Now, will the PH government 'sack' or reprimand the Inspector General of Police and the other relevant police officers who went to court to apply for the injunction? Was the Attorney General being the 'government lawyer' even consulted or was he in agreement?
Or is the Malaysian police today all powerful - even more that our democratically elected government? Home Minister? Cabinet? PH government parties MPs?
Freedom of Assembly and Expression under Pakatan Harapan government stifled?
Many missed the fact that the the police allegedly restricted the number of participants in a public assembly by fishermen and others protesting the 3 artificial islands Penang government wants to build. There was a HARTAL when about 4,000 fisher folk did not go to sea...Read more in earlier posts...One object of a peaceful assembly is to show that a viewpoint is shared by MANY not just a few leaders allegedly representing many...
Penang Fishermen’s Association chief Nazri Ahmad said about 4,000 fishermen had wanted to attend the protest but police only allowed 1,000 as part of the peaceful assembly permit. - NST -Penang fishermen peaceful assembly only allowed if NOT MORE than 1,000? Totally unjust?
Dong Zong organized conference stopped because police went and applied for a court order at the eleventh hour - without even a right to be heard?
It reminds one of the days of the Barisan Nasional when the police similarly applied to court to stop peaceful assembly - but this is worse because it was a closed event...It would have been better if the police applied way in advance and allowed all parties to be heard by the court before a decision is made by court...
There were allegedly 'threats' of counter rallies in front of the venue and also some other venue ...well, not everyone have the same view and opinion - and we have all to respect this fact and not BLOCK any person/s' right to peaceful assembly, expression and opinion even if it is to express a view against the government, government policy, practice or law.
It is applaudable that the Malaysian Human Rights Commission came out fast critical of the police action....in favour of the freedom of speech, opinion and peaceful assembly...
Some in Cabinet and other government MPs seems to try place the blame on the police - BUT the police is under the government under the Home Minister?...the Cabinet?
What the police should have done was to provide protection to people in their exercise of their freedom of opinion, expression and assembly...
Anyone could have applied to court to stop that conference ...but they did not.
All they did was to express intention to have have separate assemblies that took a different position - that is their right...These different gatherings could have gone on peacefully...with police making sure that the different groups do not interfere with the other group's rights...
Many fought hard to oust the former Barisan Nasional government not simply for 'kleptocracy' or corruption but also for denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms - we voted in the ALTERNATIVE ...a new PH (DAP-PKR-BERSATU-Amanah) government that will enhance and respect our human rights...
Disappointingly, the Pakatan Harapan government did not repeal the Peaceful Assembly Act - they just insignificantly amended it --- reducing the 10 day notice to police requirement to 5 days... Police still have the power to impose all kinds of conditions...and even will completely make sure that right is totally denied. Police permission required for exercising a human right is just ABSURD...
Will Malaysians' right to freedom of speech, expression, opinion and assembly be respected and enhanced..?
PEOPLE's REPRESENTATIVE - well, after the Elections, many do not even have regular dialogue with their constituents, let alone even communication or reporting. MPs seem to choose 'silence' and fail to speak for the people - or at least communicate the different views of the people... They vote in Parliament according to 'orders' from the party - that 'WHIP' should be abolished and/or restricted just to Financial Bills giving our MPs more freedom of speech, opinion...they should be free to represent the people and NOT be forced to blindly follow the position of their party leaders...or PH leaders?
Suhakam opposes move to cancel Dong Zong conference
30 Dec 2019 / 10:48 H
KUALA LUMPUR: The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) says Chinese educationist group Dong Jiao Zong (or Dong Zong) should not have been stopped from holding a peaceful assembly as this right is enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
“We are deeply concerned by the threat of violence against Dong Jiao Zong as the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution,” the human rights group said in a statement today.
It added that cancelling the conference through a court injunction gives the impression the authorities are giving into inciters of violence at the expense of the protection of the fundamental rights of Malaysian citizens.
“We believe the Dong Zong conference, as well as the subsequent protests by Dong Zong detractors, should have been allowed to proceed, and for authorities to ensure that both groups could safely and fully complete their activities to satisfy their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, which is vital for the realisation of a free and open democracy,” Suhakam said.
