We continue the Essay Series today with two articles, the first from The Nut Graph, which features several interviewees who are of similar observation that nowhere in the Federal Constituion is stated the term “Social Contract” and that it was/is mainly an UMNO construct to serve certain political interests for the covenience of a minority group and not the nation’s interest. The second writing is a Commentary from The Malaysian Insider, an incisive account of the much-publicised spat between an Opposition member of Parliament and a Bahasa Malaysia newspaper whose news coverage and commentaries, even a recent Short Story, created so much controversy sometimes the Rakyat would be excused if they are misled into a situation of not being able to see the trees for the forest.
Nevertheless, it is worth the people’s while to ponder over this very public issue about the socalled “Social Contract”, and it is of great significance that it’s only after the recent statement by the Conference of Rulers that a lot of space is given to debate an issue which had been deemed “sensitive” in the past and not much encouraged by certain groups, including the Establishment, to subject to public scrutiny.
We indeed hope that the public discourse will continue and will culminate soon in an official representative meeting of minds among the key Malaysian stakeholders to crystallise this issue of the undefined “Social Contract” into a ntaionalpolicy less liable to be mis-used by politicains so that at the end of the day, the nation’s interest supercedes the agendas of any particular political party, ethnic association or civil action group.
~~ YL Chong, Editor, CPI
Article 1
Deconstructing the social contract
By Elizabeth Looi and Khairil Anhar,
The Nut Graph
October 24, 2008
(Corrected on 24 Oct 2008 at 2.45pm)
THE recent statement released by the Conference of Rulers on the social contract has generated much discussion.
Among others, the statement emphasised the provisions in the Federal Constitution that make up the social contract. The rulers also announced that “it is not proper to dispute and question this social contract, and more so to subject it to a review or change because it is the primary basis of the formation of Malaysia.”
Although the rulers referred to Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which they said encompasses the protection for all ethnic groups, many still question the real definition of the social contract. Some see it as a mutual agreement among our founding leaders in order to achieve independence, while others feel it is a concept that protects the rights and privileges of the Malays in the Constitution.
(Article 153 of the Federal Constitution grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong responsibility for safeguarding the special position of the Malays and other indigenous peoples of Malaysia, and the legitimate interests of all the other communities. It specifies how the Agong may protect the interest of these groups by establishing quotas for entry into the civil service, public scholarships and public education.)
But academician Dr Mavis Puthucheary says nobody knows the real definition of the social contract. It is sometimes used to refer to “the inter-ethnic bargain” by the leaders of the parties in the Alliance coalition; but at other times, it is used to refer to Article 153.
“Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of a social contract. We need to challenge those who link the notion of a social contract with Article 153 in order to justify the symbolic affirmation of ketuanan Melayu,” she tells The Nut Graph.
Puthucheary feels the rulers merely defend the social contract without attempting to define it. “I would say they have defined it in exactly the same way that Umno politicians have chosen to” — that is, linking it with Article 153, which allows those in power to define it according to their preference.
.jpg "The Yang Di Pertuan Agong")
(corrected) Puthucheary, a political scientist and former lecturer at Universiti Malaya’s Economics Faculty, says that by doing this, citizens are denied the right to challenge such definition, and risk being charged under the sedition laws.
Explaining the historical context of the contract, Puthucheary says the term was “first used in the Malaysian context in the 1980s by Umno politicians”. “It was soon picked up by other politicians, both in Umno and the MCA, but with different meanings and in different contexts.”
Given the current situation, she says, “it is significant that the social contract is an Umno invention to serve an Umno agenda”. “This means that it can be defined in a way that gives it a strong ethnic edge.”
No physical contract
Puthucheary is not the only one who is concerned about the linking of the social contract to Article 153. Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali says he does not know when and how the term “social contract” first emerged; but as far as he knows, it was not used by those who formulated the Federal Constitution.
“The various issues in the Constitution related to the ‘social contract’ were agreed upon only by leaders in the Alliance then, and did not involve consultations with other parties and groups,” he says, adding that the Malay rulers did not define the social contract in their recent statement, and merely stressed that Article 153 was the product of many discussions.
