“In a written reply in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday, Nazri said the incident had not damaged Malaysia’s reputation.” NST

There is a difference between saying incidents of that nature have put Malaysia’s Parliamentary proceedings in a bad light, and saying he believes incidents such as those have not.

“We are confident that the people and the international community are mature enough to differentiate between remarks by two individuals and a systemic problem of sexism,” he said.” NST

On this one I think you got to give it to him.

On the EEC’s Head of the European Delegation to Malaysia’s remarks on the issue of sexism in Malaysia’s Parliament:

“It is a violation of the spirit of the Universal Human Rights Declaration more so coming from persons who are in a position of influence and power.”

This is stating the obvious and is in fact a very mild statement to make in view of the following:

Malaysia may be a member of the United Nations Human Rights Commission but it has not adhered to the terms of the agreement. It has repressive laws to suppress the free expression of public opinion and some of the issues concern human rights and should be seen as such.

The latest decision by the country’s highest court has once again denied a citizen of her right to exercise freedom of choice over her religion. This is a human rights issue and Lina Joy is now technically a refugee fighting persecution and prosecution in her own country and is entitled to the protection of the UN 1967 Protocol relating to Refugees of which Malaysia is not a signatory, should she so chooses. So far she does not appear to have. That too is her choice.

Further the Head of the European Delegation writes:

“Malaysia is a member of the UN Human Rights Commission, further raising expectations of exemplary and ambitious approach to upholding human rights, including gender equality, and fundamental freedoms. ”

It seems misguided to look to Malaysia, a third world country struggling with basic issues on freedom, democracy and human rights for an exemplary behavior of anything. Sexism and gender equality pales in comparison to racism and the oppression of the country’s minorities which Malaysia’s ruling elite has been guilty of.

Talking about the prevalence of sexist attitude and behavior among Malaysia’s ruling elite, for example, and not just the two errant Members of Parliament, and not addressing at the same time the recent incident, for example, in the State of Georgia’s Senate in the United States involving Senators slugging it out on the floor of the Senate for the whole world to see, seems rather unfair and unbalanced.

The atmosphere in Malaysia’s Parliament is akin to a circus like atmosphere despite its five decades of history. This is something that we should be ashamed of. But credit must go to the MPs (government and opposition alike) for not slugging it out on the floor of Parliament to try and resolve the issues. Incidents of this nature have not only marred the proceedings of the legislatures of third world countries but also developed countries like United States and European countries.

The time, in my opinion, has come to ask ourselves if our constant reference to the ill-mannered and disrespectful behavior of some of our MPs serves any useful purpose – other than to focus world attention to the state of our parliamentary proceedings. It is one thing for the international community to want to make Malaysia a laughing stock of the world for its failures but it is another when Malaysians themselves and their leaders invite criticism from the rest of the world.

Jeffrey QC,

Your attempt at an in-depth analysis of the meaning, significance and consequences of the stereotyping of women by men is fully appreciated. Your definition of “sexism” however appears broader than mine; but it does not change the role that sexist behavior plays in our multi religious and multiethnic society.

It is true that Article 8(2) of our Constitution prohibits gender discrimination. But sexism in my opinion goes beyond the issue of gender discrimination. It is a behavioral problem not unrelated to religious value systems.

Among Muslims and Jews, it is part of their religions to physically separate men and women in their group and social activities. For example, in places of worship their women are physically separated from each other. You only need to walk into a mosque or a Jewish synagogue to see how they are separated from each other. The intention is not to demean the women but it is part of their religious beliefs system if you will to discriminate – and I use the term “discriminate” not in a negative way. Their attitude towards the role of women follows the Qur’an and the Torah. Muslims as a matter of tradition believe their women have a more important role to play in their homes rather than in the office i.e. their workplace is in the home, better spent raising and educating their children. My orthodox Jewish neighbors do not want their wives to work or rather they prefer to have their wives work at home.

In the Christian Bible, Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior chose only men as His apostles – though some say Mary Magdalene was the 13th apostle. “Sexism” some say is as old as the Bible. In Genesis, God when He created Eve almost as afterthought and out of Adam’s rib, some say, was sexist. Some say writers of the Old Testament working from a feminist angle later changed all that by having a second version of the Creation having Eve created not out of Adam’s rib but out of the same dust from which Adam was created. Eve according to this second version of the Creation was created as Adam’s equal.

Sexism has its roots in religion. Today Muslim men and orthodox Jews are by definition sexist in their behavior. It is the same in the Muslim world everywhere and is certainly not unique to Malaysia. It is not discrimination in the negative sense of the word. To be sexist is a socially acceptable and even desirable group behavior. Indeed it is an integral part of their being though less as individuals but more as a community.

