Racial inequality and the secret of Chinese 'success'

Racial inequality and the secret of Chinese 'success'

Helen Ang

Prime Minister Najib Razak on Oct 21 at the Umno general assembly told his party delegates "... kewarganegaraan Malaysia pada dasarnya bukan lagi bersifat sama rata". This country does not have equal citizenship.

Despite 1Malaysia (or Malaysian First), this is the core implication of Article 153, the 'special position' of the Malay.

NEP is the realpolitik of a race-based system to distribute resources. There has been no negotiation on its implementation: Umno dictates, MCA complies although it gets around the discriminatory policy by 'settling' (read: 'gao dim' or greasing the palm).

The so-called 'social contract' carries a rider; MCA navigates the lopsided terms and conditions using money as the medium. Well-connected wheelers and dealers have obtained a satisfactory outcome for themselves via the Ali Baba arrangement.


Hence the claim by Liew Kee Sin, a Tan Sri and a tycoon, that Chinese had thrived under NEP. But only for a small handful of Chinese. Liew, the SP Setia president-cum-CEO, raised hackles with his statement at the Chinese Economic Congress organized by MCA on Aug 14. His talk was titled 'Malay and Chinese collaboration to achieve NEM'.

Incidentally, Najib delivered the keynote address at the event that included two Tan Sris and five Datuks among its speakers, and three Tan Sris and four Datuks as moderators and discussants.


Giving an example of how Chinese have fared well under NEP, Liew disclosed that SME owners can afford his company's expensive bungalows, exclaiming "One Chinaman want to build a bungalow of RM40 million!"


Theory on the middle tier


The more Chinese are discriminated against in Malaysia, the better the community performs. This is a theory explored by two dons from Yale University and the University of British Columbia. The 30-page paper by Fang Han-ming and Peter Norman titled 'Government-mandated discriminatory policies: Theory and evidence' postulates that the NEP could actually have been the reason for, rather than an obstacle to, the Chinese's economic success.

Their research was published in the International Economic Review, Vol.47, No.2, May 2006, and in also our CPI archives.


They wrote: "Some minorities, notably overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia and Jews in Europe, have performed economically better than the native majorities, despite being subject to government-mandated discriminatory policies."


Nonetheless, Fang and Norman placed a caveat: the extent of the discriminatory policies is crucial. The discriminatory exclusion can only be beneficial if the government-controlled sector is small enough. Aside from the public sector, the other parts of the economy that the government can legislate are in the industries where the authorities have direct ownership or control through professional licensing.


Occurring some years after the publication of the above study, the Low Siew Moi (left) episode inserts a more timely perspective. Loh, a long-time civil servant, failed to be confirmed as PKNS general manager by Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim due to the glass ceiling occasioned by her ethnicity. That Ketuanan Melayu objected vehemently to her appointment was a clear display of the minorities' limited access to public sector jobs and positions.

Although Malaysia is in a denial mode, foreigners like Fang and Norman nonetheless make the comparison with apartheid.

They noted: "As far as we understand, the policies facing Blacks [in South Africa previously] were significantly broader measures than those implemented in Southeast Asia. Moreover, it is necessary that some sector where investments in skills are important is left open for the discriminated group. Again, this seems like a more plausible assumption when considering overseas Chinese."


Their theory posits that exclusion from opportunities provided by the state created better incentives for Chinese to make a costly investment in skills. These skills are assets invaluable and crucial for private sector jobs.

On the flip side, giving a group (read: Malay) preferential access to high-paying public sector jobs may dampen the incentives for skill investment so crucial in the private sector.


Consequences of apartheid


Fang and Norman also tackled the vexing question of why the Malay majority would have implemented a policy that ultimately hurt itself. They believe the "natural answer is that the negative indirect effect of preferential policies in favour of the Malays was quite subtle and difficult to forecast; whereas the direct beneficial effects were obvious."


