No cheer for Muslim women

Friday March 10, 2006


No cheer for Muslim women

MUSINGS by MARINA MAHATHIR

IN 1948, one of humankind’s most despicable ideas, apartheid, was made into law in South Africa where racial discrimination was institutionalised. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of “white-only” jobs. Although there were 19 million blacks and only 4.5 million whites in South Africa, the majority population were forced to be second-class citizens in their homeland, banished to reserves and needing passports to travel outside them, even within their own country. It was only in 1990 that apartheid began to crumble and South Africans of all colours were finally free to live as equals in every way.

With the end of that racist system, people may be forgiven for thinking that apartheid does not exist anymore. While few countries practise any formal systems of discrimination, nevertheless you can find many forms of discrimination everywhere. In many cases, it is women who are discriminated against. In our country, there is an insidious growing form of apartheid among Malaysian women, that between Muslim and non-Muslim women.

We are unique in that we actively legally discriminate against women who are arguably the majority in this country, Muslim women. Non-Muslim Malaysian women have benefited from more progressive laws over the years while the opposite has happened for Muslim women.

For instance, since the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, polygamy among non-Muslims was banned. Previously men could have as many wives as they wanted under customary laws. Men’s ability to unilaterally pronounce divorce on their wives was abolished and, in its place, divorce happens by mutual consent or upon petition by either spouse in an equal process where the grounds are intolerable adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion of not less than two years, and living separately for not less than two years. Compare that to the lot of Muslim women abandoned but not divorced by their husbands.

Other progressive reforms in the civil family law in the late 1990s were amendments to the Guardianship Act and the Distribution Act. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 was amended to provide for equal guardianship for both father and mother, rather than the previous provision where only the father was the primary guardian of the children. In contrast, the Islamic Family Law still provides for the father as the sole primary guardian of his children although the mother is now allowed to sign certain forms for her children under an administrative directive.

The Distribution Act 1958 was also amended to provide for equal inheritance for widows and widowers, and also granted children the right to inherit from their mothers as well as from their fathers. Under the newly proposed amendments to the Islamic Family Law, the use of gender-neutral language on the issue of matrimonial property is discriminatory on Muslim women when other provisions in the IFL are not gender-neutral. Muslim men may still contract polygamous marriages, may unilaterally divorce their wives for the most trivial of reasons and are entitled to double shares of inheritance.

These differences between the lot of Muslim women and non-Muslim women beg the question: do we have two categories of citizenship in Malaysia, whereby most female citizens have less rights than others? As non-Muslim women catch up with women in the rest of the world, Muslim women here are only going backwards. We should also note that only in Malaysia are Muslim women regressing; in every other Muslim country in the world, women have been gaining rights, not losing them.

