Rule By Law not Rule Of Law, Is this the man the UMNO wants to make Home Minister

The real truth  it is our media that needs to introspect. may be responsible for only physical vandalism, but the media – at times – may be held responsible for spreading intellectual vandalism. This just has to stop. Media has to become more responsible….It has enormous powers in its hands and with that must come enormous responsibility….Looking for skeletons all the time is not cool at all!
 accuse the Bersih 2.0 an unlawful society on the grounds that his decision was “tainted with irrationality.” of fiscal profligacy on the other hand. None of them have the guts to take on the really terrible elements of our political firmament – the ultra radicalists, ultra communalists, ultra conservatives (on economic issues), ultra obstructionists and ultra opportunists. All that they do is play up unsubstantiated attacks on   BERSIH has any of them challenged Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan  What has she got to prove that? Isn’t she not exploiting the media to get her voice across? Has anyone bothered to analyze whether the Police should or should not enter the policy domain and start canceling licenses? Has anyone analyzed
Inconsistencies in the behaviour of the authorities  and brought out what a terrible piece of legislation that was. No. All of them just want to “be with the masses” in the hope that that will bring them the numbers and the traps 

 Inconsistencies in the behaviour of the authorities led to a High Court decision here to quash Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s order declaring Bersih 2.0 an unlawful society on the grounds that his decision was “tainted with irrationality.”

“It cannot be a case that a society is a threat to public security on 1.7.2011, and then no longer so soon after that... I hold the view that the decision in finding Bersih unlawful is tainted with irrationality,” High Court judge Rohana Yusuf said in her grounds of judgment made available to The Malaysian Insider today.

On July 24 she had ruled Bersih 2.0 a legal society and quashed the minister’s order made last year just a week before last year’s July rally for free and fair elections.

The loose coalition of 62 registered civil societies led tens of thousands to demand for free and fair elections in the capital city on July 9 last year, which resulted in some 1,600 arrests but ultimately resulted in the government agreeing to set up a bipartisan parliamentary polls panel.

Prominent lawyer and former Malaysian Bar president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and 13 of her colleagues in Bersih’s steering committee had in July last year filed a judicial review seeking to get the Barisan Nasional (BN) government to lift its July 1, 2011 ban of the movement.

In her judgment, Rohana pointed out that after Bersih had been declared unlawful, the minister’s representatives subsequently negotiated with the movement’s leaders on how and where the planned rally should be held.

Ambiga, she said, had also been granted an audience by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Instead of being subjected to the various provisions in law in tandem with its pronouncement as an illegal society, the judge noted that the events after the ban showed the opposite happened.

“In the upshot the conduct of the respondents in dealing and handling Bersih soon after it being outlawed in fact does not reflect Bersih as an unlawful society, but it connotes something else.

“It does not at all reflect the conduct of persons who found the society to be used for the purposes prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia and public order,” Rohana said.

She noted that the reason of public security for declaring Bersih illegal could not have changed in a matter of days.

“The respondent (home minister) cannot be blowing hot and cold at the same time.

“However, if the reason of public security had since ceased then the declaration should be lifted accordingly.”

Apart from Ambiga, the 13 other leaders named in the court filing are Maria Chin Abdullah, Datuk Toh Kin Woon, Zaid Kamaruddin, Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, Arul Prakkash Sinnappan, Haris Fathillah Mohamed Ibrahim, Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, Liau Kok Fah, Wong Chin Huat, Datuk Yeoh Yong Poh and Yeo Yong Woi.

The group has since held another rally on April 28 this year to push for electoral reforms to be enforced before the 13th general election is due.

Aren't we gluttons for punishment? As if we didn't have a genuine problem of terrorists and illegal immigrants, we are determined to see different sets of people from our own nation as clear, present and increasing danger. Guess what? As with nuclear proliferation, so with the idea of India: the choice is between peaceful coexistence or no existence at all.

The latest outbreak of the uncivil war of words centres on Raj Thackeray saying he would brand Biharis in Maharashtra as 'infiltrators', and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar calling the MNS chief 'sir phira' or insane for this statement. The volatile fallout goes to show that just as the metaphorical battle was lost for 'want of a nail', something inherently innocuous can escalate into a war for political gains.