The direct benefits are that the public sector offers secure employment and generous perks. Government administration jobs ranked among the top five of 100 occupation categories, only slightly lower than architects and engineers. [S. Anand, 'Inequality and Poverty in Malaysia: Measurement and Decomposition' [Oxford University Press,1983].


From the recent budget announced for next year, taxpayers can get a clear idea of the staggering percentage of our national expenditure that goes towards paying the civil service.


Despite the minorities hardly benefitting from state largesse, Najib in his Umno speech on Thursday again made them the bogeyman. He attributed success to "creativity, innovation and the willingness of the individual to work hard and take risks".


Having said that, he added, "For example, the non-bumiputeras, after 39 years of affirmative policies being implemented, are still the race who own the largest share of wealth".


The Chinese indeed possess an unerring ability to cope with the hostile NEP environment. Yet paradoxically, this coping mechanism is a poisoned chalice with the effect of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. The insecure, fearful Malay views the trait of competitiveness as being 'ultra kiasu', innovative as 'underhanded'; resilient as 'cold and heartless'.


Essentially what the two Yale and University of Chicago professors have said -- if I may rephrase the idea as social Darwinism -- is that the Chinese survive when they are the fittest. But here, the fitter the Chinese are, the more the Malays feel intimidated.


The Mahathir era was a juggling act and to his credit, the maverick managed to keep all the balls in the air. Tensions aside, the good ship Malaysia Inc. stayed afloat. The Chinese were able to 'cari makan' but soon after Mahathir relaxed his iron grip and the unwritten 'social contract' began unravelling, the vessel started sinking.

A good illustration, even today, of the Mahathir-Machiavellian method is the planned development of Kampung Baru, a Malay reservation where the residents want to retain this prime real estate 100% in bumiputera hands. It was Mahathir who urged that Chinese investment be allowed for the reason of "we want to use the non-Malays as bait to lure more visitors".

Mahathir's callous remark is a backhanded compliment on Chinese capital and business acumen, but galling.

While the Fang and Norman theory may be applicable to its time (the 1980s), and to certain segments of Chinese, it doesn't cover all bases. The working class and wage-earners -- and their children -- have been shut out and victimised by NEP.


Another important factor to be borne in mind is the time frame of the Fang and Norman study. It was premised on population data up till 1988 where Chinese formed 32%. However, Chinese had since declined to 24% of the population in 2007, and further fast decreasing. It is expected that Chinese will only be around 18.6% in another 25 years or likely even lower.


Readjusting the variables to the current Chinese population ratio (and the much, much smaller slice projected in future) will be adversely affect the Fang-Norman theoretical framework. Their theory is that the NEP discriminatory exclusion is an obstacle that can be surmounted if the government-controlled sector does not encroach too much into private enterprise.

However, in the last decade we've seen how the government has grown very big and its finger in every pie. In short, the Fang-Norman model that Chinese are inveterate high performers who run harder and jump higher needs a revisit under prevailing circumstances. - CPI

- http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2051:social-contract-and-the-secret-of-chinese-success-&catid=198:helen-ang&Itemid=156

Fix biased version of History first, MCA tells Education Ministry

By Debra Chong

October 25, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 25 — The MCA today urged the Education Ministry to review and mend what it called an “imbalanced” account of the nation’s history in existing textbooks favouring one race and religious civilisation before making the subject a “must pass” in school from 2013.

“MCA has received feedback (or complaints) from parents that the History textbook syllabus tends to predominantly favour a particular race and religious civilisation, while using derogatory terms of ‘pendatang asing’ [foreign immigrants] on other races,” the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition’s Chinese partner highlighted in a media statement today.

MCA deputy publicity chief Loh Seng Kok also noted that newspapers had reported the subject would soon be taught from the primary level onwards — at present it is a core subject only in secondary schools — and would incorporate Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which touches on the “special position” of the Bumiputeras.

“There are also anxieties of the possibility of misinterpretation where ‘special position’ i.e. a ‘privilege’ maybe taken to read as an ‘automatic right’,” Loh said.

