When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became the fifth Prime Minister on 30th October 2003, he made the famous pledge to “hear the truth, however unpleasant”, which he had infamously dishonoured in the past four years.
Recently, Abdulah’s pledge to “hear the truth” was ignomiously revised by the Information Minister, Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin as applying only to Barisan Nasional leaders and government officials but not to the media , the civil society or the ordinary Malaysian public!
In the past four years, however, Barisan Nasional Ministers and leaders had been afflicted by the “Dare not speak the truth to Pak Lah” syndrome.
This has resulted in the least hands-on Prime Minister in the nation’s history but with the most Ministerial portfolios (trebling as Minister for Finance and Minister for Internal Security) setting a new record in Malaysian political history as a Prime Minister who has lost touch with the national pulse in the shortest time ever since assuming the highest political office of the land.
It is refreshing that in this ocean of distortions, half-truths and downright lies passing off as “truth”, Gerakan Penang State Executive Councillor, Dr. Toh Kin Woon has gloriously broken ranks in a letter to Malayaiakini yesterday declaring that it is the people’s “discontent and unhappiness that will be a greater threat to our country’s peace and stability, rather than the marches, pickets and demonstrations”.
I call on Barisan Nasional Ministers and leaders to have at least 30% of Toh Kin Woon’s sincerity and honesty to speak the truth to the Prime Minister whether about the “Walk for Justice” of 2,000 lawyers organized by the Bar Council for restoration of the independence and integrity of the judiciary; the 40,000-strong Bersih rally in support of electoral reforms for clean, free and fair elections; the 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration on the socio-economic and cultural plight of the Malaysian Indians particularly the lower strata; or the numerous pickets by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress and trade unions for higher salaries to meet rising costs of living so burdensome to the workers.
So far, there is only one Barisan Nasional leader — a state Exco from Penang -who is prepared to call a spade a spade and tell Abdullah the truth.
Are there no other Barisan Nasional leader, occupying higher and more important government and party positions whether at the national or state level, who could back up Toh Kin Woon to start the process of telling the Prime Minister the truth?
What about MIC’s Samy Vellu, Gerakan’s Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik and Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, MCA’s Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting and the other three MCA Ministers? Is there none from the Barisan Nasional component parties in Sabah and Sarawak? Is there not a single Umno Minister or leader who could be relied upon to speak the unvarnished truth?
That the syndrome of “Dare not tell Pak Lah the truth” is very advanced and even terminal is highlighted by the refusal of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz yesterday to withdraw and apologise for his offensive and unwarranted slur of the supporters of the Hindraf demonstration in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday as “penyangak” when he said on Tuesday:
“Some 20,000 penyangak (crooks) who participated in the rally would not jeopardise our viewpoint of the entire community.”
Nazri not only compounded the offence he committed by repeating the slur of “penyangak” but also in claiming that his action was vindicated by the Cabinet which discussed the Hindraf demonstration yesterday.
Are there no shadows of Toh Kin Woon among the Ministers and leadership of the Barisan Nasional component parties — or is Toh a completely lone voice in the Barisan Nasional wilderness?
#1 by Godfather on Friday, 30 November 2007 - 10:00 pm
Who is this Colin Nathan guy ? I suppose he is of Indian origin.
He wrote:
In 2004, Morgan Stanley issued a report that estimated that over
100 Billion US Dollars (360 Billion Ringgit) had been lost to Malay
patronage in the 20 years preceding 2003. (1984 to 2003) One economist
estimates that in the 36 years of its’ existence, the NEP has been used to
channel over ONE TRILLION RINGGIT to the Malay community through
ASN, ASB and other related Govt policies.
Since 1970, the Govt has used the NEP to divert education, employment
and every other conceivable benefit to the Malays. These measures have
largely been successful with all the top posts in GLCs, Government,
Universities, Public listed companies and practically every single area
that the Govt has any control over being reserved for one race. No
company may be listed with a lower than 30% Bumi (short for “Bumiputeraâ€Â,
meaning “princes of the earthâ€Â, a self-titled euphemism for the Malays) industries
have a mandatory 51% Bumi ownership and some industries are reserved
exclusively for them. Petronas for example only employs Malays for it’s
top managerial and executive positions and awards contracts only to
Malays.
