Posted on by Kit

Is PM AAB above the law?

by Loh Meng Kow

According to Star, PM AAB commenting on the arrest of eight people, including four lawyers, for taking part in an illegal march here yesterday, and said: Lawyers are not above the law.

Federal Constitution: Section 10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association has four clauses. It reads (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3), and (4)-

(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.

Section 4. Supreme law of the Federation reads (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Section 27 of the police Act 1967, and section 141 of the penal code deal with assembly, and they can only provide guidelines on how assembly should be conducted. They cannot go against Section 10 (1) in making assembly illegal since that would be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore be void.

Just like clause (1) of Section 10 is subject to the restrictions imposed by clauses, 2, 3, and 4, the police could impose reasonable condition so that peaceably assembly without arms could be undertaken.

The police are to maintain peace and order, and the excuse that the assembly could inconvenience the public could not be used to prevent assembly. Instead it is the duty of the police to make arrangements so that the assembly could be carried out with the least disruption to the public.

It is in that spirit of allowing the police department to make preparations to ensure peaceably assembly and without arms that the Police Act 1967 provides Section 27 to deal with public assembly.

The topics and the contents of the assembly are not the responsibility of the police, and the persons responsible for requesting police permit are liable to observe the laws, and face prosecution accordingly where applicable.

The Police should not refuse permit for peaceably assembly, though it might have the authority to withdraw the permit when organizers fail to follow specific conditions for the assembly. It should be the authority of the Police Department to act based objectively on implementing Section 27 of the Police Act 1967.

PM AAB has declared all peaceable assemblies illegal. Is PM AAB above the law?

87 Replies to “Is PM AAB above the law?”

  1. I think he said in a recent speech that if forced to choose between freedom and national stability, he would choose the latter as if the two items were mutually exclusive.

    Such is the power vested in the PM that our MPs are nothing more than blank cheques we have given him.

  2. The De facto Law Minister standard reply is “It does not matter whether you are pro-government or anti-government, the rule of law applies”
    And the IGP has also declared “All Police actions are governed by the laws of the Country”
    But laws can be applied and enforced selectively – like the wearing of crash helmets is not enforced in the rural areas.
    The former Deputy PM Tun Misa Hitam said laws must be adaptable, for more details of his ideas on Street demos, assembly & need for a permit
    Go H E R E

  3. “forced to choose between freedom and national stability”… what a total BS. Those people arrested are all educated and not criminals. Rape case increase so much, robbery, home invasion, murder and etc happening every minutes…. and what has been done? NOTHING! With those fat police sitting in mamak store doing nothing is jeopardizing the national stability more than anything else!

  5. The Federal Constitution has been compromised to suit the whims and desires of who-so-ever is in the hot seat of power, and however the prevailing circumstances are interpreted by the ruling pseudo-military junta, for its own means of perpetuating the current immature democracy.

  6. I watched the arrest of Mustafa Ali on YouTube – utterly contemptible and disgraceful, defies common sense, the decency expected of common people and is the epitome of the unmitigated trampling of the sanctity and sovereignty of Parliament and the haloed privileges of parliamentarians.

    The way PM AAB has handled the recent crisis sucks, is no better than the way a desperate schoolboy would have handled the crisis. This is the damned standard of governance and administration in Malaysia.

    The PM is above the law and Parliament.
    The police is above the law and Parliament.

    AAB, Najib and the entire BN must surely now be anathema to the malaysian people for their disrespect for the Rule of LAw – as sure as the day my mother gave birth to me.

    It is despicable to see how BN has stacked the whole of the government offices with their running dogs e.g. judiciary, police, AG etc. There is no longer justice in this land and none can be expected.

    The arrest of Mustafa Ali is not unlike the brutal rape of a chaste maiden. The use of brute force, the unbending disregard for reason and appeals, the grabbing and the shoving…it’s the ‘rape’ of Mustafa Ali and Parliament, no less – and horror of horrors! in full view of parliamentarians too! It’s no less than a rape of a chaste woman before her husband!

    God have mercy on men with brutish hearts. Pak lah and Najib, how your hearts have become like brutes, ‘like rocks, like stones and worse than senseless things” – may your GOD, whoever you conceive him to be or not to be, forgive you!

  8. STAR :

    “Speaker defends arrests at Parliament

    KUALA LUMPUR: Parliament is a restricted area and police can arrest those who pose a security threat, said Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib. ”

    Even the Speaker now has become a tokkok!

    Who has posed a threat to security? Tan Sri Ibrahim Khalid? I haven’t seen a truer gentleman than him! Pak LAh and Najib would pale by comparison.

    Why can’t a decent citizen go on an announced visit to the parliamnet to hand over a memo to the Speaker? How is that a threat to security either to parliamnet or the nation?

    That’s why I say Speaker is a tokkok.

