Paul Warren's cynicism about 'NGO types' originates from the 'editor's note' to Steven Gan's editorial. This irresponsible 'Editor's Note' attacks, however indirectly, the integrity of Ivy Josiah, a situation that cannot go unaddressed.

Warren's letter is a rather confused addition to a storm in a teacup stirred up by that note at the end of the editorial in which there is a reference to Ivy's withdrawal from the civil suit against the police relating to the 1996 Apcet II case.

Firstly, I would like declare my interests:

I was involved in Apcet II as one of its three co-conveners; I remain party to the suit against the police (as long as we refrain from turning it into a political circus);

I think of Ivy as a dear friend and a respected colleague who I once, briefly, worked with when I was part of an NGO called the Centre for Independent Journalism;

I have known Gan since we worked together at The Sun in 1995 and consider him to be a journalist worthy of respect.

The trajectory of this wannabe controversy is worth noting. From a malaysiakini editor's note (written with strategic ambiguity) to the pages of Harakahdaily (reported directly) back to the Letters page of malaysiakini as an uninformed harangue against the Malaysian government double standards and 'NGO types'.

What really galls me is the insinuation embedded in the 'editor's note' which ironically provided Warren the brush with which he tars activists.

The 'editor's note' is worth quoting cause it makes an insinuation so caustic and slanderous, against Josiah's integrity, but hides it behind a strategic ambiguity:

'Early this year, Women's Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah, an NGO detainee, requested her name to be struck off from the lawsuit. She had been selected to sit on the Police Royal Commission to probe, among others, police brutality.'

Perhaps by phrasing it in this way, malaysiakini think they don't have to prove the connection.

In contrast, the folks at Harakahdaily sought Josiah's views on the matter directly and without ambiguity. She was asked to comment on the 'Editor's note' in malaysiakini.

Did she really withdraw because of a promise to be nominated to the commission? Or as a consequence of being nominated? She is reported in Harakahdaily as saying she didn't.

But as any good journalist knows, the story hardly ends here. Is someone going to pursue this story, dig up some evidence of a 'deal'? Or will the story die here?

And what of the lingering doubt about Josiah's integrity, now strategically planted in the minds of the public? Is this the end game, intended or otherwise? If so, who does it serve?

Not the truth, not the Timorese, not fight against the abuse of police powers, and certainly not, the deepening of democratic dialogue.

Editor's note: The said editor's note was not intended to cast aspersion on Ivy's reputation but a commentary on how things have changed and yet remain the same. It is commendable that Ivy, a victim of police high-handedness, is now a member of the Police Royal Commission. But judging from the Suhakam experience, will the royal commission make any difference?