Like many other readers, I am not bothered about who funds malaysiakini . We know we are capable of making up our own minds about the quality of reporting. What is important is that the online daily allows a spectrum of opinions to be expressed. It is the first breath of fresh air for a very long time.

All the other newspapers are so biased that I have stopped subscribing to them except to The Star because it is an all-in-one newspaper from which I get my stock market and commodity reports. All other reports, I get from the Internet.

I am most willing to subscribe to malaysiakini if that is what it takes to keep it going. The reader has many choices: He can read a report or he can ignore it. If he reads it, he can decide whether it is fair or not. There is a difference between a fact and an opinion and the government can easily prove or disprove a fact. The reader can either accept or reject an opinion. So why the fuss?

Whilst the former editor Chong Yen Long may try to project himself as a man of principles by resigning after the news broke out, he comes across as something else. The important question is not whether malaysiakini was funded directly or indirectly by Soros but whether he (Chong) was influenced by the board to make biased reporting. The fact that he was the editor implied he had influence over the reports made by the reporters. He was in charge and at the steering wheel. If the news were slanted, it was with his tacit approval.

I think the government should, after being in power for four decades, have enough maturity to let the public make their own judgments about whether reports are biased or not. They have many newspapers at their disposable to counter any false claims made by malaysiakini and should do so in a democratic spirit. We have always talked about a level playing field; why not practise it?