Maybe, whether you are a "traitor" or a "terrorist" depends on who you have offended or who you may offend.

Both were detained but the fact that Ching Cheong was tried and Mas Selamat did not have the chance of a fair trial speaks volume. This jolts me back to "Operation Coldstore" of the 60's and the tragic joke of "Marxist Conspiracy" Catholics of 80's.

Or are public enemies created at opportune time to frighten the public and/or to maintain and strengthen political power?

As one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, I guess the man who owns the gold makes the rule (to the extend of ruling the minds!).

Yes, the Golden Rule.

And on the subject of mainstream media credibility, I wonder if the local media will report on SDP's "Tak Boleh Tahan" happening at the concourse between Singapore River and Parliament House tomorrow at 2pm 15 March 2008.

Or are only assemblies, demonstrations and rallies of other countries like Hindraf of Malaysia worth the effort of the song and dance of our local media?

Ching Cheong was arrested, tried and convicted in a Chinese court in 2006 for the serious crime of espionage. He has since served his sentence and is now out on parole. Back in Singapore, he is hailed as a hero and many insist that he is innocent.

Mas Selamat was deported from Indonesia to Singapore in 2006. He was accused of the serious crime of plotting to crash a plane into Changi Airport. He has since (until recently) been detained without trial under the Internal Security Act. He has not been convicted of terrorism charges in court; yet on his escape, he was portrayed as public enemy number one and literally the whole island has been mobilised to apprehend him.

What gives? We do not appear to trust Chinese courts, but in Singapore, it seems that we do not even need courts to find somebody guilty. Apparently, the spectre of terrorism has obviated the need for due process. Ching Cheong has served his time, for a crime he did or did not do, and can now walk free. Mas Selamat has also been detained for a similar length of time, for an alleged crime, but had no release date to look forward to as he has neither been convicted or sentenced. No wonder then that he escaped.

So am I saying Mas Selamat is not a terrorist? The answer is I do not know, and neither does the rest of Singapore. I hope the relevant authorities can remove all doubt by pressing charges when they do catch him, and according him the courtesy of a fair and open trial.

i don't blame the media for their predicament, and if the government will not acknowledge the undercurrents that people who bother to question the media have lost faith in news dissemination, they will lose the people who even bother to think about what this couontry stands for.

fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you.

I think it's very easy to criticise the media for this. But let's also remember that the release was sent out at 8pm. Now i don't know what time they go to print, but i assume it's only going to be 4-5 hours for them to get everything in for the first day's story. So even if they left out that part in the first story, seeing that the focus then was on the massive manhunt, then they at least tried to answer it on the subsequent days. so let's not assume straight away that the Govt put their hands in.

i find it strange that cherian is going after this reporting, when he should well know how difficult it is to get any sort of information out of the ISD. There is also many other stories out there – especially the political coverage ones – which he has not criticised for not asking obvious questions. Why? Would it have anything to do with his wife being the head of the political desk?

Counter this reportage with the careful handling of the facts in news outlets outside of Singapore. Agence France-Presse referred to Mas Selamat as “an ALLEGED Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militant leader” (emphasis added). The Associated Press reported he is a “SUSPECTED local leader of a Southeast Asian terrorist network who ALLEGEDLY plotted to fly a plane into Singapore’s airport” (emphasis added). It cited the Ministry of Home Affairs as the source of the accusations. AP elaborates: “Mas Selamat has since been held in custody under Singapore's Internal Security Act, which allows indefinite detention without trial.” This use of careful wording is not confined to the West. The Hong Kong Standard said Mas Selamat is “a top Muslim terror suspect.” Thailand’s The Nation said he is an “accused terrorist.” In fact, on a cursory examination of news reports, the press inside Singapore appears to stand apart in repeating the government line of Mas Selamat’s guilt. When I asked my journalism students to describe who Mas Selamat is, they duly repeated that he is a terrorist leader who plotted to fly planes into Changi. Perhaps Mas Selamat is guilty of these things. But since he has not been afforded the right to a public trial, we cannot know for sure. The difference between characterizing Mas Selamat as a terrorist or as an accused terrorist should be a significant one for journalists who believe in upholding the truth. The distinction stems from whether a journalist reports what he or she knows to be true or simply repeats the government’s version of truth without attribution or question. The difference is fidelity to truth.