Epic Play: Revisiting the Social Contract

UPDATED @ 9.00AM in view of some "timely" input just a couple of hours ago by a regular conversationist here, Maverick SM, who was actually among a few Readers who prompted (or was it challenged?) Desiderata to embark on this ongoing (hope it is not dull!) discussion on what would turn out to be a Face-Off leading to lots of political upheavels and adjustments in the Malaysian body politic. I sincerely hope it's for the better of NegaraKu. His Comments +++ are promoted to Frontpage and appear later as it is a nice fit for a better understanding of what the Social Contract is about.

When a 17-year-old johnleemk expressed his disillussionment to see the present state of the nation is in, epitomised by UMNO's obsession with "Ketuanan Melayu", there is hope yet as far as Desiderata is concerned. There is a sizeable section of Malays (who are eligible to join UMNO and more easily enjoy the spoils of dominance of the nation's largesse, but don't join the gravy train...), like Bakri Musa, who provide a more far-sighted and balanced view to progress NegaraKu. Likewise I see some progressives within UMNO like MP for Johor Baru Sharir Samad and Zaid Ibrahim, another MP-lawyer, who have stood up on a matter of principles even to breach the Party Whip (for Sharir, he LOST the BBC chair as a price to pay. Two salutes.)

In his Part 2 of Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Bakri, based in California, USA, but constantly writes about Malaysian affairs, had condensed an article carried in Malaysiakini.com titled, and the parts highlighted (BOLDED THUS) are Desi's:


Ketuanan Melayu: False Premise and Promise
M Bakri Musa
July 5, 06 12:07pm

from which I extract some sombre thoughts worth reflection by ALL MALAYSIANS, especially the future leaders of Malaysia who wish to get out of the present Prety Conundrium we are in, not mcuh better than some three decades ago.

"Malay leaders are again selling to their followers a bill of goods with the doctrine of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony). These leaders delude themselves and the masses into thinking that we Malays have been anointed Tuan (master) of Malaysia, with all the implied glories and privileges.

Both the premise and promise of Ketuanan Melayu are false. The sooner Malays grasp this stark reality, the better it is for us and for all Malaysians, as well as for the nation. In this competitive world, you work to be a Tuan; you must earn it! In feudal societies, whether you are fated to be master or servant is determined at birth by your heritage. Malaysia has long passed that stage though many are still entrapped in the feudal mindset.
:
:
:

"More destructively, this collective delusion in our destiny to be Tuan encourages a variety of non-productive behaviours. We have leaders content only with endless speech-making rather than bucking down to hard work; university vice-chancellors who debase their titles with their singular lack of scholarly contributions; and civil servants who act as mini-sultans (or Little Napoleons, in the prime minister's words) of their departments.

Such are the meaningless consequences of the empty promises of Ketuanan Melayu. It is a cruel hoax perpetrated upon our people by our very own leaders.

:
:
:

Ketuanan Melayu is premised upon false foundations. Tanah Melayu (Land of the Malays) or not, Malays are not ordained to be Tuan , in our own land or elsewhere. On the other hand, if Malays were competitive, rest assured that we would then be Tuans even in lands other than Tanah Melayu.

