We live in a world full of inequality in terms of rights and opportunities. For those who care, it is only natural for them to address it and one of the tools available to correct the inequality is affirmative action. While the tool can be useful at creating an egalitarian society, it is imperative for us to note that certain injustices do arise as a response to previous inequality or injustice. This needs to be avoided.

Two wrongs make a right: this is one of the dangers of race-based affirmative action in Malaysia. It is also one of the dangers of setting aside a 30 per cent quota for women participation at all levels of decision-making in the government. An attempt to introduce such quotas as part of gender-based affirmative action is a policy of reverse discrimination, and hence an unjust policy.

The biggest issue about setting aside quotas for any particular group is about meritocracy. Specifically, it revolves around the availability of qualified talent within that group. The question is all the more relevant in critical areas like decision-making where competency in a particular subject is a requirement in designing good public policy. For us to move forward, we need the best individuals to articulate our public policy. Any intention to take into account factors that may deprive the government from the best talent should only be considered after thorough thinking.

If the quota is set in place, and if there are not enough qualified women to fill the quota, then those who are responsible for achieving the quota will fill the designated space with token candidates. This will be a recipe for disastrous decision-making and public policy. Or at the very least, these token candidate will not be able contribute to the kind of discussions required to form good public policy and decisions.
The quota also prevents the best, regardless of gender, from taking their rightful place. This is an act of injustice to those who are more than qualified to occupy a decision-making position but are denied that position because they belong to the wrong gender.

The formulation of good policies is in the interest of all residents of Malaysia, especially citizens. It is for this reason that the 30 per cent participation quota in decision-making for women is not exclusively a women matter. We live in an interdependent world. Decision-making in the government can affect each and every one of us. This is especially so if blunt policies are preferred to precise ones since precise policies and decision-making require highly knowledgeable policymakers.

This is not to say that women are not capable. Far from it, enough women have proven their credentials to make the reverse true. Rather, these competencies are likely gender neutral. It is this neutrality that allows capable women — or simply, capable persons — to prove themselves in the free market without prejudice. Any capable person can compete fairly in a merit-based system and need not rely on special provisions, as usually provided by affirmative action, to rise through the ranks.

Institution of an affirmative action that is based on a kind of equality of outcome may open capable women to unfair generalisation. Just as successful Malays are susceptible to the accusation that they are successful mostly due to affirmative action instead of effort, the introduction of a 30 per cent quota for women participation at all levels of decision-making will do the same thing to capable women.

There are better ways to address inequality and downright discrimination that exists across gender. It involves a shift of focus from equality of outcome to equality of opportunities. By equality of opportunities, in this context, it means no discrimination based on gender. In fact, a society that embraces the concept of equality of rights that is a mere extension to the idea of individual liberty must eliminate such discrimination.

Along with equality of opportunities, what is more useful in addressing low representation of women in decision-making levels is the empowerment of women. This calls for awareness of opportunities that exist as well as, perhaps more importantly, access to education. Building capability or any other effort at organic improvement is more meaningful and more sustainable than achieving some sort of equality dictated from the top.

Once equality of opportunities and empowerment of women are truly done, then there is no reason why women participation in decision-making should be at only 30 per cent, given that women make up roughly half of the Malaysian population. The organic solutions will improve the participation rate without resorting to unjust reverse discrimination. It will also ensure those participating in various decision-making levels truly belong there, regardless of gender.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on July 9 2009.

