Press Statement: Human Rights Day Walk

Retaining Clear Minds

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:02:04 +0100

Hot heads, hot cakes, hot breads, everything has been made and said. Coming to the celebration, where are the sober minds to celebrate? To quote Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, he said : "I was part of the walk last year and the year before. It was just a walk. We were just walking around the Lake Garden and it was good exercise". A good exercise for a good cause, to celebrate the Universal Rights Day! What then, are sober minds, and what then, are hot heads? Where are the sober minds, and where are the hot heads? Tan Peek Guat - Tan Peek Guat

TIME FOR SOBER MINDS, NOT HOT HEADS

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:09:22 +0100

The Bar Council has cancelled the walk to celebrate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of Dec. 10, 1948. Other parts of the programme to celebrate the 59th year of the UDHR - my beloved sister would have turned 59 had she survived - will continue to be carried out. The cancellation, I understand, has been precipitated by police insistence during negotiations that the Bar Council apply for a permit. Rather than succumb to this great pressure to do so, the difficult decision has been made to cancel the walk. That decision must be respected. Yes, it is disappointing for me too. However, my disappointment is not with the Bar Council, which could have easily caved in under that tremendous pressure and so please the authorities by applying for a permit, but with the dogged intransigence of the police officers. This decision is remarkable. It is a lose-lose result. It represents a stand-off between the Bar Council which has ipso facto preserved the dignity of the Malaysian Bar, and the Malaysian Government, whose directive is dimmed by its very own light (of ability). Nobody can deny that the no-walk decision is indictment on the Government's policy of insisting on the police permit pursuant to section 27 of the Police Act which, Suhakam has said, should be repealed. That such an advice for democratisation has fallen on deaf ears, especially in this day and age of human rights and of democratisation, can never be a happy augury for the entire country and blights any self-arrogated enlightenment of the Government that the police clearly serves. With respect, this is a time for sober minds, not hot heads. Stephen Tan Ban Cheng - Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

FREEDOM TO WALK

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:20:39 +0100

Not as a manner of protesting, not acting against the police requirements, and certainly not being troublesome since we are all considerate Malaysians, we definitely, as advanced and lovely Malaysians, reserve our right to maintain our fancy for walking - doing so in the like manner of all daily walkers who are simply casual street roamers or chores and errand runners. Even illegal immigrants walk our streets. So what? So, let us all (i.e. those with RIGHTS, JUSTICE, and FREEDOM superceding in their minds), get together and walk - as single Malaysians, celebrating this Universal Day of Celebration. Dear Leader, if there is any, please spell out the time and venue. Lovely and loving as we are, being considerate Malaysians, will ALL CHOOSE TO WALK, and not drive, on this beautiful universal celebration day. Let us simply walk to the Central Market; but from Where? Walk for the sake of walking but with RIGHTS AND JUSTICE in our minds - with or without the support of the Council members. Bravo! Every Malaysian not serving under the WHIP can and are permitted to walk - because we are FREED MALAYSIANS, and we have had 50 years of freedom. Otherwise, Malaysia will cry out in shame! Let us all do our Nation proud and act JUSTLY towards it. Let those who can speak speak for it. Tan Peek Guat - Tan Peek Guat

I'm disappointed too

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:40:28 +0100

See title above. Also, thank you Stephen Tan, for regularly educating us with interesting facts and stories! Alex Tan Ken Seng - Alex Tan Ken Seng

Upholding Rights Under All Circumstances

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:38:56 +0100

We cannot blame the Police for this requirement because they have been empowered and authorised to do so, and furthermore, it is their duty, and being paid by public funds, to maintain peace and security. On account of the numerous rallies having taken place, and the disputes and allegations arising thereof pertaining to the brutality of the police, or vice versa, the peaceful ways demonstrated by the walkers, then the police will certainly maintain its requirement of the permit application so as to safeguard themselves further and prevent such unnecessary disputes. The Malaysian Bar, being a body of "Justice, Rights and legal minds" , will certainly not object to this requirement of the Police. It is only when the Police refuses to grant such a permit applied for, then only, the Bar can register its abhorence towards the Police unfair withholding of the needed permission applied for, and therefore, the misconception of its "own power and authority" verses the Rights of the citizens provided for under the Constitution. The Bar must not forget its duty of upholding Justice without fear and favour. It is not right for the Bar to cancel the Rights Walk. However, if the Bar maintains that such a permit application is an unbecoming requirement, then, dare itself, and once again, WALK PEACEFULLY. Do not take the easier way out by cancelling the rights walk. Do not let RIGHTS down under all circumstances. Tan Peek Guat - Tan Peek Guat

Are we natural lawyer, or positivist ?

