Deconstructing the social contract ‘The Nutgraph By Elizabeth Looi and Khairil Anhar | 24 October 2008 | ‘THE recent statement released by the Conference of Rulers on the social contract has ‘generated much discussion, Among others, the statement emphasised the provisions in the Federal Constitution that make up the social contract, The rulers also announced that “it is not proper to dispute and question this social contract, and more so t0 subject it to a review or change because itis the primary basis of the formation of Malaysia.” Although the rulers referred to Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which they said encompasses the protection for all ethnic groups, many still question the real definition of the social contract. Some see it as a mutual agreement among our founding leaders in oder to achieve independence, while others feel itis a concept that protects the rights and privileges of the Malays in the Constitution,(Article 153 of the Federal Constitution grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong responsibility for safeguarding the special position of the Malays and other indigenous peoples of Malaysia, and the legitimate interests of all the other communities. It specifies how the Agong may protect the interest of these groups by establishing quotas for entry into the civil service, public scholarships and public education.) But academician Dr Mavis Puthucheary says nobody knows the real definition of the social contract. It is sometimes used to refer to “the inter-ethnic bargain” by the leaders of the parties in the Alliance coalition; but at other times, it is used to refer to Article 153. “Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of a social contract. We need to challenge those who link the notion of a social contract with Article 153 in order to justify the symbolic affirmation of ketuanan Melayu,” she tells The Nut Graph Puthucheary feels the rulers merely defend the social contract without attempting to define it. “I would say they have defined it in exactly the same way that Umno politicians have chosen to” — that is, linking it with Article 153, which allows those in power to define it according to their preference, The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Courtesy of Merdeka Review)(corrected)Puthucheary, a political scientist and former lecturer at Universiti Malaya’s Economics Faculty, says that by doing this, citizens are denied the right to challenge such definition, and risk being charged under the sedition laws. Explaining the historical context of the contract, Puthucheary says the term was “first used in the Malaysian context in the 1980s by Umno politicians”. “It was soon picked up by other politicians, both in Umno and the MCA, but with different meanings and in different contexts.” Given the current situation, she says, “it is significant that the social contract is an Umno invention to serve an Umno agenda”. “This means that it can be defined in a way that gives it a strong ethnic edge.” No physical contract Puthucheary is not the only one who is concemed about the linking of the social contract to Article 153. Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali says he does not know when and how the term “social contract” first emerged; but as far as he knows, it was not used by those who formulated the Federal Constitution, “The various issues in the Constitution related to the ‘social contract” were agreed upon only by leaders in the Alliance then, and did not involve consultations with other parties and groups,” he says, adding that the Malay rulers did not define the social contract in their recent statement, and merely stressed that Article 153 was the product of many discussions, , what So, is there really something called the social contract in the Constitution? If exactly is it? Lawyer Shaikh Saleem says there was no real, physical “social contract”, but there is an idea or accepted understanding based on the special position of the Malays in the Constitution, “Herein also lies the problem,” he says. “The scope is being continuously extended that it even prevents any party commenting on the injustices and abuses that are being perpetrated under the guise of ‘enforcing’ this social contract.” Universiti Teknologi Mara’s professor of law Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi defines the social contract as the practice of give-and-take and tolerance among Malaysians, as compared with its definition in political science, which is about the relationship between the government and the people.