Public Forum – Respect Women’s Dignity, Towards A 1st World Parliament
Speakers –
1. Ambiga Sreenevasan – Bar Council President 2. Maria Chin bte Abdullah – Executive Director of Women Development Collective (WDC) 3. Zainah Anwar – Executive Director of Sisters in Islam 4. Azmin Ali — Vice President, PKR 5. Lim Guan Eng – Secretary-General, DAP 6. Lim Kit Siang – Parliamentary Opposition Leader 7. Teresa Kok Suh Sim – MP for Seputeh 8. Fong Po Kuan – MP for Batu Gajah (Chair – Tony Pua)
Date: 17 May 2007 (Thursday) Time: 7.30pm Venue: YMCA Hall, Kuala Lumpur. No.95, Jalan Padang Belia, Off Jalan Tun Sambanthan, 50470 Kuala Lumpur (Opposite of the KL SENTRAL Station)
Why the forum? Explanation of organisers:
“Parliament has failed in its duty to the nation and people, in particular Malaysian women. It has shirked its responsibility to redeem itself and punish the two sexist BN MPs who have brought shame and dishonour to Parliament by the use of derogatory, crude, vulgar, sexist and gender-offensive attack on Sdri Fong Po Kuan and all Malaysian women on Wednesday, 9th May. “Since Parliament is not prepared to do what it should do to redeem its honour and those of Malaysian women and the nation, it is now up to the ordinary Malaysian public to do what Members of Parliament and Ministers have failed to do — by making their condemnation of the sexist conduct of the two BN MPs loud and clear to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the country!”
COME ONE, COME ALL – LET’S TEACH THE TWO SEXIST BN MPs A LESSON!
Meanwile sample some of the the editorials and comments in the media:
1. NST Online 2007/05/12
Editorial: Offensive language SUCH apparently was the extent of the commotion generated by the debate over the leaks at the entrance of the media centre at parliament that many members of parliament were not aware of the alleged sexist remarks made in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday until it was brought to their attention by press reports on the matter. However, the attempt to refer the offending backbenchers to the Privileges Committee has failed. In ruling against the motion, Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib has cited the standing orders which make it “clear” that such matters should be raised “immediately” after such words were uttered. Contrary to the assertion of Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who did not find the words offensive, what is or is not deemed parliamentary language is not up to the listeners to decide. It is up to the presiding officials to intervene when the language used in parliament is questionable, or to rule on the matter when it is brought to their attention by any member of parliament who feels aggrieved by such remarks. In this case, since the Speaker has ruled that no action can be taken, the matter can be considered closed. Nevertheless, the Speaker’s expression of “regret” over the incident and his admonition to members of parliament to be “careful with the words they use” suggest that the language used has been questionable. While the Speaker is well within his rights, it is a matter of some regret that the offending members have been left off the hook because of a mere technicality. In a sense, Nazri is quite right. Ultimately, it would be the people who sent the representatives to the highest institution in the land who would judge what is and what is not unparliamentary conduct. And they might not be as forgiving as the Speaker. Many will feel a sense of outrage that those who speak on their behalf could be capable of such crass and crude language. Such disparaging expressions are a direct affront to millions of Malaysian women. Such open contempt of women is disgusting and perverse. Comments that degrade women will never be funny. There is no room in the Dewan Rakyat for foul language, racism or sexism. Parliamentarians should learn to keep a civil tongue even in the most fiery of exchanges. Whatever the provocation, they should behave like serious and responsible legislators. There is a need to draw a line and prevent parliamentarians from making derogatory remarks about women and bringing parliament into disrepute.
2. Opinion Sunday May 13, 2007
There they go again ON THE BEAT: WONG CHUN WAI It’s amazing how our lawmakers who repeatedly display political cockiness, make sexist remarks and behave in an uncouth manner can still get themselves re-elected. THERE he goes again with his looney tunes. The incorrigible Kinabatangan MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin has once again infuriated most Malaysians with another of his off-colour remarks. The loud Sabah politician, who has a notorious reputation for using un-parliamentary language, created Malaysian parliamentary history when he uttered a four-letter word against a DAP woman six years ago. The microphones of all MPs had to be switched off by the Speaker in the heat of the debate but Mokhtar’s profanity was loud enough for other members and reporters to hear. He must be proud of his record. Strangely, the Hansard, which records the House meetings in verbatim, has no record of the outburst during the debate. Things would have remained that way until the media approached Bung Mokhtar in the lobby and, to their surprise, he admitted the deed and went on to defend himself on record. Before that, the MP sparked a controversy when he uttered a sexist-tainted boleh masuk sikit? (Can I come in a little?) remark in his attempt to seek clarification from Bukit Mertajam MP Chong Eng. As expected, he said he meant no harm and that the phrase was commonly used in Sabah. Last week, Bung Mokhtar was back in the limelight again but this time he was joined by the “close one eye” Jasin MP Datuk Mohd Said Yusuf, who once accused certain top Customs officials of selling confiscated luxury cars cheaply to their “friends” in the palaces and other government departments but failed to produce any evidence. On Wednesday, Bung Mokhtar reportedly said: “Mana ada bocor, Batu Gajah pun tiap-tiap bulan bocor juga (Where is the leak? Batu Gajah leaks every month too) against Batu Gajah MP Fong Poh Kuan who had complained about the leaks in the Parliament lobby. An angry Fong proposed to refer Mohd Said, the MP for Jasin, and Bung Mokhtar, to the Rights and Privileges Committee, saying that the remarks were insulting and derogatory to women. A motion by the DAP MP to refer the two MPs to the panel was rejected by Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib on a technicality, saying Fong had filed the motion a day later. In short, the two BN MPs were let off the hook. But what was more frustrating was the lame defence put up by some backbenchers. Tangga Batu MP Datuk Idris Haron said Fong should not see the remark as a gender issue and accused her of using it to get publicity, saying “we should take them as a joke, not as a personal attack”. Petrajaya MP Fadzillah Yusuf said the statement never intended to humiliate women, adding: “I think he just said it as he was provoked.” Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz also came to the two MPs’ rescue, saying he did not find the choice of words used to be offensive and that it was normal to play with words. This must surely be a case of partisan politics going overboard. What Bung Mokhtar and Mohd Said said was not just impolite but appalling. As politicians with the Yang Berhormat (The Right Honourable) title, should they not have acted in a more honourable and gentlemanly manner? Bung Mokhtar could be forgiven if he had made the remark for the first time, particularly during a heated debate, but this man has a pretty poor record when it comes to parliamentary debate. We expect our lawmakers to articulate their views without having to shout, much less shout profanities and make sexist remarks. It is better for our politicians not to use the honorific YB if they cannot live up to the expectations of the rakyat as role models. Not many of us expect our lawmakers to speak like Tony Blair or Bill Clinton but the least they could do is to exercise some restraint when debating issues affecting the people and the nation. In 2000, Datuk Mohamed Aziz (BN — Sri Gading) touched a raw nerve when he started his speech saying: “It is unusual for women’s issues to be touched (raised) by men,” and after a pause, he added, “but women are supposed to be touched by men.” When Bung Mokhtar asked why single woman found it hard to remarry, Mohamed replied that it was generally due to their not-so-favourable age, adding that “men, when it comes to younger women, they will definitely drool”. Last year, Bung Mokhtar, in a heated debate with Karpal Singh (DAP-Jelutong) shouted: “You should keep quiet. It’s a lucky thing that you are in a wheelchair. You almost died once (in an accident).” The DAP leader had earlier criticised Bung Mokhtar: “Dia otak tak centre (the MP is insane).” The Opposition also has its share of ugly MPs who are afflicted with the foot-in-the-mouth disease. The PAS MP for Rantau Panjang Abdul Fatah Harun made headlines last year when he labelled divorcees as gatal (randy) and went on to say it was not a sexist remark. Malaysians had never heard of this unknown MP until he asked in the Dewan Rakyat whether some women who divorced their husbands were more intent on getting separated. He claimed these single mothers did not look like they were sad about their divorce. Abdul Fatah said he based this on his observation at gatherings and parties, and the impression was that these women were gatal. He went on to say that it was quite obvious why these women ended up divorced or why their husbands left them. Really, some of our lawmakers never cease to amaze us, especially Bung Mokhtar and Mohamed Aziz. Despite repeatedly displaying political cockiness and being uncouth, they still get themselves re-elected. Malaysians have been spared from the physical drama which Taiwanese lawmakers are notorious for but we must end the name calling, the sexual innuendoes, intimidation, subtle threats and racist remarks that are often displayed at every Parliament session.
The Sun today has a strong and eloquent editorial on this issue, “Dewan must purge itself of sexist remarks”.
3. SPEAK UP! :: theSun Says Dewan must purge itself of sexist remarks
After years of a silent revolution that fostered a change in attitudes and caused people to be conscious of the language they use when talking to and with different people and in different situations, it should come as no surprise at all that there are still some graceless Calibans in our midst. But there is no doubt that like the dinosaurs of yore, they, including those in our legislatures, are on their way to becoming extinct. The overriding concern of the ongoing change is the usage of correct and proper language, a language purged of sexist, racist and politically incorrect remarks and innuendos. It was a gradual revolution which began soon after women started joining the workforce in large numbers – in factories, offices and universities – and gaining admittance to men-only and members-only preserves such as clubs and other public places. The Anita Hill incident in the US, no doubt, gave the revolution a boost, after it brought the debate of what constitutes sexual harassment to centre stage. It triggered off behaviourial and language changes in most civilised societies across the globe. It wasn’t just the men who changed, women changed too, especially in a society where public life had always been male-dominated. It has just taken off in Malaysia. It would have helped the cause had the MPs who made sexist remarks about a female fellow lawmaker last week in the august Dewan Rakyat were disciplined. The disciplining of the two MPs would have sent a powerful message to the other legislators that the days when members were almost uncensured when they make sexist remarks and innuendos in the Dewan Rakyat are over. It would also tell Malaysians that they have to mind their language and that the days when sexist remarks and jokes were tolerated are over. At the same time, it would have hastened the development and spread of a politically correct culture among Malaysians. But even though the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat did not rule that the two MPs be referred to the Committee of Privileges, the fact that he hesitated by as much as four hours before ruling in their favour is time enough for them to feel a sense of regret at what they had done. Thus, even though they were not disciplined, it is hoped that the long and agonising four-hour wait was enough to deter them and other colleagues from making similar remarks in the future.