2. Where does Malaysia stand on global rankings of commitment to gender equality, ICT development, and E-Government Development?

2.1 Gender Equality in Malaysia

The Government of Malaysia has made several commitments to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment. It has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 100, and the Equal Remuneration Convention. It has acceded to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons especially Women and Children in 2009.

At the national level, Malaysia has committed to furthering the gender equality agenda. In 1989, the Government formulated a National Policy on Women (EPU 2010: 48) and in 1997, it formulated its Plan of Action for the Advancement of Women. The National Policy on Women and the National Plan of Action for the Advancement of Women targeted the needs of women with disabilities, women heads of households, women whose husbands have been imprisoned, women who have been abandoned, sex workers, women survivors of domestic violence, indigenous women, women plantation workers, women with HIV and financial difficulties, and women senior citizens above 70 years old and who are at high risk of impoverishment (KPWKM undated).7 In 2001, the Government of Malaysia amended Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution to prohibit any form of gender discrimination, but this article applies only narrowly to situations of employment, trade, business or profession, and the acquisition of property.8

In August 2009 the Government of Malaysia launched the National Policy on Women and the Plan of Action for the Advancement of Women (Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development undated: 37). The Government of Malaysia also committed to achieving the Gender Equality goal as part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 (EPU 2010: 48).

Additionally, the Malaysian government has issued Guidelines in Handling Sexual Harassment in the Workplace in Public Service and in 2005, amended the Employment Act 1955 with key improvements to address sexual harassment-specific criminal offenses in the workplace. On January 19, 2016, the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development announced that it would set up an online registry of convicted child abusers and sex offenders later in 2016 to facilitate checks by parents, guardians, and would-be employers (Achariam 2016: 1).

Women’s development has often been narrowly framed as building women’s potential to make economic contributions to the nation, society, and the family. For example, in the 2008 to 2012 plan of the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, the strategy identified for women's empowerment was the enhancement of women’s socio-economic contributions. Although the subsequent strategic plan (2013 to 2017), expanded this focus to include the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and of all forms of violence against women, as well as women’s participation in decision-making (KPWKM 2013), concrete efforts towards addressing these issues appear to be ad-hoc in nature, and are proceeding at a slow pace. The strategic plan of 2013 to 2017 also adopts a broader perspective, but tends to views 'women's development' as an issue of enabling women to become contributors to the productivity of the nation rather than a human rights issue of gender equality.

There have also been fluctuations in the political will to uphold the vision and mission laid out in the National Policy on Women and the National Plan of Action for the Advancement of Women. Malaysia continues to slide down in its rankings on addressing gender inequalities (see for example, Khoo 2014; Goh 2015). Despite being an upper middle-income country, Malaysia ranks 111 out of 145 countries measured for their gender gap in the Global Gender Gap Report 2015 (World Economic Forum 2015a: 9).9 The Global Gender Gap Index examines the gap between men and women in four categories (sub-indices): Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment. For Economic Participation and Opportunity and Political Empowerment, among the eight member states of the ASEAN, all except Myanmar rank higher than Malaysia on these sub-indices.10

The Global Gender Gap Report 2015 observes that: “Malaysia (111) slightly improves in score despite falling four places in rank (when compared to its ranking in 2014). Improvements across Economic Participation and Opportunity could account for the overall increase in score. However, the country has slightly regressed on Educational Attainment, Health and Survival and Political Empowerment (World Economic Forum 2015a: 27).

Between 2006 to 2015, the education gender gap in Malaysia increased by more than ten per cent, across both secondary and tertiary education (World Economic Forum 2015a: 33). In the area of Health and Survival, the ratio of females to males in the country has been decreasing since the 1980s (a national sex ratio of 106 males to 100 females for a population of 28.3 million in 2010). Life expectancy is still higher for women (66) compared to men (63) (World Economic Forum 2015a: 62), but the difference in life expectancy between females and males decreases with age (Department of Statistics Malaysia 2015).

Women’s estimated earnings did not shift much in 2015, with women earning USD18,218 (based on 2011 PPP USD) while men’s earnings continue to be almost twice as much as women’s earnings at USD31,596 (World Economic Forum 2015a: 246). Yet, the Female Labour Force Participation Rate in Malaysia increased from 46.4 per cent in 2009 to 53.6 per cent in 2014, and is estimated to reach 55 per cent in 2015 (EPU 2015b: 37).11 In the area of women's political participation, there is still progress to be made. In 2015, only ten per cent of parliamentary seats were held by women parliamentarians, with only six women in ministerial positions compared to 94 men (World Economic Forum 2015a: 63 and 64).

