Salbiah Ahmad's argument in 'Moving Towards a 'legitimate' national security '(July 12) is interesting, but unfortunately is also one-sided and misleading. The 'peaceful assembly' on June 8 alluded to by the writer, if I understand it correctly, was held without a permit and consequently it is illegal under the law.

Accusing the police of instigation the incident is to my mind unfair to the police and stretching the imagination a bit too far as it would appear that the police moved in only to break up an unlawful assembly - peaceful or not. The writer, of all persons, should know this better than to cast aspersions on the legality of police actions.

Like many others, I too am a firm advocate of the fundamental rights to life and liberty of the person as entrenched in the Constitution, but I am also fully aware of the provisions of Article 149 (under which the ISA was promulgated) which does not prohibit restrictions on these freedoms even if they are inconsistent with articles 5, 9 and 10.

The writer's contention that safeguards against unlawful detention under the ISA "no longer exists" is also incorrect. Her statement disguises the fact that the detainee still has legal recourse before an Advisory Board and even a judicial review. The recent Shah Alam High Court decision which went in favour of the detainees is a case in point.

With regard to the Siracusa principle governing 'national security' I am of the view that it does not adequately address 'national security'. Instead, it merely delimits the parameters under which 'national security' could be invoked. The principles are western-centric and ignores the concerns of developing states which are often faced with problems of subversion, religious extremists, coup plotters and advocates of anarchy and revolution.