By Ahmad Rozian
15 Jul 2011 | Wall Street Journal
Your editorial (“Crackdown 2.0 in Malaysia,” July 12) states that protesters in Kuala Lumpur have suffered “intimidation” and “repression” at the hands of the government in recent weeks. The truth is somewhat different.
Malaysians have a constitutional right to peaceful assembly and throughout the build-up to last weekend’s protest Prime Minister Najib Razak worked to find a solution that would allow Bersih to exercise that right. This included offering the use of a large-capacity stadium where the event could be held safely and without disrupting the lives and businesses of ordinary Malaysians.
Sadly the protest organizers chose to reject this offer, instead calling on supporters to assemble at a much smaller stadium “come what may,” despite the fact that it was unavailable.
Faced with thousands of people attempting to enter an unsuitable venue in a densely populated area, the police were forced to intervene to disperse the crowd, a task that was made more difficult by the presence of a small minority of protesters intent on violence.
It goes without saying that Malaysia’s police officers are expected to maintain the highest standards of professional conduct, and any specific allegations of heavy-handed behavior will be thoroughly investigated. However, to claim that Saturday’s events mean Malaysia is not a “true democracy” is simply wrong. As the strong performance of opposition parties in the last general election demonstrates, the ballot box remains the most powerful force in Malaysian politics.
Ahmad Rozian
Undersecretary of Information
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Putrajaya, Malaysia
#1 by bruno on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 11:52 am
Ahmad Rozian,are you for real.Another LTL.Who are you trying to kid.Orang puteh.Orang puteh pun ada otek besar lah,kawan.You ingat semua manusia buta buta mata lah.Wake up from your dreams,man.Don’t
tell me you are also a yesman.
#2 by bruno on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:01 pm
Ahmad Rozian,who asked you to write the letter.Hisham I guessed.Well,let me tell you in case you don’t know.Your bosses reneged or chicken out of a gentleman’s agreement.Real men don’t practice or act chicken.Real men lead and not to be led.Your bosses need to be led by the noses.You don’t believed me,open your eyes widely,and you see more clearly.
#3 by limkamput on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:16 pm
……a task that was made more difficult by the presence of a small minority of protesters intent on violence.////
Which small minority of protesters are you referring to? Did you see any tyre burnt on the streets? Did you see any damage done to properties? Did you see any vandalism committed? Did you see any protester hurting the police or each other?
…… and any specific allegations of heavy-handed behavior (by the police) will be thoroughly investigated.////
Didn’t official statements made by relevant authorities have already denied police brutality? So what is there to investigate? Investigation by the police to find out whether the police are heavy-handed? Is this oxymoron?
#4 by limkamput on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:17 pm
….This included offering the use of a large-capacity stadium where the event could be held safely and without disrupting the lives and businesses of ordinary Malaysians.///
Do you know what the offer was? Yes, stadiums in PK controlled states like Kelantan, Penang and Selangor? What is the logic of this? Are you saying the people have no right to a stadium in Wilayah Persekutuan? The last time I checked there is only one, yes one BN MP in the whole of Wilayah of Kuala Lumpur. So please don’t insult us again. Let us know why stadium Merdeka was not available. What do you mean by congestion? Didn’t the event happened on Saturday July 9 was more chaotic than if the rally was allowed in Stadium Merdeka.
#5 by limkamput on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:18 pm
……However, to claim that Saturday’s events mean Malaysia is not a “true democracy” is simply wrong. As the strong performance of opposition parties in the last general election demonstrates, the ballot box remains the most powerful force in Malaysian politics.////
You have used this argument ad nauseam already. I must say the opposition won despite with both hands tied behind their backs. Look the lopsided demarcation of constituencies; look at the postal votes; look at how the election campaigns were executed in Sabah and Sarawak; look at accessibility to media; look at who control television and radio and all the rubbish being aired each day; look at the use of government machinery by ruling party, including this letter by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
By the way, Rozian, your rebuttal has no standard. Surely a letter from MFA should be able to depict higher standard than this. May be it is the sign that incompetency and mediocrity is everywhere.
