Sunday, 22 April 2012

Is a peace rally the right thing to do?

So I was talking to someone
and he said he wanted to go to Bersih 3.0.

It's a peace rally,
No chaos should take place.
Only "quiet" protest of the unhappy people.

"Quiet" because well come on,
if there were 100 people in a place that place can hardly be quiet.
I believe there will be n times more than 100 people there.

Bersih 2.0 was supposed to be a peace rally too.
We all know how that turned out.
Blame the people who were violent?
Well can you stop them?

We see what happened to the students who camped at Dataran Merdeka.

I don't think a rally is a good idea.
It never ends well.
I hear people say that only here
will peace rallies end with attacks.

They obviously don't watch or read the news of the world.

I understand that this rally
is to show that the people are uniting.
They are feeling threatened.

But do you think
the people to whom you are trying to "share" your thought to
doesn't already know?

We see so many posts about how they "reportedly"
cause problems and waste money on Facebook.

Do you think they don't know that you are unhappy about that?

Someone in that position will surely be smart enough to know.

People will get hurt.

How do you control who joins the rally?
There might be under-aged people amongst you.

They are influenced by what they see on Facebook,
what they hear.

Do you think they think and process what they hear?
Do you think they ponder and find both sides to a story?
Do you think they tell their parents before they go on a rally?
Do you think all of them go because of their own will?

Some of them might.

How do you know those who don't are not amongst you in the rally?

I think some people join the rally because of peer pressure.
It might sound crazy to you,
but peer pressure is a very powerful force.

If it can cause people to have sex because all their friends have,
if it can cause people to smart smoking because they friend tease them,
why do you think peer pressure won't act again?

You might just be sitting next to a 17 year old,
not old enough to vote,
not mature enough to decide,
just angry
because of what he/she read.

Who should be blamed
if the rally turns ugly
and the teenager is hurt?

The parents?
Or the people who persuade them directly or indirectly?

I'm writing this without political bias.

I'm not trying to persuade you
to vote for anyone.

I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't show how you feel,

But here's something to think about.

The best way to attack anyone
is when they're not prepared.

Show your support to whomever you want,

but if you want to stop someone,

do it silently

so that they won't know what's coming.

that's what J_Fish has to say~ Au Revoir~


  1. Correction: What happened during the day was the authorities not allowing the procession to march and started dispersing the crowd through tear gas, water cannons and riot police. The problem was the crowd was not intent on causing destruction or anarchy, why the rough measures taken? Isn't it a basic right for any citizen to voice out their concerns and wanting free and fair elections?

    Tear gas canisters fired into hospital compounds were reported as well, where is the sense in that? Why must you blame the people when the negligence of the authorities gets overlooked?

    Everyone has their way of acting, doesn't mean what they're doing is wrong or pointless. There's nothing wrong with being vocal as much as being the silent majority, it's up to the individual to decide the best channel to express their view, so long as they avoid causing distress towards others.

    Good day to you.

  2. I didn't say that the crowd had intentions to cause a riot. I don't think I mention anything about blaming the people for anything.

    Would you say causing traffic jam is causing distress to others?

    Would you say causing shops to lose business is causing distress to others?

    Would you say causing people to be afraid to leave home causing distress to others?

  3. You obviously misunderstood "Blame the people who were violent?". Please reread and if you still understand the same thing, ask someone else for a different explanation. If you can't find an alternative explanation, come back and I'll spell it out for you.

  4. Would I say causing a traffic jam causing distress? Yes.

    Would I say having shops closed and lose business is causing distress? Yes.

    Would I say people being afraid of leaving homes causing distress? Yes.

    Point 1: The procession could be well managed if the authorities allowed the march to go smoothly, redirecting traffic instead of setting up blockades to box in the march. The march was all about handing in a memorandum to the King, not cause problems, the one blocking the way was the authorities, not the people.

    Point 2: Not all shops were closed during the march, in fact those who didn't had a field day selling food and drinks, the march actually increased their income and people were willing to pay premium to get things like food and water. Those who lost business were the careful vendors whom were unsure of the effects of the march, now they know.

    Point 3: The authorities gave warning and set up roadblocks the night before the march, arresting people and putting the city in lockdown, had the authorities accepted the march and negotiated terms with the activists on how to handle the march, there would not have been a need for a lockdown and warnings to scare the public.

    Everyone is living in fear of May 13th, which is why the fear and disdain for the march stems.

    V: People shouldn't be afraid of the Government, the Government should be afraid of the people. Food for thought.

