Lawyers cry foul as 3 more activists are to be recharged under assembly law tomorrow - TMI

  

Badrul Hisham Shaharin @ Chegubard (centre) and two other activists are to be recharged tomorrow under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 with the same 'offence' – a move described by lawyers as ‘unhealthy and dangerous trend’. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, May 8, 2014.

It is wrong of the Attorney-General to recharge any person for an offence that does not exist following a superior court ruling, criminal lawyers said, as three more activists are expected to be charged again tomorrow under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 with the same "offence".

The lawyers said Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail must respect and follow the rule of law, and should wait for the outcome of his appeal in the Federal Court before taking the next course of action.

On April 25, the Court of Appeal declared that a rally organiser could not be penalised for a peaceful assembly as such gathering was constitutional.

The A-G is appealing the decision.

Earlier this week, Seri Setia assemblyman Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad was recharged under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 for failing to provide authorities with a 10-day notice over the Black 505 rally held at the Kelana Jaya stadium in May last year.

Tomorrow, Badrul Hisham Shaharin @ Chegubard, Edy Nor Reduan and Mohamed Bukhairy Mohamed Sofian will be recharged under the PAA for failing to give the authorities a 10-day notice of last year's Turun rally held at Dataran Merdeka on New Year's Eve.

Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen said the three were served the summons yesterday.

They were first charged on January 29 but were given a discharge on April 28 by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.

"By ignoring the Court of Appeal ruling, Gani is in serious contempt of court," Paulsen said.

On Tuesday, the Sessions Court threw out the charge against Nik Nazmi, saying it was bound by the ruling of the superior court, and gave Nik Nazmi a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

Lawyer Datuk V. Sithambaram said judge Yasmin Abdul Razak should have acquitted Nik Nazmi for he was charged with an offence which no longer existed.

"By striking out the punishable section in the PAA , the Court of Appeal does not recognise the offence.”

He said the issue of punishing a person twice for the same offence did not arise as the court had ruled that the punishment for failure to give notice before organising a rally no longer existed in the statute book.

"It is the A-G’s prerogative to appeal to the Federal Court but until then the Court of Appeal ruling must be respected.”

Criminal law lecturer Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu the second attempt to prosecute Nik Nazmi revealed an unhealthy and dangerous trend by the prosecution.

"Going by what the A-G's Chamber's has done, an unhealthy and dangerous trend is emerging and this is not good for the criminal justice system," he said.

Baljit, who also practises law, said public confidence in the system would erode if the executive, legislature and judiciary were inconsistent in their actions. – May 8, 2014.

Senate stamps approval on assembly bill

Opposition senators fail to stop the passing of the law in a voting by division system.

KUALA LUMPUR: Opposition senators failed to stop the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 today after a majority of Dewan Negara members voted in its favour in a voting by division system.

The voting system, which was requested by the opposition, saw 30 members supporting it while eight others dissented.

Earlier, when tabling the bill, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui Keong said the bill allows citizens the rights to gather peacefully and without weapons, with certain conditions deemed necessary to maintain public safety and order.

“The bill is the way forward towards strengthening the rule of law and upholding fundamental rights in Malaysia, in particular, the rights to gather peacefully and without weapons,” he said.

The bill was approved by the Dewan Rakyat on Nov 29 with six amendments.

One of the amendments, involving Clause 9(1), allows organisers of assemblies to notify the police only 10 days before the event and not 30 days as in the original bill.

Clause 12(1) was amended to shorten from 48 hours to 24 hours the period for the police to respond to the organisers’ notification of an assembly.

Clause 12(2) was also amended to shorten from five days to 24 hours the period for the vested party to make an objection to the police over the notice of assembly.

The period for the police to respond to the objection was also shortened, from 12 days to five days, as per an amendment to Clause 14.

An amendment to Clause 15 enables the police to impose restrictions on various aspects of the assembly, including the time and place, to maintain safety and public order to safeguard the rights of others.

Clause 16 was amended to shorten the period of appeal by the organisers to the minister.

When winding up the debate later, Liew hit out at Senator Syed Husin Ali for claiming that there were traders who raked in profits from the July 9 rally.

“This is not true because many traders told me they suffered losses in millions of ringgit because of demonstrations in their areas since 1999,” he said.

-Bernama

Malaysia: new Bill threatens right to peaceful assembly with arbitrary and disproportional restrictions

GENEVA (7 December 2011) – A group of United Nations independent experts warned that a new Peaceful Assembly Bill in Malaysia may “arbitrarily and disproportionately restrict the right to assemble peacefully.” The restrictions range from a ban on street protests and a prohibition on non-citizens and citizens under 21 years of age to assemble peacefully, to conditional access for media to public gatherings.

“Many of these restrictions are not justifiable under international law,” said the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, expressing his deep regret that “neither the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), nor civil society was meaningfully consulted in the drafting of this Bill.”

According to the proposed legislation, which contains a vague definition of assembly, there would also be broad restrictions and conditions on gatherings and a restrictive notification procedure. The Bill gives excessive authority and power to law enforcement officials and the Minister in charge of home affairs on matters related to assemblies, as well as full discretion to the police to make any form of recording of assemblies.

