I refer to the article by ( News Straits Times chief) Abdullah Ahmad entitled 'Between reality and the dream of basic rights' published in Mingguan Malaysia of April 22. Allow me to comment on the article as it mentioned me and my stand on the Internal Security Act (ISA).

I do not wish to repeat here how time and again I refused offers of conditional release and the circumstances surrounding my release after being detained for almost six years. All these matters have been recounted in great detail in my book, Two Faces: Detention without Trial .

I also expressed my regard for Abdullah's freedom to hold himself and Dr Kassim Ahmad amongst "those political detainees who did not waver from upholding principle: We were innocent, we were set up". But does Abdullah only uphold principle when he is himself affected? Not for others?

In his article, Abdullah stresses the similarity between his outlook and that of Kassim today on the ISA. According to Abdullah, Kassim apparently "was once idolised by Dr Syed Husin Ali and his friends". I had high regard for Kassim's previous cause, and from previously I have never agreed with several of Abdullah's political positions. But, forgive me, I have never idolised Kassim, just as I have never looked on Abdullah as an enemy.

According to Abdullah, the similarity between himself and Kassim is that "they vehemently opposed the abuse of the ISA for the purpose of maintaining personal power". Throughout its history, the ISA has always been used by leaders and the ruling party to maintain its power.

We are again witnessing this in the recent detentions of 10 Keadilan leaders and reformasi activists. Why then does Abdullah, as Kassim, support and not oppose the use of the ISA this time around?

Abdullah claimed that he and Kassim "were victimised by a group of power-hungry Umno extremists who were then in power". I agree. But doesn't he see that the recent ISA victims are also victims of a power-hungry group, more accurately one person, who currently controls the government? Naively, Abdullah asks, "how could we have threatened the country when there were no street demonstrations at the time, not to mention support from without?"

Abdullah has surely not forgotten that when he was detained in July 1976 together with Kassim, A Samad Ismail and Abdullah Majid. They were accused of being pro-communist and, indirectly, of being communist agents. They were alleged to have threatened national security. They do not have to be involved in street demonstrations to be accused of threatening national security. Abdullah knows that the allegations were false.

Abdullah knows that his television confession a few days after detention was based on a draft prepared by the Special Branch, after several drafts which he himself prepared had been rejected. This confession then became the charge against him and was the basis for the two-year detention order on him. Subsequently, when he retracted his confession because, he said, it was made under compulsion and on a promise that he would be released, his detention order was extended another two years - on a charge of being stubborn.

Therein lies the injustice and oppressiveness of the ISA. False allegations are made out against detainees. The Special Branch has to be proven correct. The detainee is victimised in several ways (some of which were mentioned in Abdullah's article), until the detainee accepts that the SB's charges are true. Some continue to be detained after such an admission (as was Abdullah), and some not. But most of the detainees were prepared to be detained for years rather than accept the false allegations against them. That was why many were detained for more than 10 years, some up till 15 years.

The 10 who were detained recently are accused of wanting street demonstrations daily in order to overthrow the government. They are also accused of wanting to use bombs, mortars, Molotov cocktails and other weaponry.

Mohd Ezam Mohd Noor had lodged a police report against Utusan Malaysia for accusing him of plotting to overthrow the government. However, up till today, it is not known if the police have investigated the report. Inspector-General of Police Norian Mai says that he has information relating to the general plans of the reformasi movement, not specifically those who were detained, to use weapons. However, when asked to produce the evidence, the police have declared it confidential. If there is no specific evidence against those who have been detained, why are they still in detention?

If indeed the police and the Home Ministry are in possession of evidence, why are they not using the various acts that are in existence, such as the Police Act, the Sedition Act, the Firearms Act, acts relating to treason, etc. in order to charge the detainees in court? Why are they using the ISA? Because there is no need to produce evidence and there is no need to go to court?

The prime minister himself admitted that if these other laws were used, the process as well as the evidence required would be 'complicated'. So, the easiest route is to use the ISA.

Does Abdullah, and those he supports, believe that the ISA and its abuse have changed? Why are they changing their stand now? Is it because those in power have awarded them higher positions and more shares?

Anyone who holds to the teachings of Islam will surely know that, in Islam, sentencing or detention without trial and without evidence is wrong. The Quran teaches that when we adjudicate, it should be with justice. I believe this, too, accords with the teachings of other religions. For all such believers, this is or should be even more important than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The leadership of this government once promised to review the ISA. But what has happened? Not only has the ISA not been reviewed, instead it has been applied even more broadly.

Abdullah has attempted to raise suspicion against the detained Keadilan leaders and reformasi activists by labelling them as "heroes of foreign powers". This accusation is a long-standing one from the government leaders. Now Abdullah repeats it. What evidence does he have? Or does he just wish to parlay false accusations? Does he indeed wish to repeat the practice of the Umno leadership which put out false accusations in order to detain him?

The fact is, Abdullah doesn't have a foot to stand on. Can Abdullah say if any amongst the detainees have ever helped in any American presidential campaign? Or has any of them ever worked with the Voice of America , a CIA instrument? Abdullah should look at himself.

Although many know that Abdullah has committed both of these acts when he was in the United States, nevertheless no one has the right to accuse him of being an agent of American imperialism. So also, no one has the right to accuse him of being a communist agent, just because a power-hungry home minister once accused him of it.

I have always regarded Abdullah's detention as unjust and all accusations against him as false, because no evidence was ever produced. So too with the recent detainees. Why does Abdullah now practice 'double standards'?