There have been some noise made about the upcoming Bersih 2.0 demonstration on July 9, and the responses (actually threats) by Perkasa and UMNO Youth, where these people are fighting for...
Actually, what is this demonstration for anyway? I know it's for something important...something to do with elections...
Anyway, what's the issue, again? Right to protest? What's so difficult? It's in Article 10 of the Constitution. Let the people protest-lah. I mean, Bersih 2.0 is basically doing the same thing everyone else (including UMNO supporters) is doing online: whine and bitch about the government, but this time, they're walking. And looking at some of Ambiga's photos, she needs the walk.
Hey, if Bersih 2.0 wants to demonstrate, that's their right. And if Perkasa and UMNO Youth want to demonstrate against the right to demonstrate (hey, don't ask me. Ask the people hailing "Don't Talk Shit" guy as their Dear Leader), it's also their right. I think.
But this whole street demonstration...I just had to ask a question: must it be 'on the street', per se? I mean, really? I know it's your right to demo and 'tunjuk power' on the street, Bersih and Perkasa, but you're not the only one using the roads. And you're not the only ones who paid taxes to build the elaborate road systems of KL. Other people paid taxes too. Especially those who have to work on that day. Or those who plan to the movies with their spouses and partners. in other words, people who have souls.
Yeah, yeah, some people might say it's going to be an important day, and people will remember it in the future when freedom rings and democracy reigns, and people should be considerate and sacrifice this one day for Utopia to happen...only, your right to protest this one day (which must provide you people with joy) doesn't provide you the right to ask other people to sacrifice their comfort. Riddle me this, Batman. If people can't use the roads the way they want, which is properly and without hassle, because you're exercising the right to use it the way you want, doesn't that constitute a conflict of rights? I don't speak lawyer. Maybe someone can explain this to me.
Maybe I'll get Lawyered, and they can provide justification for above question. Fine, then. If protesters like the street, they can go with it. Can't do much against masses of angry mobs (I mean, righteous fury of the rakyat). But they could seriously consider an option of protesting somewhere else. It's not that ridiculous an idea. Rather than summon the great spirit of Hyde Park when supporting their right to protest, it would be nicer if someone actually proposed a protest-model based on how it is done in Hyde Park, London.
They could, for one, pick a spot away from the main roads (where traffic is not hindered and small retailers can continue their daily business), like Lake Gardens in KL, for example. The protesters can march around the lake, clear their voices, get some exercise (while exercising their rights), then after demo, go to the nearest mamak store or coffee shop and minum-minum, talk a bit, bitch a bit, find romance in the process, sing and dance like HSM, then go back home.
And make a timetable. 10-11 AM: Bersih 2.0, 11 AM-12 PM: Perkasa, 12-1 PM: UMNO Youth, (and other groups who want to join).
See? Quite simple and straightforward, isn't it? What's so difficult about the whole thing? Bersih gets to demo, Perkasa gets to demo. Lawyers can pretend to do something meaningful. PAS and UMNO can pretend to do something useful. Anwar can pretend to be PM on Sept 16 again, Najib can say to the world that he's a democratic leader that allows dissenting protest...
Everybody's happy. The end.
p/s I still take swipes at Lawyers, but after 4 years, I'm admittedly warming up to this species. From No. 3 on my personal No-Like list, they dropped to number 11. Clap clap clap clap.
