PAD 120: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE

Here are some selected past examination questions and suggested (specimen) answers for them. Read them carefully and try to master the art and technique of answering exam questions.
1. Define legitimacy.
Legitimacy may be defined as the acceptance of a governing regime (government) as an authority. In other
words, the legal right to rule a country is called legitimacy. A legitimate system of government is one
which is based on authority. It means that those subject to its rule recognize its right to make collective
decisions and implement laws, policies and procedures.
Legitimacy may also be defined as the extent to which the citizens obey, without questioning, the laws and
accept the policies, the procedures, acts, decisions, officials and the leaders of the government and the system,
structure and manner of administering the government. In other words, the widespread belief and feeling
among the majority of the population of a country that the government's rule is rightful or legal is known as
legitimacy. It must be noted that legitimacy is judged in the court of public opinion, not in a court of law.
Carlton C. Rodee defines legitimacy as "the extent to which citizens regard the State, its institutions, its leaders or
policies and programmes as morally right or acceptable."

2. Explain the term legitimacy.
Legitimacy is whether or not people accept the validity or authority of a ruling government. A government that is based on the "consent of the governed" is considered "legitimate." In other words, if the majority of the citizens of a country obey the laws of the State; accept the decisions, policies and programmes of government leaders; accept the institutions of the government as legal; and believe that the government has authority and that it properly should have the authority, then the government is regarded as legitimate. ("Legitimate" means lawful, legal, proper).
Legitimacy has to do with rights : whether a government has the legal right to rule; whether the leader has been duly installed; whether correct procedures have been followed in enacting a law. Legitimacy is also considered as the relationship between the rulers and the ruled (governed): the citizens of a country authorize and submit themselves to the law in return for protections and benefits from the State.
A government is legitimate if it obeys the laws it makes and when its authority its widely accepted. To be legitimate, the government must be supported by the majority of citizens. The government must be clean and honest, free from corruption and govern the country according to constitutional principles. If a government lacks legitimacy, its stability and effectiveness might suffer; massive civil disobedience and violent protests and demonstrations may happen and it may also collapse. Examples of governments that collapsed on account of lack of legitimacy are: the government of the Shah of Iran in 1979; the government under the rule of President Marcos in the Philippines; the government under the rule of President Ceausescu in Romania; the government under the rule of President Alberto Fujimori in Peru; and the government under President Suharto in Indonesia.
3. How does a government achieve legitimacy?
There are many ways by which the people's loyalty may be bound to a government so that it is generally considered legitimate:
a. First and foremost, a government may gain and retain its legitimacy from its people by providing for them the things they most want: internal security; security from external aggression (security of their country's territory (borders) against foreign invasion; protection from domestic disturbance; economic prosperity and development; high employment; equal justice to all; protection of minority rights; sound economic and social policies; good governance and so on. If the government can provide these things, its legitimacy will be greatly strengthened. If it cannot, it will lose its legitimacy.
b. Second, a government can also achieve legitimacy by existing a long time. Long-established regimes are generally well-respected by their citizens. Once a government has been around for a while, people become accustomed generally to obeying its laws. People expect to operate under some government or other, so whatever government is in place and has been obeyed in the past, it is likely to be regarded as legitimate - unless a particular crisis arises or some force (another State, perhaps) intervenes from outside. In other words, once a particular government has been in place for a while, so that the people have developed the habit of obeying it, it no longer has to perpetually justify its existence. Rather, the burden of proof lies with whoever would propose an alternative government. The existing government remains legitimate unless and until a compelling alternative comes along. The Congress government under Jawaharlal Nehru in India and the Barisan Nasional government in Malaysia are examples of this.
c. Third, many governments enhance their legitimacy by the ties that exist between themselves and the people because of the government leaders' past accomplishments (their historic role) or because of the religious and or ethnic identity or similarity between the government leaders and the people. This may be especially important in a new State, in which the government has not yet been in place long enough for the people to have developed the habit of treating it as legitimate and in which the many economic and social problems that plague most new States make it difficult for the government to achieve legitimacy through better governance and better policies. Many governments of new States are able to buy time by virtue of the status they acquired in leading the State into independence in the first place. For example, the Congress Party in India, the party of Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and the National Liberation Front in Algeria all had a breathing space in which their governments were accepted, simply because they had led the independence movements which had established their States in the first place. Religious and ethnic ties may also be used by a government to enhance its legitimacy. In Iran, the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini used its ties to the dominant Shiite (Shia) Muslim sect to enhance its legitimacy.
d. Fourth, the structure of government can also contribute to its legitimacy. If people feel and are satisfied that they are fairly and adequately represented in the government (in the cabinet and the legislature) and have a say in choosing their representatives and in the formulation of public policies and programmes, they are more likely to obey. The procedures of democratic election are what give a government its legitimacy. Democratic governments are chosen by competitive elections in which all citizens vote to decide which of the various alternative leadership teams are to govern. Because the resulting government has won broader support than any alternative, it gains a strong base of legitimacy. It is the government "of the people." Legislatures filled by appointment or by rigged general elections do not contribute much to legitimacy.
e. Finally, governments try to strengthen legitimacy by the use of national symbols. The national flag, historic monuments, national day parades, military tatoo and emotional speeches are aimed at convincing citizens that the government is legitimate and should be obeyed.
4. Discuss the differences between authority and power?
a. Authority is power based on a general agreement that a person has the right to issue certain commands and that those commands should be obeyed whereas power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others in accordance with one's own objective or desire.
b. An important element of authority is legitimacy, but power is the ability to use influence, persuasion, threat or force to achieve one's own objectives.
c. Authority regulates behaviour by speech and words and reasoning, but power controls behaviour by coercion.
d. Authority is based on laws or the constitution of a country whereas power is based on force or military strength.
e. Authority possesses accountability and responsibility, but power lacks these.
5. Explain the merits and demerits of rigid and flexible constitutions.
a. A flexible constitution is one which can be amended easily whereas a rigid constitution is one which requires a special and cumbersome procedure to amend it.
b. The great merit of a flexible constitution is that it can be changed according to changing circumstances or to meet new requirements or to meet any emergency. However, if a constitution is too flexible, there is a danger of instability and uncertainty. The constitution becomes a plaything in the hands of dishonest and unethical politicians and leaders. They keep on changing it according to their whims and fancies and vested interests. Such a constitution can create uncertainty which is not good for the progress of the country. If the people lose their faith in their constitution, there would be chaos and confusion and revolution in the country.
c. The great merit of a rigid constitution is that it is definite, stable and certain. The people can refer to a single document which contains all the fundamental principles with regard to the structure, functions and powers of the government. It is easy for the citizens to understand a written document and there is no uncertainty with regard to its future. The interests and rights of all the people are protected and no unscrupulous politician or political party can change it overnight. To amend a rigid constitution, a stringent procedure is required. In the case of the United States of America, for example, a constitutional amendment can only be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Congress (both the House of Representatives and the Senate) and three-fourths of the state legislatures. In Malaysia, constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in parliament (both Dewan Negara and Dewan Rakyat). However, in the case of a flexible constitution, (as in the United Kingdom) the legislature can pass both ordinary and constitutional laws by a simple majority. No special procedure is required.
d. Unlike the flexible constitution, a rigid constitution cannot be changed easily to adjust itself to changing situations. On account of this, the progress of a nation can be affected.
6. What are the characteristics of a good constitution
A good constitution must have certain qualities. It must be definite. It must be written down in a single document so that the people an understand what the constitutional law of the country is.
It must be written in simple, non-technical and clear language for the people to understand it better.
It must not be either too brief or too long. If it is too long, it will be dificult for the people to read and
understand it.
However, it must cover all the important legal principles and provisions, such as the system
of government; the powers and functions of the three branches of government;
the rights and privileges of the both the majority and minority groups; the procedure
for the amendment of the constitution; and the areas of responsibility of both the central
and State governments. In a Federal form of government like ours, the powers and functions
of both the Central and State governments should be clearly stated so that disputes or
misunderstanding will not arise.
Furthermore, it should " neither be so rigid as to prevent change or so flexible as to encourage
tampering with basic principles." In a multi-racial and multi-cultural country, the constitution
should safeguard the interests and rights of all the citizens to ensure peace, stability and unity.
While the constitution should be stable, certain and durable, it must not be too rigid. It must go on
changing with changing times and requirements. Above all, a constitution should suit the social,
economic and political needs of the nation.
7. Explain the two types of democracy.
Democracy means rule by the majority with the protection of minority rights.
The two types of democracy are: (i) Direct or Pure democracy and (ii) Indirect or
Representative democracy.
In a direct democracy, all the people meet at one place and decide the matters that
concern them. This means that all people participate in the decison-making process in a
direct democracy.
In the small city-states of ancient Greece, the adult male citizens met together in the Assembly
and decided the important issues of the day.
Representative democracy refers to governance through elected representatives. The people elect
their representatives during a general election who then make decisions (enact laws) on their behalf.
Some examples of countries that practise representative democracy are Malaysia, India, Australia.
8. Explain the weaknesses of democracy.
Democracy is a government by the representatives of the people.
1. In a democracy, government is in the hands of the majority party and that party can can afford to
tyrannise over the people.
2. Democracy is a very expensive form of government. In a democracy everyone has to be cared for and it
requires a lot of money to satisfy the needs of all. Moreover, a lot of money has to be spent on electoral
campaigns and frequent elections.
3. A democratic government takes a lot of time to implement its plans and programmes. Democracy is
government by consultation and hence it takes a lot of time to arrive at decisions.
4. Bribery and corruption are the common abuses of democracy. Not only the votes are bought, even the
law-makers and administrators are bribed. Money plays an important part in politics and that lowers the
moral standards.
5. Democracy puts emphasis on quantity and not quality. It makes the decision of the majority the law
even if the majority is a small one. The views of the minority are ignored as democracy puts emphasis
on the majority views.
9. Explain the characteristics of the unitary system of government.
A unitary sstem is one where there is one set of central institutions which have ultimate political and
legal auhority within the territory. Examples are: Britain, France, Japan, China.
a. All governmental power is held by the central government in the state's capital.
b. The central government may create lower levels of goverment (such as local authorities or regional
governments) and give them more or less powers, but the central government can also take away those
powers and abolish the lower levels of government according to its wish.
c. The policies and laws of the government are uniform and apply to all citizens in the country.
10. Explain two (2) advantages / benefits of a unitary state.
a. The primary benefit of this system is the clear, hierarchical authority structure which eliminates
stalemates (kebuntuan) among the regional political units.
b. The centralisation of power and authority in a single , national government, encourages citizens to
identify with the country as a whole, rather than expressing divided loyalties to regional authorities.
11. Explain the functions of a State.
The functions of the state are the following:
a. To formulate and enforce laws and policies for the whole country.
b. To protect the state against the threat of attack by other nations or from internal subversion.
c. To provide various services for the welfare and well-being of its citizens.
d. To conduct diplomatic relations with other countries.
12. Explain the rationale for the separation of powers.
Separation of powers refers to the principle that each of the three branches of goverment, namely,
the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, has its own responsibilities, functions and powers
while being legally independent of and equal to others.
The rationale for the separation of powers are the following:
a. To protect democracy
b. To avoid abuse of power by the government
c. To protect the rights and freedom of the people.
d. To enable each branch of government to act as a check on the others

Lesson 1: Discussion of constitutionalism and its relationship to human rights

This lesson introduces the concept of constitutionalism, while making a distinction between adopting a constitution and genuine constitutionalism. The relationship between constitutionalism, human rights and the rule of law is also discussed.

What is constitutionalism?

For genuine democracies, constitutions consist of overarching arrangements that determine the political, legal and social structures by which society is to be governed. Constitutional provisions are therefore considered to be paramount or fundamental law. All other laws within a country must abide by and follow the principles of the constitution. Under these circumstances, if constitutional law itself is inadequate, the nature of democracy and rule of law within a country is affected. This will affect citizens' human rights, which can only be realized and protected under a rule of law framework.

The structure of modern nations has been shaped with government being divided into executive, legislative and judicial bodies, with the commonly accepted notion that these bodies and their powers must be separated. This is one of the most fundamental tenets of modern governance, and as such is a key characteristic of any constitution. Of course, the separation of powers does not mean these bodies function alone, rather they work interdependently, but maintain their autonomy. Other tenets include the idea of limited government and the supremacy of law. Together, these can be termed the concept of constitutionalism.

In other words, constitutionalism is the idea that government should be limited in its powers and that its authority depends on its observation of these limitations. In particular, these limitations relate to legislative, executive and judicial powers. A constitution is the legal and moral framework setting out these powers and their limitations. This framework must represent the will of the people, and should therefore have been arrived at through consensus.

If these are taken to be the basic tenets of constitutionalism, then not all states with constitutions will have embraced constitutionalism; authoritarian governments or military dictatorships do not fulfil the tenets of the supremacy of law or the separation of powers. The judiciary in Cambodia for instance, is highly subordinate to the executive, blurring boundaries between the two arms of government. The huge number of disappearances of alleged political activists in Pakistan is a clear violation of the rule of law. The message sent to society in these cases is clear: it is not the constitution that reigns supreme, but those in power. It is therefore important to distinguish between adopting a constitution and genuine constitutionalism. This distinction becomes particularly important when constitutions are adopted to protect the interests of the ruling regime. A constitution is not merely a document introduced by the state with the title of 'constitution'. Many authoritarian regimes introduce such documents to justify arbitrary rule. Thailand for instance, has had a new constitution virtually every time there is a change of power. A genuine constitution however, is an attempt to limit and reverse all forms of arbitrariness.

Democracy and constitutionalism

Authoritarian governments are by their very nature unconstitutional. Such governments think of themselves as above the law, and therefore see no necessity for the separation of powers or representative governance. Constitutionalism however, is primarily based on the notion of people's sovereignty, which is to be exercised--in a limited manner--by a representative government. The only consensual and representative form of governance in existence today, is democratic government consisting of multiple political parties, fair elections, freedom of opinion and expression, and the rule of law. In this way, there is a very important and basic link between democracy and constitutionalism.