It all started with a simple inter-state arrest. But it has flared into the latest flashpoint of a long-simmering conflict of interest. That between 'sons of the soil' and 'sons of the spoils' - the unwashed hordes from other states who, according to both Senas, have grabbed the jobs of the Marathi manoos.

The Mumbai Police last week arrested Abdul Qadir Ansari for vandalising the Martyr's Memorial during the Azad Maidan riot on August 11. They caught him in Sitamarhi. No legal lapse there because Ansari was a resident of Mumbai, but they violated Section 80 of the CrPC by failing to produce him before a local magistrate. Nitish Kumar cried foul. Raj Thackeray thundered louder, "If the Bihar government doesn't stop creating hurdles in tracking down criminals wanted in Maharashtra, i will throw out every Bihari who lives in Mumbai."

Next, Nitish-ji 'intra-nationalised' the issue, scoffing at the ability of a state and Union government to contain cross-border terrorists when they couldn't even protect their citizens from internal attacks. Raj Saheb in turn widened the battle purportedly in the interests of containing it. He warned Hindi news channels against stoking the 'Bihari-vs-Marathi' issue to fire up their own TRPs. Justifiably, the Broadcast Editors' Association demanded police protection against 'lumpen elements'.

Thus a mere procedural lapse has surrealistically blown up into an attack on the very 'roots of democracy' by violating the fundamental freedoms of movement, earning a livelihood and expression. Great! Mumbai is up against the real threats of terrorism and corruption, and we now have to worry about the collateral damage of windbags dangerously tilting at windmills.

But then everyone loves a bogey, and the 'outsider' spectre haunts best. The region may have given us the golden age of the Mauryas, but the 'Bihari' bogey has endured longer than that of the beleaguered 'northeasterners'. It has certainly dogged my footsteps. In my hometown, the 'sattu-eating' labour force was the snooty Bengalis' greatest hiss-word - even blamed for the endemic traffic jams. Biharis made up the police rank and file, and were too incompetent or too petrified to haul up lawless drivers.

When i came for my first job to what was still Bombay, and Raj just a pampered toddler in Chez Thackeray, the Shiv Sena had just started its roster of serial hate-objects. Gujaratis were replaced by south Indians, then Biharis (and UP 'bhaiyyas') got the worst brunt. On my next professional move, once-tranquil Bangalore's escalating crime level was pinned on the 'north Indians' pouring in to exploit the IT boom. Delhi may have belonged to the same upper geographical belt, but here too, we were obliged to report on the new demographic demon. The native 'Deh-liwalla lalajis' had been totally outnumbered by the Bihari-UP migrants.

With Nitish having helped Bihar out-develop Maharashtra, or even Gujarat, will the perennial outsider choose to remain an insider?

 Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s order declaring Bersih 2.0 an unlawful society on the grounds that his decision was “tainted with irrationality.”

Is this the man?
The custodian of the dying ember?
The man who generations to come will remember as the last man standing, before the new dawn set in?
OR
Is this the man who is going to set in an even more harsh regime?
To ensure he and his team will have a long run on the nation?
Driven by chauvinism, and detested by the international as well as the domestic society?
Is this the start of a dynasty in the Malaysian Public Life?
Does this mean that we Malaysians are so incapable that we need a select few families to tell us how to live our lives?
Are we so dependent that all aspects of our lives need to be controlled?
Are we so handicapped that we need these political dynasties to teach how to interact with each other?
CAN WE THE MALAYSIAN PEOPLE RISE TO THE OCCASSION WHEN THE NATION NEEDS US?
CAN MALAYSIA DEPEND ON US? 

Just look at the tragedy that the Malaysian Parliament has become.What kind of political rubbish is this? What’s the point in discussing issues in debates on TV, when the same issues cannot be discussed in Parliament?Democracy is still the best known civilized form of governing a country.  Sure it has many flaws depending on each country. Unfortunately over the last 50 years, our democracy has become more flawed rather than improving. Malaysia has its own share of aberrations piled up during the last fifty years. 

