Anwar Ibrahim |
- Pemansuhan Tiga Proklamasi Darurat
- Janji Ditransformasi Menjadi Penipuan Yang Keji
- Talk Big’ Najib Defends Peaceful Assembly as ‘Giant Leap’, But to Where?
- Pakatan Wants Peaceful Assembly Bill withdrawn
- Program Ceramah Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim Sempena Kongress KEADILAN di Johor 25-27 Nov.
- Freedom of Assembly Bill is Unconstitutional and Worse Than The Existing Repressive Police Act
- Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: Unconstitutional And Anti-Democratic — Tommy Thomas
| Pemansuhan Tiga Proklamasi Darurat Posted: 24 Nov 2011 12:52 AM PST Pakatan Rakyat menyokong pemansuhan tiga proklamasi darurat tetapi perkara ini adalah hanya satu perkara kecil yang seharusnya telah dilaksanakan lama dulu. Proklamasi-proklamasi yang terbabit termasuk: (i) Proklamasi Darurat 1966 [P.U.(A)339A/1966] iaitu Proklamasi 2. Kita gembira kerana YAB Perdana Menteri menerima cadangan-cadangan Pakatan Rakyat, khususnya setelah Rang Undang-Undang Pemansuhan Darurat yang dicadang Pakatan Rakyat ditolak Speaker Dewan Rakyat pada April 2011. Tambahan lagi, pendirian PM diwakili oleh Menteri Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz begitu berbeza pada 16 Mac 2011 apabila dalam jawapan parlimen beliau menjawab soalan daripada Ahli Parlimen Lembah Pantai tentang kesediaan memansuhkan serta merta pengisytiharan darurat: “Pada pandangan kerajaan, Proklamasi Darurat pada tahun 1969 masih wajar dikekalkan atas sebab yang berikut: (a) adalah wajar bagi kerajaan untuk mengekalkan Proklamasi Darurat pada tahun 1969 kerana jika tidak, undang-undang yang telah diperbuat semasa Proklamasi Darurat sedang berkuat kuasa akan terhenti berkuat kuasa mengikut Fasal (7) Perkara 150 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan ini akan menimbulkan kesukaran kepada kerajaan untuk mengawal jenayah untuk isu-isu yang melibatkan ketenteraman awam; dan (b) kemungkinan terdapat keperluan supaya undang-undang diperbuat dengan segera oleh YDPA semasa Parlimen tidak bersidang bagi menangani masalah berhubung dengan keselamatan Negara antaranya yang melibatkan ancaman pengganas serta keselamatan dan ketenteraman awam yang tidak diliputi di dalam undang-undang sedia ada. Pun begitu, kami alu-alukan pemansuhan ini kerana menandakan suara rakyat tidak dapat dihadang oleh kerajaan lagi. Pemansuhan ini seharusnya membawa kepada kebebasan demokrasi yang lebih baik di Malaysia tetapi malangnya pemerintah tidak mengotakan janji mereka dengan memperkenalkan Rang Undang-Undang Perhimpunan Aman yang menyekat kebebasan rakyat dan sekaligus melanggar Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. 3. Pembangkang telah lama membawa usul untuk memansuhkan proklamasi darurat sejak lama dulu iaitu sejak 1979, malahan Pakatan Rakyat telah membawa usul untuk memperkenalkan Akta Pemansuhan Darurat untuk dibentangkan di Dewan Rakyat pada Mac lepas tetapi yang melibatkan pemansuhan kesemua proklamasi darurat dan beberapa undang-undang serta peraturan-peraturan yang dikuatkuasakan oleh kerajaan apabila diperkenalkan Proklamasi Darurat ini. 4. Pengenalan Undang-Undang Perhimpunan Aman 2011 sebenarnya merupakan tindakan untuk menghadkan pergerakan ahl-ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat dalam memberi penjelasan kepada rakyat mengenai pelbagai isu yang berkaitan dengan salahguna kuasa, rasuah dan salah pengurusan oleh pihak pemerintah. 5. Peruntukan di dalam Undang-Undang Perhimpuan Aman yang mana menetapkan denda sehingga RM20,000 jika didapati bersalah membolehkan kerajaan mengheret ahli-ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat ke muka pengadilan jika melakukan ceramah, penjelasan dan perhimpunan yang merupakan salah satu cara untuk Pakatan Rakyat terus memberi penjelasan kepada rakyat. 