Feminist movement akin to separatist movement
by Dr Azly Rahman
Mar 23, 06 4:39pm

Letter writer JS Shaari presented an interesting and thought-provoking opinion defending the idea that “feminism is not about male-bashing”.

However, I must caution that it must not be taken as representing that of all females. The Malaysian feminist movement itself is presenting itself like a separatist movement struggling for self-determinism. Besides this, they must decide what kind of feminism they are going to be defined as.

In the West, we see so many variants of feminism, from struggling for universal suffrage to the rights to same sex marriage. This doctrine has evolved like products in the American shopping mall – there is feminism for a variety of causes. Each one has its own shelf life. Each one can be transported globally, as convenient as the American Empire wants to transplant “liberal democracy” the world over.

All most often assume that females are the oppressed sex, without taking into consideration the pattern of kinship, the pattern of social reproduction, and the complex social structure as it pertains to the development of changing roles in society. The writer misunderstood my intention due to the lack of careful reading.

It is clear in my article that Malaysian feminism is developing into such a doctrine of male-bashing and I think males are beginning to be increasingly uncomfortable with such an accusation. Herein lies the growing fascination of the Malaysian feminist movement – to take the excesses of what Western feminism has to offer and to use confusingly as a platform for their struggle.

What is even worse is that the argument that men are shackling women is beginning to be spread to girls growing up amongst feminist parents. The girls will grow up confused – as their feminist parents have been – of what constitutes a family life. This is going to be a dangerous trend that will retard the development of an ethical civilization. One need not be a feminist to be a champion of universal human rights, if feminism is itself a misunderstood idea amongst Malaysian feminists themselves.

Let there be no mistake in my propositions enshrined in my article. I applaud what some enlightened peacemakers, males and females, are trying to do with the Islamic Family Law. It need not be a “female” struggle exclusively.

The work of Malaysian feminists is admirable in the area of protecting the rights of women that are abused and unfairly treated in relationships. In fact we should teach girls to continue to continue their struggle against “digressive forces in society” that are pushing humanity backwards. In Africa it is a about genital mutilation, in Malaysia it is about something less clear.

The problem though is that Malaysian feminism is an elitist movement and trapped in its gender-specific shackle that looks merely at a limited number of issues without looking at the structural violence governing those issues. Because its members are mainly from elites of the upper and upper-middle class predominantly, their view may be limited to looked at “bourgeois-type” of issues that mirror the “struggles” of their Western counterpart.

Whatever that is fashionable in the West becomes transplanted as ideology of the Malaysian feminist movement. Feminism of this sort does not have its originality and it cultural-specificity, not to mention it being devoid of the understanding of class issue within the context of political economy.

The Malaysian feminist’s understanding of feminism itself lacks depth. It lacks the understanding of the metaphysical depth of the relationship between man and woman in the complex yet harmonious relationship between Man, Woman, and Human Nature.

Why would Islam say that “paradise is at the mother’s feet” if Islam does not value the role of women? Why would the mother be regarded metaphysically higher in status than the father in the scheme of relationship between Man and Woman? Isn’t this notion of the metaphysical and mystical nature of women enough for feminism to be debunked and cease to exist as yet another irrelevant “isms”? Why do we call this planet Mother Earth if there is more philosophical worth in the “feminine” aspect of natural evolution of this universe?

Even in the legend of Si Tenggang, human beings get turned to stone for being ungrateful to the mother. Read the legend of Batu Belah Batu Bertangkup. In it, children gets swallowed by a “cave” merely for the crime of not saving/reserving the “telor tembakul” for the mother enslaved by the economic condition she was in (perhaps in a society in which the Sultans get to eat caviar for breakfast). Such powerful examples of the power of the female which the Malaysian feminists have to start reading up on. Such an elevated status women were accorded even in times of pre-Tun Teja.

Malaysian feminists, in order not to be trapped by the ideology of “myopic feminism” must read the excesses of feminism as embodied in the characters of individuals I call “historical feminists” such as Mumtaz Mahal who made Shah Jahan insane, Cleopatra (who was actually a Greek) who brought the downfall of Mark Anthony, and Marie Antoinette who brought the separation of King Louis XVI’s head from his body through Dr Guillotine’s invention.