It urged the police to investigate threats of violence as they could amount to incitement to hatred, sectarian riots, and threaten the rule of law in the country. - Sun, 30/12/2019
Suhakam fears authorities enabling violence after Dong Zong conference derailed by threats
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 30 — The police’s failure to act on violent threats
against the aborted Dong Zong rally last week could be seen as
encouraging such behaviour, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
said.
The commission noted that the failure to act was also compounded by
the police’s decision to seek a restriction order preventing the Chinese
education group’s rally over the introduction of jawi lessons in
vernacular schools.
Suhakam said the combination simultaneously undermined civil
liberties guaranteed under the Federal Constitution and enabled those
who used violence to impose their will on others.
“The commission is concerned that the authorities are giving in to
inciters of violence at the expense of the protection of the fundamental
rights of Malaysian citizens,” Suhakam said in a statement.
The Chinese education group should have been allowed to continue with
its rally despite disagreement from rival groups and the police should
have protected Dong Zong’s right to do so instead of curtailing this,
Suhakam said.
Suhakam urged the police to continue investigating the threats
against Dong Zong, saying these were considered incitement to hatred and
sectarian riots and threats to the rule of law in the country.
On December 18, Dong Zong said it would hold a mass gathering of
Chinese organisations on December 28 to urge the government to cancel
the teaching of the jawi script in the Bahasa Melayu subject in
vernacular schools.
The event that was to include Tamil education group representatives
was later clarified to be an indoor consultative meeting, instead of a
protest or stand-off between the Chinese and Malays.
A day before the December 28 gathering, Malay-Muslim groups announced
they would hold a rally outside New Era University College where the
event would be held to block it and hold a separate rally at the Kajang
stadium just over 1km away.
The police obtained a court order on the same day to bar Dong Zong
from proceeding with the conference, citing a danger to public order. - Malay Mail, 29/12/2019
Wee responds to Guan Eng's 'disappointment' over cancelled Dong Jiao Zong gathering
Nation
Monday, 30 Dec 2019 4:42 PM MYT
By MAZWIN NIK ANIS
PETALING JAYA: MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka
Siong has responded to Lim Guan Eng over his disappointment at the
cancellation of the Dec 28 Dong Jiao Zong gathering to discuss the
implementation of a Jawi calligraphy module in vernacular schools.
“Lim, don’t you have Home Minister (Tan Sri) Muhyiddin (Yassin)'s handphone number? If you need it, I can give it to you.
“Remember
if you go overseas, switch on your phone’s roaming function, there’s a
fee of RM38 daily. Just a gentle reminder, ” Wee said in a Facebook post
on Monday (Dec 30).
Earlier, the DAP secretary-general said
that under Malaysia Baru, the Pakatan Harapan government believes in the
freedom of speech and that the police had no reason to prevent the
event from taking place.
"There was no reason to prevent the gathering. The Kongress
Maruah Melayu was allowed and this (gathering) should have also been
allowed.
"Perhaps there are those who disagree with the views
expressed (by Dong Jiao Zong) but this is what Malaysia Baru is about,
freedom of speech," he said.
Dong Jiao Zong had cancelled the
gathering scheduled to be held on Dec 28 after the group was served with
a court order the day before.
Inspector-General of Police Tan
Sri Abdul Hamid Bador had said that the police had obtained the court
order as a safety precaution.
To a question, Lim said that
parents should be the ones to decide if Jawi is to be taught in
vernacular schools as the decision would affect their children.
"Parents
decide and they are represented by the Parent-Teacher Association
(PTA). If the school does not have a PTA, the government has given
flexibility by allowing school boards to decide on the matter.
"This is a Cabinet decision and I have explained this to Dong Jiao Zong," he said.
It
was reported that the educationist group had criticised Lim, asking why
the school board of directors was not considered as stakeholders to
decide on the teaching of Jawi.
The guidelines issued by the
Education Ministry on the teaching of the Jawi script for Year Four
pupils in Chinese and Tamil primary schools states that the teaching
will be optional.
However, a school will have to teach Jawi
calligraphy if 51% of parents vote in favour of it in a survey conducted
by the school's PTA.
