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.