by Richard Teo
Like many Malaysians, I was particularly enthralled when the Raja Muda, Raja Nazrin Shah in a speech some time ago declared that “Malaysians of all races, religions and geographic locations need to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have a place under the Malaysian sun”.
For such pearls of wisdom to flow from a regal figure is extraordinary especially when we compare to the diversive speech by our erstwhile politicians in a political meeting sometime ago.
However, like many others, I feel disappointed that the simple and dignified wedding celebrations was tainted by the presence of the State Mufti, Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria who was given a prominent role in conducting the wedding ceremony.
This religious head who is Perak’s State Mufti should have been charged and imprisoned for inciting racial riot at a Catholic church. His malicious intent to cause racial disharmony was deliberate. From his pulpit he announced to his shocked congregation that a mass conversion was about to take place in a Christian church.
His infuriated Muslim congregation marched to the Catholic Church and almost cost a riot. Fortunately, an ulgy incident was averted when it was found that the conversion was for a group of Indian girls.
A few months earlier the same Mufti announced to a shocked Muslim audience that there were 100,000 Muslims apostates. Of course he could not back his assertion with any statistics.
Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech and message to Malaysians would have been an unequivocal inspiration had his father the Sultan dismissed this mufti who have caused so much harm and discord among its various races.
How could the Crown Prince expect his subjects to believe his message when in his regal presence is a man who have sown so much discord?
Malaysians in general truly applaud the Crown Prince for his caring and inspiring message but what good are those messages if words are not matched with deeds?
As you have said, the bigot is a Perak State Mufti which means that it may be required for him to run the ceremony. Raja Nazrin is a prince and have no power to oust any bigots so it is quite difficult to back his words with actions. I think his only possible action is to spread the word through state charity work which gets press coverage but then he might be censured in the press and more bigots from bn might come to supress him. he is in a no power status
The gist of Richard Teo’s thesis here may be reduced to 4 propositions:
1. Raja Muda, Raja Nazrin Shah made caring and inspiring and wise message to Malaysians;
2. the Raja Muda allowed his wedding celebrations to be conducted by State Mufti, Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria;
3. the State Mufti caused so much harm and discord among its various races;
4. Raja Muda’s messages become no good because his words are not matched with deeds if State Mufti were dignified with prominent role to conduct wedding ceremony.
Assuming premise 3 were correct, 4 does not logically follow from premise 2. There is a causal fallacy (Post Hoc) here : because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other, which is not the case!
For so long as Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria remains State Mufti (and is allowed to remain so not due to Raja Nazrin Shah’s wish or preference), he would, as ceremony and custom (and not necessarily Raja Muda, Raja Nazrin Shah’s wish) require it, be the prime conductor of a Royal wedding.
As there is no logical connection between State Mufti’s conducting the royal wedding and Raja Nazrin Shah’s endorsing State Mufti’s character or actions, no inference or conclusion may equally be drawn that accordingly Raja Nazrin’s messages are not matched by his deeds – such adverse conclusion/inference also selectively ignored the other facts that (i) Raja Nazrin had declined a state allocation for his wedding consistent with his message (ii) State Mufti had been summoned before by Perak Royal Household to answer his alleged involvment in sms messages causing the gathering!
How could a religious leader behavior in such a shameful, disgraceful and dangerous way?
How could anyone respect a person who use aggression, hatred and threat to achive their political aims?
Decades of weak and bad leadership, including damaging politics of race and religion, had done enormous damage to the country………criminals are made to believe they are above the law and aggression, threat and hatred are acceptable behaviors in a modern and civilised society.
Separation of State and religion is crucial to maintain law and order.
If not, religion will continue to be used by the irresponsible people for narrow and damaging political purposes to the great expense of a multi religious country.
I fully agree with Richard.
The wedding could have been conducted by any imam. There are two things that don’t fit into the prince’s lofty pronouncements. Firstly, that mufti should have been sacked by his father and secondly he could have refused to have the Chief Mufti conduct the ceremony.
If he can refuse public funds, he could similarly rejected a religious bigot to sully the ceremony.
Yes, lofty ideals must go along with deeds.
For instance, I do not subscribe to racial politics and therefore I would never be a member of a race-based party like the MCA
“Malaysians in general truly applaud the Crown Prince for his caring and inspiring message but what good are those messages if words are not matched with deeds?” Richard Teo
Richard Teo,
I suggest you be more courteous and more respectful of the Raja Muda!
This is close to being treason.
“As there is no logical connection between State Mufti’s conducting the royal wedding and Raja Nazrin Shah’s endorsing State Mufti’s character or actions…” Jeffrey
You are right about there being no connection.
On the other hand, what Richard Teo failed to understand and to appreciate is that it is the duty of the State Mufti and no one else to carry out the religious ceremony.
The post of the State Mufti is not a political appointment.
You do not politicize what is a religious ceremony – and in this case a state religious ceremony involving the successor to the throne of the state of Perak. This is shocking behavior close to being treason.
I am not sure where Richard Teo’s comments here place Kit.
I think Raja Nazrin would be in a lot of difficulties and hardships should he blatantly and overtly refused the state imam as the prime conductor for his wedding …
This is would be an obvious blatant snub in the face and would certainly affect his position in the local Malay community …
Sometimes in politics, it’s not so simple, sometimes in order to get some rotten apples out, you need make him your friend, make him relax his guard and use subtle or covert methods …
Sounds really evil or insidous, but in politics even the righteous have to use poison.
In straightforward organisational terms, there was no other way to go about it.
Raja Nazrin is the Raja Muda of Perak, it was his official wedding ceremony, there was only one person who could conduct the religous portion of the ceremony, the State Mufti of Perak.
There’s no point politicising this issue.
The Sultan of Perak has no real authority to fire the State Mufti – he acts on the advice of the government of the day. That doesn’t stop him from airing his concerns privately, and I believe he has done so with the State Mufti.
“…ainted by the presence of the State Mufti, Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria who was given a prominent role in conducting the wedding ceremony.” Richrad Teoh
Mr. Teoh needs to educate himself. As State Mufti it is his official duty to conduct and officiate the marriage ceremony. It is a religious ceremony and the wedding of the successor-to-the-throne of Perak for God’s sake!
Show some respect! Leave politics out of it.
Your comment is also an insult to all the royal dignitaries present at the state wedding.
What say you Richard Teoh??
Yep. It is like insulting the Queen of England for what the Bishop said and did.
In the old days they would have your head chopped off and put on a spear for all to see whilst your body is left to rot in the Tower of London.
Maybe they should do that.
Kit,
You have been, in my opinion, wrongly and unjustly detained more than once under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for making political statements regarded as seditious and inflammatory as likely to incite racial disturbances etc etc.
But these statements from your reader, Richard Teo, could be seen as inciting scorn and even hatred for the Raja Muda of the State of Perak and the office he holds. The Raja Muda is no ordinary citizen. He is next in line to succeed the throne of the state of Perak.
This is precisely the kind of behaviour for which laws such as the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act are meant to address.
“treason”,
“his official duty to conduct and officiate the marriage ceremony”, “There’s no point politicising this issue”,
“insult to all the royal dignitaries” ,
“The Sultan of Perak has no real authority to fire the State Mufti – he acts on the advice of the government of the day”
Come on. Don’t pluck words from thin air to support your views.
How on earth can his comments be treason and who said the sultan acts on the advice of the government on the mufti appointment?
This mufti never even had the decency to apologise to the Ipoh Catholics. Conversely, if a non-Muslim had done a similar unfounded allegation, the Muslims would have cried for blood.
YB Lim, you will be okay. undergrad2, the law expert, says that Richad Teo is only “close to treason.”
Come, come Libra young man! Undergrad2 did not say that!
Scroll up and read. If there is anybody guilty of “plucking words from thin air to support your views” ( and I’m quoting you here and that I am sure), it is you young man!
Why spit on the floor when you have to lick it afterwards?
First of all, I do not even think this is within proximity of treason. This is a citizen urging a public figure, a person in possession of a leadership role, to act in the interest of the nation.
If that’s close to treason, I shudder to think how often we commit treason.
Expressing our views to public leaders is a right, nay, a duty of every private citizen.
On the other hand, I feel that he can’t be blamed for having the state mufti officiate his wedding proceedings. Perhaps he has calculated that being a maverick and rebellious royal would blunt his effectiveness more than toeing the line.
And besides, taken into context, the mufti was there to preside over the wedding and not to expound whatever opinions he may have. Having him there was an endorsement of his credentials to officiate the wedding and not an agreement of his entire philosophy.
However you consider this an insult, then I suggest seeking remedy to your hypersensitivities.
BTW, you can diss the Queen of England in the UK all you like and no copper would smash down your door in the middle of the night.
cheers
..and Libra2,
He did not say “The Sultan of Perak has no real authority to fire the State Mufti – he acts on the advice of the government of the day” like you said he said.
The alleged acts of the state Mufti in his official capacity, right or wrong, has everything to do with the state government but has nothing to do with the Sultan of the state of Perak or his successor.
“This is a citizen urging a public figure, a person in possession of a leadership role, to act in the interest of the nation.†Oster
No. This is not an ordinary public figure, and “a person in possession of a leadership role.â€Â
I do not think you need to be reminded that Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy. The Malay Rulers are constitutional monarchs with a ceremonial role to play – and never a political one. Their role in the affairs of their respective state is ceremonial except in the areas of the Muslim religion and Malay customs.
I would suggest that Richard Teo, out of respect for the blogger Kit, come out with his statement to clarify that he has no such intention like inciting scorn among the people against the Raja Muda of Perak, and that his choice of words is unfortunate as they might be construed as such.
As for you Oster, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Malaysian Federal Constitution and the state Constitution.
instead of “inciting scorn” perhaps it should be “inviting scorn”.
I agree that statements made by Richard Teo is seditious and should not be published on this political blog. LKS would do well to take heed.
kittykat46, you said:
” ….there was only one person who could conduct the religous portion of the ceremony, the State Mufti of Perak.”
– no you are wrong, the Perak State Mufti is not necessarily the only one person, any kadi will do. By allowing Perak Mufti Harussani Zakaria, is to avoid the blatant snub and face- saving for the Perak Mufti.
then you went on to say:
“The Sultan of Perak has no real authority to fire the State Mufti – he acts on the advice of the government of the day.”
– again you are wrong here. The Sultan is head of Religious Affairs of the State and has full jurisdiction over the State Mufti who is appointed by the Sultan. The State Menteri Besar acts on the Sultan’s advice.
Guys,
The malicious and venomous conduct of the Perak State Mufti has nothing to do with the solemnisation/conduct of Raja Nazrin Shah’s marriage. They are two separate issues altogether.
Of course Raja Nazrin Shah could have given HarussaniZ the snub and use the services of any state kadi of his choice but he did not. That was the noble and magnanimous gesture of Raja Nazrin Shah, truly Perak’s pride!
c’mon guys. stop hiding behind “treason”, “ISA” and “sensitive issues”.
if you agree with someone’s opinion, good on you. if you disagree, then argue your points.
it is only when people are brought up to accept whatever they are told and not use their critical faculty to discern the quality of the information that people are “incited into violence” by mere words.
