The ‘social contract’ — Concerned Scholars
by Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr Azmi Sharom, Dr Toh Kin Woon and Dr Wan Zawawi Ibrahim
October 27, 2010
We would like to provide some feedback to the speech made by Prime Minister Najib Razak on 21 October 2010 to the Umno general assembly in which he gave the impression that there is a ‘social contract’ whose terms are set in stone. He also told the delegates that no Malaysian should question it.
It is necessary to note that there is a range of views amongst us on the social contract issue and on how to respond to the Prime Minister’s advice.
One colleague has argued that it is not yet time for an “organized effort” of civil society to make such a statement as it may provoke negative reactions that may be harmful to our common pursuit of a fair and united nation.
Another has expressed concern that we must not play into the hands of politicians who will mobilize Malay support by trying to show that the non-Malays have reneged on their so-called promise to accept Malay political superiority in exchange for citizenship.
A third colleague has noted that there is really no need to contest what is ‘written’ in the social contract. Rather, we should question where a copy of the social contract is to be found so we can verify and discuss its contents and meaning.
Despite our different points of view, we are in agreement on three key points.
* It is important for Malaysians not to be gagged into silence on what is perhaps the most contentious issue standing in the way of better inter-communal relations in the country. The quicker we can
reach consensus on what the social contract means — not only in terms of what was agreed by the nation’s early leaders in the past but also, more importantly, on how this agreement should be understood by Malaysians today — the less divided and more hopeful will be our future.
* For us to reach this consensus, it is important to have the facts on what took place during that critical period of our history fully disclosed and available for public discussion. In particular, we will need to have the relevant reports of the Reid Commission so that Malaysians have the opportunity to read and understand the logic and wisdom of our early leaders and do not have to depend on politically skewed interpretations of what is supposed to comprise any agreement or social contract for that period.
* At the same time it is necessary for constitutional and legal experts, historians and other scholars to lend their expertise to the public understanding. Professional organizations such as the Bar Council, the Malaysian Social Science Association, and other bodies should organize talks, seminars and forums to ensure that the best minds on the subject can have their opinions disseminated to the public.
We believe that the Malaysian public has reached a level of political maturity so that we can have a rational and public debate on the way forward in terms of any inter-communal accord or understanding arrived at, and on what needs to be honoured and respected. For that reason, we are opposed to the position of Umno and MCA which is tantamount to decreeing a ban on public discussion of the issue.
The danger is that in not debating the issue openly — which is what the two main BN parties seem to be driving at — there is a real danger not only of driving that debate underground but also of reinforcing or entrenching ethnocentric interpretations that do not reflect the true intent of the constitutional agreement reached more than 50 years ago.
* Issued and signed by Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr Azmi Sharom, Dr Toh Kin Woon and Dr Wan Zawawi Ibrahim.
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2010/10/27/the-%E2%80%98social-contract%E2%80%99-%E2%80%94-concerned-scholars/
首相纳吉在巫统大会上警告各界勿再质疑社会契约及联邦宪法，避免挑起种族冲突的说法，引起5名著名学者挺身驳斥，并强调“社会契约”问题必须能够公开讨论，而且大马人民已拥有成熟政治思维来讨论相关的课题。
“我们相信，马来西亚人的政治思维已足够成熟，可以理性和公开地讨论国家如何迈进的课题，达致种族的协议和理解，同时确认什么是必须被尊崇和遵守的。”
“基于这样的理由，我们反对巫统和马华的立场，因为它们等同给相关议题的公开讨论发出了禁令。”
这5名学者是林德义、玛维斯普都哲里（Mavis Puthucheary）、阿兹米沙隆（Azmi Sharom）、杜乾焕和万查瓦威（Wan Zawawi Ibrahim ）。
禁止讨论和种族诠释才危险
他们今天发表联名文告强调，危险不在于公开讨论相关议题；巫统和国阵的的推论是不正确的。
相反地，真正的危险在于禁止辩论，以及强化和保护那些对宪法作出种族中心诠释，违反制宪协议原初和真正用意的做法。
越快达共识未来就越有希望
5名学者也指出，他们达致三个关键的共同意见。首先，马来西亚人绝不能够被噤声，禁止讨论能够改善种族关系，但却最具有争议的课题。
“我们对社会契约的意义，越快达致共识，则我们的未来就会更少分歧，和更多的希望。社会契约不仅是过去国家领袖们所同意的事情，更重要的是，今天的马来西亚人如何看待这些协议。”
促政府公开各建国关键文件
其次，他们强调为了达到共识，建国关键时期的历史必须获得充分理解，同时允许公众进行讨论。
他们举例说明，政府尤其应该公布当初李特宪制委员会（Reid Commission）所撰写的相关报告。
他们解释，这样做可以让大马人有机会直接认识和理解国家建国领袖的“逻辑和智慧”，而无需依赖“有政治意图的诠释”。
专家学者致力提高公众认识
第三，这些学者也认为，宪法和法律专家、历史学者和其他学者应该善用他们的专才以提升公众对宪法的认识。
他们建议，律师公会、大马社会科学协会和其他团体应该广泛举办讲座论坛，邀请上述的专才主讲，让公众能够听到他们宝贵的意见。
纳吉：或挑起种族原始本能
NONE有鉴于国内最近再掀起公民权及土著特别地位的争论，首相兼巫统主席纳吉在10月21日的巫统大会上警告各界，勿再质疑社会契约及联邦宪法，以免挑起“种族原始本能”，上演20世纪欧洲大陆及西亚的种族大清洗屠杀事件。
纳吉表示，由于马来人当初为了争取国家独立，不惜做出巨大牺牲，甘愿与其他种族分享马来土地，若再有人质疑社会契约，将会让马来人“很受伤”。
他接着说明，非马来人为了取得公民权，在协定社会契约时，早已接受宪法赋予的马来人特权，而从那时起，马来西亚国民在根本的性质上就并非平等，反之，为了国家长远利益而顺应现实。
如此一来，纳吉促请所有人停止这种争辩，以免进一步激起日益高涨的种族情绪。
针对纳吉这种论调，马华总会长蔡细历回应说，社会契约并非完全不能被讨论，唯须低调闭门进行，以确保政府公平执行这项原则。
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/146556
