Here comes Episode 4 of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan, in which Nurul Izzah and David Teoh has joined the bandwagon. Together with Fathi Aris Omar, Ong Boon Keong, Rajan Rishyakaran, Zulhabri Supian, Tauke Fooji, Emmanuel Joseph, Sharizal Sharaani and Politics 101, they tell Shin the relevance of the much talked about “Social Contract” in our society today.

Shin : Social Contract which was created prior to independence has become the buzzword in town again. Unfortunately most of them wish to interpret it according to own preferences, for instance, Umno emphasis on the Special Malay Positions, while DAP emphasis on Malaysia being a secular state. In your opinion, is this Social Contract going to be relevant forever ? Would the thoughts of future generations be different ? If yes, which way ?

Fathi Aris : Frankly speaking, my friend, I don’t like at all the way you say and put the issue as such: “Unfortunately most of them wish to interpret it according to [their] own preferences, …”

What do you expect them to do — to scream as loud as possible in one voice, one chorus, “Yessssss”? It is politics, people have different (or, diverse) interests, values, jugdments, ideals and analyses.

We prefer democracy and freedom (over authoritarianism, dictatorship or undemocratic control) not because we want unity or to eliminate differences.

We want to exercise a more open, democratic, peaceful, equal and intelligent debates over our differences. We would like to appreciate the diversity and plurality of voices. We want to form consensus via the deliberative or discursive democracy.

It is an ongoing process, we don’t limit the discourse and criticism even after some agreement (or, consensus) is achieved. Previous generation agreement is not conclusive; it must be subjected to criticism on our current understanding and thinking.

We want democracy, independence (Merdeka) and freedom because we want to challenge the dominant (so that the dominant, the majority, can not and should not do whatever their whims and fancy are). We want our voices of concern heard, we want to say something without being seen as anti- the State, anti-Government or anti-majority.

The State, Government, majority, policy, tradition, culture, ulama, guidelines, social contract, knowledge or religion — so what? There is nothing holy in them, all is human creation to suit certain needs (especially the dominant ones, the winner’s, the majority’s) in certain spatial-temporal context.

Shin : In fact, by phrasing my question that way, all I wanted to emphasis is, they are telling us to stick to Social Contract, while they themselves have problem in accepting part of it. For example, Umnois shying away from upholding the agreement on secular state. However, by all means, I don’t mean they cannot have dispute.

Fathi : Social contract is totally relevant at any given time. The contract is another word or concept of setting fair ‘rules of the game.’ Let eveybody contest in the game with sense of justice and fairness. Life is competitive; politics is a competition. Social contract lets everybody live and play in this game with sense of justice and fairness.

The thoughts of future generations? Let us struggle to achieve and shape it. I don’t believe in miracle and prediction. We may discuss it, better, at another forum. Sometimes it seems optimistic, sometimes not. So, I repeat, let us struggle to achieve and shape generations to come. We have to prepare more fertile ground so that our seeds will be more democratic.

BK : Actually the Social Contract was not seen to be lasting for ever -many references are available to prove this point eg the Reid Report. It should be regularly reviewed -but unfortunately the government never do it. So it open the contract to different interpretations -and abuses eg by UMNO Youth to justify perpetuating special treatments. Future generations will have different opinions -but the recipients of benefits may resist giving up the benefits. And in a country where ethnic politics is strong it will be even more difficult to do so. But perpetuation of such special treatment will be problematic for the competitiveness of the recipients, besides open to abuse by ethnic elites.

Rajan : he constitution was hashed out in a hurry by Lord Reid - hardly a local - so that they would get rid of the Malayan Union faster in 1948. If anything, it was meant as a temporary compromise in 1948 before our eventual independence where we would get to write another constitution if we liked to.

Habri : Sama ada ia akan bertahan lama atau tidak, ia amat bergantung kepada kita semua rakyat Malaysia. Kontrak sosial yang ada sehingga hari ini digubal menurut konteks waktu itu yakni sebelum merdeka (tujuan untuk mencapai kemerdekaan) yang mana berlaku proses bargaining sehingga lahirnya kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu sebagai tukar ganti kerakyatan jus soli dan sebagainya dan kontrak ini bukanlah sesuatu yang suci dan boleh digubal dan dinilai semula jika rakyat mengkehendakinya.

Sama ada generasi akan datang akan memilih untuk menilai semula kontrak ini tidaklah mahir untuk saya ramalkan. Apa yang lebih penting proses dialog dan diskusi ilmiah tentang hal ini harus ditingkatkan dan dilakukan secara jujur dan di dalam proses menilai semula jangan dilupa dua prinsip utama yang wajib menjadi teras iaitu prinsip kebebasan dan keadilan.

Fooji : If we are a progressive nation, the constitution should be reviewed dynamically from time to time, to see if it is still relevant to the needs of the nation. It is unfortunately true the constitution has given provision to the Malay Positions, but it has also stated that it is a secular state. Certain parties are doing selective adherence to the constitution. The current education system and with the invasion of racial politics by UMNO and MCA into the minds of our youth, it is not surprising if our future generations have the same backward communal thinking. Just look at UMNO Youth and you’ll know what I mean.

Emmanuel : The Social Contract upon which Malaysia was founded upon will eventually be a non issue unless we choose to make it one.Even the US’ founding fathers’ ideals became a point to ponder recently,with the whole God and state issue.On whether or not future minds think differently, I will not be able to answer you, but only say this- we shape their minds.So if we feed them poison, they will be poisonous.

Sharizal : I think everyone in Malaysia agrees that the Social Contract won’t be relevant forever. The only difference is their level of readiness to part with the social contract.

Poli : The social contract is an unofficial understanding among our forefathers on the necessity of give-and-take among the various communities and along what path the country should proceed along the road to maturity. The phrase “social contract” only became a buzzword when the DAP objected to Mahathir declaring the country was already an Islamic State. The DAP keeps harping on the fact that we should defend the 1957 constitution. I don’t think that’s a very good idea because the original constitution was flawed in many ways and it’s because these flaws were exploited by, first, The Alliance, and now the BN, that there is still distrust among Malaysians.

Nurul Izzah : It is a buzz word in the sense that it binds the fabric of society together. I cannot predict what the future generation will decide on but I will decide on a more meaningful, equitable meaning of the social contract which basically destroys any grandeur thoughts on any race being superior to the other.

David Teoh : Martin Luther King said “I have a dream, that one day my four little children will live in a world where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”. The social contract will eventually collapse if the race UMNO intends to protect as a whole does not develop the richness in character.