6. Undang-Undang Perhimpunan Aman ini merupakan satu cara untuk menghalang Pakatan Rakyat untuk memberi penjelasan kepada rakyat secara berterusan mengenai perkara yang berbangkit kerana permohonan untuk mengadakan perhimpunan yang merujuk kepada ceramah dan sesi dialog dengan rakyat memerlukan kelulusan 30 hari sebelum perhimpunan itu diadakan. ANWAR IBRAHIM This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Janji Ditransformasi Menjadi Penipuan Yang Keji Posted: 24 Nov 2011 12:11 AM PST Menurut khabar dan spekulasi, Perdana Menteri Najib Razak dijangkakan membubarkan Parlimen dan meminta supaya Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 diadakan dalam masa beberapa bulan lagi. Pada pilihan raya yang akan datang ini, Najib buat julung kali memimpin Barisan Nasional dalam misi membentuk kerajaan. Secara langsung, pilihan raya ini adalah satu ujian sejauh manakah keyakinan rakyat terhadap pemerintahan Najib. Najib mengambil alih tampuk kuasa sejak April 2009 selepas menggantikan Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yang terpaksa meletak jawatan – untuk bertanggungjawab ke atas prestasi terburuk BN dalam pilihan raya umum Malaysia pada 8 Mac 2008. Antara faktor yang dikatakan menyebabkan BN hilang majoriti 2/3 di parlimen di samping hilang kuasa di empat negeri adalah kegagalan Abdullah – atau lebih dikenali sebagai Pak Lah – melaksanakan janji-janji perubahan yang telah memberi harapan kepada rakyat semasa PRU ke-11 pada 2004. Demokrasi jalanan turut menjadi faktor besar. Himpunan raksasa “BERSIH” yang menuntut pilihan raya bebas dan adil serta gerakan HINDRAF yang berjaya menyentuh hati komuniti kaum India antara peristiwa yang gemar dirujuk pemerhati politik dalam mengisahkan hari bersejarah 8 Mac 2008. Tidak dinafikan juga, media alternatif yang bebas daripada kongkongan mutlak BN menyumbang terhadap pembentukan audiens baru yang lebih bersikap kritikal dan sedia menyoal setiap tindak tanduk kerajaan. BN tidak lagi mampu bergantung pada media massa arus perdana sahaja dan perkara ini turut dipersetujui Pak Lah yang mengakui “BN kalah perang siber”. Maka, sejurus penggantian Pak Lah, Perdana Menteri baru segera mendapatkan khidmat nasihat pelbagai firma konsultasi komunikasi dan media. Dalam jangka masa pendek Najib berkuasa, kerajaan Malaysia telah membelanjakan berjuta-juta ringgit atas kempen-kempen komunikasi – atau lebih tepat lagi, propaganda – yang dihasilkan syarikat-syarikat asing seperti APCO dan FBC. Baru-baru ini, FBC terpaksa menanggung malu selepas dipecat beberapa rangkaian media asing kerana dijumpai menerima bayaran daripada kerajaan Malaysia untuk menghasilkan program pro-kerajaan Malaysia. Kempen “branding” atau penjenamaan seperti 1Malaysia dan pembentukan imej Najib sebagai seorang pemimpin yang “cool” atau sempoi terus menjadi agenda terpenting. Dengan kempen “perubahan” Presiden Amerika Syarikat Barack Obama yang dilaksanakan dengan jayanya, agenda “perubahan” dilihat menjadi suatu fenomena global. Tidak dinafikan, di Malaysia, sudah bertahun-tahun slogan “perubahan” menjadi asas kepada agenda parti-parti pembangkang. Maka, untuk Najib mempopularkan dirinya di samping dilihat peka terhadap “perubahan” yang dituntut, beliau tiada pilihan selain memulakan program-program yang bersifat “perubahan” atau sekurang-kurangnya memberi persepsi bahawa beliau mewakili “perubahan”. Namun, perkataan “perubahan” dan reformasi sesungguhnya sinonim dengan perjuangan parti-parti yang anti-BN. Oleh itu, “transformasi” menjadi slogan Najib. Tidak dinafikan, ramai di antara generasi pengundi muda yang membesar dengan ditemani siri kartun Transformers, yang turut dihidupkan semula dalam beberapa tahun yang lepas melalui siri filem wayang Hollywood. Namun, cukup sempoikah pakej “transformasi” yang dihadiahkan Najib? Adakah rakyat akan memberi undi kepada seseorang pemimpin hanya kerana beliau sempoi? Najib sebelum ini sudah menghadapi pelbagai persoalan kredibiliti terutamanya apabila dikaitkan dalam kes pembunuhan seorang wanita Mongolia. Gaya hidup mewah yang dimiliki isterinya – Wanita Pertama Negara Malaysia yang pertama sekali – turut memberi persepsi