Bersih 3.0: Police car crash victim speaks out

By Kow Gah Chie | May 2, 2012
Malaysiakini

Coming out to admit that he is one of the four Bersih 3.0 rally protesters a police car crashed into outside the Sogo shopping complex on Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman last Saturday, Su Kuang Hong said he was doing so to clear the air on the matter.

He was coming forward, Su said, because of the efforts by the police to paint the crowd as an angry mob of rioters and to refute the inspector-general of police (IGP) Ismail Omar’s statement that there was no one pinned underneath the police car after the crash.

“I was hit by a Proton Waja police car,” said Su, 25, who is warded at Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

He claimed he was hit at the back and the impact threw him on to the bonnet of the car, which continued to move and its sudden stop soon after sent him crashing against a wall in front of Sogo.

As a result, Su obtained at least five injuries – on his forehead, jaw, wrist and thigh.

Su works as a service engineer with a government-linked company and is the first victim of the crash to speak up.

In an interview with Malaysiakini yesterday, Su said he lodged two police reports earlier yesterday.

He said the police officer who attended to him said he was the third complainant to lodge a report on the incident.

“I lodged the report because I want to be a piece of the puzzle so that the truth can be uncovered, and I need a record to claim my medical expenses,” Su said.

Trapped in a coffee shop for an hour

Su said he had an expensive medical bill, totalling RM6,789, because he needed treatment at a private hospital as well, with experts to ascertain if he had suffered internal injuries.

Su comes from a big family and he said on the rally day, he and 21 of his relatives went to Kuala Lumpur for the rally. Some of his relatives even flew back from Sabah and as far as China to take part in Bersih 3.0.

He said this was the first time he was taking part in a public protest because he wanted to see clean and fair elections held in the country.

Su and his relatives arrived at the city centre in the morning, and it was all over for them by 3pm and they went to have a drink at a coffee shop at Wisma Bandar on Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman.

“Then came the attack, the coffee shop operator acted fast and closed the main door… and we saw from inside how the police arrested protesters,” he said.

“Tear gas filtered into the coffee shop. It was hot and we had to struggle to breathe… our faces and eyes were burning from the chemicals,” he said, adding that he spent one long and painful hour in the shop.

Su and his friends got back to the street to go home at around 4pm and he started looking for his other relatives who could not join them inside the coffee shop before the doors were closed.

“We went back to the Bandaraya LRT station, but it was closed, and we came under siege again, with the tear gas attacks coming from both sides,” he said.

Su said he was contacting his cousin with his mobile phone, while standing with the crowd in the middle of the closed road, when he saw a car driven towards them.

Saw the driver, but he seemed conscious

“I saw the police Proton Waja coming towards me (from the direction of Pertama Complex) and I ran towards Sogo to avoid being hit, but the car too headed the same way and I was hit,” Su said.

He was in great pain and felt dizzy after the crash, but was still conscious.

When he was taken into an ambulance van for treatment, he saw a police officer in uniform already inside and suspected he was the driver of the police car.

Some protesters, he said, opened the ambulance door and shouted angry words at the officer. A few blamed him, saying, “Itu sebab you… ada orang cedera (because of you, some people are injured).

“I was feeling physically hurt, but I felt no anger towards the police officer,” Su said.

Su noted the police officer moved agilely when asked by ambulance staff to move further into the vehicle, as the ambulance needed to fit in another wounded man on a stretcher.

The police officer who drove the Proton Waja that day, Mohamad Kamil Paimin, told the media that he had passed out, resulting in the crash, and be recovered consciousness only after receiving treatment at the hospital.

Su also showed two video clips that have been posted online after the incident with his laptop, and pointed to a man wearing a white shirt.

“That guy in white shirt, with both legs pointed to the sky, is me,” he said, pointing to the screen.

The video clip, titled “Kejadian sebenar Polis langgar 4 peserta BERSIH 3.0 depan SOGO (Real truth of police hitting 4 Bersih participants in front Sogo)”, is a one-minute clip showing the police car plunging into the crowd.