“The right to assemble and protest peacefully is an essential safeguard for the defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any pluralistic society,” said the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya. “I am particularly alarmed by the provision prohibiting citizens under 21 years of age to assemble. Political and social participation through peaceful protests are not only an educational experience for children, youth and students but also an investment for society as a whole.”

The Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression, Frank La Rue, urged the Government of Malaysia to seriously reconsider the adoption of the bill, which would contravene international human rights standards. “The ability of all individuals to express themselves freely, including in the form of peaceful assemblies, is a litmus test for the level of democracy in any country,” he said recalling a previous call of concern on the Government’s response to the Bersih 2.0 demonstrations in November.* 

“Under international human rights law, ‘everyone’ has the right to freedom of assembly and association, without distinction of any kind, including nationality,” said the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau. “I am deeply concerned at the provision of the draft law which prohibits non-citizens to organize or participate in a peaceful assembly. I appeal to the Government of Malaysia to urgently review the Bill to ensure its compliance with fundamental human rights.”

The group of UN independent experts warned that “with this legislation, people in Malaysia may not be able to express their dissent in public spaces without fear of being detained or sanctioned.”

(*) “Malaysia: Government risks undermining democratic progress, say UN experts” 

ENDS 

UN Human Rights, country page -Malaysia

For more information log on to:

Freedom of peaceful assembly and association

Human rights defenders

Freedom of expression

Human rights of migrants

Watch video - Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai

For further information and media requests, please contact Guillaume Pfeifflé, (+41 22 917 9384, gpfeiffle@ohchr.org).

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts:

Xabier Celaya, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 / xcelaya@ohchr.org)   

UN Human Rights, follow us on social media: 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights

Twitter: http://twitter.com/UNrightswire

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR

Himpunan Aman: Jangan salah guna kuasa majoriti

LAWASIA Concern at Malaysian Peaceful Assembly Bill

LAWASIA, the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific, joins its voice with that of its member organisation, the Malaysian Bar, and other members of Malaysian civil society in recording its objection to and alarm at the content of the Peaceful Assembly Bill (the Bill) tabled in the Malaysian Parliament on 22 November 2011 for first reading.

It expresses its particular concern at the haste with which this legislation is set to move through Parliament, with the second reading beginning only two days after the first reading, allowing little time for members of Parliament to familiarise themselves with what are contentious restrictions on freedom of assembly, and with no time to seek public consultation.

Aspects of the Bill appear to be in direct or indirect contravention of human rights norms, established through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which at Article 20 (1) declares that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association

and which principle is entrenched in other international and regional instruments.

LAWASIA finds particularly objectionable the constraints and severe restrictions that the Peaceful Assembly Bill places on activities and aspects that are otherwise acceptable in civilised countries. Among others, these include the prohibition of street protests, the age restrictions on who may organise and attend an assembly, and the onerous procedures required to seek permission to hold an assembly.

Further, the powers that are provided to the police to determine practical aspects of an assembly and to exercise force in dispersing an illegal assembly not only constrain considerably a universally-accepted civil liberty but also lack the definition that would safeguard members of the public from the excessive misuse of such powers.

It is noted that members of the Malaysian Bar marched peacefully to Parliament to present their alternative draft Bill to the Deputy Minister for Law and to the Leader of the Opposition on 29 November. This occurred in the presence of a counter demonstration and with only minimal notice provided to police, who handled the situation well. It is significant that this occurred without threat to public order or safety as an illustration that the right to peaceful freedom of assembly by way of street march can be exercised in Malaysia without the excessive restriction that the Peaceful Assembly Bill proposes.

Malathi Das

PRESIDENT

November 30, 2011

MP Pakatan Keluar Dewan, Protes Akta Perhimpunan Aman

Keadilan Daily

Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat keluar dewan rakyat beramai-ramai bagi membantah tindakan kerajaan yang enggan menarik balik Rang Undang-Undang Perhimpunan Aman yang dibahaskan hari ini.

Tindakan keluar dewan itu diketuai Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Mereka juga membantah keputusan Yang dipertua Dewan Rakyat, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia kerana hanya membenarkan ahli parlimen kanan pembangkang
untuk berbahas.

Ahli Parlimen Subang, R. Sivarasa berkata, Pakatan membuat keputusan berkenaan sebagai tanda protes, selepas menjangka rang undang-undang itu akan tetap diluluskan.

“Kita memilih tindakan keluar dewan kerana kita sudah menjangka akta ini akan diluluskan juga dengan mereka menggunakan undian majoriti.

“Malah Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz juga enggan memberi respon mengenai desakan kita agar rang undang-undang itu ditarik balik,” katanya ditemui selepas Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat keluar dewan hari ini.

Menurutnya, jika undian belah bahagi diadakan sekalipun, Pakatan Rakyat tidak mampu menghalang rang undang-undang itu dari diluluskan kerana majoriti dalam Dewan Rakyat ialah Ahli Parlimen BN.

