As a Malaysian, my first response to the new Security Offences Bill which is replacing the ISA is "No thanks".

The issue that concerns me is not the length of detention - 28 days - but rather the vagueness of the situations where the law can be applied.

I support anti-terrorism legislation provided it is used for one thing and one thing only, which is terrorism.

Terrorism is the use of arms (guns and bombs) to achieve a political objective.

Terrorism endangers the lives and physical being of people.

The use of the Security Offences Bill for reasons other than militancy is simply not accepted.

Detention without trial should not be used in situations that are "prejudicial to public order" because this will mean that people who participate in public demonstrations and protests can be charged.

All public gatherings which involve large numbers of people will always be "prejudicial to public order" because it involves the issue of crowd control and traffic congestion.

So this phrase "prejudicial to public order" is a vague term that can be applied from anything such as critical writing, books, magazines, meetings, discussions, phone messaging, Facebook postings, internet blogs, street demonstrations, protests and the carrying of banners and even matters of religion.

Thus if a Muslim man were to write in his blog that he is a practicing homosexual and believes homosexuality is not forbidden in Islam, his opinion can also be considered as "prejudicial to public order" and he can be detained for up to 28 days.

In order words, the Security Offences Bill will hardly ever be used for terrorism related matters but more routinely against people who have strong opinions and are willing to voice these opinions in public.