So, is there really something called the social contract in the Constitution? If so, what exactly is it?
Lawyer Shaikh Saleem says there was no real, physical “social contract”, but there is an idea or accepted understanding based on the special position of the Malays in the Constitution.
“Herein also lies the problem,” he says. “The scope is being continuously extended that it even prevents any party commenting on the injustices and abuses that are being perpetrated under the guise of ‘enforcing’ this social contract.”
Universiti Teknologi Mara’s professor of law Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi defines the social contract as the practice of give-and-take and tolerance among Malaysians, as compared with its definition in political science, which is about the relationship between the government and the people.
Under threat?
Shad agrees with the rulers that the social contract is under threat, saying it has been so for the past 10 to 15 years, but the situation was well under control then.
“During the 1990s, Tun Dr Mahathir’s leadership was very strong; he was able to keep disputes in check and create the feeling that everyone had a stake in the country’s future.
“The social contract has to be understood by reference to its origin, its method of formulation, and its painstaking compromises. The Constitution was not a populist document.
“But sadly today, there are certain sections of the leadership that are prepared to look the other way when a silent re-writing of the Constitution and an informal reviewing of the social contract is taking place,” he says.
On the other hand, Syed Husin and Shaikh disagree that the social contract is under threat.
Syed Husin Ali “Threatened by whom? Any significant group threatening it? I am convinced the majority of people accept the Federal Constitution,” says Syed Husin.
Shaikh says no one is questioning the main crux behind the social contract — the special position of the Malays in the Constitution — but rather the implementation of the policies derived from it.
“There is a distinction here. The ‘social contract’, if implemented with policies that are true to the intention of its formation, would not lead to inequities and dissatisfaction,” he explains.
He says the intention of the forefathers in formulating the core base that gave birth to the term was noble. The social contract was created to entrench and safeguard the rights of the Malays, with the intention of addressing the disadvantages they then faced.
“However, in the last 20 years, there was a slow and continuous move away from the true intention of the social contract. It is being used to justify mismanagement, abuse, and the unjust enrichment of certain quarters. This has lead to the creation of a new class of nuevo rich political elites, or bangsawan class, who proclaim to be the ‘guardians’ of the social contract for their own self interest. This was never the intention of the social contract,” Shaikh explains.
A subject for public discussion
Despite these varying opinions, there is general agreement that the subject should be open for public discussion. In a news report on 21 Oct 2008, Umno vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said nobody should question the subject, but it should be taught in universities. The Sultan of Perak also said as much in a Bernama report on 22 Oct.
Muhyiddin Yassin However, Syed Husin feels it would not be wise to introduce the subject in the university curriculum, as the syllabus could become biased, following only the interpretation by the government of the day. That said, he is against any ban on discussing the Federal Constitution or any of the articles, and says responsible and rational closed-door discussions should be allowed and encouraged.
“We should not stop responsible intellectual or academic comments and discussions on the social contract,” Syed Husin says. “The lay people should not be denied this freedom, too. But because the issue appears to be sensitive now, public discussions or discourse may need some constraints.”
Tan Sri Ramon V Navaratnam, chairperson for the Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS), believes that although the social contract must not be questioned, there should be honest discussion on any wrongful interpretation and implementation of it.
“It would be relevant to review the implementation of the social contract. This is to ensure that all Malaysians, especially the poor and underprivileged rakyat, benefit much more significantly from the ideals of the social contract as it was originally envisaged.
“This review could then lead to improvements in the better implementation of the social contract to enhance national unity for all Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, in the long-term interests of and for a brighter Malaysia,” says Ramon in a statement released to the media.
Shaikh, too, agrees that the core base of the social contract must not be disputed, but the implementation of the policies based on it must always be revisited and reassessed. He points out: “Our forefathers were not soothsayers in that they could predict what the country would be like 50 years later.”
(corrected) Shad feels there is a lack of knowledge of the depth and breadth of the social contract among the public, including political leaders, and says discussions must be held behind closed doors and with sensitivity.
But, he says, constitutional literacy must first be improved. “The discussion should be among informed people who have knowledge and understanding of history; who have the capacity to listen and who are capable of accommodation and compromise,” he argues.
