Who is Really Behind the Indonesian Fires?

Murray Hunter


Who is Really Behind the Indonesian Fires?


Oct 30, 2026



Picture: Down To Earth



The seasonal haze that once again blanketed much of Southeast Asia in 2026 has produced the familiar cycle of satellite hotspot maps, school closures, respiratory wards filling up, and official statements carefully calibrated to minimise domestic political damage.

This time, however, an Indonesian environmental group has refused to let the story settle into the usual fog of mutual recrimination. Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (Walhi) has published its actor-mapping analysis, “Who Are Behind the Fires?”, identifying 21 companies linked to Malaysian business groups whose concessions showed active hotspots or fire incidents between January and September 2026. The findings directly contradict the Malaysian government’s earlier insistence that no Malaysian plantation companies were involved.

Walhi’s data is stark. Satellite monitoring recorded at least 30,927 hotspots across Indonesia in the first nine months of the year. Nearly half fell inside oil-palm and forestry concession boundaries. West Kalimantan alone accounted for 9,529 hotspots; Central Kalimantan another 7,141. Air quality in affected areas repeatedly hit unhealthy to hazardous levels.

The NGO’s analysis does not stop at the Indonesian subsidiaries. It traces ownership and affiliation upward, revealing parent companies and principal shareholders based primarily in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong, with further financial links extending into the British Virgin Islands, Samoa and other low-transparency jurisdictions.

Haze in Singapore: Bloomberg


A complementary analysis published by Windonesia (drawing on Tenggara Strategics and carried by The Jakarta Post) sharpens the picture. It singles out nine corporations tightly linked to major fire hotspots—PT Kayung Agro Lestari, PT Panca Surya Agrindo, PT Arjuna Utama Sawit, PT Sumber Mardhika Graha, PT Finnantara Intiga, PT Hutan Ketapang Industri, PT Mayawana Persada, PT Hermes Sugar Indonesia and PT Globalindo Alam Perkasa, whose ultimate ownership structures point overwhelmingly to Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong, plus the usual offshore vehicles.

Beyond these nine, an estimated 93 companies affiliated with Malaysian and Singaporean palm-oil conglomerates appear in the broader fire data. Of these, roughly 66 connect to Singapore-headquartered groups (Sinar Mas and Wilmar dominating), while 27 trace back to Malaysian conglomerates, notably Sime Darby and Genting. The opacity is deliberate and structural: beneficial ownership frequently terminates in jurisdictions that shield the real decision-makers.

This is not a new pattern. Greenpeace Indonesia and Pantau Gambut had already flagged Malaysian and Singaporean entities among the top 20 linked to haze sources in the August–early October window, naming Kuala Lumpur Kepong (via PT Menteng Jaya Sawit Perdana) among others. Some of the same Indonesian entities had appeared in 2019 fire analyses.

Recurrence is the point. The same corporate groups keep reappearing because the underlying land-use model—large-scale peat drainage and conversion enabled by state-issued concessions—has never been fundamentally altered.

Malaysian officialdom has responded with practised denial. On 16 October, government spokesman Fahmi Fadzil stated that checks by the Plantation and Commodities Ministry found no Malaysian plantation companies involved, where most observed fires lay outside their concessions.

Plantation and Commodities Minister Noraini Ahmad later reiterated that Malaysian Palm Oil Board monitoring showed fires starting outside Malaysian-owned estates and spreading inward because of extreme heat and prolonged dry conditions.

Individual companies have issued similar statements. SD Guthrie insisted there is no credible evidence its subsidiaries caused fires, noted that many named entities are not under its ownership or control, and highlighted its own firefighting expenditure. Genting Plantations and KLK both maintained that fires entered their concessions from outside and were extinguished.

Walhi’s counter is simple and grounded in Indonesian law. Concession holders remain responsible for preventing and controlling fires inside their areas regardless of where the ignition occurred. Negligence in maintaining firebreaks, water tables on peat, or rapid response teams is itself a breach. The legal distinction between “we didn’t start it” and “we failed to stop it on our land” is precisely where accountability usually evaporates.

