For the benefit of Fahri Azzat , let me relate my experience from putting my name to two recent letters in malaysiakini . First allow me to explain that my bylines have, over the years, appeared in the newspapers. Hence, my identity - in a small way - is in the public domain.

Ever since I posted my comments in response to the MPSJ dog ruling, I've been receiving hate mail every day. Some charming people apparently took undue exception to the views I expressed and have been making me presents of various types of viruses.

Fortunately, my computer has a decent enough virus guard. My friend, Alfean Abu Bakar's computer crashed due to virus attacks and is still to be properly fixed, despite having been sent to the shop for repair. The virus also replicated and sent itself to everyone on his mailing list.

Yes, Alfean Abu Bakar is his actual name and he wrote to malaysiakini as a concerned dog owner over the same MPSJ ruling. From the day his letter was posted, he's been the object of daily threats and 'warnings' sent via e-mail as well. It appears that in Malaysia, dog is an emotive an issue as God.

Speaking for myself, I feel like I'm being cyber stalked. The grotesque messages directed at me come from a variety of 'fake' addresses. Recently, I found (to my horror!) that my e-mail address had been submitted to a 'blind date' dating agency by, presumably, the anonymous people who have been harassing me.

As a result, I've ceased to use my TMnet registered address and resorted to Hotmail for communication with my friends.

On his part, Alfean fears that some of those same petty-minded individuals who have been harassing him - probably because he is a bumiputera who admits to keeping a dog - might actually attempt to poison the mutt.

So to me, it's perfectly understandable that many letter writers to malaysiakini opt to use pseudonyms. Sadly, the social and political climate in this country is such that there will very likely be repercussions should the identity of the writers expressing 'contrary' views be known.

The use of pseudonyms is a sad indictment of the repressed and suppressed society we live in, one which is far from mature when it comes conducting a civil and civic discourse. I would therefore agree with The Don that it is the 'message' that should be evaluated as to its content's veracity and relevance. Here however, 'they' simply shoot the messenger.

Perhaps letters carrying their authors' genuine names would have more credibility. But these authors could just be letting themselves in for the sort of hassles that I've just described.