I do not think it is altogether irrelevant to draw attention to Mustapha Ong's non-residence in Malaysia because he seems to argue passionately for the ISA, a draconian act which certainly has been proven to trample on the basic rights of Malaysians.

If an individual does not live in Malaysia, then it seems a bit futile to begin arguing for a law which he will never fall foul of, by virtue of living under 'protection' in another democratic country.

A civilised democracy is predicated on respect for basic notions of justice. To deny a person accused of a wrongdoing to a fair trial, goes against all moral and religious principles known to humanity.

It is my contention that, if citizens of Malaysia can be abused by the ISA in this way, then 'dangerous acts of sabotage' and 'treason' which it is ostensibly meant to prevent, are more likely to occur.

The police already have a full battery of powers in their hands to instantly detain individuals whom they suspect of committing 'dangerous acts of sabotage'.

After a stipulated period of detention, and after enough evidence has been gathered, these individuals can then be charged and brought to trial. The Federal Court has declared unequivocally that the 'Reformasi 5' had been detained illegally as the police did not provide a shred of evidence to justify their detention under the ISA.

What amazes me is that Mustapha Ong makes no reference to this and has the temerity to passionately argue for its need and relevance.