Bertrand Borg
Women want quotas
Just six of the 69 MPs are women. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier
Malta’s leading gender equality organisations and experts are calling on Parliament to introduce gender quotas to bring more women into politics and business.
The calls were made independently and came in response to questions The Times asked concerning gender quotas, hinted at by Nationalist Party in its latest policy document.
The document, titled Our Roots, spells out the PN’s political vision. Among other things, it suggests “positive measures” in the public and economic spheres to bring about greater gender equality.
The PN has not been one to embrace the concept of quotas and in 2004, Lawrence Gonzi, party leader and Prime Minister, had said: “I do not believe in quotas and I consider them to be a certificate of failure. I fear that if we opt to introduce quotas we would be choosing the easy way out... We have to emphasise women’s abilities first, before reserving posts for them.”
Although the PN declined to directly mention the word “quotas” in its document, when asked to clarify its call for positive measures, it reiterated its willingness to “take new steps, including through positive action, for more equality between women and men”.
Positive action refers to measures which go beyond equal treatment of genders, recognising the structural factors leading to existing inequalities. Gender quotas are a form of such positive action, and have grown increasingly popular over the past couple of decades. Today, some form of electoral gender quota is used in more than half the world.
“Political parties should commit themselves to further develop the use of quotas,” the Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations said, remarking that statistics showed how “Maltese women excel by their low participation”.
The confederation called on political parties to “study local scenarios, identify priorities and introduce quotas”, adding that in January 2010, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding had warned publicly listed companies to voluntarily increase women’s presence on corporate boards by 2012 or “count on my regulatory creativity”.
The president of the Foundation for Women Entrepreneurs, Angele Giuliano, agreed, saying quotas were a “lesser evil” necessitated by the lack of Maltese women present within boardrooms.
“I sincerely hope that in time...we would be able to get rid of quotas. Until we get there, however, we’ll have to keep pushing,” Ms Giuliano said. Labour studies lecturer Anna Borg also favoured quotas. “Those arguing against quotas are not aware of the invisible hurdles women face. Men’s structural head-start dates back thousands of years – positive action such as quotas simply seeks to address the imbalance,” she said.
The National Commission for the Promotion of Equality said it was in favour of quotas but warned these would not be the panacea to all gender discrimination issues. Any quotas would need to be bolstered with action challenging gender stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes, they said.
Both the Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika spoke along similar lines.
Labour equality spokesman Helena Dalli described quotas as a “necessary evil” which had been proven to work. “The countries which have made the greatest progress in ensuring gender equality are those which have introduced some form of quotas”.
Ms Dalli feels that despite the rhetoric, there is a lack of political and social will to increase equality within decision-making bodies. “If the government really wanted to encourage equality, it could simply nominate an equal number of women and men to sit on its boards,” she said.
“Given that we continue to live in a world where women are discriminated against, quotas in both politics and economics would be welcomed,” AD social policy spokesman Angele Deguara said.
She insisted any quotas had to be buttressed by a genuine desire to foster equality: “Any women who benefit must be as well-qualified as their male counterparts. Quotas can’t be an exercise in tokenism, with women brought in just to make up the numbers.”
In 2010 the UN Committee overseeing the international convention for the elimination of discrimination against women, said it was concerned by the government’s “insufficient understanding of the need for the adoption of temporary special measures” to accelerate the advancement of women. Although all three local political parties already use gender quotas to varying degrees within their internal structures, these quotas are voluntary and debate concerning their introduction for high office is still in its infancy.
The PN’s suggestion of “positive measures” will now be discussed by the relevant Academy for the Development of a Democratic Environment working group.
Gender quotas in practice
Spain: At least 40 per cent of a party’s electoral candidate list must come from either gender.
Rwanda: At least 24 of its 80 parliamentary members must be women. Rwanda is the only country in the world where the majority of Parliament is female.
Norway: Has gender quotas in multiple sectors. At least 40 per cent of all board directors in publicly listed companies must be female.
Belgium: There must be an equal number of female and male electoral candidates. The first two candidates on a party list cannot be of the same gender.
Paying lip service to gender equality?
In Malta almost 60 per cent of graduates are female BUT:
• Only 40 per cent of women are active in the workforce.
