The recent announcement by a coalition of womens groups to monitor parliamentary sessions for lewd comments reveals the extent of gender discrimination within the upper echelons of our political society.

Gender discrimination affects women at all levels from their homes to their workplaces, but few would expect the problem to be occurring openly in parliament.

Often misinterpreted, womens aspiration for gender equality does not mean women want to achieve the 'sameness' as men. It does not mean that they want to dress like men or walk like men.

But it does mean that women are seeking to achieve the same basic rights - they should be given the same opportunities and should be able to speak and debate freely.

The Federal Constitution guarantees these rights.

Article 8(2) states that except when expressly authorised by this constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the grounds of religion, race, gender, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Therefore, it is a great travesty that one of the places in which this provision is repeatedly flouted is within the confines of our parliament.

Ribald remarks

Over the past two years, repeated incidences of members of parliament using lewd and inappropriate language have been documented in parliament's own records and in the press.

On Feb 25, 2000, New Straits Times reported that Parliament had to be adjourned for 10 minutes after a row erupted over a motion to censure two MPs for making sexist remarks in the House.

One MP had allegedly uttered the words Boleh masuk sikitkah? (Can we go in a little bit?) when addressing a female counterpart while another joined in by saying Beri masuk sikitlah (Let him come in a bit).

A month later, another MP was reported as saying Suruh balik hisap pepetlah, budak kecil ini (Go back and suck on a pacifier, little kid) to another MP.

Far from being apologetic, one of these MPs explained that there was nothing sexist in his remark but that it was simply his style of talking.

It all depends on the person ... if he has that kind of mentality, then he will regard what I have said as sexist, the MP was reported as saying.

However, this raises the question of whether parliament, with its protocols and requirement for polite speech, would be the right place for one to indulge in this manner of free speech.

Under the Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (1999), sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature having the effect of verbal, non-verbal, visual, psychological or physical harassment that might, on reasonable grounds, be perceived by the recipient as

i) as placing a condition of a sexual nature on his/her employment; or

ii) as an offence or humiliation, or a threat to his/her well being, but has no direct link to his/her employment.

According to social activist Dr Prema Devaraj, the comments made by the MPs certainly fall under the category of verbal sexual harassment as defined by the code.

If the government is committed to eradicating gender bias in any meaningful context, then any remarks amounting to sexual harassment made in Parliament should be immediately censured by the Speaker, added Devaraj in an article entitled Parliament, Gender Sensitivity and Sexual Harassment published by social reform group Aliran .

In practice, Speakers, in their role as caretakers of the Parliamentary sessions, have tended to overlook these offensive remarks.

MPs have been advised to be careful when using certain words or phrases, but none have been taken to task for the disrespect shown to women parliamentarians.

Gender stereotyping

Concerned women groups working under an umbrella body called Womens Agenda for Change, explained that sexual harassment is not simply a manner of talking but in reality, disguises a widespread problem of gender stereotyping and a lack of knowledge on gender issues.

For instance, during a debate about proposed amendment to sections within the Immigration Act 1963 that discriminate against women, women MPs who spoke for the opposition were loudly jeered with calls of Kahwinlah Bangla (Go and marry a Bangladesh- lah ). Not only does this demonstrate sexual discrimination but it shows as well racial discrimination among many.

On another occasion during a debate on sexual harassment against women, several male MPs suggested that the solution would be for women to be fully-covered up irrespective of their religion since in one MP's opinion, bila lelaki nampak wanita, air liurnya akan meleleh (when a man sees a woman, he will drool).

The higher occurrence of inappropriate remarks could also be attributed to the increase in female representation within opposition political parties. It could be that some male MPs who are unable to defend their positions resort to gender stereotyping to mollify their critics.

These women MPs have been dismissed as being too emotional to discuss valid issues while those who are single are often asked to get married first.

Certainly, not all MPs engage in such disrespectful behaviour but many tolerate it since party interests often transcends gender correctness.

Even women MPs have been seen to berate other women MPs in the same condescending and discriminatory manner.

As a young MP, as a woman, you should learn from your mistakes and apologise, said one female MP to another during a debate last year.

The accused, who was said to have tarnished the image of women with her shameful conduct, was never given an opportunity to defend her actions.

Realistic solution

Devaraj, in her article, suggested a realistic, albeit difficult, solution to the gender bias problem.

The issue is a deep one that cannot be tackled by increasing the number of women in politics or by weekend workshops or seminars.

It must be resolved by implementing a carefully thought out gender sensitisation programme that starts in primary school, she said.

There can be no effective top-down approach to gender sensitisation as ideas about men and women are formed very early in a persons life, added Devaraj.

However, womens groups are not totally wrong in their approach in promoting a greater female representation within parliament from the present 10 percent to at least 30 percent.

Unless women MPs highlight the discriminatory approach in parliament, it appears unlikely that their male counterparts, given their present mindsets, would be persuaded to do so.