I want to highlight one tactic employed by news writers when they want to influence their readers. It is subtle, yet damning.

Reading through most articles regarding the water issue in the Straits Times of Singapore, one would find a well-placed statement or its likeness added, such as: "As in last week's advertisements placed daily by the National Economic Action Council (NEAC), yesterday's advertisement, placed by unknown groups, did not explain how it arrived at that figure."

Immediately of course, as obviously intended by the writer, there are doubts cast about the validity of figures, facts, allegations or interpretations.

How long really would it take for a newspaper, with resources of the Straits Times at its disposal, to establish these claims made by Malaysia and to settle it without continuing to cast doubts?

It has been more than a week really, since these numbers floated by Malaysia have been around. If after all this time Straits Times has not been able to establish these claims and treats it accordingly, that really tells something Singapore's understanding of meritocracy.

It has been convenient and beneficial to the Singapore powers to continue to remain silent on Malaysian figures, facts and allegations, so that doubts over them can continue to fester and sympathy can continue to remain on their side.

I thought I did read the explanation of how the Malaysian government's facts and figures came about. Why do Singaporean ministers and writers continue to insist that this is not there to see?

Maybe a qualified journalist can enlighten me on how to cast doubts in a news article which is supposed to be more about facts? Or is this something that one picks up in intelligence services and the like?

The very learned Singaporeans should have been able to quite easily debunk Malaysian claims if they really had the evidence. There is only mischief value in continuing this charade.

Rather than treading on thin ice, Singapore, or at least its so called independent press, should have the guts to establish the veracity of the Malaysian claims and sue for libel if these are wrong.

Obviously, the next question would be whose courts and judicial system should apply? That will be a fun one to watch.

Indeed there is evidence now that beyond its value to cause mischief, at least one of Singapore's intitial positions has been shown for what it really is. Mischief by misleading.

Singapore, taking the position that Malaysia has lost its right to review the water price after 1986/7, led us to think that Malaysia's willingness to sit at the table to negotiate, was a concession in itself.

We now know that the right to a price review was an option available to Malaysia after 1986/7. The position changes, does it not? The mere fact that Singapore remains silent to this day on this matter is shameful.

As for the basis to set the price, does the contract make provisions for a review mechanism? Do Malaysians have the right to review?

After all, since Singaporeans talk about market mechanisms, why don't we let that prevail? Until then maybe we should all thank Singapore for the fantastic charade that they have put on for everyone in the last several months.