ALL Govt and Municipal contracts are reserved to class “F” Bumi
contractors. All the proposed projects under the 9th Malaysia Plan thus far are
reserved for 100% Bumi owned companies. Even open tender projects are
awarded to Malays even if their prices are higher with blatantly
inferior materials. Micro business loans, business licenses, discounts on property
purchases, new Govt employment, EVEN LICENSES FOR HAWKER STALLS are
reserved for one race. The list goes on and on but the summary is that
the Malays now believes undoubtedly that he is racially privileged and
it is their right. ASLI’s figures of 45% are opposed to the Govt’s 18.9%
because, firstly, equity value is calculated at par value. For example,
if you hold 1,000 Maxis shares of RM 5/- market value each, the Govt
says that it is only worth RM 250.00 as these shares have a par value of
25 cents each. If you owned a company with a paid up value of RM 2/- but
conducted business worth millions of Ringgit worth of transactions, the
Govt values that company at RM 2/-.
The chief setbacks of the abuses of the NEP are rampant corruption and
more cronyism, worsening racial polarization, unrelenting brain drains,
warped educational system, thwarted economic competitiveness,
ineffectual bureaucracy, retarded economic growth and perverted social
values. Such anachronistic and regressive policy has no place in the
present globalizing world, and for that matter, in any civilized
society.
PM Badawi recently intensified the imprint of the perverted NEP
philosophy by prohibiting inter-religious and inter-racial discourse
which would otherwise have contributed to greater understanding and
harmony among the races. Consider the hegemony this has created.
The Jasin MP’s saga of cheating millions from Customs over timber
imports went unpunished. APs are reserved for Bumis only and despite the
millions that each of them make year after year, a senator’s son has the
audacity to clone the APs several times and the whole thing gets swept
under the carpet. A Port Klang councilor buys a 43,000 sq ft plot of land set aside for
low cost housing valued at 1.8 million Ringgit for 180k and builds a
palace without any approval. He gets fined RM 5,000 and still has 30
days from today to submit his building plans. Yesterday, despite all the
bad press this issue got, the Selangor state Govt confirms his position
and that of his son and daughter in law as councilors. The message is
clear. Power has shifted from the people to the executive.
The whole issue of Bumi chauvinism started at last year’s UMNO assembly
when the very very vocal UMNO Youth leaders stated in short that “It’s
our turn to be rich.” This greed is not going to end. We as a nation of
loyal citizens have to put a dent into this rubbish for the sake of our
children.
We don’t need a change in Govt.
We need a stronger Opposition.
We need to send a message to the powers that be that we will not accept second
class status for our children.
Colin Nathan
(A Concerned Malaysian)
Source: Unknown
#2 by shaolin on Friday, 30 November 2007 - 11:16 pm
oknyua & GoDamn Singh,
I have not been thru the CPM insurgency years but I heard
some stories from old people about Japanese Invasion of
WW2 and the CPM insurgency days!!
In those days when CPM were around, Malayan Gomen was
very tactful and considerate to all its peoples’ well being!!
Now, w/o the CPM(Communist Party M’sia), UMNO is doing
things as they think RIGHT and needless to consult any
other races and with careless attitudes!!
To them, All of YOU are NOT important as You Are treated
like ‘Pendatang Haram’…!!
We need to restore some form of forces back to the track
to instill The ‘Check & Balance’ System in our Political
Arena…!! Without any strong POWER, no one WILL listen
to Your Grievences and Sufferings!!
To the Politicians, this is a ‘NORM’!!
#3 by DiaperHead on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 2:37 am
“Tunku :Hindraf is too much when they want foreign power to interfere in Malaysia.these group has no love for Malaysia but themselves. again Hindraf is attacking Malay and Muslim. iI think they are getting out of control and government should act fast before the Malays and Muslims act themselves.”
Hint! Hint!
http://tunkuaisha.blogspot.com/
#4 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 3:23 am
BREAKING NEWS!
A suicide bomber has taken two of Hilary Clinton’s staff hostages. Hostage taker demanding to speak to the Senator. Sen. Clinton is not in the Office. Hostage take allowed a man and a woman and a child in the office to leave the Office.
#5 by EARNEST on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 3:26 am
Undegrad2,
Definition of flagellating as a verb
=========================
The meanings of flagellating in the context you used (as a verb) are as follows:
————————-
[1] flagellated, flagellating
1. To whip someone or oneself, for the purposes either of
religious penance or for sexual stimulation.
