25 September, 2020

Blog

One Step Forward Two Steps Backward: Women’s Rights Gender Equality & Alcohol 

By Rajeewa Jayaweera

Rajeewa Jayaweera

Finance and Mass Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera deserves full marks for taking the initiative to reform the archaic 1955 law prohibiting women from purchasing alcohol at a tavern and working in an establishment that manufactures and sells alcohol. He also deserves zero marks for the manner he went about amending the law resulting in the withdrawal of gazette Extraordinary containing the Excise Notification No 3 of 2018 within a few days.

Since the advent of the Yahapalana government, it has been forced to retract their decisions on many occasions including budget proposals due to objections from some of their own, the unofficial opposition or various interest groups. Prevarication is necessarily a hallmark of a coalition government in the Wonder of Asia.

After three years in office, cabinet ministers are yet to learn, their proposals are best discussed, and consensus reached with the President, Prime Minister and cabinet of ministers, before implementation. Failure to do so often results in opposition from some cabinet members and the government having to back down under pressure with egg on its face, not the smartest of moves.

Returning to the issue at hand, this writer worked in the hotel industry for ten years in the 1980s and had since patronized hotels regularly. I must plead ignorance of the law prohibiting a female from purchasing alcohol at a hotel bar, the more sophisticated name for a tavern, and prohibition from working in an establishment manufacturing or selling liquor. It is not due to lack of observation powers, but because I have regularly observed female customers, foreign and local, sit in hotel bars and swimming pools and purchase alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks are often served by waitresses (females). A recent web poll conducted by a leading newspaper resulted in an 85.1% negative awareness factor.

Thanks to Minister Samaraweera’s modus operandi of implementation without consultation followed by retraction under pressure, a dormant law, mostly observed in the breach, has taken center stage with the distinct possibility of serious consequences.

Should politically motivated hotel union employees decide to abide by the law which most of them like this writer were unaware of until last week, the government would be compelled to make some hard choices. It would have to inform tourists of the inability for female tourists to purchase alcoholic beverages at hotels and kiss goodbye to its ambitious tourist arrival targets. It would also have to prohibit females from working in hotel bars and restaurants resulting in at least some job losses or else withdraw the ban.

As ridiculous as it may sound, the excise notification does not prohibit the purchase of alcohol by females in supermarkets as no consumption takes place!

There are other more critical issues such as infringement on fundamental rights of women, equality before the law and gender-based discrimination. The Yahapalana government implemented regulations requiring 25% representation for women in local governments bodies, considered progressive and in sync with global trends. Retraction of Minister Samaraweera’s gazette notification which merely formalized what has been in practice in the breach for decades can by no means be termed progressive. It is regressive.

The issue of extended hours of taverns is as nonsensical as closing them on Poya Days resulting in liquor sales on the previous day skyrocketing. No tippler forgoes his tot due to the Poya Day ban. Similarly, consumers of alcohol will consume their hearts content irrespective of closing time. Some years ago, UK stipulated closing times for Pubs. A gong would be rung 15 minutes before closing time announcing; ‘Drink up gentlemen, last orders please’ which resulted in customers purchasing not one but two or three beers.  Pubs never closed until customers had consumed all they had purchased.

The justification for revocation of Minister Samaraweera’s Gazette was; it was against the nation’s cultural and Buddhist values. President Sirisena and his band of opportunists in the cabinet objecting to the Gazette need give serious thought, how does one reconcile the recent altercation in Parliament on January 10 to the grating rendition of ‘Hora, Hora’ with Sri Lanka’s cultural and Buddhist values.

A weak Speaker, despite his assertion, the incident may have been a planned event has failed to assert his authority and take the culprits to task. Is it so difficult to identify the first ten MPs to enter the parliament well, using CCTV footage and mete out the maximum punishment permitted under standing orders? Or else, will he allow culprits to go unpunished in the same manner unruly parliamentarians have escaped punishment in the past?

