Peaceful Assembly Act 2012

Last updated

Peaceful Assembly Act 2012
MalaysianParliament.jpg
Parliament of Malaysia
  • An Act relating to the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and to provide restrictions deemed necessary or expedient relating to such right in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order, including the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons, and to provide for related matters.
Citation Act 736
Territorial extent Malaysia
Passed by Dewan Rakyat
Passed29 November 2011
Passed by Dewan Negara
Passed20 December 2011
Royal assent 30 January 2012
Commenced9 February 2012
Effective 23 April 2012, P.U. (B) 147/2012 [1]
White paper Peaceful Assembly Bill prepared by the Bar Council
Legislative history
First chamber: Dewan Rakyat
Bill titlePeaceful Assembly Bill 2011
Bill citation D.R. 42/2011
Introduced by Najib Razak, Prime Minister
First reading 22 November 2011
Second reading 24 November 2011
Third reading 29 November 2011
Second chamber: Dewan Negara
Bill titlePeaceful Assembly Bill 2011
Bill citation D.R. 42/2011
Member(s) in charge Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department
First reading 7 December 2011
Second reading 20 December 2011
Third reading 20 December 2011
Final stages
Related legislation
Police Act 1967, Election Offences Act 1954, Industrial Relations Act 1967, Trade Unions Act 1959
Keywords
Freedom of assembly
Status: In force

The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (Malay : Akta Perhimpunan Aman 2012, abbreviated PAA) is the law which regulates public protests in Malaysia. According to the Barisan Nasional government, the Act allows citizens to organise and participate in assemblies peaceably and without arms, subject to restrictions deemed necessary and in the interest of public order and security. [2]

Contents

The Act was drafted four months after the Bersih 2.0 rally and two months after the government announced its intention to amend the Police Act. [3] It was tabled in Parliament on 22 November 2011, passed by the lower house on 29 November, and approved by the Senate on 20 December. [4] [5] [6]

The PAA has been strongly criticised by the opposition, which says that the new law if passed will crackdown on the right to protest instead of safeguarding it. [7] The Bar Council and various civil society leaders have also spoken out against the Act. [7] [8]

Background

Prime Minister Najib Razak promised multiple reform initiatives on his Malaysia Day address on 15 September 2011, including repealing the Internal Security Act and abolishing permits for the print media. [9]

An editorial by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)-owned New Straits Times said the PAA "is a step, among recent others, [by Najib] to fulfil the promises made in his Malaysia Day address, which included a repeal of stringent laws that had outlived their usefulness." It said that the bill "will enable peaceful airings of grievances and other expressions through public assemblies" without being a "carte blanche for unruly street protests". According to the NST, this is a step by Najib "to take the country’s constitutional democracy to a higher and more mature plane." [10]

While debating the law in Parliament, Najib described it as "revolutionary in nature and a giant leap in terms of improving on current laws." [11] Two government members of parliament have hailed the proposed Act as a step towards the government becoming more accepting of public assemblies. [12] Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad praised the PAA as having "good intentions ... besides preventing certain quarters from taking advantage of a situation, so that violence does not become a problem to the country." [13]

The PAA was passed by the Dewan Rakyat on 29 November 2011 with no dissenting votes after opposition members of parliament staged a walkout during the final debate. [5] Some 500 people staged a protest outside Parliament during the vote. [14] It was passed by 39–8 in the Dewan Negara on 20 December 2011. [6]

Provisions

The PAA will replace Section 27 of the Police Act 1967, which means police permits for mass assemblies will no longer be required. [10] Instead, organisers must notify the officer in charge of the police district (OCPD) within 10 days before the gathering date. [15] The OCPD will respond to the notification within five days, outlining the restrictions and conditions imposed. [15]

An organiser may appeal to the Minister of Home Affairs if he/she feels aggrieved by the restrictions and conditions and the minister will respond within two days. [15] Any person convicted of failing to comply with the restrictions and conditions can be fined up to RM10,000. [16]

The PAA also bans any assembly in the form of street protest. [14] [17]

Any person below the age of 21 cannot be an organiser. [16] Any person below the age of 15 cannot participate in an assembly. [2]

The proposed Act also bars any gathering within 50 m of "prohibited places" such as hospitals, petrol stations, airports, railway stations, places of worship and schools. [16]

Structure

The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, in its current form (as of 9 February 2012), consists of 6 Parts containing 27 sections and 4 schedules (including no amendment).

