placing two women in parliament as part of its 25%.166 While the military’s parliamentary quota of 1.2% women is risible, it is not far different to the representation of civilians in parliament, of whom there are 5.8% women in the lower house and 1.8% in the upper house.167 Across all state and regional parliaments the total proportion of women’s voices is only 3.5%. Women’s voices are also invisible in the cabinet, where they amount to two out of 36 ministers. Women’s voices are heard in government on gender-appropriate subjects. According to participants, the two women government ministers have been given what is considered to be “soft” and “gender-appropriate” mandates of social welfare and education, which reflects the areas in which women’s voices are ‘allowed’ to be heard. This is not only true of government but is also reflected throughout the whole of the civil service.168 Such “genderappropriate” departments are not well-resourced: as one parliamentary participant explained, “if a role brings with it lots of opportunities for [the corrupt accumulation of] money and benefits, men are given it … all roles with responsibility and decision-making powers are given to men not women.” 169 Women’s voices are left out of civil society. The participants were concerned that women are indirectly excluded from voicing their opinions in civil society and civic space. One participant said that women’s voices cannot be heard because of their “lack of spare time to participate in civil society”. The obligatory processes of registering civil society organisations is also significantly off-putting for women with little time and possibly lower literacy capacity: the process is lengthy and difficult to follow for smaller groups, each of which is required to submit regular reports to government agencies.170 Participants were also concerned that even though women play an active and significant part in civil society and political change, they are easily side-lined. One participant, a member of the governing party said “the party used me to increase their number of members and pressure for voting, but they never invited me to meetings where we can have a chance to speak out for our needs. I believe it was because of my identity [as a lesbian woman] and their assumption that I [a woman] cannot work like a man.”171An attempt in May 2015 to register the ‘Women’s Party’ with the Union Election Commission was rejected as have a name that was “too general”.172 Women’s voices are controlled by family. Participants agreed that one of the main problems faced by women in rural areas when attempting to voice their opinions in civil society is the controls placed on their right to free movement by their husbands and parents-in-law. According to the participants, it was very common for wives to be told by their husbands that they are “wasting your time with such nonsense.” 173 Controls on women’s opinions are particularly evident when voicing their views on culturally ‘sensitive’ topics such as sexual or reproductive health, which are affected by conservative and superstitious attitudes to women and their bodies. A participant who works closely with rural women explained how in rural areas women are often denied permission from their families, particularly their parents-in-law and husbands, to attend civil society events or training sessions for fear that by doing so such women may become “too modern”. The situation is worse for women in military families. One participant said “this [lack of women’s voice] is very obvious in military circles where wives know that if they talk about or participate in [anything that is controversial or could be regarded as ‘political’], their ARTICLE 19 - Censored gender: Women’s right to freedom of expression and information in Myanmar - Page 62