And so it proved that o­nly a few paragraphs were enough to bring the usual suspects out of the woodwork in blind defence of malaysiakini , regardless of the issues or their understanding of the subject.

My letter (Malaysiakini more biased than those it criticises) led to replies that revealed the attitude, misunderstanding and ignorance of the writers.

The inanities of your pro-war commentators I mentioned should have been obvious to any reader who had read anything in the past six months besides - urm - malaysiakini .

Only propagandists and their apologists can argue in favour of a war, in particular a superpower-led war against a Third World country.

Kim Quek dutifully argues it's all about Saddam Hussein o­nly, which is no doubt what all the US diplomats dispatched overseas have been calling o­n dutiful folks to parrot.

Ah, but that leaves just o­ne minor problem - a military attack o­n Iraq will probably kill off everyone else, especially the civilians, before it's likely to touch Saddam.

So in REALITY a war is against people, and last if at all against leaders such as Saddam. Call it an operational hitch if you like, but it's a practical point.

Those who argue that anti-war protests provide no answer conveniently forget that war provides no answer either. The unprincipled o­nes will then conclude that war and peace therefore amount to the same thing, which o­nly exposes their idiocy.

Then we see Dzirhan Mahadzir , the famous defence analyst, arguing this time that malaysiakini provides a forum for all.

How I wish what he says were true! And that is just the problem; the point about my letter is that malaysiakini isn't all it claims to be, in particular lately.

As in the title of my letter, I did not say that o­nly malaysiakini is biased, or that the mainstream press is NOT biased. That would be a statement of absolutes. I said malaysiakini is more biased, and that is a relative statement.

The intolerant invective in reply to my comments, based o­n blatant misunderstanding, showed how some malaysiakini readers are stillborn.

Perhaps the defenders of malaysiakini 's orthodoxy prefer absolutes, i.e. that malaysiakini is totally unbiased and can never be biased, and the mainstream press is always and totally biased.

Such a view would be their preference and their right, of course. It would also reveal more of themselves to the rest of us.

The point in my (earlier) letter is this: My impression of malaysiakini these days concurs with that of many other people, readers and ex-readers - more anti-government material than pro - or neutral material appear in its columns.

We have experienced the bias of malaysiakini personally. From my conversations with Malaysian o­nliners in different places, it's not just me and a few of my friends and associates who experience this.

The few letters from me, which appear (most don't), are usually censored anyway.

And please don't tell us about "lack of editorial space" and all that. This o­nly happens in the print media, not o­nline media where a few more words or lines don't matter especially when we regularly see long and boring articles and letters (propounding the " malaysiakini mainstream" views, no doubt).

If Mr Mahadzir is a defence analyst, then some of us are media analysts, even if we don't stick our bios at the end of our letters to prove it. His tone, like much of the rest who responded to my letter in hostile fashion, seems intolerant of people with different views.

Another thing that reveals the narrow-minded nature of malaysiakini diehards is the frequent complaint that the mainstream press doesn't publish enough "criticism of the government", or not enough for them.

This view again shows the limits of these critics. Criticise particular issues by all means,

when you feel specific circumstances are deserving of criticism. But why criticise anyone, government officials included, just for the sake of criticising?

Maybe that explains why there have been so many personal attacks in malaysiakini against individual government leaders. You still have to develop beyond the flavour of a school magazine. Get real, and grow up!

Another reader wrote to insist that readers should have the choice to decide what they read is "trash or gold". Sounds good. But why do these people get so irritated and upset when I as a reader decide something I read in malaysiakini is trash?

Critics who argue that my points should be well substantiated strangely do not hold the same standard for others, like Oon Yeoh and James Wong Wing O­n.

I wrote that their pro-war attitude can be read in fuddy-duddy western publications where the articles are written better. Then Mr Mahadzir says that by the same logic, better articles than mine critical of war can be read elsewhere too.

Point number o­ne: I don't write articles critical of war, at most o­nly letters and statements, a small minority of which malaysiakini deems fit to entertain (after censorship).

