Gender Equality Laws - CEDAW Southeast Asia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYtemporary special measures. Of the five countries examined, only Lao PDR has includedsuch a mechanism. Temporary special measures should be mandatory in all areas ofwomen’s lives where de facto inequalities are identified. Thailand, Lao PDR and Vietnamdo not identify potential areas for temporary special measures and Indonesia restrictstemporary special measures to the fields of education and employment and in social andcultural spheres, whilst the Philippines, in a good practice provision and in accord withArticle 4 of CEDAW, places a positive obligation on the State to adopt temporary specialmeasures in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. Vietnam andthe Philippines specifically identify a range of particular temporary special measures (asrecommended by the CEDAW Committee) which can be employed including policies,practices, quotas, and training and retraining. Indonesia restricts temporary specialmeasures to ‘programmes’, whilst Thailand and Lao PDR do not identify the form thattemporary special measures might take. Finally, only Vietnam expressly excludes temporaryspecial measures from any claim of discrimination as required by Article 4(2) of CEDAW,and only Vietnam and Lao PDR provide for regular assessment of such measures, asrecommended by the CEDAW Committee, and which is an important inclusion to ensuretheir effectiveness.Mechanisms for Monitoring63. The third of the implementation and monitoring components indicative of good practice GELis the establishment of mechanisms to monitor public authorities and private organisations,as well as individuals, in their implementation and observance of the GEL. To be effective,the GEL must incorporate mechanisms and machinery to ensure that all actors perform theirduties and obligations with the desired and intended results and that they do not breach theprovisions of the GEL. There are a range of mechanisms that have been adopted by GELgenerally, to monitor public authorities and private organisations to ensure that the GEL isimplemented and to punish and deter those that breach its provisions. These include theobligation to report, the establishment of a system of rewards or incentives, disincentivessuch as the denial of credit and government tenders or the publication of names of violatorsand finally more punitive measures such as fines or imprisonment.64. Indonesia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam (but not the Philippines) all place obligationson either government or specified organisations to report on the implementation of theGEL. Thailand obligates the OGE to report annually to Cabinet and Lao PDR requires theWomen’s Union to report on implementation, but it is unclear to whom they should report.It is also unclear whether the Lao Women’s Union has sufficient resources, expertise andpower to coordinate a monitoring exercise throughout the concerned sectors as they area mass organisation without executive power. Vietnam requires the government to reportannually to the National Assembly on the implementation of gender equality goals andIndonesia requires the Minister and Head of the Local Legislature to coordinate ‘reporting’although no timeline is specified. None of the four countries places comprehensive dutiesto report on all government and non-government agencies and organisations. There is alsolittle guidance given in any of the four countries on what the report must contain, and noneof the four countries specifies the action required if reporting reveals unsatisfactory results.65. The Philippines and Lao PDR are the only two of the five reviewed countries to introducerewards as a mode of monitoring. Lao PDR provides for rewards to those implementing,20