A peaceful protest turned violent, with shops forced to shut down, windows smashed, a chain store stormed by activists, and another supermarket almost set alight - all to the loss of millions of pounds. Perhaps one can't help wondering why would a permit have been issued for the rally, held on May 1, in the first place.

Or one may be more astonished to learn that no permit was actually required for the mass protest at all! Getting a police permit is essentially a non-issue. Sounds great? Welcome to Great Britain!

Where people are free to think and speak, peaceful rallies still the norm, and, how amazing ... no draconian Internal Security Act to watch over the men and women in the street in this erstwhile motherland of imperialism.

But I am more intrigued to know what Mahathir's reaction to the May Day mayhem in London would be, given that his utter disgust for street protests is, like the Twin Towers, known in the four corners of the world.

Just a few hours before the protesters clashed with the police in the streets of London, Mahathir had issued a statement through Bernama , the national news agency, and warned (yes, again) the Malaysian worker against globalisation.

Ironically enough for him, the protest that ran wild in London reiterated exactly the same tune, and was unequivocally anti-capitalist. What is more, the International Monetary Fund, constantly chastised by Mahathir, was one of the targets of protest.

Seen in this light, the protesters are expected to find some sympathy in Mahathir; whether or not by taking their cause to the street they would have him firmly behind them remains to be seen.

Complete chaos

What is perhaps more puzzling to many Malaysians is the fact that Londoners appear incredibly tolerant of a social action as such. In fact, they have been putting up with it for years.

On May 1 last year, rioters wielded missiles and iron bars to the shops along the streets, engaged in running battles with the police, almost completely destroyed a MacDonald's restaurant, and, perhaps most shocking to Mahathir, the police officers guarding Downing Street were forced to withstand a hail of bricks and bottles hurled by activists.

The damage then was no doubt much greater than what has been registered so far by the London police this year. Further back in early April 1990, hundreds of thousands of people, many having travelled from across the UK, gathered in Trafalgar Square, just a few minutes walk away from Number 10, the official residence of British prime ministers.

For three days, the crowd stayed at the Square uninterrupted in angry protest of the deeply unpopular poll tax arrogantly imposed by the Tory government. The wrath of the people finally escalated into riots, fires and complete chaos in the capital, and the mounted police were sent in to put things under control.

Seven months later in November, Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady who at her sole will gave effect to the poll tax and attracted nation-wide resentment, resigned as prime minister.

Street choice does have an ugly face. The crowd could be so big that the whole event might lend itself to violence and be manipulated by those bent on causing total disruption. It may not be an ideal channel to solve problems, as the participant parties may come with different agendas, compete against one another to influence the wider public, and result in greater divisions within the society.

In short, the possible material and physical losses alienate the 'peace-loving' lot from the contention that street action is part and parcel of civic rights.

Mature enough

To accuse the British of inaction in the face of the violent elements in street protests is unfair. After the disruption last year, Prime Minister Tony Blair did issue strong condemnation of the rioters who hijacked the initial party-like atmosphere; Ken Livingstone, the hardcore leftwing Mayor of London, claims that his decision to contain, not ban, the protesters this year has been vindicated; and the rightwing Daily Telegraph is right in arguing in its leading article that anti-capitalist demonstrations as such are futile, for many who take part remain vague about the objectives that they have been fighting for.

Through open debates with the public and genuine co-operation with the government, the police have learnt their lesson and their effort in minimising damage now appears to bear fruit.

But I am yet to come across an argument for a total rejection of peaceful rallies and street demonstrations as essential elements of democratic process. Instead, British society, or the Europeans in general, seems mature enough to tell riots from protests.

In the aftermath of the mayhem on May1, Lord Harris, Chairman of Metropolitan Police Authority, actually praised the crowds of being peaceful and good-humoured at an initial stage, but regretted the disruptive and threatening behaviour by a minority of people who marred the event.

As the police force responsible for London's security, the Scotland Yard had issued prior warnings to the public of possible violence, but stopped short of urging Londoners to boycott the protest.

For all the foreseen troubles ahead of them, the London police did not resort to painting the May Day protest black. Rather, it was the well-rehearsed police operation that had defeated, without putting freedom of expression at risk, those who were intent on wreaking havoc on the peaceful crowds.

Wrong tree

Here in Malaysia, I can never forget the incessant warnings by the police authority for the general public to stay away from the so-called 'Black 14' rally. What was initially planned as a perhimpunan rakyat (people's rally) was effectively stigmatised by the police and the government. Their warnings were so stern that they almost read like orders.

And despite the occasional skirmishes between the police and the rioters and some material losses in the past, the British business sector has yet to call for street protests to be outlawed. This is significant in that it testifies to the democratic maturity of British society.

For a person convinced of democratic values, a loss of business due to some street violence is tragic; but a complete ban on all peaceful street demonstrations just to forestall potential chaos is catastrophic.

By demonising demonstrations per se , Malaysians are barking up the wrong tree. Violence of all kinds must not be condoned, and this, I believe, is a common understanding in all societies and cultures.

Similarly, all citizens must be entitled to hold and attend peaceful assemblies as a means of concerted action on certain issues. The role of the police on such occasion is to maintain peace and order, and to pick the thugs out of the orderly crowds, instead of issuing warnings or even threats to the population at large!

Out of perhaps thousands of demonstrations around the world everyday, only a handful of them will take a nasty turn. On last May Day alone, largely peaceful rallies were held from Europe to Asia, involving inhabitants in Sydney, Brisbane, Seoul, Karachi, Hong Kong, Taipei, Berlin, Paris and London.

It has also been a huge encouragement that the May Day gathering held at the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur began in joyful atmosphere and ended in peace. It may be years before Malaysia is fully entrenched in the notion of civic rights, but at least the nation is showing signs of embarking on the path to greater democracy against all odds.

Having said that, I still wonder what would Mahathir have to say on the ongoing protests against globalisation and capitalism across the globe.

JOSH HONG ended his 'miserable comfort' in London last December. He enjoys reading, writing, cycling and traveling, and hopes to further his studies in Turkey or Central Asia.