Our predecessors had one clear goal when fighting for Independence - the right to self-determination - To free themselves from the absolute dictates of others and strive to be able to determine their own fate and destiny in this land.
It was a struggle to be free from oppression, exploitation, unfair treatments and injustices under the colonial rule.
Newspapers, magazines and books flourished in numbers in support of the struggle. Rallies, marches, demonstrations and public assemblies were organized. Associations, trade unions and political parties mushroomed to carry the struggle.
Undeniable, fundamental freedoms and human rights such as the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association had played a pivotal role in raising awareness and mobilizing the people to struggle for independence. Without these rights, independence would have not been possible in 1957.
Today, there is still unfinished business.
Fundamental freedoms and human rights that had been instrumental in the struggle for independence and codified in the Federal Constitution are increasingly eroded over the past 50 years since the independence. These examples are ample, to name a few:
a.. The Official Secret Act (OSA) was amended in 1986 to do away the discretionary power of the court and make the punishment for convicted offender mandatory imprisonment of minimum of one year.
b.. The Police Act 1967 was amended to further restrict the right to freedom of assembly with three persons constitutes an illegal assembly if without a police permit.
c.. The Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984 was amended in 1987 and made it mandatory for all printing media to re-apply publication permit every year instead of renewing the permit.
d.. The Society Act 1966 has been amended and vested absolute powers in the minister in determining application to form political parties and associations.
The act which epitomizes our dire straits is the continue existence and use of Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960. The colonial law adopted from the British was amended in 1988 by the government allowing only legal challenge on procedural grounds in a habeas corpus application, effectively preventing the challenge of the ground of arrest and detention made by the police and minister.
Merdeka means nothing if the people are not free - to express themselves, to organize peaceful assemblies and to form organizations against corruption, abuse of power and the mismanagement of the country.
We are not masters of our own country if the people are unable to hold the government accountable to its wrong doings.
“The People Are the Bosses” should be our clarion call!
On the 50th anniversary of Merdeka, Suaram calls on the government to reverse the trend of eroding the fundamental rights of the people:
a.. All laws that provide for indefinite detention without trial must end.
b.. All emergency legislation must be repealed immediately.
c.. All other laws that are in contradiction with human rights must be reviewed for repeal or reform.
Most importantly, Suaram calls on the people to seize back the power to determine the future of our country and continue the spirit of Merdeka, fighting for the full realization of fundamental rights and an accountable and responsible government.
This is the only meaningful way of celebration by giving the Merdeka its original and true meanings.
If memory serves us all correctly, the Social Contract, a simple unwritten arrangement fostered between Malays and non-Malays by the eternal wisdom of our founding fathers, brought about a rare unity among the multiracial peoples of British Malaya and expedited the advent of independence on 31 Aug 1957.
Independence saw the Malaysian economy held almost 29 per cent by the Chinese; less than 2 per cent by the Malays who were largely outside the money economy; less than 1 per cent by the Indians and about 69 per cent held mostly by the British and some foreigners. (Malaysia introduced the 20 year 1070-90 New Economic Policy in late 1969. The NEP pledged to eliminate the identification of race with economic function and place of residence; eradicate poverty irrespective of race, colour and creed; and ensure that the Malays and other indigenous races own, control and manage at least 30 per cent of the nation’s corporate economy by 1990.But deviations soon set in and there was rampant nepotism, cronyism and corruption to sabotage the NEP and send the economy into a tailspin by the early 1980s. The NEP had to be scaled back to bring the economy out of a recession in the mid-1980s.)
Surely, the thrust of the Contract was simple: since the Chinese of the towns in particular had considerable economic power in comparison with the largely rural-dwelling Malays who saw themselves as the indigenous people of the country, it was felt that it was only right that the Malays held the reins of political power firmly in their hands in a quid pro quo. This power they would then share with the non-Malays and thereby underwrite the continued economic success of the country. Malay hopes, unlike the disastrous route taken by economic nationalists in so much of Africa, in Myanmar and Fiji, hinged so much on the economy going right. Had the Malays been overwhelmingly in the majority, its unlikely there would have been a Social Contract of any sort.
The founding fathers, in a stroke of sheer visionary genius, saw no reason for a time-frame bound Social Contract, nor did they see any reason for preserving the arrangement in print for posterity. The Social Contract, it was foreseen, would serve the nation well and melt away when its time came.
