I really wish there was a reasonable answer to this question. I lived in Singapore for many years, and its proximity to Sumatra, where most of the burning is happening, is a huge burden on everyone in Singapore for most times of the year, and it is getting worse. I was there during the 2013 haze crisis and had to leave Singapore for several days just to get a breath of healthy air. Birds were dying in-flight and roads had flocks of them dead all over the pavement, and on park grounds. Yet nothing changes. This year, the haze crisis has been its worst in 20 years, and Indonesia fails to address it. It is illegal to start these fires, but the law is not enforced. If this happened in proximity to a nation like the U.S., after numerous warnings, the country would just cross borders without permission and put out the fires. But no one will do that in SE Asia. Singapore and Malaysia have every right to protect their citizens, but they also respect the sovereignty of Indonesia, so aside from public comments by leaders, they do nothing, and nothing changes. Even if you don't live in SE Asia, it is a devastating reality for the whole planet. Massive rainforest are getting destroyed.
After decades of no action by Indonesia, it is clear the only way to fix this is for neighboring nations to be more forceful and go in there and do something about it. But fear of conflict in SE Asia is high, so I'm worried that this problem is only going to get worse without worldwide pressure by major nations.
In the North America analogy Indonesia would be U.S. burning and Mexico and Canada suffering. Indonesia is 4th most populous country in the world (250 million people). Singapore and Malaysia are outmatched in population, GDP and military.
About being outmatched in GDP and military - you're joking right? Have a look at the figures over the last few decades for Singapore and Indonesia. Singapore is a tiny spec when it comes to size and population, but economically it's in a league of it's own.
Sure, per capita GDP of Singapore is vastly higher, but here it's total GDP that's relevant, not per capita. Last I seen, GDP of Indonesia was 3 times that of Singapore.
Why not? The amount of weapons a country can buy is related to its total GDP, not per capita. The number of soldiers a country can field is related to its total GDP and actually goes up when per-capita GDP is lower, because you don't have to pay them as much.
Singapore currently has the most advanced airforce in the world. The size and prowess of its military relative to its size is unmatched anywhere on this planet. Economically, it is at least on par with Hong Kong and Tokyo. Nearly all major companies with a presence in Asia have an office in Singapore, many of them their entire Asian headquarters are in Singapore. I'm not sure I understand your analogy; I think it is the vice-versa of what you mean.
Singapore is advanced and rich, but it is small compared to Indonesia. Singapore has larger GDP and military per capita, but in absolute terms, Indonesia is much larger. Its army has four times as many men as Singapore (300,000 vs. 75,000), and Indonesian GDP is 2840 billion USD while Singapore is 453 billion.
Not agreeing with the previous statement regarding Singapore's military supremacy, but measuring military effectiveness by number of troops is a hopelessly outdated method.
Powerful armies are nothing more than logistics organizations, with 80-90% of members operating supply chains and maintenance to enable the 21st century weapons systems and their elite operators to destroy things.
300,000 guys with assault rifles and crappy Air Force are no match against 75,000 with modern technology and precision munitions.
It also depends very much on the rules of engagement. 300,000 guys with modern technology, precision munitions and a government with strong human rights legislation have a hard time against 75,000 men with assault rifles, improvised munitions and no limits on what they can do to their enemies.
Singapore does not have the most advanced air force in the world, not even remotely close.
1) Most of their advanced air force consists of American hardware. That automatically means they're behind the US in technology.
2) You can't attempt to claim that title without long-range bombers. B1? B2? B52? Anything? The tech, targeting and global deployment capabilities to support all of it? Nope, Singapore has nothing there.
3) Their drone programs are very far behind what the US had ten years ago. They're relying on weak, short-range Israel UAV tech. The IAI Scout is the core of their drone capabilities and it's 40 year old tech. It can only fly to 15,000 feet and at 109 mph. Then the IAI Searcher, which is only capable of 20,000 feet and 125 mph. Those are toy drones.
The Global Hawk goes to 60,000 feet, and 357 mph. And that's considered old US tech.
4) Their global air force integration capabilities are non-existent. That includes complicated logistics and the ability to fly anywhere globally, and refuel for long-range strikes while ensuring the safety of all planes in question.
That means the Singapore air force can be destroyed locally without ever posing a threat. That's not an advanced air force, it's a sitting duck. China would dismantle their air force in a matter of a few days.
5) They have no space capabilities at all. That includes the ability to shoot down satellites, a required capability for the next 20+ years to claim an advanced air force. They have no ICBMs, and no other long-range missile capabilities.
6) They don't have a fraction of the global spying and data gathering (targeting, situation awareness, et al) capability the US air force has.
7) They don't possess the F22, which is the best fighter jet in existence.
8) They're incapable of producing the bulk of the hardware that makes up their own air force, including the planes, UAVs, missiles, helicopters, etc. That means they're always behind and always will be by default.
being a singaporean, i have to sadly agree with you on the points.
it's quite bad enough that they keep claiming that they're using the best technology when in fact, they just typically bought it from somewhere else.
It has a quite a bad propaganda which you guys can't even tell from it unless you really think deep about it.
Cars here are so expensive also. On top of that, you need to pay more to "own" the car. For some cars, that cert cost even more than the car itself. Not only that, we have road tax, erp, parking fee, etc, etc whatnot.
Income inequality is quite prominent, even though they claim that they have high GDP. Of course you can say your country has it worst...but hell, you wouldn't claim your country has no beggar if there's someone in the streets picking up cardboard and begging for money, would you?
last but not the least, the population is so dam high and i think like...40% are foreigners? I can't tell who are foreigners anymore.
There are more things that I can think of, but I just end it here in case I get arrested for saying "wrong" things
I would think it is somewhat difficult to define who is a "foreigner" in Singapore. "Born outside the country" might be something you can clearly derive from papers.
But 200 years ago the island had about 1,000 people living there, almost all of them indigenous Malays. Current population of 5.5 million, mostly ethnic Chinese, likely does not have very many who would be descended from them?
