Banning entry of critics futile in borderless world
'So should the US now also ban all Malaysians from the US? Topping the list would be no less than Dr Mahathir Mohamad.'
Kit P: Like it or not, ambassador John Malott speaks with standing among the US foreign policy community. If the Malaysian government and Umno disagree with him, they are free to refute him with facts and logic.
Maybe it's high time Apco earned its costly public relations fees. The days when Malaysia could shut out the world by banning people here are over.
Survivor: Minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz is stupid. Is this the way you solve problems in this globalised world?
If I were from the ruling party, I would have invited John Malott to come to Malaysia at the expense of the rakyat's monies and bring him around to see for himself the situation, even if he was an ambassador before. Things and times have changed.
But are you afraid that what he writes, which you said is a lie, is shown to be the truth?
Just me: This is one of the most infamous and stupid statement from a de facto law minister. So should the US now also ban all Malaysians including Nazri from the US? Topping the list should be no less than our Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who has made so many unkind remarks against the US.
Abasir: Since Lee Kuan Yew has also criticised Malaysia more than once, would Nazri propose that he too be banned?
TSC: The truth hurts? Malott calls a spade, a spade. He didn't do the diplomatic-speak. He is one of those rare white men who see through the racist Umno ways of plundering public money with the guise of fighting for a bigger economic pie for Malays, and said so in public.
Amaso: Instead of banning John Malott, Nazri should counter the lies with facts and figures. Banning him tells the whole world that Nazri is void of arguments yet he calls himself a lawyer.
Don't Play God: This means that Nazri knows nothing about the Internet. Maybe you don't even know how to surf the Net. Don't be surprised to find out that people are very well-versed with what is happening in Malaysia, just like how Malaysians who are PC-savvy know more about Umno and the government than what the ‘makciks' and ‘pakciks' in the kampung know.
Atan-Toyol: Nazri, Malott was only giving his perception about the situation - and he saw the present as worse than May 13, 1969. You cannot make people change perceptions, and if you do, it shows you disagree with his opinion.
Perceptions are like opinions, Nazri. Just because you don't agree with an opinion, you do not ban people from coming here. Be more open-minded and less dictatorial. You know what happens to dictators? They can get kicked out of power.
Not Confused: Good idea Nazri - go ahead and ban Malott from Malaysia. In the same way that banning a book (something this brainless government are good at too), his voice will not only still be heard, but he will gain a lot more credence and coverage of his views - views that are based on a lengthy tenure as US ambassador here in Kuala Lumpur.
Cala: Who has a higher propensity to tell lies? Is Nazri over-reacting in the case of John R Malott? Of course, on the surface, Malott does not appear to take the lines of the regime as he accuses the regime of stoking racial tensions.
But whether Malott's accusations are true or false can best be judged by the people who have an interest in the welfare of the country. There is no necessity for Nazri to be jumpy over this issue. In the age of the Internet, let the people make their own informed decision whether to take Malott's words for all their worth.
The more furious Nazri gets, the more people are wary of his intentions. After all, as one fellow reader puts it, what benefit is there for Malott to tell lies?
The story is different for the regime, however. The incentive structure is simply way too high for it to hold on to the handle of power. For example, see the no-bid contracts. In short, in the eyes of the people, the regime has a higher propensity to tell lies. Not Malott.
Freemsia: Malott telling lies? Many of the incidents that Malott mentioned in his article are true and many are actually reported in both the online media and mainstream media. I read the article three times. I would really like to know which part he is lying about? It looks like the truth definitely hurts.
Rayfire: Nazri, yes there are some discrepancies in his article - some seems generalised and based on selective incidents. But in general, his thoughts are in sync with all right-thinking Malaysians (except members of BN).
So if you think otherwise, challenge the article. Banning sends the wrong signals and is an act of cowardice. If you insist on banning, there is a long list of our very own troublemakers you should consider. You may start with Mahathir Mohamad, Ibrahim Ali, Awang Selamat, Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, etc.
Koh Stanley: To date there has been no intelligent written content rebutting Malott's views but only threats and open resentment. This proposal only confirms that while Malaysians are generally civilised, we have an uncivilised government who cannot even tolerate differing views.
Banning Malott proves only one thing. We are ruled by leaders who are unable to engage in intellectual discussions.
Fly Emirates: Nazri, you are a trained lawyer and the public expect you and your colleagues to do better than to accuse Malott of lying without providing a solid, rational and factual rebuttal of what Malott wrote.
In fact, it does not help the government's case when no one could intelligently argue where Malott has gone wrong? Sweeping statements do not work anymore - the public and the global world require facts and figures, not mere accusations.
Changeagent: Good suggestion Nazri. I am sure Malott is hurting so much right now because he really loves to come to Malaysia.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paid subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.