Read More

Khatami speaks

Wednesday February 22, 2006
Khatami speaks
By MARINA MAHATHIR
In the 1970s when Ayatollah Khomeini came into power in Iran, the world was presented with a vision of Islam that was dour and uncompromising. The Ayatollah never smiled, at least not in the media, his dull robes gave the impression that Islam disapproved of colour.
Iranian women suddenly covered themselves in black from head to foot, and thereon the image of the Muslim woman became embedded in the global imagination as inseparable from that of the Iranian woman. Not only that, it also became embedded in the minds of certain Muslims that that is what a Muslim woman should look like. As a result, Muslim women who don’t dress like that have had to suffer stereotyping ever since from both non-Muslims and Muslims.
The other stereotyping that has occurred is that Iranian mullahs are uniformly dour, dull, strict and dislike women. So it was an interesting revelation the other day when former President Khatami of Iran, in KL for a conference, asked to meet NGOs working on women and Islam issues. About 10 of us gathered to see him for the one-hour meeting. He asked us to introduce our work, and ourselves, and then he spoke and answered questions.
The first impression of Khatami is that he is not dour. A man with kind eyes, he displayed a warmth and sense of humour that one doesn’t expect from religious men. That he wanted to know what was going with Muslim women in Malaysia was already a surprise. But certainly we welcomed the opportunity to inform him and seek his opinion.
Khatami was indeed a surprise in several ways. For one, his view on Islam is more progressive than one would expect. He thinks that for Islamic societies to progress, we must have education and science and technology. But for this to happen, we must have democracy. And to have democracy, we must have freedom of thought and women’s rights.
“There are some traditionalist views which are not related to Islam which have taken on incorrect Islamic views...the best way to counter these views is to encourage women’s presence in society,” he said.
He stressed that countries must have democratic forms of government. Otherwise no wealth or science and technology is achieved or will not last long. “The most important need for Islamic countries is to achieve democratic governments and then acquire science and technology,” he argued.
However, there are particular difficulties in Islamic countries. Firstly, there exist traditional views and thoughts which have taken on an “Islamic” exterior and that includes “discrimination, depriving women of rights and regarding men as superior.”
This has resulted in two injustices, “the injustice to women and other weaker classes, and the injustice to Islam itself by saying that the first injustice is Islamic.” (Could we have been forgiven for wishing at that moment that various politicians and religious officials had been there to hear this?)
Khatami said that our most important duty is to solve the paradox of promoting women’s growth while keeping families strong. But we must provide the grounds for the education and “intellectual effort” of women “so that they can defend their own rights.” And he is putting his money where his mouth is by establishing the Centre for Civilisational Dialogue in Geneva that has three women trustees, “because it is not possible to have dialogue without women.”
Not only were his views on women progressive, even his views of religion in society were quite surprising. He believes that religion should not be based on static principles because “with time and changing questions and equations, these principles will lose effectiveness. Therefore we must change the principles.... If we insist on these principles, then Islam will fail.”
Now how radical is that? Not that he was saying that religion had no place, but that it “is not important for religion to intervene in the social life of people.” What was more important was how religion could be read in a way that it offers new thoughts in approaching current problems. If not, “this will lead to the destruction of society. If things are imposed in the name of religion, then this will cause people to dislike religion.”
For people to like religion, even for religion’s own survival, Khatami thought that we must have freedom of thought. We must have the ability to think for ourselves. “Where religion and freedom of thought have confronted each other, both have suffered. But if we read religion as conforming to (the idea of) freedom of thought, then freedom will ensure that religion will not become regressive. If we have an interpretation of religion in favour of freedom, then we will be able to achieve much. Otherwise religion will be wiped out of social life.” Hear that, those who like to ban books?
Khatami came into power in Iran because of his progressive views. Unfortunately he was not able to deliver on them, not least because the traditional forces against him were still very strong. Which is the tragedy of the Islamic world really, that even in a supposedly modern country like ours, the backward have the upper hand.

Read More

Respect others

Wednesday February 8, 2006
Respect others
Musings by MARINA MAHATHIR
IN THE furore over the controversial cartoons in some European newspapers, we should perhaps step back and look at it a bit more calmly. I would be the first to agree that the cartoons are a deliberate provocation and should not have been published. They are disrespectful of people’s faith and beliefs.
But I am wondering whether this really deserves the intensity of the reaction towards it.
I hear some people complaining that Europeans should be more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims about depictions of the Prophets. This is true, but this is assuming that Europeans are all well-educated about Islam and therefore are aware this might be the reaction. (We should note that the Danish paper that originally published the cartoons did apologise.)
Even those who might have deliberately published them in defiance might not have grasped what sort of reaction such an act might elicit.
So, as our religion always asks us to, when faced with ignorance, educate first. I wonder how many people took the trouble to do that.
Not that I’m excusing the newspapers that did belatedly publish the cartoons. If they are making a point about freedom of speech, then it is an overblown one that does not take into account responsibility and accountability to other human beings.
That is such a thing as hate speech and hate crimes and there are laws against these in these very same countries.
The point to be made is are these laws meant to protect everybody or only certain ethnic groups or religions? Laws have to be imposed equally. If they are not, then they are saying that some people have more rights than others.
On the other hand, I also do believe in freedom of speech as one of the basis of democracy. It is no small irony to me that the people most vehemently reacting against the cartoons come from countries that have very little freedom of speech if any at all. Yes, in the whole spectrum of freedom of speech, there is about 2% of that space where such freedom should be restricted because there is no real value in being able to say them.
That, for me, includes any sort of inflammatory speech about race or religion (as in the “mine is superior to yours” variety). But the other 98% should be space where we can exercise our democratic right to say what we truly believe in, to criticise when others are in the wrong, to make our points in rational and safe ways. Yet, how many of us reacting to these cartoons come from countries with that 98% free space?
In our own beloved country, we are free to condemn outsiders who dare to insult us but try expressing our views about our own people and the way we conduct ourselves and see how far that gets us. The laws we have that govern what we can or cannot say can encompass far more than distasteful cartoons.
Then we have this wonderful word “sensitive” in our vocabulary, which in Malaysia, means “don’t talk about it”. We give no quarter to the thought that people might be more mature and resilient than we think, and can discuss issues without resorting to mental breakdowns or violence. Perhaps it is the people who deem things sensitive who do not have the facility to deal with things in a calm and rational manner. That’s why they assume everyone else will be the same.
We also use the word “sensitive” in selective ways. The police, we say, should be sensitive to old people and should not have shaved their heads. Just because they are old? How about not shaving anybody’s heads, regardless of age? I can’t see what exactly it does, unless police tend to worry about lice.
Instead of over-using the word “sensitive” as a codeword for censorship, why not use the word “respectful” and really mean it? We should say that people of all faiths, races and genders should be respectful of one another in every situation. We should be able to discuss anything at all as long as the ground rules are that we speak respectfully to one another.
We do not disrespect one another with generalisations and abusive words. That particularly applies to parliamentarians who sometimes think that parliamentary privilege means you can be racist and sexist.
But most of all, respectful discussion should not be limited to a tiny space only. It should extend to everything that human beings can discuss.
Only then can democracy be meaningful.

