One of the pet peeves that Anwar Ibrahim's critics (and obviously their number is diminishing if the results of the last election are to be believed) like to flaunt around goes as follows:

1. Anwar was once part of the BN government.

2. As part of the government, he did the same things the government did (What a concept! This man actually had the temerity to agree with the government of which he was a part instead of being an opposition figure within it!)

3. Now that he is out of the government, he is criticising the same things he once did.

4. Therefore, Anwar should apologise to the nation for his past ‘misdeeds.’ If not, he cannot be ‘trusted.’

This demand is similar to the one being made of US Senator Hillary Clinton by supporters of her opponent Barack Obama - that Clinton apologise for supporting the US Congress resolution that originally gave George Bush the go-ahead to use force if necessary in Iraq.

One could roll up the sleeves and get into really intricate debate about ‘yes, he did’ and ‘no, he did not’ and keep going back and forth until the cows come home. And power to those who want to do that. After all, the ability to do that is one of the fruits of Anwar's pioneering defiance of the BN over the last ten years or so. I mean, the man could have just dutifully followed the script and would have been lording it over Putrajaya today.

But the purpose of this letter is simply to put a number of contrarian perspectives out there:

1. Nobody has really outlined specific things that Anwar did while he was in the government that he needs to apologise to the nation for. And please - spare us the ‘collective-responsibility’ spiel.

Apologies are pretty serious stuff, and public apologies even more so. I may be wrong, but I cannot think of anything Anwar did that was so egregious that he actually needs to prostate himself before the nation with regrets. Should all the Malaysians who used to vote that very government Anwar was a part of repeatedly back into power also apologise to, well, whoever it is they should apologise to?

2. Why do talking heads, ivory-tower residents and analysts like to think that their viewpoint represents the majority of Malaysians? I always thought the people of a nation - and obviously, that means a majority of voters - make their feelings known at the ballot box. And one has to take the latest results to get the pulse of where the nation is at any one time. Going by that, it would appear that Malaysians largely do not seem to be clamoring for an ‘apology’ from Anwar.

3. Why would Anwar’s apology by itself make him trustworthy? I think there seems to be an inability to see the woods from the trees here. ‘He got bashed to within an inch of losing his life? He was confined to solitary for years on trumped-up charges? He fought his way back up from being a wheelchair-ridden invalid? Big deal. That's nothing.

He needs to do the really big thing - say sorry - to be worthy of our trust? In fact, the irony here is that apologising when he clearly does not believe in doing so would, I think, be a far better indication of his untrustworthiness than sticking to his guns.

4. What exactly is it that Anwar cannot be ‘trusted’ to do? Are these critics afraid that he would undo all the ‘outstanding’ and thumbs-up work the BN has been doing if he came into power? Do they actually believe he would declare a strict Islamic state the day he comes into power? Do they think him getting power would result in massive corruption in the government? That would be real bad for a nation that has had a squeaky-clean government for so long?

5. Why this huge obsession with what Anwar used to be more than a decade ago? Why not look forward? As mentioned earlier, if Anwar was responsible for people losing lives, limbs and livelihoods, he needs to apologise - to the individuals affected, directly or indirectly - but I cannot think of any such smoking guns. Is anyone here seriously saying that they are the same as they used to be ten years ago in thinking and outlook? Twenty years ago?

Life and individuals are dynamic things, constantly changing as situations change. It seems kind of petty and overly argumentative to construct elaborate but ultimately flimsy arguments to hang a hat on. In this case, the pre-determined hat is titled ‘Why Anwar needs to apologise.’

6. Critics recklessly attach pejoratives such as ‘shrewd,’ ‘manipulative'’ and others to Anwar without really backing them up with anything other than to point out things he needs to do as a good politician. The last time I looked, you need to form all sorts of timely coalitions and adopt all sorts of effective strategies to win power in a democracy. And unless you win power, you cannot effect change.

Anwar has never pretended to be some sort of religious figure who is so pure that he plans to meditate in some cave or mountaintop until he is elected to lead the country. He is a politician - he needs to be - and he is just doing things good politicians do. And anyone who thinks that all politicians are bad, well, you need to go meditate in a cave to find your nirvana.

Since the reformasi days of the 90s, I have been an admirer of Anwar and I make no apologies for that. Is he perfect? Of course not - perfection would itself be an imperfection. But on balance, I think he is an outstanding Malaysian, a man who truly typifies the best of this nation in terms of attitude, intellectual ability and personality. And I firmly believe that, if given the chance, he is capable of taking Malaysia into a higher place as a nation and people.

I'm also not saying people should not be criticising him. Being able to do that is crucial for a democracy. My intent here is not to criticise people for criticising him - it is simply to present an opposing viewpoint within the same debate.

And that viewpoint is that I am among those who fully understand why sorry seems to be the hardest word - to get out of him. It would just not be justified.