However, politically it would not be correct to encourage sexist behavior since there are constitutional provisions which guarantee equality among the sexes; and a plethora of laws making it illegal to discriminate along gender lines.

Having said that, what happened in our Parliament was worse than that. Those remarks were derogatory. It was disgusting. It is deplorable. Period.

But one would have to put it in context and see it for what it is. Let us not politicize it in return for short term political capital. Whatever political capital DAP has gained, in my opinion, has been frittered away by over politicization of a single issue – voters plagued by ‘sexist fatigue’ are ready to jump the bandwagon. I don’t know about you but I have.

“….if religion(s) are more important – and true -, shouldn’t we abandon this patronising hypocrisy that women are equal with men and be forthright in condoning sexist remarks and conducts rather than condemning them?” Jeffrey

Let’s try and answer this question in a light hearted sort of way lest we offend the serious readers on such a serious issue as religion. It is best to leave the word ‘sexist’ alone for now, for the word ‘sexist’ is likely to mean different things to different people and different things to the same people when behavior we refer to as ‘sexist’ occurs in a different context.

Start with the premise: God is sexist – if I may. Well, God created Eve later than Adam, didn’t He? Why did God do that? He created Eve the first Woman from Adam’s ribs and not from dust out of which He created the first Man. Why is that?

Sometime ago, the New York Times wrote that Eve was not Adam’s first wife and only wife. Eve was not the first Woman. According to Hebrew legend recorded in the Alphabet of Ben Sira, Lilith was Adam’s first wife who preceded Eve. In this version, Lilith was created from earth just as Adam was. Legend has it that she balked at Adam for wanting to make love with him on top. Adam refused her demand that she be treated as his equal. So she walked out on him. She was later sent to live with the demons and became a demon herself. You cannot find Lilith in the Genesis. Indeed this mystery woman could be found in a single line in Isaiah and here she is mentioned as a female demon. But that is another matter.

But it is true if you limit yourself strictly to Genesis, there was no Lilith and Adam never had to choose. Now that we have done away with the historical aspect of it which is what the Bible is all about – a history book made up of many other books written by different writers over a period of four thousand years, words guided and inspired by God through His prophets in the form of rules and laws, and songs and poetry etc – we are one step nearer our goal. We have given some historical context to the concept of equality of the sexes and a glimpse into the roots of ‘sexism’ and how in fact it derives its origin.

Some of us are fortunate to be living today in societies which are organized along secular lines. Others are fortunate to be living in either secular societies or societies organized around religion – one or the other. Malaysians are not so fortunate for they live in a country which has a constitution that is neither secular nor religious. The philosophical aspect of Islam is that is that societies must necessarily be organized around the Word of God. Islam is not just a religion it is also everything else. To the Muslims the notion that the state can be separated from religion (read: Islam) is inconceivable and therefore incomprehensible. Similarly, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible how a fellow Muslim could leave his or her religion – and therefore there is no method or procedure that allows him or her to do so.

The concept of the separation of state from religion is relatively new. Prior to that – two millennia earlier – the state was linked to religion, one merging with the other. The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution in trying to avoid the bloodshed that occurred in Europe as a result of religious persecution, has separated state from religion. Thus sexist behavior if it were to occur in the U.S. Congress today would be condemned for what it is – for being politically incorrect but would have none of the religious connotations.

Now that we have given some context to the behavior we attribute as ‘sexist’ perhaps we are nearer to handling some of the issues associated with it.

You asked why the hypocrisy?

We cannot answer this question without reference to our Constitution of 1957 which, as if to add to the confusion, is neither secular nor religious. Would it be ‘sexist’ for a male Muslim MP to say to a female Muslim MP that she should remember to walk six steps behind her husband during a state ceremony. Article 11 of the Constitution after all says among other things, that Islam is the “official religion of the federation”. Would it be sexist for the same MP to call for a non-Muslim MP to do the same? I am sorry but where is the hypocrisy?

Now what happened in Parliament recently was not about being ‘sexist’ nor has anything to do with ‘sexism’. Those two MPs were guilty of something more serious than that! Indeed ‘sexism’ which has come to be regarded as having a negative quality, is too kind a word to use to refer to their behavior. Their behavior is downright crude, rude and insulting and the Speaker should have censured the two immediately and not wait for the Opposition to move a motion which was dead on arrival for having failed to comply with standing orders.

Period.

So can we all move on??