One has to admire Mustapha Ong's honesty. It is rare to see someone argue so passionately that other people's rights should be suppressed, and that is important to have laws like the ISA so that other people can be locked up at the government's whim.

Mustapha's comment that "freedom of speech is a qualified and not absolute right, and depends greatly on what was said, to whom and in what context" is frightening. It stands right up there with George Orwell's totalitarian novel, 1984 . The question in any society, of course, is who is going to sit on top and decide whose freedom of speech is going to be restricted, and whose will not. In Malaysia we know the answer. As the famous line from Orwell goes, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

But enough philosophy. As malaysiakini readers no doubt noticed, nowhere in Mustapha Ong's response to my letter is there a denial of Jamal Rahman's sworn testimony in a Malaysian court.

Mustapha says that in Virginia, anyone can easily provide a notarised statement that says anything.

That is right. And that is why in my letter I referred not to the affidavit that Jamal signed in Virginia, but to the testimony he gave in Kuala Lumpur on April 3, 2000. That was sworn testimony. If Jamal were lying, he would risk being charged with perjury.

But the Malaysian government prosecutors never charged him with perjury. Of even greater interest, they never produced any witnesses to counter what Jamal had to say about Mustapha's alleged attempt to bribe him and suborn perjury.

Jamal testified that he was so distressed by the bribe attempt that he immediately told former Malaysian Ambassador Dato Dali Hashim what had happened. If Jamal were lying about this, then the prosecutors easily could have called Dato Dali to say so. But they did not.

They also could have called Mustapha himself to the stand to deny the charges. In theory, a senior embassy official would have more credibility than a contract embassy driver. But then Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail did not call Mustapha to testify. Why? I'm sure Anwar's solicitors — whom Mustapha calls "some of the country's best lawyers" — would have welcomed the opportunity to cross-examine Mustapha.

Mustapha also questions Jamal's motives in reporting all these. He hints at something dark when he says that Jamal "regularly drove Anwar during the latter's visits to Washington DC, both for official and private functions around the US capital" and that only he and Jamal had "full knowledge of Anwar's movements and whereabouts in Washington".

Mustapha says that "sometime after Anwar's dismissal, Jamal Amro drove no more for the embassy. Let others be the judge of Jamal's true motivations in making the statement that he did and for flying all the way to Malaysia to defend Anwar Ibrahim."

I agree. Let others be the judge. Let them read Jamal's sworn testimony in court, the text of which is available at FreeAnwar .

Jamal describes his work at the embassy over some 20 years, when he drove not just for Anwar but also for Tun Daim Zainuddin, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Abu Hassan Omar, and a former king of Malaysia. He says that even after Anwar's arrest, Mustapha wanted to go into business with him and open a restaurant in Washington. He describes his conversations with Mustapha and ambassador Dali.

Jamal, an American citizen, says he was so distressed by what had happened that he went to consult with a leading Muslim scholar, who told him he must go to Malaysia and tell the truth. "If you shut out the truth, you are the devil's brother" was the strong religious advice. Jamal then says that after his trip to Malaysia to testify on Anwar's behalf, his contract with the embassy was terminated.

Mustapha says that in raising this story, which is a matter of public court records in Malaysia, I am taking a cheap shot. But for myself, I believe that this story is very relevant to the whole Anwar saga. It is a small episode that seems to explain so much more. For as Mustapha correctly says, "Malott believes Anwar was a victim of a high-level political conspiracy and was never guilty."

As Anwar's lawyer Christopher Fernando said nearly two years ago, Jamal's "evidence about being persuaded to give fabricated evidence against Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim remains unchallenged", and that still seems true today. Taking shots at me doesn't change that fact.