THERE IS A perception, which one finds difficult to challenge, that anything new is good. This became particularly difficult when the world is drumbeaten to it by carefully manipulative means. I tend to look at issues, as some of you may already have noticed, with a longer term perspective in mind. This is where my difficulty comes when discussing an issue as what I would this afternoon. I must admit I could be in a minority in this hall today, and perhaps in the country. But I am not as enamoured of this modern technology as many of you would like me to be.

But first things first. I have to make a few declamations: I am not against information technology, even if I am against the hallyhooing of it by the information technologists, or whatever they call themselves, and hyperventilating marketing specialists who drive this new technology. I find the Internet a particularly useful tool in my work and, to a limited extent, leisure. Study is not one area I would extend to Internet, but then I am not a judge's son. As my email address shows, I am an early enthusiast for email, even if my reasons for that is more prosaic: my fax bills were skyrocketing, many newspaper began accepting copy by email, and that, I hoped, would reduce my telephone charges. It does not, of course, for what one gains on the swings one loses on the roundabouts.

We have all been taken on a roller coaster ride in this attachment to information technology with, as I said, marketing finesse that the principal discussionI find on Internet is of the need for more speed on one's computer. And since we seem to be lemmings in such matters, the moment a new version of computers come out, the most dominating discussion is how much it would cost, and how could one upgrade to that. The Star's In-Techn supplement last week had a point: why is it that my 15-year-old refrigerator works without a problem 24 hours a day, but my two-year-old computer is not only dated but is not fast enough?

As long as this is what dominates the use of computers, the need for extensive hype is inevitable. My own use of computers has always been based on it as a working tool. My first computer, a Xerox 820, set me back RM10,000 in 1979 in 1979, and occuped a five-foot table for computer, 8-inch disk drives and letter quality printer. They did not sell it any other way in those days. It was a CPM model, with 64 K of memory. My main purpose for buying it was that it could make repeat copies for what I write which would look to editors in the four corners of the world as if they were specially written for them. I have always sent my articles to newspapers and magazines in non-competing markets, but editors would like a top copy of the livelihood. Since I depend on these editors for my livelihood, I would retype my articles eight or nine times on my faithful Lettera-22, then 23 years old. Now I could make as many copies as I liked, at the touch of a button.

My next computer was an NCR PC-4, with two 5-1/4 inch disk drives, no hard disk, Intel 8088-2 chip, for RM3,500, with another RM 800 for a 40-MB hard disk drive. I used MS-DOS 2.1, I think. I switched to DR-DOS, when Microsoft would not sell me an upgrade to take in hard drives. Two years ago, I switched to an Acer 486-66 with a 420 MB hard drive, paid another RM600 for a modem, increased my original 4 MB memory to 16 MB, switched to IBM OS/2 and when IBM could not help me resolve a glitch, switched to the MS Windows 3.1 that came with the computer, and, when Internet came, went into it.

Why did I become active on Internet? It was not to surf or otherwise be clued into the Information Super Highway. It was not to blaze a path into the electronic future. It was, as I said, for a more mundane reason. My fax bills were getting out of hand. Internet addresses were beginning to appear in newspaper and magazine offices. I am an inveterate note-taker, and write up my commentaries of the day's news for my files. Given the rubbish that appears on the news groups, I thought I would put two or three of my comments on them daily. I still do. But the problem here is the lack of response. I get no response whatsoever, except when I write on a touchy subject: not on politics, but on the activities of the Chinese community. There was, some of you may remember, one recently on Chinese Middle Kingdom mentality, and, more recently, one on Indians finding their way in the Malaysian business world. These two, with that discussion with a Microsoft flunkey on the merits of OS/2 and Windows, were the most vitriolic. But the discussion did not delve, as it often happens, on personalities rather than issues.

That is my experience with Internet. I find that it is the electronic equivalent to the mindless chatter that takes place in bars and pubs. When some one puts up a serious post, he is attacked not for what he wrote, but personally. Which is why, I cannot understand the hype that now takes plce on the value of Internet. We are even talking of doing business on the Internet. Intranet it is called. Conferences and seminars are held throughout the world about its virtues, but all that is hyperbole par excellence. Nothing has been worked out that would give one a comfortable feeling that one can be trusted to give money to some anonymous email address -- business@neworld.com, for instance -- for some purchase, or pass on sensitive business information.

THE BOTTOM LINE, therefore, is that the Internet is a wonderful tool for those who know how to use it intelligently. It has a specific purpose. But the uses touted for it is not why one should depend on Internet. The Internet began as a means for university lecturers and scientists to keep in touch, exchanging information and ideas. It was then known as ARPA Net, an email for academics, that evolved exponentially into the system we have today. That the original use was not commercial is seen in the myriads of free programmes available for it. When it became the Internet as we know it, it lost its bearings. Principally because the marketeers took over, and hyped it out of existence.