What makes this exclusive club of feminists think that the majority of Malaysian women are oppressed? Who are the ones not happy with the self they inhabit – the Malaysian feminist, or the females the feminists are “fighting the rights” for? This is a classic postmodernist/ post- structuralist example of the process of “Othering” – who speaks for the “other females”?

There is so much one, especially the self-professed Malaysian feminist, needs to learn of the genealogy, historicity, and post-structurality of feminism before one embraces it blindly as yet another transplanted Malaysian bourgeoisie country-club movement. Is it not a movement of the privileged few who are merely armchair human right activists cheered by international media interested in seeing how much a nation can be fragmented through subtle neo-colonialist strategies?

Again it not merely gender but class and caste that is the issue. I suggest Malaysian feminists deconstruct themselves and refocus their struggle to question the fundamental nature of our social ills – the prolonged existence of the system of corporate crony capitalism that is privileging the children of those in power.

There is no need for the Malaysian feminist to exist only to become yet another smokescreen to a larger issue.

The writer can be contacted at: aar26@columbia.edu.

Marina sparks debate with ‘Apartheid’ remarks
Patrick Goodenough
International Editor

(CNSNews.com) – Malaysia is considered one of the most moderate nations in the Muslim world, but the daughter of a former prime minister has sparked a row by comparing discrimination against Muslim women in her country with the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid.

“As non-Muslim women catch up with women in the rest of the world, Muslim women here are only going backwards,” Marina Mahathir wrote in a newspaper column.

Marina, a women’s rights and HIV/AIDS campaigner, was referring to new family laws that will make it easier for Muslim men in Malaysia to take multiple wives and claim property after divorce.

Under Islamic law (shari’a), Malaysian Muslim men already are allowed up to four wives. But the new legislation will give them more rights to claim assets after divorcing a wife, to seize property belonging to existing wives, and lessen their obligation to pay maintenance.

Organizations that came out against the proposals were attacked for promoting “western”-style gender equality, and parliament passed the legislation at the end of last year.

In multi-ethnic Malaysia, where Muslims comprise about 60 percent of the population, the proposed new laws will only apply to Muslims.

Marina wrote that, more than a decade after apartheid had ended in South Africa, an “insidious” form of discrimination was developing in Malaysia, between Muslim and non-Muslim women.

“Non-Muslim Malaysian women have benefited from more progressive laws over the years while the opposite has happened for Muslim women,” she said.

The article was due for publication last Wednesday, International Women’s Day, but The Star newspaper – for which she has long been a regular columnist – held it because of the controversial content.

Marina then published it on the Internet, with a note saying: “For the first time in some 17 years, The Star is refusing to publish my column … they said that the powers-that-be there think it’s too tough on the government and it’s not the right platform etc.”

The column eventually was published on Friday.

Marina’s “apartheid” accusation stung in a country which as a leader in the developing world saw itself at the forefront of the international campaign against racial segregation in South Africa.

The Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) accused her of doing “a great disservice to a country praised by many as a model Muslim nation.”

“Her prejudiced views and assumptions smack of ignorance of the objectives and methodology of the shari’a, and a slavish capitulation to western feminism’s notions of women’s rights, gender equality and sexuality,” two female founding members of the forum, Farah Pang Abdullah and Siti Jamilah Sheikh Abdullah, said in a response.

The MPF statement itself sparked further discussion on Internet websites.

“Nowhere in the Koran does it say that we must suspend our intellect or reason in matters religious,” wrote one contributor to the debate. “On the contrary, we are told to exert ourselves fully (meaning use our brain) to fully understand our Holy Book.”

Some of Marina’s critics noted that in Malaysia, women play a relatively prominent role in the public and business sectors.

In an earlier column, Marina challenged that perception, saying that although 60 percent of undergraduates are female, only 23 percent of administrators and managers in the Malaysian workplace are women, and women are paid 47 percent of what men earn for the same job.

“Despite what looks like progress for women in our country, the participation of women in the workplace has not changed in 30 years.”

Her column also drew attention further afield. An editorial in the Khaleej Times, a daily newspaper in the United Arab Emirates argued that any discrimination faced by women in Muslim countries has nothing to do with Islam but with “pre-Islamic customs and traditions.”