He stressed that the history taught in schools must be objective, rational and impartial to reflect the contributions of the different races and religious groups in the making of multicultural Malaysia.

Loh noted the a five-year review of the school syllabi was scheduled to take place soon and advised the set-up of a multicultural panel to fix the lopsided accounts of the past.

The MCA man said the new syllabi created should be free from influence of any one political group and urged History authors not to “introduce new terms which hint of racial supremacy or inaccurately suggest that vernacular schools impede national unity”.

Loh said such prejudice could be seen in the latest History paper in the PMR, the national assessment examination for Form Three students.

“Any personal conviction held by the authors which can lead to racial resentment and uneasiness must be completely disallowed.

“The Ministry of Education must review and rectify any shortcoming in order to prevent ethnic disharmony in our nation,” Loh stressed, joining a growing chorus criticising the Najib administration’s latest move on education.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also in charge of Education, had recently announced that History would be a “must-pass” subject in the SPM, the national secondary school leaving examination, in addition to Bahasa Malaysia.

The opposition DAP had also demanded Muhyiddin form an independent advisory board to “overhaul” the subject crucial to nation-building efforts.

The national Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE) had earlier today slammed the education minister for caving in to pressure from delegates at the Umno annual assembly over the weekend.

“[PAGE] is of the view that this is yet another politically-motivated decision to appease and please Umno delegates at its general assembly, without any thought given to recent policy decisions that have been made by him on education thus far,” the lobby group’s chief, Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim, said in a media statement.

Najib, dad and Dr M guilty by Perkasa's standards

Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:35

By Teoh El Sen

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his predecessors, including his late father, would also be guilty based on Perkasa's standards on sedition, said Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar.

The PKR leader made the remark when speaking to reporters this afternoon after being grilled by the police over an article she wrote which Malay right wing movement Perkasa deemed seditious.

Perkasa filed a police report against her because the article purportedly questioned the special position of the Malays, which Nurul denied.

The daughter of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim said that Najib's father and second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak ensured that the NEP policies were only temporary and set a 20-year limit.

“Wouldn’t this term limit be in contradiction with Perkasa’s claim of the NEP policy's permanency?” she asked.

Najib, she said, understood the spirit of his father's legacy and was implementing need-based affirmative action in his New Economic Model brainchild.

This, she noted, was a modification of the original NEP and included the liberalisation of several economic sub-sectors.

“Wouldn't this be in opposition to Perkasa's Article 153 argument for economic non-liberalisation?' she asked.

Dr M called NEP a 'temporary crutch'

As for Najib's mentor and former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Nurul said the latter realised the advantages of meritocracy and modified the public univerity admission policy.

She pointed out that in April this year, Mahathir, who is one of Perkasa's biggest supporters, publicly declared that the NEP was a “temporary crutch” for the Malays.

“Wouldn't this be considered as questioning Perkasa's Article 153 interpretation?” she asked.

Nurul also noted that former deputy premier Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman once said that Malays must judge when the special position was no longer needed and described the privilege as a “slur on their abilities”.

“Wouldn't this amount to slurring Perkasa's Article 153 objectives?” she asked.

“If we use Perkasa's standards on sedition, then wouldn't these leaders be as guilty as I am? In my case, guilty for seeking clarification and in their case, of actually changing and modifying the affirmative action policy which is the essence of Artile 153,” she added.

Nurul stessed that she would stand by her views expressed in the article and wanted the people to judge her on this matter.

Also read:

Cops grill Nurul over 'seditious' article

Everyone in M’sia is racist except certain people

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 06:10

By Suresh Kashuerin

COMMENT It’s incredible that one line in Malay in the Namewee video – You tak baca? Siapa buat Malaysia kaya? – (You didn’t read? Who made Malaysia rich?) could cause such uproar among the guardians of Malay pride. Is it a case of “siapa makan cili rasa pedasnya (if the cap fits, wear it). Where were these same guardians of Malay pride when school principal Siti Inshah Mansor abused her Indian and Chinese pupils in outrageous language? There wasn’t even a peep out of them. She wasn’t accused of racism. In fact, she’s even being treated by the Education Ministry with kid gloves despite non-Malay uproar. It wouldn’t be surprising if she’s kicked upstairs soon as one of those modern-day heroines in Malay celluloid.