bahawa Najib yang sempoi ini sebenarnya agak jauh dari realiti keperitan rakyat bawahan. Lagi teruk, semasa melancarkan program Menu Rakyat 1Malaysia, beliau digambarkan mengambil sepinggan nasi kandar yang nampak lumayan sekali siap dengan dua ketul kepak ayam walaupun harga makanannya disiarkan RM3 sahaja. Mungkinkah semua ini helah yang sempoi? Cakap pasal helah, naik darah aku. Janji-janji yang dibuat Najib sempena Hari Malaysia telah mengalami transformasi – menjadi penipuan yang keji sekali. Beliau kata, negara Malaysia akan menjadi demokrasi terbagus di dunia. ISA akan dimansuhkan. Akhbar akan diberi lebih ruang kebebasan. Rakyat tidak akan dianiaya atas kepercayaan politik mereka. Sempoi gila. Tapi, ISA digantikan dua akta baru yang akan mengekalkan penahanan tanpa bicara. Lagi, hari ini janji mansuh ISA, besok tahan 13 orang di bawah ISA. Hari ini nak jadi demokrasi terhebat, besok bentang rang undang-undang baru untuk mengharamkan perhimpunan jalanan. Di bawah Akta Perhimpunan Aman, denda untuk sesiapa yang menganjurkan perhimpunan tanpa memberitahu pihak polis ialah RM10,000. Manakala sesiapa yang ditangkap semasa suatu perhimpunan boleh didenda RM20,000. Sempoi tak? Inilah dia transformasi Najib. Sempoi sekali. Sementara beliau berjanji untuk mendengar cadangan yang bakal dibuat Jawatankuasa Khas Parlimen untuk mengkaji tuntutan untuk mereformasikan sistem pilihanraya Malaysia, tiada jaminan bahawa Najib akan membenarkan Jawatankuasa tersebut menyelesaikan tugasnya sebelum membubarkan Parlimen sekaligus menutup Jawatankuasa itu juga. Jelas, pilihanraya yang akan datang tidak akan adil dan bersih tanpa berlakunya satu reformasi. Adakah reformasi itu akan datang daripada Najib dan BN? Bagi saya, untuk reformasi berlaku, reformasi perlu bermula dari tangan setiap rakyat. Undi di tangan kita boleh memulakan reformasi untuk membersihkan tanahair kita daripada elemen-elemen yang nampak sempoi tapi bersifat kotor sebenarnya This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Talk Big’ Najib Defends Peaceful Assembly as ‘Giant Leap’, But to Where? Posted: 23 Nov 2011 11:41 PM PST Evoking memories of the height of Bersih 2.0 crackdown, when all means and ways were used to demonize the movement for free and fair elections no matter exaggerated, Prime Minister Najib Razak defended his Peaceful Assembly Bill as a “giant leap”. He refused to acknowledge the criticism leveled against the new law that has provoked outrage, throwing the blame on the opposition for finding fault. “It reminds me of a time when Communist China was at its most repressive. Then they had slogans like just like Najib’s ‘great leap forward’. But the only result was the ‘great famine’,” PKR vice president Chua Jui Meng told Malaysia Chronicle. “We may not starve but I fear this step back into time will damage Malaysia’s credibility. Nobody is fooled. Investors know what Najib and BN are up. They talk big but they just want to cling to power through all ways and means including outright oppression.” International laughing stock Indeed, apart from the Pakatan Rakyat led by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, who plans to protest the new law, the Bar Council and various NGOs including Bersih and Suaram have slammed the Bill as being “unconstitutional”. There are plans afoot to challenge the new law in the courts. It has also attracted international attention and smirks amongst the diplomatic corp, given Najib’s penchant for boasting at overseas summits with his Global Movement for the Moderates, which contrasts like night versus day against his repressive rule at home. Under the existing Malaysian federal constitution, Article 10 already allows freedom of assembly. However, other laws including the Police Act which have been strengthened with provisions such as requiring a license for any public gathering have made a mockery of Article 10. Now with this Peaceful Assembly Act, the situation is worsened. Since it was tabled