Patronizing protection?

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.