MALAYSIA ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw) in 1995 as part of its commitment to uphold and protect gender equality. Although obligated to report every four years to the treaty body on its implementation, it has chosen to only report twice, first in 2006 and now in 2018 – after a significant gap of 12 years.

At its second review on Tuesday at the 69th Session of the Cedaw Committee in Geneva, the Malaysian government was well-represented, with a delegation of 24 people including representatives from various ministries, including health, education, human resources, home affairs and foreign affairs, as well as the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). The delegation was headed by Suriani Ahmad, Secretary-General of the Women’s Ministry.

Three key items are worthwhile noting by the Malaysian public, as the government is supposed to act on the recommendations made by the Cedaw committee. This is a follow-up that every citizen can remind their MPs, their ministers and other institutions of as well.

First, the Cedaw committee repeatedly reminded Malaysian representatives that when a country practiced plural legal systems, the civil law should be recognised as the law of the land, instead of traditional and customary laws, including religious laws.

It means that governments cannot argue that discrimination can be continued because traditional and religious laws exist. There is a state obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill “women’s rights to non-discrimination and the enjoyment of equality”.

For instance, the use of fatwas is regarded as a measure to impose discrimination and deny women equality. This was mentioned with special regard to the 2009 fatwa on female genital mutilation, which stated it was compulsory for women to undergo circumcision. The Egyptian Cedaw committee member – Naela Gabr – raised this point many times to drive home the message that the fatwa was being utilised to perpetuate a discriminatory practice not considered Islamic, even by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The delegation was also repeatedly quizzed on the fatwa that prevented children born within six months of the parents’ wedding carrying the father’s name and the question of that child’s citizenship if the mother were a foreigner.

It seems these are fatwas are unique to Malaysia, and we need to ask the critical question: are Islamic institutions being utilised to continue discriminatory practices against women?

The creation and strengthening of the plural legal systems has been a work-in-progress by successive government administrations.

It is also telling that the response by the AGC was weak and clumped into three categories:

• Shariah was divine law and as such these laws could not be considered as gender discrimination. 
• Shariah fell under the purview of the state-level legislature and authorities (though he failed to mention that his office was considering moving amendments to make the religious courts equal to the civil Federal courts).
• Non-Muslims were not affected by shariah law and only Muslims, 60% of the population (the majority), were affected by it.

Any Malaysian following the hearings would have been shocked. It was apparent to all, especially the Cedaw committee members – who remarked that the inability of the government delegation to unequivocally state that the constitution and the civil law system should be supreme in a democracy, and the elevation of religious laws made in an undemocratic, extrajudicial manner, to be equal to democratic laws was in fact, undermining democracy and the social contract that bound citizens together.

Cedaw committee members also pointed out having plural legal systems which oppressed and discriminated against a group, resulted in festering resentment and enmity amongst its people. This was the experience of Lebanon, and is prescient – that perhaps we as citizens should be analysing social discontent from the angle of unequal treatment and discrimination not only within the minority population, but even the majority population itself. It was alarming to see that the AGC themselves, while operating within the civil law framework, chose consistently to represent and defend state-level shariah enactments instead of the Constitution.

Referring to the fatwa on female genital mutilation, the Health Ministry representative continuously reiterated that it was compulsory, medicalised, no harm came from it and in fact could not be considered female genital mutilation – although the World Health Organisation itself (whose standards the Health Ministry should be aligning itself to) defined it as such.

One can only hope this process was educational to our officials as in the eyes of the world, Malaysia seems to be steadily regressing on gender equality.

Lastly, there is a clear disconnect between the government and the ground realities. Despite repeated negative international publicity over government-sponsored forums on identifying lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, proposing conversion therapy and rehabilitation of LGBT communities, and the violence and harassment faced by transgender women in prisons and by religious authorities, the government maintained that the LGBT people were treated equally.

What gives, Malaysia? In Geneva, it was outlandish to see that we defended female genital mutilation; we defended whipping women, denying women the right to pass citizenship to our children, denying women equal rights in inheritance, and innocent children being denied rights to their fathers’ names.

It is high time that we come out of our “tempurung” standards set by our insular politics and regain the status we once enjoyed: A pioneer in recognising, protecting and fulfilling women’s rights.

As per its ratification of Cedaw in 1995, the government of Malaysia is committed to:

1. Condemn and eliminate all discrimination against women;
2. Take all appropriate actions to bring about equality between women and men in all areas, including political, social, economic, and cultural fields;
3. Adopt temporary special laws and policies to bring about equality between women and men;
4. Modify social and cultural norms, values, and practices that promote stereotypes about the role of women and men or that are based on the inferiority of one sex;
5. Take actions to eliminate discrimination against women in the areas of employment, education, health, economic and social life, marriage, and family life.

* Sivananthi Thanenthiran is the executive director of Arrow.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.