K. SILADASS

OPINIONS CAN DIFFER.

CITIZENS RIGHT TO COMMENT.

by

K Siladass

The Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, has stated that he and the palace would be neutral on politics. This is a correct stand. When the country is in the course of electing representatives to Parliament and State legislative assemblies, such an announcement will keep mischievous groups from spreading false rumours to the effect that the palace favours a particular political party.

When a ruler, or heir-apparent, makes statements which may reflect upon political issues, or make statements which would be construed as an indication of support to a particular political party, adverse opinions could emerge, and not all of them will be elegantly expressed.

The point is, politics can be a dangerous game; besides, there can be lot of Siamese boxing, meaning hitting below the belt. Thus,when political opinions are expressed there is no assurance that they will always enjoy positive reception, nor will there always be generous criticisms and evaluations on opinionsso expressed and the status of the person from whom the opinion surfaced would mean nothing: except the decorum of the language used on the criticisms would be seriously looked into.

When people have seen and experienced disappointments and are actually dissatisfied and disillusionedwith a party that had ruled for far too long, expression of dissensions cannot be ruled out; and when such a situation emerges it is obvious that should not be lightly treated. When a situation arises where opinions could differ it would be prudent for those who are protected, and who seek protection under the laws of sedition or other laws, to be careful in what they say, and more particularly when they enter into the arena of political conflicts. Ignoring this would lead to a situation wherethey would be subjected to the same treatment that isaccorded to politicians generally: not a nice situation though.

Any attempt to save a system which is totally rotten and beyond cure would be critically viewed; it would then become an issue which would attract heated comments from the people. When such happens, the people’s mind too will begin to harbour suspicion, and their language would not be so elegant. This is what the palace should guard against.

There was an incident in England, in the nineteen seventies, when the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Phillip, the husband of the reigning Queen Elizabeth II wrought statements critical of the trade Unions, it earned the ire of a trade Union leader, and whose description of Prince Phillip was neither charitable nor gracious. There was no rejoinder from Prince Philip. Malaysians always respect the rulers and those appointed as the next in line to the throne, and they should exercise greater caution so that they are not made the source of controversies.

Some politicians talk without thinking; some think after talking, some never stop talking as they like the sound of their own voice; yet there is another type which talks incessantly and arrogantly caring little for facts; and even if they are familiar with the facts they would distort them in a way to conform to his or her way of thinking.

Politicians have fertile cerebellum for the storing of illogical, fake, and ridiculous suggestions. And rulers should not get into arguments with politicians as it may affect their dignity. It is for this reason,Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first prime minister, advised the rulers to maintain the distance from politics and remain apolitical.The late TunSuffian, the former Lord President of the Federal court,pointed outthat the wisdom of the rulers would be to keep away from politics. The royal institution must be revered and the fountain of justice must be unsullied;the springs of fairness and uprightness should not be polluted by political thoughts which can be full of venom, hatred and abuse.

We must also remember that there are strict laws shieldingrulers whose actions cannot be challenged or criticised, any comment against them with obvious seditious tendency could result in prosecution in a court of law.It would be expected that those who are protected should not themselves indulge in any action that could attract comments from the public which may be critical, or purely advisory, or simply opinions. As citizens they are entitled to such a right as any other person. There is, therefore, presumably, animplied dutyimposed upon the rulers and the privileged class to ensure that the defenceless and vulnerable citizens are not provoked into making statements which may not be to the likingsof the privileged.

The police have indicated that there will be investigations against those who had gone above board about the criticism against the privileged class. Does it mean that the opinion of the people prompted by some controversial statements will be vetted and the tone of the critics language evaluated to ascertain the logic of the comments and the language used? Would the defence of fair comment, justification, absolve the citizens who made the comments in good faith? Interesting though. Are we to assume that the freedom of expression only allows the people to agree whatever is said by those who wield power or are in a privileged position but disallows any form of criticism? It must be remembered that every citizen is entitled to comment, criticise any statement or opinion expressed by whosoever it may be provided such criticisms and statements are made with decorum.

The fact that an opinion is expressed, notwithstanding the status of that person, the public have every right to agree or disagree with the opinion. Opinions are opinion. Political opinions always evoke emotional outbursts and this should be borne in mind by everyone.

It has been said that resisting change of a system, which is rotten, would be treated as supporting the rotten system.