Social Contract was not written as a document in the Federal Constitution

The people should just ignore the intense discussion over the Social Contract.

International Islamic University Malaysia law lecturer Prof Dr Abdul Aziz Bari said: "This is a non-issue. I don't understand why it should be debated in a manner as though the Malays were under siege."

Dr Aziz said although the Social Contract was not written as a document of its own, it was amply manifested in various provisions of the Federal Constitution, including in Article 153.

"This is not a legal agreement, it's a political philosophy; it's not like buying a car or a house where there is a sale and purchase agreement.

"Don't confuse the issue... if you don't understand, just keep quiet."
Dr Aziz said that the Social Contract also manifested itself in other aspects, for instance in Article 3 of the Constitution about Islam being the official religion of the Federation but other religions could be practised in peace in any part of the federation; and Article 152 about Malay being the country's national and official language.

"There is an element of compromise here of give-and-take between races because in Article 152, for instance, although Malay is the national language, there is no stopping others from using their languages."

He said the Social Contract could change with the times as when Article 153 was amended in 1963 when Sabah and Sarawak, together with the Federation of Malaya, formed Malaysia.

"When Sabah and Sarawak Bumiputeras were accorded the same privileges (given to the Malays), the (Article 153) was amended to grant the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the responsibility for safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the Sabah and Sarawak Bumiputeras and the legitimate interests of other communities.

"So, the Social Contract can change with the times and situation; (but it will be all right) as long as the change takes place in a transparent manner and not done unilaterally."

Dr Aziz also rejected the notion that the Social Contract was to safeguard the interest of the Malays, saying such views smacked of ignorance.

"The Social Contract is important to all... to the Malays as well as to the non-Malays. Without the Social Contract, there will be chaos and no one will be able to live in peace."

Dr Aziz also said that the Malays had no reason to feel threatened by the demands made by the non-Malays because their rights and privileges were protected under the Constitution.

"If Lim Kit Siang were to become prime minister, he cannot ignore Article 153. If he wanted to change the policy, he would have to get the consent from the Malay rulers as provided for under Article 38.

"They (the Malays) are well-protected, well-endowed if you look at the Constitution. You cannot take away those provisions and you cannot amend them without the prior consent from the Conference of Rulers.

"So, what are we afraid of?" said Dr Aziz, who has written numerous books and over 50 articles on public law, particularly constitutional law.

On ketuanan Melayu or Malay supremacy, he said many people misunderstood the issue.

"It is a political philosophy. In the Constitution, it's about our identity, not supremacy.

"If we talk about the issue of ketuanan Melayu, then there will be the concept of a master and the rest will be second-class citizens or slaves, which is unacceptable, either in a democratic constitution or in Islam."

Dr Aziz, who coordinates IIUM's courses on constitutional law, said some of those who took part in the discussion on the Social Contract had failed to fully understand the core of the Constitution, to the extent of denying the existence of the Social Contract in the country.

"It is true that the term 'Social Contract' does not exist in the Federal Constitution, but I disagree with the view that it is non-existent.

"The Social Contract in the country is not the same as the social contract advocated by English philosopher John Locke or Thomas Hobbes... that people surrender their rights to the state in return of protection. That is different.

"The question is, in this issue, there is a quid pro quo, a compromise and give-and-take between the races," said Dr Aziz, who is also chief editor of IIUM's Law Journal.

Bernama
17/11/08