According to the ministry, Jawi
calligraphy was to be introduced in three pages of the Year Four Bahasa
Melayu subject starting Jan 1,2020.
This caused an uproar
among various groups, prompting the ministry to first let teachers
decide if they wanted to teach Jawi to pupils before passing the
decision to parents in the latest guidelines. - Star, 30/12/2019
Lawyers: Police should have protected, not prevented Dong Zong conference that was under threat
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 31 — The police should have facilitated a planned
conference last Saturday by Chinese educationist groups despite the
threats posed by two counter-rallies by Malay groups, instead of
blocking the exercise of the constitutional right to assemble, lawyers
have said.
Constitutional lawyer Lim Wei Jiet said the police should have
ensured the conference organised by Chinese vernacular schools’
educationists Dong Zong and Jiao Zong could safely continue.
“It should in fact facilitate their constitutional right to assemble
by protecting them from other counter-assemblies who are clearly
threatening in nature,” he told Malay Mail when contacted.
What happened
On December 18, the umbrella body for Chinese education Dong Jiao
Zong had announced that it would hold a mass gathering of Chinese
organisations on December 28 to urge the government to cancel the
teaching of the Jawi script in the Bahasa Melayu subject in vernacular
schools. Dong Jiao Zong then said that materials such as banners and
slogans were barred from the event.
It was later clarified that the event including Tamil education group
representatives would be an indoor consultative meeting, instead of a
protest or stand-off between the Chinese and Malays.
But just a day before the December 28 gathering, Malay-Muslim groups announced that they would hold a rally outside New Era University College where Dong Jiao Zong’s conference would be held to stop the latter from proceeding.
They would also hold a separate rally at the Kajang stadium just over 1km away.
On the same day, the police obtained a court order for
Dong Jiao Zong’s conference to be cancelled, with the magistrate
stating that this was necessary to prevent disturbance of public peace
or riots.
Dong Jiao Zong complied with the court order, while the police also asked the public not to attend the planned counter-rallies.
An alternative
Lim said the police did not act in accordance with the Peaceful
Assembly Act, arguing that the police should have arranged for the
counter-rallies to not overlap with the initial gathering by Dong Jiao
Zong.
“Under Section 18 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, if the police
receives a notification of a counter assembly and it is evident that
will cause conflict between the participants of the assemblies, the
police is legally obliged to give an alternative for the counter
assembly to be organized at another time, date or place.
“Instead of adhering to Section 18 by arranging for the counter
assembly to take place somewhere else at a different time, it decided to
seek an injunction against the main assembly instead,” he said,
referring to the court order.
“Further, the police’s action would only incentivise extremist groups
to prevent any peaceful public assemblies by threatening to hold a
counter assembly,” he added.
When asked about the possibility of participants of counter-rallies
still showing up at the initial gathering despite the police’s suggested
alternative, Lim said the Peaceful Assembly Act would give priority to
the main assembly and that the police should then act to safeguard the
initial gathering.
“The police should stop the counter-assembly if it’s held on the same
time and venue,” he said, adding that this may not necessarily be
through a court order but could be done with a police presence to
disperse the counter-assembly.
In November 2016, a similar scenario saw polls reform group Bersih
2.0 carrying out the Bersih 5 rally in Kuala Lumpur, while an
anti-Bersih group known as the Red Shirts mounted a counter-rally in the
same general area in the city.
Despite initial fears of possible unrest and chaos, the police succeeded in ensuring both events went on peacefully and keeping both groups apart.
The High Court had on November 17, 2016 refused
an attempt by Malay traders for a court order to block the November 19
Bersih 5 rally, ruling that the police were duty-bound to prevent a
conflict via redirection of the Red Shirts’ counter-rally.
Equal freedom of expression
Constitutional lawyer Surendra Ananth said the police were entitled
to seek the court order to stop Dong Jiao Zong’s event under the
Criminal Procedure Code, but called the manner it was obtained
questionable.
Surendra said the police should have sought the court order earlier
if it believed it was justified as it had known of the conference for
quite some time, but went on to say that the police should have played a
facilitative role unless there were grounds to believe that there would
be public disorder.