“At a time when there are already enough misconceptions about Islam and Muslims, such an irresponsible remark by a Muslim woman can send a wrong message to the world,” it said.

“It’s unfortunate that a great faith that actually granted and recognized the just status of woman recognizing her rights and which transformed her status in Arabian society should be blamed for something that has nothing to do with it.”

Some critics of Marina said it was ironic that she was speaking against discrimination when her father, veteran former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, oversaw racial policies aimed at benefiting Malays, the majority Muslim ethnic group.

The “bumiputra” policies were introduced in the early 1970s following race riots, and were designed to give the ethnic majority a greater share of the country’s wealth, disproportionately controlled by ethnic Chinese.

The affirmative action policies include quotas for government jobs, admission to educational institutions and ownership in business. Stock exchange listing requirements also benefit Malays.

One Flu Over The Human Nest
by Lee Tse Ling

The Star Online > Health
Sunday March 5, 2006
One flu over the human nest

Vaccination is one of the greatest achievements of medicine and has spared millions of people the effects of devastating diseases. It’s clear it has a vital role to play in the ongoing concerns over the bird flu.

THAT the next influenza pandemic is on its way is not mere hyperbole. It’s a very real risk, with serious implications.

“We had three pandemics in the last century, and there is no reason to believe there won’t be one in this century,” Nature quoted Klaus Stohr, chief influenza expert of the World Health Organisation (WHO), in May 2005.

We are in our 39th year since the last pandemic outbreak, the longest period the world has gone between pandemics. And nobody can predict how long this window will last.

What sort of numbers are involved when we use the word “pandemic”? In a normal year, the WHO estimates between 5% and 15% of the world’s population is affected by influenza. That’s between 300 million and nearly a billion people. Out of this, up to one million die from influenza-associated complications.

According to Stohr, a severe pandemic-level attack (infection rate: 35%) could result in up to a billion people becoming ill, 28 million hospitalisations, and seven million deaths worldwide. Again, these figures are not hyperbole – the 1918 Spanish Flu attack rate approached 40% at its worst, claiming at least 20 million lives. The 1957 Asian Influenza and 1968 Hong Kong Influenza claimed another four million each.

The crucial difference between 1918 and 1957/1968, and indeed between what happened then and what may happen now, was and still is pandemic preparedness as individuals, as a nation and as a global community. And a crucial element of any preparedness plan will be an effective vaccination policy.

Flu virus 101

There are three types of influenza viruses: A, B and C. All three can infect humans.

While type B viruses have been known to cause epidemics, they have never caused pandemics. (Terminology/Definitions: If a disease is endemic, it is restricted or peculiar to a locality or region. An epidemic affects an abnormally large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time. A pandemic occurs over an even wider geographic area [i.e. globally] and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population.)

Type C viruses only cause mild illness in humans.

The high-pathogenic influenza A H5N1 infection on the other hand has a mortality rate of almost 100% in poultry, and 50% in humans. That is, it has killed almost every infected bird, and one in two infected humans.

Only type A viruses are classified into subtypes by the unique haemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins found on their surfaces. These proteins are given identification numbers e.g. H1 and N5 and are used in combination to identify type A subtypes e.g. H1N1, H1N2 and H3N2 – the A subtypes in common circulation amongst humans.

All are further classified into strains. Strains develop due to gradual genetic changes. This process is known as antigenic drift – where many small changes accumulate over time e.g. random mutations that occur in a virus particle’s RNA, making its surface proteins less recognisable to the immune system.

Think of it this way: it’s as if a friend of yours gradually grew a moustache and beard. They haven’t changed that much, but you might not recognise them initially over time. And what the immune system can’t recognise quickly, it can’t kill quickly.

Sudden change generates new subtypes through a process known as antigenic shift – where the virus particle acquires a surface protein combination that has not been seen in humans before, or not been seen for a long time.

Because our immune systems have never encountered such a foe, everyone – not just people with young or compromised immune systems – will be susceptible to infection. Think of it this way: it’s as if your friend has gone for drastic plastic surgery now. They’ve changed completely and you can’t recognise them at all. And what the immune system can’t recognise at all, it can’t kill, period. This is what a high-pathogenic H5N1 virus capable of infecting humans will be like.

