Last two weeks, I wrote to the Solomon Star newspaper on the issue of "Women and Parliament". The tone of my letter was a little harsh, but I felt that a bunch of crooks are about to Hijack the Parliament of Solomon Islands based on some dangerous ideologies, and counter-views were needed. One of my arguments is that women in Solomon Islands are being used by a few fanatic feminists and their supporters to please themselves, and the example Ella Kauhue's assertion that during the Tension, women were brave and men were sissies! Kauhue, who is also the Secretary of the National Council of Women, made this point in many of her writings to justify her argument that women in Solomon Islands needed 10 Free seats. That was a clear manipulation of the situation. I wrote that the women who did this supposedly brave move in Parliament in 2000, were basically Malaitans, women of other ethnic groups were heading out of town in mass.
In another point, Kauhue argued that this 10 seats will demonstrate the equal representation in our Parliament, which I called the Marxismization of our Political system. The Parliament is not, I wrote in my letter, a place for equal representation because such idea is undemocratic. In other words, we should not let women become Parliamentarians without the electoral process simply because we think that being a male-dominant Parliament is unfair. That is Marxism at best. There is only one way to enter Parliament as seen throughout the British Commonwealth, which is the electoral process.
I am not sure if my arguments sound unfair or bias to the Sol. Star editor, but we can't have a balanced argument if we are too sensitive to issues that demanding different views. Sometimes we need to bite the bullet however fast it maybe. The Solomon Star editor is not only unprofessional but incompetent and shortsighted when it comes to the real meat of Political debates. It may hurt, but someone gotta say it.
Bellow is the letter I wrote to the Solomon Star sometimes ago. I couldn't found the edited version.
.................................
Re: Women to Hijack 2010 National Election!
Dear Editor,
Your paper carries two letters by Ella Kauhue, “Women’s Right-a debatable issue” (26 March 2009) and “Women in Parliament” (14 May 2009). In the first letter, Kauhue responded to Dikana in a more aggressive way and in the later, she congratulated those who pushed for the FREE ride proposal in Parliament, but bemoaned women’s absence. Her letters (ideologies) must not be left unchallenged!
First of all, no one sees women’s right as a foreign concept Kauhue. Solomon Islands have always been a free society; endowed with various freedoms that Kauhue has been enjoying over the years. Women in SI do participated in public services, active in private sector, engaged in private business, and also holding highest jobs in the society such as lawyers, doctors, nurses, pilots, church leaders, etc. not forgetting that Hilda Kari, a Guadalcanal woman, was a Parliamentarian for years. All the women’s rights she outlined in her letter are sufficiently protected under our constitution and our various laws. Women in SI probably have more rights than those in the Islamic world in terms of individual rights. She also wrote “I can assure all women and men like Dikana that those who advocate on women’s rights have definitely respect for the family cycle” (Par. 11) Are you implying that men, like me, who don’t support this idea (10 FREE seats for women) don’t respect family cycle? That is so untrue! But this is a classic example of how gender is being manipulated to satisfy the egos of a few. Take the women’s participation in Parliament back in 2000 that she had alluded to in a few of her letters, as an example. So-called brave women were there singing Christian songs and prayed in Parliament prior to the election of the Prime Minister; the truth is that these were Malaitan women, who weren’t afraid of being killed by their own people, and to use such instance as justification of Solomon Islands’ women bravery and as a precursor to the proposed 10 FREE seats for women of SI, is ridiculous. Not to mention the distortion of the truth! Women and men of other ethnic groups were in a mass exodus out of Honiara prior to that event. But to demoralize men by implying that they tucked tail and run during the ethnic tension is a very cheap shot! Does she really believe that “women’s rights invaded many cultures?” Women’s rights owed their existence to men across the world; men who were being kidnapped and murdered to bring you women your rights. But all these aside, SI is a society of free people and you can’t use figures from around the world to portray the status of women in our society. Kauhue, never lived in Iran or under the Taliban rule where women aren’t allowed to show their face in public so you need to read the constitution of Solomon Islands and tell me where that piece of document openly suppressing women’s rights.