Just as mere constitutions do not make countries constitutional, political parties and elections do not make governments democratic. Several Asian countries have been termed 'illiberal democracies', for while they have periodic elections, they are not governed by the rule of law and do not protect the rights and liberties of their citizens. India and Sri Lanka are both examples of such countries, where the politicization of public institutions is common, where politicians and government officials are deemed above the law and where there is significant violence against minorities and marginalized groups. Genuine democracies rest on the sovereignty of the people, not the rulers. Elected representatives are to exercise authority on behalf of the people, based on the will of the people. Without genuine democracy, there can be no constitutionalism.

Rule of law

Rule of law refers to the supremacy of law: that society is governed by law and this law applies equally to all persons, including government and state officials [See Lesson Series 40 for a detailed study of the rule of law and human rights in Asia]. There are two aspects to the relationship between constitutionalism and rule of law: not only is constitutionalism the institutional basis for rule of law in any society, it is also safeguarded by the rule of law. Following basic principles of constitutionalism, common institutional provisions used to maintain the rule of law include the separation of powers, judicial review, the prohibition of retroactive legislation and habeas corpus. The independence of law making bodies is established, as is independence for judges in articulating and interpreting laws. Genuine constitutionalism therefore provides a minimal guarantee of the justice of both the content and the form of law.

On the other hand, constitutionalism is safeguarded by the rule of law. Only when the supremacy of the rule of law is established, can supremacy of the constitution exist. Constitutionalism additionally requires effective laws and their enforcement to provide structure to its framework.

Process of constitution making

It is now clear that the constitution is an essential document, laying out the framework of a nation's political, economic and social structure. How should such an important document come into being? First, it is necessary to note that not all constitutions are written documents. The greatest example of a constitution that cannot be found in a written format is the British constitution, which has however, existed for many centuries. Modern constitutions though, tend to be found in written documents.

A framework for a country's governance and structure cannot be laid out without deep intellectual and societal agreements on political, legal and moral issues. In order to arrive at such agreements, there must be considerable public debate and discussion prior to the adoption of any constitution. Such discussion must take into account that all societies will have conflicting interests. While certain interests will inevitably predominate, the impartial protection of rights and liberties should ensure that such dominant interests do not harm others. Drafting a constitution is therefore very much related to democracy and the rule of law.

Modern constitutions have tended to be written in the aftermath of colonial or military repression. They therefore learn from the mistakes of history, and write into new constitutions numerous limits and obligations of government. The 1947 Constitution of India for instance, paid much attention to the rights of individuals to participate in political affairs, as well as the duties of the government in protecting these rights, in particular by limiting the powers of arrest and detention. This was a direct consequence of colonial history, which saw hundreds of political activists taken away and tortured.

Questions For Discussion

1.�� �In your opinion, what are the most important aspects of constitutionalism? Discuss these in relation to the constitution of your country.
2.�� �Discuss the relationship between democracy and constitutionalism. Are non-democratic governments constitutional?
3.�� �How would you explain to a human rights activist or a law student the relationship between human rights and constitutionalism?

Constitutionalism

1. "Constitutionalist" redirects here. For parties called Constitutionalist see Constitution Party.
Constitutionalism has a variety of meanings. Most generally, it is "a complex of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law"
A political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority". As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply imbedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials…. Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.

PAD 120

INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE
DEFINITION
Political science may be defined as the systematic study of the state and government. This means that political scientists study the origin, structure and functions of the state and government; political institutions; political processes; various forms of government; the behaviour of individuals, groups, leaders and decision-makers; relations among nations; political theories; and the various activities of governments. Political science also deals with such fundamental values as equality, freedom, justice, power and sovereignty.
Other definitions of political science
1. Political science is an academic and research discipline that deals with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behaviour. (Catlin)
2. Political science is the study of shaping and sharing of power. (Lasswell)
3. Political science is that part of social science which treats of the foundations of the State and the principles of government. (Paul Janet)
4. Political science deals with the associations of human beings that form political units, with the organization of their governments and with the activities of these governments in making and administering law in carrying on inter-state relations. (Gettell)
SCOPE
The scope of political science is very vast. “Scope” means the sub-fields or subjects or branches or topics that come under the field of political science. In other words, it refers to the contents or subjects or topics covered under the study of political science. Political science is generally divided and organized into six main fields, each representing a major subject area of teaching and research in institutions of higher learning: (i) state and government (ii) political theory (iii) comparative politics (iv) public administration (v) political behaviour (vi) international relations.
State and government.
Political science is the study of state and government. It deals with the nature (characteristics) and formation/origin (history) of the state, the various functions and forms of government. This field of study also focuses on the various political institutions such as the Executive, Legislature, Judiciary, the Cabinet, the civil service, local government, political parties, government agencies, public opinion, voting and elections and pressure groups. Political science also studies the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state.

Political theory.
Political theory involves the study of the political thought or ideas of the great political thinkers (philosophers) from ancient Greece to the present. We study the political thoughts of Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Hobbes, John Rawls, John Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau and others to understand their ideas about the state and government. Based on the political ideas of these great thinkers, political theory develops, formulates and interprets concepts such as freedom, democracy, liberty, equality, human rights, justice, power and sovereignty. Political theory also involves the development of models for government, such as participatory democracy or constitutional systems and the logic that political scientists use in their inquiries.
Comparative politics (government).
Comparative politics involves the study of the politics of different countries – i.e. structure and forms/ systems of government, constitutions, legal systems, powers of various branches of the government, political institutions and practices, etc). Some political scientists, known as area specialists, study a single country or a culturally similar group of nations or the countries of a particular area of the world, such as the countries of Southeast Asia . Area specialists have better knowledge of the language, history and culture of the country or group of countries they study. Other political scientists compare culturally dissimilar nations and investigate the similarities and the differences in the politics of these nations. Political scientists who undertake these comparisons are often motivated by the need to develop and test theories- for example, theories of why revolutions happen. This may lead them to discover commonalities between countries that are widely separated and appear very different. For example, political scientists have found many similarities between the transitions from autocratic rule to democracy in Latin America and Eastern Europe in the 1980 and 1990s.
Public administration.
Public administration refers to the various activities and operations carried out by the government. These include policy-making, enacting laws, providing public services such as education, law enforcement, national security, health care, financial administration, planning and implementation of development projects, maintenance of peace and order, local government administration, crime prevention, settlement of criminal and civil cases by the courts, etc. Political scientists interested in public administration study government agencies and their relation to other parts of government. Political scientists investigate how these public agencies work and try to devise methods of improving their effectiveness. For example, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler’s book Reinventing Government (1992) inspired many national, state and local governments to adopt more competitive, less bureaucratic, better ways of delivering quality services to the public (“doing more for less”).
Political behaviour.
Political behaviour involves the study of how people involve themselves in political processes and respond to political activity and events. This field emphasizes the study of voting behaviour (why do people vote, how do people vote and what wins elections), public opinion (people’s reactions to specific policies, issues and problems), study of political parties and pressure/interest groups and the behaviour of political leaders in certain situations.
International relations.
International relations is the study of the international system , which involves interactions ( i.e. political, economic, trade, diplomatic relations) between nations, international organizations (such as the United Nations and its specialized agencies, the European Union, ASEAN, OIC, OPEC, NATO, APEC, World Trade Organization (WTO) and other regional organisations) and multi/transnational corporations. This field of political science covers a wide range of subjects and include diplomacy, foreign policy analysis, international law, international organizations, methods of international disputes settlement, role of small, middle and big powers in the international system, peace and war studies and defence studies.
METHODS (Methodology) OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Methodology is very important in carrying out a systematic study of the goals, processes and institutions of the State and political events, incidents, phenomena and behaviour of individuals in a state. A method is a way of investigation for arriving at a particular finding or result. In a study of any political phenomenon, the method adopted should be explicitly stated, or it must be readily ascertainable. This would help others to retrace the steps, verify the reported facts and findings and examine the validity of the generalisations made on the basis of these facts. The following are some of the common methods adopted in political science to study political issues or subjects.
Statistical or Quantitative method.
This is one of the most modern and most useful methods for studying political issues or phenomena and hence it is very popular these days. This method is particularly applied to the study of political parties, public opinion, comparative governments, international relations, voting behaviour, general elections, etc. Political scientists who favour quantitative research most often use statistical methods such as opinion surveys and aggregate-level analysis. Opinion surveys ask a representative sample of individuals a series of questions about their behaviour, attitudes about politics, reactions to certain specific issues, their social status and other individual characteristics and come out with some findings.. In some countries, like the USA and the United Kingdom , Gallup Polls or public opinion polls are held to find out the trends in public opinion. Political scientists also commonly employ aggregate-level statistical analysis, in which administrative entities such as electoral districts, states or countries compose the units of analysis. Such analysis can be used to test broad theories – for example, the relationship between a country’s level of prosperity and how democratic its government is. In addition, time series analysis can be used to track political relationships involving time, for example, the voting strength of the various parties and the amount of government spending on social programmes over a ten-year period. However, the statistical method must be used with great care. We must be careful in the collection, use and analysis of the statistics. There is the possibility of the data supplied not being exact or accurate. Wrong decisions may be taken or wrong conclusions may be reached on the basis of wrong or inaccurate data. Statistics may be manipulated to suit the interests of a certain group. Those may be distorted for electoral and political manoeuvring. Despite this, it cannot be denied that a knowledge of statistical principles and sampling method is useful for investigating political events and issues.
Comparative method.
The comparative method involves the identification of similarities and differences. In other words, the very essence of this method lies in comparing different historical facts and political events for the purpose of finding the causes responsible for them. Similar events may occur under different political conditions or vice versa. Prof. Gilchrist has given the example of Revolutions which have taken place at all times under various conditions. By using the comparative method we may be able to find out why revolutions occur ; what are the main reasons /causes/consequences of revolutions; and are the conditions, causes and consequences the same or different and under what conditions are they different. Moreover, theories about the causes of revolution can be developed and tested by comparing the details of a few important revolutions. We may take the example of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Political scientists compare it to the French Revolution of 1789. They not only try to explain the causes and consequences but also point out the general principles which may serve as a guide for the future. The comparative method can also be used to compare different constitutions, legal and political systems, forms of government and working of democracy in various countries.
Historical Method.
The historical method is as old as Aristotle, the father of political science. This method aims to gather facts from past history (from documents and interviews) and arrive at some generalizations about political institutions. Every political institution has a history of its own ; institutions grow and are not made; they are the product of history, experience and experimentation. Therefore, without a proper knowledge of the genesis (origin), evolution and growth of the political institutions, there cannot be any in-depth study of politics. In other words, in order to understand any political event, institution or process, we must study its beginning and development. It is only by knowing the past and the present that we can plan for the ideal institutions of the future. According to Sir Frederick Pollock, the historical method “seeks an explanation of institutions as they are, and are tending to be, more in the knowledge of what they have been and how they came to be what they are, than in the analysis of them as they stand.” The formation of Malaysia , the development of the cabinet system, the evolution and growth of the parliamentary and federal systems of government and the growth of nationalism and democracy and the origin and development of the party system are some of the political events that could be studied using the historical method. The advantage of the historical method is that it clearly explains how and why certain political ideas, events and institutions originated and developed gradually. It further gives us a sense of history, a historical perspective. The disadvantage of this method is that history, as the record of past events, only explains what happened in the past without offering any effective solutions as to how political institutions and processes could be improved. Every age or generation is faced with some problems peculiar to it. History cannot help us in tackling such practical problem situations in a rapidly changing modern society like ours. Moreover, as history does not deal with values and ethical codes, the historical method does not offer any ethical guidelines or prescriptions to improve political institutions and processes.
Observational method.
The observational method involves visits to the outside world (countries) of political life to observe at close range the actual working of political institutions, processes and phenomena and collect valuable first- hand data/information and analyse it to reach some exact conclusions. The conclusions reached should be based on factual information and in-depth observation. Subjective views and personal prejudices of the researcher should be avoided. This method is useful for studying general elections, constitutions, systems of government and for assessing the social, economic and political conditions of countries. The main advantage of the method of observation is that it is practical and realistic. The facts/ information collected by the researcher can be verified and its truthfulness can be ascertained. The researcher writes down what he observes and studies the actual situation. Another merit of this method is precision, provided the researcher is well-informed, knowledgeable, truly competent and objective in his assessment of the information and situation.
IS POLITICAL SCIENCE A SCIENCE?
Before we examine the claim of political science to be called a science, we should understand the meaning of "science." "Science" may be defined as “a body of systematized knowledge.” So a knowledge that has been accumulated by a systematic process is called a science. A systematic method or scientific method consists of the following steps: (i) formulation of the problem; (ii) observation; (iii) classification; (iv) hypothesis; (v) verification; and (vi) prediction. Whenever a physical or social phenomenon is systematically analysed for formulating certain general principles or laws, we may call this method a scientific method. A knowledge that has been gathered as a result of systematic method should be called a science. So it is neither laboratory experiments nor universally valid laws that make a science a science. But it is systematic study or scientific methodology that makes a science a science. Physical sciences like physics, chemistry, biology, etc follow this scientific method while studying physical phenomena. Social sciences like sociology, political science and economics also follow this scientific method while studying a social phenomenon.
For example, a political scientist may observe the voting behaviour in a particular constituency for the purpose of formulating certain general principles. Aristotle studied the working of 158 constitutions; Likewise, Lord Bryce compared the working of democracy in various countries and then reached his conclusions on the relative merits and demerits of democracy. The bicameral legislature experiment of Britain has encouraged many countries to adopt the system. The same can be said about the working of the two-party system and proportional representation. It has been found by experience that democracy is a better form of government than other systems. It is more permanent than most other forms of government and helps more in promoting the welfare and well-being of the common people. Dictatorship, autocracy and aristocracy have been experimented in different parts of the world in ancient and modern times, but none of them proved successful.
Prof. R.N. Gilchrist is of the opinion that general laws can be deduced from the information collected and these could be helpful in solving the actual problems of the government. Lord Bryce believes that political science is a science “in the sense that there is constancy and uniformity in the tendencies of human nature, which enables us to regard the acts of men at one time as due to the same which have governed their acts at previous times.”
*************************************************************************************************************
Constitutions
Every state must have its own constitution. It is the way in which the State organises itself and the functions of its government. The constitution, is therefore, a set of rules, either written or unwritten, that determine the structure of the State and government, the distribution of the powers of various organs of the government and the relations between the rulers and the ruled. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a constitution as 'the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation or state is constituted and governed.' A constitution is also defined as 'the fundamental law of a state', ' the collection of principles according to which the powers of the government, rights of the governed and the relations between the two are adjusted' and as 'a written instrument by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined and by which those powers are distributed among the three branches of the government for their more safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the state.'

