NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The aim of the present paper is to compare the affirmative action programs in Singapore, Malaysia, and the US. The specific aspect on which the paper will concentrate is labor; as far as affirmative action relates to management of minority rights, it will discuss the rights and the programs aimed at managing labor within and among minority groups, the actions which are taken to give them labor equity and equal opportunities. Outline Definition of affirmative action 3 In order to make discussion deep and understandable, it is essential to see how affirmative action is defined and to what spheres of regulation it relates. Singapore 4 Singapore is the country with rapidly developing economy, and here it will be looked through the aspect of foreign labor management and the fact of presence/ absence of affirmative action policies. Malaysia 5 Malaysia is similar to Singapore in many aspects, but its affirmative action policies are absent, and immigration and management of foreign employees is much stricter than that of Singapore.
It is essential to compare the two countries for this aspect of labor relations. The United States 7 Affirmative action in the US has long history of development, but there are various opinions as for the need and role of affirmative action in the country, as well as its effectiveness. Conclusion 9 Labor Definition of affirmative action First of all, in order to make the discussion narrower and more specific, it is essential to define what affirmative action is and why it has recently become a very important subject of research, especially for the countries which actively use foreign labor. Holzer & Neumark (2000) state, that 'affirmative action is a policy designed to redress past discrimination against women and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and educational opportunities', but it is also essential to note that affirmative action policies are very controversial, and there is no uniform agreement as for whether these policies should or should not exist; probably the reason for that is their imperfection, but these policies have recently been challenged.
It will be interesting to compare the policies which are used in Singapore and Malaysia in terms of affirmative action, and in managing foreign labor, and to compare them to those which are currently used in the USA. In employment, about which we will here speak, affirmative action is also known as 'employment equity'. (Holzer & Neumark, 2000) The principal controversial notion and action in relation to the employment equity policies in all countries is quota, and there is still an issue of whether quotas should be applied toward foreign employees. The problem of the affirmative action programs is in the fact that while its proponents state that these programs are crucial for correcting the history of discrimination against certain group of society, the opponents of these programs view them as another edge of discrimination moreover, the discrimination which is governmentally sanctioned and which is the instrument of sending the message to the minority groups of the fact that they are not able to promote themselves and to find the means of self-realization. (Blau, 1996) Several scholar works have been analyzed to understand what policies are created by Malaysia and Singapore for (or against) foreign workers, and how they differ or how they are similar with those created in the US. Singapore It should be noted that both Singapore and Malaysia exercise similar policies, and these policies are not mainly aimed at implementation of affirmative actions, but are rather aimed at managing foreign labor for the benefits of both countries.
Chew & Chew (2003) write, that 'Singapore's foreign labor management relies on immigration regulations'. This means that Singapore closely watches the situation with the incoming foreign workers, and regulates their number, qualification and wages; the affirmative actions of Singapore are mainly aimed at ensuring that foreign labor is brought to the country officially, which ultimately defines the welfare of the foreign workers and works against abuse and their discrimination. (Soon & Tan, 2003) The central aspect of the Singapore's labor affirmative regulation is promoting skilled workers with opportunities of getting satisfactory salaries and prospect for permanent residence; non-skilled counterparts are deprived of many benefits in Singapore's labor market; in this way Singapore tries to encourage local firms to hire local employees and to decrease the portion of the foreign labor in the country. 'Unskilled workers, who fall below a maximum salary cap equal to US$ 1, 190 per month, are eligible for work permit. Additional restrictions to dissuade permanent settlement of unskilled foreign workers include limits to personal freedoms such as prohibiting reunion of worker's dependents, marriage to a Singapore national and pregnancy'. (Sowell & Tan, 2003) The fact of such serious discrimination of unskilled workers is supported by the law, which makes all unskilled foreign female workers subject to obligatory pregnancy tests; in case the results are positive, women are deported from the country. Professional skilled workers are given permit for employment in Singapore in the strictly limited number of industries, the list of which is also regulated at the state level these are construction, harbor and marine craft sectors, and this category of workers is not limited in their freedoms and is allowed for permanent residence. The Singapore's affirmative actions policies work for the support of skilled workforce. Sowell (2005) writes, that 'services to ease the settlement and assimilation of workers into Singapore society are provided by government established Social Integration Management Service to encourage permanent integration of workers with the desirable skills into the labor force'.
