Now, this is something interesting.
While Singapore is all gone from the Malaysian coat of arms, the reverse is untrue. The reason is that the Singaporean crest is supported by a lion and a tiger.
According to Wikipedia, the tiger honors the special historical tie Singapore has with Malaysia.[1]
Aww, how sweet.
[1] — See the Coat of arms of Singapore at Wikipedia.
Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah of Selangor defines the social contract as “compromise between the rulers and subjects as well as between Malays and non-Malays.”[1]
This is a new definition when compared to the typical understanding of the subject. The conventional understanding refers to the willingness of the Malays to accept various non-native migrants as citizens on the condition that the special position of the Malays is respected always.[2]
I do not agree to such unwritten contract. The only contract I hold is the non-aggression axiom, which in many ways given the current environment, it satisfyingly embedded in the Constitution. There is room for improvement but the Constitution does provide a good point to begin any journey of similar nature.
If such social contract as conventionally defined really had existed, it would be outdated anyway and incapable of moving this country forward. It unfairly condemns newer generations to mistakes of the past.
My opinion notwithstanding, the definition employed by the Sultan, while new, actually tries to reach back as far as the time the Malay Annals was compiled and edited by Tun Sri Lanang in the early 17th century in Johor. The concept of a contract between the king and the people was articulated by the Malay Annals more than 100 years earlier than Rousseau, the author whom popularized the actual term “social contract”.[3][4]
In the Malay Annals, the so-called contract between the monarchy and the Malays is mentioned during a conversation between Sri Tri Buana, the Prince and Demang Lebar Daun, the minister representing the Malays in time when Palembang was the center of the Malay universe.[5]
Sri Tri Buana as claimed by the Malay Annals traced his lineage back to Alexander the Great. The veracity of the claim made by Tun Sri Lanang in the Malay classic is suspect but such claim is typical of effort to legitimize the rule of any monarchy, including that of Johor. Tun Sri Lanang was the Bendahara, or the Prime Minister, within the royal court of Johor at the time and the Sultan of Johor then was the direct descendant of the last Sultan of Malacca originated from the royal court of Palembang.
As one can see, even without the grand claim to Alexander, the lineage of the Sultan of Johor at that time was already impressive, reaching back to the days of Srivijaya. But Tun Sri Lanang needed to reposition the royal line to assume more Islamic tone while discarding the Buddhist and Hindu past.
Back to the conversation, Sri Tri Buana was requesting for the hand of Demang Lebar Daun’s daughter in marriage. The marriage here is really symbolic to the partnership between the royalty and the Malay people.
The latter would only consent to the marriage if the Prince would agree to two conditions. Firstly, the daughter must never be banished from the palace. The second condition demands, as translated by Sabri Zain,[6] “the descendants of your humble servants shall be the subjects of your majesty’s throne, but they must be well-treated by your descendants. If they offend, they shall not, however grave their offence, be disgraced or reviled with evil words: if their offence is grave, let them be out to death, if that is in accordance with Muslim law.”
The Prince quickly agreed to the conditions.
Upon agreeing to the condition, Sri Tri Buana wanted Demang Lebar in return to agree “that your descendants shall never for the rest of time be disloyal to my descendants, oppress them and behave in an evil way to them.”
Both further agreed that if one or the other departed from the undertakings, the pact would become undone by itself.
But is that the Malaysian social contract?
It seems as if the idea from the Malay Annals is being combined to the conventional definition.
Like the idea of Bangsa Malaysia, the Malaysian social contract is becoming so nebulous that it basically could assume so many definitions. As for me, I have mentioned before, I prefer the simpler non-aggression axiom.
[1] — SHAH ALAM, Nov 30 — De facto PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yesterday blamed Prime Ministergo to table a motion of no confidence against the government. [Social contract means compromise, Selangor Sultan explains. Leslie Lau. The Malaysian Insider. December 7 2008]
[2] — See Social Contract (Malaysia) at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008
[3] — See Malay Annals at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008
[4] — See Social Contract (Rousseau) at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008
[5] — Page 25 – 26. Sulalatus Salatin: Sejarah Melayu. Tun Sri Lanang. Edited by A. Samad Ahmad. Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka. 1997
[6] — Sejarah Melayu: A History of the Malay Peninsula. The Tuah Legend. Sabri Zain. Accessed December 9 2008.
Trivia: 167 years ago, on this day, Sarawak was ceded by the Sultanate of Brunei to James Brooke.
Trivia 2: Early Portuguese catographers identified Sarawak as Cerava.
Several myths about the formation of Malaysia require addressing.
First revolves around the notion that Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaya in 1963 to form Malaysia. This is simply untrue because all member states of Malaysia federated to form a new federation called Malaysia. Nobody joined Malaya in 1963.
The second myth concerns how Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaysia. This is at best inaccurate and at worst downright false. The rationale against this myth is the absence of Malaysia as a state in prior to 1963. Instead Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore helped establish Malaysia.