Another seven-minute clip titled “Insiden kereta polis langgar peserta Bersih (Incident of police car hitting Bersih participants)”, offers a more complete picture of the scene.

Police not entirely to be blamed

Su said the crash wasn’t entirely the police car driver’s fault for he had spotted something hit the man while he was driving.

He is also unhappy with the scene showing a few protesters attacking the police officer, saying it should have been a peaceful rally.

Asked about IGP Ismail’s denial that the police car hit protesters, Su said this was nothing unusual and from what he usually reads in news, the country’s leaders tend to distort the facts.

Su admitted he hesitated to lodge a police report and to speak up for fear losing his job. He only decided to do so on Monday.

“I am still under the six months’ probation… my company offers good welfare benefits, a five-day work week, 22 days of annual leave and insurance coverage,” he said.

“The company also partially subsidises interests on house and car loans taken by employees,” Su said.

Asked what would happen if the company sacked him, Su quipped, “Possibly I may have to look at joining politics.”

Altantuya murder: There was a "motive", but it can't be revealed or Putrajaya will crumble

By J.D Loverencriar 

The long awaited but only just concluded verdict by Shah Alam High Court Judge, Mohd Zaki Md Yasin on the Mongolian Altantuya case is not only causing a spasmodic arrest within the legal circuit in Malaysia but is also the very talk of the simpletons – Ahmad, Muthu and Ah Beng nationwide.

Legal students and practicing professionals are shocked at the Judge’s conclusion. Teaching lawyers will have nightmares in trying to make sense of the verdict that has completely negated “motive” from murders.

The learned Judge is reported to have said that “motive, although relevant, has never been the essential to constitute murder.”

Now even High School students are asking if motive is not essential then what is, in so far as a murder goes? Just the act of killing? Or just the person who carried out the actual killing?

Malaysia's legal standards under the spotlight

The Judge’s verdict also places Malaysia’s legal standards on the global legal table of scrutiny. It has far reaching ramification not only from the socio-political perspective of human rights but also from socio-economic as well as judicial dimensions.

Indeed we have with this concluding verdict demonstrated to the world in no uncertain terms that the way we interpret the law around here need not conform to what universally acceptable law books teach and how justice is dispensed in the democratic worldover.

In our own backyard, this verdict also delves a lethal blow to the government of the day. Voters will all the more connect one plus one and make three. The BN party will be the one that must now carry this yoke of suspicion transpiring from the conclusion of the judge.

Why would 2 special squad cops want to do such a thing without 'motivation'

Citizens are asking a simple yet profound and logical question: How could two trained, disciplined and uniformed members of the elite forces who are known and reputed to carry out their duties to the last letter of command have killed (murdered) a helpless, unarmed, defenseless and solitary woman?

People are asking, even the very murder was planned to completely annihilate all traces of evidence by blowing a fragile female lass with deadly military grade C4 explosives and yet “motive’ is not “essential”?

The Judge stated that ‘motive (is) relevant’. But he went on to disqualify the crucial importance of motive in this case.

And so the citizens are now asking why. Why is motive not essential in this grisly, brutal and heinous crime against humanity when all indicators bleep that motive was the cause of the murder? They are reasoning at kopitiam outlets in the big cities and the humble warongs in villages that how could two salaried, uniformed and specially tasked armed personnel carry out this murder of helpless lady with whom they had no relationship with nor knowledge of?

But there was a "motive"

People are saying that there was a motive for the act of killing to take place. And they want the law to establish that motive so that the person or persons who are party to the crime will be dealt with by the law adequately and with fair justice.

But alas, “motive” has just flown out of the window of Malaysia’s judiciary. The precedent has been set. The rakyat are drawing down their blinds. There is now a foregone conclusion in the minds and hearts of the citizens here – a verdict that will be almost insurmountable in the resurrection of Malaysia’s justice system and its reputation.

