The political will to march

The Star (Used by permission)
by HARIATI AZIZAN

as published in The Star on 13 Nov 2011

Now that we have economic prosperity and political stability, is Malaysia ready for a freedom of assembly where everyone can voice their opinions and thoughts freely? Sunday Star explores the issue in a two-part article.

THEY came in droves some had even taken buses and trains from as far as Kedah and Perlis - to join the public rally in Batu Pahat, Johor.

It was 1946, and around 15,000 Malays had gathered in the southern political hotbed to protest the establishment of the Malayan Union. Led by Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar, they held placards and banners while chanting “Daulat Tuanku” and “No to Malayan Union”.

As our forefathers across all races and class, and from the Right to the Left spectrum fought for independence, public rallies and marches had been one popular avenue to voice their concerns and raise their demands to the British colonial powers.

So it has been in the history of rest of the world, former Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh once wrote: people march “because Gandhi marched, Mandela marched, Martin Luther King marched, and Tunku Abdul Rahman marched.”

It is no wonder then that when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak recently declared his intention to amend the Police Act to allow greater freedom of assembly, many democratic-minded Malaysians cheered.

That public rallies, protests and marches are in our DNA cannot be denied, and as Lew Pik Svonn, one of the shakers of the Occupy Dataran movement (the Malaysian edition of Occupy Wall Street), puts it, “It has always been time (for freedom of assembly). Is it time only because the general election is coming? If that is what it takes, then it is still good because it is long overdue.”

Yet, Lew, like many, is waiting apprehensively to see if the PM will make good on his word, especially with the conflicting messages from some factions of the Government that say “Yes to freedom of assembly, but No to street demonstrations.”

One clear sign that perhaps this time Lew can really get her “strolling” gear out is the political will that is accompanying the PM's strong promise.

Will for change

Booming in support are the more forward-looking “young” politicians, like Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah (pic).

“Freedom of assembly is part and parcel of democracy and I get upset when people don't understand that.

“Times have changed, society has changed. We are now living in new kinds of realities with the advent of new media. It has changed the way people think and live,” says Saifuddin, drawing an analogy to illustrate his point.

“Last time, we used to live in one circle where things are conventional and traditional people thought the same way, but now there is a second circle that is imposing new values on the first circle.”

For example, he adds, many in the old circle see new media as a tool but those living in the second circle see it as a lifestyle.

The other new reality, he highlights, is that there is a new social consciousness among people.

“There is a new definition of values, for instance, a new definition of patriotism. People now have a different outlook and perception on life, and they are giving new meaning to the old values and beliefs.”

More crucially, democracy has evolved, he notes. “We are now living in post-parliamentary and post-election democracy. They no longer think that democracy is only connected to the ballot box.

“There is more participation by the people and they want more consultation. People want their voices to be heard and their roles in society to be recognised. They want their concerns to be addressed according to their lifestyles, not to the government and people in power.”

That is why the Government can't say “No” to peaceful assembly anymore, he says. “Not because it is fashionable but because people want a platform to voice their grievances and opinions.”

Politically mature

Another young gun who supports freedom of assembly is Youth and Sports Deputy Minister Senator Gan Ping Siew.

“The Government's stand has always been political and social stability for economic development but now that we have reached the point where these are guaranteed, Malaysia is ready for a freedom of assembly where everyone can voice their opinions and thoughts freely,” he says.

Malaysians are also now better educated, so we are more politically and socially matured, adds Gan.

“Now in the age of IT and cyber-revolution, if the government can cope with the opinions and criticisms in the virtual world, they should be ready for it in the real world.

“I feel that there is no real difference for people to do it (voice their opinions) in the real world. As long as views and expressions do not create social disorder and incite violence, and if we can do it with order and without disrupting the normal life of the majority of the people, I say why not,” he opines.

A stronger sign of the political will for freedom of assembly is support from the “old guard”.

One is MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, who is urging the rest of the Government to listen more to concerned Malaysians, who he says are now “more vocal, active and politically conscious than before.”

“As leaders, we must always be ready to listen. Politicians should never pretend to know everything,” he had said in his speech at the party's recent general assembly.

In fact, in the MCA's New Deal manifesto, the party has included freedom of assembly as one area of concern.

Proposing for more channels for peaceful dissent, Dr Chua believes that designated places and designated routes can be allowed for protest.

Gan (pic) points to three pertinent factors for striking a balance between control and freedom: the cause (or objective of the rally), the scale and the type of activity.