Thesaurus: beat, whip, flog, thrash, flay.
—————————–
[2] tr.v. flag•el•lat•ed, flag•el•lat•ing, flag•el•lates
1. To whip or flog; scourge.
2. To punish or impel as if by whipping.
———————–
[3] flagellate
verb [T] FORMAL
to whip someone, especially as a religious act
to whip; scourge; flog; lash.
———————–
Basing on the following online dictionaries:
General dictionaries General (5 matching dictionaries)
1. flagellating : Cambridge International Dictionary of English
2. flagellating : Dictionary.com
3. Flagellating : Online Plain Text English Dictionary
4. Flagellating : AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary
5. flagellating : Dictionary/thesaurus
Medicine dictionaries Medicine (1 matching dictionary)
6. flagellating : Medical dictionary
The Constitution discussion.
=====================
I attempted to simplify the definition of the above word in the context you used as a verb. That word can mean some form of microscopic structures of microorganism, etc, etc., which were deliberately omitted.
Similarly, in the discussion of Article 10 of the constitution, in order to simplify things, I had deliberately omitted other irrelevant clauses — such as rights to freedom of speeches and associations — except for that pertaining to rights to peaceful assembly without arms – clause 1 (b).
I can see your concern about qualifications which allowed for restrictions of our rights as opposed to the American system, the First Amendments where you rightly pointed out “Congress shall not make laws against certain rights”.
That allowance for restriction had been abused after the 513 tragedy by Malay capitalists in bringing about the police permit as a prerequisite to legalize rallies, in the police act section 27.
My conviction is based on the purpose for the existence and good intention of the law which I had mentioned earlier in another thread, which I shall illustrate with the following analogy.
If I give you a diamond ring, I assume that you understand that you have the freedom to wear it whenever you wish without having to obtain my permission. Okay you may say that is the First Amendment, not applicable to our case.
In the case of our constitution, when I give you a diamond ring, I tell you that for your security, we need to discuss further whenever you wish to wear it.
Then Parliament came in to set conditions ostensibly for your security. Situation turned bad, 513 happened.
Our relationship soured. I tell you now that you must get my permission to wear that diamond ring, else I am going to whack you.
What would you do? The ring was given to you. It belonged to you, so you are going to wear it despite the fact that I did not grant you permission to wear it.
I said, remember, when I gave you the ring, we need to discuss about security? And now this is the outcome, you need my permission, else I am going to whack you.
I do not think it is right for me to restrict your freedom to wear the diamond ring. It is rightfully yours. You are entitled to think that when I said we would discuss about security at the moment I gave you the ring, it was in good faith in your interest. That means if you are going to wear the diamond ring in an unsafe place full of thugs, you let me know, I will engage bodyguards to protect you. I can not say “No you can not wear it. If you wear it, I am going to whack you.”
You will say “I don’t care whether you are going to give me permission to wear the diamond ring or not. I am going to wear it, and you can not stopped me by threatening to whack me. If you are worried that I may get robbed, you provide me protection, because I took it to mean in good faith when you said we need to discuss security matters when you gave it to me”.
So, when Parliament set conditions for the rally, it should be in good faith. The police permit should serve the purpose of ensuring that the applicants are protected from harm in their rallies. The police permit should not be denied arbitrarily. That is why, I had suggested that “Police Permit” should be changed to “Police Protection Permit” to reflect the spirit of the clause on security to provide protection rather than to deny or grant us our rights to peaceful assembly at the police’s — rather their political masters’ — whims and fancy, which has given rise to problems of double standards.
And as reported in yesterday’s papers, Abdullah attempted to defend KJ indirectly in talking about the Palestinian issue being of top priority for peace in the middle east, and threatening would-be demonstrators. He has political motives in trying to hoodwink us that KJ’s demonstration was justified, Bersih and Hindraf’s demonstrations were not justified.
#6 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 6:11 am
“I can see your concern about qualifications which allowed for restrictions of our rights as opposed to the American system, the First Amendments where you rightly pointed out “Congress shall not make laws against certain rightsâ€Â.†EARNEST
You should not be comparing Malaysia’s Federal Constitution of 1957 to the Constitution of the United States. The latter is a document treated with great respect and regarded as sacred; there are 7 Articles and only 27 Amendments compared to some 600 plus amendments (according to ALtPJK our commentator here) and counting, to our Constitution since Independence in 1957.
