Vindi Kurniawan – In September 2026, when smog from raging forest fires in Sumatra and Kalimantan blanketed parts of Indonesia and Malaysia, the official account of the popular Malaysian cartoon show Upin & Ipin recirculated an old haze-awareness clip.
The clip aims to teach Malaysian children how to cope with the haze crisis, but Indonesian fans are taking it differently.
For them, it is a veiled criticism of the Indonesian government's failure to prevent and properly handle the ongoing environmental and health crisis. 'This is our lowest point: being roasted by Upin and Ipin,' wrote one Indonesian commenter.
The Indonesian fan response to a seemingly innocent Upin & Ipin clip offers a different expression of patriotism. Concern for Indonesia can mean welcoming a neighbour's criticism and demanding answers from Indonesian leaders. During a crisis that harms people across national borders, defending the government's reputation can get in the way of protecting the public.
The response of Indonesian fans stands in stark contrast to the two nations' long history of regional rivalry. During the 1963-66 Confrontation, President Soekarno's Ganyang Malaysia (Crush Malaysia) campaign mobilised anti-imperialist nationalism against Malaysia. Cultural disputes over the Reog Ponorogo dance in 2007 and batik in 2009 later revived nationalist outrage.
By contrast, the Upin & Ipin cartoon's reception reflected Indonesian citizens' support for planned Malaysian protests against the haze in early September. This is hardly surprising. Indonesians have also staged protests over the haze crisis, and their complaints have so far gone unheard.
That said, Indonesians' support for Upin & Ipin's 'criticism' does not necessarily reflect a nationwide shift in attitudes towards Malaysia. After all, former trade minister turned social media influencer Muhammad Lutfi has posted reels defending Indonesia against neighbouring countries' criticism of Jakarta's handling of the transboundary haze choking the region.
But Indonesian support for the Upin & Ipin cartoon does show that foreign criticism can sometimes give domestic grievances another hearing.
Prevailing domestic grievances
The government's handling of fire data shows why such grievances deserve scrutiny.
On 12 October, President Prabowo Subianto cited 639 hectares of burning land where firefighting was underway as evidence that the fires had declined. On 14 October, the disaster agency and forestry ministry clarified that the figure covered only areas where firefighters were working, not the total area still burning nationwide. It therefore could not establish that the overall area burning had declined.
That same day, Dayak rights activist Emmanuela Shinta posted an Instagram video of herself walking through Palangkaraya in a gas mask. She called the city "a gas chamber" in the video and told Mongabay that yellow-orange haze had blanketed it every morning for about a week. Her account showed why the government needed to report whether its firefighting efforts were reducing residents' exposure to smoke.
These questions arise amid a broader decline in satisfaction with Prabowo's performance. Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting's repeated surveys recorded satisfaction with Prabowo falling from 81.2% in November 2025 to 51.1% in July 2026, and then as low as 44.5% in October.
Separately, a survey by CELIOS and the Shadow Cabinet initiative found that 75% of its 1,142 respondents reported stress from government policies. It recruited respondents online without random selection, then weighted the sample.
Neither survey measures attitudes towards Malaysian criticism or establishes that haze caused dissatisfaction, but the findings provide context for the grievances about the haze voiced online.
When criticism becomes a test of loyalty
Unfortunately, citizens questioning the government's performance are increasingly finding their loyalty under scrutiny. On 12 July, Prabowo suggested that people who considered Indonesia 'gloomy' should move to another country. Remarks like these make optimism a test of belonging. Citizens describing hardship risk having to defend their patriotism while officials defend their own records.
For example, during the fires, streamer Windah Basudara said he was accused of receiving political payments after raising concerns about forests and wildlife. His account does not establish who made the accusations or whether he was targeted by government-sponsored propaganda. But accusations like these shift attention from the real problem to critics' supposed allegiances.
It is well-known that Indonesian cyberspace is infested with paid influencers and bots. In 2020, President Joko Widodo's office acknowledged hiring influencers but denied employing 'buzzers' (influencers for hire) who often promote political messages anonymously.
Separately, research published in 2021, involving interviews with 78 buzzers and influencers, documented coordinated campaigns defending government policies and discrediting critics. Repeated messages can make organised promotion look like spontaneous public agreement.
Research on Prabowo's 2024 election campaign identified strategic image building as a major factor in his victory. A separate study of Prabowo's first months in office found that coordinated activity by accounts classified as political buzzers was associated with positive narratives about his government on X.
But it is not just attacks online that are a problem. Public criticism can also carry legal risks. On 7 August, Amnesty International Indonesia condemned the arrest of two people over social media posts and comments about a presidential speech concerning Iran's nuclear programme.
Shrinking online civic space might explain why Indonesians welcome critical voices from abroad: it's a safer way to demand government accountability.
Accountability across borders
Malaysia-linked companies operating in Indonesia should also face scrutiny over their possible role in the fires.
On 7 October 2026, Malaysian civil-society groups took haze findings to their parliament, demanding stronger investigative and enforcement powers in relation to Malaysian-linked companies operating abroad. Their demands broaden scrutiny beyond Indonesian officials to corporate interests that may contribute to the fires.
In fact, regional cooperation already provides a basis for demanding information. Article 4(2) of the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution requires states where haze originates to respond promptly to affected states' requests for relevant information or consultations.
Publicly accessible fire data and concession ownership records would help journalists and affected communities examine official claims and press for investigations. Those demands give shared anger a practical purpose.
Publishing firefighting totals alongside estimates of all affected land would make it harder to confuse activity with progress. Identifying concession holders would help properly establish who should be investigated, without simply treating a fire on a company's land as proof of guilt.
Prabowo's approval of foreign firefighting assistance deserves recognition. Cooperation can help address the immediate emergency. But to be effective, it should be accompanied by transparent investigations into who is responsible for the fires and a concrete policy to prevent recurrence.
A public willing to listen across the border deserves a government willing to answer at home.