earlier this week, critics have flayed Najib for hypocrisy and duplicity as he had in September gone on national TV and grandly promised greater civil liberties. He also promised to make Malaysia “the best democracy in the world”. Now, refusing to admit any grounds for the latest criticism against his proposed Bill, Najib told Parliament on Thursday that it was a "revolutionary" law and a "giant leap" towards improving individual freedom. "We aware, however, that no matter how noble the government's intentions are, the opposition has already objected to the law. Supposedly, it chokes freedom to assemble. Is this allegation true? The answer: Not true at all,” said Najib. A penchant for big talk, reverse action The new Bill outlaws all street protests, forces the organizers to give a one-month notice to the police, regulates, restricts and imposes conditions on an assembly and prohibits anyone under the age of 15 from taking part. In a sharp twist, the proposed assembly law provides the police with even more power and makes it legitimate for the force to take any action against protesters. It also empowers the Home Minister, who is Najib’s cousin Hishammuddin Hussein, with authority to make regulations for the enforcement of the provisions in the proposed law. Furthermore, protesters could be slapped with a RM 20,000 fine while organizers who failed to give sufficient notice would be fined RM 10,000. This is sheer madness. According to opposition MP for Klang Charles Santiago, the new law also clearly reflects the political game plan of Najib’s government, outlining the BN’s fear of losing power at the next general election. “It caricatures a desperate government which would clamp down on civil liberties to hold on to power. And most importantly, the new Bill demonstrates that we have rogue politicians ruling the country as the stifling provisions are a flagrant breach of the Federal Constitution, that allows for freedom of expression and does not stipulate any age barriers,” said Charles. “None of these provisions are in line with Najib’s promise to enable a more vibrant democratic space in the country. The tightening of the noose is very much like the law of the jungle disguised as justice. And in this case, passed off as one which is crucial to maintain national security. Therefore, we could conclude that all this while Najib was pounding the propaganda drum.” |
| Pakatan Wants Peaceful Assembly Bill withdrawn Posted: 23 Nov 2011 11:36 PM PST Pakatan Rakyat mendesak kerajaan pimpinan Datuk Seri Najib Razak menarik balik Rang Undang-undang Perhimpunan Aman yang dibentang bagi bacaan kali pertama di parlimen baru-baru ini. Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata, rang undang-undang baru itu jelas menyekat kebebasan rakyat menyuarakan pendapat yang merupakan asas demokrasi. "Rang undang-undang ini juga jelas bercanggah dengan kenyataan asal Datuk Najib yang kononnya mahu menjadikan Malaysia sebagai negara demokrasi terbaik di dunia. "Ucapan beliau pada sambutan Hari Malaysia amat lunak, namun tindakannya cukup menekan," katanya pada sidang media selepas mesyuarat Majlis Presiden Pakatan Rakyat dipejabatnya di Parlimen hari ini. Turut serta dalam sidang media itu pimpinan tertinggi Pas, KEADILAN dan DAP yang lain. Najib pada 16 September lalu berjanji Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) akan dimansuhkan sepenuhnya dan berikrar akan menjadikan Malaysia negara demokrasi lebih baik. Namun baru-baru ini kerajaan menahan 13 individu di bawah akta itu dan memperkenal kan Rang Undang-undang yang meletakkan syarat lebih ketat terhadap penganjuran perhimpunan aman. Sementara itu, Naib Presiden PAS, Salahuddin Ayub menyifatkan undang-undang baru itu tidak praktikal kerana penganjur perhimpunan perlu memohon 30 hari lebih awal untuk berhimpun. "Bagaimana jika Israel misalnya menyerang Iran secara mengejut dan kita mahu adakan himpunan, tidakkah undang-undang ini sangat tidak praktikal," soalnya. Oleh