Rang undang-undang itu dibahaskan Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (KEADILAN-Permatang Pauh), Abdul Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud), Lim Guan Eng (Dap-Bagan), Abdul Hadi Awang (Pas-Marang), Ibrahim Ali (Bebas-Pasir Mas) dan P Kamalanathan (BN-Hulu Selangor).

Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 passed (Update)

The Sun
by Husna Yusop

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 29, 2011): The Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 has been passed by the Dewan Rakyat after debate by six Members of Parliament (MPs) at committee stage, amidst strong protest from the opposition coalition and civil society groups.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Sri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz wound up the debate on the bill in 40 minutes without the presence of any opposition MPs who left the House in the middle of his speech.

In his speech, Mohamed Nazri said the act is not unconstitutional as claimed but was in line with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which must be read together with Clauses (2), (3) and (4).

"The clauses allow Parliament to impose restrictions deemed necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the nation or public order.

"So, we can enact the (necessary) laws. If we read the constitution carefully, what the government does today is not at all against the constitution. This is the first lie made by the opposition," he said.

Mohamed Nazri said the core of the new law is to breathe life into Article 10 by including the necessary elements, as the rights granted for the citizens to assemble peacefully is not absolute.

He also said six amendments have been made to the act which was tabled for first reading by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak on Thursday.

One of these concerned the controversial Section 9(1) which makes it mandatory for an organiser to give a 30-day notification to the police prior to holding an assembly in a non-designated venue.

“Today, we have decided to reduce it to 10 days because we listen to the people.

The BN MPs have raised this issue in our meetings.

So, this is not about demands by the opposition.

“The thing with the opposition (is that) when we don’t listen to the people, they said we are mean, but when we listen to the people, they said we are flip-flop,” he said.

The opposition MPs staged a walkout from the Dewan during Mohamed Nazri's wind-up speech.

"We do not see the point of the debate when they still want to pass the bill despite so much protests," Azmin Ali (PKR-Gombak) told theSun at the Parliament lobby after the walkout.

He said the opposition will continue its objection against the bill and will work closely with NGOs and human rights groups to ensure that the people's constitutional rights are protected.

Peaceful Assembly Bill passed as opposition MPs walk out

The heavens opened up to heavy rain in Penang as the Peaceful Assembly Bill was passed in Parliament after opposition MPs walked out in protest.

Malaysia passes ban on street protests

Activist lawyers decry new law they say imposes tougher restrictions and penalties for demonstrators.



Malaysia's lower house of parliament has approved a ban a on street protests after opposition legislators boycotted the vote and activists criticised the ban as repressive and a threat to freedom of public assembly.

The law is expected to be enforced after parliament's upper house, also dominated by the ruling National Front coalition, approves it as early as next month.

Najib Razak, the country's prime minister, has framed the bill as part of a campaign he launched in September to replace tough laws on security, speech and assembly in a bid to shore up support ahead of elections he is expected to call for next year.

He defended the act on Monday, saying it guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and said the law prohibits public marches to avoid disruptions to general society.

But it has been assailed by opposition politicians who call Najib's reforms an election ploy, and say the bill validates their fears that tough old laws will merely be replaced by strict new rules.

Malaysian and international rights groups describe it as repressive because it bans street rallies and imposes tough restrictions and penalties for demonstrators.

The law was announced only last week, and some critics say the vote was rushed without proper public consultation.

About 500 lawyers and their supporters marched to parliament hours before the vote, urging lawmakers to reject the bill and chanting "freedom to the people'' before police stopped most of them from entering the complex.

The new law would confine demonstrators mainly to stadiums and public halls. Depending on the venue, organisers may be required to give 10-day advance notification to police, who would determine whether the date and location are suitable.

Children under 15 and non-citizens would be barred from attending rallies, which also cannot be held near schools, hospitals, places of worship, airports or gasoline stations.

Demonstrators who break the law can be fined $6,200.

VK Liew, a deputy Cabinet minister in Najib's office who received a protest note from the lawyers on Tuesday, suggested that critics should not be too quick to criticize the law.

"We should look at it holistically, not piecemeal,'' Liew told reporters.

Opposition reaction

Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader, said he believed the Peaceful Assembly Act would be "more draconian'' than laws in Zimbabwe or Myanmar.

Other opposition activists indicated they might challenge the law in court, insisting it breaches the people's constitutional rights.

Amnesty International, the UK-based rights group, called the Peaceful Assembly Act "a legislative attack on Malaysians' right to peaceful protest,'' while Human Rights Watch said the law is being pushed through parliament with "undue haste".

"The government must reject the bill as it infringes on the rights of the people and violates the constitution," said Wong Chin Huat of Bersih 2.0, which spearheaded a rally for electoral reform in July that was broken up by police.

Lim Chee Wee, president of the Malaysian Bar Council, said the ban was "outrageous".

"Assemblies in motion provide the demonstrators with a wider audience and greater visibility, in order for others to see and hear the cause or grievance giving rise to the gathering," he said.