I see no reason for the call for Richard Teo’s piece not be published on this blog. Isn’t a blog all about learning, exchanging, clarifying, educating and if needs be, correcting?
I believe Richard Teo to some extent is confused and ignorant of goings on between Sultan and State. Perhaps he’ll learn from the above exchanges.
Thank you all for contributing.
Thank you, Kit for clarifying.
Let me try to unravel the confusion of who said what:
“I suggest you be more courteous and more respectful of the Raja Muda!
This is close to being treason.†Undergrad2
“On the other hand, what Richard Teo failed to understand and to appreciate is that it is the duty of the State Mufti and no one else to carry out the religious ceremony.†Undergrad2
“Mr. Teoh needs to educate himself. As State Mufti it is his official duty to conduct and officiate the marriage ceremony. It is a religious ceremony and the wedding of the successor-to-the-throne of Perak for God’s sake!†DarkHorse
“This is precisely the kind of behaviour for which laws such as the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act are meant to address.†DiaperHead
“I would suggest that Richard Teo, out of respect for the blogger Kit, come out with his statement to clarify..â€ÂDarkHorse
But Goddamn Singh said:
“I agree that statements made by Richard Teo is seditious and should not be published on this political blog. LKS would do well to take heed.”
None of the above except Goddam Singh says it is seditious and out of concern for the blogger he suggests it be pulled down. DiaperHead came close to saying it.
Godamn Singh Says
Before you call me young man, please tell me your age. I bet my last dollar you are much younger than I am.
Anyway, I never said all those quotes were from undergrad2. It was sampling from several posts.
So, young man, do read what I wrote first.
The problem is you think you are too clever.
Can anybody please enlighten the readers here about the appointment of State Mufti based on Federal/State Constitution with appropriate quotations therin?
Especially on how much power has the State Ruler in this issue.
“…the Sultan is head of Religious Affairs of the State and has full jurisdiction over the State Mufti who is appointed by the Sultan. The State Menteri Besar acts on the Sultan’s advice.” JONG
A number of corrections and some clarification, if I may.
“The Sultan is head of the Religious Affairs of the State”. JONG.
Agreed – although I am not sure if this is the exact language as used in the state constitution.
“…and has full jurisdiction over the State Mufti” JONG
I am not sure what you mean. But if you mean the Sultan without consulting the MB and/or choosing to ignore the opinion of the MB, declares his choice of who should hold this important position, I doubt if this is the practice although constitutionally the Sultan could do that.
“…who is appointed by the Sultan”. JONG
Yes. But like all executive appointments the state mufti serves at the pleasure of the Sultan. Even the appointment of the Mentri Besar is at his pleasure. Such is the language of the Constitution. In truth the Sultan has no control except in the two areas of the religion of Islam and Malay customs.
“The State Mentri Besar acts on the Sultan’s advice”. JONG
One must be careful here. My answer would be “only in matters concerning the Muslim religion and Malay customs” – if at all. Even then it is not the “MB acting on the Sultan’s advice”.
It is hard to see how the Sultan even in these two areas in practice would do acts that would attract controversy. This suggests that even in these two areas, the Sultan does not do anything without first consulting the MB although the state constitution empowers him to do so.
Be that as it may, the Sultan has the final word and constitutionally speaking, it is not wrong if choses to ignore the advice of the MB but only in the two areas over which he has jurisdiction. In practice this does not happen.
The Sultan is a constitutional monarch and like all constitutional monarchs, the Malay Rulers act only on the advice of the head of their respective executive branch of their States i.e. the MB.
“Of course Raja Nazrin Shah could have given HarussaniZ the snub and use the services of any state kadi of his choice..” JONG
No. That would be unconstitutional and would go against the constitution of his own state! We are talking about the state mufti here and there is only one in each state.
This structure is duplicated at the federal level.
Status. The Raja Muda needed an authorative figure that is either the same as or higher than his own status to conduct his marriage because to call for another figure that does not have that kind of status will mean bringing down the status of the royal family which will also mean the lack of regards from the commoners. The commoners themselves would not want to see the royal family becoming more and more common because it would mean a threat to their culture, custom and identity which is under the custodian of the royal family. The Raja Muda has everything except the power to rule. He can influence others but that is the most he can do. The common people with power are the ones whom you should deal with. The state mufti is a commoner but with enough power to move others to act.
Amidst all this controversy i.e. “seditious'” as against “non-seditious” our friend Richard the author of the controversial piece is keeping silent!
LOL. Richard, please come out of the woodwork! We know you’re reading all the postings and following the controversy stirred by you on this blog.
Don’t act like a bystander after all the heat you have generated! Rebut the allegations made against you like a man.
Richard need not say anything. He has given his views and there is no need to say more.
If heat is generated, it is not Richard’s fault. The readers created the heat, with some giving opinions based on false perceptions and inclinations. Not of facts.
If you want to bash up your car, you don’t call the maker to say anything.
A lot to do with feudal mindset.
Contrary to what has been said by many readers, I beg to differ on the power and influence of the Sultan .Irrespective of what the constituion may say regarding the appointment of the State Mufti i.e whether the sultan has to consult the M.B or vice versa,the fact remains that the Sultan exert considerable influence in the selection and dismissal process.Which M.B will not placate to the wishes of the sultan if he so desires to remove the State Mufti?
The gist of my article is not to degrade the status of the Raja Muda, but to illustrate the apparent contracdiction in his speech which is enlightening to all Malaysians and yet by the same breathe allowed the occassion to be tainted by the presence of a person who had sowed so much discord in his state. As pointed by a reader, if he can refuse state funds for his wedding why cant he refuse the wedding be conducted by a person other than the controversial mufti.?
But this is not like bashing up your car!
This is about allegations made against you. If you choose to remain silent, it is your constitutional right to do so. Readers can then draw their own conclusions.
What “feudal mindsdet”? Care to elaborate for lesser mortals and the lesser educated among us?
“The gist of my article is not to degrade the status of the Raja Muda, but to illustrate the apparent contracdiction in his speech which is enlightening to all Malaysians and yet by the same breathe allowed the occassion to be tainted by the presence of a person who had sowed so much discord in his state. As pointed by a reader, if he can refuse state funds for his wedding why cant he refuse the wedding be conducted by a person other than the controversial mufti.?†RICHARD TEO
Allow me to paraphrase a little what you wrote here for the sake of clarity.
You are referring to the Raja Muda’s speech on another occasion. Kit has quoted from his speech on another thread earlier, thus:
“Malaysians of all races, religions and geographic locations need to believe beyond a shadow of doubt that they have a place under the Malaysian sunâ€Â: Raja Muda Dr. Nazrin Shah.
Kit then goes on to comment thus:
“The Raja Muda of Perak has now won the love and admiration not only of the people of Perak but of all Malaysians with his exemplary modesty…†Kit
It is apparent from here that Kit shows a lot of deference to Dr. Nazrin Shah as the Raja Muda of Perak as he is expected to do as a true Malaysian, veteran politician and Leader of the Opposition. I cannot, however, say the same of you – much as I would like to.
By lambasting the state Mufti for his conduct on an earlier occasion and then goes on to say, “How could the Crown Prince expect his subjects to believe his message when in his regal presence is a man who have sown so much discord?†your remarks are close to being seditious if not seditious.
You in fact went further to criticize the Sultan himself when you wrote:
“Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech and message to Malaysians would have been an unequivocal inspiration had his father the Sultan dismissed this mufti who have caused so much harm and discord among its various races.â€Â
Look, you and I can sit over a glass of teh tarek and criticize whoever we feel fit to criticize. But to speak our minds in public and in a public domain where your comments are accessible to the public, your comments could be construed, at the very minimum, as inviting scorn like one reader earlier said – and not only to the Raja Muda but the Sultan himself!
You are walking on thin ice friend! I wouldn’t do that if I were you.
Undergrad,
It really saddens me that educated buffons like you cannot understand simple english.In what way and manner do you find my article offensive.?Is your mind so shallow and feudalistic that royalties cannot be criticised?My friend , we are living in the 21st century and not in the dark ages.It sickens me to see people like you labelling such criticism as treason or what not.People in high places are not exempted from criticism and scrutiny no matter whyat their status may be.All this of course must be done in a civil and proper manner.I cannot for the life of me see any offence being committed by my article. That is why I dont hide myself in any psedo or annoymous name.What you see is my real name and I take full responsibilty for what I write and opined.
Earlier the word used was treason and now it is sedition. Will the lawyer please clarify? On the other hand, dont. I am already confused.
Dear Dark Horse,
Of course I know the Sultan is a Constitutional Monarch. I was referring to the Sultan as Head of Religious Affairs in the State, what else?
You asked a question and you answered yourself appropriately:
“But if you mean the Sultan without consulting the MB and/or choosing to ignore the opinion of the MB, declares his choice of who should hold this important position, I doubt if this is the practice although constitutionally the Sultan could do that.”
then you claimed:
“No. That would be unconstitutional and would go against the constitution of his own state! We are talking about the state mufti here and there is only one in each state.”
What state constituion are you talking about?
Raja Nazrin Shah, the Raja Muda and heir to the Perak throne was gracious enough to give due respect to the State Mufti’s office and position by accepting HarussaniZ’s presence and services. He could have picked any unknown kadi to solemnise his own marriage.
i believe much has been said and interpreted one way or another.
to continue splitting hairs in defining and redefining certain words and phrases will not help.
suggest we leave this matter to rest with due respect to all especially the Royal newly weds.
if there is a need to further reopen the subject of the Mufti, have another new thread and we can all argue over what he has done and etc.
We shall leave the Royals to celebrate their joyous occasion and we as faithful citizens bask and share in thier joyous occasion.
lastly, i am sure no one here would wish similar issues like this happens right after thier most memorable moments in life.
May the Royal newly Weds be blessed always
Why should you feel sad Richard? These buffons ( a very apt description) don’t seem to understand simple English and they proudly bark up the wrong tree. None are so dumb as those you do not want to hear.
There was guy 9Count Dracula) who does not understand the meaning of “feudal mindset” and yet wants to engage in this debate.
Let me pose another scenario and let’s see what these buffons have got to say.
Would it be fitting for a priest who is tainted by allegations of child abuse to conduct a royal wedding in England?
Would the criticism on the choice of this priest constitute treason?
Libra,
Thanks, I feel vindicated and glad that there are still intelligent human beings like you in our planet.
If I am the Head of State and my appointee (in this case the State Mufti) creates discord among the people (Muslims Vs Christians) the first thing I would do is sack him and replace him with one is a promoter of religious harmony.