(I advise Readers to read the whole of the article avaiable @bakrimusa.com) as I end the extract from Bakri Musa's essayhere just to demonstrate the point that not all is Pessimism, something I had encountered when discusiing Politics with fellow Malaysians whp feel the situation is "hopeless" as the system is useless and beyond repair after 49 years of Alliance, followed by Barisan Nasional rule.)

~~~~~~~~~
Here I seek your indulgence by going into a summary of Forms of government and the Social Contract,from philosophyclass.com:

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

The are many forms of government. In a monarchy supreme power is placed in a single person. In an oligarchy, power is placed in the hands of a few people. In an aristocracy rule is placed in the hands of the best qualified people. In a timocracy the power is placed in the hands of the wealthy. In a democracy power is placed in the hands of the people. Which of the above forms is the best? The answer to this question depends on how you view the purpose of a government.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

This political philosophy was proposed by Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher (1588-1679). It was further developed by John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). It was an attempt to answer the question concerning the origin of government. The social contract concept was an attempt to challenge the divine right of kings philosophy which was used by monarchs of the time.

According to this philosophy, people in a society made a contract with each other or with a ruler to guarantee them certain needs such as peace, safety and justice. If the ruler did not meet his part of the contract, then the people had a right to select a new ruler. This is the basic philosophy that a democracy is based on.

NATURAL LAW

This philosophy goes as far back as ancient Greece. It is the view that there is a higher law to which specific written laws of a government must be compared. This higher law or natural law, was universally valid and thus applied to all governments. The natural law was known by the use of human reasoning.

+++2 comment(s):
You have become a jurist. I am amazed at your knowledge of jurisprudence.

However, I would suggest that you should include Jeremy Bentham and John Austin's Command Theory of Law which not only posed the question of: "what is law" but also the normative question of what the law ought to be.

For Bentham, the question of what constitute good law is to be answered in terms of utility - the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain.

For Austin, normative jurisprudence relates to the question of the goodness and badness of the existence of the law and this relates to the advancement of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of the members of society.

To summarise the your thesis here, I like to quote John Stuart Mill:

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied;
Better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied;
And if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion,
It is because they only know their own side of the question;
The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

To Mills, we can draw more pleasure from a small amount which have much higher and greater value than large amount of pleasure which are less refined.

Intelligence, rather than sentience, is far more important characteristics of human beings.

By Maverick SM, at 7:30 AM

I like to add John Mill's notion between relationship between justice and social values:

Justice shall imply the identification of interests which came together to form "something which is not only right to do and wrong not to do, but which some individual can claim from us as his moral right. That Equality of treatment is an essential element of social life and its contribution to the maximisation of happiness or satisfaction cannot be denied. Liberty clarifies the distinction and balance the interests and goals of society (Harm Principle - 'harm to the interests of others').

In Harm Principle, Mills argue that:

"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will is to prevent harm to others... that rights are determined by reference to justice."

Justice is to be defined from the sphere of conduct where the society as a whole have overriding interest and the individual race takes second place.

It must be noted that the liberty and privileges which people in society have in their pursuit of their own good in their own way must be limited by the need to protect the interest of others, for if not, chaos thrives.

By Maverick SM, at 7:44 AM +++

DESI adds in this Update that he's glad that fellow Blogger Mave has included the attribute of JUSTICE in the thesis as any society that aspires towards a higher plane of Civilisation must include as a Pre-requisite Goal of a Civil Society the promotion and practice of Justice. This has a great bearing on a subject I'll be priming for in the Epic Play -- the third-most important Protagonist, former DPM Sdr Anwar Ibrahim.


IN THE CASE OF MALAYA, the fight for independence led by Bapa Merdeka, Tunku Abdul Rahman, has always earned praise for the new nation as it traveled the road to Independence on August 31, 1957 in a "bloodless" manner detaching from the colonial masters that "Great" Britain represented. The kwailo (foreign devils') left behind an adminstration steeped in Whitehall-type traditions -- an education system using mainly English as language of instruction, a relatively "independent" Judiciary, and General Elections conducted at four to five years' intervals; a noticeable bias towards supporting Christian missionaries who perpetuated the Christian faith via Brothers' schools, especially dominant in the Straits Settlement states -- Penang and Malacca, and to some extent the federal Capital, Kuala Lumpur, but distinctly absent in the more Islamic belt states like Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah.

The first decade of nationhood was relatively peaceful and serene, and the Tunku described himself as the "happiest" head of government in the world.

The Social Contract ascribed to the new nation, which reamains an active member of The Commonwealth of Nations, worked pretty well for the early years. The Social Contract provides for a Constitutional Monarchy (with the unique Kingship at the National level as a new Yang DiPertuan Agong is chosen every five years from among the nine brother State royal houses...); with a Lower House of Parliament elected every five years (or earlier at the discretion of the incumbent Administration); and a Judiciary staffed by members trained largely in England and hence were well schooled in Westminster politics and the indpependent Judiciary.
The vestiges of the colonial masters began to dissipate after Malaya graduated to being Malaysia from September 16, 1967 -- when Sabah and Sarawak joined as the 12th and 13th states, adding two more Yang diPertua or Governors to the two from Penang and Malacca.



"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.

So the reality Malaysians have to contend with is that while the leaders want the world at large to think the Government is a democracy with a people-elected Parliament, the reality in practice is far from that image.

Essentially, what Malaya and Malaysia experience to day is AN OLIGARCHY. Yes, we all know it is an elitist group within UMNO that wields the real power in a government where the EXECUTIVE -- First Estate-- is supremely predominant, reflecting as stated: " In an oligarchy, power is placed in the hands of a few people.

In the so-called 15-member coalition that is the Barisan Nasional led by UMNO, the 14 minor coalition partners are there to give an image of "multi-racial" government. One of my fellow blogger mates, Mave SM, wrote so discerningly: In an oligarchy,
Those who sought to change others instead often find that it is they need change.

Witness the present Sandiwara played out as what I term as an
EPIC PLAY ON THE PWTC STAGE.

Why PWTC?

That's the heart of the leading Big Brother party called UNITED MALAYS NATIONAL ORGANISATION. It's at its Annual General Assembly where national policies are decided and announced, and the other 14 component parties are expected to "rubber stamp".

Recall for your benefit was when The New Economic Policy or National Economic Policy -- NEP -- was "revived" after the UMNO YOUTH adopted such a resolution at the last Assembly at PWTC, marked clearly in the Public Mind by its chief Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, son of a previous PM, raising the "keris" to show the Ketuanan Melayu lamented by Young johnleemk, and Not-So-Young Desiderata and Dr Bakri.

And it's UMNO that controls the nation's purse strings through its monopoly-as-of-right-holders of the three topmost positions in the Cabinet beyond question by third parties -- of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister. (In thhe early terms under Tunku Abdul Rahman, an MCA head Tan Siew Sin did serve as Finance Minister.)

So in the present scheme of things, the Social Contract is between the Barisan Nasional government headed by the UMNO President (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) and the Rakyat (citizens of Malaysia) at the federal level, and State Governments headed by Menteri Besar or Chief Minister, all from Barisan Nasional except for Kelantan (under PAS, an Islam-based party in opposition to BN.)

Under the Social Contract, ideally the Government lives up to its Compact (Agreement) as spelt out in its Election Manifesto/es to the people/electorate.
If the Rakyat/electorate are not happy, they can "vote" the present government "out of office" at the next General Elections, but this is only good in theory. Even johnleemk at 17 realises that in realpolitik,the odds are stacked clearly to the advantage of the incumbent government, with the "gerrymander" in parliamentary constituencies being an outstanding example, among many other factors.

And in realpolitik, the current destabilised stage at PWTC is due to the FACE-OFF between two camps within UMNO, the old order represented by a former PM, Dr Mahathir (plus proxies in Camp1) and the new order led by current PM Pak Lah (plus his proxies in Camp2).

My main thesis is the war is really about fighting for the Bigger Pie of the Malaysian Cake, especially blatantly open and vicious in economically challenging times. Why do you think that *"MEGA-PROJECTS"and billion-dollar old scandals being frely opened up for public scrutiny, and both new and old "Pandora's boxes" are being opened up one by one -- via the courts and mass media -- for all Malaysians to SEE. As I noted, an unintended outcome of this FACE-OFF is that the mass media "seem" (Yes, I said this is a transient illussion, not a permanent reality) to be enjoying a more open and liberal environment (a "Springtime" that will last...we pray). Another sidenote is to witness the secondary roles played in the unfolding drama by ex-GEICs and current GEICS of the NST, plus a few "reluctant" players from other press, but that's just some inconsequential dressings, unless you're also a millionaire-corporate-cum-scribe.

*1. Metramac vis UEM-PLUS (occurrence under Mahathir's premiership)
*2. Billion-ringgit "Crooked Bridge" spanning both Mahathir's and Pak Lah's premierships
*3. Billion-ringgit suits between Danaharta/MAS vs Tajudin Ramli (Occurrences under Mahathir's premiership)
*4. Bank Negara's forex losses -- first announced standing at RM10billion; then revealed by Tajudin Ramli as between RM15-20billion; last mentioned in Parliament only two days ago at RM25-30billion.
*5. Tenaga Nasional Bhd's compulsory acceptance of the electricity generated by the privatised Independent Power Producers (to the tune of some RM6billion, a condition that Tenaga ex-chief Ani Arope said recently was "forced on TNB" by the PM's Department, under Dr Mahathir's watch.

Desi would even number as *6. PETRONAS' lack of transparency when announcing its Profits for financial year ended March 2006 because it did not have proper details breaking down the Incomes and Expenditures figures. A net profit from a national oil corporation of RM43.6billion -- surpassing one year's allocation of RM40billion under the 9th Malaysia Plan -- surely this deserves a scrutiny by Parliament?

So what we have is that the Parliament is given Scant Power -- that is, the Second Estate, the Legislature, is rendered a necessary nuisance that is easily dispensed with by the Executive.

So the power lies within the Inner Circle of Advisers to the incumbent Prime Minister, headed by Oxfordian Khairy, but even at 31, he has already learned to step on many toes. This ongoing Epic PLay will continue with various Acts and Scenes like a Shakespearean Play because the old order is not ready to give up its power base. Hence, Camp1 represnted by Mahathir&Corporate Nexus is challenging the new order of PakLah&Corporate Nexus. Caught in between is Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak who already has been identified as a nigh-Brutus, in dissociating with the old regime soon after war was declared by Dr Mahathir on June 7. But Mahathir's disclosure that Najib was in fact his "first choice" as successor put Najib in a bind. But behind the public rhetorics, could the duo be working in concert?

Here's some interesting extracts from an Australian newspaper, selected by Desi only for their relevance in the discourse on current topic; the reporter's observations on Najib which I totally endorse as sensible and obvious from past events in UMNO fights...

The Age by Michael Backman
July 12, 2006