The deeper problem is structural. Decades of peatland drainage and forest conversion—facilitated by successive Indonesian administrations—have created a landscape primed for fire.

Foreign capital, particularly from Malaysia and Singapore, has been central to the expansion. Complex cross-border ownership, layered through Hong Kong holding companies and classic tax-haven vehicles, makes it extraordinarily difficult to pierce the corporate veil. When fires occur, responsibility fragments across borders, regulators retreat behind jurisdictional arguments, and the public in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia continues to breathe the consequences.

Indonesian authorities have begun to act. The Forestry Ministry has imposed administrative sanctions on 32 companies (names still largely undisclosed). Police are investigating 97 corporations and have named 20 as suspects, including four foreign-invested entities from Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea. Singapore has issued preventive measures notices to several Indonesian-operating firms under its Transboundary Haze Pollution Act. Walhi itself is preparing citizen lawsuits in Indonesia and exploring action against parent entities in Singapore, where the legal pathway is clearer than in Malaysia, which still lacks equivalent legislation.

Yet these steps remain reactive. The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution has never possessed meaningful enforcement teeth. Malaysian officials continue to speak of “no conclusive evidence” while preferring desk-based cross-checks with company self-reporting over independent, on-the-ground verification of the kind Walhi demands. The result is a recurring regional public-health and environmental emergency in which the economic beneficiaries of the concession system, whether headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore or Hong Kong operate at a comfortable distance from the smoke.

The 2026 season has once again demonstrated that satellite data and ownership mapping can identify patterns that official statements prefer to obscure. Until parent companies, beneficial owners and the governments that host them are held to the same standard of responsibility as the local concession holders, the haze will return with the dry season.

The question is no longer whether Malaysian-linked capital is present in the fire landscape. The evidence shows it is. The question is whether the political will exists, in Putrajaya as much as in Jakarta, to treat that presence as a matter of accountability rather than an inconvenience to be denied.

The Coming General Election Is Really Just a Hobson’s Choice

Murray Hunter


The Coming General Election Is Really Just a Hobson’s Choice


13 hours ago





A Hobson’s choice is a free choice in which only one option is actually offered. As a consequence, you take what is presented or you take nothing at all. That is the reality of politics in Malaysia today.

No matter which party or coalition you vote for, a coalition-of-the-unwilling will almost certainly form after the election and continue implementing essentially the same set of policies.

History has repeatedly confirmed this pattern. The forces surrounding power and government in Malaysia ensure that drastic policy shifts remain rare, even if the window dressing changes. The continuity is structural rather than accidental.

On the Peninsula, the Malay vote has polarised into two broad camps, one of which has been repeatedly weakened by internal splits. In the north and on the east coast, PAS functions as far more than a conventional political party. Rather, it is a deep-rooted community movement that absorbs the bulk of Malay support. UMNO, by contrast, has practised a politics of division and infighting that has fractured it into multiple parties—an outcome not unlike the fractures seen in many Malay families.

Former UMNO members now populate PKR, Bersatu, and newer vehicles such as Wawasan. This fragmentation produces hung parliaments in which the Federal Constitution leaves it to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to help fashion a stable government from among these parties in one configuration or another.

Until now, East Malaysian parties have largely tagged onto the eventual winner and joined the governing coalition.

That is why Malaysian politics remains a Hobson’s choice. Voters may cast their ballots believing their choice can make a decisive difference, yet the probable outcome is clear: a new government that pursues substantially the same policies, merely packaged differently.

There are advantages to this continuity. Economic and foreign policies remain relatively stable, as do the residual frameworks of the New Economic Policy. The disadvantage is equally clear: genuine reformers are systematically constrained in their ability to advance a deeper reformasi agenda.

This is the structural reality of Malaysia today.

