In defence of public assemblies

AUG 5 — I was unable to make it to last week’s anti-ISA gathering because I had to attend a family wedding in Penang. I did notice the roadblocks on the way to Kuala Lumpur as I drove up to Penang on Friday, the day before the assembly.

I was kept updated on the day itself while attending the wedding through SMSes, Facebook and Twitter via my Blackberry.

The next day, there was another wedding reception scheduled and I was tasked to drive a few family friends there. After exchanging pleasantries, I focused on my driving as the three middle-class Malay women — each of them aged about 60 years old — chatted at the back of my car.

“The traffic jams in KL were horrible yesterday,” said the first woman.

“It was because of those demonstrations,” said the second.

It seems that people end up talking about politics even at weddings these days!

The issue of demonstrations has been very much in the news lately, of course. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has claimed that public rallies are an inconvenience. Deputy Minister Datuk T. Murugiah has urged traders affected by the rally to claim compensation from the organisers.

Article 10 of the Federal Constitution grants Malaysian citizens the right to freedom of speech, expression and assembly. These rights are naturally subject to regulation.

But we cannot deny that these rights exist and that we ought to be free to exercise them. Despite what some claim, public assemblies have a long history in this country. Najib, for one, should remember that Umno came to prominence due to its demonstrations — many which were “illegal” according to the law of the day — against the Malayan Union.

Any mature democratic country regards protests as part and parcel of democratic culture. Our founding fathers fought to free our country in order for us to be a democratic and sovereign nation. This includes the freedom to assemble that was included in our Constitution. We cannot consider ourselves either “democratic” or “sovereign” until and unless these rights are respected as well as exercised responsibly.

I do not deny that demonstrations can sometimes cause the public inconvenience — this is something to be regretted. But we go through the same hassles during football matches, marathons and concerts. I am a big fan of football and my wife is trying to become a regular half-marathon runner, but I would think that the freedom to assemble includes the more substantive right of freedom of expression. The hassle and the losses to business are not due to public assemblies themselves but the excessive police roadblocks and harassment that almost always greet such gatherings.

As for the police, the problem is that our requests for permits to hold public assemblies are almost always rejected. On many occasions, we adhere to the police advice to do it in closed premises such as stadiums, but this option only became available to us after we managed to form governments in the various states. Previously all of our requests would have been rejected and we had no recourse whatsoever.

The disproportionate use of police force has been a recurring trend, not only on Aug 1 but also previously. The highlight was surely the arrest of five lawyers — Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal, Syuhaini Safwan, Murni Hidayah and Puspawati Rosman — who were about to provide legal advice to a group arrested for being in an “illegal assembly” on the charge that the lawyers too were part of the assembly.

On Aug 1, like the Bersih assembly before, we gathered to send a memorandum to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Why should the police have attempted to disperse us? Wouldn’t it have been better for them to monitor and guide the assembly just as any public gatherings such as marathons, football matches or concerts?

The organisers were more than willing to talk about which routes or points of assembly to use to minimise the inconvenience to the public. That would have worked better than tear gas or batons. Hard as it is to believe, the government holds all the cards and it hasn’t been willing to compromise on even the most reasonable points.

While I was studying in Britain, I took part in several anti-war marches protesting British involvement in the invasion of Iraq. At one of the marches I attended, over two million people marched to protest the war — in comparison to the size of London, an equivalent number in KL would be 500,000 people on the streets.

But the marches were done in an orderly manner with excellent cooperation from the police. The organisers provided stewards to help organise the crowd as we marched to Hyde Park, singing and chanting as all enthusiastic marchers do. Toddlers in prams, the elderly in wheelchairs — all joined together to make a statement to the government that we were against the war.

Imagine that — I had an easier time standing up to the British government for invading a Muslim country than my fellow Malaysians who were attempting to peacefully deliver a memorandum to their King. The argument that any and all public assemblies can turn violent is nonsensical — Malaysians should surely be allowed to think and act for themselves after more than 50 years of Merdeka.

I do not blame the rank-and-file policemen, who were just doing their job. In fact, during the Bersih assembly, most of us other than those who were in Masjid Jamek managed to participate peacefully as there was no police harassment elsewhere. The Unit Amal members, the volunteer corps from PAS, were excellent stewards — picking litter, ensuring the crowd did not mutter any unrelated slogans and helping to divert traffic. This proves that demonstrations can happen without untoward incidents if only the police would cooperate.

Which brings me back to the three women.

“God knows what they were demonstrating about,” said the third woman.

“But you know, the police should just let them demonstrate,” said the first. “Give them the space. Don’t provoke them. I’m sure there wouldn’t be any trouble.”

“Yes, I saw it on Al Jazeera and CNN,” said the second. “The police brutality. It was horrible, an embarrassment to the country. Why did they need to do that?”

“People can assemble peacefully overseas,” remarked the first. “But in Malaysia the police will always provoke them. Why do they do that?”

Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad is the political secretary to the Selangor mentri besar and state assemblyman for Seri Setia. He was the youngest elected representative in the 2008 general election and blogs at www.niknazmi.com. An avid Liverpool football fan, Nik Nazmi remains divided between Kelantan and Selangor, while his wife participated in the half marathon at the recent Standard Chartered KL Marathon. The views expressed are his own.