Thank you to Tai Lo Chin ('Why crucify the doctor?') for giving us a shallow, one-dimensional view of Anwar's medical problem. Like the horse with blinkers on so that it can only look straight ahead, he does not want to consider the background, context and special circumstances of the case.

It is good enough for the writer that Anwar is a "convicted felon". He does not want to consider the infamous circumstances under which Anwar was convicted. Like judge Augustine Paul who declared that he was only interested in whether Anwar gave instructions to the police and not the circumstances under which they were given - in fact, not even whether the accused was guilty of the crimes he was alleged to have covered up - the writer does not want to delve into the truth.

I wonder whether he has followed the court proceedings of the two Anwar trials. Is he aware of the mountain of evidence which was suppressed under the first trial? Is he aware of the paucity of evidence in the second trial such that the judge had to draw comfort from his supposition that the key witness "had no reason to lie?"

Perhaps the writer does not want to debate this. He is content to fall back on the judgment of a judiciary that has demonstrated its lack of independence time and again. Even then, special consideration should be made as to the unusual status of this prisoner. He is no ordinary convicted felon, he was a deputy prime minister and still commands a huge following among the population.

Is it justified to treat him differently from other convicts? The short answer is yes. Should anything untoward happen to him, the impact on the political landscape and social fabric of the nation is not like any other "convicted felon".

Although the writer tried his best to appear impartial he failed miserably. His writing reeked of utmost animosity and hostility towards Anwar in every paragraph although not explicitly stated. We can hence disregard his laborious attempt at impartial analysis as the biased, prejudiced opinion of a writer who bears enormous ill will towards his subject.