I refer to the story, [#1] Malaysiakini concerned over RTM's 'baseless attacks' [/#], Feb 16). The recent attacks on malaysiakini are expected and the only surprise is that they did not occur sooner.

The recent allegation by our foreign minister that malaysiakini has an anti-establishment/government bias is shared by many of my friends including me, an avid visitor of your website.

Malaysiakini has to realistically ask itself how many governments out there will tolerate free press and publication of matters embarrassing to the ruling class and therefore subversive of its interests to self-perpetuate?

I understand that in January 2000, Freedom House's press freedom survey found that nearly two-thirds of countries (63 percent) restrict print and electronic journalists. Some 80 percent of the world's people live in nations with less than a free press. Listed in the free-press category are 69 countries, representing all continents. Fifty-one nations have partly free news media, and in another 66 countries the print and broadcast systems are not free of government control.

If this government is unhappy with malaysiakini 's anti-establishment stance, at least it can be said in its favour that it belongs to the majority two-thirds, and therefore not exceptional in its response.

Yet malaysiakini does have an important public role precisely because of its bias. To me, there is nothing wrong with bias - and it is not inconsistent with the principles of press freedom and editorial independence - as long as there is truth and accuracy of reporting. It is hard to find a media anywhere in the world that is not coloured by agendas of its owners or editors.

All the good deeds of and praises for our government are more than amply covered or sung by our mainstream controlled media so that malaysiakini 's adversarial stance will only serve to provide Malaysians the "other side of the picture" in order to enable a better forming of a balanced view on many issues.

So far malaysiakini 's response to the attacks has been measured. Indeed, other than rebuttal in a logical form, nothing more needs to nor can be done. Malaysiakini has to be fair: if it carries articles or letters that have anti-establishment slant, it is only natural that the establishment has the right to defend itself by proceeding to attack malaysiakini .

The rules of engagement, however, must be fair on both sides. Either side must be given chance of rebuttal published in malaysiakini .

What is not fair is where allegations against malaysiakini do not end there but serve as a prelude to further harassment of editors, writers, contributors, hacking and removal of the website and so on. Yet the latter is not unthinkable. This is because allegations carried by mainstream media to "demonise malaysiakini " are more likely than not to be counterproductive, ending up giving malaysiakini free advertisement and focusing national attention on it and increasing its popularity in terms of readership.

After all, prior to this mainstream media attention, how many Malaysians go online and even of those who surf the Net, how many access to malaysiakini ? Now all who read the national newspapers know about the website. Congratulations. Malaysiakini 's only real bulwark against official clampdown is the prime minister's present firm commitment to Internet and the cause of Multimedia Super Corridor.

The issue of malaysiakini 's funding by George Soros' Open Society Fund is also a big hullabaloo over nothing. What does it matter whether the funding is direct or indirect? If malaysiakini were partly funded by Southeast Asian Press Alliance (Seapa) connected in some way to the Committee to Protect Journalists whose consultant was in turn paid a stipend by George Soros' Open Society Fund, there would be that connection which no matter how remote and tenuous will give your detractors the ammunition to allege that your agenda would be consistent with the Open Society's.

The more important question is what is the Open Society's object that is so objectionable in respect to which no connection, no matter how tenuous, must be seen to exist?

Now, Soros is perceived worldwide as both a champion as well as villain in respect to different things. Even as there are many who perceive and condemn him as a ruthless maverick marketeer who wrecked economies by hedge fund operations, there are many at least in the US, who respect him for his philanthropies and commitment to the cause of 'open society' (never mind if it were speculated that these were undertaken to assuage his guilt).

The Open Society's national foundations, located in different parts of the world (primarily in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union) have the overarching common mission to support the development of open societies worldwide. Whether he wants more open societies for his selfish capitalistic purposes to penetrate or genuinely hates dictatorship (being an immigrant who fled communist Hungary) is really beside the point.

The point is even if he does evil in some areas and good in others, what is the problem in taking advantage of the latter good in the form of some funding made available by his Open Society foundation? Isn't malaysiakini 's agenda also to promote a more transparent and open society in Malaysia; if so, isn't it consistent with Soros' Open Society's objectives? Does the fact that malaysiakini 's and Soros' Open Society's objectives run parallel automatically implicate it to his other less savory activities?

I don't think so. I therefore do not think malaysiakini should waste too much time repudiating the said connection with so much vehemence, and I further urge malaysiakini to continue its good work thus far including providing Malaysians worldwide a forum for free and public exchange of ideas.

If anything, the attacks on malaysiakini by its detractors ironically make it better known to the general populace and buttress its credibility as an online publication that can constitute a serious inconvenience and threat to those vested interests that fear exposure of their shenanigans.