I refer to the Malaysiakini report PM warns public safety is top priority .

What bittersweet irony it is that the same prime minister who speaks of public accountability had earlier threatened the very same public with the use of the notorious Internal Security Act. As we all know, the ISA effectively allows the government to detain an individual in perpetuity without so much as a second in court. Just how does the prime minister reconcile his threats to invoke the ISA with his purported desire to be accountable to the public?

According to the prime minister, the ISA may be engaged where national security is at risk. The problem is that the threshold of what constitutes a national security threat seems to be so low in the eyes of the authorities that it presents a very real danger to our individual liberties. Consider the case of lawyer Edmund Bon who was recently arrested for attempting to prevent DBKL officers from removing banners hanging on the Malaysian Bar building. The banners were unfurled in celebration of the United Nation's International Human Rights Day.

The attorney-general himself was present to object to Bon's bail application. Amongst his eight reasons for denying bail was that Bon's act of defiance would "create the perception that it is okay to defy the authorities" and that this would "create disorder and threat[s] to the national security." The implications are downright mind-boggling. Consider yourselves forewarned, oh denizens of Kuala Lumpur. Think twice the next time you consider arguing with a DBKL officer about that parking ticket for you may find yourself being accused of jeopardising national security!

Are these the sort of sham national security threats that the prime minister contends he will protect us from using the ISA? Are we seeing a return to those dark days when the ISA was used to stifle legitimate dissent and the pesky opposition? The police are now raising the spectre of the ISA towards the Hindraf leaders and their alleged terrorist links . If the proof against them is indeed credible then why are they not be charged under the appropriate laws and be allowed to challenge these allegations in a court of law?

History has shown us that our legislation has consistently been abused to shield the Malaysian government from public scrutiny and criticism. Take for example the use of the Official Secrets Act to mischievously classify toll concessions as “secret” or the use of the Printing Presses and Publications Act to persecute Irene Fernandez. Irene's “crime” was to publish unsavoury details of the conditions in illegal immigrant detention centres. By foreshadowing the use of the ISA, it is not accountability but a legacy of unaccountability that the prime minister appears determined to uphold.

The most heinous abuse of power on the part of the government is when the ISA is used to deprive an individual of his or her liberty for an indefinite period of time due to an infringement that must remain shrouded in mystery for some inexplicable reason. That such a law can even remain in our books is an affront to the most elementary notions of justice or fairness.

So when Pak Lah brandishes the ISA like a sledgehammer over our collective heads, forgive me for my cynicism. I am left wondering whether he is as serious about wanting to be accountable and responsible to us as the attorney-general was when he claimed that Edmund Bon presented a threat to national security.

On a related note, the prime minister recently reiterated his steely determination to show people that they must not mistake his ‘Mr Nice Guy’ image for weakness. He took the same occasion to remind Malaysians not to be "swayed by groups that stir up racial sentiments to reap political support." If he was genuine in this wish and possessed the political machismo to follow through with it then one would naturally expect him to start by making examples of those within his own party who have been playing the racial and religious card for years.

Despite securing 91 percent of the electoral mandate in the last elections, he has not been seen to do so. Thus, is it not natural for the public to assume that the prime minister is either ignorant, disingenuous or perhaps - horror of horrors - weak? In my books, does Pak Lah deserve a second term? Take a wild guess.