Some citizens are even going the distance to say that if this transpired in another civil and democratic nation, by now the entire legal fraternity would have downed their tools of trade and demanded right-thinking action. Will this happen in Malaysia? Only time can tell. But in the meantime the credibility of leaders and political parties and government systems have been dealt a lethal blow by this verdict on the Altantuya case.

Malaysia Chronicle

(http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=29613:when-%E2%80%9Cmotive%E2%80%9D-flew-out-of-the-window-of-justice-in-malaysia&Itemid=2)

I am not Anti-Government

It has been a while since I have written a piece. Yes, there have been plenty issues of issues cropping up over the political landscape since Chinese New Year. There was the Sharizat leave of absence, Dr Chua Soi Lek saying that the Chinese owe their prosperity to BN, Ibrahim Ali handing out 'pak kam' as ang pows to elderly folk, 1Care and the epic debate between Dr Chua and Lim Guan Eng. Despite all of these juicy topics, I did not feel the inclination to write, and I'm sure that my fellow colleagues in the online media world have done a brilliant job.

However, I want to tackle an issue which has been bugging me since I began writing as a columnist, and also campaigning actively for the Opposition, and in particular, the DAP. I have been frequently asked why many young people and myself are so anti-government, and so intent in causing trouble and instability. I believe that is a fair question which deserves a fair explanation.

"Evangelis DAP" 

I make no secrets of my political affiliation. I am proudly and unashamedly an active member of the DAP and I believe in what the party does and in their plans for our nation, where every citizen is treated fairly regardless of race, language or creed. Does this mean by any stretch of the imagination that I believe the DAP is perfect? Certainly not. No political party can claim to be free from corruption, cronyism or favouritism. However, the concern would be the severity of these political vices and whether it would severely impact the ability to govern a nation effectively.

When I wrote on the DAP National Convention, I was roundly criticized by Helen Ang who accused me of being an "Evangelis DAP" (Evangelist for the DAP) and also condemned me for my faith. She wrote that people like me spew out an extremely one-sided and unbalanced view and that our country would descend into Nazism and Communist dictatorship if left unchecked.

Despite finding her article to be generally offensive, I could not help but laugh at the irony of her comments. I did not respond initially as I did not believe that I should dignify her comments with a response. But I would like to make a point that the reason why I think and write this way is because I have intimately seen both sides of the coin and formed my own conclusion.

Justified bias?

Was I biased when I wrote my article on the DAP National Convention? Of course I was. Was it one-sided? Most definitely. Why did I do this? The reason is simple. Politics is perception. Journalists are supposed to frame up the truth in a manner which is supposed to be even-handed and impartial. The fact of the matter is that we are human. We would tend to favour one side over another. Is this correct? In an ideal world, perhaps not, but we do not live in an ideal world.

In the world of the free press, differing opinions of political events offer the reader a variety of view points and allows the individual to make up their own mind on the matter. In the United Kingdom, The Guardian is a well known conservative paper, The Times is more politically in the centre and The Daily Mail is unabashedly right-wing.

How does this compare to our situation here in Malaysia? The Star is the mouthpiece of the MCA, and the New Straits Times is so blatantly pro-UMNO it has to be given away to schools and hospitals for free! Then there is the blatantly divisive Utusan Malaysia and the Metro Harian carries their opinions derived from Bernama. The only semblance of favourable reporting towards the Opposition parties come from the Chinese press including the China Press and Sin Chew. But even then, the political leaning would always be more towards BN.

So how about The Rocket, Harakah Daily, Suara Keadilan, Malaysia Today, Malaysiakini, Free Malaysia Today, The Malaysian Insider and Malaysia Chronicle? As party newspapers and online news portals, do they even attempt to offer a balanced point of view? Or is our desire for free media driven to the extent that it would appear that we have to write articles to the other extreme? Is this necessarily in order for opposing viewpoints to meet in the middle in the mind of the reader?