Then, there was the later case of a principal up north who advised the Chinese pupils of the school to go back to China since AirAsia flights were now every cheap. This was after they were caught eating at the school canteen by the principal during the fasting hours. They were accused, in some kind of warped logic, of not respecting the holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

What their own gnawing hunger has got to do with Ramadan and respect was not explained to the errant students.

Now, there’s a real possibility that this Namewee character will be charged soon with sedition. This emerged after police, who don’t seem to have better things to do with their time, grilled him for three hours. Sedition, put simply, is the act of stirring up rebellion against the state.

Within any context, a racist can be defined as one who denies others their place in the sun. Déjà vu? If one stands up for his or her place in the sun, without denying others their rights, the question of being racist does not arise.

In Malaysia, the definition of racism is the reverse.

Ibrahim Ali and Mahathir Mohamad of Perkasa routinely twist and turn every issue into a racial issue in order to play to the gallery and force the Malays to circle their wagons under one platform, that is, Umno. They are hailed as great heroes standing up for Malay rights.

Their hidden agenda is to mask the “thievery” that goes on under the guise of development. Government procurements and contracts cost twice, thrice and even up to 10 times what it should cost the taxpayer. So, behind the rhetoric and polemics generated by Ibrahim and Mahathir to pull the wool over the people’s eyes, they are in cahoots with their “comrades in crime” who steal the people’s sweat from the public treasury.

When Hindraf Makkal Sakthi kicked up a fuss over the continuing marginalisation of the Indian underclass in the country, they were accused of being racists. The New Economic Policy (1970-1990) pledged, among others, that poverty would be eradicated irrespective of race, religion, class and caste.

Elsewhere, when Hindraf pointed out that Article 153 of the Federal Constitution provides for the legitimate aspirations of the non-Malays and non-Natives, they were accused of questioning Malay special privileges. In fact, Article 153 doesn’t mention special privileges at all.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim himself, ironically fighting on a platform of change and reform, accused Hindraf of being racists and questioning Malay rights and privileges. He was playing to the gallery, like Umno, to project himself as the great protector of the Malays but at other people’s expense.

Hindraf was further accused of stoking racism when it stressed that Article 153 only mentions a reasonable proportion for the Malays and Natives in four specific areas, namely intake into the civil service; intake into government-owned institutions of higher learning and training privileges; government scholarships; and opportunities created by the government to do business.

The implication is that Article 153 is a “sapu bersih” (clean sweep) policy which gives a licence to commit the worst transgressions in the name of race.

Ninety per cent of the staffing strength in the civil service today is Malay, a number which is way above the 60% they represent in the population. When this was pointed out, the Chief Secretary to the federal government explained with a straight face that intake was based purely on merit and that there was no quota system. In short, the Malays and Natives don’t need the protection of Article 153 to secure jobs in the civil service.

Again, the NEP pledged that there would be no identification of race with economic function and place of residence.

It’s like a “heads I win, tails you lose” kind of policy in government. This means certain people are always on the winning side while others are forced to be born losers all the time through no fault of their own. This is not racism, according to the perpetrators.

On the other side of the South China Sea, there has been no Borneonisation of the federal civil service as pledged by the Malaysia Agreement. Almost all the top jobs are held by Malay civil servants from Peninsular Malaysia in the fashion of the British colonialists.

The federal government is also not being shared equally by Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak.

In politics, the local proxies of the ruling elite in Putrajaya are used to prevent the majority community – Dayak in Sarawak and the KadazanDusunMurut in Sabah – from heading the state administrations or being appointed as governors or ambassadors.

