If the recent case of a Malaysia Airlines stewardess getting the boot for having embraced motherhood is any measure of discrimination against women, then Malaysian women are in serious trouble.

The case of Beatrice Fernandez, who worked with MAS for 11 years before having her first child serves as a chilly reminder that all is not well in the country when it comes to matters of gender equality.

While it was no less an arduous task for Women, Family and Community Development Shahrizat Jalil to fight for the amendment to Article 8 (2) of Federal Constitution giving zero leverage for gender to be as a discriminatory factor, this effort seems to be little appreciated by our esteemed judges, after three Federal Court judges dismissed Beatrice's application for leave to appeal, giving her case no chance to be heard.

The all-male three judge panel decided that Article 8 (2) had no bearing on the case. Are these judges implying that Beatrice has no right under the constitution to seek redress?

Now, because of MAS' archaic management policies, a dedicated employee has ended up losing her job, simply because her former employer had no interest in practising gender-equality work ethics. And also because our constitution does not protect the people's basic rights.

It is apparent that for profit motivated companies like MAS, women serve merely as showpiece objects. The company's bigotry stand on discriminating between its female and male stewardess' reflects its lack of respect for the various laws in place prohibiting discrimination against women.

The audacity of our national carrier to violate the basic human rights of its employees is baffling. Even more disturbing is to note that the whole issue of gender has yet to be understood by women especially.

Is it not a woman's right to set up a family? Does this right cease once she agrees to her company's collective agreement or other relevant policies?

Truly, it is shameful for the country to note that gender biased work rules and regulations are still practised by Malaysian employers. Perhaps Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, having created a committee on gender equality, could do well to think twice over the existence of his brainchild. Is the committee a government propaganda to mislead the people into believing that it cares for the welfare of the masses when reality reveals otherwise?

In cases like Beatrice's, which authority or organisation is sincere enough to come to her aid?

Will the government show its true stand on issues of gender biasness? Will it issue a warning to employers not to create work policies that are discriminatory in nature? Is the government genuine in its stands against gender discrimination? Judging from Beatrice's case, it certainly seems that lip service is still an act our government is very good at.

We will have to see how Shahrizat tackles this latest development, especially when it is a reflection of how the judiciary views the strength of Article 8 (2), which was put in place thanks to Shahrizat.

Sincerity a game

On March 8, women the world over celebrated International Women's Day reminding one another that there was still much to do to improve the welfare of women, especially in eroding discrimination based on gender.

Abroad, women, frustrated with the slow progress of laws rectifying gender biasness, decided to take to the streets. But in Malaysia, the practice is otherwise.

Despite the painfully unhurried approach to issues affecting women, the women's groups in Malaysia are amazingly a patient lot, or rather they have now become one. Gone are the days when they would 'ambush' a minister and cry for women's rights to be upheld or laws in favour of women be created.

Today, the silence coming from the women's group is deafening, so much so that one tends to wonder whether women's groups have lost their courage to fight for their reason d'etre.

The government's laid-back attitude in recognising sexual harassment as a crime is obvious in the manner in which it has paid scant attention to calls from women's group to introduce a Sexual Harassment Act.

While the government decided to take its time in deciding if sexual harassment is indeed a serious issue at hand, each day women end up as victims of sexual harassment.

Likewise, the many pleas and urges to the government to criminalise marital rape too has gone unheeded. Are we to assume that the patriarchal structure of the government is the reason why laws in favour of women are not being regarded as urgent?

What excuse does the government have in not giving priority to issues like sexual harassment, marital rape and aggravated rape?

Does everything have to be dissected for the government's benefit before a deliberating committee is set up as a ploy to hoodwink the people that the leadership is indeed concerned and sincere in wanting to improve the laws that at present are discriminatory towards women?

Check and balance

Women's groups should awake from their slumber and get back to the business of doing what they do best - that of being 'noise' makers for the benefit of womenfolk.

It is worrying to note how slow the women's groups responses are towards the various issues that affect women and that which had been highlighted recently. No issue is a non-issue for the women's groups to comment on. Why are the women's groups themselves discriminating on which issues they would like to have their say on?

The Joint Action Group Against Violence Against Women (JAG) has been around for 20 years. Yet, its impact on issues challenging women have yet to garner admiration from many women, for the simple reason that many women themselves are of the opinion that women's groups have more to do in serving as a watchdog of the dignity and human rights of the womenfolk?

Must the women's groups be reminded of their reason for existing? Or are women's group's being infiltrated by politics of a bigger kind. Are women activists too busy picking which issues to ride on that they sacrificed other pressing issues?

JJ RAY started her career with a mainstream publication. A non-conformist, she soon saw the barriers that went up whenever, through her writing, she tried to make the world a home for one and all.