This is purely my opinion on discrimination issues since i wasn't quite awake to call Glenn Ong and the FD to voice my 2 cents worth.
I hope I'll have the time and energy to touch on, sex, age and racial discrimination.
Most of us may brush it off and insist that sex discrimination is no longer in existence in Singapore. Maybe we're all overlooking some things because it's always been there.
Taken from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs -
"Salary & Benefits - Fresh graduates with a good honours degree will be appointed as a Foreign Service Officer 13 with a gross monthly salary of up to $3,320 (without NS)."
Face it. Up to this point in time, the only people who have been through NS, if not all, are predominantly males, men, boys. Just because we, girls, haven't been through NS, does that make us anymore incapable to perform in a job. What is the reasoning behind this? Trust me, no explanation is sufficient as much as these guys want to think that they're more capable after the 2 years of training or that they should be compensated for time lost, we should purely be paid based on our capability. If someone, regardless of his/her gender, can prove to excel over a regular performer, by all means, this person should get a well-deserved pay raise. Nuff' said.
Guidelines taken from the Ministry of Manpower's website - "Employ older workers and re-employ those above age 62
14. The NWC strongly supports the recommendations in the final report of the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers which was released on 17 May 2007. The Council also welcomes the Government's decision to adopt the Committee's recommendation to introduce legislative changes to facilitate opportunities for older workers to work beyond age 62.
15. Over the next few years, before legislation is introduced, the NWC urges companies and unions to work together to implement policies and programmes to recruit and retain more older workers and re-employ those workers beyond the age of 62, by adopting the Tripartite Guidelines on the Employability of Older Workers above age 62. The NWC also urges companies to move to job-based, competency-based and/or performance-based wage systems3 so that workers are rewarded according to the value of the job and their contribution. Companies should also embark on job redesign to make jobs more suitable for older workers and encourage them to upgrade their skills and enhance their employability."
Why do we even need legislations like these? The answer is simple. Age discrimination does exist amongst us and let's not be ignorant to think that McDonald's is being a saint by hiring this tier of workers. Yes it should be encourage but they should not underpay them and make use of their financial vulnerability hence paying them peanuts.
Racial discrimination. I can't be cleared of these given my multitudes of racial jokes but i only do so when they have proven records that they do behave in a certain behavior. Otherwise, i do have non-Chinese friends and we're very close as well. I don't really wanna go into the Chinese being discriminated in China way back then.
To be continued...
9 comments:
I think the 'with NS' bit is a nice way of saying males get higher salary. But then again it is not applicable in all companies, and truth of the matter is, even if we go for reservist every year, the time we take away from the office is still less than a woman taking maternity leave?
Unfair? Probably, but we already hate so many things in life...
Women taking maternity leave is leading to another type of discrimination. Men going for their reservist don't risk losing their jobs but women who goes on maternity does. (Think: Rachel in F.R.I.E.N.D.S)
I'm not saying it's applicable in all companies but stat boards, govt companies are still doing it and they, in one way or another, lead the trends??!!
If you look at the general graduate demographics, as least at the statistical value, it does make sense. It works somewhat like a bridging mechanism to help us boys to keep up with the ladies at the relevant age i.e. fresh grad boys at 24 and ladies whom have been in the work force for a bit, also aged 24. Further, bearing in mind, this affects mostly just the starting point.
However, yes... the risk of losing one's job over maternity leave is very real and that is one form of discrimination I would never agree with.
On the corporate point of view, it is definitely more difficult to employ interim replacement for one's up in the management level (compare with one at the lower administrative position). Even if one can keep her job after the term of maternity leave, there would necessarily be some bridging work to be performed before she could be placed in the same line of promotion and or increment with her peers at work.
Can't think of anything to reconcile that but hope it gives some lead to brainstorming. =)
As usual I have given a very narrow point of view, the proverbial frog in the well. What De Sade (The sadist) has said sounds like the voice of experience. I think we can all agree that discrimination is very real, and here to stay; albeit less and less with each passing generation. On a separate note, women can never be the equal of men... Not worse/better, just not the same. I doubt there can be 1 set of generic rule to apply to both XX and XY race. Think Battered Woman Syndrome ala Provoked.
Arh friend, firstly I'm a lame excuse for a sadist (or usually so I would like to think). =P
If you look at the recent development in the area of sane automatism, especially Canadian cases, men are afforded another avenue somewhat similar to women...
"Shattering Emotion Shock"
*lol* I just cannot help but so love that term!
R v Stone ~ wife nag nag nag.. husband goes into intense "shattering emotional shock" and only 'woke up' with a knife in his hand and wife dead on the driveway. Not guilty - lack of MR - involuntary/sane automatism - the rest of the test similar to McNaughten. Only candid point I really have to highlight was the irony of his last name.. STONE!
*lol*
Oh yes, when explaining on the 'non-recurring' factor of Stone's condition (as per requirement in the light of McNaughten), it could be understood that since the ONLY cause of his condition is removed (his wife), permanently, there is very little real possibility of the same to repeat. I guess the High Court judges in Canada are unusually optimistic with matrimonial relations!
Cheers people!!
Dixon - My bf wasn't never a law student at any point in time so he must be scratching his head right now.
Lack of MR - I always doubt that. I think there's always MR involved but maybe i haven't got a chance to experience otherwise. Then again i totally understand the possibility just like i'll go on auto pilot to drive myself home and i dunno how i did that but i drove myself home afterall. But killing someone with all the blood splashing on you, it should be voluntary manslaughter and not totally involuntary. There should be some sort of middle ground to explain no total clear head to explain MR but not totally innocent with zero MR altogether.
Heh! Sorry about that! =P
On MR:
I suppose MR was never structured to be a precision tool in law to determine one's criminal liabilities/responsibilities. Rather, it provides a spectrum to accommodate social (or any other for that matter) sentiments and views on the occasion facts and events of any particular case into the chain of judicial decision making process.
One primary function of MR, which I assume to suggest, was to knock in a personalised touch into the hard walls of the criminal law system (which largely is concerned with the AR). Thus when the general presumption i.e. the requirement of the coincide of AR and MR sets in, it creates a fluid balance in between and that I think produces what we generally label as criminal responsibility.
Yeah, totally agree. Well come to think of it, there's a real reason why there must be a coincidence of AR and MR. Then again, absence of MR, will that make a person really guiltless?
Why do we always need a person to point the finger to?
So that we be gainfully employed? *lol*
Post a Comment