News Stories

[aohige]

I don't think they are comparable.
Equality in housing is considered one of the major general and basic rights, along with employment.
Not at all comparable with rights to have sex in public.

You can't and shouldn't try to defend racism in matters of basic human rights, regardless of what logic or reasoning you may perceive.
You just' can't, IMO.

[Hiss13]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

*snip*

Discrimination in any form on the basis of race is unacceptable.

What you're saying is the equivalent of defending things like:

Images

1892 Anti-Chinese Sentiments in the US

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

or this

Images

No Irish Need Apply--1868

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by aohige

I don't think they are comparable.
Equality in housing is considered one of the major general and basic rights, along with employment.
Not at all comparable with rights to have sex in public.

You can't and shouldn't try to defend racism in matters of basic human rights, regardless of what logic or reasoning you may perceive.
You just' can't, IMO.

Originally Posted by Hiss13

Discrimination in any form on the basis of race is unacceptable.

What you're saying is the equivalent of defending things like:

Images

1892 Anti-Chinese Sentiments in the US

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

or this

Images

No Irish Need Apply--1868

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

I think the misconception is overlaid here. This is NOT racism; it is defending a way of life.

As I have highlighted, these two particular type of tenants are known to exploitative towards their landlords, hence it is a misconception of racism when they are just afraid of being caught in an unpleasant quagmire. Also, the landlords are not clear in their intentions in advertising; not surprising since the older generation are not as fluent in expression and understanding of English as the current one.

Hence the article highlighted that the younger generation is less likely to reject their tenants simply by how they advertise.

[aohige]

Applying a general stereotype to a group, based on their race or ethnicity, and discriminating based on that, is the fundamental definition of racism.
Whether or not the stereotype is true, and/or intention is to minimize risk, is besides the point.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by aohige

Applying a general stereotype to a group, based on their race or ethnicity, and discriminating based on that, is the fundamental definition of racism.
Whether or not the stereotype is true, and/or intention is to minimize risk, is besides the point.

That is where they got it wrong, in their way of expression. I cannot defend them there, however their intentions are not that of racism. Unless the majority of the PRC and Indians are able to adapt to the norms here, I don't see this selection of tenants will go away.

Think about it, if they are racist, how are they willing to sweat and bleed alongside each other until we are 40? We have been mixing with each other for the past 40+years, Chinese, Indian, Malay and "Others" in this little red dot; racism is not a valid accusation.

If we put up with the Xinhai/<insert the name of some purge in PRC refugees and the Indian migrants, we already overcame the race aspect. So how can this even be a racial discrimination when we invite our Indian neighbours over for CNY house parties?

It is fear of bad tenants, unfortunately which most of which fall into this category are of that 2 races.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is where they got it wrong, in their way of expression. I cannot defend them there, however their intentions are not that of racism. Unless the majority of the PRC and Indians are able to adapt to the norms here, I don't see this selection of tenants will go away.

Think about it, if they are racist, how are they willing to sweat and bleed alongside each other until we are 40? We have been mixing with each other for the past 40+years, Chinese, Indian, Malay and "Others" in this little red dot; racism is not a valid accusation.

If we put up with the Xinhai/<insert the name of some purge in PRC refugees and the Indian migrants, we already overcame the race aspect. So how can this even be a racial discrimination when we invite our Indian neighbours over for CNY house parties?

Right, and I understand your point.
The problem here is the awareness: their "intention" is irrelevant.
It is racism, regardless of whether they are aware of it or conscious of the fact. I personally don't feel they are worth defending.

The problems with "immigrants causing trouble" is not unique to Singapore, it is a common problem all over the world, and they tend to help fuel racism and discrimination.
Everyone's aware of the issue, but it still doesn't justify discrimination.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by aohige

Right, and I understand your point.
The problem here is the awareness: their "intention" is irrelevant.
It is racism, regardless of whether they are aware of it or conscious of the fact. I personally don't feel they are worth defending.

The problems with "immigrants causing trouble" is not unique to Singapore, it is a common problem all over the world, and they tend to help fuel racism and discrimination.
Everyone's aware of the issue, but it still doesn't justify discrimination.

It isn't racism because the tenants don't discriminate against living with Malays and Indians as neighbours, or to allow their children have other-race friends for sleepovers. Note that all races have at least shared a bedroom/shower/tent with another for at least 2.5 years minimum.

From a foreign perspective it is considered racism because you all don't live here and judge by simple actions and gestures. Awareness, albeit negative, of immigrants causing trouble has become too ingrained that it is hard to shake it off, it is akin to how Hongkies were treating Mainlanders as "locusts" because of the general perception as such. Unfortunately we are often judged by the nationality or race for our actions in another country.

I don't know how I can convince you on this until you get to live here. As a local, my experiences tell me it isn't.

[aohige]

You are assuming the situation is unique, and therefore cannot be understood by anyone not living in Singapore.

It is not. It happens everywhere, and I would call it racism regardless of where.

I think the disagreement is caused by the understanding of racism.
The problem is not whether or not the landlords are practicing racial discrimination (because they are), but the justification of it.
I know you want to avoid the term "racism" due to its stigma, but IMO, having an excuse or not is a rather irrelevant point.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by aohige

You are assuming the situation is unique, and therefore cannot be understood by anyone not living in Singapore.

It is not. It happens everywhere, and I would call it racism regardless of where.