  10. “None is above the Law”! This statement is very clear, lawful and poweful indeed!
    But when it comes out from someone who doesn’t the true meaning of it, then it becomes totally useless statement. It’s like blind man describing and appreciating paintings. Like illiterate praising fine literatures.
    I admire the phrase…when I read it for myself or when it comes out from a truly leader, but couldn’t fine one!

  11. This is getting ridiculous day by day. When our cries are ignored by the authorities, we walked the streets to deliver our pleas to the King. Then, we are told to raise our issues and concern through proper channels. When we approach the Parliament, to raise our issues, we are arrested and threatened with the full weight of the law. The authorities’ actions are mind-boggling at best and downright insane at worst!

  13. Not all assembly is illegal. KJ & Co could break everything in sight and they would still be given a permit again.

    But is the PM above the law? The short answer in reality is yes. This is because we don’t have a system of reason, we have a system of might and excuse is right. So long as they can give an excuse and have the power to get away with it, then its always right. The excuse can be very flimsy of course but so long as critics can’t gather significant broad condemnation, they can and will do it. It is the ultimate system of exploiting the apathetic, the indecisive and inaction i.e.,

    If this system was of reason, there is no reason why the Indians should not be accorded affirmative action if the Malays are. If this was a system of reason why affirmative action cannot be indefinite under the constitution. If this is a system of reason, there is no reason why we are not a secular nation (there is no such thing as not secular and not theocratic. Its nonsense).

    The list just goes on…

  15. THERE IS NO LAW IN BARDAWI EXCEPT TO OPPRESS MLAYSIANS AND THREATEN THEM WITH ISA.

    Did Malaysians give the BN the mandate to rule so that it is selectivee in its enforcement of the law?

    BN doesn’ follow the Constitition. The provisions of rhe Constitutions are dead letters.

    Malaysia subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and yet we ignore Article 20 which enshrined the Right of Assembly and Free Speechd.d

    The BN is doing its darndest to ALIENATE ALL MALAYSIANS. What the leaders do not udnerstand is that all these oppressive action against Hindraf is making them martyrs and pdrove a rallying point for Right Thinking Malaysians. Thes Malaysians within the country and abroad feel a complete disgust and repugnance for the repressive measures adopted by our PM.

    When the vote is casted in the General Election, the BN is going to get a trouncing, never before experienced in Malaysia since Merdeka. Badawi and the likes daof Nazri is destroying the image of Malaysia. Teh postings on blogs by Malaysians who would ordinarily not be concerned with the currnt issues show the awakening of all Malaysians.

    TOURISTS AND FOREOGN INVESTORS WILL STAY OUT OF MALAYSIA.

  16. Not only AAB is above the law, all UMNOputras and police are above the law except non-malays and opposition. Indians are worse la. What Constitution and Supreme Law are you talking? As far as they are concerned, its out of the window and do not exist. only their “laws” apply.

  19. Vote the bloody BN out come next GE! These bullshit MP of BN has no grace, their choice of words used in Parliament is no better than hawkers in the wet market! Even the latter has respect to women and disabled people.

    What have this BN government did for the last 4 years? Spent billions of ringgit on projects that does not benefit the people at all, such as sending a passenger to the space, building a sports center in London (for who?), bailed out the PKFZ.

    Why not spend this good money in improving the traffic conditions in KL and Penang? Why not subsidies the broadband infrastructure of the nation? Streamyx still sucks. Why not use the money to clean up the environment? Why not use the money to provide better medical services to the people? (Oh btw, when they go to the government hospitals, i guess they have the privilege to stay in first class rooms, so they don’t bother about the people staying in badly maintained areas.)

    It’s a known secret that all government projects must go through “proper” channels, else you can forget it. Only bumi company can get the projects, and they just sub out the contracts to non-bumi companies. So bumis who know the government well can get the job easily and just have to build relationships!

    Look at the amount of monies spent on projects, but the quality of the products? Leaking roof of the parliament, the world’s second largest court house, hospitals not properly maintained. All these are not worth it!

    On toll charges, we always hear the excuses of our tolls are the lowest compared to Singapore, HK, Japan, a lot of other countries in the world. Ya, you are right, our GDP also are the lowest compared to these countries. The ratio is just not right. So what did the BN government do about it? Let the tolls concessionaires raise the toll charges lah!

  20. The PM uses stability to justify his curbs on freedom. Everyone knows that freedom is the ultimate right of every human being and animal included. People have died for freedom…many more around the world are fighting for the same thing that we are.

    BN has contravened the Constitution and violated Parliament. These are totally unpatriotic people we can do without. We don’t need to fly flags to show our patriotism…we do it from our hearts.

  21. There is so much of uneasy feeling in the country now. Hindraf issue blown out of propotion, some physical violence between UMNO and PAS in Penang state recently, some many arrests recently of event happened 1 month ago, plus other issues.
    Guess where is AAB now? He has flown to Egypt!!!!!!!!
    He also flew there on his way back from C’wealth meeting just recently. Does he know the priority.

