I note with concern the reports, letters to malaysiakini and some private communications that I received after criticising DAP for applying for a police permit to stage the recent debate on the Internal Security Act.

My points then were: the problem of obedience to iniquitous laws and the endorsement of a dangerous precedent: that a police permit is needed for assemblies held indoors in privately owned premises for certain "sensitive" issues when the legal requirement is ambiguous in that area.

It was alarming for me that a restricted view on civil liberties was taken instead of affirming and reclaiming these freedoms. It was taken that legally the police have the arbitrary power to brazenly obstruct our civil liberties and no attempt was made to challenge this misconception. One of the most common and dangerous misunderstanding is that a police permit is required for a gathering of three or more persons. Let me say it clearly. There is no such general rule for any gathering of three or more persons whether in a public place or otherwise.

If that is true, any wedding reception in a hall or wedding procession would require a police permit. For that matter, three or more persons could not go out of the office to have lunch if this absurd view is applied to its absurd end. You might be surprised that police personnel while testifying in "illegal assembly" cases have said of such a "general rule" and agreed to suggestions from the defence counsel that if that was true, then picnicking families would need to apply for police permits! Surely legally that cannot be right.

Further, there is no legal requirement that only opposition political events or possible politically "sensitive" (whatever that means) events are subjected to the requirement of police permit, even though practically, it seems that only these events are obstructed by the police. Again, legally that cannot be right.