First Schedule – Prohibited Places

Second Schedule – Assemblies in which A Child May Participate

Third Schedule – Assemblies for which Notification Is Not Required

Criticism

Opposition leaders have called the PAA "undemocratic" and have asked for it to be withdrawn. [18] Leader of the Opposition Anwar Ibrahim said the Bill "gives absolute powers to the police, with which the appeal rests with the minister. This is not democratic." [18] Democratic Action Party MP Lim Kit Siang warned against "forcing" the Bill through Parliament without public consultation. [19]

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said the new legislation is more restrictive than the present one. [7] "History is full of civil disobedience and events, which have led to changes for the better in the country ... Processions or assemblies in motion are very much deep in the history of Malaysia ... which is why we urge the government — do not, with the stroke of the pen, strike back against the very foundation of this nation," he said. [20] On the day of voting, the Bar Council led hundreds of lawyers in a "Walk for Freedom" march from the Lake Gardens to Parliament house. [20] [21]

Bersih 2.0 leader Ambiga Sreenevasan has also voiced her opposition to the PAA, saying, "This Bill restricts our rights as much as possible. It gives unfettered powers to the minister and the police to further restrict the freedom to assemble. It impinges on free speech. In short, it will stymie legitimate dissent in our country." [22]

In 2014, Maina Kiai, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, criticised the Peaceful Assembly Act's restrictions on youth and non-citizens in a report to the Human Rights Council. Kiai acknowledged that there may be safety concerns when young people participate in some public assemblies, but wrote that Malaysia's laws were not tailored narrowly enough to specifically address that concern. He concluded that the blanket age-based bans were contrary to article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. He also criticised the law's prohibition against non-citizens taking part in peaceful assemblies, saying that "groups that are disenfranchised from mainstream political activities, such as voting and holding office, have an even greater need for alternative means to participate in the public sphere. Peaceful assemblies are an important tool for allowing the voices of otherwise excluded groups to be heard." [23]

Constitutionality

In 2014, a three-judge panel of the second-highest court in the Malaysian judiciary, the Court of Appeal, declared Section 9(5) of the law unconstitutional in a challenge to the law brought by Selangor State Legislative Assembly deputy speaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad. Nik Nazmi was charged with organising an assembly without providing authorities 10 days notice prior to the event. He faced a fine of RM10,000 under Section 9(5), which provides for criminal punishment of assembly organisers who do not provide 10 days notice of an assembly to the authorities. Nik Nazmi appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously ruled that Section 9(5) of the law violated the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and acquitted Nik Nazmi. [24]

One of the three-judge bench, Justice Mah Weng Kwai, wrote in his opinion that Section 9(1), which requires the 10-day notice period, is also unconstitutional. The other two judges, Justices Mohd Ariff Mohd Yusof and Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, penned separate judgments declaring that only Section 9(5) was unconstitutional. Ariff wrote: "The Section 9(1) requirement of 10 days' notice under the PAA is constitutional, but Section 9(5) that punishes peaceful assembly is unconstitutional." Hamid's opinion was that "The right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed under Article 10(1) (b) of the Federal Constitution and hence, it cannot be criminalised." Mah in his opinion called Section 9(5) a "mockery of the right to freedom of assembly." [24]

However, in 2015, a different three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Section 9(5) in the case of politician R. Yuneswaran. Court of Appeal President Md Raus Sharif authored a unanimous judgment for the three-judge panel, which also included Justices Mohd Zawawi Salleh and Zamani A Rahim. Yuneswaran had been convicted of an offense under Section 9(5) and appealed the conviction, but when it reached the Court of Appeal, the court subsequently upheld both Yuneswaran's conviction and the constitutionality of Section 9(5), ruling that citizens are still able to exercise the constitutional right to peaceful assembly even subject to the penalties of Section 9(5). Yuneswaran's lawyer Sivarasa Rasiah told the press: "It is an unsatisfactory state of the law and against the normal judicial conventions, where you have one Court of Appeal basically overruling another Court of Appeal. That job should be left to the Federal Court." [25]

Another politician, Member of Parliament for Ipoh Timor Thomas Su, was also charged under Section 9 of the act in 2013. After the ruling in Nik Nazmi's case, Su filed for dismissal of the charges, but received a dismissal not amounting to acquittal. Without a formal acquittal, he was subsequently charged again for the original offense in 2016. He then received an acquittal in 2018, when the Attorney General's Chambers withdrew the charges. According to Human Resources Minister M. Kulasegaran, the then recently elected Pakatan Harapan government had instructed the Attorney General to review Section 9(1) of the Act, which was the provision under which Su had been charged. Su's lead counsel Ramkarpal Singh called Su's acquittal a positive step towards abolishing that provision, which he said "curtails freedom of speech." [26]

