Civil society advances causes. Politicians call for action. Media seek compelling stories and can turn allegations into headlines before the evidence catches up.
The problem begins when urgency outruns verification.
A hotspot becomes a corporate hotspot. Geographical association becomes implied causation. Several incidents become “the industry”.
A striking percentage travels halfway around the world while its denominator misses the flight.
Nor is this tendency confined to one side.
Companies may highlight favourable statistics, governments choose convenient comparisons, industry bodies become defensive, campaign groups simplify and journalists sharpen the story.
None is automatically wrong, but all can frame evidence selectively. Balance and context matter.
Public anger is understandable when haze lingers and health is at risk, especially when it crosses borders and people far from the fires bear the health and economic costs.
Asean already has mechanisms for monitoring, prevention and joint response, while Malaysia is again considering a specific transboundary haze law.
Stronger action is welcome, but responsibility for specific fires must still rest on credible evidence, cooperation and due process.
What we need, therefore, is traceability of influence.
If a claim can damage a reputation, affect buying decisions or shape regulation, the evidence and method behind it should withstand scrutiny.
What was measured, where and over what period? Were hotspots verified on the ground? Was the fire’s origin established? What was included or excluded, and what uncertainty remained?
If later evidence changes the picture, does the correction travel with anything approaching the visibility of the original allegation?
These are not anti-environmental questions. They defend evidence, and the same standard should apply to every side.
A company cannot invoke drought, neighbouring fires or outsiders whenever smoke appears and consider the matter closed. If it says a fire came from elsewhere, substantiate it. If firefighting systems exist, demonstrate that they function when conditions turn dangerous. If deliberate burning or negligence is established, accountability should follow.
A certification logo is not a certificate of sainthood, and neither is an advocacy badge. Nobody gets the halo, particularly when the sky is already smoky.
Beyond blame, prevent the next fire
The same balance is needed with smallholders and rural communities, where fire is entangled with a long-standing legacy of poverty and limited choices.
In parts of Indonesia, it has long been a cheap land-clearing tool for actors large and small.
For poorer farmers with limited machinery, credit and extension support, alternatives can be especially hard to afford.
Indonesia has also taken a firmer stance against land clearing by fire, while recognising that tougher enforcement must be matched by practical assistance for communities so burning is not left as the easiest option.
If smaller farmers are expected to abandon burning, practical and affordable alternatives must follow.
Communities need equipment, training, water infrastructure and support.
Enforcement matters, but rules alone cannot solve a problem rooted partly in limited choices.
Fire prevention is not sustainable if those with the fewest resources carry the biggest behavioural burden.
The more useful question is not who wins the argument after the haze arrives, but how fewer fires occur in the first place.
That requires early detection, rapid ground verification, firm enforcement against deliberate burning, better peat and water management, practical alternatives to fire-based clearing, community engagement, adequate equipment and cooperation across boundaries.
It also requires stamina. Firefighters may extinguish a blaze today only to return tomorrow when underground peat or dry vegetation reignites.
Water runs short, equipment needs fuel and crews become exhausted long after the satellite image has left the news cycle.
There is little room for complacency.
The latest Asean seasonal outlook expects El Nino to strengthen through October and November, with below-normal rainfall across much of the Maritime Continent and the regional hotspot and smoke-haze situation remaining elevated, although inter-monsoon showers later in October may offer some relief.
So, we must work harder on the ground and perhaps pray harder for rain.
At the core, identifying those responsible matters, but so does understanding the causes.
Sustainability needs accountability where evidence leads, not convenient culprits, and fewer spectators pointing fingers than participants willing to solve the problem.
Investigate the hotspots. Question plantation operators, regulators and certification systems. Listen to communities. Test campaign claims. Hear the industry’s responses. Understand smallholder realities. But ask all the questions.
If wrongdoing is proven, act firmly. If negligence contributed, accountability should follow. If allegations are overstated, correct them. And if people are risking their health and safety to contain fires, recognise that too.
Sustainability loses credibility when accountability and correction travel only one way.
A satellite can show where unusual heat has appeared. It cannot, by itself, tell us who lit the fire, who failed to prevent it, who allowed it to spread, who inherited someone else’s flames or who spent the night trying to extinguish them.
For those answers, we still need boots on the ground, evidence on the table and a little more humility around it.
Otherwise, every fire season risks generating more heat than light. What South-East Asia needs is the reverse: less heat, more light.
Joseph Tek Choon Yee has over 30 years of experience in the plantation industry, with a strong background in oil palm research and development, C-suite leadership and industry advocacy. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
