Chia Kwang Chye, I read with the keenest interest malaysiakin i's report entitled Gerakan backs BN on ISA quoting you.

Chia, do you not remember lamenting once that we were still having a colonial mentality after almost 20 years of independence and that Georgetown ought to be renamed Tanjung? Were you not then a fervent critic of the Internal Security Act while you were an active student union leader in Universiti Sains Malaysia between 1974 and 1977?

Did you not tell me back then when I was a blur freshie that 'the Internal Security Act is a draconian act that ought to be abolished?' (If you still remember, I did ask you back then what 'draconian' meant and what the Internal Security Act was all about.)

Having said that, I must quickly make a big U-turn now before you decide to put me under the ISA.

There is no cause for shame to make a change of stance if indeed, one has made a genuine mistake. I certainly agree with you that the ISA ought to be retained as a preventive measure to counter threats to national security, what with international terrorism on the rise, such that even here in Malaysia, we have citizens that have links with the regional terrorist Jemaah Islamiah group. Why would we want to see dead bodies strewn all over the place before we take action, right?

But, and now follows a very big 'but'. Who is to determine whether the ISA has been abused?

Malaysiakini

reports: 'Under the ISA, the internal security minister or his deputy has the sole discretion to determine if a person poses a potential threat to national security or public order, and is empowered to place them under indefinite detention without trial.'

Chia, does a threat to the ruling coalition tantamount to a threat to 'national security or public order?'

Who is to decide whether the ruling coalition is using the Internal Security Act to destroy its opponent political parties so as to ensure its continued dominance in Malaysian politics? Can any party that has an obvious self-interest be impartial and be an appropriate candidate to decide on such matters?

Does not natural justice dictate that 'thou shall not sit in judgment of your own cause?'

My dear honorable Chia, I have no doubt that you have a conscience. I certainly believe that power and status have not intoxicated you from your social idealism that you so fervently professed in your younger days.

What are your honest replies to my simple and straightforward questions?

What is your honest opinion on the Lim Guan Eng's case ? Seek your own conscience and ask yourself, but keep your answer to yourself, lest you too be charged under the ISA.

By all means, use the ISA in any manner that you deem fit when it comes to terrorist groups and illegitimate and illegal organisations.

But I believe that you will agree with me that the Act ought not to be used by any ruling party, whether it be the Barisan Nasional or any opposition party that comes to power, as a weapon against political opponents and non-governmental organisations that expose the wrongdoings of the government of the day.

To be sure, no government is perfect. To err is human and we certainly agree that the Barisan Nasional government is not run by gods. Where mistakes are made, ought not the government be honest about them and remedy these problems promptly? Can problems be solved by silencing the critics under the ISA? Does this not amount to sweeping the problems under the carpet?

In supporting a preventive act such as the Internal Security Act, I cannot in the same breath seek for 'detention with trial.' Yet, by 'trial', I mean a trial in the conventional sense. But not having a trial in a conventional court does not mean that we cannot have a trial in an unconventional court.

Our Industrial Relations Act is supervised by the Industrial Court, which bases its decisions, not on statutes, but on the principles of natural justice. 'Natural justice' demands 'equity and good conscience'.

Can we not then have an Internal Security Tribunal that is based along the same lines as the Industrial Relations Tribunal? Can we not have a tribunal of 10 persons that comprises, say, three members from the government, three from the opposition members of parliament and three from non-governmental organisations and all headed by a retired High Court judge or equivalent?

Under the circumstances, would not the public be more inclined to accept the continued maintenance of the ISA? Would not the government absolve itself from being accused of using the ISA to destroy its opponents and dissidents? Would not justice be served?

Chia, as an aside, you also mentioned: ' ... human rights should be contextualised on the basis of influences such as economic development, religion, culture and political climate of a country. While (we recognise) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the implementation of these principles in situations in which we live in is different.'

I am rather sick and tired of ministers and members of parliaments making sweeping, unsubstantiated and high-flung statements that talk a lot but say very little. I certainly hope you are not one of them, Chia.

Did we not sing together the USM song that had a Chinese pop tune and that claimed that we are from '... the best and mightiest university in the whole country?' Well, we can claim any university to be the best but the test of the pudding is still in the quality of the graduates that it produces.

Your statement, 'While we recognise the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the implementation of these principles in situations in which we live in is different,' cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Let me tell you why. Tell me which two countries in this world have identical situations and you will no doubt find the illogic of your statement. If you have any honesty, you should have said: "We do not recognise the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the situations in which everyone lives in are different."

Chia, on what 'situations' are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights based on? In what way are our situations to be distinguished from such 'standard situations?'

Can we justify that our human rights actions so far are more superior and offer greater justice to Malaysians, as compared to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Can the incarceration of Lim Guan Eng, Lim Kit Siang, Irene Fernandez and Anwar Ibrahim under our human rights actions support your contention? Is this what you mean by 'contextualisation?'

Chia, I certainly hope that you will seek your conscience and do what ought to be done. Abdullah is no Mahathir, so this fact alone should make your task of revamping the ISA very much easier.

It does seem to me that while Abdullah is seen to be moving forward in terms of transparency and good governance, as witnessed by the new Public Accounts Committee composition, the rest of the cabinet is running all over the place except in the direction that Abdullah is heading.

I wonder why and I am still wondering. Maybe I will stop wondering, once I am incarcerated under your 'draconian' ISA.