• Only six out of 69 MPs are women.
• Only three per cent of board of directors are women.
• An NCPE study found that women earned 23.25 per cent less than men.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
70 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Paul Attard
Dec 7th 2011, 19:00
Quotas are nothing more than discrimination. Its a simple as that. Aim for equality through education not through discrimination.
Alex Ellul
Dec 7th 2011, 16:16
Suggesting quotas for women means that woman are inferior to men, which they are definitely not. If I were a woman I would feel insulted, more so if I were one of those top notch woman who occupy top positions in private industry. Giving quotas to any section of the population on any premise whatsover will produce nice cosy jobs occupied by peopel who should not be there in the first place because there is always someone who is more capable and professional.
What I mean is that women are as capable as men and they don't need any artificial lifts to success. (Except for the aoccasional face lift that is)
David Seychell
Dec 7th 2011, 06:28
82% of primary school teachers are females.
"Statistics published by MaltaToday last month had also shown that 81% of prospective teachers following a Bachelor in Education course were women. This could be an indication that the decline in the number of male teachers is set to continue in the next years as more male teachers retire and female graduates take their place."
http://archive.maltatoday.com.mt/2010/05/09/t7.html
However,
We only hear about "Malta’s leading gender equality organisations calling on Parliament to introduce gender quotas to bring more women into politics and business."
But
We don't hear them talking about quotas in primary education for males, where less than 1 out of every 5 teachers are males.
The message is a clear one: gender based discrimination is bad, unless it favours women.
O GALEA
Apr 3rd, 14:27
you have a point.
David Seychell
Dec 7th 2011, 05:14
From one hand, they tell us that gender based discrimination is evil and from the other hand they tell us that we need to discriminate against a particular gender.
Joseph Fava
Dec 6th 2011, 21:43
You are all correct: a job must go to the best candidate; in a democracy MPs are elected by popular vote...etc. But this means that you are not aware that quotas can be implemented in a fair manner in a democracy. You onle have to be creative or look at other countries which have been successful in this area. For instance, a parliamentary candidate could have contested the election and it will be extra seats alloted to, say, one woman for each party which will be given to women runners-up.
As for the appointment of women on government boards: what is stopping the Government from appointing 50% women ? Surely it is not because of a lack of women professionals in all sectors. There are more women than men graduating and yet the government comes to choose people on its own boards, it does not choose women, even though they are as qualified and experienced as the men they do appoint. It is evident the balance is in favour of men with only a small percentage of women sitting on boards of government and pub;ic entities. This is at the government's discretion and so the PM should be the last one to lament the lack of women at decision-making levels. He should start by where he has the authority to do something and balance out the government boards by appointing qualified and experienced men and women. It's not that difficult. There are plenty to choose from.
With regards to women voting for women: women vote for women and men just like men vote for women and men. We have a difficulty when we come to candidates. There are by far more male than female. In fact, proportionally, there are as many women as men elected. For instance, if there are 100 men and 10 women standing for election, 10 men and one woman are elected. Thus the problem is in our inability to persuade more women to contest elections. This is indisputable since we do not yet have the structures necessary to supposrt both women and men balance out ntheir familial and public responsabilities. Generally then, traditional culture favours that, in a situation where both partners want to be active in the public sphere the husband contests in the public sphere while the wife takes care of the private (home) sphere.
A. Schembri
Dec 6th 2011, 19:05
Disagree, people should be elected based on capability to offer good options and to be able to take responsible desicions not on gender...case in point HON.marie louise who was the first person to be elected in 2008...be a good politician and you will be elected :)
julian falzon
Dec 6th 2011, 18:18
Yes lets award people positions based on sex and race. That is very meritocratic and does not cause animosity to start towards the beneficiary of the discrimination. Please note sarcasm throughout. How about meritocracy!? Or does that not earn jobs and funding for the lobby groups?
Vince Cachia
Dec 6th 2011, 18:02
Yes I agree to the introduction of quotas especially in the building sector, in quarries, street sweeping, drainage cleaning, earth excavation and road building to mention a few!!!
Stanley Vassallo
Dec 6th 2011, 17:49
Only persons who are not capable need quotas.
J. Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 18:52
I tend to agree with Mr Vassallo. It is indeed very good to have "equal rights to opportunities". However forcing through quotas that a percentage of positions are held by women is in my opinion not right. Actually, this is very wrong. As far as I know, nobody is holding females from putting themselves forward for jobs/positions currently occupied by men. So why should quotas be introduced? If I were female, I would actually feel offended to see the need of quotas to help women be in such positions. Positions should be based on experience/relevance/academic background and not sex.
Mario P. Sciberras
Dec 6th 2011, 17:49
Since probably we have more female than male voters, it must follow that not enough women vote for female candidates. Since almost certainly women are cleverer than men, I think I will follow their example and vote for a male candidate.
j brincat
Dec 6th 2011, 17:32
Aren't both genders supposed to be on equal footing so why request quotas?
(jb)
Mr John Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 17:19
Quotas only serve to distort perfectly fair competition.
By introducing quotas you are actually insulting women by telling them "we think you're not good enough to make it on your own, so instead we reserved a place for you!"
This is similar to promotions based on seniority rather than meritocracy, and this is why governmental organisations are so inefficient.
Joseph Calleja
Dec 6th 2011, 16:48
Let women fend for themselves. Women are just as smart as men, if not a bit smarter. As a matter of fact some of the best leaders were women and as far as I know, they all made it on their own. Here are a few examples: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meier, Hillary Clinton, Helen Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and many many more. Then there is Giovanna Debono, Dolores Christina, Helena Dalli, Helen D'Amato, Mary Louise Coleiro and let us not forget Agatha Barbara who served the longest term when Men ruled. Women don't need no quota. All they have to do is have the will and the ability to outsmart Man. Don't forget that not too long ago, Man went to work while women ran the households. That is the way it has always been but even that is starting to change, except in third world countries..
Julie Russell
Dec 6th 2011, 17:47
Nicely said, you are absolutely right.
G Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 16:46
@ Mr V Cassar
Mr V Cassar must have some axe to grind with Dr Helena Dalli, since facts are the opposite of what he says. Dr Dalli has been elected to parliament for four consecutive elections without any need for quotas. Not only that, in the last election, the only time she contested on two districts, she was elected from both districts (the first woman, after her Dolores Cristina was elected on 2 districts) this when men contesting with her on two districts were only elected from one, with the exception of the deputy leader.
So really to say that Helena Dalli is in favour of quotas because that will guarantee her success is a non-starter. She has been very successful all along, without quotas.
All the women interviewed in this feature are in favour of quotas, why did Mr Cassar pick on Dr Dalli only? Do I detect the hand of some competing male candidate? Is it because she is in the forefront of the photo attached to the article? There were other female ministers in the background, so why pick on her?
Let me assure you that Dr Dalli do not need any quotas but on the other hand do we really give females a real fair chance to participate. Mr Cassar, perhaps a little pondering on this issue will help you to formulate a more fair comment.
Finally, for your info, I am a married MAN and I am stating this so that you do not get any ideas that a female is defending another of its species but A MAN who really thinks that women should be given a REAL and FAIR CHANCE. Until this happens, it will help Maltese politics etc to have a female quota in our structures since it will be beneficial to our country when policies, decisions etc are being compiled/taken.
Andrew Calleja
Dec 6th 2011, 15:46
I agree with most comments below. You have come up with varied and valid arguments against the introduction of quotas in relation to gender "equality". Any system that in itself is discriminatory cannot be considered to be just and will cause more harm than good.
Lets stretch the issue of gender equality a bit further and consider those who do not believe that nature was fair in placing them under one gender when they would have preferred to be born on the other side. Will LGBT persons eventually call for quotas on the place of work or in politics?
I believe that everyone has some pride and wants to make it under his/her own steam and would prefer to fight discrimination if they feel aggrieved by any decision that offends them because it can be attributed to gender or sexual orientation bias. This can only be achieved if we implement the necessary safegaurds such as the creation of legally constituted bodies that will deliver justice in such situations and NOT by resorting to stupid and discriminatory measures like the IMPOSITION of quotas.