  5. The government is afraid. That's why they have the lock down. Could you stop them from doing that? Not yet.

    Food for thought?

    Here's one:
    The best way to attack someone is when they are not prepared.

    May 13th has nothing to do with this because this is not a racial issue nor does May 13th have anything to do with a march or rallly.

    I wrote this because I'm a coward. I'm afraid of losing my loved ones.

    I'm afraid that my loved ones or anyone I know would join in the rally and get hurt or even worse.

    Even though people say it's suppose to be peaceful, you can't stop the authorities from taking action if they want to, can you?

    Unless they really let everything run smoothly this time, it's going to be the same thing over again.

    Do you think this time it'll be different?

  6. Tyreal's latest comment didn't show here, so I decided to post it up nonetheless.

    Tyreal said:
    Voicing out is the basic rights of every citizen, voting or through protests. The authorities were wrong in trying to stem the dissent of the people, the cause was noble, for free and fair elections. To deny them the right to do so is not only admitting that elections were rigged, but to deny the basic rights of a citizen. A despicable act by those who swore to protect the people, are oppressing the people.

    There's nothing wrong with marching, if handled properly. Heck if you've been to Korea they have protests every other day and the police will aid in maintaining order while allowing protests, if another Asian country can do so, why can't we?

  7. I wouldn't be concerned if I were you, someone who went to the rally lamented he didn't get arrested because the authorities actually provided buffet lunch for the those who were arrested. The casualty that was reported was due to dehydration and health problems from an old officer. It was a tragedy that could be avoided had the authorities approved peaceful protests.

    I wouldn't say you're a coward, and I fully understand your concerns for your loved ones. However I must reiterate that it's a peaceful protest. Any casualty or injury will only result in more dissent from the public, can the Government afford that? They will have a PR (public relations in this case) nightmare if this was reported, and it will be reported internationally.

    The government was foolish not to take initiative and support the notion fully, taking the reins of the campaign away from the Opposition. It would've been a political masterstroke if they did so and that would've gained them more support instead of water cannons and tear gases, again another blunder.

    Voting is an effective way of voicing dissent, but it only occurs once every 5 years. Can the country afford to wait 5 years before another change or guard, or should the people voice out their dissent earlier in hopes that the leaders will listen and change? It may be smart to hold your cards until the end, it is also effective to call bluffs and raise calls in the game of politics.

  8. FYI it's TyrAEl, not Tyreal. =)

    Anyway that's all I have to say. Enjoy your weekend.

    Keep up the good work, it's good to see honest writing once in a while.

  9. I'm sure the voters know what to do regardless if there's a rally or not.

    If you want to bring (South) Korea into this, well the answer is simple.

    My friend's mom let them keep their hair long but my mom insists that I cut my hair short until I'm old enough to decide. Why is that so?

    Because we have different moms.

    Well you can't choose you moms, but you know what else you can choose.

  10. I hate how my comment appears after Tyrael's because I actually left the comment for the one that didn't show. Now it looks like I can't stop debating even though I saw the last 2 comments AFTER I left that comment. >____________<

    I'm done. Really.

    Well I'm glad that this "debate" didn't turn out nasty. It's good to know that someone really reads my post. =D

  11. In response to your final comment, we do have different mothers, but all mothers have the same obligation, don't they?

    Would a mother ground a child for going out after agreeing to allow the child to spend the day out? From what I heard the authorities flip-flopped their decisions and the activists were delayed by red-tape. Now what kind of mother would the Malaysian government be in this case?

    The Constitution allows peaceful assembly and right of speech. No one, not even the Government is above the Constitution. Denying this is a contradiction towards the highest order of the country, how long should one person keep silent and allow the malpractice of rigged elections continue?

    I really must go, sorry I won't respond to any further comments. Have a nice day.

  12. Omg, here we go again. This is my last comment and I'm not going to go on even if you do. >__________<

    The "mother" that gave the permission isn't the "mother" that we have now. Think of the current "mother" as the "stepmother"?

    Or well maybe you can think of the "mother" who gave the permission as the "great great grandmother"?

    You can't hold someone for not obeying what another person said previously. Just like if your grandmother say you can do something but your mom doesn't agree, you still have to listen to your mom. =p Unless you live with your grandmother.

    So next time we can choose a better "stepmother", alright? That's all. No more debating with you. If you wanna continue you win.

  13. =S wow crazy long of comments. well, everyone got their point of view, so no point argue abt it.

    but i do think that the rally somehow raise the awareness, while vote for the right one is the only correct way to really change everything. ;)