With the ongoing issue of uncontrolled development in various parts of the country, it is indeed shocking to hear that the Special Branch had interviewed TV3 journalist Fazli Ahmad with regards to his reports on environmental damage.

This shocking move by the police was made public by TV3 in their 8pm main news bulletin on Monday.

There are various implications with regards to this move by the Special Branch such as why it sees fit to target a mainstream electronic media like TV3 for interrogation. Secondly, who ordered the investigation?

Fazli was merely doing his duty as a media man in exposing what was seemed to be activities against government policies and regulations. It is definitely not right for anyone to undertake logging activities in a forest reserve.

Thirdly, why were the tables turned on Fazli in that the police did not question those involved in the illegal logging as revealed by the his report? TV3 revealed the illegal activities but they were ones questioned instead.

We have heard of cases where 'whistle blowers' were the ones investigated by the authorities not unlike in the case of a Fire Department official who reported his superior for alleged abuse of power. The former was forced to quit his job.

The behaviour of the Special Branch has tainted the image of the government. It is no doubt their duty to protect the public but was the revelation by TV3 a threat to the security of the state or the country?

I sincerely hope that it is not a case of overzealousness on the part of the Special Branch or a case of political interference of any sort. Besides this, such a move by the Special Branch could lead the public a 'naughty conclusion' that the state government is either trying to hide something or trying to dictate the press.

I am sure the police and especially the Special Branch know where, when and how they are supposed to act when the time comes but it is definitely not a wise move for them to haul up a reporter for doing his job with national interests in mind.

I am sure Pak Lah`s administration which is pushing for transparency in governance does not favour such a move. We do hope that under current leadership, people who try to expose bad activities or bad deeds would not be prejudiced against or subject to any act of harassment by any quarter.

This would only but hamper the government's initiative for good governance and true administrative transparence.