Since the story o­n Petrof's allegedly seditious letter broke, many readers have written o­n the matter - especially o­n anonymity and cowardice - not o­nly in malaysiakini but also in mainstream papers.

The people in power in our country have yet to reach the level of maturity that enables them to accept and answer criticisms, constructive or otherwise. Also, they tend to think that o­nce elected or appointed, they could do no wrong. They are also inclined to peddle their personal opinion as collective opinion, supported by docile subordinates who under the circumstances think it is better to keep mum.

It is obvious that those who appear to be using their own names are mostly already retired or talking about issues that will not ruffle any feathers.

That aside, I cannot fathom why people are so keen to know the identity of writers. I also cannot agree with the statement that those who hide behind pseudonyms are cowards, though I accept that everyone is entitled to their views. (Me, I think cowards are those who will not say anything, but hide behind the luxury endowed upon them.)

The attention should be o­n the subject matter, not the writer. So please, pay attention to the message and not the messenger.

On Petrof's opinion, as far as I am aware, the constitution protects the Malay special rights. However, the implementation of those rights is not stated in the constitution. Neither does the constitution bar anyone from talking about it.

Changes come with the evolution of time; for example the constitution o­nce protected the rights of a person to an open trial, which has since been amended. The constitution also o­nce protected the individual against executive discretion by allowing judicial review. Now in some cases this option is not allowed or available. Take for example, Danaharta, whose actions cannot be challenged in court.

The other argument is that o­ne must act within the boundaries of the law but there is no harm in trying to change the law through peaceful means. The existence of laws does not necessarily mean the society is just and fair. For example, apartheid was the law in South Africa, but all of us, including Malaysians, worked to get it changed, as it was not just. To have argued that it is the law, and we should not contest it, is wrong. South Africa will not be where it is today if it weren't so.

Many have written that Umno Youth should be mature enough to debate such issues, although they have the right, as much as anyone, to lodge a police report. The point is, the authority then must vet this and act in a fair and just manner. That would have stopped the ugliness. I also cannot believe that some are alluding that Umno Youth is solely responsible for the chain of events without any higher authority giving the green light.

For the record, I think it is preposterous for anyone to liken Umno Youth to the Ku Klux Klan, but that should have been dealt with in an appropriate manner.