Every human being in a society has to go through certain development phases in our live. Each phases has their own contract that we need to prevail as our live moves from one stage to another. During childhood, men are bind to the filial contract with their parents and siblings as the contract is established during the bonding moment . At this stage, the terms of the contract is that the child will give the parents certain enjoyments that come with parenthood and as in return, the children will receive the parents’ love, guidance and support. As the child grows, he then will meet a larger society, which consists of other individuals with different ideologies and beliefs. And in order for these individuals to live in peace, they will have to
…show more content…
In addition, Hobbes view was that everything that the state does is just. For Loke, the state’s important role is to ensure that justice is seen to be done. While for Rousseau, the state must ensure the freedom and liberty of the citizens regardless of any circumstances.
However, social contract in Malaysia is quite different to what has been discussed earlier. Holst (2012) stated that social contract in Malaysia is not about dealing with the distribution of power. “The outcome of this bargaining process was the so-called social contract. Yet this “contract” had nothing to do with social contract theories based on Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau. Instead of dealing with the distribution of power between the people and the government, the Malaysian version of social contract dealt with brokering rights and duties of the involved parties in a quid-pro-quo trade off” (Holst, 2012).
Social contract in Malaysia applies to the non-Malay and other non-indigeneous peoples of Malaysia, particularly the Chinese and Indian with citizenship, in return for their conceding special privileges to the Bumiputra (Kam, 2014). The terms of the social contract was crystallised in the Merdeka Constitution in 1957, where the contract was concluded between leaders representing three main political parties, which are UMNO, MCA, and MIC (Harding,
In addition, Hobbes view was that everything that the state does is just. For Loke, the state’s important role is to ensure that justice is seen to be done. While for Rousseau, the state must ensure the freedom and liberty of the citizens regardless of any circumstances.
However, social contract in Malaysia is quite different to what has been discussed earlier. Holst (2012) stated that social contract in Malaysia is not about dealing with the distribution of power. “The outcome of this bargaining process was the so-called social contract. Yet this “contract” had nothing to do with social contract theories based on Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau. Instead of dealing with the distribution of power between the people and the government, the Malaysian version of social contract dealt with brokering rights and duties of the involved parties in a quid-pro-quo trade off” (Holst, 2012).
Social contract in Malaysia applies to the non-Malay and other non-indigeneous peoples of Malaysia, particularly the Chinese and Indian with citizenship, in return for their conceding special privileges to the Bumiputra (Kam, 2014). The terms of the social contract was crystallised in the Merdeka Constitution in 1957, where the contract was concluded between leaders representing three main political parties, which are UMNO, MCA, and MIC (Harding,