Discrimination Essay Outlines

Is government intervention the best way to achieve gender

equality?
Yes it is the best way
Govt intervention is a concerted, topdown approach that is a fast, efficient
and decisive way to bring about
certain outcomes in society. It has the
further advantage of being able to
overcome possible resistance from
certain groups within society. The
govt can intervene in the following
ways:
-

Legislation can efficiently

eliminate discrimination against
women. For example, if there were
laws against gender-biased hiring
policies or practices in the
workplace, employers would
certainly think twice about
discriminatory actions against
women as they know that they
would face consequences as set
out in the law. On the other hand,
if employers were merely
discouraged from doing so,
attitudes would take much longer
to change.

Quotas are a fast and efficient way

of achieving parity. For instance, it
is a well-known fact that despite
making up half of the world's
population, women are notoriously
under-represented in politics and
high-level management positions.
However, Sweden has the second
highest number of female
parliamentarians in the world, and
half of its government ministers
are women. This feat was
achieved through quotas.
Similarly, in Norway, it has been
decreed that all companies must

No there are better ways

-

Drawbacks of government
intervention: Quotas can in fact
achieve the opposite effect as it is
a form of positive discrimination.
They could lead to increased
resentment against women if it is
perceived that women are hired
over men only because of the
policy and not based on their own
capabilities. Also, quotas address
the symptoms but not the root
cause of discrimination. Just
because women now make up a
certain percentage in parliament
or in the boards of companies
does not mean that the attitude of
society in general toward women
will change. For example, in
Sweden, despite the great strides
made in the political sector
towards equality, the figures in
corporate management have not
kept up - Swedish women hold
only 30% of managerial positions,
while the wage gap between
males and females can exceed
40% in these high-end jobs.

Similarly, incentives (usually

monetary) cost a lot and a
government cannot sustain them
indefinitely. Given that private
companies are profit-oriented, it is
unlikely that they would choose to
hire women over men if it costs
them more, once the incentives
stop.

Education is a more effective way

of addressing this imbalance as it
attempts to address the root

have at least two women on their

boards by the end of this year.
-

Incentives can also be given to

right the balance in a more
gradual manner. For example,
women usually make up a higher
percentage of the public service
compared to the private sector
partly due to the perceived higher
cost of employing women due to
maternity and childcare leaves. To
lower this cost for private
companies, the government can
subsidise or even absorb the cost
of maternity leave so as to make it
more equitable for these
companies to employ women.
If the government is seen to be
taking active steps in raising the
position of women, it sends a
strong message out to society that
discrimination against either
gender is unacceptable and is a
social problem that must be
addressed. This is especially
pertinent in societies where the
government is very paternalistic or
plays a large role in its citizens'
lives, such as Singapore or China.

cause: prejudice. In some

societies, such as India or China,
women are seen as inferior to
men and this is an attitude that is
reinforced throughout a child's life
and continued to adulthood. If
such a belief is not stemmed, it
will be perpetuated through the
generations. Hence it is necessary
to teach, whether through subtle
media messages or in schools,
that such a belief has no rational
basis, and that women are just as
capable as men.
-

Issues of gender prejudice and

discrimination are better left to
religious and community groups
to tackle as it is a private matter
involving an individual's outlook
and values. If taken in charge by
the government, it may be seen
as interference on the part of the
government and breed
resentment and face resistance
instead. Hence, it may be more
effective if religious or community
groups deal with this matter,
capitalising on the respect
enjoyed by community and
religious leaders.

