Discrimination and Persecution by State Actors
Discriminated against and abused for feminine mannerisms
Leila[1] (not her real name) had only one year of formal education. She was constantly beaten by her father from a young age for looking feminine and behaving like a girl. She was kicked out of her home at the age of 7 and was forced to live with her uncle. When he tried to abuse her sexually at 14, she returned home. She finally left home at the age of 15. She was 20 years old at the time of the interview. Leila is not a Muslim. Neither is she a sex worker. She is from a northern state and brings tourists around on her rented trishaw. She does not wear make-up nor cross dress. She ties her long hair and usually wears a t-shirt with a pair of bermuda jeans (up to her knees). She has no shelter as no one will rent out a room to her. When she can afford it, she may spend the night in a hotel, but mostly, she sleeps in the trishaw. She is constantly harassed by the police under all kinds of pretexts. At the time of the interview, she had been arrested 36 times, from suspicion of being a sex worker, even though she was alone at the time of the arrests, to using drugs. Usually the charge is prostitution. If she tries to challenge the arrest, the police threaten to charge her with possession of drugs or drug abuse. Often, the police ask her for bribes, and if she is unable to pay, or if the amount offered is deemed insufficient, they hold her for 14 days under remand until the results of her drug tests are out. The results have always been negative.
Each time she is arrested, she ends up paying a fine of MYR90 or risks being imprisoned for 25 days. She earns up to MYR30 to MYR40 a day if customers ride in her trishaw. Once she suffered from an abdominal problem and went to the government hospital, but she was not checked or given any medication. She was discharged after four days and slapped with a bill of MYR85. She managed to pay MYR10 and still owes the hospital MYR75. The hospital staff claims that the fees were for an x-ray as well as other checks. Since then, she has refused to go to any government hospital. If she is unwell, she endures the pain or tries to buy over-the-counter medicine to alleviate the symptoms.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
The State has failed to protect Leila’s rights from childhood. She was stigmatised and discriminated against for being different from all other children (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5(a)). Abused from childhood, she could not get a proper education (CEDAW Article 10) and has had to fend for herself since she was 15 (CEDAW Articles 11 and 13). There is also a gross lack of sensitisation of State actors (police, healthcare professionals) (CEDAW Articles 12 and 15) and public education on the human rights of transwomen. State and non-state actors subject them to abuses, both physical and sexual, as well as other forms of discrimination, extortion and violence. Without any form of official recognition and protection by the State, Leila is an easy target for sexual abuse, extortion, discrimination and violence. Leila has been denied her right to life, liberty and security; her right to determine her own identity; her right to equality before the law; her right to equal protection; her right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; her right to fair trial; her right to freedom of opinion and expression; her right to effective remedies and redress; her right to education; her right to an adequate standard of living; her right to safe shelter; her right to earn an income and her right to healthcare services. In all areas, the State has failed to ensure Leila a full realisation of her rights (CEDAW Article 24). In Leila’s case, the State had failed to fulfil its obligations as outlined under General Recommendation No.19 on Violence Against Women, as well as General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
The State had also failed to realise Leila’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
[1]Leila participated in an organised press conference by an NGO on 24 June 2010 and was interviewed on the same day to document her story and the discrimination and violence she has endured.
Leila[1] (not her real name) had only one year of formal education. She was constantly beaten by her father from a young age for looking feminine and behaving like a girl. She was kicked out of her home at the age of 7 and was forced to live with her uncle. When he tried to abuse her sexually at 14, she returned home. She finally left home at the age of 15. She was 20 years old at the time of the interview. Leila is not a Muslim. Neither is she a sex worker. She is from a northern state and brings tourists around on her rented trishaw. She does not wear make-up nor cross dress. She ties her long hair and usually wears a t-shirt with a pair of bermuda jeans (up to her knees). She has no shelter as no one will rent out a room to her. When she can afford it, she may spend the night in a hotel, but mostly, she sleeps in the trishaw. She is constantly harassed by the police under all kinds of pretexts. At the time of the interview, she had been arrested 36 times, from suspicion of being a sex worker, even though she was alone at the time of the arrests, to using drugs. Usually the charge is prostitution. If she tries to challenge the arrest, the police threaten to charge her with possession of drugs or drug abuse. Often, the police ask her for bribes, and if she is unable to pay, or if the amount offered is deemed insufficient, they hold her for 14 days under remand until the results of her drug tests are out. The results have always been negative.
