Demand for Owner’s Consent to Rally Defies Government’s Reformist Image
The Unreasonable Requirement
The government’s stance on the anti-corruption gathering scheduled to take place in Kuala Lumpur on January 25 is regrettable, given the lack of evidence of the assembly being a threat to national security and its objective of protesting against corruption, a key priority of this unity government. Several ministers have insisted that the organizers of the gathering must obtain prior approval from the purported owner of the place of assembly, Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL). This demand has been severely criticized, and rightly so, for being unreasonable and an excuse to hinder the gathering.
Public Space Ownership
It is unclear if DBKL is the owner of Dataran Merdeka, as it is clearly a public space. Many have pointed out how unreasonable it is to expect the owner of a place of assembly to always approve such gatherings, which goes against one of the main objects of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012.
Unnecessary Restrictions
The Peaceful Assembly Act states that the objects of the Act are to ensure that the exercise of the right to organize assemblies or to participate in assemblies, peaceably and without arms, is subject only to restrictions deemed necessary or expedient in a democratic society in the interest of the security of the federation or any part thereof or public order. With respect, it can hardly be said that it is necessary to restrict an anti-corruption gathering at a public place like Dataran Merdeka.
Regressive Stance
Pakatan Harapan (PH) leaders should not forget that Section 9(1) of the PAA was amended in 2019 to reduce the notice period to be given by an organizer of an assembly to the police from 10 to five days, obviously as part of its reform agenda. The insistence of the same PH leaders today that the consent of the owner of the place of assembly must be obtained before the assembly is held is certainly regressive and contrary to the government’s reformist image.
Call for Reform
In fact, the government should seriously consider amending the said Section 11 and other related laws to ensure that consent by the owners of places of assembly is not unreasonably withheld, which would be consistent with its reformist agenda and the constitutional right to assemble. The government should instead indicate its encouragement of the assembly on January 25, which would undoubtedly be a major factor that would be taken into account by DBKL if it were to consider giving its consent for the said assembly to be held at Dataran Merdeka.
Conclusion
The assembly should be allowed to proceed as part of a healthy democracy, and the government should not be seen to obstruct this. It is time for the government to revisit its stance and uphold the principles of democracy and reform.
FAQs
- Q: Why is the government demanding prior approval from the owner of the place of assembly?
A: The government claims that it is necessary to ensure public order and national security. - Q: Is Dataran Merdeka a public space?
A: Yes, Dataran Merdeka is a public space, and it is unclear if DBKL is the owner. - Q: Why is the government’s stance on this matter regressive?
A: The government’s stance is regressive because it is contrary to its reformist agenda and the constitutional right to assemble. - Q: What should the government do instead?
A: The government should indicate its encouragement of the assembly on January 25 and consider amending the Peaceful Assembly Act to ensure that consent by the owners of places of assembly is not unreasonably withheld.