The verdict by a High Court judge has rubbished the maxim that "justice must be done and must manifestly seen to be done" ('Judge says ISA in national interest, quashes bid to free 5', April 25).

The verdict means that a citizen can be condemned without being heard on what he or she has to say in defence. The real truth is that citizens in this country have no legal remedy to challenge any abuse of authority by the state.

It seems that the Home Affairs Ministry can now detain a Malaysian citizen just by relying on the statement by the police that he or she is a threat to national security without the need to show an iota of evidence to justify the ISA arrest.

It goes against common sense and fairness that the prosecutor can claim that evidence need not be adduced to justify the arrests in the interest of national security. Are we so dumb to believe that just by giving the reason of national security, evidence need not be shown?

I wonder if 'national security' means the security of the police or the security of the government at the expense of basic fundamental freedoms and human rights of its own taxpaying citizens.

It is certainly an affront to natural justice for the state to claim that it has evidence which cannot be disclosed, let alone be challenged and be examined in open court. It is beyond my understanding how this can happen in a peaceful country like Malaysia where there are no communists or civil wars in the country; but only politicians who happen not to have the same political inclination as they do and who do not even possess weapons to overthrow the government. Unless such evidence is produced in court, no one is going to believe the allegations, but will think that there is a sandiwara going on at the highest level. It is certainly ridiculous how any court can accept this kind of claim by the prosecutor.

It is shameful to deny a person his basic freedoms without knowing what crime he has committed. The public perception is that ordinary citizens cannot rely on the police to protect their fundamental civil liberties, what more to expect from the courts, since the habeas corpus application by five detainees has been thrown out by the Kuala Lumpur High Court early this week.

The ISA is not suitable for the new millennium as we approach Vision 2020; it can be open to abuse, contrary to what people may argue otherwise, and is not in line with an open society, where fear should not be the rule of law, like it seems to be now. It has turned many people to instead hate rather than love the government.

The sad scenario now is that submission to the authorities have now become an act of fear rather than love and loyalty to the nation. The ISA arrests have instilled fear and hatred in its citizens.

As someone once said, if you want respect, then you must earn that respect by respecting others first and, in the present scenario, respecting the detainees' basic human rights to fundamental freedom and justice.

The Bible says: "Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never failing stream."