5 Responses to “[2030] Of Gender-based quota is counter-productive”

  1. on 12 Jul 2009 at 07:01 MRazwan

    More than a decade ago, a plan to increase women participation in decision making in all level of government to 30% was introduced (see RMK5-7), but until today we have never achieved that. And yet you suggest that the quota is counter-productive? How about commenting on why the original plan was never achieved?
    The very idea of such quota is to get more woman to join in decision making and to expose our society of the ability of our women. Because today’s society, be it in developing or developed world, is still trapped in the patriarchal mentality. By achieving the quota, it is hoped that more women will come forward and be proactive in decision making.
    I thought as a green, you will agree with this quota. I’m not sure about the Greens in USA, but in Europe, every position for men will be given equally to women. Hence, you will see that the German Greens has two leaders in all the parliaments in the land. Even then, the women still constitute of less than 20% of the membership in the Bundestag. And last year, the EU Parliamentary Committee on equal opportunities even reported that women constitute less than 5% in managerial position in European companies.
    To have a quota doesn’t mean you have to fill it. And that is precisely, what is wrong with the Bumiputra quota in this country. Eager to show result, the quota for Bumiputra was filled with every sort of applicants, even if he/she has lower qualification.
    Luckily, this situation do not happen to the 30% quota for women. I can proudly say that the women in Malaysia who are holding top position are all very capable and competent.
    I believe that 30% quota for woman is not enough. Mind you more than half of the country’s population are female and more female students attend university, but those women who are holding power made up less than 10%. To me this is outright inequality and injustice. And you should comment on that before attacking the quota!

  2. on 16 Jul 2009 at 15:00 Hafiz Noor Shams

    More than a decade ago, a plan to increase women participation in decision making in all level of government to 30% was introduced (see RMK5-7), but until today we have never achieved that. And yet you suggest that the quota is counter-productive? How about commenting on why the original plan was never achieved?

    It failed. Wouldn’t that be a proof enough? I’ve already explained why it’s counterproductive. Perhaps the onus is on you to explain why it should stick, keeping in mind the points I’ve made?

    The very idea of such quota is to get more woman to join in decision making and to expose our society of the ability of our women. Because today’s society, be it in developing or developed world, is still trapped in the patriarchal mentality. By achieving the quota, it is hoped that more women will come forward and be proactive in decision making.

    Yes, I do understand the purpose. But it failed. And as reasons I’ve mentioned, it counterproductive when there are not enough competent or interested women to participate in decision-making levels. Like I said, if quota is imposed, token candidates whom don’t have the right still will be taken in and that is recipe for bad policy. Perhaps, in your defense, you should answer that.

    I’ve already addressed your concerned in the article.

    I thought as a green, you will agree with this quota. I’m not sure about the Greens in USA, but in Europe, every position for men will be given equally to women. Hence, you will see that the German Greens has two leaders in all the parliaments in the land. Even then, the women still constitute of less than 20% of the membership in the Bundestag. And last year, the EU Parliamentary Committee on equal opportunities even reported that women constitute less than 5% in managerial position in European companies.

    I’m a green libertarian. That’s close to free market environmentalist.

    Concerning equal opportunities, I’ve mentioned that and we should achieve equal opportunities. Mandating quota is about equal outcome, not opportunities.

    To have a quota doesn’t mean you have to fill it. And that is precisely, what is wrong with the Bumiputra quota in this country. Eager to show result, the quota for Bumiputra was filled with every sort of applicants, even if he/she has lower qualification.

    If that is so, why do we need quota then? “To have a quota doesn’t mean you have to fill it” goes against very definition of quota.

    I’m okay if 30% is a target to aspire to but as a quota, I’m dead against it.

    Luckily, this situation do not happen to the 30% quota for women. I can proudly say that the women in Malaysia who are holding top position are all very capable and competent.

    If that is the case, then there is no need for quota, is there? Having a lot of capable women make quota redundant.

    I believe that 30% quota for woman is not enough. Mind you more than half of the country’s population are female and more female students attend university, but those women who are holding power made up less than 10%. To me this is outright inequality and injustice. And you should comment on that before attacking the quota!

    It is really injustice if they are not there because they are either uninterested or incapable? I consider putting people because of gender (or race, or religion, etc) with no consideration to merit is injustice.

    And I’ve already comment on it in the article.

  3. […] feminism is affirmative action. I cannot bring myself to support affirmative action for women and ending up living in a tokenistic system. Worse, some want more than tokenism. Through my personal experience, the radical feminists want […]

  4. […] recently is affirmative action. I cannot bring myself to support affirmative action for women and ending up living in a tokenistic system. Worse, some want more than tokenism. Through experience, radical feminists want inequality of […]

  5. […] discrimination or affirmative action, depending which term one prefers – for women. I have made my position clear earlier and my opposition is largely due to my concern for tokenism. For your benefit, allow me to provide […]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

*