Response to forum By Vivian

Statistics don't tell the whole story

WITH reference to last Thursday's article, 'Discriminatory job ads decline: Report', discrimination is not easy to discern or prove.

When a previous employer tasked me with crafting a job advertisement to recruit an engineer, I was careful to ensure that it was non-discriminatory.

However, my employer instructed me to shortlist applicants only from certain racial groups for which there was no justifiable basis. I had no choice but to comply.

Not putting up a discriminatory job advertisement does not mean that there is no discrimination when it comes to recruitment and selection of candidates.

While the decline in discriminatory job advertisements cited by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (Tafep) is impressive, important aspects of job discrimination have not been addressed.

Discriminatory job ads may have plunged to 1 per cent compared to 19.7 per cent in 2006, but what about actual recruitment and selection of applicants?

What about workplace discrimination and prejudice against job seekers?

In fact, it is harder to discern discrimination against job seekers. How does one prove that one's application was rejected because one was too old or not of the preferred sex?

While it may be encouraging to note that some 1,200 companies have signed Tafep's non-discriminatory pledge, are the recruitment and selection processes of these companies audited by independent outsiders to ensure that these firms walk the talk?

Unless that is so, the pledge may not be significant.

Discrimination is alive all around the world. When it refers to the employment, it is specially a typical phenomenon in Singapore, where Chinese, Malay, Indian and European all congregate. In this forum article, the author doubt about the statistic—whether it reflects the real situation or not—as well as the practicality of regulations which intends to eliminate discrimination.

I consider the doubt from the author as a representative of general public. However, as I believe nowadays more and more have already abandoned the concept of “racial discrimination” or they never believe, which implies that the current assessment of a person is no more his race but capability and credentials. Nevertheless, I do agree that the racial discrimination does exist and it is difficult to discern and prove. Even under the restriction of laws and regulations, it is incertitude whether a job-seeker is rejected by discrimination or not. Bosses may expect a specific race of employee who will have better communication with his colleagues or customers. Is this situation also defined as “racial discrimination”? Anyway, genius and elites are wanted every where. As long as one is assiduous and spare no effort pursuing his career, he can achieve his goal and get respect from others. USA took decades to eradicate (almost) discrimination, that now we see the Africa-American president Obama. Hence we can see that the government plays an important role in the propaganda of “everyone is born equal”, and this does work in correcting public mindset about race. To start, government ministries and statutory board chiefs - Ministers and their permanent secretaries - must set the example and the appropriate ministry, MOM, must review and strengthen rules against discrimination at the workplace. It is indeed a long way for Singapore and other countries, but once it makes a step, it will make the success.

Response to forum By Phyllis

Statistics don't tell the whole story

WITH reference to last Thursday's article, 'Discriminatory job ads decline: Report', discrimination is not easy to discern or prove.

When a previous employer tasked me with crafting a job advertisement to recruit an engineer, I was careful to ensure that it was non-discriminatory.

However, my employer instructed me to shortlist applicants only from certain racial groups for which there was no justifiable basis. I had no choice but to comply.

Not putting up a discriminatory job advertisement does not mean that there is no discrimination when it comes to recruitment and selection of candidates.

While the decline in discriminatory job advertisements cited by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (Tafep) is impressive, important aspects of job discrimination have not been addressed.

Discriminatory job ads may have plunged to 1 per cent compared to 19.7 per cent in 2006, but what about actual recruitment and selection of applicants?

What about workplace discrimination and prejudice against job seekers?

In fact, it is harder to discern discrimination against job seekers. How does one prove that one's application was rejected because one was too old or not of the preferred sex?

While it may be encouraging to note that some 1,200 companies have signed Tafep's non-discriminatory pledge, are the recruitment and selection processes of these companies audited by independent outsiders to ensure that these firms walk the talk?

Unless that is so, the pledge may not be significant.

======================================================================

Summary

Although it was reported by Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (Tafep) that there are fewer want ads with discrimination, discrimination still exists in other processes of recruit.

Reflection

I strongly agree with the author and I think job discrimination is one of the most important problems to be solved. In order to make the situation better, the government should put forward a set of particular rules and give evidence to show the importance and benefit to ensure fair competition. An atmosphere of fair employment needs to be set up in the whole society. However, I do not think that the secret works the companies did during recruit was totally wrong. They are just basing on general acknowledgement that people of a particular race or a certain range of age are more qualified in their work. But this opinion is not always true. Singapore government should make companies aware of this. Fairness in recruit is essential especially for Singapore because it is a small country consisted of people of different races and religions. Therefore, justification has always been a tender subject for this country.

