Upon reading our Majesties’ recent special announcement on the ‘social contract’, it triggered my mind to consider deeply on the matter of the 'social contract' and our constitution. For the portion of 'Kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu', there has not been any query at all, not to mention any question about our Majesties’ royalty status.

Reading the announcement, it is as if the Majesties have some doubt of the non-Malays’ loyalty towards them. Anyway, whatever their Majesties think of the non-Malays, I just want to say that my sultan (of the state I was born in and stay) is my sultan and there isno question about His Majesty’s position.

Even though His Majesty might have special love for the Malay, I still respect His Majesty as the ruler of my state. In my opinion, the ruler is akin to the land of the nation and both Malays and non-Malays would feel the same 'support' (gravity) from the land to stand on it. The land will give the same harvest of crops regardless of the skin colour of the farmer.

It has been very confusing for myself to understand the real purpose of our constitution during the era of those of use born in late 60s and educated through the ’70s and ’80s. The history classes taught us about 'Hak Keistimewaan Melayu' and I understand that (I think most of my classmate as well) the ancestors of out three major races have stuck together to fight for our country’s independence.

Special privileges were allocated for the Malays as the Malays were deemed to have been treated 'unfairly' during the colonial period and the special privileges were supposed to help them to progress after independence.

In this context, I have the understanding that the non-Malays, supposedly 'more progressive' than the majority of the Malays, were to help (we are all part of the nation) the Malays to progress as stated in the constitution and this is the part I would really like some clarification.

Is the 'Hak Keistimewaan Melayu' there for the purpose of help the Malays to progress to a level where they are capable of sustaining themselves and are on equal footing with others or is a permanent 'allocation' for them regardless of anything?

The confusing part for me is that aid in the form of business permits, licenses, scholarships and funding are not reaching the hardcore poor of the other races but would seem to be going exclusively to the bumiputera.

And should the ‘social contract’ be reviewed when conditions require it to be so? As we know, our perlembagaan had a major amendment made in 1970 as the government felt that the special privileges made available for the first 10 years (based on the 1957 constitution) were not sufficient to bring about progress to the bumiputera.

Wouldn't this to be considered a review of the social contract made in 1957? Could this be the time for our generation to now review the social contract again (just the related parts)? I think for this time, it is not only about the bumiputera progressing but the whole country needing to progress as well!