A Response to "Reject the Stadium Solution"

A.   Introduction

[1]    This is an article in response to Ong Kar Jin’s blog post in his duriandemocracy blog titled “Reject the Stadium Solution” (Link Here) which was cheekily (albeit slightly distastefully) labelled as the “SS”.

[2]    The article was well written and I enjoyed writing this response. Briefly put, I don’t fully agree with his position, and believe that this response will justify why.

B. Stadiums are limiting Factors.

“More Space = More People = Better” is flawed logic

[3]    The author says that stadiums limit the number of people who can attend the rallies, and that these people are the “lifeblood of protests”. He then says that people stuck outside cannot hear the speeches, participate in “collective action” and that not being able to enter the stadium is akin to attending a buffet but being able to only have one plate.

[4]    Firstly, the logic is flawed. If the protests took place in open areas, such as the streets, there would still be a problem of people who could listen to the speeches or the ability of people to participate in ‘collective actions’ especially so considering the spread out and sporadic nature of such protests – essentially, only those able to get to a focal point, such as Dataran Merdeka would reap any of the benefits – and this is similar to that of being able to enter the stadium. But within stadiums, sound systems can be put in place, and screens or sound systems can be placed in the immediate vicinity of the stadiums. The same cannot be done for open spaces, simple because logistically it’s impossible.

“The author has in no way justified why one  (duty not to inconvenience residents staying near stadiums) should supersede the rights of other (legitimate businesses and members of the public in the city).”

[5]    Secondly, the author himself highlights a concern but doesn’t provide an answer to it. He concedes that ‘you never know for sure how many people are going to turn up’. His suggestion is that open spaces enable more people power. However, within such concession beckons the question of ‘so how do organisers ensure the safety of the protesters?’ The reality is that in most liberal democracies, open protests are limited to a finite number of people. Authorities set limits of how many people can attend, and are empowered to turn people away if the numbers swell, because there is a potential and real danger to over-crowding. The author blindly suggests that people power is vital, to which I agree, but turns away from addressing security concerns.

[6]    Thirdly, I would like to ask the author, what if a field or open space is allocated as an alternative (like the area between the Lincoln memorial and World War II memorial in Washington DC)? Would he accept it?

What about alternatives?

[7]    If numbers and venue are his concerns, can the author suggest a place to protest which only causes minimal interruptions and meets the author's numerical requirements?

[8]    If the answer is "no" or "people have a right to take to the streets regardless", that would mean that his arguments that stadiums are limiting is wholly misconceived. Instead, it shows an adamant position to insist on using public streets for their cause. The questions that then arise are (I) what is the yardstick for a cause to be legitimate to take to the streets; and (II) how does one determine legitimacy in light of people who show up vs those who don't (the silent majority?).

[9]    Unfortunately none of these answers are available in the author’s article.

The Contradiction

[10] The contradiction in the article is that Bersih and other protests did not actually want to "take to the streets" but to get to Dataran Merdeka. So the author is essentially shooting himself in the foot with his assertions that taking to the streets were the purpose of the demonstrations. This is clearly incorrect.

Would you accept protest laws ala US or UK?

[11] In any event, assuming that Bersih wanted to take to the streets, would the author accept laws requiring applying for permits?

[12] In the US, and the UK - oft quoted bastions of freedom and protest rights by many Malaysian advocates and activists – the Governments and local authorities are strict about street protests and impose, among others, permits, notification, and disclosure requirements as preconditions to rally.

[13] The organisers of the recent New Year’s Eve (G3112) rallies did not bother to conform to any of the requirements of the Peaceful Assembly Act. Admittedly the ability to protest is a right, but rights are to be exercised responsibly. The rule of law cannot be selectively applied and preached. The civil society movement broke the law.

Media Impact: A Weak Argument

[14] The author suggests that media impact is lost in stadiums – his example was that of an Al-Jazeera reporter who couldn’t get into the stadium. Oh, this logic is fraught with holes.

