The PM is between a rock and hard place – as regards how to deal with demonstrations.

Hardliners within ruling party eyeing his job will question why he is not taking a firm stand to quell demonstrations by nabbing all organizers and ring leaders of such demonstrations past present and future – and will pressure for his exit for default of not acting.

They will say if Bersih was the first after a long time, why with the benefit of experience Hindraf could summon so many protestors circumventing the Home Ministry’s dragnet put in place 2 days earlier?

If he toes their line, his pledges for reform and more open and liberal culture for public debate will be smashed to smithereens. Also the prospects of calling an early general election to consolidate his mandate without baggage of predecessors’ men.

If he prevaricates, time will likely act against him in terms of the economy, rising fuel costs and uncertainties of sub prime as it impacts on the wider derivative and credit bubble.

There is however a way out. The times are such that, on balance, it is better to allow the demonstrations within limits. The more one curbs, especially when casualtiues ensue, the more street protests might take place which cannot be stopped except by heavy handed counter repressive measures, which will not only besmirch the PM’s record with a huge black spot but will shake foreign investors confidence.

The government can allow the demonstrations – as part of the democratization process giving expression to Freedom of Assembly – by granting police permits based on defined and clear parameters which organizers will be accountable to uphold and keep.

For example, set the time and day with duration of (say) 2 hours at specific location with defined route for demonstrators of Bersih and Hindraf to go to their destinations, whether the Istana or British High Commission. In other cases, make the Sports Stadium or Dataran Merdeka available and make sure that the demonstrations are confined there not spilling over to other areas to the inconvenience of public or businesses.

The Police and Riot Squad are positioned not to break up an illegal assembly – the assembly is legal after all with the permit – but to assist in crowd control and help facilitate passage via the approved route to wherever demonstrators have planned to go.

Organisers will give their personal bond to ensure that the crowd they organize will not get unruly or else they will be held responsible for them. In such way the police and uniformed personnel who are public servants are doing what they are paid for – to upkeep the law – at the same time not being turned against the very people who pay their gaji!

To allow such the demonstrations is acknowledge that people who are frustrated need a vent to express their grievances and frustrations. Well managed, this could be a way to ameliorate public unrest. Peaceful demonstrations need not necessarily be translated as harbinger of some kind of seed for revolution to overthrow the constitutional and parliamentary process.

To manage and regulate them is the only way to go if the PM wants to maintain credibility as regards his nurturance of human capital and a culture of freerer public discourse, a necessary part of which is the freedom of expression and assembly for people are not sheep!! He might if he succeeds be a champion of elevating democratic practice to yet a higher notch.

Otherwise, he has to retreat to his predecessor’s autocratic shadow and order an immediate crack down. Either of these two firm options (the earlier, notwithstanding objections from within his party) – there are no two ways about it because he cannot afford to be seen prevaricating, nether here nor there letting others around him take the initiatives, either way.

The fact is this : if you don’t give the police permit and you make arrest or hurt demonstrators based on the assembly being illegal, everyone will say that you’re brutal regime and don’t respect the rights of citizenry to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

The secret is that you give the police permit but subject the permit to stringent conditions as to time place and location of the demo in the interest of public order and security, and hold the organisers personally and vicariously responsible for the conduct of the rally they organise – eg they are required to deposit an amount $$$$[ ] as refunable or forfeitable security deposit for property damage or breach of conditions of police permit – nobody can say you’re violating any fundamental right. :)

It is definitely a deafening indictment of the MIC.

And I am sure you are right that the class action was intended to bring international attention to the plight of Indians in Malaysia. (It is to be noted that Bersih march also received international media attention including Al Jazeera coverage without a frivolous suit against anyone but just directed straight at the government).

It however makes me wonder how the right of Malaysian Indians to address their legitimate grievances might be served and advanced on the international plane by being associated with the filing of what to me is a frivolous class action suit against Elizabeth Regina for actions in the past that has not the slightest chance of winning…

No one doubts the integrity of Hindraf’s cause to seek redress for the underclass plight of Malaysian ethnic Indians, the seriousness of which, more so, should require correct analysis on the part of organizers and conceptualisers of how best to start the campaign.

