Keynote Speech for Canny Ong's Memorial

by Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir

Friends and family of Canny Ong,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Good afternoon.

First of all I would like to thank the organizers of this memorial, specifically the friends of Canny Ong, for inviting me to speak today. I never knew Canny, and like most Malaysians, she was a total stranger to me until that sad day when she was kidnapped and killed. Judging by the friends that she has, and their loyalty to and love for her, Canny must have been very special indeed.

Being special however was not what caused Canny to be targeted that day. There was nothing that set her up as a victim. She was out for dinner with friends and family, as many of us often do. She was at a restaurant in a shopping centre in an affluent suburb of KL, as many of us have been. She went to get her car in the car park, as many of us, even I, have done.

Was it just bad luck that day? Could anyone have known that somewhere in that car park in a popular middle-class suburb, a car park that usually had security guards, that a person with evil intentions could have been lurking? Were there any warning signs? No, of course not. We all have done this ourselves.

No, Canny was not specially picked out for tragedy that day, because except for those who knew her well, the world did not know what was extraordinary about Canny Ong. No, this terrible tragedy happened to Canny because she was a woman. In this sense, she was not special at all and she shares a place in our record books with other women and girls such as Ang May Hong, Audrey Melissa Bathinathan, Mahmuda Sultanah Mofizuddin, NoorSuzaily Mokhtar, Nur Mulhapiza Mat Lawi, and many many others before and after Canny, whom we also memorialize today. These women and young girls were diverse; they were young, they were older, they were Malay, Chinese, Indian, they wore tudung and they didn't. These are all things that made them ordinary and different from each other. But they were all women.

There are many people who still refuse to believe that violence is still specifically targeted at women. I have even heard women say this. We mustn't speak like victims they said, or else we will become victims, implying that by complaining about these issues, we only anger men and therefore put ourselves in even more danger. Did Canny or May Hong or Audrey ever speak like victims before they themselves became one? No, they didn't, which seems to me to indicate that those who supposedly don't want to sound like victims should perhaps be wary.

The point is, we do not know who will be the next victim. The only thing we can be sure of is that the next person to be brutalized, raped and murdered will be female. Yesterday the mother of a one-year old child was raped by a taxi driver. Last week two nine-year old girls separately reported to the police that they had been gang-raped. What's the common thread? They were female.

What therefore makes these diverse women vulnerable to violence? Is being female enough? By the looks of it, yes. We are all vulnerable to violence simply because we are female. As women, we are perceived as being physically weak. Therefore a stronger person can easily harm us if they wanted to. As women, we are viewed as sexual objects, to be toyed with, simply there for men's pleasure and dominance. It doesn't matter if we took care to keep our bodies and our hair out of the view of men; it still does nothing to protect us, as Noor Suzaily and Nur Mulhapiza found out.

The converse of this perception of women is that men are perceived as strong, at least physically. Indeed men themselves perpetuate this view of being more powerful. Last week, a writer from a Muslim think tank had this to say: 'The truth is that man is imbued with passions and instincts which, if not effectively controlled, will cause him to wander like a wild beast looking for prey." There you are, a man said it, not a 'man-hating' woman. Funny that physical strength should be coupled with spiritual weakness.

What is the point of saying something like that? You would think that men would be ashamed to be thought of as nothing more than beasts, not like human beings imbued with the dignity instilled by God. But no, so-called religious people claim that men are essentially wild beasts. Is it so that women will constantly live in fear of men, all men including our fathers, brothers and husbands? If we are constantly fearful, we would therefore need to be submissive. We would always be obedient. There is a word for people who rule by fear: authoritarian.

The question is, do we live in an authoritarian society where half of the population must constantly be in fear for our lives? Are all Malaysian women to be constantly on our guard, ready with our self-defense skills, our Mace sprays, our long skirts, our cars parked only in bright places? Are we always to be dependent on men for our protection, men whom we are told are ready to beat, abuse, rape and kill us at the slightest provocation? Is that not the same as being jailed supposedly for our own good, while at the same time fearing our own guards?

This is the sort of myth about men that excuses them from everything, from spousal abuse, from incest, from rape and from murders. They could not help themselves, it's in their inner nature. That this type of inner nature should be a blight on society seems not to have occurred to anyone.

At the same time, there is also the myth that women's inner nature is to be provocative to men. That is why we have to be kept under wraps because the inner nature of women and the inner nature of men are incompatible and combustible. In other words, if we gave in to our inner nature, men and women would be constantly at war.

The thing is, if it is in men's nature to be wild beasts, why is it that there are many men who don't abuse, rape or kill? Why are there men who are loving, gentle and kind and who are as appalled at Canny Ong's murder as women are? Men who would be insulted if we said that they were simply beasts in hiding?

