Is racial harmony attainable?

Racial harmony means living harmoniously with people of different races. Singapore is a multi-racial country and thus racial harmony is vital in keeping peace within the country. The government has realised this fact ever since out independence from Malaysia. There has been numerous policies implmented to achieve this purpose, such as making English our official language. However whether or not racial harmony can be achieved in the long run will depend on a lot more factors.

There are several reasons why racial harmony is attainable. One of the reasons is economic interest. Singapore has a high employment rate(97.3% from Ministry of manpower) meaning most Singaporeeans are working. If Singaporeans do not try to keep peace within races and start to disrespect other races, racial riots might start and this may lead to closure of certain companies as their workers might not be working or their company has been destroyed. When companies close, workers will be retrenched, increasing Singapore's unemployment rate. Since most people would not want to lose their job, they will not wish for a racial riot and thus try to achieve racial harmony. Hence racial harmony is attainable for economic interest.

However there are also several reasons why racial harmony is not attainable. One of the reasons is the income gap between races. This is espically significant in Indonesia. In 2004, the malay's population is 6 times that of the chinese but the income to poulation ratio for the malay is 1.11, whereas the chinese is 1.57, meaning that the chinese individuals is earning more than the malay individuals. The Chinese are reported to control about 3/4 of the 140 big conglomerates that dominate Indonesia’s private sector. The Economist also reports that the Suharto clan usually operates in partnership with Chinese-owned businesses. Some of the riots in Indonesia is believed to be caused by the income gap as the malays become unhappy about the income gap with the chinese. The former minister of home affairs urges the government to ban the Chinese from some economic activities to avoid racial tensions. Hence racial harmony may not be attainable if the income gap between races is too big.

In conclusion, the fact that racial harmony is vital in keeping peace in a country is undeniable, espically is a multi racial country like Singapore where the different races meet each other everyday. However, whether or not racial harmony can be attained will be determined by the country's own effort in maintaining racial harmony such as implmentation of certain anti-racist policies and removal of potential problem such as income gap.

Article on age discrimination from 'http://www.todaysseniorsnetwork.com/age_discrimination.htm'

A fellow I know has two wonderful old cars, 1964 and 1963 Chevrolet Impalas, that he has refinished. They are beautiful automobiles, wonderful performers and a thrill to drive. But, in fear of damaging them, he keeps them in a garage, taking them out only for special occasions. When he does drive them, they are the object of admiration and even a bit of awe from those who see them.
That is somewhat the way it is with older workers or job applicants. Loaded with style and potential, they have been garaged, considered almost as a museum piece. As a result, each day, literally hundreds.. perhaps even thousands of employers across the nation violate the nation's civil rights' laws. How? They discriminate against a resource that represents one of this country's biggest losses in terms of skills, productivity, creativity and just good business operations by turning That such discrimination exists is undeniable. To prove it, however, is more difficult, since the illegal act is cloaked in terminology such as "you are too qualified...we can't afford someone of your talent and experience...we have changed our focus and need someone with less experience and salary requirements...you have a wonderful background, but it doesn't fit our needs As a result, the talents of our older citizens too often are cast aside in favor of lower-cost and less-experienced employees. Of course, they deserve their opportunity as well as the older workers, but the chance should be based upon competitive factors in which skills and talents are measured not in terms of age, but by the ability to get the job done.
There are those employers who will claim that they need to build their workforce with younger people, who will be with them much longer than an older employee. However, the question of age is becoming less and less of a factor in longevity with a company. There is no guarantee that the younger employee will remain with an employer longer than the older worker. As a matter of fact, the odds are likely that the younger worker will move more frequently as he or she builds a career.
Also, age is becoming more and more of a relative factor. Actually, it is highly likely that the older worker might be in better shape physically and emotionally than a younger employee. This is reflected as the retirement age (if there is such a thing) creeps upward on the part of employers and the Social Security Administration.
What then is to be done? The first thing is the establishment of a proactive program by organizations representing the rights of aging adults to aggressively work to ensure that the rights of these workers are being protected.
But, this is not enough. There must also be a proactive communications effort in which the abilities of aging workers are not only explained to potential employers, but in which there is a greater public appreciation of the contributions of older employees to our society in terms of the experience and knowledge they offer. In short--it is time to work to help ensure that older workers and job applicants receive public support for their contributions and that they not merely be regarded as one might view an older automobile that offers design, style, memories and performance, only to be stored in a garage until the next time they are hauled out for a curious public to view and and admire.

