Protesting the right to protest

ARCHIVES 2011

By MT Webmaster On Dec 11, 2011

The Peaceful Assembly Bill was passed in Parliament recently, but not without opposition from the civil society.

Those who want to assemble at undesignated areas are required to notify the police within 10 days before the event to give them time to study the suitability of the place and get feedback from the surrounding community.

By HARIATI AZIZAN, The Star

A POINTLESS nuisance that was what Amer used to think of street protests. But not anymore, says the 20-year-old student, not since the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 was tabled.

“Before this, I did not see street protests as a privilege. It’s funny how the feeling of being deprived kicks in when you know you can’t do something,” says Amer.

Under the new law, street protests, defined as “open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes”, are prohibited.

However, Amer can probably participate in more public assemblies if he wants to, as the new law purportedly makes it easier to hold these as long as they are in the designated areas.

At the designated areas, the public has the right to assemble any time. All they have to do is to notify the police within 24 hours before the event.

For peaceful public gatherings like religious assemblies, funeral processions, wedding receptions, open house during festivities and family gatherings, no notification to the authorities is needed.

However, places like dams, reservoirs, petrol stations, bridges, places of worship and schools, among others, are prohibited areas.

Ali* who lives near the dam area in Kuala Kubu Baru welcomes the restriction placed on venues.

“I don’t want any disturbances near my home and family. Still, I don’t think anyone will want to demonstrate here unless they clear more land or kick us out,” he says.

Retired policeman Ishak Mohd (Persatuan Pesara Polis) also supports the move to restrict venues.

“The Parliament, for one, should be barred from protesters. That is why we are here, to uphold peace in Parliament. It is something that I will do until I die,” he rants during the rally to counter the Bar Council’s Walk of Freedom in front of Parliament recently.

Penang’s “King of Protests” Ghani Jiman concurs.

“Hospitals and schools should be off-limits. If my children’s studies get interrupted by demos, I would be upset, too,” he says.

Ghani, who heads NGO Suara Anak- Anak Malaysia (SAAM), echoes Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak‘s proclamation that the new law is indeed “revolutionary”.

The PM, he says, had said that the Bill was drafted in accordance with international norms and after the Government studied 12 Acts practised by other countries.

“It is good because they (the Government) are making an attempt to listen to the people.” The trader, however, has reservations about the ban on street protests.

“If we don’t carry arms or have no intention of making trouble, I think it should be okay. The police can investigate and make a decision if it should be allowed, and if they have concrete reasons to disallow the street rally, they can,” he poses.

But, he adds, he would not hesitate to go to the streets if the cause warrants it.

Demand to walk

The ban on street rallies is one of many grouses that the legal council and many human rights groups have for the Bill, which saw a peaceful passage through the Dewan Rakyat despite the protests last month.

“What is so wrong with street protests? The perception is misleading,” argues political scientist and journalism lecturer at Monash University Malaysia, Wong Chin Huat, highlighting that there are peaceful street demos.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee points out that street rallies are allowed in many of the peaceful assembly laws practised by other countries.

“In Britain, a distinction is drawn between static assemblies for which no notice is required and procession (assemblies in motion) for which notice of six clear days is to be given unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice.”

Assemblies in motion provide the demonstrators wider audience and visibility for their causes or grievances, he says, adding that “History is full of civil disobedience events which have led to better changes in the country.”

Another objection raised against the Peaceful Assembly Act is the prohibition of children aged below 15 to participate in peaceful assemblies.

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) draws attention to the provision for the participation of children in the Convention of the Rights of the Child, to which Malaysia is obliged as a signatory.

Suhakam commissioner Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah says the age bar is restrictive.

“If the issue is about the development of their housing area and it affects the whole family, why should the children not be involved in voicing out their concerns?”

He also highlights the high fine that will be imposed under the new Act on those who do not comply with the restrictions and conditions set by the police in an approved public assembly (up to RM10,000) and those who fail to “disperse” when ordered by police (not more than RM20,000).

“The fine is exorbitant and does not respect the liberty of the citizens,” he says.

Wong agrees, saying that for some people, RM20,000 is something that they would only see after saving for many years.

“One reason people go to the streets is because they cannot afford advertisements. Are you saying that if you don’t have money, you cannot demonstrate? Are you saying that if you are poor, you don’t have a voice?”

The civil society also has reservations against the discretionary powers given to the police to impose conditions and restrictions on an assembly as well as to stop it which they claim would undermine the right of the public to organise or participate in peaceful assemblies.

“Who decides what is good and what is wrong and what is education and not? The police cannot be a guidance for everything; it should be up to the people to decide,” says Muhammad Sha’ani, adding, “They should not look at participants as criminals or a nuisance. The provision is like you are treating potential troublemakers.”

The police should be providing protection, not imposing restriction on them, says Muhammad Sha’ani who is pushing for the adoption of Suhakam’s previous recommendations on police conduct during public assemblies.

The Bar Council proposes that a statutory obligation be imposed on the police to promote freedom of assembly as practised in Finland, where the authorities are not only bound by law to promote the right to assemble but are also required to facilitate it.

Ultimately, stresses Muhammad Sha’ani, the right of public assembly is enshrined in the Federal Constitution, and the law should be enabling for peaceful assembly, not restrictive.

“While peace and stability are paramount and public order needs to be maintained at all times, peaceful public assemblies provide a crucial avenue for the public to express themselves on issues that are of concern. The Act as it is now, however, is very restrictive when it is supposed to open up more democratic space.”

Now that the Act has been passed by the Dewan Rakyat, the proposed law will go before the Dewan Negara, and when passed will need to obtain the Royal Assent before the Home Affairs Minister can fix a date for the Peaceful Assembly Act 2011 to take effect.

The Bar Council, however, vows to continue applying pressure on the Government to drop the proposed law, and has submitted an Alternative Assembly Bill that it claims to be more constitutional and democratic.

Lim also urges the Government to set up a Parliamentary Select Committee for public consultation and further deliberation of the proposed law.

This is supported by Suhakam, whose chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam has also called upon the Government to consider recommendations made by various parties and open up avenue for discussions before enacting the Bill into law, “to ensure that the provisions provided are in line with human rights principles.”

Freedom of assembly is particularly important for the younger generation, says Woon King Chai, 25, one of the infamous “UKM4” students who challenged the Universities and University College’s Act in court recently.

“Many students are concerned about various socio-political issues in the country and are constantly looking for avenues to voice their concerns. And most of the time students find that the only place they can express themselves is the public assembly, street protests and demonstrations,” he says.

Amer agrees, saying that society has progressed and Malaysians now are mature.

“I don’t think anything will happen if you allow street protests and other forms of public assemblies. Some say it might cause disturbance and riot but they should not worry, we have the police (to keep peace).

“You cannot take preventive measure by saying that this will happen if you allow that. It does not work like that and it is stifling students’ intellectual and social development, not to mention depriving them of their basic human rights,” he says.

Both Amer and Woon rue the age limit barring anyone below the age of 21 to organise public assemblies.

“There is no mention of flash mobs either. So does this mean that only old people can organise flash mobs?” Amer muses.

Still, he adds, he and his friends are already thinking beyond the law. “We have to be more creative to get our voices heard, I guess. For one, there is always the Internet.”