Why it’s less of a ‘hassle’ for guides to bring tourists to Batu Caves temple than Putrajaya Mosque

Why it’s less of a ‘hassle’ for guides to bring tourists to Batu Caves temple than Putrajaya Mosque

SOMETIMES an honest opinion goes a long way to correct misperception so that constructive measures can be made to seek improvement.

Such is the case with the question posed by Threader (@ziercuben) as to why foreign visitors to Malaysia like to flock the Sri Subramaniar Swamy Temple in Batu Caves than Putrajaya Mosque by the lakeside of the man-made Putrajaya Lake.

“Likewise, when it comes to an eating place, the main locations have to be Jalan Alor/ Changkat Bukit Bintang or Petaling Street a.k.a. Chinatown instead of Kampung Baru,” lamented the self-proclaimed truth-seeker.

“It seems like this is the template for foreigners to travel. Where has Malaysia’s tourism gone wrong from the beginning?”

For starters, one commenter argued that Batu Caves “is one of Malaysia’s iconic landmarks other than the KLCC Twin Towers”.

“Just like other famous landmarks around the world, tourists want to visit and take photos there. A photo with Batu Caves in the background simply says, “Yes, I’ve been to Malaysia!” That’s the beauty of having an iconic landmark.”

This is when one Muslim commenter who perhaps is familiar with the administrative centre suggested to the poster to “try going to the Putrajaya Mosque during the day tine”.

“So many tourists queuing up there. There’ re even tour guides there,” he quipped.

Even if KLCC, Batu Caves and Genting Highlands are deemed the golden triangle of Malaysia’s tourism, a Putrajaya resident and a Grab e-hailing driver vouched that busloads of Chinese tourists make up the bulk of foreign visitors to the Putrajaya Mosque.


Strict dress code, past phobia

This is when one events consultant highlighted that visit itinerary very much hinges on the tour guides.

“How many are Malays? I used to work in the hospitality industry whereby most of the tour guides who bring our foreign guests around are non-Malay. This isn’t me being racist; it’s just a fact,” he reasoned out.

Going deeper into why the Batu Caves temple is preferred over the Putrajaya Mosque from a practicality stand-pont, one non-Muslim Malaysian recounted the unfortunate incident of him being barred entry “because I’m not a Muslim”.

“I was dressed modestly, long pants and shirt and yet was denied entrance,” he revealed

“A tourist attraction in its name is a place that attracts tourists and they’re able to visit it and soak in the attraction. But a mosque is a place of worship, it’s not suitable as an attraction.”

Delving further, even though the Batu Caves temple is also a house of worship, “respectfully, unlike Islam’s place of worship, Hindu place of worship welcomes anyone as long as they’re dressed modestly”.

Editor’s Note: According to Putrajaya Tours, non-Muslim visitors can enter the Putra Mosque a.k.a. the Pink Mosque provided they visit outside of daily prayer times, notably Saturdays to Thursdays from 9am to 12.30pm, 2pm to 4pm and 5.30pm to 6pm & Fridays from 3pm to 4pm and 5.30pm to 6pm.

Robes are available for free at the entrance.

Another non-Muslim shared a somehow similar unpleasantness when he bumped into “a preacher at the courtyard preaching to a group of people while bringing a tourist to the Putrajaya Mosque”.

“He said anyone who is not a Muslim like me (pointing a finger at me as I walked past) will be burned eternally in hell. So why do I want to bring people there again?”

One commenter, too, recalled his past phobia while doing voluntary work in a mosque as an undergraduate in Melaka.

“One of the days saw us going to the mosque to give out free foods. And I was told by someone that as a kafir (infidel), I was not allowed to enter the mosque …” he stressed.

“That tells you a lot. Problem might not be coming from others but the natural exclusivity attribute of your religion, like you are either Muslim or kafir (najis). No hate, just saying what’s in my mind.”

Religious values aside, one netizen harped on the physical distance in that “Batu Caves is easy to get to by taking the commuter train but the pink mosque in Putrajaya requires taking the train plus a grab or bus”.