Purposes of constitutions
i. Constitutions establish a supreme law of the land. They state the fundamental laws of society and are not meant to be easily revised.
ii. They serve as a yardstick by which any activities of the government or the people are to be measured or evaluated.
iii. They indicate the values, ideas and goals that seem to best express the spirit of the national political culture.
iv. A constitution is also a blue print and a plan of government. It is a written description of who does what in government, defining the authority and limiting the powers of each branch and providing a mechanism for the resolution of conflicts.
v. A constitution also outlines the division of power between central and regional governments in a federal state. In a federal system of government, powers and responsibilities are divided between the national (central) government and several state or regional governments. Malaysia is a Federal State. Its constitution gives the central government control over certain areas of responsibility, such as defence, foreign affairs, finance, trade, education and health.
vi. Another role of a constitution is to give a government the stamp of legitimacy. Many nations in the world community will not even recognise a new state until it has adopted a written constitution. Constitutions proclaim the values of a new regime while also establishing a permanent outline for the organisation of government. As a symbolic statement of intentions with a practical outline of structure, a constitution helps to set the stamp of legitimacy on a new government. This is the main reason why almost every nation has adopted a constitution as soon as gaining independence.

Classification of constitutions
Constitutions have been classified as written (codified) , unwritten (uncodified) , rigid and flexible.
A written constitution is one in which most of the provisions are written down in a single document. Malaysia, India, the United States of America, Canada, etc., have written constitutions. Whenever there is a written constitution in a country, a distinction is made between constitutional law and the ordinary laws. There is a special procedure laid down for the amendment of the written constitution. The ordinary law can be enacted, amended and repealed by a simple process which is different from the one laid down for the constitution. All federal states have written constitutions. The great merit of a written constitution is that it is very definite. The people can refer to a document which contains all the fundamental principles concerning the structure and working of the government. It is easy for the masses to understand a written document. Moreover, as the powers of the various organs of the of government are clearly defined in the constitution, there are less chances of confusion and disputes. Even if a dispute arises, it can be referred to the judiciary, whose duty it is to decide it.
An unwritten constitution , on the other hand, is one in which most, but not all, the fundamental laws have been reduced to writing. An unwritten constitution consists largely of customs, usages and judicial decisions. It also consists of some written element which the legislature might enact from time to time. The best example of an unwritten constitution is that of the United Kingdom (England). The British constitution does not consist of a single document as ours does. Parts of the British constitution are in written form. They consist of court decisions, charters such as the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights and statutes (i.e. laws passed by parliament). However, an important part of the British constitution is unwritten. It consists not of documents but of certain customs, conventions and traditions about the government that the British people generally agree upon. For example, no written document spells out that the government is to be headed by a Prime Minister elected by Parliament. Rather, this has come about over the years as a result of tradition. Contrast this with the detailed way our (Malaysian) written constitution describes the office of Prime Minister and how it is to be filled.
A rigid constitution may be defined as one which cannot readily or easily be amended. This does not mean, of course, that it cannot ever be amended, but that any necessary amendments to the basic constitutional provisions may only be made by means of a special process or procedure provided by the constitution for that purpose. In the United States, for example, the method of proposing amendments to the constitution is by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress (i.e. the Senate and the House of Representatives), and then ratification by three- fourths of the state legislatures (i.e. approval by 38 of the 50 states). In Sweden, constitutional amendments must be passed by two successive legislatures, with a general election in between. In Malaysia, constitutional provisions can only be amended by the approval of two -thirds of both houses of Parliament. The chief merit of a rigid constitution is that it is definite, stable and certain. The people know the constitutional law of the country and there is no fear regarding its future. No unscrupulous politician or political party can change it overnight. The various interests in the country and the fundamental rights of citizens are well-protected as these are enshrined in the constitution. A rigid constitution is absolutely essential in the case of a Federation. The demerit of a rigid constitution is that cannot be changed to adjust itself to changing situations or circumstances.
A flexible constitution is one which can be readily or easily amended without any special procedure. In Britain, for example, there is no special legal procedure to amend the constitution. Parliament has the power to pass/ amend constitutional laws in the same way as it passes the ordinary laws. This means that there is absolutely no distinction between the procedure of passing ordinary and constitutional laws. The British constitution is flexible in the sense that it can be amended by a simple majority vote of its Parliament. The great merit of a flexible constitution is that it can be amended according to changing situations and circumstances. However, if a constitution is too flexible, there is a danger of instability in the country. It becomes a plaything in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and parties. They keep on changing it according to their own whims and fancies and vested interests. Such a constitution can create uncertainty and instability in the country. This can hinder socio-economic development of a nation.
*************************************************************************************************************
Democracy
Democracy refers to any system of government in which rule is by the people. The term democracy comes from the Greek “demos” (meaning "the people") and “kratia” (meaning "rule") or, putting the two together, rule by the people. The key idea of democracy is that it is the people who hold sovereign or supreme power. Thus, government is conducted by and with the people's consent. Abraham Lincoln best captured this spirit in describing democracy as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. In short, democracy is a form of government in which the people rule themselves either directly or indirectly through their representatives.
Characteristics of democracy
Individual liberty.
Democracy requires that all individuals must have as much freedom as possible consistent with order. No individual, of course, can be completely free to do absolutely anything he or she wants. That would result in disorder or even violence. Rather, democracy requires that all persons be as free as possible to develop their potential and personalities. In Malaysia, the fundamental liberties of citizens are enshrined in articles 5 to 13 of the Federal Constitution.
Majority rule with minority rights.
Democracy requires that government decisions be based on majority rule, but with the rights of the minority protected. Since democracy means rule by the people, majority rule answers the question of how the government determines what the people want. In a democracy, people usually accept decisions made by the majority of the voters in a free election. Laws enacted in our legislatures represent the will of the majority of the legislators and are accepted as such by the people and public officials. Democracy requires that the majority not use its power to diminish or abuse/violate the rights of the minority. Further, the minority must respect the rights of the majority.
Free elections.
All genuine democracies have free and open elections. Free elections at regular intervals (say once in five years) give people the chance to choose their leaders and to voice their opinions on various issues. Free elections also help to ensure that public officials are responsive to the needs and wishes of the people. In a democracy, free elections means: (a) that all citizens have equal voting power. In other words, the votes of all persons carry the same weight - a principle often expressed in the phrase "one person, one vote." (b) that all candidates have the right to express their views freely, choose their preferred leaders, and voters have access to competing ideas or programmes. (c) that citizens are free to organise in support of candidates or issues, and (d) that citizens are able to vote freely by secret ballot, without coercion or fear of punishment for their voting decisions.
Competing political parties.
Rival political parties are an important element of democratic government. A political party is a group of individuals who organise to win elections, form a government and determine public policy. Rival parties help make elections meaningful. They give voters a choice among candidates representing different interests and points of view. They also help simplify and focus attention on key issues for voters. Finally, in democratic countries, the political party or parties that are out of power serve as the Opposition. That is, by criticizing the policies and actions of the party in power, they can help make those in power more responsive and responsible or accountable to the people.
Popular representation.
In representative democracies, the voters elect representatives to act as legislators (to enact laws) and to voice and protect their general interest. Each legislator usually acts for a given constituency, district or group of people.
Free press.
Authoritarian regimes or dictatorships cannot tolerate free and critical mass media; democracies cannot do without them. One of the surest ways of determining the extent of democracy in a country is to see how free its press is. The press provides citizens with facts (information), raises public awareness and keeps rulers responsive to people's demands, needs and wishes. Without a free and critical press, those in power can disguise wrongdoing and corruption and lull the population into passive support.
Limited government.
A democratic government is carried on according to the principles, rules and provisions laid down in the constitution. This means that the powers of the government are restricted by the constitution. In other words, the government cannot exercise its powers arbitrarily, or abuse its powers according to its own whims and fancies.
Independent judiciary.
In a democracy, the judicial branch of the government functions independently. In Malaysia. the Federal Court, as the highest (apex) court, resolves disputes between citizens , between citizens and the government and between the state and Federal Governments.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SOVEREIGNTY
The term sovereignty is derived from the Latin word “supremitas” which means supremacy or supreme authority or absolute power.
DEFINITIONS
According to Bodin, “ Sovereignty is the supreme power of the State over its citizens unrestrained by law.”
Willoughby defines sovereignty as “ the supreme will of the state.”
The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia describes sovereignty as “ absolute political and military power embodied in a ruler or governmental body."
Grotius defined it as “ the supreme political power vested in him whose acts are not subject to any other and whose will cannot be overridden.”
Soltau describes sovereignty as the exercise of “final legal coercive power by the state.”
According to Laski, the sovereign is “legally supreme over any individual or group.” It possesses “supreme coercive power.”
Jenks defines sovereignty as “an authority which, in the last resort, controls absolutely the actions of every individual member of the community.”
Duguit says that sovereignty is the “commanding power of the state ; it is the will of the nation organized in the state; it is the right to give unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of the state.”
Burgess describes it as “the unlimited and independent power of the state to command and compel obedience.”
Based on the above definitions, we could define sovereignty as the supreme and absolute authority of a state over its citizens and territory. Sovereignty means that a state is independent of other states; it can govern its own territory; declare war; enact and enforce any laws or policies within its own territory; it can compel or force its citizens to pay taxes or obey its laws and punish those who disobey its commands; it can have diplomatic and trade relations with any country; it is independent and no other state can control it or interfere in its internal affairs.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOVEREIGNTY
The following are the characteristics of sovereignty: (i) permanence; (ii) exclusiveness; (iii) all-comprehensiveness (Universality); (iv) Inalienability; (v) Indivisibility; and (vi) absoluteness.
(i) Permanence. Governments may come and go, but the state remains for ever. As the state is permanent, so is its sovereignty. So long as the State lasts, sovereignty also lasts. The State and sovereignty cannot be separated from each other. Sovereignty continues or remains uninterrupted by changes in government in a State. When there is change of government or ruler, sovereignty shifts to the new government or ruler. But sovereignty as an attribute of the State continues. It is in this sense that sovereignty is claimed to be permanent.
(ii) Exclusiveness. Another characteristic of sovereignty is exclusiveness. It means that the State alone possesses supreme power and is legally competent to compel the obedience of its citizens. In other words, there cannot be more than one sovereign in a state claiming the legal obedience of the people. Acceptance of more than one supreme and ultimate power would affect the essential unity of the State.
(iii) All-Comprehensivenes. The all-comprehensive and universal character of sovereignty denotes that within a State, the authority of the sovereign must extend to all persons, associations and groups existing within the territory of the State. Hence, the commands of the sovereign are binding on all persons and groups. No one can be exempted or free from the all-embracing authority of the State. However, foreign diplomats and ambassadors enjoy immunity from the control of the State in which they reside. They are subject to the laws of their own states. But these extra-territorial privileges enjoyed by the diplomatic community under the provisions of international law is not a real limitation on the State’s sovereign power; for it is, after all, a matter of international courtesy and the sovereign may at any time withdraw the privileges granted to those who enjoy them.
(iv) Inalienability. Sovereignty is also inalienable. It cannot be transferred or parted with, without destroying sovereignty itself. In other words, no sovereign can claim to be sovereign after transferring its supreme powers to another person. However, the abdication of a monarch or sovereign or a change of government does not mean the alienation of sovereignty – in this case, sovereignty only shifts to a new bearer. When a state cedes a portion of its territory, it loses its sovereignty over the area ceded. For example, when the United States and its allies occupied Iraq , sovereignty shifted to them, but later sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqis soon after the elections.
(v) Indivisibility. Sovereignty cannot be divided. The reason is that if sovereignty is divided, more than one state would exist. Sovereignty is an entire thing- to divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a state and we cannot think of two or more states sharing sovereignty. In a Federal state, there is no division of sovereignty as sovereignty rests with the Federal government. The division, distribution, delegation or sharing of powers between the Central government and the state governments do not affect the idea of undivided sovereignty.
(vi) Absoluteness. Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited. This means that neither within the state nor outside it is there any power which is superior to the sovereign. Within the state, the sovereign can make any law it pleases. It can even change the constitution itself. No other authority within the state has this power. Externally, the state is not subject to the control or domination of another state. In other words, there is no authority outside the state to which a sovereign is obedient or dependent. The state can enter into any treaty or have relations with any other state it wishes.
TYPES / KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty has been classified into different types : (a) Internal sovereignty; (b) External sovereignty; (c) Popular sovereignty; (d) Legal sovereignty; (e) Political sovereignty; (f) Titular sovereignty; (g) De Jure sovereignty; and (h) De Facto sovereignty.
(a) Internal sovereignty. Internal sovereignty means that the state has complete legal and ultimate authority and control over all individuals and associations within its territory. The state has the authority to issue orders or commands to all citizens and associations in the state and use force, if necessary, to get people obey its orders or laws; it receives orders from none of them; its will is subject to no legal limitation of any kind; what the state proposes is right by mere announcement of intention. In other words, no individual or group has the legal right to act against the decisions of the state. The authority of the state is supreme in all its internal matters.