The Malaysian experience demonstrates how economic advancement alone cannot ensure that gender inequalities will be addressed in the country.

2.2 Level of E-Government Development

The 2014 United Nations E-Government Survey classified Malaysia as having a high E-Government Development Index (EGDI), with Malaysia scoring 0.6772 for provision of online services, 0.4455 for telecommunication connectivity, and 0.7119 for human capacity (on a scale of 0 to 1). In terms of performance ranking in Asia, Malaysia ranked 52 in 2014 with its EGDI of 0.6115, slipping from its higher ranking of 40 in 2012.12 One explanation for this low ranking is the channeling of energy and resources to other Government programmes. In addition, although MAMPU remains responsible for spearheading e-government programs, it has lost its prominence amid the rising clout ofthe Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) within the Prime Minister’s Department (Siddiquee and Mohamed 2015: 57–58).

As an upper middle-income nation with a gross national income per capita of USD9820,13 the example of Malaysia, reinforces the 2014 United Nations E-Government Survey's assertion that, “national income certainly does not, by itself, constitute or guarantee advanced e-government development...The main enabler of good e-government progress is often putting in place an effective governance framework to support and manage a citizen-centric service delivery model, including a national ICT policy and e-government strategy, as well as strengthening institutions and building the capacities of public servants” (United Nations 2014: 19 and 20 and Figures 1.5 and 1.6).14

2.2.1 E-Participation Index

Malaysia’s E-Participation Index (EPI) is 0.5294.15 on a scale of 0 to 1. “As with the EGDI, the EPI attempts to capture the e-participation performance of countries relative to one another at a particular point in time” (United Nations 2014: 196). As data on e-participation is otherwise unavailable at national level, data and information is collated from assessments, such as those conducted annually by the Multimedia Development Corporation (MDeC) on government portals and websites,16 internal reviews by MAMPU (Suhazimah Dzazali and Norhamimah Ibrahim, interview, 2016), or requests for data to individual ministries and agencies.

In 2012, a set of criteria for assessment of the quality of user experience on governmental websites was developed. The criteria comprised 7 pillars: content, usability, security, participation, services, and what is termed as “bonus” (number of online services, e-payment, and digital certificate/trust mark). Some criteria were mandatory and others optional as outlined in Table 1.17

Table 1:
Criteria According to 7 Pillars of User Expectation

Criteria Pillar 1: Site performance Pillar 2: Functionality Pillar 3: Content Pillar 4: Navigation Pillar 5: Search Pillar 6: Online transparency Pillar 7: Look & appeal
Mandatory 1. Loading time (5 Seconds)
2. Downtime
3. Mobile web/version 4. Updated content 5. Active hyperlink   6. Responsiveness to enquiries  
Non-Mandatory  
7. Mobile apps
8. Number of online services
9. Notification of transaction
10. Aid, tools & help resources
11. Online service security
12. Broadcast
13. Electronic archive
14. W3C disability accessibility
15. Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
16. Feedback form
17. Feedback autonotification
18. User opinion features
19. Updates via email or RSS
20. Audio/ Video
21. Multilanguage for Content
22. Multilanguage for online Services
23. Publicising an agency or CIO equivalent
24. Contract details
25. Presence of datasets
26. Dataset guidelines
27. About us
28. Publications
29. Personalisation
30. Sitemap
31. Links to other websites
32. Find information within 3 clicks
33. Search function
34. Advanced search
35. Searchable database
36. Find website using search tool
37. Client charter
38. Achievement of client charter
39. Statistic of online services
40. Freedom of information legislation
41. Privacy policy statement/data protection act
42. Online procurement announcement
43. Online e-participation policy/guideline
44. Promotion of e-participation
45. Presence of e-participation initiative
46. Presence of e-consultation mechanisms
47. Presence of e-decisionmaking tools
48. Look & feel

Source: MDEC 2012.

As can be seen from Table 1, despite the interest in moving towards meeting users’ expectations of the government’s portals and websites, mandatory measurements for performance are still very much dependent on what is supplied rather than how these are received. As pointed out by the Executive Director of the Women’s Aid Organisation (a civil society organisation contacted for this research) when reflecting on the user-friendliness of the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development’s portal:

“It's three things, you want to know that it’s there, you want it to be presented in a way that is relevant to you, and also you want it to be accessible, easily accessible...it’s not about women fitting in within our programs, it’s about us fitting in with their lives...it’s really about meeting the challenge to make information accessible and practical, and I don’t think we’re there yet...what we should be asking ourselves is, “How come you don’t know? How can I make sure that you know? How could I have reached you?”(Sumitra Visvanathan, interview, 2016).”