1. If all people were of one race, there would be no discrimination. Do

you agree?
Possible Stand:
DISAGREE
Whilst the degree of racial prejudice may diminish a little (If all people
were of one race), there will still be other social divisions by caste, socioeconomic class, education, gender etcetera that would give rise to
prejudice and discrimination.
Approach
Balancing Point: Acknowledge that racial differences - often the basis for
prejudice and discrimination. Concede that if all people were of one race
and there are no visible racial or ethnic differences, it would reduce
considerably a lot of prejudice and discrimination. History has many
instances of racial oppression. For example: ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

But there are other social discriminators that will continue to

marginalize the different groups in society
1. Gender
- Women, in many cultures have always been a variable in
discrimination. Women are often discriminated. Even the laws in many
countries condone these discriminatory practices.
- Examples:
o men can escape rape charges if they marry their victims (Bolivia,
Nicaragua, Panama & Venezuela etc.)
o men can kill their wives to avenge family honour in Haiti and
Syria
o cannot drive in Saudi Arabia
o cannot work in military submarines in Britain
o cannot vote in Kuwait
o in Japan, women are barred from remarrying for six months after a
divorce but men are not.
- Women are often treated as second-class citizens
2. Caste
- Caste discrimination is another form of social discrimination
- India: the term untouchables was abolished in 1950 under Indias
constitution, the oppressed people or Dalits as they are now referred to,
continue to be discriminated against. They are denied access to land,
forced to work in humiliating and degrading conditions and are routinely
abused by the police and upper-caste groups, which enjoy the states
protection.
- Japan: against the Burakumin. Official discrimination against the
Burakumin has long disappeared. The authorities point to the fact that
members of this invisible caste today have the same legal rights as all
other Japanese. They have the same physical traits, speak the same
language and share the same religion. But written laws are not always the
same as what goes on in peoples minds - unofficial discrimination toward
the Burakumin by property-owners, estate agents and company officials in
terms of wages etc.
3. Socio-economic class
- Economic disparity between the haves and the have-nots feelings of
inequality
- Our consumerist culture assumes that what you own defines a person
- Class divisions exist In many society
- Economic disparity critical social issue in many countries
- For example: in Singapore - 30% earn less than a $1000/mth vs. the
average income of $4500.
Does meritocracy lead to widening social inequalities?
Keywords:

Meritocracy: government based on rule by ability rather than by

wealth or social position. Concept extended to other spheres of life
the best person for the job practice.
Social inequalities: these could refer to many cases of disparity
and discrimination e.g. wide rich-poor gap, unequal education
opportunities/quality, unequal access to jobs, social caste-based
segregation, etc
Lead to: be the cause of

Recommended approach:
The proposition challenges the widely held assumption (especially in
Singapore) that meritocracy is the means to eradicate unfair
practices. Students ought not blindly refute the statement and
proceed to blindly extol the virtues of meritocracy by citing
Singapore as an example. Instead, they should consider the
conditions necessary for meritocracy to work and circumstances
under which the system becomes an unwitting aid to the creation of
an elite and contributes to the widening social chasm
Consider situations in different countries. Make references to various
social inequalities. Examples of situations in these countries should
also be included
Possible arguments:
How meritocracy creates a more equal society
Merit-based selection recognises ability rather than connections.
such as nepotism, cronyism and reliance on familial connections
(e.g. the Suharto era in Indonesia, the Thaksin familys business
successes)
Why meritocracy fails function as a social leveller
Widespread acceptance and practice. In particular, those higher up
on the social ladder might perceive newcomers as threats (even
though they are competitors). If the former withholds opportunities
and the law does nothing to enforce the latters rights, then the
society is only meritocratic in name and is practised only among the
elite who compete or the opportunities among themselves. (e.g.
entry into medical school for lower caste students in India)
In societies with vast income disparity, there is a need for the
government to put affirmative action policies (e.g. financial
assistance, quality education, healthcare) into effect. If there is no
external assistance to extricate them from the vicious cycle of
poverty, the talented would remain among the dregs scrabbling for
survival rather than develop their potential and acquire the means
to competing to excel. (e.g. university places reserved for African
Americans in the USA)

Consider entrenched social and cultural practices that obstructs

meritocracy (e.g. caste systems in Nepal, gender discrimination in
many African and Asian societies)

