KUALA LUMPUR: As certain quarters debate regarding the right to peaceful assembly, a former activist has emerged to distinguish between democratic dissent and the weaponisation of identity.
Addressing the sudden surge of discourse surrounding Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, ex-Bersih activist Mandeep Singh noted that while the right to protest is a fundamental constitutional freedom and a universal human right, it remains subject to specific boundaries.
He argued that like all fundamental freedoms, it is not absolute and cannot be exercised in a way that infringes on the dignity, security, or equal protection of others.
The ongoing debate centres on whether recent warnings from the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim regarding public demonstrations were excessive. However, Mandeep argued that the conversation must focus on the nature of the assembly itself rather than just the right to gather.
“Some have cited constitutional provisions and court decisions as if the right to peaceful assembly exists without boundaries. It does not. There is nothing in the Federal Constitution that protects the promotion of racial hatred, hostility, or division,” said Mandeep.
“The recent rally near the Sogo (shopping complex) must be viewed in that context. Public assemblies do not exist in a vacuum. When framing, messaging or surrounding narratives risk deepening tensions in a country that has a sensitive and painful history of violence, the state has not only the authority but the responsibility to respond, provided that response remains lawful and proportionate,” he added.
On Feb 7, a rally against the construction of allegedly illegal temples was held just outside the Sogo shopping complex. Police did not allow the gathering to go on. The following day, police confirmed preacher Zamri Vinoth and activist Tamim Dahri Abdul Razak were remanded for two days.
Mandeep pointed out that the current administration has facilitated numerous rallies, including the ‘Turun Anwar’ rally (main image) in July 2025 that called for the Prime Minister’s resignation.
“The ‘Turun Anwar’ rally proceeded. The authorities facilitated it. Why? Because political dissent is part of democratice life.”
However, he drew a sharp distinction between political disagreement and the current climate, stating that this moment is different because of the potential consequences of the issues being mobilised.
“When race is weaponised and identity becomes a rallying point for exclusion, it is no longer about political disagreement. We are crossing a line that has, in our history, led to real harm,” he added.
Responding to critics who have compared recent mobilisations to the Bersih movement, Mandeep added that Bersih stood for clean elections and institutional reform and was not a movement premised on race. He warned that if society erases that distinction, it risks confusing the defence of democracy with the defence of division.
“The Prime Minister, as the head of the government, carries a duty to preserve public order and protect the rights of all communities,” said Mandeep.
“Instructing authorities to act against attempts to inflame racial tensions, if done within the bounds of law and due process, is not inherently authoritarian. It can be a legitimate exercise of responsibility,” he added.