V Cassar
Dec 6th 2011, 15:29
Gender quota? Next thing we know we will have an ethnicity quota, a religion quota, age quota,disability quota and all other quotas origining from all discriminations.
And to Helena Dalli: ofcourse you agree with quotas, you're one of the few women in politics and it would benefit you if there was a gender quota, since that would guarantee you an election success.
This is the point at which democracy fails and all starts going downhill. No one is stopping women from entering politics, but no one should propogate what doesn't happen naturally.
And finally, why should we say that x is equal to y if they are really not? why equality for equality's sake? "Men’s structural head-start dates back thousands of years" said Anna Borg from labour studies...so doesn't that prove they are not equal?
to all femminist movements: Please find a better use for your life, there are much more serious and grown-up things to worry about going on.
Sharlet Fabri
Dec 6th 2011, 15:46
The more diversity there is, especially in politics, the better. Only in that way can democracy be ensured and policies represent the needs of all people!
I think that what's most natural is that if the population is composed of more women than men, those that truly represent the same population must be of the same gender. And re your comment on Helena Dalli, I'm more than sure that she is capable more than most men that sit there and get paid for it. Gender quota is not about having a percentage of any women - it's about giving the chance to qualified females to be where they deserve to be. If women weren't treated as objects by men in the first place (which is not natural - I hope that you get this at least), we wouldn't be facing any equality issue at all.
Victor Laiviera
Dec 6th 2011, 16:22
@ V Cassar
Dr Dalli was elected from two districts, the frst woman to achieve this honour ij Malta. She is the last person to need a quota. But you seem to find it difficult to believe that some people favour what is right, not just what is to their personal advantage.
As we say in Maltese, "kulħadd ikejjel b'xibru".
V Cassar
Dec 6th 2011, 21:01
Who are we to say what is right? I never mentioned gender exclusivity, what I'm fully up against is the controlling of the chosen rapresentatives. If there are 30 capable males and 10 capable females (OR VICE-VERSA !), why cant we elect those 40 people instead of eliminating 10 of the capable males and replacing them with other 10 extra females just for the sake of having 20 males and 20 females? I hope you do get my point.
My second point was that liberty and freedom should be the fundamental rule, there is no need for such pathetic regulations based on excessive sentimentalism. The more we make up gender rules, the more we divide them. All rules should apply to everyone regardless of their gender....
and @ Mr G.Borg; I mentioned Helena Dalli because she is mentioned in the article and not because she is in the photo, I read the text not look at the pictures. And for your information I don't even know her personally....Competing candidate?....geez
Teddy Cilia
Dec 6th 2011, 15:29
Quotas are also referred to as "positive discrimination". ... But it is still discrimination!
Joe Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 15:10
if qoutas are introduced for political candidates it would only be a matter of time such that we see such systems being enforced in public sector job positions, and to hell with fitting the best candidate for a job...and the survival of the fittest natural law of nature.
Christine Attard
Dec 6th 2011, 15:03
WHy quotas? If a women is good she'll be voted. I wont vote for a woman just because they are quotas. I will vote for someone whom i think will do good as a decision maker.
Mark Anthony Fenech
Dec 6th 2011, 14:30
I see gender quotas as counterproductive, it promotes the idea that a woman is employed not because she has merit but because she's a woman. I thought discrimination was illegal, and it works both ways. So discrimination against women is illegal, which is fine, I agree that women should not be discriminated against. But I cannot accept that men will be discriminated against as well. If both genders are to be equal, then quotas are an 'evil' in themselves which further serves to antagonise the sexes. For a start, what we really need are proper child-caring facilities, flexible working hours for mothers and parental leave.
John Meilak
Dec 6th 2011, 16:32
Easier said than done.
Victor Laiviera
Dec 6th 2011, 14:15
Jo Camm said "The number of voting women has always been more then men. So why do they prefer to elect men and not women to parliament?? Shouldn't they explain this, before asking 'men' to vote for 'women'." (See below)
Statistics show that the PERCENTAGE of election of men and women is the same. To make it clearer, say 1000 men and 100 women contest an election. You will find that if, say, 100 men are elected, the number of elected women will be 10. This shows that voters are as likely to elect a woman as a man. The problem is in the small number of women contesting.
