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

Ignominious end

Wednesday December 28, 2005
Ignominious end
By MARINA MAHATHIR
What an ignominious way to end the year! The Government admits that it got Parliament to pass a law that was unjust and discriminatory to half the population. As a member of that particular half, I am gobsmacked.
How could this have happened? The Women, Family and Community Development Ministry claims to have found even more flaws in the new law than even the women’s groups. And they kept quiet? All because they wanted to keep a promise to standardise the Islamic family laws? Does that make sense? Why risk looking like fools by rushing to pass a seriously flawed law? Why not make sure it is clear of the kinks before presenting it to anyone?
The NGOs that protested that the laws were unjust had presented 42 pages of objections to the new amendments way back in January 2002. It will be interesting to see how many more pages of flaws the Ministry came up with, and then still allowed the laws to go through Parliament unchanged. If they knew it was discriminatory to women, how could the Ministry, set up to ensure that women are treated justly in this country, have let it pass? Was someone sleeping on the job? Or did political expediency triumph once again?
And how easy will it be to amend flaws in an already passed law? (It makes you wonder whether this episode is typical, that in fact numerous flawed laws are passed through Parliament each year.)
Let us get it straight what this new law means. In its zeal to be “gender-neutral” in a field that was never level in the first place, whoever drafted this law amended it in such a way that rights that originally were given to women are now also given to men. This, mind you, on top of the many more rights that men already enjoyed.
Previously whatever a Muslim woman brought into a marriage remained hers and whatever husband and wife acquired together during the marriage could be divided between them if the marriage was dissolved. Thus whatever she owns in her own name remains hers. But with the new amendments, if he should, say, pay for some renovations, then he can claim the property as his as well. What’s more he can claim any gifts he gave her as also his. Thus if the marriage fails, he can demand that all this supposedly joint property be sold and the proceeds shared between them. And then he can merrily use the proceeds for his own use, including marrying someone else. Great!
If that’s not bad enough, in the good old days, if a Muslim man wanted to marry someone else, he had to justify it as just and necessary. Meaning that he could not, by marrying another person, be unjust to his first wife and his children with her. The new law, however, has amended this to say “just OR necessary”. Which means if he says that it is really imperative for him to marry another (perhaps because he’s knocked her up), then he can. So forget the justice part, let’s make it easy to get married, and married, and married.
And get this: already Muslim men can divorce their wives anytime they want for whatever reason they want, while women used to have to rely on 12 conditions husbands don’t fulfil to get the court to consider telling them to free their wives. Now they get those 12 conditions as well. Great! I used to be able to complain if he didn’t provide me with household help, now he can divorce me if I don’t get him someone to polish his shoes!
If anyone wants to argue that this is Islamic law, then it implies that Islamic law is unjust and discriminatory. Yet Islamic law upholds women’s rights. How to explain these contradictions then? What has this done to the image of a religion based on equality, justice and compassion?
How to rectify this? First the law must not be gazetted until all these flaws are corrected. There is precedent for this. The Domestic Violence Act was not gazetted for two years after it was passed by Parliament because some people objected to it. (In that case, they put on hold a law that was actually beneficial to women. Do we detect legislative misogyny at work here?).
In the meantime, a new law that upholds the principles of justice and non-discrimination for women should be drafted. It should be subject to widespread consultation and public scrutiny and debate. After all we are supposed to be a democracy.
This whole episode just shows what happens when women are riled. They cannot simply be bulldozed into accepting laws that disadvantage them. I feel proud of the 19 women Senators who stood up against this law even though they were finally forced to pass it anyway. And I thank Sisters in Islam and the other women’s groups for waking the Senators and the public up. But shame on the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry for letting it through the Lower House, and shame on Members of Parliament for letting down half their constituents. If only we could withdraw our votes for them.
Here’s to a 2006 that treats women with more respect.

