 |
 |
| Issue 2, 2009 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2009 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 3, 2008 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 2, 2008 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2008 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 4, 2007 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 3, 2007 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 2, 2007 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2007 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 4, 2006 |
|
 |
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 3, 2006 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2006 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
 |
| Issue 1, 2005 |
|
|
|
Download Pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 3, 2008
|
|
|
Interview
|
|
Power shifts
Tell us about yourself. How did
you begin the work that you
are doing now?
Hmm… good question. I think I allowed life to bring me
where I am now. I never imagined that I would become an
activist. While I was growing up, all I ever had drummed
into me was government propaganda of how the country
came to be, how nice and rosy it is as a multi-racial country
and how we should not do anything to destroy this cosy, rosy picture. So
speaking out, acknowledging and standing up against injustices, was something I
only embraced much later in my life. It was around 1996, and even then, it was
a slow process of growth, of finding myself in certain
positions where I can actually make a difference, where
I can actually help, and of testing myself in these spaces
that I found myself in, of testing my own strength and
perseverance.
Before that, I was very much a person who felt that if I
had a reasonably good job and if I do it well, I’d be okay.
In my earlier years, I seemed to be moving towards the
government sector or the private sector, but in 1990, I
entered the development sector, and this was probably the
slow, invisible start of my journey as an activist. Often, I
feel like my path has already been set out for me, but the
how of it is left to me, how I do what I do, have been my
choices and my making.
What led you to work with
young people?
I had wanted to work with young people because of
the increasingly challenging and narrowing spaces I see
taking place in the name of morality and in the name of
national security. When I was young, the issues of power
and dominance were very stark realities. About the age of
and onwards, I remember I’d sit on a swing often in
the night and wonder how come other children seemed
to have parents that were different, happier with each
other, compared to mine. I refused to believe that it was
an incompatibility issue of culture or religion. Through
the years, I found out so many things that complicated my
parents’ lives as a couple, which had little to do with their
own culture and religion as two separate people, but often,
what was imposed by society. I was a very firm believer that
if more families were borne out of mixed ethnicities, we’d
have a better world, one would be more compassionate and
less judgmental. I still believe that this is a good solution.
The protectionist approach as a solution to everything,
camouflages the real issues, i.e. the extension of existing
power and control over those less empowered. I feel that
young people’s minds and attitudes can also challenge
how we ourselves think and our approaches to the issues,
as well as our analysis of the issues. So we co-founded
Knowledge and Rights with Young people through Safer Spaces (KRYSS). Working
within a gender equality and
human rights framework,
KRYSS enables young people
to deal with identity-based
discrimination and creative arts
in its training and activities.
How does KRYSS
work on the
intersection of
issues of young
people, human
rights and safer
spaces?
My fellow founders and I
were interested in facilitating
spaces for discourse, by using
creative approaches to do this,
specifically using creative writ-
ing and the visual arts. The arts
have always been a very good
space for subversive activities
and expression.
From the beginning, we’ve used a very basic approach of
‘Heart-Head-Hand’. If we can get young people to feel
the issues of discrimination faced by one another, they’ll
at least start to question why discrimination takes place
and then, hopefully, be ready to do something about it, and
it doesn’t have to be anything big. Often, we’re working
with young people who are not activists, and who are not
oriented to activism or human rights issues in any way.
Their knowledge and exposure is very limited. Hence, the
‘Heart-Head-Hand’ approach. Our emphasis has always
been that ‘Creating safer spaces for all begins with each
of us, and it’s a matter of grabbing the opportunities that
come before us, to do so’. We facilitate such a space where
issues of discrimination can be discussed and shared.
It’s not an easy position to be in or an easy space to bring
about. It can be tough when emotions run high. We work
on issues of religion, ethnicity, race, sexuality and gender.
In every country, these issues
differ in intensity for different
young people. For some, it’s
more about religion and how
they see themselves being
discriminated against because
of their religion. For some, it’s
more about ethnicity and race
issues. For others, it’s sexuality
and gender.