Critics including the Malaysian Bar Council and Human Rights Watch maintain the act would grant police too much power over the timing, duration, and location of gatherings.

"This bill is a legislative attack on Malaysians' right to peaceful protest," Sam Zarifi, Amnesty's Asia-Pacific director, said in a statement.

The ruling Barisan Nasional coalition has been accused of routinely using tough laws to block challenges to its five decades in power.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Lawyers end march, say to keep up pressure on assembly law

Hundreds of lawyers marched from Lake Gardens to Parliament to protest the Peaceful Assembly Bill today. — Picture by Clara Chooi

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 28 — The Bar Council warned the Najib administration today it will “continue knocking on the doors of Parliament” if the Peaceful Assembly Bill is passed without public consultation.

Malaysian Bar President Lim Chee Wee urged the government to consider the council’s proposed alternative to the government’s original Bill, which he described as an “unjust law made in haste ... which will impose unreasonable and disproportionate fetters on freedom of assembly”.

“The Bar will continue knocking on the doors of Parliament if the Bill makes it to the statute books in its current form,” he vowed during a brief press conference in Parliament here.

Lim was addressing reporters just moments after he led hundreds of lawyers in the council’s “Walk for Freedom” march to Parliament as a sign of their open defiance of a law they claim infringes on Malaysians’ constitutional rights.

The prominent lawyer, along with nine other representatives from the council, were allowed through Parliament gates and into the lobby to hand over a copy of its alternative Bill to deputy minister Datuk V. K. Liew and a letter of appeal urging MPs to vote wisely.

“We are not anti-government or pro-opposition. We are anti-injustice and anti-unconstitutionality ... We are pro-justice and pro-rule of law. We have always worked closely with the government,” Lim told Liew when handing over the documents.

MORE TO COME

Human Rights Watch backs Bar Council march

The international human rights body also calls for an immediate withdrawal of the Peaceful Assembly Bill.

PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council’s walk of protest against the controversial Peaceful Assembly Bill has received international backing from the Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The Bill which was tabled last Tuesday will be debated in Parliament today and is expected to be voted on today.

The Bill has been slammed by the opposition and various civil society groups as being even more repressive than the Section 27 of the Police Act which it is meant to replace.

At 11.30am today Bar Council members and supporters will begin their march from Lake Gardens Park to Parliament where they will submit a draft copy of an alternative proposal.

In a show of support, HRW has written a letter to prime minister, Najib Tun Razak, urging for the march to be allowed to proceed without disturbance from police.

“Malaysia’s lawyers are marching out of real concerns that Malaysians’ freedoms of peaceful assembly and association are under threat from the proposed law,” said HRW deputy Asia director, Phil Roberson in a statement today.

“They have serious proposals to amend the law and the government should give them a serious hearing.”

In its letter to Najib, HRW also raised concerns about the Bill’s blanket prohibition against “assemblies in motion,” such as marches and processions.

Other concerns raised include “overly broad authority” for local police officials to regulate and disperse assemblies, an extensive list of prohibited places and a ban on participation by children below 15 years and non-citizens.

HRW further noted the “undue haste” with which the Bill is being propelled through parliament and the “lack of meaningful consultation” with civil society before it was introduced.

“The Malaysian government should withdraw the draft law immediately and refer it to a Parliamentary Select Committee where stakeholders can have an opportunity to express their views on the measure,” Robertson stated.

“The government has yet to explain why it is rushing to pass a law that so many Malaysian groups are saying is seriously flawed. Najib should take the time to listen to all sides in this critical debate, starting with the Bar Council.”

Draft Peaceful Assembly Bill prepared by Bar Council Malaysia

Please click here to download the draft Peaceful Assembly Bill prepared by Bar Council Malaysia.

Explanatory Statement

The proposed Peaceful Assembly Act 2011 (“the proposed Act’) as drafted by the Bar Council takes significantly different approaches from the Bill drafted by the government.

Among the differences in the policies and principles include the following.

The government’s Bill approaches the right of peaceful assembly from a very limited and restrictive stand point that does not accord with international norms, the current rapid developments around the world on such fundamental rights, as well as the aspirations of the Malaysian people.

On the other hand, the Bar Council’s draft Bill approaches the matter with an understanding of the urgent need to change the mindset of how such matter has been dealt with by the authorities in the past half a century, and the democratic necessity to fulfill the Rakyat’s growing expectations of greater fundamental liberties in line with international practices and developments.

The Bar Council’s draft Bill is intended to promote and facilitiate the freedom of the right of peaceful assembly, whereas the government’s Bill, while providing small improvements in certain limited aspects, continues to constrict the space for freedom of peaceful assembly that the Malaysian people ought to have. Worse still, in some aspects, such as the total prohibition of street protest, the government’s Bill contains conditions or restrictions which are not currently expressly provided for.

The Bar Council’s draft Bill complies with international conventions and norms, whereas the government’s Bill does not. For instance, the government’s Bill prohibits assemblies in motion (processions or street protests) which no other progressive jurisdiction does. The governement’s Bill vests excessive powers and control with the police whilst imposing onerous duties and responsibilities on organisers and participants of public assemblies.

