Malaysians, from the King to the Umnoputras, from lawyers to rakyat (peoples), are now talking about the social contract.
There is no reference to the social contract in the Constutition of the Malaysia Federation. Not even any mention in the preamble. Sorry, there is no preamble in the Constitution.
What is a social contract?
According to the political scientist, it is an unwritten consensus at the time of the nation founding. It is thus a piece of virtual agreement exists only in the mind of those believing that it exists.
In Malaysia's context, it means different things to different peoples. It really depend whether you talk to Ali, Bala or Chan.
Some say it is an agreement between Tunku, Tan Cheng Lock and Sambathan seeking independence against the colonialism and Communism (where are the Sarawakian and Sabahan represented?). Too bad, all the three distinguished Malaysians are no longer with us today to answer the 27 millions peoples' question.
Some say it is a social contract wherein the Malays conceding to Chinese and Indian the Malayan citizenship in exchange of their concession for Malay Ketuanan aka Malay Supremacy.
Some say it is the Malay rulers constitutional position as a protector of Malay and Islam (with some also noted the legitimate right of other communties).
Some says it doesn't exist. They pointed out that the first reference to the social contract was in 1980s by the UMNO politicians. It took well over 20 years for any Malaysian to remember that there was a social contract in the first place.
Some says it should not be questioned and reviewed.
Some say it should be taugh in school while some opposes.
Yet no one can give a definite definition of what the social contract is.
The question of "apa itu" (what it is?) should be judiciously preceded by the question of "mananya" (where is it?)
In the absense of compelling evidence, whether written or oral, by the founding fathers, including the often overlooked the 1956 Constitutional Conference in London and the five members Reid Commission charged with the drafting of the Malayan Constitution, no one should be allowed to construct and impute the existence of such a solemn consensus on national formation.
The difference between an afterthought and an aforethought is that the former is an excuse and the latter is a justification.
Thinking Malaysian, please take note!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Bro, a social contract is a political notion, first expounded by the political philosopher Rousseau in his book of the same title. It was an important idea on the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. So goes, there exist in every stable political system a tacit consensus whereby the people give up certain rights to the ruler in exchange for the state giving expression to certain will of the people.
We can see some contemporary examples: benign-dictorship in Singapore who delivers prosperity and a clean, efficient government; power to Mr Putin in return for a restoration of Russian pride/might; Payment of taxes in return for social democracy and public services in many European countries.
In the Malaysian context, the situation is less of a social contract than a political compromise during the time of the Alliance. To presume so would be to presume that the leaders of the Alliance each represented a mandate and respective sets of demands from each ethnic group, and somehow they came together to thrash out a grand political compromise.
My knowledge of history suggested otherwise; that they were British educated political moderates deemed acceptable enough to the British to arrange a peaceful independence. That was during the Emergency so neither of the parties have won a national mandate through national elections (although there were local elections). UMNO was the dominant Malay political movement but the Chinese and Indian population were less than unified behind MCA and MIC. In fact, there were many more radical parties (Communist fronts or otherwise) who were far more influential among the Chinese. This is in fact the 'original sin' of the MCA, that it is seen to be a vehicle of political compromise and not a real political movement.
And until citizenship was automatically granted to sufficient numbers of non-Malays, power from the ballot box was theoritical at best. My sense is that citizenship were given to Chinese and Indians to make democratic elections an attractive alternative for mainstream Chinese and Indians as opposed to more leftist ideas.
I would agree that any imputations post-facto of a social contract should be treated with caution.
In fact, even if there were such intent, it should never be held to be so inviolable and sacred that it cannot be questioned or amended overtime.
thank for illuminating the origin on social contract.
the question i want to ask is whether electoral mandate produced by periodical election give rise to a new social contract or whether there is a certain core element of social contract at the time of nation founding that is inviolable unless it goes through a legitimate constitutional process or a revolution.
the problem of the evolving nature of social contract is always subject to the electoral winner's whim and fancy whose mandate may have been won by skewing the electoral system or process.
I think it makes better sense to distinquish two forms of social contract, one that is in the form of an electoral mandate (like LKY's spore or Putin's Russia) and the other in the form of the original founders intention.
Bro, quite right. Even an electoral mandate cannot be presumed to be a wholesale approval for the ruling platform.
Ultimately, I believe a social contract is, at best, an imputed understanding of the political bargaining that took place. It is also important that there was some sort of compromise in the first place otherwise there would not be any exchange of 'consideration'.
Often a new social contract is formed after a rupture of the old one. After a revolution for example when former enemies make peace based on a new realignment. The 'consideration" in these cases ranges from "agree or die" to a political accommodation. One see this after WW2 when Germany re-constituted itself along pacifist, democratic and European lines or during the end of Soviet domination in Eastern Europe or what is still happenning in Iraq; where the "state" has to make a "new deal" with the people. Often, the choice took place when the people voted away the old regime.
In many instances, even if a constitution is put before a referendum by the people, unless there were some sort of exchange or surrender of certain rights by the people, one cannot easily deem a social contract to have taken place. The many constitutional referendum of Thailand is one example, the horsetrading were between the different political factions and not between the "state" and the people.
Referendum to join the EU on the otherhand would come closer to a social and political contract between nation states who agree to forfeit certain sovereign rights in return for the opportunities and protection of EU membership.
Perhaps one of the best instances of a social/political contract are the cases of Sabah and Sarawak. There the states were given the choice between independence (eventually) or joining the Malaysian Federation. And the outcome was rectified by a referendum. There were many concessions by both sides including on citizenship, wealth sharing, political parties etc. But in the end, the social/political contract was eroded over time and greatly skewed today.
Appeared in Malaysiakini on Nov 3
No definite definition on 'social contract'
Tanky18 | Nov 3, 08 4:34pm
Malaysians, from the king to the rakyat (the commoners), are now talking about the ‘social contract’. What is a ‘social contract’?
There is no reference to the ‘social contract’ in the constitution of the Federation of Malaysia. Not even a mention in the preamble. But sorry, there is no preamble to the constitution.
According to the political scientist, it is an unwritten consensus at the time of the nation’s founding. It is thus a piece of virtual agreement existing only in the minds of those believing that it exists.
In Malaysia's context, it means different things to different people. It really depends on whether you talk to Ali, Bala or Chan.
Some say it was an agreement between the Tunku, Tan Cheng Lock and Sambanthan seeking independence against colonialism and communism.
Too bad, all these three distinguished Malaysians are no longer with us today to answer the 26 million dollar question.
Some say this ‘social contract’ doesn't exist. They point out that the first reference to this ‘social contract’ was in the1980s by Umno politicians.
It took well over 20 years for any Malaysian to remember that there was a ‘social contract’ in the first place.
Some say it should not be questioned or reviewed. Some say it should be taught in schools while some oppose. Yet no one can give a definite definition of what this ‘social contract’ is.
The question of apa itu (what is it?) should be judiciously preceded by the question of mana-nya (where is it?)
In the absence of compelling evidence, whether written or oral by the founding fathers including the often overlooked the 1956 Constitutional Conference in London and the five-member Reid Commission charged with the drafting of the Malayan constitution, no one should be allowed to construct and impute the existence of such a solemn consensus on national formation.
The difference between an afterthought and an aforethought is that the former is an excuse and the latter a justification.
Post a Comment