Monday, July 04, 2011

Right to assemble is no blank cheque

In the light of His Majesty the Seri Paduka Yang Dipertuan Agong's official statement to avoid unstability dan disharmony in the country that is the headline news for today, it is timely to discuss about the right to assemble under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

The opposition, left wing activists and twisted anti-establishment lawyers claimed that the right to assemble as guaranteed under the Federal Constituition and United Nation's Declaration on Human Rights is a blank cheque that the law to empower police cannot be applied.

It is quite typical of them to be selective and hid the comprehensive and true interpretation of the Federal Constitution. They will never admit that our Federal Constitution is a document that balances and provide exception to every rights and previlages given to anyone and any groups for various reasons. One reason is to maintain peace and harmony in the country.

Article 10 reads as follows:

I am no lawyer but the English is crystal clear.

The right to assemble in article 10 clause 1(b) was not mentioned independently but with the condition of peace and without arms. If an assembly is deemed as a threat to peace and/or armed, then the right to assemble is denied.

Before we go any further, the right to freedom of speech and expression, assemble, and/or form association is conditional on Clause 2, 3 and 4 which is for Parliament to pass law to govern those rights.

Clause 2 emphasis further that peace i.e. security of the federation and public order determines the right to assemble which requires a permit.

Who determine whether a particular assembly is peacebly and without arms and permit can be issued? Is is the organiser of bersih 2.0, Dato Ambiga, Mat Sabu, the organising Committee and/or 400 Bar Coouncil members? Is it the twisted Professor of Law from UIA, Prof Aziz Bari?

No sirreee ... It is the police and only to the police is empowered to determine and issue the permit under Section 27 of the Police Act 1967.

Before anyone start to any excuse or blame, the Prime Minister is not Tun Dr Mahathir, someone seldom being accused of being responsible for the decay in public institution.

That so-called repressive law was enacted, passed and commence use under the premiership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who is revered and used by opposition and Chinese liberal and left wing NGOs for justification.

Police is in the business of maintaining law and order and it is with them that power and ability to determine if any assembly will be peaceful. They have the intelligence information and records of past assembly.

Seldom opposition sympathisers and supporters claim police as bias for the ruling party or pro Government NGOs.

Whether they admit it or not, the reality is the ruling party and pro-Government NGOs are more cooperative, respectable and do not resist the police. They are more law abiding than oppositions and left wing.

Police are human too. Every action only invite an equal and opposite reaction.

Given that they are involved in significantly more demonstrations and no permit assemblies, there is far to few arrest on them. Why would they demand a stern action against Perkasa?

If it means demanding police to be uncompromising in enforcing the law, the Parliament would be empty of opposition and Pakatan Rakyat states have empty MB's office.

The opposition and NGOs seldom claimed that their rights to assemble was being denied and it is in contravention against the United Nation's Declaration on Human Rights. Is it really so?

Former backbencher's chief, Dato Ruhanie Ahmad wrote a similar article and highlighted several important clauses in the Declaration that does not give a blank cheque to such freedom.

While Article 19 of the Declaration ascribed the basic rights and freedom, Article 29(2) stipulate that individuals are subject to certain limitation under specific law. The restriction is to ensure fair demand on morality, public order, and general safety of a democratic community.

Clause 29(3) emphasis the rights and freedom should not be in conflict with the purpose and principle of the United Nations.

The Agong has expressed his reservation. Read the Bernama report below as taken from Rocky Bru's here:

To-date, the police have spoken, explained, offered an alternative and pleaded the organiser to can called the march but to no avail.

Bersih 2.0 is neither a serious attempt to seek electoral reform nor proved conclusively and logically the existence of widespread fraud. It is a democratic hoax, as we described it in a two part series here and here, which is of political intention to create a tsunami wave and Egypt like power seizure.

As it is police had found existence of subversive materials and caught foreign parties linked to Communist and CIA together with Parti Sosialis Malaysia activists.

Much as this blogger hates it's usage, police have every excuse to apply ISA if Ambiga and Mat Sabu remains recalcitrant and defiant of police. Make no bone, ISA is within the power of police and not politician Minister.

Hear the video of Tun Hanif Omar's explanation on use of ISA below:

Don't be fooled by opposition, left wing NGOs and anti-establishment lawyers. They never tell the whole story but selective to meet they selfish purpose.


Buah Ciku said...

Yes, you may be right. However, in order to prevent untoward incidents due to the Bersih rally, is it appropriate for the Police to arrest people for "wearing yellow T-shirts", "T-shirts that promote Communism", banning Bersih, etc? What do you think?

Anonymous said...

Remember, it is not a sin to tell the truth!

Buah Ciku said...

On second thought, I am not sure whether the King really made that statement.

donplaypuks said...

"Make no bone, ISA is within the power of police and not politician Minister."


By law, the Home Minister is the only person authorized to sign the detention order under ISA. So, the buck stops there.

The IGP answers to the Home Minister. In no country in the world, including Malaysia, does any IGP have any power to supercede the authority of his Minister.

We elect MP's to form the Government and govern the nation. No way can the IGP issue warrants under the ISA by himself.

It what you say is true, we would then have truly become a Communist or Police State!

You have unwittingly bought into Mhathir's cop out blaming the IGP for Ops Lallang.

we are all o f 1 Race, the Human Race

A Voice said...


As usual your comment are pure guessing and speculation but ably presented by your twisted rationale.

You do not have fact to back your claim la ane!

I can never trust your comments especially when you try to claim that part of MAS RM8 billion losses is from the RM5 billion WAU.

Bloody stupid spin.

And you call yourself an accountant. Good thing you are retired.

rubber tapper said...

I think some of our lawyers are so used to getting blank cheque defending the minority criminals that they forgot the laws and orders of the majority.

And they even willing to look for loopholes in an asshole for the sake of defending an argument.

I rather go tapping for a glass of martini.

Anonymous said...


Detention Order under ISA after 60 days should be authorised by Minister. But the first 60 days i.e. for investigation, is authorised by police officers only, tak perlu menteri atau mejistret pun. If I'm not mistaken under sec.73.

Regulating of procession / assemblies is under Police Act. Power to issue permit is by OCPD. IGP pun takde kuasa. Takde kene mengene dgn menteri pun. Appeal level mungkin.

Orang Lama

Anonymous said...

Can the "Brick" enlighten us all who are not well verse with the Law:

This is what you claimed to understand about the law of the land:

1. An act created by legislatures is over and above the constitution of the land? In other words an act overides the constitution. Is this right?

2. You also claimed an ordinary police officer can overide the constitution. Sounds like the ordinary officer have power to overide the constitution. Don't you think it's sounds silly, Brick?

dont play play said...


sorry but this is for ciku and dpp.
Eat this guys

CIA Coup Army Uncovered in Asia
Hidden in plain sight, army of dupes prepare for "Asian Summer aka Arab spring"
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand July 2, 2011 - A tiny handful of Marxists, dupes, and shills converged in Bangkok today in what would seem like nothing more than a footnote in the day's news. In reality, it was actually the surfacing fin of a shark prowling the political waters of Southeast Asia.....


Benjamin Franklin said...


Malaysia is a free country.

any fool can comment and most fools do.

Give ciku and dpp some face la

dont play play said...

The Secret Rally That Sparked an Uprising - Cairo Protest Organizers Describe Ruses Used to Gain Foothold Against Police; the Candy-Store Meet That Wasn't on Facebook


CAIRO—The Egyptian opposition's takeover of the area around the parliament this week began with a trick—the latest example of how, for more than two weeks, young activists have outwitted Egypt's feared security forces to spur an uprising many here had long thought impossible.

On Tuesday, young opposition organizers called for a march on the state television building a few blocks north of their encampment in central Tahrir Square. Then, while the army deployed to that sensitive communications hub, protesters expanded southward into the lightly defended area around Egypt's parliament building.

read the rest at :

rumah minimalis said...

