Though welcome, the announcement has been met with some skepticism. Malaysians have grown accustomed to electioneering and the imminence of the next, and crucial general elections, is seen as having prompted the besieged prime minister and government to embark on a populist campaign aimed at persuading a beleaguered electorate to allow them to remain in power. Put simply, Malaysians are not convinced that words will translate into action.

While this is in part due to the lack of concrete details as to how and when the proposed steps are to be taken, it is the track record of Mr Najib and his two immediate predecessors, Dr Mahathir and Adullah Badawi, on the matter of civil political rights that fuels disquiet and suspicion. All three administrations are known for having used the laws under consideration, along with a range of other anti-democratic laws, and their influence over the key institutions of state for political purposes. In the minds of many, the subjugation of the Rule of Law has been so extensive so that there is no longer a line between politics and governance where the incumbent government is concerned.

It is this context that has given rise to suspicions as to the government’s sincerity. Mr Najib’s case has not been assisted by his declaration that two new security laws will be introduced, laws which according to Mr Najib’s colleagues will still allow for preventive detention so as to allow the state to deal with terrorism, and racial and religious extremism. How this will free Malaysians to think progressively, as Abdullah Badawi suggests the step will allow, is not apparent and concern has been raised that the new security laws will merely repackage the worst of the allegedly outgoing laws and permit abuses to continue. Details of the proposed replacement laws are yet to be made public.

Even if Mr Najib is to be given the benefit of the doubt, and his stated aspiration of having Malaysia evolve into a more functional democracy taken as being sincere, there is concern that Mr Najib may not have the backing he needs to see the move through. For one, it appears that Mr Najib’s cabinet may have been surprised by the prime minsiter’s stance. Just a day or so before the announcement, the home minister denied any move on the part of the government to have the Internal Security Act repealed.

In the same vein, though Mr Najib declared that the matter would be taken up in parliament as early as October, the minister having oversight of parliamentary affairs informed the media that the new security laws would only be tabled next year, even as he emphasised the continued need for preventive detention laws.

Equally worrying are expressions of discontent and reservations about the wisdom of the intended step by conservative and hardliner elements within Mr Najib’s political party, the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), and the network of organisations that support the party. Amidst talk of there being infighting within UMNO, it is possible that Mr Najib may be forced to back down or risk being defeated on a vote in parliament. His immediate predecessor, Abdullah Badawi, has recently confirmed how he faced strong opposition within the party in his own efforts to push for reform during his tenure.

It is perhaps significant that even as Mr Najib speaks of embracing a more progressive democracy, a leader of the opposition has been charged with criminal defamation for having offered a perspective, albeit an unpopular one, on guerillas affiliated with the Malayan Communist Party prior to independence.  The suggestion by Mr Mat Sabu that the guerillas involved in a particular incident, which resulted in the deaths of a number of Malayan police officers were, were freedom fighters and heroes was deemed by the Public Prosecutor to have smeared the reputations of the police officers concerned and their families. How so has become the subject of debate to the detriment of Mr Najib.

It is as such too soon to celebrate. Satisfaction can however be taken in the fact that there is now official recognition that laws such as the Internal Security Act no longer have a place. For civil society this comes as vindication and proof that the years of activism on the subject have not been in vain. And if there is any more campaigning to be done, it will be staged with the renewed vigour that this has allowed for.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a lawyer in Kuala Lumpur and the President of the Malaysian National Human Rights Society (HAKAM). He was the recipient of the 2009 Index on Censorship, Freedom of Expression Award for Law and Campaigning

The movement is spearheaded by a coalition of 62 non-governmental bodies calling itself “Bersih 2.0” — “bersih” being the Malay word for “clean” and 2.0 for this being a reformed version of the original coalition which included within its ranks political parties. It kicked off its campaign for a reform of the electoral process, centered on eight demands, in October last year. After unfruitful efforts to engage the Election Commission, an institution that is widely perceived as not being independent, and the government in meaningful dialogue, the coalition announced in late June this year that it would organise a rally on 9 July to peaceably protest the lack of political will for reform.

Bersih had staged a successful demonstration in 2007 that many credit for having contributed to the shift of support from the incumbent government political coalition in the general elections of 2008. Concerned at the possible political repercussions and more so for the opposition once against throwing its weight behind the cause, the government reacted.

What it did, and how it did it, reveals the extent to which the freedom of expression, assembly and association has been undermined in Malaysia. It is also indicative of how things might evolve.

Initial efforts by the Najib administration involved posturing on the part of the government, the police and NGOs aligned with the government. Malaysians were told by the state controlled media and press that the intended rally was an illegal assembly (police permits are required for gatherings of five or more persons in public) and that the rally was counter-productive as it would be disruptive. Dialogue was invited, though with the condition that the rally was to be called off.

In the face of unwavering commitment on the part of the organisers, the rhetoric was intensified and a campaign of demonisation ensued. The organisers were now labeled as proxies for the opposition, were anti-Malay and anti-Islamic, and being intent on toppling the government. Restrictions were issued as to how the rally was to be characterised.

Government proxies began agitating and inciting racial tension with seeming impunity. The police inconsistently began arresting individuals who were promoting the rally. In one of the earliest episodes, 31 members of the Socialist Party of Malaysia, including Dr Michael Jayakumar, a Member of Parliament, were arrested for allegedly conspiring to wage war against the King. They were, it was said, involved in a plot to resurrect communism and this was provenby their having in their possession t-shirts printed with the images of pre-independence communist guerillas and socialist pamphlets. 6 them, including Dr Jayakumar, were ultimately detained without trial indefinitely. They are still being detained.

In the period that followed, the police began arresting anyone that was wearing a Berish t-shirt or anything that resembled it. The Home Minister declared Bersih 2.0 an illegal society, a decision that justified more invasive action by the police. The Bersih 2.0 secretariat was raided and seven members of its secretariat were arrested. So were opposition politicians who mentioned the upcoming rally in speeches or who otherwise promoted the event. Organisers were called in for questioning.

The chief of police upped the ante by revealing the purported discovery of hidden caches of weapons seemingly linked to the rally and declaring that some might be killed on the day of the rally.

Intervention by the king, who called for more consultation on the matter between the government and the organisers, led to the organisers agreeing to hold the rally in a stadium. The necessary permit was not forthcoming and the organisers now asked supporters to converge on a historic stadium in the middle of the city on the afternoon of 9 July. The police then obtained a court order barring 91 persons from entering specific areas of Kuala Lumpur on 9 July. The city was locked down, with roadblocks established on major arteries, barricades erected and bus permits into the city cancelled for the weekend.
The measures did not work. Some 50,000 Malaysians made it through to peaceably express their support for the cause despite brutal measures by the police. Accounts of the events of Saturday suggest that extreme force was used without reason or provocation. 1,667 persons were arrested. These were in addition to the 60 or so persons who had been arrested in the first phase of the campaign. All indications point to a significant number being charged with offences, in particular the organisers.

In the wake of the event, state controlled media and news agencies have wholly distorted the nature, success and impact of the protests to the great frustration of many. The coalition has filed a legal action to challenge the ban order and the six detained have filed habeas corpus applications. Both actions have yet to be scheduled for hearing.

An uneasy state of calm has descended for the moment, with the government and Bersih 2.0 each proclaiming that their mission was a success. That the Najib administration considers itself justified in having waged a campaign of intimidation against the citizenry is worrying. It indicates a willingness on its part to do whatever it takes to secure its political position. This has grave implications.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is the President of the National Human Rights Society of Malaysia and a lawyer based in Kuala Lumpur. He was the 2009 recipient of the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression for Law and Campaigning