Anti-government rhetoric?

The fact of the matter is that in the arena of press and broadcast media, it is simply not fair. The Opposition's only saving grace is the Internet for the dissemination of information. Despite all of this, and despite the argument for a fair media, is the Opposition and pro-Opposition journalists like myself guilty of disseminating misinformation? To a certain extent, yes we are all guilty of this.

Does this make us anti-government at all? No it does not. Until today, as the UMNO-BN government has been in power coming to 55 years, Malaysians are unable to distinguish between the Barisan Nasional party and the government. We cannot really be blamed for saying things like "The Opposition control Penang, Kelantan, Kedah and Selangor." As a matter of fact, this statement is fundamentally wrong. When the Opposition becomes a state-government, they are no longer the opposition, but the ruling coalition.

This idea is incredibly difficult to grasp, as Malaysia, like Singapore, is an example of an extremely successful pseudo-democratic system. The reason behind this is that no other party or coalition has ever governed these countries in their short histories. Furthermore, UMNO-BN holds the Guinness World Record for being the longest serving party or coalition in any country which calls itself a democracy. This is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it throws up serious questions of accountability.

My Government, My Country

I sincerely believe that not a single citizen of this beautiful country wants anything but the best for our country. When we have a government that does the right thing, and operates efficiency and professionally for the betterment of our lives, why would we not have any reason to support this? At the end of the day, it is the goal, not the political party, which is the ultimate concern of the Rakyat.

Though there are indeed anarchists, hardcore Perkasa supports and die-hard DAP supporters, the vast majority of the country wants a government which puts our collective interests first, before the interests of any individual groups, lobbies or parties.

What we want is a sincere, accountable and transparent government that implements policies without favour which would stimulate a more competitive, market-driven economic environment, eradicate poverty and ensure sustainable and practical social advancement. Barisan Nasional was incredibly successful in doing all these things for many years, but with mounting financial scandals, unchecked spending, a ballooning subsidy bill, mounting government debt, immeasurable capital outflow and excruciating inflation, I would now call their governing ability into question.

Can the Opposition govern? They have been incredibly successful in Penang, moderately successful in Selangor and consistent in Kedah and Kelantan. Does this mean that they can take the reins of power at the Federal Government? No, it is not an automatic entitlement. Running a country is dramatically different from running a state.

Many members of the public are driven to political apathy by the sheer volume of politicking and finger pointing both sides engage in. Pakatan Rakyat, need to take the manifesto promises and resolutions they have made and actively put it into action now. Wakil Rakyat have to eat, drink and sleep around the interests of the Rakyat. With all the anti-Opposition propaganda being expounded, the final resort is roll up their sleeps and tie up their sarongs and get to work with the personal touch.

Would I vote for Barisan Nasional if they truly had the people's interests at heart? Absolutely 100%. I am not anti-government, nor shall I ever be anti-government. But I do think it's time for a change, don't you?


Published in The Malaysian Chronicle (20th February 2012)
(http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=28403:i-am-not-anti-government&Itemid=2)
Free Malaysia Today (3rd March 2012) 
(http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2012/03/05/i-am-not-anti-government/)
Malaysiakini (23rd February 2012)
(http://malaysiakini.com/letters/190040)
Malaysia Today (5th March 2012)
(http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/guest-columnists/47812-i-am-not-anti-government)

The story of a prime minister

By Zairil Khir Johari

FEB 17 — This is the story of a man who became prime minister not very long ago.

This man had not, however, been elected into the premiership, and consequently never earned his own governing mandate. He had succeeded into the job when his predecessor was forced to resign under internal pressure. While the coup was not entirely of his own orchestration, this prime minister had played an important albeit implicit role in facilitating it.

His predecessor is an altogether different story. Initially elected with much fanfare by a buoyant nation on a platform of hope and change after years of rule by an authoritarian and right-of-centre leadership, his premiership had by its tail-end been reduced to a lethargic disappointment.