What are the
creative ways
in which KRYSS
deals with issues
of identity based
discrimination?
KRYSS facilitates spaces for
expression, using the arts.
To encourage a much richer
discourse, we complicate the
issues of discrimination, bring-
ing forth its complexities and
the values linked so closely to
various forms of discrimination. Our fundamental creative
approach is to embrace all the realities and biases, and
then to turn around and to allow judgment to be made
but to make the process of judgment, and therefore, the
rationalisation that permits discrimination, difficult. We
also work with the understanding that power shifts, can
take different forms, and, in different spaces, can lie very
strongly in the most unlikely people.
That sounds very challenging…
Yes, working with creative approaches has presented
KRYSS with challenges, especially when we’re working
in partnership with different groups. We’ve worked in
partnership with rights-based groups and the arts-based
groups. The arts-based groups and community find our
approach too basic, too literal and not artistic enough. I
appreciate their critique of how we’re working, and we’re
also working with young people who are, as I said earlier,not necessarily activists, but
also not necessarily artists.
I realise that we, as activists,
can be too literal with our
writing and our art as means of
communication – we tell people
what we want so that they will
feel, think and act in alignment
with our advocacy stand.
But artists prefer to present
complexities and are open to
how people read the work that
they do. It doesn’t matter if the
interpretation is different from
what was intended, or does it
matter? I’m not sure.
The Films of Desire event that I
participated in also reinforced
this understanding, and it has
forced KRYSS to take a step
back to look at how we’re
doing the work we do. How
creative does the final work
need to be, in stating the issues?
Can we afford to be literal?
What does it mean for us if
we present our work and are
open to what others will make
of it – how they feel for it, what they think of it, what
they’ll do as a result of those feelings and thoughts? What
kind of risks would KRYSS be taking? Would such risks
strengthen KRYSS or just make us more vulnerable and our
work and approaches ineffective and therefore considered
unsustainable? What does it really mean to bring about
behaviour change through creative approaches?
These are questions and issues that we’re still grappling
with. Bottom line, KRYSS feels there’s value in any of the
young people’s work, irrespective of its literal translation
or non-literal translation. But how others will value this
work is, unfortunately also a necessary consideration, if
our creative approach to advocacy is to be effective.
You were also
creative in a
different way in
doing research
with lesbians
in Malaysia. Tell
us more about
how you did this
first of its kind
research in 2004.
What did you find?
I used the snowball technique.
It was the only way to get
into a closed community, and
I respect the closed nature of
the community, I could relate
to and appreciate their right
to exclude, to not want to
allow others into their space,
and their sense of community.
My research began to move
forward mainly because of
friends who played active roles
in the community. My own
engagement and interaction
with the lesbian community
was further facilitated through
community-based mailing lists.
Young women are more sexually adventurous, and probably
because of the Internet, have had more opportunities to be
sexually adventurous. The myth that women tend to become
lesbians if they go to an all-girls school, I dare say, is only
that, a myth. In fact, the women I had interviewed, didn’t
even cite that as a possible reason. Only one did. A number
have had boyfriends before, or sexually experimented with
boys or men. And they did want to talk. I feel that most
needed that opportunity to talk, and to talk with someone
who isn’t sexual with them but who could understand and
wouldn’t judge.
For many, it’s about companionship – the right to choose
whomsoever they want as a companion – and least about sexual health or even
sexuality as an issue. This
made me seriously consider
the asexuality and bisexuality
continuum as a more realistic
continuum, rather than of one
between homosexuality and
heterosexuality. The research
also made me realise that gender
identities, roles and statuses
have a very strong influence
over the choices these women
made, and that there was a need
to capture in one framework,
the dynamism of the process of
exploring one’s sexuality and
the spheres of influence on the
individual. When constructing
this framework, I found that the
issue of gender became more
central as a basis of formation
and evolution for all of the
other elements of sexuality.