Why meritocracy unwittingly contributes to social disparity

Meritocracy is a competitive system, The first generation who has
emerged victorious and enjoys social status, prestigious jobs and
high income is now equipped with the means to help their offspring
in the rat race (e.g. can pass on their knowledge, engage tutors,
expose their children to intellectual/inspiring pursuits and the
benefits of networking, identifying lucrative opportunities). Nurture
makes up for what nature lacks. Consequently, the second (and
subsequent) generations thrive in a meritocracy, moving further up
the career and social ladder (e.g. profiles of current crop of
Presidents scholars)
Contrast this with less successful parents who are unable to gift
their offspring with wealth or social capital. Their children might still
be able to make it in life if they have the intelligence and right
attitude but the going is more arduous. Those who are not as
blessed get left behind, diminishing their future generations social
and economic mobility (e.g. getting into prestigious universities,
begins from pre-school in Japan read newspaper reports of
impoverished families in Singapore)
How rifts are widened
People tend to socialise with those who share similar interests,
qualifications and backgrounds. A society driven by meritocracy
sees the rise of social circles that are mutually exclusive and whose
participants harbour misconceptions and us versus them
delineations (e.g. student family profile of Ivy League vs. state
universities, elite vs. neighbourhood schools in Singapore)
Political power is also concentrated in the hands of the intellectual
elite, leading to fears/possibilities that policies favour those who
have made it in life (e.g. concerns over the profile of candidates
fielded by PAP in the recent GE and and whether they can speak for
the lower socio-economic groups)
The need to rise above tough competition also means that people
resort to the very shortcuts that meritocracy is supposed to void
(e.g. guanxi web of connections in China, alumni/old boys
network/parent volunteers being used to obtain a coveted place in
top schools when children do not make the cut)
How meritocracy might be preferable regardless of these bugbears
The able/talented can still attempt to better their lives rather than
live in frustration. A society that does not even attempt to uphold
ideals of equality and offer opportunities is likely to become a
hotbed for malcontents
Can prejudice ever be eliminated?

No: Prejudice can never be eliminated as its root causes are perpetual and
recurrent to the human condition despite our present levels of societal
progress.

In many countries, educational systems and institutions continue to

be dictated to or run by governments emphasizing discriminatory
racial policies, thereby aggravating rather than solving racial
prejudice.

Many societies today are increasingly plugged into the global

economy and face heightened levels of economic competition
followed by economic stratification, which intensifies rather than
eliminate the prejudice and conflict occurring between different
economic classes.

Increasing interaction through social media networks between

different individuals and communities have generated various subcultures dedicated to the perpetuation of prejudiced mindsets and
practices, making the elimination of traditional notions of prejudice
and irrational fear of others a difficult task.

The rapid and large-scale movement of people and communities

across borders generates new tension points such as resentment
and hostility to migrant works and ultra-nationalism, thereby
undermining most attempts to create an open and global society
free from prejudice.

YES: Prejudice can be eliminated with the judicious identification and

targeting of its root causes, given humanitys present levels of societal
progress.

More educational systems and institutions today nurture tolerance

and open-mindedness to racial diversity, providing hope for the
elimination of racial prejudice.

Greater distribution of wealth and economic opportunities within

some countries today help create more equitable societies, thereby
helping to greatly reduce or hopefully eliminate the prejudice and
conflict occurring between different economic classes.

Increasing interaction through social media networks between

different individuals and communities globally generate goodwill
between people, providing hope that traditional notions of prejudice
will be replaced by modern practices emphasizing a sense of
commonality and universal fraternity.

The rapid and large-scale movement of people and communities

across borders nurtures a global elite sharing common aspirations,
worldviews and work-languages such as English, Mandarin and
Spanish, leading potentially to the creation of a truly global society
rather than one driven by nationalism.

(i) What is the problem in the question? Do we understand it ?

