Malaysiakini tells us in its news article MCA wants second deputy BN chief's post that Liow Tiong Lai, MCA Youth outgoing chief has demanded that the BN creates two deputy chairpersons where one should go to the MCA as the second most senior party in the Perikatan-BN coalition.
Hitherto both chairperson and deputy chairperson of the BN have been automatically UMNO’s to take.
His bravado was no doubt the MCA Youth’s way of showing the Chinese Malaysian community the MCA has begun exerting its equal say in the political coalition.
Personally I believe demanding such a post is useless, meaningless and a mere grandstanding gesture, because it’s only a political coalition position, and of course the way it’s done could only irk the UMNO ultras who can’t stand any non-Malay ‘demanding’ this or that.
As evidence of the latter, today the Rulers Conference has, very sadly for Malaysians, defended the myth of the country’s social contract.
Their Highnesses’ spokesperson delivered a familiar nationalistic clarion call, stressing the need for Malays to be united (see Star Online), which makes me wonder whether I am only a second class subject(?) of HM the Agong?
How nice it would have been if the Rulers had stressed on the need for ‘Malaysians’ to be united. And where was our erudite Prince Regent and his Papa?
Now, haven't I told you gushing gullible guppies HRH ain't no silver bullet for our deep rooted problems!
While the Rulers made a concessionary assurance that the rights of non-Malays will be looked after as per the Constitution, and I now wonder what the nons' rights really are, they warned that there should never be any attempt to test or challenge issues related to the social contract.
They chided ‘certain quarters’ for disputing and questioning these matters, causing provocation and uneasiness among the people.
Hey, it’s one thing to have an affirmative program like the NEP, but it’s another to assert the existence of a ‘social contract’.
Don’t be mistaken that Constitutional Article 153 is the head of authority for the so-called ‘social contract’. All the Article says has been about the ‘special position’ of the Rulers, Malays etc.
Anyway, much on the ‘social contract’ has already been tossed around like a salad, so I don’t propose to continue in a no-win–no-win discussion. The Rulers Conference has confirmed what the Kelantan Prince had said in April this year, namely:
“... the rakyat must unite and never raise issues regarding Malay rights and special privileges because it is a quid pro quo in gratitude for the giving in of citizenship (beri-paksa kerakyatan) to 2.7 million non-Malays into the Tanah Melayu federation."
“Thus, it is not appropriate for these other ethnic groups to have citizenship, only (later) to seek equality and privileges.”
So … not appropriate for these other ethnic groups to seek equality … how sad!
Perhaps you may understand why I titled my post on that hurtful statement as Kelantan Crown Prince 'slapped' non-Malays in face!.
Then in April, in my post Social contract - a vigorously implemented 'fantasy', based on a Malaysiakini news article, we were told by Royal Professor Dr Ungku Abdul Aziz that there was no such thing as a social contract between Malaysia's diverse ethnic communities.
Dr Ungku Aziz said that the social contract was "a fantasy created by politicians of all sorts of colours depending on their interest."
Well, it has been, for some, a profitable fantasy - but it's a fantasy that has been vigorously and fiercely implemented and more than realized.
Ungku Aziz believed whatever contract there was, it was more of an ‘economic contract’, what most countries would call 'affirmative action', in areas of education and health for groups that needed it the most …
… which has been why I stated above that “It’s one thing to have an affirmative program like the NEP, but it’s another to assert the existence of a ‘social contract’. Don’t be mistaken that Constitutional Article 153 is the head of authority for the so-called ‘social contract’.”
Though Ungku Aziz chopped down the myth (at least intellectually) of the ‘social contract’ we now get the royalty telling us, their ‘non’ subjects not to question the mythical ethno-centric politico-social-economic quid pro quo.
So I ask you, what’s the bloody good of having a MCA person as a second deputy chairperson of the BN? He or she will still be an inferior 'non'!
As one sweetie once said, words to the effect, that to term someone with such a terrible word as a 'non' must be the most abhorrent thing imaginable.