So the learned cabinet has decided to prosecute malaysiakini for mocking a serious thing like corruption by making an April Fool's joke out of it.

I suppose then that the attorney-general is going to have to draw up the charges. And he has got to be able to define the word seriously. First, he has to define what exactly is a joke. And then he has got to define what it is that takes for a serious matter to be turned into a joke and when that can happen.

Now, we all know that what is serious to an individual may not be a serious matter to the broader community or for that matter, even his family. So, if the charges against malaysiakini are going to be something that is supposed to be serious to the people of Malaysia, then, of course, the authorities must show evidence that they have indeed been serious with some of the allegations of corruption against top officials .

Serious would mean that they must be able to show investigation papers, minutes of meetings to review evidence, collection of evidence, etc. For it to have been 'serious' there is a need to show that progress was being made and conclusions were being drawn.

And, of course, by 'serious' it must also mean that these allegations are properly dispensed with all the way to their ultimate conclusion. If, however, it can be shown that a majority of the cases come to a dead end at the AG's office, then of course, it will only show that it stopped getting serious at that point.

The next task for the AG would be to define a 'joke'. When does something serious become a joke? Can something that is supposed to be a serious matter be made a joke?

Indeed, here is an opportunity for the Malaysian courts to set precedent and become the first court to have dealt with the question of and rendered a legal definition for what constitutes 'serious' and for what constitutes a 'joke'.

Let the games begin!