Equal Treatment

[NB: I do not have anything against people of a different race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc, etc. I am criticising the 'Western' concept of 'discrimination' and 'equality'.]

As the concept of homosexuality gains increasing awareness and acceptance in many societies, it is but a matter of time that campaigning by gay activists bear fruit.. In some countries there is legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of sexuality. What about SG? Is it possible that some day in the near future, a gay person can come on TV and openly introduce his same-sex spouse without being judged? Indeed, should SG take measures to recognise and protect such liberties?

The concept of equal treatment, like many other civil liberties (or rights), has always been an idealistic one. Indeed, in SG, the level of awareness of such concepts is astonishingly poor, not least due to the lack of liberties in a supposed democracy (imho public awareness and consciousness of civil liberties is as important as the liberties themselves-even if they are not formally protected - I don't see any concerted effort by the government to educate the public on such issues). Legislation enacted to prevent discrimination against a particular sex or race, even for 'liberal countries', is simple to enact but difficult to actually apply, and even harder for a layperson to understand or utilise.

The concept of equal treatment, synonymous with discrimination is itself a fallacy, since it is impossible to treat everyone equally, irregardless of laws and norms cultivated to achieve such an aim (as I have said it is a very idealistic concept). This is simply because, everyone is different. Everyone has different perspectives and ideologies. To enact such measures, rather than liberating, it is actually resulting in the converse, as it is forcing a 'rightful' attitude down individuals throats.

[Paragraph inserted more for illustratory purpose than declaration that The Women's Charter was drafted with non-discrimination in mind]The Women's Charter provides safeguards towards women's rights. However, such a charter is actually discriminatory against men, since it is drafted specifically for women's rights. Consequently the legislation can be used by women as 'a weapon' against men, who are afforded no analogous legislative protection. But one may be tempted to argue that women, as the weaker and fairer sex, need to have protection. By such an argument, you see the fallacy that this concept presents, since this implies that women ARE weaker and fairer (discriminatory and stereotypical). Also, the concept of democracy is undermined, since women are purportedly given additional protective measures to put them on equal footing with men. How does competition occur 'equally' when one party is bestowed with an additional legislative weapon/shield? It is like having men and women compete in the same race but giving women a 10 second headstart. Chivalrous, yes, but chivalry is hardly synonymous with 'equality'.

Maybe a more generalised gender discrimination legislation, one which applies both to men AND women, would be fairer? Maybe just a wee bit, but ultimately, men AND women are different. Such legislation enacted in US and EU use the concept of a 'comparator', ie, if a woman has XYZ statistics and a man has XYZ statistics, they are deemed equal and it is consequently illegal to choose the man over the woman simply (and vice versa) because of his/her gender . But what happens when u compare a pregnant woman with...a pregnant man? [Insert pregnant pause here]

It is conceivable that employers would prefer male employees rather than married female employees because of the possibility that they may require long maternity leave, thereby not facilitating optimal usage of company resources. Of course, social policy (encouraging motherhood) means that companies would hardly 'dare' to discriminate against women for reasons of maternity leave. But the point has always been made – men and women, ARE fundamentally different, no matter how you wish to treat them equally.

So lets say for reasons of public policy, anti-sexist legislation is enacted. That will only results in floodgates for anti-discriminatory legislation, such as grounds of race, age, disabilities etc, which, incidentally, give a disproportionate benefit to the minorities once they are enacted. It sounds all odsd and fair in theory but in practice, it is flawed. Those who really need such legislative protection are usually the ones who are unaware or unable to utilise such rights. However, as such legislation are frequently infamously used as 'a weapon' rather than to protect one's rights, the resulting legal process drains national resources. Also, corporations have to divert resources to comply with such legislation. For example, unless they can give ood justification, a Mandarin printing press has to employ someone who cannot speak Mandarin, or face a legal suit. Classified ads frequently advertising for 'mandarin speaking environment' and 'female working environment' will quickly fall foul of the law. As resources have to be diverted out to compliance rather than improving their service/goods – this translates to a loss to the economy – which translates to a loss to all of us. In other words, 'Equal Treatment' means subsidising a few select 'unfortunate individuals' at the cost of compromising on our collective welfare.

We all know that SG is a pragmatic nation, and we, pragmatic citizens, such compromise towards our excellence by taking such a welfarist approach is not something we are prepared for. Of course, it is easy to be charitable when its impact is so evenly spread out among the entire population, but I will demonstrate how such legislation can force compromise on an individual's part as well.

Especially so would be anti-discriminatory legislation against disabled persons. In US or EU, such legislation means that EVERY public facility AND/OR workplace has to be disabled-friendly, or risk the prospect of a lawsuit. So if your shop has a step that results in wheelchair bound customers being unable to access your shop, you are in breach of the law. Costs have to be incurred towards building a ramp for a potential disabled customer who may spend 0.05 of the amount spent on building the ramp. In the workplace, 'normal employees' have to compromise their work schedules to facilitate 'disabled' employees work. In other words, if 'disabled' persons are unable to take Night Shifts(eg for medical treatment at night) or lift heavy loads, then 'normal' people HAVE to cover the night shifts, AND lift the heavy loads, with no extra incentive at all. So if your workplace consists of a day and night shift and only you and a disabled person unable to take night shifts are working there, you would have to cover all the night shifts without complaint.

I suggest that such sacrifices will only be tolerated by a select few. Already, the simple act of giving up a seat in a train to older folk who need induces a sudden sleepiness in many people. Most people who champion such minority rights are either the minorities themselves or idealistic folk. Should every form of anti-discriminatory legislation surface, the 'normal' people will end up being the ones being discriminated against!

[What I am insinuating is that (especially applicable to homosexuals), do not expect the government or the people to treat you fairly or accept you for who you are just because it is 'fair' to do so. Neither should you expect any assistance or charity from the government to aid you in being recognised or accepted in society. The path to recognition and acceptance is an arduous one, but it is one which you must take on your (collective) own. Examples include making sure that there are no 'rotten-apples' who destroy the image of homosexuals by exhibiting poor behaviour in public]