At the board level in Petronas, and its numerous subsidiaries, there’s not even one person from Sabah or Sarawak. When queried recently in Parliament, the reply from the federal government is that race is not used by Petronas as a criterion in appointments to the board. If that’s the case, why is that all Petronas board members, and subsidiaries, are from the same community? Not racism!

Everyone in M’sia is racist except certain people

Article 153 of the Federal Constitution - Read and Know your constitution

Fifty three years after Independence, racial issues continued to
monopolise national politics, and championing Malay rights remains the
single dominant ideology of the only ruling power that this independent
nation has known, UMNO. Thousands of speeches have been made championing
this Malay cause, using various terminologies such as Malay 'special
rights', Malay 'special privileges' or simply Malay 'rights', often
invoking the nation's Constitution as the legal back-up. But, of the
thousands of politicians who have used these terminologies, how many have
read through the Constitution to find out what these 'rights' really are?
Very few, perhaps!

Our Constitution is printed in a small booklet that can be bought for
about RM10 in the book shops. Buy one copy and read through to find out
what it says about these 'rights'. After all, these issues have been the
hottest favourites of our politicians ever since our Independence. Aren't
you curious to find out?

If you have read through the Constitution to look for an answer to these
Malay 'rights', perhaps the first thing that has struck you is that,
familiar terminologies such as Malay 'special rights', Malay 'special
privileges' or Malay 'rights' are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
Instead, we only find the term 'the special position of the Malays', which
appears twice, in Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 153, which is
titled 'Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc, for
Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'.

Anyone who has read through Article 153 might be surprised to discover
that the provisions favouring Malays are in fact quite moderate, and
certainly no way as stretched out in intensity and scope as our
politicians would want us to believe. Similarly, those provisions
protecting the non-Malays as a counter-balance to the special position of
the Malays under this Article are also surprisingly quite well conceived
and fair. In fact, when read in conjunction with Article 8 (Equality) and
Article 136 (Impartial treatment of Federal employees), Article 153 cannot
be construed as having significantly violated the egalitarian principles
of our Constitution, contrary to common perception.

Since the egalitarian nature of our Constitution is largely intact, in
spite of the presence of Article 153, then why should it have acquired
such an adverse reputation as the legal root of all kinds of racial
inequalities in this country?

Answer: the fault is not with our Constitution, but with our politicians
twisting, misinterpreting and abusing it.

It is perhaps high time we get to the bottom of Article 153.

Clause (1) of Article 153 states: 'It shall be the responsibility of the
Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and
the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the
provisions of this Article'.

So, the first understanding that we must have on Article 153 is that it is
meant to protect the interests of not only the Malays, but also those of
the non-Malays.

Next, note the deliberate use of the words 'safeguard' and 'special
position' (instead of 'special rights' or 'special privileges'). The
choice of these words must be understood in the historical context of the
drafting of this Constitution half a century ago when Malays were
economically and educationally backward in relation to other races. It was
thought fit and proper then that there must be 'safeguards' to protect the
Malays from being swarmed over by other races. Hence, the creation of the
'special position' of the Malays, which was obviously intended for
defensive purpose: to protect for survival. The impeccable avoidance of
using words like 'rights' and 'privileges', and the choice of the word
'safeguard' were clearly calculated to reflect its defensive nature. Under
that historical context, the provision of the special position of the
Malays in the Constitution certainly could not be interpreted to mean the
endowment of racial privileges to create a privileged class of
citizenship.

Clause (2) says that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall safeguard the special
position of the Malays by reserving positions 'of such proportion as he
may deem reasonable' in a) the public service b) educational facilities
and c) business licenses.

Clauses (3) & (6) say that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, for purpose of
fulfilling Clause (2), give general directions to the relevant
authorities, which shall then duly comply.

There is a separate clause covering the allocation of seats in tertiary
education - Clause (8A). It says that where there are insufficient places
for any particular course of study, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may give
directions for the 'reservation of such proportion of such places for
Malays as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority
shall duly comply with the directions.'