The Bar Council’s draft Bill takes into account the internationally accepted principle that the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly is part of “public order”, whereas the government’s Bill appears to view such exercise of fundamental right as antagonistic to public order.

The government’s Bill continues to retain the unacceptable practice of allowing the police to be its own judge and jury on matters relating to freedom of assembly. On the other hand, the Bar Council’s draft Bill has removed this unacceptable practice, by the creation of an independent Peaceful Assembly Board.

For the full explanatory statement, please refer to pages 16-18 of the Bar Council's draft Peaceful Assembly Bill.

‘Ban’ on Dataran Merdeka mocks at ‘independence’

An autonomous grassroots initiative wants the Peaceful Assembly Bill withdrawn.

PETALING JAYA: A group calling itself the KL People’s Assembly has taken the authorities to task for barring groups from using Dataran Merdeka to “meet and discuss the future” of the country.

Group founder and spokesperson Fahmi Reza said Dataran Merdeka has been closed for the past several weeks to all except for “other people not participating in our discussions”.

“We question why we are not allowed to use Dataran Merdeka to have a discussion on the future of our country while other people not participating in our discussions are allowed to gather around Dataran Merdeka,” said Fahmi.

The group, which is better known as Occupy Dataran, also criticised the government’s decision- making process which did not allow people’s participation.

“We, the KL People’s Assembly, hold that the current practice of decision-making on policies that affect all peoples… is undemocratic as there is no room for people to participate in the decision-making process.

“We strongly suggest that a participatory, consensus-driven decision-making process be adopted for all future laws and policies that affect the people of Malaysia.”

The group also called for the Peaceful Assembly Bill to be withdrawn.

Bill to be tabled tomorrow

The Bill was tabled on Tuesday and promptly received brickbats from the opposition and civil society groups.

Two protest assemblies were held on Saturday against the Bill.

Fahmi questioned the meaning of “independence” in opposing the Bill and the ruling against groups congregating in Dataran Merdeka.

“Is this the true meaning of ‘Merdeka’ in Dataran Merdeka?

“Is independence of any person at the discretion of the authorities?” asked Fahmi in a statement today.

Merdeka is the Malay word for independence.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak confirmed today that amendments would be done before the tabling of the Bill slated for tomorrow.

Among others, Najib said that time period to inform the police has been reduced from 30 to 10 days.

Three things I like about the Peaceful Assembly Bill

More liberty under Najib's administration? Bring it on! (Statue pic source: sxc.hu; Najib image © thenutgraph.com)

MUCH has been said about how undemocratic the Peaceful Assembly Bill is. I beg to differ. On the contrary, three very good aspects of the Peaceful Assembly Bill have been missed by commentators. Here they are:

More religious

The Bill promotes a religious society. We all know how important religion is to ensure that we do not get discouraged by the high rate of inflation, caused entirely by the decadent West due to their blind adherence to the present Jewish financial system. By stipulating that assemblies cannot be held in a close proximity to religious places of worship, we can be sure that more effort will be put in by the government to build more places of worship, so that the space for assemblies can be restricted.

Furthermore, non-Muslims who have been facing difficulty getting approval to build places of worship can heave a collective sigh of relief because they now have one more reason to support their application. By approving more places of worship, the government will be able to restrict more places for assemblies. At long last, the objectives of the government and of the non-Muslim communities would be better aligned.

The authorities will listen to us

The Bill encourages true, participatory democracy. It used to be that our voices are only heard during election time. Once our representatives are elected, then we pretty much have no avenue to voice our grievances until and unless another election comes around.

With this Bill, we all have a positive role to play to object to assemblies that are planned near our place of business or abode. And the likelihood is that the authorities would be responsive to our objections. Can you believe how empowered we would all become? No longer will we be ignored by the authorities. Perhaps our views will even be positively solicited by them. An empowered citizenry is definitely the way to go.

No more gutter politics

The Bill will promote positive values and a positive society. We must all be sick to our stomachs with the kind of gutter politics that we see today. Enough of such nonsense, I say. Here is a Bill that specifically stipulates that in our assemblies, we are not to incite hatred, dissatisfaction or enmity in any way. No more negative politics. We now need to switch gears to only extol the virtues of our wonderful leaders.

Of course, this may pose a slight problem to the opposition, since they have no leader of virtue to speak about. But for the Barisan Nasional (BN), under whose glorious rule we continue to improve by leaps and bounds, to stand heads and shoulders above the rest of the nations of the world, this Bill is a godsend.

(Pic source: johnnyberg / sxc.hu)

Of course, there are still the fence-sitters and naysayers who refuse to acknowledge this truth. These people need to wake up to the fact that we have even successfully defended our SEA Games football gold medal, and realise that we are definitely an up-and-coming nation.

So, kudos to the current government for leading the charge in formulating reforms for our country through the Peaceful Assembly Bill. It is undeniable that the foresight of the current cabinet is most exemplary and commendable. Why, even Barack Obama thinks so. And if Barack Obama has declared it, then who are the rest of us to argue otherwise?

