We all grieve for a Malaysia that could be!

ARCHIVES 2010

By admin-s On Oct 22, 2010

By romerz

In his presidential address to the 61st UMNO general assembly, a lot of things said by PM Najib could be argued against simply on the basis of logic, history, proper understanding of Malaysia’s federal constitution, democracy and a host of other things. But I will not argue against Najib’s fallacious arguments because I’m tired of warped views and I believe my readers are of a higher mentality than those he was addressing.

Instead I will focus on only one thing he mentioned in the speech. Najib said “the Malays were hurt when the social contract agreed upon by the forefathers of various races who had agreed to make sacrifices to gain the independence, was now being questioned.”

In the first place I know of no such social contract as after 53 years of independence, no one can show me a written copy of this contract nor explain to me what was it that was agreed upon specifically by our forefathers. Even assuming that such an agreement exists (possibly and perhaps reached privately by the leaders of UMNO, MCA and MIC then, which may explain why we know so little of this often touted social contract), hadn’t this preceding social contract been documented and articulated in the Constitution of Malaya 1957?

In essence, isn’t Najib implying that the non-Malay citizens of Malaysia reneged on an agreement made by our forefathers by questioning certain provisions of the federal constitution? But what is it that we are questioning of the constitution? From the context of Najib’s speech, it would seem to refer to article 153 of the constitution. But he seems to forget that article 153 only allowed four areas of discriminatory practices when the rest of the constitution is about equality and freedom for all Malaysians of whatever ethnicity and religious inclinations.

Frankly, I do not think any rational, fair thinking and peace loving non-Malay Malaysians would dispute the original intent of the constitution. It is by this paramount piece of document (nor the inclusion of article 153 into the constitution), which we cling on to, that we hope can safeguard our existence.

All we question is how far article 153 had been taken away from its original intent by UMNO for political self-interests. Are these questions an attack on the Malay race which warrants threats of reprisal? How can Najib say that non-Malays intentionally hurt the Malays simply by asking for the “social contract” vis-a-vis the federal constitution be restored to its original intent?

If the Malays had been hurt, what about the non-Malays being cheated by a changing constitution, eroding at our constitutionally guaranteed rights, to suit those who had control over it for 50 years? If there existed a social contract (which required sacrifices as Najib put it), why is UMNO now reneging on an agreement made by his father and forefathers as well (by using the constitution above what it was originally intended)?

After the riots of 1969, the NEP was formulated by Najib’s own father. When Tun Razak first put forward the the intent and concept of NEP to parliament, he had to convince MCA and MIC and even the opposition to go along with affirmative action with the objective of bringing all Malaysians on par economically which hopefully will prevent another 1969 from happening again. This I do not dispute that it was needed then and even now. Today a large segment of Malaysian society still needs affirmative action but wouldn’t it be better if it was based on needs?

Documented history (parliament hansard) tells us compromises were made, promises declared and at the end of the day, most Malaysians of whatever ethnicity then allowed it to happen through an act of parliament.

But are these promises being kept today? What was supposed to help poor Malaysians then had now become a tool to garner support for UMNO by playing one race against another so is it any wonder that we question how article 153 had been used by our ruling elites?

So who is grieved more?