About politicians, two leading female politicians, namely the former lady President and current Colombo Mayoral candidate are known to imbibe in the occasional glass of wine. They have, in the past, campaigned for women’s rights and gender equality. Their silence indicates a sudden change of heart. Ideals would appear to have been dumped in favor of political expediency. 

Some female candidates including at least one from the celluloid industry contesting the forthcoming local government elections have voiced their support for the ban in the media. What they fail to understand is; this is not a matter of alcohol. It is a matter of women’s rights and gender equality, guaranteed in the constitution. Such is the caliber of those aspiring to be future parliamentarians.     

Let all Colombo voters insist, the Mayoral candidate and all others seeking their vote take a stand and publicly state if each of them endorses Samaraweera’s original gazette thus upholding the rights and equality of women or the subsequent Gazette as directed by President Sirisena which downgrades the rights and equality of women. Feminist movements should mobilize their membership to advise all voters, male and female, to make their vote dependent on the reintroduction of the Finance Minister’s original gazette. That is the only option left for women to win their rights and gender equality, guaranteed in the constitution.   

Gutless leaders in both the executive and legislative branches of government prone to making politically expedient decisions regardless of consequences need be made to do the right thing. The threat of an anti-UNP and SLFP (Maithri wing) vote might have the desired effect.

Alternatively, is the government awaiting a diktat from USA, European Union or UNHRC as observed on such issues since January 2015? 

Meanwhile, kudos to the women who have taken the matter to the Supreme Court.

One can only hope, the judiciary, the third arm of government, will put matters right keeping in line with current progressive trends around the globe and defeat the politically expedient culture vultures in other branches of government.

Let us reverse this post-independence trend of taking one step forward two steps backward.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 5
    3

    My friend, Sirisena being the head and commander in chief of the cabinet, snoozes in the carbinet meetings, once all over, he wakes up, oh sees something great gone wrong. Why instead of making big show to the gallery, he could have shot them down the moment when it was brought to the Cabinet. The big fault is our politicians think they are smart and others are mats but in reality, its the opposite. God only knows, when these stupids nuts would learn their lessons. I strongly demand wemon to fight for theirs rights.

  • 4
    1

    Mr. Jayaweera: Take everything that Mangala, Ranil,, etc, are doing with lot of suspicion. Read the article how western agenda destroy the socialist world’s progress. www. globalresearch.ca/Latvia-s-cruel -neoliberal-experiment/18636. the mentality of archaic laws is BS. the western world is crying today because their stupid policies have changed their societies. Teenage pregnancies, uncontrolled abortions, serial killers because mothers produce children who hate women, family break ups, search and see how drunkard, and druggie mothers are throwing children to rivers, poison, kill, teenage prostitutes because the family is broken. Besides, you Jayaweera would marry or would allow some one close to you marry a woman who is used to drunkardness,hanging around liquor shops, get drunk and lost on the way or in some one else’s bed. Don’t count a married woman drinking with her husband or single mother whose children are grown up go for a wine glass with friend. fundamental rights are limited and not unlimited.
    Sri lanka is a very undisciplined country because politicians are selfish, self centered, no standards or values, they are simply SCUM – lowest of lowest..

    • 6
      3

      Jim softy
      Since when were you the Custodian of Public Morals? A woman has the same right to be a drunkard as does a man. Their Rights, according to the Constitution are identical.

      You are right – fundamental rights are limited and not unlimited but you forgot to mention, for both men and women. It can not be limited to women and unlimited for men. Male chauvinism is no longer fashionable.

      • 1
        0

        Rajeewa
        You are advocating further liberalization of alcohol in a third world country plagued with one of the highest levels of alcoholism in the world. How about talking about alcohol induced violence against women , rape , incest ,child abuse – all rampant in the impoverished parts of the country particularly in the plantation sector? Your beloved minister is only interested in added revenue , while you are clearly out of touch with the ground realities of life in an impoverished country where almost half the population live on less than two dollars a day .

