I refer to the letter, 'Bar commentators hide behind pseudonyms', and am totally at lost as its purpose and intent. Yet again, another person seems to see it fit to have a go at anonymity.

Yes, in a world that is equal and fair, one will be proud to put one's name to his/her opinion. Opinions are just that, mere opinions. One should not be denigrated for having a different opinion from others.

The problem with the letter writer's theory is that people in power and position of influence have the tendency to peddle personal opinion as collective opinion, supported by docile subordinates who under the circumstances think it is better to keep mum. One can clearly see that those who appear to be using their own name are mostly retired individuals, or are talking about issues which will not ruffle any feathers.

If public opinion counts, then there is no need for anonymity to espouse opinions. Why are people so keen on knowing the identity of writers is beyond me. Let us get the facts straight. The newspapers and other similar forums that publish letters will know the identity of writers. The only anonymity is to the public at large. There is also this assumption that all real names being used are actual names rather than pseudonyms.

Many writers, including myself, have a job that pays a salary which I really need and cannot do without. Therefore, I must take a 'cowardly' attitude and write under a pseudonym. Why should it bother anyone is incomprehensible. We are only contributing to public discussion on public matters, not writing poison-pen letters.

Remember 'Malaysiakinigate' and how anonymity was the issue. This was in reference to the infamous Petrof letter. The entire episode would not have happened if one was allowed to publicly speak one's mind. If that writer gave his/her name, can you imagine the persecution that will be going on now? And thanks to malaysiakini's Steven Gan for sticking to his journalistic integrity.

The interpretation of what is right and wrong is too precious to be controlled by individuals with vested interest. 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. Civilisation was built on that premise. If you remember those days when woman were not allowed to vote. The existence of laws does not necessarily mean it is just and fair.

For example, the apartheid policy in South Africa was the law but we all, including Malaysians worked to get it changed, as it was not just. To have argued that it is the law and we should not talk about it is wrong, and South Africa will not be where it is today.

So please people, pay attention to the message and not the messenger.