Hidup BN, hidup Umno, hidup Malaysia!

Najib’s “clarification” is proof that PAB is the worst and most slipshod bill in 54-year parliamentary history

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s last-minute clarification today of the Peaceful Assembly Bill (PAB) is testimony that the PAB is the worst and most slipshod bill ever drafted in the 54-year history of Malaysian Parliament as well as raising questions about Najib’s bona fides in political reforms and transformation.

Najib blamed Pakatan Rakyat (PR) for “confusing” the public with regard to the 30-day notification requirement.

He said:

“Actually the wording is within 30 days, it can be within five or 10 days but that word led to so much confusion so we decided that 10 days to be specific, so that there will be no doubts.” (The Malaysian Insider)

Najib said the previous 30 days’ notification did not mean a month’s notice was needed.

Najib’s ”clarification” is utterly ridiculous. In fact, Najib is presenting a sorry public spectacle of a Prime Minister who does not know what he is talking about, and even worse does not understand the content of the Bill he introduced in Parliament on Thursday though he described it as “revolutionary”.

It is a terrible reflection of the quality of leadership and governance in Malaysia that the Prime Minister can be so badly advised as to the Bill he presented in Parliament as to cause the Prime Minister to totally mislead Parliament and the country about its import and implications.

I do not believe that Najib has deliberately told a lie about the PAB, but clearly he had been told a lie by his advisers causing him to spread a lie!

I challenge Najib to explain how he could claim that under the PAB, before the proposed amendment tomorrow to reduce the 30-day notice requirement to 10 days, it would be possible to organise an assembly “within five or 10 days”?

Let us take a hypothetical case. Say an organiser wants to hold an assembly on 30th December 2011.

Clause 9 (1) of the PAB on “Notification of assembly” provides:

“An organizer shall, within thirty days before the date of an assembly, notify the Officer in Charge of the Police District (OCPD) in which the assembly is to be held”.

Can Najib explain how the organiser could comply with the PAB if he gives notice to the police “within five or 10 days”, i.e. from 20th December or 25th December?

This is clearly impossible because Clause 12 requires the OCPD concerned to inform “persons who have interests” within 48 hours of the assembly notification and who have five days to communicate to the Police their “concerns or objections to the assembly”. This would have taken up seven days – exceeding the five-day claim by Najib that a proposed assembly could be held.

Under Clause 14, the OCPD has to respond to the notification of assembly within 12 days. Clause 16 provides four days for the right of appeal of the organiser to restrictions and conditions imposed by the police to the Home Minister, who has six days to give his decision.

This means that the quickest an organiser will know about the outcome of his notification of an assembly on Dec. 30 is 12 days after submission of notification, provided the police does not impose restrictions and conditions.

If there are police restrictions and conditions followed by appeal to the Home Minister, the quickest an organiser can clear the bureaucratic notification process is 22 days.

This means that an organiser must give notification at least 22 days before the proposed assembly date or he may not be able to complete the maximum of 22-day bureaucratic notification process.
The words “within thirty days before the date of an assembly” in Clause 9(1) is utterly misleading and meaningless and is no help to Najib to explain how an assembly under the PAB could be held “within five to 10 days”.

Najib should not blame the Pakatan Rakyat for the atrocious PAB drafting but the parliamentary draftsmen, the Attorney-General and his legal officers, as well as the entire Cabinet who have proven to be sleeping on their jobs.

Najib said that under the PAB: “The Peaceful Assembly Act is divided into two categories, for designated areas, they only need to inform the police and there will be people to supervise even if it’s on a short notice.

“For non-designated areas, then it will require a 10-day period so the police can negotiate with the local community to get their views.” (Malaysiakini)

Here is further testimony of the atrocious drafting of the PAB. Where does the PAB say that the police must be informed for assemblies to be held in designated areas? The PAB is silent on the matter.

Najib is offended at the comparison with Myanmar but can he explain why Myanmar can pass a law on freedom of assembly requiring only five days’ notice but Malaysia needs 10 days’ notice?

In actual fact, if Article 10 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of assembly as one of the fundamental rights of Malaysians is to have real meaning, the government should not be designating permissible places of assembly, as all areas should be open to Malaysians to exercise their right to freedom of assembly – except for certain designated areas declared/gazetted “out of bounds” for security and other considerations.

The “designated areas” should be places where freedom of assembly is not allowed rather than where freedom of assembly is permitted.

Najib has only provided more grounds why there should be no indecent haste to force through the passage of PAB in Dewan Rakyat tomorrow and that it should be referred to a Parliamentary Select Committee for full, meaningful and mature consultation, consideration and consensus.

FAQs on Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011

Please click here to see the "FAQs on Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011" prepared by Bar Council's Constitutional Law Committee, as well as a comparison between section 27 of the Police Act 1967 (current law on assemblies) and the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (which is meant to replace section 27).

Please click here for the Bahasa Malaysia version (Rang Undang-undang Perhimpunan Aman 2011: Soalan-soalan Lazim).

