Beliefs

I commented on a friend's 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 post recently, and it had something to do with religions. Then someone else replied to my comment. We went on to have a few more exchanges of replies to each other. He is not on my friend's list. In fact, he is a total stranger to me.

The gist of the "discussion" revolved around him trying to convince me the "truth" of Bible, and he furnished "evidence", saying that the original texts are from authentic manuscripts dating from thousands of years ago. In return, I did not accept that as "evidence", because to me, a history book is just that — a book written by someone who claims so-and-so, based on what they heard from someone else. Just that in this case, it's a history book from eons ago.

A couple of days after the comments and counter-comments between us, I was surprised to get a private message from him through 𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟. I mean "𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟" as in the app, not "𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟" as in Jesus as the "𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑜𝑑". Apparently he had not given up on wanting to save this poor lost soul. He was not being rude or imposing, like most religious people are, so I did not mind to indulge in the private "discussion" with him.

The truth is that I am a Catholic. I'm given the religion by my parents, and I was even baptized and went through the so-called "confirmation" process when I was still in primary school. However, the biggest tragedy was that I am born with a brain, and I used that brain to 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌 things out for a bit. Consequently, I have been a non-believer throughout my adult life. My wife, on the other hand, is a devout Christian and makes it a point to go to church every Sunday.

From a very young age, there's something about religions that I just can't accept. I mean 𝒂𝒍𝒍 religions, not just Christianity. Most religions are based on their respective "holy books". In them are supposedly God's messages to humankind. There are also numerous stories, some in parables, some in plain ordinary languages. I had on numerous occasions in the past, read some portions of the "holy book" in an attempt to get to know God.

Well, who is God? What have I discovered about him? He is said to be the supreme being who created everything — he created the universe, the planets, and all lifeforms including us humans. He is said to be "the loving father". But although he is "loving", he is liable to lose his temper and go on a killing rampage. He could suddenly flood the entire world and drown everyone in it, including infants and unborn children, except for one family and pairs of all the animals in the world. Time and time again over the eons, he killed many others through earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor strikes, hurricanes, and pandemics to name just a few.

Some contents of the "holy books" are reflections of human nature, and not that of a divine and loving being. For example, slavery was allowed. I sometimes try to imagine how would I react if someone orders me to kill my own child to prove my loyalty to him. Well, I would probably say, "𝑭*𝒄𝒌 𝒚𝒐𝒖!". I can't even begin to think of killing my own child for whatever reason. If it really comes to that, I might even be willing to sacrifice my own life to save my child.

However, having said all those, I keep an open mind. I've always said that I respect the beliefs of others. They all have the rights to believe in whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. Respect should be mutual; it is a two-way street. I don't judge them because of their beliefs; and I would expect them not to judge me because of my belief.

Gender Wage Gap

I find this article in The Star, dated 07 March 2025, on gender wage gap in Malaysia interesting, though perhaps not surprising. In a nutshell, Malaysian women are earning less than men, and the wage gap is widening. This is based on the calculations on the median monthly salaries reported by the Statistics Department.

It has been reported that the government is taking steps to narrow down the wage gap between men and women. But the way I see it, actually it is doing exactly the opposite! For example, the increase in the number of days for women under the heading of "maternity leave" from 60 days to 98 days. Mathematically, that is an increase of over 60%. 98 days is more than 3 months without doing any work for the employer, but receiving full salary nevertheless. In many cases, apart from paying an employee full salaries for over 3 months, the employer would also have to incur additional cost to hire temporary workers to do the job while its full-time employee is on maternity leave. Furthermore, in Malaysia, a fair number of women would have several children. So the 98 days of fully-paid leave is not a one-off business. Maternity leave is a very expensive thing for the employer!

I'm sure the government has a good reason for the increase in maternity leave up to 98 days — no doubt it's very good for the new mother — but as an "attempt to narrow down the wage gap between the genders" is definitely not one of those reasons.

For ages now, women have been complaining about equal wages; or rather unequal wages with their male counterparts, because they're only looking at the numbers that they see on their own pay cheques, and then compare those numbers with the numbers on their male counterparts' pay cheques. Hardly any of them would even consider seeing those numbers from the employers' point of view. Hardly any of them would remember that they're getting more than 3 months of free money, because obviously that money fell down from the sky and they're entitled to it somehow.