  • 6
    3

    R J
    You are stating the obvious.
    S L politicians talk rubbish and get away with it, without any consequence, nothing new.The President is no different.
    There is no evident solution; one has to get used to this ‘nonsense’.
    We live in PARADISE.

  • 6
    4

    Utter rubbish written by this writer.

    • 1
      0

      Let me ask all these simpletons who are advocating women’s right to purchase alcohol one simple question.

      If you were to see your Mother purchase alcohol, would you be saying “Hoorah!!! Thank god for the laws that allowed her to do this”?

      • 0
        2

        It is not as bad my mother buying a drink for her than your mother has given to birth a front admirable, retarded one like you!

        • 1
          0

          Mullaiyuran,

          Seems like your Mother is an alcoholic. And by the way, I am a graduate of a famous University. On the other hand, your name calling doesn’t make you look very intelligent. Don’t do that. It also brings more disrepute to your Mother than what Alcohol does to her reputation.

      • 0
        1

        Retarded . ……….women sniffing………….. Shameless Perera

        “If you were to see your Mother purchase alcohol, would you be saying “Hoorah!!! “

        If you were to see your father, grandfather, great grandfather, brother, son, son in law, uncle, cousin, grand son, ……. nephew, … purchase alcohol, would you be saying “hurrah”?

        In your own little world of double standards you take it for granted many things among which it is considered okay if a man sleeps with numerous women however it is not okay for a women if she sleeps with many men.

        Aren’t you a male chauvinist pig?
        If a women bought alcohol its her problem and not yours.
        Why don’t mind your own business leaving the women to live their own.

        • 1
          0

          How can I mind my own Business when such things are impacting the overall society?

          And first of all learn the difference between singular and plurals. Woman is when you refer to one single person. Women is when there are more than one. Singular and plural are taught in Grade 3. Looks like you didn’t study even up to that level.

          “If a women bought alcohol it’s her problem and not yours” is hilarious sentence that depicts your stupidity.

          If a woman bought alcohol and it was my problem, I wouldn’t be responding in English right now. It’s everyone’s problem.

      • 1
        0

        RSP.
        What’s wrong with your mother purchasing and “enjoying an alcoholic drink”?

  • 5
    2

    Rajeeva has at last caste himself adrift by cutting his moorings from Dad Stanley’s ultra radical Sinhala cultural leanings.This generational change in values has been gradual in coming.Stanley himself ,towards the end ,slowly caste off his traditional redda in favour of a more neutral and more practical trouser and tunic.

  • 0
    0

    Recent trends the world over are towards coalition governments. It takes a lot of give/take to make it work. The give/take will be mainly on policies.
    SL is not yet used to this form. We have a take/take even as trivial as police guards for the son of a minister. We have a jumbo cabinet and consensus will be almost impossible.
    The Mangala Excise Notification and the UNANIMOUS rescinding is a case in point. It is very little about a female ordering a drink in a plush hotel. It is about a grandmother having to send her grandson to purchase a bottle for her. It is NOT about what the grandma does with the bottle.
    It is about human rights and the jumbo cabinet does not know this!
    SC has to ‘enlighten’ the cabinet.

  • 3
    0

    Perhaps our politics is driving women to drink? Food for thought …..

  • 0
    1

    Hats off to FM for having the courage to change the laws governing the sale of liquor to women. Its a bold and a brave move. The president should know that we are living in the 21st century. To teach a lesson to the men folk all women should stop washing liquor glasses and attending parties where liquor is served. Let the people who consume liquor do the washing. It appears that the president wants to reverse Darwins theory.

  • 3
    1

    The two ugliest sights in the world for me are when a child defecates in the open and seeing a woman drunk. It’s just horrible.

    When men are drunk, we are funny. We want some action. We want to say some bad language. We want to talk some politics.

    But when a woman is drunk, you don’t know what’s coming next. I don’t agree with this President one bit. But he’s done the right thing here.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.