itu, katanya, Pakatan Rakyat akan menghantar memorandum kepada Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia (Suhakam) esok jam 1.30 petang bagi membantah rang undang-undang baru itu. Sementara itu, kumpulan peguam hak asasi, Pertubuhan Lawyers For Liberty (LFL) turut menuntut Kerajaan agar menarik balik Undang-Undang berkenaan yang memberi kuasa yang sangat besar kepada polis. Dalam satu kenyataan semalam, LFL menanggap RUU tersebut tidak menghormati jaminan hak berhimpun yang termaktub dalam perlembagaan, malah lebih menekan berbanding akta polis sedia ada. "LFL mengutuk pembentangan RUU yang dibuat di Dewan Rakyat dan ia jelas kelihatan sebagai suatu penghinaan kepada jaminan perlembagaan hak untuk berhimpun secara aman yang termaktub dalam Perkara 10 (1) (b) Perlembagaan Persekutuan" "Rang Undang-Undang itu pada asasnya mengurangkan hak untuk berhimpun secara aman kerana ia mengenakan sekatan yang tidak munasabah dan syarat-syarat yang boleh menyebabkan hak untuk berhimpun secara aman yang tidak mampu dicapai," katanya. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Program Ceramah Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim Sempena Kongress KEADILAN di Johor 25-27 Nov. Posted: 23 Nov 2011 07:24 PM PST DEMI RAKYAT I) Jumaat – 25 November 2011 I) 7.30 – 11.00 malam – Jamuan Makan Malam Lokasi: Cathay Restaurant JB, Taman Molek, Johor Bahru ii) 9.00 – 12.00 malam – Ceramah Perdana 1 Lokasi : Pejabat PKR Tebrau, Taman Daya, Johor Bahru iii) 9.00 – 12.00 malam - Ceramah Perdana 2 Lokasi: Pejabat PKR Gelang Patah, Jln Keindahan 1, Tmn Skudai Indah, Skudai 2) Sabtu – 26 November 2011
i) 9.00 – 12.00 malam – Ceramah Perdana 1 Lokasi: Batu 8, Sungai Tiram, Ulu Tiram, Johor Bahru
ii) 9.00 – 12.00 malam – Ceramah Perdana 2 Lokasi : Jalan Sawi, Kampong Bendahara, Johor Bahru
iii) 9.00 – 12.00 malam – Ceramah Perdana 3 Lokasi: Kampong Parit Kromo, Air Baloi, Pontian 3) Ahad – 27 November 2011 i) 9.00 – 12.00 malam – Ceramah Perdana 1 Lokasi: Pej PKR Simpang Renggam, Taman Cemara, Kampong Shaari,Simpang Rengam, Johor ii) 9.00 – 12.00 malam – Sambutan 60 Tahun PAS Johor, Lokasi: Markaz PAS Air Hitam, Dataran Haji Mardi, Air Hitam Penceramah- Penceramah: 1. YB Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim 2. YBhg Datin Seri Wan Azizah Dato' Wan Ismail 3. YB Azmin Ali 4. YB Saifuddin Nasution 5. YAB Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim 6. YB Dato' Mansor Othman 7. YBhg Dato' Seri Chua Jui Meng 8. YB Nurul Izzah Anwar 9. YB Tian Chua 10. YB Fauziah Salleh 11. YBhg S. Surendran 12. YB Zuraidah Kamaruddin 13. YBhg Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin 14. YBgh Siti Aisyah Syeikh Ismail 15. YB Azan Ismail 16. YB Johari Abdul 17. YB Lee Boon Chye 18. YB Manikumar 19. YB Xavier Jayakumar 20. YBhg Muhammad Nor Manuty 21. YBhg Rafizi Ramli dan lain-lain |
| Freedom of Assembly Bill is Unconstitutional and Worse Than The Existing Repressive Police Act Posted: 23 Nov 2011 08:54 AM PST Lawyers For Liberty condemns the tabling of the Freedom of Assembly Bill in Dewan Rakyat today as the Bill clearly appears to be an affront to the constitutional guarantee of the right to peaceful assembly which is enshrined in Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. The Prime Minister has once again reneged on his public promise of reform announced on the night of 15 September 2011 where he said among many things "the Government will also review section 27 of the Police Act 1967, taking into consideration Article 10 of the Federal Constitution regarding freedom of assembly and so as to be in line with international norms on the same matter." The Bill also confers wide powers to the Police in dealing with peaceful assembly where section 8 of the Bill clearly states that a police officer may take “such measures as he deems necessary”. This particular section is vague and open to abuse. In relation to the right to peaceful assembly, it is to be noted that any law