[OPINION] Reframing narratives on women and development in Malaysia

This points to entrenched gender norms that have limited women's advancement, particularly as they continue to shoulder the brunt of unpaid care work for their families. Thus, a critical question is raised: have Malaysia’s policy strategies failed not only in implementation but also in their underlying philosophy?

While Malaysia’s policies consistently aim to empower women, the framing of women’s roles as economic resources for economic growth and neglect of care work redistribution may have inadvertently reinforced the very norms and structures that limit women’s advancement. As policies create and reinforce public discourse, they can shape public perceptions and societal norms that influence gender roles, perpetuating women’s subordination.

During Malaysia’s early post-independence era up to the 1970s, development strategies were gender-blind and focused on economic growth and modernization. Women were subsumed under family planning programmes to slow population growth, such that “women were expected to contribute to nation building by raising levels of modernity and nationalism in their families rather than through participation in the formal workforce” (Crinis 2004). Their work in agriculture was ignored, especially in the context of family labour.

The following decade saw an important turning point, with the 1970s seeing the introduction of the New Economic Policy and the shift to export-oriented industrialization. The NEP was notable because it marked a regime change from laissez-faire to one of increased state intervention, aimed at eradicating poverty and eliminating racial differences following the racial riots in 1969. Hence, the focus was on racial differentials and less on gender.

Nonetheless, the era saw large numbers of women entering the workforce. Newly established industries employed more women than men, coinciding with how both capitalists and the state preferred women for their “small hands” and their “willingness to give equal service for less pay”. As such, industrialization was as much “women-led as export-led” (Crinis 2004).

However, the concerns and rights of women were sidelined by their commodification to attract foreign investment and capitalist expansion. Women workers continued to be viewed for their sexuality; not only as mothers but as daughters whose sexuality must be controlled. Malay women’s involvement in factory work was not looked upon favourably due to its association with “immorality” and westernism. Despite improved educational and economic opportunities, women were relegated to secondary, low-paying jobs. The burden of childcare remained solely on working women, and inadequate childcare services forced many to leave the labour force after having children.

The transition to the 1990s was more notable with the launch of the National Policy on Women in 1989, the first-ever ‘Women in Development’ chapter in the 6th Malaysia Plan (1991–5), and establishment of the Ministry of Women, Family and Development in 1991 (which later became KPWKM in 2001). The two documents aimed to integrate women in development, including in the sharing of resources and opportunities. Importantly, they noted the concentration of women in labour-intensive low-paying jobs, the competing responsibilities of women in family and career, and the role of social norms. They also noted the importance of sharing in family responsibilities and began promoting family-friendly work policies, such as tax exemptions for workplaces which establish childcare centres.

Successive Malaysia Plans continued to encourage women’s employment with supporting measures especially in care provision. For example, the 7th MP (1996 – 2000) institutionalised flexible working arrangements through amendments to the Employment Act. The 9th MP (2006 – 2010) set a target for 30% women in decision-making positions, while the 10th MP (2011 – 2015) set an explicit target for female labour force participation. The 12th MP is notable for beginning to promote paternity leave.

However, despite the wider promotion of the women’s agenda and care issues, some problematic themes have emerged by the approaches and narratives promoted by policies.

For the past few decades, women are consistently framed as instrumental for the wider goals of economic development, particularly through their participation in the labour force. However, this instrumentalization tends to sideline women’s wellbeing and risks ignoring the causes of their subordination, including the imbalanced power relations that shape the unequal access of economic resource and the gendered division of labour.

Women’s economic participation has also been promoted by policy as a way to empower themselves, but their empowerment is often still framed as a means to enhance societal contributions rather than for their own wellbeing. For example, in the 11th MP, empowerment is mentioned as part of “empowering communities for a productive and prosperous society”. In the 12th MP, statements to empower women fall under the banner of “empowering the role of women”, suggesting a preferred empowerment of roles rather than of women themselves. Overall, the use of the concept of empowerment is never preceded with a definition, suggesting that the term has been misappropriated and depoliticized in policy as a buzzword. True empowerment would require enabling women to exercise strategic agency over their lives and challenge systemic power imbalances.

Policies also lack specificity on addressing key issues like gender wage gaps and the prevalence of women in precarious, low-paid, or informal work. Although some acknowledgment has been made of women turning to informal work (only in the 9MP), their purported solution was hardly confrontational as it did not explicitly seek to fundamentally challenge the reasons for women’s concentration in informal work. It only proposed (vaguely) to expand social protection but this has been inadequately implemented. Meanwhile, the promotion of women's entrepreneurship is a recurring strategy to boost labour participation, but it risks replicating the issues of informal work. Efforts to enhance women’s representation in decision-making roles, such as the 30% target set in the 9MP for public sector leadership, fail to address the root causes of underrepresentation, namely power dynamics and gender norms. While the identification of the public sector as a platform for change may signal a pathway for change, the lack of integration with private-sector initiatives signals a lack of confrontation. Such measures are akin to superficial "add women and stir" approaches that fail to meaningfully challenge existing inequalities or power structures.

The framing of women as an untapped economic resource also marginalises their existing contributions, whether productive or reproductive. This is exemplified by the 12th MP which states that “Women will be empowered to play a more significant role in society”, suggesting suggests that women have played not only an insignificant role in the economy, but in society at large, thereby undervaluing their overall labour.

In promoting women’s economic participation, the Malaysia Plans have consistently considered women’s unpaid responsibilities, but their framing suggests that care work is the duty of women alone with the role of men obscured. The terms “men” or “father” are never used nor is there consistently a call for the redistribution of care work, if ever (especially in the current 12th MP). Solutions instead have centred around introducing care services and flexible working arrangements targeting women, as is seen in the 9th MP to 10th MP (but interestingly omitted in the 12th MP when promoting women’s economic participation).

The only instances where statements may apply to men are when gender-neutral terms like “parent” or “family” are used, but it is far from explicitly calling out men. Given the inherent patriarchal structure of society, such a gender-neutral approach would only serve to perpetuate or leave unchallenged the gendered norms that subordinate women. Only in the 12th MP do we see an explicit call for paternity leave in the private sector.

Malaysia’s development policies have evolved from implicitly subsuming women’s productive and reproductive roles to explicitly incorporating them as agents of economic growth. However, the prevailing incorporation has been framed largely within an instrumentalist narrative, treating women’s contributions as economic assets primarily for the purposes of economic development rather than holistically advancing gender justice.

For Malaysia to truly empower women, future policies must embrace a holistic view of gender equality, addressing not only workforce participation but also the structural barriers that limit women’s agency and power imbalances. This includes recognizing and valuing unpaid care work, challenging occupational segregation, and fostering shared caregiving responsibilities.

---

Adam Firouz is a public policy researcher from the Khazanah Research Institute