Patronizing protection?

There was nary a word of gratitude nor praise for a Supreme Court proposal that, if adopted, would require foreign men to pay a bond of US$50,000 should they wish to marry an Indonesian woman, even though the proposal's proponents claim that it is intended to protect the woman in case of separation or divorce.

The rationale behind the proposal sounds logical -- surely a woman would enjoy security for quite some time with such a large sum of money if left by her husband and saddled with children who must, according to law, attend international schools?

But from the outcry over the issue, we can take it for granted that this is not the kind that protection that women in transnational marriages are looking for.

Try equal rights, instead.

The women may not see much benefit in a vague promise of financial reward some time in the future while the law does not even guarantee a wife's ability to sponsor visas so that her children can stay here.

Far from expressing gratitude for a proposal ostensibly intended to protect them, they have complained that life with their loved ones is complicated enough under the existing 1958 Citizenship Law; one woman said she lived with the constant threat of her children being taken away should their father return to France as children automatically acquire their father's nationality and the mother needs to get special permits to obtain custody of minors.

Similarly expatriate women married to Indonesians face a host of problems. For instance, they can only stay here if sponsored by their husbands; and in the case of their husband's death they have no right to inherit their spouses' property as it must be sold within one year of the husband's death.

In reports published in this newspaper last month, it was also revealed that many couples do not register their marriages to avoid the headaches produced by Indonesian law if they want to stay here -- the result being that the children are stigmatized for seemingly being born out of wedlock.

For years, this newspaper has being receiving letters from our readers complaining about what transnational couples have to go through -- just to live a normal family life and to enjoy holidays together, something most of us take for granted. Lawyers have also pointed out how the law, and the current proposed amendments, reveal both ignorance of human rights and equal rights in marriage, leading to unavoidable questions such as whether Indonesia actually rejects foreigners becoming part of Indonesian families by penalizing the women and men who happen to fall in love with them, and, perhaps worst of all, their children.

An indicator of the confusion and insensitivity that prevails may be found in a statement by a legislator who said that lawmakers were hesitant about proposals to overcome many of the problems posed by transnational marriages by permitting dual citizenship, saying people with such a status might be "less loyal" to the country.

Patronizing, indeed. In fact, there are more than enough women out there who will tell us that expatriate men are no less loyal to their women (loyalty being a rather more time-tested indicator for lasting bonds than nationalism), than Indonesian men. Thus, changing the law with a view to achieving equal rights in marriage would enable people to help themselves instead of requiring "protection", as proposed by the Supreme Court.

While patronization may be cultural in nature, Indonesia has actually progressed in some ways, including through the ratification of the United Nations Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This entails an obligation to change all laws and regulations that involve discrimination.

Many in transnational marriages had high hopes that the proposed citizenship bill would bring about improvements. But, disappointingly, some major grievances seem to have been ignored by those drafting the bill, with the result that couples in transnational marriages seem likely to continue being treated as "second class citizens" for the foreseeable future.