“The people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication.” Chapter 2, Article 11, Constitution of the ROC (Taiwan)





This past week, Taiwanese rappers 911 found themselve in controversy when they appeared in a video with Malaysian rapper Namewee. The video depicted the four dancing in places of worship, and dressed as characters representative of four faiths, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Daoism. The character representative of Islam, according to some, is a depiction of the Prophet Mohammed or the god of Islam, Allah. Upon returning to Kuala Lumpur, Namewee was arrested for “insulting Islam.”

Later, two foreign Youtubers who live in Taiwan released a video, critical of the Taiwanese rappers. The rappers said on a social media post, which has since been taken down, that they would consider suing the two Youtubers for being critical of them and what they said was an unofficial version of the music video.

A Matter of Taste

To be honest, I am not a fan of hip-hop music, nor of 911. Their lastest video “ 歪國人 ,” which was also controversial, was offensive to me in several ways. This most recent video, despite having a catchy chorus, doesn’t do much for me either. But when it comes to human rights, we must realize that we do not fight for Mozart and Rembrandt(or David Bowie and Jackson Pollock) alone. We fight for all members of the human race to have the right to express themselves, regardless of talent or skill. Questions of whether the music video is good art, or if it succeeded in its purpose, are questions for a humanities department, not for the law or for the human rights advocate. Our subjective assessments of the quality of the art should not affect our willingness to fight for the rights of the artist to create their art.

Critiques of 911

*Warning: Some violence is depicted in this video



*Update: The video originally posted by Dream34Lucid has been removed from youtube.

The two Youtubers in the video, DREAM清醒夢LUCID and Dr. Lai, suggest 911 is “Taiwan’s Most Ignorant Band.” First and foremost, I question anyone’s ability to quantify ignorance. But mostly I must come to the defense of 911.



Firstly, the Youtubers put forth a puzzling argument about the depiction of whom they say is Allah, other sources say is the Prophet Mohammed, but is never actually named in the video. They say depicting the Muslim figure, especially in a violent manner which implies all Muslims are terrorists, is offensive and is dangerous because Muslims have responded violently to such things in the past and have committed acts of terror because of them. They seem to not realize that by saying this, far from offering a counterpoint, they are merely agreeing with and perpetuating the same stereotype they are criticizing 911 for putting forward.

Next, the Youtubers speak of the attacks on the office of satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, going so far as to show the murder of a Paris police officer. The clip is followed by a clip of one of the 911 rappers shouting “BOOM” and making a gun sign with his hands. To clarify, the clip of the shooting and the clip of the 911 rapper are from separate videos, and the juxtaposition of the two clips was made by the Youtuber. With this, they hit a point similar to many victim-blamers. The idea that no one should be killed, BUT by doing certain things, you’re just asking for it. This sentence, is a “but” and a clause too long. As Humanists, we recognize that the victim is never at blame, and it is always the violence we should focus on ending. It would be a subtle bigotry of lowered expectation to assume that Muslims will always respond to offensive material violently, and one we should avoid vehemently.

Critiques of Namewee

The Youtubers also levee some criticism at Namewee, claiming that he has a misunderstanding of minorities in Taiwan. This reminds me of how when asked about his visit to Africa, George W. Bush commented on the great number of “African-Americans” there. Coming from the west, it’s easy to treat certain groups as minority. Yet, I wonder if the Youtubers understand that as an Ethnic Chinese and non-Muslim in Malaysia, Namewee is a minority, both racially and religiously. In fact, as a minority in Malaysia he has strict restrictions placed on his rights as a citizen, including being banned from using the word “Allah,” which the Youtubers mistake for a specific deity, but is in fact just the Arabic word for god. Of course, cultural sensitivity is important, yet we should work hard to protect and understand the rights and cultures of all minorities, especially the rights of minorities within minorities.

Source: Namewee’s Youtube

They also seem to have an issue with the video portraying the Muslim figure for shock value alone, saying that such portrayals should have a purpose. Now perhaps, Dr. Lai was unaware, but DREAM清醒夢LUCID should have known that the point of the video was to “promote harmony between the religions,” a laudable purpose, as that is what Namewee says in the video that DREAM清醒夢LUCID took the “BOOM” clip mentioned earlier from. The music video may not have succeeded in portraying this message, but it did have a purpose. DREAM清醒夢LUCID should have made an effort to include Namewee’s explanation for the video along with his critique, and his failure to do so absolutely altered people’s impression of the music video. Beyond that, since Namewee’s freedom of expression is limited in his own country, we must consider this video important as a political statement in its own right. Far from a purposeless “shock for shock’s sake” video, it is an example of free speech in the face of oppressive blasphemy laws.

So Where do we Stand?

So then where do we Humanists stand? Do we stand with Namewee and 911? Do we stand with the Youtubers? Do we stand with the Malaysian government? We should stand with none of them, and yet, with all of them. Our stand should be for freedom of speech and against blasphemy laws in any form.

911 shouldn’t sue the Youtubers and Taiwan should work to revise its libel laws to make them more just. The Youtubers have the right to criticize 911, Namewee, and even me, and we should all have the right to respond in a robust and constructive exchange of ideas. I personally behoove 911 and the Youtubers to get together and talk about their views on this issues, as I’m sure it will bring all of them to a greater understanding. As for speech, short of inciting violence or knowingly spreading false and malicious information about individuals, we should be able to say what we want, when we want to. The free exchange of ideas has lead to the improvement of every human endeavor, and the government should not impede it, nor create laws that do so.

Malaysia shouldn’t charge Namewee. Islam cannot be insulted anymore than “Han shot first” can be insulted. It is a set of ideas, not a living, breathing person. If Islam indeed feels it has been insulted, then let Islam, not the Malaysian government, step forward and press charges. Otherwise, we must realize ideas should pass or fail on their own merits and individuals do not have a right to not be offended. Regardless, blasphemy laws do not protect the individual, but merely help to maintain an orthodoxy and dogma put in place by those in power. Malaysia would do right, to protect individual freedoms by leaving such laws behind.

Most importantly, Taiwan and Taiwanese citizens and residents should stand for freedom of speech. For a country that went through martial law and the White Terror, one would expect its citizens to take a strong stand against restrictions and for broad freedoms of speech, even controversial and offensive forms of it. As Humanists, we must take the same stand.