Obama Malaysia: Perdana Menteri Tahun 2189

Sejurus Barack Hussein Obama memenangi pilihan raya Presiden USA, Malaysiakini telah memuatkan beberapa tulisan yang cuba mengaitkan dengan negara kita.  Premis mereka sama saja:  Obama, seorang berbangsa African-American ataupun Black yang minoriti, telah berjaya mencipta sejarah menjadi Presiden USA yang majoiritnya orang putih.  Inilah Amerika yang demokratik yang tidak mengenal kebangsaan atau racial politics.  Penulis di Malaysiakini lalu menyindir, bila lagi negara kita, Malaysia, yang ada bangsa Cina dan India?

Premis penulis ini salah.  Mereka pasti tidak ignorant (terjemahan BM yang mudah ialah seorang yang bodoh).  Pertama Obama bukan 100% African-American atau black; ayahnya Muslim Black dari Kenya dan ibunya orang putih Kristian Amerika.  Jadi dia separuh orang putih dan separuh African-American.  Kedua dia telah murtad, mungkin kerana mahu jadi orang putih, Obama masuk Kristianiti.

Jika kita tidak ignorant sebagai penulis atau wartawan, kita tidak boleh menghubungkan kemenangan Obama dengan politik kebangsaan di Malaysia.  Kerana tidak ada pemimpin Cina yang kahwin gadis Melayu dan masuk Islam pada masa ini, maka pemikiran logika penulis dan wartawan itu seperti ignorance (kebodohan?).

Di samping itu mereka juga jelas ignorant mengenai sejarah, seperti juga halnya mengenai Malaysia yang mereka anggap sebagai negara mereka sendiri.  The simple historical fact is that USA has gained its independence 232 years ago.  Negara kita Malaysia baru meredaka selama 51/45 tahun.  Jadi kita harus menunggu 181 tahun lagi apabila semua warganegaranya menerima kontrak sosial dan Perlembagaan dan mengamalkan cara hidup bangsa teras, iaitu Melayu seperti Barack Hussein Obama yang berjaya menewaskan sejarah Amerika.

Wartawan China dan India perlu menulis secara objektif dan bukan mengikut emosi.  Realiti sekarang tidak membolehkan orang China dan India menjadi Perdana Menteri.  Pemimpin China dan India yang inginkan sangat hendak jadi Perdana Menteri Malaysia mesti embrace MALAYsian culture.  Ini cakap dalam Bahasa Melayu yang menjadi Bahasa Kebangsaan pun sengaja tidak mahu dan masih ramai yang tidak tahu.  Sangat memalukan bila mendakwa dirinya orang Malaysia.  Belum lagi soal masuk Islam, seperti Obama masuk Kristianiti.  Biasanya orang akan mengatakan boleh pegi sama lu.

Obama Malaysia mungkin akan melawan sejarah pada tahun 2189.  Bukan Malaysia kini tetapi Malaysia masa depan.

 

