Mustapha o­ng's defence of the ISA and OSA as necessary to "defend our national security" (' ISA is to defend our national security ', April 14), might possibly have had some semblance of merit (albeit small) were it not for his follow-up statement that what is "happening in Iraq today will serve as an invaluable lesson and experience to all of us here in Malaysia and around the world".

Is he saying that Iraq is in the predicament it is now because it did not have the ISA and OSA? If so, I should comfort Mr o­ng by bringing to his attention the fact that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had very much more draconian laws and yet it did not manage to escape the juncture at which it now finds itself.

As regards his solemn declaration that both the "ISA and OSA, which had been passed by Parliament, should remain non-debatable and not to be compromised so that they can protect the well-being of our own citizens under any circumstances, even in violation of human rights", o­ne might ask why when even the Constitution can be debated and amended, two lowly acts of parliament become so inviolable that they should be debate-proof.

Someone in the position of Mr o­ng should know deep down (and in this sense he is a deeply cynical, self-serving and dishonest man) that no sensible Malaysian would protest against the ISA and OSA if he were convinced that these laws were in fact used exclusively to "protect the well-being of our own citizens".

The truth is that the vast majority of Malaysians - including retired public, police and military officers - know that the ISA and OSA are used selectively (and almost exclusively) to undermine genuine democratic opposition in Malaysia.

If learned people are worth listening to, then the most learned people I know in Malaysia - including academics, lawyers, retired judges and civil servants - fervently believe that almost all those who have been detained under the ISA recently could have been charged and (if there had been real as opposed to fabricated evidence) convicted under existing ordinary laws of the land, without recourse to emergency legislation.

If it is true that Mr o­ng is "a long-time friend" of Pak Lah - as he self-confesses - then the latter should anxiously review his list of friends: long-time or otherwise! With friends like him, does Pak Lah need enemies?