Might I start by saying how very much I enjoyed Geoff Bray's letter (Malaysiakini in danger of isolation) . It's most refreshing to hear someone argue in terms that border o­n the intemperate.

One of the reasons I read the malaysiakini letters page is that it gives plenty of room for people of all persuasions to vent their spleen rather than to restrict themselves to the kind of rather more measured correspondence that grace the inside pages of the print dailies.

Ideally o­ne should not read o­ne without the other. Democracies, and Malaysia unquestionably numbers itself among such, are characterised by, among other things the plurality of their media. In the UK there are print publications of every persuasion from the conservative to the liberal left, magazines for greens, newssheets for neo-Nazis, the satirical, the worthy, the enlightened and the inane.

Only the broadcast media are regulated beyond the injunctions that apply to the print media that they avoid libel or inciting racial hatred. Radio and television are required by law to be balanced. Malaysiakini is not really neutral but it does appear to have the virtue of separating reporting from comment - it may prefer to report o­n the issues that interest it - but that reporting generally appears to be uncoloured. Where columnists and comment are concerned we can all make up our own minds - after all they don't masquerade as statements of facts but as statements of opinion.

As Umno information chief Azmi Daim reportedly says malaysiakini is a 'healthy' addition to Malaysian media. It offers a different point of view and a distinctive platform for debate. I've had some excellent chats while working in the UK with Peter Hitchins - a fairly right-wing columnist formerly of the Daily Express and now I believe with the Daily Mail. I don't share many of his views but he argues them cogently and in a stimulating way (and he's a charming and companionable person) and they force me to think through my own again.

There are other columnists whose views I object to as I believe they simply rant. Then I exercise that inalienable right, which I share with you, 23 million Malaysians and around six billion other people around the world - I don't read them. Something however seems not just to draw you back to malaysiakini not just to read its letters but more than that - to engage in the debate that thunders across its pages.

I'm guessing that Geoff does so because he finds it provocative and want to contribute an alternative opinion (an unkind explanation might be that o­ne is a very sad person with no friends and to whom no o­ne else will listen, so o­ne writes to a publication o­ne despises - but I'm sure that's not the case) and he has done so splendidly. Splendidly because it provoked me and doubtless others to respond - not because Geoff is not entitled to his opinion or because he is wrong (Geoff may be, I may be - but ultimately that is for individuals to judge) but because we wish to present an alternative to your interpretation.

Before I do so I should make it plain that I am taking neither a pro- nor an anti-war stance. I am questioning your impassioned attack o­n those who hold views different than your own.

Let me tackle you point by point - firstly that o­nly propagandists and their apologists can argue in favour of a war. Even when I speak to senior members of PAS, they readily concede that they do not like Saddam Hussein. He is a secularist, he has a long and well-documented history of abusing the human rights of Iraqis, Kurds, Sunni and Shiite Muslims both. His neighbours in the region are none to fond of him. Many who are arguing for war say that other measures taken against Saddam seem to have done little to weaken his power.

It may be a deeply unpalatable option but it doesn't mean that o­nly propagandists and their apologists argue for it.

Are those who argue for it members of a western elite who stand to benefit from a war? I have to say I know few journalists or their editors who have large stock holdings in oil companies or who hope to sell Saddam memorabilia.

What they do have is their own world view. Outside the US - where the media has not questioned President Bush over Iraq quite as strongly as say, they questioned President Clinton over Ms Lewinski - you cannot even characterise the media as monolithically pro-war.

If anything, European media seem to be highly sceptical about military action. Are those who disagree with them motivated by personal gain? If you wish that to be a serious point I think you need to move beyond invective and substantiate what you obviously believe with some degree of passion. Is daring to explore pro-war arguments toadying? Harsh, I think. Is it courageous to take part in an anti-war demo in Malaysia? Will tear gas and night sticks be waiting for you if you do? Will you lose your friends? There are few gold stars to be gained from taking an unpopular line against the considerable weight of public opinion.

However like it or not Mr Bray, there are some Malaysians, if o­nly a minority, who will privately tell you they are none too sorry to see Saddam tackled. A contrarian opinion is worth reading even if o­ne disagrees with it. The print dailies haven't given a great deal of space to those who would disagree with the prevailing anti-war mood. There have been plenty of times when anti-war voices have been shut out.

It surely gives the anti-war movement in Malaysia more credibility because its views are held in the context of an open debate - it hasn't come into being simply because that's the o­nly view it's possible to express here. O­n Feb 15, 10 million people marched in European countries to express their opposition to war. They did so despite reading the opinion of those commentators who argue that military action is the right course.

Tens of thousands of Malaysians rallied o­n Sunday to the same end. Pro-war commentators are unlikely to tip the balance in favour of conflict. Better you demonstrate while appreciating the right to disagree that marks a free society, surely.