“There’s no walking distance station. Most tourists find the place they want to go to practical if it’s near a train station or metro. It’s easy to budget the timing and uncertainty of not being able to get a Grab or bus during peak season,” he justified. – Nov 3, 2026

Israeli intelligence activities, settlements in Phuket, southern Thailand seen as potential threats to Malaysia: Anwar

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has reminded the public not to assume that security threats occurring in other countries are too distant to affect Malaysia. - Bernama pic, November 3, 2026


Israeli intelligence activities, settlements in Phuket, southern Thailand seen as potential threats to Malaysia: Anwar


Anwar says all ministers, ministries and agencies had been instructed to continue carrying out their responsibilities by ensuring effective coordination, while the bodies under their supervision had been told to remain prepared, particularly the security forces


Scoop Reporters
Updated 6 hours ago
3 November, 2026
12:01 PM MYT



KUALA LUMPUR – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has reminded the public not to assume that security threats occurring in other countries are too distant to affect Malaysia.

The Prime Minister cited concerns over Israeli intelligence activities operating in neighbouring countries and Israeli settlements in Phuket and southern Thailand, which are viewed as potential threats to the country.

“We are disclosing this information to the public, which is why the National Security Council (NSC) advised me yesterday to issue a statement today.

“This is to remind all Honourable Members and the public not to think that these threats are far away from us, as what has happened in Europe, the United States and Japan has caused considerable alarm in those countries.

“We are still monitoring other developments involving tensions in the West Asian conflict, developments in Yemen and the Red Sea, as well as security threats in Europe, which demonstrate that crises abroad can affect the safety of the people, economic stability and national interests,” he said.

He said this when delivering a statement on the country’s security preparedness in facing developments in geopolitical conflicts and regional and international security tensions in the Dewan Rakyat today.

The Prime Minister said that although not all information could be disclosed, Malaysia was certainly among the countries considered potential targets.

“There are two reasons. Firstly, our strength in digital technology and data centres is among the strongest. Based on the latest figures, for instance, our capabilities are comparable to those of Europe.

“Secondly, our firm stance on several issues considered controversial by certain countries, particularly in Europe and the United States, especially on Palestine and Gaza,” he said.

Anwar also said the government had taken note of measures by several countries, including the European Union (EU), Canada and Japan, which had issued directives and advisories urging their citizens to maintain food supplies sufficient for three to 10 days.

“This is due to the uncertain international situation, particularly following widespread and alarming cyberattacks targeting digital infrastructure across Europe and the Western world, including administrative systems,” he said.

Elaborating further, Anwar said yesterday’s special National Security Council (NSC) meeting also examined hybrid digital and cyberattacks, as well as whether the threats and attacks against several Gulf countries, particularly Iran, could affect the use of nuclear weapons.

He said the meeting also assessed whether political developments in Europe could affect the country’s administrative systems.

“This afternoon, the Chief Secretary to the Government will chair a meeting with all relevant departments, while the Governor of Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) will hold a special session with all domestic financial institutions.

“We have also drawn lessons from the European Union’s preparedness approach, the EU Preparedness Union Strategy, in dealing with any form of threat involving the entire government machinery, private sector and the public,” he said.

Anwar also said all ministers, ministries and agencies had been instructed to continue carrying out their responsibilities by ensuring effective coordination, while the bodies under their supervision had been told to remain prepared, particularly the security forces.

He said the NSC meeting had also provided him with assurances on the country’s preparedness from the Chief of Defence Force and the Inspector-General of Police.

“May Allah protect and safeguard our beloved Malaysia,” he said. – November 3, 2026

Malays vindicate “often-made scapegoats Chinese” for involvement in ‘dead chicken’ distribution cartel

Malays vindicate “often-made scapegoats Chinese” for involvement in ‘dead chicken’ distribution cartel

THE recent exposé of a chicken processing plant in Kampung Sri Aman Hilir, Puchong being raided for processing around 40,000 birds daily – or some 14.6 million birds annually – amid severe halal and safety violations has sparked furore among Muslim consumers given the premises could have been operating for the past 10 to 20 years.

