Congratulations, malaysiakini for being serious enough as an 'alternative' online news bulletin to be "under watch" by the Home Affairs Ministry ('M'siakini under watch, gov't to act if necessary' May 23). I am not surprised that it is not only the government that is keeping you under surveillance - some of the opposition may also do so as well. The public, too - on how you tread delicately between freedom of speech and press and the minefields of sedition and government action.

The trouble is that everyone, and every side, is so guarded of their own vested interests that they either forget what is really national interest and public good or, more often than not, identify their own interests as synonymous with national interest.

What then is national interest? Surely that is different from government interest?

For example, if your articles criticise and point out errors or defects in implementation of government policies, that surely promotes public and national interest and ought to be all right. But who makes that determination? It is the government again that is judge, jury and prosecutor.

The danger is that it is hard to draw the line. For instance, when your articles criticise the government with the object for democratisation and better governance in national interest, they can also be construed or misconstrued to be bringing the government into hatred or contempt and arousing disaffection amongst the populace, making them seditious. What is the objective yardstick to differentiate what is permissible and what is not? Is it the substance or the form of the words that determines it?

Take the other criteria - although there is liberty to criticise by fair comment all men and things of public interest, that right is seriously circumscribed by cultural and religious sensitivities and cannot be exercised in a manner that excites ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population.

Yet how does one determine that? Must there be empirical evidence to show that as a result of the publication, the aggrieved persons or classes of person demonstrate or lodge a police report? (If that's the case it is so easy for the police themselves or any ill wisher to lodge a report)

Or is it the subjective opinion of the particular official of Home Affairs Ministry that determines things? What is the safeguard against an official whose sensitivities are so exceptionally delicate so as to magnify and exaggerate a given published statement into great racial and religious significance that otherwise is passively discounted or not regarded as important by others supposedly affected?

We are talking of what exactly is the standard of care required.

As malaysiakini takes its readers to the forefront of major issues affecting human rights and public interest that the mainstream media practicing self-censorship dare not venture to, surely it should be mindful of the warning by Deputy Home Affairs Minister Chor Chee Heung in Dewan Negara as reported.

Would malaysiakini request the ministry for pointers, guidelines and parameters on how it determines that standard of care required, and publish the same for the benefit of all readers and writers to evaluate and be familiar with?

Your report douses whatever enthusiasm I may originally have to exercise 'freedom of speech for public good'. What is the public doing for all writers should they get into trouble because of either of these two causes? Give me a good reason not to turn yellow!