#6 by Jeffrey on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:19 pm
On “who’s to blame”, Putrajaya’s stand is PM offered “a stadium” – he never specified which one, or that could be one in KL- but its Bersih that intransigently insisted on Merdeka Stadium, not allowed because not only is Merdeka stadium of smaller capacity than those outside KL but having it in centre of KL would disrupt “the lives and businesses of ordinary Malaysians”.
This is not exactly correct for various reasons.
Firstly, the original stated reason why PM offered “a stadium” is that it would be a more suitable venue than a protest on the very streets of KL! It is only when such public rallies were held on the streets of KL that “the lives and businesses of ordinary Malaysians” are placed at risk. But now this argument has been unjustifiably extrapolated, skewed and extended. It is now argued that “the lives and businesses of ordinary Malaysians” are placed at risk not only when the rally is held on the streets of KL but a stadium within KL! How that may be is contentious. If from the gathering point to the Merdeka stadium were jointly managed by Bersih’s organisers and the police for a peaceful march to the stadium (which would not take more than an hour half) how are “the lives and businesses of ordinary Malaysians” being placed at risk?
#7 by bruno on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:19 pm
Ahmad Rozian,first let me ask you if there are reports of vandalism or looting on July 9th, 2011.Are the protestors rowdy and indesciplined.As far as I can see it was a peaceful protest.There was no need for the police to act so physically rowdy.If it is not police brutality then what is it.Then trapping the protesters inside the Tung Ying Hospital
Being in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs surely
you know that hospitals are off limits to our men in blue unless the situation warrants it.
Those protestors trapped inside the compound are not Al Qaida or Communists.
Likewise our colorblind Home Minister and IGP
would think.Police brutality is police brutality.
No two ways.
#8 by Jeffrey on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:38 pm
Then comes the other aspect of the argument: if PM offered a stadium why must Bersih insist only on Merdeka stadium? Couldn’t Bersih differentiate between a right (it has to have it at Merdeka Stadium) and a privilege (any stadium) offerede by the govt?
The response to this is:
1. the Govt offer was half hearted as it didn’t offer any specific stadium!
2. the offer of stadium came only after the King’s interceding with his views urging reconcilation than confrontation.
If reconciliation were the focal point, why can’t the govt compromise on agreeing to Merdeka Stadium (Bersih’s preference) in quid pro quo of Bersih’s compromising to take the rally out of KL’s streets (Govt’s preference)?
#9 by k1980 on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:42 pm
Ahmad Rozian
Undersecretary of Information
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Putrajaya, Malaysia
The above says it all. Ah Mad has to claim what he claimed above because his very rice bowl depends on what comes out of his mouth. He would had been severely reprimanded and his salary docked had he chosen to keep quiet. He would had to look for a new job had he chosen to say when he personally witnessed on 9.7.2011. So to continue to be able to keep his plum job, as well as continue feeding his family plus the option of adding a couple more wives when at the end of the year, causes Ah Mad to write the mad lies above. Many people would do the same if they were to be in Ah Mad’s shoes.
#10 by Jeffrey on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:43 pm
Continuing from precding posting:
3. Instead PM Najib who first offered the stadium next delegated the next stage of negotiation of the stadium venue to the authorities (ie Police) – but the Home Ministry/police were hardly interested to negotiate on this issue on conciliatory basis.
4. Proof of that is the decision not to revoke the earlier ban on Bersih and to argue that if Bersih remained an illegal body, its application for stadium venue could not bbe made by it because of its unlawful status but via another “registered organisation” that is lawful. That’s tantamount to saying “you can apply but not through your own name/branding, but by another organisation” so that if Bersih do so, it would be admitting to its own illegitimate and unlawful standing status. This is a Hopson’s Choice! Its as good as telling Bersih not to apply. For to apply is to denigrate and vitiate its own very standing and existence!