You have taken
your involvement
with gender
issues into the
virtual realm as
well. How do you
see gender and
information and
communications
technologies
(ICTs) being inter-
connected?
ICTs are often seen only as tools
and technology. Very few people
question why technology is
designed a certain way or how and when it is used and by
whom, because this is all gender-related, and gender hardly
ever is important enough to be considered an issue when
it’s about technology, unless it’s about the marketability
of that technology. And then,
when it’s about marketability,
only those with a certain level
of purchasing power are able to
benefit.
ICTs are like public roads
that can allow people to
communicate with each other
and move from one place to
another safely. Can women get
onto this road (ICTs) safely?
No, because not enough is done
to educate women on how to
protect themselves, and private
data is stolen, shared or sold
and women become victims of
sexual harassment, or worse,
violence. This kind of training,
these tips and hints on how to
use the ICTs and be safe, are
like lights for dark roads.
Can women even think of
using this road? No, because
she has to consider how far
away this road is (access to
ICTs is not necessarily nearby;
infrastructure is always urban-
centred) before she can safely
get to it. She has to think about
who owns the road because even
though it may be a public road,
there are people who control
access to the road or exercise
ownership over it (public ICT-
type facility centres). Can she
afford to get onto this road?
How much will it cost her? Not
just financially but in terms of her pride, her integrity, her
sense of self worth? Will I get to go where I need to go once
I get onto this road? ICTs are often so English language
driven, and demand a certain level of basic literacy, and so where are women in this
picture? It is like a new road
they cannot get on to because
they don’t know where it will
lead them, whether it will be
where they really want to go or
to meet who they really want
to meet.
How do you
address this?
I have been a member of the
Association for Progressive
Communications’ Women’s
Networking Support Program
(APC WNSP) since 00. At
APC WNSP issues of access,
affordability and ownership as
well as control (the latter two
quite different from each other)
are addressed through advocacy,
capacity-building, research and
networking. Basically, we ask
people to put on their gender
lens, we encourage them to
do so through different types
of collaborative projects such
as awards-giving (for example,
Gender and ICT awards) and
small seed grantmaking, and if
they are interested but don’t
know how, we show them how
to do so through our various
capacity-building projects.
My consultancy work with
the WNSP has largely been in
relation to advocacy, writing,
capacity building, evaluation and
research. Maybe you’ve seen
the ICT and gender e-primer
for the Asian Pacific Develop-
ment Information Programme?
I also wrote an issues paper
Paddling in Circles while the
Waters Rise: Gender Issues in ICT
and Poverty Reduction for the
network. From March 00,
I was a full-time research
coordinator for Phase Two of
WNSP’s Gender Evaluation
Methodology project.
Currently, my work is largely
on capacity-building in the
design and conduct of gender
evaluations for ICT projects.
What was the
work that you
did with IWRAW
(International
Women’s Rights
Action Watch)? Was
it connected to
this?
I’ve been more of a friend
to people in IWRAW Asia
Pacific, working with them on
very specific work, like their CEDAW training-of-trainers
manual and then their toolkit
for the Optional Protocol on
CEDAW. This work was spread
over the years 2003 to 2007.
Working with them, has been
a huge learning experience
for me as well, especially
just pouring through all their
training content. It’s incredibly
amazing and a very well-
developed set of resources. It
gave me a tremendous amount
of insight as to why if we work
on any women’s rights issues,
we do have to also try and work
with groups like IWRAW
Asia Pacific and ideally, their
country partners, to strengthen
the work behind CEDAW.
I’m more on the periphery of
their work, but often, I do try
and recommend linkages and
paths of advocacy with other
groups, to always link with CEDAW. This includes groups
that work on communication
rights and women’s rights in
relation to information and
communication technology,
and women and HIV/AIDS.
However, often people don’t
know how to do this and so,
soon forget the suggestion or
immediately dismiss this.