Interesting, I read an article while I was there, on Channel News Asia (a Singapore government-run news organization) that mentioned the specific planes they are using that currently no one else had at the time. I cannot remember what they were, but perhaps I bought into the spin too much, a victim of the propaganda? I guess it makes sense they wouldn't have exclusive technology since they are probably too small a nation to be manufacturing their own cutting edge fighter jets, so now I'm wishing I could dig up whatever it was I read.
"Singapore currently has the most advanced airforce in the world. The size and prowess of its military relative to its size is unmatched anywhere on this planet."
I'd love to see the reasoning behind that statement - particularly when they are compared with the likes of Israel, which isn't that much bigger.
Can't say I'm a military expert, but the Singapore air force, at least during the time I was there, was well-known to have capabilities and technology unrivaled by even the United States. But I know there are major developments happening in American air technology, so that is possibly changing.
I'm just back from a business trip to Singapore. I never really understood what people meant with "haze" until one evening. From what I heard from my Singaporean colleagues the haze during my time there was pretty much cleared up.
They have a number to measure how bad it is, they call it "PSI", see e.g. http://www.haze.gov.sg/. This is used in multiple countries, though the definition on what number constitutes bad air differs. During my entire stay, the number was 50-100 or so. Keep this in mind.
So my experience: One evening there's like a fog, you can maybe see for 50 meters max. But the fog isn't water particles in the air, it is leftover material from the fire. Meaning: what you're seeing is utterly bad. Most of the time I spend either in the office, restaurant, a bar and public transport (AFAIK not only air conditioned but also filtered air).
I wear contact lenses. Though only spending maybe 30 min in open air max: I got red eyes, had to clean my contact lenses again and had to buy eye drops to fix my red eyes.
The haze was way worse before I arrived there. Only 1.5 day it was really bad. However, you could never see the sky. Just filthiness in the air preventing you from seeing it.
I had it badly with 50-100 of "PSI". Before I was there it was around 300!
Singapore is pretty interesting (fooooood! :-D), but living there will really shorten your life thanks to this.
I never really understood haze until I experienced it myself. It's good to remember that it's not like the fog I am used to. It's like staying in the smoke of a burning building.
Here in Thailand the impact has been pretty severe in the south. Very unhealthy air quality, a number of deaths of elderly from respiratory failure, many dozens of flights cancelled to Phuket and Krabi. Seems a lot worse this year than many years past.
Next up is Thailand's burning season in a few months when the people in the north and neighboring Myanmar do their annual burn of farmlands and forest. That's usually pretty bad, too, but not on the same scale as the burning in Indonesia.
When I was there, the PSI peaked at something like 412. A PSI of over 100 is now often considered "normal" which is tragic. I start to notice the air quality degrading at around PSI of 50.
When we got back from our Thailand trip to flee the haze in 2013, the leftover remnants of the crisis yielded all our clothes in our closet penetrated with thick black dust.
Indonesia, not unlike Malaysia, is at it's core a corrupt country filled with an ignorant majority ethnic group that rides on the backs of the East Asian immigrant populations that actually value education and hard work.
I work with numerous people who would otherwise be starting businesses in their home countries, but don't want to have their pocket picked by the absurd laws forcing native Malays and Indonesians to be employed in top positions despite having no skills.
This comment is completely unacceptable and racist at its core.
> ignorant majority ethnic group
In fact Indonesia is has thousands of native tribes that constitute many different ethnic groups with a huge diversity of cultures and languages. These are the NATIVE people of Indonesia: Indonesians.
> rides on the backs of the East Asian immigrant populations that actually value education and hard work
Those Chinese immigrants are notorious in Indonesia for being exploitative businessmen who treat Indonesians, regardless of education level, as an underclass, funnel money out of Indonesia and into China, and hiring exclusively Chinese to work in their businesses. Because of the weak government (Indonesia was admirably non-bloc during the Cold War years, leaving it economically vulnerable), Chinese businesses since the 90s have been able to bargain their way into the country in order to harvest its natural resources while giving as little as possible to the Indonesian people.
> actually value education and hard work
The argument presented in JPKab's comment is a common slander against poor countries. Similar arguments have been made by the US about basically the entire people of Latin America, and by imperialist European countries. But an examination of what motivations are actually driving them reveal the true sentiment: "You're not harvesting your countries resources for me well enough!"
The "absurd laws" that aim to protect the Indonesians people and their land are some of the most promising things, as they are long-term assurances that the country will not grow up to be a two-tiered society, ruled by the Chinese.
JPKab and those who think like him would do better to do business in their own countries rather than forcing their way into countries who dont want them while simultaneously spreading bigoted lies about thousands of tribes and hundreds of millions of people that make up the "majority ethnic group[s]" of Indonesia.
Replace "Chinese" with "Jews", and "Indonesia" with "Germany."
Indonesia even has its own government-led anti-Chinese genocidal massacres that killed half a million people[0]! Though of course it's not covered in state textbooks...
I agree that it is a racist remark, but you'd be surprised how much explicit and accepted racism exists in SE Asia. When I lived there, if you were of Indian ethnicity, you were not allowed to live above the 4th floor in the HDB housing towers, which house nearly half the population. Singapore will also not allow ethnic Malays to have high ranks in its military. And very common you see Help Wanted posters around town that list the races they will allow for application.
Why is the world looking away? Indonesia is a sovereign nation, we can't tell them how to manage their natural resources. Well we can tell them but they won't listen. If we did, they could point that finger right back at us and ask us what happened to our forests and peat? Uhm, we chopped it down and burned it all before Indonesia was founded. But you shouldn't do that.
Burning is one way to ensure you have really cheap palm oil.. Most of the palm oil demand is foreign, it is NOT Indonesia making it purely for themselves.
For one, Indonesia should have rules banning the burning practice. AFAIK, they have been offered money to combat the need for burning (as compensation) and they ignored these offers (probably reputation thing).
Secondly, other countries should enforce that companies ensure that the palm oil is produced in a ecological friendly manner. Ecological way is NOT expensive btw; cost wise it makes almost no difference.
Lastly, countries should pressure Indonesia to enforce this. Economic pressure is used all the time. Indonesia is NOT sovereign, especially in this case. They're quite good in responding to the palm oil demand from other countries!