Suffice to say when one party presents a choice to the other, which is actually no choice or hardly a reasonable choice to the other – it’s a ruse in departure from the spirit of compromise enunciated by the King that both sides were supposed to respect and uphold.
#11 by Jeffrey on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:56 pm
Last argument / point of Ahmad Rozian –
” However, to claim that Saturday’s events mean Malaysia is not a “true democracy” is simply wrong. As the strong performance of opposition parties in the last general election demonstrates, the ballot box remains the most powerful force in Malaysian politics”.
Bersih’s basic claim is that electoral procedures are manipulated (flawed) to tilt the ground against Opposition in a way that the electoral outcome favours incumbent and non reflective of representation of majority.
The “strong performance of opposition parties in the last general election” does not by itself disprove Bersih’s claim and in fact could be just as consistent with truth of it’s claim, if one takes the view that had the electoral process/procedures be cleaned up before the last general election, the opposition parties might have won the parliamentary majority in the last GE and formed the govt. instead of just having a so called “strong performance”.
#12 by k1980 on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 12:56 pm
When pakatan Rakyat forms the federal govt after the 13 GE, please make sure that En Ahmad Rosian is re-appointed to a new post— that of junior janitor of the toilets in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
#13 by limkamput on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 1:00 pm
Sage, to cut the long story short, the issue is not just about the stadium. It is about standing up for our rights; it is about fed-up of being pushed around; it is about these people must be taught the lesson of honouring the essence of one’s words. When the King issued the decree, Bersih has immediately acquiesced to it. The intransigence and the flip-flop were obviously with the BN side.
#14 by Jeffrey on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 1:28 pm
The other thing is that according to statement posted on the Bersih 2.0 Facebook page Merdeka Stadium had refused to allow its venue to be used by the Bersih ostensibly because of ‘internal management sports event’ and ‘renovations’. This could be just stone walling/excuse because very recently, there were plans to hold ‘Konsert Raksaksa 2’ on the July 9 at Stadium Merdeka” . ‘Konsert Raksaksa 2 has been posponed to Oct 1 due to security concerns – and not ‘internal management sports event’ and ‘renovations’. The govt calls the shot here . Stadium Merdeka is managed by Perbadanan Stadium Merdeka and owned by Merdeka Heritage Trust, which was established/owned by Permodalan Nasional Berhad, in turn established and owned ultimately by Govt of Malaysia. However the reason touted by the govt why Merdeka Stadium was not available was not so much of ‘internal management sports event’ and ‘renovations’ cited by the stadium’s official but “the lives and businesses of ordinary Malaysians” – which has already been addressed in posting #6 above.
#15 by Jeffrey on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 1:47 pm
To cut the “long story short”? Of course everyone knows this is not about the stadium. It is not just about standing up for rights – the concerns of people here.
This is about a letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of international readership of over 2 million counting amongst whom political and business leaders based on WSJ’s stready focus on providing the cutting edge on the reporting of political and economic events whom international influential readers depend for truth and accuracy…. Therefore every word in it has to stand on and be held to account on the test of veracity and truth. This is not a mere letter to the News Straits Times or even Malaysiakini that between long and short of it one can afford to respond short!
#16 by goldentruth on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 1:51 pm
For every taxpayer’s info especially for our brothers and sisters in Sabah & Sarawak, our PM & the First Lady is now in UK for 4 days. At the same time our Deputy is in Indonesia. Both definitely using the private jets paid by the rakyat.
Both of them are definitely on a travelling spree while we the rakyat, are HAPPY to eat RM2 breakfast and RM4 lunch at 1Maalysia restaurant daily. Bravo!
#17 by Loh on Friday, 15 July 2011 - 6:26 pm
///Malaysians have a constitutional right to peaceful assembly and throughout the build-up to last weekend’s protest Prime Minister Najib Razak worked to find a solution that would allow Bersih to exercise that right. This included offering the use of a large-capacity stadium where the event could be held safely and without disrupting the lives and businesses of ordinary Malaysians.
