AUGUST 29 ― What is on everyone’s mind today is the multi-city Bersih 4 rally, which was declared illegal by the police on August 26 but which will go ahead anyway according to its organisers.
But here’s an anomaly: the Sarawak police have given the go-ahead for the Kuching portion of the rally. It is the only state to do so, as state minister Datuk Sri Wong Soon Koh observed on Thursday.
Does this mean Bersih is considered legal in Sarawak but not anywhere else in Malaysia?
It may seem a strange contradiction. The point of the Bersih rally, whether in Kuala Lumpur, Kuching or Kota Kinabalu, is the same: to call for a clean government and clean elections.
And public protest I feel is a facet of democracy ― to be heard (in a peaceful manner). We have some history with this form of expression, such as the public protest against the Malayan Union so many decades ago.
According to the Kuala Lumpur police, the Bersih rally in the city was declared illegal because its organisers “failed to issue a complete notice to the police” as per Section 9 of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012, which requires a complete notice and details of routes and venues, among other things.
“Under the PAA, the police must be given a complete notice so we too can plan for security and traffic control,” said City police chief Comm Datuk Tajuddin Md Isa. “We have given them ample time, but they failed to comply.”
The context is that the organisers had wished to use Dataran Merdeka and Padang Merbok for the rally but the application was denied by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall. This meant organisers had to amend its plans and did not submit the details as required by the police.
But here’s the rub: the Sarawak organisers also had a venue issue. And by the sequence of announcements, the rally was approved anyway.
It was only on August 27 that the Kuching South City Council allowed the organisers to use the Song Kheng Hai field as their rally venue, according to a statement by Kuching South mayor Datuk James Chan.
This followed news that the rally is good to go in Kuching, with organising chairman saying Kuching police chief ACP Roslan Bek promised there will be police personnel present to ensure a smooth rally.
So how? If we insist that the PAA requires complete notification to the police before a rally can proceed, what happened in Kuching?
Really, PAA complicates matters too much.
The Bar Council argues that the Act does not empower the police to prohibit rallies. This in turn raises questions on whether the police have the power to declare any peaceful rally illegal on the basis of incomplete notification because as it were you only need to notify. The requirement for a police permit no longer exists.
And the implication from the Sarawak handling of the rally is there exists different interpretations of what a “complete” notification constitutes. So how?
At the heart of it, the PAA should go and it should not be replaced. Any requirement for notification or permit gets in the way of the basic democratic right to express opinion peacefully.
If a rally turns rowdy the police can arrest instigators. If there is damage to property the police can arrest whoever’s responsible. There are sufficient laws to handle these offences and more. The point of police presence is to respond swiftly to any violence that may erupt.
We shouldn’t be preventing these sorts of incidents at the cost of the freedom to gather and make a stand without asking for permission from power. That’s basic liberty and democracy.
If we deny ourselves that right, how can we call ourselves a real democracy? It brings to mind that famous saying by Benjamin Franklin:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
