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!

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

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.

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?

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.

Typo correction – please ignore last 2 paras

….//..”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.

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. :)

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.

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?

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.”

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.

“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.

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 weight”?

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?”.

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 “yes”, 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!”. 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.