In response to James Wong Wing On's article on 'Moral escapism of West-bashers', (Aug 20) no one will be bashed if he does not set the standards - often for others - which he himself does not adhere to or fail to live up to.

Now, if the United States seeks to set the human rights standards for the rest of the international community and publicly proclaim, as a matter of foreign policy, that these will be the standards by which other countries will be either supported or punished by her.

The least that can be expected by the international community of the US is that it abides by these standards prescribed for others and not support dictatorships spanning from Latin America to Africa based on her own perceived national economic or strategic interest.

The US Congress and State Department expressed the gravest concern with human rights violations in Malaysia regarding ISA detention and Anwar Ibrahim's treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention of political opponents in Indonesia and in the Philippines under Marcos.

But the US showed no interest to respond to the greater violation of the massacre of alleged Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) members following the aborted coup of Sept 30, 1965. Such indifference was further demonstrated in Australia's remarkably ambiguous approach toward the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1976.

It may be argued that the World needs a big brother like the US, armed with a big carrot and stick to set the moral aspirations of human rights for the rest who would plead as excuses differences in cultural traditions and the level of economic development, that in developing countries, rights to economic subsistence and development should take precedence over political and civil rights; that the international application fostered by the US of human rights should not violate national sovereignty.

If the US wants to play the role of the big brother, then at least show a good example and not de-link the human rights issue wherever it is convenient in service of her strategic and commercial interests.

Malaysia and Singapore have the temerity (at least in western eyes) to espouse our own 'Asian' political values that include authoritarianism and respect for feudal leaders by which our ruling elite will find it easier to abide! At least we are consistent here.

Is bashing the West a sign of xenophobia in the sense of a morbid dislike of foreigners or a defence against inferiority complex or a defence mechanism of 'frustration-aggression' as hinted by the writer?

No, it is not really so. In fact it is quite intelligent from various angles.

Until 50 years ago, they were the colonialists whose concept of a white man's burden was the obligation for Europeans to spread their civilisation to the rest. Even now they expand their cultural hegemony and values innocuously through Hollywood - and Internet via the internationality of the English Language.

They control the technology and factors of production and get richer from penetrating the markets and cheaper labour of other countries. They formed and strengthened their huge trade blocs like the EEC, maintained barricades, but stopped our own formation of the EAEC for access into our markets.

Their rich currency traders did attack the currencies and wreck the economies of this region. They try to dictate the world's political and economic order in a manner beneficial to their own strategic and commercial interests.

Reality forces many countries including Malaysia and Singapore to trade with them, recruit their expatriates, defend their multinationals against too aggressive a labour, allow joint military exercises or their warships to dock, etc. So what is the harm in a little rhetoric against them when they get out of line?

John Malott is little bashed not because he commented on the public affairs of a country (that is quite all right) but having regard to his ex-position as US ambassador to Malaysia, he sought to judge the country's affairs from the standpoint of his own country's history and policies, and represent them with that high moral elevation that is plainly untenable against the facts. That was why he was criticised.

Ultimately, if the open society of the West means anything at all, it will not be just a set of values, but an idea about ideas and how they should be allowed to flower. It is about opening up to the richness and diversity of the differences of world culture, intellectual and political traditions and being prepared to accept and learn about the best of what one finds. From these perspectives, a little bashing will be good medicine for them!