    Who is running the country now? Najib, Khairy, Hisham, All the Menteri Besars or………. it is free for all???????????

  23. If you are fed up with your stagnant salary over the years, vote opposition!!

    If you are not happy with the high inflation rate and low purchasing power, vote opposition!!

    If you monthly salary is less than RM10,000, vote opposition!!

    If you want our country FDI to triple within the next 5 years, vote opposition!!

    If you want true democracy, vote opposition!!

    If you want a government that is accountable, transparent, clean, fair, honest, sincere, vote opposition!!

    If you want a country with low crime rate, vote opposition!!

    Last but not least, if you really love this country, vote opposition!!

  24. And did u read abt the reason why KJ monkey’s antics in front of US EMbassy was acceptable? Either it made u laugh or roll on the floor wanting to puke!

    Palestinean issue is OUR ISSUE but INdians Issues aint our problem. Is that what the joker is trying to say? And how the heck did that monkey get a permit? And with a permit, he cant even control himself nor conduct himself properly befitting a PM’s SIL!

  26. I will go one step further. … UMNO is above the Law. How many times have they broken the law. Even the engineered defeat of Mahathir in the Kubang Pasu divisional elections is a subject of a police report. Yet nothing has been done. What about the brandishing of the keris? What about the incendiary remarks by UMNO delegates? What about the widespread corruption in high places in UMNO?

  28. “Section 27 of the police Act 1967, and section 141 of the penal code deal with assembly, and they can only provide guidelines on how assembly should be conducted. They cannot go against Section 10 (1) in making assembly illegal since that would be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore be void.” Loh Meng Kow

    In so stating the writer unfortunately has glossed over the ambit of Clauses 2), 3) and 4) of Article 10 of the Constitution of 1957 which can only be gauged by reading the language used therein. By so doing the writer artificially confines himself to the narrow interpretation of Clause 1 (a), (b) and (c) and reminds readers that any law passed in contravention of the supreme law of the Federation i.e. the Constitution, is null and void. Such selective and subjective reading of the law can only lead to conflicting and misleading interpretation of the Constitution.

    Clauses 2) and 3) state clearly that Parliament may by law impose such restrictions as “it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation” and Clause 4) states clearly that Parliament when imposing those restrictions may do so “in the interest of the security of the Federation” – without defining what the phrase “in the interest of the security of the Federation” leaving it therefore for the Executive to decide.

    This omission, I respectfully submit, is deliberate because in 1957 we were in the middle of a communist insurgency. The purpose was to grant unfettered powers to the Executive which needs to battle the unconventional tactics used by the communists led by Chin Peng. The Communist Party of Malaya had been declared illegal and its leaders continued their activities underground. Their strategy was a long term one and penetrating the labor unions was a communist party modus operandi.

    When we declared victory over the communists in 1960, logically such clauses should have been amended or repealed altogether. However, the Alliance the precursor to today’s national coalition with its two-third control of Parliament found it convenient to maintain legislation as it is. The Internal Security Act (ISA) which the Brits used to fight terrorism in Northern Ireland is one example. How many of our politicians fought elections in the 80s on the platform of a freer society and have vowed to re-examine the ISA but only to reassure us when they came to power that they would not use it if it is not necessary.

    The Indonesian Confrontation in the early 60s and the formation of Malaysia and the race riots in 1969 dispensed finally with the need to amend or repeal altogether much of the legislation. In fact more of such laws were introduced to stifle political dissent.

    Thus what was born out of political expediency in the early years came to be made permanent.

    Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 and any similar legislation, I respectfully submit, is not ultra vires the Constitution of 1957. The ambit of Clause 4) is wide enough as to allow such an interpretation. A narrow reading of the said Section 27 defeats its very purpose.

    In fact Article 121(1)(A) (I hope I quote that correctly) that was to be introduced years later creating a double tracked system of justice – one based on the English common law and the other on the syariah law – owes its existence to Clause 4) of Article 10.

  29. “It has been said that terror was the mainspring of despotic government. Does your government, then, resemble a despotism? Yes, as the sword which glitters in the hands of liberty’s heroes resembles the one with which tyranny’s lackeys are armed. Let the despot govern his brutalized subjects by terror; he is right to do this, as a despot. Subdue liberty’s enemies by terror, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is it not to strike the heads of the proud that lightning is destined?”

    —Maximilien Robespierre, foremost member of the Committee of Public Safety elected by the National Convention in Revolutionary France, in a speech delivered on February 5, 1794

  31. I started using the term “elected Sultanate” to describe our country a while ago but it did not caught on. I realized I was wrong now. The more accurate term is “selected Sultanate”. We did not elect the PM or even the bangsawan like Nazri and KJ. The fact of the matter is they were selected and a small group (their gerry-meandered constituency) was bribed to elect them. So since the selection is actually more important than the election, the term “selected Sultanate” is more accurate. To be more accurate its should be “select-then-autoelect Sultanate” but that is a mouthful. So I will use the term “selected Sultanate”.

