Chandra Muzaffar's rebuttal to my letter is largely clouded by his personal feelings about Anwar Ibrahim.

Before getting to that, let me first address the KMM issue . Chandra is still unconvincing that US' Bush administration would use the issue to pressurise Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to get Malaysia to weaken or compromise its stance against the US-UK-led invasion of Iraq.

The hypocrisy of the US State Department's annual report on human rights is evident but the US itself no longer lectures other countries about human rights the same way as it did before. Witness the post-Sept 11 US collaboration with oppressive states of the former Soviet Union under dictatorial rule.

The problem with Chandra is that he sees the US as capable of only double standards in dealing with any and all kinds of human rights abuses. He forgets that the US government can play politics with them in more ways than one.

If the abuse concerns racial discrimination, police brutality or free speech, I have no problems with his argument. But the KMM issue is different.

This is because, to repeat what I stated before, the Bush administration has been trying to enact ISA-like legislation ever since the Sept 11 attacks in the name of fighting terrorism.

Towards that end, the Bush administration has targeted militant Muslims (although many ordinary Muslims have ended up being victimised because they fit the profile of the Middle-Eastern type).

Meanwhile, the reason for the ISA treatment on KMM is that the Barisan Nasional government considers it a militant Islamic group. Should the Bush administration criticise Abdullah for a human rights abuse here, would this not show to the world, especially the few allies the US has left, that it is no longer serious about fighting terrorism?

Would this not also confuse and jeopardise the continuing support of many Americans who have gone along with the Bush administration's war on terrorism, invasion of Iraq, and push for legislation like the Patriot Act?

Indeed, at a time when the credibility of the Bush administration is taking a beating due to its lies about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the only thing left for Bush is to offer the following claim for public consumption: that the US had to take out Saddam for he was a threat to the US and the world just as Saddam's Iraq was a (potential) hotbed for militant Muslims.

It is thus hard to believe that the Bush administration would want to risk its credibility just to pressurise Abdullah with the KMM issue. A risk that might cost him votes at the presidential election come November.

Conversely, it would make more sense for Bush to stick to business as usual with Abdullah. This would allow him to exploit Abdullah's image of a moderate Islamic leader to continue to win Muslim support and boost his sagging credibility. Thus, contrary to Chandra's suggestion, Abdullah was not without any cards to play against Bush.

The more serious problem with Chandra, however, is that he appeared to have let his personal feelings about Anwar cloud his views. His emotional outburst can be seen in the way he ended his letter, namely, he would not want Anwar to be at the helm of the nation.

Chandra is, of course, entitled to his feelings. However, whether or not Anwar is PM material is irrelevant to his right to seek medical treatment overseas. This right is even supported by the government-appointed Suhakam.

Anwar is not without reason for seeking treatment overseas. From the very beginning Dr Thomas Hoogland, who made the most thorough examination of Anwar, had given a detailed explanation on why Anwar should have his endoscopic spinal surgery performed in Germany.

Chandra disagrees with Hoogland after talking to an expat specialist in Penang. Fair enough, but still, does the ultimate decision not rest with Anwar?

And if Chandra is not shielding Abdullah, why is it that Chandra is only critical about Anwar's adamant refusal to undergo the surgery in Malaysia when he is not similarly critical of the Abdullah government's adamance that he cannot have the surgery abroad?

Chandra also insinuates that Anwar is no longer an issue. Among foreign journalists, he stated, only the Western journalists continued to ask him about Anwar. Sounds like he is suggesting that these Western journalists' were beholden to the US and UK governments.

What about the French and German journalists then, whose governments had opposed the US-UK invasion of Iraq? Or the BBC, which had been critical of the Blair administration for going along with Bush's invasion of Iraq?

While we would be naive to think that the Western journalists are all sincerely concerned about Anwar's situation, we would be downright paranoid to think they are all beholden to the US and UK governments.

Chandra's feelings about Anwar thus also clouded his judgement about the amount of support Anwar has received. It is simply wrong to suggest that just a few people in the foreign media are interested in Anwar's plight or just those from the US.

Many other international organisations, and they are not beholden to the US, have expressed concern about the manner his trial was conducted and the injustice he has experienced as well as his medical condition.

Many who are concerned are not from the West either. For example, having visited the Philippines often in the past five years, I continue to be approached by several Filipino academics asking about Anwar and expressing their concerns. And these are some of the most vocal opponents of the US on a host of issues, including the US-UK invasion of Iraq.

What is perplexing is this: if, as Chandra says, Anwar's incarceration is wrong, why then is he not in favour of Anwar travelling abroad to seek the best possible medical attention for a spinal condition that was aggravated by the government's own callous treatment of Anwar?

In the final analysis, Chandra's personal feelings have gotten in his way of seeing the Anwar issue as not just Anwar's own problem, but Malaysia's.