PENDAPAT INDIA MENGENAI KONTRAK SOSIAL #3

The 'social contract' - a defining call to academia

Dr Collin Abraham | Oct 30, 08 4:23pm

Academic and professional intervention to clear the ‘muddy waters’ in the scenario of the ‘social contract’ is not only timely, but crucially long overdue. Indeed, it can be argued that this avoidance of engagement on the part of the intellectual community, can be said to be nothing more than a reflection of the neglect to engage, because of their lack or limited professional competence and capability. As a consequence, the documentation on an overview of the theoretical and pragmatic defining of social issues and concerns such as the ‘social contract’ have necessarily been a-theoretical and a-historical and the wider community is left to search blindly in attempts at further research for relevant dimensions in arriving at an acceptable consensus. Against this background, it is refreshing to note that a useful attempt has been made in this direction by the writer of the letter ‘Social Contract’ already integrated into Constitution. Indeed, this letter has successfully presented a realistic analysis that strikes at the very heart of the main issues so that it only requires supportive documentary academic, intellectual and professional evidence for an acceptable consensus for all concerned. My take on the writer’s presentation is that it basically involves the fundamental and pivotal question, that if the ‘social contract’ was that crucially important in defining the constitutional status and politico- economic relationships between the Malays and non-Malays for political independence, then surely it should have been entrenched as the ‘social contract’ within the constitution itself. In my opinion, the writer correctly argues that in the face of increasing pressure by the British that independence will only be on condition that the citizenship question among non-Malays is resolved, Umno agreed merely to incorporate the special provisions for the Malays into the constitution as the ‘social contract’. It would however be ‘simplistic’ to limit this outcome analysis to a one-factor causation. There are apparently equally important questions such as the composition of the Umno ‘mandate’ to negotiate the ‘social contract’ with the British after the majority Malay nationalist and Islamic parties withdrew from Umno, so that in fact the latter did not have the mandate to negotiate with the British for the Malay community as a whole. In other words it was the ‘elitist’ Malay political parties among the ruling class that negotiated the Malay special rights as the so-called ‘social contract’. These are serious assertions that have wide political implications across the board and must therefore be handled sensitively if they are to have the desired effect. This can be achieved if the intervention call on the academic and intellectual community to deliver could be taken up now by a leading local university such as the USM especially since it has now received the distinction of being the apex university. What is urgently needed therefore is for USM to set up a small group of say five members to review the entire question and to come up with a report and recommendations within one month.

PENDAPAT CINA MENGENAI KONTRAK SOSIAL #2

'Social contract' already integrated into constitution

Wong Hoy Yuen | Oct 23, 08 4:13pm

I refer to the Malaysiakini article by Dr Lim Teck Ghee entitled Social contract: What could be next? So far no credible evidence has surfaced on the existence of a ‘social contract’. Many distinguished academicians and historians including Prof Ungku Abdul Aziz have cast doubts over its existence. Yet the term is increasingly being used by individuals, politicians and organisations, giving the impression that its existence is undisputed. I also observe that an increasing number of issues appear to fall within the scope of this ‘social contract’ despite the absence of details of its scope. Actually, I believe there was an agreement (or a ‘social contract’) among the founding members of our country on the special position of the Malays. But ponder for a moment. If the founding members indeed made an agreement on such a vital matter, would they not have insisted that it be cast in stone? And what better way if not to graft the entire contents of the ‘social contract’ into the federal constitution. Right from the birth of our constitution there were provisions for the special position of the Malays which have remained intact. That itself is proof that there was an agreement among the founding members. Do you think they, especially the Umno representatives, would have accepted the constitution if important elements of the ‘social contract’ were left out? Assuming for a moment that our founding members were forced to accept a ‘partial social contract’ in the constitution, would not have that ignited massive unhappiness or even rebellion among the Malay/Muslim community which would have been documented by history? These questions are raised because, in my humble opinion, I believe the ‘social contract’ is nothing more than the current articles in the constitution on the special position of the Malays. If indeed there is another ‘social contract’ with wider provisions than those articles, let it surface and be subjected to scrutiny and discussion by the various component races.

 

Sultan Azlan Shah: Jangan Sentuh, Uji dan Cabar Kontrak Sosial

Henti guris Melayu

Oleh Abdul Razak Din

BERSATU... Seramai 2,000 orang Melayu membaca ikrar taat setia semasa Majlis Penyerahan Memorandum oleh Gabungan Melayu Perak kepada Sultan Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah di Istana Iskandariah Kuala Kangsar, Perak, semalam.

---

KUALA KANGSAR 5 Nov. – Sultan Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah meminta rakyat supaya berfikiran rasional dan segera menghentikan tindakan-tindakan bersifat politik secara berlebihan dan keterlaluan yang mengguris hati dan emosi orang Melayu.

Bertitah semasa menerima memorandum daripada Gabungan Melayu Perak (GMP) di Istana Iskandariah di sini hari ini, baginda menegaskan, apa yang penting pada masa ini ialah menjaga kepentingan rakyat yang telah memilih kerajaan.

