Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Zainul Arifin

I AM in two minds when it comes to public displays of opinion. On the one hand, we know too well the consequences when things go awry, from destruction of property to loss of economic opportunities.

On the other hand, public gatherings are a characteristic of civil society, and it can be argued that this nation was built on the groundswell of mass rallies.

Furthermore, as an added benefit, public gatherings are a safety valve that lets off steam and keeps society's sanity on an even keel.

But we are also a nation with a chequered experience as far as public gatherings are concerned. Our worst racial violence was attributed to public rallies that brought into contact victors and losers - a flashpoint that sparked a murderous flame. May 13, 1969, saw the enactment of laws that require police permits for public gatherings of more than a handful of people.

Over the years though, the authorities have been miserly as far as issuing rally permits are concerned. Perhaps, the memory of the past remains strong. More often than not, applications get rejected on the basis of public safety.

But, human beings, it seems, are predisposed, perhaps even genetically imprinted, to aggregate and shout out their feelings, whether in victory or in rage. We need to gather to show whoever we want to show that we are not alone.

If thousands could be mobilised to sacrifice their Sunday to attend a rally, one could safely multiply the number by factors several times over, to give an indication of the support for whatever agenda those who gathered were championing.

This past month or so we have seen high-profile gatherings described as walks, marches, protests, or what-have-yous. For them, the political divide was clear; those in power did not join in.

The hint of political partisanship meant that such gatherings would continue to be politicised, no matter how much their participants protest. They are never the rainbow coalitions that many want them to be.

Thus, because a mass gathering has become a political tool, we can safely assume that from here on until the general election, whenever that will be, we are likely to see more people looking at making their views heard through the streets.

So, what should the authorities do? I suggest grant them the permits to gather.

Not only is it bad publicity not to grant them the permits, public displays of support or dissent are often part of a civil society. We have too many of the former and too few of the latter. I personally believe members of civil society should be allowed room for dissent - organised, civilised and legal, of course.

I believe the authorities should endeavour to look kindly at all applications and be charitable in their assessments. Rules must be set, and followed, to make sure that a gathering does not disintegrate into a farce, or something worse.

Impose strict rules, in terms of duration and location, if need be, but grant them permits unless national security is at stake. But then again, national security should not be an arbitrary umbrage when deciding against all applications.

Of course, permits must come with reasonable clauses that are deliverable and, well, reasonable. A group cannot possibly be happy if given the right to assemble between 3am and 4am, or at some place 20km from downtown Kuala Lumpur, for example.

Get organisers to agree on the rules, and hold them accountable for any transgressions. They must abide by all terms and if they stray, then act against them or those participating, including arresting and detaining them.

The authorities, I believe, should not let themselves be drawn into a corner where they have to prove that they are, in fact, honest brokers in the quest for public order and safety. They should not allow themselves to be painted as anything but having the public interest at heart.

Some people are only too happy to draw the authorities into the trap of negative public opinion, and there will always be people all too happy to blame the authorities for not being accommodative of the underdogs.

In most major cities, public demonstration routes and destinations are well known.

In New York, for example, it will likely be at Times Square in midtown or Union Square in downtown, or somewhere near the United Nations.

Demonstrators know the drill: assemble, march, shout, sing - and disperse peacefully.

The police will work towards keeping demonstrators orderly. Those who try to break the law will be arrested, tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, handcuffed and thrown inside the police truck, whether they are in London, New York or Kuala Lumpur.

We have seen enough television footage to know that police all over the world have a way to deal with unruly crowds before they turn into uncontrollable mobs that would pose a danger to lives, limbs and properties.

Of course, there will be disturbances and chaos. That is expected when large numbers of people take to the streets.

I was inconvenienced and annoyed twice in the past month when thousands of people took to the streets and crippled most of Kuala Lumpur city centre.

But, I have also been inconvenienced several times this year from the rehearsals and launches of official programmes that required the closure of roads and parts of the city.

Being given the privilege to gather is also an educational process; it is part of participative democracy, beyond the ballot box. We will also be taught the values and responsibilities of expression.

We will be instinctively aware, and this will be nurtured over time, of the need to uphold the values and responsibilities that allowed us the right to gather.

We will learn to appreciate the views of those who disagree with us, which is essentially what democracy is all about. We would not resort to name-calling, violence or insult, which we are all likely to sink to if we let our emotions go unchecked. All these come with experience.

The idea of public gatherings is actually rooted in the need to attain publicity, the bigger the crowd, the bigger the publicity. Some politicians are masters at this. The media, especially television, and more especially foreign-owned ones, will bear witness.

But the relationship between the media and those venting their rage on the streets may be rather incestuous. It was the norm, almost a decade ago, for crowds to mill around, restlessly, in downtown Kuala Lumpur, waiting for their cues, which most likely would be television crews.

Then they would instinctively congregate, group themselves into a frenzy chanting "re-for-ma-si".

With the cameras trained on them, some would turn to the policemen, baiting them, prompting them to act. It was the wonderful world of choreographed reality television, which the world then saw on the evening news.

For some, that was the agenda.

In any march, there will always be those who will be spoiling for a fight for their spot on TV. Events will less likely be noteworthy if there are no incidents. Everyone knows it, from the marchers to the media to the police.

But for the rest, perhaps the best way to handle them is to let them march peacefully, and, hopefully, end as peacefully, too.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed