Lawyer Suggests Designated Zones for Peaceful Assemblies Across Malaysia Following Landmark Court Ruling
PETALING JAYA: In the wake of a significant Federal Court decision, a Malaysian lawyer is advocating for the establishment of designated areas across the country where peaceful assemblies can be held. This proposal comes after the court ruled yesterday that the penalty for failing to notify the police before a public gathering is unconstitutional.
The Federal Court’s ruling has been hailed by civil liberties groups as a major victory for freedom of expression. Previously, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 required organizers to provide advance notice to the police, a requirement deemed to be a restriction on the right to assemble. The court’s decision effectively strikes down this notification requirement, but it also raises questions about how to manage public gatherings to ensure public safety and order.
The lawyer, whose name has not been publicly released, believes that designating specific zones for peaceful assemblies would strike a balance between protecting the right to protest and maintaining public order. “These zones would be clearly marked and accessible to the public, allowing individuals to exercise their right to assemble without disrupting daily life or causing undue inconvenience,” the lawyer explained. “The government could work with local authorities to identify suitable locations, taking into consideration factors such as accessibility, noise levels, and potential impact on surrounding businesses and residents.”
The proposed designated areas could be located in parks, open spaces, or other public areas that are suitable for gatherings. The government could also establish guidelines for the use of these areas, such as restrictions on noise levels, the use of amplified sound, and the duration of assemblies. It's envisioned that these guidelines would be developed in consultation with civil society groups and law enforcement agencies.
This suggestion isn't entirely new. Similar designated zones exist in other democratic nations, and have proven to be an effective way to manage protests and demonstrations. The key is to ensure these zones are accessible and don't unduly restrict the right to assemble. Furthermore, any rules implemented must be clear, reasonable, and applied consistently.
The move has garnered mixed reactions. Some support the idea as a practical solution to manage public gatherings, while others express concerns that designated zones could be used to limit freedom of expression. Critics argue that restricting assemblies to specific areas could stifle dissent and make it more difficult for marginalized groups to have their voices heard. They worry that the zones could be located in inconvenient or undesirable locations, effectively discouraging people from participating in peaceful protests.
However, proponents argue that well-managed designated zones can actually enhance the safety and effectiveness of protests. By concentrating assemblies in specific areas, law enforcement can more easily monitor and respond to any potential disruptions. Furthermore, designated zones can provide a safe and secure environment for protesters, minimizing the risk of clashes with counter-protesters or violence.
The government has yet to officially respond to the lawyer’s proposal, but it is likely to be a topic of discussion in the coming weeks as lawmakers grapple with the implications of the Federal Court’s ruling. The debate will undoubtedly focus on how to best protect the right to peaceful assembly while ensuring public safety and order—a delicate balance that is essential for a healthy democracy. The successful implementation of any such system will require careful consideration, open dialogue, and a commitment to upholding fundamental rights.