Racial Harmony: Do We REALLY Have it???
-
Not fair form to ask these questions?
Lee U-Wen
[email protected]
THE next time you pick up a job application form, it could look different.
.
Certain fields — such as those asking for your gender, religion or marital status, even the space where you attach your photograph — could be absent.
.
As part of a national push to fight discrimination at the workplace, a new set of guidelines for fair employment practices will be launched tomorrow. These are expected to address, among other things, some of the biggest bugbears among job-seekers here — the interview questions and application forms.
.
Giving Today a foretaste of what might be announced, Madam Halimah Yacob, co-chairperson of the one-year-old Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices, said existing guidelines were not so "specific" about what the forms could or could not ask.
.
"Now we are saying that questions such as religion, gender, marital status — even photographs — unless absolutely necessary should be cut out," said the assistant secretary-general of the NTUC.
.
The eight-member panel's aim was to update and replace the Code of Responsible Employment Practices issued about five years ago.
.
Said Mdm Halimah: "We had a lengthy discussion about making the guidelines for the forms law. But we looked at other countries which ran into difficulties with this. We decided that if the company still chooses not to hire you for whatever reason, it is difficult for any law to catch it. Discrimination is hard to prove."
.
With the job market heating up, and a record 176,000 jobs created last year, combating workplace discrimination is ever more vital. Each year, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) receives an average of 70 related complaints.
.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, at the May Day Rally yesterday, said Malays and Indians had told him it was harder for them to get jobs.
.
He urged employers to be fair and objective, and base hiring decisions on merit alone. "For example, they should not demand that candidates speak or write Chinese in jobs where this is not necessary," he said.
.
Then there are the complaints from pregnant workers and job-hunters. Last year, the MOM attended to 71 cases of working mothers-to-be who complained about unfair dismissal.
.
At the interview stage, the new guidelines will advise employers on the 'dos' and 'don'ts' of asking questions.
.
"Let's not ask inappropriate questions, such as when are you going to have children or getting married," said Mdm Halimah, adding that initiatives such as the baby bonus and longer maternity leave were "pointless" if women risk losing their jobs when they choose to have children.
.
But Singapore Human Resources Institute president Ho Geok Choo noted that there were "exceptions" where employers had to know certain personal details.
.
For example: If a job requires a civil engineer to be posted to a remote area. "Practicality is going to tell you that it's going to be tough for a female," said Ms Ho. "As long as the employer can justify the reasons, a job-seeker who did not make the cut is less likely to feel discriminated against."
.
A group Ms Ho was "very concerned" about: Executives, who do not enjoy much recourse via the unions or the Manpower Ministry.
.
Calling for a code of conduct for the way such workers are dealt with in the event they are let go of, Ms Ho said: "I have been advocating that the MOM extends its scope of regulation to cover managers and above.
.
"They can be victims of higher politics. Sometimes, it's a new leader that comes into the company ... Increasingly, we have been hearing of foreigners who bring their own team, and they just get rid of the old team."
.
Singapore Business Federation council member Lawrence Leow said bosses' welfare must not be forgotten, too.
.
"The Employment Act largely protects workers. But fair employment must go both ways. We must spare a thought for employers too, who have to deal with difficult workers, such as those who try to cheat them with false education certificates," he said.
.
Other initiatives in the pipeline include the establishment of a new centre for fair employment, to collect public feedback and advise workers and employers keen to adopt such practices.
.
The tripartite alliance's Pledge of Fair Employment Practices — a movement launched in September last year — has 419 companies on board to date, with the target being to reach 500 by June. Ministries, statutory boards and Government agencies signed the pledge last month. -
There's a thin line between admirable ingenuity and mindless stupidity.
If omitting having need to indicate one's gender and provide one's photograph were meant to ensure "equal employment" opportunities in the recruiting process, are potential employees therefore going to be interviewed masked by a barrier (and possibly with a voice-over to conceal his/her gender) or does this usher in the dawn of an era where "virtual" employees are the norm? -
im not into HR practices but in my job, there is a real need to specifiy racial, gender background. As a salesperson we need to do entertainment such as drink alcohol, dinner at chinese resturant etc.
dont think we can bring our client to eat at halal resturant, drink teh tarik all the time.
