Social Contract PanellistsKUALA LUMPUR, Sat: A contract is defined as a legally binding document exchanging promises and agreement between the parties. With this in mind, the writer attended the forum on ‘Social Contract’ organised by the Bar Council.
It was reported earlier that when the forum was announced, the Kelantan People’s Action Council (“MTRK”) issued a press statement expressing their concern over the discussion on such topic. In the spirit of encouraging a discourse to foster tolerance, the Bar Council went ahead with its plan to hold the forum on 28 June 2008
The distinguished panel consisted of Dr Mavis Puthucheary (political scientist), Dr Kua Kia Soong (Director of SUARAM), lawyer Tommy Thomas, and Dr Farish Noor (political scientist). The Bar Council Secretary, Lim Chee Wee, presided over the forum, which drew massive audience of all races. The Bar Council Auditorium was packed and among those in attendance was Tn Haji Sulaiman Abdullah.
The forum was broken into 2 sessions, with a Q&A session in the end. The first session was given to Dr Mavis Puthucheary and Dr Kua Kia Soong, and the second session was allotted to Tommy Thomas and Dr Farish Noor.
In her session, Dr Mavis Puthucheary touched on the issue of Malay dominance. According to her, ethnicity dominates all aspect of life. Unwritten understandings were introduced to ensure fair representation of all races. She further stated that the Social Contract acts as a smokescreen for Malay supremacy. She mentioned that a new term has crept into mainstream society, that is “Kedaulatan Melayu”, which she asked whether this is just another form of the notion “Ketuanan Melayu”. Dr Mavis Puthucheary concluded her session by stating that she hopes the new coalition party could offer a genuine alternative to the racially divisive policies of the Barisan National.
In contrast, during his session, Dr Kua Kia Soong examined the historical background of the term Social Contract leading to independence. He said that the Social Contract has undergone 3 transformations since independence. Firstly, in 1957, where affirmative action policy was sparingly used pursuant to Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. Secondly, in 1971, when the ‘quota system’ was introduced through the amendment to Article 153. And finally, in 1986, the Social Contract was transformed when the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi made a speech on “Ketuanan Melayu”.
Tommy Thomas also analysed the historical background of the Social Contract and suggested that the Social Contract was an exchange: for the non-Malays to get full citizenship, the non-Malays had to concede special privileges to the Malays to assist the latter to ascend the economic ladder. Tommy also suggested that the Social Contract recognised Malaysia as a plural state where neither race has to forgo its origin, belief and tradition but they must have an undivided loyalty to this country. Because of this, he explained, Malaysia is against dual-citizenship as one cannot be loyal to two countries at the same time. He concluded that, today, the Social Contract is still relevant and is substantially intact.
Dr Farish Noor shared part of Tommy’s belief that the Social Contract is redeemable. In order to move forward, we need to rely on the Social Contract as it was intended for. However, he denied being part of the Social Contract, and argued that this applies to a large number of the audience and Malaysians at large. He asked why the younger generation have to be held accountable or bound permanently by the Social Contract. He believed that the Social Contract, as it is applied now, is an artificial tool that keeps the artificial state together. It rejects the original vision of Malaysia.
After all the speakers delivered their speech, Lim Chee Wee invited the audience to pose questions to the speakers. A man who identified himself from Kelantan asked Tommy Thomas whether it is wrong for the Malays to protect their privileges. Tommy Thomas then asked him back whether there are any objective facts that show the majority Malays are threatened. Dr Farish Noor added that the population is over-represented by the Malay Muslim. He asked where the fear came from since the urban Malays no longer accept the idea that they are under threat as they live with non-Malays all the time. He suggested that the fear is unreal and is instigated by the ruling Malays, the UMNO, and it is done all for their own self protection.
The writer finds that all the speakers are consistent in their views when they said that the Social Contract now is not in its original form when it was first introduced in 1957. As we move forward as a developing nation, the Social Contract cannot avoid from being evolved and transformed with the passage of time.
In her closing speech, the President of Bar Council, Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, promised the audience that there will be more forums such as this in future. The forum ended at around 1pm.
Seira Sacha Binti Abu Bakar
There is a difference between UMNO and Barisan Nasional. I want to make it clear that it is not the Barisan Nasional (BN) government, but the UMNO government. It is not the government, but UMNO. Barisan Nasional is a coalition of unequals, not equals. UMNO is the big brother in BN. Therefore UMNO must be held responsible; and more importantly, UMNO must not be allowed to hide behind the BN banner. UMNO is the enemy, not BN. UMNO is a racist party which has perfected the art of divide and rule. If moderate Malays, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and the Chinese and Indians unite, then they can vote UMNO out of office.