This is another misconception seen in many of Kauhue’s articles, “… Women’s rights advocators promote “shared responsibility” (Gender roles) between men and women…” (par. 18). If Kauhue’s article purposely to “disseminate information” on the issues pertaining to Women’s rights, hence, the 10-FREE seats’ proposal, then this is a serious misconception of the role of elected individuals in Parliament. Our system is not about “shared responsibilities,” but mandated responsibilities. Elected members of Parliament or any other organization do have unique responsibilities: individuals carry out what they are mandated to do as national leaders. I don’t know where Kauhue got her ideas that entering Parliament should be on equal basis, but she sounds more like a Marxist in her view of government. Entering Parliament is about competition, which is the true characteristics of democracy, and if you (Kauhue) honestly believing that putting 10 Women in Parliament without the normal electoral process, a matter of “shared responsibilities,” yu barava long wrong country! Parliament is a law making body made up of representatives of various constituencies, and if your argument is all about satisfying women of SI, then it seems that the argument is all about “You” not the women of SI. Unless all women in SI moved to an island and create a constituency for their own, this argument or proposal is a scam! The beneficiaries of such initiative, if enacted, will be Kauhue and a few more, not to mention the dominant provinces. So the idea that 10 women will represent all women in SI is a myth! In fact, a Marxist is an advocate of “equal participation, equal sharing, distribution of wealth, and everything undemocratic, etc.” This seems to be Kauhue’s philosophy that is men and women should share responsibility and that neither gender should operate independent of the other. This is not only undemocratic, but very dangerous!
Finally, in her latest letter to the editor, Kauhue congratulated the CNURA government for taking on such initiative, but bemoaned the fact that no women Parliamentarian present to push for such initiative. I don’t know if Kauhue understands the truism that gender plays little role in enforcing legislation in Parliament. The legislation is pushed through by the shrewd and cunning politicians, the most influential Members, the corrupt, etc., thus, to assume that putting 10 women in Parliament will change the status is a yet another myth. 10 women in parliament won’t change anything; legislations on women’s interest will be shot down by Members of various interests. Women will be bystanders! Maybe you should push for 25 free seats to be able to successfully pushed legislation on behalf of women. In addition to that, I don’t see the logic of women representing women because in our system, MPs represent constituencies not gender! This explains why, in our voting culture, gender is not a winning indicator or factor. Men and women vote for their relatives (no gender)! And on that line, I want to know how these 10 women will represent the provinces. But having read Kauhu’es articles, I come to a conculsion that Kauhue’s arguments precipitated from the Cultures and Customs she grew up in; and less on constitutional group. What we need to change is our Culture and Customs’ that are incompatible with the foreign political systems that currently in place in our country. The image of women in villages who do everything for men, the uneducated women amongst us (as well as men-but this is not important to her), the status of women in the villages, the price-tags on their daughters, etc. may have contributed to the perceived inequality of gender in our society etc. However, such Cultural trends must not be used as an excuse to tear down the fabric of our democracy, so to speak of the rights of ALL to enter parliament through the electoral process.
My only advice is that you Kauhue use your office to lobby and push for issues of paramount interest to women in Honiara, and the nation. Otherwise, you are doing this the hard way or join the men and contest in 2010, what are you scared of? Look at Australia; it took 41 years to elect the first female Parliamentarian to Australia’s Federal Parliament. SI had, on the other hand, an elected woman Parliamentarian not long after independence, which defies the very logic behind this proposal. Unless women in Solomon Islands are paid based on their gender, and unless women in our society aren’t allowed to contest in various elections, or unless our women are under strict laws that prohibited them from participating in anything in our country such as voting and the right to contest in national election, Kauhues’ arguments are not only rubbish but absolutely outrageous and dangerous!
No comments:
Post a Comment