I meant it as a descriptive answer: why is the world looking away? This is why. Indonesia does have laws against these practices, but it seems they cannot or will not enforce them. Indonesia is also a major regional power so it seems its neighbors can't do anything about it either.
I'm not sure you understand exactly how bad this is. It becomes incredibly hard to breathe. I was in KL in mid-2014 when they started the burns and I couldn't walk 200m without being out of breath. No one is saying that you can't pollute your own country, but you shouldn't be allowed to pollute others to the point where it is inhospitable.
some of the other countries in the region should simply move their defensive forces over and annex the island of Sumatra. the Indonesian government has simply run out of resources and that island is completely without any semblance of organization. I have doubts that the Jakarta administration will even notice if the island is no longer under their ownership, but even if they do I do not believe that they will do much more than voice a very angry opinion.
It is a decent point that something short of military action would be advisable, because if this goes on long enough then eventually it's going to look like a pretty attractive option.
Well all our nations are sovereign too, and we can choose not to import products from places where they are produced in a way that create big external damages.
We stopped doing a lot of stuff because we now understand more about the consequences. And this is not only a disaster for nature but also for humans meaning it's everyone's concern. Just embargo (or threaten; maybe it's enough) the buying of the oil (and anything else) until they want to listen to reason. Like many said already; it's not more costly to do this in an ecologically friendly way as they are killing their people, forests, wildlife and shortening the lives of people living in countries around them.
>If we did, they could point that finger right back at us and ask us what happened to our forests and peat? Uhm, we chopped it down and burned it all before Indonesia was founded. But you shouldn't do that.
That's hardly a reason they should be allowed to do it. Hypocrisy should make us feel bad, but it in no way invalidates our request that they quit shitting up the environment.
Maybe it's some kind of "Apocalypse fatigue"? At some point, you become desensitized when so many bad news follow each other, and I have the impression the Western public is at that point. Which, of course, is a bad thing.
Also maybe sometimes is that you are worried about your own problems.
Example: I am from Brazil, since about a year ago I stopped paying much attention to international news, because we have enough trouble here (severe drought, countrywide power supply problems, 10% inflation, -2% GDP growth, unemployment, Olympics preparation is sucking, World Cup, the one that already happened, is still with buildings under construction and creating problems, massive corruption found, parts of the military seemly preparing a right-wing coup, while other parts are seemly preparing a left-wing coup, and the list of problems goes on for a looong time. Also our president has 7% approval rating, probably is one of the most hated politicians in the world right now).
You can turn on layers in the Forest Use tab to see the correlation between where fires are/have been burning and where palm oil concessions are. It's pretty clear what's going on.
You can try to reduce your own palm oil usage, but it's difficult, because it's in everything from cookies to shampoo and it's not always clearly listed in the ingredients list for various reasons. A second issue is that palm oil has incredibly high yields per hectare when compared with other oil crops... so from a sustainability perspective choosing a different source of plant oil is a tough call and depends on where the alternative is being produced.
Whatever happens, there must be some way to reward Indonesians for sustainably producing palm oil or some other crop. Large food companies can do a whole lot, they should absolutely be working to get their supply chains certified under the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) program (you can also turn on a layer on the map to see these areas as well). This program is far from perfect, but is much better than the wild west of conventional palm oil, and rewards responsible producers.
Paper and timber are a bit easier, you can make sure all of the paper you use in your office or packaging is FSC certified, and you should require that any construction done on you or your company's behalf sources FSC timber. It's not necessarily more expensive.
It's an incredibly difficult problem, with no easy solutions - projects like this one (http://www.katinganproject.com/) need to be supported and publicised, as they seek to find practical alternatives to burning the peat and forests.
If the "world" as defined as other countries, the comments suggest it's because the "world" can't tell them what to do. If the world is referring to people, we can see that the article has 386,059 shares and 1569 comments. The world is definitely not looking away.
If the question was, "can we change how some people are apathetic to Indonesia burning?" I think that would be an interesting question.
Nice hook btw, the title got me to comment. Then, I looked at your website. Of course OP has experience in click baiting and copywriting ;)
But for the last two months it's been constant smoggy haze that makes your throat itch and your nose stuffy. And there's virtually no protest to it here. Just sarcasm and cynicism.
I think that the reason is that people do not understand what is going on. So articles like this should create bigger awareness.
Also people do not know how they could react and discussion like this here could give them ideas.
I would think that what a person could do in another country for example is to pressurise his representative to create embargo against Indonesia so that they have less economical motivation to carry on with such fires. Embargo could be conditional - if fires continue (could be observed from orbit), embargo continues.
This would probably not protect forest, as now more forest is needed to cut down to be economical, but it would protect peoples health.
>I think that the reason is that people do understand what is going on.
I think you mean "do not understand".
As for diplomatic solutions, Singapore has tried to get Indonesia to release the names of any Singapore-based companies who are creating this problem in the region by farming there, but Indonesia won't do that either. Try to protect their business interests. If Indonesia could do that, Singapore could punish those countries under its control.
"Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results."
I don't see how taking money away from these companies and then telling them to do something more expensive by enforcing more responsible ways of making palm oil is an answer.
It seems that if you take away money from these companies, you'd inspire them to cut corners to turn profits. Their shareholders dictate profitability.
If you want to encourage good behavior, you should just contact them and tell them you are concerned and ask what they are doing about it to end this problem in a short timeframe. Ask them what you can do to help stop it. They will probably appreciate the help. If they don't respond, write another letter and give them a timeline, like the end of 2016, and tell them if they cannot make a change in the local behavior there by then, you will start a lifetime ban on their products in your family and tell your friends, social media, and the press about your decision.
In general though, banning products hurts workers and shareholders. It doesn't enact the change you want.
I really am not sure if you are trying to be humorous or just naive. Perhaps you could set up a Facebook action page and we can all click "Like" so that we can all feel better about continuing to buy their products.
People should help, but it is unbelievable to me with such smart people here we can't come up with a more realistic way to solve the problem than a boycott.
I think those articles just show the authors didn't want to think a bit about all the direct effects.
Sure, by boycotting a business, the workers of that business (may) see their paychecks lowered. But the workers of the competing businesses where you'll be eating/staying instead will have more customers.
