As a post-independence-born Malaysian, I would like to offer my thoughts on Article 3 of the federal constitution which mentions the special position of the Malays. (Please note that there is no mention of the words 'special rights' or 'special privileges' in the constitution).

For too long, there has been a lack of understanding of what our forefathers had in mind when they included this clause in our much talked about social contract. To gain a better understanding, let us take a trip back in time to1957 to actually visualise the scene then.

We had a situation where the majority of Malays were backward economically and the minority Chinese were relatively much better off, principally through hard work and effort.

A small segment of the Indians were relatively successful but the majority was largely no better off than the Malays. But because of their small size numerically, they had a very minute voice at the independence negotiations.

In a scenario where the immigrant Chinese and Indians were seeking citizenship rights in Malaysia, it is reasonable to presume that they would have had to understand and acknowledge the difficulties faced by the majority Malays.

And this is where the meaning of the words 'special position' comes into focus. What did our forefathers mean by the special position of the Malays? Did they mean that the Malays would enjoy a higher status than all the other races? Did they mean that the Malays would have special rights and privileges in perpetuity?

If this is what our forefathers had intended, then our constitution would have mentioned this specifically. However, the constitution or social contract does not say so.

What then, could the words 'special position' mean? It is reasonable to infer that our forefathers were concerned first by the fact that the Malays were left behind economically despite being the indigenous majority in the country.

Secondly, they were concerned by the fact that, despite being immigrants, the Chinese and a small segment of the Indian community were relatively much better off.

The clause was therefore more so of an acknowledgment by the non-Malays of the disadvantageous economic situation of the Malays. The consideration given by the former to the latter when entering into the social contract for citizenship rights was to agree to provide some measure of support for the Malays to improve their economic standing.

The Reid Commission which drafted the Malaysian Constitution gave voice to this consideration when it said that the Malays would enjoy preferences when it came to certain licences, scholarships, government employment etc, and that this provision would be reviewed after 15 years of independence in 1972.

If our forefathers had meant for these preferences to last in perpetuity, then there would not have been a request for a review in 15 years.

So it seems to be incorrect to firstly equate the words 'special position' with 'special rights and privileges'. Secondly, it also seems incorrect to suggest that the Malays have special rights and privileges in perpetuity and, therefore, that they have a higher status than everyone else.

The non-Malays only agreed to allow them preferences over the others for a finite period of time. It has now been almost 50 years since Merdeka but has such a meaningful review of those preferences taken place at all? Absolutely not.

In fact what has happened is that successive BN governments, dominated by Umno, and especially after the 1969 tragedy, have taken the liberty to very liberally interpret Article 3. This has led to the wholesale abuse of the consideration provided by the non-Malays in 1957 for their citizenship rights.

Effectively, what has happened is that the 'crutches' that the non-Malays so kindly provided to their Malay brothers in 1957 to help them economically have been used to systematically and relentlessly marginalise and alienate the non-Malays for almost 50 years. Is this part of the social contract that our forefathers wanted?

When I see Malays and non-Malays categorised into separate classes of bumiputera and non-bumiputera and treated differently, I am tempted to ask: Was it part of the social contract of our forefathers to categorise the people by race?

When I see non-Malays being forced to subsidise the purchase of houses by the Malays, I am tempted to ask: Was it the intention of our forefathers to permanently require the non-Malays to subsidise the Malays?

When I see the compulsory requirement for non-Malay companies to hand over a certain portion of their equity to the Malays for no input at all, I am tempted to ask: Is this what our forefathers had in mind? I can go on listing the abuses forever because there are plenty of them.

It is intriguing to hear senior BN and Umno leaders repeatedly asking the people to adhere to the social contract. What contract they are referring to? It cannot be the federal constitution. It is most probably some contract that they have entered into unilaterally without the agreement of the non-Malays.

It seems to me that the real social contract of 1957 was torn up long ago by the BN government with the way in which the NEP was implemented from the 1970s onwards.

To me, the real social contract of 1957 has long been dead. I hope the day will come when the people of Malaysia in the true Merdeka spirit will make it live again.

Then, perhaps, we would not have to spend hundreds of millions of ringgit on nonsensical projects like the National Service to inculcate unity amongst the races.