Gender quandary in proposed bill
THE proposal by the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry to draft a bill on gender equality should be welcomed by all.
However, the contents of the proposed bill should be examined in detail, taking into account the local culture and religious sensitivity of all Malaysians.
Several countries already have a law on gender equality, including Austria (Equality of Treatment Act), Denmark (Gender Equality [Consolidation] Act), Finland (Act on Equality between Women and Men, 1995), Germany (Act to Establish Equality for Men and Women), Honduras (Law on Equal Opportunities for Women), Iceland (Act on the Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men), Ireland (Employment Equality Act, 1998), Japan (Equal Employment Opportunity Act), Republic of Korea (Equal Employment Act), Lithuania (Law on Equal Opportunities), Malta (Equality for Men and Women Act), the Netherlands (Equal Treatment Act), Norway (Gender Equality Act), Romania (Law on Equal Opportunities), Sweden (Equal Opportunities Act, 1991), Switzerland (Law on Equality), and Venezuela (Organic Law on the Rights of Women to Fairness and Equality).
The main area of concern about this proposed bill is the use of the term “gender equality”. Is the meaning and our understanding of gender equality the same as in the West? If it is, it might give rise to misunderstanding among certain people who would say it is against local culture and religion.
It must also be noted that in 1995, Malaysia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw) with reservations to the following provisions:
> Article 9 (2) – States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children; and
> Article 16 – States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:
(1) (a) The same right to enter into marriage;
(1) (c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution;
(1) (f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount; and
(1) (g) The same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation.
As such, the proposed gender equality bill should be properly examined before being tabled in Parliament. I would suggest using the term “anti-discrimination” instead of “gender equality” for the proposed act as it would reduce any chances of misunderstanding and we would be able to focus on putting an end to any act of discrimination against women.