enacted for the purpose of preserving national security and public order must be in conformity with the international human rights standards and norms of a democratic society. Conditions to the right to peaceful assembly must be clearly spelled out, reasonable and minimal in order to ensure that the right can be exercised without hindrance. Lawyers For Liberty demands the government to immediately withdraw the repressive Bill and pay heed to the people's resolve to challenge any regressive move by the government that infringes the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. Lawyers for Liberty |
| Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: Unconstitutional And Anti-Democratic — Tommy Thomas Posted: 23 Nov 2011 08:33 AM PST Why is it always the case that the Malaysian government, in the guise of improving the freedoms of its citizen, enacts laws that actually erode liberties? Since 1960 when the Emergency was revoked, only to be immediately replaced by the dreaded Internal Security Act, 1960 ("ISA"), successive governments have taken state action to the detriment of its people. The Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, which had its first reading in the Federal Parliament yesterday, is another example of such retrograde law making. I cannot believe that after 54 years of Merdeka in the 11th year of the 21st century, the Executive has the audacity to present a Bill, which, in its own Explanatory Statement, describes it as "one of the efforts initiated by the government to undertake the transformation of the existing legal framework in relation to the constitutional rights of citizens to assemble". Fundamental liberties are enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution provides that "all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms". Freedom to assemble is not absolute; thus, the Federal Parliament may enact laws that have the effect of restricting such freedom in the interest of "security" or "public order". Case law has established that such Parliamentary restriction must be "reasonable" by objective standards. Thus, Parliament cannot suffocate the enjoyment of such liberties. Freedom of assembly is invariably exercised together with other fundamental liberties like personal liberty (Article 5 (1)); freedom of movement (Article 9(2)); freedom of expression (Article 10(1)(a); freedom of association (Article 10(1)(c); freedom of religion (Article 11) and so forth. In perhaps the most important constitutional case in our history, a five-member Federal Court in 1992 in the Nordin Salleh case, held that any state action that would render illusory or meaningless the exercise of any fundamental liberty is unconstitutional. Hence, the Court looks at the effect or consequence of state action. It is against this background of constitutionalism, that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011 must be scrutinised. My first reservation is philosophical. The Bill introduces the concept of "interests, rights and freedoms of other persons", with the police having to weigh such interests, rights and freedoms with that of the persons who wish to assemble. Hence, the inherent clash between Executive and citizen which characterises the eternal struggle for civil liberty has been extended to include the rights of other people — a classic extension of one of the oldest doctrines in politics : divide and rule. In my opinion, a law that is intended to promote the exercise by citizen A and his friends of their right to assemble should not in any way be dependent on the right of citizen X and his friends to object or veto the former's right to assemble. The fundamental freedoms under Part II of our Constitution do not contemplate such clashes between different groups of citizens which would inevitable develop into a contest between majority and minority, with the minority always being the casualty. Accordingly, all references to "the interests, rights and freedoms of other