The right to assemble peacefully is for all

Joseph: If we believe in the Act, we cannot play ‘Yes’ to you but ‘No’ to him.

But the Red Shirts need to clearly articulate their objectives if they want public support as a countermovement, says Suhakam Commissioner.

SUHAKAM commissioner Jerald Joseph is quite amazed at just how far-sighted the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012 really is.

He says Section 18 of the Act was “two steps ahead” because it considered the possibility of counter-demonstrations, like when the Red Shirts came out to counter Bersih.

Section 18 reads: If the officer in charge of a police district receives a notification for a counter assembly and it is evident that the organisation of the counter assembly will cause conflict between the participants of the assemblies, the officer in charge of the police district shall give an alternative to the counter assembly at another time, another date or another place.

“I am quite amazed at the thinking. It took into account counter demonstrators and that somebody might ‘disturb’ your right to demonstrate.”

He says it is clear under the Act, that once a group goes violent, incites hatred or “causes conflict” it loses its right to demonstrate because its action has impacted on the rights of the other group of demonstrators.

There are two key words in the Act, Joseph points out, which are “assembly” and “peaceful”.

“If we believe in the Act, we cannot play ‘Yes’ to you but ‘No’ to him.”

No masked threat: Some Red Shirts supporters might not want to be identified by their employer

“No matter how crude or strange the ideas that are expressed, as long as it is expressed in a peaceful manner, it is a legitimate right of expression. And if people want to do it in a gathering, it is allowed,” he says.

So, he says, counter demonstrators should never use their right to assemble “to intimidate or work towards trying to disable the other group’s right to assemble.”

“In that sense, the spirit of the Act is to make sure that those who wanted to demonstrate are able to demonstrate. That is the language in the Act,” he adds.

Bersih is a movement that has gained quite a bit of traction over the years. It calls for free and fair elections, as well as reforms in the electoral process and the Election Commission.

Over the last year or so, the Red Shirts have emerged as a counter movement to Bersih. They accuse Bersih of wanting to topple the elected government through street demonstrations. The Red Shirts say their reason for coming out is to defend parliamentary democracy, the country’s constitution, the results of the general elections and the elected government in power.

So it angers them when Bersih calls on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to step down or explain the 1MDB issue, because to them Bersih is trying to incite hatred towards the country’s top leader.

They say critics should just wait until the next general election.

Suhakam’s Joseph has a different view.

He points out that if there is ever an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government, then it is the role of the police – not vigilantes – to stop it.

“Who are these vigilantes anyway who want to take on the role – that in order to defend the constitution they have to go out and fight?”

“And where is the proof that Bersih wants to overthrow the elected government? Bersih has already held five rallies over the years and the elected government-of-the day is still the government-of-the-day,” he says.

Joseph says raising questions and asking leaders to be answerable to the people is not inciting hatred because elected public officials are duty bound to be accountable to the people.

“The Red Shirts say their duty is stop the Yellow Shirts (Bersih) because their fear is that the (Federal) Government is going to come down with these street demonstrations.

“Then how come there is not that same fear when Umno members go to Penang and Selangor and demonstrate against the Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and Menteri Besar Datuk Azmin Ali in those states, urging them to step down (because of corruption and the water crisis)?

“How come those demonstrations are legitimate and the ones calling for Najib to step down are not? It is the same logic.”

Joseph says, opining that the notion of governance is being misinterpreted.

“Those in power, be it from Barisan Nasional or the Opposition parties, must realise that they are answerable to the people.”

He says in the human rights world, “inciting hatred” means attacking a person on the basis of his identity, affiliation, race, religion or status.

“Criticism of leaders is not inciting hatred. It is not going against the person personally, but it is going against the person as the office bearer.

“If that person has done wrong, they have to answer because they are holding that seat. It is the same for Najib as the PM or Lim Guan Eng as Chief Minister. It is fair game and about accountability.”

For him, he says, all Bersih is doing is asking for reforms in the law, the election process, and the Election Commission.

“It is still very much going to the system and telling the system ‘We need to change.’ It is not a revolution. It is a reform.”

Joseph says the Red Shirts have yet to clearly articulate their objectives as a countermovement. So he says the core demands they are fighting for does not trickle down to the people on the street.

“You can do a test. Ask anyone on the street ‘What are the Red Shirts’ demands?’ Everyone will say they are anti-Bersih.

“Ask people what the Yellow Shirts’ (Bersih’s) demands are. And they will say it is for ‘Free and Fair Elections.’”

Which brings him to the his next point, which is, how can anyone logically be against ‘Free and Fair Elections.’

For Red Shirts to be an effective countermovement, he feels they should try to frame their grounds and demands, then detail and articulate them.

He says, for example, the Red Shirts can come out and say they disagree with Bersih’s Five Principles or that they believe that the Election Commission is perfect and the country’s elections are credible.

“To me that would be substantive. They have to set their legitimate cause, articulate it so that everyone is clear what their demands are.”

And it should be a message that people believe in.

“If you give a clear message surely people will join you,” he says, citing the recent rally for the Rohingya and the March against the War in Iraq (in 2003) as examples of clear messaging which drew hordes of supporters.

One of the Red Shirts leaders, Armand Azha Abu Hanifah, denies that the movement is violent and questions why the whole movement is labelled as violent if only a few troublemakers had caused problems. This is unfair, he argues.

Concurring, Joseph says in a legitimate movement with 1000 or so demonstrators, there might be a “few idiots who cannot be controlled”.

For him, a demonstration cannot be deemed invalid just because “10 or so idiots” disrupt it.

When such incidents occur, he says, the organiser should isolate these trouble makers, get the police to take them away and allow the rest of the demonstration to continue as planned.

He says it is also important for the organiser to denounce the violence and the demonstrators who had gone violent.

“They have to say ‘These people do not represents us!’ And tell the police to investigate and act. So far, I don’t see the Red Shirts denouncing the violence. If they keep silent, it shows their ambiguity on the violent acts.”

As for the Red Shirts covering their faces, Joseph says that is understandable and within their right. He says some people might not want to be identified because they are working for a company or outfit that frowns on demonstrations.

He says this is true in many countries where demonstrations are not allowed and the authorities identify the “culprits” from their faces in the crowd, so people cover their faces so as not to be identified.

“But that should not be used as a guise for people to come into the crowd to try and kacau.”