managing Partner at Clyde & Co Clasis Singapore, the message is clear: haze guidance now carries real legal exposure, even though it does not take the form of a statutory limit.

Why the guidance carries legal weight

The guidance sets no new statutory exposure limit, but Choo says that does not make it optional. 

“MOM has said that it assesses compliance with the haze guidelines during workplace inspections and that egregious non-compliance may result in enforcement action under the WSH Act, including stop-work orders and composition fines,” he says.

The underlying duty sits in the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 (WSH Act), which requires employers to assess risks and take reasonably practicable measures to control them.

The guidance shows employers what meeting that duty looks like in practice. It became more demanding when MOM issued additional guidance to protect workers from haze in October 2026, requiring employers to adjust outdoor work during the day as air quality changes.

What should employers record during haze?

Meeting that duty is only half the task. Employers must also be able to prove they did. “The key point is evidence of a dynamic risk-assessment process rather than simply keeping a log of air-quality readings,” Choo says.

A sound record, he said, captures the PM2.5 reading, the nature and duration of the work, whether vulnerable workers were involved, and the response. That response might include rescheduling strenuous tasks, job rotation, indoor rest breaks or respiratory protection.

Records made at the time put employers in a far stronger position if an inspection or incident follows. They show not just what the conditions were, but what the employer considered and did about them.

Table 1: Planning the next day’s work using the PSI forecast

Table 2: Adjusting work during the day using one-hour PM2.5 readings

Protecting vulnerable workers

Those records matter most at the top of MOM’s scale. At one-hour PM2.5 readings of 251 µg/m³ or above, outdoor work should be prohibited for vulnerable employees and minimised for healthy ones.

MOM counts older and pregnant workers, and those with chronic heart or lung conditions, as vulnerable. Identifying them raises the stakes for employer duty of care during Singapore haze episodes.

Choo warns against collecting more medical data than necessary, since the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA) still applies. “From an employment perspective, the information should be used protectively rather than adversely,” he said.

What should principals write into contracts?

On multi-tiered worksites, the risks multiply. “The use of contractors does not mean that responsibility for workplace safety simply disappears up the contractual chain,” Choo says. Under the WSH Act, a principal that instructs a contractor on how work is done takes on employer-level duties.

Choo expects contracts to set out who monitors air quality and conducts risk assessments, and how vulnerable personnel are protected. They should also say who supplies and fit-tests respirators, who can reduce or suspend outdoor work, and how concerns are escalated between contractor tiers. “However, contractual allocation is not a substitute for compliance with statutory duties,” he says.

Compensation is a further exposure. The Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) lets eligible employees claim for work-related injuries and diseases without suing. Choo says whether a haze-related illness qualifies depends on the facts and its link to employment.

Guidance or binding thresholds?

The enforcement push follows an October 2026 question from MP Jackson Lam on whether clearer thresholds were needed. Choo believes the guidance-led model remains defensible. 

“But workplace risk is not determined by air quality alone,” he says. “The same PM2.5 level may present quite different risks depending on the intensity and duration of the work, the worker’s health and the effectiveness of the protective measures available.”

Singapore is not the first in the region to face this test. Malaysia’s ministry previously urged firms to let staff work from home amid dangerous haze. For Choo, the gap lies in awareness rather than law.

“The real question, in my view, is less whether every PM2.5 threshold should become a statutory limit, and more whether employers understand that failure to follow the guidance can already have legal consequences under the existing WSH framework,” he says.