Can a husband rape his wife? SUHAKAM's (The Malaysian Human Rights Commission) recent statement declaring marital rape as a contravention to fundamental human rights certainly hit a Malaysian nerve. It got many people talking; moving some to even write letters to the media about their thoughts. Clearly, sex between a wife and husband is an important national issue. Reading through some of the articles, numerous justifications have been hailed as supporting his or her opinion. These range from a religious (or more specifically, Islamic) tenets, 'Western' values, the unequivocal 'right' to sexual access by husbands to their wives, prevention of adultery, evidentiary problems in proving rape, abused (physical, financial or emotional) situations to…

Yes, sexual relations between a man and woman within the institution of marriage is a serious matter indeed.

Why are we so touched by this? To attempt an answer to this question, the different anxieties will have to be addressed.

Firstly, marriage is understood as a private affair between two legally coupled adults. What's more, sexual relations should remain in the bedroom and ideally not much further. When public institutions like SUHAKAM hold what occurs in the conjugal bed up for inspection, this causes a stir. What about right to privacy? Does this mean that nothing we do in our homes is safe from official, governmental scrutiny? This is a fair concern which needs to be thought through. Our rights to privacy, especially with regards to intimacy, need to be adequately protected from undue intervention. Otherwise, we will have police officers enthusiastically (and perhaps even voyeuristically) tailing citizens who are falling in love with a pen poised, ready to issue fines instead of ensuring the safety of public spaces.

However, we must also accept that the boundaries between what is private and public no longer stands when it becomes an issue of violence. This does not mean only physical violence, but the many facets of abuse which are common, especially amongst those who are relationally close. For example, child abuse, incest, financial or psychological abuse in instances of domestic violence. This is where it becomes a public matter.

As human beings living in a society with other human beings, we should reasonably expect, at the very least, protection from harm. This is why we enter into a contract with the government through the democratic election process to provide us with, amongst other things, this protection. If someone steals from us, we expect the government to take appropriate action. If someone hits us, sexually violates us, murders our loved ones, we expect prompt and stern action to be made. This is especially important in spaces where those whom we trust have betrayed that through their abusive behaviour. The usual network of support, most immediately being family members, can no longer be depended upon, since the very members are the perpetrators. In such a situation, we should be able to appeal to official agencies for assistance.

Then, we have the tussle between different State agencies on who has the authority to define what we can or cannot do as private individuals. In this instance, the mufti of Perak maintains that in his interpretation of Islam, a Muslim wife is absolutely compelled to accede to her Muslim husband's wishes for sexual relations. Otherwise she will not only be disobedient to him, but implicitly, also to God. A startling claim. Does he then mean that the Will of God is for men to treat their wives as sexual objects, for women to have no capacity for decisions in relation to their husbands, or the condoning of force and abuse should it happen, pragmatically speaking, by husbands against their wives?

The easy argument tossed out is the labelling of anything which is against the will of men who are in institutions of power as 'Western'. As though this in itself is self-explanatory, transparent, and automatically 'evil'. What exactly are 'Western' values? Sometimes it is loose sexual relations, now it is restricted sexual relations. Sometimes it is the notion of respect for human beings, sometimes it is deliberation before choosing a community leader, and so on. Although cultural colonisation is an important issue, we have to be slightly more critical when this argument is thrown. Are the values propagated really the property of some phantom Western country? Have they been inherited from our history and transformed in our society? Can values really be "owned" by a country? What constitutes Malaysian values? Do they not change in response to our needs, contexts and time? Can they be identified so easily? If so, why do we have deliberations about policies, legislations and knowledge constantly and consistently?

Instead of accepting thoughtlessly the labels that are offered, it might be more useful to think what is at stake in these arguments. Who is claiming the authority for what? More importantly, how will this affect our lives in this nation?

Finally we have the anxious men. Men who regard their rights to have sexual drives and their satiation as absolute. Men who want to maintain their authority over the women in their lives. These men strike out angrily, saying that the concept of marital rape is ridiculous since if it would effectively put them in vulnerable positions. If forced sexual relations were criminalised, they will actually have to ensure their advances are welcomed before engaging in intimacy with their partners. Maybe even ask. Fortunately, there are other men who understand this fear as groundless, and assertively speak up for mutual respect and the need for protection. Now, what is needed is much more diverse women's voices to state their thoughts. What do you think; can a husband rape his wife?

Jaclyn Kee
5th Sept 2004 2004

Fortnightly Column by WAO on Sunday Mail