When Pak Lah paid respects to Parliament in his first week as prime minister, he prescribed that the august House of Representatives had to reinstate her dignity and honour as the most important institution of democracy in this country.

That was at the level of intention of the prime minister. But, one of the real challenges of \”reinventing Parliament\” must surely be the quality of the dialogue that goes on in that yet-to-be august house. If you are an ardent follower of the process of \”talking democracy\” in the House, you will be both amazed and amused at the poor content and substance of much of the discourse.

Take the most recent comments made by the YB for Rantau Panjang about divorced women. It has nothing to do with the issues at hand being discussed. Moreover, it demonstrates that he either lacks the content or substance of what to talk about but still chooses to \”utter noise\” like a clanging cymbal; or he is pre-occupied with women\’s issues for yet other reasons best known to him.

In couple of my past articles I have made the argument that what MPs or public personalities say can reflect lot about their worldview and assumptions about life and living. Let me therefore try and analyze the worldview of this PAS Member of Parliament.

First, the context: while the Minister for Women\’s and Family Affairs was winding up the debate on the 9th Malaysia Plan, the very \”honourable member\” uttered some rather ridiculous statements about \”divorced women correlating them to promiscuous or adulterous or flirtatious women\” by using the very strong Malay word \”gatal.\”

Not based on reason or logic

His non-statistical statement and generalization defies all logic and is not based on reason and logic either. Was it his head or heart speaking? Which head and which heart? What was his objective basis for such a generalization about \”all divorced women?\” Normally, in good science, we use correct sampling methods to verify a hypothesis and then attempt at a generalization if our hypothesis achieves a certain level of confidence upon testing.

\"\"But this member of parliament did not appear to make his generalization based on science; whether good or bad! It appears that he simply was \”provoked to speak.\” Wonder what provoked him? Was it the Minister of Women\’s Affairs; a very credible, able and competent authority on the subject of women? Was the Minister not well dressed enough? Maybe, if she wore the PAS-prescribed \”tudung\” she may have been more palatable?

After all, it is male chauvinists like this who would argue that men commit rape \”because they are provoked by women\’s dressing? What about incest in the home committed by fathers against their daughters? What about the abuse of spouses, also in the home? Why are women being divorced anyway? Is the blame always one-sided? Any marriage counselor will tell us otherwise. Is the \”gatal theory\” the only way to explain the action of divorcees?\” What then is our view of human nature? Or, what is the nature of human nature? Are we all simply creatures of the environment, without any \”internal controls?\”

Are we simply animals who \”get heat\” under certain circumstances? Do we all simply respond to the environment and urges without due regard for the dignity of others? What if the divorcee was the MP\’s daughter, would he say the same things? Is there no dignity in man? Are we not made in the image of God Almighty? If so, do we not have choices about every decision? Do we not have a conscience? If we do not, are we not any better than animals? I am sorry but this simple demeanor by the honourable member raises more questions than his simple but wrong \”pet theory,\” but which he refuses to recant.

His personal experience may also be limited to what he has seen and heard or observed in his home constituency. But that limited sample of experience, however wide, does not allow him to conclude so \”arrogantly\” especially about his private perceptions and views into a general theory regarding all women in his judgment. To me, it almost resonates with the \”unfair criticism\” of the two movies Sepet and Gurba ; wherein the proponents argue equally from their \”male chauvinistic religious worldviews\” that assume that the woman\’s place is always in the kitchen. Why is male chauvinism so prominent especially among Malay and Indian men in Malaysia?

In this day and age where we have more women in universities and we have those who are as good as their male counterparts or some even better; why this kind of blind arrogance? As our astronaut to be, S. Vanajah, proved that regardless of the terms and tough selection conditions, she is as good as the other three men. Do we really need more examples than the governor of Bank Negara, the some ministers in cabinet, or even some of our great sportswomen?

Even our National Integrity Plan simply argues that it is in the interest of integrity that we treat each other as equals. Apart from that in Malaysia, in recognition of this fact, we even have a Ministry of Women and Family Affairs. Our women have been been publicly acknowledged to provide the foundations for most of our families, if our male ego care to admit it!

Pet theories

Why then this kind of extreme male chauvinism? I have some pet theories. Malay and Indians societies are still historically tied into their traditional feudalistic hierarchies. In the past, when women stayed at home, or stayed cowed in their \”approved places as assigned by traditional societies,\” the men were free to \”roam and be free with their escapades.\”

Today, with women just as well educated; and most in some societies even more educated, men are feeling very insecure as their \”control over women is now being challenged!\” In our parent\’s generation, that model was okay and worked well because women \”knew and accepted their place in traditional society and roles.\” And, one way to provide for the security of family and harmony of society was to acknowledge and accept their legitimate roles in society.

The world has fundamentally changed after the Second World War and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Women and slaves have been the greatest beneficiaries of such \”rights.\” According them (not just slaves but also \’maids\’ in today\’s parlance) equal and legitimate rights of choice and of conscience is a God-given right that no man (or women) can put asunder!

Allow me to quote a passage of scripture wherein Jesus taught some truth about such \”judgment\” of others. The people around Jesus brought to him a \”lady caught in prostitution.\” The teachers and scribes asked of Jesus, whether she should be stoned to death, as was the Old Jewish custom? To which, Jesus simply stooped down and wrote in the sand, \”let him who has not sinned cast the first stone!\” After a while and when he had finished writing the words, he looked up and the followers had all left. Jesus told the women, \”to go and sin no more!\”

Judegment always belongs to God Almighty; for only He knows the affairs of our human hearts. Only He knows our real intentions or \”niat\” in Malay. All Abrahamic faiths believe that on the Day of Judgment, Jesus will come back to judge the world. Therefore, judgment should be left to God and need not be redeemed as a human function; other than where criminal rules have already been legislated. Ethics and morality have a significant critical difference; one is a normative value and ought to the so, the other is a positive value and is the norm in a particular society. Is the Member preaching ethics or describing morality in his constitutency?

Finally, when MPs speak in Parliament, I hope they remember that they were elected to \”represent\” the interests of their electorates, not just their own whims and fancies! The 9th Malaysia Plan has been launched; surely there are some very important issues and concerns to be addressed regarding women! What about single mothers; are they getting all the help they need without society viewing them as divorcees who are \”gatal?\” What about parents of handicapped; are they getting the help and support they need? What about children with learning deficiencies; orphans; elderly; the homeless; the urban poor and the marginalized native Malaysians?

Surely, the member of the august House of Parliament can find better ways to honour and respect the house by addressing some of these concerns from his constituency than to give his \”poor pet theory based on bad science, without any logic and wherein there is no context even to the point he is trying to make. Surely, it is people like this MP who makes it \”a shame to hear what is spoken in Parliament\” such that the Minister of Information, an ex-journalist himself, says that the nation is not ready to hear the non-discourse in Parliament! YB tak malu!

Wake up MPs and please do honour and respect our august House of Parliament as an institution that we have to uphold and protect the democracy that we have chosen as our process of the distribution and moderation of power and authority in Malaysia.