Each time she is arrested, she ends up paying a fine of MYR90 or risks being imprisoned for 25 days. She earns up to MYR30 to MYR40 a day if customers ride in her trishaw. Once she suffered from an abdominal problem and went to the government hospital, but she was not checked or given any medication. She was discharged after four days and slapped with a bill of MYR85. She managed to pay MYR10 and still owes the hospital MYR75. The hospital staff claims that the fees were for an x-ray as well as other checks. Since then, she has refused to go to any government hospital. If she is unwell, she endures the pain or tries to buy over-the-counter medicine to alleviate the symptoms.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
The State has failed to protect Leila’s rights from childhood. She was stigmatised and discriminated against for being different from all other children (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5(a)). Abused from childhood, she could not get a proper education (CEDAW Article 10) and has had to fend for herself since she was 15 (CEDAW Articles 11 and 13). There is also a gross lack of sensitisation of State actors (police, healthcare professionals) (CEDAW Articles 12 and 15) and public education on the human rights of transwomen. State and non-state actors subject them to abuses, both physical and sexual, as well as other forms of discrimination, extortion and violence. Without any form of official recognition and protection by the State, Leila is an easy target for sexual abuse, extortion, discrimination and violence. Leila has been denied her right to life, liberty and security; her right to determine her own identity; her right to equality before the law; her right to equal protection; her right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; her right to fair trial; her right to freedom of opinion and expression; her right to effective remedies and redress; her right to education; her right to an adequate standard of living; her right to safe shelter; her right to earn an income and her right to healthcare services. In all areas, the State has failed to ensure Leila a full realisation of her rights (CEDAW Article 24). In Leila’s case, the State had failed to fulfil its obligations as outlined under General Recommendation No.19 on Violence Against Women, as well as General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
The State had also failed to realise Leila’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
[1]Leila participated in an organised press conference by an NGO on 24 June 2010 and was interviewed on the same day to document her story and the discrimination and violence she has endured.
Source: Kuga Thas, Angela M. 2012. "CEDAW in Defending the Human Rights of Lesbians, Bisexual Women and Transgenders in Malaysia". In Equality Under Construction: Malaysian Women's Human Rights Report 2010/11, pp. 251–314. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
Brutality from Islamic religious enforcement officers
Ayu, a transwomen, was detained by enforcement officers of the Jabatan Agama Islam Melaka (JAIM) (Melaka Islamic Religious Affairs Department) in July 2007, while she was talking to her friends at the Old Melaka bus station in Kota Melaka. The officers, dressed in civilian clothes, only identified themselves as JAIM officials when bystanders tried to intervene and prevent the assault. She was so seriously beaten up by the enforcement officers that she had to undergo an emergency abdominal operation. She was later charged with having violated Section 72 of the Melaka Syariah Offences Enactment and fined MYR1000. Although, Ayu had help to seek legal redress[1], she backed out of the process, fearful that such an act would cause JAIM officers to retaliate further. She believed that neither the police nor the Malaysian government[2] would step in and protect her from further abuse.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
Ayu’s rights to life, liberty and security were directly threatened (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 (a)). The syariah law discriminates against her because of her gender identity and gender expression (CEDAW Article 15). Ayu is not deemed an equal person before the law, nor does the law offer her equal protection. She is therefore denied the right to determine her own identity (self-determination). She is also denied the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Ayu could not enjoy a full realisation of her rights (CEDAW Article 24). The State also failed to fulfill its obligations under General Recommendation No.19 on Violence Against Women as well as General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
[1]Support was provided by PT Foundation and the late Toni Kasim of Sisters in Islam.
[2]http://www.amnestyinternational.be/doc/actions-en-cours/Les-actions-urgentes/Les-actions-urgentes-en-anglais/Article/malaysia-ayu-f-aged-44-and-other. Last accessed on 31 August 2011..
Ayu, a transwomen, was detained by enforcement officers of the Jabatan Agama Islam Melaka (JAIM) (Melaka Islamic Religious Affairs Department) in July 2007, while she was talking to her friends at the Old Melaka bus station in Kota Melaka. The officers, dressed in civilian clothes, only identified themselves as JAIM officials when bystanders tried to intervene and prevent the assault. She was so seriously beaten up by the enforcement officers that she had to undergo an emergency abdominal operation. She was later charged with having violated Section 72 of the Melaka Syariah Offences Enactment and fined MYR1000. Although, Ayu had help to seek legal redress[1], she backed out of the process, fearful that such an act would cause JAIM officers to retaliate further. She believed that neither the police nor the Malaysian government[2] would step in and protect her from further abuse.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
Ayu’s rights to life, liberty and security were directly threatened (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 (a)). The syariah law discriminates against her because of her gender identity and gender expression (CEDAW Article 15). Ayu is not deemed an equal person before the law, nor does the law offer her equal protection. She is therefore denied the right to determine her own identity (self-determination). She is also denied the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Ayu could not enjoy a full realisation of her rights (CEDAW Article 24). The State also failed to fulfill its obligations under General Recommendation No.19 on Violence Against Women as well as General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
[1]Support was provided by PT Foundation and the late Toni Kasim of Sisters in Islam.