As for the protection of non-Malays against possible encroachment of their
existing interests, there are several provisions under different clauses
in this Article, prohibiting the deprivation of the existing facilities
enjoyed by them, whether in public service, education or trading licenses.
Of these protective clauses, Clauses (5) and (9) are particularly
significant.

Clause (5) consists of one sentence, which reads: 'This Article does not
derogate from the provisions of Article 136'.

Article 136 also consists of one sentence, which reads: 'All persons of
whatever race in the same grade in the service of the Federation shall,
subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated
impartially.'

Clause (9) consists of one sentence, which reads: 'Nothing in this Article
shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the
purpose of reservations for Malays.'

Reading Article 153 will not be complete without reading Article 89
(Equality). I will quote the more significant Clauses (1) and (2) of this
Article in full, as follows:

Clause (1) states: 'All persons are equal before the law and entitled to
the equal protection of the law.'

Clause (2) states: 'Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution,
there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of
religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment
to any office or employment under a public authority or in the
administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or
disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade,
business, profession, vocation or employment.'

Reading through these Articles of the Constitution, we are able to draw
the following conclusions:

1. The present clamour for Malay 'special rights' as sacrosanct racial
privileges of a privileged race, especially under the ideological ambit of
Ketuanan Melayu (Malay the master race), is in conflict with the letters
and spirit of the Constitution.

2. The special position of the Malays as prescribed under Article 153 of
the Constitution is limited in scope to only the reservation of reasonable
quotas in these 3 sectors: public services, educational places and
business licenses. Hence, the present rampant racial discriminations
practiced on almost every facet of our national life are mostly violations
of the Constitution. Examples of these violations are:
a) Racial discrimination in the appointment and promotion of employees in
publicly funded bodies, resulting in these becoming almost mono-raced
bodies (particular so in their top strata). These bodies include: the
civil service, police, army and various semi and quasi government
agencies.

b) Barring of non-Malays from tenders and contracts controlled directly or
indirectly by the government.

c) Imposition of compulsory price discounts and quotas in favour of Malays
in housing projects.

d) Imposition of compulsory share quota for Malays in non-Malay companies.

e) Blanket barring of non-Malays to publicly funded academic institutions
(that should include the UITM, which is the subject of debate in
Parliament referred to earlier in this article).

f) Completely lop-sided allocation of scholarships and seats of learning
in clearly unreasonable proportions that reflect racial discriminations.

3) Our Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship and all
citizens are equal before the law. The presence of Article 153 does not
alter this fact, as it is meant only to protect the Malays from being
'squeezed' by other races by allowing the reservation of reasonable quotas
on certain sectors of national life. However, this Constitution has now
been hijacked through decades of hegemony of political power by the ruling
party to result in the virtual monopoly of the public sector by a single
race. The ensuing racism, corruption and corrosion of integrity of our
democratic institutions have brought serious retrogression to our
nation-building process in terms of national unity, discipline, morality
and competitiveness of our people.

4) At this critical juncture, when nations in this region and around the
world are urgently restructuring and shaping up to cope with
globalization, our nation stagnates in a cesspool that has been created
through decades of misrule. Unless urgent reforms are carried out,
beginning with the dismantling of the anachronistic racial superstructure,
we are in for serious troubles in the days ahead.

The social contract in context – Art Harun

MARCH 31 – The in thing nowadays seems to be the phrase “social contract”. Every Tom Dick, hairy or otherwise, seems to be so well versed with this subject.

You make a bit of noise about the Federal Constitution and you would be referred to the “social contract”. You question a teeny wee bit about equality and you would surely be referred to the “social contract”.

I think the next time somebody cuts you off in a traffic jam, you should shout “social contract!” at that socially inept moron.

The latest outburst on the social contract had to of course come from Hishamuddin Hussein, the newly-minted Umno vice president. In his last speech as the Umno Youth Chief – of course, it was also a speech designed to garner votes for his VP-ship – Hishamuddin branded those who question the social contract as “arrogant”.

