I recently wrote a letter

taking exception to writer Manjit Bhatia taking exception to a James Wong Wing o­n article that could be construed as backing the US stand o­n Iraq. My letter drew protest responses from Tan Koy Kang ( Stop personal attacks against writers ) and Manjit himself ( So much for intellectual integrity ).

Instead of wildly flailing away, I consider it fairer to counter something I don't agree with o­n a point-by-point basis.

Mr Tan accused me of "personalising" my "attack" o­n Manjit. He also asked why Malaysians are afraid of their own inadequacies and frightened of the ideas put forward by writers such as Manjit.

I don't know how Tan can come to the conclusion that I carried out a personal attack o­n Manjit. I commented o­n Manjit's writing style, and said that while it was extremely effective in certain situations, it sounded loud and empty in others. I still think Manjit's writing style is o­ne of his tools of persuasion, and there's nothing wrong with that, or in criticising it.

Maybe Tan considers that a "personal" attack, but I don't. It would be a personal attack if I, for instance, had said that Manjit is not as handsome as Amitabh Bachhan, or does not take his bath every day!

As for being frightened by the ideas of writers like Manjit, Tan seems to believe that to criticise these ideas is equal to being frightened of them. I don't. In fact, it is respect for these ideas that prompts me to respond. But respect does not mean agreement with.

Tan also called my letter "a scurrilously deliberate attempt to shut Manjit up." I wonder how Tan came to the conclusion that criticising Manjit's stand o­n something is an attempt to shut him up.

Perhaps the prevailing "mainstream-media culture" is too firmly embedded in Tan's psyche. After all, we know that the route to many people's destruction in this country usually starts with ruling-party-approved criticisms in the mainstream media of those people.

How could I be trying to shut Manjit up? Did I, like Tan, ask the editors at malaysiakini "to vet all letters"?

Tan says I started off my letter with platitudes, but these were just a ruse to soften up Manjit before I could land a knockout punch. Now, in my life I have (like everyone else) fantasised about a lot of things, but never about being a boxer! I have no desire to see myself as a Mike Tyson.

The simple fact is that things are seldom black or white. I am not anti-Manjit or pro-Manjit. I gave praise where I felt it was due, and criticism where I felt it was due. This is not some kind of strategy game I was playing here.

Tan called my letter "a minefield of fraudulent claims, based o­n deliberate distortion of Manjit's arguments and position."

Which claims? Which o­ne was the deliberate distortion? Tan accuses me of being personal yet there is not a single instance in his letter of why he disagrees with my stand o­n the issues.

What his letter contains in abundance is slogans - "jingoism," "pro-US war mongering", "self-serving attempt at polemics and falsification".

Finally, Tan resorts to a trend that has lately become fashionable with some writers to malaysiakini , giving veiled warnings about malaysiakini failing unless such-and-such a writer or viewpoint is allowed free rein. We have seen similar sentiments from the likes of Geoff Bray ( Malaysiakini in danger of isolation

) and some others.

Tan says it would be a pity if criticism such as mine makes Manjit stop writing to malaysiakini.

He goes o­n to say: "I can tell you that among my many friends and many in the finance, banking and investment community where I work, and even in government, Manjit (and Dr Farish A Noor's The Other Malaysia

) are major drawcards to this news website, plus the stories that malaysiakini carries that the mainstream media do not dare to."

I obviously cannot speak for the owners and editors of malaysiakini . But from my humble perspective, if Manjit or anyone else is going to stop writing to malaysiakini (and I don't think they are) because they are criticised, or readers are going to stop visiting the site because their favoured viewpoint is not being allowed to dominate, then we all really don't understand what a "free" media is all about.