It is sometimes necessary for us to define clearly what it is that we think is wrong with the conduct of others before we advocate punishment or some form of action against them.

The British High Commissioner and another envoy walked out of a speech being made by former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad at a human rights seminar. In his speech, Mahathir described the British and Americans as 'mass murderers' for their actions in Iraq.

Was Mahathir right to say what he had said? Was it the right thing to have said at that conference? Was the British High Commissioner right to take umbrage at such a serious allegation and walk out?

From my point of view, democracy allows freedom of speech and Mahathir himself has argued freedom of speech means freedom to speak with responsibility, with verified facts and taking into account sensibilities and sensitivities.

Democracy would also allow the British High Commissioner to take umbrage at Mahathir's statements and to indicate his disagreement is some way. Walking out would be one such way. I would expect a Malaysian High Commissioner to act no differently.

The question of discourtesy has been raised.

Was the British High Commissioner being discourteous in walking out as he did? He would argue that Mahathir was less than discourteous in the statements that he made. After all, the High Commissioner represents the Queen of England and the United Kingdom.

Was Mahathir being discourteous in saying what he did or was Mahathir right to speak for the thousands of innocent Iraqis who were killed as a result of the war?

Examined in this way, it would appear that both were simply acting consistently with their democratic rights, their duties and in perfectly acceptable ways.

No one needs to be punished. We need not consider sanctions against the UK. Not for the actions of the High Commissioner anyway.

In considering sanctions against the UK, we should also take a close look at the state of our own economy first.