Malaysians were better off in their rights before the Peaceful Assembly Bill was passed in Parliament

KOTA KINABALU: The Sabah Law Association (SLA) said the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 passed by Parliament would only continue to shackle Malaysians when the rest of the world is marching towards greater freedom.

It also contended that the Bill is unconstitutional.

As annoyance grows over the introduction of more complex laws to prevent citizens from openly criticising the government, the SLA said in a statement that “the new law is a step backwards” for the country.

“As Malaysians we were better off in our rights to free expression and assembly before this Bill was tabled in Parliament,” it said.

The association pointed out that the people’s rights to assemble peaceably and the right to freedom of expression are already enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

“The new law is nothing more than the government’s knee-jerk response to the spate of demonstrations like the lawyers’ march to Putrajaya in 2007; the 2007 Bersih march; the Hindraf demonstrations and the latest Bersih 2.0 rally.

“In the guise of maintaining security and public order, the government has now deemed it fit to take away our fundamental right of expression and to assemble,” it said.

New law more restrictive

The SLA expressed fears that the new law would place more restrictions on citizens’ rights than than advancing them.

“Of what value is a right to assemble when peaceful street protests would now be totally banned which hitherto could be carried out with permit under Section 27(2) of the Police Act 1967?

“Of what value is the right to assemble when a prior notice need to be given and police permit obtained when the main feature of an assembly lies in its spontaneity?” the Sabah lawyers asked.

They contended that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Aziz’s view that the law is not unconstitutional because Article 10(2) allows Parliament to restrict the freedom of assembly is too simplistic.

“This does not give Parliament the carte blanche to pass any law that renders the fundamental rights a mirage.

“We need to be reminded only of the Supreme Court’s decisions in 1992 and 2010.

“In the Nordin Salleh case it was held that it would be unconstitutional for Parliament to enact laws that would render the fundamental rights illusory.

“In Sivarasa Rasiah’s case it was held that any restriction to the fundamental rights under Article 10 must be reasonable and proportionate to the objective that the restrictive legislation seeks to achieve,” it added.