(b) External sovereignty. External sovereignty means that the state is legally independent of other states. It is not subject to the control or domination of foreign nations. No state can interfere in the internal affairs of another state. The state is free to conduct its own affairs according to its will.
(c) Popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty means that the supreme power and the ultimate authority in the state rests with the people. They alone decide as to how the government should be run or administered. In other words, the government of a country should be carried on according to the public opinion prevailing in that country because the government exists for the good of the people. If the wishes of the people are ignored, there will always the possibility of a revolution. Moreover, there should not be unnecessary use of force by the state. The government should be held responsible to the people through periodical elections. In short, popular sovereignty means government is run according to the will of the people through the exercise of the right of voting. People can elect any leader or party they like to form the government. The government is formed by “the consent of the governed."
(d) Legal sovereignty. By legal sovereign we mean “the person or body in whom resides as of right the ultimate power of laying down the general rules.” It is , in other words, the sovereign whom the law recognizes as sovereign. For instance, in the United Kingdom the parliament is legal sovereign as it is the final and supreme law-making authority in that country. There is no other power or body of persons that can declare laws enacted by parliament (legislature) as ultra vires or invalid. Similarly, in Malaysia parliament is the legal sovereign. It alone declares in legal terms the will of the state through laws passed by it from time to time. Some writers interpret legal sovereignty as the ability of a state to make its own laws or amend or repeal its own laws without limitations imposed by any outside authority.
(e) Political sovereignty. In a democratic country, while the legal sovereign is the supreme law-making and law- enforcing authority, there is behind it the will of the people which is the ultimate and final source of all authority. It is the authority from whose verdict there can be no appeal. For example, while parliament may be the legal sovereign in Malaysia, the real power behind the parliament is the electorate. It is the power of the electorate that empowers parliament. The decision of parliament is always influenced by public opinion. It is for this reason that it is said that the electorate constitutes the political sovereign. Some writers identify political sovereignty with the mass of the population, some with public opinion, some with the electorate and some with groups who have the power to bring about changes in the government.
(f ) Titular sovereignty. The term "titular sovereignty" is used to denote a king or queen who has no real powers but one who symbolizes the sovereign power of the state. Perhaps the best example of a titular sovereign is the British Queen Elizabeth II. The monarch has only nominal powers but no real powers. All powers are exercised on her behalf by the Ministers who are responsible to the British parliament. The Queen is the constitutional monarch of England, having merely a titular position in the constitutional system. Yet all orders and commands are issued in the name of the Queen (Her Majesty's Government). In Malaysia, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is also a titular sovereign. Under the Federal Constitution, he acts on the advice of the Cabinet. He has only nominal powers. Actual or real power is with the Cabinet.
(g) De Jure sovereignty. "De Jure" means "according to the law". De Jure sovereignty is based on law. The de jure sovereign is competent to issue the highest command of the state and it has the legal right to command obedience. The law of the land recognises only one authority, i.e. de jure sovereign. To put it differently, a de jure sovereign is one who is considered to be sovereign in the eyes of the law, (i.e. legal sovereign) although he may not exercise actual control over a territory or administer a government. The Yang di- Pertuan Agong is the de jure sovereign in Malaysia. Queen Elizabeth II is the de jure authority in the United Kingdom and Australia.
(h) De facto sovereignty. The term "de facto" means something that does not exist in the eyes of the law (not recognised by law). The de facto sovereign is one who possesses the actual power, but is not recognised by law. Sometimes it may so happen that a legal sovereign may be replaced by force (during a military coup) or otherwise (when a ruler is seriously ill, etc) by another ruler or authority who exercises sovereign rights without a legal basis. In such cases, the person is called de facto sovereign. For example, after the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek in 1949, the Communists became the de facto sovereign of China. Other examples of de facto sovereignty are: Overthrow of Prime Minsiter Zulfikar Ali Bhutto by Gen. Zia Ul-Haq in Pakistan (1977); Overthrow of Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff by Gen. Pervez Musharaaf in Pakistan ( October 1999) that made Musharaaf the President of Pakistan; Overthrow of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Shah of Iran) during the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that made Ayatollah Khomeini the Head of State; Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz taking over the control of government administration in Saudi Arabia following a stroke suffered by King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz in 1995 - Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz was appointed monarch following the death of King Fahd on 2nd August 2005. It must be noted that generally the de facto sovereign becomes the de jure sovereign in the long run (either by formal appointment or through a general election).
*************************************************************************************************************
Parliamentary Government
A parliamentary form of government is one in which the executive is responsible to the legislature. It is also called the cabinet system of government. In Malaysia, India, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, etc., we have a parliamentary form of government.
Characteristics
a. There is always a dual executive - one executive is nominal and the other is real. In Malaysia, the nominal executive is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the real executive is the cabinet. The nominal executive does not exercise any powers. He is required to act in accordance with the provisions of the constitution - i.e. he acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. All the powers of the government are enjoyed and exercised by the cabinet, which is responsible to the legislature and through it to the people. The nominal executive is the head of state whereas the real executive - the prime minister - is the head of government.
b. In parliamentary systems, voters elect only a legislature. The legislature then elects an executive from among its members.
c. The majority party in parliament forms the government. The prime minister who is the head of the largest party in parliament, names a team of ministers who are themselves members of the parliament. These ministers then guide the various ministries or departments of government that form the executive branch. The prime minister and the ministers are responsible or answerable to the parliament for all their actions.
d. The ministers are the members of the legislature as well as the executive heads of government departments. Thus they enjoy a dual position. As members of the majority party in parliament, they formulate public policy and are responsible for enacting laws. As members of the executive, they control the different departments of the government and enforce those laws and implement public policy. The theory of separation of powers, therefore, does not hold true in a parliamentary form of government. The ministers remain in office so long as the party to which they belong to enjoys the support and confidence of the majority members of the legislature. They have no fixed term of office. If they are defeated in the legislature, they have to resign.
Advantages of parliamentary government
The most important merit of a parliamentary form of government is the harmony and co-operation between the legislature and the executive. This is due to the fact that only the majority party in the parliament is allowed to form the cabinet. As the cabinet is always sure of its support in the legislature (because the executive and legislative branches are governed by the same party), it feels confident that whatever legislation (laws) it initiates, will be passed without any change. This accounts for the solidarity of the government and its stability. A stable government ensures efficiency, effectiveness and the speedy implementation of the policies which received the approval of the electorate at the time of the general election.
In a parliamentary government, responsibility of the government is continuous and immediate. The weaknesses and blunders of the government can be criticized and condemned without any loss of time . The legislature sits most of the time and the ministers too sit in the legislature. There is no difficulty in asking the ministers questions and supplementary questions. If the actions of the government are wrong, the prime minister and cabinet can be speedily ousted by a vote of no confidence in the parliament.
Parliamentary government is the best specimen of representative democracy as it recognises the ultimate sovereignty of the people and ensures ministerial responsibility. The elected representatives of the people are the trustees of the whole nation. If they act against public opinion, they may not be elected again. Their actions are always under scrutiny.
Another merit of parliamentary government is its flexibility and elasticity. Under this form of government, people can easily change the government without a bloody revolution and 'choose a ruler for the occasion' who may be specially qualified to manage a crisis situation. At the time of the Second World War, Chamberlain was replaced by Churchill as Prime Minister because national emergency demanded it and this change was brought about without any political upheaval in England.
One other advantage of parliamentary form of government is its high educative value. It cannot function without well-organised political parties. The aims of political parties are to mould and educate public opinion, win elections and form the government. They place before the people different manifestoes or programmes. For winning elections, the electorate must approve the programmes of the parties. All this makes the people politically conscious and vigilant.
A final merit of parliamentary government is that it is in the real sense a government by criticism. Whereas the majority party in the legislature forms the government, the minority party forms the opposition. The opposition criticises and acts as a check and balance on the government. There is a saying in England that the Prime Minister knows the Leader of the Opposition better than his wife! This explains how far the cabinet is alive to the criticism of the opposition.
Demerits of parliamentary government
If a parliamentary system has certain merits, it has its shortcomings too.
a. It violates the theory of separation of powers as it combines the executive and legislative functions in the same group of individuals. This leads to tyranny or 'cabinet dictatorship'. A party can get anything done or can rule as it pleases if it is backed by a majority in the parliament.
b. A parliamentary government is weak in times of war or an emergency situation. As the cabinet consists of large number of ministers, and there are 'many minds to be consulted', it cannot take prompt or quick action or make decisive decisions in times of national crisis.
c. The parliamentary system of government is unstable. The government has no fixed life. It remains in office only so long as it can retain its parliamentary majority which is subject to the whims and fancies of the representatives and they may frequently change their opinion. The uncertainty in the tenure of office does not encourage the party in power to adopt a far-sighted and consistent policy. There is hardly any continuity of policies in a parliamentary government, particularly in a coalition government or under a multi-party system.
d. The Opposition often opposes the policy and the bills introduced by the party in power irrespective of their merits. Political parties sometimes distort public opinion and do more harm than good. Irresponsible criticism by the opposition may pose a threat to national unity, stability and prestige.
e. A parliamentary government is ineffective and inefficient because it is a government by amateurs. The ministers in-charge of their departments know very little about their departments. Sometimes, following a cabinet reshuffle, they are transferred from one department to another. the result is that they do not have enough experience of the working of the departments which they head. Therefore, much cannot be expected from them in terms of efficiency or effectiveness in work performance.
f. In a parliamentary form of government, the cabinet system degenerates into a party government in which the political power is monopolised by the majority party. So long as parliamentary majority is assured it assumes dictatorial powers neglecting the interests and rights of the minorities. With the growth of rigidity in the party discipline, every member must obey the party whip, otherwise he is liable to party discipline, which may mean the end of his political career. Members, therefore, cannot be objective or independent. They are required to support their party blindly, much against their conscience or judgment.
In spite of these defects, and some of them are real, it cannot be denied that the parliamentary system of government is both responsible and responsive. There is no other form of government which fulfils these democratic ideals. It is for this reason that the Malaysian Constitution provides for such a system.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Features of a Federation
A federation is a union among several States agreeing to form a new State either for political or economic reasons - i.e. to promote economic prosperity or to resist external aggression. They believe in the saying that 'unity is strength'. According to Freeman, a federation is the coming together of a number of States formerly separated and sovereign into some kind of arrangement to secure the common safety and prosperity. The United States of America was originally a union of the thirteen states. Now it is the union of fifty (50) States. Other examples of a federation are : Malaysia, India, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, etc.
The following are the distinguishing features (characteristics) of a federation:
a. Co-existence of two governments. In a federal system, the territory of the entire State is divided into a number of autonomous (independent) units. Each of these units is known as a State or province and has a regional government. Thus in a federation we have two layers or levels of government - i.e. a central government and several regional or state governments. In Malaysia (a union of thirteen states) the regional governments are called State Governments, in Canada as Provincial Governments and in Switzerland as Cantonal Governments.
b. Division of powers. This is the most important feature of a federation. Each of the two sets of governments in a federation (i.e. the Central government and the State governments) has specified powers to exercise. This allocation or division or sharing of powers between the central and state governments is enshrined in the constitution itself. In Malaysia, for example, the powers of the Federal Government is specified in the Federal List whereas the powers of the State Governments are clearly spelt out in the State List in order to avoid disputes. The general principle in the division of powers is that all powers which are of national importance, e.g., defence, foreign affairs, national finance, trade, external borrowing , education, etc., are assigned to the central government and matters of provincial or local interest like sewerage, land, local government affairs, entertainment , etc., are granted to state governments.
c. A written and rigid constitution. All federal states have a written constitution. This is because in a federal system there is sharing or division of powers, which must be laid down in clear, definite and precise terms. The constitution is not only a written one , it is also rigid to ensure that the central or regional governments do not alter the federal characteristics of the State as and when they like. Further, a federal constitution is supreme over the laws passed by both the central and regional governments. In case a law enacted by both the central and regional governments conflicts with the provisions of the federal constitution, the law in question would be invalid.
d. A federal judiciary. A federal government is like a contract or agreement. As such, there may be numerous occasions for conflicts between the states and the central government or among the states on matters or questions of jurisdiction, powers, functions or administrative relations. In order to decide such disputes, the federal constitution provides for a supreme court. The independence of this court is maintained by making the tenure of the judges permanent during good behaviour. In Malaysia, the highest (apex) court is known as the Federal Court.

Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) responsibility for “safeguard[ing] the special position of the ‘Malays’(see note) and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities” and goes on to specify ways to do this, such as establishing quotas for entry into the civil service, public scholarships and public education.
Article 153 is one of the most controversial articles in the Malaysian constitution. Critics consider it to create an unnecessary and racialist distinction between Malaysians of different ethnic backgrounds, because it has led to the implementation of affirmative action policies which benefit only the Bumiputra, who comprise a majority of the population. Technically, discussing the repeal of Article 153 is illegal[1]—even in Parliament, although it was drafted as a temporary provision to the Constitution. Despite this prohibition on discussion, the article is heatedly debated both privately and publicly among Malaysians. Opposition groups, especially the Democratic Action Party[citation needed], are often against the implementation of the article although ostensibly maintaining support for it. Nevertheless, the article is viewed as a sensitive matter by many, with politicians who are in favour or oppose it often being labelled as racist.
The article is primarily seen as a continuation of previous laws made by the British to protect the indigenous peoples from being overwhelmed by the immigration of Chinese and Indian workers into Malaya. In the years after independence in 1957, the Chinese and Indians were generally rich urban dwellers, whilst the Bumiputra were mostly poor farmers or manual labourers.
The first clause of the article provides that the government should act "in accordance with the provisions of this Article".
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Origins
• 2 Controversy
o 2.1 Early debate
o 2.2 Racial rioting
o 2.3 Additional affirmative action
o 2.4 Meritocracy
o 2.5 Present opposition
• 3 Article 153 in Diagrams
• 4 Full text of Article 153
• 5 Notes and references

[edit] Origins
The Constitution was drafted on the basis of a report from the Reid Commission. The commission, which had been formed to lay the groundwork for a Constitution in the run-up to Malaysia's pending independence, released the report in 1957 as the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957 or The Reid Commission Report.[2] In the report, the Reid Commission stated that "provision should be made in the Constitution for the 'safeguarding of the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other Communities'." However, the Commission "found it difficult [...] 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."[citation needed]
The Reid Commission reported that Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malay Rulers had asked 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." At that time, Tunku Abdul Rahman was the leader of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), which led the Alliance coalition. Eventually the Alliance would become the Barisan Nasional and Tunku Abdul Rahman later became the first Prime Minister of Malaysia. When succeeding to the UMNO Presidency, Tunku had expressed doubts about the loyalty of the non-Malays to Malaya, and as a result, insisted that this be settled before they be granted citizenship. However, he also stated that "For those who love and feel they owe undivided loyalty to this country, we will welcome them as Malayans. They must truly be Malayans, and they will have the same rights and privileges as the Malays."[3]
The Commission found the existing privileges accorded to the Malays included the allocation of extensive Malay land reservations. In addition, the Commission discovered quotas for admission to the public services with a general rule that "not more than one-quarter of new entrants [to a particular service] should be non-Malays." Operation quotas existed in regard to the issuing of permits or licences for the operation of certain businesses "chiefly concerned with road haulage and passenger vehicles for hire." In addition, there existed "scholarships, bursaries and other forms of aid for educational purpose" where preference was given to Malays.[citation needed]
Although the Commission reported it did not find opposition to the continuance of the existing privileges for a certain length of time, it stated that "there was great opposition in some quarters to any increase of the present preferences and to their being continued for any prolonged period." The Commission recommended that the existing privileges should be continued as the "Malays would be at a serious and unfair disadvantage compared with other communities if they were suddenly withdrawn." However, "in due course the present preferences should be reduced and should ultimately cease." The Commission suggested that these provisions be revisited in 15 years, and that a report should be presented to the appropriate legislature (currently the Parliament of Malaysia) and that the "legislature should then determine either to retain or to reduce any quota or to discontinue it entirely."[citation needed]
Originally there was no reference made to other indigenous peoples of Malaysia (then Malaya) such as the Orang Asli, but with the union of Malaya with Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak in 1963, the Constitution was amended so as to provide similar privileges for the indigenous peoples of East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak), grouping them with the Malays as Bumiputra.
The scope of Article 153 is limited by Article 136, which requires that civil servants be treated impartially regardless of race.
[edit] Controversy
Although the Bumiputra have always been the largest racial segment of the Malaysian population (about 65%), their economic position has always tended to be precarious. As late as 1970, 13 years after the drafting of the constitution, they controlled only 4% of the economy, with much of the rest being held by Chinese and foreign interests. As a result, the Reid Commission had recommended the drafting of Article 153 to address this economic imbalance.
But there continued to exist substantial political opposition to the economic reforms designed to aid the Malays. Some contended that Article 153 appeared to unduly privilege the Bumiputra as a higher class of Malaysian citizenry. Many Chinese and Indians also felt unfairly treated since some of them had been there for generations - since the mid-19th century - and yet until the late 1950s, they still had not been awarded Malaysian citizenship. However, a majority of the Malays during that time believed that the Chinese and the Indians came to Malaya for economic purposes only, working at plantations and mines.
In the 1970s, substantial economic reforms were enacted to address the economic imbalance. In the 1980s and 1990s, more affirmative action was also implemented to create a Malay class of entrepreneurs. Public opposition to such policies appeared to wither away after the rioting of May 1969, with parties running on a platform of reducing Bumiputra privileges losing ground in Parliamentary elections. However, in the first decade of the 21st century, debate was revived when several government politicians made controversial statements on the nature of Malay privileges as set out by Article 153.
[edit] Early debate
The article has been a source of controversy since the early days of Malaysia. In particular, it was not entirely clear if Article 153 was predicated on the Malays' economic status at the time, or if it was meant to recognise Bumiputra as a special class of citizens. Some took the latter view, like Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew of the People's Action Party (PAP), who publicly questioned the need for Article 153 in Parliament, and called for a "Malaysian Malaysia". In a speech, Lee bemoaned what would later be described as the Malaysian social contract:
"According to history, Malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39% Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour."[4]
Lee also criticised the government's policies by stating that "[t]hey, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn't it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved."[5] He also lamented "Malaysia—to whom does it belong? To Malaysians. But who are Malaysians? I hope I am, Mr Speaker, Sir. But sometimes, sitting in this chamber, I doubt whether I am allowed to be a Malaysian."[citation needed]
Lee's statements upset many, especially politicians from the Alliance. Then Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin called Lee the "greatest, disruptive force in the entire history of Malaysia and Malaya."[6] The Tunku considered Lee to be too extremist in his views, while other UMNO politicians thought Lee was simply taking advantage of the situation to pander to the Chinese Malaysians.[7] PAP-UMNO relations were chilled further when UMNO officials publicly backed the opposition Singapore Alliance Party in Singapore's 1963 general election and PAP responded in turn by fielding several candidates in the Malaysian federal elections in 1964. These acts were seen by each party as challenges of the other's authority in their respective domains, and in violation of previous agreements made by the PAP and UMNO before merger not to contest each other's elections until Malaysia had matured enough.[8] The tension led to the 1964 racial riots in Singapore that killed 36 people. Eventually, the Tunku decided to ask Singapore, through Lee and some of his closest confidantes, to secede from Malaysia. Eventually, Lee (reluctantly) agreed to do so, and Singapore became an independent nation in 1965, with Lee as its first Prime Minister.[citation needed] The Constitution of Singapore contains an article, Article 152, that names the Malays as "indigenous people" of Singapore and therefore requiring special safeguarding of their rights and privileges as such. However, the article specifies no policies for such safeguarding.
[edit] Racial rioting
On 13 May 1969, a few days after the 10 May general election, a race riot broke out. In the preceding election, parties like the Democratic Action Party (DAP, formerly the Malaysian branch of the PAP) and Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia, which opposed special Bumiputra privileges, had made substantial gains, coming close to defeating the Alliance and forming a new government. The largely Chinese opposition Democratic Action Party and Gerakan later secured a police permit for a victory parade through a fixed route in Kuala Lumpur, the capital city of Malaysia. However, the rowdy procession deviated from its route and headed through the Malay district of Kampung Baru, jeering at the inhabitants. While the Gerakan party issued an apology the next day, UMNO announced a counter-procession starting from the head of Selangor state Dato' Harun bin Idris on Jalan Raja Muda. Reportedly, the gathering crowd was informed that Malays on their way to the procession had been attacked by Chinese in Setapak, several miles to the north. The angry protestors swiftly wreaked revenge by killing two passing Chinese motorcyclists, and the riot began. The official death toll was approximately 200, although some would later estimate it to be as high as 2000. The riot was later attributed to the underlying discontent among Malays due to poverty.[9]
UMNO Parliamentary backbencher Mahathir Mohamad soon became the face of a movement against the Tunku, arguing that he had been too accommodative towards the non-Malays. In a letter to the Prime Minister, demanding his resignation, Mahathir argued that the Tunku had given the Chinese "too much face" and that the responsibility for the deaths of the people in the riot rested squarely on the Tunku's shoulders. Mahathir was expelled from UMNO not long after, and Home Affairs Minister Ismail Abdul Rahman warned that "[t]hese ultras believe in the wild and fantastic theory of absolute dominion by one race over the other communities, regardless of the Constitution".[10]
The government suspended Parliament and the executive branch governed on its own through the National Operations Council (NOC) until 1971.[11][12] The NOC proposed amendments to the Sedition Act that made illegal the questioning of, among others, Article 153. These amendments were passed by Parliament as law when it reconvened in 1971.[13]
During the period of NOC governance, the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP) was implemented. The NEP aimed to eradicate poverty irrespective of race by expanding the economic pie so that the Chinese share of the economy would not be reduced in absolute terms but only relatively. The aim was for the Malays to have a 30% equity share of the economy, as opposed to the 4% they held in 1970. Foreigners and Chinese held much of the rest.[14] The NEP appeared to be derived from Article 153 and could be viewed as being in line with its wording. Although Article 153 would have been up for review in 1972, fifteen years after Malaysia's independence in 1957, due to the May 13 Incident it remained unreviewed. A new expiration date of 1991 for the NEP was set, twenty years after its implementation.[15]
[edit] Additional affirmative action

Under the terms of the affirmative action policies implemented in line with Article 153, Bumiputra are given discounts on real estate.
Mahathir, who had been a strong supporter of affirmative action for the Malays since the late 1960s, expounded upon his views in his book The Malay Dilemma while in political exile. The book argued that stronger measures were needed to improve the Malays' economic lot.[16] It also contended that the Malays were the "definitive" people and thus "rightful owners" of Malaysia, which also entitled them to their privileges.[17] Mahathir was rehabilitated under the second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, and was appointed as the Deputy of the third Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn. When Hussein Onn resigned, Mahathir became Prime Minister.[18]
During Mahathir's tenure as Prime Minister, the NEP, after its expiry, was replaced by the National Development Policy (NDP), that sought to create a Malay class of entrepreneurs and business tycoons.[15][19] However, allegations of corruption and nepotism plagued Mahathir's administration, and Mahathir's goal of creating a new class of Malay tycoons was criticised for ignoring the rural Malays, who comprised the majority of the Malay population.[20] Under Mahathir, quotas for entry into public universities were enforced, with some universities such as Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) admitting only Bumiputra students.[21][22] In 1998, then Education Minister Najib Tun Razak (son of Tun Abdul Razak who implemented the NEP) stated that without quotas, only 5% of undergraduates in public universities would be Malays. Najib argued this justified the need for the continuance of quotas.[23]
These policies also mandate that publicly listed companies must set aside 30% of equity for Bumiputras; discounts that must be provided for automobile and real estate purchases; a set amount of lots set aside for Bumiputras in housing projects; companies submitting bids for government projects be Bumiputra-owned and that Approved Permits (APs) for importing automobiles be preferentially given to Bumiputras.[24] The equity in the publicly listed companies is disbursed by the Trade Ministry, and sold to selected Bumiputras at substantial discounts. However, the recipients frequently sell their stake in the companies immediately.[25] The policies continued the Bumiputra advantage in higher education. In practice, however, most of these privileges went to Malays, and non-Malay Bumiputras, like the Orang Asli or aboriginal peoples, did not appear to have benefited much from Article 153 or policies such as the NEP.[26]
[edit] Meritocracy
In 2003, Mahathir began stressing that Malays needed to abandon their "crutches," and implemented a policy of "meritocracy". However, this policy by and large streams Bumiputras into what is termed matriculation, as a prelude to university admission, whereby students take a course and later sit for a test set by the instructor. The non-Bumiputras generally sit for the Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia (STPM) standardised examination in order to enter university. Although it is possible for non-Bumiputras to enter matriculation, and Bumiputras who prefer to take the STPM may do so, in practice, it is difficult for non-Bumiputras to gain entry into the matriculation stream.[27]
The meritocracy policy itself came in for criticism from both sides of the political divide, with some quarters of UMNO calling it "discrimination," leading to an "uneven playing field," and asked for the restoration of the quota system that set the ratio of Bumiputra to non-Bumiputra students in public institutions at 55 to 45.[28] Others, however, branded meritocracy as a sham due to its division of students into the two different streams.[29]
In 2003, Mahathir was succeeded by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who, like his predecessor, warned the Malays that overreliance on their privileges would be fatal. "A continuing reliance on crutches will further enfeeble [the nation], and we may eventually end up in wheelchairs."[30] However, within UMNO, some, such as Education Minister Hishamuddin bin Hussein - Hussein Onn's son, and UMNO Deputy Permanent Chairman Badruddin Amiruldin, appeared to disagree and in turn argued for the protection of Malay privileges.
In 2005, several Malays, led by Hishamuddin at the UMNO Annual General Meeting (AGM) argued that the 30% equity target of the NEP had yet to be met and called on the government to restore the NEP as the New National Agenda (NNA).[31] At the past year's AGM, Badruddin had warned questioning Article 153 and "Malay rights" would be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and declared, "Let no one from the other races ever question the rights of Malays on this land." The year before, UMNO Youth Information Chief Azmi Daim had also said, "In Malaysia, everybody knows that Malays are the masters of this land. We rule this country as provided for in the federal constitution. Any one who touches upon Malay affairs or criticizes Malays is [offending] our sensitivities."[32]
At the 2005 AGM, Hishamuddin brandished the traditional Malay dagger, the kris, while warning the non-Bumiputras not to attack Malay rights and "ketuanan Melayu" (translated variously as Malay supremacy or dominance).[33] His action was applauded by the UMNO delegates. Then Higher Education Minister Shafie Salleh also stated that he would ensure the amount of new Malay students admitted would always exceed the old quotas set, and that UiTM would remain an all-Bumiputra institution.[22]
[edit] Present opposition