That would be an overgeneralisation wouldn't it?

When branding something, the label should also highlight an intention. The intention laid out is to discriminate against wayward tenants, not a particular race.

Even if it is to be widened to judge a book by its cover, it still isn't racism because the landlords don't discriminate against entire races in intention. It would be closer to xenophobia if you want to put the right word in there; not all Indians come from India and not all Chinese come from PRC.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That would be an overgeneralisation wouldn't it?

When branding something, the label should also highlight an intention. The intention laid out is to discriminate against wayward tenants, not a particular race.

Even if it is to be widened to judge a book by its cover, it still isn't racism because the landlords don't discriminate against entire races in intention. It would be closer to xenophobia if you want to put the right word in there; not all Indians come from India and not all Chinese come from PRC.

"Today, most biologists, anthropologists, and sociologists reject a simple taxonomy of races in favor of more specific and/or empirically verifiable criteria, such as geography, ethnicity, or a history of endogamy.[17]"

In the modern English speaking society, the term "racism" does not apply specifically to anthropology.
Ethnic discrimination is described as racism.

This is officially adopted by the United Nations in accordance to Racial Discrimination, so no point arguing over it.

(ICERD, article 1)
..any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

[erneiz_hyde]

I can understand the emotion against the apparent racism, but all this talk makes me imagine a scenario like this:
"You're gonna rent me your home. You can't refuse or I accuse you of racism."
Also reminds me about anecdotes in Japan where a girl can falsely accuse a man of molesting and ruin the man's life....
or that joke anime picture where a grade-schooler extorts money by half-stripping while priming her alarm in front of a random man's house

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by aohige

"Today, most biologists, anthropologists, and sociologists reject a simple taxonomy of races in favor of more specific and/or empirically verifiable criteria, such as geography, ethnicity, or a history of endogamy.[17]"

In the modern English speaking society, the term "racism" does not apply specifically to anthropology.
Ethnic discrimination is described as racism.

This is officially adopted by the United Nations in accordance to Racial Discrimination, so no point arguing over it.

You missed my point. Under law in general, be it commercial/criminal/state/group/international intention must be proven; that is what draws lines between general bias and selective bias.

Ethnic discrimination is highlighted in the advert, but has actual intention been proven?

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

I can understand the emotion against the apparent racism, but all this talk makes me imagine a scenario like this:
"You're gonna rent me your home. You can't refuse or I accuse you of racism."
Also reminds me about anecdotes in Japan where a girl can falsely accuse a man of molesting and ruin the man's life....
or that joke anime picture where a grade-schooler extorts money by half-stripping while priming her alarm in front of a random man's house

Actually I don't feel much emotion in it. It is just that someone on the internet is wrong and I must correct it the best I can.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You missed my point. Under law in general, be it commercial/criminal/state/group/international intention must be proven; that is what draws lines between general bias and selective bias.

Ethnic discrimination is highlighted in the advert, but has actual intention been proven?



Actually I don't feel much emotion in it. It is just that someone on the internet is wrong and I must correct it the best I can.

My point is, their intention is besides the point.
A housing facility with "No Indians or PRC accepted" policy is a racial discrimination practice by international standards.
"Why" they do it is not the issue.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by aohige

My point is, their intention is besides the point.
"No Indians or PRC accepted" is a xenophobic discrimination practice by international standards.

Fixed. Not all Indians are from INdia and not all Chinese are from PRC.

Nonetheless, I get your point. It is xenophobia if intention is beside the point. Looks like we played into the hands of BBC. Damn reporter.

[Seitsuki]

Wasn't there the part where the reporter was told informing the landlord that he was from the UK would be pointless since they'd just think he was an immigrant who'd obtained a passport? If that was extended wouldn't it make the two the same thing?

And um, I understand the point about not wanting tenants because of undesirable qualities but basing that on ethnicity, isn't that racial profiling? Like that law in Arizona? I don't want to argue, it just doesn't seem right...although I'm sure that wasn't the intention

[Skane]

It is racist. Which is sad, considering our heritage.

Sigh.

[Anh_Minh]

SH: if I refused to lease my house to Singaporeans (regardless of ethnicity) because they have a statistically higher chance (IME) of being racist pedophiles, that would be racist. Even though my intention is to not be connected to that sort of thing.

Also, "... but my best friend is X" is code for "I'm totally racist against X". Just so you know.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

SH: if I refused to lease my house to Singaporeans (regardless of ethnicity) because they have a statistically higher chance (IME) of being racist pedophiles, that would be racist. Even though my intention is to not be connected to that sort of thing.

I got the memo. Apparently actions dictate opinions - way too far much. That being said, someone performing an action does not mean that it is the general intention.

Also, "... but my best friend is X" is code for "I'm totally racist against X". Just so you know.

That is reading too much into it.

Originally Posted by Skane

It is racist. Which is sad, considering our heritage.

Sigh.

Think it is closer to xenophobic. Though I contend that it is an unintended consequence.

[JokerD]

Question: As an ethnic Chinese, is it possible for me to be racist against a Mainland (China) Chinese?

If I apply a law against spitting or drinking in public against a person of foreign origin, can that person accuse me of racial bias in the reporting?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by JokerD

Question: As an ethnic Chinese, is it possible for me to be racist against a Mainland (China) Chinese?

Yes, because despite the etymology, racism isn't limited to race-based discrimination.