Unlike the PAP who write their own paycheck, we sales, have to work hard to earn our money, irregardless, during office hours or after, like it or not. -
Clients should also realise that they should not expect cultural priority as well.
-
Have you ever come across the many job ads stating "Mandarin speaking only need apply"?? While "Must be conversant in English" is acceptable...
If this isn't some form of discrimination, then I don't know what is... -
This is a double-edged sword, but let's address your argument first. Why should "mandarin speaking only need apply" be discriminatory by nature? From that statement alone, you could infer - in all probability - that job requires its applicant to possess a specific skill : in this case, the ability to speak mandarin (it doesn't state whether an ethnic Chinese or Martian is preferred - you're a worthy candidate so long as you speak mandarin).Originally posted by ShutterBug:Have you ever come across the many job ads stating "Mandarin speaking only need apply"?? While "Must be conversant in English" is acceptable...
If this isn't some form of discrimination, then I don't know what is...
On to the other part about such matters tackling discrimination. Realistically, if someone wanted to remain biased and bigoted, it really isn't all that hard. Afterall, you'd still need to go for your interview before you get hired. So what if you outlawed ads that may sound remotely discriminatory? If anything, I think such measures are counter-productive.
Imagine this scenario : If you belonged to an ethnic minority subjected to discrimination by your potential employer, would you really fancy going for an interview only to be turned away with the aid of a proxy reason by your racist employer, than to allow (by law) for the employer to state his racist pre-requisites (however unreasonable they may seem) explicitly in the ads so you wouldn't need to even bother wasting your time on the job application and the eventual fruitless interview?
Equal opportunity is a noble concept in theory, but one that's practically impossible to enforce through legislation. -
IF speaking Mandarin as well as being generally literate in Mandarin is what they require or meant, then an employer SHOULD state "Ability/able to communicate in Mandarin preferred" instead of "Mandarin Speaking Only Need Apply". Which sentence sounds more accurate and non-discrimnatory?Originally posted by walesa:This is a double-edged sword, but let's address your argument first. Why should "mandarin speaking only need apply" be discriminatory by nature? From that statement alone, you could infer - in all probability - that job requires its applicant to possess a specific skill : in this case, the ability to speak mandarin (it doesn't state whether an ethnic Chinese or Martian is preferred - you're a worthy candidate so long as you speak mandarin).
On to the other part about such matters tackling discrimination. Realistically, if someone wanted to remain biased and bigoted, it really isn't all that hard. Afterall, you'd still need to go for your interview before you get hired. So what if you outlawed ads that may sound remotely discriminatory? If anything, I think such measures are counter-productive.
Imagine this scenario : If you belonged to an ethnic minority subjected to discrimination by your potential employer, would you really fancy going for an interview only to be turned away with the aid of a proxy reason by your racist employer, than to allow (by law) for the employer to state his racist pre-requisites (however unreasonable they may seem) explicitly in the ads so you wouldn't need to even bother wasting your time on the job application and the eventual fruitless interview?
Equal opportunity is a noble concept in theory, but one that's practically impossible to enforce through legislation. -
I don't see any difference as far as the slightest nuances of discrimination is concerned? I'm not the least bit interested in politically correct statements, just something that conveys the true meaning without ambiguity. "Mandarin Speaking Only Need Apply" --> Strictly speaking, tell me one other innuendo (other meaning) this statement could convey?Originally posted by ShutterBug:IF speaking Mandarin as well as being generally literate in Mandarin is what they require or meant, then an employer SHOULD state "Ability/able to communicate in Mandarin preferred" instead of "Mandarin Speaking Only Need Apply". Which sentence sounds more accurate and non-discrimnatory?
On to the other point. Imagine being a non-Chinese going for a job interview where the employer actually would hire only a Chinese (let's just assume the employer is racist). Which scenario would you actually prefer?
1. The ad explicitly states that non-Chinese (by race) need not apply.
2. The ad doesn't make references to any preference. When you apply and go for the interview, you're actually turned away with diplomatic excuses and realise through indirect vibes from your prospective employer that they actually hire only Chinese. -
By the use of the word 'only', and that the language 'Mandarin' meaing race. Of course, there are other races who can speak Mandarin as well... so perhaps to prove dismcrination an under-cover Indian applicant should walk in to apply - and I am quite certain he/she may be turned away even though he/she CAN speak Mandarin.Originally posted by walesa:I don't see any difference as far as the slightest nuances of discrimination is concerned? I'm not the least bit interested in politically correct statements, just something that conveys the true meaning without ambiguity. "Mandarin Speaking Only Need Apply" --> Strictly speaking, tell me one other innuendo (other meaning) this statement could convey?