This means, that the policies which theoretically should provide every foreign worker with equal opportunities, in this country are meant to provide these opportunities only in limited volumes and only for those workers, whose skills are supposed to be necessary to the economy of the country. For this category of employees the government gives additional incentives, providing them with free access to healthcare, education and related programs. (Chew & Chew, 2003) Malaysia It is important to understand, that while economic development of both Singapore and Malaysia are similar, and their labor markets also display certain extent of similarity, they are still different in their management of foreign labor. The main difference is that while Singapore's system limits foreign workforce according to their skills, Malaysia provides additional limitations through age and nationality restrictions. 'Workers should be between 18 and 45 years of age, and no resettlement of dependents in Malaysia is allowed. Only citizens of Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand are issued passes for domestic/ household employment; for the manufacturing, construction, plantation and service sectors, the list of eligible nationalities is extended to include Bangladeshis and Pakistanis'. (Blau, 1996) The legislation and opportunities in the sphere of foreign employment and giving foreign workers opportunities for professional growth and promotion is even stricter than that of Singapore, because even skilled professional workers are not allowed for permanent residence, and though they are able to receive visas for their dependents, the list of the key posts which they can hold in the organizations which hire them is very narrow and depends on the 'level of the enterprise's foreign paid-up capital'. (King-Hock, 2002) Thus, as we try to compare the two systems, it becomes obvious, that actually none of the two countries described has any system of the affirmative action, in the form in which it exists in the US and which will be described later in this work. It appears, that the countries view foreign labor as the threat to the employment of its native population and thus does not see any need in giving them opportunities for employment, while the same opportunities can be used by the local citizens.
The countries seem to refuse accepting the reality, in which they both rapidly grow, and thus foreign labor becomes the integral part of this growth, especially taking into account that its cost is relatively cheaper and thus is a beneficial option for the Malaysian and Singapore's employers. Moreover, foreign seekers of employment agree to accept poorer conditions of work and living for the same jobs, in which local population would not work. 'Foreign workers in both Malaysia and Singapore do not benefit from the same social protection in terms of the pension savings scheme requiring employer and employee contributions for Malaysian and Singapore nationals, effectively lowering the cost of foreign labor further'. (Sowell, 2005) There are certain objectives to the both systems, and while the country stems the situation with foreign labor through permit system and strict limitations, and while we see that Singapore exercises a slight analogue of affirmative actions for the professional skilled workers, and Malaysia has none, it becomes evident that both countries require close re-consideration of this situation. The management of the foreign labor is performed not through the prism of equal opportunities, but through the prism of controlling and directing labor force flows, creating the structure of labor which is the most desirable for the state's economy. However, the countries are also different in their economic situation and status while Singapore is state and city at the same time, it needs to compensate the demand for additional labor force through employing skilled foreign workers, Malaysia is a large country with diversified population structure, which is able to provide itself with the necessary local workers and thus needs serious regulation to decrease unemployment among local population. It is also necessary to pay additional attention to what World Bank (2002) writes in the article on the subject of affirmative actions and employment issues in both countries; it is stated, that strict labor immigration policies and absence of affirmative actions has become the pushing factor for the rise of illegal immigration, which implies the number of serious discrimination factors towards foreign employees in all spheres wages, living conditions, access to healthcare and related social services. 'It is important to recognize the disadvantages associated with informal employment. Workers on informal contracts do not benefit from protective legislation and social benefits.
Stories of abuse are not uncommon, especially involving domestic workers'. (Blau, 1996) The above made comparison and discussion become the proof of the total failure of the both the policies of controlling foreign labor force and providing them with equity. Let's see how this system works in the US. The United States Existing of any affirmative action policies is usually justified by the existing of the discrimination in this or that sphere of public relations and activity. While affirmative actions in the US display a long history of development on the basis of the discrimination patterns which existed in the country in different periods, the justification of the present policies is justified by the following facts: unemployment rates among black population are twice as high as the rates of unemployment among white Americans; 97 percent of the chief managers in 1000 Fortune largest corporations are white; (Lott, 2000) However, it is also understandable that much of the existed data is distorted due to the complex of factors which are not always taken into account, as differences in wages and their true reasons. The current programs which exist in the US as affirmative actions can be summarized as follows. First of all, as far as 30 percent of the federal workforce is represented by the minorities, such policies are crucial for promoting and supporting these minorities and giving them basis for development and thus bringing additional profits and taxes to the federal government.