Response to forum By Wayne

Forum Letter

Jan 25, 2010

AID TO HAITI

Disaster relief - the S'pore way

I REFER to last Saturday's commentary, 'Is Singapore doing too little for Haiti?' by Ms Chua Mui Hoong. She criticised the Singapore Government for not making a bigger contribution to Haiti after the earthquake when we had contributed far more to disaster relief and humanitarian assistance efforts after the 2004 tsunami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.

As a responsible member of the international community, the Singapore Government has consistently made contributions to international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts in our region and beyond. Singaporeans are familiar with the contributions we have made over the years, especially to the many countries hit by the tsunami in 2004, and after the Sichuan earthquake.

Last year, we provided humanitarian assistance in the form of cash, supplies and equipment after Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan; Cyclone Aila in Bhutan; Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; the Padang earthquake in Indonesia; the cyclone in Fiji; the earthquake and tsunami in Samoa and Tonga; as well as for victims of the civil war in Sri Lanka; and food aid for internally displaced people in Pakistan.

As a responsible government, we have to examine the considerations and priorities when deciding how much and what type of assistance Singapore can provide after each disaster. Singapore is not in the league of major donor countries, nor do we aspire to be one. Among other things, we have to consider the nature of our relations with the affected country and whether we can provide aid which will add value to the relief efforts when deciding what to contribute, as we have limited resources and cannot respond to every disaster in the same way.

Hence, we had responded with more significant contributions when Indonesia suffered the devastation of the tsunami and various earthquakes - because it is a neighbour with longstanding and close ties and we were in the position to deploy our military and civil defence assets so that they could carry out effective missions.

The amount or type of humanitarian assistance given by the Singapore Government is not intended to match the scale of a disaster. In the case of massive disasters in countries beyond our own region, our contributions often cannot be more than a show of moral support and a gesture of sympathy to the affected country.

The support from Singapore for Haiti need not be demonstrated just by the Government. Singaporeans who want to make a contribution can do so through the Red Cross and other groups, and indeed many have. The Singaporeans who have gone to Haiti on relief missions amply demonstrate their compassion for the victims of the earthquake.

Sudesh Maniar
Director, Public Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Response

I refer to the letter “Disaster relief—the Singapore way” by Mr. Sudesh Maniar. In this letter, Mr. Sudesh Maniar responded to the criticism on the trivial contribution made by Singapore government. He clearly analyzes the issue and states the reason of the government’s decision with reasonable support.

I do agree with Mr. Sudesh Maniar that the humanitarian assistance be sent out beyond their own region should not be measured by the scale of the disaster. The long distance between two countries will increase the cost of transmission of and thus lower down their efficiency. In addition, I do agree with him that help sent by voluntary Singaporeans is also an integral part of the support from Singapore. To help those victims who suffer from this disaster is not only the duty of a government but also an opportunity for common citizens to extend their compassion and love toward others.

In my opinion, domestic situation and relationship with affected countries should be examined in deciding the scale of assistance Singapore should provide. Firstly, it is not judicious for Singapore to earn reputation by sending large donations after each disaster. Due to the limited resources and economic power, such generous donations will undermine the stability of domestic economy structure and exert negative influence on its development in the long term. Secondly, it is important to consider the nature of relationship with the affected country. The humanitarian help will help strengthen the relationship between two countries. For instance, China has long been regarded as a close friend of Singapore in business. Therefore, in Sichuan earthquake, Singapore offered much help in forms of supplies and cash. This helps reinforce the Sino-Singapore relationship and triggered further cooperation which will benefit Singapore in the long term.

Comments by Phyllis

Amid recession, some college admissions policies look at students' wealth

By Steven Brint

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Summary
The economic downturn is affecting the admission decisions of most universities in the USA. Recently some universities are admitting more international students or reserving seats for wealthy students only. The reason why this happens is higher tuition and fewer endowments. As a result, schools are suffering from financial crisis and had to take in more full-paid students. Some other schools are carrying on the need-blind policy while enrolling more overseas students. The wealthy students have also brought some problems and affected the quality of higher education, which is a controversy issue these days. Meanwhile, some private universities are going in the opposite direction and trying to provide good education to students from normal families.

