Young Professionals call for boycott of Bersih 4.0

The holding of the rally is, according its organisers, ostensibly towards pushing for the holding of free and fair general elections.

However, past experience with the first Bersih rally in 2007, Bersih 2.0 in 2011 and Bersih 3.0 in 2012 would show that this is not to be the case, and that those behind Bersih have consistently made key changes to their demands and have expanded the scope of their movement beyond general elections.

For instance, while the initial Bersih rally in 2007 called for clean-up of the electoral roll, the use of indelible ink, abolition of postal voting and free and fair access to the media for all parties, the second and third Bersih rally added vague references to “strengthening public institutions and stopping dirty politics”, while the fourth rally aims to pressure the Prime Minister to resign on account of RM2.6 billion channelled into his personal account as a donation.

This, among others, could be why there is dwindling support for Bersih 4’s intention to hold yet another rally since many participants of the previous Bersih rallies have indicated that they will not attend, as the organisers themselves have admitted.

While we make no remark with respect to the allegations against the PM, on which investigations are still ongoing, YP strongly condemns the motives behind the holding of the rally, namely the applying of political and social pressure on a democratically elected Prime Minister to resign prior to the conclusion of the ongoing investigations, and the calling of a transitional government to take his place, all of which are undemocratic and unconstitutional.

YP reminds Malaysians that pursuant to Article 43(4) of the Federal Constitution, being Malaysia’s highest law and grundnorm, the power of dismissal of the Prime Minister, being an appointee of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) lies with Parliament vide a vote of no confidence.

Until and unless Parliament decides to pass a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, the same, being an appointee of the YDPA pursuant to Article 43(2)(a), holds office at the pleasure of the YDPA pursuant to Article 43(5) of the Constitution and save as otherwise authorised by this apex law, no pressure, be it political, social or economic, can be brought to bear against the PM to force his resignation.

Thus, Bersih 4’s ultimatum to the PM on account of unfinished investigations concerning RM2.6 Billion or by reason that the Malaysian Ringgit continues to fall against the US dollar are wholly invalid and without any legal basis whatsoever and can only be described as a subversion of Malaysia’s democratic process.

Bersih 4’s claim that it is entitled to hold the rally pursuant to Article 10(1)(b) of the Constitution ignores the limitations placed on this right vide Article 10(2)(b) of the same which provides that Parliament may by law impose restrictions where the same affects national security or public order. This Parliament has done vide the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 and the Public Order (Preservation) Act 1958.

YP notes from media reports that the organisers of Bersih 4 have not complied fully with the requirements of the Peaceful Assembly Act by failing to submit detailed routes to the Police on the route of the Assembly pursuant to the requirement to give notice under section 9(1) of the Act, leading to the Police not to give their approval for the rally.

YP notes that the reason behind this non approval has nothing to do with the criminalisation of the failure to comply with the time limit of 10 days imposed by section 9(5) of the Act, which was declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal in the case of Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad v Public Prosecutor, but everything to do with details of the procession routes intended to be used by participants of the rally.

The argument by Bersih 4 and its sympathisers such as the Bar Council vide its Press Release on 22 August 2015 on the applicability of Nik Nazmi’s case are therefore superfluous.

YP also points out that it is ironic that the Bar Council should assert its support for Bersih 4’s so-called aims of desiring clean elections when elections to the Bar Council itself are far from transparent, and that the Bar Council directed members of the Bar in attendance at the last Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Malaysian Bar to reject a motion put forth by a member of the Bar calling for greater transparency and accountability in the conduct of annual elections to the Council.

YP strongly believes that until the Bar Council, being a statutory body established pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 1976, itself cleans up its own act in this regard, it has no moral ground nor legitimacy to call for free, fair and transparent general elections or greater accountability in respect of other public bodies.

For the aforesaid reasons YP urges all Malaysians who uphold the Federal Constitution and are concerned about maintenance of national security and public order, to make a stand against Bersih 4 and boycott its planned rallies scheduled for 29 and 30 August 2015.