You can also click on the links below to view the:

(1) Bar Council press release entitled “Peaceful Assembly Bill is more restrictive than present law and must be improved” issued on 22 Nov 2011;
(2) Bar Council press release entitled “Broken promise: Prime Minister has not lived up to Malaysia Day 2011 pledge” issued on 24 Nov 2011;

(3) Malaysian Bar’s Memorandum on Peaceful Assembly Bill dated 24 Nov 2011; and

(4) Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011.

Kit Siang warns of ‘disaster’ if assembly law passed

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 28 — Lim Kit Siang warned Datuk Seri Najib Razak today of a “political disaster” if he insists on pushing the Peaceful Assembly Bill through Parliament without public consultation.

Echoing calls from civil society groups and other opposition lawmakers, the senior DAP MP said Najib should withdraw the Bill before tomorrow’s debate and form a parliamentary select committee (PSC) to look into public recommendations for amendments.

“Najib should be forewarned that he is heading for another political disaster after his July 9 Bersih 2.0 misjudgment if he rejects the proposal for a PSC on the Bill,” Lim (picture) said in a statement.

“I call on him to reconsider the decision to force the Bill through all three readings in the Dewan Rakyat tomorrow as it will be proof that he has not learnt the lessons of his massive misjudgment and mishandling of the July 9 rally,” he added.

Najib mooted the new law to regulate public gatherings following international condemnation over his administration’s handling of Bersih 2.0’s march for free and fair elections.

Just days after it was tabled, however, his Cabinet agreed to amend several contentious provisions in the Bill after complaints that it would further restrict individual freedom.

But Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and several civil society groups, including Suhakam, Bersih 2.0 and the Bar Council, have vowed to continue protesting the Bill, insisting that it go back to the drawing board to include public recommendations.

Lim complained that Clause 16 of the Bill accords the home minister powers as the “final arbiter” to decide if an assembly could be held.

He said such powers should lie in the hands of the judiciary, similar to the Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act 1992, which he said Malaysia’s proposed law is modelled after.

“The Australian home minister and the various Australian state police ministers have no role whatsoever in the decision-making process on freedom of assembly in Australia.

“This is why more time must be given not only to MPs but to civil society, human rights groups and all concerned Malaysians to study the implications of the very badly drafted Bill by referring it to a PSC,” he said.

Lim reminded the government of complaints against bias and discrimination by the police that was listed in the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission Report, saying that since its findings were released in 2005 public confidence still remained low.

Among the complaints, he said, were that permits granted to opposition parties and NGOs deemed as anti-establishment had come with numerous “ridiculous” conditions.

“There were also complaints that the police do not seem to be neutral and impartial in the granting of permits, as would appear to be the case from their alleged numerous refusals of permits to opposition political parties and organisations perceived to be linked to them.

“There were also allegations that those attending the events were arrested and questioned as to why they did so and why they expressed opposition towards the government,” he added.

But despite the report findings, said Lim, the police have yet to earn respect as an “independent, incorruptible and professional” force.

Nazri: Peaceful Assembly Bill will be passed on Tuesday

The Sun Daily

by Hemananthani Sivanandam

PETALING JAYA (Nov 27, 2011): The controversial Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011, which the government has agreed to amend, will be debated at committee level before being voted on in the Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said there will be eight amendments to the bill and that MPs could bring their proposals for consideration.

“The (tabling of the) second reading has been done (last Thursday by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak) so we will debate it at the committee level in Parliament on Tuesday and it will be voted upon.

“All MPs are welcome to bring their suggestions and if it is okay, we will include it,” Nazri told theSun when contacted.

Asked to comment on plans by the Malaysia Bar Council which plans to organise a Walk for Freedom 2011: Peaceful Assembly Bill cannot and must not become law! on Tuesday, Nazri said the council is free to go ahead with it.

“It’s not my problem. They have to talk to the police but I can assure that it is not going to change in any way.

“The bill has been tabled, will be debated and be passed on Tuesday,” he stressed.

Nazri, who is also Padang Renggas MP lambasted Bar Council President Lim Chee Wee and his former counterpart Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan for organising the walk.

“We will accommodate any amendments (to the bill). That shows we listen to the people. I would suggest to Chee Wee to register the Bar Council as a political party and stand for elections.

“It is easier if they register as a political party, rather than hide under the pretext of an NGO," he said, before quipping that either Ambiga or Lim should stand in his constituency.

It was reported on Saturday that the government will carry out eight amendments to the bill, including amending the controversial Section 9(1) which makes it mandatory for an organiser to give a 30-day notification to the police prior to holding an assembly in an undesignated venue.

Nazri said the 30-day notification is deemed to be too lengthy and the Cabinet decided to shorten it to 10 days.

“The 10-day notification is required because the police will need to engage with the people involved in these undesignated areas.

“For an example, if someone wants to have an assembly in front of (DAP stalwart) Lim Kit Siang's home, we certainly need to ask him because he’s the house owner so that requires time.

“Also, people cannot simply pick places where they want to demonstrate. What if there is a counter-demonstration? This requires (organisers) to inform the police to protect them because suddenly, if a fight breaks out and the police is not notified then the people will blame the police,” said Nazri.

