It is clear that Mustapha Ong and I have very different views whether my occasional comments as a private citizen on the human rights situation in Malaysia ( Malott meddling in Malaysia's affairs ) constitute interference in Malaysia's internal affairs.

I call it freedom of speech, and Mustapha calls it meddling. If Mustapha were to have his way, then no one writer, journalist, academic, politician, diplomat, ordinary citizen would ever be allowed to comment on what is taking place outside his own country.

Therefore the 'Mustapha Principle', if applied without a double standard, would mean that no one in Malaysia should ever be allowed to comment on what is happening in the United States or Myanmar or the Middle East or Australia or wherever.

For example, Malaysian criticism of delays in issuing US visas would constitute meddling in America's affairs. Malaysian leaders and editorial writers should not be allowed to comment on what is happening in the Occupied Territories, Iraq, and so on.

Under the 'Mustapha Principle', United Nations Special Envoy Razali Ismail should not be allowed to go to Myanmar to mediate between the government and Aung Sang Suu Kyi and improve the political situation there.

Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad did the world a great service in 1994-95 when he protested Serbian atrocities against Bosnia Muslims and told the world to do something about it.

But under the 'Mustapha Principle', this would be "meddling in Serbian affairs." And today, no matter how outrageous Ariel Sharon's actions are, according to the Mustapha doctrine, Mahathir should not be allowed to protest Sharon's barbaric actions at the Asem meeting.

But if Mustapha means that foreigners should never be allowed to comment on Malaysian affairs, while Malaysians are free to say whatever they want to about anything in the world, then that is hypocrisy and a double standard of the worst order.

It is also clear that Mustapha and I have very different views about human rights and democracy. From his letter, it is clear he is a great believer of the Internal Security Act. He speaks easily of the existence of treason and sabotage among his fellow Malaysians, when those are words that should be used only with the utmost care and proof.

But the real evidence that Mustapha and I have different views on justice and the Anwar issue can be found in the sworn testimony of an American citizen, Jamal Abder Rahman. Jamal described in a Kuala Lumpur court on April 3, 2000 how Mustapha, when he was a Malaysian embassy official in Washington DC, tried to suborn perjury and bribe Jamal to state that he has had illicit relations with former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Clearly Mustapha has far more to answer for than I do. It is not everyday that a diplomat is accused of bribery.

As for my embarrassing the Bush administration, there is no difference between the official US government position and my own private views. I believe, as President George W Bush said with Mahathir seated next to him, that Anwar is a political prisoner. I believe, as Secretary of State Colin Powell recently said when he stood side by side with Syed Hamid Albar, that Anwar's trials were flawed.

I agree with President Bush's statement of last January that America should "lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace by defending liberty and justice" and "take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world". My views on the human rights situation in Malaysia are no different than those contained in the human rights report issued by Colin Powell's State Department.

No one should ever have to apologise for believing in democracy and human rights, or for standing by someone (and his family) to whom a great injustice has been done.

As for Mustapha's claim that I have criticised and questioned the integrity and competence of the DPM, I suggest that he carefully re-read my letter. To the contrary, I said that the DPM was a decent and honourable man. He is someone for whom I had great respect during my time in Malaysia.

My point was this: the DPM has just returned from an apparently successful visit to Washington, where he met with top leaders of the Bush administration and congress. It was their chance to "take their measure" of the man who is expected to become Malaysia's next prime minister.

As an American who understands the workings of his own government and American public opinion far better than Mustapha does, I simply stated that these same people in Washington now will be watching how the DPM handles the issue of the ISA 5, as well as other issues involving human rights in Malaysia.

I expressed my hope that the DPM will do the right thing. Not only would justice be served, but the DPM's image and reputation in Washington (and elsewhere) will be further enhanced, and US-Malaysia relations will continue to strengthen.

If there is anyone who has done a disservice to the DPM, it must be Mustapha. During the April 3, 2000 hearing, Anwar's lawyer Christopher Fernando asked Jamal, "So this Mustapha Ong wanted you to fabricate evidence against Anwar?"

"I think so, yes," Jamal replied. He then said that en route to New York, Mustapha asked him to meet someone from the staff of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is now the DPM. Fernando asked why.

"I understood if I say what they wanted me to say I would get the money," Jamal said.

Now Mustapha claims to speak on behalf of all the people of Malaysia to demand a public apology from me to my friend Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

But for myself, I think it is Mustapha who should be apologising not to me, but to Pak Lah. For according to Jamal, Mustapha said that the bribe money to fabricate evidence and convict an innocent man was to come from"Mr Clean".