The mainstream press and the ruling politicians are sticking to the description of the Bersih walk on July 9 as “`illegal”, but why?

This question is very important, as it may be where rationality/ argument/public choice-based democracy depart from arbitrary/ capricious/discretionary/haphazard dictatorial rule.

So let us examine the likely `reasons' for making the Bersih illegal!

Does it affect the traffic? Many official functions involve closing of roads for example the National Day procession. Traffic ia diverted in a pre-announced orderly way. There are some inconveniences, but few people will complain about it lasting beyond a short period. So why can't the police re-direct traffic for the Bersih march?

Because it will affect the business of the shops along the route? Affected they may be, but also in a positive way, as there will be more people dropping in to the cafes, restaurants, convenience shops etc. Surely a few shops may lose some business, just like what a downpour may have caused. This cannot be made the reason for calling the rally illegal.

Then you have the “threat to national security” excuse that had been invoked often enough. Does it mean that the marchers are expected to carry weapons? Or that there are marchers who have a proven tendency to use violence?

The first Bersih march in 2007 disproved these suspicions. De facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz's reported remark that there is no provision for `peaceful' gathering within Malaysian laws speak for itself. If we go by that interpretation surely all government gatherings should also be stopped-including the National Day procession!

The government’s excuse that those functions have police permits is circular argument, that does not excuse the giver of the `permit' viz the police, from giving the reasons why a gathering is considered `illegal' while others are `legal'.

When the police says that a gathering is `illegal' simply on account of the absence of a police permit, all we can derive is that the police has not provided a good reason why a permit has not been granted. If they have one they should come out with it to look more credible and convincing.

Then there is another clever sounding argument: demonstrations scare away foreign investors. But fact is, even without demonstrations investors have already been leaving Malaysia for other countries.

Another fact: many foreign investors come from democracies where peaceful protests are daily occurrences and they have been investing in countries where peaceful demonstrations are also common and unimpeded.

Freedom attracts FDI, not the lack of it!

Obviously those chambers of commerce people who regurgitate such false arguments against public assemblies are aligned to or are from the ruling parties, who feel pressured by the issues raised by the protestors.

And then there are the un-tendered reasons: is Bersih illegal because it is organised by civil society and not endorsed by the ruling party? Apart from being discriminatory on political grounds, this excuse basically disrobes all the `reasons' above as mere naked excuses to suppress the citizens' rights to hold a gathering.

The related reason that opposition parties will be involved falls under the same excuse as there is no law that says opposition parties cannot attend a gathering organised by themselves or others.

When the police hides behind their discretionary power to deny the public’s credible reasons for exercising their rights, such authorities actually destroy their own credibility and professionalism because they open themselves to suspicion of pushing a political agenda on behalf of their political bosses.

If Bersih is disallowed simply on political grounds, then the people are entitled to march regardless of what the politicians claim, just as it is their right to vote freely. It is the people's right to make their political choices freely even though they may suffer violence from the politicians who abuse their power by using the police to attack their political opponents.

The planned attacks on the marchers certainly is an abuse because the police will not be addressing violence from the people who are peaceful, but creating violence under the order of the ruling politicians. From the keeper of law and order the police would have been mis-directed to become a political lap-dog of the ruling politicians.

The PDRM must be reminded that they are also civil/public servants. As such they should act to serve the people - not the ruling politicians, and certainly not as their political attack dogs. The voters didn't vote them in to abuse their powers in such a way.

The ruling parties do not have legitimacy to abuse the police, who are paid for by tax payers of all political persuasions. Only dictatorial regimes abuse the state security apparatus to attack its people and to protect, not national security as is often claimed, but the security of the regime.

Compare this to if you hire a security guard: if the guard starts to beat you up for failing to heed his orders to you, would you still want the security guards or their supervisor? While the ruling party may have gotten used to assuming that they play the role of the `supervisor' of the security guards of the nation, their abuse is not something the people are ready to put with for much longer.

At the end of the day the people do want the police to exercise their powers on a rational, transparent way. They should act on a clearly spelt-out, non-discriminatory set of rules that are free of political manipulation.

This is the kind of police force a democratic country would provide. Based on the performance of the police so far it is sad to say that we have police force that protects the regime rather than the people.

Their lack of transparency on their refusal to protect peacefully assembled citizens has lost them their respect. They deserve to be fired at the nearest opportunity, which could be when a more people friendly party takes over from the dictatorial regime that we have now.