I refer to the Malaysiakini article by Dr Lim Teck Ghee entitled Social contract: What could be next?

So far no credible evidence has surfaced on the existence of a ‘social contract’. Many distinguished academicians and historians including Prof Ungku Abdul Aziz have cast doubts over its existence.

Yet the term is increasingly being used by individuals, politicians and organisations, giving the impression that its existence is undisputed.

I also observe that an increasing number of issues appear to fall within the scope of this ‘social contract’ despite the absence of details of its scope.

Actually, I believe there was an agreement (or a ‘social contract’) among the founding members of our country on the special position of the Malays. But ponder for a moment.

If the founding members indeed made an agreement on such a vital matter, would they not have insisted that it be cast in stone? And what better way if not to graft the entire contents of the ‘social contract’ into the federal constitution.

Right from the birth of our constitution there were provisions for the special position of the Malays which have remained intact. That itself is proof that there was an agreement among the founding members.

Do you think they, especially the Umno representatives, would have accepted the constitution if important elements of the ‘social contract’ were left out?

Assuming for a moment that our founding members were forced to accept a ‘partial social contract’ in the constitution, would not have that ignited massive unhappiness or even rebellion among the Malay/Muslim community which would have been documented by history?

These questions are raised because, in my humble opinion, I believe the ‘social contract’ is nothing more than the current articles in the constitution on the special position of the Malays.

If indeed there is another ‘social contract’ with wider provisions than those articles, let it surface and be subjected to scrutiny and discussion by the various component races.