by Chua Ai Lin and photos by Ambran Abu Bakar and Colin Nicholas, Coordinator of the Centre for Orang Asli Concerns
On 29 Nov 2011 (Tuesday), more than 1,000 participants, comprising Members of the Bar, representatives of civil society and members of the public joined Malaysian Bar’s Walk for Freedom to Walk, an initiative to object to the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (“Bill”) and to deliver the draft Peaceful Assembly Bill prepared by Bar Council (“alternative Bill”) to YB Datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.
Lim Chee Wee, President of the Malaysian Bar, addressed the crowd at 11:30 am, revealing that the Malaysian Bar had in fact been consulted on the Bill by the Attorney General’s Chambers a few weeks earlier. However, it appeared that the version the Malaysian Bar had been consulted upon was very different from the eventual version that was tabled at Parliament on 22 Nov 2011. With this realisation, Bar Council sprang into action to issue a press statement and commence the drafting of a Memorandum on the Peaceful Assembly Bill (“Memorandum”) on the very same day. The following day, representatives of the Malaysian Bar met with Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, to point out how restrictive and prohibitive the Bill was. Over the next few days, Council members spoke to individual Members of Parliament (“MPs”) and also the Chairman of the Backbenchers Club, YB Dato’ Seri Tiong King Sing.
In addition, Lim Chee Wee informed everyone that copies of the alternative Bill and an open letter to the MPs, had been distributed in Parliament. In the open letter, Lim Chee Wee had appealed to the MPs not to forget that they had been elected as representatives of the Rakyat.
The rakyat had condemned the unjust Bill and as servants of the Rakyat, the MPs must “vote with their conscience and not according to their party whip”.
Syahredzan Johan, Chairperson of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee, started his speech by reminiscing about the Malaysian Bar’s Walk for Justice four years ago. A pupil in chambers then, he had not been one of the 2,000–strong crowd who had turned up to walk — from the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya to the Prime Minister’s Office — to hand over the Malaysian Bar’s Memorandum on the Setting Up of an Independent Judicial Commission, sparked by a video clip allegedly showing an advocate and solicitor brokering the appointment of judges.
“The office needed me”, “The weather was too hot and I was fasting”, and “My master would not have allowed me to go” were among the excuses he had given himself, to hide behind the main reason holding him back: his fear. That day, he was at the forefront for the Walk for Freedom to Walk, not because he had found his missing courage, but because he realised that “I am not alone”. He stressed that the walk was “not about politics and politicians” but “about the unholy haste with which the government [was] pushing the Bill through, restricting our constitutionally–guaranteed freedom”. “Why must it be pushed through when it is so obviously flawed?,” he roared to the cheers of the participants, before going into the details of the Memorandum.
While Lim Chee Wee and his team had been busy going on their rounds to meet various decision–makers, another man and his team had also been hard at work. Yeo Yang Poh, past President of the Malaysian Bar, was the individual who led the drafting of the alternative Bill over the three–day weekend before the walk.
On this historic day in the Malaysian Bar’s diary, Lim Chee Wee acknowledged the contribution of Yeo Yang Poh, describing him as “the perfect man for the job, for only he has the patience to pore over pages upon pages of text and language”.The mood turned pensive when Lim Chee Wee — before turning over the microphone to the past President — said, “Today is a profound and ironic walk. It is time to walk for the freedom to walk. We are walking to change the prohibition by law to permanently cease all walks … This Bill must never become law, and by us walking in a peaceful manner, we are demonstrating to 220 Parliamentarians to not rob us of this constitutional right.”
When Yeo Yang Poh asked the crowd whether any of them had seen cattle being farmed, one would have been forgiven for thinking that the sun’s blazing heat must have been too much for the man. Comprehension only dawned when it became clear that the example of cattle being herded at their owner’s mercy served to illustrate one crucial point — as human beings, we are not cattle and therefore should not be treated as such. “How can they say we cannot walk when we want to walk? Do you want to be reduced to that? More importantly, do you want your children and your grandchildren to be reduced to cattle?” A drawn–out, resounding “No” was the unequivocal answer that greeted his question.
Having gotten his message across, Yeo Yang Poh explained the laborious task that drafting the alternative Bill had entailed. It had not been a simple matter of “tweaking here and there”. Instead, the team had had to come up with an entirely new version simply because the fundamental policies and principles behind the Bill were misguided. He continued to say that the government had forgotten that all over the world, the right to assemble publicly and the right to hold street protests are internationally recognised as being part of public order, instead of against public order. To this end, the duties of the police were to promote and facilitate those rights, protect the participants, and ensure that public assemblies proceed smoothly and peacefully.
According to Yeo Yang Poh, another unacceptable provision of the Bill gave the police excessive power to be the judge and jury in public assemblies, an authority that was promptly removed in the alternative Bill. These were only two of the many fundamental differences between the alternative Bill and the government’s Bill, but because he knew that long speeches were not welcome nor effective in a public assembly, Yeo Yang Poh ended by urging everyone to read, understand, consider and endorse the alternative Bill, which was “far better and far superior”.
After the speeches, it was time for the pinnacle of the event. With an ebullient chant of “Bebas, Bebas! Bebas Rakyat! Bebas Himpun!”, a slogan that was repeated throughout the 20–minute journey, Lim Chee Wee led the walk to the Parliament. Nine representatives of the Malaysian Bar were allowed through the police barricade to submit the Memorandum: Lim Chee Wee, Christopher Leong, Tony Woon and Steven Thiru, President, Vice–President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar, respectively; Desmond Ho, George Varughese, Hon Kai Ping and Ng Kong Peng, Council members; and Syahredzan Johan. Copies of the alternative Bill were presented to YB Datuk Liew Vui Keong and YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Leader of the Opposition.
When it was announced that the Memorandum and the alternative Bill had been successfully delivered at 12:50 pm, the participants of the walk stood up and sang the national anthem. The atmosphere seemed jovial, festive even, as everyone continued to wait patiently just before the barricade. The nine were met with applause when they walked out of the Parliament at 1:30 pm.
Lim Chee Wee expressed his gratitude to those present, for showing the police that it was indeed possible to have a peaceful assembly. The police were also on his list of recipients who received thanks for allowing the Malaysian Bar to gather peacefully. He promised to continue knocking upon the government’s door, and write to individual MPs and ask them to consider the alternative Bill.
The Public’s Voice
Temme Lee: “The whole thing is a sham process. The public was not consulted. Nobody was consulted. The way the Bill is being rushed through is undemocratic.”
Steve Ng: “I was at the BERSIH 2.0 rally and I was enraged with how the police reacted. I was one of those hit by tear gas in front of KL Sentral. The right to voice our protest is enshrined in the Constitution. We should be allowed to walk freely.”
CH Ooi: “We have no political leanings one way or another. I’m here today because it’s a violation of human rights. This Bill is going to allow the police so much rights, that they have a right to be even more corrupt, they have a right to decide who go where and we cannot fight them. For example, if an employer is doing something wrong, people can’t strike, churches cannot gather. The police have every right of say and I’m sorry to say our Prime Minister even lied and cheated in yesterday’s news in Malay saying that laws are to be followed when he himself and his cahoots are the ones that design the law, change the Constitution and tell us what to do. Tell me is this law? This is a failed nation state through and through.”
Please click here for information on the Malaysian Bar's Memorandum on the Peaceful Assembly Bill.