Equal Treatment?

Article 1

Article 2: Call for Equal Rewards

The first article appeared in 2008 when singapore won a gold medal in the beijing paralympics (betcha didnt know!); controversy erupts as to whether there should be equitable payouts for both the silver medallists of the olympics and the gold medallist of the paralympics. This time round, the same controversy repeats itself after we won the silver medal for the london paralympics (see second article) you can familiarise yourself with the arguments mentioned in both articles. But what is useful here is how we can use this as an exampe to show that perhaps equal treatment (as in same payout) may not bring about fairness. To insist on same prize money for the gold medallist in both events would be an arguably unjust act (though you can choose to argue both sides, i.e. rebut). Why? you ask? 'cos it will not be giving the olympic winner the due recognition which he/she deserves, as the olympic event is clearly the more prestigious one. For an analogy, how would u feel if a winner at the national level competition is given the same recognition or prize money as a winner at the school level competition? The prestige and recognition is simply not the same, and to insist on treating both winners the same on some sanctimonious grounds is to shortchange the winner competing at the national level. Hence some discrinimination is necessary and even desirable here.
Sample qn:
All forms of discrimination are undesirable. Do you agree?
Does equal treatment always lead to better outcomes?
There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals. Discuss.