The skies above Singapore turned a bruised grey as a wave of transboundary haze pushed the 24-hour pollutant standard index (PSI) past 220, into very unhealthy territory and marking the city-state’s longest continuous stretch of poor air quality in over a decade.
As the actual smoke choked the horizon, a toxic fog of political rhetoric clouded diplomatic channels between Jakarta and Singapore. The haze should be a shared reckoning over illegal forest burning. But it instead spiraled into a campaign of official hostility from Indonesia, with threats of economic retaliation and attempts to manufacture an external foe.
To understand how bilateral tensions reached this fever pitch, one must return to the root of the crisis: the haze itself. The Singapore government recently raised the prospect of revising the Transboundary Haze Act to give Singaporean authorities greater power to investigate and prosecute firms allegedly engaged in, or linked to, illegal forest and land burning in Indonesia.
Rather than welcoming a partner in the fight against environmental degradation, Jakarta’s reaction was defensive and openly hostile. Commentators and officials initially claimed that Singaporean and Malaysian companies operating on the ground orchestrated much of the burning. Syahganda Nainggolan, Head of the Government Communication Agency, infamously said, “We do not just send smoke; when there is no smoke, we send oxygen.”
To which Malaysian politician Andrew Chen Kah Eng, whose country is also affected by the haze alongside Singapore, responded, “We Malaysians are suffering, yet you are making fun of our health.”
It was messy.
Soon, the rhetoric escalated from defensive posturing to outright attacks. Former Trade Minister Muhammad Lutfi took to Instagram to lambast Singapore, accusing the city-state of profiting from Indonesian businesses that house their headquarters and family offices there, while publicly airing grievances about corporate practices like transfer pricing.
While Lutfi is now just a regular citizen with plausible deniability that his attacks were coordinated with the government, actual ministers in the Prabowo administration then went on to propose actions that escalate the tension between the two countries:
Coordinating Energy Transition Minister Bahlil Lahadalia threatened to cut off gas exports to Singapore.
Communications and Digital Minister Meutya Hafid responded to a statement by a Singaporean Non-Elected MP by warning that 80 percent of internet connectivity in Singapore would be disrupted if undersea cables get cut.
Deputy Hajj and Umrah Minister Dahnil Anzar suggested that Indonesian pilgrims undertaking Umrah travel should deliberately avoid airlines transiting through Singapore.
These responses risk shifting the debate away from the original objective: holding those responsible accountable. Threats to disrupt essential economic and regional connectivity raise broader stakes, potentially imposing costs on businesses and communities far removed from the alleged environmental violations.
Understanding this shift in narrative calls us to look beyond the diplomatic exchanges themselves to the domestic political dynamics shaping the response. There is, after all, a certain political convenience in having a neighbor to blame. Framing Singapore as an adversary offers a ready outlet for public frustration, while drawing away from the uncomfortable reality of governance shortcomings.
Whether deliberate or not, this framing glosses over a contradiction: the primary victims of the haze are not in Singapore or Malaysia; they are Indonesians themselves. Citizens of Sumatra and Kalimantan bear the brunt of the toxic air, breathing smoke from fires set on their own soil. By picking a fight with Singapore over accountability, Indonesia risks losing sight of its own people whose health and livelihoods are compromised every single year. Their needs are more urgent and tangible than loud displays of national pride.
The administration’s turn towards confrontation reflects a failure of both strategic thinking and solution-oriented leadership. At a time when Indonesia needs stronger enforcement and cross-border cooperation to hold polluters accountable, it is choosing to escalate a diplomatic dispute. Singapore’s move to hold firms within its jurisdiction gives Indonesia leverage to strengthen enforcement against their local operations.
The two countries could coordinate investigations, share relevant financial and corporate information, and improve cross-border enforcement. This would do far more to advance Indonesia’s interest than threats of retaliation that risk undermining the very collaboration needed to address the problem.
Grievances over transfer pricing and other corporate practices are serious and deserve scrutiny, but Indonesia should address them through rigorous auditing, tax reform, and institutional oversight. Conflating these issues with efforts to prevent illegal land-clearing only muddies the agenda. Indonesia can challenge those questionable corporate practices and defend its economic interests without turning every disagreement into a diplomatic showdown
It is time for Jakarta to de-escalate. Ministers threatening infrastructure and supply chains should step back, lower the temperature, and return to the negotiating table. The smoke hanging over Southeast Asia will not clear through threats of broadband cutoffs or gas embargoes. It will clear only when both countries recognize a common enemy: the corporate actors who treat our shared environment as disposable.
Nationalism should not be measured by how loudly officials protest when another country challenges Indonesia, nor should national dignity be so fragile that every disagreement becomes an affront requiring retaliation. It is time to stop fighting each other and start fighting the fire.