[ad_1]
This is very important today because Anwar Ibrahim also abides by this “mythical” social contract.
Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr Azmi Sharom, Dr Toh Kin Woon and Dr Wan Zawawi Ibrahim 27 October 2010
The true intention of the Constitution was realized at independence in 1957
Viewpoint…
We would like to offer some feedback on Prime Minister Najib Razak’s speech at the UMNO General Assembly on 21 October 2010, in which he gave the impression that there is a “social contract” whose terms are set in stone.
He also told delegates that no Malaysian should question this.
It is important to point out that there is a range of views among us on the question of the social contract and how to respond to the Prime Minister’s proposals.
The first opinion…
One colleague argued that now was not the time for an “organized effort” by civil society to make such a statement, as it could provoke negative reactions and undermine our common pursuit of a just and united nation.
Second opinion…
Another expressed concern that we must not fall into the trap of politicians who would try to mobilise Malay support by showing that non-Malays have reneged on their alleged promise to accept Malay political superiority in exchange for citizenship.
The third opinion…
A third colleague pointed out that we don’t really need to question what is “written” in the social contract. Instead, we should question where a copy of the social contract is so that we can verify and discuss its content and implications.
Three key points…
Despite our differences in perspective, we agree on three key points.
* It is important for Malaysians not to remain silent on what is perhaps the most controversial issue hindering the country’s efforts to improve inter-community relations.
The sooner we agree on the meaning of the social contract — not just what the nation’s early leaders agreed to in the past, but more importantly, how Malaysians today should understand that agreement — the less divisive and more hopeful our future will be;
* In order to reach a consensus, we must fully disclose the facts of what happened during that critical period in history and engage the public in discussion. In particular, we need access to 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 without having to rely on politically distorted interpretations of the content of any agreement or protocol.
The social contract of the period; and
*Constitutional and legal experts, historians and other scholars are also needed to provide expertise so that the public can understand.
Professional bodies such as the Bar Council, Malaysian Social Sciences Association and others should organise lectures, seminars and forums to ensure that the best minds on the subject are able to disseminate their views to the public.
There is no ban…
We believe that the political maturity of the Malaysian public has reached a level where we can have a rational and open debate on where any inter-ethnic agreement or understanding should go and what needs to be respected and honoured. We therefore oppose the stance of UMNO and MCA as it is tantamount to an order to ban public discussion of the issue.
The danger is that if the issue is not debated openly – and this seems to be what the two main parties in the Barisan Nasional party are seeking – there is a risk not only that the debate will go underground, but it may also reinforce or entrench ethnocentric interpretations that are inconsistent with 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.
[ad_2]
Source link