    Why do we pretend we actually have a democracy? The term is so abused here its just stupid to ask if we are a democracy and allow the BN politician to use the veneer of the term.

    If we don’t ask and accurate describe ourselves, then we don’t need to ask question like is the PM above the law. In a selected Sultanate of course he is above the law and so will the bangsawan.

  37. Sorry for being out of topic. I had my share of writing couple of messages here, and after much reflection this couple of weeks upon recent recent events, I wish to make a sincere comment.

    I was a poor kid in the 60s from a village. I studied national school from Std 1 to Form 5. I did not go to U not because of quota, but I failed my grades. I had got government book loan, and part scholarship during the secondary school. After I left school I pursued an A Level course which in a way provided by government policy in private education. Then, after leaving college, I work but recession came in the mid 80s. Out of work for 5 years and later with lots of FDI came in I got a job that pays for my part time course in LLB. I failed. But, I learned something. I am not doing fantastic at least I am not downtroden. With a house over my head and sufficient foods and some little luxury at times.

    I was also suffering a bout of mental challenge couple of years ago. I went to private clinic that turns out to be too expensive then I got to go to the government hospital for meds. I see now that we had many benefits that others may not necessary had it in a way which I have seen travelling abroad. Peoples sleeping in a canvass in the open field, clay huts, grass huts, etc. Of course, I have also seen those in the gated banglo. There is always no comparison in life…so long one put in some hard work with the basics provided by government to all races, we should be able to be on our very own.

    Sincerely, I want to say one thing the government whether you like it or not had done some very structural progressive improvement to the whole community irrespective of race.

    I had my share of bias, and narrow minded view of race base political comments. Very much is influenced and with experiences and reflection we will learn. We should not use caustic, but judicous words. The couple of caustic comments made by me was emotional rather than a balance perspective that should be in our diverse community – this I had forgotten.

    Whatever it’s, life is tough even for the rich. A different type of toughness though. I am glad that I can share my view and hope that whatever had been commented cannot be retrieved, so may those comments who had hurt certain community, may there be an olive branch extended.

    Please Malaysians, stability in a diverse culture of us is priceless. I wish to thanks the government for those benefits that had made what I am today. I have no complain.

  39. Why don’t DAP file a case to the court on section 10 of the Federal Constitution (Freedom of Speech) so that a ruling can be had on all future rallies.

    I believe this case is even stronger, more useful and affecting more people than the case that is being filed yesterday to challenge the legality of the court order obtained by the police barring Bersih activists and the public from Parliament on Monday, 11th December 2007.

    And there is certainly no lack of cases to take up on this as so many people have been arrested this past weeks.

  45. He can’t say anything, otherwise he will taste his own medicine ! Seriously, he can’t say or do anything while his children are all heavily involved in business in Bolehland. Badawi and his 4th floor boys got the entire Mahathir clan [deleted].

  49. The manner citizens interprete Article 10 clause 2,3,4 which impose restrictions on our fundamental freedoms depends on their maturity.

    Those who accept that peaceful assembly without police permit is illegal are those who need adult supervision in whatever they do. They are the subservient type, who believe that that they are made for the laws.

    Those who can not accept that peaceful assembly without police permit is illegal are grownups who do not need adult supervision. They believe that the laws are made for the people. They are agents of change, who will lead the subservient type out of their sordid predicaments to a better tomorrow.

    I personally believe that the laws are made for the people. The people are not made for the laws.

    Loh Meng Kow has written a very good article. But, it came too late. It is like locking up the stable after the horse is stolen. Most of you were uninterested in this matter earlier, when some of you indirectly propounded the need for adult supervision. The Powers-that-be read what we write and act accordingly.

    If all of us were united as one voice that we were all grownups, that we did not need nannies to supervise us, the powers-that-be might not be so enthusiastic in wantonly arresting peaceful people who just wanted to be heard.

    Once, the Bar Council back off, powers-that-be follow the instinct of predators which would chase and capture running away preys, right up to their nest, culminating in the capture of one of its leaders, and the destruction of banners marking their territorial claims. They have even been labelled as cowards.

    I salute the few lawyers and laymen — including those arrested — who exercised their rights on World Human Rights day on 9.11.2007 by going ahead with the walk despite the lack of support from the Bar Council. They stood up not only for their rights, but our rights as well. I do not salute those who are meekly “law-abiding”, who will prolong our miseries.

  51. Parliament had some 200+ MPs elected by the people but according to statistics yesterday, only 30 were present for the parliamentary session. So why bother to have GE and elect these “ponteng” guys to receive such good salaries and fringe benefits when they can well sleep at home without having to attend the sessions? Big issue, as if, that next GE is coming soon? We will only elect another group of sleepy heads who just sapu “gaji buta” and the nuts are no one else but the rakyat themselves!!!

