Abu Kassim's attack ('Hippocratic oath to hypocritic odes', May 7) of Dr M Bakri Musa's article entitled 'An Anwar in exile is an Anwar forgotten' (May 4) need not have to descend to the personal level of name-calling of Bakri as a "deluded foreign-based Malaysian physician".

The writer's criticism that in giving Bakri a column, malaysiakini must have confused "writers having good English writing skills with those of good sense of judgment, acumen, repute and substance" is more applicable in relation to himself.

Dr Bakri was merely expressing his professional view that from a medical standpoint ex-deputy premier Anwar's prolapsed lumbar disc was straightforward enough to be treated locally and that if he desired a more expensive treatment abroad, the public should not be saddled with the extra costs in respect of (in Bakri's words) a "convicted felon".

The fact that 107 local luminaries have petitioned for Anwar to be accorded the special privilege of being treated overseas does not mean that Dr Bakri was wrong in his professional opinion. (Counting amongst the 107 was non-medical trained persons so it is reasonable to assume that right or wrong medical and surgical factors were not the only considerations behind their call).

Like foreign diplomats, the implicit assumption (unspoken) of 107 luminaries including non-doctors is likely to be that Anwar's conviction is suspect; that he is a victim of political persecution and not a felon.

Had it involved any other case of another convicted felon seeking overseas treatment, no one would have raised an eyebrow.

Dr Bakri merely looked at the objective issue of how to deal with a convicted felon's specific medical condition in relation to costs depending on whether he or the public bears them. I don't believe it was his intent to prejudge or address the issue of whether Anwar was unjustly convicted/persecuted or otherwise about which he probably had some ideas but may not be in the authoritative position to comment.

The writer however jumped the gun. He decided as self-evident the second issue that Anwar was a victim and not a felon at all, and therefore Bakri's manner of addressing the first medical issue relative to cost bearing without linking it to the other second issue of Anwar's innocence was misplaced.

Implicit in the writer's view is that anyone else who does not believe, as the writer or the 107 luminaries are likely to do - that Anwar is innocent - means automatically that he does not share "similar revulsion against anything evil and dictatorial that transcends widely-accepted norms of basic human decency".

After all, the writer's argument is that this position cannot be wrong when on the foreign side, "many presidents and prime ministers of nations have expressed revulsion about our PM's ways of handling the Anwar issue".

This kind of argument on the writer's part that because foreign and local luminaries collectively feel a certain way, it must be true (or that no one can, without first addressing and settling the fundamental issue that Anwar is innocent, and the PM vile and evil, comment objectively about any other related issues) is one of emotion rather than logic.

The writer even insinuated that malaysiakini had no place for opinions contrary in drift to his sentiments, and that if your purpose was to merely provide "an alternative view" to provoke, I presume, like a catalyst a backlash of the obviously correct majority anti-government or anti- Mahathir views, it would be better accomplished taking these "alternative views" from sycophantic mainstream newspapers or, even better still, reinstate Hishammuddin Hussein's question-and-answer column.

It is to be noted that it is precisely this kind of intolerance for diverse and contrary views that makes the writer no different from the attitudes of the government that he now criticises with alacrity and fervour.

And how is Bakri's general statement that a convicted felon need not be treated as a sultan contradicted by the special prison lifestyle of Abdullah Ang and Tan Koon Suan mentioned by the writer who alleged that they were friends of the PM?

Does it mean that because the duo had freedom within prison, so all others, whether friends or enemies of the PM, shall be entitled to "equal treatment"?

If they were friends of the PM, why did they land themselves in prison in the first instance - wouldn't it be more practical for the PM not to have them charged rather than charge, convict them and then let them have a good time walking in and out of prisons?

We do not know the real reasons. Perhaps wealthier felons enjoy more freedom (at their own expense) within prisons!

To sum, Bakri's general argument is that the special medical needs of this particular convicted felon should not be loaded on the public as other convicted felons' extraordinary needs, if any, do not.

The fact that he overestimated the financial needs of standard six students (it is just an example) on whom public funds were better directed to does not, even if it were not an accurate example, discredit the general tenor of his point. Neither do strictly the allegations made by the writer on the government's financial excesses.

What then is the writer's real basis for according Anwar such special privilege? In what way is it justified to treat him differently from other convicts, especially with regards to his medical needs?

There can be only one implicit basis for the writer, and that is, Anwar is unjustly convicted and is not a felon.(As I said, Bakri did not address this issue).

If that's the case, why the big fuss about surgical pros and cons as to where he should be operated? Why is the anger directed at a physician who just expressed a professional view that the surgery could reasonably be performed within the country?

The writer should agree that the more urgent need is to free him. If the best way to do it and help him get an asylum, is to get him abroad to be posited with some sympathetic Nato government, then do it.

Medical and surgical issues, of where the surgery should be done and who to do it, are of the least importance (other than providing the pretext) and if that is what the writer is trying to say - stop reciting the hypocritic odes yourself and come forth to say it openly.

At least we will all save energies of chasing after and debating seriously about the wrong issues raised by the writer in his attack on Dr Bakri.