Mr Fu, LKS, NeSTum and the world wide conspiracy to dominate the intehweb

Oh, come on, you must’ve seen the big two-page spread featuring Fu Ah Kiow and Lim Kit Siang (1) on the NST today. How the hell could anyone miss it (2). You want to see an example of “crimethink” (3) emerging in Malaysia? Well, there you have it. It’s an important issue, if you’re willing to think about it, because Censorship is basically the silencing of information, opinion or fact that contravenes certain rules.

I’m no censor, journalist or law-maker, but I suppose these rules are spelled out in the various Acts passed by parliament. Well, fair enough. Fortunately, we have a set of rules interpreted by the most competent people in the land, i.e. our current leaders. In fact, such is the magnitude of their competence that they:

  • Silenced discussion of “sensitive issues” instead of actively arbitrating discussion of said issues; we are all small boys and girls, so fuck the minority, babes.
  • Grunt and sneer at internet ‘hoodlums’ and then threaten a vastly original interpretation of said rules, i.e. of the “you fuck with us, we kick your ass” variety.

And when said internet ‘hoodlums’ point out various discrepancies in said interpretations (4), our heroes turn to the most obvious method of bringing their own grievances to the fore: lodge a police report against Malaysiakini. Wait a sec, it gets funnier: the POLICE have lodged a POLICE REPORT on Malaysiakini, in their capacity as the POLICE (5).

That’s the thing about not blogging for almost a week (work lah, what to do); it’s like stepping back into the same cesspool of funny politicians and funnier would-be politicians (yo, Khairy!) who believe they’ve got a handle on jungling a more open society, and their draconian inclinations.

Anyway, back to Mr Fu’s dissertation on the volumnous dross on the internet: we must self-censor (or else) (6). See, the threat of legal action for what you say is sort of a funny thing, you know? You can talk, but no matter how right you are, or seem to be, you’ll always face the prospect of some miffed politician or another thinking you should pay - if not with jail time, then with expense - for what you’ve said. I summarize the situation as such:

Think before you talk (laudable advice), and better still, think of the legal rammifications before you talk. These legal considerations will include: the possibility of bringing action against you even if what you’re saying is, firstly, fair comment, or secondly, factually correct because, see, the whole idea here is, if you’re willing to mouth off, you’re willing to stand by what you’ve said in a court of law.

Ahhh, Mr Fu! I think you know how this works on the minds of middle-class layabouts who don’t contribute to society. You’re thinking to yourself, I’m guessing: “these fellas can’t do without their Starbucks, Prada’s and Gucci’s; they will think ‘jail got no internet’, then they will get scared and then they will shut up”. Well, maybe. I must applaud you, Mr Fu, for pointing this out to the general public.


  1. Lim Kit Siang’s got a blog, in case you didn’t know. Mr Fu? Mr Fu doesn’t have a blog. He struggles to understand the phenomenon. Mr Fu, you see that little “E” icon on your desktop? That’s for the “In-Tuh-Net”, hor. (↩)
  2. The newspaper screams “Blogging: Self-censorship the name of the game“; how could anyone miss it? (↩)
  3. Looks like someone’s been reading their Orwell, hmm? (↩)
  4. Promise of no censorship, lah, some more inapplicability of the PPPA lah… (↩)
  5. A short comment. I won’t bother with considering profound, epistemological problems on the nature of “Truth”, sirs, but you’ve got to wonder: are news items reported in papers not subject to change upon further clarification? How does putting up a news flash which makes reference to on-going developments pretend to have all the facts? It only pretends to follow on-going developments. If further facts sufface, then different conclusions need to be drawn. Shit, how can anyone make immutable conclusions? It’s impossible since we don’t have a God’s-eye point of view, sirs. I’ll refrain from name-dropping celebrity Greek philosophers, sirs, but please do a bit more thinking, ya? (↩)
  6. Bracketing for your convenience. Nothing serious about it, of course; it’s an exercise in pointing out the peripheral realities of Mr Fu’s discussions. Come on, you know I’m saying this with a straight face, right? (↩)
Post a comment | Trackback URI