Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin recently accused The Sun of supporting the idea of a 'Malaysian Malaysia'. Likewise 'de facto' Law Minister Nazri Aziz recently clarified in Parliament that becoming an Islamic state would not nullify the social contract. I would like to discuss the various different interpretations of the 1957 social contract as it is understood in Malaysia.

The first social contract as I understood it was that the Malays would be first amongst equals - and, I stress the term 'equals'. We would be guided by the spirit of Merdeka and 'muhibbah' and would take as our example the great man who suffered for being too 'muhibbah', our own Bapa Malaysia.

Vilified for being a traitor to the race, and for having too many non-Malay friends, he is nevertheless resurrected for public consumption every year on Merdeka Day in our local news media when in fact, we all know he was unceremoniously dumped by Umno's supremacists for being not racial enough.

The second time round, the social contract was reinterpreted after 1969 in the spirit of 'Ketuanan Melayu'. Since Umno had been taken over by the supremacists, it necessarily became a Malay supremacist party, and the social contract was then reinterpreted to lend credence to the concept of Malaysia as a Malay supremacist state. It is clear after 50 years of independence Umno requires the social contract be interpreted in the latter version to keep its firm grip on power.

Since the populace are no longer fooled by just racial rhetoric, the fig leaf that has been used to hide the rampant obscene corruption in Umno has necessarily been enlarged to include glorifying and defending the religion, and not just cashing in on mere pigment. Islamisation was, therefore, necessary for Umno's survival.

In the meantime the rich and connected elites get richer, and poor to middle-class citizens get nothing. The gap is widening, and this has not gone unnoticed, not even by the Malays. With PAS breathing down Umno's neck, the contest for political influence will increasingly center around who will bring a more pure and authentic version of the faith into government. The problem is many other OIC countries have gone down this path before with highly questionable - if not totally disastrous - results. Doomed states, failed states, basket cases.

It is difficult to find a silver lining in all of these developments in Malaysia. Many already feel we have passed the point of no return. Nobody thinks the spiraling corruption, deliberate systematic race discrimination, intolerance and loss of freedoms in matters of religion and faith

can be reversed.

It is not a matter of the low-hanging fruit being swiped by our elites in the last three decades but that entire forests are being cut down with no replanting programme in sight. That means there will be nothing left whatsoever for any citizen.

We have abandoned the universal principle of human beings being born with equal rights and dignity. Nobody trusts the local news media anymore. Nobody trusts our judiciary any more. Our police are feared for the wrong reasons. Our ministers are some of the richest people in Malaysia, and they get rich whilst holding office. Whilst it is true that Mahathir started and fermented the rot, not much has been done to combat its stench.

We do not pride ourselves as a country with the possibility of equal treatment for all its citizens nor for our insistence on excellence and meritocracy nor for our collective determination to be clean and transparent and just.

Once corruption is planted, it cannot be reversed.

Once supremacist ideologies have been implemented, it cannot be revered.

Once an intolerant theocratic state has been implemented, it cannot be reversed.

For as long as the minorities are given second-class and worse treatment, then I suppose these developments will remain unimportant and acceptable to the dominant Malay-Muslim majority.

I have become quite pessimistic of late, and would like someone to challenge my presumptions if they can. Many people like me felt that the deliberate systematic race discrimination since 1969 would be a one-generation event, an aberration, an odious wart, and not a never-ending policy.

I always thought the NEP was an expedient and not a principle. I guess I was wrong.