Did we or did we not have a Social Contract?

The debate on 'Social Contract' continues to be hotly debated in Malaysia. In a recent forum (STAR, 12 May 2008), Royal Professor Ungku Aziz stated that the notion as it is used in Malaysia was “a fantasy created by politicians of all sorts of colours depending on their interest”.

In the same forum, Tun Mahathir disagreed with Ungku Aziz on the matter. According to Tun Mahathir, a social contract did exist although not in written form. The following statements from Tun Mahathir were reported by the STAR (12 May 2008):

“There is no written social contract. But there was an understanding among the founders of the Alliance that we should share.

“Tunku (first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman) gave one million citizenships to the Chinese, and in response, he expected the Chinese to give some support to the demand for independence and to the sharing concept. He didn’t spell it (the contract) out 100%, but there was this understanding, not written,” he said.

Dr Mahathir said the social contract was a social understanding, which included sharing the economic cake with the bigger portion given to the bumiputras “so, eventually they can catch up with the non-bumiputras.”

Why all the fuss about social contract? The term 'social contract' is associated with the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It refers to an agreement by individuals or social entities within a society to fulfill certain obligations in return for each other's promise to do certain act.

In the Malaysian context, the social contract (if it exists) refers to the 'special status' accorded to indigenous population (or Bumiputras) in return for the granting of citizenship to non-indigenous population, namely the immigrant communities in the country. This interpretation is clearly what Tun Mahathir had in mind in the above statements.

The recent round of debate certainly raises a few interesting issues.

With regards to the issue of 'existence' of social contracts, do they need to be 'written' in the first place? The answer seems to be no, as social contracts are not generally regarded as implying legal obligation. But some argue that such a contract was indeed written into the Federal Constitution of Malaysia in the form of Article 153.

If the existence of such a social contract is assumed, the legitimacy of such a contract may also arise. Do parties, namely politicians, to such a contract truly represent the 'people' involved (even when they are elected representatives)?

Another important issue pertains to fairness and justice. Can a social contract that is an outcome of unequal bargaining power be an unjust one?