As the nation celebrates its 50th anniversary of independence, an important watershed when we look back at this moment in history in the years ahead, the thinking among many Malaysians is that the Social Contract has entered the history books as a minor footnote. They point out that not only have Malay numbers increased significantly but the community itself has considerable leverage in the economy of the nation within and without the context of an expanding economic pie. The levers of the economy at the policy level are almost totally in Malay hands, albeit because of their sheer numbers, although the community continues to be edged out at the retail level. The market is a different ball game altogether.
Not so, scream a vociferous minority, who not only see the Social Contract as far from having outlived its purpose but insist that it also includes other aspects like the position of the Malay rulers, the position of Islam as the official religion of the Federation of Malaysia; the position of Bahasa Melayu as the basis of Bahasa Malaysia, the national language, and the sole medium of instruction in education; and the special privileges of the Malays, and by extension, other indigenous peoples of the Federation in the peninsula and Borneo. Malay moderates feel its high time to take the debate behind closed doors, not so much to re-negotiate the Social Contract, but to remind community leaders about the history of the past so that they can re-assure themselves and their people once again and renew their faith in the nation and a common destiny, sharing and caring alike.
Essentially, the various issues being bandied about outside the Social Contract are either well covered in the Federal Constitution or backed by social convention. Hence, the question of including these in an unwritten political arrangement like the Social Contract should not arise at all. Generally, non-Malays are even more for the Malay rulers and see the institution as an important bulwark against mob rule and rabble-rousers. Meanwhile, the Federal Constitution remains secular, despite Islam being recognized by the otherwise colour-blind document as the official religion. There’s a fine distinction between official and national and the fact remains that Malaysia does not have a national religion and the Federal Constitution guarantees complete freedom of worship.
Again, the country is definitely multiracial, multi-religious, multilingual and multicultural, as anyone with eyes can see, and nobody can take that away – “Malaysia Truly Asia†runs the official tourism theme proudly all over the globe — despite conflicting claims that it is an Islamic state one day, Muslim the next day, and run according to Islamic principles the third day while admittedly not a theocratic state, a bizarre contradiction in terms.
The current debate over the Social Contract is not the first time that attempts have been made to revise history for reasons of political expediency.
Nearly forty years ago, after the searing Sino-Malay race riots of Fri 13 May 1969 in Kuala Lumpur, many historians attributed the bloodshed to the “breakdown†of the Social Contract when non-Malay political parties made substantial gains in the Tues 10 May 1969 General Elections. The MCA saw no further purpose in being part of the Federal Government and pulled out while still remaining as a member of the Alliance. The MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress), the other key member of the Alliance, stayed put in the Federal Government and in the states and at the local levels.
The MCA pullout from the Federal Government was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Race riots erupted first in the Chinatown area of Chow Kit which had a Malay hinterland and soon spread all over the capital city. The incomplete polling was abandoned, Parliament was disbanded, democracy suspended, a state of emergency declared by the caretaker Government and Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, seen as too pro-Chinese, ousted. There were isolated incidents everywhere. The Police were hopelessly outnumbered and overwhelmed and the Malay Regiment was brought in
The Malay Regiment was replaced by the Federation Army and the Sarawak Regiment and calm quickly returned to the burnt-out streets of Kuala Lumpur. There had been a heavy price to pay in innocent lives, all because extreme right Malays in Umno, the lead player in the Alliance, had been rattled by the electoral setbacks suffered by the MCA and feared the unraveling of the Social Contract. Apparently, the rightwing game plan was to intimidate the political opposition, punish the voters and force the MCA back into the Government. The fact that the political opposition had never been party to the Social Contract was lost on the rightwing instigators of the May 13 bloodbath. Even so, the Gerakan and the PPP were virtually blackmailed, with the promise of democracy being restored, to become members of an enlarged Alliance which was renamed Barisan Nasional. The Social Contract was back on track.
Hardly five years before May 13, Singapore had queried the Social Contract as a member of the Federation and was quickly ushered out. Sabah and Sarawak, the Borneo states, remained in the Federation after some initial demands for a review by Sabah.
Is the Social Contract still relevant in this day and age? Every two people have three opinions.
A simple reading of history and the demographics shows that the Malay factor will henceforth continue to be an important aspect of the nation’s politics unlike in the early days when the community genuinely feared being swamped by the immigrants from India and China and their descendents. No longer can a non-Malay be the Prime Minister of Malaysia, for example, unless with the consent of the governed, predominantly Malay and other indigenous peoples. Malays have also entered the money economy in a big way as a community and made considerable gains as well in this field. As the Malays prosper, and emerge more educated and universal in outlook, having a stranglehold on politics will be less and less the community’s main pre-occupation and obsession. Herein lies the seeds of destruction of the Social Contract despite having served the nation well.