Related Research Articles

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause. Sometimes referred to as the override power, it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter. The clause was part of the 'Kitchen Accord' of 1981.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Malaysia</span> Federal Constitution of Malaysia

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which came into force in 1957 as the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya and was amended in 1963 to form the Constitution of Malaysia, is the supreme law of Malaysia and contains a total of 183 articles. It is a written legal document influenced by two previous documents, the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 and the Independence Constitution of 1957. The Federation was initially called the Federation of Malaya and it adopted its present name, Malaysia, when the states of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore became part of the Federation. The Constitution establishes the Federation as a constitutional monarchy, having the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of State with largely ceremonial roles. It provides for the establishment and organisation of three main branches of the government: the bicameral legislative branch called the Parliament, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate ; the executive branch led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers and the judicial branch headed by the Federal Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Hong Kong</span>

Human rights protection is enshrined in the Basic Law and its Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). By virtue of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Basic Law Article 39, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is put into effect in Hong Kong. Any local legislation that is inconsistent with the Basic Law can be set aside by the courts. This does not apply to national legislation that applies to Hong Kong, such as the National Security Law, even if it is inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance, ICCPR, or the Basic Law.

The Internal Security Act 1960 was a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. The legislation was enacted after the Federation of Malaya gained independence from Britain in 1957. The ISA allows for detention without trial or criminal charges under limited, legally defined circumstances. On 15 September 2011, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak said that this legislation will be repealed and replaced by two new laws. The ISA was replaced and repealed by the Security Offences Act 2012 which has been passed by Parliament and given the royal assent on 18 June 2012. The Act came into force on 31 July 2012.

The protection of basic human rights is enshrined in Constitution of Malaysia. These include liberty of the person and prohibition of slavery and forced labour. At the national level, legislative measures that exist to prevent human rights violations and abuses can be found in acts and laws on issues that either have a human rights component or relate to certain groups of society whose rights may be at risk of being violated. Human rights groups are generally critical of the Malaysian government and the Royal Malaysia Police.

Governments sometimes take measures designed to afford legal protection of access to abortion. Such legislation often seeks to guard facilities which provide induced abortion against obstruction, vandalism, picketing, and other actions, or to protect patients and employees of such facilities from threats and harassment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Malaysia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Malaysia face severe challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Sodomy is a crime in the country, with laws enforced arbitrarily. Extrajudicial murders of LGBT people have also occurred in the country. There are no Malaysian laws that protect the LGBT community against discrimination and hate crimes. As such, the LGBT demographic in the country are hard to ascertain due to widespread fears from being ostracised and prosecuted, including violence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nik Nazmi</span> Malaysian politician

Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad is a Malaysian politician who has served as the Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability in the Unity Government administration under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim since December 2022 and the Member of Parliament (MP) for Setiawangsa since May 2018. He previously served as Member of the Selangor State Executive Council (EXCO) in the PR and PH state administrations under former Menteri Besar Azmin Ali from September 2014 to May 2018, Deputy Speaker of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly from June 2013 to September 2014, Member of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly (MLA) for Seri Setia from March 2008 to May 2018, Chairman of the Defence and Home Affairs Select Committee from December 2019 to March 2020 and Political Secretary to the Menteri Besar of Selangor from March 2008 to June 2010. He is a member of the People's Justice Party (PKR), a component party of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition. He has also served as a Vice President of PKR since July 2022. He served as the 3rd Youth Chief of PKR from August 2014 to November 2018, Communications Director of PKR from August 2010 to September 2013, 1st Youth Chief of PH from October 2017 to December 2018 and State Youth Chief of PKR of Selangor.

Datuk Mohd Zaid bin Ibrahim is a Malaysian politician, lawyer and former Minister in the Prime Minister's Department for Legal Affairs and Judicial Reform. He was previously a Senator in the Dewan Negara, the upper chamber of the Parliament of Malaysia.

The 2009 Perak constitutional crisis was a political dispute in Malaysia over the legitimacy of the Perak state government formed in February 2009. It began when three Pakatan Rakyat state legislators defected, causing a collapse of the state government. The Sultan of Perak then refused First Minister Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's request to dissolve the state assembly and call elections. Instead, the Barisan Nasional (BN), with support from the three defecting assemblymen, formed the new state government.

