With reference to Silent Majority's ('ISA should not be abolished,' July 11), there is nothing in the writer's thoughts of ISA other than parroting Dr Mahathir Mohamad's exact point of argument.

It is recorded historically that the method of propagating communism was achieved through fatal means of armed intimidation by the terrorist communist to bring down a democratically elected government. Thus, ISA may be justified then to combat this type of clear and present danger.

However, after many decades, this archaic law is misused by the government to silent whistle-blowers from exposing high level injustices committed by high powered politicians. All the so- called evidence of militant acts and logistics as trumpeted by the police chief have now become nonsense since there is not a shred of evidence.

Thus, it is easy to use ISA then, as it would save the powers that be from further humiliation as they had experienced in Anwar's sodomy trial. This is not a case of a clear and present danger to the national security, instead it's a case of saving an endangered species of the Malaysian Dictator.

We uphold democracy not because it is the perfect system but because it is a means towards some form of perfection.

While perfection may not be attainable, every effort to attain it counts. For democracy to have a chance to work, the population must have some understanding of its mechanism and goals.

It can never ever work if democracy only rears it head once in four or five - at elections time. To confine democracy only when we choose our government is a tyranny by itself.

As William Henry Beveridge said: "Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."

The whole idea of democracy is to ensure justice for all, at all times. This is not possible with repressive laws. The whole idea of passing a judgement that any individual is guilty (of some form of threat to the nation etc.) without subjecting him/her to a fair trial is incompatible with the notion of justice. And that is exactly what ISA is all about.

We may be able to somewhat understand the need for it during the "Dark Ages" of our early years but with the rate of information flow now, it's just insane.

As Reinhold Niebuhr said: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.

Overthrowing the government is part of a democratic process. That is the purpose of any opposition political party participating in an election. At other times, the parties will have to keep their effort to overthrow the government - within the boundaries of the law of the land of course.

Any individual should be able to oppose the (policies and implementation of) the government without fear of being abducted in the dead of night and sent to somewhere beyond anyone's reach, all in the name of 'democracy' defined here as Arman de Caillavet and Robert, Marquis de Flers did, i.e. "Democracy is the name we give the people whenever we need them."

We cannot have a periodic reference to democracy - according to one's whim and fancies.

If we let ISA live on, we will indeed forever have the 'Silent Majority'. I believe the whole idea of holding on to ISA is to silence the majority . I hope 'Silent Majority' can appreciate this.