I refer to the letter Anwar's acquittal not a matter of public perception by Dr S Vijayaratnam.

Unless I have misunderstood its context, it sounds platitudinous in its apparent position that a public subscribing to the 'rule of law' must leave it entirely to the courts and cannot, at the same time, have a perception of, and form a judgment on how it has been administered.

But why can't the public have a perception on justice? The public - even laymen in law - are no fools.

They can perceive injustice when even before the actual trial, Anwar Ibrahim was tried and 'convicted' - by the mainstream media when the then prime minister came on television to say he (Anwar) was a homosexual.

They can perceive injustice when prosecutors were allowed in the middle of Anwar's sodomy trial to change the dates of the alleged acts of sodomy, supposedly because the defence discovered that the apartment building where the sodomy allegedly took place had not been completed by the original dates stated by the prosecution.

They can sense injustice when Anwar's defence was severely handicapped due to the judge's sentencing one of Anwar's lawyers to three months' imprisonment for contempt of court for alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

They can sense injustice when Anwar was denied bail for a bailable offence, when cases far more severe than sodomy or abuse of power - such as rape - have been granted bail.

This is not counting various instances of prosecution witnesses and police investigators contradicting their own testimonies, including an instance where a witness admitted that police coached part of his testimony and this had been entirely discounted by the trial judge as immaterial.

It was not however, only the lay public here but also civil societies and international human rights groups and foreign governments too which were equally discomfited by the proceedings leading to Anwar's conviction. Should everyone reserve their opinion and let justice - or injustice - proceed inexorably its course?

Vijayaratnam said: 'If the judiciary were to run on public perception, then the very system of justice as practised in Malaysia would be in a sorry state'.

Vijayaratnam should, however, understand that the public will resort to the courts for adjudication of disputes and meting out of justice only if they have confidence in their impartiality.

Courts have no use and cannot carry out their functions if the people do not trust their independence. The 'products' of justice will not sell if consumers are not convinced and sold on their 'quality'.

It is therefore of paramount importance that courts should be 'perceived' by the public as fair in their deliberations. Whether there is any system of justice will depend on the first instance of public perception of its existence.

Contrary to what Vijayaratnam says, the very system of justice as practised in Malaysia would be in a sorry state if the judiciary were to run independent of public perception.

It is precisely on the upholding of this principle that justice must not only be done, but also be perceived to be done, that many Malaysians are happy with the Federal Court's decision to reverse the trial conviction of sodomy and hopefully, later, the abuse of power charge.

The happiness with Anwar's acquittal - synonymous with rectifying a wrong and an injustice - is never to be confused with our personal feelings for Anwar as a person, politician and leader.

Some of us may be his die-hard admirers and would extol him as a national savior or an equivalent of Nelson Mandela.

I am sure that there are equally as many Malaysians who think him opportunistic and a menace for the future. He was a product and staunch supporter of the system as long as it nurtured and promised his political ascendancy but turned whistleblower and detractor the moment the prize of prime ministership was taken away by Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

He did not even challenge Mahathir by the electoral and legal process but instead resorted to inciting street demonstrations by the thousands in flagrant disregard of public order and the presence of visiting dignitaries.

It is therefore perfectly apposite that one of your readers asked Where was Anwar during the judicial crisis of '88? and another concluded that Anwar has done nothing for country . All have got their points.

In fact there are also some who still believe that Anwar was guilty of the acts alleged of him but even these people hold the view that he should be acquitted if court proceedings were irregular.

They are justified to ask why if he were not entitled to inherit high office by reason of allegations of sexual improprieties, why was it necessary to punish and humiliate him so severely for so long by bringing up an archaic law to selectively prosecute him and nobody else?

It is not as if all other politicians holding high office are necessarily saints in their private lives. Even if Anwar were a political threat to the ruling establishment, there must be more 'civilised' way to neutralise his threat.

Yet there still some others who may speculate that the acquittal might have been preceded by some kind of 'deal' in place so that Anwar could play a potential role as an ally or counterweight against other political groupings.

But the point still remains this: admirers or detractors alike, deal or no deal, sodomist or saint, all these become irrelevant when we move towards the principle that one can be convinced of the many flaws in Anwar without having to condone a flawed judicial process as a means to address and deal with Anwar, no matter how serious his threat.

For to do so otherwise would undermine the very institution that holds civil society together and would be to the detriment of all - a very unacceptable end result.

Public perception is now positive and in some instances euphoric, by reason that the judicial process is now seen to have reversed a sodomy conviction that the public had perceived, to its consternation, to be improperly procured in the first instance.

There is nothing wrong in the public's revulsion at the irregularities of the conviction then, as there is nothing wrong with their contentment, and in some cases euphoria, with the redress and rectification by the recent Federal Court decision.

Vijayaratnam reminded us that the administration of Malaysia relied on three separate institutions - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers is fine in theory. On their own, will persons elected or appointed to administer these three separate branches of state keep them separate?

The pretension that they will do so on their own accord is so contrary to human experience anywhere that it borders on naivet to assume so.

The powers will be kept separate only when the peoples governed are matured enough to insist so and send that message through by way of expressions of public opinion (whether positive or negative), shaped by public perception, galvanised by a plurality of interest groups and civil societies, pressed by what they respectively think is right or wrong, just or unjust.

Public perception is not the only thing - it is everything. As to Vijaratnam's dictum 'If we subscribe to the rule of law, then we have to abide with what it prescribes', this would sound reasonable only if the rule of law is adhered to in the first instance by those who administer it.