He however said that people are free to demonstrate at any time at designated areas.

“For example at Padang Merbok, it's a designated place, so people can go ahead…no problem,” he added.

Nazri said following the amendments to Section 9(1), other amendments will also be made to four other sections, which involved timeline of notification such as to parties with interests and appeal to the Home Minister.

He added that the government also supported the proposed amendments to Sections 6(2)(b), 7(a)(iii) and 21(1)(c) which involves the removal of the word "discontent" from them.

“The Cabinet feels that we need to drop that word, the fact that people assemble shows that they are unhappy about something so we have decided to drop that word,” said Nazri.

Meanwhile the Bar Council said it would continue with its Walk for Freedom on Tuesday.

Bar Council President Lim told theSun whilst it is “mildly positive” that the government is considering the provisions to the bill, the reduction of the length of time for various notices required under the Bill and omission of the word ‘discontent’ reflects what is fundamentally wrong with the process of the bill

“It is being rushed with unholy haste into law without adequate public consultation. There is no good reason why this Bill cannot go through the same process of a Parliamentary Select Committee as electoral reforms -- both are important constitutional rights,” Lim said.

He also said that according to media reports, the Cabinet is adamant about prohibiting assemblies in motion or processions, except for existing provision on funeral processions.

“This is outrageous! From our research, we know not of any other jurisdictions, which prohibit processions.

“The government cannot now rob us of this right of assemblies in motion which is presently not prohibited in the Police Act.

“The present prohibition of procession robs us of a right which presently exists under section 27 of the Police Act which regulates “assemblies, meetings and processions,” he said.

Lim said in the United Kingdom, 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.

“In Finland, only 6 hours is required. Even Myanmar now has a Peaceful Assembly and Procession Bill which allows peaceful assembly and procession by holding flags with prior permission from the authorities five days in advance,” he added.

Candlelight vigil protest against Assembly Bill

Peaceful Assembly Bill – Najib has probably created world history in the speed with which a “revolutionary” bill becomes reactionary within 24 hrs as to require at least eight amendments

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has probably created world history in the speed with which a Bill which he described as “revolutionary” became reactionary within 24 hours as to require at least eight amendments.

On Thursday, Najib told Parliament that the Peaceful Assembly Bill was “revolutionary” and “a giant leap” in the political transformation of Malaysia. But in less than 24 hours, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz was directed by the Prime Minister at Friday’s Cabinet meeting to review and amend the “revolutionary” Bill!

This is the latest proof of the haphazard, insincere and irresponsible manner in which Najib is trying to implement his “political transformation” programme – totally at variance with his pledge that under his premiership, the era of “government knows best” is over and that he would fully consult with all relevant stakeholders and the civil society on major reform measures for the country.

The amendments to the Peaceful Assembly Bill, primarily on and consequential to the reduction of the requirement of 30 days to 10 days for notification to the police for any assembly, are not acceptable to give approval to the Bill as they are not wide-ranging enough as there are also other provisions in the bill which strike at the constitutional rights to freedom of assembly.

Apart from the 30-day notice requirement, other objectionable provisions include the arbitrary powers given to the police to impose restrictive and unreasonable conditions for the holding of assemblies, the role of the Home Minister in cases of appeal, the unconstitutional ban on street protests, the list of prohibited areas or 50-metre vicinity disallowing the holding of assemblies, the ban on underaged children and the onerous and crippling fines for offences under the Bill, etc.

The test of whether the Peaceful Assembly Bill is “revolutionary” and “a giant leap” in the political transformation and democratisation of Malaysia is whether the civil society, human rights activists and the political opposition feel freer and more liberated to exercise the fundamental constitutional right of Article 10 on “freedom of assembly” under the new law or they feel more suppressed, restricted and conscribed than even under the regime of Section 27 of the Police Act 1967.

The Prime Minister must take full cognisance that a former Lord President and the country’s most outstanding and longest-serving Inspector-General of Police had both regarded Section 27 of the Police Act as unconstitutional and undemocratic in violating Article 10 on the fundamental liberty of freedom of assembly – expressed in the Police Royal Commission Report of 2005 of which Tun Dzaiddin was Chairman and Tun Hanif Omar Deputy Chairman.

The Police Royal Commission 2005 had recommended far-reaching amendments to Section 27 to uphold “one of the most basic and indispensable of the fundamental freedoms necessary for the functioning of a democratic society and is provided for in the Federal Constitution” but this recommendation of the Police Royal commission was ignored by the Barisan Nasional government for more than six years.

Now we have the Peaceful Assembly Bill with provisions which are even more inimical to the nurturing of a democratic environment fully respecting the human rights of Malaysians to freedom of speech, expression, association and assembly.

Najib has only one option when Parliament reconvenes on Tuesday if he is serious about his latest slogan of “political transformation” and democratisation – to withdraw the Bill or refer it to a Parliamentary Select Committee to engage all stakeholders, the civil society, human rights groups and the political opposition in a meaningful consultation and full engagement.