Haza Drama: Why Current Measures Won't Solve the Problem

The Haze Drama: Why Our Current Measures Will Never Solve the Problem

Every time the haze returns, the same drama begins.

The skies turn grey. People complain. Governments exchange statements. Authorities promise tougher enforcement. Businesses worry. Families check the air quality index.

Then the rain comes, the skies clear, and everyone moves on.

Until the next haze.

The problem is not that we don't know how to fight haze. It is that we have not made preventing haze more rewarding than causing it.

Haze is not simply an environmental problem. It is also a problem of economics, incentives, accountability and governance.

The 2026 haze crisis exposes the weakness of our approach

On 16 October, Singapore's National Environment Agency issued preventive notices to seven companies with land concessions in Indonesia, requiring action to prevent or extinguish fires. 

Meanwhile, Indonesia has deployed tens of thousands of personnel to fight the fires and has now agreed to accept foreign assistance. 

These are necessary measures. But they reveal four fundamental weaknesses in how we deal with haze.

First, we react after the damage has begun. Firefighting, emergency assistance and public-health advisories are important. But once peatlands are burning underground, extinguishing the fires becomes extraordinarily difficult.

Second, pollution crosses borders, but enforcement does not travel as easily. Singapore can investigate and pursue companies under its laws, but identifying responsibility, obtaining evidence and enforcing penalties across jurisdictions remain difficult.

Third, the economic incentives are wrong. Where burning is used because it is cheaper than responsible land clearing, the benefits may go to particular operators while the health, environmental and economic costs fall on millions of people.

Fourth, diplomatic commitments are not the same as measurable results. ASEAN has a framework and a goal of a haze-free region by 2030. But commitments must translate into fewer fires, healthier peatlands and credible accountability. 

What would actually make a difference?

We need to shift from managing the smoke to preventing the fires.

That means making responsible land management economically viable, helping smallholders adopt alternatives to burning, restoring vulnerable peatlands, tracking concession-level fire risks, and holding companies accountable throughout their supply chains.

Businesses, financiers and major buyers also have a role. Companies should not be able to celebrate low production costs while transferring the environmental costs to society.

This is where Financial Governance and Strategy becomes critical.

A business that earns profits by imposing hidden costs on millions of people is not creating sustainable value. It is transferring costs to others.

And this is where Love Intelligence (LQ) matters:

• Care for the health and livelihoods of people affected by the haze.
• Courage to confront practices that reward short-term gains at the expense of long-term sustainability.
• Connection among governments, businesses, communities and consumers to develop solutions that work for everyone.

The real test

We should not judge success by how quickly the haze disappears after the next rainfall.

We should judge it by whether fewer fires are started before the next dry season.

Rain can clear the skies. Only better governance, incentives and human responsibility can prevent the haze from returning.

The question is no longer simply, “When will the haze end?”

It is:

“What are we willing to change so that it does not keep coming back?”