“He surely cannot say that there was insufficient media coverage as the issue was the most prominent talking point in all Malaysian media. The lack of turnout just shows that people aren’t supportive”

[15] Firstly, the Al-Jazeera reporter would have been just 1 of many reporters covering the event. Considering Al-Jazeera’s dwindling viewership, the author’s assertions that media impact was lost, while plausible, isn’t as strong as he claims. Fellow citizens could and would have been spurred on by other news sources, both internationally, such as the BBC and CNN (who were prominently present at the Bersih rallies), and locally, such as The Malaysian Insider, Malaysiakini, and the myriad of media providers now in existence.

[16] Secondly and potentially more important, Facebook, Twitter and other social media commentators and activists would have been able to bring about this impact that the author wants. Arguably, social media is more impactful because of the personal connection between the sit-at-home-citizen and the social media commentator-activist.

[17] If the author laments the lack of media impact to attract protesters, then it just shows that support for that cause wasn’t as strong as he thought it was. Perhaps it was over-estimated. He surely cannot say that there was insufficient media coverage as the issue was the most prominent talking point in all Malaysian media.

[18] Bottom line: The media impact argument is weak.

Stadiums are Geographically Limiting

[19] The author laments the lack of opportunities to hold rallies in “viable” stadiums and goes on to raise the excuse that opposition-led states have lesser developed public transport, that stadiums are often traffic magnets, and that the only viable stadium is in PJ which could lead to inconveniences into residential areas.

[20] My first response is that this is really petty.

[21] Secondly, aside from Bukit Jalil (which seats up to 100,000 people and fits many more on the field), the Pakatan Rakyat state government control the second biggest stadium in Malaysia – the Shah Alam stadium which sits more than 69,000 people, not including the field. It then controls the next joint-biggest stadium – Penang’s Batu Kawan stadium which holds the same amount of people as the Merdeka Stadium (40,000).

[22] Thirdly, the assertion that the Federal Government or corporate owners are unreasonable is both plainly false and unfair. The Federal Government allowed Pakatan Rakyat to hold the Bersih rally at the Merdeka Stadium. Granted, some jostling had to be done, but hey, that’s part of the negotiation and political realities. Ultimately, the protest organisers got what they want.

[23] Fourthly, the public transport difficulty argument doesn’t hold any water. Selangor is run by Pakatan Rakyat. They can increase bus frequencies within the state or charter buses. The KTM and LRTs are available to get to Shah Alam and Kelana Jaya respectively. If a protester really believes in a cause, this is never a valid excuse.

[24] Lastly, the argument that stadium protests cause inconvenience due to ‘spillage into residential areas’ is a non-starter. Reason: taking to the streets in the middle of KL on a busy weekend is also an inconvenience to shoppers and businesses. The author has in no way justified why one should supersede the other.

“the Pakatan Rakyat state government control the second biggest stadium in Malaysia – the Shah Alam stadium which sits more than 69,000 people, not including the field”.

B.   Street Protests may be inconvenient, but that is part of the point

Civil Disobedience, Ghandi Style

[25] The author suggests that taking to the streets is an act of civil disobedience and cites Ghandi’s legendary Great Salt March. The author then compares this to demonstrating against the injustices of SOSMA and the Peaceful Assembly Act respectively.

[26] My first response is that the Great Salt March example is not analogous to that of what the British were doing in India and how Ghandi sought to achieve his ends. Ghandi’s mantra was civil disobedience with non-violence and respect as the fundamental tenets of the protests. The salt ban was hurting the entire nation, especially the poor. Trade could not be done, and people could not earn a living. Just on this comparative basis, Malaysia wholly differs.

[27] Secondly, in the Malaysian context, the protesters were not only causing public property damage, there were calls by the organisers to forcefully enter Dataran Merdeka (for both the Bersih and 3112 rallies). Ghandi would not have approved of this.

“Protests are never an end, but a means. If protests are an end, it would spell the death of democracy.”

