This fourth posting in the Essay Series combines the thoughts of two articulate writers driven by passion for Negaraku, presenting sometimes truly out-of-the-box ideas that make this Editor sit up, and ponder. I hope you do too — especially in this running essay series where CPI makes a special effort , in concert with the writer-contributors — to provide an understanding of this so-called “SOCIAL CONTRACT”. Some Malaysians even deem such a contract does not exist; those who do, feel it’s time for the matter to be re-visited — even reviewed by a properly constituted “eminent” group of Malaysians perhaps? — so that Malaysia can move forward without being derailed by too much “racialistic” politics and polemics which really does not steer us towards that level of civil socity befitting a developed nation state we all aspire to attain. — YL Chong, Editor, CPI
Take I:
Article 153 and the “Social Contract???
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
My sedition trial will resume on 10th November 2008 after a three week postponement. Thus far six prosecution witnesses have testified and it appears like the prosecution has 10-13 more witnesses lined up.
Basically, the government is of the view that my article, “Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell???, is seditious. And to ensure that I am duly punished, other than facing trial, I am also under Internal Security Act detention. This means, even if the court acquits me, I shall still not be free. It is like taking double insurance. Either way you are covered.
I suppose sedition is the natural thing to charge me with. Moses was charged with sedition that he had to flee Egypt. Jesus was charged with sedition and the Christians believe he was executed because of that. Muhammad too was charged with sedition and the Muslims believe that God commanded him to flee Mecca lest he get murdered that same evening.
I am not trying to compare myself to the three main prophets of the Abrahamic religions. What I am trying to say is that if even the three most important prophets of the Jews, Christians and Muslim are not spared the allegation of sedition, then who am I to escape?
On 7th November, the court will decide if my ISA detention is legal. I could say that my freedom is now in the hands of the judge and may he rule wisely. And of course, to me, “wisely??? would mean to free me – whereas that may not quite be the government’s view of “wise???.
Something significant of late was the Rulers’ statement on Article 153 and the “Social Contract???. We could say that this was historic as the Rulers have never thus far made such statements. Could this be said as something timely or something the Rulers should not have done? I really don’t know.
The Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government’s ruling of imposing a 50% Bumiputra quota on houses in the state does not help either. Why 50%? Why even 30%? Should in the first place there even be a quota?
If you have not done so this you should read Zaid Ibrahim’s book “In Good Faith???, Zaid has addressed this matter of Article 153 and the “Social Contract??? with great clarity.
What the Kedah state government has done is unconstitutional. Article 8 and Article 153 of the Constitution do not allow this. You just can’t dictate how people run their businesses.
Those who support the imposition of quotas argue that there exists a “Social Contract??? that allows them to do so. But while they mention this “Social Contract???, they fail to mention the terms of this “contract???, what it says, and who is bound by it.
In short, if I am not a party to that contract can I be bound by it? The contract was entered into by the Malays and the then immigrant Indians and Chinese; of course it is not really a written contract as much as a verbal contract and we all know that a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on.
Nevertheless, should Malaysian-born Indians and Chinese who have never even visited India and China be made to abide to a verbal “contract??? made by their immigrant parents and/or grandparents? How long will this “contract??? run? Will Indians and Chinese 1000 years from now still be made to abide to a “contract??? made in 1957?
There should be a cut-off date. There must come a point of time when all Malaysians are regarded as equal. How can an Indonesian who migrated to this country a few years ago be regarded as Bumiputra when Chinese and Indians who come to this country in the 1400s are still second class citizens?
Yes, Article 153 accords Malays certain rights and privileges. But that same Article, and Article 8, do not allow imposing of quotas and permits which deny Indians and Chinese their rights in favour of the Malays. This, many people do not seem to understand.
We also seem to have forgotten that the New Economic Policy is a two-pronged attack. Other than reducing the gap between the different races it is also about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. And this would mean regardless of race.
When we talk about the Malay farmers and fisherman. We do not seem to realize that there are Chinese farmers and fishermen as well. Poverty does not recognize race.
It is time that the “Social Contract??? be reviewed. A new “Social Contract??? must be drawn up that looks into the SOCIAL structure and not RACIAL structure that the present “Social Contract??? addresses. Only then can it be called a “Social Contract???. If not, then let us call it what it really is, a “Racial Contract???.
The poverty level also needs to be reviewed. The new “hardcore??? poverty level should be RM1200. Anyone earning below RM1200 per month should be considered poor. That would mean a high percentage of Malaysians. Then the NEW “Social Contract??? should address the needs of those who live below the NEW poverty level of RM1200.
And the NEW “Social Contract??? should no longer be a verbal contract but chiseled in stone. And it should be a contract to take care of Malays, Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, Ibans, Dayaks, etc. As long as you are poor, meaning earning below RM1200 then you are taken care of. That should be Malaysia’s NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Before I sign off, I would like to apologise for the quality of my articles. It is not so convenient to type from where I currently live so I need to just get my points across without much focus on the presentation. I hope this will not be for long and that I may soon be back with you. Anyway I was told that Malaysia Today is under control and in good hands. Till we speak again.
