"KL to review Terengganu's request" (June 26)

"Sarawak pays dearly for saving forests" (July 2)

The first headline introduces a story describing a comment by the prime minister in which he threatened to contest the oil income of a state now controlled by an opposition party. But there was no "request" made by Terengganu representatives as the headline states. This was made clear in the article which followed. Wherever did the headline writer get the idea there was a request?

The second headline suggests that saving forests incurs a loss. The article details loss, giving amounts in Malaysian currency. Toward the end of the article, a necessity to husband timber resources is recognised, but this comes only after a reflection on the "paying dearly" which environmental foresight is said to have "cost".

In a previous column titled "When the law is not the law" (June 29), I addressed the prime minister's peremptory remarks. The PM's initiative in the matter has not been rebutted. Since there was no "request", how did this twist of the facts arise? This leads one to the idea there is more tthan a case of sloppy thought and editing.

This suspicion is reinforced by the second headline, where saving becomes "loss", and the wise constraint from stripping the land bare of timber becomes an occasion for weeping and the wringing of hands. There is reported to be a "loss of jobs" suggesting immediate hardship (though no reports of unemployed loggers have been reported). On the contrary, logging continues at an excessive pace throughout the state, and beyond.