And the simple answer is that the structures permitting women to participate more fully in public life simply are not there.
J Curmi
Dec 6th 2011, 14:13
I don't believe in the need for quotas - indeed this is an insult to women in that it implies that women need this advantage to ensure their particpation? I believe that women are just as capable as men to achieve anything in life - if their mindset is made up, am sure that women are just as successful in business as we have seen in practice + they are just as successful in politics eg Margaret Thatcher is a fine example - despite the obstacles along the way to purposely discourage her, she made it to the top and a fine prime minister she was. Women in the military have been successful and are not given any special concessions other than certain cases where certain physical strength is required, other than that, this talk of quotas is a joke.
charles caruana
Dec 6th 2011, 14:03
Another sortie by the zealots of the politically correct to impose an artificial so called positive equality on us. Quotas are an insult to women's intelligence and real abilities, undermining the values of excellence and real merit in any sphere of human endeavor. Create just conditions for equal opportunities for all irrespective of gender, without inflicting equality of outcome that more often than not issues in mediocrity. Remember how the commies once tried to impose their notions of perfect equality on society, and the hell they produced in the process?
David Galea
Dec 6th 2011, 13:44
"Women wants quotas"
Does this means that women feel that they are less capable than men? I had the impression that women are stronger etc etc. than men.
Women and even children in the year 2011 know about their rights so why are women indicating that they want previlidges on top of what they have?
Bring about better ideas they the men and I am sure that I even the other women would vote for women.
Mark Frankalanza
Dec 6th 2011, 13:40
There is no need of quota. If women REALLY want to be in politics & business, what is stopping them from doing so?
Sharlet Fabri
Dec 6th 2011, 15:37
The simplest answer to your question? Society and it's policies are.
Unfortunately we live in a country where (although slowly changing), women still carry more responsibilities than men. Most women still do the majority of housework, cook, clean and what not, they still iron their husbands' clothes, and things get worse for them if there are children. So what is stopping them? The lack of (and very expensive) play schools would be a start for you to get a hint.
If policies were made to fit the everyone's needs (including those of women, that is), I'm sure more of the latter will be willing to paticipate - not to mention that a female perspective might be very valuable.
So quotas might help women get where they deserve to be. And mind you, they are not needed to add to the number or look equal in statistics, but if there are more qualified women than men, I guess something isn't right.. don't you think?
Malcolm Mizzi
Dec 6th 2011, 13:33
a business aims at making the best profits.. if the best there is is a woman im sure they will still go for it to maximise their income so I don't see why quotas should be applied. quotas are just discriminatory in themselves against men. when choosing a person for a job its more its not just the qualifications that need to be seen but even the expertise and the character of that person. by introducing quotas a company would just have to skip the best there is sometimes to fill the numbers. if a woman is as capable as her male counter parts which will result in maximise a plc s profit I'm sure that she would be chosen over her counterparts without the needs for quotas
Norman E Grech
Dec 6th 2011, 13:31
I disagree with quotas too!!
Let women reach top position on their merit! I believe they are more than given enough space and opportunities already!
I am starting to think that being a middle class hard working man is the worst position one can have! We're just expected to keep contributing to everyone: We have to keep contributing for the young, the students, the old, women, the disabled, single mothers,the parasites, the rich, the poor, just to mention a few!!
I have great respect for women and believe they can and sometimes are better than most men! But I can't help but notice that for some, women want to be equal only where it pays them! I can mention a lot of instances where men are discriminated!
Ms Maria Vella
Dec 6th 2011, 14:00
Obviously such a statement would come from a man.
Women are generally paid lower salaries even when doing the same job, and more often than not, are ignored for opportunities just because employers are afraid they might get pregnant and leave - this is not always the case and even so.......
Ms Maria Vella
Dec 6th 2011, 14:00
Obviously such a statement would come from a man.
Women are generally paid lower salaries even when doing the same job, and more often than not, are ignored for opportunities just because employers are afraid they might get pregnant and leave - this is not always the case and even so.......
Angus Black
Dec 6th 2011, 13:31
A simple solution would be to reserve 40% of a Party's election slate of candidates for women. The electorate then decides. If that particular Party at that particular district does not elect 40% female candidates, then for every number one vote the women get, will be counted as 1.5 (one and a half times), Then the quota will be easier to reach.
