I find Neil Khor's arguments in 'Paper boycott illogical and irresponsible' extremely puzzling, illogical and incoherent ('Paper boycott illogical and irresponsible', May 30).

Is the writer saying that just because other newspapers in Malaysia are not fair and independent, it is ridiculous and irresponsible to oppose MCA's takeover of Nanyang Press?

Just because there are other mainstream media under the control of political parties and hence cannot report fairly and impartially, should we also quietly allow Nanyang Press to fall under the same dark cloud?

With most of the English and Malay dailies under partisan ownership, isn't it even more important to maintain and preserve whatever independent voices there still exist in the media world?

Nanyang Siang Pau cannot of course be truly free and independent under the restrictive media laws of Malaysia but perhaps the writer can appreciate that it is miles better for it to be owned by business interests rather than a political party.

Political parties survive by influencing the public to support it. To expect it not to use a mass media under its control to propagate its image and agenda is naive. We can also expect all criticism of the party whether justifiable or not to disappear from the pages it oversees. Yet another abuse is to use a controlled media to attack political rivals within and without the party.

And yet, political parties must be criticised if they fall short. Such criticism should be seen as valuable feedback which should be used to improve its ability to mirror and represent the will of the people. One insidious result of a controlled press is that it starves the leaders of valuable feedback as no alternative or critical views are reported.

Yes, business interests can also lead to biased reporting but this is usually oblique and indirect and an order of magnitude less harmful than having a political party in control of editorial content. A newspaper run as a business is more wary of its circulation figures and is less likely to be partisan and one-sided in its reporting.

I dispute the writer's assertion that The Star was the only paper that reported the ISA arrests fairly. Perhaps he does not read The Sun . But in any case when it comes to reporting embarrassing and uncomfortable news of MCA and even Umno, The Star is outstandingly mute compared with The Sun .

It is no coincidence that The Star is owned by a political party while The Sun is owned by a crony businessman. So we can see that even a crony businessman owner leads to fairer and more balance reporting than a political owner.

The Star is being targeted for boycott because it belongs to the same owner as the very one now trying to take over Nanyang Press by force. Is this direct link so difficult to see that calling for a boycott of The Star is deemed unfair and irresponsible? And why point to the New Straits Times now when the aim is to put pressure on Huaren Holdings and MCA to save Nanyang ?

Nanyang may not be perfect, but it is worth saving. Having a semi-independent paper is better than having a blatantly partisan paper under the control and manipulation of a political party.