古越遺民

自交趾至會稽七八千里，百越雜處，各有姓種。《漢書·地理志》

In 1948, one of humankind’s most despicable ideas, apartheid, was
made into law in South Africa where racial discrimination was
institutionalized. Race laws touched every aspect of social life,
including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and
the sanctioning of “white-only” jobs. Although there were 19 million
blacks and only 4.5 million whites in South Africa, the majority
population were forced to be second-class citizens in their homeland,
banished to reserves and needing passports to travel outside them,
even within their own country. It was only in 1990 that apartheid
began to crumble and South Africans of all colours were finally free
to live as equals in every way.

With the end of that racist system, people may be forgiven for
thinking that apartheid does not exist anymore. While few countries
practice any formal systems of discrimination, nevertheless you can
find many forms of discrimination everywhere. In many cases, it is
women who are discriminated against. In our country, there is an
insidious growing form of apartheid among Malaysian women, that
between Muslim and non-Muslim women.

We are unique in that we actively legally discriminate against women
who are arguably the majority in this country, Muslim women.
Non-Muslim Malaysian women have benefited from more progressive laws
over the years while the opposite has happened for Muslim women.

For instance, since the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976,
polygamy among non-Muslims was banned. Previously men could have as
many wives as they wanted under customary laws. Men’s ability to
unilaterally pronounce divorce on their wives was abolished and in its
place, divorce happens by mutual consent or upon petition by either
spouse in an equal process where the grounds are intolerable adultery,
unreasonable behaviour, desertion of not less than two years, and
living separately for not less than two years. Compare that to the lot
of Muslim women abandoned but not divorced by their husbands.

Other progressive reforms in the civil family law in the late 1990s
were amendments to the Guardianship Act and the Distribution Act. The
Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 was amended to provide for equal
guardianship for both father and mother, rather than the previous
provision where only the father was the primary guardian of the
children. In contrast, the Islamic Family Law still provides for the
father as the sole primary guardian of his children although the
mother is now allowed to sign certain forms for her children under an
administrative directive.

The Distribution Act 1958 was also amended to provide for equal
inheritance for widows and widowers, and also granted children the
right to inherit from their mothers as well as from their fathers.
Under the newly proposed amendments to the Islamic Family Law, the use
of gender neutral language on the issue of matrimonial property is
discriminatory on Muslim women when other provisions in the IFL are
not gender-neutral. Muslim men may still contract polygamous
marriages, may unilaterally divorce their wives for the most trivial
of reasons (including by SMS, unique in the Muslim world) and are
entitled to double shares of inheritance.

These differences between the lot of Muslim women and non-Muslim
women beg the question: do we have two categories of citizenship in
Malaysia, whereby most female citizens have less rights than others?
As non-Muslim women catch up with women in the rest of the world,
Muslim women here are only going backwards. We should also note that
only in Malaysia are Muslim women regressing; in every other Muslim
country in the world, women have been gaining rights, not losing them.

In this country, our leaders claim to stand for all citizens. Our
Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of all Malaysians, our Ministers
work for all Malaysians in their respective fields. There are two
exceptions to this. The Minister for Islamic Affairs is obviously only
for Muslims; even though some of the things he does affect others.
While the Minister for Women purports to work for all Malaysian women,
even though not all Malaysian women benefit from that work. Perhaps we
should consolidate the apartheid of women in this country by having a
Ministry for Non-Muslim Women which works to ensure that Non-Muslim
women enjoy the benefits of the Convention for the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women, a UN document which Malaysia signed and
is legally bound to implement, and a Ministry for Muslim Women which
works to gag and bind Muslim women more and more each day for the sake
of political expediency under the guise of religion.

Today is International Women’s Day. Unfortunately only about 40% of
the women in this country can celebrate. The rest can only look at
their Non-Muslim sisters in despair and envy.

中文翻譯：

在1948年，人类最卑鄙的点子之一――种族隔离政策在种族歧视已经制度化的南非成为法律。种族法律延伸至社会的每一个层面，包括禁止非白人与白人之间的婚姻，以及规定只有白人才可以从事的工作。虽然南非有1千900万黑人，只有450万白人，大部分的人口被迫成为他们祖国的二等公民；为了生存，他们被迫流放他乡，以及被迫在自己的国土上持护照出门。直至1990年，种族隔离政策才开始瓦解，所有肤色的南非人才得以自由平等地生活。

种族主义系统告终之后，人们可能因此认为，种族隔离政策已经彻底消失。虽然只有少数国家推行正式的歧视政策，但是，你可以从很多层面看到种族歧视以不同的形式出现。我们的国家，回教徒女性及非回教徒女性之间的种族隔离在暗中滋长。

我们的特别之处是，我们积极地对占女性人口大多数的回教徒女性施加法律歧视。马来西亚非回教徒女性过去这些年来从比较进步的法律中获益，回教徒女性则相反。

比如，自从《1976年家庭及离婚修订法令》制订以来，非回教徒的一夫多妻制已被禁止。在此之前的惯例是，男人可以随心所欲地娶妻。男人单方面宣布离婚的权利已被废止，取而代之的是，离婚必须得到双方的同意，或者由其中一个伴侣通过平等的程序提出离婚要求，条件是另一方通奸、作出非理性的行为、或遭冷落不少于两年及分居不少于两年。另一边厢，许多回教徒女性却遭她们的丈夫在没有离婚的情况下抛弃。

《1958年分配法令》也已经修订，以提供丧偶者平等的财产继承权，也赋予孩子继承母亲及父亲财产的权利。《回教家庭法》修订建议中，其他条文都有性别区分，只有婚姻财产条文没有性别区分，这是对回教徒女性的歧视。回教徒男性仍旧享有一夫多妻的婚姻，还可以出于琐碎的理由单方面休掉他们的妻子（包括通过手机短讯，在回教世界非常罕见），以及享有双份财产继承权。

这些回教女性和非回教女性之间的分野引发出一个问题：马来西亚是否有两种不同的公民，以致占大多数的女性公民比其他女性公民拥有更少的权利？当非回教徒女性向其他国家的女性看齐时，回教徒女性却不断在走回头路。我们必须知道，只有马来西亚的回教徒女性不断地在退步，在世界上其他每一个回教国家，女性不断地赢得权力，而不是失去它们。

在这个国家，我们的领袖声称为所有公民效力。我们的首相是全马来西亚人的领袖，我们的部长为全体马来西亚人在他们的岗位上耕耘。可是却敞开了两大缺口。专掌回教事务的部长很明显的只是给回教徒，虽然他一些所作所为影响了其他人；妇女部长为全体马来西亚女性效劳，虽然不是所有马来西亚女性从这些成果中获益。可能我们应该成立一个专事非回教徒女性的部门和一个专事回教徒女性的部门以加强这个国家的“女性隔离政策”，非回教徒女性部确保非回教徒女性享有《消除一切形式的对妇女歧视公约》这一份马来西亚有份签署，并且有法律约束力的联合国文件所赋予女性的好处；回教徒女性部则伪装成宗教面孔，为政治上的便利，为钳制及约束回教徒女性效力。

今天是国际妇女节。不幸的，这个国家只有40%的女性可以庆祝。其他的只能绝望和嫉妒地望向他们的非回教徒姐妹。

轉載自： http://merdekareview.com/news_view.asp?id=1142