Your Highness, we respectfully beg to disagree’

Utusan Malaysia not racist, says Perak sultan

Kim Quek: What social contract? Everything our founding fathers had agreed by consensus was written into the Federal Constitution, and the so-called “social contract” was a mere concoction by an Umno politician to justify the ruling party’s racist policies.

Further, the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak is spelled out under Article 153 of the Federation Constitution, where its very limited scope is defined as reservation of quotas in public service, educational facilities and business licences.

The modest provisions of such “special position” certainly cannot be interpreted to mean the endowment of racial privileges to create a privileged class of citizenship.

Despite numerous amendments, our constitution remains egalitarian in letters and spirit and there is only one class of citizenship where all citizens are equal as expressly guaranteed under various articles in the constitution including Article 8 (equality) and Article 136 (impartial treatment of all federal employees).

Perak Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah’s speech is highly regrettable not only for imputing unnecessary meaning to Malay special position but also for partaking in partisan politics when he defended and praised Umno’s mouthpiece Utusan Malaysia, despite the latter’s notoriety as ultra-racist and the newspaper most frequently punished by the courts for committing defamation.

Thus the sultan has, through his support for Utusan, breached a fundamental principle of our constitutional monarchy – that the monarch should stay meticulously above partisan politics at all times.

LifeFlier: Here’s advice from constitutional experts, the wise ones.

The Reid Commission Report 1957: “Chapter IX Fundamental Rights, Paragraph 163 – We found it difficult, therefore, to reconcile the terms of reference if the protection of the special position of the Malays signified the granting of special privileges, permanently, to one community only and not to the others.

“The difficulty of giving one community a permanent advantage over the others was realised by the Alliance Party, representatives of which, led by the chief minister, submitted that – ‘in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed…’

“The same view was expressed by their Highnesses in their memorandum, in which they said that they ‘look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country’.”

The Reid Commission Report 1957: Chapter IX Fundamental Rights, Paragraph 165 – “Our recommendations are made on the footing that the Malays should be assured that the present position will continue for a substantial period, but that in due course the present preferences should be reduced, and should ultimately cease so that there should then be no discrimination between races or communities.”

Malays apparently have never been ready for affirmative policy, in 1957 one was bestowed on them, they partly spoiled it and should be realising by now allowing it to continue would mean they will fall endlessly into a vicious circle.

If intense degeneration of a race like Malay is its ultimate destiny, by all means they can go with it perpetually.

My dear Malay friends, no one wants you all to die like that, let us learn to stand on our own feet, live an honour livelihood, we believe you are ready now and we should set out for a new path, path of synergy between us, this should be the real ‘social contract’ to look forward to.

Fogbom: Indeed, the Reid Committee recommended that the special preferences granted to the then economically and educationally-weaker Malays be reviewed and adjusted or discarded after 15 years or by 1972 – that was never done.

It was not a quid pro quo Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Their Highnesses the nine Rulers then, instructed the committee to, inter alia, make a common nationality for all who swore allegiance to the new nation and had resided here or were born here, under a variety of circumstances.

In the course of deliberations, the committee felt that the special preferences were necessary, for a limited period, to bring the Malays then, up to the socio-economic level of Malaya’s Chinese and Indians.

It was never a “social contract” in 1957. That idea came up later, after 1969, together with bumiputeraism. Is it ignorance or design that cloaks history for some?

JD Lovrenciear: On planet earth, all humans are entitled to that which the Almighty has given and in fair measure too. No one is more special then another fellow human.

The social contract is and never has been an issue for all Malaysians who believe in the credo of uplifting fellow Malaysians who are lagging behind. It is only when one gets to see humans through the blinkered glasses of race and religion, that all things become an issue.

Your Royal Highness needs to surf above the tide and bridge the gaps; not wedge the chasms deeper.

Kawak: What about the numerous defamation suits Utusan lost? Please name and be specific on those people who are stirring up the hornet’s nest.

Can’t we see the difference between the Utusan of the 1960s and 1970s and now?

Rick Teo: Sultan Nazrin, I beg to differ. You could be reading the wrong newspaper.

Taken aback by sultan’s defence of Utusan

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.