When haze can cloud our judgment

MALAYSIANS should not have to become fire investigators to ask for cleaner air.

When smoke crosses borders, frustration is understandable. People want those responsible held accountable and assurance that the same ordeal will not return.

The difficulty is that a satisfying explanation is not always a sufficient one.

Naming a company, blaming a farmer or condemning an entire industry may settle an argument in the comments section. It does considerably less to settle the embers.

After a working life spent largely in plantations, I believe the debate needs to begin with a practical test: will our response help prevent the next fire?

That means examining how land is managed, how quickly danger is detected and whether people have the resources to respond.

Responsibility matters throughout. But identifying a culprit and understanding why a landscape keeps burning are related tasks, not interchangeable ones.

Consider the smaller farmer for whom burning is an inexpensive way to clear land.

A prohibition does not put a machine in the field or make credit affordable. Enforcement needs to come with workable alternatives, equipment and support.

Poverty cannot excuse every harmful practice. Equally, expecting compliance without considering its cost leaves a predictable gap between policy and reality.

Nor should the inquiry end at oil palm. Forestry concessions, other agricultural holdings and community land form part of the wider landscape.

For growers, deliberately burning productive palms makes no commercial sense. Effective prevention requires cooperation across it, including better peat and water management, early warnings, prompt field checks and adequate firefighting capacity.

The people providing that capacity deserve attention too. Government crews, estate employees, villagers, smallholders and volunteers all have a part.

Their work continues after the pictures stop circulating: replenishing water, maintaining firebreaks, checking embers and returning to places thought to be safe.

Acknowledging their effort grants nobody immunity from investigation. It simply recognises that a landscape under scrutiny may also contain people working hard to protect it.

Satellite monitoring is invaluable in directing attention to possible fires. The difficulty comes when an alert is treated as a completed investigation.

Heat detected inside a concession establishes a reason to investigate that location. It does not, on its own, establish the ignition point, who was responsible or whether failures in prevention or response contributed to the damage.

A fire may have started within the holding, crossed from adjacent land or re-emerged from smouldering peat. These possibilities need field evidence, not a preference for whichever explanation suits one's position.

Operators have obligations here. Anyone attributing a fire to neighbouring land should substantiate the claim. Anyone promising effective prevention should demonstrate how those arrangements performed under pressure.

A well-written policy is useful; a functioning response is rather more useful when vegetation is burning.

Prolonged dry weather makes that response harder by increasing flammability and reducing available water.

Peat may continue burning beneath the surface, with renewed flames appearing later. Fewer satellite detections therefore warrant caution before declaring success.

Such conditions help explain the challenge. They do not remove responsibility for deliberate burning or negligent management.

There is another complication: some operators are easier to scrutinise because their boundaries and commitments are public.

Less visible actors may attract less attention simply because information about them is harder to obtain.

The answer is wider scrutiny, not leniency for certified businesses.

Certification sets commitments against which performance should be judged; it neither proves innocence nor makes every fire within a boundary proof of guilt.

Public claims deserve equal scrutiny. Percentages need context: what was counted, excluded and over which period?

Companies and campaigners alike can select figures that are mathematically accurate yet misleading.

Anyone making claims that affect reputations, purchasing or regulation should explain their evidence and give corrections due prominence when findings change.

For Malaysians breathing polluted air, careful investigation may seem frustratingly slow. Yet establishing responsibility accurately makes accountability stronger and corrective action more effective.

Examine operators and regulators. Hear communities. Test industry explanations and campaign allegations. Act firmly on proven wrongdoing and correct unsupported accusations.

Judge progress by better prevention, fair accountability and fewer people breathing the same smoke again.

Cleaner air depends on getting the response right, not merely winning the argument. Every fire season produces enough heat; our public debate should bring more light.