I think need clarify i dont think whether the King really made that statement.

dont play play said...

Egypt : what really happening ( and the NGO demand )

A great debate is going on amongst honest commentators over what is actually happening in Egypt. The debate stems from the horribly inaccurate information being supplied by the globalist owned mainstream media. A superficial look at AlJazeera, BBC, and CNN reveals that even their concerted efforts to build up public opinion behind the protesters are inconsistent. There is no better example than AlJazeera's 2 million man march, BBC's 100's of thousands man march, and CNN's tens of thousands man march.

Accomplished historian and unparalleled researcher Dr. Webster Tarpley outright calls AlJazeera a British intelligence operation, noting that Hahrir Square had at best 50,000 protesters at the height of the "march of millions." He attempts to point out that the protesters lack any pragmatic solutions amongst their demands.

The protesters' demands indeed lack any pragmatic, technical solutions for the myriad of problems that face Egyptian society, but their demands do become very specific regarding the changes in the system they would like to see. Protesters unfurled a banner enumerating these political "reforms."

Project on Middle East Democracy, a US National Endowment for Democracy funded NGO, translates the banner as saying:

“Our demands:
1. deposing the president
2. dissolving the two illegitimate houses of parliament
3. lifting the state of emergency immediately
4. forming a caretaker national unity government
5. an elected parliament that amends the constitution to allow fair presidential elections
6. bringing murders of demonstrators to trial
7. immediate judicial proceedings against corrupt officials and those stealing the of the nation.”

Ironically, many of the globalist think-tanks cheer-leading the protests and distributing the mass media's talking points have also made these exact "demands." Could it be that this organic, spontaneous uprising against the Mubarak regime just so happens to resonate verbatim with the globalist policy wonks?
The answer is most emphatically, no.

source :

Wake UP! said...

Salam bro. If it's war or riot that they want, let's give them just that.

sunwayopal said...

You are way off course in your analysis.

The right to assemble is enshrined! It is a god given right in the constituition.

the other para you quoted only 'restricts' if theres reason to believe.

You still have a right to assemble. You cannot call off the whole thing but you can restrict it, say hold it in stadium or from what time to what time but the right to assemble must always be there

ada faham ingeris or not !

and all the rest of the acts you quoted , polis act lah, this lah that lah all is illegal in its very form if it contravenes the constituition in the first place.

This also provided under constituition lah.

Please lah.

Anonymous said...

Clearly stated in the constitution whether to allowed or restricted any rally.

Wonder why BERSIH only spread the subject(1) to the people in every talk.

Is it because >60% citizen not fully know the content of the constitution.

"Brick" just read it. Thanks for sharing this.

::Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan::
::Kesetiaan Kepada Raja & Negara::
::Keluhuran Perlembagaan::
::Kedaulatan Undang-undang::
::Kesopanan & Kesusilaan::

A Voice said...

Donplaypuk - I've given you many second chances to comment but you keep abusing it with your dishonest twisted arguments.

Sorry bro, you are not welcome here no more. Dont try using other pseudonyms, I know them.

Write in your own blog and get your own traffic.

Anon 9:15 - I am no lawyer and far from being an expert.

I read the original material myself. That way I do not get conned by misinterpretation and disinterpretations by lawyers.

I am open to critics.

My answer to the first issue raised is to advise YOU to read article 10 in full and not read and interpret as you like.

Article 10 allow to legislate the described freedom ... 10(2) Parliament may by law impose .....

That is stated in constitution also.

10(1b) say right to assemble peeacebly and without arms

Read also article 149 and 150 for knowledge that preventive measures on security are described in teh constitution.

On your second issue, appreciate this way of arguing to stop.

What you did was to words in my mouth that is prejudicial against me.

That is spinning and not quiet honest way of arguing.

State your stand with supporting fact and plausible arguments but not by nitpicking fault and twisting it.

The above reply shd answer other arguments too.

I like this.

Let us understand the constitution ourself than being misled by some lawyers.

My Say