Sadly the protest organizers chose to reject this offer, instead calling on supporters to assemble at a much smaller stadium “come what may,” despite the fact that it was unavailable.///–Ahmad Rozian
If Najib’s words carry any weight, Stadium Merdeka which had been booked for the same time but had the booking cancelled could have been offered to Bersih. But the official in charge of Stadium Merdeka simply refused to let out the stadium, so that the government can now claim that the stadium was unavailable. If Najib is sincere he could have easily told the stadium official to make the stadium available, and the police should be able to do its job. The car park outside Stadium Merdeka could have enough space to let 6,000 protesters assembled there. But Najib was willing to give the impression that as PM he was powerless in offering Stadium Merdeka. It is more plausible that he had instructed stadium official to turn down Bersih’s request.
The government considered that stadiums that lacked public transportation facilities allow the government to control participation through road blocks. Bersih’s organizers did not fall in the trap.
If Najib had sincerely allowed Bersih to exercise the constitutional right to assembly why did he not refute Hishamuddin’s claim that Bersih was illegal? If Najib wanted to offer a large-capacity stadium to Bersih, then Bersih must be legal if it takes the large-capacity stadium. Bersih would still be legal if it chose any other stadium, since the legality of Bersih cannot be tied to a physical building.
///Faced with thousands of people attempting to enter an unsuitable venue in a densely populated area, the police were forced to intervene to disperse the crowd, a task that was made more difficult by the presence of a small minority of protesters intent on violence.///–Ahmad Rozian
The police said that there were only 6,000 protesters. There are tens of thousands of people entering KL everyday, and adding 6,000 would not make other lose their standing space. In fact the 7,000 police personnel are not really wanted in the city. If the people are allowed to walk to Stadium Merdeka which has a capacity for 30,000 persons, the empty car park would be able to hold the same number of 30,000 persons. But the police chose to disperse the crowd when they were walking peaceably. How did the police expect the people to leave, through thin air. How did the tear gas canisters help to clear the crowd in an orderly manner? The fact was the Police make the orderly walking crowd run by the tear gas, and then the crowd cannot remain orderly. So the Police initiated the commotions. Trust the police to facilitate peaceful assembly, which is its job. Obviously the tear gas did not make the area less populated.
Stadium Merdeka was declared an unsuitable area just because the government chose not to let Bersih use its facility. Otherwise, it was an excellent venue with capacity for 30,000 when Bersih had only 6,000 persons (police statistics). The police was involved in party politics by throwing tear gas canisters to make an orderly procession of people run for their life which ended up causing all the commotions. The police justifies it by declaring KL as an unsuitable area, as if the police was involved in the procession. The police had no choice in the venue; its job is to facilitate peaceful procession.
///It goes without saying that Malaysia’s police officers are expected to maintain the highest standards of professional conduct, and any specific allegations of heavy-handed behavior will be thoroughly investigated.///–Ahmad Rozian
Good. The public want to know who was the police office who ordered tear gas to disperse the crowd. Who sent tear gas canisters into Tong Shin Hospital?
///As the strong performance of opposition parties in the last general election demonstrates, the ballot box remains the most powerful force in Malaysian politics.///–Ahmad Rozian
Yes, but because it was not Bersih, the wrong persons are sitting in PutraJaya now
#18 by Loh on Saturday, 16 July 2011 - 9:40 am
///by Loh on Friday, 15 July 2011 – 6:26 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.///
Isn’t it getting too long to moderate?
#19 by Tom Peters on Saturday, 16 July 2011 - 11:38 am
Ahmad clarified ‘intimidation’ and ‘repression’ but set-aside ‘contempt’. The deal-breaker in free-society is not repression or intimidation. The deal-breaker is Contempt.
Contempt’s penultimate moment towards free-society is raw in the Prime Minister’s response the following day when he publicly belittled the physical injuries he caused the people, in particular to Anwar Ibrahim.