1.1 Research Topic
The research topic chosen for this paper is the right to assemble in Malaysia under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as compared to section 27 of the Police Act 1967.
1.2 Problem Statement
The right to assemble is among the most integral right a human being could possess. Such right is recognized by article 20(1) of United Declaration of Human Right where it is provided that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. In Malaysia, the right to assemble is enshrined under Part II of the Federal Constitution, rendering it a citizen’s fundamental liberty that ought to be upheld at all time without any compromises. The freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms is a constitutionally guaranteed
…show more content…
Under section 27 of the Police Act, a police permit is required before an assembly can be held. The police’s discretion was deemed to be a hindrance to the people’s right to assemble and it was later repealed. Subsequently, Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (PAA) comes into place to substitute the provision of the Police Act. Nevertheless, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 was viewed as a more restrictive law to curb the people’s freedom to assembly by many parties. For instance, according to section 15 of the PAA, the Officer in Charge of the Police District (OCPD) may impose restrictions and conditions on an assembly for the purpose of security of public order including any matters that the OCPD deems necessary or expedient. Even though the imposition of the restrictions and conditions under s.15 may be appealed but it will still be subjected to the Minister’s discretion. Hence, some restrictions that are imposed were deemed to be ‘redundant’ or ‘unreasonable’, resulting in the arrest of many parties.
In the case of Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad v Public Prosecutor , the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that it is unconstitutional to criminalized spontaneous public assemblies that are in breach of the 10-day notice as required under the PAA. This case signifies the first time in the nation’s history that the freedom to assemble peacefully and without arm was given full effect. Therefore, any future rally that are held peaceably will
…show more content…
The writer emphasized on the importance of striking a balance between legitimate political expression and the need to preserve peace. The writer examined the respective acts that restrict the freedom of assembly in Malaysia to determine whether freedom of assembly is a right or a privilege granted to the citizens. This article also examined the ways to safeguard the freedom of assembly in Malaysia.
In the article, The Right of Assembly, the origin of the right of assembly and the common law on assemblies where the act of assembly played an important role in the English constitutional history were stated. The article mainly focuses on the views and opinion of Dr. Dicey. Also, the article also laid down the circumstances in which the right of assembly will be curtailed, making a point that the freedom of assembly is not
By taking this power away from the High Court, it may be considered unconstitutional as the protestors cannot continue with the judicial review
Finally, it reflects the constitutionally entrenched right to seek justice in the Courts and their role in upholding the rule of law. II. Background In November, 2004, armed officers forcibly entered the appellants’
In a free society such as America the citizens that reside in it are entitled to many freedoms and liberties. The right to protest is protected under these liberties as the entire point of the first amendment of the American Constitution is to protect freedom of speech. The first amendment is open to interpretations but it explicitly states “Congress shall make no law… the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” (U.S Const. amend. I).
To begin with, in the judicial system, there is an ongoing dispute over what compromises the proper amount of judicial power. This lack of agreement concerning policymaking power of the Courts is bestowed within the discussion between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In general, these two philosophies represent the conflicting approaches taken by judges in their task of interpretation. Consequently, the Court’s decision could be framed in terms of activism or restraint by either changing or upholding public policy.
They didn’t have a voice in the parliament. According to document 2, the parliament passed a law, which appears to be unconstitutional,
Ch.1 R1 ¶1 – Settlers who came to the American colonies hoped to have a brighter future (;to own a farm, to start a small business, to live among equals.) ¶2 – The settlers wanted to make their own economic and political decisions based on their own needs. ¶3 – American colonists had to make important decisions about their government. ¶4 – The constitution creates the basic framework of the whole US government. R2 ¶1 – The government is divided into 3 branches in order to keep it from having too much power.
In 1786, the General Assembly enacted that no one should be forced to comply in any religious worship. They also enacted that everyone has the right to display, and allege their opinions in religion. “...But that all men
embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question of whether a constitutional republic or democracy -- a government of the people, by the same people -- can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether the discontented individuals-- too few in numbers to control the administration, according to organic law, in anycase -- can always, upon the pretenses made in this case or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up the government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: “Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness? Make a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own
Concrete changes will be made, peace, agreements, and negotiation will be reached. Peaceful movements are effective and
The fundamental roles of the individual citizen were to exercise these rights such as expressing their opinion in both speaking in public (freedom of speech, 11) and in deciding on things such as taxes (speaking to a representative,14). 3. How does the document define political sovereignty, and how is this definition related to the deputies’ collective sense of identity and
CHAPTER TWO-LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to explore whether incentive structures influence stakeholder participation in collective action and the extent to which incentives explain success or failure of collective action. This chapter will highlight and discuss literature from various resources including peer-reviewed articles, books, journals and other publications around the issues that are the focus of this study. The chapter starts with a brief discussion on how the concept of collective action is defined and proceeds to discuss some of the key theories that explain this concept.
Malaysian has the right to freedom of speech which is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia. The Article 10 allows all citizens the absolute freedom as not restricted by the government. In Malaysia, Law such as Publications act and printing presses give the Malaysian authorities the control over all the media. Any act that against this law may lead to fines or in much extreme cases, prison sentence. Although Malaysia has the right to freedom of speech, the media are still being controlled by the government which restrict them to publish anything against the government.
Introduction Human rights are rights that are entitled to every individual regardless of nationality and citizenship as it is inherent, inalienable, and universal. The presence of basic human rights are vital in upholding a civilized society. The idea of having individual rights and freedom is not a new concept in Britain, in fact it has very deep roots. History shows landmark advancements such as Magna Carta 1215, Habeas Corpus Act 1679, and Bill of Rights and Claim of Rights 1689 all had important roles in protecting citizen’s rights.
Article 19 being the most important, makes the freedom of speech and expression, a fundamental right. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in
As Malaysian citizens, besides having the right to say and express whatever we want, we also have the right to assemble peaceably and we also have the right to form associations however it also being stated in Article 10 (2) (a) (b) (c) that the parliament has the right to impose restrictions on these rights. It is true that Malaysians get to enjoy the freedom of speech and expression as stated in the Federal Constitution but this freedom is restricted and these restrictions are the exception, permitted only to protect: the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health and morals. This simply means that as Malaysian citizens, we do have the right to say and express whatever we want as long as it does not break the rules or regulations