The First Amendment is about freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.†It begins by saying “Congress shall make no law …(in respect of the freedoms mentioned)†Cf with our Article 10 Federal Constitution 1957 which allows Parliament to restrict our fundamental liberties “if it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation…â€Â
It gives unfettered powers to Parliament to pass legislation and to the executive to determine what constitutes a threat to national security. Should we be concerned? Of course we should!
#7 by Godamn Singh on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 6:58 am
I think, Earnest forgot to take his medications again!!
#8 by DiaperHead on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 7:00 am
I agree with Godamn Sing. Earnest forgot to take his medications again!!
#9 by EARNEST on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 12:34 pm
Undegrad2,
It gives unfettered powers to Parliament to pass legislation and to the executive to determine what constitutes a threat to national security. Should we be concerned? Of course we should! — Undergrad2
Well said. Are you are civil, criminal or constitution law student or lawyer?
You are right. I was just stating my personal conviction as to why I do not worry about whether a rally is legal or not if police permit is denied. To me, there is no justification to label a rally illegal just because a police permit has been denied without reason.
I will be willing to participate in it, if the need arises. if I believe in the cause, and the rally is organized properly, with the world watching. I will not do it quietly for the purpose of doing just to defy the law, and get clobbered, kicked and dragged away by 5 FRUs and nobody knows about it. That will be a great waste of time and asking for trouble.
Godamn Singh, DiaperHead,
Yes, I have just taken my allergy medications. Rashes and hives appeared suddenly upon reading your comments. However, no resentment as promised. You both have good sense of humor.
#10 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 1:13 pm
So is Raja Muda of Perak Raja Nazrin Shah, whom everyone respects, wrong in urging Malaysians to respect the rule of law and not resort to challenging the law and enforcement agencies by “importing and introducing a foreign culture…” (he meant street demonstrations) as reported on page N10 of The Star 30th November ?
#11 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 1:22 pm
Undegrad2’s concern, as all others here, about Parliament being given unfettered powers pass legislation by which executive/authjorities have, as in the Police Act, the sole discretion to determine what constitutes a threat to national security is altogether a different issue from that by the others whether our Constitution and laws give the Parliament/Executive that discretion to determine when to issue or withhold the permit and how when such permit is withheld, the asembly will be unlawful.
The debate, as I understand it here, is not on the morality of the law or what ought to be the law but what is actually the law and whether having a demonstration without sanction of permit is unlawful qualifying the constitutional right to assembly.
#12 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 3:53 pm
Jeffrey,
My comments above were in reply to issues raised by EARNEST on an earlier thread. EARNEST appears to be mixing up ‘opinion’, ‘law the way it should be’ (in his opinion) and ‘law as it is’. I am not concerned with ‘opinion’ which as you very well know, as the blog’s Chief Legal Correspondent, is irrelevant to issues of law.
I felt the need to put so to speak our friend EARNEST back on track.
As to the legality or lack thereof of the police permit, and the matter of public demonstrations being illegal as a result and whether people should take to the streets without a police permit, these issues have been mixed together by none other than the Cambridge wannabe Tun Limkaput. Lee Wang Yen, the real Cambridge scholar, tried to separate the issues and separated them he did (and did so succinctly) the issue of legality or illegality from issues of morality. I thought his analogy about a priest smuggling in a bible is clear for all to see. Sometimes we need to break the law because the law is unfair and unjust to those who merely seek justice. That is Lee’s thesis – as a student of philosophy.
#13 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 3:57 pm
“Well said. Are you are civil, criminal or constitution law student or lawyer?” EARNEST
None of the above.
#14 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 4:28 pm
As I recently posted under thread (Review NEP Before Too Late) which never appeared so far, I sense that increasingly more and more people (in this Blog or out in the streets demonstrating) – I would categorise them as the marginalised or opporessed group -have no more stake in dialogue and are not interested to reason and distinguish between what is and what ought to be – especially pertaining to law or legality probably because they feel that the law is stacked against them and the referee (judiciary) is no more non partisan to give them a fair go at redress. More important the other side ie Powers to be are mala fide extinguishing all hope in using talk and reason/balanced perspectives to rectify wrongdoings, which can only be done when the other side is bona fide. That being the case, reasonable talk and persuasion is waste of time, and action is the way – like what Hindraf did – and as far as the government and its ministers are concernde, whatever the say or do will have to be wrong and opposed all the way.