The examples of these programs are: outreach (a number of statutes encourages subjects at working with minority-owned banks); targeted training and investment efforts (for example, the Foreign Service performs and develops the minority internship program). (Holzer & Neumark, 2000) Second, the number of essential points should be born in mind for the one speaking about affirmative actions in the US: the number of policies in this area is so large, that it is impossible to make any generalizations as for their goals, means, instruments and effectiveness. While the principal advantage of the affirmative action policy compared to that of Malaysia and Singapore is the mere fact of its existence, there is still active argument as for whether this program is effective and whether it has enough reasons for being supported and promoted. 'Supporters of Affirmative Action tend to argue that these policies are necessary to offset the systematic barriers that minorities and women continue to face in pursuing employment opportunities'. (Lundberg, 2001) Thus, the Affirmative Action is seen as the effective instrument of promoting this equity for the representatives of these minorities; however, the question here appears whether these equal rights are aimed at giving employment to these minorities, or to change their qualifications to follow the requirements of the present day labor market. Landes (1998) writes that Affirmative Action 'continues to generate low skills among underrepresented jobs and university positions for these groups'. This means that while one of the essential advantages of these policies is giving enough incentive and encouraging low skilled minorities' representatives at working and having the potential for growth in the country where they are supposed to be aliens, these programs don't give the objective pushing forces for the development of these people, because they don't improve their qualifications. Moreover, there is an assumption that while these policies are initially aimed at assisting minorities in their wish of self-expression and intellectual development, they work against the economy of the US, becoming the instrument of spreading unskilled workforce. It is even more notable, that while on the one hand this legislation and these policies shift the structure of employment towards bigger portion of women and non-white races, the volumes of these changes are not as large as to be notices at the state level. 'In the labor market, there is virtually no evidence that the qualifications or performance of females lag behind those of males because of Affirmative Action'. (Lott, 2000) On the contrary, minorities' credentials often appear to lag behind those of the white population mostly due to the fact that they also lag behind in terms of population number and because they are granted with various Affirmative Action policies.
The evidence of the benefits which minorities' employers get from Affirmative Action is very limited, which suggests that its efficiency in reality is far from that stated in various literary sources supporting it. Conclusion While the US are known for promoting equal opportunities for everyone, especially in the sphere of employment, Singapore and Malaysia have been seen as having none of such policies, and on the contrary, working for strict limitation of the foreign labor' presence within their markets. However, the effects of both absence and existence of the programs are almost equal foreign workforce is not supported in all three countries, and while Singapore and Malaysia are open in their desire to minimize presence of non-skilled workers on its territory, the policies invented by the Federal government, and which are meant for the proliferation of the equal employment opportunities for minorities, in reality appear to work against the state economy due to their imperfection and serving for the spreading of non-skilled workforce in the US. References Blau, D. (1996). 'Self-employment, earnings and mobility in Peninsular Malaysia', World Development, 14 (7): 839 - 852 Chew, S. & Chew, R. (2003). 'Immigration and foreign labor in Singapore', ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 12 (2): 191 - 200 Holzer, H. & Neumark, D. (2000). Assessing affirmative action. Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (3): 483 - 568 King-Hock, Lee. (2002).
Contract labor in Malaysia: Perspectives of principal employers, contractors and workers. International Labor Review, 135 (1): 75 - 82 Landes, W. (1998). The economics of fair employment laws. Journal of Political Economy, 76 (4): 507 - 52 Lott, J. (2000).
Does a helping hand put others at risk? Affirmative action and labor '. Economic Inquiry, 38 (2): 239 - 77 Lundberg, S. (2001). The enforcement of equal opportunity laws under imperfect information: Affirmative action and alternatives. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (1): 309 - 26 Soon, T. & Tan, C. (2003). Singapore: Public policy and economic development.
Washington D. C. Sowell, T. (2005). Affirmative action around the world: An empirical analysis. Yale University Press. World Bank. (2002).
Malaysia: Meeting labor needs, more workers and better skills. Report No. 13163 -MY
Free research essays on topics related to: order to make, skilled workers, affirmative action programs, affirmative action policies, affirmative actions
Research essay sample on Affirmative Action Policies Affirmative Action Programs