2.2.2 An Overall Assessment Based on the Readings of Malaysia's Global Index Rankings

Malaysia's ranking on the Global Gender Gap Index, the E-Government Index, Networked Readiness Index, ICT Development Index, and E-Participation Index do not fully reflect the gender inequalities on the ground. These indices are insufficient as standalone measures to capture the gendered realities and challenges in a country when it comes to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of e-government initiatives.

National statistical systems also seem to lag behind in providing sex-disaggregated data that could guide analyses as to why gendered differences remain in the access, use, and participation of women and girls in e-government programs and projects. There is also a need to look deeper into the statistics and data that we are able to collect. For example, women’s ownership of, or access to, mobile phone technology does not necessarily mean that they have the same quality of access to the Internet as men. Moreover, despite the higher percentage of women users of e-services, the overall numbers of users of e-services are generally low, as is the case with the MyHealth portal’s “Ask the Expert” service (Amiruddin Hisan, interview, 2016). This is an indication that the particular service is not sufficiently gender-responsive, and that a targeted outreach of women and girls would be required.

 


  1. While the policy and plan appear be thorough, it is not clear how comprehensive and holistic they are in implementation, such as in the collection of necessary evidence for proper monitoring and evaluation and ensuring follow up (Sumitra Visvanathan, interview, 2016).

  2. In interpreting this article, gender here is only understood as equality between the two biological sexes of male and female and does not take into account different gender identities. The article is also limited in scope and not very helpful in addressing gender inequality in the personal sphere, such as demands for the acknowledgment of women’s right to transfer citizenship to children.

  3. The Index benchmarks measures national gender gaps on economic, political, education, and health criteria, and provides country rankings that allow for effective comparisons across regions and income groups. It captures gaps in outcome variables rather than gaps in input variables. It ranks countries according to gender equality rather than women’s empowerment. The Global Gender Gap Index is constructed to rank countries on their gender gaps rather than their development level. Thus, in the case of education, the Index ranks countries based on the size of the gap between male and female enrollment rates, but not for the overall levels of education in the country (World Economic Forum 2015a: 3–4). For more information on how the Global Gender Gap Index is calculated, refer to The Global Gender Gap Report.

  4. See http://www.asean.org/asean/asean-member-states for member states of ASEAN.

  5. Labour Force Participation Rate includes those who are employed and those who are actively looking for work.

  6. In 2015, the Waseda-IAC 11th International E-government ranking placed Malaysia at 25 among 63 countries, with Singapore holding top spot (see https://www.waseda.jp/top/en-news/28775). In 2014, Malaysia ranked 27 with a score of 63.71 (Waseda University and International Academy of CIO 2014: 3). The approach employed by Waseda University Institute of e-Government, Japan, focused on core administrative and financial reforms. This specifically focused on effectiveness, productivity, and benefits to the citizens. The study covered 6 areas as well as an analysis of 28 indicators. For more information, see Alhabshi 2008: 251–252.

  7. According to the Eleventh Malaysia Plan 2016–2020, Malaysia’s national per capita income expanded more than 25-fold from US$402 (1970) to US$10,796 (2014) and is well on track to surpass the US$15,000 threshold of a high-income economy by 2020 (EPU 2015b: 1 - 3).

  8. For online service delivery, Spain (tied at 4th), Uruguay (14th), New Zealand (15th), and Chile (16th) have all made their way into the top twenty of 2014 in their e-government efforts, pushing ahead of former 2012 leaders Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Malaysia (United Nations 2014: 46)

  9. The EPI is a supplementary index of the UN E-government Development Index that focuses on the use of online services to facilitate provision of information by governments to citizens (“e-information sharing”), interaction with stakeholders (“e-consultation”), and engagement in decision-making processes (“e-decision making”). A country’s EPI reflects on e-participation facilities that are deployed by the government as compared to all other countries. The purpose of this measure is to offer insight into how different countries are using online tools to promote interaction between citizen and government, as well as among citizens, for the benefit of all.

  10. Except the year 2008 (Multimedia Development Corporation 2013).

  11. See http://www.websitekerajaan.com/.