Anwar Ibrahim has been critical of the New Economic Policy since his recent release from prison.
At present, the Bumiputra privileges both enshrined in Article 153 and as set out by other acts of law, remain in force. Many opposition parties including, the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), have pledged themselves to undoing the NEP. The DAP has argued that it does not have anything against the special position of Bumiputras as set out in Article 153, but seeks to undo the government's policies such as the NEP that they believe discriminate unfairly against the non-Bumiputras.[34] The PKR, which was founded to fight for the release of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who had been detained for charges of corruption and sodomy after he publicly opposed Mahathir's policies, also has criticised the NEP. After Anwar's release in 2004, he criticised the NEP as having failed the Malays and stated that he would seek its replacement by a more equitable policy.[35][36]
The NEP and other privileges accorded to the Bumiputras or Malays under Article 153 have been noted for not explicitly seeking to eradicate poverty among the Malays, but instead largely aiming to improve the Malays' overall share of the economy, even if this share is held by a small number of Malays.[37] However, the NEP has also been defended as having been largely successful in creating a Malay middle class and improving Malaysian standards of living without compromising the non-Bumiputra share of the economy in absolute terms; indeed, statistics indicate that the Chinese and Indian middle classes also grew under the NEP, albeit not as much as the Malays'. It has also been contended that the NEP defused racial tensions by eradicating the perception of the Chinese as the mercantile class and the perception of the Malays as mere farmers.[38]
Article 10 (4) of the Constitution permits Parliament to make it illegal to question, among others, Article 153 of the Constitution. Under the Sedition Act, questioning Article 153 is indeed illegal—even for Members of Parliament, who usually have the freedom to discuss anything without fear of external censure.[39] The government can also arbitrarily detain anyone it desires theoretically for sixty days, but in reality for an undetermined length of time, under the Internal Security Act (ISA). In 1987 under Operation Lalang (literally "weeding operation"), several leaders of the DAP, including Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh, were held under the ISA. It is widely believed this was due to their calling for the NEP and other Malay privileges to be reviewed.[40] Others have questioned the constitutionality of the NEP.[41]
In 2005, the issue of the Constitution and its provisions was also brought up by several politicians within the government itself. Lim Keng Yaik of the Gerakan party, which by now had joined Barisan Nasional, the ruling coalition, asked for a re-examination of the social contract so that a Bangsa Malaysia (literally 'Malaysian race' or 'Malaysian nation' in the Malay language) could be achieved.[42] The social contract is a term used to describe the Constitution's provisions with regard to the different races' privileges—those who defend it and Article 153 often define the social contract as providing the Indians and Chinese with citizenship in exchange for the Malays' special rights or ketuanan Melayu.
Lim was severely criticised by many Malay politicians, including Khairy Jamaluddin, the Prime Minister's son-in-law and Deputy Chairman of the UMNO Youth wing, and Ahmad Shabery Cheek, a prominent Malay Member of Parliament from the state of Terengganu. The Malay press, most of which is owned by UMNO, also ran articles condemning the questioning of the social contract.[43] Lim was adamant, asking in an interview "How do you expect non-Malays to pour their hearts and souls into the country, and to one day die for it if you keep harping on this? Flag-waving and singing the 'Negaraku' (the national anthem) are rituals, while true love for the nation lies in the heart."[42]
A year earlier, Abdullah had given a speech where he mentioned the most "significant aspect" of the social contract as "the agreement by the indigenous peoples to grant citizenship to the immigrant Chinese and Indians". Although Abdullah went on to state that the character of the nation changed to "one that Chinese and Indian citizens could also call their own,"[44] the speech went largely unremarked.
In the end, Lim stated that the Malay press had blown his comments out of proportion and misquoted him. The issue ended with UMNO Youth chief Hishamuddin Hussein warning people not to "bring up the issue again as it has been agreed upon, appreciated, understood and endorsed by the Constitution."[45]
[edit] Article 153 in Diagrams
The two diagrams below summarise the provisions of Article 153. The first shows how Article 153 deals with the special position of Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (collectively, "bumiputras") and the second shows how it deals with the legitimate interests of the other communities.

Diagram 1: Special Position of Bumiputras



Diagram 2: Legitimate Interests of Other Communities

[edit] Full text of Article 153

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Constitution of Malaysia

1. It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
2. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special provision of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.
3. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions.
4. In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.
5. This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136.
6. Where by existing federal law a permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grant of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable, and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.
7. Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorised a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.
8. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where by any federal law any permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business, that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation-
o (a) deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him;
o (b) authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with he other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business; or
o (c) where no permit or licence was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorise a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorise a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or licence, or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any such person any such permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of that law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.
4. (8A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where in any University, College and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the University, College or such educational institution to candidates for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable, and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.
9. (9) Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
0. (9A) In this Article the expression "natives" in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A.
10. The Constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article.
[edit] Notes and references
^ Terms used in Article 153 to categorize people (‘Malays’, ‘natives’) are defined in Articles 160 (English • Malay) and 161a (English • Malay). Perhaps unintuitively, only “a person who professes the religion of Islam” may be a ‘Malay’ (orang Melayu) in the sense of the constitution (for other contexts, see the article at Malays (ethnic group)). This restriction, if not those about “conform[ing] to Malay custom” and “habitually speak[ing] the Malay language”, would seem to affect many Orang Asli, a group defined in Article 160 but not mentioned in Article 153. The term bumiputera is neither used nor defined in the constitution.
1. ^ Means, pp. 14, 15.
2. ^ Adam, Ramlah binti, Samuri, Abdul Hakim bin & Fadzil, Muslimin bin (2004). Sejarah Tingkatan 3. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. ISBN 983-62-8285-8.
3. ^ Putra, Tunku Abdul Rahman (1986). Political Awakening, p. 31. Pelanduk Publications. ISBN 967-978-136-4.
4. ^ Ye, Lin-Sheng (2003). The Chinese Dilemma, p. 143. East West Publishing. ISBN 0-9751646-1-9.
5. ^ Lee, Kuan Yew (2000). The Singapore Story (abridged edition), pp. 327–328. Federal Publications.
6. ^ "'Impossible to co-operate with Singapore while Lee is Premier'". (2 June 1965). Straits Times.
7. ^ Khaw, Ambrose (1998)."This man is making too much noise". Retrieved 11 November 2005.
8. ^ Goh, Cheng Teik (1994). Malaysia: Beyond Communal Politics, pp. 36–37. Pelanduk Publications. ISBN 967-978-475-4.
9. ^ Means, Gordon P. (1991). Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation, p. 7, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-588988-6.
10. ^ Means, pages 9, 10.
11. ^ Goh p. 19.
12. ^ Ye p. 183.
13. ^ Means, pages 14, 15.
14. ^ Ye p. 20.
15. ^ a b Ye p. 95.
16. ^ Ye p. 16–17.
17. ^ Musa, M. Bakri (1999). The Malay Dilemma Revisited, p. 3. Merantau Publishers. ISBN 1-58348-367-5.
18. ^ Means, pp. 23, 82.
19. ^ Ye p. 156.
20. ^ Ye p. 23, 174, 175.
21. ^ Musa p. 181.
22. ^ a b Quek, Kim (4 December 2004). "Unveiling the truth of Malay 'Special Rights'". Malaysia Today.
23. ^ Musa p. 182.
24. ^ Shari, Michael (29 July 2002). "Mahathir's Change of Heart? ". Business Week.
25. ^ Musa p. 187, 188.
26. ^ "History of South East Asia". Retrieved 13 December 2005.
27. ^ Yeoh, Oon (4 June 2004). "Meritocracy: The truth must be well told". The Sun.
28. ^ "Johor Umno Says Meritocracy A Form Of Discrimination". (9 July 2005). BERNAMA.
29. ^ Lim, Guan Eng (2004). "Will qualified non-bumi students be sacrificed by Shafie for his defeat in UMNO?". Retrieved 11 November 2005.
30. ^ Badawi, Abdullah Ahmad (2004). "Moving Forward — Towards Excellence". Retrieved 11 November 2005.
31. ^ Ooi, Jeff (2005). "The 30% solution". Retrieved 12 November 2005.
32. ^ Gatsiounis, Ioannis (2 October 2004). "Abdullah stirs a hornets' nest". Asia Times.
33. ^ Jalleh, Martin (9 January 2005). "UMNO: Maturity or mutation?". Malaysia Today.
34. ^ Liu, Ronnie Tian Khiew (10 December 2004). "UMNO should stop claiming Ketuanan Melayu". Malaysia Today.
35. ^ "Anwar: Time to suspend NEP". (28 October 2005). Malaysiakini.
36. ^ "Malaysia's Races Live Peacefully — But Separately". (28 August 2005). AFP.
37. ^ Bennet, Abang (2005). "UMNO: A threat to national prosperity". Retrieved 11 November 2005.
38. ^ Ye pp. 85, 92, 94, 156.
39. ^ Means, pp. 14, 15.
40. ^ Lim, Kit Siang (2005). "Hisham – gonna say sorry for UMNO Youth keris episodes?". Retrieved 11 November 2005.
41. ^ Kamarudin, Raja Petra (26 September 2005). "Article 153 of Malaysia's Federal Constitution". Malaysia Today.
42. ^ a b Ooi, Jeff (2005). "New controversy: Social Contract and Bangsa Malaysia". Retrieved 12 November 2005.
43. ^ Yusoff, Marzuki & Samah, Nazeri Nong (14 August 2005). "Kontrak sosial: Kenyataan Keng Yaik bercanggah Perlembagaan Persekutuan". Utusan Malaysia.
44. ^ Badawi, Abdullah Ahmad (2004). "The Challenges of Multireligious, Multiethnic and Multicultural Societies". Retrieved 12 November 2005.
45. ^ "Don't Raise Social Contract Issue, Umno Youth Chief Warns". (15 August 2005). BERNAMA.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_153_of_the_Constitution_of_Malaysia"

The social contract in Malaysia refers to the agreement made by the country's founding fathers in the Constitution. The social contract usually refers to a quid pro quo trade-off through Articles 14–18 of the Constitution, pertaining to the granting of citizenship to the non-Bumiputera of Malaysia (particularly Malaysian Chinese and Indian), and Article 153, which grants the Malays special rights and privileges. The term has also been used occasionally to refer to other portions of the Constitution.
In its typical context related to race relations, the social contract has been heavily criticised by many, including politicians from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, who contend that constant harping on the non-Malays' debt to the Malays for citizenship has alienated them from the country. Such criticisms have met with opposition from the Malay media and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the largest political party in Barisan Nasional. Many Malays, typically from UMNO, have used the social contract to defend the principle of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy).
Contents
[hide]
• 1 33-page report of William Reid
• 2 Contractual terms
• 3 Early criticism
• 4 Present debate
• 5 See also
• 6 Notes and references
o 6.1 Other references
• 7 External links