Those who believed in either the first or the second myth tend to cite the United States of America as an example of how changes in the number of membership do not affect a state as an entity. The comparison however is flawed because the history of the US does not run parallel to that of Malaysia.
It differs in a way that 37 states other than the original 13 states of the United States joined a pre-existing union. The United States was formed as an entity in 1776 and 37 other states joined that union after 1776.
In the case of Malaysia, nobody joined any pre-existing entity simply because there is no pre-existing entity to join into. There was no Malaysia as a state to join into prior to September 16 1963. What existed were the Federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.
The example of the US is only applicable for Malaysia if there are changes in membership after 1963. Just how addition of new member states into the union does not affect the United States’ status as a state after the formation of the state, any change of membership of the federation — save total dissolution of Malaysia — after 1963 will not affect the status of Malaysia as a state. It is for this very reason that Malaysia still exists after Singapore was expelled in 1965. If Brunei is to join Malaysia in 2009, Malaysia will still be the state it was in 1963.
Third myth is about Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya coming together to form Malaysia. This too is false though compared to the other three myths, this does come closer to the truth since the contrary is certainly arguable given how the Malaysia Agreement was signed and executed. Nevertheless, all 14 member states of 1963 Malaysia, each as a separate entity, federated to form a 14-state federation and this is made clear in the Malaysia Act 1963.[1] It was not a 4-state federation. The member states of Malaya did not participate in Malaysia as a unitary Malaya but rather, they joined the new federation on individual basis. In forming Malaysia, the Federation of Malaya was immediately dissolved to allow the 11 states of Malaya along with three other states to federate; the Federation of Malaya ceased to exist upon the establishment of Malaysia.
The final myth confuses Malaya with Malaysia. The difference between Malaya and Malaysia goes beyond superficial change in name. The 20-point agreement between signed at the time between Sabah and the would-be federal government of Malaysia specifically mentioned that the Constitution of Malaysia is not the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya.[2] Therefore, the two Constitutions are two different documents and each document governs different state.
[1] — (1) For the purpose of enabling North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as “the new States”) to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as ”the Federation”), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as ”the appointed day”) Her Majesty’s sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States. [Malaysia Act 1963. Office of Public Sector Information. Accessed September 16 2008]
[2] — Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo (Sabah) was of course essential. [20-point agreement. Wikipedia. Accessed September 16 2008]
Gerald Ford is one of my favorite presidents of the United States of America and there are only two reasons for that. Number one is due to the fact that he attended the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor; that is my school. Number two was the way he answered the question posed by his predecessor, Richard Nixon. We Malaysians perhaps have our own Nixon in form of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed and how we deal with the Prime Minister may parallel what President Ford had done.
For the longest time, Dr. Mahathir was the only Prime Minister I had ever known. In all channels, from television to radio to printed press, I could not remember any single day that passed by without the mention of his name. He was everywhere, every time.
A friend once mentioned to me that Dr. Mahathir has done more to Malaysia more than anybody else, for better or for worse. A general statement such as that may not survive upon closer scrutiny but it is easy to agree to such rhetoric. Because all of that and more, I have this kind of attachment to him. It is a kind of earned respect that is impossible for time to erode.
Yet, I am a firm believer of justice and Dr. Mahathir has done a lot of wrongs as the chief executive officer of this country. To every action, there is a reaction and that concept is central to the way I live my life and my worldview.
There are many components that make up a successful society and one of them is trust of individuals toward various institutions. A state institution which fails to defend justice will lose its credibility and a society with such institutions will inevitably spend more time fighting for justice instead of discovering its true potential.
Hence, I face a moral dilemma between respect that I have for the man and justice.
Upon reflection, I came to recall the Watergate scandal in which President Nixon was the main actor. The scandal forced him to resign from his office as criminal conviction loomed on the horizon. Gerald Ford then became the 38th US president.
The issue of conviction could bring about a very divisive period and President Ford realized this. Instead of letting that happened, he gave Nixon an unconditional pardon, hereby allowing the first step of healing to take place.
And healing is what Malaysia needs at the moment. Whatever Dr. Mahathir had done in the past, he should be pardoned.
That however does not mean we should forget his gross violations of individual liberty and the corruption of all three branches of government that he caused. No. We should learn from the past and strive not to make the wrongs made in the past.
Towards that end, what we need is a truth and reconciliation commission, not another royal commission solely set up to bring the man down. There is a fine line between justice and vengeance and I at the moment do not have an appetite for witch hunting, especially when it greatly benefits others with less than innocent political motives and ambitions. What has passed has passed and it is time to move on.
In times when the stability of the federal government is suspect, whoever the next Prime Minister would be, I wish for him to tread the path President Ford had treaded on.
p/s — a version of this article was first published by The Malaysian Insider.