I refer to the report, [#1] Sexual harassment: only the law can stop it [/#] (March 30). According to it, the Joint Action Group Against Violence Against Women (JAG) had submitted a memorandum on the proposed Sexual Harassment Bill to the Human Resources Ministry.

I expect that the government will promulgate laws against sexual harassment in the workplace either by way of a separate enactment or by way of separate addendum to the Employment Act.

This is because the government is committed to promoting gender sensitivity and deterring sexual harassment (I presume) of women only.

Yet the inspiration for such a law comes from developed countries of the West (not West Asia) in which there are laws against all kinds of harassments besides sex, for examples harassments based on race, religion, age, disability (including obesity), sexual orientation, marital status, transsexualism or cross-dressing, political affiliation, criminal record, prior psychiatric treatment, occupation, tobacco use outside work and even receipt of public assistance.

So why is the government which has often been accused of double standards in so many areas all of a sudden so committed to gender sensitivity (or more accurately women's sensitivity) as an offshoot of gender equality?

The government is promoting a minimum of 30 per cent participation of women at all levels of political and policy-making processes in Malaysia. (The level of representation of women in parliamentary and state assemblies is reported to be presently less than 10 per cent). Women have recently been appointed to politically influential positions (until recently held by men) of Central Banker and Attorney-General. A new Women and Family Development Ministry has even been created to exclusively take care of women's affairs.

I think the ruling party is (like Democrats led by Clinton) definitely playing the 'woman's card' because women voters theoretically make up 50% of the electorate. Men who make up the other 50% of the electorate may be more politically active but may be divided on either side of the Barisan Nasional or Barisan Alternatif camp.

Whilst men may feel more strongly about issues such as cronyism, abuse of human rights or lack of corporate governance and transparency of which BN has been criticised, the belief (chauvinistic that this itself may be) is that although some women may concern themselves with these issues as well, the majority, however, will prioritise immediate personal issues of women's welfare and gender sensitivity/equality over them, a record BN arguably fares reasonably well. (Contrast this to BA's main partner, PAS spiritual adviser Nik Aziz Nik Mat's view that women's provocative dressing caused social crimes that would surely come across as being too chauvinistic to many women not conservatively or too religiously inclined).

As a male and an employer, I am afraid that, against the backdrop of the aforesaid political calculations, the government may go overboard to overzealously implement sexual harassment laws in a manner that totally pleases the women groups' agenda without regard to employers as well as males' position and rights.

Lest I be misunderstood, even I, a moderately chauvinistic male, would agree that it is high time that sexual harassment laws be implemented in this country to proscribe the more blatant cases of male employers or employees making unwelcome sexual advances on female employees that cause the latter emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish. I support that harassment should be extended even to cases in which the employers require female employees, as part of the employment expectation, to go out to the market place to be exceptionally accommodating to their male customers or clients' sexual overtures in maximisation of sales and business profits.

Having said that, the promulgators of such anti-harassment laws should, however, draw a line and set defined practical parameters in them so that some of the more perverse elements of the protected group may not be able to perversely use the law intended for their protection to their own advantage and, in a process of reverse discrimination, denigrate the rights of employers and males as a class under the slightest pretext.

Whilst many may disagree, I think we should not legislate the workplace into too sanitised an environment in which the slightest flirtation as evinced by sexually connotative words or gesture becomes unlawful.

Our Yang Berhormat in parliament had also been severely rapped by women's champions for lewd, offensive or suggestive remarks, comments or jokes having sexual connotation that are supposedly a manifestation of our patriarchal culture.

Whether one likes it or not, ours is a patriarchal society and culture. There are no suggestions from any quarters to change it to a matriarchal one! No matter how much one disapproves of such 'unbecoming' jesting and kidding with sexual colouration, chastise them by all means or if you will, give them back the same treatment for the sake of gender equality - but do not make this kind of behavior unlawful under the new harassment laws.