There is so much expected of Internet these days, succoured by ever increasing hyperbole, that we are left with the hype and not the practical aspects of what it can do. I am not a judge's son; so I am unlikely to dropped from a school debating team, but I have had more traumatic experiences. I used to make use of information on Internet if I knew the writer or the information appeared in a respectable newspaper or magazine. Not any more. I go a friendly note from a writer I knew well, with a clipping of what he wrote, which suggested that the Internet version was edited to carry the poster's prejudice. I also know that newspapers have special Internet versions which are specially rewritten and which not necessarily reflect the real-life edition.

The point about Internet, as indeed of every new toy -- and toy is what Internet is -- is that it can quickly be misused and abused. But no one really is taking much interest in it. The blaring of trumpets of the marketing specialists drown out every sane voice. The DAP takes Internet seriously, but it does so as much to impart information and comemnt as a sweetener to persuade people to visit its home pages. PAS has its home page, but none else, which is a pity.

FOR THE SAD FACT is that many of stumble our way into Internet and the Infobahn with the same lack of information with which we buy, say, a television set or a motor car: we do not know anything about it but what one reads in newspapers and product brochures. All we can do is to compare the writing skills and persuasive abilities of copywriters rather than on the intrinsic differences of the products. In other words, we do not know. We depend on Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed to see that we do not stumble our way into it. So, since he is upbeat about the Multimedia Super Corridor, he should know.

The Internet has, as I said, its uses. That use, though, is not as part of the MSC, but as an incident link to the larger picture of progress. That important distinction must be borne in mind when we get all hyped up about Internet.

We are so carried away by the promise of technology that we ignore the cost. And not just in dollars and cents. The frequent upgrading of machinery, for instance, and which is absolutely essential if one wants to keep up with the mrketing promises. Unlike the growth of the motor car and the locomotive, the information highway spans more marketing hype than just about any other comparable hype.

And that is my quarrel with this hype over the Multimedia Super Corridor. After all the publicity and hyperbole surrounding it, and the prime minister's espousal of it, and after having attempted to find out what it means from people administering it but who do not themselves have any idea of it, I have a vague idea what it means: a hi-tech industrial park with fibre optics.

Why should I be unduly excited by some hi-tech industrial park with or without fibre optics? Should that be sufficient reason for the tremendous hype we now see? How different is this from the Singapore One project to attract hi-tech companies to the region? And have we the infrastructure to see this through? Go to any corner of Thailand and just about every currency can be exchanged for Thai baht; try that here and you would be referred to a money changer, if one is available. Go to a small town, and the bank would not even entertain you if you want Greek drachma exchanged for Malaysian ringgit. Can you have English schools? The expatriates we are trying to lure would have children their parents would want to put through a school where the medium is not Malay, Chinese or Tamil.

BUT THE LARGER problem is more prosaic. How do you harness the power of the new medium -- and that includes Internet -- in a way which would enhance our lives? I see little signs of that happening. Suppose you an IBM PC with an Intel 8088 chip or an Apple. It is all but impossible to be linked to Internet. If you can, you would be faced with considerable hassles. The market only bothers about the latest marketing gimmick -- and you then become an orphan. I know what that means. I was using CPM for much of the 1980s, when MS-DOS dominated.

That is the problem. Technology accessed for its own sake, not what it can do. Information technology is technology driven, leaving orphans in its wake every 18 months or so. Is that what this revolution is all about? Should not this whole concept of technology be turned upside down: with the basis of it being a stable chip around which it revolves. There are numerous examples of that. The audio cassette, for instance. Phillips invented it, and licenced it to anyone who wanted it. The result" a stable product that is still on the market, despite the fact that the patent has run out. Like the TV market in the United States, where the standard is an early standard, changes were not possible until recently because the cost of replacing the system was too high. That was not the case with personal computers. IBM had its initial offering and established its beach head, but licenced anyone who wanted to manufacture it, relinquishing control of the technology by allowing the licensees to improve on it.

What drove the personal computer market was marketing. And in the resultant confusion, the chip market, notably Intel, were rushing into market with the latest chip. The plethora of investments that went into this mad rush to bring in newer models before amortising the previous one turned the personal computer market and information technology into an uncontrollable market scene that would make the early morning hustle and bustle of activity at the Selayang wholesale market in the mornings seem like a discrete tea party.

The use of Internet is one such. The belief that Internet speeds up one's life is one big canard. What benefit does one get from accessing Internet at infinitissimal speeds? Nothing really except, perhaps, to boast to friends about how fast one could do so, and did.