Take 2:
Social contract must adapt to changed times
By John Lee Min Keong,
CPI YouthSpeak Coordinator
October 24, 2008
OCT 24 — The social contract is something people tell us never to question. If at all we mention it, we are supposed to be deferent towards it, as a measure of the infinite wisdom of our forefathers. But the social contract, however wise it may have been five decades ago, is irrelevant to us today, at least as it is completely understood. The notion that some people are more worthy of being Malaysian than others, or that some Malaysians are innately more loyal to the country is complete nonsense today.
In the first place, what is the social contract? For every politician who has threatened to exile uppity non-Malays and denounce their citizenship, I’ve got some news: that’s violating your precious “social contract”. It’s in the Constitution. If you want your worship of the social contract taken seriously, you have to be consistent: either you take the whole deal, or you don’t.
And quite frankly, I don’t see why we ought to accept this whole deal. Let’s think about real contracts for a moment. Let’s use a common analogy people love to bring up: the tenants sharing a home. First, let’s be realistic: if there is a landlord at all, it is God — or fate, if you’re an atheist. God let out this country to the Orang Asli first, and later he brought in the Malays. Then with a twist, he let the colonial powers invade us and brought in other peoples to join the Malays. We’re all sharing the land now, on a lease from God, and of course to make the sharing fair and equitable, we need an agreement — a contract.
But like any human room-mates will, we often end up arguing about the agreement. Who is supposed to take out the trash? Is it okay for one tenant to take the other’s leftover nasi lemak from the fridge? Who should oversee the renovations? Even if we sort these matters out in the contract, no normal or even reasonable human being will let that be the end of the matter. Circumstances change, and the reasonable thing to do is to adapt to change.
Let’s make this even more personal now — let’s make this a family. Because really, that’s what we are — whether I like them or not, my parents are my parents and my siblings are my siblings. I may hate some of them, I may disagree vehemently with some of their views, but I still have to love and respect them.
That doesn’t mean I will do whatever they tell me to do — if my father tells me to jump into a lake I won’t do it. But what it means is that when we disagree, we try to do respectfully, and we try to work something out that works for everyone in the family. And realistically, there is no way we will be able to ignore, let alone toss out, whole swathes of Malaysia: you are not going to be able to deport the non-Malays or let the rural farmers and estate workers wallow in poverty, just as you can’t disown your flesh and blood.
Now, as a parent or a room-mate, maybe you work things out by bossing everyone else in the house around — I don’t know. But that strikes me as a particularly bad way to be running a household. If I share a house with someone else, I don’t scream at them until they clean the toilet, even if it’s their turn and I pay more than half the rent.
If my father told my mother exactly how to run her life, she would be mad as hell at him, and for good reason — my father shouldn’t be ordering her to massage his feet or yelling at her to shut up. That’s not how adults talk to each other. As a Malaysian, I don’t like it when one of us talks down to the other, whether it’s a Chinese CEO denigrating the abilities of his Malay colleagues or a Malay politician insulting the integrity of his non-Malay constituents.
But at the same time, adults also know that we have to deal with reality. If my room-mate breaks his ankle, I can’t expect him to mop the floor. If my sister has an examination, I don’t expect her to help hang the laundry. Yet, whenever we insist that the social contract must remain perpetually unchanged, we are insisting that we can never adapt to changed circumstances.
The simple fact is, the Malaysia of 50 years ago is not the Malaysia of today. Fifty years ago, most non-Malays could not read or write in the national language, and felt closer to China or India than they did to their homeland. Try today to find a Malaysian who roots for China or India in the Olympics, or who cares more about the fate of the Chinese Communist Party or Congress Party in India than he does about the Umno party elections. Fifty years ago, it was not unreasonable to assume a non-Malay did not feel very keenly loyal to the country; today, it’s perfectly preposterous.
To say that the social contract of 50 years ago remains completely applicable and is thus completely non-negotiable today is to deny that anything about Malaysia has ever changed and will ever change. If you do not see the insanity inherent in this position, that is like saying when I am 70, I should still be expecting my parents to be cooking my meals and paying my bills. People change; countries change. Our social contract, whether it is in the home or in the public sphere, must adjust accordingly.
Now, inherent too in the social contract is the principle that the disadvantaged must be helped to stand on their own two feet. I don’t think any person can be against that. But again, times change, and needs change. When I was three years old, I needed knee guards because I kept falling down. Should I still be wearing them now? Of course not — I don’t need them now. Some members of our family need more help than others, and it is only fair that they be helped. But those who by now clearly do not need any more assistance — the Nazir Razaks and Ananda Krishnans — they shouldn’t be counting on any help from the “social contract???.