Prejudice : preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Discrimination : the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people,
especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
(ii) Who is responsible for this problem, really?
The answer could be : Consider the parties involved the problem is usually :
(a) a product of a confluence of factors
(b) and responsibility should be shared
(c) Yet, in certain problems, there is a group that should be held more accountable.
(a) Prejudice could have begun from negative personal experiences caused by a lack of
understanding.
(b) But discriminatory policies could have also reinforced and perpetuated the prejudice.
(c) Yet, we recognise if this problem is one that began with negative personal
experiences, then the onus must be on each individual to seek understanding and be
proactive in creating positive experiences with others (and for leaders to facilitate the
creation of positive experiences).
(iii) Is this inevitable?
In the case of prejudice, science and human evolution support the idea that prejudice
is natural because human beings need to make judgements about others that could
affect their survival.
Errors in judgement could even be expected as a normal part of the a persons learning
process.
The important thing is to correct the human error of prejudice and prevent it from
becoming rampant, or even institutionalised, discrimination.

(iv) Is it unsolvable?
The answer could be :
(1) Education (formal, informal, through the media) >> for a more enduring inculcation of
values and development of understanding
(2) Laws >> an important tool for engineering society
(3) Look at current or recent initiatives that show some success. The ability to emulate
and adapt good efforts gives hope that the problem can be overcome. Add a view of the
bigger picture : The history of humanity is filled with evidence that major transformations
can take place such as the rise of democracy or industrialisation. Hence, it may be too
soon to dismiss prejudice and discrimination as unsolvable problems
To show that something is inevitable or unsolvable, you may need to show that

Not enough time, money, human resources, technology, political will and
discipline have been put into making these solutions (like education & law) work
*** If those with power and influence benefit from prejudice and discrimination, they
would be less willing to change.

The solutions that are put in place have flaws / loopholes

Some solutions are impractical, too idealistic

The root causes of the problem are not addressed

>>> Meritocracy may be regarded as a fair reward system that judges people only on
capability and supposedly removes prejudice against race, religion, nationality, age, sex,
or family or economic background. Unfortunately, it can still contribute to prejudice. This
can happen when the reward is very great, like an overseas scholarship.
Understandably, the reward should not be too small because there must be enough
incentive to excel. But a great reward that opens many doors then becomes too
competitively fought for. Earning it consequently brings prestige to the triumphant, but
results in the failures being relegated to the courses, schools or jobs that were not their
first choice. This is how prejudice is planted against the people, schools or jobs that are
regarded as not being the best. However, the solution cannot be to throw out the reward
system altogether. There are root causes that have not been addressed, even while a
well-meaning meritocracy is built. One such cause could be the false belief that winning
these rewards makes someone more worthy of respect. Conversely, those who are less

successful are believed to be incompetent, and thus not worthy. A society that does not
weed out damaging false beliefs will undermine other efforts to stop prejudice.
(v) Final word on the problem
At the end of the day, looking to a higher value or a higher purpose is essential in order
to find a way out of this problem
>>> For the problems of prejudice and discrimination, the question is whether all
societies will come on board and embrace the idea of equality among men.

The world today would be a better place if more political leaders

were women. What is your view?
No: Major international and national challenges are highly complex in
nature and having more women leaders may not necessarily help improve
the world since they may not be more adept than male-dominant political
leadership in solving these challenges.

Women leaders, like their male counter-parts, may be constrained

by their own ideological obligations and biases, making it unlikely
for them to improve or resolve deep-seated political conflicts
plaguing their countries and which have wider regional
ramifications.

Despite, inherent attributes to leadership granted by biology, female

leaders are as equally constrained by complex modern day
economic challenges and similar to their male counterparts, are
unable to address them well.

Some social problems which marginalize disadvantaged groups may

in fact be aggravated by female leaders who erroneously embark on
the empowerment of women to the exclusion of other possible and
more viable solutions that male leaders may more likely utilize.