In his words: “Mereka begitu angkuh, sombong dan bongkak mempersoalkan kontrak social dan mempertikai hak kedudukan orang Melayu dan kaum Bumiputera. Kontrak sosial telah sengaja disalah tafsir dan dijadikan tajuk untuk menyemarakkan api perkauman.”

Before we talk of something important and of far reaching consequence, we should know what we are talking about. We should not just blabber aimlessly and throw about allegations and accusations as if it is our God given right to belittle other people.

What is this creature called the “social contract”? Is there such a thing? Is it like any other contract? Must it be signed? And stamped? If so, who signed it? Before that, who drafted it? What are the terms and conditions? Can they be changed? What if it is breached? What are the consequences of such breach? Does anybody know? Allow me to explain this concept.

Human Beings and Their Natural Rights

Early philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle postulated the existence of natural justice or natural rights. These concepts were premised on the theory that human beings were born with and naturally follow a set of “natural” morality and behavioural patterns which are independent of human made regulations.

The concepts of “good” and “evil” for example, are inherent in every human being. This being the case, the people’s grasp of and adherence to such “natural rules” are independent of human made regulations and their enforcement.

If we accept the postulations that human beings are born with a set of natural behavioural patterns, than we must also accept the fact that human beings are also entitled to several basic rights.

These are rights so fundamental to the existence of a human being that the denial or transgression of such rights would render his or her existence as a human being almost meaningless. The most basic of these rights are rights which are universal to every human being, regardless of creed and breed, of cultures and upbringing, of religion and school.

The advent of civilisations had seen humans transformed from being individualistic and stateless animals into socio-politico creatures. Cities were built and societies developed. Governments and states were born.

The rise of the states and the ensuing assumption of power by the states and their governments would see the surrender of certain individual rights to the states and governments for the greater good of the society in general.

read more here

The Bastardisation of the ‘Social Contract’ (Part 2)

APRIL 22 — Even at the outset of independence, there were people who raised concerns on the perceived inequality between the Malays and the non-Malays. The question of whether the respective leaders of the communities were truly representing the community was also raised. Graham Page raised that point:

“It appears that the Reid Commission took one single Indian party as speaking for the Indians as a whole, the Malayan Indian Congress, which had sunk its identity in the Alliance Party. I do not think the Malayan Indian Congress spoke for all, or even perhaps a majority, of Indians, certainly not the business, professional and artisan class of Indian, in Malaya. There were many other Malayan Indian associations which gave evidence before the Commission, but the Commission did not seem to take account of their views, or to pay very much attention to them.”

Arthur Creech Jones MP noted:

“It may be, and I believe it to be the case, that there are certain sections of opinion in Malaya who are not altogether happy. The fact that most hon. Members have received representations from the Malayan Party and the Pan-Malayan Federation indicates that, certainly so far as the Settlements are concerned, there is still some anxiety about what is likely to happen when the Constitution becomes effective.”

For the Alliance, an Alliance Committee was formed to negotiate with the Reid Commission. It consisted of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Ismail, Tun HS Lee, Tun Leong Yew Loh, Tun Ong Yoke Lin, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun Lim Chong Eu and Tun VT Sambanthan.

Be that as it may, the Constitution was quite a massive achievement in itself as the task of balancing the rights and demands of various communities was not an easy one to fulfil. The fact that the non-Malays had to also compromise and tolerate the demands of the Malays — as opposed to the supposed absolute sacrifice by the Malays alone — was also recognised as Arthur Creech Jones, MP for Wakefield noted:

“A number of Members drew attention to the fact that in the working of this Constitution a great deal of tolerance will be required by the Chinese population, and, possibly, by other minorities, for undoubtedly important concessions are made to the Malays with regard to religion, language, land and the public services; but one can only hope that by the practice of co-operation an answer can be found to any deficiencies or defects in the Constitution as it is now presented to us.”