[edit] 33-page report of William Reid
On 22 October 2010, Malaysian exiled popular blogger RPK (Raja Petra Kamarudin) revealed page by page of the 33-page document (a report by Lord Reid in year 1956 to Queen Elizabeth II) which he retrieved from the archiving library in England. RPK claimed that the Malaysian government has since distorting the content of Lord Reid's report into what is called the 'Social Contract of Malaysia'. [1]
[edit] Contractual terms
The Constitution does not explicitly refer to a "social contract" (in terms of citizenship rights and privileges), and no act of law or document has ever fully set out the social contract's terms. Its defenders often refer to the Constitution as setting out the social contract, and the Malaysian founding fathers having agreed to it, although no reference to a "social contract" appears in the Constitution. Instead, the social contract is typically taken to mean a quid pro quo agreement that provides the non-Malay and other non-indigenous peoples of Malaysia (mostly the Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indian) with citizenship, in return for their granting special privileges to the Malays and indigenous people of Malaysia, collectively referred to as the Bumiputra (sons of the soil).[1]
A higher education Malaysian studies textbook conforming to the government syllabus states: "Since the Malay leaders agreed to relax the conditions for citizenship, the leaders of the Chinese and Indian communities accepted the special position of the Malays as indigenous people of Malaya. With the establishment of Malaysia, the special position status was extended to include the indigenous communities of Sabah and Sarawak."[2]
Another description of the social contract declares it to be an agreement that "Malay entitlement to political and administrative authority should be accepted unchallenged, at least for the time being, in return for non-interference in Chinese control of the economy".[3]
The Constitution explicitly grants the Bumiputra reservations of land, quotas in the civil service, public scholarships and public education, quotas for trade licences, and the permission to monopolise certain industries if the government permits. In reality, however, especially after the advent of the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP) due to the racial riots of the May 13 Incident which occurred in 1969 when Malays held only 4% of the Malaysian economy, Bumiputra privileges have extended to other areas; quotas are set for Bumiputra equity in publicly traded corporations, and discounts for them on automobiles and real estate ranging from 5% to 15% are mandated.
The Constitution also included elements of Malay tradition as part of the Malaysian national identity. The Malay rulers were preserved, with the head of state, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, drawn from their ranks. Islam would be the national religion, and the Malay language would be the national language. These provisions, along with the economic privileges accorded by Article 153 of the Constitution, made up one half of the bargain, and have been referred to as the Malay Agenda. The nature of these provisions is disputed; although many Malays refer to them as "rights" – a term common in UMNO rhetoric – critics have argued that the Constitution never refers to special rights for the Malays:
“ There is no such thing as a racial "right" to be given special treatment. And that is not me being argumentative, it's the Constitution. You won't find "Malay rights" in the supreme law of our land, instead, you will find terms such as "special position" of Malays. The difference is more than semantics. A right implies something inalienable. A privilege on the other hand is a benefit, presumably given to those who need it. ”
Such critics have used this basis to argue that the social contract was meant "to protect the Malays from being overwhelmed economically, administratively and politically from the immigrant ethnic groups of the time", instead of granting particular special rights to the Malays.[4]
Some suggest that this bias towards Malays in education and politics is, in part, a response to the ability of the Malaysian Chinese to secure most of the country's wealth. The Indian Malaysians, as with the Indian Singaporeans, can make a case for being those that lose out the most, although this may be disputed.[citation needed]
The government did roll back the quota system for entry to public universities in 2003 and introduced a policy of "meritocracy". However, this new system was widely criticised by the non-Bumiputras as benefiting the Bumiputras by streaming them into a matriculation programme that featured relatively easy coursework while the non-Bumiputras were forced to sit for the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM, or Malaysia Higher School Certificate). Although in theory non-Bumiputras may enter the matriculation stream, and Bumiputras may sit for the STPM, this rarely occurs in reality. Meritocracy was also criticised by some quarters in UMNO as being discriminatory, as it caused the rural and less-prepared Malays to fall behind in university entrance rates.
The Reid Commission which prepared the framework for the Constitution stated in its report that Article 153, the backbone of the social contract, would be temporary only, and recommended that it be reviewed 15 years after independence. The Commission also said that the article and its provisions would only be necessary to avoid sudden unfair disadvantage to the Malays in competing with other members of Malaysian society, and that the privileges accorded the Malays by the article should be gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Due to the May 13 Incident, after which a state of emergency was declared, however, 1972, the year that Article 153 was due to be reviewed, passed without incident.
According to the social contract's proponents, in return for the enactment of these originally temporary provisions, non-Malay Malaysians are accorded citizenship under Chapter 1 of Part III of the Constitution. Except for the Bumiputra privileges, non-Bumiputras are otherwise generally regarded as equal to their Bumiputra counterparts, and are accorded all the rights of citizenship as under Part II of the Constitution. In recent years, some have sought to provide Malay citizens with more political rights as per the ketuanan Melayu philosophy. However, most of these ketuanan Melayu proponents argue that their additional rights are already written as law and thus only seek to "defend" them from their opponents.
When he assumed the Presidency of UMNO, Tunku Abdul Rahman (later the first Prime Minister of Malaysia) stated that "...when we (the Malays) fought against the Malayan Union (which upset the position of the Malays' rights) the others took no part in it because they said this is purely a Malay concern, and not theirs. They also indicate that they owe their loyalty to their countries of origin, and for that reason they oppose the Barnes Report to make Malay the national language. If we were to hand over the Malays to these so-called Malayans when their nationality has not been defined there will be a lot of problems ahead of us." However, he continued that "For those who love and feel they owe undivided loyalty to this country, we will welcome them as Malayans. They must truly be Malayans, and they will have the same rights and privileges as the Malays." [5]
[edit] Early criticism
Article 153, and thus by extension the social contract, has been a source of controversy since the early days of Malaysia. Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew (later the first Prime Minister of Singapore) of the People's Action Party (PAP; its Malaysian branch would later become the Democratic Action Party or DAP) publicly questioned the need for Article 153 in Parliament, and called for a "Malaysian Malaysia". Questioning the social contract, Lee stated: "According to history, Malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39 percent Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour."[6]
Lee criticised the government's policies by stating that "[t]hey, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn't it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved." [7] He also lamented, "Malaysia — to whom does it belong? To Malaysians. But who are Malaysians? I hope I am, Mr Speaker, Sir. But sometimes, sitting in this chamber, I doubt whether I am allowed to be a Malaysian."
Lee's statements upset many, especially politicians from the Alliance, Barisan Nasional's predecessor. Then Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) called Lee the "greatest, disruptive force in the entire history of Malaysia and Malaya." Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia, considered Lee to be too extremist in his views, while other UMNO politicians thought Lee was simply taking advantage of the situation to pander to the Malaysian Chinese.
PAP-UMNO relations were chilled further by the PAP running several candidates in elections on the Malay peninsula, with UMNO retaliating by trying to run candidates on its ticket in Singapore. Eventually, the Tunku decided to kick Singapore out of Malaysia. Lee was seen crying in national television and Singapore became an independent nation in 1965. The Constitution of Singapore contains an article, Article 152, that names the Malays as "indigenous people" of Singapore and therefore requiring special safeguarding of their rights and privileges as such. However, the article specifies no policies for such safeguarding, and no reference to a "social contract" has ever been made by the political establishment in Singapore.
[edit] Present debate
In 2005, the social contract was brought up by Lim Keng Yaik of the Gerakan party in Barisan Nasional. Lim, a Minister in the government, asked for a re-examination of the social contract so that a "Bangsa Malaysia" (literally Malay for a Malaysian race or Malaysian nation) could be achieved. Lim was severely criticised by many Malay politicians, including Khairy Jamaluddin who is Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's son-in-law and Deputy Chairman of the UMNO Youth wing, and Ahmad Shabery Cheek, a prominent Malay Member of Parliament from the state of Terengganu. The Malay press (most of which is owned by UMNO) also ran articles condemning the questioning of the social contract. Lim was adamant, asking in an interview "How do you expect non-Malays to pour their hearts and souls into the country, and to one day die for it if you keep harping on this? Flag-waving and singing the Negaraku (the national anthem) are rituals, while true love for the nation lies in the heart."
A year earlier, Abdullah had given a speech where he mentioned the most "significant aspect" of the social contract as "the agreement by the indigenous peoples to grant citizenship to the immigrant Chinese and Indians". However, Abdullah went on to state that "the character of the nation" changed to "one that Chinese and Indian citizens could also call their own". However, the speech went largely unremarked.
In the end, Lim stated that the Malay press had blown his comments out of proportion and misquoted him. The issue ended with UMNO Youth chief and Education Minister Hishamuddin Hussein warning people not to "bring up the issue again as it has been agreed upon, appreciated, understood and endorsed by the Constitution."
Earlier that year, Hishamuddin had waved the keris (traditional Malay dagger) at the UMNO Annual General Meeting, warning non-Malays not to threaten "Malay rights" and to question the social contract. This was applauded by the UMNO delegates, but widely ridiculed in the Malaysian blogosphere.
Other politicians, mostly from opposition parties, have also criticised the NEP and its provisions, but refrained from directly criticising the social contract or Article 153 of the Constitution. Former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) promised he would roll back the NEP if he ever gained power, and many from the Democratic Action Party (DAP) have also spoken out against the NEP. They criticised the NEP as benefiting only a small portion of Malays, mostly well-connected and urban, while ignoring the rural and poor Malays, and noted that the NEP's avowed goal was to give the Malays a 30% share in the country's economic equity, regardless of whether only a few or many Malays held this share. The DAP has been particular in arguing it does not question Article 153 or the social contract, but merely seeks to abolish inequitable policies such as the NEP.
Article 10 (4) of the Constitution permits the government to ban the questioning of Article 153, and thus the social contract; indeed, the Sedition Act does illegalise such questioning. The Internal Security Act (ISA) also permits the government to detain anybody it desires for practically an infinite period of time, and many, including politicians from the DAP such as Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh have been held under the ISA; it is widely believed this was because of their vehement criticism of Malay privileges.
More recently, some commentators have remarked on younger Malaysians chafing at the terms of the social contract. One wrote that "half a century on, younger non-Malays especially feel they were not parties to deals and contracts (at the time of independence) and should not be beholden to them."[8] In 2006, several non-Malay parties in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition called for a reexamination of the social contract; Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's refusal to do so reportedly triggered "much consternation". Abdullah was quoted in the Malay media as saying: "If we change this balance and if we are forced to meet all over again on the rights of every group, it will not be the same as now. It would be far from satisfactory. Whatever the new formula, it will not succeed because the old formula is enough, is already maximum. As everyone had agreed to this before, why do we want to disturb this and meet again?"[9]
That year, at the UMNO General Assembly, several delegates criticised other members of the government coalition for criticising the social contract and ketuanan Melayu. One stated that "If they question our rights, then we should question theirs. So far we have not heard the Malays questioning their right to citizenship when they came in droves from other countries."[10] Others argued that the Bumiputra communities continued to lag behind the rest of the country economically, and called for stronger measures in line with the social contract.[11] One delegate, Hashim Suboh, made headlines when he asked Hishammuddin, who had brandished the kris again, "Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his keris, kissed his keris. We want to ask Datuk Hisham when is he going to use it?" Hashim said that "force must be used against those who refused to abide by the social contract", provoking criticism from the DAP, which accused him of sedition.[12]
In response to what it termed "[t]he veiled threat of violence ... made explicit during last year's UMNO conference", The Economist criticised the social contract, calling it "absurd and unjust to tell the children of families that have lived in Malaysia for generations that, in effect, they are lucky not to be deported and will have to put up with second-class treatment for the rest of their lives, in the name of 'racial harmony'", and called policies based on the social contract "official racism".[13]
[edit] See also
• Indophobia
• Sinophobia
[edit] Notes and references
1. ^ Chow, Kum Hor (2007-08-25). "Keng Yaik against racial 'bullying'". The Straits Times. http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=7540.
2. ^ Shuid, Mahdi & Yunus, Mohd. Fauzi (2001). Malaysian Studies, p. 50. Longman. ISBN 983-74-2024-3.
3. ^ Abdullah, Asma & Pedersen, Paul B. (2003). Understanding Multicultural Malaysia, p. 59. Pearson Malaysia. ISBN 983-2639-21-2.
4. ^ Sharom, Azmi (Nov. 28, 2006). Fear-mongers drown out genuine issues. Malaysia Today.
5. ^ Putra, Tunku Abdul Rahman (1986). Political Awakening, p. 31. Pelanduk Publications. ISBN 967-978-135-6.
6. ^ Ye, Lin-Sheng (2003). The Chinese Dilemma, p. 43. East West Publishing. ISBN 0-9751646-1-9.
7. ^ Lee, Kuan Yew (2000). The Singapore Story, Abridged edition, pp. 327–328. Federal Publications.
8. ^ Arifin, Zainul (Nov. 15, 2006). Umno could look out for others, too. New Straits Times.
9. ^ Bose, Romen (Nov. 17, 2006). Racial tensions on rise in Malaysia. Al Jazeera.
10. ^ Ahmad, Reme (Nov. 17, 2006). Race tensions not worrying: Abdullah. Malaysia Today.
11. ^ Ahmad, Reme (Nov. 17, 2006). Race tensions not worrying: Abdullah. Straits Times.
12. ^ 'Hisham and his keris' remark shocks Karpal. (Nov. 18, 2006). Malaysiakini.
13. ^ "Tall buildings, narrow minds". The Economist. 2007-08-31. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9724393.
[edit] Other references
• Adam, Ramlah binti, Samuri, Abdul Hakim bin & Fadzil, Muslimin bin (2004). Sejarah Tingkatan 3. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. ISBN 983-62-8285-8.
• "Anwar: Time to suspend NEP". (Oct. 28, 2005). Malaysiakini.
• Badawi, Abdullah Ahmad (2004). "The Challenges of Multireligious, Multiethnic and Multicultural Societies". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• "Don't Raise Social Contract Issue, Umno Youth Chief Warns". (Aug. 15, 2005). Bernama.
• Goh, Cheng Teik (1994). Malaysia: Beyond Communal Politics. Pelanduk Publications. ISBN 967-978-475-4.
• "'Impossible to co-operate with Singapore while Lee is Premier'". (June 2, 1965). Straits Times.
• "Johor Umno Says Meritocracy A Form Of Discrimination". (July 9, 2005). Bernama.
• Khaw, Ambrose (1998). "This man is making too much noise". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2005.
• Lim, Kit Siang (2002). "Liong Sik and Keng Yaik also suffer from the 'Mudah Lupa' syndrome, forgetting the clear and unequivocal calls by Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn and MCA founding fathers not to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• Lim, Kit Siang (2004). "2004 general election will be a critical test of the reaffirmation or abandonment of the 46-year Merdeka 'social contract' of Malaysia as a democratic, secular and multi-religious nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic State". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• Musa, M. Bakri (1999). The Malay Dilemma Revisited. Merantau Publishers. ISBN 1-58348-367-5.
• Ooi, Jeff (2004). "Meritocracy: Naked Lies or Partial Truth?". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2005.
• Ooi, Jeff (2005). "The 30% solution". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• Ooi, Jeff (2005). "New controversy: Social Contract and Bangsa Malaysia". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• Ooi, Jeff (2005). "Perils of the sitting duck". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2005.
• Ooi, Jeff (2005). "Social Contract: 'Utusan got the context wrong'". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2005.
• Ye, Lin-Sheng (2003). The Chinese Dilemma. East West Publishing. ISBN 0-9751646-1-9.
• Yeoh, Oon (June 4, 2004). "Meritocracy: The truth must be well told". The Sun.
• Yusoff, Marzuki & Samah, Nazeri Nong (Aug. 14, 2005).

"Kontrak sosial: Kenyataan Keng Yaik bercanggah Perlembagaan Persekutuan". Utusan Malaysia.
Kontrak sosial di Malaysia merujuk kepada perjanjian oleh bapa-bapa kemerdekaan negara dalam Perlembagaan, dan merupakan penggantian beri-memberi atau quid pro quo melalui Perkara 14–18 yang berkenaan dengan pemberian kewarganegaraan Malaysia kepada orang-orang bukan Melayu, dan Perkara 153 yang memberikan hak istimewa rakyat kepada mereka daripada kaum bumiputera. Istilah ini juga kekadang digunakan untuk merujuk kepada bahagian-bahagian yang lain dalam Perlembagaan, seperti Perkara yang mengatakan bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara sekular.
Dalam konteks biasa yang berkaitan dengan hubungan ras, kontrak sosial telah kerap kali dibidaskan, termasuk juga oleh ahli-ahli politik dalam kerajaan campuran Barisan Nasional yang menegaskan bahawa tidak habis-habis bercakap tentang hutang orang-orang bukan Melayu kepada orang-orang Melayu terhadap kewarganegaraan yang diberikan telah merenggangkan golongan-golongan bukan Melayu daripada negara mereka. Kritikan-kritikan seumpama ini telah ditentang oleh media Melayu dan Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu (UMNO), parti politik yang terbesar dalam Barisan Nasional. Banyak orang Melayu, biasanya daripada UMNO, telah mempergunakan kontrak sosial ini untuk mempertahankan prinsip Ketuanan Melayu.
Isi kandungan
[sorokkan]
• 1 Syarat-syarat kontrak
• 2 Kritikan awal
• 3 Penggunaan dalam konteks lain
• 4 Pelbagai bantahan
• 5 Subjek Kontrak Sosial
• 6 Nota dan rujukan
o 6.1 Rujukan lain
• 7 Pautan luar