[2]http://www.amnestyinternational.be/doc/actions-en-cours/Les-actions-urgentes/Les-actions-urgentes-en-anglais/Article/malaysia-ayu-f-aged-44-and-other. Last accessed on 31 August 2011..
Source: Kuga Thas, Angela M. 2012. "CEDAW in Defending the Human Rights of Lesbians, Bisexual Women and Transgenders in Malaysia". In Equality Under Construction: Malaysian Women's Human Rights Report 2010/11, pp. 251–314. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
Women engaged in same-sex relationships as well as transgenders do fall in love. They seek long-term partnerships the way heterosexuals do. However, societal norms – culture and religion– are unable to accept this fact, denying them the right to civil unions/partnerships. Even unions for transgenders who have undergone sex reassignment surgery are questioned. Such denial is inhumane as it tears relationships apart. The feelings of the individuals are ignored and they are unable to minister to their partners. The following two case studies highlight the pain transgenders go through in their daily lives.
Choice of life partner denied
In September 2007, Malaysians witnessed the enduring trial of Mohd Sofian Mohamad and Zaiton Aziz to save their love and marriage. Mohd Sofian and Zaiton Aziz were married in 2002 and their marriage was solemnised by Imam[1] Ishak Juki from the Bukit Cina mosque in Melaka.
However, the Melaka Islamic Religious Affairs Department refused to register their marriage as there were suspicions about the groom’s gender. The name on the identity card was indeed Mohd Sofian Mohamad. After five years into the marriage, it was discovered that Mohd Sofian’s birth certificate states his name as Mazinah Mohamed, a female name. Both Sofian and Zaiton were prosecuted under Section 11 of the Melaka Islamic Family Enactment 2002.
Mohd Sofian, who identifies himself as a man, had to go through a number of medical check-ups during the trial. Dr Nor Hasinah Mohd Said, a gynecologist at the Melaka Hospital ran a physical test, blood test, and a chromosome test to prove that he was indeed a woman. However, no physiological or psychiatric tests were conducted.
In this case, Sofian’s lawyer tried to argue that Sofian was born a khunsa but failed to provide the necessary biological evidence. As a result, the syariah court annulled their marriage and issued a permanent divorce to the couple. The court proceeded with this judgement despite the fact that Zaiton, his wife, stated that she was happy with the marriage; both physically and emotionally. The bride's family soon filed a lawsuit against the couple on the basis that the groom was actually a woman.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
The State, in this case, completely disregarded the emotional connection Sofian and Zaiton had with each other and the happy union they had for five years, from 2002 to 2007 (CEDAW Article 16). Both suffered emotional and mental stress and were denied their right to an adequate standard of living when parted. They suffered injustices as a result of the State’s contradictory actions—first allowing Mohd Sofian to change his name from a female name to a male name, although it claimed that it was due to an administrative oversight, then solemnising the marriage and then having the marriage annulled. The State’s actions gave a strong signal that it was permissible to persecute Mohd Sofian and Zaiton Aziz for “bringing dishonour” to the bride’s family. The State is also guilty of deeming and treating the union of Mohd Sofian and Zaiton Aziz as unequal to a heterosexual couple before the law (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 5(a) and 15). As a couple, they do not enjoy equality before the law nor do they enjoy equal protection of the law. Their rights to equality and non-discrimination were violated. They were also unable to achieve the full realisation of their rights (CEDAW Article 24).
Marriage not recognised despite acceptance of families, relatives and friends
Jessie Chung’s marriage to Joshua Beh was reported in the media in November 2005. Jessie Chung met Joshua Beh when she was still biologically male. She underwent sex reassignment surgery and had rejected Joshua Beh’s marriage proposal six times because she knew that they could not get married legally and that their union would never be recognised in a Malaysian court of law. She also knew that she could never bear Joshua a child. However, Joshua persisted, and he wrote his seventh marriage proposal with his own blood in front of 100 mutual friends. Their wedding reception was held in Kuching, Sarawak, with 800 friends and relatives in attendance. Yet, the State continued to reject the validity of the marriage, on the basis that Malaysian laws do not allow citizens to change their gender on their identity cards despite having undergone sex reassignment surgery. Since there was no change in the gender on the identity card, the marriage would be deemed illegal (statement by the then Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid).
The marriage was sensationalised by the press and given much negative publicity, causing the couple to be stigmatised. Views were also sought from the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship secretary-general Reverend Dr. Wong Kim Kong, who said that he does not approve of same-sex marriages, even after one partner has changed his or her sex. However, the secretary-general of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, Dr. Herman Shastri, said the church should not discriminate against a person if it can be proven that he or she was born with imbalanced hormones, was undergoing counseling, or that his or her parents do not object to the sex change, and if the operation was carried out in a proper medical institution. Jessie Chung and Joshua Beh hope to migrate to another country if Malaysia prevents them from living as a couple and in remaining married.
