When Foreign Minister Arrmanatha Nasir and his Singaporean counterpart, Vivian Balakrishnan, met in Jakarta on Oct. 27, they held talks lasting more than two hours and emerged with plans to establish a joint task force to pursue companies responsible for this year's forest and land fires.

Arrmanatha, barely a month into his new role, described the bilateral relationship as “mature enough to speak candidly, especially when we differ.” Yet neither minister publicly addressed Indonesia's decision to reduce gas exports to Singapore just three days earlier.

That silence was arguably more revealing than their joint remarks. The reduction had been framed as a matter of national dignity, yet it appeared conspicuously absent from the public account of the bilateral talks. One possible explanation is that the move was directed less at Singapore than at a domestic audience, as President Prabowo Subianto faces mounting political pressure at home.

The reduction itself is relatively modest. It represents approximately 8% of pipeline gas supplies, which Singapore's Energy Market Authority estimates account for less than 2% of the city-state's daily gas demand. Energy Minister Bahlil Lahadalia has said the remaining volumes comply with contractual minimums.

Nor is the broader trend new. In 2022, Jakarta agreed to extend gas supplies to Singapore only until 2028, at reduced volumes. Indonesia's domestic gas demand is increasing, but if an acute shortage were the primary concern, a more substantial reduction might have been expected.

The rhetoric surrounding the decision, however, was considerably more forceful.

Tension Begins to Rise
On Oct. 21, Prabowo complained to his cabinet that certain unnamed countries “like to insult” Indonesia over the fires. The following day, Bahlil warned that Indonesia would “not hesitate to consider stopping exports” to countries that failed to respect it.

When Singapore called for existing commitments to be honored, Bahlil told the city-state not to “lecture Indonesia” about contracts and suggested that force majeure “can arise,” even as he insisted there was “no conflict.”

The combination of threats and reassurances suggests that the message may have been intended for more than one audience.

What, then, had Singapore actually done to provoke such a response?

Malaysian politicians had used considerably harsher language, with one former minister reportedly describing Indonesia as a “banana republic.” Singapore, by contrast, invoked its Transboundary Haze Pollution Act to issue notices to companies suspected of involvement in the fires.

Prabowo himself has expressed similar concerns, blaming corporations for the destruction and describing deliberate burning as “environmental terrorism.”

The proposed bilateral task force, intended to facilitate cross-border evidence sharing and asset recovery, appears broadly consistent with Singapore's approach to corporate accountability.

The disagreement, therefore, may have had less to do with the substance of Singapore's actions than with the political sensitivity of a neighboring country publicly challenging Indonesia over its environmental record.

Singapore also occupies a distinctive position: it is a neighboring country directly connected to Indonesia through gas pipelines, making energy exports an available instrument of diplomatic pressure.

Haze Crisis
Meanwhile, the haze has become an increasingly serious political problem at home.

Indonesia's worst forest and land fires in 11 years have affected large areas of Kalimantan and Sumatra since August, with smoke reaching Jakarta by mid-October.

The government's communications chief compounded the controversy by describing the haze as a natural phenomenon. For families in Sumatra and Kalimantan who had endured weeks of smoke, the statement appeared to minimize the human causes and consequences of the crisis.

During his visit to Jakarta, Balakrishnan described Indonesians as the “first and primary victims” of the haze. He also observed that, unlike El Niño, haze “is not a natural phenomenon.”

Although he did not directly criticize any Indonesian official, the contrast with the earlier government statement was difficult to overlook.

Shifting the debate toward whether foreign countries respect Indonesia offers a politically convenient alternative to defending the government's handling of the fires.

'Foreign Stooge'
Recent polling, if accurately reported, provides context for the political pressures facing Prabowo.

An early October survey by Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting put satisfaction with his performance at 44.5%, down sharply from 81.2% in November 2025, while his reported electability stood at 9.8%.

On the same day that he raised the haze issue with his cabinet, Prabowo also accused MSCI of attempting to “intimidate” Indonesia over a proposed downgrade of the country's stock market.

Forest fires and an international stock market classification review are fundamentally different issues. Yet both controversies were presented through the language of external pressure.

The phrase antek asing, or “foreign stooge,” has also featured prominently in Prabowo's political rhetoric.

A Tempo analysis of coverage between 2014 and 2025 reportedly attributed approximately 45% of the term's usage to Prabowo himself.

Such language can shift public attention away from the substance of criticism and toward questions of loyalty and national identity.

An April survey by the Indonesian Survey Institute found that 39.5% of respondents agreed with Prabowo's claims of foreign interference, while 47.4% disagreed.

These findings suggest that appeals to foreign interference do not command universal support. Nevertheless, they may resonate with a substantial segment of the electorate, providing a possible political incentive to emphasize national sovereignty during periods of domestic criticism.

Singapore, for its part, has responded with relative restraint, treating the gas reduction primarily as a commercial issue while exploring alternative supplies.

But the Oct. 27 meeting did not reverse the decision. Having demonstrated a willingness to use energy exports as a diplomatic instrument, Jakarta risks creating expectations that similar measures could be employed in future disputes.

Some Indonesian media outlets have already published comparisons of the two countries' military capabilities, illustrating how quickly a commercial disagreement can become entangled with nationalist sentiment.

Such narratives can persist long after diplomatic tensions have eased, particularly among audiences less likely to follow the details of bilateral negotiations.

Nationalist rhetoric may be politically useful in the short term, but its consequences can prove difficult to contain.

The more significant risk, however, may fall on Indonesia itself.

Commercial Commitments vs Diplomatic Row
Singapore is among Indonesia's largest sources of foreign direct investment, making the stability of bilateral economic relations particularly important.

The timing is also sensitive. With MSCI reportedly considering a downgrade of Indonesia's stock market classification, the government is seeking to reassure international investors about the credibility and predictability of its institutions.

Even if the gas reduction remains within contractual limits, linking commercial commitments to diplomatic disagreements could raise questions about policy consistency.

Investors assess more than the legal wording of contracts. They also consider whether governments will maintain stable and predictable policies when political tensions arise.

A perception that commercial decisions can be influenced by political disputes could undermine confidence at a time when Indonesia needs sustained foreign investment.

The proposed joint task force offers a constructive way forward.

Prabowo has promised to identify the companies responsible for the fires. Following through on that commitment, supported by credible investigations and prosecutions where wrongdoing is established, would demonstrate that the government's priority is accountability rather than diplomatic confrontation.

It would also provide a more convincing response to the controversy surrounding the characterization of haze as a natural phenomenon.

Forest and land fires may be influenced by weather conditions, but deliberate burning and negligent land management are human actions for which responsibility can be established.

Identifying those responsible, enforcing environmental laws, and preventing future fires would do more to strengthen Indonesia's international standing than escalating a dispute with a neighboring country.

National dignity is ultimately better defended through effective governance, credible institutions, and accountability than through the symbolic tightening of a gas valve.

---
Virdika Rizky Utama is a PhD scholar in Public Policy and Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
 

Add as a preferred source on Google +