For the information of those involved in the heated exchange, it is “Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Sultan who shall appoint a fit and proper person to be the Mufti for the State of Perak” by section 33 (1) of the Administration of Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004. By section 34 of the same Enactment, the Mufti shall aid and advise Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Sultan in respect of all matters of Hukum Syarak. Hukum Syarak is the customs and practices of Islam recognised here according to Mazhab Maliki, Hanifi or Hanbali. The Mufti is one of the several members of Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Perak to aid and advise the DYMM the Sultan on all matters relating to Islam. The Sultan has the power to revoke appointment of Mufti in the MajlisRevocation
I meant to say that the Sultan has the power under section 13 of the enactment to revoke appointment of Mufti or any other member of in the Majlis if his conduct brings discredit to the Majlis.
It looks as if by the Enactment the right to hire and fire (and with it the control over) the Mufti reposes with the Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Sultan subject to provisions of that Enactment.
Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Sultan can revoke appointment of Muftis if (besides the ground of bankruptcy) Mufti were “incapable of carrying out his duties” or whose conduct brings discredit to Majlis or contrary to interest of Majlis but the exact parameters of what all these means are not stated explicitly.
LIBRA2:
“There was guy 9Count Dracula) who does not understand the meaning of “feudal mindset†and yet wants to engage in this debate.â€Â
Let’s not throw personal insults at each other. If you take every criticism of your view as personal, then this blog would be filled with profanities and insults at readers’ intelligence. Calling another reader “buffoon†merely for exercising his constitutional right of free speech lowers yourself to the level of the real buffoons screaming racial epithets at each other in Parliament. You don’t want that. Apparently your reference to “feudal mindset†may be clear in your mind but not in his. To be fair to him, I think he is merely asking for the relevance of this “feudal mindset†you referred to in the context of the discussion.
RICHARD TEO:
“That is why I dont hide myself in any psedo or annoymous name.What you see is my real name and I take full responsibilty for what I write and opined.â€Â
That is very brave of you. Others like me are less brave. Real name or pseudo name, I believe you can still be traced by your ISP.
But is there any justification for referring to Undergrad2 or any reader or commentator as being an “educated buffoon who cannot understand simple English� He is merely expressing his opinion, right or wrong. It is his constitutional right as much as yours. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
JONG:
“What state constituion are you talking about?â€Â
Every state in the federation has its own state constitution. Then there is the federal Constitution of 1957.
“He could have picked any unknown kadi to solemnise his own marriage.†Jong
No, he could not and he cannot. You may want to refer to the state constitution.
The main charge some of you levelled against Perak’s State Mufti is (in a nutshell) he is plain overzealous, acting on SMS without verification that could have resulted in a riot and the other instance exaggerating size or number of apostates. It is true from the standpoint of sensitivity of multi racial society – especially from standpoint of those not of Islamic faith – his actions were overboard (and if it were not for the cause of Islam, he might well have been arrested).
But one must not forget that what is overzealous to those outside the faith is not necessarily overzealous to those within or of the faith; and in any case it were for Cause of the faith, overzealousness is forgiven, and his actions from that particular point of view are not viewed as a conduct bringing discredit or contrary to either Majlis or the faith.
The way a secular or a Christian looks at an issue is obviously not the same as a devout Muslim.
Therefore one cannot advance Richard Teo’s argument here by Libra2’s rhetorical analogy, “Would it be fitting for a priest who is tainted by allegations of child abuse to conduct a royal wedding in England?”
It is not the same in our case, don’t you think so?
Darkhorse,
I dont mind bloggers criticising my article provided they are relevant and intelligent but I have very little patience with fools who try to twist my artcles as something sinster and try to camouflage their stupidity with unintelligent comments.Also I dislike debating or making comments with people who hide their identity under a cloak of annonmity.Be a man and take responsiblity in what you write and believe in.
DarkHorse, my apologies. I shall reword my Q.
Which section of the State Constitution states and insists that the Raja Muda must use the services of the State Mufti to solemnise his marriage?
Richard has his logic in feeling the way he does and rightly so. However one/ perhaps more salient facts need to be digested here. The present HM the sultan Raja Azlan shah was malaysia’s former Lord President and now that post known as chief Justice . Applying all the laws that were in his majesties domain nothing could be done legally anyway. This state mufti of whatever nature that he is, was not charged for anything then or now. thus the presumption of innocence .. the golden thread of English law operates..The person who could have charged him …could have him under Sediton Act but didn’t and that domain belongs to Malaysian AG under federal constitution.
“Is your mind so shallow and feudalistic that royalties cannot be criticised?My friend , we are living in the 21st century and not in the dark ages.It sickens me to see people like you labelling such criticism as treason or what notâ€Â: RICHARD TEO
First, Undergrad2 the “educated buffoon†according to you, does not say it is treason. He says it is “close to treasonâ€Â. Then he agrees with another reader and says “it is close to being seditious if not seditious.†Those are his own words.
“People in high places are not exempted from criticism and scrutiny no matter whyat their status may beâ€Â: RICHARD TEO
Nobody is free from criticism. Yes, but there are consequences. You may want to consider the matter of sedition and the Act on sedition.
You’re not criticizing just anybody but the Raja Muda and the Sultan. You are not worried that your comments may be construed as inviting scorn to the Sultan, you are free to do so. There are consequences.
“I cannot for the life of me see any offence being committed by my article.†RICHARD TEO
Undergrad2 only said in his original post that you should be more respectful because you are talking about the Raja Muda (and the Sultan). It was Goddamn Singh who said it was seditious and therefore an offence under the Sedition Act.
Obviously Kit agrees with you. So calm down. This is the very reason why Kit provides this platform for us to debate and not insult each other.
Jeffrey,
You would perhaps agree the enormity and consequences of the mufti’s action in being overzealous especially with respect to rumour mongering of the mass conversion.That in any religion is an act of irresponsibilty.A state mufti is not an ordinary personage.his words carry alot of weight and to his followers is gospel truth.Therefore for him to tell his congregation what he knew on the basis of an sms he received is certainly malicious intent.That very act almost caused a racial clash at the Catholic church.Just because the racial clash did not take place does not in any way lessen the gravity of his crime.An attempt to incite can be construed as a felony under the penal code.
Just for the information of all readers. I have been a great admirer of Sultan Azlan Shah ever since he was a judge and I have read almost all his law judgements.His arguments and judgements have always been a joy to read and I regard him as one of the most iconic judges Malaysia has ever has.
“If I am the Head of State and my appointee (in this case the State Mufti) creates discord among the people (Muslims Vs Christians) the first thing I would do is sack him and replace him with one is a promoter of religious harmony.” LIBRA2
A very careful choice of words this time. But if it were a more direct and blunt criticism of the Sultan or even the Raja Muda, you may have a problem.
HurussaniZ the Perak Mufti should count his blessings and be thankful to the Perak Sultan and Raja Muda for their generous and forgiving gesture. I wouldn’t dare imagine the treatment he’ll get if he is somewhere else, say Johore.
It’s time the Mufti of Perak be jantan enough to apologise, show some remorse for whatever he has done, less arrogant and work towards improving and promoting religious harmony in the State.
“Which section of the State Constitution states and insists that the Raja Muda must use the services of the State Mufti to solemnise his marriage?” JONG
This question is best directed to Jeffrey who is more knowledgeable that I am on the area of the state constitution.
This whole heated exchange originates because some of you guys think the Perak Mufti unfit to occupy the position and also to solemnise the marriage and from that premise argue that Raja Nazrin Shah’s wedding should not be accepted by Perak household to solemnise the Royal Wedding for do so would contradict the wisdom of his message.
You guys having heated exchange from both sides of the fence including me are of a different faith from people having charge of matters whether they concern political, protocol or religious ceremonial occasions like Royal Wedding. The people in charge may not view Perak mufti Datuk Seri Harussani Haji Zakaria’s conduct or misconduct as we do. I think we of a different faith should be slow to pass judgment or comment on Raja Nazrin Shah’s royal wedding being solemnised by Perak Mufti or to impute contradiction in his message. Yes his message is that everyone has a place under Malaysian Sun. But don’t you think that he (or the royal family being head of religion) is entitled to consider and be sensitive to what the Islamic establishment or society feel about the Perak Mufti that may be very different from the rest of us, especially non muslims? In the premises I would maintain that there is no logical connection between (1) the State Mufti’s conducting the royal wedding from the religious ceremonial standpoint and (2) Raja Nazrin Shah’s actual personal feeling about the State Mufti’s character or controversial actions (about which I know nothing and would not dare to speculate) and in all events I will not link his message to the cremony of the royal wedding or impute the loftiness of the message being contradicted or sullied by the ceremonies of the royal wedding according to reliligion and custom.
Jeffrey: “Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Sultan can revoke appointment of Muftis if (besides the ground of bankruptcy) Mufti were “incapable of carrying out his duties†or whose conduct brings discredit to Majlis or contrary to interest of Majlis but the exact parameters of what all these means are not stated explicitly.â€Â
The ambiguity is deliberate since the idea is not to limit its interpretation. These phrases have not been given their judicial interpretation, their meaning challenged and their scope tested. No one knows the “exact parameters†as you put it until the relevant issues come before the courts and are adjudicated.
But DYMM, by Sec. 13 (1) according to you, apparently has the power to revoke the appointment of the state Mufti if he ceases to be “a fit and proper person to hold the office of state Mufti†(I’m paraphrasing here). No one knows exactly what “fit and proper†means. No case law.
Does it include entering a church and disrupting service?
I am not so sure because of Art. 11 of the Federal Constitution. Any conflict between state Constitution and federal Constitution, generally the latter prevails as the latter is supreme – but I’m not sure how it works when it comes to the matter of Islam and Malay customs. But what if it is to prevent a group of Muslims from being proselytized – and Islam being the official religion of the federation?
DYMM apparently ( I say “apparently†because I do not know) has the power to revoke the appointment of the state Mufti.
But not the Raja Muda.
One can wrote the nicest words to make up the best sentences and won many hearts. What Richard Teo trying to put across is a matter of principle, action talks louder than words abd it should start at the wedding ceremony.
It is true “action talks louder than words abd it should start at the wedding ceremony†– Dawsheng.
But do we consider having controversial Perak Mufti solemnize his royal wedding as Raja Muda, Raja Nazrin Shah’s personal choice and deed and therefore it contradicts his message – is that correct?
It is a royal wedding. It has to follow adat and religious customs. There is a responsibility on the part of Royals to section of his people of Islamic faith to follow and uphold tradition including religious ceremonies connected to tradition. The Mufti is the head of religion in the State after DYMM the Sultan of Perak. So if tradition is to be adhered then the existing Mufti has to solemnize it as is customary.
You and I may think the Perak Mufti unfit but you and I are not the Islamic establishment or the majority muslims – nor you & I, the AG because apparently Perak Mufti was exonerated (right or wrong), as no action has been taken against him by inciting bnear riot.
Whatever our perception of the Mufti, what has that got to do with the responsibility on the part of the Royals to have a wedding according to Malay adat and Islamic ceremonies included in which is the Mufti’s solemnizing the wedding?
It does not mean the Raja Muda is not serious about his message or that his deed does not match his words.
