It is interesting to note how the issue was presented by both sides of the media. Over here in Singapore, Straits Times decided that a rosy spin would be nice:

…when Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh concluded his two-hour statement at 6pm, Singaporeans and Malaysians alike applauded the decision.

Over at Malaysia’s National News Agency, Bernama.com, the story wasn’t quite as rosy. Malaysian’s International Trade and Industry Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, said:

I’m rather disappointed with the decision made by the ICJ on Pulau Batu Puteh which was not in favour of Malaysia.

As a subject of Johor, I’m sad because whatever consideration applied by the ICJ under international law, in terms of the historical value, sovereignty and morality, we have lost part of our territory

… Hopefully, Singapore will not be arrogant over the latest decision on Pulau Batu Puteh

The fact that Malaysians probably aren’t applauding now is probably best shown by the call for calm by chairman and chief executive of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Datuk Seri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan:

Don’t be emotional and spread anti-Singapore sentiments which would not bring any benefit to Malaysia or to bilateral relations between the two countries

Yet another one from the New Straits Times, Loss a big blow for fishermen:

The normally quiet fishing community in Sungai Rengit, Pengerang, 65km from here, became highly charged yesterday, as fishermen shook their heads in disbelief over the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh.

The Straits Times conveniently left out all negative references of what the Malaysian government had said, while the Bernama.com… did not bother to include anything the Singapore authorities had said.

I’m not sure which is worse. But actually I should know which is: The Straits Times. Omission is probably less of a crime than distortion. But one thing for sure: patriotism is one thing, responsible journalism is quite another.

Mr Franco Guo is in the soup for uttering one of the most rascist remarks made by a blogger to date, too uncouth to be republished here, on his blog (see Google’s cache).

Mr Guo has since been arrested, and apologised. Much has been discussed on the blogosphere about his racism, bigotry and what not, so we shall not spend any more time talking about it. Instead, it is interesting to note the way he had apologised:

Sincere Apologies

Dear Readers,

I would like to express my sincere apologies for any misinterpretation to my blog entry [italics added].

I regret having mentioned this entry in my blog which I didn’t expect it to turn out to be like this, I should have been more mindful.

Once again, I am sincerely apologetic for the recent events that had happen.

Your’s sincerely, Franco

Mr Guo may not be the most grammatical or tactful blogger around, but he sure has learnt quite a bit about the art and craft of apologising. It may also be instructive to look at the top three apologies made by our leaders in recent times–which may be the source of Mr Guo’s inspiration.

No. 3, Lee Kuan Yew to Abdullah:

I am sorry that what I said has caused you a great deal of discomfort. After a decade of troubled relations with your predecessor, it is the last thing I wanted.

No. 2, Wong Kan Seng on the escape of Mas Selamat:

This should never have happened. I am sorry that it has.

Holding on to the top spot still has to be Wee Siew Kim on behalf of Wee Shu Min:

… I think if you cut through the insensitivity of the language, her basic point is reasonable, that is, that a well-educated university graduate who works for a multinational company should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on with the challenges in life.

Nonetheless, I have counseled her to learn from it. Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it…

Comparing Mr Guo’s apology with these exemplars, one would realise that there are striking similarities between his apology and Wee Siew Kim’s apology. The former is sorry that you, yes you, misguided reader, have misinterpreted his blog; the latter is well, sorry that some people cannot take the “brutal truth”.

Both of them lack the finesse displayed in Lee’s apology–which although did not apologise for what he said, but is sorry that it is causing Abdullah “a great deal of discomfort”.

See, saying sorry is also an art and craft.

Eight years ago Oh Chee Kiong had attempted the same feat at the Subordinate Court. One would have thought once bitten, twice shy.

Criminal who used loo break to escape from court jailed

December 31, 2000, by Aletha Lim, Straits Times

OH CHEE Kiong thought he could give the law the slip.

While waiting for a case against him to be heard in the Subordinate Courts, the 27-year-old said he wanted to use the loo.

He answered the call of nature, then took the opportunity to make a quick escape.

But the long arm of the law managed to catch up with Oh and he was back in court again on Friday – without ‘toilet leave’.

He was jailed for six years for a string of convictions such as criminal intimidation and forgery.

On the day of his escape on Oct 23, Oh was in a magistrate’s court to face seven counts of Films Act offences, including having obscene and uncensored films.

When he asked to go to the toilet, a court officer escorted him from the courtroom to the toilet through a holding room.

After he had used the loo, he went to the holding room as instructed by the officer.

While he was there, he realised he was alone and decided to escape.

Making sure that there was no one around in the toilet, he walked out of the room and ran up the stairs through a passageway.

He then left the building in Havelock Square and headed for home in a cab.

Three days later, he was arrested at a house in Upper Serangoon Road for possession and consumption of drugs…