It is predictable that Jeffrey in his letter [#1] Invocation of ISA: Suhakam has no say [/#] (April 21) has to resort to splitting hairs and arguing academically on fine points of Suhakam's charter while blatantly ignoring the gross violation of the ISA detainees' human rights.

This is the usual line of apologists and white-washers who attempt to defend the indefensible and justify the unjustifiable - by labouring petty points to distract the reader while the real ugly issue of human rights abuse is sidelined.

There are basic human rights which are universal in nature and not subject to academic or legal debate. They define basic standards of civilised behaviour and to deny them is to deny our very humanity.

They cut across political and cultural lines because we all share a common humanity with common characteristics. Do we not all bleed when cut?

Autocratic governments can legislate them away but it does not change their universal and objective values. Abusing a person's humanity does not become 'right' just because a tyrannical regime has legislated cruel and obnoxious laws to sanction such practices.

Let us argue not on the fine interpretation of the law but on universal human values and natural justice. Everyone has a right to physical freedom unless he or she has committed a crime against society.

Having been accused of wrongdoing, one has the basic right to defend oneself. The accused has the right to know what crime he has been specifically charged with. The accuser must show proof and guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. These are basic rights which protect you and me.

The writer argues on the fact that the ISA is law and so detaining people under the ISA is a lawful act which does not infringe on human rights. By this he reasons that Suhakam has no right to call for their release.

He further puts the onus on Suhakam to show evidence and facts that contradict the broad outline of the police's reasons for detaining them before it has the right to say that their rights have been violated.

This is a very flexible view of human rights and implies that human rights have no universal absolutes. This means that dictatorial regimes can do anything they want by merely legislating it. It wouldn't be too difficult for another sycophantic pro-establishment bootlicker to justify Hitler's annihilation of Jews.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is plainly ridiculous to shift the onus of proof to Suhakam to show that the detainees are not a threat to national security, it would not matter anyway as the police do not require any proof or indeed, any reasonable grounds or any specific crime to detain a person under ISA. You can be the most upright citizen in the nation but the police still have the legal right as to detain you indefinitely under the ISA under some arbitrary suspicion.

The ISA may be law but being officially sanctioned under the constitution does not take away its barbarity. Its gross violation of human rights is obvious in the view of the arbitrary detention without trial, the inaccessibility of the detainee to lawyers and family and the abrogation of the detainee's right to defend himself.

The whole crux of the ISA is that the detention is not subject to legal review, appeal or self-defence for the detainee is at the complete mercy of the wielders of this obnoxious piece of legislation.

One can optimistically say that the ISA will only be used against ' bad people' but note that the definition of good and bad is arbitrarily decided by the authorities. Am I a bad person if I oppose the bailout of the prime minister's cronies using public funds?

This together with the fact that proof is not required to detain a person puts each and every Malaysian under the terrifying shadow of this unjust legislation.

There may be some justification for using the ISA with appropriate safeguards under extreme circumstances when the country is under emergency, but to use it during peacetime on opposition politicians is such an outrage against human rights that Suhakam would not be doing its job if it did not speak out.

It would certainly lose all public respect and may as well close shop rather than be seen to operate as a tool to justify the human rights abuses of the regime.