#15 by EARNEST on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 4:42 pm
Jeffrey,
Raja Muda of Perak Raja Nazrin Shah is entitled to his opinion as much as we are entitled to our opinions. However respectable a person, it is not incumbent upon us to agree with him.
If the Hindraf & Bersih rallies were truly illegal being against the spirits of Article 10 of the Constitution, I have nothing to say but to agree that he was perfectly right in holding to his opinion. But, it appeared to me that the justification and grievances were real to them, and that the denial of the police permit had violated their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly. So I beg to differ with him on their right to peaceful demonstration despite denial of police permit.
I have some exposure to research methodologies and simple logical reasonings. I am not a genius, IQ at 135, I am an ordinary person like all of you. We shall use common sense, and not jargons that most of us do not understand.
Perhaps, I may explain my position using simple syllogism as follows:
I suppose Cambridge Lee’s and your argument was as follows:
A=B, C=A, therefore C=B, where B is the major term, A the middle term, and C, the minor term.
A=Rallies without police permit
B=Illegal
C=Hindraf&Bersih rallies
You argue that since Rallies without police permit are illegal, and Hindraf&Bersih are Rallies without police permit, therefore Hindraf&Bersih rallies are illegal.
This line of reasoning can be dangerous as shown below:
An ass is obstinate
Godamn Singh is obstinate
Therefore Godamn Singh is an ass
Godamn Singh, just borrow your handle. please take it good
humoredly. No offence intended.
Jokes aside, I am not relying on the above Godamn Singh syllogism in this discussion.
The problem with the police permit-legality syllogism is that I can not link A with B. I can not accept it without protest. It is controversial, and against the spirit of Article 10 of the Constitution.
I maintain that section 27, especially subsections (2), (2A) TO (2D), (4), (4A), (5), (5A) to (5C), (7) and (8) of section 27A of the Police Act 1967, contravene the spirit of Article 10 (1) (b) of the Constitution pertaining to “all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms”, and as such I consider it null and void. Since, it is my opinion. It is not falsifiable.
Of course you may say that considering it null and void does not really make it null and void. That is beside the point. My action is based on my conviction and not what the powers-that-be says. That is important and not a purely academic pedantic argument on what the Powers-that-be want us to believe, with threats of arrest and court orders. Acceptance without protest would lend it credence.
In the 16th-17th century, Galileo Galilei was forced to recant publicly his theory that the sun was at the center of the solar system and say instead that the earth was at the center of the universe, he had to say it but he knew that it was not true, otherwise he could be flagellated — Undergad2, nothing sexual, purely religious flogging, like in Passion of Christ. He spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.
If you are incarcerated, and the condition for your release is to say publicly that “yes it is illegal to hold rallies without police permit”, you may have to comply even though you know that the permit should be void for contravening the spirit of Article 10 (1) (b) of the Federal Constitution. But, this would be extreme transgression to 17th century Inquisitional attitude.
#16 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 6:12 pm
EARNEST,
I have never based my conclusion that Hindraf&Bersih rallies are illegal based on simplistic syllogism of A=B, C=A, therefore C=B, where A=Rallies without police permit, B=Illegal and C=Hindraf&Bersih rallies.
I thought we have made it abundantly clear that whether Rallies without police permit of which Hindraf&Bersih rallies are without such permits are ultimately illegal depends on another factor (call it Factor “D†if you will ) ie. whether it is contravening the constitutional right of assembly in Article 10(1)(b) – and that whether it contravenes the right to assemble in article 10(1)(b) is dependent on whether other parts of the Constitution permit such contravention. (If the other parts don’t say anything, then the Police Act will be struck down as invalid for contravening the provisions of the Constitution, a basic supreme law).
The situation is however different if other parts of the Constitution permit article 10(1)(b) to be so restricted in which case there is no contravention because the Constitution itself, as adjudged from the other parts expressly provide so.
An example of “the other parts†is article 10(2) which says “Parliament MAY BY LAW impose on them (meaning fundamental liberties including right to assembly) such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof.
The Police Act is such enacted by Parliament; its provisions require a police permit for a right of assembly to be exercised. Its provisions say that the police may withhold such permit and restrict such right to assembly based its assessment of security and public order.
The Police Act comes therefore within Constitutional permission for restriction stated in Article10(2).