Several facts make it difficult to eradicate type A viruses. To begin with, they are naturally resident in wild bird populations, which spread them across the globe during their annual migrations. Not only are they persistent in the environment, they are also capable of lying “silent” and can therefore spread undetected in domestic ducks. Lastly, they undergo both shift and drift – producing a source of new and infectious strains and subtypes.

For the moment, the virus does not spread easily from birds to humans. This becomes obvious when you compare the very large number of domestic birds exposed to H5N1 (more than 150 million culled so far), their close proximity to humans, especially in village communities with backyard flocks, to the small number of humans who have contracted the disease from them (approximately 100). Furthermore, the outbreaks of H5N1 have only occurred in small clusters, indicating that it is not easily transmitted from human to human.

Vaccines

In the face of this, vaccines will play a two-fold role in keeping a pandemic in check. The obvious solution is a vaccine that confers protection against human H5N1. However, it will be some time before this new vaccine will make it from the producers to the rest of the world.

In the first place, until H5N1 begins infecting humans in earnest, it is unlikely a highly effective formulation can be developed. That’s because in order to get past our immune systems, the virus will have to evolve a completely novel trait, one our current vaccines have not forewarned our systems about and primed them against.

In the second, vaccine distribution will be limited by production capacity and locality. The vaccine industry is one that never manages to meet demand. World production capacity is currently 300 million doses per annum. That is, enough doses to vaccinate just 5% of the world’s population. Compare that with the postulated attack rate of 35%.

Furthermore, most of the world supply of influenza vaccine is produced in Europe and the US. A small amount is manufactured in Japan. Asia is almost exclusively dependent on Europe for its vaccine supply. It is a tricky situation US vaccination and public policy expert Dr David Fedson brought up in an interview with the Asia-Pacific Advisory Committee on Influenza (APACI).

“We still need to deal with the political implications of distributing pandemic vaccine to countries that do not have production companies of their own. It is likely that the political leaders of countries in which vaccine companies are located will nationalise the production of pandemic vaccine, preventing export until all of their citizens have been vaccinated,” he said.

According to the National Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Plan (NIPPP), it is unlikely Malaysia will receive the H5N1 vaccine until at least six months after large-scale production begins. What can be done in the meantime?

The rationale for vaccination

The best thing we can do to slow the pandemic is to limit the chances of antigenic shift happening. The chances of this happening are high when two influenza viruses – e.g. the high-pathogenic H5N1 bird flu and any human flu virus – infect a human at the same time.

Once in this “mixing vessel”, the viruses can genetically re-assort. That is, they can trade packets of genetic information. What you don’t want the human flu virus to pass on to the H5N1 bird flu virus is a manual titled How to Infect Humans. So first things first – vaccinate the normal hosts: poultry. Second, vaccinate the mixing vessels: humans.

“A strategy to bar the meeting of the viruses in the human body would go a long way towards preventing the emergence of a deadly new virus. It would reduce the opportunities for simultaneous infection of humans with the avian and human flu viruses, decreasing opportunities for reassortment. I believe this can be achieved with higher immunisation rates with the influenza vaccine,” says consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin.

Besides slowing the evolution of such a virus, increased vaccination will encourage the growth of vaccine production capacity and vaccination infrastructure.

“Perhaps the best we can hope for is to develop the global capacity to produce as many doses as possible, so that they can be supplied to non-producer countries sooner rather than later,” said Fedson in the same APACI interview.

“Too much attention has been focused on curative strategies. My back-to-basics virology and vaccinology would suggest that during this inter-pandemic period, influenza immunisation would be the best option for protection against influenza and would help to mitigate the emergence of a pandemic virus. This investment would prove to be a cost-saving policy. It would undoubtedly decrease the health burden of annual influenza flu epidemics and prevent influenza morbidities and mortalities,” says Dr Musa.

He adds: “Quite evidently, the pandemic clock is ticking; we just do not know what time it is!”

---

---

A guide to vaccination

CHILDREN

Consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin recommends the influenza vaccination for all children, in particular those above the age of six months and below nine years.

