What reform? New bill more repressive, says group

National Human Rights Society president Malik Imtiaz Sarwar described the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 tabled today in parliament as even more repressive than before and offends the federal constitution.

Malik (left), a constitutional lawyer who represented the four Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia students’ againstsection 15 (1) (a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act, said this was what he had gathered from media reports.

“It appears that the framework is even more repressive than before. The scheme of regulation is not consistent with the prime minister’s promise of democratisation.

“Freedom of assembly is a constitutionality guaranteed right. Restrictions on that freedom must be reasonable and necessary.

They must be proportional to the threat to public order that is sought to be avoided. How this bill is reasonable and proportionate is beyond me,” he told Malaysiakini in an immediate response on his views of the Bill.

He said in his view such provisions and laws in the new bill clearly offends the constitution.

Today the Bill, replacing section 27 of the Police Act, was introduced in Parliament by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz for its first reading.

PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu, a veteran involved in several protests, said although he has not seen the bill, from what he knows of its provisions barring street protests is not a move in the right direction.

“They should allow street protests within a certain period of the day and time. Barring street protests is not right,” he said, adding that he will have to study the Bill further.

Nature of the Bill strange, says Aziz Bari

Universiti Islam Antarabangsa law expert Abdul Aziz Bari told Malaysiakini that he feels the nature of the bill is strange at a time when the government and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak talked a lot about bringing greater democracy, and yet they do this.

“The right to freedom of peaceful assembly is there in Article 10 of the constitution. They should clean the statute books from all the legislations that put restraints on this right. In fact, in developed countries like the United States, this right - along with the right to freedom of speech and association - cannot be touched by the legislature.

“My assumption is that they (the drafters) proceeded on the wrong basis, that is with the thinking that people are naturally violent - instead of the other way round. True democracies would not do this,” he explained.

Abdul Aziz (left) said the police will be there to make sure that the crowd would remain peaceful and that no one would do anything to deny them the right.

“Even in Indonesia now that is how the police deal with it. The sad thing about us - just like the recent Internal Security Act arrests - we are still stuck in the old colonial mindset retained by the ruling party and its civil service. They simply refuse to change,” he said.

“The Bill is a reflection of that; something that underlines their political philosophy. This is certainly a move backward and we should not join them.”

Abdul Aziz said the people should work for a change from this.
He said the Bill is unconstitutional and thus should be referred to court.

“Parliament is the creation of, and thus subservient to, the constitution. Let us see how the court deals with the contention.

“The constitution must be read in such a way that it widens rather than narrows down the scope of the provisions. This is especially in relation to the three rights - freedom of expression, assembly and association - that are considered as the fundamentals of democracy.”

The funny part, Abdul Aziz said, is that even Umno had in Kelantan, Terengganu, Selangor and Penang resorted to street protests when they were out of the government.

“This alone is good enough to tell us why the right to street protest is crucial in a democracy,” he said.