Letter was published in the Straits Times Forum section, on the 6th of September, 2005.

I REFER to the reply from the Attorney-General's Chambers ('Why charge wasn't one of trafficking in children'; ST, Sept 1).

The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) would like to thank the head of its Public Affairs Unit, Mr Cheng Howe Ming, for his reply. Also, I would like to clarify one point and raise further queries.

I refer again to the original report, 'Woman gets jail for trying to smuggle two girls to Paris' (ST, Aug 23). The opening paragraph of this report reads: 'A woman who tried to smuggle two children to Paris for a child trafficker, was caught in the act because the children could not speak Malay.' At no point is there any reference to any mother of the two girls or that one is actually waiting in Paris, as has now been revealed in the Attorney-General's Chambers' reply based on police investigations.

As such, Aware would like to clarify that it did not, firstly, misread the ST report and, secondly, could not have fathomed that a mother was in the picture. Therefore, Aware raised its query accurately, based on what was in the media report. To suggest anything else would be unfair to Aware and its executive committee. If the report was wrongly phrased or plain incorrect, the relevant authorities ought to have got it corrected.

Now that the fact of 'mother waiting in Paris' - a crucial point - has emerged, Aware would also like to say that caution is needed as it cannot be assumed that a parent will not traffick her own child.

Also, this raises more questions. Why were the documents forged if the children were travelling from Sri Lanka to Paris to meet the mother? Why did Madam Kamala have to pick up the children from Malaysia and then transit with them through Singapore to Paris to meet a parent?

And do we know for sure there was no trafficking of these two children through Singapore?

Braema Mathi (Ms)
President, Aware