In reference to Lim Tek Wyn's letter, [#1]Ensure independence of local media[/#], I'd like to say that very few media in the world are truly independent, since they are either under the control of the government of their land, a political party (as in the case of a party paper), their owners' commercial or personal interests, the political loyalties, affiliation and biases of their owners or editors.

I know this for a fact from observing the many British papers during my student days in Britain where there's virtually no government control or censorship of the media, apart from laws against incitement to racial hatred.

The only difference in the liberal capitalist democracies is that anyone is free to publish anything, as long as they don't violate rules like those forbidding racially sensitive statements and hate material.

However, it was abundantly clear from the reports in the papers there, especially in the tabloids read mainly the working class - as well as some broadsheets, which incidentally were regarded as the "quality" papers - that each paper had a certain political slant.

Back then, among the tabloids, the Daily Mirror was pro-Labour, while the rest of the tabloids were generally pro-Tory and right wing and anti-union.

I also learned something about one-sided reporting which only told half the truth, which made me realise that half-truths are worse than outright lies.

For example, when reporting on an ambulance workers' one-day strike against proposals to close a hospital, one of the right-wing tabloids highlighted the problems elderly patients faced - making the ambulance drivers look like "evil," "selfish" people, but it did not tell the ambulance drivers' side of the story.

In reality, the media is not the so-called "independent" and impartial" "fourth estate", acting as a "watchdog" over the affairs of the country and society. Instead, the media is a tool for the class interests of the ruling class. In capitalist society the mainstream media are owned by capitalists and thus reflect the vested economic and political interests of their owner's or owners' class interests.

Thus in these days of media barons owning many newspapers, radio and TV stations, no medium is truly independent. One good example is the case of the TV journalists at Thailand's iTV who lost their jobs for protesting against attempts by its owner, Shin Corporation, to slant their reports in favour of Thai Rak Thai party leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, despite guarantees of media freedom enshrined in Thailand's 1997 constitution.

As for the "independence" and "impartiality" of the western media, it became abundantly clear to me that they are neither independent nor impartial, judging from their unanimous bias in favour of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim against Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and in line with their capitalist and imperialist masters' political and economic agenda to prise open markets in developing countries and in rival imperialist countries for their products, services, finances and ideology to penetrate and dominate these countries, they have been biased against the steps Mahathir has taken to oppose the imperialists' designs.

As for malaysiakini, it's clear that the online publication is biased toward the opposition parties here, especially to Keadilan and it's also clear that it's very much anti-establishment.

While that's not unusual for any publication, malaysiakini is being less than honest about its bias, while claiming that it's an "independent" publication upholding press freedom and editorial "independence" in Malaysia. Thus, I'd sooner respect publications like DAP's The Rocket, PRM's Suara PRM and PAS' Harakah which make no pretences about their political bias, rather than to respect malaysiakini.

I've written many letters to malaysiakini and have noticed that it generally publishes those which correspond with its anti-establishment bias, while it has generally not published those which run counter to its bias.

My politics are opposed to globalisation as a new form of imperialism and neo-colonialism and I'm also opposed to neoliberalism which I know will destroy the hard-won gains which the working class has fought and even died for to protect the security of their livelihood under capitalism - something which the libertarians and neo-liberals want to destroy in the name of "freedom" - a freedom for capitalists to exploit workers at will.

Thus, while I do not support Barisan Nasional, nor Mahathir as such, I do support his policies and actions which correspond with mine - such as the currency controls which he introduced in 1998, his warnings about the dangers of globalisation and his desire to try to forge an Asian grouping to counter the pressures and influence of the imperialist powers.

As for allegations that malaysiakini receives indirect funding from George Soros' Open Society Fund, I'll give the online daily the benefit of the doubt.

However, based upon the explanation by Southeast Asian Press Alliance (Seapa), which partly funds malaysiakini, that the Open Society pays for the services of a consultant from the Committee to Protect Journalists to advise Seapa, I'd say that since Seapa is being advised by a person paid for by Open Society, it definitely is subject to being influenced by the agenda of Open Society and since malaysiakini is being partly funded by Seapa, it's likely to come under the same influence.

As I've said before, while I stand on the opposite side of the fence from the government with regard to domestic politics, I certainly won't stand with the imperialists or Zionists against Malaysia and will side with the government of Malaysia when it opposes these forces.