Embassy of the United States

Speech

Draft Legislation on Freedom of Assembly and Speech

Good morning.  Thank you for inviting me here today.  First, before I say anything at all negative, let me emphasize the positive.  I would like to commend the Ministry of the Interior for the hard work involved in producing this draft Law; clearly the Ministry recognizes the importance of this law in protecting fundamental rights.  Second, I'd like to thank the Community Legal Education Center for its work in facilitating this effort.  And finally, a word of appreciation for all the many NGOs which have worked hard to review this draft, and have chosen to participate in this dialogue here today.  Constructive dialogue, such as this, between government and civil society is an essential ingredient of informed decision making.
 
The right to peaceful assembly is connected to so many other fundamental rights.  Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, land rights, women's rights, workers' rights, religious rights, and many other rights are all linked to the right to peaceful assembly. For example, when we talk about freedom of expression, we are really talking about the right to express one's self publicly: in newspapers, on television, through radio, but most importantly, in the streets, parks and public places where people gather. 
 
It is a normal for people to come together.  As Aristotle observed long ago man is a social animal.  To congregate, to gather, to join together to talk and express one selves - and yes, sometimes by the hundreds or even thousands - is a fundamental dimension of our very human nature.   
 
A wise government realizes that permitting peaceful gatherings helps citizens feel that they have a role to play in their society.  To forbid it causes citizens to feel insecure, disconnected, and distrustful of their government.  Reflecting on America's own history, I often wonder what might have happened had the British not been so stringent about forbidding freedom of assembly.  One could argue that in 1770 if the British had not used force to end what we now call the "Boston Massacre," the American Revolution may never have been triggered.  But whenever governments exert too much force to prevent gatherings, they run a serious risk of alienating their citizens and causing instability.
 
So how can the government manage this right of the people to peacefully assemble?  How can the government properly regulate things such as the place, the time, and the manner of public demonstrations without actually blocking the protected right itself?  These are the questions that bring us here today.
 
As you discuss the draft Law on Public Assembly over the next two days, I hope that the following questions can be explored:
 
First, Article 4 of the draft law requires any person or persons seeking to hold a peaceful assembly to get a permit.  In theory, if Ms. Picken, H.E. Sar Kheng and I wished to walk from the National Assembly Building to the Royal Palace holding signs saying "Fuel Prices are Too High" we would need a permit.  Is this too broad a provision?  Too expansive a provision?  Isn't it possible to establish a minimum number of demonstrators before a permit is required?
 
Second, Article 5 calls for all flags, signs, banners, and music to be provided in advance as part of the permit application process. Should the government be in the business of screening the content of demonstrator's materials before allowing the permit?  Does anyone who gives a speech first have to provide the government a copy?  
 
Third, Article 20 and 25 discuss penalties. Do these provisions create a structure where the organizers of a demonstration risk punishment if some demonstrators or non-demonstrators become unruly or cause problems?  Will the penalties included in this draft result in intimidating organizers from arranging future events?  Shouldn't there at least be a requirement that the government needs to prove negligence or bad intent on the part of the organizers before they are liable for the conduct of every single person who might randomly join a demonstration.  Do we hold the highest levels of government responsible when lower level officials are guilty of misconduct?  I think only if the higher officials knew or should have known about the misconduct.  The same ought to be true of organizers of a demonstration. 
 
Fourth, Article 13 introduces the concept of Freedom Parks.  In some countries, such as the Philippines, Freedom Parks where citizens can go at any time to express their views have proven very successful.  This draft law requires a permit for any demonstrations in a Freedom Park of more than 30 persons.  Does this not undermine the basic intended purpose as a place of uninhibited, spontaneous expressions of opinions?  
 
Well, you would think by all these comments that I have nothing but bad things to say about the draft law.  But that is not so.  The law is rather lengthy and has many provisions that don't require commentary because they are so obviously sensible and reasonable.  Moreover, I am far from an expert.  I have not been a lawyer for over a quarter century.  The law required too much expertise and intelligence so I joined the diplomatic corps instead where intellect and expertise are not required.
 
You all have a lot of work ahead of you in these two days and beyond, and I wish you every success in creating a law of the highest possible quality.  Thank you very much.