Since the Constitution by Article 10(2) permits Parliament to enact laws like the Police Act to restrict Freedom of Assembly based on considerations of public security and order, the Police Act becomes perfectly and legally valid – unfaultable for its restricting of free exercise of the right of assembly under article 10(1)(b), such restriction not being in contravention of the Constitutional provision under Article 10(1)(b) on Freedom of Assembly. I cannot make it any clearer to you. If the Police Act is valid and unimpugnable by the Constitution, then the Bersig/Hindraf Rallies without a permit from it are illegal or unlawful.
No one here uses simple syllogism that –
1. An ass is obstinate;
2. Godamn Singh is obstinate;
3. therefore Godamn Singh is an ass
without considering relevant other factor D whether the ass or Godamn Singh is human or beast.
But even after considering that, we would take that the ass is “obstinate†whilst Godamn Singh is differently “firm†because the latter being human has better faculty to reason and has good reasons as to why he does not change or want to change his course or position that he takes – though for both the factual situations of the ass and the Singh are the same, as in not changing course or position!
#17 by EARNEST on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 7:35 pm
Jeffrey,
I can see that it you will wait until the day your factor D is repealed in Parliament, then only you will agree that rallies without police permit is legal. It is very safe to hold this view, with the protection of Powers-that-be. I am not waiting for that to happen to change my conviction, and I believe nothing will change for the better in waiting perhaps a lifetime in a worse case scenario.
On the other hand, who knows, it may be pretty soon with the active involvement of SUHAKAM, other human rights organizations, the Malaysian bar council, NGOs and other civil societies. But, if they are ignored because the populace is cowed by threats of arrests because the Powers-that-be supported by intellectuals said so, we may have to wait a lifetime.
I suggest that we end this discourse, else nobody will take part in mass rallies to air their grievances because highly respected bloggers scared them into believing that what they planned to do is illegal. Let disgruntled people based their decisions on their own convictions. A person can be right, dead right. Living dead.
#18 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 1 December 2007 - 10:44 pm
My thinking and conclusion is guided by what objectively is the case, legal or not legal which has nothing to do with what it, the law, or the moral situation ought to be, no matter how much I would have personally wished for it.
The conclusion also has nothing to do with whether “it is very safe to hold this view, with the protection of Powers-that-be”.
It has everything to do with when one looks at article 10(1)(b) read in conjunction with artivcle 10(2), what the plain words of these articles tell us is the case in their ordinary and grammatical meaning.
#19 by EARNEST on Monday, 3 December 2007 - 3:12 am
The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. The application of Algebra may even obfuscate the truth.
Article 10(1)(b) and 10(2) does not mention anything about Police permit. 10(2)(b) mentions something about restrictions, which I interpret to be in good faith, which is the reason for its existence.
Besides my personal convictions on the spirits rather than the letters and good intentions of constitutional laws, what also matters is the perception of law enforcement, on whether rally without police permit=illegal.
Does it ever occur to you to ask if it is illegal to deny police permit without justification because it infringes on our constitutional rights?
If rally without police permit=illegal, then consequences=”Yes”
If consequences=”No”? then what? You don’t care whether it is legal or not, because it is just a futile academic exercise to debate on it.
A proven illegal act must have consequences, else it can not be illegal. There is no doubt that shoplifting, murder and rape if proven can not escape consequences provided by the penal codes and CPC. We can not challenge their legality.
Ask yourself, why are the leaders and those 2000 people who participated in the Walk of Justice by the Malaysian Bar not arrested if rally without police permit is illegal? Their conviction that what they did was right was so strong that they were not bothered whether it was legal or not. They told the police, if they wanted to arrest them, go ahead.
But, why are those arrested in the Bersih demonstrations not charged with illegal assembly, but some silly charges of endangering the lives of Children under the Child Protection Act? Why are the leaders, such as YB Lim, Anwar Ibrahim and Hadi not arrested and face consequences for taking part in illegal assembly? Their faces were shown on TV.
If an illegal action is committed, and there is no consequence for it, is it illegal then? The answer is not important anymore.
If so, there must be uniformity.
If the Powers-that-be have their fingers on the pulse of society and are smart, Section 27 of the police Act, which came into being out of the exigencies of May 13 would be scrapped off immediately to remove any doubt whether a rally without police permit is illegal.
It is a matter of time before that happens. Precedence had already been set where there were no consequences for “illegal” peaceful assembly.