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.