Though heavily criticised and the subject of mass ridicule, he was still able to pull through with a mediocre win at the general election. Remaining defiant, he announced that he would fulfil the mandate of the people and see through his term as prime minister.

However, his own party members had other plans. Disenchanted with his leadership, the internal politicking began. New pacts were formed, loyalties shifted and deals were cut. Attention now turned to our protagonist, the then-deputy prime minister, a man long known for his loyalty and methodical methods.

Convinced that the gamble would pay off, he began to make his moves. Though his actions were not overt, the die was cast and the message was clear. In the end, faced with open revolt and under immense pressure, the incumbent prime minister had no choice but to announce that he would step aside within a year. Even that was too long and before the year was up, his premiership had crumbled to an abrupt end.

Expectations were high for the new prime minister. In an elaborate campaign to both distinguish himself from his predecessor and spruce up his public image, he took on the mantle of a statesman with vision for leadership and change.

This led to a popularity high and favourable approval ratings. Soon, the opportunity for snap polls presented itself. With the benefits of a honeymoon period still lingering, it would have been the perfect time to call it. Yet an indecisive itch overcame him and he decided against it at the last minute. Instead, he thought it best to wait for a better opportunity.

In hindsight, that was perhaps his biggest mistake.

As days went by, the public began to realise that a man who has been a part of the system for so long is really incapable of change. His promises of a better future began to ring hollow amidst growing economic uncertainty.

The longer he was into his administration, the more problems unravelled. Financial irregularities and scandals involving his party members made dimmer and dimmer the prospect of a desirable moment for a general election.

Yet the prime minister kept waiting and waiting, until by the time he knew it, his government’s term of office was up. In the end, what was supposed to have been snap polls that would have leveraged upon his then-popularity and caught his opponents by surprise had become an exercise that was easily predicted by all and sundry.

Having rigorously prepared for so long, the hungry opposition wasted no time in pouncing aggressively. Without the element of surprise, the prime minister had lost the upper hand and soon found himself on the defensive. Election Day came and the nation delivered its result. Though not very conclusive, it was certainly very clear about one thing: the people had rejected the prime minister.

After a short period of denial and desperate attempts at forming a coalition, the prime minister had little choice but to accept his fate. Indecisiveness, poor decision-making and the inability to carry out necessary reforms are traits that will characterise his legacy as a short-lived prime minister who had never won his own mandate.

This is the story of the former British prime minister, Gordon Brown.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

Pakatan Rakyat Needs To Buck Up

Although I am a DAP member and a huge supporter of Pakatan Rakyat, I must declare that I am a little disappointed as to how they have been conducting themselves of late. When it comes to seat allocations during the General Elections is it obvious that many people want their say, and the expression "washing dirty linen in public" could be very aptly used.

After an atrocious showing by Umno at their General Assembly which basically comprised of fear-mongering  the loss of Malay power, disrespect to the royal institution by the opposition and DAP bashing, I would have thought that Pakatan Rakyat, especially the DAP would capitalise on this hatred. However what has transpired since from the opposition parties have been extremely disappointing.

It is already very clear that the BN government is corrupt and racist. Umno are unapologetic in their slanderous onslaught which is dripping with racial venom and blatant lies. The MCA continues to flog the hudud horse, pitting PAS against the DAP and Gerakan offering nuggets of sense in support of electoral reform. The party missing from this equation happens to be the MIC, who have done the most intelligent thing by keeping silent.

The same cannot be said of the opposition parties. The DAP have failed to capitalise on Umno's divisiveness but have instead descended into a war of words over the "Godfather" issue. Johor DAP have also aired their grievances publicly about the state leadership, and there truly seems to be a lack of leadership.

PKR are too busy hounding Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and her family, and PAS are now keeping mum on Selangor State Exco Hasan Ali on one hand but on the other hand says they would close the Genting casino if they take over as the state government of Pahang. Who is the one showing leadership at the moment?

Having just attended a Strategic Advisor training, I realised that the most successful companies have inspirational leaders with a clear vision and mission. It is the belief their own vision and mission which would perpetuated through the company to the employees. Companies such as Google, Apple and Facebook have built up their own unique identities amongst their staff, and in turn, their staff become walking advertisements for their organisations.

So what is Pakatan Rakyat's vision and mission? Lim Guan Eng has been very proficient at purporting the DAP vision of a Competent, Accountable and Transparent (CAT) government. To a large extent, he has been successful at implementing this principle in Penang, and the state has the distinction of bringing in the most amount of foreign investment out of any state.

The same cannot truly be said of the other PR states especially Kedah. Although Selangor has done better under PR under the leadership of Khalid Ibrahim as compared to the Khir Toyo administration, corruption is still rampant within the state. Kedah has been subject to unnecessary controversy by trying to clamp down on 'vice' businesses during Ramadhan which would be considered to be an infringement of non-Muslim rights.

It is clear that the current BN government would continue spending ourselves into further debt and worsen the capital outflow which has already amounted to RM896 billion over the past 10 years. The corruption, croynism, and blatant plundering of the nation's coffers as well as Petronas profits would increase rather than being stemmed, and another mandate at the next general elections would simply encourage them further.

But is PR truly the answer? Could we in good conscience vote for them? The most recent surveys show that 88%-90% of newly registered ethnically Chinese youth would vote for the opposition but only 23%-26% of Malay Youth would vote for PR.

Why is there such a massive discrepancy? One could argue that the Chinese media is fairer to the opposition, and the complete capitulation of the MCA would result in a huge shift towards PR, especially the DAP. However, the Malay Youth would ultimately be influenced by the mainstream media, and Umno has made a pretty good case of protecting Malay rights.

Have PKR and PAS failed to be sufficiently Malay in this respect? Truthfully, the reality that PKR and PAS are both majority Malay parties are irrelevant. Umno have been very successful at branding their party as the "Defender of Malay Rights". This is perpetuated from the top leadership all the way to the bottom, and unlike the MCA, Umno still holds a large amount of sway with the rural folk.

Right now what PKR, PAS and the DAP have to do is plan a united front and the same message must be proclaimed from every member of each component party. There is no doubt that PR is able to govern. They have been able to do so in four states with varying degrees of success. This is the time to step up, so please do not give the Rakyat an excuse to stay at home come polling day.

The next general election is looming and perhaps this is a good time for PR leaders to reflect on their values and plan a combined mounted offensive come the New Year. It is no use waving the Buku Jingga in our faces or pointing to the superior FDI figures any longer. We need strong, confident leaders who would be united in one voice and with one vision for the nation.

There is a simple reason why Najib's "1Malaysia" failed whereas the Umno "Ketuanan Melayu" succeeds. When it is written in the hearts and minds of their members, they make others believe. This is the season for miracles.

Pakatan Rakyat, make us believe.

Published in:

Free Malaysia Today ('Tis the season for miracles) http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/12/22/tis-the-season-for-miracles/

Malaysia Chronicle (To guarantee victory, Pakatan too needs to buck up) http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=24911:to-guarantee-victory-pakatan-too-needs-to-buck-up&Itemid=2

Is Freedom truly Free?

After reading so many reports and articles on the Peaceful Assembly Bill especially with accusations being cast on both sides of the political divide, I believe that we have to go back to the root cause of the issue and examine it in a holistic and pragmatic manner. 

Trampling on our rights

First we must go back to the fundamental question as to whether the law, specifically Malaysian law, really stifles dissent and tramples on human rights. 

Indeed, we have examples of Ministers using their discretionary authority under the law in cases where there is no probable cause. Therefore that would lead us to believe that power was abused. 

Examples include the detention of a reporter, Raja Petra Kamarrudin and Teresa Kok under the draconian Internal Security Act, as well as the extra-judicial declaration that "Bersih" T-shirts are illegal as they represent an illegal organisation. 

