Perantau's comments ("'Decadent' western values", Aug 28) are well put. One can see the basic logic he/she has followed. As a US citizen living in Malaysia with a local family to raise and a local business to make successful, a ' perantau ' in my own right, I would like to offer some comment on Perantau's logic.

The US system supports individual rights. In a country that has the physical dimensions the US enjoys, a country of almost limitless resources and the good fortune to have a physical position on the globe that made invasion or re-colonisation almost unthinkable from 1800 to the present day, individual rights can be superior to the group's immediate general well-being.

The country is big enough to operate successfully that way. In that regard, the US enjoys an almost perfect setting. If the pursuit and exercise of individual rights in the US lead to a big court case, demonstration, factory closure (strike), localised civil unrest, the general population there would not be greatly affected (nationally). If the same occurs in any country in Asia, the results can have a more decided effect on the group.

My more than 15 years experience in Asia has shown me one thing. The area's countries cannot operate without strong leaders. The countries that have progressed have had strong leadership; i.e., Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. True, the strong leadership in Indonesia did not bring progress. Suharto's rule was not leadership.

The reason for this requirement for strong leadership has been the fragile financial and physical bases the countries inherited after World War II. If these countries did not develop quickly, they would have been gobbled up by others. Can you imagine Asia's countries going through the same development process the US did?

This strong leadership does come at a price in 'loss' of individual rights. The loss is not really a loss. It is a temporary subjugation of individual rights for the overall well-being of the group. I feel it is a process that has worked well for Malaysia and Singapore to a certain extent.

Malaysia cannot become a rights-based country overnight. Those here who would call for a complete end to the BN government are really not seeing the overall picture. True enough, some of the BN's reactions to requests for more openness, transparency have been somewhat paranoid. However, Malaysians have themselves to blame for much of this reaction as they do not participate in their government as much as they should or possibly could.

Nonetheless, all things considered, life is rather good here. Yes, you cannot afford to attract the government's attention by being an activist for a certain political cause considered 'oppositionist'. You can suffer certain consequences because the law may be stacked against you as the laws are written for the well-being of the group as the ruling party sees fit to define it. I do not feel the ruling party interprets the laws too selfishly once you understand the government is trying to protect the masses, possibly from themselves.

In order to change that condition, Malaysians need to become more active in their government by regularly contacting their elected representatives. The governing party is merely treating Malaysians as if they did not have enough sense to govern themselves. If Malaysians have not voiced their concerns directly to their elected representatives, who can blame BN for their current attitude?

Perantau's suggestion that Malaysians should compare their laws to US laws is not a bad suggestion. However, US laws are not perfect. The public and the country's officials regularly violate them. Indeed, there is room for change in some of the Malaysian concepts on personal liberties.

Detention without trial past a certain reasonable remand date is one of them. US police can arrest someone 'on suspicion' of a crime. There are laws in the US to deal with conspiracy to commit a crime. The police there do have some broad powers, but detention without trial or denying the accused access to an attorney once arrested is anathema to the country's civil liberties.

If Malaysians want that part of the house rules or other rules on 'openness' here changed, they have to start asking for it. Rambling on with passionate outbursts in the newspapers, ceramahs , demonstrations, comparisons, etc. will only reinforce the government's position. Change comes through the legislature.

Comparing Malaysia's laws to those of a well-developed country should not be the end of the exercise for Malaysians to affect desirable changes in their government. Combining that comparison with active participation in the governing process after the ballots have received their count to generate a Malaysian 'solution' would be more effective over the long term.

Malaysiakini generates a large amount of response and input from all walks of Malaysian life. The range of responses is truly interesting. It could take the lead to publish and regularly update a roster of MPs, state assembly representatives, local councils, etc. that would enable the rakyat to more easily interface with their elected and appointed representatives on a regular and consistent basis.