It would be sad day indeed for human progress if democracy were to be equated with the rule of the majority, as one letter writer, Jeffrey, did ('Three points against Fong', Dec 14).

Suppose 51 individuals were to vote to kill the other 49, would we then say, "Oh well, it was after all a democratic decision?"

No, not at all: democracy is not the same as the rule of the majority.

Dissent, as a matter of fact, is a right in a democratic state. After all, democracy takes as a given that there will always be dissent and that those who hold views not subscribed by the majority have an absolute right to do so.

However, as we know, no governance would be possible without there being a consent ... the consent of the governed. Hence, a democratic state employs the rule of the majority to divine the will of the people. The implicit assumption being that this majority will always remain a flexible entity - i.e., there will never be a permanent minority.

Now, in Malaysia, we all know that this isn't the case. The Barisan Nasional regime, though it had tolerated dissent (as opposed to accept it as an absolute right) in the past, has evinced this incorrigible tendency to come down heavily on those 'dissidents' who threaten to break the mould that keeps the regime perched up there as the permanent majority, and the ultimate arbitrator of outcome.

We can only see Ms Fong Po Kuan's case in that light. She dared to put the case in front of the people, the rightful rulers of our state. And BN regime punished her, the 'dissident'.