Chandra Muzaffar's letter chastising politicians and rights-based NGOs for calling the US government's attention to Malaysia's domestic issues during Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's diplomatic call on President George W Bush is seriously flawed and troubling.

He appeared to be more concerned with protecting Abdullah instead of the interests of Malaysians.

I agree with him that the Bush administration is hardly concerned with the domestic issues of Malaysia and would only exploit them to serve its foreign policy, in this case getting Malaysia to drop or weaken its stance against the US-UK invasion of Iraq by providing some kind of support for its hegemony in Iraq.

Chandra, however, took the politicians and NGOs to task for raising issues about the Barisan Nasional government's rejection of Anwar Ibrahim's right to seek medical treatment overseas and its refusal to have the Kumpulan Militan Malaysia (KMM) ISA detainees tried in court.

Why? Because, according to him, they would be exploited by the Bush administration to 'pressurise' Abdullah to undertake action that would compromise Malaysia's stand against the US-UK invasion of Iraq and weaken the country's sovereignty.

Let's examine one issue at a time.

With regards to the KMM issue, why was Chandra concerned the Bush administration would use it against Abdullah? Did he not know that the Bush administration has been pushing for ISA-like legislation since the September 11 attacks in the name of fighting terrorism?

And that US Attorney-General John Ashcroft's attempts to create laws like the Patriot Act have had many Americans worried about losing their First Amendment rights?

It is more likely that the Bush administration would be agreeable with the detention of the KMM members under the ISA. How could Chandra have failed to see that? As for those politicians and NGOs who raised the KMM issue with Bush administration, they were actually barking up the wrong tree.

Chandra's reason for concern over the raising of the Anwar issue overseas is especially troubling. Even if the Bush administration were to exploit the issue to 'pressurise' Abdullah to compromise Malaysia's stand against the US-UK invasion of Iraq, why put the blame only on the politicians and NGOs who raised the issue?

Before bringing the Anwar issue overseas, the politicians and NGOs had approached and pleaded with Abdullah. It was truly a chance for Abdullah, after securing a huge mandate at the general election, to do the right thing and appear magnanimous.

It would also offer him yet another chance to distance himself from the Mahathir administration and strike out on his own. He could have united the Malays even more, many of whom have had misgivings about Umno under Mahathir.

Instead, what did Abdullah do? He mostly remained silent. And when he rejected Anwar's plea for treatment overseas, he relied on his health minister to make the case for him.

So, when Abdullah chose to go along with essentially the kind of handling Mahathir had adopted with Anwar, he, or his administration, continued to make the Anwar issue Malaysia's problem. He also opened himself for criticisms.

For as long as he continues to reject Anwar's right to medical treatment overseas, why should his stand not be fair game to other politicians, who, like all politicians worth their salt, would take advantage of any perceived problem or weakness of their opponents?

And why should rights-based NGOs - concerned with the abuse of human rights whenever or wherever it occurs - refrain from raising the Anwar issue overseas?

And should Washington exploit the issue to get Malaysia to compromise its stand against the US-UK invasion and hegemony of Iraq, then both Abdullah as well as those politicians and NGOs are as much to blame for weakening Malaysia's sovereignty.

To blame only the politicians and NGOs, as Chandra did, suggests that he was more concerned with protecting Abdullah than Malaysia's interest.

Chandra, in his letter rebutting John Teo , stated that he had pointed out on numerous occasions that the Malaysian government erred badly in its handling of the Anwar issue. That is all true. But it was only the Mahathir government he was referring to.

As far as the Abdullah administration is concerned, Chandra has been quiet on the issue, until this one-sided attack on NGOs and politicians opposed to Abdullah's handling of Anwar's medical situation.

Finally, it must be emphasised - as it appears to escape Chandra - that the Anwar issue is not just Anwar's problem but Malaysia's problem because of all the injustices and cruelty perpetrated on him. Anwar is no ordinary prisoner, but a political prisoner.

The ruling party of the BN has incarcerated him simply because of his politics, specifically his disagreement with the Mahathir administration, not because he was proven in court to have broken any laws.

That he has been imprisoned for espousing a different view from the powers-that-be shows that his constitutional right as a Malaysian has been cruelly trampled upon.

That is why the Anwar issue is Malaysia's problem because as many have stated, if such cruel injustice can be meted out to someone who was once a major figure in Malaysia, no Malaysians are safe or protected by the constitution.

And that is why it is wrong and partisan of Chandra to attempt to shield Abdullah from the Anwar issue.