In fact, by going to that business instead of the one you'd go if you were boycotting the first, you are in fact doing the same to the later business as the boycotters are doing to the former.
So I can see how the boycott might be bad for the workers of the boycotted business, but it's neutral to workers in general.
The majority of shareholders have no influence over the decisions made. The companies can work to be more responsible, but if you boycott, you'll give them even more incentive to cut corners, and you'll be hurting low-level workers and many others that have no influence over the decisions that are being made.
It is fine to be angry about it and want to help, but choose a path that will work.
They still profit from it, and they are ultimately (legally) the owners and controllers of the company. It is ridiculous to say that just because the responsibility is diffused we don't need to think about shareholder responsibility at all.
The way to help is to make companies that source palm oil from these terrible places to go bankrupt. That way, we clamp on demand for palm oil.
Everything causes environmental destruction. The problem with the will to hurt shareholders is that the alternatives - companies that get more business after international corporations have been hurt by a boycott - are worse.
Don't be fooled into thinking that Starbucks, Pepsi, Nestle and Monsanto are the ethically worst companies in world. Personally, I buy Nestle and Monsanto whenever in doubt, just because so much of the activism is misguided.
Huge-scale environmental damage was caused by state-controlled companies extracting natural resources in the USSR, for instance, but it could be that things like small-scale organic farming or little coal-burning cooking stoves in Africa are even worse (in terms of comparing environmental damage to utility for mankind.)
We also have to get out of the idea that utility for mankind overall is something to optimize for. It surely doesn't matter that Indonesian have miserable lives - there are 7B+ people in the world and a few less Indonesians are no big deal. However, the Sumatran forest, with all its endangered animals, is a very big deal.
Well if X people are no big deal, why not start with you and your family? I mean... its good for the Earth and all, I'd wager Indonesians have a smaller carbon footprint than you do.
A lot of these companies are probably packaged into ETFs or mutual funds, which are then purchased by investors without significant review of each component in the fund. Most investors probably have no idea that this is even going on in the world, let alone which companies are benefiting and if those companies are in their funds. It seems unfair to want to target people who simply are ignorant.
Beautiful country, awesome food but Indonesia is a mess... If you have the opportunity to go there you will see why, the lack of government is apparent everywhere, they are as poor as it gets and the government is completely incapable of handling it's country.
I come from a country like that and there is no way this will be solved easily, some countries are just too corrupt and incapable of handling themselves, it takes a lot of investment in education and a large number of generations to fix that and since the country is a mess there is no way for that to happen without some miracle.
It's so absurd that drug use or commerce is punishable by death yet every five minutes you get stopped getting offered some kind of it, of course being a tourist in my early 30's help with that but I was with my wife and I don't exactly look like a junkie. What I mean is people (some at least) are not afraid of breaking the law...
This is not even in their radar.
It's worth a visit, but living is probably not fun.
I mostly Bali so you are probably right, but I spent most of my time in Seminiyak, Ubud and some other towns, I didn't went there to party more to relax/surf/eat.
I was offered drugs everywhere... people would stop us in little vespas while walking, sellers inside stores, etc... it reached a point where my wife became afraid of people coming toward us.
People are great, friendly, some scammers but well that is expected in tourist places, the place is beautiful, it's dirty cheap. it's just that it looked crazy poor /unorganized, I was born in Brazil so being among really poor people is common to me(unfortunately) and I was choked when I got there.
It's a shame. I live in Germany, and just heard of this for the first time at HN. I can't believe it... we are discussing stupid things in politics, the refugee "situation", Ukraine and Greece. I even heard of the recent earthquake.
But Indonesia burns? Not even worth a mention. Not a single word.
FWIW I posted this article on FB and all my American friends had not heard about this problem before either. Most Westerners are not aware of what is happening in Indonesia at all.
And this is just one (albeit major) news provider.
(I have seen this many times reported by my local national broadcaster in Finland. But then maybe I just notice and care because I know people who live in the affected area. E.g. in June this year, Asia Pacific Resources International Limited APRIL announced it will stop forestry work in order to reduce forest fires and conserve nature. http://yle.fi/uutiset/aasian_sellujatti_lopettaa_hakkuut_ind... )
Well, it's not close to us, so people don't really care. I mean, there's people starving everywhere, but that doesn't make problems like the refugee situation any less urgent. It's all relative...
You would think they could do something along the lines of a complete ban on any kind of commercial activity or exploitation of land that's been burned for the next 20-30 years. Wouldn't there be no more reason to burn after this?
I suspect the politicians of Indonesia and the corporations in neighboring countries have other motives in this - and it's a quite a bit more complicated then the world looking away.
This will be hugely unpopular, but maybe Indonesia would be a little better managed if it were still the Dutch East Indies?
Colonialism is bad, sure, we all have to believe that. But an overwhelming percentage of the hot-spots and problem areas in the world are in places where old European colonial administrations were driven out by nationalists precipitously. In some places, it's taken these countries fifty years to develop institutions that are in the ball-park of the old colonial administrations, and some of them are still corrupt and evil enough to put Leopold II to shame.
If you look at the history of Indonesia, in 1965 there was a military coup which largely exterminated the local popular based party, the PKK in an enormous massacre. At least a million people were killed. It was received mainly with applause in the west. Thereafter Indonesian was opened up to western international corporations - essentially neo-colonialisation.
One of the problems is that Indonesia should have been either a number of independent states or a United States of Indonesia model, but turned into a kind of copy of the Dutch East Indies, except with Jakarta taking the place of the Dutch. In many ways, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Irian Jaya are Javanese colonies and treated that way.
Please be a troll. I know people all over the world still have thoughts like this, but I thought people on hacker news are smarter than that.
#1: Things weren't "better" in colonial times anymore than they were better in Apartheid-era South Africa or Jim Crow-era America. Hell, we can even go back to Slavery-era America. Sure, things were more peaceful and ordered. At the expense of the subjugation of a significant percentage of the population.
You can absolutely attain peace and prosperity at the expense of the freedom of your citizens. We call that Fascism.