He is looking at the angle of people (of muslim faith) expectation that he conducts a wedding according to the religious ceremonies expected by them of him with the Mufti in the front.
Whatever his personal feelings about what the Mufti did, we do not know and its needless to speculate. Nor is it necessary because though, by law, DYMM the Sultan has ultimate the say on appointment or revocation of appointment of Mufti, the opinions of the religious establishment in the state also count and must be considered and they may favour his continuance.
I am not sure where Richard Teo’s comments here place Kit. underdrad2
Neither do I. Richard’s article is commendable for his bravery in speaking out but could he have wrote this article in a more refine way? Or is it because it is posted in Uncle Kit’s blog that made it such significant? Richard Teo is right about certain things but he is wrong in his reply to undergrad2, it dented the meaning of his article a little bit.
Whether they like it or not Royals dem it their responsibility to uphold and follow cultural and religious tradition. They consider it their duty. Not that they like it. Do you think Princess Diana liked the ceremonies and traditions of her royal wedding or Harvard graduate Princess Masako Owada? Modern Masako was terrified of the royal house strictures and ceremonies. She might not then be terribly in love with Naruhito, Crown Prince of Japan but due to sense of duty to the Emperor, she married him nonetheless. Likewise Raja Muda, Raja Nazrin Shah may have a choice whether to accept state allocation to cover expenses of his wedding and lets not extrapolate this to imply that he equally has a choice to abandon tradition expected of him to conduct the royal wedding according to religious ceremonies by which the existing mufti presides and solemnises the occasion in keeping with tradition expected by his people of Muslim faith in the state of Perak. I just appeal to detractors of the mufti here to be fair and not by this fact alone of the Raja Muda’s feeling the sense of obligation to uphold ceremony and religious tradition (something which our Constitution also stipulates our Royals to uphold as their role) to infer against the Raja Muda that his message and words of wisdom are contradicted by his deed which nothing more than adhereing to his constitutional role to uphold ceremonies, practice and rituals of Islam as carried out in his wedding.
Empress Michiko, and a member of the Japanese imperial family through marriage.
She was born Masako Owada
r
Typo correction – please ignore last 2 paras
“It does not mean the Raja Muda is not serious about his message or that his deed does not match his words.” Jeffrey
Then we should see some concrete action after this. The appointment of Harussani as Perak Mufti contradicts the message of his royal highness. The non-muslims will be having a nightly nightmare with people like Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria who is in a position to stir racial riot which can lead to bloodshed. How cruel is that?
“Malaysians of all races, religions and geographic locations need to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have a place under the Malaysian sunâ€Â. Raja Nazrin Shah
Richard Teo has committed act or acts of sedition under the Sedition Act when he invites personal scorn against the Royal family of Perak by his remarks in the last three paragraphs:
“Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech and message to Malaysians would have been an unequivocal inspiration had his father the Sultan dismissed this mufti who have caused so much harm and discord among its various races.
“How could the Crown Prince expect his subjects to believe his message when in his regal presence is a man who have sown so much discord?
Malaysians in general truly applaud the Crown Prince for his caring and inspiring message but what good are those messages if words are not matched with deeds?”
I challenge LKS to utter the same words in Parliament and then in public if he thinks it is not seditious.
If the Sultan or Raja Muda is unintentionally offended ….Ampun Tuanku…beribu ribu ampun….hamba minta maaf.
To Richard Teo,
In reply to your posting May 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 pm yes I agree to “the enormity and consequences of the mufti’s action in being overzealous especially with respect to rumour mongering of the mass conversionâ€Â.
I also agree with your posting on May 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 am that DYMM Maha Mulia Sultan Azlan Shah is wise and a legal icon. Hence I would not speculate – it would be presumptuous of me to do otherwise – why in the exercise of Royal discretion the Sultan dispenses his grace for Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria to remain State Mufti notwithstanding the controversies he generated. [I have earlier commented that under the Administration of Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 it is DYMM Maha Mulia Sultan who appoints the Mufti (and has say in removal as well)].
But for so long as (i) Raja Muda, Raja Nazrin Shah has a duty to conduct the royal wedding ceremony with religious customs (ii) the Mufti of the day is, according to religious custom, the appropriate religious head to solemnize the wedding, I don’t think the Raja Muda is at liberty or has a real choice to reject the Mufti (even if personally the Raja Muda were not well disposed to the Mufti’s politics). To do otherwise (dispense with Mufti) would not only be disrespectful to religious customs and expectations of religious establishment but also his father the Sultan who, for whatever reason he deems fit, has allowed Harussani Zakaria to remain State Mufti.
As having Harussani Zakaria to solemise as mufti the royal wedding is not a matter that Raja Muda, Raja Nazrin Shah has a personal choice, and attributable as his deed, I wouldn’t connect this event to his message and read a contradiction between message and his deed, as you did.
But whatever I am of the opinion that your essay is an opinion that you are entitled and not of the language or substabnce that constitutes treason or sedition. I don’t even think the Raja Muda will be offended by the discussion / heated exchange – he appears broad minded and am sure would prefer his subjects to be able to debate intelligently, differing views notwithstanding, matters of public concern of which the issue raised by you is one.
1) The Defendant Richard Teo in his posting, has by hinting that the Perak Sultan as head of the religion of Islam in his state by not pursuing action or actions to have the state Mufti dismissed as a person unfit to hold the office of state mufti invited public scorn, encouraging hatred and by so doing exciting disaffection against the Sultan of Perak promoting ill-will and hostility between the races.
2) Further, the said Defendant in his reference to the Raja Muda in his conduct of affairs of state as having failed to match words with deeds and is therefore flippant, invited public scorn, encouraging hatred and by so doing exciting disaffection against the Raja Muda promoting ill-will and hostility between the races.
We ,the non Muslims, should agree with Jeffrey when he said, “The people in charge may not view Perak Mufti’s conduct or misconduct as we do.” Let us be more understanding of our fellow Malaysian’s view and culture.
Yes thank you Jeffery, that was very well said. You have shown much understanding, wisdom and maturity.
We thank YB Lim Kit Siang for giving us this platform to learn, exchange, clarify, educate and correct one another in a civil manner. We have all let it out and said our piece.
We hope DYMM the Sultan, with the power in his hands will for the sake of peace, religious and racial harmony listen to the People and take the necessary action his Highness deem fit.
The wedding celebration of Perak’s Raja Muda, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah and Tuanku Zara Davidson was truly a simple and dignified celebration in every sense of the word. Let’s join hands and wish them ever lasting bliss.
“…in all events I will not … impute the loftiness of the message being contradicted or sullied by the ceremonies of the royal wedding according to reliligion and custom.” Jeffrey
Spot on, Jeffrey!
But there are readers like Goddamn Singh, who would go further to say:
The last three paras of his article clearly have seditious tendencies meeting the definition of what “sedition” is under the country’s Sedition Act.
To readers like Goddamn Singh, the writer Richard Teo in his article featured on this thread, has by hinting that the Perak Sultan as head of the religion of Islam in his state by not pursuing action or actions to have the state Mufti dismissed as a person unfit to hold the office of state mufti invited at the very minimum public scorn, and at its worst encouraging hatred and by so doing exciting disaffection against the Sultan of Perak promoting ill-will and hostility between the races.
To Goddamn Singh, the writer Richard Teo in his reference to the Raja Muda in his conduct of affairs of state as having failed to match words with deeds and is therefore flippant, invited public scorn, encouraging hatred and by so doing exciting disaffection against the Raja Muda promoting ill-will and hostility between the races.
That is his view. Shouldn’t we respect his views for what it is? Where is the need to throw insults like calling readers who share the same thoughts “educated buffoons who cannot understand simple English”?
My view is that it comes “close to being seditious if not seditious” whereas Goddamn Singh says “it is seditious”.
My plea to Richard Teo is that he exercise more caution, show more respect when it comes to criticizing the Royals. They are part of our political system and as constitutional rulers of their states deserve our respect irrespective of race, religion and ethnicity.
You can criticize the Prime Minister for not taking action or actions against corrupt members of his Cabinet, but you do not criticize the Sultan or the Raja Muda by suggesting that they be more sensitive to the needs of their non-Muslim subjects, and that by failing to have the state mufti dismissed for his conduct they are doing less that is expected of them as Ruler and Raja Muda. To articulate your disappointment that the presence of the mufti has been allowed to “taint” the marriage celebrations and to articulate your disappointment in the manner you did that the Raja Muda has failed to match words by deeds comes, in my opinion, “close to being seditious.” But then I am not the State Legal Advisor!
You may want to direct your anger and frustration at the head of the state’s executive branch for allowing the state mufti to walk into what is a house of worship and disrupt the service in the manner he did. I will add my unqualified support to that as a practicing Christian.
You should be very careful not to criticize the Royals because more than just being constitutional rulers and Raja Mudas of their respective states and heads of the state religion which is Islam and Malay customs, they are seen by the Malays as symbols of Malay political hegemony – like it or not. Words like those used could excite disaffection against the Royal family and more.
Hence my opinion that it is “close to being seditious if not seditious.”
Our friend Goddamn Singh is sure that it is seditious.
Both of us are exercising our constitutional right of free speech. This platform has in fact been provided by the blogger for that very purpose. Kit has devoted his time and resources in giving us the opportunity to express our views. Let us honor him by not abusing the opportunity.
Thank you.
Undergrad and Goddamn Singh,
If you think I have uttered seditious words , I invite you to make a formal complaint so that I can be charged in a court of law.Before you do so, please reveal your identity so that we know who you are. As for my contact address and I.P , these are all with LKS and I will give him full authority to hand my address to the A.G dept. Please do so or desist from commenting on a subject which seems to indicate you have no knowlege.If LKS had thought for one moment that my article was in any way seditious do you think he would have posted my article and till now has not removed it ?.Please put on your thinking cap and use your head.Just for your info, the seditious element of my article described by both of you were all sourced from the public domain and I did not embellish or fictitionalise it.To Goddamn Singh, if you are so convinced that I have committed a seditious offence please be a man and proceed to file a charge or I will not bother to make any further comments on what you said.
Richard Teo,
Which part of my writing or opinion don’t you understand? Can I help?
When I say you should show more respect to the Raja Muda, that is what I mean i.e. be more respectful with your comments. I also said that it is “close to being treason”, that it is “close to being seditious if not seditious”. That is an opinion. Just like you I am entitled to my opinion – right or wrong. Don’t you think so?
Free speech is a two way street. If you cannot handle criticism perhaps you should not be a writer.
But whatever you do or say, you should respect the constitutional right of free speech – not just yours but everybody else’s. But to resort to lambasting me and other readers who do not share your opinion with comments like “educated buffoons who cannot understand simple English” is downright crude and offensive to say the least.
If you could show me where in my writing above I resorted to the use of similar crude and offensive language directed at you or any other reader I will extend my unqualified apology – and, in your case, perhaps take a full page in the STAR to do so.
On the other hand, you owe me an apology for calling me “an educated buffoon who does not understand simple English’.