We have not looked at the cost. We have not looked at the use it would be put to. The Internet should not be what a student does in place of finding out. Looking at the picture of Venus from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory's collection would be dramatic, but it would be wrong. The clouds over Venus are so thick that reality is not as clear as the photographs, and misses a fundamental understanding of Venus as a planet. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but for a child, this hype of getting to know the world through Internet prevents him from doing what he should be doing: studying from old fashioned books that would impart more knowledge besides making him think and co-relate with other information he has read or seen elsewhere.

The Internet is a passive medium, often obviating the need to think. I have the same complaint about the television set, especially now with 24-hour rubbish that Astro Satellite channels churn out. These passive media are encouraged if only because they bring forth a passive populace: forget about all that talk about how it would enrich our lives. It does not, and it has hidden implications, some of which are just coming to surface.

That is why I am perturbed by this massive campaign to go into untried technology as if it is manna from heaven. The education minister, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak, has called to establish what he terms "smart" schools, without explaining what it means or what it hopes to do. This tendency to believe that what ought to be would be is dangerous. It is all well to have "smart" schools, but what about the teachers? What about the cost of all this, especially when all this is in the context of technology? Good teachers would not necessarily be good technicians. What is the aim of education anyway? Is it how to use technology or how to think? Smart schools, I fear, would end up producing Smart Idiots. There is much in favour of teaching children the three standbyes through the centuries: The Three Rs - reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. We are being fed on a diet every day on the television news of "a segment of technology", while children turn up for school to find it not there.

The important fact about technology that one should never forget -- and this refers to Internet as it does the Multimedia Super Corridor -- is that it is as good as what you put in, and it cannot think. Technology does not have a human mind, nor does it have a conscience, upbringing or morality. It can do a mathematical logic: rational thinking is log; but it does not have emotion, nor can it assess the value of the information it has. That has to be done by the human mind. That is why it is best used as a tool not as a domineering presence in our lives. Information technology, computers and calculators can speed up boring calculations, but whether you ought to go to the Federal Hotel or the Shangri-La Hotel for lunch. Similarly, a robot can be programmed to do a lot of things, but not to think. Why are we then rushing to make robots of our children?

But that is what we do if we came claims that young minds latch on to. We are told that computers can teach children. We are told that workers can work from their homes. But is not the very basis of human relationships interacting with their fellow beings? One who spends a lot of time on Internet need to realise that for every hour he spends on it, he would have to spend an equal amount keeping his accounts. It takes me about three hours a week just to "clean" up the copy I have saved from Internet. But how many do that? Friends were surprised when with my 40 MB hard disk, I usually had about 20 MB free at all times. They are now surprised that of the 420 MB hard disk I have about 150 MB free. REgular pruning is necessary to prevent the hard disk overflowing. The rubbish one accumulates must be put whether it should be: the dust bin.

Then there is the actual cost. Not many people can afford to be on the Net. Who would pay that? Internet access is not cheap for the bulk of Malaysians. First, you need a compuer, then a modem, and then join an Internet Service Provider. You are talking of at least RM3,500 for a start, before any additional in linking to Internet. How many Malaysians do you seriously think can afford to throw that kind of money away? I say throw with deliberation. When you buy something based on marketing hype, and not because you want it, the chances are that it will gather dust in some corner, after the initial enthusiasm for it. If you are actually linked to the Net, then there is the added telephone and access cost. Which is why Internet is a middle-class preoccupation. I would not have, frankly, gone into Internet had it not been for the larger reasosn of cutting down my fax costs.

Now that I am on it, I take full advantage of it. But it is an individual thing, not something I can force anyone to it. I write an italic hand. Despite my best efforts, I have not been able to persuade either my wife or my two sons from taking to it. But I have helped many others switch from their ineligible scribbles that passes for handwriting into one that one can read legibly een when written at speed. One must be personally motivated to do so. and one goes into it with the limitations fully understood. Otherwise, it would be little better than mircurating in the wind.

The Internet, such as it is, would be useful only for the narrow limited purposes for which it is intended. If you want to play games on it, then fine; if you want it as a short-cut to a library, or to escape having to go out and meet clients; or doing business on it, there must be a CAVEAT EMPTOR sign boldly written in your mind before you venture into it. There is much that Internet can do. I still keep my options open on its eventual form. But because the promises we are told are ours is market-driven, I shall look to lsuch claims with a heasy dose of doubt.

I might seem unduly pessimistic in this tour-de-force. I have my doubts that much of the promised world would come about. The jury on this is still out. We are on untested territory. There are many items that yet have to be ironed out. This is why, while I am a fervent believer in what Information Technology do to our lives, it should not be hyped out of existence. When you begin a journey into any highway, Information or otherwise, you must be sure of a good pair of brakes. My contention, as you would have noticed in these remarks, is that there is precious little of that evident. What I have said today is the brakes, not efficient, perhaps, but of sufficient strength to at least get the people who matter to think out the issues. It is no use worrying about the lack of brakes when it is too late. But I am sure almost every one here would disagree with me!