Point number two: the pro-war sentiments of western commentators are more understandable (though still not more acceptable) than Wong and Yeoh's because they write with more commitment and understanding of their vested interests. Some points why this is so:

These commentators are members of the western elite who stand to benefit when Uncle Sam beats up o­n a small Third World country and then controls their resources. I may be wrong, but Wong and Yeoh don't seem like members of the western elite to me.

I'm quite sure also that those who are members don't accept many Wongs and Yeohs into their privileged company. (Although I'm a 'westerner', like many other western anti-war protestors I do not belong to the elite, nor are we admitted to their company.)

Wong and Yeoh are fond of reminding others of democratic rights and freedoms. How sincere and genuine are their reminders, when they neither practise the freedom to dissent themselves, nor seem to appreciate those who do?

They have identified with the 'super-establishment' of the sole superpower, o­nly too happy to see it attack and kill the less privileged of the world.

Mr Yeoh is wrong to call toadying 'courage'. Sucking up to the rich and powerful overlords of the world is not courage. It does not take courage to be a lackey of a superpower that's the strongest, richest, most aggressive and most arrogant power in the history of our planet. Instead, standing up to it, even by just attending a protest demonstration, is REAL courage.

Another reader took issue with me to say self-righteously that he reads malaysiakini for "the truth". When such rhetoric (hot air) is taken unquestioningly as "truth", it becomes ideology.

Maybe this is a basic problem malaysiakini faces. People who seem like its defenders are actually giving it a long rope to hang itself with, blocking any criticism of it even when criticism can help to improve things.

If malaysiakini allows this, it will end up being surrounded o­nly by yes-men (and yes-women), blocking the view of the real world from malaysiakini's portal. And that will spell the beginning of its end.

I have not been in Malaysia for too long, but readers like me find that progressive critical writers like MGG Pillai, Dr M Bakri Musa and even Dr Farish Noor hardly appear in malaysiakini these days. Instead, we find people like James Wong and Oon Yeoh with their conservative views.

Commentators are of course entitled to express their views, but as readers we are entitled to ask what is happening to malaysiakini 's centre of gravity. I for o­ne fear that editor-in-chief Steven Gan may have good reason to feel isolated, and even encircled.

I have taken the trouble to write to you. At least I am trying to point out what I feel are some of the problems of your site. Other readers who get fed up or 'Disappointed' may just stop reading your stuff, and then malaysiakini will continue to lose its readership.

The reactions my earlier comments attracted may be natural, since it now seems to be taboo to criticise malaysiakini at all. If so, that kind of intolerant gut reaction from some of your readers is bad news for a website that says it practises and wishes to practise freedom of expression.

That kind of sentiment may even have infected those who select readers' letters.

Is malaysiakini for o­ne getting conservative? Is it getting out of touch with many Malaysians?

A recent article in Singapore's Straits Times found that Malaysian alternative o­nline websites ( malaysiakini ?) are experiencing a declining readership, while the mainstream press is doing well.

Of course, you may wish to reject that, since the Straits Times is also part of the (Singapore) mainstream establishment press.

For some of your diehard readers at least, it would seem that nothing in such a paper can be truthful or accurate.

Those like

Tu YM seem to enjoy the Singapore mainstream press while condemning Malaysia's and misreading my comments. He seems so blissful in denial, should we wake him up?

If o­nly he would read what he reads more carefully and seriously, he might find himself less intolerant of the expressed views of others. Meanwhile, happy fantasising!

---

Editor's note: We have neither the time nor resources to check the reason why the few letters which Geoff Bray said he had written were not published. Perhaps Geoff may assist us by sending these 'unpublished' letters - as well as those which he said were censored - so that we can provide an explanation.

As a rule however, we exercise as little censorship as possible when publishing letters from our readers, though we are unable to publish all the letters we received, mostly because of our lack of human resources.

Malaysiakini is always open to those who want to give a different opinion to our current crop of contributors. We have tried, and will continue to try, to get them o­n board.

And no, I'm not feeling 'isolated' or 'encircled'. I'm trying to do the best I can as editor to provide a forum for debate and discussion o­n controversial issues in malaysiakini . Granted, sometimes I fail. But there is o­ne thing we can't do - make everyone happy.