Women still playing second fiddle

Malaysia's abysmal record of protecting rights of women leaves bitter taste on centennary celebrations of International Women's Day.

COMMENT

Today (Feb 8) marks the centennary of International Women’s Day. Countries like China Russia, Vietnam and Bulgaria have long realised the importance of this day and declared it a public holiday.

For Malaysia, this day should instead remind the “powers that be” of how they have failed to uphold and protect women’s rights, discriminating women in almost all areas of their lives.

Violence against women is still a big issue. The much-needed amendments to the rape laws, the absence of a Sexual Harassment Act, conversion issues, the government’s refusal to accord Cedaw (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women) due recognition under the law, gender discrimination and loopholes in the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) have made it difficult for women to lead lives assured of their basic rights.

In fact, it was only last year that the 60-day maternity leave was increased to 90 as required under the International Labour Organisation. Yet, it is applicable only to married women in the civil service, aged between 20 and 39.

Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Jalil was to have presented a Cabinet paper to the Human Resources Ministry in January this year to amend the Employment Act 1995 to enable women in the private sector to also be eligible for the 90-day maternity leave.

“We need to move quickly to amend the Act as we need to synchronise the maternity leave between the public and private sectors,” Shahrizat had said.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Malaysian government has yet to respect women’s rights in a holistic manner. Repeated calls by women’s groups that the definition of rape be widened (at present the law defines rape as penile penetration of the vagina) and to criminalise marital rape have fallen on deaf ears.

Suggestions that rape by those in power or authority be punished under the “aggravated” rape category, keeping in mind the different “circumstances” surrounding the rape, have also been ignored.

Sexual harassment trivialised

Even the call for a Sexual Harassment Act to protect women at the workplace took a long time in materialising. A 1999 non-binding Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment at Workplace was launched. The absence of legislation means women cannot turn to the law to seek redress for sexual harassment cases.

In 2009, when the Sexual Harassment Act was proposed, Labour Department director-general Ismail Abdul Rahim reacted by saying having such a legislation “could lead to a dull and rigid environment in the workplace”.

When government agencies like the Labour Department trivialises the much-needed Sexual Harassment Act, this sends a clear message that sexual harassment is not taken seriously at workplaces.

Abdul Rahim is not the only culprit. Politicians like Bung Mokhtar Radin (MP for Kinabatangan) and Mohd Yusof Said (MP for Jasin ) were once taken to task by women’s groups for making fun of the female menstrual cycle.

Not shocking then that those in authority or yielding power who sexually abuse women have easily escaped punishment. An example is the former minister and current Malaysian ambassador to America, Jamaluddin Jarjis who was said to have sexually harassed a restaurant worker.

But this Member of Parliament for Rompin was never reprimanded by the prime minister for his demeaning behaviour. In a typical fashion, pressure was instead put on the complainant to withdraw her statutory declaration over the incident and she did.

More recently, senior minister Rais Yatim was said to have raped his domestic helper. While investigations are on-going, the domestic helper had packed her bags and left for home in Indonesia where she later claimed the rape never took place. This albeit her earlier complaining to a non-governmental organisation Migrant Care of having been raped by Rais.

Ignoring the continuous cries of rape by the Penan girls and women is yet another example that violence against women persists. In spite of the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry’s Task Force confirming that these rapes did take place, no further action has transpired and justice for these women is no where in sight.

Perhaps there are many more such cases of aggravated rape where those in power have abused them and managed to escape being punished by the law. The question is how long more will this go on? Should the women of this country take to the streets to demand that they receive justice and protection under the law?

UN Conventions not given due respect

In 1995, Malaysia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw). It sets out a definition of discrimination against women and holds the state responsible in taking steps to eliminate discrimination.

The Malaysian government has yet to pass an Act through Parliament to make Cedaw wholly applicable to Malaysians. Instead, it sees Cedaw taking effect in a piecemeal fashion, where some of its princples are incorporated in several of the domestic legislations and Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution.

Another UN convention that Malaysia ratified is the Convention On The Nationality Of Married Women 1959. However, gender discriminatory provisions in Articles 15, 26, 24 and related legislation, that is, the Immigration Act 1959/63 abound.

The discrimination is obvious whereby based on application, citizenship may be conferred on foreign wives of Malaysian men. However, no such reciprocal provision is made available for foreign husbands of Malaysian women, forcing these women to migrate.

And the child of a Malaysian woman married to a foreign man will only receive a Malaysian citizenship if the child is born in Malaysia.

However, the child of a Malaysian man married to a foreign woman is granted citizenship regardless of whether the child is born in Malaysia or abroad.

This biasness shows that the value of a woman’s citizenship is less than that of a man’s.

Address loopholes in DVA 1994

In 1985, a Joint Action Group (JAG), comprising five women’s organisations, trade unions, university and consumers’ associations and individual women, was set up against Violence Against Women. JAG declared domestic violence a “social concern” and called for the enactment of a Domestic Violence Act in Malaysia.

It took 11 years of workshops, campaigning and negotiations before the DVA was passed by Parliament in 1994. But it took another two years before it was finally implemented on June 1, 1996.

However, certain glaring loopholes in the DVA warrant an amendment. For instance, the DVA only allows police to intervene only if a physical assault has occurred. Amendments are underway to expand the definition of domestic violence to include emotional injury and mental torture and to facilitate application of an interim protection order (IPO).

The original drafters of the DVA wanted to classify domestic violence as a crime in itself but the proposal was rejected. Under the DVA, domestic violence is not defined as a specific crime punishable by new penalties, but it is attached to the Penal Code under definitions and procedures for hurt, criminal force and assault.

Equality is enshrined in the country’s Federal Constitution. “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law” (Article 8 (1). Still, protection against gender discrimination guaranteed in Article 8 (1) is not upheld in Article 8 (2).

“Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, decent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.” (Article 8 (2).

It is obvious that women and men are not equal before the law nor do the sexes have equal protection of the law. Women continue to face sexual discrimination through the formulation of laws, in the absence of laws to protect women against discrimination and in the interpretation and enforcement of laws.

Failure to protect women against discrimination and the glaring inequality have manifested and affected women in many detrimental ways in all areas of their lives.

One such example is the gender bias practised by national carrier Malaysia Airlinews (MAS). Its female cabin crew are forced to take early retirement at age 40 and female supervisors at 45 years while the male cabin crew retires at age 55. Women workers are estimated to make up 60% of MAS’ cabin crew.

The blatant discriminatory practices by MAS contravene Article 8 (2) of the Federal Constitution. The different ages of retirement for MAS female and male cabin crew violate the Federal Constitution.

MAS apparently practises double standard by allowing its expatriate female cabin crew to retire at age 60 or 65, in accordance with their country’s employment law.

MAS’ employment continues to discriminate its female cabin crew by providing them with maternal benefits for not more than two surviving children. Should she become pregnant after having two surviving children, the female cabin crew will have to resign, failing which MAS reserves the right to terminate her services.

This practice clearly goes against Section 37 (c) of the Employment Act 1955 (Act 265), which states that it is only when a woman has five or more surviving children that she will not be entitled to any maternity allowance.

How is it that MAS has got off the hook for its overt discrimination against the female cabin crew? Gender biasness has resulted in women being discriminated at the workplace in terms of promotions and remunerations, often losing out to her male colleagues. Women have to work twice as hard to be recognised for their contribution and even then there is no assurance they will.

In the face of all these, how should the women in Malaysia commemorate the 100th anniversary of the International Women’s Day? - FMT