#2: Most of the problems that occur in post-colonial hot-spots are not there because the European colonial administrations left. They are there because THEY WERE THERE IN THE FIRST place.
The Europeans:
* Deliberately destablized peaceful areas so that they would be the one to introduce order
* Divided and conquered previously peaceful tribes by boosting support for one in order to attain power (see: Rwanda)
* Toppled democratically elected governments because of fear of communistic populistic ideas that threatened wealthy western industrialists
* Created borders abstractly - merging peoples that did not want to be together and dividing those that did.
Western countries would not be this far ahead of the rest of the world without decades if not centuries of exploitation. And maybe, just maybe, if progress happened at a more natural rate we would have been able to learn some more sustainable practices. Maybe we wouldn't have the internet or smart phones for another century, but maybe we wouldn't have been responsible for The Sixth Extinction.
I agree with everything but the blanket use of fascism: I wouldn't say pre-civil war america was fascist because of slavery (nor I'm saying slavery is good for modern democratic countries of course)
That is true, and I should clarify: The only way to achieve the same peace and stability that existed in past societies with socially accepted discrimination TODAY is through fascism.
What's a "natural rate of progress"? I think that's a strawman. Massive deforestation is not a new thing, nor is hunting and destroying the habitats of species to extinction. Nor does it necessarily have anything to do with Western civilization.
Like I said, obviously, colonialism is bad, m'kay. But, if you're going to impose a colonial administration, you can't just pull up stakes and remove the bulk of the machinery and personnel of the old administration, and expect things to work out well. I think we have at this point plenty of evidence that turning the keys over to a former colonial population that hasn't nurtured parliamentary ideals and institutions is as likely to end in warlordism, genocide, rampant corruption and repression, as a functioning, liberal state.
Also, the administration of V.O.C. and subsequent Dutch colony had as long a continuous existence as any of the petty sultanates and warlords that exploited the area before them. It's not like it was a bed of roses for the common man or woman living under the rule of the pre-colonial native kingdoms.
The Dutch East India Company also had an economic application of fire, namely in burning down any production of spices they did not control. I don't know about better management.
"This" is not necessarily unpopular but almost certainly pretty irrelevant. This kind of semi philosophical reasoning result in neither intellectual insight nor does it help to solve a single problem.
It is very simple: If the people of Indonesia are unhappy with their situation, they have to actively change it. It is my impression, that power is very uneven distributed in this country and it doesn't seem like the ruling elite is going share it voluntary. You always have to fight for power, there is no way around.
Post-Colonial Institutions are the perfect successor of Colonial Administrations.
The nature of the beast is often misunderstood.
The main horror of colonialism was not foreign control.
The main horror of colonialism was its absolute authoritarianism and the administrative rule that was used to enforce it.
It's really odd to think any human being with that level of absolute authority could be somehow begnin.
Putting Leopold II to shame is hard. He ranks right up there with Hitler, Stalin and Mao in his willingness to cause misery. He's an extreme example of why these countries are not better off under colonialism (they were robbed of all their riches under colonialism), as well as a big part of why so many former colonies are now such a mess: our ancestors fucked them up and put power in the hands of the wrong people when we left.
Considering its history, Indonesia is actually not doing all that badly. I mean, yes, the leadership is corrupt and only really cares about Java, and the economic inequality is insane, but at least it's not at the Robert Mugabe/Idi Amin level. Not anymore, at least.
One point I rarely see raised in these stories about "eco-apocalypse" is that fire is a part of nature. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that clearcutting jungle or intentionally setting fires is a good thing; but if the forest is dry enough that it'll burn for days once lit, it will also do that if there's a lightning strike.
Here in Australia, fire is such a part of the cycle of life that the local ecosystem has entirely adapted to it: for example, there's a tree (the stringybark) which exudes a flammable oil and drops its bark in wonderfully flammable strips into piles on the ground. This ensures that, when the next bushfire comes roaring along, it rips through at lightning speed, leaving the core of the tree alive to regrow and eliminating the weaker competition. It's just a bit of a shame if your house happens to be in the way... and what's happening in Indonesia and Singapore right now is basically an intensified, human-supercharged version of the same phenomenon.
And FWIW, I lived in Singapore for 8 years and endured some of that haze myself. It still can't hold the proverbial candle to the level of entirely man-made air pollution in China and, worst of all, northern India.
What is happening there is very unlikely to occur with such frequency if it was purely natural. It takes manmade intervention to create the kind of problem happening in Indonesia right now. Every year, for most of the year, these fires rage because of techniques created by humans. It is about a lot more than just dry forests.
The world looks away from the horror of North Korea every day.
Syria is having a mass exodus of 20 million people running from their own government and the world is pretty much looking away (except when those people land on their doorstep).
People in Syria are running away from terrorism, mainly supported with Saudi money, and you know where those dollars come from. Saying that they're running away from their own government is as true as US equipping and supplying the Free Syrian Army for the cost of a few mils - all five of them.
236 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadAfter decades of no action by Indonesia, it is clear the only way to fix this is for neighboring nations to be more forceful and go in there and do something about it. But fear of conflict in SE Asia is high, so I'm worried that this problem is only going to get worse without worldwide pressure by major nations.
So, like 40-50 times less per capita. Total GDP doesn't matter much when there are size discrepancies that large.
They have an estimated 2015 GDP per capita of $3,400 per the IMF. They have 250 million people. Their GDP is a lot closer to $850 billion.
A $2.8 trillion GDP would require a $11,000 GDP per capita. That's not accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28no...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28no...
(edit:typos)
Singapore is ~$300 billion.
Not sure why Indonesia's GDP keeps getting over-estimated by such a dramatic amount in this thread.
Sorry, that was just a bit careless looking up of numbers. $850 billion is nominal GDP, $2.8 trillion is the PPP adjusted figure.
For Singapore, the nominal and PPP adjusted values are much closer to each other ($300 billion vs. $450 billion).
Powerful armies are nothing more than logistics organizations, with 80-90% of members operating supply chains and maintenance to enable the 21st century weapons systems and their elite operators to destroy things.
300,000 guys with assault rifles and crappy Air Force are no match against 75,000 with modern technology and precision munitions.
