Last Friday (10 September) saw the announcement of the first budget by Pak Lah as our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. The budget has been lauded as sensible, aimed towards long-term changes as well being socially conscious. There are various aspects covered which reflected the thoughtfulness of the budget; including attention to the disabled, low in income, education, indigenous groups, small businesses, gender development programmes and so forth.

The crucial issue to be tackled remains a question of interpretation by various relevant State agencies and its implementation. Budgeting does not only mean how much input will be placed into various targeted issues, but should also incorporate equal thoughtfulness into the matter of outcomes. In this sense, the various outputs or rather mechanisms devised to achieve a more socially-conscious development should be seen to match, as closely as possible, their objectives.

With a specific allocation of MYR 37.8 million for gender development programmes, the government is to be commended for its conscious focus on the issue of gender in building a caring and flourishing society. There are many gender equality initiatives that do not get implemented because they are not included in the budgeting mechanisms of the government, and as such, there can be a discernable gap between what is said and what is actually done. For example, there may be explicit articulation by State agents in wanting to improve the poverty of women in rural areas, but without programmes that are supported with capital, it remains as an intention without any substance.

It is a matter of fact that in order for changes to occur, serious effort and programmes need to be supported by economic resources to ensure its capacity for comprehensive implementation. Simply, it is impossible to effect transformation without money to pay for things like administration, brainstorming sessions, employment of human resources like social workers, printing, office space, travelling costs, getting feedback from the intended beneficiaries and so on. Therefore, the new budget that demonstrates both awareness and responsiveness toward this important matter, which in turn reflects the commitment of the government in building a gender-equal society.

However, care needs to be taken before assuming that all is well once there is a specific budget allocated for a particular group. Special attention is of extreme importance when it comes to sections of society who have often been neglected or excluded; but effort to create changes should not stop there.

These efforts should identify both cultural and structural obstacles that prevent marginalized sections of Malaysian society from having access to specific budget allocations and economic opportunities. We also have to examine the assumptions that found the basis of specific allocations that do not mention the needs of marginalised groups for their impact on their lives.

For example, the emphasis on creating better education facilities and a greater number of places in institutions of learning should also assess the gender impact of its implementation. Will the allowance be allocated for programmes that are generally applied to by one particular gender? Will it be used to address any form of gender-bias or gaps that are in existent? Will the application of the budget include transformation of the curriculum to reform gender-prejudiced content, or address wage differences and promotion possibilities between gender? Will it be used to assess and address any form of formal or informal structural obstacles for differently identified sections of the society?

To have a national budget that is inclusive in its application, serious attention needs to be paid especially to individuals who may have been innately precluded because of the way it is framed. If the outputs of the budget means that women are effectively negated from its positive effects, then it would have failed to achieve its purpose of building a more caring society. Alternatively, if the focus of the budget translates into additional costs in the practical daily lives of women, this also means that it has been unsuccessful in its attempt to be gender-aware.

This is because a significant part of our life in society is shaped by gender roles and expectations. Funding for small businesses or to spur the agricultural sector also have to take into account whether this has beneficial impact towards the actual men and women who will be affected; or rebates for ICT also have to examine the overall approach towards technology in terms of gender. If women are not acknowledged or encouraged to be familiar with this field, then chances are, the budget will assist the gender gap in technology rather than minimise it. In fact temporary special measures may have to be employed to close the gender gap.

One of the primary methods to examine this is to check the formation, implementation and effectiveness of the budgeted programmes. The allocation for gender development programmes should not only focus on aspects of violence against women; although this is a crucial issue, there are also many other aspects of social life which affect women such as education, employment, entrepreneurship etc. Likewise, all other forms of new initiatives should take into account how it affects women; whether the spirit of competition that is being forwarded speaks in a language that is intelligible to our lives. In short, there is still a lot of work to be done, but the first step taken spells an encouraging start.

For more information about gender-responsive budgeting, visit http://www.gender-budgets.org

Jaclyn Kee
19 September 2004

Talk Back to wao@wao.org.my
Fortnightly Column by WAO on Sunday Mail