In Malaysia only the Attorney General has the right to commence any criminal action. As a private citizen, I can only express my opinion.
Goddamm Singh may want to extend a copy of your Article to the Raja Muda since he is convinced your comments are seditious – or to the State Legal Advisor. My opinion remains unchanged i.e. “it is close to being seditious if not seditious.”
Kit obviously does not share my thoughts or those of this other reader, Goddamn Singh. Otherwise, like you said, Kit would have pulled it down like another reader DarkHorse also said in his posting.
So if I were you I would not lose sleep over it. But then I am not you. I lose sleep all the time.
All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Now, I do not agree with Richard Teo’s article but what I cannot understand is all these idiots spewing nonsense about ISA and treason or close to being seditious. What the **** are you people trying to prove? That you are like those UMNO people that routinely threaten people who don’t agree with them with ISA and treason and close to sedition. You guys look like Little Mahathir’s wanting to lock people up for expressing his opinion.
And Godamn Singh stop posting threatening messages and refer to Richard Teo as the defendant. Who made you the prosecutor? And I don’t care if in the old days they chop off people’s head for insulting the monarchy. We are not in the old days now are we? And undergrad2 stop defending the disgusting actions of Godamn Singh. I’ve read the the comments from top to bottom and he refers to others as young man, infer that Richard Teo should have his head lopped off or sent to Kamunting or whatever. These are not views, these are threats. And I don’t give a damn how old you are Godamn Singh because respect does not come with age but respect must be gained through your actions. Understand that phrase old man.
If you think what Richard Teo wrote is seditious then why don’t you read this:
http://malaysian-rumors.blogspot.com/2007/05/king-death-sentence.html
Lodge a report Godamn Singh and whoever. Don’t spam the comments with your silly threats. Bravo to the idiots who exercise their constitutional right to free speech by threatening people in cyberspace. Whatever see you later idiots.
For those who followed this thread, am sure we can see and distinguish who articulates and argues his points well. The right of free speech does not encourage/invite personal attacks and it’s best kept to justifiying ones opinion with due respect for one another.
Free speech commensurates with mutual respect for one another without having to encroach into insulting another.
Herein i wish to commend Jeffrey’s posting which provides enlightening depth with details without a hint of provocation.
Goldenhub,
You sounded very angry. Now calm down before you get a stroke! Nobody is about to lop off anybody’s head. Nobody is filing a complaint about anybody either. Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of the reader Goddamn Singh. But even he did not threaten anybody with sedition. He merely said he believed it was seditious. The rest could be him practicing his advocacy skills.
We are here talking about constitutional free speech right and sedition i.e. where one ends and the other begins – at least I was. Dr Adly Rahman (a respected and prolific writer on this blog as well as Malaysia-Today besides Jeffrey) and I are fortunate to be living in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave†where free speech right as expressed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is protected to the extent that no law or laws could be passed if it infringes on the First Amendment. We are strong advocates of free speech.
I read the material you published. Those are facts about the current Sultan of Johore. It may not be common knowledge. You and I and many others know them to be true. I have sat across the table from the present Raja Muda and I know what you are talking about.
The late Sultan of Perak a known alcoholic among those who knew him, used to carry a gun whenever he went drinking in Penang and used to threaten people he did not like – including husbands of women he took a fancy to. He went chasing pirates in the Straits of Malacca taking the law into his own hands. That family was so very different from the present Royal family ruling the state of Perak. Malaysians have only respect for the present Sultan, the first to also be the country’s former Lord President.
But sedition is not about facts. Intention may not be relevant. It is about consequences. I am no expert on the law of sedition. So correct me if I am wrong. Jeffrey QC may want to publish the Sedition Act on this thread to educate us on the issue of sedition – for example, where free speech ends and when sedition begins.
Why don’t you advocate for the abolition of Malaysia’s unique constitutional monarchy because it is inefficient and too expensive to maintain. I am not saying it should be abolished. Malaysia has a unique system of constitutional monarchy. It is part of the country’s history. We have to make it work.
But don’t do it on your blog but do it on this blog. Let’s see if your posting on it survives the light of day! There are no better experts on the law of sedition than LKS and Karpal Singh (could Goddamn Singh be his alter ego? I don’t think so).
….//..”Dr Adly Rahman (a respected and prolific writer on this blog as well as Malaysia-Today) besides Jeffrey and I are fortunate to be living in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave†where free speech right as expressed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is protected to the extent that no law or laws could be passed if it infringes on the First Amendment. We are strong advocates of free speech” – Undergrad2.
I wish to correct you here : I am not fortunate like you and Dr Adly Rahman to be living in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave†where free speech right as expressed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I am advocating freedom of speech living in a land not that free and a home not that brave at constant risk – and in all events greater risk than you – of being incarcerated for sedition.
How unfortunate things have gone this far. SAD.
I see Godamn Singh had taken the trouble to spam his threats in another later thread, calling for condemnation of Richard Teo for his article. He should not have done so. It was unnecessary and mischievous. What does this ‘batu api’ hope to achieve? Fortunately he was being ignored, what a slap right across his face!
Grow up man, Godamn!
Whether you are 18 or 81, there is no excuse for such dispicable act. What is your motive? ….to run down Richard Teo, belittle him? Makes you happier? Then what’s next? Make a police report and take him to court? Silly ass!
And Undergrad2, you had all along been Godamn’s supporter and I strongly feel you are much to be blamed for the situation that we are in.
I fully support Richard Teo’s constitutional rights to free speech and expression but some of you guys had been from the very beginning trying to censor and provoke him with threats of sedition, treason etc etc. and even called for his article to be taken off the blog. That was unncessary.
We are here on this blog to share, learn and correct one another, not run down our fellow contributors?!
Goddamn whoever you are, don’t damn the Singh.
It is cowardly to use the nick of another race to make awful statements on this blog.
My humble understanding is that good and decent people should not associate with undesirable characters.
It’s like President Bush seen shaking hands with Osama or Dalai Lama with Godfather, I mean Mafia.
To: Jeffery QC
“I am advocating freedom of speech living in a land not that free and a home not that brave at constant risk – and in all events greater risk than you – of being incarcerated for sedition.”
Living in a land that is not that free?? Greater risk of being incarcerated??
Goldenhub has apparently proven you wrong, I think. Goldenhub is adamant that his own publication in his blog is a clear example of material that is seditious and he does not care. The write-up on the Sultan of Johore, in my opinion, is not even “close to being seditious.” He is not encouraging public disaffection against the Johore royalty. Disaffection is already there to begin with – although, if I were him, I wouldn’t think of walking the streets of Johore Baru calling a member of the Royal family a criminal. But then again, that is my opinion.
If anything this thread and this topic has educated readers including me a little of what is seditious and what is not – and, articles seemingly not seditious but could be seditious. We would like to think we leave this thread feeling that we now know better. But do we??
I suggest Richard Teo not lose sleep over it since apparently, Kit does not think he said anything seditious – although I would welcome more respect and would appreciate that he not repeat his obnoxious remark like “educated buffoon who cannot understand simple English” – not just to me but to readers who do not agree with him.
JONG:
Strange how you came to the defense of Richard Teo when you said nothing about the free speech right of other readers. What all of us are doing when we make our posting here is exercising our free speech right. I would like to see myself as an advocate of free speech. I believe I am.
Where have I gone wrong when I suggested to him to be more respectful and courteous when writing about the royal family of Perak? Where have I gone wrong when I suggested to him to exercise care when writing because he could be treading on thin ice. I suggested in my opinion but then I am not the state legal advisor of Perak, that parts of the article could be seditious. My opinion does not matter.
Nowhere did I ask any reader to shut up. He called me “an educated buffoon who does not understand simple English” and I have yet to see your comment on that. Yes. That is free speech too. He can say what he wants but do show respect to the person or person he is talking about – and that includes the Raja Muda of Perak and his father the Sultan.
I am sorry but I do not see the difference in Richard’s behavior and that of the two buffoons in Parliament recently. I wish I could say otherwise. They called for opposition MPs to shut up all the time using racial epithets etc.
“And Undergrad2, you had all along been Godamn’s supporter and I strongly feel you are much to be blamed for the situation that we are in.” JONG
What situation is that?
I am a Goddamn’s supporter?? I support his right, just as I support yours, to speak your mind on any issue or topic – right or wrong, misguided or biased. We have often heard this oft repeated statement: “I may disagree with you and argue with you but I will defend to the death (in my case, only till the cows come home) your right to disagree with me.” I think it was a 17th century writer who first said that. Not the same words of course – and nothing about the cows!
I am getting tired of this ‘sedition’ bull – and Goddamn Singh, goddamn it! Why don’t you just shut up. Your free speech right has upset many here. I guess we would like to feel free to speak our minds but not quite ready for others to do the same.
Whether you are 18 or 81, there is no excuse for such dispicable act. What is your motive? ….to run down Richard Teo, belittle him? Makes you happier? Then what’s next? Make a police report and take him to court? Silly ass!
And Undergrad2, you had all along been Godamn’s supporter and I strongly feel you are much to be blamed for the situation that we are in.
I fully support Richard Teo’s constitutional rights to free speech and expression but some of you guys had been from the very beginning trying to censor and provoke him with threats of sedition, treason etc etc. and even called for his article to be taken off the blog. That was unncessary.
I believe it was Richard Teoh who brought up the matter of police report for the first time and the matter of legal action against himself. Those thoughts were Richard Teoh’s own thoughts. Undergrad2 merely echoes those thoughts in Goddam’s mind perhaps arguendo but only after Richard Teoh’s own references to the same. But Goddamn himself never did.
“I fully support Richard Teo’s constitutional rights to free speech…†Jong
Yes, but with free speech comes responsibility – sedition or no sedition. We are living in a multiracial and multireligious society; and in a country where racial harmony is about as fragile as my grandmother’s memory one would have thought that conventional wisdom requires that we exercise caution. It has nothing to do with the law of sedition.
But here I’d have to come to the aid of Richard Teoh who never admitted to his intention of being disrespectful of the Royal family of Perak. In fact he said he had the utmost respect for the former Lord President.
Undergrad2 apparently does not share the same view. I think we should leave it that.
“Goldenhub has apparently proven you wrong, I think. Goldenhub is adamant that his own publication in his blog is a clear example of material that is seditious and he does not care” – Undergrad2.
How so? Do we know whether the Blog is hosted or where server is?
If you read Golden Hub’s profile in his blog, it reads the following “particulars” :-
“Location: Every city and town : The whole of Malaysia
About Me
I am the kopitiam talk of Malaysia, the whispers in the wind, the blows from the whistle, the news from the places of power that will never surface to the light of day”.
Typo Correction in capitals : Do we know WHERE the Blog is hosted or where server is? Maybe he can afford not to care whether it is seditious. :)
But, no Jeffrey – his piece on the Sultan of Johore is, in my opinion, not seditious. If it is then my write-up of the facts concerning the late Sultan of Perak is also seditious. I would then have to join Richard Teo in losing sleep.
But then who am I and who is Richard Teo that the authorities would want to take action against? A life behind barbed wires with a staple diet of roti canai and curry at the expense of His Majesty’s Government still cost the taxpayers some money.
Things would be different though in the case of Kit. Right now the Special Branch is documenting everything that is said on this blog.
It is true Goldenhub is probably blogging from an offshore server. And like me as Tom Hanks the actor says. “Hey! Catch me if you can.”
My friend,
It is seditious to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government; or against the administration of justice; or against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (king) or ruler of any state; b) to excite revolt by unlawful means; c) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between races or classes of the population; d) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the constitution (provisions relating to citizenship) or Article 152 (national language), Article 153 (special rights of the ethnic Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak) or Article 181 of the constitution (powers relating to the ruling chiefs of Negeri Sembilan). Whether any of this is made depends on whether there is any protest from any quarters or incidences or police report made and how authorities (police/AG Dept) view or want view it. There is alot of subjectivity here, you know the expression justice or injustice according to the length of the foot of the one that decides. Even MPs are not immune : sedition override parliamentary privilege and what is more disconcerting, no proof of intention is required under Malaysian’s sedition law, nor is truth a defence or justification unlike in defamation cases.
Goddamn it!
I am baaaccckkk!
“…no proof of intention is required under Malaysian’s sedition law, nor is truth a defence or justification unlike in defamation cases.” Jeffrey
Which I think that was what Undergrad2, an undergrad as he is, said. Sedition has nothing to do with the truth or justification. Nor has it got to do with intention. I think he said it has got everything to do with consequences of one’s action – rather than truth or intention.
So what’s with Richard Teo’s article?? He didn’t lie. He didn’t fabricate. He had no intention since he says he has only respect for the former Lord President.
Jeffrey,
Do you think this is seditious?
“The late Sultan of Perak a known alcoholic among those who knew him, used to carry a gun whenever he went drinking in Penang and used to threaten people he did not like – including husbands of women he took a fancy to. He went chasing pirates in the Straits of Malacca taking the law into his own hands.” Undergraduate2
If you think it is then undergrad should be having sleepless nights waiting for knocks on his door in the early hours of the morning.
If you think it is then LKS has a lot to worry about since he allows the posting to be made.
Your thoughts?
It is possible that LKS may not be reading these postings.
I am the wrong person to direct the question. It is subjective. Words serve the intent of the one who uses them. It depends on the one complaining, the one investigating, the one prosecuting and the one judging. Yes or no, it depends. If however all are like me (what Undergrad2 says advocate of freedom of speech), there is no sedition; nor there can ever be, unless in the most extreme of consequences, which even now I find it hard to think about it. :)
///Grow up man, Godamn! Whether you are 18 or 81, there is no excuse..///Jong
Oh yeah!
I hope with your comment:
“I believe Richard Teo to some extent is confused and ignorant of goings on between Sultan and State. Perhaps he’ll learn from the above exchanges.” Jong
Richard Teo is not about to call you names.
How subjective is the Sedition Act?
“That is why I dont hide myself in any psedo or annoymous name.What you see is my real name and I take full responsibilty for what I write and opined.†Richard Teo
Can anyone disagree that there are some form of truths in his article? Folks, don’t worry about Richard, the man knew what he was doing, but he have a bad temper.
Here’s what a former U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia John Marlot has to say about the Sedition Act:
“Here in America, there is no concept of “seditionâ€Â. “Sedition†is a British colonialist-imperialist notion. It is the mentality that no one has the right to criticize the King or his government, no matter what they do.
“The King is always right. The King answers only to God. The King is the country.â€Â
Such were the notions of the Europeans of the 17th and 18th centuries. But this is the 21st century.
Today no one in Britain is arrested for sedition.”
That should help give perspective to the discussion.
The words – to “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection” ; to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between races or classes of the population; to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege….” – aren’t they subjective? 1 or 2 persons or a particular society or pressure group lodges a police report alleging sedition, do police empirically verify and conduct survey to determine how many or proportion of people affected to satisfy ill-will and hostility between races or classes of the population?
Through the magic of cut and paste, here is what happened in Singapore not too long ago:
“A person is deemed to have committed an offence under the Sedition Act if he does, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has a seditious tendency.
It is also an offence to utter any seditious words or to print, publish, sell, distribute, reproduce or import any seditious publication.
Among others, a seditious tendency is defined under the Act as one to raise discontent or disaffection among the citizens or residents and to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.â€Â
1. Is the Singapore version more strict than Malaysia’s Sedition Act?
2. Would Richard Teo’s comments be deemed seditious by a court in Singapore ? Richard Teo may not be a citizen of Singapore but nationality is irrelevant so long as disaffection and feelings of ill-will and hostility is caused to citizens or residents of Singapore.
3. If Richard Teo’s comments are deemed seditious, how so?
OK. Let me play Devil Advocate for a second.
Richard Teo writes “……had his father the Sultan dismissed this mufti who have caused so much harm and discord among its various races.â€Â
To the listener would not comments like this promote ill-will between the races and excite disaffection against the government?
Is he not suggesting here that the Sultan by not dismissing the state Mufti is failing in his duties as Ruler of the state of Perak? Is he not suggesting here that the Sultan was indifferent of the harm caused to non-Muslims among his subjects by the conduct of the state Mufti? The state Mufti was appointed by him as Ruler of the state of Perak and by not exercising his authority to have the state mufti replaced isn’t the Sultan encouraging similar ‘bad’ behavior among his subjects? Isn’t the Sultan sowing seeds of discord?
Richard Teo further writes “How could the Crown Prince expect his subjects to believe his message when in his regal presence is a man who have sown so much discord?â€Â
Does Richard Teo not suggest here that the Raja Muda is a person who cannot be believed and cannot be relied upon to be true to his own belief about Malaysian Malaysia? By permitting the presence of a man so reviled by the non-Malays and non-Muslims, is the Raja Muda not being hypocritical and flippant – complicit even?
Ricard Teo further writes “Malaysians in general truly applaud the Crown Prince for his caring and inspiring message but what good are those messages if words are not matched with deeds?â€Â
He praises the Raja Muda and then calls him a hypocrite and a liar!
There is no doubt that if Goddamn Singh were the judge he would find Richard Teo guilty of the crime of sedition and sentenced him to two years in jail.
But not every person who commits sedition has to be prosecuted. As suggested earlier by Undergrad, even a steady diet of roti canai and curry fish at the expense of His Majesty’s Government would still cost the tax payers some money.
We don’t want to see Richard Teo prosecuted.
Some people are willing to do anything to silence reasonable freedom of speech.
This is to ensure they are not held responsible and accountable for their irresponsibility and incompetency.
I think Richard Teo should be a man. He should face the consequences of his action and surrender himself at the nearest police station.
Perhaps going to the court is the best place Richard Teo’s and our questions will be answer, seditious or not? If the matter is taken to court, won’t it be blown out of proportions with more damage control or let it rest here wihout any action and answer? If Richard’s comments are challenge in court, and at the end whatever the verdict maybe, whether Richard get a fair trial is another question altogether. Well, keep your eyes open and watch your back and it is not about what you said is seditous or not, remember we don’t have an idependant judiciary.
When I first read Richard Teo’s article, yes I believed he was confused and as I had said earlier, the Raja Muda, Raja Nazrin’s pearls of wisdow(as he so aptly described) shown in the Raja Muda’s speech on an earlier occassion:
“Malaysians of all races, religions and geographic locations need to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have a place under the Malaysian sunâ€Â
and
the Perak Royal Family allowing the presence of the Mufti of Perak to officiate/solemnise Raja Nazrin’s wedding ceremony.
They are two separate issues altogether.
For the royals, they have a responsiblity to upkeep and meet the People’s expectation, the Malay adat – culture and traditions, avoidance of blatant snub and face saving for the Perak Mufti’s office and position, not the infamous Harussani Zakaria.
Much has been said and explained in the 107(!) postings/exchanges in heated situation, often self-censored and often behind cowardice use of threatening words like “sedition”, “treason” and threat of Internal Security Act(ISA) etc. etc. in this 21st century.
Godamn challenged YB Lim Kit Siang to repeat Richard’s remarks in Parliament, his call for removal of the article from this blog. He went further by spamminig Richard’s article in another thread and call for supporters and to drown Richard Teo. Those action definitely infuriates not only Richard but many of us readers/contributors alike.
Yes, we all make mistakes. I believe Richard has no ill intent whatsoever in thoughts and in deeds. Had he been a little more mindful and care taken to reword his piece, I am pretty sure things would have been different and he would not have been ‘bashed-up’ right from the very beginning. No hard feelings, we learn our lessons, let’s share the bruise. Thank you.
And Count Dracula, please stop your nonsense!
They call me the Dark Horse for a purpose. I am here to help separate the chaff from the wheat as they say and provide balance and symmetry to the discussion which oftentimes tend to degenerate to a brawl. No thanks to Goldenhub who is clearly an anarchist rather than an advocate of freedom of speech.
Jong:
I think you have seen the light. I believe there are grounds for saying that statements in parts of Richard Teo’s article do contain material which have “seditious tendencies” such as a Singapore court would probably find him guilty of the crime of sedition.
The sedition law in both countries Malaysia and Singapore being former colonies of Great Britain has a renewed role to play in the post 9/11 world. However much disgust former diplomats like John Marlot may appear to feel over this “archaic piece of legislation” even he knows that the passing of the U.S. Patriots Act makes the sedition law in these countries appear academic.
Nobody denies that a law like the Sedition Act makes a mockery of our democracy especially when it is used selectively to suppress free expression of our views and as an excuse to put political activists behind bars. But in a county like Malaysia and Singapore where racial harmony is at best skin deep, where it is fragile at best all citizens must take care not to publish what could be deemed as “seditious material” that could promote hostility and ill-will between the races – a tough call because it is, like Jeffrey says, “subjective”. Indeed in the final analysis the most innocent of all expressions could be deemed “seditious” but we have a court system and a rule of law. Fortunately we have an arbiter in the form of our courts to arbitrate and adjudicate on what is and what is not “seditious”. It may not be perfect but the courts do provide an avenue to resolve what is clearly by its very nature controversial.
Both Malaysia and Singapore have seen race riots in the past and know how costly they could be not only in terms of human lives lost but also in terms of the disruption of civil society and its impact on the economic life of both nations.
The sedition law framed in the way the former U.S. Ambassador John Marlot did when he said “an assembly of more than four people anywhere for a candlelight vigil could lead to arrests†may appear ludicrous to the ill-informed among foreigners who know next to nothing about struggling democracies in developing countries like Malaysia and Singapore. After some fifty years, ours is still in its infant stage. How infant is that stage can be gauged by sitting for a mere half of an hour in the public gallery in the country’s Parliament House. But believe me, when and if racial riots do breakout leading to the suspension of Parliament and the introduction of martial law, the same people would be clapping their hands and say â€ÂWe told you so. You guys do not know how to conduct yourselves in a free and democratic society. You should have remained dependent rather than independent and learn from us.â€Â
Jong:
I see that you maneuvered yourself clear off DiaperHead’s analysis of the controversial statements by Richard Teo. DiaperHead by taking the bull by the horns afford us an opportunity to go behind the rhetoric and arrive at a reasoned opinion. Here’s hoping that Jeffrey would return to the thread and do us the honor for he too has seen the light but for some reason hesitate to throw his hat into the ring.
I am throwing mine into the ring and would agree with the Devil Advocate’s reasoning that Richard Teo’s has incorporated seditious material into his article.
“Yes, we all make mistakes. I believe Richard has no ill intent…†JONG
‘Intent’ I respectfully submit, has nothing to do with the writer’s statement or statements being seditious in nature. If ‘intent’ were to be an essential component of the crime of sedition then the Sedition Act would not be worth the paper it is written on. It is in the nature of the crime of sedition that intent is irrelevant.
Reading DiaperHead’s comments and his analysis of the controversial statements made by one Richard Teo, I would like to change my position from “close to being seditious” to “definitely seditious”.
“Perhaps going to the court is the best place Richard Teo’s and our questions will be answer, seditious or not? ” dawsheng
Hence I suggested earlier that Richard Teo do the right thing and surrender himself at the nearest police station….
…and yes, I just checked and I agree that intention is irrelevant.
Sec. 3(3) SEDITION ACT 1948
…and my advice to Richard Teo is to surrender himself voluntarily rather than wait for that knock on the door in the early hours of the morning
Arrest without warrant
Sec. 11 SEDITION ACT 1948
Any police officer not below the rank of Inspector may arrest without warrant any person found committing or reasonably suspected of committing…
Key words you might want to consider ‘reasonably suspected of committing..”
Being technical doesnt mean being smart or being logical or being human. Refering acts and laws..only confused the matter.
Choices are plentiful so would be the consequences and repercussions..
Too many “what if” scenario only delay the decision making.
He is the Royal MUFTI right?. He is just that religiously powerful..Put him in as a candidate for election, he will loose.
All the legal talk..of sedition..refering to acts is all up to interpretation and the scenario must be similar to the case.
Dont blame him..he has no choice.. dont pass judgement on him because you arent near his status and position.. dont press on being right..when you arent sure yourself…
use your own common sense and logic thinking..put yourself in his shoe, imagine you as him.. what would you do.?
I am neutral on this matter. It is not a free will choice for him. It is a historical customary procedure..not to be debated or discussed.
Jeffrey QC,
Your response to DiaperHead’s comments, please.
To Undgrad2/DiaperHead
In the cause of Freedom of Expression, which two of you also espouse, we must, necessarily to be consisitent with such principles, give the most charitable interpretation (permissible within text) to what Richard Teo has written.
The exact words alleged as seditious are “Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech and message to Malaysians would have been an unequivocal inspiration had his father the Sultan dismissed this mufti who have caused so much harm and discord among its various races.â€Â
In simple terms, it carries these 3 parts:-
1. Raja Nazrin Shah gave a good speech and message;
2. If Mufti did not cause discord among various races, Raja Nazrin’s speech won’t be contradicted – if Mufti caused discord then message, is contradicted; and
3. Had his father the Sultan dismissed this mufti, there would be no contradiction.
And Richard did ask a further rhetorical question, “How could the Crown Prince expect his subjects to believe his message when in his regal presence is a man who have sown so much discord?
In other words, he is merely asking how could Raja Nazrin not avoid having his subjects impute a contradiction in his message if the Mufti were present?
It is something – an equation – between the Raja Nazri, his message, the presence of the Mufti and a contradiction which might arise by reason of the juxtaposition of the message and the Mufti’s presence.
The father DYMM Sultan is not in the picture of this equation.
Richard did not say that DYMM Sultan had to dismiss Mufti for having caused discord in the past. There was no criticism of DYMM Sultan for not dismissing the Mufti, for an incitement of disaffection among populace to arise as an issue.
Then comes the challenge of part 3 above relating to “contradiction” and whether one can reasonably infer that there was an implied criticism on Richard’s part of DYMM the Sultan for not dismissing the controversial Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria as Perak State Mufti so as to necessarily avert the contradiction of the message. That’s the issue – right?
Now, how could anyone contemplate criticizing DYMM the Sultan for not dismissing the mufti to bring it in line with Raja Nazri’s message unless the implicit position is taken by that someone criticizing that Raja Nazri’s message must – it is imperative as a matter of duty that it ought to – be sent forth, loud and clear, to be heard by all subjects within the realm? In other words, the message has to be made!
Of course, it is good that Raja Nazri has, in hind sight, given an inspirational message. (For he could have given a bad one also).
But if he had not made any message, would the country be worse off?
(Even if one argues that the country is better off with the message does not necessarily imply the country will be worse off without the message being made).
Is there then a duty, moral or legal, that Raja Nazri had to make that message?
I say “no†because the country will not be worse off by such a message not given.
If no duty arises for Raja Nazri to make such message, much less, I will argue, will there crystallize any collateral duty from any one else – least of all, DYMM the Sultan, – to make sure that the message, if made, shall not be contradicted by the controversial Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria being retained by DYMM the Sultan as the state mufti.
Don’t forget : Harussani Zakaria was appointed by DYMM the Sultan BEFORE Raja Nazri’s message and NOT AFTER and the gap of time between the message being sent forth and the Royal Wedding was not that long for changes to be made by way of revocation of the appointment of these sorts!
The necessary verdict on the above premises is that:-
· the question of whether DYMM the Sultan should retain Harussani Zakaria as state mufti for whatever reasons, does not arise, and is not an issue;
· neither did Richard raise explicitly this issue of whether DYMM the Sultan should retain Harussani Zakaria as state mufti up to the date of the royal wedding in his essay – nor could it reasonably be implied that he idirectly raised it (in context above discussed);
and therefore, in my judgment, a charge of a seditious act having been committed by Richard Teo (in the sense to bring hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler like DYMM the Sultan) must accordingly fail as being without reasonable basis for the above reasons.
Typo error – “Undergrad2” not Undgrad2, sorry.
I, like another reader in the forum earlier, would suggest the least this Richard Teo fella could do is to go wash his mouth with soap. Nobody appears interested in prosecuting this guy for publishing material which have seditious tendencies since he is a nobody.
Still I would invite him to have this very same article printed in the main stream print media. I know you’re reading this Richard Teo. Don’t pretend. So pick up the gauntlet!
Or go wash your mouth with soap.
“…the question of whether DYMM the Sultan should retain Harussani Zakaria as state mufti for whatever reasons, does not arise, and is not an issue” Jeffrey
It does not need to be an issue to qualify as “material with seditious tendencies”.
The Sultan was criticized not directly but obliquely for not dismissing the state mufti. It is necessary in the administration of justice, as implied by the writer, that a person so obnoxious as the mufti is to non-Muslims and non-Malays, be removed and replaced. The Sultan has powers to appoint a person so long as he is deemed fit to hold the office of state mufti. Clearly that fitness to hold public office has been brought into serious question by his recent conduct or misconduct, characterized by Richard Teo as “inciting racial disharmony”.
As you said earlier: “But DYMM, by Sec. 13 (1) … has the power to revoke the appointment of the state Mufti if he ceases to be “a fit and proper person to hold the office of state Muftiâ€Â
Doesn’t this Richard Teo’s comment cast imputations on the character of the Sultan as a Ruler who is not playing the constitutional role given to him under the constitution?
This is necessarily a rhetorical question because fact and truth has little direct role in the law of sedition. ‘Intention’ has no role whatsoever: SEDITION ACT 1948 Sec. 3(3).
When the writer wrote: ” How could the Crown Prince expect his subjects to believe him….”
Richard Teo made short shrift of the Raja Muda, the heir to the throne of the state of Perak by casting imputation on his integrity i.e. the Raja Muda is a person who could not be believed and could not be relied to match “words with deeds”.
Because the Sultan and the Raja Muda, by extension, are both the constitutional head of the Muslim religion and Malay customs, a criticism of their actions is necessarily a criticism of the state and federal Constitution of 1957 and the underlying social contract.
As this could raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any state or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State” it is a prima facie breach of SEDITION ACT Sec. 3(d) and (3)
Do we need to see race riots before the action could be a breach of the law of sedition? The answer is NO. All that needs to be demonstrated is that material published and circulated has “seditious tendencies”. SEDITION ACT Sec. 3 (3).
In your last para you sought to justify writings that could excite “disaffection against the government” or “promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races” by reference to the ‘reasonable man’ but no mention is made about the subjective standard that has to be applied.
I agree with DiaperHead.
There is prima facie evidence of seditious material in the article herein published, enough to sustain the charge of sedition.
FuturePolitician,
“Being technical doesnt mean being smart or being logical or being human. Refering acts and laws..only confused the matter.”
It has nothing to do with being smart. It has everything to do with the law of sedition and the SEDITION ACT 1948.
Undergrad2, given response in later posting on that Bung chap. On reflection I think you are rights that for sedition, you don’t need a riot to happen first as I may be construed to be saying (in that later posting). However the rest applies – I don’t know what others may think but personally I wouldn’t pay weight to the implied interpretation that “The Sultan was criticized not directly but obliquely for not dismissing the state mufti”. In relation to what was the Sultan criticised? It was not not just the suitability of Harussani Zakaria for mufti office, it was not the issue or subject of writings. It was in context of Raja Muda’s message. But as I earlier said ” Harussani Zakaria was appointed by DYMM the Sultan BEFORE Raja Nazri’s message and NOT AFTER and the gap of time between the message being sent forth and the Royal Wedding was not that long for changes to be made by way of revocation of the appointment of these sorts!”. So in context it is hard to see how Richard’s writings connect to the message except just to say it is regrettable that because of mufti was still there, and not removed by the Sultan, the message faced a contradiction. Reading further into “regrettable” to extend to the Sultan’s conduct is not something I’m inclined to do.
Friends,
Let us take a deep breath and reflect on this reaction by Richard Teo to criticism of his writing on this thread. He says that everyone else unlike him is a “coward†as we “hide pseudonames and anonymous names” – such as Libra2 or even Jong, FuturePolitician, Alvin and every other reader on this blog. Do we know who this “Jong” or “Alvin” is. Certainly we do not know who Libra2 or FuturePolitician is beyond the fact that one is suggesting he or she is a Libra and the other declaring his or her ambition to one day be a politician.
RICHARD TEO writes:
“It really saddens me that educated buffons like you (meaning Undergrad2) cannot understand simple english.”
“In what way and manner do you find my article offensive.?Is your mind so shallow and feudalistic that royalties cannot be criticised?”
“My friend , we are living in the 21st century and not in the dark ages.It sickens me to see people like you labelling such criticism as treason or what not.People in high places are not exempted from criticism and scrutiny no matter whyat their status may be.”
“All this of course must be done in a civil and proper manner.”
“I cannot for the life of me see any offence being committed by my article. That is why I dont hide myself in any psedo or annoymous name.What you see is my real name and I take full responsibilty for what I write and opined.”
All this comes from someone who claims he is for free speech and an advocate of civil behavior when discussing contentious issues!!
He says: “All this of course must be done in a civil and proper manner”.
But in the same breath he calls people like Undergrad2 “educated buffoons”. Remember too that his comment is not solely directed at Undergrad2 but “people like you”.
To him it would appear that the rest of us readers who do not share his opinions, are “educated buffoons who do not understand simple English, who hides behind “pseudonames or anonymous names”.
“People in high places are not exempted from criticism and scrutiny no matter whyat their status may be.”
I read again what Undergrad2 wrote and find nothing to support Richard Teo’s allegation that Undergrad2 feels that people in high places should and must be free from criticism. The Sedition Act 1948 has nothing to do with “people in high places must be free from public criticism.
To: JEFFREY
Are you going to defend his attitude here as well??
Jeffrey QC,
“I wouldn’t pay weight to the implied interpretation that “The Sultan was criticized not directly but obliquely for not dismissing the state muftiâ€Â.
Say you. But is it not conceivable that others who view comments like these as a threat to their religion and custom – comments which have the effect of chipping away at the Constitution and the underlying social contract? The standard to be applied is both objective and subjective.
It is for this very reason that countries like Malaysia and Singapore have chosen not to do away with the Sedition Act once the Communist insurgency was declared over – a legacy of the British who had to fight terrorism both here and back home.
But make no mistake I am far from being an apologist for BN. Malaysia under BN, unlike Singapore, has chosen to use the law to selectively prosecute opposition politicians and to suppress political opposition to its policies. That is wrong. But since when has a piece of legislation wrongly applied been the reason for doing away with it??
Jeffrey QC,
You cannot deny the nexus which is obvious to readers that Richard Teo is making albeit unintentionally, between the issue of the state mufti being unfit to hold public (because of his misconduct in disrupting the church on a recent occassion) and the failure of the Ruler of the State in the person of DYMM Sultan Azlan Shah in failing to discharge his constitutional duties as Ruler.
Jeffrey says ““I wouldn’t pay weight to the implied interpretation that “The Sultan was criticized not directly but obliquely for not dismissing the state muftiâ€Â.
May I ask why not? And what about those other members of the public who decide to “give weight”?
If they feel obliged to respond to the criticism of their Sultan in ways people who feel hurt and threatened respond, who is to say they shouldn’t??
“Are you going to defend his attitude here as well??” – DiaperHead
No, I am neither addressing nor defending the issue of his attitude but just what he wrote, which Undergrad2 requested of me whether, in my opinion it was seditious and could be construed as evincing seditious tendencies, to which I said, giving the most charitable interpretation (permissible within text) to what Richard Teo has written, I would say “no”, though I it’s obvious I can’t speak for others, like what Darkhorse said, who might otherwise give weight to implications extrapolated from what was written, where I don’t, for reasons given by me.
To be more precise, I wasn’t even defending what was written in terms that there was, as he said, a contradiction between the message and the Mufti being present, which I think not : I was just defending what he said against the allegation of sedition, thats all.
DarkHorse, you mentioned in your posting of May 28th, 2007 at 12:36 am that: ‘‘Jeffrey says ‘I wouldn’t pay weight to the implied interpretation that “The Sultan was criticized not directly but obliquely for not dismissing the state mufti’. May I ask why not? And what about those other members of the public who decide to “give weightâ€Â?
This is the last I want to comment on this topic. (I am tired). I’d just summarize my response to your question “why not?â€Â.
1. Raja Nazrin Shah’s speech and message to Malaysians was inspirational.
2. The message would have been an unequivocal inspiration had his father the Sultan dismissed this mufti who have caused so much harm and discord among its various races.
3. Do 1 & 2 imply DYMM Sultan should dismiss the mufti so that Raja Muda’s message remains inspirational and not contradicted?
4. If they do, would the fact that DYMM Sultan didn’t dismiss the mufti imply had done wrong, according to the writer?
Those who allege sedition will necessarily have to answer questions 3. and 4. in the affirmative, ie “yesâ€Â, but is it a “yes†in both instances? In my opinion it is a “no” and I would set forth the reasons.
I look at statement in 2 again. It sounds like the writer had merely pointed out what appeared contradiction between message and mufti’s presence, expressed regret that contradiction could have been adverted, had DYMM Sultan not dismissed the mufti, falling short of explicitly saying DYMM Sultan should dismiss the mufti and was wrong for not doing so.
Now if there was no explicit statement, could there reasonably be construed to exist an implicit one suggesting DYMM Sultan should dismiss the mufti and was wrong for not doing so?
A summary of what I said earlier was:
One could reasonably construe that there was an implied suggestion couched in between the writer’s words suggesting DYMM Sultan should dismiss the mufti and was wrong for not doing so only if the following apply:-
· The message was imperative to be made and the inspiration there should not be sullied by the mufti being allowed to be present. (I believe here I have explained in above posting that this was not the case and there was no moral or legal duty that Raja Muda had to send the message forth, and that although it was good for the message to be made, no one would be worser if the message was not made much less contradicted by the muft’s presence, not averted).
· As the mufti was appointed well before the making of the message, the question of DYMM Sultan not appointing the mufti to avert contradicting Raja Muda’s message doesn’t even arise. So the only question remains is whether vested the power of dismissal DYMM Sultan should have dismissed the mufti before Royal Wedding. But here also I have explained that “the gap of time between the message being sent forth and the Royal Wedding was not that long for changes to be made by way of revocation of the appointment of these sorts!â€Â. As there might be other plausible reasons why DYMM the Sultan could not revoke the mufti’s appointment“ in the short gap of time between the message being sent forth and the Royal Wedding, a person giving the most charitable interpretation and construction to what the writer wrote, could not reasonably impute that his statements had gone further to question, by implication, the conduct of DYMM the Sultan as to why he did not dismiss the mufti in the short time running from the message to the Royal Wedding. If there was no reasonable imputation that the writer’s statements had gone further to question, by implication, the conduct of DYMM the Sultan, then the question of inciting anyone against the Ruler and his conduct does not arise for sedition to take place. (As I have placed the caveat earlier, we who believe in Freedom of Expression/Speech and opposed to draconian application of Sedition Act should, with consistency, give the most charitable interpretation – permissible within text – to what Richard Teo has written).
· The other corollary arising is whether Raja Muda’s conduct had been called in question for going through with the wedding/religious ceremonies knowing fully well they involved the mufti’s solemnization of the wedding which would contradict his message. Again here I have explained that the Ruler against whom incitement (making out sedition) might be raised was DYMM the Sultan, and not his son, and therefore again on this ground, the question of sedition does not arise.
By virtue of the above points, my answer to the hypothetical questions 3 and 4 above is in the negative, which is the reason why “I wouldn’t pay weight to the implied interpretation that ‘The Sultan was criticized not directly but obliquely for not dismissing the state mufti’ and would incline to the view that no sedition has been committed.
As I have also said, it was never my position that others – whoever they are – might not take a different line of reasoning and attached weight. I am just expressing my opinion as canvassed by Undergrad2 and don’t claim to speak for others.
Jeffrey, you have good analytical powers and very logical in your argument. But you misunderstood the meaning of what I said when I said:
“And what about those other members of the public who decide to “give weightâ€Â?”
By the above I meant the standard is both ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. It is not wholly ‘subjective’ as your last comment viz. that YOU wouldn’t put weight to the implied suggestion, appears to suggest. It is not wholly objective either as your earlier posting seems to suggest when you refer to “reasonable basis” (your earlier posting on 26/7 in defense of Richard Teo).
It is to this subjective and objective element that I was referring to when I said “what of those other members of the public” who may be offended? I am not saying you claim to speak for them.
Hope that clears the air. Although you may still be of the opinion still.
There is no-end trying to interprete the law when it is a subjective matter. The Mufti has caused massive damage to the religious affair of other religion and the Prince has engaged the mufti to officiate the wedding.
I cannot blame the Prince knowing the fact that such person ones tried to cause a riot now conducting such as pure event., to accept the Mufti as their offician.
The Mufti is just that powerful., in his realm.,meaning in the religious affairs.
Many are angry at the Prince action, but I doubt it is the prince call.
On matter of Sedicion.. It is a debate of a subjective matter… I could give example of a clear sedicious “text” but it would be thrown out of the country with couple of millions..
Richard statement probably at the verge..but I think it isnt..since it is somewhat close and yet not there..LAYMAN terms.
Also Richard has become too egoistic and start refering others of being less intelligent for not understanding what he has written, gewd knows what is on his mind when you are only “texting”
GDSingh, everybody is somebody..whether using ano or real name.. it is a choice..arent we all happy that we still have a choice?
Ispired to be a FuturePolitian, I would be honored to have you guys in my cabinet..Even I cant be the prime minister..at least a leader in a political party, some of you are a great assets.. I feel passion in us all to be a part of the changes that SHOULD be going on towards ONE NATION MALAYSIAN..Fairness and equality for all, a Better way of life! A lower cost of living, protect the earth, higher standard of living..We NEED to CHANGE ourself and our action..or there will be no Future for our children in MALAYSIA.
phew, I am tired too!
good tai-chi, tq all!
guys you should view Tun Dr.Mahathirs interview with MalaysiaKini..journalist
“I spired to be a FuturePolitian, I would be honored to have you guys in my cabinet..” FuturePolitician
Don’t forget to short list Richard Teo!
..although according to you:
“Richard has become too egoistic and start refering others of being less intelligent for not understanding what he has written..”
….LoL !!!!!!
yes DP, you cant expect people to understand you(Richard) fully if you are just texting..in cyberworld there is no facial expression, no-body language to read, no vocal intonation to hear..so you have to understand..not everyone could read as fast as you write or think..
Accept the fact there is a limitation when you try to present your point via internet..unless..you have your text with .avi .mov .mpg.. behind lol! In a strong cabinet, you need thinking and responsible persons to work together to view their concern vocally and decides as soon as possible with action.
It is sad that we dont have this in the government system. Many uses strong arm tactics such as ” Jangan main-main dengan saya, saya nanti bantai you kau-kau dalam sarung guni” just a figure of speech..joking of course! more recent tactic, without court order, the municipal council can raid your home and confiscate your LCD TV if you didnt pay your assestment of RM150/= (just an example)
We need an Alternative GOVERNMENT, non-of the segregated self-minded opposition would not be able to form a government let alone run the country.
How come they have not raided Richard Teo’s house looking for him – and put him out of his misery. Waiting for that knock on the door in the middle of the night can cause him a heart attack.
We only want to ‘bungkus’ dia and put him dalam peti besi. That’s all.
The only charge that probably would stick against Richard is slander for calling the readers in Uncle Kit’s blog “educated buffon”.
well, he did it with an adjective “educated”. :)
Richard Teo should be banished to some island in the Pacific where he can masturbate without the mufti around!