<i>Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong</i> 1998 legal judgement on constitutionality of a statutory provision

Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong is a landmark case decided in 1998 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which shaped the landscape of Singapore's constitutional law. The earlier High Court decision, Taw Cheng Kong v. Public Prosecutor, was the first instance in Singapore's history that a statutory provision was struck down as unconstitutional. The matter subsequently reached the Court of Appeal when the Public Prosecutor applied for a criminal reference for two questions to be considered. The questions were:

  1. whether section 37(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ("PCA") was ultra vires the powers of the legislature on the ground that the legislature had, under section 6(3) of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965, been divested of the power to legislate extraterritorially; and
  2. whether section 37(1) of the PCA was discriminatory against Singapore citizens and hence inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bersih 2.0 rally</span> 2011 demonstration against electoral fraud and corruption in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The Bersih 2.0 rally was a demonstration in Kuala Lumpur held on 9 July 2011 as a follow-up to the 2007 Bersih rally. The rally, organised by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih), was supported by Pakatan Rakyat, the coalition of the three largest opposition parties in Malaysia, but was deemed illegal by the government. Bersih, chaired by former president of the Bar Council Ambiga Sreenevasan, were pushing the Election Commission of Malaysia (EC) to ensure free and fair elections in Malaysia. It demanded that the EC clean up the electoral roll, reform postal voting, use indelible ink, introduce a minimum 21-day campaign period, allow all parties free access to the media, and put an end to electoral fraud.

This is a timeline of notable events in the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bersih 3.0 rally</span> Malaysian democratic protest

The Bersih 3.0 rally was the largest democratic protest in Malaysia. This rally was organised as a follow-up to the 2011 Bersih rally and the 2007 Bersih rally. The rally, organised by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih), was supported by Pakatan Rakyat, the coalition of the three largest opposition parties in Malaysia along with other small political parties like Parti Sosialis Malaysia and social organisations such as Malaysian Trades Union Congress, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) and Malaysian Bar. In addition, Bersih 3.0 was endorsed by 84 NGOs. In particular, it was joined by Himpunan Hijau, a civil movement protesting the Lynas rare earth project in Malaysia. In addition to the main rally at Kuala Lumpur, smaller rallies were held in 10 other cities in Malaysia, as well as in 34 other countries. Following the last rally in 2011, the government of Malaysia organised a Public Select Committee (PSC) to look into electoral reforms in Malaysia, which released their proposals in April 2012. Seven of the eight demands by the Bersih have been included in the 22 recommendations submitted by the PSC. PSC Committee member P. Kamalanathan said only one demand by Bersih, on a minimum 21 days campaign period, was not included because it was not suitable to be implemented in Sabah and Sarawak. However, the matter was still being considered, where the current campaign period of seven days had been extended to 10 days. Bersih claimed that PSC proposals were half-hearted and accused the Election Commission of Malaysia (EC) of being insincere in introducing electoral reforms. Bersih has stated that they would call off the rally if the Malaysian government gave a guarantee that electoral reforms take place before the next Malaysian general elections.

The May Day Anti-GST Rally was a rally held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on May 1, 2014. The rally was organised by a coalition of 89 non-governmental organisations, including Oppressed People's Network, Parti Sosialis Malaysia, Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia, and Asalkan Bukan UMNO among others, and was supported by the opposition Pakatan Rakyat. The rally, which coincided with International Workers' Day, was held in response to the Malaysian government's plan to introduce the goods and services tax on April 1, 2015. The rally saw participants march from Kuala Lumpur City Centre and other rally points in the city to the eventual destination, Dataran Merdeka.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bersih 4 rally</span>

The Bersih 4.0 rally was a series of planned rallies carried out on 29 to 30 August 2015 in major cities in Malaysia, namely Kuala Lumpur, Kota Kinabalu and Kuching. There were subsequent rallies in over 70 cities around the world in support of the main rallies in Malaysia. The rallies were organised by The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections or Bersih a coalition of non-government organisations which seeks to reform the current electoral system in Malaysia to ensure free, clean and fair elections. The rallies were being carried out with the objective to calling for clean and transparent governance in Malaysia as well as strengthening the parliamentary democracy system. The rallies are a followup to similar rallies that were carried out in 2007, 2011 and 2012. 30 August is the day before National Day which is on 31 August.

The Tangkap Najib rally was a demonstration held in Kuala Lumpur on 1 August 2015. The peaceful rally was organized by a youth activist group Demi Malaysia to urge for the resignation of Prime Minister of Malaysia Najib Razak ensuing the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal.

