Posts

After 36 years, who still remembers CEDAW?

Lies Marcoes

Director of Rumah Kita Bersama Foundation

The day before the commemoration of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which falls July 24, I exchanged greetings via WhatsApp with Ibu Saparinah Sadli and Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, two prominent figures in the implementation of this convention. I asked them which of the issues in CEDAW was most relevant nowadays, as this year marked the 36th anniversary of Indonesia’s passing the convention into law.

Ibu Sap, as we call her, was one of the most eminent persons, along with Ibu Achi Luhulima, the late Ibu TO Ichromi, the late Ibu Sumhadi, Ibu Syamsiah Ahmad, Nursyahbani, and several others, who were active in disseminating CEDAW.

But Ibu Sap sent a pessimistic message to me. “Other than activists and Komnas Perempuan [the National Commission on Violence against Women], are there still any government officials or legislators who remember CEDAW?” This question left me thinking. Indeed, who (still) remembers CEDAW today?

CEDAW is one of the most fundamental human rights agreements in the United Nations system of international agreements. It contains a guarantee of substantive equality for women through elimination of all forms of discrimination based on gender prejudice.

The UN adopted the convention in 1979. It is a global agreement that defines the principles of women’s rights as human rights. It contains norms and standards for the obligations and responsibilities of each state party for eliminating discrimination against women.

Indonesia passed the convention into  law on July 24, 1984 under Law No. 7/1984. Since then the convention became legally binding and mandated Indonesia to take efforts to eliminate gender-based discrimination against women and to report its progress. The government has an obligation to produce reports on developments in its implementation of elimination of gender discrimination.

Ibu Sap’s question is therefore relevant here. We simply need to ensure that the government is really doing something to eliminate gender-based discrimination and report it to the CEDAW Committee at the UN. As far as I know, Indonesia has often failed to submit the reports.

The most relevant issues with regard to discriminatory practices actually remain the same from year to year. Nursyahbani has reminded us about two important issues. First is eliminating stereotyping of women, which is currently becoming even more serious due to the rise in primordial and conservative religious views in defining the roles and status of women.

Rumah KitaB is currently conducting research in five regions to see how gender norms are applied to women, particularly women who work. Statistics show that women’s participation in the (formal) work force only stands at 58 percent against 80 percent for men.

The participation rate is stagnant in the productive years, particularly for women who hold mid-level positions. They resign after they marry and have children. Their income is too low to hire a nanny to care for their children, while the state also fails to provide safe and inexpensive day care centers.

The other even more serious problem is the growing belief that a “good” woman is one who stays at home. A process of “domestification” is occurring as a result of conservative ideological views based on religious arguments.

We should be thankful that the legal age for marriage has now been set at 19 for both males and females. Yet the efforts to prevent child marriage still require hard work, as 20 regions still record an inexcusably high rate of child marriage.

In fact, the Marriage Law needs an overhaul as it condones gender inequality. The law contains an article which explicitly states that the man (husband) is the head of the household, while the woman (wife) is a housewife. This definition leads to practices that are incredibly discriminatory against women, with far-reaching consequences, including in the world of work.

Normatively, women are always seen merely as supplementary breadwinners, whatever their actual marital status. In reality, there are many women who head households, whether married, single, abandoned by husbands or divorced, and are the main earners of support for their families. The Women Breadwinner Empowerment (PEKKA) Foundation has reported a rise in the number of members, and the average age of women breadwinners is getting lower.

Given their “supplementary” status, working women in every sector are vulnerable to marginalization or exclusion. And even when they manage to perform, they lack sufficient bargaining power to support themselves as employees. They are also vulnerable to violence, including sexual assault.

For Indonesia, CEDAW is indeed a pearl of great price. Efforts are needed to explore it further. The outreach on CEDAW needs to be mobilized again, as its pioneers did in the early 1990s. Some of them were grouped under the Women’s Studies Center of the University of Indonesia, who partnered with NGOs concerned with the issue of elimination of gender discrimination.

Implementation of CEDAW should not be entrusted to state institutions, such as the Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection Ministry, because discriminatory practices continue to occur everywhere. We need a large-scale campaign on the benefits of the implementation of CEDAW for fulfillment of women’s rights, with achievements that will be duly noted by the UN and by countries that are concerned about gender-based discrimination.

***

The writer is researcher at Rumah KitaB. The original article was published on rumahkitab.com.

Kindergarten contest behind promotion of intolerance

In addition to the severe New Year floods, we were also shocked by a viral video of girl and boy scouts. Their yells included: “Islam-Islam yes, kafir-kafir no”. For Jakartans, the scene from Yogyakarta harked back to the 2017 gubernatorial election, in which incumbent and candidate Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama was denounced as a kafir (infidel).

Yet such expressions and teaching of intolerance have entered the core of disciplinary education starting at preschool level. This article departs from research on religious disciplinary education at the level of early childhood education (PAUD), which includes kindergarten (TK), PAUD equivalent units (SPS), Raudhatul Athfal (Islamic kindergarten under the Religious Affairs Ministry), and Islamic integrated kindergarten, conducted on and off from 2013 to 2019. This study shows how the imposition of religious discipline leads to education that promotes intolerance.

Although preschool education has not always aimed to instill religious discipline, this research finds a strong tendency that preschool institutions are being relied on as a place to instill religious teachings or worship and also as a means to exercise moral control. The scope of religious discipline and moral control in these preschool institutions is very broad, from introducing basic skills, such as reciting short daily prayers before eating or sleeping, memorizing short Quranic verses, to other basic teachings on Muslims’ obligations including emphasis on the values of monotheism (tauhid).

In the teaching of tauhid we found content with teachings and expressions of intolerance, exclusiveness and even hints of violence against groups with other beliefs or kafir.

Discipline is instilled through routine learning and motoric activities in movement, songs or the introduction of vocabulary. For example, the song “Aku Anak Soleh” (I am a pious child) contains the phrase “Cinta Islam sampai mati” (Love Islam until death), accompanied by crossing one’s arm at the neck — imitating a knife or a sword cutting one’s throat.

Compared with studies on the encroachment of radicalism in junior and high schools and universities, little attention has been paid to teaching with intolerant or violent content in preschool educational institutions. Generally it is assumed that radicalization is a process of instilling an ideology, which requires a process of thinking and awareness raising, while preschool instills discipline through habit formation.

Michel Foucault, in his famous book Discipline and Punishment, observed that discipline is closely associated with power which controls its objects through an all-seeing telescope, the “panopticon”, and by normalizing moral evaluations. In preschool education, religious discipline and moral control are not done through military-style hierarchical observation as per Foucault’s theory, but rather through a collective will to strengthen the “fortress of faith” in children starting at an early age.

In our case this collective will is based on the belief that the Muslim community faces moral threats that would even impact the community’s economy, threats caused by “social deviations” such as juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, drugs and “deviating” sexual and gender expressions.

The cause of these deviations is considered to be weakening of belief and lack of religious teaching. The solution is “social renovation”, starting as early as possible, through preschool education and religious discipline with various teaching methods, ranging from playing to memorizing.

This collective will now function as a giant panopticon, in which society becomes an engine for control through religious and moral discipline in preschool educational institutions.

The most obvious forms of moral discipline are the ways girls are taught to dress and to behave, as well as threats related to unbelievers.

The mechanism of this disciplinary control is very simple: using financial threats. The survival of a preschool educational institution depends entirely on community funding. And the more students, the larger state subsidy received.

Actually preschool educational institutions are businesses. The competition for students encourages their operators to follow parents’ desires and expectations, including to strengthen the “fortress of faith”, as well as children’s readiness to start primary school with basic reading, writing and arithmetic abilities.

Religious discipline, as Foucault conveys, is used as a community’s means of surveillance and control to monitor the extent to which religious teachings are applied in an educational institution.

Thus teachings of intolerance easily enter the class, no longer through a side door as in high school, or through extracurricular activities such as Islamic spirituality sessions, but directly through the front door.

This is because control by parents who want their children to master basic religious learning can be fulfilled by groups promoting anti-tolerance, which offer religious discipline in teaching material. This encourages preschool educational institutions — even those not under religious auspices — to adopt learning material developed by intolerant educational institutions, so that their schools do not lose students.

The development of social/political Islam and the growth of religious identity politics in Indonesia has significant influence on teaching material content in Islamic preschools. This can be seen from the themes of the learning material, as reflected for instance in the songs and motoric activities of the children. Changing trends in religious life at the family level, along with parents’ expectations regarding religious education in preschool institutions, have led to more intensive religious educational content in preschools.

Meanwhile, the state’s policy which places preschool as educational institutions established on the community’s initiative, plus the limited knowledge of most preschool operators and teachers — who were largely born since the Reform Era and thus grew up in an atmosphere of Islam as identity politics — have contributed to a steady rise in intolerance in the country’s preschool religious education.

As intolerance today is found even in Indonesia’s educational institutions, solutions must go beyond penalties or guidance to the troubled institutions.

Mainstreaming tolerance must be the solution but not by imposing the Pancasila state ideology as in the past. Forcing an ideology may have closed opportunities for genuine, open discussions in which differences are accepted without friction and conflict. We have instead become more intolerant because the state had forced its view on what tolerance is and how to express it.

Today we’re seeing the fruit of settling past differences through banning all expressions regarding ethnicity, religion, race and other group characteristics for the sake of stability, without instilling in people how to healthily nurse differences, by fostering many safe spaces that reflect our plurality.

***

Director of Rumah KitaB, a research institute for policy advocacy for the rights of the marginalized.

 

Source: https://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2020/01/31/kindergarten-contest-behind-promotion-of-intolerance.html?fbclid=IwAR1RgbMPynaPWYyrNgLbo51v470FpD7CglPU3V2fJ2imIyA4OptUtWNb9Io#_=_