Effect of Rights not Enjoyed:
The union of Jessie Chung and Joshua Beh is not only accepted, but embraced, by both their families, relatives and friends. However, they face discrimination from certain religious segments as well as the State (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5(a)). The State also allowed the media to publicise the case negatively, causing public opinion to turn against the couple so much so that the couple had stated that they were considering migrating to another country to save their marriage. This, in turn, is a denial of their right to choice of domicile (CEDAW Article 15). Their marriage was considered illegal, hence, as a couple, they were denied their right to equality before the law (CEDAW Articles 15 and 16). It is clear that Jessie Chung and Joshua Beh were not allowed to enjoy the full realisation of their rights (CEDAW Article 24).
[1]An Imam is often the leader of a mosque and hence the local community. As a spiritual leader, the imam is the one who leads the prayer during Islamic gatherings. He is also given the authority to solemnise marriages.
Choice of life partner denied
In September 2007, Malaysians witnessed the enduring trial of Mohd Sofian Mohamad and Zaiton Aziz to save their love and marriage. Mohd Sofian and Zaiton Aziz were married in 2002 and their marriage was solemnised by Imam[1] Ishak Juki from the Bukit Cina mosque in Melaka.
However, the Melaka Islamic Religious Affairs Department refused to register their marriage as there were suspicions about the groom’s gender. The name on the identity card was indeed Mohd Sofian Mohamad. After five years into the marriage, it was discovered that Mohd Sofian’s birth certificate states his name as Mazinah Mohamed, a female name. Both Sofian and Zaiton were prosecuted under Section 11 of the Melaka Islamic Family Enactment 2002.
Mohd Sofian, who identifies himself as a man, had to go through a number of medical check-ups during the trial. Dr Nor Hasinah Mohd Said, a gynecologist at the Melaka Hospital ran a physical test, blood test, and a chromosome test to prove that he was indeed a woman. However, no physiological or psychiatric tests were conducted.
In this case, Sofian’s lawyer tried to argue that Sofian was born a khunsa but failed to provide the necessary biological evidence. As a result, the syariah court annulled their marriage and issued a permanent divorce to the couple. The court proceeded with this judgement despite the fact that Zaiton, his wife, stated that she was happy with the marriage; both physically and emotionally. The bride's family soon filed a lawsuit against the couple on the basis that the groom was actually a woman.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
The State, in this case, completely disregarded the emotional connection Sofian and Zaiton had with each other and the happy union they had for five years, from 2002 to 2007 (CEDAW Article 16). Both suffered emotional and mental stress and were denied their right to an adequate standard of living when parted. They suffered injustices as a result of the State’s contradictory actions—first allowing Mohd Sofian to change his name from a female name to a male name, although it claimed that it was due to an administrative oversight, then solemnising the marriage and then having the marriage annulled. The State’s actions gave a strong signal that it was permissible to persecute Mohd Sofian and Zaiton Aziz for “bringing dishonour” to the bride’s family. The State is also guilty of deeming and treating the union of Mohd Sofian and Zaiton Aziz as unequal to a heterosexual couple before the law (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 5(a) and 15). As a couple, they do not enjoy equality before the law nor do they enjoy equal protection of the law. Their rights to equality and non-discrimination were violated. They were also unable to achieve the full realisation of their rights (CEDAW Article 24).
Marriage not recognised despite acceptance of families, relatives and friends
Jessie Chung’s marriage to Joshua Beh was reported in the media in November 2005. Jessie Chung met Joshua Beh when she was still biologically male. She underwent sex reassignment surgery and had rejected Joshua Beh’s marriage proposal six times because she knew that they could not get married legally and that their union would never be recognised in a Malaysian court of law. She also knew that she could never bear Joshua a child. However, Joshua persisted, and he wrote his seventh marriage proposal with his own blood in front of 100 mutual friends. Their wedding reception was held in Kuching, Sarawak, with 800 friends and relatives in attendance. Yet, the State continued to reject the validity of the marriage, on the basis that Malaysian laws do not allow citizens to change their gender on their identity cards despite having undergone sex reassignment surgery. Since there was no change in the gender on the identity card, the marriage would be deemed illegal (statement by the then Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid).
The marriage was sensationalised by the press and given much negative publicity, causing the couple to be stigmatised. Views were also sought from the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship secretary-general Reverend Dr. Wong Kim Kong, who said that he does not approve of same-sex marriages, even after one partner has changed his or her sex. However, the secretary-general of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, Dr. Herman Shastri, said the church should not discriminate against a person if it can be proven that he or she was born with imbalanced hormones, was undergoing counseling, or that his or her parents do not object to the sex change, and if the operation was carried out in a proper medical institution. Jessie Chung and Joshua Beh hope to migrate to another country if Malaysia prevents them from living as a couple and in remaining married.
Effect of Rights not Enjoyed:
The union of Jessie Chung and Joshua Beh is not only accepted, but embraced, by both their families, relatives and friends. However, they face discrimination from certain religious segments as well as the State (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5(a)). The State also allowed the media to publicise the case negatively, causing public opinion to turn against the couple so much so that the couple had stated that they were considering migrating to another country to save their marriage. This, in turn, is a denial of their right to choice of domicile (CEDAW Article 15). Their marriage was considered illegal, hence, as a couple, they were denied their right to equality before the law (CEDAW Articles 15 and 16). It is clear that Jessie Chung and Joshua Beh were not allowed to enjoy the full realisation of their rights (CEDAW Article 24).
[1]An Imam is often the leader of a mosque and hence the local community. As a spiritual leader, the imam is the one who leads the prayer during Islamic gatherings. He is also given the authority to solemnise marriages.
Source: Kuga Thas, Angela M. 2012. "CEDAW in Defending the Human Rights of Lesbians, Bisexual Women and Transgenders in Malaysia". In Equality Under Construction: Malaysian Women's Human Rights Report 2010/11, pp. 251–314. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
Discrimination & Persecution by Non-State Actors
Invisible and denied human rights
Sasha is a middle-class Malay Muslim transwoman who works for a non-profit organisation. She suffered violence and verbal abuse during her time in an all-boys boarding school. She was once beaten up for saying that she liked a boy in that school.
Currently, she tries to merge with the crowd, hoping to enjoy the freedom of movement that is denied most transwomen. She dresses well, reflecting her middle-class status, and makes sure that the photo in her identification documents (identification card and passport) bears a close resemblance to herself. So far, she has not been subject to abuse at police road blocks, although her identification card still has her male name and the last digit of the identification card is odd. [In Malaysia, the identification card system assigns odd numbers to males and even numbers to females.] She has no problems taking public transport. She feels she passes off as a woman in public places. However, she still encounters her fair share of abuse and harassment just for being who she is. Some people suspect she is a transgender because of her voice. Recounting a recent incident, she said she was going home in a taxi and was seated at the front passenger’s seat. The driver insisted she perform fellato on him. Horrified, she pretended to cry and begged him not to force her to do the act. She was finally dropped off at her residence. Although the taxi driver harassed her, Sasha felt that she could not file a police report against him. To escape potential discrimination from relatives, Sasha and her mother now live in a different state.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
While abuse, discrimination and violence against Sasha may not be evident, this does not mean that she is free, or that she is able to enjoy and fully realise all her human rights (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3, 5(a) and 24). She has to practice avoidance and blend into mainstream society. Once identified as a transwoman, she is subject to the same harassment as the rest. In order to be free from harassment, she has curbed her own rights to life, liberty and security. In Sasha’s case, the State has failed to fulfill its obligations as outlined under General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
Sasha is a middle-class Malay Muslim transwoman who works for a non-profit organisation. She suffered violence and verbal abuse during her time in an all-boys boarding school. She was once beaten up for saying that she liked a boy in that school.
Currently, she tries to merge with the crowd, hoping to enjoy the freedom of movement that is denied most transwomen. She dresses well, reflecting her middle-class status, and makes sure that the photo in her identification documents (identification card and passport) bears a close resemblance to herself. So far, she has not been subject to abuse at police road blocks, although her identification card still has her male name and the last digit of the identification card is odd. [In Malaysia, the identification card system assigns odd numbers to males and even numbers to females.] She has no problems taking public transport. She feels she passes off as a woman in public places. However, she still encounters her fair share of abuse and harassment just for being who she is. Some people suspect she is a transgender because of her voice. Recounting a recent incident, she said she was going home in a taxi and was seated at the front passenger’s seat. The driver insisted she perform fellato on him. Horrified, she pretended to cry and begged him not to force her to do the act. She was finally dropped off at her residence. Although the taxi driver harassed her, Sasha felt that she could not file a police report against him. To escape potential discrimination from relatives, Sasha and her mother now live in a different state.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
While abuse, discrimination and violence against Sasha may not be evident, this does not mean that she is free, or that she is able to enjoy and fully realise all her human rights (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3, 5(a) and 24). She has to practice avoidance and blend into mainstream society. Once identified as a transwoman, she is subject to the same harassment as the rest. In order to be free from harassment, she has curbed her own rights to life, liberty and security. In Sasha’s case, the State has failed to fulfill its obligations as outlined under General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
Source: Kuga Thas, Angela M. 2012. "CEDAW in Defending the Human Rights of Lesbians, Bisexual Women and Transgenders in Malaysia". In Equality Under Construction: Malaysian Women's Human Rights Report 2010/11, pp. 251–314. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
Disowned and kicked out of home
Perumal is a transman. He is neither a Malay nor a Muslim. From young, he has always seen himself as a boy. While he was growing up, he felt very confused and tried his best to conform to societal expectations of his biological self, to be accepted socially. He grew his hair long at 13, and pretended to have boyfriends. He did everything he knew to fit into society. Deep down, however, he was depressed and started harming himself. He attempted suicide and would cut himself. When he was 17, he told his younger sister his struggles. When his father, who still saw him as his daughter, came to know of his attraction to women, his father could not accept the fact and disowned him when he turned 18.
Perumal had been sexually molested by his father when he was in primary school and sexually abused by a neighbour, a boy who was a year younger than him. The boy had threatened Perumal that he would sexually abuse his younger sister if he did not meet him on a daily basis. Perumal was forced to say that he was the initiator when his younger sister came upon them “playing” because the boy continued to threaten to hurt his younger sister.
When Perumal’s father disowned him, Perumal left for a neighbouring country, in order to be with his girlfriend and to find work. He struggled with homelessness and joblessness. If he was lucky, he got some odd jobs, but he faced intimidation and harassment at his workplace. Going into men’s public toilets was an ordeal. At one workplace, which employs only male staff, mainly burly men who worked with heavy vehicles, he would control his urge to urinate to avoid being sexually harassed.
His employers discriminated against him and exploited him because he was an immigrant worker. Often he would go hungry as he had no money to buy food. Sometimes, he survived on the generosity of his colleagues. At other times, he would just survive on biscuits. At one point, when he felt very alone, hungry and depressed, he decided to sell his virginity for the sum of MYR600.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
Perumal’s rights should have been protected under the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as CEDAW. But there was no avenue for him to seek help. The State has failed to establish such a support system for children who are lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3, 5(a) and 24). Perumal’s rights continue to be denied him and he continues to be stigmatised and discrimination against. The State has also failed to fulfil its obligations as outlined under General Recommendation No.19 on Violence Against Women as well as General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
Perumal is a transman. He is neither a Malay nor a Muslim. From young, he has always seen himself as a boy. While he was growing up, he felt very confused and tried his best to conform to societal expectations of his biological self, to be accepted socially. He grew his hair long at 13, and pretended to have boyfriends. He did everything he knew to fit into society. Deep down, however, he was depressed and started harming himself. He attempted suicide and would cut himself. When he was 17, he told his younger sister his struggles. When his father, who still saw him as his daughter, came to know of his attraction to women, his father could not accept the fact and disowned him when he turned 18.
Perumal had been sexually molested by his father when he was in primary school and sexually abused by a neighbour, a boy who was a year younger than him. The boy had threatened Perumal that he would sexually abuse his younger sister if he did not meet him on a daily basis. Perumal was forced to say that he was the initiator when his younger sister came upon them “playing” because the boy continued to threaten to hurt his younger sister.
When Perumal’s father disowned him, Perumal left for a neighbouring country, in order to be with his girlfriend and to find work. He struggled with homelessness and joblessness. If he was lucky, he got some odd jobs, but he faced intimidation and harassment at his workplace. Going into men’s public toilets was an ordeal. At one workplace, which employs only male staff, mainly burly men who worked with heavy vehicles, he would control his urge to urinate to avoid being sexually harassed.
His employers discriminated against him and exploited him because he was an immigrant worker. Often he would go hungry as he had no money to buy food. Sometimes, he survived on the generosity of his colleagues. At other times, he would just survive on biscuits. At one point, when he felt very alone, hungry and depressed, he decided to sell his virginity for the sum of MYR600.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
Perumal’s rights should have been protected under the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as CEDAW. But there was no avenue for him to seek help. The State has failed to establish such a support system for children who are lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3, 5(a) and 24). Perumal’s rights continue to be denied him and he continues to be stigmatised and discrimination against. The State has also failed to fulfil its obligations as outlined under General Recommendation No.19 on Violence Against Women as well as General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
Source: Kuga Thas, Angela M. 2012. "CEDAW in Defending the Human Rights of Lesbians, Bisexual Women and Transgenders in Malaysia". In Equality Under Construction: Malaysian Women's Human Rights Report 2010/11, pp. 251–314. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
Lesbianism Condoned as a Valid Excuse for Violence
When women’s sexuality challenges gender and heteronormative norms, a number of actors, both State and non-State, see this as an affront to their sense of honour, and they then excuse any form of violence against lesbians as valid and justifiable. This includes the despicable, violent act of “corrective rape”.
Lesbian feared violence from ex-boyfriend
Sally had a boyfriend, who would lie and cheat her of her money. He could not hold down a job for long and Sally had to support their relationship. Her father never liked the boy, but Sally found it hard to break up with him as he was her first boyfriend. She hoped he would change and they would get married someday.
The relationship took a turn for the worse when the couple got kicked out of their rented flat, although Sally had given her boyfriend the rental money. Although they continued to stay together, the relationship started to fray.
Sally started mixing with a woman colleague and the two would go and watch movies and spend time together. The colleague, like Sally, also had a boyfriend at the time. As time passed, the two began a sexual relationship.
Her boyfriend was jealous of the woman colleague and feared that Sally might leave him. He began stalking Sally, waiting for her in the dark, and would frighten her by appearing suddenly in front of her. She felt very insecure and feared that he might beat her up. After two years of being with him, she decided to end the relationship as she felt that she could not trust him anymore. He had by then, abused her both financially and physically. When she broke the news to him, he threatened her, saying, “If I find out that the two of you [women] are together, I’ll kill the two of you”.
Eventually, Sally went to stay with her friend. Today, Sally knows that she is sexually attracted to women. She considers herself a lesbian and her sexual orientation is known and accepted by her family. She tells her father that she would be unhappy if she were to marry. Her father understands her and defends her from nosy relatives. While she has a life partner, they are unable to live openly as a couple because society in general will not accept it. However, she has told her priest about her sexual orientation, and he felt that it was a non-issue.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
Sally enjoyed her right to self-determination and freedom of movement with her parents. Even though her father did not like her boyfriend, he did not insist that she leave him. Neither did he reject her or stop her from having pre-marital sexual relations with her ex-boyfriend. Her boyfriend, however, was very controlling and behaved as if he owned her (CEDAW Articles 3 and 5(a)).
While her inner circle of family and friends know of her sexual orientation, Sally cannot be open about it because the law does not protect people like herself (CEDAW Articles 1, 2 and 15). There is absolutely no education or awareness-raising in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity as identity issues (CEDAW Articles 3 and 5(a)). Sally’s right to life, liberty and personal security was directly threatened by her ex-boyfriend. The State failed to ensure that Sally is able to enjoy the full realisation of her rights and hence, failed to fulfill its obligations under CEDAW Article 24, as well as its obligations as outlined under General Recommendation No.19 on Violence Against Women, as well as General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
When women’s sexuality challenges gender and heteronormative norms, a number of actors, both State and non-State, see this as an affront to their sense of honour, and they then excuse any form of violence against lesbians as valid and justifiable. This includes the despicable, violent act of “corrective rape”.
Lesbian feared violence from ex-boyfriend
Sally had a boyfriend, who would lie and cheat her of her money. He could not hold down a job for long and Sally had to support their relationship. Her father never liked the boy, but Sally found it hard to break up with him as he was her first boyfriend. She hoped he would change and they would get married someday.
The relationship took a turn for the worse when the couple got kicked out of their rented flat, although Sally had given her boyfriend the rental money. Although they continued to stay together, the relationship started to fray.
Sally started mixing with a woman colleague and the two would go and watch movies and spend time together. The colleague, like Sally, also had a boyfriend at the time. As time passed, the two began a sexual relationship.
Her boyfriend was jealous of the woman colleague and feared that Sally might leave him. He began stalking Sally, waiting for her in the dark, and would frighten her by appearing suddenly in front of her. She felt very insecure and feared that he might beat her up. After two years of being with him, she decided to end the relationship as she felt that she could not trust him anymore. He had by then, abused her both financially and physically. When she broke the news to him, he threatened her, saying, “If I find out that the two of you [women] are together, I’ll kill the two of you”.
Eventually, Sally went to stay with her friend. Today, Sally knows that she is sexually attracted to women. She considers herself a lesbian and her sexual orientation is known and accepted by her family. She tells her father that she would be unhappy if she were to marry. Her father understands her and defends her from nosy relatives. While she has a life partner, they are unable to live openly as a couple because society in general will not accept it. However, she has told her priest about her sexual orientation, and he felt that it was a non-issue.
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
Sally enjoyed her right to self-determination and freedom of movement with her parents. Even though her father did not like her boyfriend, he did not insist that she leave him. Neither did he reject her or stop her from having pre-marital sexual relations with her ex-boyfriend. Her boyfriend, however, was very controlling and behaved as if he owned her (CEDAW Articles 3 and 5(a)).
While her inner circle of family and friends know of her sexual orientation, Sally cannot be open about it because the law does not protect people like herself (CEDAW Articles 1, 2 and 15). There is absolutely no education or awareness-raising in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity as identity issues (CEDAW Articles 3 and 5(a)). Sally’s right to life, liberty and personal security was directly threatened by her ex-boyfriend. The State failed to ensure that Sally is able to enjoy the full realisation of her rights and hence, failed to fulfill its obligations under CEDAW Article 24, as well as its obligations as outlined under General Recommendation No.19 on Violence Against Women, as well as General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of CEDAW.
