TMM: Who’s “they”?
AMBIGA: Civil
society advocates like Wong Chin Huat and Maria Chin Abdullah. We
started by trying to engage the Election Commission (EC) and very
quickly realised that they were humouring us. They were listening to us
but they were not changing and the Sarawak state elections proved it:
the amount of fraud and obvious vote buying that was taking place and a
lot of other instances if irregularities.
That
is when we decided to have Bersih 2.0. Of course the rest is history. I
suppose I don’t consider myself so much as an activist but as an
advocate still. However, I do think that we have had some positive
results, setting up of the Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral
reform and so forth.
TMM: What is your take on how Bersih 3.0 was handled and what’s happening now?
AMBIGA:
I think the government is making a big mistake. I do not know what its
end game is because it is not winning any hearts or minds. I cannot
understand this, you see. Is this really what it wants?
TMM: One
supposes, if you look at what happened on the streets, the message is
that, if you are going to push the authorities to the limit, this is
what is going to happen.
AMBIGA: Yes.
TMM: Were you surprised at how much the public has embraced the message?
AMBIGA:
I am overwhelmed actually. This is the difference between Bersih 2.0
and Bersih 3.0. The demonisation in Bersih 2.0 took place before that
rally. Again targeting me.
That
actually moved quite a lot of the middle ground because we were
wondering how we were going to get people interested in free and fair
elections. But when the government came down so hard, I think a lot of
people were horrified that it could go so far. And I think that was one
of the reasons why we had the numbers that we did the first time around.
This
time, the demonisation is taking place after. The first thing the home
minister said was, there was no issue, there was no traction and so on
but then why come down hard on the demonstrators?
Because
they were … even I was, surprised at the numbers. And people came there
not for violence. They came there peacefully. It wasn’t even on their
minds ... for any untoward incident to take place. And as long as we
were in control, there was no violence.
The violence occurred after the tear gas was shot, then mayhem ensued.
TMM: Did you send out a message to disperse?
AMBIGA:
That was about 2.40pm, after the barriers were breached and the tear
gas was shot. The barriers being breached is something that requires
more investigation because it was reported that the barriers were
already being moved and people were given the impression that they could
go into Dataran Merdeka. We are getting those reports.
If
you are looking at the issue of the barriers, we just don’t look at
that incident where Azmin Ali was alleged to have instigated people to
breach them. You need to look at the whole scenario because there was a
lot going on and it’s clear to me that there were agent provocateurs.
I
think the authorities had a different plan which was executed
eventually and I think the ultimate plan was to teach the people a
lesson. That was my reading to it.
TMM: We were told the main concern was the overwhelming numbers of Malays?
AMBIGA:
There was this other issue, a rumour that a policeman was killed. Many
people heard this and when Chin Huat was beaten up, he was told that
they are angry because a policeman was killed.
That
was the reason given to many people as to why they were beaten up. So
who was responsible in spreading that rumour? That seems to have been
used as reason for the anger shown by the police. Is that why the cops
went on a rampage? There is no doubt a full investigation has to take
place. If we have made mistakes, we are prepared to own up.
But
there cannot be any reason for the violence. Unfortunately, the
mainstream media only show the violence purportedly by Bersih
supporters.
TMM: What measures were taken by Bersih to ensure safety on both sides that day?
AMBIGA:
We had about 6, 000 people doing security and crowd control. Actually
Unit Amal did a very good job. The question that needs to be asked is,
if they say the intention was violence, there was no violence until
after 3pm, after the tear gas was fired.
However,
everyone seems to think that crowd control is entirely our
responsibility. That is not the case. We are a group of NGOs. It is
shared responsibility.
We
have a responsibility to some extent but the major part of the
responsibility has to be by the police because they are responsible for
security.
They are the ones who have the means for crowd control.
But
that day felt like we were left on our own. The police were taking a
“wait and see” approach. You know, wait for them to make a mistake. To
be fair to the cops, initially they were fine. They were standing in the
periphery and not interfering, neither were they helping. And that was
fine but suddenly something changed drastically after the tear gas was
fired. They were different police all together.
It was like Jekyll and Hyde. So what brought that on? Just a few people breaching a barrier, whom they could have arrested?
The
barrier was not guarded at all. The barbed wire was removed, which I
think was the right thing to do because you don’t want people to get
hurt. But if you really want to stop people going in, you just have to
stand there and have a police cordon. So I am not sure what the
intention was.
As
far as we are concerned, the steps we took was there and we issued
guidelines and in every place whoever spoke to the crowd, emphasised it
had to be peaceful and orderly.
Quite frankly the people were wonderful because they were absolutely wellbehaved.
People
came there to sit actually; in fact they were having fun. It was like a
carnival. The food businesses were roaring that day.
TMM:
Can you enlighten us on what steps you took to ensure that there was no
breach of the Peaceful Assembly Act. Street protests are not allowed in
the Act.
AMBIGA: It was not a street protest; people were moving to get to a place where the assembly was supposed to take place.
But
here is the thing, they were all operating under different
legislations. City Hall was operating under local council laws. The
police got a court order under the Penal Code. I don’t know where the
Peaceful Assembly Act came in actually.
The
rally was on April 28 but the Act was brought into force on April 30.
So, the way I look at the court order, it only said you cannot go into
the green area. Therefore, anywhere else is fine. If you recall, the
police said we could gather at the meeting points the day before.
