Why is Indonesia subjecting female police applicants to virginity tests?

News of the virginity requirement has unleashed a backlash from protestors who call the tests degrading, discriminatory, traumatizing, and humiliating.

Tarmizy Harva/Reuters
A policewoman wearing a headdress directs traffic in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, October 30, 2009. Female applicants to the Indonesian National Police have been undergoing invasive virginity tests for decades.

It's not easy becoming an Indonesian policewomen. Among the requirements: applicants must be 17.5 to 22 years old, high school graduates, unmarried, God-fearing, at least 65 inches tall - and they must be virgins.

That's according to a Human Rights Watch report that reveals that the Indonesian government subjects female applicants for Indonesia’s National Police to "discriminatory and degrading" “virginity tests," a requirement clearly spelled out on the national police jobs website.

"In addition to the medical and physical tests, women who want to be policewomen must also undergo virginity tests," the website says. "So all women who want to become policewomen should keep their virginity."

News of the virginity requirement has unleashed a backlash from protestors who call the tests degrading, discriminatory, traumatizing, and humiliating.

“So-called virginity tests are discriminatory and a form of gender-based violence – not a measure of women’s eligibility for a career in the police,” Nisha Varia, associate women’s rights director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “This pernicious practice not only keeps able women out of the police, but deprives all Indonesians of a police force with the most genuinely qualified officers.”

Several female applicants interviewed by HRW described the practice.

One woman who applied in 2013 said she was "shocked" when she was told that the health tests included a virginity test. "I felt embarrassed, nervous, but I couldn't refuse," she told HRW. "If I had refused, I couldn't have become a policewoman."

Another described having to fully undress in front of 20 other candidates before entering the exam room in pairs for the test.

“Entering the virginity test examination room was really upsetting,” she said. “My friend even fainted.”

She described the tests as "painful and humiliating."

Why does Indonesia subject its female applicants to a virginity test?

In fact, would-be policewomen have been undergoing the controversial tests for decades. One retired police officer told HRW her class had to undergo virginity tests in 1965.

"It's an old practice based on belief that a [female] virgin is healthier and morally fitter," HRW Indonesia researcher Andreas Harsono told the Global Post.

When asked why the tests are still performed, a police official only said “all tests” are meant to get “the best” applicants.

"It's not only a virginity test, it's also a genital and urinary examination to check for diseases and infections," Rusdianto, the head of the health center at the police headquarters in Jakarta, told the Global Post in defense of the practice. He also said  the virginity tests do not eliminate candidates, which the HRW confirmed.

Applicants who “failed” were not necessarily expelled from the force, its report found.

Nonetheless, the practice goes against national police principles as well as international human rights policy, says HRW. Indonesia has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and according to the country's national police principles, recruitment must be "non-discriminatory" and "humane."

HRW’s investigation into the virginity tests follows a recruitment drive by the national police force to hire 50 percent more females by December in order to boost the proportion of female officers to 5 percent of the 400,000-member force.

The organization has called on Indonesia's police force to stop the practice.

“The Indonesian National Police’s use of ‘virginity tests’ is a discriminatory practice that harms and humiliates women,” the HRW's Varia said in a statement. “Police authorities in Jakarta need to immediately and unequivocally abolish the test, and then make certain that all police recruiting stations nationwide stop administering it.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.