In a workplace, we have women of not one but different temperaments and varying degrees of standards of social exposure experience and public propriety.

We have women (even highly educated ones) who have no problem in exchange of lewd or ribald jokes and banters or uttering expletives; and we have those whose puritanical standards and painfully sensitive nature, will suffer mental anguish and emotional trauma when confronted with these.

Not all men are sensitive or discerning of how to differentiate one from the other but without excusing such insensitivity, it is altogether ridiculous to expose them to legal penalties under sexual harassment laws merely because the aggrieved happens to be the latter category of 'cry babies'. Even the most staid and upright employer will also be implicated if he is made vicariously liable in law for the lewd or ribald utterance jokes and gestures by his more exuberant and insensitive male employee to an overly sensitive female one.

The purpose of sexual harassment laws should not be to legislate on with the view of improving men's social and moral behavior or to shield women from men's sexist insults and lewd jokes that injure women's collective sensitivities and pride.

They should not be used to mother-coddle women and buffer them from the cold reality and inevitable wounds inflicted by male members of a patriarchal society and for women to run to the authority figures and the law under the slightest provocation to assuage such wounds.

There are other avenues - examples, education or religion or parental upbringing and social norms - to take care of these kinds of behaviour.

For laws are intended to proscribe conduct at the minimum. They are not meant to improve moral conduct at the maximum. The purposes of law and morality may overlap but there are areas they are distinctly apart. The law should concern itself with the minimum below which is unacceptable whilst morality concerns the teaching of, and maximisation of ethical conduct.

(Hence it is, for example, an offence to harm (say) a woman by raping her but it is not an offence to be a uncaring bystander and look at the offence being committed without helping her no matter how morally reprehensible and uncivic such a behaviour is.)

The purpose of harassment laws should strictly be confined to protect women from persistent lascivious behavior (way beyond mere sexist or ribald talk) from authority figures (whether employer or colleagues on higher work hierarchy) who by reason of the power that they exert in determining the economic lives of women subordinates, abuse that power and take advantage and perpetrate real psychological emotional and bodily harm on their victims by making the work environment extremely hostile, dangerous and stressful in these respects.

The laws should attain these objectives balancing and without sacrificing the legitimate rights of employers and males as a class.

They should not be used to inculcate good social behavior on the part of men or dismantle any vestige of the so-called patriarchal norms men sometimes exhibit to the chagrin of women. It should not provide avenues for exceptionally sensitive, vulnerable or plain devious women to sue their employers or colleagues out of spite or financial gain under the slightest pretext.

The crux of the issue focuses on the meaning of 'sexual harassment' in such a legislation. Whilst it is impossible to define such an open-ended concept, it is not impossible to make the legislation as replete as possible with a litany of illustrations and examples concerning what it is and what it is not. Before settling on such illustrations, all who other than women are affected - employers' association and men, if there is such an association representing them - should be consulted. We do not want a gender bias piece of law weighted unreasonably against men or employers. The culprits and victims of harassment shall be gender neutral and include both sexes.

To all the men who are politically conscious and who rile against the BN government for whatever shortcoming, I would say this: The ruling party will target the women because they deliver one half of all votes. If BN brings food to the table and take care of women's immediate concerns and interest such welfare and guardianship of children, alimony and maintenance in divorce, sexual harassment, gender equality and stuff like that, I am sorry to say that it will more than likely get a large portion of the women's votes, and issues of cronyism, human rights and transparencies of governance can take the back seat.

The problem is if the government prosecutes too vigorously a politically-correct agenda and go overboard to meet women's groups' expectations, some of the pro-opposition men will not only be disappointed that there will be no change of government in redress of their political rights as hoped, but if they are not vigilant of their rights as males and employers in relation to the proposed new harassment laws, these too will be eroded and they will have to look forward to a morally sanitised and sterile clinical work place in which ribald jokes or banters or harmless flirtation are proscribed by law for work inspiration!