On to the other point. Imagine being a non-Chinese going for a job interview where the employer actually would hire only a Chinese (let's just assume the employer is racist). Which scenario would you actually prefer?
1. The ad explicitly states that non-Chinese (by race) need not apply.
2. The ad doesn't make references to any preference. When you apply and go for the interview, you're actually turned away with diplomatic excuses and realise through indirect vibes from your prospective employer that they actually hire only Chinese.
Nobody in Singapore would directly specify preference of RACE, but indirect approaches are plentiful in the job market.
Come on, even in schools now in recent years, they are encouraging students of different races to mix around, because it was noted after some decades that Malays group together, and the chinese will also group to their own kind, as well as others like Indian and other minority races.
Who are we kidding seriously?
Ok, we are racially TOLREANT, that much I agree..... nothing more than this. -
I think you're reading too much into the "Mandarin speaking only need apply" - you're asserting a contextual basis to it. Anyway, mandarin is a spoken language - it doesn't make reference to any ethnicity or nationality. To illustrate this example more concisely, let me rephrase it then : if you were to see an ad in Singapore that says "Greek speaking only need apply", would you still reckon it to be as bigoted?Originally posted by ShutterBug:By the use of the word 'only', and that the language 'Mandarin' meaing race. Of course, there are other races who can speak Mandarin as well... so perhaps to prove dismcrination an under-cover Indian applicant should walk in to apply - and I am quite certain he/she may be turned away even though he/she CAN speak Mandarin.
Nobody in Singapore would directly specify preference of RACE, but indirect approaches are plentiful in the job market.
Come on, even in schools now in recent years, they are encouraging students of different races to mix around, because it was noted after some decades that Malays group together, and the chinese will also group to their own kind, as well as others like Indian and other minority races.
Who are we kidding seriously?
Ok, we are racially TOLREANT, that much I agree..... nothing more than this.
That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. If an employer wanted to discriminate, is there any way to effectively deter him from adopting his discriminatory hiring practices through legislation? If that were the case, wouldn't it be better if his requirements (however ridiculous and discriminatory they may seem) were made known beforehand? At least, prospective employees wouldn't need to waste their time considering that particular position.
The bottomline I'm trying to point out is it's virtually impossible to stem out this sort of discrimination in practice through any form of effective legislation... -
It's the same in M'sia.
Malays think Chinese are proud and babi. Chinese think Malays are lazy and 2020 is a dream.
Language, culture, food are all different.....can't be helped. -
I find your example odd; because if Greek is required in Singapore, to me I'd view it that they are seeking largely European applicants. However, there are some Asians who too, can speak Greek. Come on, LANGUAGE is always tied to RACE. Unless words like translator, teacher, or any posts under the linguistic profession are used, stipulating a certain language only indicates preferences of RACE.Originally posted by walesa:I think you're reading too much into the "Mandarin speaking only need apply" - you're asserting a contextual basis to it. Anyway, mandarin is a spoken language - it doesn't make reference to any ethnicity or nationality. To illustrate this exampler more concisely, let me rephrase it then : if you were to see an ad in Singapore that says "Greek speaking only need apply", would you still reckon it to be as bigoted?
That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. If an employer wanted to discriminate, is there any way to effectively deter him from adopting his discriminatory hiring practices through legislation? If that were the case, wouldn't it be better if his requirements (however ridiculous and discriminatory they may seem) were made known beforehand? At least, prospective employees wouldn't need to waste their time considering that particular position.
It is not impossible to deter employers from being discrimnatory, our Multi Million Dollar government can surely dish out some dictatorial rules or regulations to do so. It's not difficult for such high salaried men and women to do.. just dictate.
The problem with people here in Singapore, is that we grumble and rant about how our government is so dictatorial but yet, do things in such ways that leaves them, our gov., no choice but to BE dictatorial. Otherwise people don't buck up... -
I agree with you. Mostly, not all employers though.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Nobody in Singapore would directly specify preference of RACE, but indirect approaches are plentiful in the job market. -
Yes, I agree too, not all employers...Originally posted by Rock^Star:I agree with you. Mostly, not all employers though.
