The federal government's recent position on the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 raises important questions about the legal basis for preventing assemblies at public spaces such as the Central Padang in Kuching.

During the controversy surrounding the recent rally in Kuala Lumpur, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail stated that organisers should obtain permission from Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and the owners of Sogo Shopping Centre because Section 11 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 requires the consent of the owner or occupier of the place where an assembly is held. He also argued that the streets outside Sogo were not "public spaces".

Following public criticism, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim clarified that he had "no problems" with peaceful assemblies, although he said certain locations had not been approved. More significantly, when answering a question in Parliament from Kota Melaka MP Khoo Poay Tiong, the Prime Minister announced that the Unity Government would repeal Section 11 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012. He acknowledged that the provision had become an obstacle to the exercise of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly because it requires the consent of the owner or occupier of the venue. Anwar further stated that investigations arising solely from reliance on Section 11, including those involving the anti-corruption rally organised by university students, would be discontinued and that no further action would be taken.

This parliamentary announcement inevitably raises questions regarding the situation in Kuching. It appears that DBKU and the relevant authorities have not permitted the use of the Central Padang near the Central Police Station for the 22 July celebration.

If the refusal is based on Section 11 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, a fundamental legal question arises: who is the "owner or occupier" of the Central Padang within the meaning of that section? Is DBKU in fact the registered proprietor of the land, or merely the local authority responsible for its maintenance and management?

If DBKU claims to be the owner, then it would be appropriate for the Sarawak Land and Survey Department to clarify the ownership by producing the relevant land title or land records. The legal status of the land should not be left to assumption.

If the Central Padang is genuinely a public open space held for public use, then ordinary members of the public entering the field daily would clearly not be committing criminal trespass. Otherwise, countless Kuching residents who use the Padang for recreation every day would theoretically require permission to enter, an absurd consequence that would place an unnecessary burden on law enforcement officers stationed at the nearby Central Police Station.

The Prime Minister's statement in Parliament demonstrates the Federal Government's recognition that Section 11 has become an impediment to the constitutional right of peaceful assembly. Until Parliament formally repeals the provision, authorities should exercise restraint and ensure that any restrictions on assemblies are supported by clear legal authority rather than administrative practice alone.

The public deserves transparency regarding the legal basis for any refusal of permission. If the refusal rests on ownership, then the ownership should be clearly established. If it rests on another legal provision, that provision should likewise be identified so that the decision can be properly scrutinised in accordance with the rule of law.

What we know DBKU is only empowered to make sure the Central Padang is clean, drains not blocked, grass properly cut and flowers are properly kept, trimmed and not die.

VOON LEE SHAN
President
Parti Bumi Kenyalang
21 July 2026