Printing Instructions: Select File and then Print from your browser's menu --- Article Information --- This article was printed from Sun2Surf Article's URL: http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=15380 ---------------------------
It would not be inconceivable that somebody like Beatrice Fernandez remains highly cynical of the government's 2001 amendment to Article 8 of the Federal Constitution to prohibit gender discrimination.
Indeed, I don't need to be Fernandez to also be cynical of Malaysia's 1995 ratification of the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw).
See, despite the highest law of the land prohibiting gender discrimination, and Malaysia being obligated by international treaty to protect and promote gender equality, Fernandez, a former MAS flight attendant, was denied legal recourse when she was dismissed for being pregnant.
Fernandez, who fought the landmark case for 14 years right up to the Federal Court, was told last year she had no case against her former employer.
Hence, what does it really mean to Malaysian women, who constitute half the population, that our Constitution prohibits gender discrimination and our government has ratified a UN treaty on women's rights? Pretty much nothing if Fernandez's case is anything to go by.
It is against this backdrop that a draft Gender Discrimination Bill was presented last month by the Penang-based Women's Centre for Change at an international conference in Petaling Jaya.
There is no doubt Malaysia needs specific legislation that will set up the mechanisms by which gender discrimination can be prohibited, and equality ensured, as per our Constitution and Cedaw.
Indeed, at the country's first Cedaw committee review at the UN in May, Malaysia was told it needed to formulate laws to ensure the treaty's principles were effectively established and implemented domestically.
International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific executive director Anuradha Rao notes that Malaysia, like India, Pakistan, Singapore and Thailand, follow the British principle of Parliament's supremacy in enacting laws.
Hence, international treaties signed by the executive have no legal status until directly transformed through enabling legislation.
An enabling legislation is a general law passed by Parliament that sets the legal framework for a particular subject, for example, the Food Act is an enabling law, under which the Health Minister can draw up regulations on a range of subjects from food labelling to permissible levels of additives.
The Environmental Quality Act (EQA) 1974 is another example. Under this enabling law, there are many regulations on, among others, Environmental Impact Assessment, toxic wastes, palm oil and rubber waste discharges, and air pollution.
Third World Network legal adviser Chee Yoke Ling notes that our EQA, the Department of Environment, and the former Science, Technology and Environment Ministry (MOSTE) were very much a result of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on Environment.
Obviously, passing enabling laws is not alien in Malaysia, and in fact, can be expedited if there is a sense of urgency.
Chee cites other examples where the government has responded to the need for domestic legislation after ratifying international treaties.
To implement the TRIPS Agreement (the intellectual property agreement under the World Trade Organisation), the government, in 2000, made major changes to the Patents Act 1983 because of impending deadlines.
The former MOSTE started work on a Biosafety Bill in 1999/2000 and since then Malaysia has become a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which requires national laws to be enacted. The Bill has finally been approved by Cabinet and is supposed to go to Parliament, Chee notes.
And to prepare for accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (one of the treaties under the World Intellectual Property Organisation) that took place this year, amendments were again made to the Patents Act even before Malaysia's ascension to the treaty.
"Generally speaking, I would say that if a treaty (like the WTO agreements) comes with economic benefits and has sanctions for non-compliance, then laws get enacted fast - sometimes even when the long term benefits may not be so good!" Chee observes.
This just goes to show that government is able to act fast in enacting enabling laws when it understands the urgency to do so.
What does it say then that 11 years after Malaysia ratified Cedaw and five years after amending the Constitution, no enabling law has been tabled in Parliament to ensure that gender equality can be a reality rather than a promise that will not and cannot be fulfilled?
Could it just be that there is no urgency in addressing gender discrimination in Malaysia?
In 1985, a women's groups memorandum to government identified the laws that needed review to ensure gender equality. While some amendments to gender discriminatory laws have been made, a host of others need reviewing and new laws are needed to bring Cedaw home and ensure gender equality.
With the proposed Gender Discrimination Bill, the government now has a chance to make good its promise. Question is, will there be urgency or will women have to remain cynical in this country?
Jacqueline Ann Surin believes that you cannot be neutral on a moving train. She is an assistant news editor at theSun. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com
--- end ---