I’m going to be upfront. I supported the Reformasi movement of 1998, sparked by the ouster and persecution of Anwar Ibrahim.

I also had no qualms about Bersih taking to the streets to demand electoral reforms, though I forbade my daughter from joining purely out of concern for her safety.

Personally, I have never taken part in — or supported — such demonstrations, whether during my studies in the US and Scotland or after returning to Malaysia. The simple reason is that I do not believe in them.

Yet I would never condemn those who march for justice. After all, peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty guaranteed to every citizen under the Federal Constitution.

Between last year and now, I have observed two demonstrations through media coverage: the “Turun Anwar” rally, protesting against the prime minister, and the recent “Turun Azam” gathering, demanding the resignation of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief. There were also plans for a rally against alleged illegal houses of worship, though that effort eventually fizzled out.

As an academic, basing my assessment on news reports and certain assumptions, I must stress that not all demonstrators are the same. Too often, university students protest on issues they barely understand, driven more by populist sentiment than informed conviction. Freedom of speech and assembly, while vital, can sometimes come at the cost of national stability.

Take the “Turun Anwar” rally. It was organised by opposition members and a handful of influencers seeking attention and profit. The demonstrators were ordinary pakciks and makciks, reportedly bused into Kuala Lumpur with cash allowances. I believe many had little understanding of the slogans they were coached to chant, nor of their implications.

The planned protest against alleged illegal temples raises deeper questions. Will we allow vigilantes and their mobs to dictate outcomes outside the law? Shouldn’t local authorities handle such matters through due process? Why direct anger at Malaysians simply wishing to practise their faith in peace, instead of questioning the authorities’ delays in resolving land issues?

Then came the anti-Azam Baki gathering. I read Bloomberg’s coverage but will refrain from comment until the probe concludes. Why? Because due process exists, and one remains innocent until proven guilty — even if the court of public opinion has already delivered its verdict.

Let me be clear: I am neither pro- nor anti-Azam Baki. I am for due process, and I would apply the same principle even to those I despise. Do we really want people to take to the streets before anyone has their day in court? No — because mob rule is no rule.

History offers perspective. Dr Mahathir Mohamad did not step down despite Reformasi demonstrations calling for his resignation. He would only have been compelled to resign if he lost majority support in the Dewan Rakyat. Similarly, Azam should only step aside if existing SOPs dictate it. PKR’s Rafizi Ramli and Bersih’s Faisal Abdul Aziz have no authority in such matters.

Rallies should not be driven by populism or trendiness, nor should the rule of law be treated as optional, applied only when convenient. Neither should rallies be exploited to stoke racial sentiment or sow disharmony in a plural society.

Yes, rallies should be held — but let them be constructive, aimed at outcomes that benefit everyone. Not rallies that serve a select few with vested political interests, or those chasing the spotlight without offering real substance.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.