Read More

Closing the gap

Wednesday December 14, 2005
Closing the gap

By MARINA MAHATHIR
A young boy gets slashed in the stomach and dies. Another young man gets beaten unconscious and needs a blood clot removed from his brain. All of a sudden, parents have even more to worry about than usual.
Life in Kuala Lumpur is violent as it is. Every day we read about bag snatchings, robberies, assaults, rapes and murders, all within the few square miles that make up this metropolis many of us call home. For the most part, we hope that the police do something about it. But these two recent incidents are causing a lot of talk among parents.
Let me correct that, they’re causing a lot of talk among middle-class parents who are wondering how safe is it to let our kids out clubbing at night. Before, it was unsafe enough and to be called up in the middle of the night to go to a police station to rescue them after some club raid was a very real possibility. But at least they were not going to be hurt. But now the likelihood that it is actually dangerous out there is a chilling thought.
We need to look carefully at why these two incidents happened. In both cases, these young men were escorting young women. This is exactly what we tell our daughters to do – never walk the streets alone at night. And no doubt parents of sons also tell them to ensure that their girlfriends and sisters are always safe when they are out.
In both cases, they encountered other young men who, perhaps emboldened by their numbers, decided to demand attention from the young women. To which, being the gentlemen they have been brought up to be, their escorts reacted – with disastrous consequences. So what do we tell our sons to do in these circumstances? Don’t escort your female friends? Make sure you have other male friends with you? Always be armed and ready to fight?
This will only cause the violence to escalate. Instead perhaps we should take a close hard look at the Kuala Lumpur social milieu and identify where the potential triggers for violence are.
I think that these incidents are ultimately rooted in the social inequality that is rampant in Kuala Lumpur. The wealthy educated young, those with the bright futures, are increasingly living side by side with the ones who feel there isn’t much hope at all. Kids spill out of clubs in their designer clothes, speaking their MTV-accented English straight into the turf of the Mat Rempits hanging out at mamak stalls in their tatty jeans and slippers. Our Mat Rempits aren’t all that poor, at least not on a global scale, but they do feel left out of things because they cannot afford to have the clothes, cars and girls that their wealthier counterparts can. Unsurprisingly resentment builds up.
Resentment, however, isn’t an excuse for slashing or beating up somebody. Nobody deserves that. But if we understand that underneath it all, there is an underclass that is seething with frustration because they cannot attain even half of the things they see others having, then perhaps we can take measures to at least diffuse these tensions.
Malaysia makes much of promoting harmony among the different ethnic groups. But we should also think of promoting harmony among the different classes of people. That can only be done by actually trying to remove the barriers between the classes, by promoting equality and greater opportunity for those who don’t feel they have any.
Violence in society is just symptomatic of some deeper trouble. People don’t steal from others if they feel that they all have the same amount of wealth. The yakuza notwithstanding, look at Japan where everyone feels they are middle-class and where street crimes are rare. People don’t slash someone and then coolly walk into a convenience store to buy cigarettes, unless they have no empathy at all for their victim.
In the short term, we need to educate young people to be more alert and conscious of their surroundings and be more sensitive to people around them. Roaring up in expensive cars to eating places is bound to elicit negative remarks. Looking condescendingly at those who don’t have as much is going to stir resentment. We need to teach our more privileged kids to respect others as equals.
At the same time, we need to find ways to ensure better opportunities for those who feel left behind. We need to give people hope that they too can enjoy life but in a legitimate way. The desire to be materially equal to others is also what leads to people taking shortcuts to wealth, including corruption, get-rich-quick schemes and drug trafficking. We need to emphasise that wealth and achievement comes through hard work, not luck and connections.
If these violent expressions of frustration can be reduced through religious education, then let’s have religious education that teaches young people to value other people’s lives and how to deal with conflict, not just about how they should dress and what sex lives they should not have.
It’s not easy; social transformation never is. But unless we are resigned to live in an unsafe environment, we’d better take a good, hard look at our society and take action.

Read More

Lip service is useless

Wednesday November 30, 2005
Lip service is useless
By MARINA MAHATHIR
It's another World AIDS Day tomorrow and there is some good news to announce. According to the latest UN AIDS report, sustained efforts “have yielded decreases in HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in many Western countries, among young people in Uganda, among sex workers and their clients in Thailand and Cambodia, and among injecting drug users in Spain and Brazil.” Also, prevention programmes that were begun some time ago are finally bringing down HIV prevalence in Kenya, Zimbabwe and urban Haiti.
That’s it. For the rest of us, it’s still gloom and doom. Some 40.3 million people are now living with HIV, 4.9 million of them newly added in the last year. And 3.1 million adults and children died of AIDS last year.
What is going wrong? You would think that a global pandemic that has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognised in 1981 – making it “one of the most destructive epidemics in recorded history” – would grab more attention. Indeed it has: government leaders talk about it at major gatherings, the rich ones pledge money, the less rich ones clasp their hands in gratitude. But still, more people are getting infected and more and more are dying, more than half a million of them children in the last year alone.
What is happening? National responses to HIV/AIDS in many countries can be summed up in two words: lip service. In 2001, every single country in the world, after much time-wasting wrangling, agreed to implement the recommendations in the UN General Assembly Special Session’s Declaration of Commitment. Yet, in 2005, most have not. One of the agreed-to recommendations is that by this year, most young people would have access to HIV education. Why then are we in Malaysia still talking about whether or not to have HIV (and sex) education in schools?
Two years ago, the World Health Organisation rolled out its much-vaunted three-by-five access to treatment programme. This means that by 2005, three million people around the world would be on antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. Has it happened?
More than one million people in low- and middle-income countries in the past two years are living longer and more productive lives because they have had access to ARVs and between 250,000 and 350,000 deaths were averted because of it. But this is still far short of the target. In Malaysia, the government announced that it would provide up to 4,000 Malaysians living with HIV with ARVs, even though it is estimated that about 7,000 actually need them. Yet only about 2,500 are actually getting the treatment. Has anyone looked into why exactly the rest are not coming forward? (We cannot assume that everybody will read the papers or watch TV the one time this was announced.) Do they know where to go and will they get fair and professional treatment when they do go?
Prevention is another thing. As long as we remain queasy about realistic prevention programmes – and that means promoting condom use consistently to ensure safer sex by everyone, and harm reduction programmes for injecting drug users – we will never make a dent in the course of the epidemic.
Why aren’t we in Malaysia doing enough prevention? Firstly, because it means having to deal with things we don’t want to deal with, such as drug use, and sex outside marriage, among young people and between people of the same sex.
Secondly, when we do try and deal with them, we refuse to use programmes that have been known to work, preferring to believe that we are so unique that we need our own. We refuse to promote condoms because we think it causes more people to have sex. Yet from the evidence from countries where condom programmes have been comprehensive and long term, the results are showing.
Thirdly, we need to do programmes at a scale that actually makes a difference. Fourthly, we need to seriously deal with stigma and discrimination.
The stigma of AIDS derives from its perceived associations with death, with shame and with behaviour that we regard as anti-social. It also comes with fear of infection. But with treatment, having HIV does not necessarily mean one gets AIDS or dies anymore. Not everybody who has HIV is a drug user, sex worker or gay, as the 17.5 million HIV-positive women, mostly married to only one partner, will attest. Fear of infection can be reduced through intense and accurate facts about how HIV is and is not transmitted. Dealing with stigma and discrimination also means not tolerating cruel and inhuman statements coming from people who may not know much about HIV, even though they hold positions of authority.
When are we seriously going to walk the talk?
For updates on the global AIDS pandemic, go to www.unaids.org

Read More