TSH Resources denies operational link to transboundary haze following SGX inquiry

Traders Union
All News
Business & Wealth
Companies
TSH Resources denies link to haze

Highlights

TSH Resources reported 274 hotspots between 1 Jan and 21 Oct 2026, all in community enclaves outside its operating areas, and successfully extinguished them without affecting operations.
The company spends approximately RM2 million annually on fire prevention and firefighting, and has maintained a zero-burning policy across all its concessions since May 2009.
TSH Resources said the issues raised by SGX would have no material impact on its operations or finances, with assets valued at RM964.46 million and a market capitalisation of RM1.46 billion at the end of December 2025.

This article was translated from the original. Read the original version by our correspondent here.

SGX inquiry and the company’s explanation

As reported by The Edge Malaysia, TSH Resources said in a filing with Bursa Malaysia on Thursday that it had not been named or received any notices from environmental agencies in connection with the recent haze, and that the SGX inquiry was a general request for information about the company’s fire prevention and management measures.

The group said 274 hotspots were detected within its estate boundaries between 1 Jan and 21 Oct 2026, but all were in community enclaves outside its planted and operating areas. Its field teams responded by extinguishing the fires, and police reports were filed in connection with the incidents.

TSH Resources also maintained that its operations, concessions and other assets in Indonesia were not affected by the recent forest and peatland fires. The company further stressed that its activities within its concession areas had not contributed to the haze.

The group also disclosed that a localised fire broke out on 17 Aug in the concession land of its 90%-owned subsidiary, PT Bulungan Citra Agro Persada. However, the company said the fire had originated in a community enclave outside the subsidiary’s operating area, was successfully extinguished on the same day, and had been reported to the police, while cooperation with the authorities continued.

Separately, TSH Resources said it received an inquiry from Apical Group’s sustainability department on 1 Sept regarding hotspots at another 90%-owned subsidiary, PT Farinda Bersaudara. The group said the hotspots were also in a community enclave outside its operating area and that Apical was satisfied with the explanation provided, with no further formal inquiries afterward.

Preventive measures and business impact

TSH Resources said it spends approximately RM2 million annually on fire prevention, monitoring and firefighting measures in Indonesia. Its zero-burning policy, formalised in the Group Sustainability Policy in May 2009, prohibits the use of fire for land preparation, new planting and replanting, and applies to all group companies, contractors and suppliers.

The company also said it had not carried out any new planting on peatland since 31 Dec 2015. Its fire prevention measures include satellite-based hotspot monitoring, 28 firefighting squads comprising 425 personnel, 123 fire towers and 11 drones, while all its estates in Indonesia are certified under the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil scheme and undergo regular third-party audits.

According to TSH Resources, the matters raised by SGX are not expected to have any material impact on the group’s operations, finances, legal or regulatory position, or reputation, and no further disclosure via SGXNet is required. According to its 2025 annual report, the group held land interests in several Indonesian provinces and in Tawau, Sabah, with the total net book value of the assets concerned at RM964.46 million as at the end of December 2025.

At Thursday’s market close, TSH Resources shares were unchanged at RM1.14, giving the group a market capitalisation of RM1.46 billion.

In our earlier article on the impact of the 1MDB scandal on corporate governance in Malaysia, we explained how failures in controls and checks and balances sparked debate about board accountability, whistleblower protection and the need for more proactive audits. We also highlighted that internal auditors and boards need to identify risks early and ensure transparent appointment and oversight processes to prevent recurring compliance failures.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.