He believes that certain assemblies need to be conducted in a closed environment.

“We have to accept that certain issues will still cause worry in the different communities of Malaysia for example, if a group holds a rally to ask for more Malay rights or more quotas, that will cause worry among the non-Malay community.

“Similarly, if you have groups of people marching in the city centre, albeit peacefully, asking for the Malay privileges be removed, it will offend the Malays. Can we guarantee that it will not degenerate into a riot?”

It is not that “sensitive issues” should not be raised in public, he explains, but maybe not on the platform of “ public rally”.

“What you need is a forum where people can analyse things rationally in a calm environment, not rallies where people are fired up and slogans are shouted.”

As he reiterates, freedom is relative and not absolute the question is how do we balance it out?

“The government of the day has to be accountable to the people and they need to take that into account when making decisions. They need to be sensitive to the developments in society but at the same time, they need to decide if this is a healthy social movement. Do we need this in society?”

Unfortunately, he opines, like anywhere in the world, there are always agent provocateurs.

Security issue

Hence, Gan prescribes to permits for public rallies.

“I believe that someone needs to take responsibility the organiser needs to be held accountable. Permits are the easiest way to ensure that.”

There is no country that allows absolute freedom of assembly anyway, he rationalises, and we cannot take for granted that things will not get out of control especially if the cause or issue being championed is racially and religiously sensitive.

However, the processing of the police permits must be transparent, he says.

“When a groups applies for a permit to hold a public rally, we need to see what they are trying to promote and whether they can control the security issue they need to demonstrate that they can regulate the crowd and ensure that it will be peaceful.”

One issue is who should be tasked to negotiate with the protest “applicants”.

This is something the Government needs to think about, Gan who is also MCA vice-president says.

“At the moment the police is the one responsible, and this is how it is done in the world but our police, like many police forces, is conservative because, understandably, they need to ensure public order.”

Ultimately, he stresses, our police needs to be independent and not to side with any party.

Acknowledging that many young people today do not like to be affiliated to any NGOs, Gan feels allowances also need to be made for certain activities.

“For example, flash mobs will not need to be regulated if they are held without disrupting public order.

“Additionally, if certain groups are not trying to provoke people like marching, carrying cow heads, it is okay. There is no need to ask for a permit.

“We have to move on with the times, certain activities do not need a permit.”

Saifuddin agrees that the authorities cannot be too rigid in defining the meaning of “peaceful assembly”.

“There are many close-knit groupings on social media. We need to recognise that there are all kinds of groupings, so we have to acknowledge that not all are registered with the ROS (Registrar of Societies).

“Anyway, most young people today do not like to be tied to any group.”

And in contrast with many of his peers, Saifuddin feels that public assemblies should not be confined to closed venues like stadiums.

“We cannot be too rigid. There are peaceful street demos and not all assemblies held in stadiums are peaceful.”

Saifuddin strongly believes that the Government should refer to the Suhakam report on freedom of assembly.

“Suhakam has come up with proposals on how to deal with public assembly and if we were to follow their proposal, there will be no difficulty in making this freedom available to people.”

One proposal, he points out, is that if a group of people want to organise a demonstration they need to impress to the authority that they can take all the necessary measures to ensure that the participants will adhere to the law and keep the demo peaceful.

Relook Police Act

Although he agrees that a permit is still needed, if the organisers can demonstrate that they can fulfil the conditions, they should be allowed to hold the rally.

He believes that the permit in itself is not the issue but rather it is the fact that authorities are making it difficult for people to get a permit.

“I have no problems with permit, I don't think it is an issue we do need some law and order because they are going to a public space.”

He highlights that Suhakam has also proposed that the organisers appoint their own marshals to keep peace and order.

“This is where we need to relook the Police Act,” says Saifuddin as he makes a disclaimer that he is no expert.

“Police can be there but they only need to monitor the situation, to ensure that there is order and security. And when they negotiate with the rally organisers, they need to be non-judgmental, objective and practise discretion they should not just disallow everything.”

Another area that needs to be reviewed is the conduct of police during the public rallies, he adds, to reduce the alleged violation of people's rights by the police.

What is more important, he stresses, is that the people are given their right to freedom to assemble peacefully.

“That is why although I do not agree with Bersih 2.0, I will protect their rights to peacefully assemble and have their voices heard.

“We have to accept that everyone has a right to their voice, even if we totally disagree with their stand. The issue is not legality but it is about the rights of the individual.”

* Next week: The civil society take their stand on freedom of assembly.