1) Most of their advanced air force consists of American hardware. That automatically means they're behind the US in technology.
2) You can't attempt to claim that title without long-range bombers. B1? B2? B52? Anything? The tech, targeting and global deployment capabilities to support all of it? Nope, Singapore has nothing there.
3) Their drone programs are very far behind what the US had ten years ago. They're relying on weak, short-range Israel UAV tech. The IAI Scout is the core of their drone capabilities and it's 40 year old tech. It can only fly to 15,000 feet and at 109 mph. Then the IAI Searcher, which is only capable of 20,000 feet and 125 mph. Those are toy drones.
The Global Hawk goes to 60,000 feet, and 357 mph. And that's considered old US tech.
4) Their global air force integration capabilities are non-existent. That includes complicated logistics and the ability to fly anywhere globally, and refuel for long-range strikes while ensuring the safety of all planes in question.
That means the Singapore air force can be destroyed locally without ever posing a threat. That's not an advanced air force, it's a sitting duck. China would dismantle their air force in a matter of a few days.
5) They have no space capabilities at all. That includes the ability to shoot down satellites, a required capability for the next 20+ years to claim an advanced air force. They have no ICBMs, and no other long-range missile capabilities.
6) They don't have a fraction of the global spying and data gathering (targeting, situation awareness, et al) capability the US air force has.
7) They don't possess the F22, which is the best fighter jet in existence.
8) They're incapable of producing the bulk of the hardware that makes up their own air force, including the planes, UAVs, missiles, helicopters, etc. That means they're always behind and always will be by default.
it's quite bad enough that they keep claiming that they're using the best technology when in fact, they just typically bought it from somewhere else.
It has a quite a bad propaganda which you guys can't even tell from it unless you really think deep about it.
Cars here are so expensive also. On top of that, you need to pay more to "own" the car. For some cars, that cert cost even more than the car itself. Not only that, we have road tax, erp, parking fee, etc, etc whatnot.
Income inequality is quite prominent, even though they claim that they have high GDP. Of course you can say your country has it worst...but hell, you wouldn't claim your country has no beggar if there's someone in the streets picking up cardboard and begging for money, would you?
last but not the least, the population is so dam high and i think like...40% are foreigners? I can't tell who are foreigners anymore.
There are more things that I can think of, but I just end it here in case I get arrested for saying "wrong" things
But 200 years ago the island had about 1,000 people living there, almost all of them indigenous Malays. Current population of 5.5 million, mostly ethnic Chinese, likely does not have very many who would be descended from them?
Yes, they would.
I'd love to see the reasoning behind that statement - particularly when they are compared with the likes of Israel, which isn't that much bigger.
They have a number to measure how bad it is, they call it "PSI", see e.g. http://www.haze.gov.sg/. This is used in multiple countries, though the definition on what number constitutes bad air differs. During my entire stay, the number was 50-100 or so. Keep this in mind.
So my experience: One evening there's like a fog, you can maybe see for 50 meters max. But the fog isn't water particles in the air, it is leftover material from the fire. Meaning: what you're seeing is utterly bad. Most of the time I spend either in the office, restaurant, a bar and public transport (AFAIK not only air conditioned but also filtered air). I wear contact lenses. Though only spending maybe 30 min in open air max: I got red eyes, had to clean my contact lenses again and had to buy eye drops to fix my red eyes.
The haze was way worse before I arrived there. Only 1.5 day it was really bad. However, you could never see the sky. Just filthiness in the air preventing you from seeing it.
I had it badly with 50-100 of "PSI". Before I was there it was around 300!
Singapore is pretty interesting (fooooood! :-D), but living there will really shorten your life thanks to this.
I never really understood haze until I experienced it myself. It's good to remember that it's not like the fog I am used to. It's like staying in the smoke of a burning building.
Next up is Thailand's burning season in a few months when the people in the north and neighboring Myanmar do their annual burn of farmlands and forest. That's usually pretty bad, too, but not on the same scale as the burning in Indonesia.
Kalimantan, where the fires are burning, hit 3300 PSI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Southeast_Asian_haze
When we got back from our Thailand trip to flee the haze in 2013, the leftover remnants of the crisis yielded all our clothes in our closet penetrated with thick black dust.
After doing a quick web search, you can play spot the difference in air quality in these pictures: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/singapore-indonesia-haze-interactiv...
I work with numerous people who would otherwise be starting businesses in their home countries, but don't want to have their pocket picked by the absurd laws forcing native Malays and Indonesians to be employed in top positions despite having no skills.
> ignorant majority ethnic group
In fact Indonesia is has thousands of native tribes that constitute many different ethnic groups with a huge diversity of cultures and languages. These are the NATIVE people of Indonesia: Indonesians.
> rides on the backs of the East Asian immigrant populations that actually value education and hard work
Those Chinese immigrants are notorious in Indonesia for being exploitative businessmen who treat Indonesians, regardless of education level, as an underclass, funnel money out of Indonesia and into China, and hiring exclusively Chinese to work in their businesses. Because of the weak government (Indonesia was admirably non-bloc during the Cold War years, leaving it economically vulnerable), Chinese businesses since the 90s have been able to bargain their way into the country in order to harvest its natural resources while giving as little as possible to the Indonesian people.
> actually value education and hard work
The argument presented in JPKab's comment is a common slander against poor countries. Similar arguments have been made by the US about basically the entire people of Latin America, and by imperialist European countries. But an examination of what motivations are actually driving them reveal the true sentiment: "You're not harvesting your countries resources for me well enough!"
The "absurd laws" that aim to protect the Indonesians people and their land are some of the most promising things, as they are long-term assurances that the country will not grow up to be a two-tiered society, ruled by the Chinese.
JPKab and those who think like him would do better to do business in their own countries rather than forcing their way into countries who dont want them while simultaneously spreading bigoted lies about thousands of tribes and hundreds of millions of people that make up the "majority ethnic group[s]" of Indonesia.
Indonesia even has its own government-led anti-Chinese genocidal massacres that killed half a million people[0]! Though of course it's not covered in state textbooks...
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965–...
Burning is one way to ensure you have really cheap palm oil.. Most of the palm oil demand is foreign, it is NOT Indonesia making it purely for themselves.