As long as the definition remains vague, there will always be those who try to hijack the social contract for their own purposes. But without discussion, be it in the public sphere or behind closed doors, there is little chance of preventing this.
*********************************
Article 2
Teresa Kok and the supremacist minority
Commentary by Wan Hamidi Hamid,
The Malaysian Insider
October 2, 2008
OCT 2 — Teresa Kok must be wondering why some Malays are adamant in portraying her as a Chinese chauvinist, villain of peace and enemy of Islam. With her impeccable record as the most hardworking wakil rakyat and the Member of Parliament with the highest majority votes in the country, she must be at a loss to fathom the attempts to assassinate her character.
From the blatant lies that she had opposed the azan (the Islamic call to prayer), to her wearing a skirt inside a mosque, the Seputeh MP has to live through the nightmare of racial politics almost on a daily basis.
Despite repeated denials of the azan issue — for which she was detained under the draconian Internal Security Act for seven days — Kok is still being chastised by some quarters linked to Umno, including the Malay daily Utusan Malaysia.
For the three-term MP, who is known among her close friends as a devout Catholic and a staunch believer in multiracialism, the detention without trial-ISA was not enough for her detractors. After her release, some extremist elements threw a Molotov cocktail into her parents’ house.
To make matters worse, a whole lot of text messages were sent around justifying the violent act. The saddest part of the story is that some Malays actually believe that Kok is guilty of insulting Islam — which she is not.
The problem is those who believe the lies probably read one particular newspaper that is prone to promote racial supremacy. There are other Malay-language newspapers with higher circulation than the one espousing racist tendencies, yet they are not keen on resorting to false news. They seem to know the danger of playing up baseless racial accusations.
So what gives? Despite the many possible answers, it is likely that Umno, particularly in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, which suffered one of its worst election defeats, is venting anger in the only way some of its leaders know — racism.
Already many Barisan Nasional component parties are unhappy with recent racial episodes.
Now that the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) has left BN and Gerakan is mulling a similar move, the situation is critical for Umno-led BN. The fact that Umno is more concerned with its leadership transition, thus ignoring its partners, is likely to be a push factor for component members in the federal ruling coalition.
The tussle for the top leadership in Umno is expected to bring out the nastiest and dirtiest of tactics, especially when the party divisional meetings – the real backbone of Umno – begin next week.
As reflected during the branch meetings of the last three months, Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay supremacy, was the keyword among the grassroots leaders and members. Although top leaders have defined it as the struggle for the betterment of the Malays, others took it literally to mean the superiority of the Malays over other Malaysians.
This is especially true in the case of Teresa Kok when attempts to demonise her, despite being based on slander, continue to spread among the racist political element of the usually moderate and fair-minded Malays.
To this racist minority, Umno hegemony is their game, never mind that the basis of BN is racial harmony. They couldn’t care less about muhibbah so long as their supremacist definition of the Malay is accepted by all.
Their only problem is that they are in the minority. Even Kok acknowledges it. She knows many more Malays accept her, not only as an MP or a Selangor state executive councillor, but also as a fellow Malaysian.
But spending a stint under the ISA and suffering the trauma of her parents’ home being fire-bombed is not an easy experience to live with. She is hoping that more Malaysians, especially the Malays, speak up against racism and those who perpetuate the dangerous trend.
Even in high places she has good Malay friends. Former de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim quit the government in protest against Kok’s arrest under the ISA and has even written an open letter to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to abolish the cruel law.
Kok has always been a popular figure with the Malay grassroots in the Klang Valley.
Immediately after she was released from the ISA, she attended a number of breaking-of-fast ceremonies, including at the Cheras Baru mosque, the one which she was accused of going into wearing a skirt.
The truth of the matter is the event was organised outside the mosque and Kok was wearing a long skirt covering her knees, similar to skirts she wears in Parliament, the Selangor state assembly and her state government office. She did not even enter the mosque.
But racists with agendas do not let facts get in the way of a good distortion in their favour. It’s never too late, however, for some of these people to reflect on the good month of Syawal to ask for forgiveness from those who have been wrongly accused.
Maaf zahir batin.