Others, who are more familiar
with all of the human rights
instruments, tend to see the
work behind CEDAW as largely
ineffective. I don’t agree with
them because I feel strongly
that the instrument and the
processes are things we have to
make work for ourselves.
What are the kinds
of challenges that
you face? What
gives you a sense of achievement?
Hmmm… the main challenge constantly for me is really
KRYSS. Work with KRYSS is voluntary (as in quite a bit of
my other work), but KRYSS is much more demanding than
my other voluntary work, and because of this, KRYSS has
taken a back seat due to the various demands on me. We
also struggle because we’re still very small and located in a
‘developed’ country.
We’re currently working on
ensuring a better outreach
through an online platform
for KRYSS. We’ve also been
exploring different possibilities
as to our institutional structure.
What I feel would be ideal
for KRYSS is not to be a legal
institutional structure but to be
able to just implement projects,
something like the Seven
Samurais. Did you ever watch
that movie? Come together, do
what needs to be done, then
go off and carry on with your
own life, till you need to come
together again. That would be
ideal! And that’s a big dream!
But donor-type funding
demands an institutional
structure, legitimacy and
credibility are so much tied
to institutional structures and
rigidity. In most ways, we relate
quite strongly with Anne Firth
Murray’s belief, that if we can
bring about even a small change
through one small interaction
in young people, especially
young women, it would still be
a change and sustainable in its
own defined sense.
I believe that if KRYSS can
continue to contribute to helping young people achieve
a better sense of self and understanding and heightened
appreciation of others, we would be bringing about
much-needed change in a world where permanence is as
temporary as life.
Malaysia is counted as one of
the more ‘developed’ countries in
this region. Do you think there is
a more positive
outlook on issues
of sexuality in
Malaysia?
Not at all! The development
status of any country is
measured mainly by economic
productivity standards and
conventional measurements
which really just denote a
capitalistic understanding of
wealth. The overall well-being
of citizens and non-citizens of a
country is not considered.
The Malaysian government
has been on a path of growing
conservatism and arrogance in
how they deal with the rights
of citizens (and migrants and
refugees), until the last elections this year in March, where
for the first time in our history, we have a strong opposition
in government.
We’re beginning to see some needed changes, but the
changes haven’t yet even begun to broach sexuality rights
yet. The efforts are now focused on freedom of information
and the abolishment of the Internet Security Act.
How do you manage to wear so
many hats?
I have many interests, but fortunately, they are all very
much interconnected in one way or another. I believe the
ability to continue dreaming drives me, and the attitude of
‘never say die’ and ‘one step at a time’
How have your family, friends, and
colleagues reacted to your work?
Colleagues and peers have been extremely supportive and
encouraging. Most of my friends are really colleagues,
or peers, and fellow activists. My family doesn’t seem to
really know what I do – all they
know is that I work on human
rights issues. It’s hard to explain
when they’ve only known
government employment (civil
service, public sector, armed
forces sector) or private sector
employment (business).
The development sector is very
new to them, let alone rights-
based work. I don’t feel that I
really need to explain the work
that I do because they have
never questioned my choices,
but have always given me the
freedom I need to do the work
that I do. So in that way, they
do give me affirmation and
support.
It’s the complete sense of trust that I receive from them
that’s made it so, so, much easier.
Angela Kuga Thas, a Malaysian,
is a founding trustee of Knowledge
and Rights with Young people
through Safer Spaces (KRYSS). She has
worked with IWRAW (International
Women’s Rights Action Watch) Asia Pacific on the CEDAW and with other
organisations on women’s sexual and
reproductive health, and provision of
microcredit. She monitors the local
media on sexual discrimination with
a small group of fellow malaysians.
as a member of the association for
progressive communications women’s
networking Support program,
Angela has been particularly active
in gender and ICT policy advocacy.
Angela is on the advisory council
of the global fund for women, is a
member of the International advisory
committee for bridge at the Institute
of development Studies in the United
Kingdom, and is on the board of the
association for women’s rights in
development (AWID).
|
|
|
|
