Equality does not mean Equal Treatment? or does it?
Articles 1-4 shows that 'equality' may not always be a reality. Article 4 is slightly different from the rest as most would regard the different (hence unequal) punishment received by women as 'proper'. But in all cases, it can be argued that the unequal treatment is actually 'equal'. As pointed out insightfully in article 5, real equality need not always be about treating the parties concerned equally. It requires the accommodation of the inherent differences in the parties concerned, consequently leading to them being treated differently. To pretend that a paralympic Gold is the same as an Olympic Gold is unfair to the winner of the latter; it can also be seen as mocking the achievement of the former since he may perceive it as a form of disguised sympathy.
Article 4 shows the harshness of the Syariah Law (which is based on Islam) where the punishment seems disproportional to the magnitude and nature of the wrongdoing. Think also about other examples: adultery and taking part in beauty contest are punishable by stoning to death, stealing by cutting off the hand, etc. But even under the harsh Syriah law, women are treated differently from men. Compare with the law in Singapore, where women are never caned (reserved for men only, and even then, male adults over a certain age (50 yo?) are spared), and there's no such thing as male rape! The different treatment of males and females, whether in their favour or otherwise, seems to suggest that there is no equality of treatment. But viewed in the light of the argument in article 5, one can rebut and maintain that 'real' equality still exists, as it takes into account the inherent differences of both gender, i.e. women are physically weaker than men.
Nonetheless, the version of 'true' equality mentioned in article 5 is not necessarily desirable. Imagine if a woman is recruited to become a firefighter or soldier based on a more lax physical fitness test criteria. She may not be able to carry out her duties effectively and may injure herself or even die in the process. Recognise that fire or bullets have no conscience. They will not spare a woman just because they are physically weaker than men. In a nutshell, affirmative measures which seek to accommodate the inherent differences of the parties concerned may actually compromise the efficiency of the organisation. Even as they seek to help the more disadvantaged party, they may instead hamper their effectiveness in performing their duties, to the extent of compromising their safety or lives! So is the kind of 'true' equality mentioned in article 5 still fair and desirable? Should universities reserve a quota for or have a separate set of admission criteria for students from ITE as compared to those from JC/poly in order to accommodate the former's more inferior academic ability and give them a leg up?
In light of the above, ponder over this: There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals'.
Sample Qn:
1) 'Religion has caused more harm than good.' Discuss.
2) In your society, how far is equality for all a reality? (Cambridge 2012)
Article 4 shows the harshness of the Syariah Law (which is based on Islam) where the punishment seems disproportional to the magnitude and nature of the wrongdoing. Think also about other examples: adultery and taking part in beauty contest are punishable by stoning to death, stealing by cutting off the hand, etc. But even under the harsh Syriah law, women are treated differently from men. Compare with the law in Singapore, where women are never caned (reserved for men only, and even then, male adults over a certain age (50 yo?) are spared), and there's no such thing as male rape! The different treatment of males and females, whether in their favour or otherwise, seems to suggest that there is no equality of treatment. But viewed in the light of the argument in article 5, one can rebut and maintain that 'real' equality still exists, as it takes into account the inherent differences of both gender, i.e. women are physically weaker than men.
Nonetheless, the version of 'true' equality mentioned in article 5 is not necessarily desirable. Imagine if a woman is recruited to become a firefighter or soldier based on a more lax physical fitness test criteria. She may not be able to carry out her duties effectively and may injure herself or even die in the process. Recognise that fire or bullets have no conscience. They will not spare a woman just because they are physically weaker than men. In a nutshell, affirmative measures which seek to accommodate the inherent differences of the parties concerned may actually compromise the efficiency of the organisation. Even as they seek to help the more disadvantaged party, they may instead hamper their effectiveness in performing their duties, to the extent of compromising their safety or lives! So is the kind of 'true' equality mentioned in article 5 still fair and desirable? Should universities reserve a quota for or have a separate set of admission criteria for students from ITE as compared to those from JC/poly in order to accommodate the former's more inferior academic ability and give them a leg up?
In light of the above, ponder over this: There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals'.
Sample Qn:
1) 'Religion has caused more harm than good.' Discuss.
2) In your society, how far is equality for all a reality? (Cambridge 2012)
 |
| article 1 |
 |
| article 2 |
 |
| article 3 |
 |
| article 4 |
 |
| article 5 |
posted by Dark Shadow | 10:42 PM
<< Home