It needed just one story to spark the suspension of four people from a national daily; two to resign. One story to lay off 40-odd staff and perhaps many more in the coming days ( Tears flow as Sun sacks 40-odd staff, more expected

, Jan 11).

What does this show? That standing up for another's rights is no longer in fashion anymore? Well, we all know that it did go out of fashion a long time ago but who would have thought that even journalists would get into trouble for standing in solidarity for a good cause.

Readers of The Sun would have noticed that there has been some kind of silent protest among the journalists after the Dec 25 incident. One would have noticed that bylines were missing, most news were taken from the national news agency Bernama and had subdued reporting with almost boring headlines. Why?

Did anyone consider why such a story was published on Dec 25? Or that the editors who decided to run the story could have just done thorough checks, knowing they could be in trouble if they didn't after the story comes out? Or that both the premier and his deputy were not irked by the story until they were provoked by certain quarters? Did anyone at all consider that both the premier and his deputy had in fact seen the story in a light-hearted manner and did not even demand for an apology? What do all these show?

The problem after the story was published did not lie with the rest of the world thinking about Malaysia's 'sudden' presence of terrorism; instead it only went on to show a subtle internal conflict in the daily itself.

Until today, the suspension on the four journalists has not been lifted because the management of the newspaper claims that an investigation is still on going. How long does it take to conduct an investigation? Could it just be that the management is still pondering over how to deal with these 'renegades' who stood by their report? Further, how does it look to the rest of the world when a news daily undermines its own sources? Think about it.

Then again, could this whole fiasco be a working of the management to get rid of those who have just said too much over the years, 'recalcitrant', 'rude', 'leftists', etc. Or is this being done as a noble effort to save an ailing newspaper? One can only wonder.