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

The need to apply for a police permit is one thing. The constitutional right to peaceful assembly is another. Not to perform the necessary on its own part while faulting the other is not right.

It is the duty of the police to maintain peace and security; while it is the duty of the Bar to uphold the need to celebrate this Universal Rights Day, with itself standing for "Justice", and the need to uphold and sustain its own declaration of "upholding justice without fear and favour". Therefore, for the Bar to cancel the walk is to take the easier way out.

If Malaysia can speak, it will cry because its people are freed, and have been freed for the last 50 years, and it is now on its onward path towards being an advanced nation; but yet, it is now bound by the "chains and spells" so unnecessarily cast upon it. What a disappointment indeed, whatever the excuse may be!

Tan Peek Guat

At times it is necessary that one needs to take one step backward to enable to move ten steps forward in the future. The decision by the Council is timely.

Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor

The freedom of assembly is not a right. It is a privilege - and just like all other privileges, it is subject to the conditions imposed by the law.

No one is above the law, definitely not the Bar Council, nor the Malaysian Bar. However in the last few months, I am feeling more and more unsettled. It appears that the Bar Council is of the impression that they are immune to the law and therefore are free to act on a frolic of their own.

Although I, (like most lawyers), am feeling disillusioned with the judiciary and the state of things in general, I must say I am more alarmed by the conduct of the Bar Council. Instead of focussing on the interests of the lawyers in general, they seem to be preoccupied championing the rights of certain quarters only.

As lawyers, we should be the first to set the example of obeying the law instead of stooping as low as those who think it is fashionable to do otherwise.

Calling of the march is the best decision the Bar Council has made in a long time. The Bar Council should focus on its functions because right now it appears that it has lost its compass.

Mariette Peters

Bar council decision to cancel assembly wise under the present situation. A very good decision. Under the present security situation to conduct an assembly in public faces security risk.

Mohd Ismail b Mohamed

I suggest, that as law abiding citizens we are (not to mention members of the Bar), we MUST from now on apply for a police permit for any intended gatherings of more than 5 persons in any public place (however defined).

That applies also to future "Treasure Hunts", Bar Games where more than 11 aside may convene onto a public pitch, meeting at bus stops, etc ...

Kerry Sin Yoong Ming

What a sad day for RIGHTS!
A beautiful celebration for a beautiful event has been turned ugly.

The Universal Celebration for the Universal Human Rights Day has been subdued by the 'Fights of the Titans' which disputes have caused the cancellation of the scheduled walk.

It is a sad day for the Bar, literate as those chosen people are, not to be making any application for a permit, but chooses to be barred!

Tan Peek Guat

It took some courage for the Bar Council to call off the Walk.

We, as members of the Bar, should support the decision in the circumstances.

It was not an easy decision to make.

Ding Chu Teck

Please refer to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. The freedom of assembly is not a privilege granted by the police or the government of the day but the right of every Malaysian citizen. As such, I don't think that the Bar Council to be "championing the rights of certain quarters only".

David Soong Tshon Li

While I believe the aptness of the Bar’s decision to call off the Walk is open to debate, I find Ms Peter’s comments rather disconcerting and I find myself having to disagree with her.

Her first point that freedom of assembly is but a privilege is inaccurate to say the least. As David correctly pointed out, freedom of assembly is a ‘right’ enshrined in the Federal Constitution and while it has its limitations, it doesn’t make it less of a ‘right’. If, for the sake of argument we were to subscribe to the notion that it is a mere privilege then by the necessary extension our rights to life, equal protection before the law, freedom of religion and education are mere privileges as well for they fall under Part II of the Constitution. This cannot be right right?

Then she commented that she was alarmed by what she perceived as the preoccupation of the Bar in championing certain quarters’ rights and the Bar’s seeming disinterest in its own members’ interests. I have been following very closely the recent events in Malaysia (although I’m presently living abroad) and I dare say that the Bar has been impartial and objective in its stance thus far. The Bar have had to endure accusations of being a mouthpiece of the oppositions of late and to have a fellow member of the Bar throwing similar accusation is like rubbing salt into the wounds. I am sure you would agree with me that politicising the Bar’s involvements in matters relating to the public will not do the public any good given that the Bar is one of the few remaining neutral watchdogs out there. At this juncture, perhaps the members ought to be reminded that quite apart from safeguarding the interests of its members, the Bar’s other underlying objectives are, among others:

(a) to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour;

(g) to protect and assist the public in all matters touching ancillary or incidental to the law.

Wong Yong Fei