Source: Kuga Thas, Angela M. 2012. "CEDAW in Defending the Human Rights of Lesbians, Bisexual Women and Transgenders in Malaysia". In Equality Under Construction: Malaysian Women's Human Rights Report 2010/11, pp. 251–314. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
Media Persecution and Unethical Journalism
Rainbow Nite and KL Word teamed up to host a PRIDE party in Kuala Lumpur in August 2009. An undercover journalist from Harian Metro sneaked into the party and reported on the event two days later, with a couple of blurry photos taken on her phone camera. The article, entitled “Malay girls celebrating deviant Lesbian Festival”, made front page news on Harian Metro. In the article, the journalist claimed that those who attended, including young Malay girls, were consuming alcohol, dancing erotically and kissing each other. The news was translated and republished in The Star, an English language newspaper. SUARAM, a local human rights non-governmental organisation, released a press statement the same month, condemning the actions of the newspaper and the journalist, urging the media to be ethical in its reporting and to ensure that human rights are upheld at all times.
Unethical journalism and the invasion of privacy of lesbian-organised functions
Uninvited journalists gatecrashed private lesbian events incognito to write articles in Kosmo! (Parti Lesbian Berleluasa) and the Harian Metro (Aksi Panas Pengkid, Lesbian) dated 2 and 16 May 2010 respectively. The write-ups used disparaging words such as “songsang” (deviant), “lucah” (lewd) and “jijik” (disgusting) to describe the female queer (lesbian and women-who-love-women) community. The words used by Kosmo! and the Harian Metro were subsequently used by other newspapers (The Star, 3 May 2010). These articles painted the female queer community unjustifiably and unfairly as deviants, and morally tainted.[1]
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
The State has denied women engaged in same-sex relationships the right to life, liberty and security by not making the media accountable for invading the privacy of these women (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3, 5(a) and 13). Through its silence, it is also endorsing the media’s call for citizens to police others to stamp out what it deems as “abnormality”. This inaction has encouraged zealous individuals and bodies to invade the privacy of citizens, monitor their personal lives and “punish” or “rehabilitate” them arbitrarily, leading to various degrees of human rights violations (CEDAW Article 15). The women are thus forced to curb their own right to freedom of movement and they have to take other actions to protect their privacy. Their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the right to freedom of opinion and expression, are also denied (CEDAW Article 24).
[1]Memorandum to SUHAKAM of 10 June 2010.
Rainbow Nite and KL Word teamed up to host a PRIDE party in Kuala Lumpur in August 2009. An undercover journalist from Harian Metro sneaked into the party and reported on the event two days later, with a couple of blurry photos taken on her phone camera. The article, entitled “Malay girls celebrating deviant Lesbian Festival”, made front page news on Harian Metro. In the article, the journalist claimed that those who attended, including young Malay girls, were consuming alcohol, dancing erotically and kissing each other. The news was translated and republished in The Star, an English language newspaper. SUARAM, a local human rights non-governmental organisation, released a press statement the same month, condemning the actions of the newspaper and the journalist, urging the media to be ethical in its reporting and to ensure that human rights are upheld at all times.
Unethical journalism and the invasion of privacy of lesbian-organised functions
Uninvited journalists gatecrashed private lesbian events incognito to write articles in Kosmo! (Parti Lesbian Berleluasa) and the Harian Metro (Aksi Panas Pengkid, Lesbian) dated 2 and 16 May 2010 respectively. The write-ups used disparaging words such as “songsang” (deviant), “lucah” (lewd) and “jijik” (disgusting) to describe the female queer (lesbian and women-who-love-women) community. The words used by Kosmo! and the Harian Metro were subsequently used by other newspapers (The Star, 3 May 2010). These articles painted the female queer community unjustifiably and unfairly as deviants, and morally tainted.[1]
Effects of Rights not Enjoyed:
The State has denied women engaged in same-sex relationships the right to life, liberty and security by not making the media accountable for invading the privacy of these women (CEDAW Articles 1, 2, 3, 5(a) and 13). Through its silence, it is also endorsing the media’s call for citizens to police others to stamp out what it deems as “abnormality”. This inaction has encouraged zealous individuals and bodies to invade the privacy of citizens, monitor their personal lives and “punish” or “rehabilitate” them arbitrarily, leading to various degrees of human rights violations (CEDAW Article 15). The women are thus forced to curb their own right to freedom of movement and they have to take other actions to protect their privacy. Their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the right to freedom of opinion and expression, are also denied (CEDAW Article 24).
[1]Memorandum to SUHAKAM of 10 June 2010.
Source: Kuga Thas, Angela M. 2012. "CEDAW in Defending the Human Rights of Lesbians, Bisexual Women and Transgenders in Malaysia". In Equality Under Construction: Malaysian Women's Human Rights Report 2010/11, pp. 251–314. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)