Titah baginda, ini bermakna, keamanan dan kerukunan warga tidak harus dikorbankan hanya kerana perebutan kuasa di kalangan pemimpin dan kumpulan tertentu.

‘‘Hari ini, jika berlaku kesilapan dan kepincangan di peringkat pelaksanaan dasar tertentu, yang perlu diperbetulkan adalah mekanisme pelaksanaan.

‘‘Oleh itu, dasar tunjang yang menjadi asas kepada pembinaan sebuah negara merdeka tidak harus disentuh, diuji dan dicabar sama sekali.

‘‘Perbuatan demikian jika tidak dihentikan dibimbangi akan mengguris hati dan emosi orang-orang Melayu,” titah baginda.

Turut berangkat pada majlis itu ialah Raja Muda Perak, Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah, Raja DiHilir Perak; Raja Jaafar Raja Muda Musa serta ahli-ahli Dewan Negara Perak.

Memorandum itu disampaikan oleh Presiden Gabungan Melayu Perak, Datuk Seri Mohd. Hilmi Ismail.

Kira-kira 2,000 wakil pertubuhan bukan kerajaan, ahli persatuan silat dan persatuan dari seluruh Perak dan Kuala Lumpur menyertai perarakan aman yang bermula dari Masjid Ubudiah ke Istana Iskandariah di sini bagi menyerahkan memorandum itu.

Memorandum berkenaan mengandungi hasrat dan perasaan orang Melayu yang menjunjung kasih kenyataan khas Majlis Raja-Raja ke-215 pada 16 Oktober lalu.

Sultan Azlan bertitah, kebimbangan orang Melayu dijawab melalui jaminan perundangan dengan memaktubkannya ke dalam Perlembagaan Merdeka (Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Titah baginda, ia termasuk klausa- klausa tertentu menyentuh agama Islam, Raja-Raja Melayu, adat istiadat Melayu, bahasa Melayu dan kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu.

Baginda menjelaskan, sebarang pindaan Perlembagaan menyentuh raja- raja serta bidang kuasa raja merangkumi agama Islam, bahasa kebangsaan, kedudukan orang Melayu serta bumiputera di Sabah dan Sarawak perlu mendapat perkenan raja-raja.

Dalam hubungan ini titah baginda, institusi raja berupaya memberikan keyakinan psikologi untuk melindungi kepentingan bangsa di samping memberikan keadilan kepada warga keseluruhannya.

‘‘Institusi raja berperanan sebagai lambang penyatuan dalam kepelbagaian. Raja-raja memahami bahawa perlembagaan merdeka juga memberi pengiktirafan dan perlindungan kepada warga pelbagai bangsa, agama, bahasa dan budaya.

‘‘Persefahaman dan persetujuan yang telah termaktub dalam kontrak sosial berkenaan telah membolehkan negara mencapai kejayaan, kemajuan, keharmonian dan kestabilan.

‘‘Negara yang aman dan warga hidup secara rukun dalam dimensi sosiopolitik yang mengiktiraf fakta dan hakikat sejarah,” titah baginda.

Sultan Perak bertitah, orang Melayu bimbang akan pencapaian taraf sosioekonomi mereka yang jauh ketinggalan berbanding kaum-kaum lain.

Titah baginda, untuk itu orang Melayu memerlukan jaminan dan pembelaan demi memastikan kedudukan mereka sebagai pribumi tidak terancam.

‘‘Persekutuan Tanah Melayu masih wujud dalam undang-undang kita atau dengan lain perkataan, negara Malaysia adalah berteraskan kepada sejarah Melayu, evolusi politik Melayu dan nasionalisme Melayu yang hidup subur dalam kepulauan Melayu yang mempunyai sejarah kebudayaan Melayu.

‘‘Faktor-faktor dan hakikat inilah yang melahirkan negeri-negeri Melayu, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan akhirnya Malaysia,” tegas baginda.  Sila lihat Utusan Malaysia, 6 November 2008

PENDAPAT CINA MENGENAI KONTRAK SOSIAL #1

Social contract: What could be next?

