Rumours, more so the "juicy" ones, travel faster than light in this blessed land of ours. The accelerated speed they acquire is primarily made possible by the "attractiveness" of the tale that is being spun as well as the availability and astute utilisation of advanced information technology such as the Internet.

Very much a part of our political culture and a pet subject of today's political discourse on both sides of the government-opposition divide, rumours spread via traditional and modern networks of communication. They are transmitted from - not necessarily in this order - homes to houses of worship, coffeeshops, cybercafes, wet market, and to stock market. And, to be sure, they catapult to prominence especially in the conspicuous absence of credible information and reliable sources of information.

Put another way, rumours are really a sad symptom of a disease that has seriously inflicted Malaysian for many years. This disease - we'll simply call it "informatese" - is brought about by a situation in our society where the rakyat in general often suffer from a lack of credible news and critical views and, subsequently, resort to rumours. What is easily made available, though, is government-sanctioned information that is principally churned out by the mainstream media whose credibility is, as malaysiakini reader Kevin Gan rightly pointed out, at an all-time low.

So what are the causes of informatese? First, the mainstream media, as many of us are aware, are owned and controlled by groups or individuals who are closely aligned to the ruling Barisan Nasional. As a result, you get pliant media which mostly echo government's views, and which would go to great length to distort, marginalise or reject news and views that are critical of the government.

Second, these media, as intimated above, are less accessible to the rakyat , particularly those whose views differ with the government's. Hence, a yawning gap appears between the information and views offered by the media on the one hand and the expectations, needs and interests of the ordinary people on the other. The credibility of the mainstream media is indeed further sullied.

As an apparent antidote to this credibility problem, certain newspapers have resorted to running occasional street polls (with photos of respondents) on certain politically safe issues. This may help boost a little the sagging circulation of the newspapers concerned, but it doesn't necessarily enhance freedom of expression, especially when the topics of discussion are normally determined by an editorial team. Besides, readers are often invited to express opinions on the implementation of certain national policies rather than questioning the policies themselves in an engaged debate. In short, you skirt around the larger issues that impinge upon the lives of the ordinary people.

This is, incidentally, the context in which the media boycott was launched in Kuala Lumpur on Feb 1, an action taken by a group of politically-conscious Malaysians who are gravely concerned and disturbed by what they perceive as the unchecked slide in Malaysia's journalistic professionalism and ethics. The rot, it appears, needs to be stopped somewhere.

Third, undemocratic and repressive laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Official Secrets Act, Sedition Act, and the all-powerful Internal Security Act are no help either. They not only prevent easy access to information of public interest and concern, but also discourage people from exercising their democratic right to express their views and ask pertinent and probing questions openly.

Fourth, a climate of fear, arising from these restrictive laws, only breeds rumours. People tend to generate as well as rely on rumours especially in this age of the Internet. This fascination with rumours magnifies especially when certain "rumours" posted on the Net by people, who apparently are privy to some vital information, contain some elements of truth.

In a somewhat surreptitious fashion, and armed with pseudonyms, these Internet users cautioned us, for instance, of the irreparable rift between Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim before the latter's unceremonious dismissal in November 1998. In another case, Net surfers were also warned that Anwar might be harmed during his initial police custody - which indeed culminated in the infamous "black eye" incident.

And another instance that suggests some degree of truth in "rumours" posted on the Internet is when Malaysians were duly alerted a few weeks ahead of the impending resignation last month of Malaysia's media czar, A Kadir Jasin of the Umno-linked New Straits Times Press group.

While these concerned citizens do make some useful and invaluable "contributions" to society, their sharing of information and views via the Internet under the cloak of secrecy does not, however, augur well for democracy and intellectual development in Malaysia in the long run. We can understand the high risks involved in disclosing the Netters' identities and their sources under the present political climate and given the laws pertaining to freedom of expression, but anonymity especially on the Net can be, unfortunately, subject to abuse by some undesirable elements, as is already experienced by both sides of the political divide in recent times.

Yes, some rumours, particularly those circulated via the Internet, can be downright ridiculous. Take the recent allegation that our Foreign Minister consciously made official contact with his Israeli counterpart when he was in New York attending a United Nations meeting. Whoever spun this tale must be aware that there's only so much you can stretch in Malaysian politics, after which you would start to wonder. Surely, they are not suggesting that Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar is so thick as to actually make a radical shift in Malaysia's foreign policy without even having to gauge Malaysia's public opinion and also consult the people via Parliament.

Certain other rumours can also be nasty and vicious. One that made its round recently relates to Malaysia's National Union of Journalists (NUJ). Its silence on the Harakah controversy was interpreted by some Netters in this manner: NUJ's primary and only concern is its members' financial welfare as is oftenillustrated in its tough negotiation for a new collective agreement. It is further alleged that the body sees the larger question of press freedom and democracy as being irrelevant to its existence. Surely this organisation whose membership consists of people who are intellectually alert and politically savvy needs no outsiders to tell what its role in society ought to be.

There are also rumours which are mischievous and asinine. For example, the then NST editor-in-chief, Kadir, was alleged to have obtained help from a number of ghost writers to put together his Sunday "Other Thots" column. It is simply unbelievable that a journalist of such stature would do such a thing.

Obviously, the factors that have given rise to informatese need to be tackled seriously and effectively. Otherwise, the rumour that the government is increasingly becoming undemocratic and intolerant towards criticisms, comments and dissent may gain credence over time.