ADEA(age discrimination of emplyment act) from 'http://www.aarp.org/money/careers/jobloss/a2004-04-28-agediscrimination.html'

Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is your first defense against age discrimination. There has to be a lawful reason - not connected to age - for almost all employment decisions.
Who Is Covered by the ADEA?
The law covers workers and job applicants age 40 and over.
The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees. This includes local and state governments and the federal government. It also includes employment agencies and labor unions.
The ADEA does not apply to independent contractors or elected officials. It does not usually cover police and fire workers, certain federal employees in air traffic control or law enforcement, or certain highly paid executives. While persons in these positions could be retired on a mandatory basis, they cannot be denied a promotion or training base on age.
There are exceptions to the ADEA when age is a necessary part of a job. For example, an employer can hire a young person to play the role of a 12-year-old in a play.
Most states have anti-age discrimination laws that apply to employers with fewer than 20 employees.
What does the ADEA forbid?
Job ads or recruitment materials cannot mention age or say that a certain age is preferred.
Programs cannot set age limits for their trainees.
Age can not be a factor in making any decisions about workers. This includes decisions about hiring, pay, promotions, or layoffs.
Employers cannot take action against workers who file a charge of age discrimination or who participate in any ADEA process.
With a few exceptions, employers cannot force employees to retire at a certain age.
Employers may offer voluntary early retirement without violating the ADEA. However, these offers often require employees to give up their right to make a claim under the ADEA. That requirement may be legal, but only if it follows strict rules. Get expert advice before you sign anything.

Lookism article from 'http://www.rateitall.com/i-91089-appearance-discrimination.aspx'

In fact it could be argued that Appearance discrimination is far more hurtful and destructive then Racism. As every single human is physically unique regardless of race, economic status, national origin, sex or in fact any other class protected by law. Would you rather be a victim of racism or appearance discrimination? A hurtful tirade or negative treatment due to ones individual features isolates you by yourself as 1 in 6 billion. There is no other person exactly like you to fall back with and have some solidarity. You are alone in your ugly lesser uniqueness. Whilst at least a black, white or Asian person racially abused in many ways can almost laugh at the idiocy of it and importantly has fellow members of his/her race who number in the millions with which to share the persecution. Ditto for sexism, in fact its proportionately easier again, 50% of the earth , over 3billion people can stand with you. A survey by Timur Kuran and Edward J.McCaffery of the University of Southern California; revealed that respondents consider discrimination based on appearance and economic status to be more prevalent then discrimination on ethnicity. Respondents also reported that they themselves have been victimized more by physical appearance and economic status discrimination then ethnic discrimination. Indeed on both the web or phone, the rank order of the great deal responses was the same and surprising: Physical appearance > Economic status > Ethnicity CASE Example If we examine our restaurant - hiring attractive girls example from above. Restaurant owners or commentators might say its not them its simply the market theyre catering to or that their customers dont want to see unattractive, plain girls. If so why cannot one open a restaurant purely hiring white people? As there has and still would be a proportion of citizens out there that prefer the company of their own race and would rather not sit with black or asian people. If you dont believe this then you must also believe that racism does not exist anymore and we have no need to protect ourselves from it via legislation. Of course there would be a media outcry, protests and it would be shutdown under numerous laws and human rights codes. Some points If we already accept from above that racism is wrong due to the fact, rightly so, that people cant affect their skin color then how is inherited physical characteristics discrimination on appearance any different? Powerful Role of the media in determining what is important and what isnt. As earlier mentioned the media pays little attention to appearance discrimination in fact it promotes it! In the above white restaurant example there would be massive TV, newspaper coverage of a RACIST store hiring only whites yet not nearly the same coverage towards an APPEARANCE Discrimination case yet the hurt is the same. According to Fair Measures employment law expert Rita Risser, Generally, the employer has the right to require employees to have a professional appearance. This of course cannot relate to age, race, sex, etc., but rather to clothing, hairstyle, personal hygiene, lack of visible tattoos or weird piercings. Characteristics you choose and can affect, can be dictated by an employer. Notice the lack of explicit mention of appearance discrimination in the protected classes. So in other words the restaurant owner could invent any number of excuses based on a girl having a slight hygiene problem, wrong hairstyle, not quite the multiple plate carrying waiter skills etc When in fact due to the nature of his store, it was because she wasnt model tall enough, didnt have long enough legs, large enough breast size, desired facial features like high cheekbones, lip-nose-ear-eye type or whatever it is that is pushed as attractive. Some recommendations for changing this include 1. Foremost, Appearance discrimination needs to become an explicit and protected class in legislation and human rights codes in all states, provinces and federal level. This is in recognition of the powerful societal and cascading effect such legislation, from the civil rights movements of the sixties to today have had in combating racism. 2. Incorporation of it in all and any endeavors, by law or otherwise that currently combat for instance racism or sexisms existence. Ie. modern HRM practices in private and government organizations, inclusion and specific attention towards it in the education curriculum 3. The level of apathy and non-awareness needs to be addressed and reversed.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopte

Singapore has mulit-cultural background. Ever since Singapore gained independence from Malaysia, the Singapore government has place a lot of emphasis on racial harmony. One policy which the government has implmented is a quota to the percentage of different races living in a HDB estate to ensure even distribution of the different races so that they can interact and understand each other more so as to promote racial harmony. This implies that even the government is aware of the importance of racial harmony in Singapore. Hence i agree with Szilagyi that more focus should be placed on social responsibility than having total freedom of speech for the media.

Singapore's multi cultural backgroung meant that there is wide variety of races living in Singapore. If there is a racist remark published by the media and it sparked anger in a particular race , Singapore might end up having racial riots again like what happen in the 1964 racial riots, disrupting civil peace. All media should have freedom of speech so that it can report the absolute truth. However the truth may sometimes be misunderstood. The article said 'that once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas', meaning that a remark which may have good intention may end up being interpreted as a racist remark. To overcome this problem, the media need to have social responsibility. That is although the media has the freedom of speech, it should evaluate the possible consequences of publishing certain sesitive topics that may cause serious civil unrest.

In the article by Peter Singer, it is mentioned that 'In his classic defense of freedom of speech in, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote that if a view is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,” it will become “a dead dogma, not a living truth.” The existence of the Holocaust should remain a living truth'. I agree that the Holocaust should not be forgotten since it has an important lesson to be learnt. According to the article, in order for the Holocaust to be a living truth, it need to be fearlessly discussed. The purpose of remembering the Holocaust is to learn from it so that the same mistake will not be repeated so as to ensure civil peace. However, if remembering it would cause civil unrest such as the riots caused by the cartoon from David Irving then it would be meaningless since more trouble is created. Hence i feel that the media should have social responsibility when sensitive issues are concerned so as to ensure civil peace even though it has the freedom of speech.

The death penalty is murder and should be abolished, do you aree?

How does the media and it's subjective perception affect the way this incident(Singapore Swimmers in hot water) was handled?

The media and it's subjective perception has resulted in this incident to become out of control ever since it started by assuming the boys is mocking the American team even though they only smiled. Once the reporter took a picture and wrote a report about the Singapore swimmers smiling after the results of the American team was known had resulted in other media companies publishing it to the world, including Sports illustrated maazines. In all the reports, singapore swimmers is depicted as mocking the American team, when the only comfirmed fact is that they smiled. This may not be true. One of the swimmers involve in this incident, Zach, said 'we were both smiling, not because we were happy that the American team were disqualified-it was really hard to believe, that was all it was'. This shows that there's a possibility that the swimmers is not mocking the American team. The media's perception of this incident is that the Singapoore swimmers are mocking the American team, thus they are depicted as mocking them. If the media had consulted the boys first before publicising the event, the media may not have depicted the boys as mocking the American team and the public's view most likely would have follow suit. This incident then may not been so bad and the boys involved would not have been in trouble. To conclude, the media's perception of a certain event can change the way it reports the event, which may result in the public having a misunderstanding.