What I detest the most are little retail outlets or stores that employs assistants who can only speak well in Mandarin. And when faced with an English speaking local asian Chinese, they get all tongue-tied and blunder over the customer's orders and screws it all up.. why? Because she/he cannot understand English well... ONLY Mandarin...
I once called up Stamford Tyres to enquire about their products, and was told by the salegirl on the phone, to get somebody who speaks Mandarin to call again!!! Can you farking BEAT THAT??? -
It is not impossible to deter employers from being discrimnatory, our Multi Million Dollar government can surely dish out some dictatorial rules or regulations to do so. It's not difficult for such high salaried men and women to do.. just dictate.
People do things in such ways largely because of the way things are. Does the employer simply decide to be discrimnatory on a whim? No, his course of action in choosing his employment requirements is the result of plenty of life experiences and worldviews that have not been properly addressed by our system to finally result in this.
The problem with people here in Singapore, is that we grumble and rant about how our government is so dictatorial but yet, do things in such ways that leaves them, our gov., no choice but to BE dictatorial. Otherwise people don't buck up...
Passing dictatorial rules is an easy, but largely incomplete solutionÂ… not to mention inadequate and counterproductive in the end. It is the Nazi kind of solution that we must avoid.
If one wants to fight discrimination in the workplace, it all starts with the child who will be the future employer, and not the employer who already has his entire lifetime of segregated upbringing to affect his employment requirements.
Laws are dead but people are alive, simply passing dictatorial laws to fix the problem will only leave to employers seeking to find loopholes, which in response will incite the creation of even more dictatorial laws, this process of which ultimately ends up counterproductive to everybody and everything.
For instance we can start at the job ads, fair enough. The employers will simply move on to the interview room. And of course perhaps our government can pass some law enforcing racial quotas, and I have no doubt the employer will yet again find some way around it, or at least those who got in by the quota might find themselves in a hostile working environment or some other means to keep them “apart” from the company.
On the flipside, we can get unqualified people who get in simply because of the quota. A look north will immediately see the flipside of affirmative action.
At the end of the day, nobody will be happy. The root problem of minorities feeling that they are discriminated in some way will still remain, and of course this could spill over from the workplace to society in general. Laws are dead if people do not understand the spirit of them, and as long as racism is alive it will always find a way to express itself.
The segregated children in the classroom and playground will naturally want to form and become segregated companies and employers in the future. Passing laws to prevent this is like applying anaesthetic to a gunshot wound and sending the soldier back to battle- it treats the symptoms but not the illness. And of course in the long run it will ultimately come up with its own problems.
The question is why this: why has our educational system failed to create the kind of multicultural society that we hope will eventually cumulate in our society being more of so? Despite all our HDB quotas, civics and moral education, and racial harmony days as well as sedition lawsÂ… why is workplace still manifesting supposedly discriminatory requirements?
So what has failed with the education of our populace? Is this something that can easily be “fixed” by passing dictatorial laws? I think not. These laws will only sweep racism under the carpet from the sight of society where they cannot be seen and be allowed to flourish and fester in all the new ways that we have yet to imagine.
Better to see the beast where it has reared its ugly head and confront it there, as opposed to trying to think that we can get rid of it simply by passing laws to say that it can go here or there. Unless it is truly vanquished in the heart of society, we can never have the peace we desire. -
And of course, given the rising number of PRC workers in our nation, do you seriously think the government is really going to make big moves towards jepordizing this source of income by making jobs harder for this group to obtain by coming up with laws and quotas?
I have yet to see a "you must be able to speak effective english" requirement for the PRC worker to enter Singapore. -
I fully agree with your detailed views. Dictatorial rules and regulations, aren't the ways to go. However, it has always been this way, all these decades...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:People do things in such ways largely because of the way things are. Does the employer simply decide to be discrimnatory on a whim? No, his course of action in choosing his employment requirements is the result of plenty of life experiences and worldviews that have not been properly addressed by our system to finally result in this.
Passing dictatorial rules is an easy, but largely incomplete solutionÂ… not to mention inadequate and counterproductive in the end. It is the Nazi kind of solution that we must avoid.
If one wants to fight discrimination in the workplace, it all starts with the child who will be the future employer, and not the employer who already has his entire lifetime of segregated upbringing to affect his employment requirements.