The point I am trying to make is in our anger against the flaws of democracy we should not be tempted to throw away the system itself. Anything that follows will be worse.  The need of the hour is to have vigilant civil society groups to protest and bring about corrections at local, state and centre level.

 The Dewan Rakyat today passed the controversial Peaceful Assembly Bill, which bars street protests, with only six adjustments to the original proposal, and after a walkout by the opposition as well as a protest march led by lawyers.

Despite this morning’s big show from more than 1,000 Bar Council members and strident objections from the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) bloc who staged a walkout from the Dewan Rakyat, the Barisan Nasional (BN) government got its way.

The Bill was swiftly passed with the six amendments revolving around the advance notice required for an assembly.

Holding a government accountable, however, is of little value if it is ad hoc and necessitates violence. Rather, meaningful accountability occurs when it is embedded in a legal system based on a societal expectation that the government serves the people, not the other way around Egypt has a rich legal history that has produced one of the most complex and sophisticated legal systems in the Middle East. But this very system has been one of the strongest tools in the arsenal of Egypt’s dictators. Mubarak and his predecessors were notorious for concentrating their power through rule by law.

 Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today the government was following in the footsteps of toppled Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak by barring protests from taking place on the streets and at least 20 other kinds of venues.

“The prohibition of places like kindergartens follows Hosni Mubarak’s military rule,” the opposition leader said when debating the Bill that has been criticised by several quarters as being more repressive than existing regulations.

Mubarak’s 30-year presidency came to an end in February this year after hundreds of thousands of Egyptians gathered to demand his exit.

The PKR de facto leader was replying to his colleague and Kuala Kedah MP Ahmad Kassim who asked “what is the meaning” of the long list of prohibited areas.

The Bill prohibits assemblies from being held at dams, reservoirs, water catchment areas, water treatment plants, electricity generating stations, petrol stations, hospitals, fire stations, airports, railways, land public transport terminals, ports, canals, docks, wharves, piers, bridges, marinas, places of worship and kindergartens and schools.

Anwar questioned how the government intended to “become the best democracy in the world” when it was “making it more difficult to gather than in Zimbabwe and Myanmar.”

He was referring to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s statement just days after his September 15 pledge of democratic reforms, including repealing the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA), that the move was to make Malaysia the world’s best democracy.

But critics have said that the proposed law is more repressive than those in countries like Myanmar, which has one of the world’s poorest human rights records.

Myanmar’s military-dominated Parliament passed a law last week allowing street protests and a notice period of just five days, fewer than the 10 days required by the Peaceful Assembly Bill.

“The new law is even more repressive than Section 27 of the Police Act. Powers held by the police and the minister have not changed, only the timeframe for them to act,” the Permatang Pauh MP said, referring to the provision that requires a police permit for all public gatherings.

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) has called for the Bill to be withdrawn and put before a parliamentary select committee.

Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia(picture) had allowed just three opposition MPs to debate the Bill, all of whom asked for it to be withdrawn and put before a select committee.

“This is our way of rejecting the Bill until we have a select committee,” PKR’s Subang MP R. Sivarasa told The Malaysian Insider as the opposition lawmakers left Parliament.

“This Bill does not protect national security, only the security of BN leaders,” said PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, who was the last PR MP allowed to speak.

Critics have said the proposed law, which bars street protests, is more repressive than those in countries like Myanmar, which has one of the world’s poorest human rights records.

Myanmar’s military-dominated Parliament passed a law last week allowing street protests and a notice period of just five days, fewer than the 10 days required by the Peaceful Assembly Bill.

“The Malaysian Bar is resolute that any attempt to regulate a fundamental liberty guaranteed under the Federal Constitution must only be done after due consultation with all stakeholders, including opposition parliamentarians and civil society groups.”–Lim Chee Wee, President, Malaysian Bar Council

Dear Wakil Rakyat,

You may have heard that the Malaysian Bar opposes the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (“PA 2011”) on the grounds that it imposes unreasonable and disproportionate fetters on the freedom of assembly that is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

There are provisions in PA 2011 that are far more restrictive than the current law, such as the banning of “street protests” (assemblies in motion or processions) and the unlimited powers vested in the police to dictate the time, date, place and conduct of an assembly.

