Members of the opposition are claiming that Malaysia's ISA which allows for detention without trial is undemocratic and unsuited for our progress into the 21st century.

This claim assumes that detention without trial and democracy are inherently incompatible. I beg to differ because a precedent has been set by other democratic nations to detain suspected criminals without trial, and sometimes even worse.

The opposition wants the nation to be more democratic; when pressed for examples, they will nearly always point to the West, democratic nations such as the US and Britain are their shining examples, both nations allowing freedom of speech, assembly and movement, nations that are by far and large very transparent in their election processes. Fine - but no one says anything about the fine print in these nations' history.

During the Iran-Contra episodes, the CIA dealt closely in espionage activities, 'black-ops' that led to the execution of anti-American elements in Iran. The same regularly happens in the jungles of Central America where, in an effort to protect the country against drugs, the DEA and CIA cooperate to assassinate suspected drug lords - all without trial and charge. All for the sake of 'national security'.

The Spanish government, another 'democratic' nation from the West, regularly assassinates suspected Basque separatist leaders in the Basque region, all without trial and in the absence of any formal legal charge.

The point is this: A democratic nation doesn't necessarily mean that its law enforcement and security agencies do not have the power to detain suspected criminals without charge. As any police officer will tell you (not just Malaysian police officers, but police officers anywhere in the world), it is often impossible to prove that a person has committed a crime, even though it is a fact that he or she has committed a crime.

Smart criminals will always be able to cover their tracks. So what do you do about them? Let them go? Possibly that would be the democratic thing to do because you can't prove their guilt in court. But is this necessarily the 'right' thing to do?

In Malaysia, we may never see massive, violent demonstrations - allegedly the reasons why we have a few certain individuals locked up in Kamunting right now. The reason we will never see these demonstrations is either because these individuals never planned to do it in the first place or it could be because our security agencies acted proactively to stop it even though they are unable to prove it in open court hence the use of the ISA to lock up those they believe are the masterminds.

Either or, one or the other - either they're innocent or our law enforcement is brilliant. Which one is the truth? Are you willing to bet the lives of your loved ones, and the stability of the nation to find out?