Stop giving excuses to stop demonstrations
Richard TeoPublished: Nov 27, 2007 4:48 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Why should the government stifle dissent by refusing to give its citizens permits to demonstrate? It does not matter whether the government thinks that the issue is not justifiable or for some imaginary reason, is a threat to national security. Whether their grievances are legitimate or not is something the public will have to judge for themselves. The government's role is merely to ensure that the demonstrations are held peacefully without any violence.
When people take to the streets to demonstrate, it is always for a cause. History has repeatedly shown us that when the voice of the people is continually and contemptuously ignored, the only recourse is to show their displeasure by demonstrating. After all, this liberty to demonstrate peacefully is provided by our constitution and it is an unalienable right for every citizen to exercise.
I disagree with the view that the rally should not have proceeded because it was intended for a specific community. This view is in direct contradiction with the basic principle of the right to peaceful assembly enshrined in the constitution. If the aggrieved party is of the view that their grievances have not been addressed then they should have every right to demonstrate. It does not matter whether their grievances merely highlight a particular community's interest, as long as they perceive a need to convey and publicise their message.
It is totally irrational to say that the demonstration is acceptable only if it also espouses the grievances of other communities. What if the other communities are not interested in joining the cause? Does that mean they cannot proceed with their own cause?
Free and peaceful demonstrations are one of the cornerstones of a democracy. The government cannot repeatedly come out with preposterous excuses that it causes inconvenience and an imaginary threat of racial disturbance. By denying people the right to demonstrate, the government is implying that it has something to hide and that the issue which caused the demonstration is indeed a legitimate one.
When people take to the streets to demonstrate, it is always for a cause. History has repeatedly shown us that when the voice of the people is continually and contemptuously ignored, the only recourse is to show their displeasure by demonstrating. After all, this liberty to demonstrate peacefully is provided by our constitution and it is an unalienable right for every citizen to exercise.
I disagree with the view that the rally should not have proceeded because it was intended for a specific community. This view is in direct contradiction with the basic principle of the right to peaceful assembly enshrined in the constitution. If the aggrieved party is of the view that their grievances have not been addressed then they should have every right to demonstrate. It does not matter whether their grievances merely highlight a particular community's interest, as long as they perceive a need to convey and publicise their message.
It is totally irrational to say that the demonstration is acceptable only if it also espouses the grievances of other communities. What if the other communities are not interested in joining the cause? Does that mean they cannot proceed with their own cause?
Free and peaceful demonstrations are one of the cornerstones of a democracy. The government cannot repeatedly come out with preposterous excuses that it causes inconvenience and an imaginary threat of racial disturbance. By denying people the right to demonstrate, the government is implying that it has something to hide and that the issue which caused the demonstration is indeed a legitimate one.
View Comments0