Read More

True equality

Wednesday January 25, 2006
True equality
By MARINA MAHATHIR
One rainy Sunday afternoon, an auditorium at a local college was filled to the brim with people wanting to know more about the amended Islamic Family Law that had just been passed by Parliament amidst much controversy.
Women and men, old and young, filled the seats, the steps and stood through the two hours to listen and express their concerns about how this new law will impact on women. The mood was of genuine anger that this could have happened, that we are retrogressing rather than progressing, and that each person needed to do something to ensure that this law does not pass as it is.
What was interesting was the number of men who turned up. Their wives and daughters had obviously dragged some of them, but there were those who were there on their own volition, and who expressed concern that these laws were an impediment to the type of Malaysian society that they wanted to see in the future, one in which women did not have to suffer discrimination as they do now.
But for every man who was there, there were plenty more who didn’t come, who wouldn’t be seen dead at such a meeting. Apart from the sort of Neanderthals who have knee-jerk reactions to anything that levels the playing field between men and women (you know, the sort who are proud to describe themselves as predators and prowlers), there are a whole lot of men out there who simply don’t get what this is all about and therefore just stay out of it.
I think a lot of men are wondering first of all, why women complain endlessly about discrimination. And secondly, what does equality actually mean.
Firstly, yes we complain about discrimination all the time but that’s because we are discriminated against. It is one thing to have no laws that actively discriminate against women, it is quite another in day-to-day life when women still get penalised in job promotions if they take time off to care for young children. The facts are there.
While some 60% of undergraduates are female, only 23% of administrators and managers in the workplace are women. Malaysian women still earn only 47% of what men earn for the same jobs. In fact, overall, despite what looks like progress for women in our country, the participation of women in the workplace has not changed in 30 years.
Then there’s violence against women. Only recently yet another woman was raped and killed. Immediately you get letters in the papers advising women to be careful. Yes, but what is anyone going to do about the people with the sort of mentality that thinks that women out alone are fair game? Are we really dealing with the problem when we tell women to just stay home? Every time we curb the freedom of women because of the bad behaviour of men, we are not only discriminating against women, we are punishing the victims, not the perpetrators.
So what does equality mean? Some people have interpreted what is good for the goose is also good for the gander in ways that have actually led to less equality. That is exactly what happened with the IFL. Giving men who already have a lot of rights more, just because women had those lesser rights, only meant that the end result was the inequality between men and women got more pronounced.
If we want economic equality, we tax the rich so that we can redistribute wealth to the poor. In this case, we taxed the poor (women) to redistribute to the already rich (men). As a result, the poor simply got poorer.
So the IFL only creates inequality and injustice. Some people think that this is the way it should be, simply because this law supposedly has some religious basis. But this is like saying that religion essentially supports inequality and injustice. Surely this is an insult to religion.
So why should men support laws that provide for equality and justice for women? Would they lose out by doing this, or be seen as a bunch of ninnies controlled by women? I think the men who are against the IFL are intelligent and compassionate men who really believe that discriminating against women is passé, that it is an insult to humankind to treat one half as lesser beings.
This law will affect their mothers, their wives and their daughters. They are concerned because why should there be a way for some other man to treat the women they care about badly? I know men who are incensed that this law will allow some man to cause their daughters to suffer. There are men who have seen their own mothers thrown into poverty because of the selfishness of their fathers.
There are men who are hesitant to sign the petitions against the IFL because they are wary of being associated with women’s groups. This is shortsighted and irrational. Men have so much to gain by promoting true equality and justice for all, and nothing to lose except empty egos. And I’ve never known a woman who has genuinely liked any man who treats women as inferior.

