the Social Contract & the communal arrangement of our forefathers

02 Apr 2010 Leave a Comment

by TLT in menyusur di akar

This is my take on the social contract, triggered by one article I read yesterday.

I was introduced to the term “social contract”  by my lecturer Pak Brahim Lamat in his Jurisprudence classes and Law & Development classes.

From what I understand, there are only two parties to this contract ie the people (the citizens of a country, the rakyat) and the government. It is an English concept , propounded by one jurist by the name of Hobbes. The said contract imposes obligation to the government to protect the people’s civil liberties and rights in consideration for vast powers/authorities/mandate given by the people to the government to govern the state.

I still remember Pak Brahim used to say that the Malays of the Nusantara also had our version of the social contract in the Hobbesian sense. According to Pak Brahim, (I found out later that he was referring to the Second Story of the Sejarah Melayu)  what transpired between Demang Lebar Daun and Sang Sapurba in the chronicle amounted to the Malay’s social contract. Under the contract, the rakyat may withdraw its vesting of powers to the raja/goverment if the rakyat is not happy with how the raja/government exercises its powers.

And of course in the modern democratic setting, we have to redefine who are the rakyats and who are the rajas.

I will try to enclose the wordings of the covenant here later.

Recently there was an issue whether the Federal Constitution or any part of it forms a “social contract”. According to many it is. I beg to differ. I am inclined to preserve the meaning of the term “social contract” as I learned it in class. The Federal Constitution 0f 1957 is the communal arrangement between major races of Tanah melayu then, yes ! But to call it the social contract, no I won’t refer to it as such. The term “social contract” has been there for a long long time, let us not give a new dimension or our own meaning to it. Why don’t we call it (the Federal Constitution or any special Articles in it) a Communal Arrangement instead ?

This communal arrangement of the Federal Constitution of 1957 is so sacred I will uphold it no matter what. We live by the spirit of the reason behind the give-and-take between our forefathers more than 52 years ago.

I intend to add/rewrite certain part of this article, kalau ada masa.