~~~~~~~~~~~

Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's former prime minister, is not happy. He was content to leave politics in late 2003 in return for a degree of reverence as an elder statesman, and perhaps to be consulted from time to time. He wasn't banking on being largely ignored, openly blamed for current and past errors, and seeing initiatives he backed dismantled in a way that seems calculated to make him lose face, particularly in the Asian context.

But Mahathir has retaliated in the past fortnight. He has claimed publicly that his successor, Abdullah Badawi, has stabbed him in the back. He has rebutted criticisms made of him and he has questioned Abdullah's policies.
:
:
:

Also last week, a former political secretary of Mahathir, who weighed in to support his former boss, (added by Desi: "Matthias Chang") was rewarded with a defamation suit for RM50 million ($A18.3 million) from the deputy chairman of Malaysia's biggest newspaper group (Desi: "Kalimullah Hassan").

And a former owner of the national airline (Desi: Tajudin Ramli")filed a court document to say he never wanted it and that Mahathir's government made him buy it. Presumably, that is what led him to strip millions from it in related-party transactions.

And former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim lodged with the High Court his reply to Mahathir's attempt to get his defamation suit against Mahathir quashed. Anwar made a range of new allegations about how the government was run under Mahathir, seemingly neglecting the fact that it was also Anwar's government at the time.

:
:
:

And, despite all the talk of getting rid of nepotism, the families of most politicians remain involved in businesses that rely on Government contracts, including Abdullah's own.

Furthermore, he appears to be excessively reliant on his son-in-law, the unelected 31-year-old Khairy Jamaluddin.

Mahathir no longer wants Abdullah to remain Prime Minister. He hasn't for quite some time. His preference is for Najib Razak, the current deputy.

So what is Najib like? He's certainly no Mahathir. He rarely takes a strong position on anything, and when he does, it's usually because he's worked out which way the numbers are. Accordingly, he has few strong enemies; nor many passionate supporters.

Ever the good deputy, Najib was quick to pledge loyalty to Abdullah last week but he also refrained from saying anything critical of Mahathir. A fence-sitter but a splendid one, he is rich, Malay, well-educated, and his father (Tun Abdul Razak) was prime minister.

But will Najib take the tough decisions that so far have eluded Abdullah? Nothing in his career suggests he will. It will probably be business as usual, and in Malaysia politics is always about business.

Najib's younger brother, Nazir Razak, is chief executive of CIMB, Malaysia's largest investment bank. He and two other brothers, Nizam and Johari, are involved in GP Ocean Food, which describes itself as the country's biggest integrated fisheries group.

The company planned to issue a prospectus to enable it to list on the stock exchange this year, but that was shelved last week after the Securities Commission announced an investigation into alleged irregularities in the company's accounts. That's the thing about Malaysia: so much of the regulatory apparatus almost works.

But back to Mahathir. Is all his noise a bad thing? Not at all. Mahathir must keep up his criticisms. It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong. What matters is that he keeps going. Monopolies are never a good thing, particularly when it comes to a monopoly of ideas. Mahathir has given Malaysians a lot of things. Giving them what might turn out to be the most effective opposition voice they've had is his latest contribution.

Flashy buildings make a country look modern. But real modernity comes from open public debate. Mahathir is dragging Malaysia forward while Abdullah is disappointing.

michaelbackman@yahoo.com

DESIDERATA: Note especially the description of Najib as a "fence-sitter" -- this was the "bitter lesson" that Tengku Razaleight learnt from his challenge of DR Mahathir for UMNO presidency, when Najib waited until the "last minute" to swing his support to the incumbent Mahatir to enable the PM to retain the UMNO presidency by a "razor-thin" 43 votes. Now the names of Khairy, Pak Lah's son-in-law, Nasir Razak, Najib's brother who is a corporate highflier, like Khairy who is by comparision a johnny-come-lately; but more importantly, former DPM Anwar Ibrahim.

I wish to re-state that as far as the common people are concerned, I have described the present poltical scenario as us being caught Twist the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.

I'll discuss a little about Khairy's adventures in corporate world; also a little about Pak Lah's son being involved in business, particularly in SCOMI, not named here, who's a low-profile corporate, who would be cited in good time by Camp1.

In my opinion, like I said earlier, Najib leads Camp3 and Anwar leads Camp4. Between the two would-be successors to Pak Lah, my proposed choice to my EsteemedReaders is Anwar, not the present DPM. For Najib also played the RACE CARD to the hilt in climbing the UMNO ladder to the present situation. I wonder how many citizens can recall a scene when he, accompanied by then Selangor MB Muhammad Muhd Taib, raised the "keris" at a certain padang in Selangor to show the power of "Ketuanan Melayu". For this Act alone, I'm writing him off my wished for political landscape.

I'll spin the stories tomorrow, God-willing, okay!