The impact of globalisation has brought about three important and far-reaching consequences:

1. the democratisation of information;

2. the democratisation of finance; and

3. the democratisation of technology.

Globalisation is not an idea or a theory, it is an organisation. As such, the objectives of globalisation will seek to justify the above consequences, whether nation-states will be able to accept or reject them.

Globalisation is the paramount organisation superseeding the Laskian idea and the theory of state that nurtured the post-colonial concept of nation-states. Most of these states have become stifled by the regulatory procedural safeguards embedded in their constitutions, thus inducing dysfunctional discordance amongst the independent variables of legislature, executive and the judiciary.

In Malaysia, the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 prescribed Emergency powers to the British to flush out the Malayan Communist Party. And hence the notion of independence was yet insidiously curtailed until the Emergency Rule was lifted in 1960. This has until today remained the most destructive antecedent variable to our Federal Constitution.

The inherent fear that most Malays have of the Chinese in particular and the suspicion they carry with them whenever they interact with the Chinese whether in business or in the workplace is proof of this.

In theoretical review this anthropological fallibility becomes a surrogate intervening variable continually disparaging the combination of a hypothesis. Hence the nation-state theory appears to be until today a guinea-pig.

The former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has very vehemently condemned this as an intrusion into the rights of the Malays. And I believe it to be true. The attempt to assimilate the indigenous Malays with immigrant Chinese and Indians for the last 150 years virtually failed because the nation-state concept has been willfully imposed without regard for their differing beliefs, values and norms.

I am amazed that the pretense and possibilities were never given due recognition by the writers of this constitution and our founding fathers blindly signed without calling for a debate like in India. When independence was accorded to India in 1947, it remained a Dominion State with the Queen of England as its head of state and its first Governor-General was none other than Lord Mountbatten himself. Subsequently the Indian Union was created as a republic state.

Since independence the media focus has been largely on the radio, the daily newspapers in English and also the vernacular languages like Mandarin, Tamil, Malay and even Punjabi. In the seventies the television was introduced.

All these media forms were tightly controlled by the government with the issuance of licences on a year to year basis. This was again the influence of another antecedent variable, the Internal Security Act enforced by the British to detain without trial the communist insurgents, which prevailed right into 1987 as Operation Lalang and recently into the Hindraf demonstration.

Hence the Barisan Nasional government, except during the period of Mahathir, did not seriously consider looking at new forms of governance other than compellingly submitting to the British Parliamentary System, which again is another intervening variable distorting the development of a theory of state in the environment of Malaysia.

The blocking of Malaysia Today is governed by the kind of mentality the ruling Barisan Nasional inherited from the above analysis without giving due cognisance to the influence of globalisation on every individual life in this planet. This concept is to stay here until something new supercedes its presence.

Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) did not act alone as an individual. He merely adhered to the influence of globalisation and opened up his blog. This blog has had two important roles: the democratisation of information and the democratisation of opinions that were not permitted to be published in the mainstream media.

It was also enhanced by the democratisation of technology (the personal computer) in almost every home.

His views and opinions could have sometimes gone beyond the general norms of traditional publishing especially when he mentions some individual’s social behaviour. But RPK does not comment on anyone’s personal behaviour unless it has affected the social and political pillars of this nation.

He virulently attacked what he considered social and political dysfunctional bases. That is his right as a citizen. He has expanded an alternative media and must be lauded for boldly navigating uncharted waters of globalisation.

The Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar is by profession a lawyer and must explain why Malaysia Today was blocked so undemocratically. Despite the Lingam and Fairuz collusion, the judiciary is still the best place for judicial recourse.

RPK should be formally charged if he has gone beyond the laws of this country in publishing his views and opinions. That was not done. Moreover his house was searched and marauded. What has he done to befit this kind of treatment? He has been treated as though he is a traitor to the nation. The government has got a lot of explaining to do and it can start by explaining why it is targeting RPK.