Incidentally I've noticed another interesting trend in Malaysia. From the top of my head, roughly two-thirds of university students are made up of girls, though admittedly I haven't conducted any serious research to determine the exact figure. Of course this is seeing the trend from the general point of view. Obviously, some university courses may be dominated by boys. The net result is that whenever there is a job vacancy, roughly two-thirds of the applicants would be made up of women. 

Mathematically speaking, there is a two-third chance that women would be hired rather than men. That is roughly the situation in my office right now! I think this is a sad trend in Malaysia, because in all honesty, if I have a choice, if all else remain the same, I would hire a male. It's not just about the maternity leave that I speak of above. There are numerous other reasons. For example, the job may involve inspections of plantations in rural areas which may extend into the evenings. Between men and women, which would you hire for such jobs? If I hired a woman and she gets stranded in the jungle at night, I seriously doubt that I can forgive myself as the employer, and I would have a lot of explaining to do to her family too. However, when I do eventually employ a female, I make it a point to pay her the same amount as what I would pay a male for the same job.

When we talk about job equality or wages equality between women and men, we shouldn't look at the figures on the pay cheques only. There are many other intangible factors to be taken into consideration too. I'm convinced that the job market adjusts itself based on all these factors — tangible and intangible — to arrive at a certain equilibrium. Whatever new policies that the government comes up with will have an impact on that equilibrium. The equilibrium may be such that the wage gap will narrow down or widen up, but yet if all the factors are taken into account, there is still equality.

The Ugliest Definition

The case of a 19-year old college student who was found guilty of raping an underage girl, and ordered by the Session Court to undergo 240 hours of community service within 12 months [The Star]. The victim was a 14-year old girl, three months shy of her 15th birthday. Apparently, there was something in the order of an outcry from the public — most people considered the punishment as too light for the crime of rape.

"Rape" is an ugly word, and most people see that word to mean one thing — and only one thing — which is the act of sex involving the use of force by the rapist on his victim. But actually, there may be different meanings of that word, at least in the eyes of the law. 

In Malaysia, the law is such that sex with an underage girl, even if it's consensual sex, i.e. no element of force in the act, falls under the definition of statutory rape. There is, therefore, no necessity to prove the element of force in the act. As long as the "victim" is an underage girl, it is rape. If, on the other hand, the man marries the underage girl, and then have consensual sex with her, then that is not rape. Of course there will be numerous legal requirements to be met in order to marry an underage girl, but the point is that it's entirely possible in Malaysia. So what we have here are two possible scenarios of sex with an underage girl, both consensual in nature, but one falls under the crime of rape in the eyes of the law.

However, the law may be different from one country to another. Such law may not be available in some other countries. Which means that in those other countries, if two minors have consensual sex, the issue of rape does not arise at all. No rape, therefore no punishment.

"Crime and punishment" is a difficult subject, but although I pay attention on the "crime" itself, I tend to pay a closer attention on the "intensions" of the parties. I'm thinking, the circumstances of the "crime" are totally different, depending on whether the girl was forced into having sex, and whether she's a willing party. To me, the extent of the punishment shall reflect the nature of the "crime" and where exactly does it sit on the scale of  the victim is "forced into doing it" and "willing to do it". Unfortunately, most people only see that word "rape", and then take the ugliest definition of that word, and would therefore expect the heaviest punishment for the "crime". Hence the outcry.

The reality is that most people don't really care about the micro aspect of the case; they only see it from the macro perspective. In fact, it's also possible that they only read the headline and the first paragraph, and then comment on the subject. They see that ugly word "rape" and then become overwhelmed by the kneejerk reaction!

On the other hand, journalists, when reporting on the case, also made it a point to omit the justifications for the punishment. Whatever justification given by the judge — I'm sure there must have been at least some justifications for the punishment — is carefully left out, because the papers are only seeking to sell papers, and to attract as many eyeballs as possible to the article. They're seeking the kneejerk reaction that I speak of above from the public, because they knew that the article will be shared like wild fire.

I've delayed posting this article for a few days in the hope that the papers will follow up with another piece, perhaps that of the judge's justifications for the punishment. Maybe that report will come soon, but so far I have not seen any. Because I only know the macro of the case, and not the micro, I can't comment on whether the punishment is sufficient or justifiable for the crime.