I refer to the letter written by Aizuddin Danian ('ISA for stability', June 27). His statement that "In Malaysia, we may never see massive, violent demonstrations ... 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" is completely laughable.

We are seldom allowed demonstrations in the first place so how can he know the level of violence involved? In fact, as we've all seen in pictures, it is the government who behaves violently. Where are the 'security agencies' stopping the violent acts committed by the police and armed forces?

If our 'security agencies' had any ounce of wit in them, why didn't they place the Al-Ma'unah cult under the ISA as soon as they learnt about them? How was this group allowed to 'grow and prosper' in the first place? And why were they given a 'fair trial' despite their very clear intentions to topple the government? Why is an arms heist acceptable but a demonstration not? It seems to me like a very strange sense of priority for protecting Malaysian citizens!

We also mustn't forget the demonstrations by Umno Youth against the East Timor supporters years ago and most recently, Suqiu. I believe that these demonstrations were planned and made known to the authorities but none of our 'security agencies' did anything to curb the violence caused by Umno Youth.

Instead, the ones who get detained are people like Tian Chua who is a pretty nice chap and a fairly good orator but (correct me if I'm wrong) not a military strategist and probably doesn't even know how to load a gun, much less pull off an arms heist Al-Ma'unah-style!

So what if countries like the US and UK have blots in their history of democracy? Why should we benchmark ourselves against their failures? Why can't we attempt to emulate their successes and thus, make ourselves much more respected not only in the eyes of the world but also of our fellow Malaysians and our children?