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:52:11 +0100

Are we a group of natural lawyers, or are we positivists ? Is the Bar consistent on its stand ? If we did not apply for police permit for the "Walk for Justice", then why should now ? Or otherwise, are we impliedly say that, the "Walk for Justice" is illegal at the first place ? I respect the Bar's decision. Nevertheless, it's a disappointed one. Clement Ong Tun Heang - Clement Ong Tun Heang

Acting With or Without fear and favor

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:28:16 +0100

It is not a good decision for the Bar to cancel the Rights walk. To do so is to contradict its own motto of acting without fear and favor. If the police requires the Bar to apply for a permit, then the Bar needs to do so. If the application fails, then only can we fault the Police for being acting upon Unjust Rights and Power withheld and contained by it. If the Bar needs the support of the Body, and the public in general, then has to rethink its decision. Tan Peek Guat - Tan Peek Guat

LET'S FIGHT INTELLIGENTLY

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:36:56 +0100

Whatever may have been his many faults, Mao Tse-tung, a person who never graduated from any university, was the master strategist who provided the strategy for the Chinese Communist Party to wage a guerilla war and a protracted war lasting a good 20 years and more. That was during the time when the Nationalists led by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek had troops numbering more than ten times the number Mao could command, and they were much more well equipped than the rag tag "army" that Mao had. Mao was forced to align his party with the Soviet Union (since imploded) led by Josef Stalin because the United States was backing Gimo Chiang, especially after the Korean War which erupted in 1950 soon after Mao took power in China in 1949. How Mao went on to win the war against Chiang deserves careful scrutiny. The lessons in this unequal fight against all the odds can be applied in our situation. After having "walked for Justice" on Sept 26 without a police permit, if we lawyers were to appy for a permit that the police insists, we would have taken a step backwards. Unnecessarily, I may add, especially when it is known to all and sundry that the Dec. 9 march is to mark the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) that was forged on Dec. 10, 1048 - which happens to be the birthday of my late beloved sister who passed away on March 26 this year. (Many thanks to those who sent wreaths.) I verily and honestly believe that the Bar Council's decision to cancel the Dec. 9 march is a difficult but wise decision in the face of police insistence to apply for a permit for a march to mark the UDHR, more so when Suhakam has said that Section 7 of the Police Act should be reviewed. All things said, I cannot bring myself to associate with the views held by my good friend, Charles Hector. If we have to fight, let us fight intelligently. Let us choose the day to fight, the weapons to fight with and the place of engagement. Anything less will never serve the cause of justice. We must never allow the opposition to dictate such basic things. Stephen Tan Ban Cheng - Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Live to fight another day

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:05:36 +0100

I am utterly disappointed. Beyond Belief! BUT I am equally mindful that we should look at the glass half full. The Police so badly wanted us to apply for a permit. Had we done so, we would have looked like bigger fools and indeed the police, who would have, no doubt, used our application as an example in the future. so, we said - NO! thereby preserving the need for our stand of no permit and the chance to redeem this in the future. We have now lived to fight another day. For a bigger issue and a bigger cause. We must always pick our battles as the war against all an unjust, corrupt, neponistic and racist society rages on. The Bar may just come out of this "smelling like roses". Dipendra H Rai - Dipendra H Rai

The Bar's concession by cancelling the walk is sad

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:07:52 +0100

We are talking about the Malaysian Bar here - and the PM's and the government's threats of ISA and all seem to have worked..... WE cancel our annual Human Rights Day Walk. We, who should have been the "example" and set the standards have failed. We have succumbed to threats and fears. We, who believe that freedom of assembly and expression, should never succumb to your pressures and threats.... and now it is sad and embarrassing that when we had to be strong we failed to "uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour...". In solidarity, Charles Hector - Charles Hector