Venting their frustration on the seemingly relevant authorities, namely the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (JAKIM) and Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry on their enforcement oversights, some went as far as vindicating the Chinese as culprits or mastermind behind the plant’s operations.

“Always looking for loopholes to fault the Chinese yet it turns out that it’s a Malay company that slaughters and distributes ayam bangkai (literally dead chicken; a slang to denote violations in the slaughtering process),” fumed Threader @iszam86. “Tens of thousands (birds) every day.”



“Enough of 24-hour racist chanting of the Chinese wanting to control Malaysia,” Fadhil Razak (@fadquadra) ticked off his rightist brethren.



“Suddenly it turned out that the company that sells dead chicken for consumption belongs to a Malay owner.”



Millennial Mohammad Redzuan (@mhd.redz.one) harped on the great misfortune of “a Malay feeding fellow Malay with dead chicken”.



“All this time, I’m afraid to enter a Chinese-owned restaurant, worried sick about whether it’s halal or not, even with the ‘no pork, no lard’ claim,” he lamented.



‘Muslims betraying Muslims’



This was when one H.R (@aziezani) claimed that he has received “confirmation that the owner of the slaughterhouse that sells 40,000 dead chicken (daily) is a Malay Muslim with the Datuk title”.

“Lucky I never bought from there even though I often passed by shops in the areas,” he shared.



The revelation follows mounting curiosity among netizens for confirmation if the chicken processing plant in Puchong does indeed belong to a Malay and if so, “doesn’t the owner feel guilty selling dead chicken to Muslims”.



Interestingly, many Chinese netizens ‘consoled’ their frustrated compatriots who vindicated them that they are already used to be made “scapegoats of sorts”.



“If a cow by the roadside gets r*ped, it’s the Chinese who did it, yeah? Kindly be informed,” mocked one 15.08 cm (@kh.________.ai).

“We’re used to being scapegoats when something goes viral. Blame the Chinese first. Investigate later. Such is the modus operandi of PN’s (Perkatan Nasional) cytro (cybertrooper),” asserted one Madani-backing @wingtimm.


“The Tabung Haji savings, too, was sakau (plundered) by Muslims themselves but fingers were pointed at the Chinese,” recounted @thedark4ce.


Editor’s Note: Raided during the Op Taring Chiller by cops, the plant is believed to have the capacity to process more than 40,000 chickens daily while allegedly using electrical voltage far exceeding the prescribed limit as a slaughtering method.

Bukit Aman Internal Security and Public Order Department (JKDNKA) deputy director (Operations) Datuk Muhammad Abdul Halim said preliminary investigations found that the live chickens were sourced from Sungai Sepat, Sungai Pelek and Sepang before being processed at the plant.

The processed chickens were then believed to have been distributed to customers, including eateries, grocery shops and business premises in Damansara, Bangi, Puchong, Cheras, Putra Perdana and Putrajaya.

The premises’ owner – a local man in his early 30s – also had his statement recorded while further action will be determined based on the outcome of the investigation, including his role and involvement in the plant’s operations.

The media had earlier reported that more than 6.5 tonnes of raw chicken worth RM85,400 were seized during the integrated operation over suspicions that they had been processed in breach of Islamic slaughtering requirements and halal certification standards.

The case is being investigated under Section 3(1)(A) and Section 4(1) of the Trade Descriptions (Definition of Halal) Order 2011, as well as Section 38(1) of the Environmental Quality Act 1974. – Nov 3, 2026

 

Zahid denies trying to sabotage unity government with shelved projects remarks

Zahid denies trying to sabotage unity government with shelved projects remarks

3 hours ago

FMT Reporters

The deputy prime minister says he is prepared to produce documentary evidence of the official directive to counter the allegations.

Rural and regional development minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi insisted that the claims of postponed or cancelled letters of acceptance for the shelved projects were accurate.