  52. DAPHNE aka EARNEST,

    Don’t make us laugh.

    “Those who accept that peaceful assembly without police permit is illegal are those who need adult supervision in whatever they do. They are the subservient type, who believe that that they are made for the laws.”

    If you commit an act against the law. It is called breaking the law. If you’re talking about Sec. 27 Police Act 1967, the legislators passed it into law. Our legislature is controlled by BN who has two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution.

    Fortunately or unfortunately in a democracy the majority gets to decide. Who says the majority is always right, must be right, is not wrong, is never wrong or is fair or just? Some speak of democracy as the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

    So far do you have any quarrel with the facts? These are facts!

    Then there is the question of whether the police decision to refuse a permit required under Sec. 27 of the said Act was not politically motivated. This is a question that is not easily answered without judicial review.

    If a permit has been refused and no grounds were given, in all likelihood the decision to refuse was made mala fide.

    The only forward then is to go ahead and break the law since the government has no intention of conforming to the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law, no intention of being fair or just. Democracy we must remember is about the free expression of ideas. When obstacles are placed against the free expression of ideas etc it has a way to find an outlet – as we saw!

    BERSIH, HINDRAF and other demonstrations to come are not about assemblies being illegal.

    It has nothing to do about closing the barn doors after the horses have bolted. But it is about you missing the wood from the trees.

  53. “The manner citizens interprete Article 10 clause 2,3,4 which impose restrictions on our fundamental freedoms depends on their maturity. Those who accept that peaceful assembly without police permit is illegal are those who need adult supervision …” DAPHNE

    What has one’s maturity got to do with the law or its interpretation la? I’ve never read a more stupid posting than this!

  57. Somewhere in the world, hard working ruling parties that have good experience n good capability is solely responsible n decide what is legal or not legal.
    Good experience, capabilities derived from more than 48 years of hard works for their rule.
    FAIR, i.e, their citizen appreciate their hard works, capabilities n good experience n accord those ruling parties such responsibility.
    FREE, ruling parties do not charge extra for this responsibility.
    TRANSPARENT, all ballot boxes will be transparent.

  58. “Those who can not accept that peaceful assembly without police permit is illegal are grownups who do not need adult supervision. They believe that the laws are made for the people.” DAPHNE

    Sure – and the law says it is illegal if you have a demonstration without first getting a police permit. It is made illegal for a purpose i.e. so they could have you arrested and charged for holding or participating in an illegal assembly.

    If you were not so dumb you would have noticed that laws are being broken every day.

  60. There are many spineless intellectuals among us who are not stupid or dumb. They are smart, cringing in a corner, while others fight for the restoration of their constitutional rights. They enjoy bashing those who dared stick their necks out to make a change when the odds appeared to be against them, and they rub their hands in schadenfreude when in the course of their struggles, the freedom fighters suffer some setbacks.

    Now, you are getting somewhere. I am not EARNEST. But, we are one in spirit, not in body. You may label us as DAPHNE aka EARNEST aka limkamput aka former Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas who had said that the police can only regulate NOT prevent citizens from holding peaceful assembly.

    Are laws which violate your birthrights or your constitutional rights valid?

  63. I am not DAPHNE. I am an agnostic, somewhat influenced by Bertrand Russell’s thinking. Apart from this, perhaps DAPHNE and I have common grounds on some secular matters.

    Among us, there are some who are as impudent as my pubescent grandchildren. They are also writing as though for Main Stream Media (MSM) here.

    Perhaps a crash primer course on RULE OF LAW 101 courtesy of former President of the Bar Council, Mr. Yeoh Yang Poh, which also touches on MSM’s version may be useful for them during their growing up years into adulthood.

    Our right to defy bad laws
    ————————-
    Yeo Yang Poh | Dec 14, 07 3:51pm

    I refer to the New Straits Times editorial The rule of law on Dec 11.

    You began by stating that no arrests would have been made on Dec 9 “If the unlawful marchers had responded to the warnings to disperse.”

    I take it that you meant to say “If those accused of being unlawful marchers had responded to the alleged warnings to disperse” since those allegations (and others that followed in your editorial) have yet to be established in the pending cases. This would have been in line with your paper’s usual care in distinguishing allegations from proven facts when commenting on pending cases.

    You have argued that defiance of any law cannot be defended in any circumstances. No law, no matter how bad it is, can be broken. Your only proposed solution to a bad law is to change it. For as long as it has not been changed, every bad law must never be broken. Breaking a bad law would, in your view, lead to lawlessness.

    That view is not new. It offers the language of legal rights but it is not the language of human rights. The issue, therefore, is whether the framework of legal rights is sufficient for a society. If it is, then there is no need for the language of human rights.

    If your view is right then there is no place for civil disobedience in any society. One would have to conclude that Rosa Parks, whose defiance of segregation law (by sitting on the bus in breach of the law) triggered a chain of events that led to its eventual change, had sparked reform in an unacceptable and indefensible way.

