Royal professor Dr Ungku Abdul Aziz first made the claim that the fabled Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy) was never a physical contract and was ‘coined‘ by politician to further their agenda.
He was quote saying the following at a forum in Shah Alam recently:
“There is no such thing as social contract. It was a fantasy created by politicians of all sorts of colours depending on their interest”. (refer to this article from The Star for full details)
Rightly so when a learned academician with the stature of Dr Ungku Abdul Aziz makes such a statement, there has to be some degree of truth to it. More so in light that his claim has open the proverbial can of worm on how the Ketuanan Melayu agenda has always been a political agenda from day 1 right up to this very day.
Therefore it is unsurprising to learn that a follow up report, here, by independent news portal Malaysiakini that took the very questions on the substantiality of Dr. Ungku Abdul Aziz statement to recognised expert and academician for their own opinion, lo and behold they all agree that ‘Ketuanan Melayu‘ or the social contract of fable is just that – a political spin to further political agenda!
The detailed elaboration of the prominent academician have been quoted, word by word, in a short summary below. For the full report please head on to Malaysiakini to read it yourselves. These are their views:
Professor Shamsul Amri Baharudin, UKM’s Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA) director
The translation of ketuanan Melayu is wrong. It is not Malay supremacy, it is Malay sovereignty. Ketuanan is a very colonial term. Abdullah Ahmad had very little knowledge as to what it means when he first raised it in 1986. Sovereignty is not a foreign concept as it is prevalent in other countries such as Belgium and England with monarchs. The idea that Malays are the boss and the rest is not, is a misconception.
Professor James Chin, Head of Arts, Monash University
The documents deposited in ISEAS (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) library by MCA elites states clearly that the Malays will get special help in things like the civil service and scholarships but there will be a time when these will stop.
This cannot be confused with the constitutional rights that was agreed to in Article 150 to 153 because it has no details. The constitution does not spell out the operations of the special rights like the New Economic Policy (NEP) on quotas and equity ownership. All it says is that Malay will have special privileges.
Dr Mavis Puthuceary, Associate Research Fellow at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)’s Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS)
Political parties are using the social contract out of this context and it has no meaning in Malaysia. So that’s why we need a discourse and debate on this. We need to work out a national consensus in figuring out what and where do we go from here and now. We can all agree that something more than a bargain was made when the state was formed but I won’t call it a social contract.
Dr Azmi Sharom, Associate Professor, Law Faculty, University Malaya
However, to a certain extent it is true – the special privileges involves safeguarding the Malay language, the Sultanate and Islam on the surface appears to be going against the grain of equality. The non-Malay Malaysians were happy to accept this then. But the idea of give and take does not extend to the concept of Malay supremacy created by political parties, namely Umno.
The original constitution has elements of compromise but that compromise is from the layman’s perspective, the document does not suggest Malay supremacy or mastery. Ketuanan Melayu is a fallacy. I just don’t see the justification for this. The so-called social contract is relevant only to racists and people who want Malaysians to continue to be divided along racial lines.
Dr Johan Saravanamuttu, visiting researcher at ISEAS, Singapore
On ketuanan Melayu, there si no such thing as ketuanan Melayu. It is a concoction by political entrepreneurs by Umno on promoting Malay supremacy. The constitution does not say anything about Malay supremacy but only on the special privileges such as land and language afforded to them. It is the jaundiced Malay politicians who use it too embed themselves in position or create and perpetuate power for themselves.
Dr Chandra Muzaffar, academician and political scientist
I don’t see ketuanan Melayu as part of the social contract or Merdeka constitution. By accepting the Malay polity, it does not make Malays and non-Malays unequal and it doesn’t make non-Malays second-class citizens. ketuanan Melayu is an idea that is an impediment to ethnic relations for the country. It does not mean one race is dominant and another race is subordinate or a master-servant connotation.
The above statements are all made by recognised academician who are experts in their respective areas. When you have a full 100% agreement of context between all 5 of the experts you cannot deny that there is a whole lot of truth behind their statements.
This than makes you wonder what backlash the politicians who have milked the ‘Ketuanan Melayu‘ agenda will next invoke to further drive the learned and their opinions to the foreground. Unfortunately we cannot totally discount the idea that certain parties or personages will definitely be prepared to stoke the fires of racial tensions in order to evoke emotions to override further discourse on the matter – in a worse come to worse scenario. I for one sincerely hope that things do not resort to that level.