[sunting] Syarat-syarat kontrak
Perlembagaan Malaysia tidak merujuk kepada sebuah "kontrak sosial" (dari segi hak kewarganegaraan dan hak istimewa) secara ketara, dan tidak terdapat sebarang undang-undang atau dokumen yang pernah menjelaskan syarat-syarat kontrak sosial secara penuh. Pembela-pembelanya sering merujuk kepada Perlembagaan sebagai mengemukakan kontrak sosial, dan bapa-bapa kemerdekaaan juga bersetuju dengannya, walaupun rujukan kepada kontrak sosial tidak dibuat dalam Perlembagaan. Sebaliknya, kontrak sosial biasanya dianggap sebagai suatu persetujuan yang memberikan kewarganegaraan kepada orang-orang bukan Melayu dan bukan orang asli (kebanyakannya orang Malaysia Cina dan Malaysia India) sebagai ganti untuk pemberian hak keistimewaan kepada orang-orang Melayu dan orang-orang asli (dirujuk secara kolektif sebagai Bumiputera). Sebuah buku teks kajian Malaysia pendidikan tinggi yang menepati sukatan pelajaran kerajaan mengatakan: "Oleh sebab pemimpin-pemimpin Melayu bersetuju untuk melonggarkan syarat-syarat kewarganegaraan, pemimpin-pemimpin komuniti Cina dan India telah menerima kedudukan istimewa Melayu sebagai penduduk asli Malaya. Dengan penubuhan Malaysia, status kedudukan istimewa itu diperluas untuk merangkumi komuniti-komuniti penduduk asli Sabah dan Sarawak." [1]
Perlembagaan secara ketara memberikan tanah rizab Bumiputera, kuota dalam perkhidmatan awam, biasiswa dan pendidikan awam, kuota untuk lesen perniagaan, dan kebenaran untuk memonopoli industri-industri yang tertentu, jika kerajaan membenarkan. Bagaimanapun pada hakikatnya, khususunya selepas pengenalan Dasar Ekonomi Baru Malaysia (NEP), akibat rusuhan kaum pada 13 Mei 1969 ketika kaum Melayu hanya memiliki 4% daripada ekonomi Malaysia, hak-hak istimewa Bumiputera diperluas kepada bidang-bidang yang lain; kuota-kuota ditentukan untuk ekuiti Bumiputera dalam perbadanan awam, dan diskaun-diskaun sebanyak 5% hingga 15% untuk membeli kereta dan harta tanah diberikan.
Setengah-setengah orang mengatakan bahawa kecondongan terhadap orang-orang Melayu dalam pendidikan dan politik sebahagiannya merupakan tindak balas terhadap keupayaan orang-orang Malaysia Cina untuk memperoleh kebanyakan kekayaan negara itu. Bagaimanapaun, orang-orang Malaysia India boleh mengemukakan hujah bahawa merekalah yang mengalami kerugian yang paling banyak, walaupun ini boleh dipertikaikan.
Kerajaan ada mengundurkan sistem kuota untuk kemasukan ke universiti-universiti awam pada 2003 dan memperkenalkan dasar "meritokrasi". Bagaimanapun, sistem baru ini dikritik secara meluas oleh orang-orang bukan Bumiputera kerana hanya memanfaatkan kaum Bumiputera yang ditempatkan dalam rancangan matrikulasi yang menonjolkan kerja kursus yang agak mudah sedangkan orang-orang bukan Bumiputera terpaksa mengambil Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM). Walaupun secara teori, orang-orang bukan Bumiputra boleh masuk aliran matrikulasi, ini jarang berlaku pada hakikatnya. Meritokrasi juga dikritik oleh sebilangan pihak dalam UMNO sebagai berdiskriminasi kerana ia mengakibatkan orang-orang Melayu luar bandar terkebelakang dalam kadar kemasukan universiti.
Suruhanjaya Reid yang menyediakan kerangka Perlembagaan menyatakan dalam laporannya bahawa Perkara 153, tulang belakang kontrak sosial, adalah bersifat sementara, dan menyesyorkan bahawa ia dikaji semula 15 tahun selepas kemerdekaan. Suruhanjaya juga menyatakan bahawa perkara itu dan peruntukan-peruntukannya hanya diperlukan untuk mengelakkan keadaan tiba-tiba yang tidak menguntungkan kepada orang-orang Melayu dalam persaingan dengan ahli-ahli masyarakat Malaysia yang lain, dan hak-hak istimewa yang diberikan kepada orang-orang Melayu oleh perkara itu harus dikurangkan secara beransur-ansur dan akhirnya dihapuskan. Bagaimanapun, disebabkan Peristiwa 13 Mei yang menyebabkan pengisytiharan darurat, tahun 1972 yang merupakan tahun kajian semula Perkara 153 berlangsung tanpa sebarang peristiwa.
Menurut penyokong-penyokong kontrak sosial, sebagai balasan untuk enakmen peruntukan-peruntukan yang pada asalnya bersifat sementara, orang-orang Malaysia bukan Melayu diberikan kewarganegaraan di bawah Bab I Bahagian III dalam Perlembagaan. Perlu diingatkan bahawa hak-hak istimewa orang-orang bukan Bumiputera juga telah diberikan apabila negara mendapat kemerdekaan, antaranya penubuhan sekolah-sekolah vernakular seperti sekolah cina dan tamil. Hak-hak ini juga bersifat sementara apabila di dalam Perlembagaan, iaiya mesti dimansuhkan 10 tahun selepas merdeka. Walaubagaimanapun, ianya sudah termaktub di dalam Akta Pelajaran 1996 bilamana kewujudan sekolah-sekolah vernakular dibenarkan untuk diteruskan.
Justeru, kecuali hak-haki istimewa Bumiputera, orang-orang bukan Bumiputera dianggap sebagai sama saja dengan orang-orang Bumiputera dan diberikan semua hak kewarganegaraan di bawah Bahagian II dalam Perlembagaan. Pada tahun-tahun kebelakangan ini, sebilangan orang telah mencuba untuk membekalkan warganegara-warganegara Melayu dengan lebih banyak hak politik menurut falsafah ketuanan Melayu. Kebanyakan penyokong ketuanan Melayu memperdebatkan bahawa hak-hak tambahan ini telah ditulis dalam undang-undang dan hanya perlu dipertahankan daripada pembangkang-pembangkang.
Apabila mengambil alih jawatan presiden UMNO, Tunku Abdul Rahman (kemudian menjadi Perdana Menteri Malaysia pertama) menyatakan bahawa "...apabila kami (orang-orang Melayu) menentang Malayan Union (yang menjejaskan kedudukan hak-hak orang Melayu), kaum-kaum lain tidak mengambil bahagian kerana mereka mengatakan ini hanya merupakan masalah Melayu, dan bukan masalah mereka. Mereka juga menunjukkan bahawa kesetiaan mereka adalah kepada negara-negara asal mereka dan oleh itu, menentang Laporan Barnes yang bertujuan untuk menjadikan bahasa Melayu menjadi bahasa kebangsaan. Jika kami menyerahkan orang-orang Melayu kepada orang-orang yang dikatakan orang Malaya ketika kerakyatan mereka masih belum ditakrifkan, kami akan menghadapi banyak masalah pada masa hadapan." Bagaimanapun, dia menambah bahawa "Bagai mereka yang mencintai dan berasi bahawa mereka terhutang kesetiaan yang tidak berbelah bagi, kami menyambut mereka sebagai orang Malaya. Mereka harus merupakan orang Malaya yang benar, dan mereka akan mempunyai hak-hak dan hak-hak istimewa yang sama dengan orang-orang Melayu." [2]
[sunting] Kritikan awal
Artikel 153, dan diterangkan oleh kontrak sosial, telah merupakan satu sumber kontoversi semenjak hari-hari mula bagi Malaysia. Ahli politik Singapura, Lee Kuan Yew (kemudian menjadi Perdana Menteri Singapura) Parti Tindakan Rakyat (PAP; cawangannya di Malaysia kemudiannya menjadi Parti Tindakan Demokratik atau DAP) secara umumnya mempersoalkan keperluan Artikel 153 dalam Parliamen, dan menyeru satu "Malaysian Malaysia". Mempersoalkan kontrak sosial , Lee telah menyatakan: "Merujuk kepada sejarah, orang Melayu telah mula untuk berhijrah ke Malaysia dalam bilangan yang banyak hanya kira-kira 700 tahun yang lalu. Dalam 39 peratus orang Melayu di Malaysia hari ini, kira-kira sepertiga secara perbandingan hanya imigran seperti setiausaha agung UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, yang datang ke Malaya dari Indonesia sebelum perang ketika berumur lebih tiga puluh tahun.
Namun begitu kita juga perlu sedar bahawa penghijrahan orang melayu adalah dari Gugusan Kepulauan Melayu (Tanah Melayu,Indonesia,Brunei,Filipina,Singapura dan Thailand) ketika itu yang mempunyai agama, bahasa dan adat yang seakan sama seperti orang melayu di tanah melayu. Justeru perkara ini tidak boleh dipertikaikan berbanding kaum lain seperti cina dan india yang dibawa oleh penjajah ketika itu datang dari negara China dan negara India yang mempunyai agama,bahasa dan adat yang jauh berbeza.

[sunting] Penggunaan dalam konteks lain
Kontrak sosial kadangkala digunakan untuk merujuk kepada konteks yang tidak melibatkan hubungan kaum. Dalam pilihanraya umum Malaysia 2004, DAP bertanding atas dasar untuk mempertahankan "kontrak sosial" dengan menentang teokrasi Islam, yang dilarang oleh Perlembagaan, tetapi disokong oleh bekas Perdama Menteri,Mahathir bin Mohamad, Lim Keng Yaik dan PAS, parti politik Melayu yang kedua terbesar dalam negara.
[sunting] Pelbagai bantahan
Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik yang juga Presiden Gerakan dilaporkan meminta supaya formula itu diketepikan kerana ia membuatkan kaum Cina dan India 'kecil hati'. Beliau merasmikan Konvensyen Anak Malaysia anjuran Pergerakan Pemuda Gerakan pada 13 Ogos 2005.
[sunting] Subjek Kontrak Sosial
Pada 22 Oktober 2008, Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah mencadangkan supaya subjek kontrak sosial diperkenalkan di di institusi pendidikan supaya generasi muda di negara ini memahaminya dengan lebih mendalam.
Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin menyarankan kontrak sosial menjadi subjek ko kurikulum di universiti-universiti kerana bukan semua faham dengan kontrak sosial ini. Isu kontrak sosial sebenarnya sudah lama selesai dan ia harus diterima oleh semua pihak.[3] Beliau berkata demikian semasa menyampaikan ceramah 'Politik Melayu-Islam Kemelut dan Penyelesaian' di Dewan Budaya Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) pada 21 Oktober 2008.
Memanglah semua kaum ada rasa tidak puas hati sedikit sebanyak. Kita akui hakikat ini tetapi jangan cuba persoalkan hak orang Melayu melalui cara yang tersirat .Kita harus berpijak di bumi yang nyata. Lagipun kontrak sosial sudah termeterai dan dipersetujui bersama sejak sekian lama.[4]
Menteri Pelajaran Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein menegaskan subjek ini / penekanan topik dalam subjek Sejarah hanya boleh diperkenalkan pada 2010. Ini kerana ia perlu kajian menyeluruh , tenaga pengajar, peralatan, dan prasarana yang mencukupi. Jika tidak , ia akan dipolitikkan dan menjadi polemik berpanjangan.
Pada 16 Ogos 2008, Menteri Besar Johor Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman menegaskan formula kontrak sosial yang berteraskan Perlembagaan Malaysia bukanlah diskriminasi kaum. Sebaliknya ia terbukti menjamin perpaduan antara kaum.[5]
[sunting] Nota dan rujukan
1. ↑ Shuid, Mahdi & Yunus, Mohd. Fauzi (2001). Malaysian Studies, p. 50. Longman. ISBN 983-74-2024-3.
2. ↑ Putra, Tunku Abdul Rahman (1986). Political Awakening, p. 31. Pelanduk Publications. ISBN 967-978-135-6.
3. ↑ Universiti Disaran Wujudkan Ko-kurikulum Jelaskan Isu Kontrak Sosial
4. ↑ Senator Tidak Setuju Akhbar Tabloid Bangkitkan Isu Kontrak Sosial
5. ↑ Kontrak Sosial Kekal Relevan Sampai Bila-bila, Kata Ghani
[sunting] Rujukan lain
• Adam, Ramlah binti, Samuri, Abdul Hakim bin & Fadzil, Muslimin bin (2004). Sejarah Tingkatan 3. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. ISBN 983-62-8285-8.
• "Anwar: Time to suspend NEP". (Oct. 28, 2005). Malaysiakini.
• Badawi, Abdullah Ahmad (2004). "The Challenges of Multireligious, Multiethnic and Multicultural Societies". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• "Don't Raise Social Contract Issue, Umno Youth Chief Warns". (Aug. 15, 2005). Bernama.
• Goh, Cheng Teik (1994). Malaysia: Beyond Communal Politics. Pelanduk Publications. ISBN 967-978-475-4.
• "'Impossible to co-operate with Singapore while Lee is Premier'". (June 2, 1965). Straits Times.
• "Johor Umno Says Meritocracy A Form Of Discrimination". (July 9, 2005). Bernama.
• Khaw, Ambrose (1998). "This man is making too much noise". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2005.
• Lim, Kit Siang (2002). "Liong Sik and Keng Yaik also suffer from the 'Mudah Lupa' syndrome, forgetting the clear and unequivocal calls by Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn and MCA founding fathers not to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• Lim, Kit Siang (2004). "2004 general election will be a critical test of the reaffirmation or abandonment of the 46-year Merdeka 'social contract' of Malaysia as a democratic, secular and multi-religious nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic State". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• Musa, M. Bakri (1999). The Malay Dilemma Revisited. Merantau Publishers. ISBN 1-58348-367-5.
• Ooi, Jeff (2004). "Meritocracy: Naked Lies or Partial Truth?". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2005.
• Ooi, Jeff (2005). "The 30% solution". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• Ooi, Jeff (2005). "New controversy: Social Contract and Bangsa Malaysia". Retrieved Nov. 12, 2005.
• Ooi, Jeff (2005). "Perils of the sitting duck". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2005.
• Ooi, Jeff (2005). "Social Contract: 'Utusan got the context wrong'". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2005.
• Ye, Lin-Sheng (2003). The Chinese Dilemma. East West Publishing. ISBN 0-9751646-1-9.
• Yeoh, Oon (June 4, 2004). "Meritocracy: The truth must be well told". The Sun.
• Yusoff, Marzuki & Samah, Nazeri Nong (Aug. 14, 2005). "Kontrak sosial: Kenyataan Keng Yaik bercanggah Perlembagaan Persekutuan". Utusan Malaysia.