You need the permit

Laws are meant to be broken but those who break it have to face the consequences. When you challenge the law, especially the one that maintains public order, it means you oppose a one way street.

In this multiracial country, its founding fathers did not simply formulate certain laws to oppress anybody. Their main objective was to keep the house clear of trouble.

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal here on Wednesday ruled that provisions in the Police Act 1967 which state that the public is required to obtain a permit for public assemblies, was constitutional. 
The said sections, Section 27 (2) and Section 27 (5) of the Police Act 1967, were, however, repealed last year and the  law concerning public assemblies now come under  the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.
The Appeals Court also found that the matter was not rendered academic though the Police Act had been repealed, as it was matter of public law and of public interest.
"Central to the arguments raised in favour of freedom of assembly are security concerns which do not destroy the rights accorded to the citizen under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution," said Justice Mohamed Apandi in his 50-page judgement.
The Appeals Court made the majority decision in dismissing an appeal by five former students arrested in an unlawful assembly in 2001, affirming a ruling that obtaining police permits for public assemblies was a reasonable condition.
The panel, lead by Justice Mohamad Apandi Ali dismissed the appeal with a two-thirds majority, ruling that the appeal had no merit.
Justices Mohamad Apandi and Linton Albert found that the Police Act 1967 was not unconstitutional as its restrictions did not prohibit the right to peaceful assembly.
"Such terms to regulate is within the law, as it is for the larger interest of protecting and maintaining law and order for the public interest," said Justice Mohd Apandi.
Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, in his dissenting judgement, found the requirement to obtain a police permit unreasonable.
"They can only place terms to regulate the assembly and licence has to be issued to all without any form of subjective discrimination failing which it will violate article 8(1) of the Constitution," he said in his 77-page judgement.
The five applicants, then students with various universities are Nik Noorhafizi Nik Ibrahim, 33, Zuklefle Idris, 33, Ahmad Kamal Abdul Hamid, 32, Rafzan Ramli, 36, and Khairul Amal Mahmud, 28.
They were accused with two others of taking part in an illegal assembly in front of the National Mosque in Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur on June 8, 2001.
Outside the court, Bon said the outcome was disappointing but there was consolation because Justice Hamid Sultan had provided a strong dissenting judgment, adding that hopefully, constitutional lawyers could pursue the issue before the Federal Court in future cases.

They were just students then, who thought they were above the law. They tried to become heroes 'of the future', wanting to chart a totally free and liberal country, not realising what absolute freedom means.

Where are they now? Successful in their studies?