The remark “ no need for women’s movement as equality has been given from the start” provides the excuse to brand him “male chauvinistic” to take women votes away from the coalition that he heads. Whilst it serves the objective of political contestation from political standpoint, the label “male chauvinistic” hardly fits personality of Najib. At best he’s pseudo “chauvinistic” to present the right image to the flock he leads that is looking for male macho leadership. If truth be said only a minority of men are leaders of men – the majority including the flock he leads put up a bold front to public when in private they follow their women. When men look good and sang well at the lime light of the front stage it was their women behind that made it possible by meticulous orchestra and backstage arrangement, and often the women are in the shadows by choice due to role playing and divisions of labour as defined by societal norms than coercion from chauvinistic men.

The Women’s Movement based on male /female dichotomy of power relations as started in the West is the greatest affirmative action program after our NEP based on the Bumi/non bumi dicjhotomy! Great men like Lee Kuan Yew will openly concede: he’s full of praise for his wife, how she supported him, helped him in major milestones/decisions, how she had an uncanny ability to read character advised him of them and even influenced his writing style. When he came to Malaysia to visit political heads and make an assessment in 2009 he made it a point to visit PM’s wife. LKY knows the influence of women behind their men leader husbands. No I definitely don’t think our PM, a male chauvinistic – more the opposite.

Where women are treated unfairly in some situations we hear of it and redress sought and in case of men unfairly in other situations, its seldom heard and not addressed because women movement is an organized political force whereas men, in their stereotyped image of being “stronger sex” do not organize or bother to organise a man’s movement or have organisations to push for equal status in areas that they are unfairly discriminated against. Because of this phenomenon, men get a one sided treatment. When one side is organized to push for the agenda, the agenda is always advanced, or if not at least get to exert the pressure. It does not matter whether it’s a group organized to advance the woman’s cause like JAG or the cause of a race (like say Perkasa and its umbrella groups) – they will necessarily get the attention of even the PM – because of loudness of organized voices & their votes- never mind whether he’s justly accused of his neglect of the organized group’s agenda or otherwise. Even judges have been forced to retire due to some politically incorrect statement perceived as denigrating women’s status, though statement may well be deserved and valid. 2 lessons are learnt (i) the importance of being organized to realise the agenda of the group represented (ii) power to push one’s agenda to secure “justice and equality” for one’s group may imply justice and equality of the counter opposite group being rough shod ridden over without balance. We should not get bowled over by too much of feminist movement rhetoric. The other down side is that by rallying women as a group to fight for and be focused on primarily women’s gender rights, their focus on human rights and governance issues and to hold the government accountable for these may be derogated and become secondary. Considering women are ½ of voters this is an undesirable consequence.