Lim Teck Ghee | Oct 21, 08 3:34pm

opinion The statement released by the Conference of Rulers following their 215th meeting needs to be scrutinized in terms of what has recently happened and who has been responsible for precipitating the current situation of racial and religious disquiet which has resulted in that unusual and extraordinary press statement. My intention is not to engage in discussion about the correctness or wisdom of what is contained in the statement but to point to some differing perspectives that have appeared in academic circles on the contested origins, meaning and implications of the social contract. Firstly, it is important to note that the term ‘social contract’ is of recent lineage. It was not a term used during the constitutional negotiations; neither does it appear in the days of soul searching in the nation after the May 13 racial unrest. The very first reference to it appears to have been made by Abdullah Ahmad, an Umno member of parliament in 1986 (who later became New Straits Times editor-in-chief) – that is, 30 years after independence and 23 years after May 13. Abdullah’s view of the social contract as reported by The Star (Aug 31, 1986) was as follows: “The political system of Malay dominance was born out of the sacrosanct social contract which preceded national independence. Let us never forget that in the Malaysian political system the Malay position must be preserved and that Malay expectations must be met. There have been moves to question, to set aside and to violate the contract that have threatened the stability of the system. “The May 69 riots arose out of the challenge to the system agreed upon out of the non-fulfilment of the substance of the contract. The NEP is the programme after those riots in 1969 to fulfil the promises of the contract in 1957… The NEP must continue to sustain Malay dominance in the political system in line with the contract of 1957.  Even after 1990, there must be mechanisms of preservation, protection and expansion in an evolving system.”     According to Dr Mavis Puthucheary who has studied the subject, Abdullah’s speech was roundly criticized at that time - over 20 years ago when it appeared - “as a figment of the writer’s heated imagination and lacking any basis of truth”. She also writes that several writers at that time too strenuously challenged this social contract argument “on the grounds that Malay political dominance [as it was envisaged by Abdullah in 1986] was a mundane political reality, not a solemn, enduring, immutable and morally binding constitutional guarantee … entered into at the time of independence”. In the last few years, as noted by Puthucheary, the term ‘social contract’ has again prominently re-entered the vocabulary of politicians and scholars who appear to be uninformed or ignorant about the origins and political connotations of the term and have used it “to fulfill their own preferred notion, and that of their leadership successors, of the future Malaysian nation and its direction”. Further she has warned of the “subtle, often imperceptible, process of redefinition … and even, opportunistic reformulation” of the social contract concept. ‘A fantasy created by politicians’ Other scholars and writers have also similarly repudiated the notion of the ‘social contract’.  Perhaps the most prominent of these dissenting views in recent times is royal professor Dr Ungku Abdul Aziz, who is reported to have stated that, “There is no such thing as [a] social contract”, and that the social contract is "a fantasy created by politicians of all sorts of colours depending on their interest". According to the same report, he also stated that the social contract “should rightly be called an ‘economic contract’ to justify affirmative action in areas of education and health for groups that needed it the most”. Finally he was reported to have said that he would save his views for another forum. Now is the time, perhaps if not within the glare of the larger public arena, for a closed-door meeting of leaders from the various communities to deliberate on what exactly constitutes the social contract, how it relates to the various constitutional provisions balancing the rights and interests of the Malays and non-Malays, and how such a contract can be made compatible with social justice, equal opportunity and the rights and interests of all of the communities that make this country their common home. Just over a year ago, a somewhat similar call was made by Muhyiddin Yassin, Umno vice-president, who suggested that there is a need for a new national consensus grounded in the “social contract and the constitution”. Unfortunately, his call at that time appeared to be directed entirely to the Barisan Nasional parties. None of the BN parties - including the non-Malay ones - responded to this invitation.    Now is the right time for all leaders and stakeholders in our country - including those from the component Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat parties and non-political organisations - to find their voice on this possibly the most important subject affecting all communities and the future of our country.     DR LIM TECK GHEE is former United Nations regional advisor and World Bank senior political scientist.