UMNO should be proud of him. I am. And all of us (malays too) ought to emulate him.

In fact, after decades of NEP and proactive policies of the government, we should see more of Dr Azly amongst the malays.

In which case ‘ketuanan’ would become a dead social issue; along with the fear of turning into a slave in one’s own country.

But UMNO has failed. BN has failed. When objectively assessible results of one’s policy are not available one would naturally seek justification from sentiments to continue the policy.

It is very easy to do so. Just whip them up - the sentiments. Whip and see the reactions. Logic and reasons are not always needed or necessary.

Reality may be evaded momentarily but it cannot be avoided forever. In reality the common malays in this country have gone on reverse gear in the hands of UMNO for decades.

We should all move on as one. The direction must be forward for everyone.

I would leave UMNO and BN behind.

If we refer to all references, literatures and books by historian, local or foreign, it does exist from Kesultanan Melayu Melaka up to Malayan Union. Well of one the reason why J.W. Birch was killed was because of this. That is now part of our beautiful history.

Off course, there are many positives trait in Ketuanan Melayu ideology (if there are only Malays in the country – and that’s also is when everyone is equal) but somehow the negatives sides always prevail. Having read this, Malay ruler and the rich practice slavery (if one can’t pay their debts), takes the most beautiful girl in the village for wife/ mistress (even for a day) and other negative trait. The land is theirs while the people lease and permitted to work on them. During that era, the rich and powerful malays are “tuan’ to other ‘malays”. These were even used as stories in movies in some of the old P. Ramlee era.

Islam forbid all these. Thus what is the Ketuanan Melayu that UMNO is preaching and glorified about? Or even the social contract? Well I am glad that we’ve (the PR) move on and look forward. Let UMNO glorified those memories and leave them behind. There is exciting and wonderful future to look upon (Although with the price increase, it became rather a bleak one). For sure, if I live during those yesteryears, I will be a ‘hamba’ to another Malay.

While his/her hypothesis, might be remotely possible. With the right amount of investigation and effort, one can surely find out the truth about it together with some critical thinking involved as well be able to jump to the right deductions and conclusions.

I guess some people still drown in their own biases, but thats fair for them, its their own choice. Hopefully they will understand what is the real truth one day when it hits them hard in its own way.

Anyway thanks YB LKS for sharing this so that the rest of us are aware that the existence of such ppl that still exist. Not that they are very important but as a reminder and awareness for the rest of us.

IF “ISUHOT” ASPIRES TO TO BE IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS YOU - HE HAS TO DISCARD HIS DOGMAS FIRST

Interesting this theory of yours, Jeffrey. I am not so sure I can buy this totally, remember you have given the proviso that this group (10 million or be that any number one wishes to state) consists solely of Dr.Azly Rahman species or Unku Aziz species and not any type like the type we have here.If it is any other type like this present type, I will definitely go along with you.But if you have a group of Azly Rahman type of species I will be more encouraged to think that this group will transcentd over the selfish thought of just tribal interest to choose fair play. I only have to look to New Zealand for my conviction.Population of Maoris is at most 10% with the rest coming mostly from the pakehas(the white men) and yet look at her today. The Maoris are given huge stretches of New Zealand waters as well as the air space (information given by you some time back, remember).Why? Because the the Kiwis at large are a nation of enlightened people that has placed fair play highly in their conduct of national affairs.

Again, thanks for your comments dawsheng! If I misunderstood you in any way forgive me. It was rather early (ok, it was 11am) when I read it.

Much appreciate your comments and add ons.

Indeed Rousseau did say that. It would be a whole different debate if our Social Contract was actually a theoretical problem of political philosophy. But since our social contract was not found upon any of the traditional foundations of social contract theories, nor looks like any of them - by purporting to be a real agreement and moreover asserting the terms of the agreement as inviolable truths - resting on thin air, our so-called social contract is not amenable to theoretical analysis in the same way as we do with political philosohpy since it is not a philosophy to begin with but an actual political contract. We can ask two questions instead: 1. Should a contract be capable of binding us forever without being susceptible to change (I would say no); 2. Are the terms of the contract still reasonable? (Again no)

The dogmatic treatment of the so-called social contract is really like the ‘twisted ideology’ of Ketuanan Melayu in that sense: both rest on thin air - they never attempt to look beyond their own assertions to find the validity or reasonableness of these assertions.

Who is really the one perpetuating the social contract of our founding forefathers?