With reference to Mohd Fauzi's letter entitled 'ISA's raison d'etre' (July 9). While it is true that the Internal Security Act (ISA) is meant to be a 'preventive' law, this cannot be justification for its existence.

If we agree that the use of the ISA is indeed to prevent the occurrence of a crime, how then can the detainee be charged in open court at the end of the initial 60-day detention period ? After all, the crime has already been prevented. There can be nothing now for the prosecution to charge the detainee with.

But to free the detainee, means to renew the threat of the crime occurring. Thus, to prevent the crime the detainee can never, ever, be freed. How very just. How very democratic.

On the other hand, if the detainee is indeed released, as proposed by Mohd Fauzi, and the threat of the crime renewed, then the initial detention is pointless.

Secondly, how does one investigate to determine who potential law breakers are? How do you determine what laws they will, potentially, break? Is it morally correct and justifiable to detain such persons merely on suspicion, persons who may break the law? The simple answers are that you cannot, you cannot and it is not. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Home Ministry nor the Royal Malaysian Police Force have clairvoyants, wizards, bomohs or pawangs on their payroll capable of such feats. But I may be wrong.

Then there is the question of investigation. All crimes, even attempted crimes, are offences under the law. This being the case, persons engaged in these can and must be charged under the appropriate law. The fact that they are not (or rather that it is not tenable to do so) simply illustrates no crime, inchoate or otherwise, was, is or will be committed. Of course, you cannot attempt to attempt a criminal offence, so there is no possibility of applying the ISA here. Either which way, the ISA becomes, again, pointless.

So why have the ISA? Because it is good for those who wield it. The idea that it is for investigatory purposes, that it is preventive, that it is of a benefit, is a sham. It is a repressive tool used to suppress legitimate dissent and to undermine the substance of the democratic process. It must be abolished and that is all.