For one, Indonesia should have rules banning the burning practice. AFAIK, they have been offered money to combat the need for burning (as compensation) and they ignored these offers (probably reputation thing).
Secondly, other countries should enforce that companies ensure that the palm oil is produced in a ecological friendly manner. Ecological way is NOT expensive btw; cost wise it makes almost no difference.
Lastly, countries should pressure Indonesia to enforce this. Economic pressure is used all the time. Indonesia is NOT sovereign, especially in this case. They're quite good in responding to the palm oil demand from other countries!
That's hardly a reason they should be allowed to do it. Hypocrisy should make us feel bad, but it in no way invalidates our request that they quit shitting up the environment.
Maybe it's some kind of "Apocalypse fatigue"? At some point, you become desensitized when so many bad news follow each other, and I have the impression the Western public is at that point. Which, of course, is a bad thing.
Example: I am from Brazil, since about a year ago I stopped paying much attention to international news, because we have enough trouble here (severe drought, countrywide power supply problems, 10% inflation, -2% GDP growth, unemployment, Olympics preparation is sucking, World Cup, the one that already happened, is still with buildings under construction and creating problems, massive corruption found, parts of the military seemly preparing a right-wing coup, while other parts are seemly preparing a left-wing coup, and the list of problems goes on for a looong time. Also our president has 7% approval rating, probably is one of the most hated politicians in the world right now).
http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/#v=map&x=121.59&y=-1.01&l...
You can turn on layers in the Forest Use tab to see the correlation between where fires are/have been burning and where palm oil concessions are. It's pretty clear what's going on.
You can try to reduce your own palm oil usage, but it's difficult, because it's in everything from cookies to shampoo and it's not always clearly listed in the ingredients list for various reasons. A second issue is that palm oil has incredibly high yields per hectare when compared with other oil crops... so from a sustainability perspective choosing a different source of plant oil is a tough call and depends on where the alternative is being produced.
Whatever happens, there must be some way to reward Indonesians for sustainably producing palm oil or some other crop. Large food companies can do a whole lot, they should absolutely be working to get their supply chains certified under the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) program (you can also turn on a layer on the map to see these areas as well). This program is far from perfect, but is much better than the wild west of conventional palm oil, and rewards responsible producers.
Paper and timber are a bit easier, you can make sure all of the paper you use in your office or packaging is FSC certified, and you should require that any construction done on you or your company's behalf sources FSC timber. It's not necessarily more expensive.
See stories about -
Coffee certified by the RainForest Alliance: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34173532
Tuna: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/tunaleaguetable
Free range certified eggs came from battery hens suggesting the "British Lion" mark is meaningless: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/mar/11/free-range-eggs-fr...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605
If the question was, "can we change how some people are apathetic to Indonesia burning?" I think that would be an interesting question.
Nice hook btw, the title got me to comment. Then, I looked at your website. Of course OP has experience in click baiting and copywriting ;)
But for the last two months it's been constant smoggy haze that makes your throat itch and your nose stuffy. And there's virtually no protest to it here. Just sarcasm and cynicism.
Also people do not know how they could react and discussion like this here could give them ideas.
I would think that what a person could do in another country for example is to pressurise his representative to create embargo against Indonesia so that they have less economical motivation to carry on with such fires. Embargo could be conditional - if fires continue (could be observed from orbit), embargo continues.
This would probably not protect forest, as now more forest is needed to cut down to be economical, but it would protect peoples health.
I think you mean "do not understand".
As for diplomatic solutions, Singapore has tried to get Indonesia to release the names of any Singapore-based companies who are creating this problem in the region by farming there, but Indonesia won't do that either. Try to protect their business interests. If Indonesia could do that, Singapore could punish those countries under its control.
If what you are saying is true, then it really points to the direction that international embargo would be a solution to this problem.
I don't see how taking money away from these companies and then telling them to do something more expensive by enforcing more responsible ways of making palm oil is an answer.
It seems that if you take away money from these companies, you'd inspire them to cut corners to turn profits. Their shareholders dictate profitability.
If you want to encourage good behavior, you should just contact them and tell them you are concerned and ask what they are doing about it to end this problem in a short timeframe. Ask them what you can do to help stop it. They will probably appreciate the help. If they don't respond, write another letter and give them a timeline, like the end of 2016, and tell them if they cannot make a change in the local behavior there by then, you will start a lifetime ban on their products in your family and tell your friends, social media, and the press about your decision.
In general though, banning products hurts workers and shareholders. It doesn't enact the change you want.
Or this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boy...
People should help, but it is unbelievable to me with such smart people here we can't come up with a more realistic way to solve the problem than a boycott.
Sure, by boycotting a business, the workers of that business (may) see their paychecks lowered. But the workers of the competing businesses where you'll be eating/staying instead will have more customers.
In fact, by going to that business instead of the one you'd go if you were boycotting the first, you are in fact doing the same to the later business as the boycotters are doing to the former.
So I can see how the boycott might be bad for the workers of the boycotted business, but it's neutral to workers in general.
It is fine to be angry about it and want to help, but choose a path that will work.
The way to help is to make companies that source palm oil from these terrible places to go bankrupt. That way, we clamp on demand for palm oil.
Don't be fooled into thinking that Starbucks, Pepsi, Nestle and Monsanto are the ethically worst companies in world. Personally, I buy Nestle and Monsanto whenever in doubt, just because so much of the activism is misguided.
Huge-scale environmental damage was caused by state-controlled companies extracting natural resources in the USSR, for instance, but it could be that things like small-scale organic farming or little coal-burning cooking stoves in Africa are even worse (in terms of comparing environmental damage to utility for mankind.)
We also have to get out of the idea that utility for mankind overall is something to optimize for. It surely doesn't matter that Indonesian have miserable lives - there are 7B+ people in the world and a few less Indonesians are no big deal. However, the Sumatran forest, with all its endangered animals, is a very big deal.
No, the market does.
I come from a country like that and there is no way this will be solved easily, some countries are just too corrupt and incapable of handling themselves, it takes a lot of investment in education and a large number of generations to fix that and since the country is a mess there is no way for that to happen without some miracle.