The level of discourse when it comes to the social contract in our country is pathetic, because we refuse to talk like adults about the agreements we have made. We refuse to adjust to changing circumstances, we refuse to accept that reasonable adults can disagree respectfully about controversial things. A husband and wife can argue about their marriage without getting divorced. Why can’t Malaysians talk about the founding basis of our nation without threatening to throw one another out of the country?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
My sedition trial will resume on 10th November 2008 after a three week postponement. Thus far six prosecution witnesses have testified and it appears like the prosecution has 10-13 more witnesses lined up.
Basically, the government is of the view that my article, “Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell???, is seditious. And to ensure that I am duly punished, other than facing trial, I am also under Internal Security Act detention. This means, even if the court acquits me, I shall still not be free. It is like taking double insurance. Either way you are covered.
I suppose sedition is the natural thing to charge me with. Moses was charged with sedition that he had to flee Egypt. Jesus was charged with sedition and the Christians believe he was executed because of that. Muhammad too was charged with sedition and the Muslims believe that God commanded him to flee Mecca lest he get murdered that same evening.
I am not trying to compare myself to the three main prophets of the Abrahamic religions. What I am trying to say is that if even the three most important prophets of the Jews, Christians and Muslim are not spared the allegation of sedition, then who am I to escape?
On 7th November, the court will decide if my ISA detention is legal. I could say that my freedom is now in the hands of the judge and may he rule wisely. And of course, to me, “wisely??? would mean to free me – whereas that may not quite be the government’s view of “wise???.
Something significant of late was the Rulers’ statement on Article 153 and the “Social Contract???. We could say that this was historic as the Rulers have never thus far made such statements. Could this be said as something timely or something the Rulers should not have done? I really don’t know.
The Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government’s ruling of imposing a 50% Bumiputra quota on houses in the state does not help either. Why 50%? Why even 30%? Should in the first place there even be a quota?
If you have not done so this you should read Zaid Ibrahim’s book “In Good Faith???, Zaid has addressed this matter of Article 153 and the “Social Contract??? with great clarity.
What the Kedah state government has done is unconstitutional. Article 8 and Article 153 of the Constitution do not allow this. You just can’t dictate how people run their businesses.
Those who support the imposition of quotas argue that there exists a “Social Contract??? that allows them to do so. But while they mention this “Social Contract???, they fail to mention the terms of this “contract???, what it says, and who is bound by it.
In short, if I am not a party to that contract can I be bound by it? The contract was entered into by the Malays and the then immigrant Indians and Chinese; of course it is not really a written contract as much as a verbal contract and we all know that a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on.
Nevertheless, should Malaysian-born Indians and Chinese who have never even visited India and China be made to abide to a verbal “contract??? made by their immigrant parents and/or grandparents? How long will this “contract??? run? Will Indians and Chinese 1000 years from now still be made to abide to a “contract??? made in 1957?
There should be a cut-off date. There must come a point of time when all Malaysians are regarded as equal. How can an Indonesian who migrated to this country a few years ago be regarded as Bumiputra when Chinese and Indians who come to this country in the 1400s are still second class citizens?
Yes, Article 153 accords Malays certain rights and privileges. But that same Article, and Article 8, do not allow imposing of quotas and permits which deny Indians and Chinese their rights in favour of the Malays. This, many people do not seem to understand.
We also seem to have forgotten that the New Economic Policy is a two-pronged attack. Other than reducing the gap between the different races it is also about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. And this would mean regardless of race.
When we talk about the Malay farmers and fisherman. We do not seem to realize that there are Chinese farmers and fishermen as well. Poverty does not recognize race.
It is time that the “Social Contract??? be reviewed. A new “Social Contract??? must be drawn up that looks into the SOCIAL structure and not RACIAL structure that the present “Social Contract??? addresses. Only then can it be called a “Social Contract???. If not, then let us call it what it really is, a “Racial Contract???.
The poverty level also needs to be reviewed. The new “hardcore??? poverty level should be RM1200. Anyone earning below RM1200 per month should be considered poor. That would mean a high percentage of Malaysians. Then the NEW “Social Contract??? should address the needs of those who live below the NEW poverty level of RM1200.
And the NEW “Social Contract??? should no longer be a verbal contract but chiseled in stone. And it should be a contract to take care of Malays, Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, Ibans, Dayaks, etc. As long as you are poor, meaning earning below RM1200 then you are taken care of. That should be Malaysia’s NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Before I sign off, I would like to apologise for the quality of my articles. It is not so convenient to type from where I currently live so I need to just get my points across without much focus on the presentation. I hope this will not be for long and that I may soon be back with you. Anyway I was told that Malaysia Today is under control and in good hands. Till we speak again.
Take 2:
Social contract must adapt to changed times
By John Lee Min Keong,
CPI YouthSpeak Coordinator
October 24, 2008
OCT 24 — The social contract is something people tell us never to question. If at all we mention it, we are supposed to be deferent towards it, as a measure of the infinite wisdom of our forefathers. But the social contract, however wise it may have been five decades ago, is irrelevant to us today, at least as it is completely understood. The notion that some people are more worthy of being Malaysian than others, or that some Malaysians are innately more loyal to the country is complete nonsense today.