ReplyDeleteI have come to the conclusion that the easy solution is to completely defeat UMNO in the next elections. We have to vote racist UMNO out of office. UMNO is bent on divide and rule, which has affect Malaysia badly. It is for the next generation of Malaysians to undo the damage done to Malaysia by UMNO. There is a dire need for moderate Malays at the political level. There is also a need for the natives of Sabah and Sarawak to form a third force to protect their own interests. Imagine how UMNO had dealt with Sabah; from a rich state, Sabah has been reduced to a poor state subservient to UMNO. There has to be an explanation. The only way is UMNO has to be voted out of office. The younger generation of Malaysians do not like racist politics and UMNO must be taught a lesson by the younger generation by voting UMNO out of office. Please vote for any party but UMNO/BN.
To my Sabah and Sarawak brothers and sisters I tell you that historically UMNO has always avoided a Royal Commission of Inquiry as much as possible many times. Historically, UMNO has misused the Internal Security Act numerous times. Any political party that is an accomplice to UMNO is also the enemy. Any political party that is a co-conspirator to UMNO is also the enemy. To my Sabah and Sarawak brothers and sisters I say that you should form a third force. A third force would require unity among Sabahans and Sarawakians.
We have to get into the habit of putting people in office through votes, and removing people from office through votes. Nobody should be allowed to topple the government. We have to institutionalize the multi-party political system, one person one vote, and an independent judiciary.
In the 2004 elections (11th General Election), the voters gave good support to Mr.Abdullah Badawi. But reforms did not come. Why? Probably because UMNO had done well in the elections. If UMNO had done well in the elections, then the election results tell UMNO that the voters are satisfied with the status quo. If the voters are satisfied with UMNO, then no reforms are necessary. In the 2008 elections (12th General Elections), UMNO did not do well, but she managed to win. UMNO did lose the 2/3 majority in the Parliament, but she did win, nevertheless. Will UMNO undertake reforms now? I would not be surprised if she did not. Why should she? UMNO is still the winner in the elections; and she can plan to rise and may even succeed to rise again. So, as long as she wins, she will never undertake the reforms. So, how do the voters get the reforms that they need? The voters will get the reforms when UMNO is completely defeated in the 13th General Elections. If UMNO wins zero seats in the next elections (13th General Elections), then some other party would have to rule Malaysia. Let us call it Party B. If UMNO is completely defeated in the next elections (13th General Elections), then Party B would rule Malaysia. Would Party B undertake reforms? If Party B does not undertake reforms, then voters would know what to do.
There is no doubt that UMNO has used gerrymandering to strengthen herself. If we removed gerrymandering from UMNO, then there would be a reduced UMNO. So the non-UMNO voters of Malaysia have good reasons to vote against UMNO.
It is possible that UMNO has used the Police Force to strengthen herself. The Police Force is required to be neutral. But is the Police Force neutral? I appeal to the Police Force to be neutral.
UMNO is a race based political party and also the big brother of BN. So, the complete defeat of UMNO in the next elections is the only way to get reforms. The complete defeat of UMNO in the next elections is the only way to get a new beginning.
UMNO is inclined to believe that Malaysians cannot do anything if they are in any way dissatisfied. The voters, however, have to send a strong message to UMNO that the voters can do something: the voters can vote.
So, the next step for Malaysians is to completely defeat UMNO/BN in the next elections.
.........................................................................................................
The below is a copy and paste from http://hsudarren.wordpress.com/
A third force
There is no smoke without fire. Rumours have been abound since MArch 8 that Sabahan parties may quit BN and join the opposition. As with most rumours in Malaysia, this has turned out to be not just speculation with the announcement of SAPP that it would move a vote of no confidence against Prime MInister AAB.
In the light of this announcement, BN would have no choice but to kick SAPP out of BN. Out of the 14 component parties, there would be 13 left.
There are also rumours that more than 10 others MPs would quit BN, either with their parties or individually. Will these turn out to be true also? After SAPP, I would not discount anything.
But politically, this group of more than 10 MPs (10 to 18 as rpeorted in Chinese Malaysiakini) would be more effective to help the people of Sabah, if they can remain as independents , without joining Pakatan.
Unless of course, they think for their own self interest, and that by joining Pakatan and bringing down BN governemnt, they would be rewarded with Ministerial positions and so on… And that would mean the politics of patronage, which we voters have been trying so hard to get rid of, may still be with us even with a change of government.
If this group can remain as independents, then they will hold the trump card, and can in fact force BN in general and UMNO in particular to change. They could demand for better govenrnace; they could ask the government to accelerate the setting up of judicial commission, the formation of which is facing some resistance as some in UMNO would not want this to happen; they could also ask for an completely independent Anti Corruption COmmission.
In a nutshell, these people could play leverage to get BN to return to the people.
By staying out of Pakatan, they could still help form a new government if UMNO does not change and if Pakatan can get enough MPs to leave BN. Once Pakatan forms a minority government, the leverage to get Pakatan deliver what it has promised will be much greater if this group stays out of Pakatan. If Pakatan does not deliver, this group can again exert its independence and vote Pakatan out , too.
When there is a 2 party system with almost equal strength, a small third independent force will be much more effective if it remains outside both the big brothers. That is what I hope will happen and this is what I have advocating.
Dr Hsu’s Forum
The above is a copy and paste from http://hsudarren.wordpress.com/