LETTERS: On Nov 29, 2021, the deputy human resources minister announced that employees could look forward to amendments to the Employment Act that would provide for flexible working hours and a shorter work week for women.
This was done supposedly to facilitate the harmonisation of women's lives between their work and family responsibilities. In other words, the government was concerned over the work-life balance of women employees in Malaysia, which is extremely good indeed.
While the objective of these amendments are commendable, the question is why do they target women employees specifically? Why not make the policy gender-neutral and applicable to all employees?
The argument that men are the main breadwinners in a family today has been debunked many times over. Especially during the pandemic, husbands and wives have equally contributed to the family's welfare. Shouldn't equal burden be shared when it comes to the welfare of the family as well?
The 40-hour work week was a relatively recent innovation to allow more people to join the workforce. More importantly, the 40- hour work week was formulated when the division of labour was much more divided along gender lines.
In other words, men could afford being away for eight hours per day with the expectation that their wives would have taken care of the household by the time they got home.
But, in today's context, if both partners are away from home for more than eight hours, who takes care of the children and household chores? We all know how expensive good daycare is and it is unaffordable for those who need it the most.
In academia, the term that is used to describe this phenomenon is "double-shift". Women work two shifts: one at work, the other at home. And this has been ongoing for decades despite more women entering the workforce.
Because of this undue expectation, more women choose to leave the workforce to take care of young children until they have reached school-going age. Since household chores are unpaid jobs in this "double-shift" trend, its significance is seldom acknowledged in comparison to a wage-earning position outside the home.
More worrisome is that this law would further institutionalise and normalise the gender gap at the workplace. As women divide their time between work and home, men may continue spending half their days at work.
While this kind of dedication is lauded, men would then receive the benefit of promotions over their female counterparts as they are seen working longer hours compared with women who would be expected to take advantage of the flexible working arrangement. Achieving gender parity at the workplace will seem unlikely at this pace.
Some men may argue that this is not their fight as they have never asked for such a policy in the first place. Rather than absolving men, this attitude shows how gender division of labour is pervasive within our society.
On another note, by only applying this law to women, working men are deprived of their rights, and joy, to contribute at home.
It is not that women revile this law from coming into force. Instead, we would like for an acknowledgement of the shared responsibility at home.
If women are to be allowed flexi-hours and a shorter work week, men should be able to enjoy that benefit as well. It is not only for the sake of women, but for men and the family unit in its entirety.
Syaza Shukri
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, International Islamic University Malaysia
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times