PETALING JAYA:

Deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has denied allegations that he attempted to sabotage the unity government with his remarks on the shelving of several rural development projects in Sabah and Sarawak.

Zahid, who is also rural and regional development minister, insisted that his remarks on the postponement or cancellation of the letters of acceptance (SST) for the projects were accurate.

He also said he was prepared to produce documentary evidence of the official directive to counter the allegations made against him.

“I have no intention to do that (sabotage), but those are the facts… Whether they were postponed or cancelled, what is clear is that all SSTs that have been and are due to be issued were ordered to be cancelled.

“I have evidence of the directive letter that was issued. I can show it to the Jelutong MP,” Bernama reported him as saying at a press conference after officiating an event at Dewan MPJ Alamanda in Jasin, Melaka.

Yesterday, Jelutong MP RSN Rayer accused Zahid of trying to sabotage the unity government with his remarks on the shelving of several rural development projects in Sabah and Sarawak.

Rayer said Zahid made the government seem indifferent to the infrastructural issues faced by the two states as well as rural communities in the peninsula.

He said claims that the funds set aside for the shelved projects had been wasted had angered the public, even though finance minister II Amir Hamzah Azizan had clarified that no projects had been cancelled.

Rayer also alleged that Zahid was conspiring with the opposition to topple the government.

Last week, when winding up the debate on the 2027 budget, Zahid had claimed that projects in Sabah and Sarawak were shelved on the orders of the rural and regional development ministry’s secretary-general, despite funds being set aside for it.

Amir later rejected claims the finance ministry had cancelled projects, saying the rural and regional development ministry was merely told to hold off on awarding new road contracts until the unpaid bills were cleared.

 

Court strikes out suit by Daim’s family over alleged plot to topple govt

Court strikes out suit by Daim’s family over alleged plot to topple govt

3 hours ago

Ho Kit Yen

Judge allows the government’s application to strike out the suit, ruling that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Former finance minister Daim Zainuddin’s widow, Naimah Khalid, their two sons, Amir and Amin, and lawyers Amir Zharif Abdullah and Nizamuddin Hamid filed the suit early this year against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Inspector-General of Police Khalid Ismail and the government. (Bernama pic)

KUALA LUMPUR:

The High Court here has struck out a lawsuit filed by the family of the late former finance minister Daim Zainuddin and two lawyers seeking to stop a police investigation into an alleged plot to topple the government.

Justice Indra Nehru Savandiah allowed the government’s application to strike out the suit, ruling that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Daim’s widow, Naimah Khalid, their two sons, Amir and Amin, and lawyers Amir Zharif Abdullah and Nizamuddin Hamid filed the suit early this year against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Inspector-General of Police Khalid Ismail and the government.

They said the suit was intended to challenge an alleged abuse of power and stop what they described as false claims of a “Zionist plot” to overthrow the government.

In her brief ruling, Indra said there was no compelling evidence to support the plaintiffs’ allegation that the police investigation was conducted in bad faith.

The investigation was conducted under Section 124B of the Penal Code, which deals with activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

“The plaintiffs’ claim that the first defendant’s (Anwar’s) public remarks influenced the police investigation was merely speculative and unsupported by facts capable of establishing bad faith,” she said.

Indra said the court would provide its full grounds of judgment if an appeal is filed.

The court made no order as to costs.

Lawyers Abraham Au and Gurdial Singh Nijar represented the plaintiffs, while senior federal counsel Sallehuddin Ali and Solehheen Zaki appeared for the government.

Khalid previously said that Bukit Aman federal police were investigating an alleged attempt to overthrow the government and threaten national stability, following a police report.

He said Bukit Aman’s classified crimes investigation unit was looking into allegations that an influential local figure had collaborated with an international media organisation in the alleged plot.

Nizamuddin had dismissed the claim that he was involved in an attempt to topple the government, describing it as “the mother of all lies”.

He confirmed that he and his law firm partner, Amir Zharif, were named in a police report as having attended a meeting with Naimah, but denied any plot to overthrow the government.