“From public reports, it appears that the concern was counter rallies
that were planned. In that case, the best thing to do was to facilitate
both the conference and rallies.
“It is only in extreme scenarios where the police believes, with
proper basis on an objective standard, that there would be disruption to
public order, then perhaps it would have been justifiable,” he said.
Surendra said that the police must genuinely attempt to address the
potential risks of disruption to public order, but noted that the
approach in this case appeared to be the halting of such events when a
counter-rally comes up.
“This is inconsistent with the right to assemble and free expression.
The approach should be to facilitate those rights, not shut it down the
moment a threat is made,” he said.
Surendra said he respected Dong Zong’s right to express its opinions
despite not sharing the same views, which he said was key to free
expression.
“To shut down groups from voicing out and assembling simply because
other groups do not agree would be akin to rendering such rights
illusory,” he said, adding that it gave the impression that those who
planned the counter-rallies enjoy priority when it comes to the right to
assemble and free expression.
“I think it is important to bear in mind that a fundamental principle
of any constitutional democracy is that it should treat minorities
equally. We are not doing well in this respect,” he said.
A neutral space for all Malaysians
Asked to weigh in on the recent events, senior lawyer Datuk Malik
Imtiaz Sarwar highlighted the police’s facilitative role unless public
order is clearly under threat.
“In my view, unless there was strong reason to believe that there was
going to be a disruption of public order on the part of one or the
other, then the police should have tried to facilitate rather than
obstruct. And if there was a real threat, then all events should have
been blocked through legal means.”
He highlighted the role of the government to ensure a neutral space
for discussion of opinions regardless of what they are or who was
expressing the views, and that this be done in what is seen as an
impartial manner.
“It’s important for public confidence that the police be seen to be
acting impartially. So, if one event was capable of causing a
disturbance then logically the other would too. The Federal Constitution
guarantees the right of expression and association, the law only being
able to encroach in circumstances where there is a clear threat to
public order. The PAA allows for peaceful assemblies without
discrimination.
“The reason the constitution guarantees expression and association is
for us to have a neutral space to discuss matters that impact on us.
The government and its agencies must act as an honest broker, protecting
that space impartially,” he added. - Malay Mail, 31/12/2019
NEWS
Bar: Cops shouldn’t have used court order to stop Dong Zong’s congress
The police should not have resorted to obtaining a court order
to stop Chinese educationist group Dong Zong’s "Chinese Organisations
Congress" to discuss the teaching of the Jawi script in vernacular
schools, said the Malaysian Bar.
Malaysian Bar president Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor (above) noted that police had handled similar situations in the past without resorting to a court order.
Such a move amounts to a curtailing of the constitutional right to the freedom of expression, he said in a statement today.
“It
is unreasonable and contrary to the constitutional scheme that the
fundamental liberty of freedom of expression is liable to be denied on
such a basis.
“Therefore, such a move by the police in
invoking this provision is unprecedented and calls into question the
standard operating procedures surrounding such an application as we
understand that there are several instances in the past where such
orders have not been sought.
“The Malaysian Bar is of the
view that the police should not have resorted to applying for the court
order but managed the situation as had been done in the past,” he said.
The congress was due to be held in Kajang on Dec 28, with the participation of 1,118 schools and NGOs despite threats of a counter-demonstration.
A day ahead of the congress, however, police obtained an injunction to stop the rally citing security concerns.
Abdul Fareed said Malaysians must be given room to voice their grievances.
“As
we move towards further opening up our democratic space in this new
decade, it is essential that fundamental liberties be guarded.
“There
must be room for every Malaysian citizen to have legitimate discourse
and to ventilate grievances in a robust Malaysia that serves her people.
“It
is for the proper and safe facilitation of such future events,
particularly pursuant to government-invoked policies, that we look to
the executive to for further guidance,” he said.
Apart
from the Malaysian Bar, the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has also
voiced concerns about the police’s move to obtain an injunction against
the congress.
Suhakam said both the congress and the
protests against it should be allowed to proceed, while authorities
ensure that both activities proceed peacefully. It also expressed concern that authorities are giving in to threats of violence. - Malaysiakini, 31/12/2019
No comments:
Post a Comment