There are also provisions in PA 2011 that are simply illogical.  As an example, although Police do not need to be notified of a religious assembly, such an assembly cannot be held at a place of worship.

Furthermore, a person living within 50 metres of a kindergarten or school cannot hold an open house for a festival, a funeral procession or a wedding reception.

The Prime Minister, in his Malaysia Day speech on September 15, 2011, promised the Rakyat of the following:

I often opine that long gone is the era in which the government knows everything and claims monopoly over wisdom. . . .

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. . . . (emphasis added)

Be confident that it is a strength and not a weakness for us to place our trust in the Malaysian people’s intelligence to make decisions that will shape the path of their own future. . . .

It is absolutely clear that the steps I just announced are none other than early initiatives of an organised and graceful political transformation. 

It stands as a crucial and much needed complement to the initiatives of economic transformation and public presentation which the government has outlined and implemented for over two years in the effort to pioneer a modern and progressive nation. . . .

In closing, I wish to emphasise that free of any suspicion and doubt, the Malaysia that we all dream of and are in the process of creating is a Malaysia that practices [sic] a functional and inclusive democracy where public peace and prosperity is preserved in accordance with the supremacy of the constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights.

‘Outrageous to prohibit processions’

PA 2011 is neither consistent with “international norms”, nor “in accordance with the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights”. Instead, the Bill will take us further away from being “a modern and progressive nation”.

It is outrageous that assemblies in motion are prohibited. 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.

Assemblies in motion has been described as “a potent method of expression and is a common phenomenon in democratic societies”[1].

History is replete with peaceful assemblies in motion, which were agents of change and of good.

Processions led to nation’s founding

On  February 27, 1946 Onn Jaafar, founding father of UMNO and the grandfather of our present Minister for Home Affairs, led a procession of 15,000 individuals to protest the establishment of the Malayan Union, which disregarded the interests of the Malay Rulers and the Malays.

This was the first of a series of processions that successfully opposed the Malayan Union, and later led to our nation’s independence.

On February  27, 2008, the then-Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi led 20,000 people in a one-kilometre procession from the Batu Pahat UMNO office to the stadium to commemorate this rally.

There have been other processions calling for the abolition of the Internal Security Act 1960, rights of minorities and electoral reforms.

For the Malaysian Bar, we organised the Walk for Justice, which was held on September 26, 2007, to call for a royal commission to investigate the VK Lingam video clip and the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, both of which were subsequently set up by the government.

The present prohibition of procession robs the rakyat of a right that currently exists under Section 27 of the Police Act, which regulates “assemblies, meetings and processions”.

Elsewhere, history is full of various peaceful processions led by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela, to name but a few, which brought an end to oppressive laws, policies and regimes.

It is ironic that the government now wants to prohibit the very processions that led to the founding of our nation, and others that moved the prime minister to promise legislative reforms.

These promised reforms now strike back at the very demonstrations that catalysed them.The Malaysian Bar is steadfast in its stand and determination that PA 2011, in its current form, must not become law.

The Malaysian Bar is resolute that any attempt to regulate a fundamental liberty guaranteed under the Federal Constitution must only be done after due consultation with all stakeholders, including opposition parliamentarians and civil society groups.

No Other Choice 

To this end, the Malaysian Bar has proposed an alternative bill to be considered, and calls for PA 2011 to be remitted to a parliamentary select committee for consideration.

At the second reading of PA 2011, we ask that you, as a wakil rakyat, support our call.It is not an exaggeration to say that tomorrow, you will hold the liberty of the rakyat in your hands.  We ask that you treat it with the deference it deserves.

Now, more than ever, you must remember that you were elected as a representative of the people, to carry out responsibilities as a ‘wakil rakyat’.

Please do not put blind obedience to party and partisanship before your duties as a servant of the people.  The rakyat should not be made to suffer the consequences of party politics.  PA 2011 is an unjust law, being made in undue haste, which has received the condemnation of the Rakyat.

There can be no other choice.

Do not pass PA 2011. Support our alternative bill and our call for a Parliamentary Select Committee.

Yours faithfully,

Lim Chee Wee
President
Malaysian Bar