It is therefore clear that the compromise entailed “sacrifices” on the part of all the major communities as opposed to the Malays alone. Every major community managed to have some of their demands met while some others were sacrificed for the sake of achieving and maintaining a balanced society.

read more here

The Bastardisation of the ‘Social Contract’ (Part 1)

APRIL 20 — In “The Social Contract — correcting the misconceptions”, I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.

I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.

A social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.

It also seeks to rationalise why we would then agree to surrender our liberty, freedom and the ability to do whatever we like to the State when we, the human beings, were all born free and by our nature do not like to be restricted and constrained.

The philosophers surmised that we do so because we by nature are social creatures. We do so because we want to live together as a society. Furthermore, we do so because the State promises us some benefits. In fact we expect the State to give us the benefits that we want. That is why we surrender or agree to surrender some of our freedom, liberty and free will to the State.

That is why, in theory, we do what we do.

However, it is not a one way or unilateral agreement. There is supposed to be an exchange of promises between us, the people, and the State. For example, we promise not to steal and if we steal we promise to abide by the law which would send us to prison. In return, the State promises to protect our property from being stolen by other people.

That is the social contract as a legal theory.

read more here

The Federal Constitution.

Know your Rights

A bunch of tech-savvy law students are using Facebook, Twitter and other social networking tools on the Internet to raise awareness about the Federal Constitution.

The ten law students have joined the Bar Council's constitutional law committee (ConstiLC) led by lawyer Edmund Bon, and a number of journalists, for its My Constitution Campaign.

Launched last October, the campaign aims at 'empowering the rakyat and creating greater awareness of the Federal Constitution' through advertisements, booklets and a host of other awareness-raising and interest-building programmes.

While some of the students are involved in the task of 'translating' parts of the constitution and shedding it of its more cryptic legal jargon to be incorporated into the pocket-sized 'Rakyat Guides' (RG) planned for publication, some have been tasked with taking their activism online and keeping the discussions alive.

Interviewed by Malaysiakini, fourth year student Yip Xiaoheng said he is among those in charge of updating the campaign's official website.

“We have people on duty to upload articles to make sure that the website is active, and we have a team called the 'activators' to move the campaign online,” he said.

In addition, the students are also kept busy keeping discussions alive on the campaign's Facebook, twitting live updates of their events through Twitter, and uploading videos onto the campaign's Youtube page.

With currently 4,800 fans in its Facebook, the activators are not slowing down. They are even conducting workshops about their campaign in colleges all over the Klang Valley.

“We try to make the campaign as interesting as possible so that people will participate and understand the importance of the constitution to them,” 21-year-old student Joshua Tay said.

Dr M: Don't question citizens' status Hello Ibrahim Ali , your father talking so don't talk cock !	Share
Wednesday, 03 February 2010 13:24
PETALING JAYA - Do not question the citizenship of any Malaysian as the Federal constitution also provides the right to citizenship to the non-Malays, said former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad. “That should not be questioned. We cannot banish our citizens now. "The Constitution provides that you cannot take away citizenships,” he said, when asked his comments on the alleged racist remarks made by special officer to the Prime Minister, Nasir Safar, during a seminar in Malacca. Nasir allegedly said Indian and Chinese Malaysians were 'immigrants' when referring to their feedback on government education policies and he allegedly threatened to revoke their citizenship. 'We cannot banish citizens' Mahathir told reporters after opening the Malaysian Liver Foundation building at Ara Damansara here on Wednesday: .“This is a very bad statement to make. Even if it’s true, we don’t say things like that. "These people have been here all these years. They are in fact the descendants of the people who came here. They have not just arrived." He said Malaysian citizens would remain citizens until they declare themselves otherwise, such as when they take up the citizenship of another country. Mahathir added: “In some countries, you can banish your own citizens, throw them into an island or somewhere; but here, we cannot do that. "Once they are citizens, they will always be citizens until they themselves declare that they are not." - Malaysian Mirror