Laws are dead but people are alive, simply passing dictatorial laws to fix the problem will only leave to employers seeking to find loopholes, which in response will incite the creation of even more dictatorial laws, this process of which ultimately ends up counterproductive to everybody and everything.
For instance we can start at the job ads, fair enough. The employers will simply move on to the interview room. And of course perhaps our government can pass some law enforcing racial quotas, and I have no doubt the employer will yet again find some way around it, or at least those who got in by the quota might find themselves in a hostile working environment or some other means to keep them “apart” from the company.
On the flipside, we can get unqualified people who get in simply because of the quota. A look north will immediately see the flipside of affirmative action.
At the end of the day, nobody will be happy. The root problem of minorities feeling that they are discriminated in some way will still remain, and of course this could spill over from the workplace to society in general. Laws are dead if people do not understand the spirit of them, and as long as racism is alive it will always find a way to express itself.
The segregated children in the classroom and playground will naturally want to form and become segregated companies and employers in the future. Passing laws to prevent this is like applying anaesthetic to a gunshot wound and sending the soldier back to battle- it treats the symptoms but not the illness. And of course in the long run it will ultimately come up with its own problems.
The question is why this: why has our educational system failed to create the kind of multicultural society that we hope will eventually cumulate in our society being more of so? Despite all our HDB quotas, civics and moral education, and racial harmony days as well as sedition lawsÂ… why is workplace still manifesting supposedly discriminatory requirements?
So what has failed with the education of our populace? Is this something that can easily be “fixed” by passing dictatorial laws? I think not. These laws will only sweep racism under the carpet from the sight of society where they cannot be seen and be allowed to flourish and fester in all the new ways that we have yet to imagine.
Better to see the beast where it has reared its ugly head and confront it there, as opposed to trying to think that we can get rid of it simply by passing laws to say that it can go here or there. Unless it is truly vanquished in the heart of society, we can never have the peace we desire.
Every objective our government sets out to achieve, are gotten via dictatorial policies. Look at HOTA, look at Stop at Two family planning, look at Speak Mandarin Campagne, and now look at Foreign Talent policy. Their primary goal is the objective, side effects and repercussions are bluntly ignored - only to be addressed many years later - now look at Casinos and Formula One racing...
So for every singular issue that they've addressed or "solved", little niggling offspring issues are spawned to grow into problems in later years... and then in haste to address or "solve" the problem, dictatorial rules & regulations are again applied - vicious cycle...
I don't understand how, they view themselves deserving of such obscene salaries....
-
No.... we don't.
-
Stamford tyres...are you sure? Then their English is not very Stamford.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Yes, I agree too, not all employers...
What I detest the most are little retail outlets or stores that employs assistants who can only speak well in Mandarin. And when faced with an English speaking local asian Chinese, they get all tongue-tied and blunder over the customer's orders and screws it all up.. why? Because she/he cannot understand English well... ONLY Mandarin...
I once called up Stamford Tyres to enquire about their products, and was told by the salegirl on the phone, to get somebody who speaks Mandarin to call again!!! Can you farking BEAT THAT???
So u can't speak Chinese huh? -
We are not like the Americans where everyone looks ang moh. Not only are the culture of our individual races different, our food, native languages and most importantly, appearances are contrasting too.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The question is why this: why has our educational system failed to create the kind of multicultural society that we hope will eventually cumulate in our society being more of so? Despite all our HDB quotas, civics and moral education, and racial harmony days as well as sedition lawsÂ… why is workplace still manifesting supposedly discriminatory requirements?
So what has failed with the education of our populace? Is this something that can easily be “fixed” by passing dictatorial laws? I think not. These laws will only sweep racism under the carpet from the sight of society where they cannot be seen and be allowed to flourish and fester in all the new ways that we have yet to imagine.
And it does not help that some races are generally perceived as more hardworking than others. History has taught us that racial problems are not something which can ever be solved. Racial tolerance, yes but not harmony.
I don't blame the govt for this. -
Exactly, so what makes you think they will really be on the ball to solve this issue given the current employment situtation has worked so far, and that Singapore needs to be more welcoming to FTs, a large proportion of which will be from the PRC?Originally posted by ShutterBug:I fully agree with your detailed views. Dictatorial rules and regulations, aren't the ways to go. However, it has always been this way, all these decades...