Past six months, the immune system is mature enough to make protective antibodies. But at that young age, the child is still vulnerable to infection, as his/her immune system may not be experienced enough to cope with an attack.

High priority groups include those with:

# Pulmonary conditions e.g. asthma, chronic lung disease of immaturity

# Heart conditions e.g. congenital heart disease

# Kidney dysfunction

# Blood disorders e.g. thalassaemia

# Metabolic disease e.g. diabetes

# Compromised immune systems, including those with HIV infections

The vaccine should not be administered if the child:

# Is under six months of age

# Has a known allergy to eggs, chicken proteins, neomycin (an antibiotic) and other active substances in the vaccine e.g. formaldehyde

# Has had an adverse reaction to the vaccine in the past

# Has a fever or is experiencing an acute illness (in which case, simply postpone the vaccination)

Dosages

# Children aged between six months and 35 months should receive a half-dose (0.25ml)

# Children aged three years and above should receive a full-dose (0.5ml)

# Children below nine years who have not previously received the vaccination should be given a second booster dose one month after the first

# Children above nine years should receive an annual dose

ADULTS

In general, anyone who wants to reduce their chances of contracting influenza should get vaccinated annually. However, high-priority groups include:

# People living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities

# People with the chronic conditions listed under high-priority for children

# People with impaired respiratory function (those conditions that make it difficult to breath or swallow e.g. brain or spinal cord injuries; seizure disorders; and nerve or muscle disorders)

# Women who will be pregnant during the influenza season

# Anyone who can transmit influenza to others in high-priority groups e.g. healthcare workers and caregivers

THE ELDERLY

The elderly typically have weaker immune systems and may experience chronic diseases that render them more susceptible to infection and complications following infection. Consultant geriatrician Dr. Rajbans Singh recommends annual influenza vaccination for all persons above 60.

“Patients who have taken their influenza and pneumococcal vaccines have less incidence of chest infections. I also find the vaccine safe with no side effects,” he says.

The vaccine should not be administered if the elderly persons in question:

# Has a known allergy to eggs, chicken proteins, neomycin (an antibiotic) and other active substances in the vaccine e.g. formaldehyde

# Has had an adverse reaction to the vaccine in the past

# Is febrile

# Is immunocompromised

Note: Information compiled from the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC), vaccine manufacturer Sanofi-Pasteur and local specialists.

---

Dispelling myths about influenza vaccination

Myth #1: The common cold is the same as influenza

According to consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin, influenza is often erroneously equated with the common cold.

“Hence the myth that it is a relatively mild illness which improves rapidly over two to three days, and that lots of rest, fluids, vitamin C and aspirin are all that is required. On the contrary, they have strikingly different pathologies (i.e. collection of abnormalities). Influenza is often associated with high-grade fever lasting three to four days; severe muscle aches, chest discomfort, early and severe physical weakness and generalised fatigue, which could last up to three weeks,” he says.

The two are both respiratory illnesses caused by different viruses. Anyone who has experienced a bad attack of viral influenza will know the difference. If you haven’t, have a look at the accompanying table, Flu or cold?

Myth #2: The current influenza vaccine will protect you from bird flu

When medical practitioners recommend vaccination as the primary means of preventing influenza, they’re referring to the normal influenza vaccine – meaning, the influenza you are being vaccinated against is not the H5N1 subtype, but the endemic subtypes that normally circulate and cause the seasonal epidemics we are familiar with.

It is unlikely the current vaccine formulation will confer any cross-protection against a virulent H5N1 subtype. By definition, a pandemic can only occur when a new subtype emerges or when a subtype has disappeared over many generations re-emerges.

Myth #3: The influenza vaccine only protects me

Herd immunity, or community immunity arises when enough individuals in a population are protected from a given infection. Since nobody catches the infection, nobody spreads it, so the infectious agent never has a chance to get a foothold. While a few vaccinations may protect individuals, widespread vaccination protects everyone. This is how smallpox was eradicated completely by 1980.

Myth #4: The influenza vaccination is only for travel

Current data shows the influenza vaccine is an effective, vital and common pre-travel protective measure. Vaccination rates among Malaysians as a whole are low – about one in every four hundred people (0.3%).