Reflection
There is nothing wrong for the universities to adjust their admission policies in order to get over the economic crisis. This is what they have to do to make the schools run properly. On one hand, it is really a pity for those excellent students to miss the chance of receiving higher education just because they cannot afford the high tuition. But gold will glitter wherever it is. There are still a lot of chances waiting for those people who work hard. On the other hand, the changes in policies have provided a good opportunity for international students. They can experience a different kind of study and life. Schools can also have better source of students and achieve cultural diversity on campus.
I do not think that the changes in admission policy will damage the whole generation. The majority of top university students are still those with great academic performance. But of course I do respect the schools that trying to go in the opposite direction and provide more students from low- and moderate-income families with education. From my point of view, what to do depends on the different situations of universities.

Comments by Vivian

Top UK universities warn of damage from budget cuts

Summary

After the announcement that the UK government will execute budget cut about £900m of education, the Russell group, which includes most prestigious universities representatives, raises an objection that this policy will adversely influence the quality of universities as well as the prospects of students and staffs in Britain. The corresponding from Higher education minister David Lammy to the warning that ‘university infrastructure will soon deteriorate’ considers it as an unnecessary worry about the future of British education field for the overall investment for education has been increased since 1997 and now it is time for them to tighten belt . However the General Secretary of the University and College Union points out the union is facing an increasing unemployment rate.

Reflection
As far as I am concerned, this news reflects that the Britain, maybe much more countries, suffers from economic depression thus has to reduce the investment in education field. As we know, in human society, subsistence is to satisfy our stomach then the spirit. To be considerate, we should understand why the British government made this decision. Obviously, it is the limitation of fund in the exchequer and droopy market that promote this so-call notorious budget cuts. Though admit education is the essential factor that promotes the progress of science and technology hence the human society, it is the responsibility for governments to resolve the fundamental need of people. After all, citizens vote the government as servants for people’s well being. Nevertheless, governments should realize it is apparently not a long-time strategy. In conclusion, the interaction between economy and education cannot be neglect and it is necessary for government and universities to pay more understandings to each other.

Reference:
Top UK universities warn of damage from budget cuts (12th Jan.2010) BBC news online retrieved on 12th Jan 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8453360.stm

Comments by Wayne

North Korea Calls for Peace Treaty Talks With U.S.

Summary:
This piece of news focuses on the issue that North Korea tries to initiate negotiations with the United Nations to replace the truce with a new peace treaty, which could lead to the dismantling of it nuclear programs. Its foreign ministry states that such an accord would relieve the tension between North Korea and the U.S, furthermore, it will accelerates its process of denuclearization. However, scholars and politicians from the U.S and South Korea are under the view that it was a manoeuvre played by North Korea to help them win more time for nuclear development. In history, peace talks on such issues have been held but all ended up with failure. Currently, Mr. Obama’s envoy states that the distortion of human rights also hindered the process of such peace proposals.

Reflection:
Firstly, in terms of language, this news clearly demonstrates the issue with the aid of technical terms and jargons, such as denuclearization, normalize.
Secondly, the article includes an introduction that familiarizes readers with the background of the news; nevertheless, it does not have a clear ending.
Last by not the least, several remarks from both sides have been quoted to enrich the article, the combination of voices from both sides help make the content of the news unbiased.

Response to the content:
I do believe that peace and development are the mainstream of the world nowadays. According to IAEA(International Atomic Energy Agency), every country has the right to develop nuclear technology for civiain use. However, the abuse of such right could bring about proliferation and nuclear arms competition, which will stir the stability of the region and pose a menace to the security of adjacent countries. This is the reason why the U.N imposed sanction on DPRK for its aggressive nuclear programs.
In my opinion, it’s not judicious for leaders of DPRK to proceed to sacrifice domestic economy only to achieve the ownership of nuclear arms. It’s not feasible for such country to develop nuclear weapons within a short period, especially under the great pressure exerted by the U.N., since the sanction imposed on DPRK will impair its economy and impede its further development. Thus, the government should pay more attention on promoting its international relationship and welfare of citizens instead.
Furthermore, superpowers that involve in this issue, including the U.S. and China, should take the responsibility to handle the problem. The peace proposal sent by DPRK just now could be a turning point of the problem. It provides a good opportunity for both sides to sit together and discuss seriously before too late.


Reference
Sang-Hun, C(11st Jan, 2010). North Korea Calls for Peace Treaty Talks With U.S. Retrieved on 11st Jan, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/world/asia/12korea.html?ref=world