Every objective our government sets out to achieve, are gotten via dictatorial policies. Look at HOTA, look at Stop at Two family planning, look at Speak Mandarin Campagne, and now look at Foreign Talent policy. Their primary goal is the objective, side effects and repercussions are bluntly ignored - only to be addressed many years later - now look at Casinos and Formula One racing...
So for every singular issue that they've addressed or "solved", little niggling offspring issues are spawned to grow into problems in later years... and then in haste to address or "solve" the problem, dictatorial rules & regulations are again applied - vicious cycle...
I don't understand how, they view themselves deserving of such obscene salaries....
Hence while a lot of noise is made about discriminatory employment requirements, they might pass some law but never actually getting down to the root of the problem because as long as it works why fiddle with it too much? Fiddling with the employment culture too much will alienate our PRC FTs.
Or minorities may find some laws in their favour, but at the end of the day they will still experience the same difficulties and discrimination, just that it has some back in some other way. -
We are not like the Americans where everyone looks ang moh. Not only are the culture of our individual races different, our food, native languages and most importantly, appearances are contrasting too.
Actually hor, if you go to America you will realize they are pretty multicultural as well. And of course if you go to London you will be amazed at the sheer number of cultures over there. But of course even the US and Europe have their own issues with multiculturism.
And it does not help that some races are generally perceived as more hardworking than others. History has taught us that racial problems are not something which can ever be solved. Racial tolerance, yes but not harmony.
I don't blame the govt for this.
There will always be some friction, this is unavoidable.
What I am pointing out however, is that our current educational measures to promote understanding and harmony among our children might still leave much to be desired, a lot of them seem to be followed in letter but not in spirit.
Of course one can't blame it entirely on the govt, the older generation might still have an effect on our current generation. I catch my own parents making plenty of subtle (and often unjustified) remarks on other races based on his own inability to understand their worldview and adjusting towards working with them, and I don't think every child would disagree with them like I did.
There is a chance that the baby boomer generation might be less tolerant then our current bunch, and this might affect current employment trend, but it might naturally reverse itself as we move along.
Prehaps it might get better as we move along, but playing hardball by passing laws might simply be a step backwards. True understanding requiring more give-and-take and engagement then some hardline rule drawing out the bare minimum where people have to play by.
But yet, there will always be racism in soceity, it's just a matter of how much. -
Yes of course, laws will simply just sweep dust under the carpet but the dirt still remains. What do u suggest then?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Actually hor, if you go to America you will realize they are pretty multicultural as well. And of course if you go to London you will be amazed at the sheer number of cultures over there. But of course even the US and Europe have their own issues with multiculturism.
There will always be some friction, this is unavoidable.
What I am pointing out however, is that our current educational measures to promote understanding and harmony among our children might still leave much to be desired, a lot of them seem to be followed in letter but not in spirit.
Of course one can't blame it entirely on the govt, the older generation might still have an effect on our current generation. I catch my own parents making plenty of subtle (and often unjustified) remarks on other races based on his own inability to understand their worldview and adjusting towards working with them, and I don't think every child would disagree with them like I did.
There is a chance that the baby boomer generation might be less tolerant then our current bunch, and this might affect current employment trend, but it might naturally reverse itself as we move along.
Prehaps it might get better as we move along, but playing hardball by passing laws might simply be a step backwards. True understanding requiring more give-and-take and engagement then some hardline rule drawing out the bare minimum where people have to play by.
But yet, there will always be racism in soceity, it's just a matter of how much. -
some ppl de england very lou chee u noe...Originally posted by ShutterBug:IF speaking Mandarin as well as being generally literate in Mandarin is what they require or meant, then an employer SHOULD state "Ability/able to communicate in Mandarin preferred" instead of "Mandarin Speaking Only Need Apply". Which sentence sounds more accurate and non-discrimnatory? -
What I suggest is a grassroots approach, you can't expect soceity to simply change now but you can.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Yes of course, laws will simply just sweep dust under the carpet but the dirt still remains. What do u suggest then?
Learn more about other cultures, work with them, when you raise your children teach them about the importance of racial harmony. Speak out in defence of other races when you hear members of your own making ignorant remarks about them, help them understand the POVs of other cultures. Treat everyone fairly.
These are the things that will truly change us at the end of the day.