The question therefore arises whether Hindraf’s campaign was best initiated and premised upon a misplaced class action against the Queen of England that will provide Hindraf’s detractors within government or MIC or BN sympathizers at least two bullets to question and shoot at the rally/march to present the petition to the British Embassy : the first is they will question whether the successful mobilization of supporters were due to the lure of promised sums of money from the class suit (if believed to have a chance of succeeding) rather than just the moral fervour and indignation to seek redress of their citizens’ rights being side-lined if not trampled (since last August memorandum by Hindraf to the PM on the same subject of Indians’ plight attracted only a fraction of the crowd on November 25th); and second, as Rocky correctly albeit indirectly alluded to, whether Hindraf’s campaign against the wrong policies of the government, a very big part of which is its ethnic policies, could be fought effectively on the moral front by an equally ethnic based mobilization by Hindraf on November the 25th in isolation and separate from the legitimate grouses of all other non bumiputra communities in relation to the same subject. (Which is why as he urged, (to quote) “they need to find another way to move forward. maybe link it with a bigger issue, defending the poor of all races and defending the constitution. These are issue that can cut thru racial lines” – unquote).

This is also not counting into consideration the confusion of some wondering why the march was proceeding to the British embassy to air the grouses whilst engaging simultaneously on another front against Malaysian police over grouses directed at the Malaysian government. Can’t they (Hindraf) just aim and shoot straight and fast (rather than oblique and roundabout) at the real target?

“..//…I disagree with Jeffrey that the organisers will give their personal bond on the rally. Why? UMNO will send its agent provocateurs to cause havoc..//… – Libra2

You are right there. It is a real or I would say probable risk. Many years back a Singapore student leader dissident Tan Wah Piow was arrested for creating a riot (when he addressed some labor unions) when the authorities allegedly planted their agent provocateurs to cause a ruckus by breaking a few tables and chairs in the meeting giving immediate excuse to arrest him.

Such underhand tactics pose a very serious problem extending beyond the issue of “personal bond”. I can imagine that the government could do a “houdini?” by pretending to be liberal and grant the police permits to so called uphold article 10(1)(b) of the Constitution on right to assembly only to plant some agent provocateurs amongst the crowd of demonstrators to throw stones or some objects causing hurt to the police/FRU giving the required pretext/excuse to immediately crack down and arrest the organisers Operation Lallang style. In context as long as demonstrations are resorted to, there is always this real risk of how they could put an end to these demonstrations based on such trumped up events by agent provocateurs. :)

Big Joe, I think deliberately putting women and children up front in a demonstration and in harm’s way is not such a good idea.

The latest updates on the Hindraf’s Nov 25th gathering per today’s news (The Star):

· (Front page) The PM said he would use the ISA against street demonstrations.

· Hindraf not only disclaimed affiliation with any political party but also disclaimed the rally of Nov 25th organized by it : Quote of report on what Hindraf’s secretary V K Regu said : “He also said it was wrongfully claimed that the gathering on Sunday was a Hindraf organized rally as it never sent out any form of invitation for the gathering and even the SMS messages calling for the mass gathering did not originate from the movement. He said the publicity actually came from statements by the police and the Government against Hindraf’s decision to hand over the memorandum” to the British High Commission.

· The British High Commission said that it did not receive any petition from Hindraf. British High Commissioner to Malaysia Boyd McCleary said: “We offered to accept the petition on Sunday but it was not delivered”.

· Minister in PM’s Department Nazri Aziz said K Devamany should not be left off the hooks for breaking ranks. He asked, “Should we let Robin Hood of the hook just because he’s a hero? He robed the rich and gave to the poor but he was still breaking the law…Should we allow people to be popular among the community by breaking ranks? Or should we consider the welfare of the whole BN?” He reiterated his stand that if Devamany had disputed his own party, he should resign from the MIC.

· The MIC top brass have however come out in defence of K Devamany, with Samy Vellu saying that “what Devamany had meant to say was that the government was not doing enough for the Indian community. And here comes the classic spin from Samy – “ Policy failure is different from not doing enough. Devamany meant to say that the government was not doing enough…but everyone is not doing enough..”

“But everyone is not doing enough..”????? :)

“…Should we allow people to be popular among the community by breaking ranks?…” – Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.

Because they can’t break ranks dictated by UMNO (without being accused to be “Robin Hood”, that is why the component parties cannot serve and have not served – indeed they have sold out – the interest of their respective communities which they pledge to serve under our communal political system. :)

…//…The 3 years statute does not begin to run until the plaintiff is aware of the injury and its negligent cause…//…AhPek

So can it be said that it starts running from the time Hindraf is aware and being the first to make a demand based on class action to UK for redress of the Indian predicament?

AhPek, FYI, I was in New Zealand quite recently and learned that the Maoris are not only claiming fishing rights over the seas surrounding the country but the skies above the lands (and possibly the seas) over which they have customary rights, meaning they have first right to take advantage of industry related to telecommunication, satellite and broadband! :)