“Regardless of race, language or religion…”  Our national pledge reminds us constantly that discrimination is not tolerated in Singapore. Yet, pry further into a statute as basic as the Constitution and we find that discrimination is enshrined in the law.

In direct defiance to our pledge, for instance, is s152 of the Constitution which title reads: “Minorities and special position of Malays.”

In s152(2),  the law exerts: “The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.”

Racial discrimination approved by the law? Perhaps when this provision was first introduced, discrimination on paper manifested itself as an environment for anti-discrimination in reality. Yet, now that we have moved on and left history behind, the question of whether we still need express laws to display discrimination in this cosmopolitan society begs to be answered.

Another overt display of discrimination in the law is the notorious example of s 377A of the Penal Code, which reads: “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

This legislation may be paralleled to s118F of the Crimes Ordinance in Hong Kong where “A man who commits buggery with another man otherwise than in private shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 5 years.” In reviewing this legislation in a case where two males were charged with engaging in sodomy in a car park, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal, the highest court in the territory had ruled unanimously last July that s118F of their Crimes Ordinance was discriminatory, unconstitutional and thus could not apply.

Despite cries for s377A to be repelled last year during the Penal Code review process, the section remains and the discrimination continues.

But society is not totally ignorant of discrimination that exists in the law.

Take for instance the rescinded “Graduate Mother’s Priority Scheme”, introduced in 1984 and removed the following year. The scheme institutionalised the priority given to children of university educated mothers who had three or more children, giving them a first-hand pick during primary school registration.

The differential treatment based on the educational level of the parent- like other differential treatment schemes - was rejected by society. The legislation, following a public outcry over the obvious discriminatory practices, moved quickly to resume fairness in this area of the law.

In conclusion, examples in the past and present have illustrated that discrimination is an outdated concept - there is no need for it, at least not in a country we hope to call open and equal. Bias planted in the law should also be uprooted so that the law may serve as a guiding ray for promoting fairness and justice in a growing and diverse society.

Sook Zhen is a second year law student and the Editor of Juris Illuminae.