Monday, June 01, 2009

Social Contract - True or False? UMNO - fought British for Independence, or just a British crony? Time to re-discover the truth..

With the independence of Malaysia, there was a 'social contract' between the various ethnic groups in Malaysia. The native Malays agreed to the granting of citizenship to the Chinese (and Indians), and the Chinese (and Indians) agreed to the granting of special privileges to the native Malays.

The existence of this 'social contract', in this particular form, has been disputed - and over the past months, the UMNO-led BN government have been trying to repeatedly drum in this 'social contract' into the minds of Malaysians - so that ultimately everyone will believe this as the truth...the real truth.

Sadly, there is NO documentary proof of this 'social contract' - and hence, the only agreement that we can rely on is the Federal Constitution - and that is it.

Today, we are all Malaysian citizens - and our nationality is Malaysian. [Our ethnicity may be Cantonese, Hakka, Malayalee, Telugu, Tamil, etc...]. It irks me still when I see in many government and other forms, the word 'Bangsa' (which means nationality) - for me, I am Malaysian, my parents are Malaysians, and my children are Malaysians.....full stop.

And guess what - normally you cannot leave that column 'bangsa' blank. Even, if the word race or 'ras' is used, it is OK.

Was there a social contract?
Maybe - but it ws made between possibly UMNO, MCA and MIC, with the blessings of the British colonial masters.

Were the people consulted? Was there a referendum? The answer is 'No'.

Did UMNO, MCA and MIC even consult its general membership ...were there EGMs and AGMs held by these political parties for them to get the mandate of their membership. I do not think so - for if, not minutes of these meetings/decisions would have surfaced long time ago.

So - this 'social contract' agreement may really be an agreement between the chosen few in UMNO, MCA and MIC.

Does UMNO, MCA and MIC represent the Malays, Chinese and Indians respectively now? or even in the pre-independence period? I do not think so....not even during the pre-independence period (or the early post-independence era)...and certainly not in 2009.

In fact, there has been some who say that this UMNO, MCA and MIC were not even the popular choice of the people of Malaya (Malaysia) - but certainly they were the prefered choice of the British Colonial powers... Why? Why?
Election Results (Only of how many seats Alliance[UMNO,MCA,MIC], then BN won - no info about what other parties won)

1955 General Election Alliance won 51 out of 52 seats contested (98%)
1959 General Election Alliance won 74 out of 104 seats contested (71%)
1964 General Election Alliance won 89 out of 104 seats contested (86%)
1969 General Election Alliance won 74 out of 144 seats contested (51%)

*** The 1st time that the Alliance (now known as the BN) failed to get 2/3rd majority was in 1969. (see earlier post:-
Of past elections & 'historical facts' in Malaysia - the 'brain-washing'..

Do not be too quick to jump to conclusions based on the results of the 1955, pre-independence elections. The question that must be asked is whether the other political parties/groups were allowed to contest in that 'British' elections? Were they allowed to but they chose not to - to boycott the elections? [We always talk about UMNO led-BN following the British legacy - and we know how nearly impossible it is to register political parties,,,and how quickly they try to kill popular parties by 'illegalizing' them and arresting their leaders - so was it also the case in that 1955 GE? Was it a free and fair elections? Unfortunately, there is not much information available for a comprehensive analysis, which will allow us to make some conclusions.]

There seem to be not much of a struggle for independence in Malaya - there was no 'fighting' for independence that even happened in USA, or India. There was not much protest..demonstration...arrests..detention. [In Malaysia, it seems that the British literally handed over the reins of power to UMNO-MCA-MIC - or was there a struggle against the British for independence but UMNO-MCA-MIC did not have a role in that struggle. And our history books have been 'altered' (or certain things left out) for us to believe that this was all that happened that forced British colonialist to hand over power to UMNO-MCA-MIC.

The only fights during that period seems to be against the so-called 'communist terrorists'...mmm, but were they not the enemies of the British colonial government after World War they became also the enemies of the UMNO-MCA-MIC after independence. One wonders whether those so-called ''communist terrorists" were indeed fighting for independence from British colonial powers. So, why were the enemies of the British also the enemies of the post-independence government led by UMNO-MCA-MIC?
Bukit Kepong - let's see, it happened in 1950. It was an attack by the 'communist terrorists' on a British police station...not an independent Malaysian police station. Would that not be in line with some struggle for indepence from the British colonial masters? We may have been supportive for the wrong people - i.e. them 'Malaysians' who chose to serve the British colonial masters as police, and hence helped fight those who were struggling for independence...The potrayal of 'communist terrorists' as being all Chinese is also not true... The producers of that movie has done us a disfavour by attempting to propagate a different picture...
It may be interesting to note that these 'communist terrorists' called themselves Tentera Pembebasan Nasional Malaya (TPNM) [Malayan National Liberation Army] . I recently came across a blog, that is an interesting read..
Rejimen Ke-10 didirikan di Kerdau, Temerloh, Pahang pada 21 Mei 1949.

Abdullah C.D., pengasas Rejimen Ke-10 telah menulis, antara lain, begini: “Rejimen Ke-10 adalah sebuah tentera anak rakyat yang dari komander hingga ke perajuritnya terdiri dari putera-puteri terpuji bangsa Melayu yang berteraskan anggota PKM, PKMM, PETA, BTM dan lain-lain yang telah diharamkan oleh penjajah British.”

(gambar: Abdullah C.D., dirakam pada tahun 1989)

Sebelum itu, kecuali United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), badan-badan lain seperti Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS), Pembela Tanah Air (PETA), Barisan Tani Malaya (BTM) dan sebagainya adalah pertubuhan politik Melayu yang berjuang atas hasrat murni untuk memerdekakan Malaya dan melepaskannya daripada belenggu British.

Dan, apabila kesemuanya (kecuali UMNO) diharamkan pada Jun 1948 di bawah apa yang dinamakan ‘Undang-Undang Darurat’, pertubuhan-pertubuhan tersebut terpaksa mengambil jalan perjuangan bersenjata yang bermandi darah.- REJIMEN KE-10: SEJARAH YANG DISEMBUNYIKAN

Why did these 'communist terrorists' continue to fight beyond 31/8/1957 - Why? Maybe they felt that Malaysia had not achieved independence yet - because the change was merely from direct British rule to a British Crony rule? Or the new UMNO-MCA-MIC government was the one who continued it for fear that these 'communist terrorists' had a greater support of the people of Malaya than them - and the only thing to do was to continue that war...

As before, now too many of those who fight for self-determination and independence are labelled 'terrorists' - just look at neighbouring southern Thailand, southern Philipines, and maybe even Sri Lanka...

Maybe, this may explain why UMNO-led BN is still scared to allow Chin Peng to return to Malaysia. No Malaysians should be prevented from returning to his country. If the person has committed crimes, then just charge him, try him and sentence him if he is convicted. Remember there is no limitation period for crime.

Remeber also the NEP - this came about when Tun Razak was Prime Minister, and here again the concern was only 2:- (1) Erradication of Poverty, (2) Restructuring to eliminate identification of race with economic function
The launching of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971 was a watershed in the Malaysian economic policy history. The NEP underscored the importance of achieving socio-economic goals alongside pursuing economic growth objectives as a way of creating harmony and unity in a nation with many ethnic and religious groups. The overriding goal was national unity. To achieve this goal, two major strategies were adopted:

  • To reduce absolute poverty irrespective of race through raising income levels and increasing employment opportunities for all Malaysians; and

Again, there was nothing about any 'social contract' and Razak's intention and strategy was good. Subsequently, the purity of purpose may have been tainted by ...

The priority was national unity - and the calling of certain Malaysians 'migrant race' ['kaum pendatang] certainly is not the way forward.

Our roots, as far as being a Malaysian citizen, are irrelevant. We may have come from Indonesia, Thailand, Philipines, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan, Arab states...or are native to the land all matters not today. Today, we stand equal as Malaysians - as one nation.

The re-raising of this disputed 'social contract' seems to yet be another attempt of UMNO to get back the support of Malays - and the implicit call is 'Unite Malays' against these others...The re-raising, unfortunately, has also driven many Malaysians to go back to history and discover the truth..

Sadly, I do not think that Malaysians are gullible anymore - and thankfully UMNO-led BN does no longer control absolutely the sources of information. The coming of the internet age has opened eyes and minds as we get exposed to different opinions and viewpoints not merely with regard to historical facts but also current concerns...

Let us all now move forward as Malaysians - one people one nation.

Erradication of poverty should still be the priority

Equitable distribution of wealth amongst all persons in Malaysia, irrespective of political party affliations (and certainly, no more among ethnic groups) .


casper c said...

Well done Charles, another nail in the coffin to the oft mistaken "social contract", and rightly, it is the Constitution that binds us all and not any fallacy that is not supported by documentation.


pywong said...


We seem to be thinking along the same lines -,718.msg3004.html#msg3004