I would like to refer to the letter sent by Silent Majority 'ISA should not be abolished' (July 11). With respect to his contention that the ISA is still valuable to the country, I beg to differ.

It is true, as the writer said, that the threat to our national security is ever present. To strengthen this argument the writer reminded us all of the dangers that we faced during the communist time.

I agree that the communist wanted to enforce their kind of justice and equality. However, why stop only there? What about other 'ism's apart from communism, with their own beliefs on what constitutes justice and equality? All were created by humans and surely they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

To answer the writer's question on the difference between 'now and then', communists (then) used weapons and force to gain their objectives while the reformasi movement (now) - or call them whatever you like - uses the streets, Internet (because the media are controlled by cronies) and most of all ceramahs (often illegal) and election. That is the difference between 'now and then'!

Then the writer went on to say that the basic principle of democracy is for people to elect the government of their choice. I disagree. The basic principle of democracy is the respect for human rights which includes freedom of expression and assembly.

With regard to election, it is not just any election but a free, fair and just election. It is true that the 1969 elections were the worst in terms of the toll on human lives, but in terms of government manipulation and oppression, the 1999 elections were the worst - to date.

The writer's statement that you cannot force your views on others raises the issue of controlling views and expressions that indirectly enforces your own views on others. I am referring to the Printing Presses and Publications Act that controls who and what can be printed and published, thus controlling how people can and should think. Does not this amount to enforcing the views of the powers that be on the citizens?

When the writer spoke of love for his children, family and country as a reason to preserve the ruling elite, does he mean that those who want to change the ruling party hate their family, children and country?

Everyone has their own political views and it is not right to say or even imply that by opposing one political faction it means that you are not patriotic and are a traitor to your country.

With regard to the development of our country, I think that some of us would want to develop not only as one nation but as humans as well. There are many social creatures on this planet apart from humans. And they too develop their own societies, each according to their own capabilities. For example, ants, too, develop their nests and colony members. But as they are not humans their development is based on "might rules" and "survival of the fittest".

We humans are born with inalienable rights such as rights of freedom and justice, but never have we been born with 'development'. 'Development' is something that needs to be achieved.

The question is, do we need to forsake our freedom, justice, fairness and rights just for the sake of development?

ISA cannot be said to have justice and respect to human rights as it negates the doctrine "innocent until proven guilty". The defect of the ISA is that it does not confer the right to defend oneself on the accused (detainee). It only gives the right to the accuser to charge, and worse, to detain and lock up the innocent victim. So, can we be proud of being a developed nation while at the same time sacrificing our or others' rights and freedom by neglecting justice and fairness?

It is true that in the US, guns were never outlawed and that they can kill lives. But guns are weapons used to defend or attack others. The ISA is a weapon used on the pretext of defending the nation but always used as a weapon against those who politically threaten the ruling elite.

Just because the writer has never heard of anyone being killed by the ISA, that does not mean that it has never happened. Ask those who had been detained and they will tell you their ordeal, the conclusion of which is - the ISA is hell on earth! It seems that the 'Silent' has spoken but alas it takes more than one to be a 'Majority'!