When the Petronas Twin Towers disappear behind a blanket of smoke, Malaysians can be relied upon to find humour in the haze.

A photograph of the iconic landmark shrouded in smog has been making the rounds on social media, inspiring a new name for the capital’s most recognisable building: “KLCannotC”.

But with unhealthy air affecting dozens of areas, outdoor events being postponed, health concerns mounting and calls for accountability growing louder, the joke is becoming harder to laugh off.

As of 9.30am today, 37 areas recorded unhealthy Air Pollutant Index (API) readings, according to the Environment Department’s Air Pollutant Index Management System.

Seremban recorded the country’s highest reading at 186, followed by Nilai at 183 and Port Dickson at 174.

The haze has also forced the postponement of National Sports Day (HSN) 2026 celebrations, scheduled to take place in Bukit Jalil tomorrow.

The Youth and Sports Ministry said a new date would be announced later, subject to air quality returning to safe levels for outdoor activities.

It added that the postponement was a precautionary measure to protect participants, organisers and members of the public from potential health risks.

Options not freely available to all

The haze is more than an inconvenience or an eyesore. Those who can retreat indoors, switch on an air purifier and avoid outdoor activities have options that many others simply do not.

For delivery riders, construction workers, traffic police, hawkers and others whose livelihoods depend on being outdoors, staying home could mean losing a day’s income.

Away from the social media jokes, the haze has also reignited calls for stronger action and accountability.

Earlier this week, about 40 civil society representatives, led by Greenpeace Malaysia and student group Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia (Haram), marched to Parliament, urging the government to expedite legislation to tackle transboundary haze.

The protest followed fresh findings identifying thousands of haze-source points in Indonesia, including locations within forestry and oil palm concessions linked to Malaysian and Singaporean business interests.

The groups want Malaysian authorities to be equipped with stronger legal powers to investigate and hold companies accountable when credible evidence links them to environmental damage beyond the country’s borders.

The push revisits a proposal pursued by the Pakatan Harapan administration in 2019 to introduce legislation targeting Malaysian companies operating abroad that contribute to haze.

At the time, the move followed Indonesia’s naming of subsidiaries of several Malaysian plantation groups in connection with fires allegedly contributing to the pollution.

However, the Perikatan Nasional administration abandoned the proposal in 2020, opting instead for cooperation with other Asean countries.

Alarming haze

Yesterday, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said he personally contacted Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto over the “alarming” levels of transboundary haze affecting Malaysia and the region.

He added that the relevant ministries were also in contact with their regional counterparts to address the problem.

“The matter of the haze is at an alarming level, and I’ve personally contacted President Prabowo, and he has agreed to take the necessary steps,” Anwar said.

The haze has also brought renewed scrutiny of Indonesia’s response to the wildfires responsible for the annual pollution crisis.

On Wednesday, a lawsuit accusing Prabowo and other officials of “gross negligence” over toxic haze from wildfires that blanketed parts of Borneo opened at a court in Pontianak, West Kalimantan.

The suit, filed last month by four plaintiffs, including a local chapter of Indigenous NGO Aman, names 10 defendants, including Prabowo and the governor of West Kalimantan.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Glorio Sanen, described the case as “a step to address the problem” of recurring wildfires.

Every return of the haze brings with it the same questions: Why does it keep happening? What is being done to stop it? And, perhaps most importantly, who will be held accountable for the damage?