In response to Saddened's letter, I am sure when the ruling party in Malaysia decided to expose the emergence of 'militant groups' in Malaysia, it never thought the situation could turn nasty.

I believe the ruling party did so to halt the declining support it has been facing after several major controversies, i.e. the MCA-Nanyang saga, high-profiled bailouts, etc. It is common sense that in times of uncertainty, people tend to stick to the ruling party.

This is typified in the soaring popularity of the Liberal Party of Australia. Before the Tampa boat people and the WTC incidents, most polls pointed towards a change of government and the return of the Australian Labor Party. Today, the Liberals not only managed to bring the dwindling support under control but even reversed the situation and are leading against the Labor in most polls.

I can understand why the government had to shoot itself in the foot by announcing that Malaysia is not harbouring any terrorists, just to assure the international investors blah blah blah. But was it necessary to use words as strong as "no reason for US to attack us"? The way I look at it, the ruling party is making the utmost from the situation by trying these cheap shots.

I admit I'm not in Malaysia at the moment so I don't know the sort of information people at home are getting regarding the incident. I do follow the story quite closely in Australia and as far as I know, Malaysia does not feature largely in the news here. I can only remember two separate occasions where Malaysia was mentioned because the suspects were seen in Malaysia some time ago and that was it. The content of the report gave no indication what part, if any, Malaysia played in the incident.

Lastly, was it so surprising to find a few visitors with no apparent criminal records from the Middle East showing up in a Muslim-predominant country?