Should new laws criminalizing attempts at discrimination against sexual minorities be implemented?

Should new laws criminalizing attempts at discrimination against sexual minorities be implemented?

SINGAPORE - Much has been written about the anti-homosexuality history of the newcomers in AWARE’s executive committee together with their supporters, especially their links to the Church of Our Saviour, a charismatic anglican church. The concern with the Church of Our Saviour is that its history has been laden with the anti-homosexuality rhetoric, which explains the alarm of members within the gay community in the wake of the latest developments at AWARE.

When the Singapore government opened its doors of employment to homosexuals to positions within the civil service, the senior pastor of the Church of Our Saviour, Mr Derek Hong, was visibly opposed to such an action. Mr Hong made a passionate speech, vowing to mobilize churches in Singapore to stand up against the homosexual issue, and highlighted his goal of making Singapore a nation of righteous Christians without contamination of the homosexual lifestyle. Mr Hong felt that homosexuality should not be allowed to come out to the surface and made acceptable to the nation. Mr Derek Hong and the Church of Our Saviour aside, a group of 20 Christians from different denominations, voluntary organizations and professions met and agreed on a line of action to tackle the homosexual-friendly hiring policy. Mr Yang Tuck Yoong, a pastor of the Cornerstone Community Church encouraged Christians to express their concerns regarding the new hiring policy to their Member of Parliaments via letters or during meet-the-people sessions.

It can be argued that the actions of such religious figureheads are bordering on sedition, i.e. attempting to create ill-feelings and enmity against a certain group of Singaporeans, the sexual minorities. While the government deserves its fair share of plaudits for adopting a tolerant approach in hiring homosexuals, it should have considered implementing laws equivalent to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) laws in the U.S.. LGBT laws in the U.S. include anti-discrimination laws to counter employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 13087 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation within the U.S. civil service, and our government should consider having a similar bill.

And more can be done to protect sexual minorities against discrimination. For starters, a new Anti-discrimination against Sexual Minorities Act should be enacted, and this is applicable to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. Such an act criminalizes attempts aimed at provoking discrimination against sexual minorities. What is allowed and not allowed for this proposed Act?

Allowed
1) Expressing one’s personal opinion against the sexual practice/lifestyle of a sexual minority. For instance, a speech or writing expressing negative opinions of a homosexual/lesbian practice is permissible.
E.g. I find anal sex by homosexuals disgusting and extremely unhealthy.

Not allowed
1) Making an attempt either directly or indirectly to curtail the progress of a sexual minority, be it in education, career or in other areas, on the grounds of his/her sexual orientation.
E.g. An organized campaign by a religious figurehead to prevent the employment of homosexuals to the civil service. If the religious figurehead explicitly informs his followers to influence Members of the Parliament to discourage the employment of sexual minorities in the civil service, the figurehead will be violating the Act.

2) Partaking in speeches/campaigns/activities that stirs up ill will against sexual minorities.
E.g. Hate speeches and actions that directly lead to contempt against sexual minorities.

In every mature society, tolerance of differences should be practised. Bigotry still remains a serious scourge and poses a danger, especially to the vulnerable ones who are affected. As such, the latter should be protected by specially designed laws, which ensure that their interests are not curtailed by discrimination.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27589.1

Employers still discriminating against older workers

Employers still discriminating against older workers

Sunday, 29 March 2009

Gilbert Goh

Having met more than a dozen unemployed Singaporeans either through my unemployment support site transitioning.org or my own personal contacts, I observed that there are two main issues that frustrate them.

One is the huge influx of foreigners into our labour force during the past few years and the other is the age bias in seeking employment that seems to have gotten worse recently.

A weekend visit to Han’s restaurant at Harbourfront shocked me as the four staff working there were all Filipinos. From the person that took my order to the cashier and chefs, they were all foreigners happily going about their jobs. The only thing that stood them out from the former Han’s staff that I had seen previously, was the age difference. All of them appeared to be in their twenties. I found myself paying for my order grudgingly.

Are mature Singaporeans not able to fill such positions even if they were much older and were a little slower? Must employers continue to fill in service positions with foreigners while claiming that locals refuse to work longer hours for miserable pay? Are all the employers’ complaints valid? I am sure that for every Singaporean’s refusal to work at such service jobs, there should be another who do not mind such work. This is especially so in this time of economic downturn. Let us not generalise and condemn the working attitude of Singaporeans just because of a few black sheep.

I share the sentiments of the unemployed on both concerns. At the age of 47, I too face mammoth pressure in securing employment in a hiring practice that borders on discriminatory.

Some employment agents have told me in private that employers continue to look at candidates below the age of 35 years old. Some unemployed who responded to advertisements for face to face interviews were often rejected when they revealed that their age is above 40.

If you called in a recruiter and said that you are 40 years old, they would reply that they want someone below 40 years old. If you called in and said that you are 38, they will reply that they prefer someone below 35 instead!

Our labour hiring laws do seem to allow such discriminatory employment practices to prevail. Amazingly, employers seem to get away with such archaic third-world hiring practices in a first world, developed country.

Many I spoke to lamented that they have nowhere to turn to now as they face massive obstacle in being rehired due to their age (40-50 years old). Many who are able are seriously considering the idea of applying for emigration to countries such as Australia or Canada - countries which have strong laws against age-bias hiring practices. I do not blame them for taking such a drastic move because if you cannot find employment in your own country, due to your age, then it makes sense to venture abroad where there is at least some legal protection against discriminatory hiring. The future does look bleak for those who are matured in age in Singapore.

The Aussies have very strong anti-discriminatory hiring practices. When a jobseeker send in his resume, he can choose not to accompany it with his address, race, gender, age, religion and photograph. The employers only decide to interview the candidate based on his working experience and qualification.

As Singapore continues to grabble with the severe downturn and an ageing workforce, let us hope that the government will tighten hiring practices so that our local workforce will be able to face the future with confidence and, most importantly, pride.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25376.1