YES: Having more female political leaders makes the world a better place
as they possess attitudes and capabilities that enables humanity to
overcome major international and national challenges that have thus far
been poorly addressed by male dominant political leadership.

In political systems plagued by intractable ideological conflicts,

women leaders may demonstrate a pragmatic approach centred on
compromise, thereby resolving these issues and paving the way to
both national and international stability.

The female biology may predispose women leaders towards

developing attributes that help them address increasingly complex
economic challenges in government more sensitively and
empathetically than their male counterparts.

Social problems involving the marginalisation of disadvantaged

groups may often be solved through empowering women and
bringing about gender equality which female leaders may be more
inclined to pursue.

In your society, how far is equality for all a reality?

Introduction:
Equality is not in regarding different things similarly. American author
Tom Robbins once opined, equality is in regarding different things
differently. Adopting Robbins interpretation of equality, the very concept
of equality does not necessarily entail equal treatment. Instead, equality is
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights or opportunities.
Equality has been championed by Singapores government. It remains one
of this societys guiding principles in most aspects of governance and
policy making. Thus equality remains a reality in Singapore to a large
extent.
Thesis 1:
Singapore ensures equality before the law and every individual is not only
treated equally before the law, they are given their basic rights.
Equality is the basis of Singapores constitution and this society is founded
upon the principles of liberty and justice. Every individual is ensured of
equality in status and rights.
Eg. Article 14 of Singapores constitution states that every citizen of
Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to
assemble peaceably and without arms and right to form associations.
E.g. Singapore recently ratified the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Singapore is evidently committed in upholding the ideals of equality,
ensuring the establishment of an inclusive society.
These policies undeniably suggest that equality is a reality in Singapore.
Thesis 2:
Singapore assures equal education and workplace opportunities for all,
safeguarding both gender and racial equality.
Unlike many less developed countries in Africa who deny girls basic
education or states that actively practice racial discrimination, Singapore
ensures that every individual has an equal educational opportunity.
E.g. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has implemented Compulsory
Education in Singapore since 2003 ensuring that every child receives a
minimum education up to Primary 6. In additional, equality is actively
pursued in the workplace and it is granted to every individual regardless
of gender, race or religion.

E.g. A recent report found that the proportion of women in the boardrooms
of companies listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) rose to 7.3%.
Some may argue that since only 7.3% of women are in the boardrooms,
there is a significant gender bias. However, real equality does not dictate
treating every individual equally. Singapore practices equality, governed
by meritocracy. It is only through such a practice can Singapore
accommodate and assimilate the different individuals concerned.

Thesis 3:
Equality is ingrained in Singapores social fabric, individuals share a
communitarian belief and have lived harmoniously.
Singapore was formed amidst division. It was a migrant state that was
deeply contested by language, race and religion. Deep-seated tensions
were persistent during Singapores early years and it perpetrated through
the 1969 Racial riots.
However, since that incident, Singapore has witnessed a congruous blend
of various communities. While students recite the words, regardless of
race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice
and equality in the pledge every day, adults have also ensured that this
notion of equality is not only a belief but a way of life. It is not uncommon
to see various individuals of different races working harmoniously.
Eg: Racial Harmony Day commemorates the 1964 Race Riots and
celebrates Singapores success as a racially harmonious nation. Various
racial communities which used to practice racial tolerance have since
learnt to overcome their differences and live in harmony.
Thesis 4:
However, there are still some areas in which prejudice and stereotypes
continue to exist despite the efforts by the government to promote
equality for all. Singapores meritocratic system seems to favour
intellectuals and this can be seen from the growing income inequality.
The income growth of the topmost quintile was almost double that of the
lowest quintile. Furthermore the current median income of $4870 is much
lesser than the current mean income of $6830. The income distribution is
so skewed that more than half the people earn only two-thirds of the
average wage.