    One would have to concede that Mahatma Gandhi was indefensibly wrong when he led thousands to defy the law on salt-making of the time. Nelson Mandela would have to apologise for having been a repeated offender and law-breaker in organising and participating in countless illegal rallies during his youth. The list of examples is long.

    Readers such as I would be interested to know if this is the position held by one of the leading newspapers in 21st century Malaysia. If I have misconstrued your views then I look forward to a clarification and a debate on these issues in your papers in the coming days, accommodating and publishing diverse views. That would contribute towards nation building and would, I am sure, not break any law.

    I agree with you that society must seek to change bad laws. The process of change, however, cannot merely be limited to the election of representatives and the legislative mechanism alone, as some politicians are prone to suggest these days. All forms of peaceful expression, lobbying and demanding for change are legitimate and important parts of the change process.

    You suggest that the only legitimate way to deal with a law that is perceived to be oppressive is to continually debate it and (I presume) hope that such public debate will one day bring about the desired change. You have ruled out other methods. For as long as that oppressive law has not been changed, one would continue to debate the issues and suffer the oppression no matter how long the period of waiting may be. This, I deduce, is your notion of good citizenry.

    However, your examples relating to proposals for changes to the law on freedom of assembly chillingly illustrate to your readers how true it is that talk alone is cheap. It paints a picture of despair to good citizens if talk is all that one can do.

    The proposals for reform cited in your examples were not made by demonstrators or marchers, but by bodies and persons tasked by the government to do so. They were not made last week, last month or last year. Yet the law has not been changed. That, if I understand you correctly, makes no difference.

    You speak of the rule of law. I wish to say that there is a world of difference between “rule by law” and “rule of law”. Rule by law occurs everywhere, in the worst of places, including societies such as Zimbabwe and Burma. Laws made by military rulers are nevertheless laws of the land. Peaceful people everywhere are always ruled by the laws of the land.

    Rule of law, on the other hand, is a system that must conform to multiple requirements, norms, standards, expectations, checks and balances. This can be the subject of another public debate and I look forward to your paper providing the space and opportunity for such a debate.

    The writer is former Bar Council president. New Straits Times has refused to publish the above letter.

  64. We appeal to the UN to declare a resolution against the UMNO-led government of Malaysia for the illegal and undemocratic detention under ISA. There is no difference between what UMNO is doing and the junta of Myanmar and apartheid South Africa. We implore world leaders like Nelson Mandela to speak out against these detentions in Malaysia. We ask the leading nations of the world to impose traveling sanctions against UMNO leaders and also to freeze all their overseas assets. International pressure must be placed on UMNO to stop all their undemocratic, inhumane, corrupt, unjust actions and practices.

  65. EARNEST ‘ol guy,

    Yeo Yang Poh was responding to an editorial comment when he wrote:

    He was responding to the suggestion that because it was an illegal assembly (because no police permit was issued ), the police had reacted accordingly and properly within the law by demanding that the crowd dispersed. The crowd did not disperse and arrests were made because it is the duty of the police to maintain public order. So far so good?

    So far so good but for the suggestion apparently that the way forward should be to go change the law i.e. Sec. 27 of the Police Act 1967 which makes it mandatory for such an assembly to have a police permit.

    You, Earnest, have been saying something else quite different and it arises from your stubborn refusal or perhaps inability (which is more likely) to identify the issues – or just a case of plain bad English!

    You say:

    “Those who accept that peaceful assembly without police permit is illegal ….”

    It is not for us to accept that it is illegal. It is illegal because it is against the law. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE MUST FOLLOW IT i.e. the law in question (this is hoping that putting it in CAPS would make you read it again – and think!). By not obeying the law, we of course would be breaking the law. Participants must accept that they could be legally arrested for being participants of an illegal assembly. Because that is the law! And participants were arrested.

    Yeo was making his response to an editorial comment. What is your comment in response to??? Did any poster say or suggest that the HINDRAF supporters should never have held their demonstration because it was illegal?? That would be the police talking because it is their duty to maintain public order.

    If I were you I’d quit saying that Sec. 27 is null and void as being ultra vires the Federal Constitution! Because it is not. It has remained on the books for years now! But that is not even the issue here! Do you understand what I’m talking about? The HINDRAF demonstration is not about some unruly mob out to demand that Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 be repealed! It is about something else more serious.

    Wakarimasta??

  66. You being agnostic? What has that got to do with the issue of illegal assembly? What has Bertrand Russell got to do with you being agnostic?

    Is that all you have to contribute to this blog – and cutting and pasting somebody else’s work??

    Who cares if you think you are this Daphne or not? I believe you are a cross dresser – and the dress is too similar each time!

