When Sigmund Freud remarked that "women are endowed with a hearty appetite for suffering" he could not have been more wrong and judgemental. And equally sexist are Malaysia's male chauvinist members of Parliament (MPs) who unabashedly have lived up to their reputation as bigots.

Otherwise how else should one interpret our "able" male MPs reaction to the recent debate on the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) (Amendment) Bill 2005, with their only concern being that the amendments proposed would make it difficult for Muslim men to practise polygamy!

The real urgency for the bill to be amended is lost to these MPs, namely Ismail Sabri Yaakob (BN- Bera) and Mohd Said Yusof (BN-Jasin). Not only have these two MPs failed to reflect their sensitivity towards the issue at hand, they have also blatantly displayed their ignorance at looking at the matter from a gender-sensitised point of view.

If anything, one can deduce and that too safely that Malaysian MPs are certainly not gender sensitised and have little concerns over issues affecting women in the country.

This remark, while might pierce the bloated ego of some of these male MPs, is necessary to bring to light the fact that they have failed to live up to the teachings espoused through Islam Hadhari by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Among the 10 principles of Islam Hadhari include that which emphasises the protection of the rights of minority groups and women and that of a good quality of life. Sad to note that Ismail and Mohd Yusof have yet to adhere to these two principles, for reasons best known to them.

Ismail's skewed reasoning that the bill's requirement would only make it harder for Muslim men to practise polygamy smacks nothing short of views of a narcissist. His so-called logic that the bill's requirement that a man planning to marry a second wife must apear in court with his first wife and his proposed second wife to discuss the distribution of wealth would only deter men and end up leading them to keep the potential wives as mistresses' reflects no less a vested agenda, one which can only be explained by Ismail.

Too preoccupied

To further add salt to injury, his 'compatriot' Mohd Yusof goes on to offer caution that couples might elope to Thailand to marry should the law's requirement for polygamy be too stringent. Perhaps Mohd Yusof can disclose to the people just how many of such cases have taken place by virtue of this stringent law.

As has been rightfully expressed by a woman's group, All Women's Action Society (Awam), rather than debating the issue on the basis of trying to achiever fairness to all parties involved, these MPs are far too preoccupied trying to protect men from being inconvenienced.

"It should go without saying that laws and policies should be debated based on their merit rather than on how convenient they may be for certain people," said Awam executive director Rabiah Omar in a faxed statement to the media.

Responding to the MPs reaction to the Bill debate, Rabiah lamented that if men were likely to flout laws which aimed to ensure that Muslim men practise polygamy responsibly and with due regard for all affected parties, the answer was to look for ways of getting enforcement agencies or mechanisms to be more effective, and not to abandon the laws.

And in spite of the objections from some concerned MPs, New Straits Times on Sept 27 reported that the Government in its typical show of authority managed to get the controversial Islamic Family Lw Act 1984 (Amendment 2005) passed in the Dewan Rkyat.

Although MPs from both sides of the House continued to raise the discrepancies in the original bill throughout the debate session, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department in charge of religious affairs Abdullah Md Zin got the bill passed without a single dissenting vote.

Now, if only the 'capable' MPs like Ismail and Mohd Yusof were not gender "illiterate" they could have played a crucial role in helping bring about changes to the laws pertaining to women's safety. Alas, this however will only be as good as a wishful thinking for we all know that the ability to state categorically the pros and cons of polygamy is lost to Malaysia. The very fact that the country's 13 states have yet to standardise their Syariah laws with respect to matters concerning polygamy further accentuates the truth that our nation lacks the seriousness and dedication in ensuring that polygamy does not end up as a "right" among Muslim men.

Polygamy a way of life?

Has polygamy become a way of life for Muslim men? What really is their motive of taking in more than one wife? Is polygamy used as a display of their manhood by some Muslim men? Is the ability to "afford" more than one wife used as a sign to flaunt their status symbol?

Would Ismail and Mohd Said care to comment on these questions raised?

These days it has become no less a joke to claim that one is only a man if is capable of having more than one spouse. It is disheartening to see that women are being used by men to measure the latter's status symbol and to "verify" a man's manhood.

How truly has polygamy benefitted the women? Hardly, if the fact that the first wives and children's welfare is not protected is considered. The bill's aim, as pointed out by Dr Rozaidah Talib (BN-Ampang) was to safeguard first wives and their children by allowing them to claim half of the wealth acquired during the marriage, but this aspect was conveniently ignored by her male colleagues, who could only think of how to make polygamy practice accessible to as many Muslim men as possible.

Unlike the current scenario, through the bill it would be a requirement for the man planning to remarry to take his first wife, her family, the prospective second wife and her family to court to discuss the division of wealth. Instead of welcoming this as a much overdued change, Ismail and Mohd Sabri harped on why men would lose courage to own up to their second, third or fourth marriages. Lame rationale, completely!

Paradigm shift

While Abdullah is trying to create a paradigm shift in ensuring that gender inequality no longer threatens the country's economic and scocial developments, he however has not realised that merely setting up a Cabinet Committee on Gender Equality or the Non-Aligned Movement on Gender and Development Centre is not going to bring about the much lacking gender awareness among the male domain. The centre's role should not be restricted to merely empowering women through a life-long learning approach but should also include objectives to raise gender sensitivity among men.

If Abdullah is serious about Islam Hadhari, then he should take note of the sentiments showed by Muslim men like Ismail and Mohd Said who have yet to accord women the due respect. The very fact that these two MPs were fighting so hard to 'preserve' polygamy reflects the miserable myth that men can only attain to be 'man' if they are able to practise polygamy.

Until and unless MPs like Ismail and Mohd said are not gender sensitised, women can hope for little from their wakil rakyats or elected representatives in terms of briding the gender inequality gap.

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.