I would submit that the examples I cited above represents a disproportionate response to the actual situation. This leads to awkward explanations afterwards which include the "She was detained for her own protection" and "because it represents an illegal activity" type of reasoning. Hardly impressive. 

There is no doubt that the current Barisan Nasional government has a history of abusing their powers under the law in order to preserve their own affair. However, by branding their discretion at making these arrests "to protect national interest and public property", many people as members of the public are led to believe by the Mainstream Media that the response was correct and proportionate. 

Bersih 2.0

The rally that truly triggered the necessity to call into question the Police Act provision on illegal assemblies was indeed Bersih 2.0. 

The 9th July 2011 is a day which would truly go down in infamy. Dubbed "709", we witnessed how the police doused the public with chemical-laced water and tear gas. Retreating into Tung Shin Hospital provided no respite when the Federal Reserve Unit decided to shoot the water into the compound. 

A rally to call for Free and Fair elections, which was entirely peaceful, was turned violent by police manhandling protesters. Protesters forced to disperse by violent means could have potentially created a stampede and it is only by the grace of God that there were not more casualties. 

Being in amongst the crowds, I believe how the FRU and police responded was truly disproportionate, although many quarters claimed they exercised a considerable amount of restraint. As a person who ingested tear gas into my system, I would beg to differ. 

But what was worse than the actual FRU and police crackdown, was the complete cover up of the Mainstream Media. The government went all out to deny the public the truth, and published their own version of events. This is despite an enormous amount of photographic and video evidence, which were posted in real time as the event occurred. 

So perhaps the true question to ponder is that, despite promised reforms in the law, including the repeal of the ISA and introduction of the Peaceful Assembly Bill, what is the check and balance to prevent Ministers from abusing their discretion under the Acts or issuing extra-judicial proclamations? 

Section 27 of the Police Act

The law causing the most amount of controversy is section 27 of the Police Act 1967 which deals specifically with illegal assembly. Under the draconian law, it was seen as a serious inhibition of any kind public assembly and gave the police the power to detain persons involved without a warrant (s27(6)). 

Holding a demonstration requires a police permit, and the senior district police officer has the absolute discretion to approve or deny the permit. Additionally under subsection 2, they can cancel the permit at any time. Police also "may do all things necessary for dispersing them and for arresting them". The scope of this provision is massive, which would protect the police from any allegation of brutality. 

There is no doubt that this section has to be abolished. It is fundamentally unconstitutional as it contravenes Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably. After a huge amount of pressure, the BN government appeared to relent by tabling the Peaceful Assembly Act. 

Truly a reform?

After a lot of condemnation from the Bar Council and Opposition MPs, we have to examine whether or not it should be called the "Anti-Assembly Bill" or "Illegal Assembly Bill" as proposed by some quarters. 

Notice of the assembly was proposed to be 30 days, which has since been revised to 10 days, after Myanmar's assembly bill which specified a 5 day notice period put us to shame. Under the Police Act, no time period is specified. However the need for a police permit is eliminated. I would take this development to be a good thing. 

However, let's look into the more contentious part of the bill. The fines of RM10,000 for participation in what is deemed as an illegal assembly, the prohibition of children at gatherings, limits in proximity to public places, places a complete ban on street demonstrations and the same scope of power given to the police as under section 27 of the Police Act. This throws up a lot of issues which would potentially cripple the freedom to assemble as under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. 

Firstly, the fine of RM10,000 is clearly to deter anyone from coming to a protest or demonstration. Who can afford to be RM10,000 out of pocket? So, even if the cause is legitimate and of national concern, if the police uses their discretion to prohibit the assembly, the citizen is penalised heavily as a result? 

The prohibition of children is contentious as gatherings are supposed to be peaceful, and families would bring their children along with them. Penalising the parents for bringing their children along, rather than leaving them at home alone would be another reason for people to avoid protests. Additionally, there is the question of enforcement. When tear gas and chemical laced water are fired, would the police round the children up first? Unthinkable. 