  67. “Are laws which violate your birthrights or your constitutional rights valid?” EARNEST

    Hello, EARNEST (or DAPHNE or whatever name you want to give your handle today),

    I don’t know where you’re going with the “birthrights” bit but any law which is ultra vires the Federal Constitution of 1957 is void. It is void because the Constitution is the supreme law of the federation.

    I remember you writing about Article 10 of the Federal Constitution being the supreme law which guarantees our right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly, that Section 27 of the Police Act is ultra vires the Constitution and is accordingly null and void.

    Would you like to cut and paste here Clauses 2), 3) and 4) of the said Article and let us hear what you have to say to these?

    If you don’t wish to do so, then do us all a favor. Quit talking about it and stop the name calling or be forced into self-exile until you rehabilitate yourself like your good pal limkaput did. He is now completely rehabilitated and has ceased throwing insults at other posters. You should follow his good example.

    “Straight talking Caucasian Style” you say? What utter rubbish! I have lived among Caucasians for more than 10 years. ‘Straight talking’ means being honest. It does not include being rude.

  68. Some info for the purpose of clarification and literature review are for the benefit of those who may appreciate and learn from them; they are respectable views of learned people, not for hotheaded irrational people for whom it may be likened to casting pearls before swines. There are people who have no sense of appreciation, perhaps because of their upbringings. They refuse to see relevance even though there are obvious relevance. They actually do not know what they are asking about or talking about.

    I am more concerned with the validity of bad laws which will determine whether it should be obeyed or ignored, not the semantics of it, which has academic but no practical purpose and a great waste of time and space. To you doing something against bad laws is illegal, it is up to you to abide by it or not, and the chance is that you will be shivering with fear to even contemplate about going against bad laws, even though they violate your constitutional rights. It may have something to do with some bad experiences you have had encountered, which sort of developed into a phobia. As for me, if it is a bad law, it does not deserve to be legal, whatever the books say. You are entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ.

  69. “To you doing something against bad laws is illegal …” EARNEST

    Who the heck said that or anything close to that?? This is what I mean!

    I thought the Colonel went to great length to put it in CAPS to make sure you see the point. You still don’t see the point! Sheesh!

    And you persisted in the name calling! And again here you say:

    “As for me, if it is a bad law, it does not deserve to be legal, whatever the books say.” EARNEST

    For something to be law, it has first to be passed into law. That’s the role of our legislature in case you do not know. You often hear YB Kit protesting not enough time is being allocated for discussion before a bill becomes law.

    The Police Act was passed into law by Parliament in the 60s and no challenge has ever been made as to its constitutionality, that it is ultra vires the Constitution and therefore to the extent it is in conflict with the Constitution, it is void.

    What the former Lord President meant when he said that “the police can only regulate NOT prevent citizens from holding peaceful assembly” goes to the root of the matter

    WHICH IS that Section 27 of the Police Act should be repealed but is not null and void for being ultra vires the Federal Constitution – which is what you’ve been saying all along which is utter rubbish!

    “..if it is a bad law, it does not deserve to be legal…” EARNEST

    Had you said “If it is bad law it does not deserve to be followed” it would make perfect sense. But a bad law is still legal though bad.

  71. “I am more concerned with the validity of bad laws which will determine whether it should be obeyed or ignored, not the semantics of it, which has academic…” earnest

    Hmmmmm….. Let’s take the first part – “validity of bad laws”. What is this joker is talking about? Define “validity”?

    Then the second part – “whether it should be obeyed or ignored.”

    A law should be obeyed. That is why it is made into law. Duhhhh…!You have the choice to obey the law or not to obey the law. Duhhhh…!

    A law is valid when properly passed into law by the law making body. I guess the joker is confused about the word “validity” because he seems to be referring to “moral” validity when the only validity we are concerned with is “legal validity”.

    That’s what happens when you try to knock some sense into somebody who is approaching senility. It is just not worth the time.

  72. Wow, what is being debated here touches on controversial high powered issues relating to ethics and moral philosophy as well as legal philosophy (jurisprudence).

    First the controversial issues – take for example, the requirement of a police permit under section 27 of the Police Act that seemingly contradicts the Freedom of Assembly stated in article 10 of the Constitution – 1. is it a valid law? 2. Is it a moral law ? and 3. If it is a bad and immoral law should we obey or break it ?

    There are hardly simple questions. They are open-ended and admit various points of view depending values and beliefs of persons arguing them.

    1. Is it valid law? This is easiest part. It is. It does not by itself negate freedom of assembly in entirety. Certain parties are given the permit to assemble especially those articulating and promoting the agenda of powers-that-be. One can’t say that there is no freedom of assembly at all. It however regulates the exercise of that right for the rest and curtails that for those like Hindraf or Bersih opposed to government policies! But even in last case, is it because section 27 is invalid law or because although it is valid law, the blame should be apportioned to the authorities who enforce it, that they have not done so and exercised their discretion to allow or withhold permit in god faith; that they have done so wrongly and in a bias manner, there being an obvious distinction between the two? It is also valid law because the Constitution that it is not supposed to contravene (at the pain of being struck down as invalid) expressly permits such restrictions in article 10(2) of Constitution.

