MP SPEAKS | The government’s stance in respect of the anti-corruption gathering scheduled to be held in Kuala Lumpur on Jan 25 is most regretted.

This is particularly given the fact that there is no evidence of the said assembly being a threat to national security and that the objective of the said gathering is to protest against corruption, a key priority of this federal coalition government.

The insistence of several ministers that the organisers of the said gathering must get the prior approval of the purported owner of the place of assembly (in this case, the Kuala Lumpur City Hall or DBKL) has been severely criticised, and rightly so, for being unreasonable and mere excuses to hinder the gathering.

It is unclear if DBKL is the owner of Dataran Merdeka as it is a public space for the use of the public.

Moreover, many have rightly 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 2012 (PAA) as stated in section 2(b) thereof as follows:

“2. The objects of this Act are to ensure -

(a) …

(b) that the exercise of the right to organise 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, including the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.”

With respect, it can hardly be said that it is necessary to restrict an anti-corruption gathering at a public place like Dataran Merdeka.

Under the circumstances, the requirement in Section 11 of PAA that the consent of the owner of a place of assembly is required when that place is clearly a public place is certainly unreasonable, although the position may be different if the place of assembly is a private land, which is not the case here.

Contrary to reformist image

Pakatan Harapan leaders should not forget that Section 9(1) of the PAA was amended in 2019 after it came into power to reduce the notice period to be given by an organiser of an assembly to the police from 10 to five days, obviously as part of its reform agenda as the PAA had long been criticised as being draconian and an affront to democracy.

As such, the insistence of the same Harapan 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.

In fact, the government should seriously consider amending Section 11 of the PAA and other related laws to ensure that consent by owners of places of assembly is not unreasonably withheld, which would be consistent with its reformist agenda and the constitutional right to assemble.

In light of the above, the government should, instead, indicate its encouragement of the assembly on Jan 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 (assuming DBKL is the owner of Dataran Merdeka) since it is an agency directly under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Department.

The assembly should be allowed to proceed as part of a healthy democracy and the government should not be seen to obstruct this.

RAMKARPAL SINGH is Bukit Gelugor MP.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.