On the other hand, vaccination rates among travellers are high – a 2000 study on vaccine effectiveness in Malaysian Haj pilgrims showed a rate of up to 88%. That’s nearly every nine out of 10 people, thanks to the constant recommendations made by the Haj Authority.

The study also showed that the influenza vaccine was 78% effective in protecting recipients from clinic visits for influenza-like-illness. Why stop there? School environments, offices, and public transport all are environments in which influenza can be transmitted too.

Miracle of Stem Cell Therapy
by Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

There is universal interest in discovering and developing a permanent source of cells which would be capable of generating any cell type and which would avoid the problem of transplant rejection. These cells called human stem cells have the unlimited capability to divide and the potential ability to develop into most of the specialized cells or tissues of the human body.

Human stem cells can give rise to many different type of cells, such as muscle cells, nerve cells, heart cells and blood cells. They could therefore be potentially useful to generate replacement cells and tissues to treat many conditions including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, leukaemia, stroke, heart attack, diabetes multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and spinal cord injury.

There are 2 major sources of stem cells.

a. Adult stem cells. They are derived from aborted fetuses, umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, blood and brain. They are less plastic (less able to differentiate into specialized cells compared to embryonic stem cells); scarce and sometimes inaccessible (in brain, retina of eyes).
b. Embryonic stem cells. They are derived from embryos as a result of in-vitro fertilization (surplus or created embryos) or from embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning technology). There is an unceasing moral and ethical debate on the use of embryos for research.

Cord blood is a relatively rich source of haemopoietic stem cells (HSC). About 100 mls can reconstitute the haemopoietic system in small patients; usually children.

The first successful related cord blood transplant was undertaken 16 year ago. Since then, over 3,000 transplants have been done worldwide. There are a few reports of successful transplantations of adults.

The advantages of cord blood over bone marrow or peripheral blood transplantation are:

1. The donor does not have to be admitted to undergo collection procedures which may involve mobilisation of stem cells using drugs eg cyclophosphamide and G-CSF ( in case of peripheral blood donor) and anaesthesia ( in bone marrow donor)
2. Unlike the other two sources, cord blood has a reduced risk of graft versus host disease.

There are currently no clear guidelines locally to address the issue of cord blood collection and cord blood banking for future transplantation.

The National Blood Bank has already been collecting and banking cord blood as part of their non-profitable National Cord Blood Bank. The National Cord Blood Bank would be available to doctors to search the public registry for possible unrelated but matched samples as an alternative source for stem cell transplantation.

The issue is clouded further by the sales pitching and often non-evidence based medicine claims of private cord banks. The American Academy of Paediatrics warns that families may be vulnerable to “emotional marketing” at the time of birth of their child. Professor Nick Fisk, Chairman of the Royal College of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Scientific Advisor Committee said “We are concerned that commercial companies are targeting pregnant women with such emotive literature when the scientific evidence is not yet there to back up their claims”.

The risks of a child developing a disease which may require cord blood transplantation is not known. There are no accurate estimates on the likelihood of children requiring their own stored cells. The best guess of this ever happening ranges from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 200,000. There is therefore only a tiny and remote chance of children ever requiring to utilize their own stored cells.

Scientific indications for collection and banking of cord blood are far and few in between. In families where there is a known genetic disease that can be treated by HSC transplantation, cord blood collection and storage are recommended for siblings born into these families. Cord blood collection is also recommended in specific settings eg

1. A sibling who is suffering from leukemia, just in case he relapses and may require HSC transplant
2. A sibling in whom HSC transplant is indicated but has no match related donor available.

The storing of cord blood privately by private cord banks is based on the premise that the sample is stored specifically for use within the family concerned and more specifically the child’s own future use (autologous transplant).

Autologous transplantation itself maybe problematic because the use of one’s own stem cells may not cure the underlying pathology. In the case of leukaemia and other congenital disorders eg Thalassaemia and Fanconi’s Anaemia; transplanting ones own stem cells with the defective genetic and immune structure (thus causing the disease) would only be returning the disease to oneself.

The 80-100ml of umbilical cord blood collected at birth may not be adequate when the baby grows into an adolescent or adult. The volume of cells is insufficient if he should ever require it later in life.

