Who needs a social contract?

Who needs such a social contract? Why should there be one 52 years after our nation attained independence? You mean, after all these years of Malaysian citizens living together and co-developing this blessed land, we still need a social contract? Whatever for? Because we don’t trust one another? We need something akin to a pre-nuptial contract? Hey, brother, the wedding took place 52 years ago!

By now, we should have settled in nicely to the marriage, come to understand one another better, respect one another’s rights and beliefs, feel secure in the partnership. And most of all, not take each other for granted.

I don’t think there ever was a nuptial agreement … er, social contract. Our founding fathers discussed the terms of agreement before independence could be achieved and most of that was incorporated into the Constitution. It is only in recent times, when certain parties began to feel a sense of insecurity in the face of perceived contentious challenges, that this idea of a social contract has been touted.

To me, it is merely a ploy to remind certain groups that they should know their place and therefore not make any demands. Thus, to give attention to such a ploy and go through the rigmarole of working out a social contract would be to engage in a messy – and unnecessary – exercise.

Our energy would be better channelled towards focusing on what needs to be done today. What is most pressing is the here and now. Letters in the English-language newspapers lament that there are now reports of racism every day in the press. Some call out to Malaysians to “embrace our differences”, “make co-existence our guiding light”, “uphold unity at all times”. Why are we still saying these after 52 years?

Unfortunately, racism has, in fact, escalated since the outcome of the last general election. Now, more than ever, we need to address the race-baiting that goes on in the Malay mainstream media, the strategies that aim to threaten, frighten and divide.

Ironically, these media organisations are owned and controlled by the party that is led by the very man behind the 1Malaysia slogan. The messages sent out by these media organisations and the messages he himself is sending out are at odds with each other. Whom are we to listen to?

This is at the core of our problem. It is the kind of thing that provokes demonstrations like the one in Shah Alam last week in which the protesters publicly spat at and kicked a cow’s head to show their contempt for the Hindu religion. And all this witnessed by policemen who did nothing to stop what was apparently a seditious act.

All this points to 2Malaysias. The home minister’s meeting with the cow-head protesters, and saying they could not be blamed as they had been victimised and needed to voice their feelings – affirms that divide. But Malaysians today are surely aware of that.

At a time when the prime minister is trying hard to win non-Malay hearts and minds with his 1Malaysia slogan, the cow-head incident would have set his efforts back.  Hindraf will surely be
mobilised more purposefully and Hindus will rally behind it.

But why are contradictory signals being sent out by the ruling party? In the past few months, a senior government leader has called the opposition leader a traitor to the Malay race; defended an article in the Malay press calling on the Malays to stop being cowards and rise up; and asserted that Umno would fight to the last drop of blood to protect Malay rights.