YOURSAY | Futile to cling to a non-existent agreement

YOURSAY | ‘The ‘social contract’ is a lose-lose solution for both the Malays and the non-Malays.’

COMMENT | Unravelling Peninsular Malaysia’s 'social contract'

Kilimanjaro: Independent historian Ranjit Singh Malhi has explained it well. This is an unbiased article, calling a spade a spade.  

So, where did we go wrong? Did the Malays take too much or have the non-Malays given in too much?

Abiding by the constitutional provisions such as Islam being the religion of the federation has been sacrosanctly accepted by the non-Malays.

As for the special privileges accorded to Malays for a limited period, it seemed to have been lost in the wilderness of Umno politics. Where is Umno now?  

After reading this article, deep within me, I would wish that Umno was buried.

Look at its Umno Youth chief Dr Akmal Saleh, who doesn’t think and behave like a leader, just all about rhetoric.

He may think that by “shouting” he can revive Umno or reach the top. Umno now needs composed leaders.

For all his actions in the past, Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has come out as someone who may yet be able to revive Umno.

He seems to know how weak Umno is and what his priorities are now.

Whether the Umno members like it or not, Zahid is their best bet for now.

BluePanther4725: Racism and “social contract” are used by the politicians to benefit themselves and hold on to power.

The “social contract” did not benefit the majority of the Malays and is effective in oppressing the non-Malays who are chasing away most of our talents.

The Malays also need the non-Malays to contribute to, build, and develop this country. Therefore, granting non-Malays citizenship is not a one-sided favour.

Using the “social contract” to discriminate against non-Malays forever is unfair and unethical.

Racism and slavery are out of date now, but in Malaysia we still cling tightly to institutionalised racism.

In the long term, the Malays will be harmed by this “social contract” because the good people will leave and our country cannot progress and become a developed nation.

The “social contract” is a lose-lose solution for both the Malays and the non-Malays.

World Citizen: If you put it in one sentence, there is no such thing as a “social contract”.

It is a term coined by the late Umno politician-cum-journalist Abdullah Ahmad in 1986 during a speech in Singapore and is being shamelessly used by our politicians for expediency.

It is a term used to hide the apartheid policies of the successive governments in Malaysia.

The Chinese and Indians have long accepted that Malays were given special privileges for all Malaysians to live in peace and harmony.

But this has been incessantly abused, especially by the ruling elites, and it is being taken to the extreme by the increasing number of racists and religious extremists among the Malay politicians and elites.

Over the last few decades, Malaysia has lost to its peers in the rest of the world economically, academically, socially, and politically.

The country’s status is being continuously diminished as good-quality citizens, especially young and intelligent people, desert the country for better and more equitable lives.

AB Sulaiman: I agree that there is no such thing as a ‘social contract’ in this country

In a similar vein, there is also no ‘Ketuanan Melayu’. Both are a figment of the imagination of one segment of our multi-ethnic society.

Sadly though, these terms have lavishly been used by our political leaders for reasons known to themselves.

Isn’t it time for our “unity” government to declare these two terms as subversive and punish users under the country's laws?

Air10: The social contract in Malaysia is an artificial construct introduced in the 1980s, allegedly to justify the continuation of preferential treatment for the majority bumiputera population.

The social contract is controversial because it has been perceived by many people as a mere propaganda device that has no actual historical basis.

Even academic scholars have doubted the authenticity of the notion of this contract, as the contract itself is neither mentioned nor appears in the constitution. There has been no document to ever fully set out the social contract’s terms.

Economist and academician Ungku Abdul Aziz claimed it to be a fantasy made up by politicians according to their interests and agenda.

Fair Play: Yes, the “social contract” does exist.  

But only as a figment of the imagination of the “ketuanan” politicians who realise it would be impossible to uplift the collective economic development and prosperity of their community unless they create something out of nothing to perpetuate their agenda - for posterity.  

The stark truth is that they know that they have lost over 66 years since independence because of their failed political and economic policies.  

The reality for their community is this. Can Perikatan Nasional replace Umno as their next economic saviour?

Man on the Silver Mountain: Since the term “social contract” was never used in documents on the country, it should not be used at all in any conversation, as doing so would be intellectually dishonest.

The term is a late man-made term created to justify their argument. It nevertheless is illegal and therefore, misleading. It was never there in the first place.  

Too bad for those who want to use it. It was not there. Please be honest about it.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.