[28] In any event, the merits of SOSMA and the Peaceful Assembly Act are not wholly opposed by all Malaysians. There are quarters that support it – as evidence by, among others, online condemnations of the protesters, police reports lodged, and public dismissal of the legitimacy of the protests.

[29] The author has not provided reason why protesting SOSMA and the PAA holds the same urgency as that of the Great Salt March.

[30] Further, the legitimacy of the laws have not been tested in the courts by way of judicial review. Protests are never an end, but a means. Failure of civil society to test the validity of the laws in court is a failure to utilise democratic processes and institutions – unless the author now wants to turn around and say that our judiciary is not independent.

[31] Now, at this point we’d agree to disagree. I’m just saying that there is a silent majority whose views are equally legitimate but tend to be summarily dismissed by so-called modern day civil society activists. Be it as it may, this is no Great Salt March, and it would be a disillusion to think that it is.

A necessary inconvenience

[32] The author proceeds to state that ‘the inconvenience of it all is a purposeful material and symbolic signal to the government to take heed of the rakyat’.

[33] Agreed.

[34] But what makes it necessary? And why won’t the Government listen to the Rakyat if they were to protests in stadiums? I think this is conjecture at best.

[35] There’s a logical leap and disjoint in this analysis.

C.   Stadium protests are not only limiting, but downright dangerous

[36] The author cites various examples of risks and dangers associated with huge crowds. The problem is that none of the examples relate to political protests in stadiums (credit given to the author for conceding to this).

[37] Admittedly nevertheless, the risks highlighted are a real possibility. But the real question is whether street protests are any safer or less risky?

[38] The resounding answer is “no”.

[39] An online search for news of ‘protestor deaths’ returned with the following: 1 killed, 129 injured in Thailand when an unidentified gunman opened fire on peaceful protesters; 3 dead in Turkey in protests by Kurdish rebels against the Turkish Government; 1 Egyptian student killed during protests in support of (now deposed) President Morsi, 3 more killed in northeast Egypt; 1 protester killed in the Central African Republic (CAR).

[40] The above were deaths in December 2013 alone.

“At the end of the day, any risk to human life is unacceptable.

Unfortunately for the author, he has not been able to prove why one method is safer than the other except for by examples which are non-analogous.”

[41] A wider search would show that 250 people have died in Bangladesh in 2013 due to protests which had escalated into clashes with police concerning the prosecution of Abdul Quader Mollah and his supporters; that 14 protestors died in Egypt in December 2012 during a peaceful protest in front of the Presidential Palace; and so on.

[42] The point to be made is that there is no guarantee that street demonstrations are any safer than stadium demonstrations. The argument that people can disperse freely is negated by the contention that street demonstrations would bring in more people. If at all, the wider net casted would make ensuing pandemonium even more difficult to control and would make the work of emergency medics all the more difficult. Open-ended chaos is undoubtedly more difficult to contain and to manage.

[43] Contrastingly, the examples cited by the author point to the fact that stadium deaths are fewer and further in between.

[44] Arguably, stadiums are safer because they enable authorities or organisers check the items brought in by protesters (a long but ultimately necessary process and this was done in Tahrir Square- you would note that the deaths happened outside of the square) and arguably, people are more vigilant because of the limited space. It hinders sporadic bursts of emotions at the target of the demonstrations because the focus and attention of the audience would be with the speeches or rallying cries of the organisers – not Government buildings or property.

[45] At the end of the day, any risk to human life is unacceptable. Unfortunately for the author, he has not been able to prove why one method is safer than the other except for by examples which are non-analogous.

D.   Conclusion

[46] While I laud the author for his article, based on the above, I cannot accept his propositions as being valid.

[47] Indeed, civil society must go out and stand up for their rights. History has shown time and time again that demonstrations are one of the most effective ways to make Governments stand up and take notice.

[48] In this context however, the efficacy and impact of one method over the other has not been properly demonstrated (pun intended).

“In this context however, the efficacy and impact of one method over the other has not been properly demonstrated (pun intended)”

-End-