    2. Is it a moral law ? Morality may in some instances overlap with the law (here I mean criminal law) – as the case it is wrong to cheat and kill – but it is not always the case. It may be contravening conventional morality of a conservative society for a heterosexual couple to cohabitate in a state unmarried and raise children out of wedlock but it contravenes no criminal law; it may be immoral – and reprehensible – for a strong swimmer to desist from lifting a finger to save a drowning child when one is a strong swimmer but the lack of humanity and civic consciousness again is no punishable offence under criminal law. Indeed what is moral or bad law is itself also subjective. To many here section 27 of the Police Act is a bad and immoral law (because it curtails freedom of assembly) but to “Damai Malaysia” allegedly representing 395 non governmental organizations, it may be a damn good law to curb street rallies and demonstrations supposedly alien to our culture and if unrestrained would lead to break down of social order and ensuing anarchy. So is it right? Is it good law or bad law – or whose law or serving whose interest?

    3. Assuming we are wise enough to resolve the above question and could determine it is bad and immoral law, then only, the final question arises : should we obey a bad law, for so long as it is law unrepealed as newspaper seemed to suggest or follow Yeo Yang Poh’s approach to not observe it ala Ghandi, Nelson Mendela style to bring about changes for the better?

    On 3, even learned people and philosopher could not agree because here there exists two competing and conflicting objectives or imperatives, if you will, both of which are desired, but pose a dilemma when they conflict. I am referring to the desired first objective of liberty of which freedom of assembly is part of it, and secondly the equally desired objective of social order which observance of laws, even if they are sometimes perceived bad laws like section 27 of the Police Act, provides without which society may, so the argument goes, lapse into free for all anarchy.

    There is a strong body of belief – including people like Abraham Lincoln – who believe that laws should be observed for order; if they are bad, lobby by whatever lawful means for their repeal but until they are repealed, the laws even though bad have to be observed. Philosopher Socrates is another extreme proponent of this line of thinking. According to his other philosopher disciple – Plato – in his book “The Republic” he said that powers-that-be, fearful of Socrate’s questionings that might undermine their vested interest used bad laws to convict him of corrupting minds of the young but he would be spared death sentence if he recanted his teachings. His students implored him to recant. Socrates however took hemlock (poison) to demonstrate the point that laws should be observed even if bad for so long as they are not repealed. Denis Diderot, 1796 was another one, he said: “Anyone who takes it upon himself, on his own authority, to break a bad law, thereby authorizes everyone else to break the good ones”!

    Bertrand Russell was about 85% along this drift but not all the way. To express it roughly in Bertrand’s words abstracted from his Essays “The respect for law is an indispensable condition for the existence of any tolerable social order…When a man considers a certain law bad, he has the right, and even duty to get it changed (but until changed should be observed) it being the rarest of cases that he does right to break it. I do not deny that they may well be situations in which law breaking becomes a duty when a man, a conscientious objector profoundly believes that it would be a sin to obey. I think it must also be cases where legal government is so bad that it is worthwhile to overthrow it by force in spite of risk of anarchy involved….but the consideration of such a course is one to which great weight must be attached and to which exception should only be admitted in rare cases after mature consideration.

    Bertrand Russell cited 2 examples when breaking the law led to higher god of restoring rule of law : the successful revolution of 1688 in England and that of 1776 in America.

    There were of course cases in history where breaking the law – example the French Revolution overthrowing the King & aristocracy led to anarchy and Robespierre’s reign of terror and his insistence on associating Terror with Virtue when the guillotine literally claimed many heads !

  74. Careful Jeffrey!

    He who is fond of you and always reminding posters of your “hollow sophistication” is about to come out of the woodworks to yet again call you “stupid”. He just called me “stupid” and “coconut head” a minute ago on another thread! LOL.

    I love to kick ass if that is what he wants!

  78. Dark Horse needs to take back what he said about this limkamput:

    “Quit talking about it and stop the name calling or be forced into self-exile until you rehabilitate yourself like your good pal limkaput did. He is now completely rehabilitated and has ceased throwing insults at other posters. You should follow his good example.”

    Obviously, the guy couldn’t resist being himself after struggling to be a new and reformed self!

  84. He is above any physical laws. No one could use present physical laws to sue him but he is not above spiritual laws.

    Anyone could pray/use spiritual laws (from the God) and warfare to punish a sinful person.

  85. They pray several times daily. How many time do you pray everyday? He is above any physical laws. You could hardly sue him and bring him down using present physical laws.

    But group prayers is powerful and effective.

    Every 20th American president died at White House due to curse from Red Indian. The curse is due to the American government had not been fair to the Red Indian community. Check this fact and see.

Leave a Reply