It's so absurd that drug use or commerce is punishable by death yet every five minutes you get stopped getting offered some kind of it, of course being a tourist in my early 30's help with that but I was with my wife and I don't exactly look like a junkie. What I mean is people (some at least) are not afraid of breaking the law...
This is not even in their radar.
It's worth a visit, but living is probably not fun.
Where were you that you were offered drugs? Places where Indonesians live or places where tourists go to party?
I was offered drugs everywhere... people would stop us in little vespas while walking, sellers inside stores, etc... it reached a point where my wife became afraid of people coming toward us.
People are great, friendly, some scammers but well that is expected in tourist places, the place is beautiful, it's dirty cheap. it's just that it looked crazy poor /unorganized, I was born in Brazil so being among really poor people is common to me(unfortunately) and I was choked when I got there.
But Indonesia burns? Not even worth a mention. Not a single word.
Of course e.g. Deutsche Welle was predicting this is coming in July: http://www.dw.com/de/el-ni%C3%B1o-erh%C3%B6ht-feuergefahr-in...
and have kept reporting, e.g. a few days ago: http://www.dw.com/de/die-verheerenden-folgen-der-brandrodung...
Sep 19: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/asia/gallery/southeast-asi...
Sep 25: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/25/asia/singapore-haze-indone...
Oct 01: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/asia/indonesia-evacuates-b...
Oct 30: http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/10/30/indonesia-fig...
And this is just one (albeit major) news provider.
(I have seen this many times reported by my local national broadcaster in Finland. But then maybe I just notice and care because I know people who live in the affected area. E.g. in June this year, Asia Pacific Resources International Limited APRIL announced it will stop forestry work in order to reduce forest fires and conserve nature. http://yle.fi/uutiset/aasian_sellujatti_lopettaa_hakkuut_ind... )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10480822
I always check hnews + 3 others news sites (like the guardian) just to be well rounded ;)
I really can't suffer for Indonesia, Greece, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and many more without going insane.
I suspect the politicians of Indonesia and the corporations in neighboring countries have other motives in this - and it's a quite a bit more complicated then the world looking away.
Colonialism is bad, sure, we all have to believe that. But an overwhelming percentage of the hot-spots and problem areas in the world are in places where old European colonial administrations were driven out by nationalists precipitously. In some places, it's taken these countries fifty years to develop institutions that are in the ball-park of the old colonial administrations, and some of them are still corrupt and evil enough to put Leopold II to shame.
One of the problems is that Indonesia should have been either a number of independent states or a United States of Indonesia model, but turned into a kind of copy of the Dutch East Indies, except with Jakarta taking the place of the Dutch. In many ways, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Irian Jaya are Javanese colonies and treated that way.
I'm sure it would be cheaper than colonization.
#1: Things weren't "better" in colonial times anymore than they were better in Apartheid-era South Africa or Jim Crow-era America. Hell, we can even go back to Slavery-era America. Sure, things were more peaceful and ordered. At the expense of the subjugation of a significant percentage of the population.
You can absolutely attain peace and prosperity at the expense of the freedom of your citizens. We call that Fascism.
#2: Most of the problems that occur in post-colonial hot-spots are not there because the European colonial administrations left. They are there because THEY WERE THERE IN THE FIRST place. The Europeans: * Deliberately destablized peaceful areas so that they would be the one to introduce order * Divided and conquered previously peaceful tribes by boosting support for one in order to attain power (see: Rwanda) * Toppled democratically elected governments because of fear of communistic populistic ideas that threatened wealthy western industrialists * Created borders abstractly - merging peoples that did not want to be together and dividing those that did.
Western countries would not be this far ahead of the rest of the world without decades if not centuries of exploitation. And maybe, just maybe, if progress happened at a more natural rate we would have been able to learn some more sustainable practices. Maybe we wouldn't have the internet or smart phones for another century, but maybe we wouldn't have been responsible for The Sixth Extinction.
Like I said, obviously, colonialism is bad, m'kay. But, if you're going to impose a colonial administration, you can't just pull up stakes and remove the bulk of the machinery and personnel of the old administration, and expect things to work out well. I think we have at this point plenty of evidence that turning the keys over to a former colonial population that hasn't nurtured parliamentary ideals and institutions is as likely to end in warlordism, genocide, rampant corruption and repression, as a functioning, liberal state.
Also, the administration of V.O.C. and subsequent Dutch colony had as long a continuous existence as any of the petty sultanates and warlords that exploited the area before them. It's not like it was a bed of roses for the common man or woman living under the rule of the pre-colonial native kingdoms.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18551857
It is very simple: If the people of Indonesia are unhappy with their situation, they have to actively change it. It is my impression, that power is very uneven distributed in this country and it doesn't seem like the ruling elite is going share it voluntary. You always have to fight for power, there is no way around.
The nature of the beast is often misunderstood.
The main horror of colonialism was not foreign control. The main horror of colonialism was its absolute authoritarianism and the administrative rule that was used to enforce it.
It's really odd to think any human being with that level of absolute authority could be somehow begnin.
Considering its history, Indonesia is actually not doing all that badly. I mean, yes, the leadership is corrupt and only really cares about Java, and the economic inequality is insane, but at least it's not at the Robert Mugabe/Idi Amin level. Not anymore, at least.
Here in Australia, fire is such a part of the cycle of life that the local ecosystem has entirely adapted to it: for example, there's a tree (the stringybark) which exudes a flammable oil and drops its bark in wonderfully flammable strips into piles on the ground. This ensures that, when the next bushfire comes roaring along, it rips through at lightning speed, leaving the core of the tree alive to regrow and eliminating the weaker competition. It's just a bit of a shame if your house happens to be in the way... and what's happening in Indonesia and Singapore right now is basically an intensified, human-supercharged version of the same phenomenon.
And FWIW, I lived in Singapore for 8 years and endured some of that haze myself. It still can't hold the proverbial candle to the level of entirely man-made air pollution in China and, worst of all, northern India.
Syria is having a mass exodus of 20 million people running from their own government and the world is pretty much looking away (except when those people land on their doorstep).