Now that would be justice, that would be equality! No more than reverse discrimination against men. No Party ever made things more difficult for women and it was always up to them to be interested, motivated, capable and willing to serve.
"Making it easier for women's participation" amounts to no more than giving women some kind of incentives which work against male participation. Let us think this over, give women the same opportunities but ultimately it must be women who decide whether or not to stand for election. What if, in spite of everything, fewer than the prescribed female quota decide to offer their candidacy?
Michael Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 13:49
are you for real ????
Ramon Casha
Dec 6th 2011, 13:31
Gender quotas can backfire. Consider a situation in which there are 10 vacancies, and there are 50 men and 5 women who apply for these posts. With a 50% quota, every woman who applies will be selected, whether she is good for the post or not, whereas of the men, only the top 10% will be selected. As a result, the men will outperform the women and strengthen the idea that men are better at this job. I believe it would be better to encourage women to participate but to compete on a level playing field, rather than give the impression that standards for women are lower than for men.
Mike Abbot
Dec 6th 2011, 13:52
you hit the nail on the head Ramon
A. Mizzi
Dec 6th 2011, 13:20
If a woman wants to make it there is no stopping her! The Electorate decides, no need for quotas!
Take Agatha Brbara as an example , she did it , went to jail, became an Mp, a Minister and even President of Malta!
It'saction that is needed and a will to succeed one needs and not idle talk and reports about equality!
E. Azzopardi
Dec 6th 2011, 13:19
Not a bad idea. Perhaps they do better than the men. especially at the moment.
William Calleja
Dec 6th 2011, 13:16
Do "Women want Quotas" or do "Malta’s leading gender equality organisations " want quotas?
David Mangion
Dec 6th 2011, 13:07
If Maltese women.....if European women.....want to be a tot credible in their claim for gender equality then they should wage their real resources towards the advancement of women in certain Eastern countires.
In Saudi Arabia women are not even allowed to drive a car ! (which in itself is not a bad idea : ) -
In Pakistan women are not allowed to select their future husband.
In Iran women are biologically deprived of the possibility of appreciating their sexuality.
The list goes on and on......
And what do the Westernized woman do ?
They concentrate on enforcing their own rights and fight for their own "positive" discrimination.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
I would really admire those women who are able to go beyond their borders in their quest for gender equality.......but there seems to be so few of them !
Carmel Ellul
Dec 6th 2011, 13:07
Rwanda : They have no men with guts around to stand up and be counted.
They have been killed in their revolutions.
Norway;
Maybe their Viking history has something to do with this.
Belgium:
They have been without parliament for the last 2 years almost.They cannot agree on the language they should talk to each other. Females will chat away anyway , and this is possibly a good reason to push equality.
Seriously:
Equality has nothing to do with a job , but competence and the attitude towards the responsibilities that the particular job carries does.
Whether male or female or something in between is irrelevant.
walter camilleri
Dec 6th 2011, 13:05
There is definite sex discrimintion, not only in Malta, but all over the World. Men cannot get pregnant.
Walter Camilleri
debbie Voss
Dec 6th 2011, 13:04
The best individual (male or female) should get the job, no quotas necessary. If there are ten applicants and the best brain happens to be a male why should a female get the job on gender reasoning and the other way round.
Michael Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 13:02
maybe we should have a referundum on this !! opps men will loose since we are in minority .
I Bugeja
Dec 6th 2011, 12:50
why not be in favour of a campaign which promotes women in politics rather than take the short route to a solution?
Joseph N. Attard
Dec 6th 2011, 12:45
Prima facie, it would appear that it is more fair and democratic to elect or choose the most worthy candidate, irrespective of sex. But what is happening in practice? We still have employers who specifically want males to do certain jobs. We still encounter old style male managers (mostly with little academic qualifications) who resent and hinder a female colleague of equal and higher status, even though the latter is in most cases better qualified. In short, there is still plenty of prejudice against female employees, especially in the higher positions. So yes, until this prejudice dies a natural death, I am for gender quotas.
Andrea Sammut
Dec 6th 2011, 12:29
So basically lets add an element of tokenism into the constitution? God save our country!!!
