Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©New Sunday Times (Used by permission)
by Mohamed Jawhar Hassan

THE special statement of the Conference of Rulers on the social contract on Oct 16 was unprecedented in Malaysia's history.

It was probably the first time that the supreme head of the Federation and the Rulers of the states made a collective and powerful stand on the organising political and legal instrument of the country, as embodied in the Federal Constitution.

The statement's purpose is clear. It is to discourage dispute of the social contract and review of its basic provisions affecting the Rulers and the rights and interests of the various communities that comprise Malay- sia.

It is not just a defence of Malay rights -- and, by extension, the rights of other indigenous communities -- but also the rights of the citizens of other communities as safeguarded by the Federal Constitution.

Of concern to the Rulers was the prospect of ethnic strife being ignited over the issue and its effect on peace and security. This prospect is very real, as evidenced by the gathering confrontation over the issue along ethnic lines.

The sooner we realise that consensus among citizens of the various communities over re-negotiating their existing rights and positions in the Federal Constitution will be impossible to achieve, the better it will be for peace, harmony and stability.

Social contracts are extremely difficult to arrive at, and Malaysia's model has served it eminently well, despite any perceived imperfections.

There could have been no other basis upon which a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious Malaya, and later Malaysia, could have been constructed.

The lack of a strong social contract is what has led to the protracted conflicts in countries like Thailand and the Philippines.

What discrimination exists in Malaysia's social contract is necessary and positive, given Malaysia's history and the sovereignty exercised by the indigenous communities through their Rulers that was recognised by the British colonial authority.

Criticism of elements in the contract will be met by strong counter-argument. Those who think that the contract is unjust and discriminates the Malays and other indigenous communities against the other communities might find it useful to understand that for many Malays, the injustice was, in fact, done unto them, in whom sovereignty was vested.

For the Malays, sharing sovereignty was a profound sacrifice which is sometimes taken too much for granted by others.

It would, therefore, be unwise to re-visit the fundamentals. It will only stir up primordial sentiment and generate mutual distrust and tension.

It would be a grievous error to think that Malaysian society has moved on and all distinctions based on race are no longer relevant, as allegedly indicated by the results of the March election. The Parti Keadilan Rakyat 2008 manifesto, for instance, acknowledges that the Constitution guarantees both "Bumiputera rights" as well as "non-Bumiputera rights". In other words, Keadilan hews to the social contract and recognises the distinction.

The Constitution guarantees equality of rights. All Malaysians are free to practise their faiths, learn and speak their mother tongues and vote whichever party they want. The only difference is the recognition given to the religion of the Malays as the religion of the Federation, the language of the Malays as the national language and the quota and special position accorded to the Malays and the other Bumiputera in recognition of their historical status and their socioeconomic situation.

In this regard, it must also be pointed out that the Constitution expressly forbids depriving any person, including non-Malays, of any privileges or facilities enjoyed by him.

Indeed, the interests of Malaysians of all communities will be better served if they realise that the central issue is not fruitless contesting of the social contract, but ensuring the fair and just implementation of its spirit and substance.

Problems of implementation should not lead to questioning of the contract itself.

Recent years have seen a serious strengthening of the fault lines and erosion in the glue that holds our society together. Occasional excesses of implementation, the exploitation of communal issues and the stridence of extremist voices on all sides have contributed to this. Issues relating to places of worship, faith and conversion have sometimes been grossly mishandled and alienated sentiment.

The present incarnation of the NEP can be better harnessed to serve the needs of the poor within and across ethnic divides, and conform to the true spirit of the social contract.

Some political parties need urgent reform. Many issues can be resolved behind closed doors without public dissension that aggravates the situation.

The tide must turn.

But the social contract itself need not be challenged. It is unique to the history and circumstance of this nation. It is a delicate balance between the imperatives of the past and the realities of the present. It was agreed upon by the elected representatives of the three major communities and the Rulers of the then Malaya, and it secured the agreement of the leaders of the other communities of wider Malaysia. It is enshrined in nothing less than the supreme law of the country, its Constitution.

The social contract was reaffirmed after May 13, 1969 in the Rukunegara. It was reiterated in Vision 2020.

Perhaps it is time to re-dedicate ourselves to it yet again.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed