Beyond the Haze: Indonesia’s Response and the Future of Regional Cooperation
The recurring haze crisis affecting parts of Southeast Asia demonstrates that Indonesia’s forest and land fire problem remains unresolved. Its consequences are felt by communities in Sumatra and Kalimantan, but they also extend to neighbouring countries, particularly Malaysia and Singapore. Respiratory problems, deteriorating air quality, disruptions to daily activities, and school closures are serious consequences that should not be underestimated. Neighbouring countries therefore have legitimate reasons to express concern.
However, interpreting the situation solely as evidence of Indonesia’s failure to manage forest fires would provide an incomplete picture. Recent developments in government policy, field operations, and regional diplomacy also deserve consideration. The challenge is not to choose between defending the Indonesian government and endorsing criticism from neighbouring countries. It is to understand the problem comprehensively, distinguish between policy efforts and actual results, and assess responsibility on the basis of evidence.
First, the government’s response should be assessed through operational outcomes, not merely through criticism or the number of personnel deployed.
In its 3 November 2026 report, ABC News highlighted the experiences of Singaporean and Malaysian residents affected by recurring haze from Indonesian fires. Several residents expressed frustration that the same problem continued to return. Their experiences are an important part of the crisis, particularly because air pollution does not respect administrative or national borders.
However, other facts should also be considered. Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) reported that 71,878 personnel had been deployed across six priority provinces as of 21 October 2026. The response involved ground firefighting, aerial support, water-bombing helicopters, and weather-modification operations. BNPB also reported that more than 502 hectares of the 983 hectares targeted for firefighting operations in the six priority provinces had been extinguished during that reporting period. Fires outside those provinces continued to require further attention.
On 27 October, BNPB reported that 51,057 ground task-force personnel were operating in four provinces. This figure refers to a different reporting date and geographical scope, and should therefore not be added to the earlier figure of 71,878 personnel. These figures indicate that the government has mobilised substantial resources, although the scale of deployment alone does not establish the success of the response.
This is where policy evaluation needs to become more objective. The government cannot rely solely on announcing personnel numbers, equipment, and firefighting operations. The public also needs information on the development of burned areas, hotspot numbers, air quality, the recovery of affected communities, and the outcomes of law-enforcement measures. Conversely, criticism of the government should also take account of the actions already undertaken rather than measuring the response exclusively through individual experiences or images of smoke-covered cities.
Forest and land fires involve several interacting factors, including weather conditions, peatland characteristics, land governance, economic activities, and enforcement capacity. El Nio and prolonged dry conditions can increase fire risks, but they do not eliminate human or corporate responsibility when fires are deliberately started or regulations are violated. Government action must therefore combine emergency firefighting with prevention, concession monitoring, law enforcement, and ecosystem restoration.
Second, the haze crisis should move from diplomatic tension towards cross-border law enforcement.
One important aspect of ABC’s report is the rising diplomatic tension between Indonesia and its neighbours. Remarks by an Indonesian government official that were perceived as downplaying the impact of the haze prompted criticism in Singapore. In Malaysia, several politicians also called for Indonesia to assume greater responsibility. This situation demonstrates how an environmental issue can quickly develop into a matter of national reputation and bilateral relations.
Government communication is therefore important. Air pollution that affects public health should not be addressed through statements that may be interpreted as dismissive. Environmental diplomacy requires empathy, transparent information, and a willingness to explain concrete measures.
Nevertheless, subsequent diplomatic developments also deserve attention. Singapore’s Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan visited Jakarta, and the two countries agreed to establish a joint task force. The mechanism is intended to facilitate information exchange, assist the identification of companies linked to fires, and strengthen law enforcement against proven violations contributing to transboundary pollution.
Singapore has also summoned representatives of ten companies affiliated with the country and allegedly linked to the fires. These summonses do not establish that the companies have been found guilty. However, they indicate that the response is increasingly addressing a more fundamental issue: corporate accountability and cross-border business structures.
This development matters because forest fires cannot always be understood solely by identifying the geographical location where they occur. Corporate ownership structures, concession management, financing sources, and cross-border business relationships also require examination. Companies that benefit from land-based economic activities must comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate. Where violations are proven, accountability should extend beyond administrative warnings.
The haze crisis should therefore not be framed simply as a conflict between Indonesia and Singapore or between Indonesia and Malaysia. Bilateral cooperation can instead help ensure that companies responsible for proven violations cannot evade accountability because their business structures extend across several jurisdictions.
