With reference to your report Anwar: Nothing political in court settlement , many will undoubtedly be disappointed with Anwar Ibrahim's out of court settlement with the government and former police inspector-general Rahim Noor.

Why did Anwar start civil proceedings in the first place if he had no intent to finish? If the out of court settlement is not about money - and also not about political considerations (like a deal to rejoin the government), then what is it really about?

One would have thought that it were not about money nor political leverage to rejoin the administration earlier (that he denies), the obvious course would be to pursue the civil suit to its logical conclusion. It is not only a logical but also a forgone conclusion that he would have won the civil suit.

And the government, like any other employer, is always vicariously liable for the wrong doings of those under its responsibility and employ even if the tenure was under the previous administration.

The outcome of the case is not in doubt only the quantum of compensation. But if, as what his lawyer says is true that the action was not about money, then even a one ringgit compensation would, in principle, suffice.

This is because it will establish a judicial precedent that even if no public prosecution for a wrong doing by a public official is obtainable, yet redress, by way of financial compensation, may be obtainable through the civil courts.

Hopes were be pinned on such a precedent being set and broadening down to act as a measure of deterrence against future abuse of public office even where criminal prosecution fails.

Viewed from this perspective, Anwar's initial pursuit of civil action against the government and Rahim was not just a matter of personal redress against the pain and suffering he underwent during incarceration.

It assumed a bigger dimension of a quest for public redress against abuse of power by a public official, and the need to hold his employer responsible so that hopefully, it becomes more careful of whom it puts up in high places to carry out official duties.

Yes, Anwar might be hurt by the assault, which the out of court settlement may now assuage, but will such a settlement assuage the hurt to the collective psyche of Malaysians? That a blatant act of abuse of power may be let off by a private settlement without the courts laying down the precedent?

If Anwar had instituted the civil case ostensibly for a public and not private cause, is it given to him alone to now make the call to privately settle the case? If it were so, it will make all his protestations for good governance and accountability sound hollow and inconsistent.

Indeed, it will be more consistent if he were to admit that the out of court settlement was inspired by the motive (not necessarily amounting to a deal cast on stone) of him contesting the national elections due to be held in 2008.

Then again if he were to say this, many of us will still be left wondering on how he could better fight corruption by joining the administration now (from a position of weakness) when by his own admission he could not do so then when he was in the position of strength, at almost the helm?

So far Anwar has been characteristically elliptical in his statements. Alas, consistency has not always proven to be his strong point though it may well be also true that consistency might well be a product of a petty politician's mind.