Yayori (not her real name), over buka puasa last Ramadan, said she was puzzled over the relevance of war and orphaned Muslim women in the Malaysian context.

Yayori is from Japan and is on a research stint in Malaysia. She was referring to the report on Terengganu's plan to marry off single mothers who were widowed or divorced. Men, it was reported, were to be given "incentives" to marry single mothers.

Yayori did not recall if the scheme was encouraging men to be polygamous. There was no report of the status of the men who would qualify under the proposed scheme.

There was no mention if single mothers were given any input on the scheme or if the proposers of the scheme had ever considered soliciting women's views at all. Such an omission is not unusual.

It does appear that when a particular case is coloured by some religious hue, it gets harder to hear women's voices. Men tend to assume a perceived role of the leader in the public "political" sphere and the private "family" sphere and "speak" for women. Shura or consultation, a fundamental political principle in Islam, is thrown to the wind.

Over the years we have experienced the sporadic brouhaha around these "marrying off unmarried women" debates triggered by allegations that women outnumber men or premised by assertions of a "God-given" right to polygamy. The labelling of an issue as "religious" often silences voices.

From that time, I kept the memory of a comment by a well-known human rights activist who was quoted in the press as saying that women's groups should not engage in a public debate over such a trivial matter as polygamy. He claimed that polygamy cases are negligible. I thought his comment "de-legitimised" the seriousness of the public discussion.

Labels of "religion" and "trivia" often operate to silence views, alternative opinions and challenge.

Classic justification

The Terengganu scheme appears to claim the justification that single mothers and children are made destitute by divorce or death of spouses. This fits the frame of the classic justification for polygamy when women lose their financial support system when spouses or men on whom they are dependent upon for such support perished in the wars.

Men are then encouraged to marry up to four women with certain conditions relating to the financial arrangement among the polygamous households.

In most of these discussions, the debate has largely focused on equality between the households and in the polygamous family life.

We seldom query if polygamy or the state of being married is necessarily the best or better mechanism by which the financial needs of women are met. We seldom question the adequacy of "support through family" as an adequate mechanism for meeting unmet financial needs of women today.

What if there is another breakdown in the family support mechanism? Would the state offer more incentives for the men to stay married or would the woman end up in another marriage with another man? The latter case seemed a gross exaggeration of the intended scheme but the possibility is not remote. Women's groups and centres have more stories to tell of abandoned women and children that can easily fill these pages.

Should we ask the schemers as to why they are slow in exploring for example some form of social security for single mothers with low or no incomes, instead of pushing women into marriage?

Shouldn't we be also thinking of providing financial incentives for single mothers or providing re-training of skills? Would it not be more equitable for women to have a choice of being remarried or remaining single with financial support under a scheme to prevent destitution?

Why are single mothers not perceived as a "complete" family entity deserving of a separate mechanism for financial support as "female-headed households"? These issues are human rights issues.

Private maintenance

The scheme of marriage of single mothers allows the state to "wash its hands" of any need to explore welfare or social security mechanisms for women who have always been homemakers and have not entered the waged labour market.

Unmarried women without skills to trade in the waged labour market may not have a choice but be drawn or remain dependent on a scheme of private maintenance (in the family) as an economic and social guarantee of subsistence.

Housework is not legally recognised as paid work. While some homemakers may have no want of spending money from their "heads of the household" husbands, many Malaysian homemakers end up spending the family income on household needs and none saved for a rainy day.

Paid work in a waged labor market may offer some social security in case of retirement, sickness or injury.

While Malaysian women in the paid labour force have increased, women may remain poor in that their income may be seen as a "supplemental" (or lower) income. This is because, as a rule, the man is still defined as the main breadwinner. This is even in the case where the family's economy is dependent on both incomes. In a case of unmarried women, her wage may be lower as it is assumed that she would be supported by some male now or in the future.

The feminisation of poverty is a world-wide trend and is well-documented in development studies encouraged by the United Nations International Year of Women in 1975 and the Decade for Women in 1985.

Some of the causes of women's poverty have been attributed to policies where we continue to condition women to become dependent on men in a number of ways. The scheme of re-marriage of single mothers may require further rethinking.