Thus, the concept of a ‘biological insurance’ which is much hyped by the private cord banks is therefore actuarially unsound given the very low estimates on the likelihood of use, or the need of using one’s own cord blood for transplantation. The emotional marketing is however burgeoning the bank balances of private cord banks.

In the final analysis, public cord blood banking should be expanded for the benefit of the wider population. Collection of altruistic donations of cord blood and directed donations for families at high risk should be encouraged. The National Cord Blood Bank was set up to achieve these objectives at no cost. Rather than just to keep the cord blood banked for one’s own use, it should be made available to others who may need the cord blood in the allogenic (genetically different) setting.

Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin
Consultant Paediatrician & Neonatologist
musamn@gmail.com

Reponse to Marina Mahathir (IFLA Issue)
by Farah Pang Abdullah and Siti Jamilah Sheikh Abdullah

Marina Mahathir’s recent outbursts likening Muslim women in Malaysia to black South Africans under apartheid is completely ignorant of the reality on the ground. This renders a great disservice to a country praised by many as a model Muslim nation.

Marina has taken advantage of the Islamic Family Law (FT) (Amendments) Act. 2006 debate to regurgitate her tiresome and predictable attacks on the Shariah (Islamic Law) as it pertains to women and family law, and to vent her anger at the relevant government body that has been instrumental in setting the bill in motion. Her prejudiced views and assumptions smacks of ignorance of the objectives and methodology of the Shariah, and a slavish capitulation to western feminism’s notions of women’s rights, gender equality and sexuality.

An accurate and complete understanding of the IFLA requires much more serious scrutiny than many are seemingly willing to give. Any study of the IFLA must reference the primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence namely the Quran, the Hadiths (the authenticated traditions of His prophet), Ijma (consensus of the Muslim scholars) and Qiyas (analogies). It is completely unacceptable that views on any matter related to Islam be represented by anyone applying only their human opinions and benchmarks.

Mainstream Muslim NGOs upon substantiative research of the IFLA Bill, have concluded that it does not violate the principles of the Shariah Laws. The Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) led a delegation of Muslim NGOs to meet the Minister for Women, Family and Development on Feb 13, 2006, where we reaffirmed our support of her firmness in dealing with the controversies plaguing the IFLA Bill. We nonetheless pointed out a few “grey areas” in the Bill which ought to be improved to ensure that no provisions could be interpreted or misconstrued as being discriminatory to women.

Truth, justice and equality has nothing to do with gender attributes. We must rise above the narrow sexism/feminism dialectics by embracing a theology in which the divine is truly gender neutral. It gifts humanity with a legal code and family norms which are rooted in the understanding that, the sexes are created differently and will naturally gravitate towards roles which affirm rather than suppress their respective genius.

And that Allah has invested both genders with inherent dignity and has made men and women, collectively, His trustees on earth. And the Quran is very clear about the issue of claimed superiority or inferiority of any human.

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (one who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”
(Quran 49:13)

The verse addresses not only Muslims but the whole of mankind, irrespective of their gender, their national or religious backgrounds. It is a universal declaration to all made by the Creator of all. And being a faithful person, servant and worshipper of the One God is at the heart of one’s real spirituality and humanness. In this, the essence of gender equality finds its most profound basis.

Muslim women in Malaysia are perfectly comfortable reconciling the injunctions of the Shariah with modern life. We continue to play a prominent role in public life as high ranking civil servants, in academia, the corporate world, even in politics, something that our sisters in more “progressive Muslim” Morocco and Tunisia – countries that among others outlaw polygamy, bans the hijab, sanctions social abortions – can only look with envy.

We would like to reiterate our previous position, shared by other NGOs with popular mainstream support , that after a careful study the IFLA is Shariah compliant. The government’s intention of bringing the Islamic Family Law (FT) Act. 1989 in line with that of other states is a positive move towards streamlining of this law in Malaysia, is deserving of support of Muslims and should be commended.

Farah Pang Abdullah and Siti Jamilah Sheikh Abdullah Founding Members Muslim Professionals Forum Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata, Jalan Kampar, Kuala Lumpur 50400 Tel : 03-40427139

Also click here to view a BBC article which quoted MPF regarding this issue