Perhaps the difference between those men who are decent and those who abuse needs examining. We have already looked at differences and similarities between victims and all we can find is that they were female. Isn't it now time to look at perpetrators? And compare them with non-perpetrators? What is it that makes a man want to do something so awful to a woman that another man wouldn't? Is it education and upbringing, is it environment, is it something in his biological and mental make-up?

There is also the myth that men who rape are those who are less educated and come from undesirable circumstances. Yet educated men are no less prone to violence against women, and besides, if poor uneducated men have a greater tendency to rape, then surely the answer is to ensure that all men are educated and have better chances in life.

Then there are people who say that rape is simply an uncontrollable sexual urge. We should all be offended at this. It debases the sexual act itself. The operative word is not uncontrollable but sexual urge. We all have sexual urges; most of the time we reserve it for someone we love, to show them we love them. How can we equate rape, which humiliates, with that act of love? Let us not get confused here; rape is NOT an act of love, even if uncontrolled. It is a way of showing dominance, the worst possible way because it strikes literally at the very centre of a woman's being.

How else does one explain incidents of mass rapes such as in Bosnia, Rwanda and in Indonesia? Simply men exhibiting their lust? Or systematically using violence to subjugate another culture through their women?

The other point about myths about rapists, that they are essentially wild beasts who cannot control themselves, is that it stereotypes men and puts them under pressure. If we define men in this way, then men who are peaceful and non-violent are then viewed as not men, with all that implies. To prove themselves as men, they will have to be violent and dominating. Thus the circle perpetuates itself. How can men even live like that, to be always under pressure to behave like beasts?

In order to change this situation, to break that cycle of the seeming inevitability of violence against women, both men and women must take action. Thus far it has only been women who have taken steps, to learn the dos and don'ts of safety, to equip themselves with self-defense skills, to lobby for better security. What have the men done?

The first thing is they need to change the image that they have themselves perpetuated that they are beasts by nature. They must think whether the world they want to live in is one in which such beasts prowl and their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters cannot be safe. Beasts are a lower form of life than human beings; do they want to be looked down on? To be looked up to, they must show that they are human, capable of being kind and gentle. There is nothing unmanly about that; that is human.

Secondly, both men and women need to change systemic reasons why men abuse. We must stop teaching our sons that the way to get something is by hitting a weaker person. We need to be serious about bullying, both at home and at school, so that our children do not learn that this is acceptable behaviour. As adults, we need to set good examples. Not for nothing is an abuser often the son of another abuser.

Thirdly, we need to teach our sons and daughters about respect for each other. We need to teach gender equality and redefine what it is that makes a successful person. It is not physical superiority, status in society or material wealth. It is how a person treats another person, with respect, with dignity, with humility. In this way, a good man is equal to a good woman, regardless of biological differences. Such a good man would not harm a woman or another man; just as such a good woman would not humiliate a man or another woman.

If such good men and women existed, there would not be insinuations about a victim's dress or behaviour when they are raped or murdered. That would be disrespectful. There would not be expressions of puzzlement about young girls who go off with strange men, implying that they asked for it. If there were such good men and women, society would not have to accept that there are bad people about and bad things are inevitable. Has our country developed to this level, only for us to be placid and accepting about violence in society? Why become developed then?

There are of course practical things one can do. Security cameras, better lighting, patrolled car parks are some things. Better persecution and punishment of perpetrators certainly help. Neighbourhood patrols, escorts for women who have to walk alone perhaps. Better designed buildings so that there are no dead corners for perpetrators to hide in. All these help.

But more important is to take violence against women seriously. And to be serious about changing things. If we had done something when Ang May Hong was raped and killed, would Audrey and all the rest who came after her have suffered as well? Perhaps we could have saved all their lives. We need to fuel our outrage into a serious desire to change things and to demand accountability. It seems ridiculous to me that a march to campaign for better public safety should be refused permission by the guardians of public safety themselves. Did they see it as a criticism of themselves? By right, we should all be working together for the betterment of society, not hinder one another.

Friends,

Today we remember Canny Ong not just because she was Canny but because she embodied all that we hoped for in young Malaysian women. She was bright, she was lively, she was loving, she worked hard and hoped to have an exciting future. None of that will happen for Canny Ong now. But still, she left a legacy because if it were not for Canny, we would not be here today, united in our desire to do something to ensure the safety not just of our friends and family but others whom we do not know. I would like to congratulate the friends of Canny Ong; she was lucky to have known you and I think you are lucky to have known her. Maybe the legacy of Canny Ong, even if she never planned it and will never know of it, is that she started something which will make a difference to so many women's lives. She got us -finally - angry enough to want to do something about violence against women. For that, we and all women in Malaysia should thank Canny.

Thank you.

Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir
Marina Mahathir is the President of the Malaysian Aids Council and Executive Producer of 3R. She is also member of WAO

Related Articles:

• Talking Points - A Safer Space for Women