One has to wonder what are the criteria for a mission to qualify as "dangerous". Obviously "drug ambush" does not qualify. However, it seems certain that handling public demonstrations — peaceful or not — falls within the definition of "dangerous". After all, the riot police are often equipped with protective gears, especially when they gang up on unarmed civilians.
The police did not give their consent for the "peaceful" demonstration march from Jalan Tun Perak to Dataran Merdeka yesterday. The march was apparently organised for "Clean and Fair Election (Bersih)". When the demonstrators went ahead with the march anyway, the riot police came in to disperse the crowd with teargas and water cannons. And then as expected, they were criticised severely for their actions.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Animals in us
About 2 weeks ago, 2 policemen died in a shootout during a drug ambush that went awry. Later, it was revealed that they did not have bullet-proof vests on during the ambush. Apparently the police force did not have enough protective gears for all its personnels; so only those out on "dangerous" missions are equipped with the relevant protective gears. Such was the explanation offered by the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan.
Now I am not really interested in the demonstrators' agenda. For one thing, I have come to accept the fact that elections in Malaysia had never been fair, and never will be. For another, I don't believe yesterday's rally, if uninterrupted by the big bullies, would have made any difference at all.
But being a keen observer of human psychology that I am, I would like to explore the meaning of "peaceful" demonstration. What is it, really? Is there such a thing as a "peaceful" demonstration? Well, Pak Lah is of the opinion that "there's never been peaceful gatherings."
I don't agree with Pak Lah. In a way, I think it was reckless of him to say what he said. Of course some gatherings are peaceful. But there is this thing about humans — they are basically "animals" with superior mental abilities than other living beings on earth.
Have you ever seen a timid dog with its tail between its hind legs when alone in an unfamiliar territory? Yet when that same dog is put into a pack large enough to be powerful, it becomes wild and fierce. Humans are very much like that too. When a group of mild-mannered people who are not normally violent come together, that gathering might start as something peaceful. But it won't take very long before they influence each other and those same peaceful people can suddenly turn violent. The animal instinct is not easy to control.
People like Anwar Ibrahim is very well aware of such animal instinct. After all, his "peaceful" gathering shortly before he was arrested almost 10 years ago turned ugly. His gathering which started as something peaceful ended up with violent riots, causing substantial loss of properties.
It was probably in such context that Pak Lah gave his opinion — that "there's never been peaceful gatherings."; and it was probably in anticipation of such unruly behavior that the police came in to disperse the crowd before it was too late.
Perhaps this particular crowd was different. Maybe they wouldn't have turned violent. But from what I've seen before, I would seriously doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I was just wondering when are you going to touch on political issues. Good thing you did.
If not for a hunt, I would have been there. I was at the gatherings earlier this year when they increase the toll rates. Not so huge like last Saturday, maybe about 1/2K people. It was Peaceful.
People don't turn violent just because they are in big groups. If that is true than all sports matches, religious gatherings, concerts and such should be ban too.
Like animals, people turn violent when they are provoke or felt danger. The high handed ways of the police on Saturday was unnecessary.
Political apathy people should never complain about the Govt they get and deserved.
We have here several issues interwoven together.
First, I must agree with you that "people don't turn violent just because they are in big groups." But would you at least agree that different kinds of gatherings have different degrees of tendencies of turning violent? One would not expect a Sure Heboh crowd turning violent, would they? The one-million-dollar question is whether a political demonstration comprising 4,000 people is more likely to turn violent if uninterrupted.
It's anybody's guess, really. Some 10 years ago, Anwar's peaceful gathering did turn violent. So one has to consider whether the police was justified to act before things turn violent last Saturday.
The second issue is on the question of using violent means to curtail violence. I wasn't there at the demonstration, so I don't know what actually transpired that day. But in my opinion the "right" thing to do would be to adopt a "milder" approach first, such as giving warnings to the crowd etc, instead of bulldozing their way in with teargas and water cannons. Maybe they did give sufficient warnings, I don't know.
The third issue is on which Govt should run this country. We see the people of Indonesia and The Philippines and get to learn quite a bit from them. They've achieved independence for many decades; yet whenever they're dissatisfied with their respective Govts, they would take the streets to riot. Decades of independence have taught them nothing.
I'd like to think that we Malaysians are different somehow—that we are more civilised. We choose our Govts through the ballot boxes. And I'd like to think that we're matured enough to accept that the voice of the majority is still the way to go.
There are quite a lot of things I am not happy with as far as our present Govt is concerned. And I grumble a lot too. But I don't see myself in demonstrations—peaceful or not. If we didn't have the ballot boxes, then maybe I might think differently.
4K people? don't depend of mainstream medias as our only source.
The demo is not to overthrow the Govt. It is asking for a fair election.
Asking for a fair election through peaceful demo should be permitted. If there are concerns regarding turning into violence, it is then the polices' duty to ensure that it will not turn out that way, isn't it? I commend this effort, I think it is time for the government to really listen to the voice of the rakyat!
Thank you, khoo, for your comment. Two points I'd like to discuss:
1) In the law of tort, there is inter alia the test of reasonable foreseeability. If, for example, it is reasonably foreseeable that a crowd may turn violent, and the police does nothing to stop that gathering; and then if indeed that crowd becomes violent, the police may be deemed liable. Of course, there are other requirements to be satisfied also. If a crowd of 40,000 becomes violent, it is extremely difficult to contain that violence. So the question is whether it was totally unreasonable for the police to adopt the "prevention-is-better-than-cure" attitude?
2) Would there have been any difference if, say, the organisers of the gathering collected signatures from 100,000 people to petition the Agong for a fair election, and then only a few of the representatives delivered the document? In my opinion, there is hardly any effect however they deliver the petition. Either way, those petition documents would very likely end up being filed somewhere to be forgotten forever. But the "gathering approach" may lead to unrest, and I think it's very naive for anyone to deny that possibility.
I may be too 'harsh' in saying this....but perhaps then a riot is almost necessary to cause the much needed change in our country? There is no victory without a battle. There is no real change if the seemingly safer route is taken? Mediocricity or 'balance' will not result in change. Perhaps extreme measures are needed to prove the point? (of course this can also backfire)
It is very profound what you are saying there, khoo.
If we want change so much, at least let our minds decide—not our hearts. Anger is a tricky thing—it is like burning fire; if we fail to control our anger, we may just end up burning ourselves in the end.
CHANGE is a very dangerous word. We see the fightings and bloodsheds in Pakistan and Iraq. And the meddling by the big bully also does not help. All of them want change. They have not really experienced peace for generations. Their people die all the time, and the fightings continue. Maybe they are happy and proud about it; and they've made their point alright! Maybe they will get that change one of these days. Who knows, it might just happen tomorrow. By then, hundreds and thousands of people would have died. I just hope that their sacrifice won't be in vain; I just hope that it's worth it. The last ones standing will get to make those changes...
Disunity amongst the people is the worst kind of enemy in any country. We must decide carefully if that is really what we want; can we really afford such a high price for the "change" that we are seeking?
Maybe it's me, but history has shown us that violence almost always has the tendency of leading to sad endings.
If there is one thing that I am very proud about being a Malaysian right now, it's the very fact that we are relatively a "peaceful" country. I pray that it will stay that way.
Post a Comment