persons" in the Bill are, in my opinion, without any constitutional basis. The same point can be made about the use of new expressions like "counter assembly" and "simultaneous assemblies". Hence, the Parliamentary draftsman is deliberately giving power to the police to impose stringent restrictions and conditions under Paragraph 15 of the Bill that would have the effect of completely nullifying any freedom to assemble. The Bill introduces a new type of assembly that I believe is unprecedented under our law, viz "street protest", which is defined in Paragraph 3 to mean: "an 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". Paragraph 4(1) of the Bill imposes an outright ban on street protests. The current position is that if the police issue a license under Section 27 (2) of the Police Act, 1967, a "street protest" is permitted. Hence, the new provision in this "reforming" Bill make it worse by totally banning such types of assemblies. This would be unconstitutional. Does this mean that, under this Bill, only assemblies that are not "street protest" are permitted? Yes. What then are the features of such a permitted or sanitised form of "assembly"? Part IV contains 11 separate provisions that specify the requirements before the police would approve the holding of such an assembly. To start off, written notice of at least 30 days must be given to the police. Hence, spontaneous gatherings are not permitted. The First Schedule to the Bill contains 12 categories of "prohibited places", 50 meters from where assemblies cannot be held. The Bill is so extensive in its reach, indeed, of Orwellian proportions, that daily innocent activities like funerals, weddings, family gatherings and meetings of associations have to be expressly excluded! The best way to test the efficacy of the Bill is to ask whether the assemblies organised by Bersih (1) or Hindraf before the General Election of 2008 would be permitted under the Bill. The answer is clearly in the negative because they would be deemed "street protest", and hence banned. Likewise, the lawyers march to Putrajaya in 2007 to protest against the VK Lingam tape. Finally, Bersih (2) in July 2011 would also not be permitted. And, yet, this Bill is presented by the government as a piece of reforming law to enhance political space! Try as one may, one cannot find any redeeming features in the Bill. On the contrary, the provisions are offensive, and will certainly not pass muster. How in the name of "security" and "public order" this Bill can be enacted by Parliament is absolutely baffling. Are our leaders so out of touch? Can they ever tell the truth? Are they aware of "Occupy Wall Street" as a global protest movement? What about the Arab Spring? Even sleepy, dull Singapore has had some kind of political awakening this year. But let me conclude with our own example from history. Some 65 years ago, just a year after the Second World War had ended, and the British colonial power had returned to Malaya, they had the temerity to introduce the Malayan Union plan in 1946. "Street protests" as defined in Paragraph 3 of the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, became the order of the day. Indeed, Umno was founded by Onn Jaafar to lead the protests against Malayan Union. The supremely ironic question is, if Hishammuddin Hussein had been in charge of such matters in 1946, would Umno have been founded, and his grandfather allowed to demonstrate and protest? I call on all freedom-loving Malaysians to immediately contact their Members of Parliament to vote against this terrible Bill. Indeed, the government should withdraw it. I would expect the Malaysian Bar to lead the opposition to this poorly designed law that is not only an insult to our constitutional rights, but also to our intelligence. * Tommy Thomas is a senior lawyer of the Malaysian Bar. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Anwar Ibrahim To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan