DiRaja? To be or not to be!

My dear friends, I have received many requests to start writing again in this blog. In deference to my Rotary friends – The RotaryTrainer rides again.

The recently concluded 76th RI District 3300 Conference at the Shangri-La, Kuala Lumpur was the epitomy of efficient organisation and precision. Everything was well planned and executed. Kudos to the organising club – RC Pudu and their partners. I must make special mention of two other clubs, RC Danau Desa for organising a wonderful fellowship night and RC Central Damansara for hosting the wonderful house of friendship. These Rotarians exemplify the very spirit of Rotary service and friendship. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their tireless efforts on our behalf.

It was a great conference and the only downer for me was the Elvis show. It wasn’t really that great but I suppose the reason for that was that the promotions before the conference heightened my expectations to such a degree that anything short of a great show was bound to disappoint me!

But the RC Pudu deserves an A+ for effort. Great job guys!

Moving on to the subject of this piece. This District Conference is also notable because for the first time, what has been rotary gossip mill fodder over the last many years, the issue of Di-Raja status for Rotary clubs was dealt with head-on. The District Strategic Planning committee decided to put the question to the delegates once and for all and end this debate one way or the other.

It proposed a resolution which essentially argued that the name of a Rotary Club must not have a prefix like the Royal Rotary Club of  xxx. In truth, this is an RI policy and requirement and the question therefore is whether calling a Rotary club, the Rotary Club of xxx DiRaja offends this policy and flouts this requirement.

The committee put it to the delegates that the translation of the word Royal to Di-Raja is against this policy and requirement and fundamentally offends the principle of truth in Rotary. 

Therefore, a resolution was put to the delegates that Rotary Clubs are not allowed to change their club name to include “Di-Raja” to depict the “Royal” status.

There are several issues involved here and need careful consideration.

1. The principle of equality. If one takes the view that all Rotary clubs are equal and united by the singular ideal of ‘service above self’, then any kind of differentiation based on class or pedigree should be avoided. As David Allan Coe said, “All men are created equal, it is only men themselves who place themselves above equality.”

2. Local customs and practices. In reality, the practise however contradicts the philosophical position. For example, all Rotarians have a Rotary name and we are supposed to address each other by our Rotary name. However, as mark of respect (and sometimes sychophancy) often we find Rotarians referring to Dato so and so and Tan Sri so and so. Is this wrong? If one takes the view that it is not, then similarly, recognising a Rotary club that receives Royal status and the like is not wrong. If however, you take the view that it is wrong to refer to anyone other than by his or her Rotary name, then it follows that it wrong for a Rotary club to differentiate itself in this way. In this context perhaps the most appropriate comment is that famous quote from Bob Dylan who said, “All this talk about equality. The only thing people really have in common is that they are all going to die.” So until then, we live in an unequal world.

3. Legal implications. It has been suggested that to question the status of a DiRaja club is sedition. One person even suggested to me that a police report should be lodged against the promoters of this resolution!

The Sedition Act is a law prohibiting discourse deemed as seditious. The act was originally enacted by the colonial authorities of British Malaya in 1948. The act criminalises speech with “seditious tendency”, including that which would “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against” the government or engender “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races”. The latter provision includes the questioning of certain portions of the Constitution, namely those pertaining to the special rights of the Bumiputras.

Section 4 of the Act specifies that anyone who “does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do” an act with seditious tendency, such as uttering seditious words, or printing, publishing or importing seditious literature, is guilty of sedition.

So that we are reasonably well informed on the subject, the scope of matters viewed as having a seditious tendency is dealt with in Section 3(1) as follows:

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;

(b) to excite the subjects of the Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

(d) to 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;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution

So the question is whether moving a District resolution to adopt a District policy that requests Rotary clubs not to use the words “DiRaja” in their name, amounts to:

(i) bringing into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection against any Ruler, or

(ii) raising discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State?

I suppose it is debatable but in my opinion it would be highly dubious to suggest that moving the resolution itself amounts to sedition. When in fact over the years many Rulers have graced many Rotarian events and Rotary D3300 has shown such great reverence and support for the Royals of Malaysia. Furthermore, the resolution is prospective in effect and therefore does not seek to reverse or undermine any previous conferrals or decisions.

4. The power of RI to terminate clubs. There have been important recent developments in this area. If a club is deemed to have misused funds in a matching grant project or if there are other types of serious misconduct, the RI Board has the power to terminate such clubs. The argument therefore is that if a club has DiRaja status and is terminated by RI would that not be an insult to the Ruler. At the very least, in such a situation the question of terminating the club will prove more complicated. Given that historically, some clubs have been terminated in our District, this is an important issue to consider.

5. Last but not least there is a question of semantics. RI does not allow any prefix before the word Rotary. Therefore the Royal Rotary Club of xxx is a no no. However, the Rotary Club of xxx DiRaja is allowed and RI has approved it, argued one PDG. What is the RI Policy therefore? Is it a purely formal rather than a substantive objection – that sylistically nothing should come before the word ‘Rotary’? Or is it a substantive objection – that all Rotary clubs are equal and therefore there should be no differentiation in the names? The position should be the former if what was informed to the delegates by the PDG is correct.

The RCP 33.020.6 states,

“No alterations, obstructions or modifications of “Rotary” are permitted. No abbreviations, prefixes or suffixes of “Rotary,” are permitted.

Reasoning from this, the Royal Rotary Club of xxx is not allowed. Equally, Kelab Rotary DiRaja xxx is also not allowed. The former is a prefix and the latter is a suffix. The question of whether, the Rotary Club of xxx DiRaja is allowed? Since the word DiRaja is neither a prefix or a suffix to the word Rotary.  

 

So, we are now at crossroads – “to be or not to be, that is the question”, indeed. I have friends on both sides of the divide and I have great affection for all my friends, regardless of their point of view. I have always been a firm believer in shooting the message and not the messenger.

The delegates of D3300 have emphatically supported the view that having DiRaja clubs is something that is consistent with the ethos of D3300. The resolution was emphatically turned down.  If one believes in democracy and the rule of the majority – then this matter rests here.

Advertisement