Read More

Befuddled on the New Year

Wednesday January 11, 2006
Befuddled on the New Year
By MARINA MAHATHIR
I know many people start the New Year fresh but I am starting it feeling a bit befuddled. Not because I partied so hard on New Year’s eve but because I left last year quite confused by many things. It would really be good if someone could clarify some of these:
1. I still don’t get why we let Parliament pass a law that was flawed. And how come one Minister claims that she had many objections to it, while another Minister claimed that it was “perfect”? And how come, considering that it’s shredded the Government’s reputation domestically and internationally, it wasn’t discussed at the first Cabinet meeting of the year?
2. What is Black Metal? Do these kids really worship Satan or are these just symbols meant to annoy parents and other adults in authority? How much more dangerous to society are these kids compared to men who commit incest with their daughters, say? Are they more dangerous than secret societies with three line logos that recruit young boys to commit crime?
3. What was that thing about draping flags on the pyramids again? Imagine all these tourists who’ve paid their way to go and see the pyramids, and they’re obscured by flags from some small countries. I would consider it defacement actually and demand my money back!
4. How come men only accuse women of being emotional when they don’t agree with them, but never when they agree with them? It seems to me that the minute we start debating polygamy, men can get very emotional themselves, start stamping their feet and unashamedly declare that they might be forced to commit sin. I think we should just let them-lah.
5. Ours is a country where, as long as it’s legal, sex is very much encouraged. This is not the same as encouraging family values, because these can really only be nurtured if you have one family, not two, three or four. Actually when you consider that the ruling is four at a time, and not four in your entire lifetime, there could well be much more than four families being brought up with no values. How does this gel with all our “pembangunan keluarga”? Does this mean we have to bangun as many families from one man as possible?
6. Why is it that we don’t get outraged when we hear stories from other countries about men who kill their young daughters simply because they had a boyfriend? Considering that they are always kindred spirits in faith, don’t we feel ashamed? Or is our silence just a manifestation of that shame?
7. When are we going to get to the stage where people take credit for the things they actually worked for, and not for what others did? Do we not believe that hard work equals results anymore? How can we tell our kids they need to work hard, when adults don’t?
8. Can’t we have basic IQ tests for MPs? How about one standard test for when they become MPs, and then an even higher one if they get made Ministers? I shudder at the thought of any of them meeting any foreigners! I’d just like to go through a year without having to feel embarrassed.
9. We love drawing stereotypes about the West, about how permissive and immoral they are. What we don’t realize is that they have stereotypes about us too, assuming we are backward intellectually, socially, economically, politically. This annoys us, and then we go on and prove them right ? by being backward intellectually if nothing else. We think it really proves our intellectual superiority when we say that we cannot talk about something because it’s too sensitive.
10. We want our young people to become leaders of our country. So to do that, we quash them into bland moulds, narrow their breathing space until they choke, keep telling them they are essentially bad, and then expect them to do a good job. Some leaders they are going to make.
I could go on, but starting the year with 10 things I’m confused about seems more than enough for anyone. Here’s to a year of clear-mindedness and clarity!

Read More