I refer to Steven Lim's letter Non-donors have no right to know and I beg to differ on one of his points.

I agree with Steven that we have the freedom to donate or not donate as and when we hear of donation appeals.

Yet there is a distinction between public appeals and non-public appeals. When Ras Adiba put forth her appeal to the public, she was subjecting herself to public scrutiny. A representation had been made to the public as a whole, and the public as a whole should have every right to question that representation if there was sufficient justification to do so.

Having said this, it is easy to speculate on and on regarding her intentions and the other treatment methods, et cetera, but until we hear from her, let's not start casting stones at her. It is only fair to give her a chance to explain the situation when she comes back to Malaysia after her treatment. This would apply to any other person, regardless of their background.

However, two issues continue to plague my mind:

  • What is the role of the media in such public appeals? Should the media not have a duty to do some investigations prior to publishing the appeals instead of sensationalising it ?

  • A letter writer to malaysiakini mentioned that public appeals once required permits from the authorities. Where is the enforcement if the permit is indeed required?

    • I seem to recall that people I have seen seeking donations door-to-door usually highlight the fact that they have a permit to do so. Surely there should be some form of regulation or check to curb abuse, but not to hamper the urgency of the cases as well?