Joe Grech
Dec 6th 2011, 12:27
Nobody - male or female - should be appointed to the House of Representatives - or anywhere else for that maatter on the strength of Quotas. Gender equality should not be abused with the introduction of Quotas. Let individuals be judged by their merits.
George Azzopardi
Dec 6th 2011, 12:24
Woman want equality with quotas!!
I think they now have all the liberty to fight for their rights(if not even more). They are more in population. They live more. I think it's about time that if they want to be at the top they have to fight for it with equal rights as all!!
Maria Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 12:22
I thought that discrimination based on gender was illegal!!
If we discriminate according to gender, then we should also discriminate on age. We have too many old people in parliament. Let's introduce a quota where at least 1 out of 3 is under 30 years.
charles caruana
Dec 6th 2011, 15:16
Well said Maria, but I am sure that your comment would not go down well in parliament. You see, if we had to deal with the many forms of discrimination in society by adopting quotas it would reduce to absurdity the whole argument of quotas and its pushers. Thank God there are still level-headed woman like you can point out the nakedness of the latter day emperors dictating from the podium of gender equality organizations.
Joseph Aquilina
Dec 6th 2011, 12:04
I am against quotas because I am 100% in favour of gender equality!! Is it fair that a person does not a get a job because the company cannot hire a female or male employee at this point in time!? Does that make sense? So would companies have to settle for the second, third, or forth best rather then get the best out of a set of candidates regardless of the sex of that employee.
David Galea
Dec 6th 2011, 13:32
@ Joseph Aquilina
I agree with your comments. I believe one should not make any quotas because in its self is discrimating. I expect that who thinks that is capable and willing to do his part should be entitle to do so without any quotas. May the best win.
Joseph Vassallo, (Bugibba)
Dec 6th 2011, 12:00
To be elected because of a quota is not the same as being elected by popular vote.
Quo Vadis democracy?
Quotas should be regarded as interference in the electoral process.
Odette Longo
Dec 6th 2011, 11:36
frankly... i feel that any job should go to the best candidate. gender doesn't come into it.
Luke Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 11:47
Totally agree!
Michael Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 12:58
well said
Steve M. Engerer
Dec 6th 2011, 11:36
Why should women get quotas when half of the electorate are women & are free to vote women in office?
In business it is a women's free choice whether they want to have a business career.
If women themselves are not voting for their counterparts why should there be a quota?
M Borg
Dec 6th 2011, 11:49
Well said ! I agree with you 100%
Patrick Zammit
Dec 6th 2011, 11:36
Quotas are another form of discrimination.
It is much better to build and enforce a level playing field instead.
M Cachia
Dec 6th 2011, 11:32
I strongly disagree with quotas. It should be that the best person for the job gets it, regardless of gender. I work in a female dominated research group, expressly because most of the Male intervewees that we see are below standard - if we had quotas we would have had to employ these rather than the women who we currently have! The same obviously goes for vice-versa.
Mr Alfred Grima
Dec 6th 2011, 11:06
Woman want quotas when in Malta there is more female than male? I hope that Dr Lawrence Gonzi won't do another U-Turn and give in to this unequal measure!
Norman E Grech
Dec 6th 2011, 13:37
@ Alfred Grima
I think you should study the latest statistics! I mean even if you get a copy of statistics of 8 years ago you will find that it is a myth that there are 'more women tna men in Malta'
Every year on average 200 more boys than girls are born and under 45 ther are around 10,000 more men in Malta. It is only above the age of 60 that there are more women and this is because 'women live longer'
I believe in total men and woen in Malta number more or less the same now..
But don't take my word for it! Look it up! Obtain a copy of the official abstract of statistics!
Juan Kalot
Dec 6th 2011, 11:05
I don't agree with genda quotas. People must be selected on merit, not their sex.
That said, if the quota system was introduced for the position of Prime Minister, then I'd be all for it. Let's face it, a female anything would be better than what we've got.
Jo Camm
Dec 6th 2011, 10:51
The number of voting women has always been more then men. So why do they prefer to elect men and not women to parliament?? Shouldn't they explain this, before asking 'men' to vote for 'women'.