I am much overwhelmed by the various 'fatwas' issued by your readers vis-a-vis the legal position of Anwar Ibrahim as a prisoner and his legal rights to pursue medico-surgical options other than that provided by the establishment.

I have in an earlier correspondence intimated the medical perspective of Anwar's rights as a patient as enshrined in the Patient's Charter of 1995. That is Anwar has the inalienable right to the choice of his medical care, the right to the choice of his spinal surgeon and the right to his hospital of choice which all promise him the best outcome, the least complication rate and all which protect his vulnerable cervical spine in the midst of anaesthesia.

The science of medicine is leveraged on a hierarchy of research protocols and culture best known today as evidence-based medicine. The benchmark being Level A evidence authenticated by randomised controlled trials (RCT) or meta-analyses of RCT, and lesser evidence as exemplified by Level D anecdotes, inclusive of professorial mantras or sometimes classified as experience- based medicine. And grounded on these evidences, best clinical practice guidelines are programmed.

Pardon me for saying the obvious, but like medicine, the practice of the law - in the pursuit of truth in the courts - is founded upon stringent and disciplined acts of adducing evidence.

When Anwar's lawyers requested to present their arguments for his legal rights as a prisoner, Suhakam told them it was unnecessary. The rationale being, Suhakam had some of the finest legal brains who are most cognisant of the art and science of the country's law.

This fact was not too difficult to grasp because amongst the commissioners were the judicial brilliance of Anuar Zainal Abidin and the late Harun Hashim.

Their interpretation of the Prisons Act 1995, formed the core substance of the Suhakam's report which was publicly released on May 31, 2001. For your readers who are oblivious to the presence of this historical dossier or have had no access to it, allow me to quote the relevant paragraphs:

'Since Anwar Ibrahim has been denied bail and is now in prison, Suhakam considered the relevant provisions of the Prisons Act 1995. Section 37 of the Prisons Act provides that where there are inadequate facilities for the treatment of a prisoner, an order may be made for the removal of the prisoner to a government hospital.

Section 43 allows the Director-General of the Prisons Department to release a prisoner serving a concurrent or consecutive term of imprisonment of not less than four years on licence and on such conditions as may be specified in the licence. Section 42 provides for the removal of a prisoner out of Malaysia by sea or by air.

In view of the above, Suhakam observes that there are no prohibitions in law for Anwar Ibrahim to be sent abroad for medical treatment. Further, it is an accepted medical practice to respect the patient's choice of treatment even if it is against the advice of his or her attending physicians.'

My nave legal mind would surmise that the Suhakam report would be the expert and best evidence as far as Anwar's legal rights are concerned and not the legal jazz as advanced by Suresh Gnasegarah et al.

And in this very delicate and politically charged case, Suhakam has taken a very severe and serious view of any attempt to usurp the human rights of a Malaysian citizen.

And in personifying the conscience and soul of the rakyat, it has honourably discharged its solemn duties to continually preserve the sanctity of human rights, values and ideals in this land of ' serba boleh '.