So
what breaches were we committing? And don’t forget they served us the
order only on April 27, so we could not get the message out to everybody
that we will not breach the court order.
When
you say Peaceful Assembly Act, we gave notice to the police more than
10 days before the rally, but before the Act was enforced.
Under
the Act if you give a notice, the police cannot reject. They can only
impose conditions. They never imposed any conditions. If no conditions
exist, it means we can proceed as planned. It is not so clear-cut that
we fall under the Peaceful Assembly Act at all and if we did fall under
the Act, why get the court order? Each authority seemed to be handling
it under different legislation.
TMM: Was the choice of April 28 an attempt to circumvent the Act?
AMBIGA: Oh
no! But the police although it was not brought into force, was more or
less acting in accordance with the Peaceful Assembly Act. There were
many rallies before this and the police handled them very well.
TMM:
Critics say Bersih has too many generals and not many soldiers that is
why there are allegations that Pakatan Rakyat had hijacked Bersih?
AMBIGA: In my view, there were 250,000 soldiers. You cannot hijack the agenda of Bersih or the agenda of 250,000 people.
TMM: But you can’t dismiss it completely as there is an association with the Opposition.
AMBIGA:
They support us but we invite everybody. It’s like having a party, you
invite group A and group B. Only group B comes. Group A stays out but
whinges about group B being there.
TMM: Did you send out invites?
AMBIGA: No,
we openly and always invited everybody. In fact, on that day if a
Barisan Nasional (BN) MP had been there, we would have allowed him to
speak as well.
When
people talk about the Opposition, they forget that they are the elected
representatives and these are people that the public had voted into
office.
They
have a right to hear them. But as far as we are concerned, our
programme that day did not include any political leaders. It was
entirely NGOs who were going to speak. Our programme didn’t have a
speech by any politician.
Yes,
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was at Masjid Negara. They were all over the
place that day but they were talking to their supporters. That is
something we can’t control.
But that was not our aim at all. The main stage where I was, there weren’t supposed to be any politicians speaking.
TMM: But there were!
AMBIGA: No,
that was when Anwar came in later. I wasn’t aware he was coming to
speak and I couldn’t stop him. As I mentioned earlier, even if a BN MP
had been there, he would have been given the opportunity to speak.
TMM: But
there lies the problem because of your association with Pakatan Rakyat.
You seem to be one-sided and have your own political agenda.
AMBIGA: Look at the numbers. Look at the people.
Again, don’t look at that one moment when they were all on the stage. My own view is look at the 250,000 turnout.
There
may have been some Pakatan supporters but look at the rest of the
people. The huge number of aunties, uncles and youths who came there
just for free and fair elections.
My own view is look at the crowd and judge for yourselves whether you think this an Opposition thing.
Also,
it is no surprise that they support free and fair elections. They feel
they are hard done by the system. It is a way of demonising Bersih. I
mean if BN was there, there wouldn’t have been any complaints.
TMM: Do you think you should consciously disassociate yourself from all political parties to maintain neutrality?
AMBIGA: We think that is what we are doing but if political parties support us, I welcome their support.
I
have no issue with that, which is why BN should support us because they
could reach 250,000 people if they did. At the end of the day, it would
have been wonderful if they came and walked with the rakyat.
I
honestly thought that it would be different this time. That they would
say they are coming and hear the rakyat out. Instead, people were beaten
and tear-gassed.
The
supporters were punished that day. If the supporters were violent — and
I don’t condone it — it’s because they saw the manner in which their
friends were being treated. So that was their response. In fact, the
tear gas itself was an act of violence because of the way it was shot. I
was caught in that. It was shot straight into the crowd and the crowd
was shoulder to shoulder. And it was tear gas after tear gas.
TMM: There were children in Bersih, you condone parents bringing children to rallies?
AMBIGA:
I know it is in the Public Assembly Act but I don’t know we have an
issue as long as the parents are responsible for them. We don’t have an
issue with children.
TMM:
Shouldn’t there be some guidelines or advisory because being a veteran
of two rallies, you would have known what can transpire on the streets.
AMBIGA: The
responsibility lies with the parents ultimately but I wouldn’t
encourage small children. You see, a lot of people came out treating it
like a carnival.
TMM: But you saw what happened in Bersih 2.0.
AMBIGA: But
this time the authorities said it was going to be different and that
was the impression given. As long as you don’t step into the green part
of Dataran Merdeka, it was fine. They were laughing and joking with the
public which is why we cannot understand when it turned.
I
can understand if they shot one tear gas because of the breach and that
was it. People would have moved. What was the need to go after them in
the way they did? They had tear gas, gliders and pulled people out of
shops.
This went on till 7pm. And nothing makes the people angrier than the Government pretending all of that didn’t happen.
You
downplay injuries when the fact is that people suffered. They were only
interested in the reporters who were injured because it is not good
press.
TMM: Were you hit?
AMBIGA:
Tear gas, yes. But beaten, no. I ran into Masjid India. I was with a
group of women and we couldn’t come out because we could hear violence. I
could hear people getting beaten up out of shape but I didn’t see it.
The truth has to be told!
TMM: Let’s talk about the legal suit. Can a government sue its citizens?
AMBIGA:
I have no issue with the government taking whatever action deemed fit.
It is something you expect. You may be charged but I didn’t expect a
civil suit.
So,
they have to do what they have to do and we have to do what we have to
do, defend it vigorously. A government can sue (its citizens) but
whether it should, is a different thing altogether.
