Peaceful assemblies cannot be used as a weapon

 

YOURSAY | “Rights exercised without regard are provocation dressed up as principle.”

COMMENT | Peaceful assembly and the red line

ScarletPanda9731: Thank you, Mandeep Singh, for your unbiased article. You are indeed “man” enough to go “deep” into the reasons why people assemble and protest.

They cry for reform. They cry for justice. They cry for fairness. They cry for equality.

Non-violence was the mode of protest of the great Indian leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, widely known as Mahatma Gandhi. There was no weaponisation of race or religion for selfish agendas. Respect all races and all religions.

Decades have passed since every piece of land was once no man’s land. Great Britain colonised Malaya. On Aug 31, 1957, we were granted independence.

Temples were built long ago, at a time when there was no Constitution and no government to speak of. Even America did not yet exist. British explorers found it to be no man’s land.

Portuguese explorers ventured out as well, along with others.

Recently, Indonesia took 5,702ha of land, and the prime minister said it was no man’s land. Right? So is there a quarrel over this issue? No. The prime minister is right.

As an analogy, if you happen to pick up a 50-sen coin on the ground, do you have the right to ownership? Is there a Constitution which states that the coin belongs to the person who makes the loudest sound? It is the finder who has a stake because he found it. Right or wrong?

Let us use common sense. It belongs to the finder. Of course, this is my personal view.

Un: Totally support the article that it is not an open cheque to assemble - there are red lines to be observed for national security.

Milshah: First things first: what is the principle we want to apply here? It is the right to peaceful assembly. On this, most of us would agree.

Next comes the condition: the assembly should not incite racial hatred or disrupt harmony. This is where the “grey area” begins.

From the protesters’ point of view, their issue is not with temples in general, but with illegal temples.

The keyword here is “illegal.” They are not saying temples should not be built; they are saying illegal structures should not be allowed.

To them, this is not wrong. It is about upholding the law. In their view, they are asking the government to enforce the law, not break it. From their perspective, this is both legally and morally justified.

Illegal structures can create problems when landowners want to develop or use their land. We have seen such disputes many times. So they believe they are acting within the ambit of the law.

I am not saying what they did is right or wrong. The important thing is to get the principles right. If we agree that people have the right to peaceful assembly, then that right must be applied consistently.

We cannot pick and choose, saying one group has the right to assemble peacefully while another group does not. This is the inherent difficulty with peaceful assembly: almost any protest will make another group feel hurt or offended.

That is why, for a long time, peaceful assemblies were restricted under the reasoning of “protecting racial harmony” in a multiracial country.

But we cannot demand the right to peaceful assembly only when it benefits us. That is where the real problem lies.

Nada Villa: Milshah, this argument collapses the moment you strip away its legal varnish.

“Peaceful assembly” is being treated as a moral shield when in reality it is a conditional right, not a blank cheque.

Slapping the word “illegal” onto a religious structure does not magically drain the act of its racial or religious charge. In Malaysia’s context, that claim is either disingenuous or dangerously ignorant.

If this were genuinely about legality, there would be no need for street mobilisation, slogans, or public pressure aimed at a single religious community.

Courts and authorities, not crowds, enforce the law.

The moment you mobilise people against temples - illegal or otherwise - you are no longer advocating the rule of law; you are weaponising legality to legitimise communal intimidation.

Intent is irrelevant when impact is obvious and foreseeable.

In a country with a long, painful history of racial tension, pretending that protests targeting religious symbols are “neutral” is not principled - it is reckless.

This is not about “hurt feelings.” It is about power, signalling, and escalation. Not all protests carry equal risk.

Protesting corruption or policy failures does not carry the same explosive potential as mobilising around religious structures in a multiracial society.

Treating them as morally equivalent is either naïve or intellectually dishonest.

And no, this is not “picking and choosing.” It is called proportionality. Rights exist alongside responsibilities.

The same Constitution that protects peaceful assembly also permits restrictions when assemblies predictably undermine public order and racial harmony.

The real hypocrisy lies elsewhere: demanding an absolutist right to protest when it suits one’s narrative, while dismissing the social consequences when that protest predictably intimidates a minority community.

Rights exercised without regard to context are not courageous. They are provocation dressed up as principle.

Robbie98: This fashionable idea of “illegal temples” has been promoted without applying rational thought.

It has been repeatedly and painstakingly explained that most of these temples - such as the famous 100-plus-year-old one in Kuala Lumpur - predate Merdeka and newer land codes.

There have not been any illegal temples built in the recent past on “illegal” land.

Freedom of speech and freedom to assemble should be controlled and conditional. We do not want a religious- or race-based narrative as a reason to assemble and protest. That can trigger something uncontrollable.

I witnessed and lived through the 1969 massacres. You certainly do not want something similar.

Religion and race are increasingly being used to promote a divisive narrative. There will be no winners in this. Please let wisdom prevail. And the change should start at the top. - Mkini