With the list of restricted places so extensive, it appears that protest cannot happen unless you are out in the countryside! The government would say that this is to protect the interests of the people, but basically it is to give the police an excuse to accuse the group of being in a prohibited area, and thus have the authority to disperse the assembly. This would be especially true of any ceramahs held by the Opposition parties, and would affect whoever is in Opposition in future.

No to Street Demos

However, the one thing that riles up opposition MPs more than anything else, is the prohibition of street demonstrations, and that police are afforded the same scope of powers under the Bill. This would mean that Bersih 2.0 would be handled in exactly the same way under the new law as the old. For many, this is unacceptable.

Not everyone agrees with street marches, demonstrations or protests, but to place a complete ban on it would contravene the spirit of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Even our courts agree, as found in Cheah Beng Poh & Ors v Pendakwa Raya [1983] 1 LNS 65. The High Court Judge Hashim Yeop A Sani opined the following:

“The court as guardian of the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution is always jealous of any attempt to tamper with rights and liberties. But the right in issue here i.e. the right to assemble peaceably without arms is not absolute for the Constitution allows Parliament to impose by law such restrictions as it deems necessary in the interest of security and public order. In my view, what the court must ensure is only that any such restrictions may not amount to a total prohibition of the basic right so as to nullify or render meaningless the right guaranteed by the Constitution.” 

In the case of Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor [2010] 3 CLJ 507, Federal Court Gopal Sri Ram opined the following:

“Now although the article says ‘restrictions’, the word ‘reasonable’ should be read into the provision to qualify the width of the proviso… The correct position is that when reliance is placed by the State to justify under one or more of the provisions of Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution, the question for determination is whether the restriction that the particular statute imposes is reasonably necessary and expedient for one or more of the purposes specified in that article.”

Therefore the BN government cannot impose a complete ban on street protests unless they are willing to run afoul of the constitution.

Law vs Freedom

So is there a need for a law to govern Article 10, or shall we just leave the law as it is? I believe that we certainly have a need for a law to govern this. However, does making a law impinge on our ability to exercise our rights as per the constitution?

The issue of peaceful assemblies has certainly been a contentious one in our country, and most recently we saw 300 people gathering in KLCC park in protest of this very bill. But is it correct to allow an absolute freedom? Some argue that societies with sufficient maturity should not have their rights infringed upon by legislation.

However, I would liken this to removing all the lines, traffic lights, zebra crossings and speed limits on our roads. Now people are truly free to drive on the road, but would you dare? True freedom has boundaries. That way, we know the parameters to operate within.

Therefore, a Peaceful Assembly Bill is certainly essential. However, does the current piece of proposed legislation do us justice? I would submit that it does not. Laws must give space and act as guidelines, but not to the extent that it is stifling.

What are the main issues? One is public security, and the concern that a protest may turn violent. Where this is indeed the case, the burden of responsibility should lie on the shoulders of the culprits and the organisers. What this would do is that protestors would be able to self-police in order to avoid such incidents from occurring.

How about public order? This is where the police come in. If it is indeed a street protest, the police can cordon off the route and ensure that order is kept by escorting the procession to their final destination. This would ensure that there is no damage done, and the peace is kept. Traders along the way may experience a small interruption, but a business blackout like during Bersih 2.0 would not occur.

I believe that our Prime Minister is serious about making Malaysia “the world’s best democracy”. However, Malaysia as a member of the United Nations Human Rights council should surely be held to a higher standard. 

On Tuesday, lawyers from the Bar Council and others will march to parliament. Najib has a golden opportunity to do the right thing. Heed the voice of the people and make the appropriate amendments.


Written for Free Malaysia Today

(http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/11/29/is-freedom-truly-free/)

Also published on:

Malaysia Chronicle (http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=23597:is-freedom-truly-free?&Itemid=2)
The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/is-freedom-truly-free-douglas-tan/)