Thomas Su Keong Siong is a Malaysian politician and lawyer who has served as the Member of the Pahang State Legislative Assembly (MLA) for Ketari since November 2022. He served as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Kampar from May 2018 to November 2022, for Ipoh Timor from May 2013 to May 2018, Member of the Perak State Executive Council (EXCO) in the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state administration under former Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin from March 2008 to the collapse of the PR state administration in February 2009 and Perak MLA for Pasir Pinji from March 2004 to May 2013. He is a member of Democratic Action Party (DAP), a component party of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) and formerly PR and Barisan Alternatif (BA) coalitions. He is also a member of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the DAP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bersih 5 rally</span>

The Bersih 5 rally was a peaceful democratic protest in Malaysia, supported by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih), which took place on 19 November 2016. The rally was held calling for a new and cleaner electoral system in Malaysia. A Bersih convoy was also launched and targeted all parts of Malaysia to raise awareness of the current democratic problems nationwide.

<i>Kwok Wing Hang and others v Chief Executive in Council and another</i> Hong Kong case law concerning wearing of masks

Kwok Wing Hang and others v Chief Executive in Council and another is a Hong Kong constitutional case concerning the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (PFCR) and Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO).

References

  1. ↑ "Peaceful Assembly Act 2012: Appointment of Date Coming into Operation" (PDF). Attorney General's Chamber of Malaysia. Retrieved 10 May 2012.
  2. 1 2 "Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 tabled for first reading". Borneo Post . Bernama. 23 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  3. ↑ Hazlin Hassan (23 November 2011). "KL's Peaceful Assembly Bill gets hammered". The Straits Times . Archived from the original on 26 April 2012. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  4. ↑ "Peaceful Assembly Act tabled in Parliament". The Star . 22 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  5. 1 2 Loh, Loon Fong (29 November 2011). "Peaceful Assembly Bill passed". The Star . Retrieved 29 November 2011.
  6. 1 2 "Assembly law sails through Dewan Negara". The Malaysian Insider . 20 December 2011. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
  7. 1 2 3 "Outrage over new Malaysian protest law". AFP. 23 November 2011. Archived from the original on 25 January 2013. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  8. ↑ Alyaa Alhadjri (23 November 2011). "Civil society unhappy with bill". The Sun . Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  9. ↑ Teoh, Shannon (20 November 2011). "Nazri confirms 'peaceful assembly' law to be tabled next week". The Malaysian Insider . Archived from the original on 22 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  10. 1 2 "Gathering in peace". New Straits Times . 23 November 2011. Archived from the original on 23 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  11. ↑ Chooi, Clara (24 November 2011). "PM calls new assembly law 'revolutionary'". The Malaysian Insider . Archived from the original on 27 November 2011. Retrieved 24 November 2011.
  12. ↑ "It's a progressive start for reforms, say BN reps". The Star . 23 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  13. ↑ "Dr Mahathir voices support for Peaceful Assembly Bill". The Star . 23 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  14. 1 2 "Malaysia passes street protest ban as lawyers march". BBC News. 29 November 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
  15. 1 2 3 Teoh, Shannon (29 November 2011). "Assembly bill changes cut appeal period to 48 hours". The Malaysian Insider . Archived from the original on 1 December 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
  16. 1 2 3 Iliyana Mokhtar; Suganthi Supramaniam (23 November 2011). "Rules on assembly". New Straits Times . Archived from the original on 23 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  17. ↑ Gooch, Liz (30 November 2011). "Bill Limiting Street Protests Moves Ahead in Malaysia". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  18. 1 2 Shazwan Mustafa (23 November 2011). "Pakatan wants assembly law withdrawn". The Malaysian Insider . Archived from the original on 24 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  19. ↑ Chooi, Clara (28 November 2011). "Kit Siang warns of 'disaster' if assembly law passed". The Malaysian Insider . Archived from the original on 29 November 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
  20. 1 2 Chooi, Clara (29 November 2011). "Lawyers end march, say to keep up pressure on assembly law". The Malaysian Insider . Archived from the original on 30 November 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
  21. ↑ "More than 1,000 march against Assembly Bill". Malaysiakini . 29 November 2011. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
  22. ↑ Chong, Debra (22 November 2011). "New assembly law undermines Constitution, says Ambiga". The Malaysian Insider . Archived from the original on 23 November 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  23. ↑ "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, A/HRC/26/29" (PDF). Archived from the original on 27 May 2014. Retrieved 26 May 2014.
  24. 1 2 Yatim, Hafiz (25 April 2014). "Punishment for 10 days' notice 'unconstitutional'". Malaysiakini. Retrieved 8 February 2023.
  25. ↑ Lin, Koh Jun (1 October 2015). "Appeals Court rules 10 days' rally notice 'constitutional'". Malaysiakini. Retrieved 8 February 2023.
  26. ↑ Looi, Sylvia (27 July 2018). "Kampar MP acquitted of illegally organising rally". Malay Mail. Retrieved 8 February 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.