1

CCO 105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

Singapore Institute of Management University

UniSIM

CCO105 Social Research – End-of-Course Assessment Title Page:

Research Report on Inequality

Racial Discrimination within the Workforce

Muhammad Rizardi bin Mustajab

Student PI: B1581055

T Group: 07

Submission Date: 7th November 2015

Word Count: 3165 Words

2

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH - END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

Headings Page

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………. 3

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 4 - 5

2. Methodology…………………………………………………………………… 6 - 9

2.1 Measures…………………………………………………………………… 6 - 7

2.2 Data Collection Methods…………………………………………………… 7 - 8

2.3 Participants…………………………………………………………………. 8 - 9

3. Findings………………………………………………………………………… 9 - 12

3.1 Malay……………………………………………………………………….. 9 - 10

3.2 Indian……………………………………………………………………….. 10 - 11

3.3 Chinese……………………………………………………………………… 11 - 12

4. Theory………………………………………………………………………….. 12 - 14

5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 14

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………... 15 - 16

Appendix……………………………………………………………………………. 17 - 18

3

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

Abstract

This research investigates the racial discrimination present within the workforce, as

perceived by employees. Given Singapore’s demographics, Chinese, as the major race could

potentially threaten the collective interest of the ethnic minority, which seeks to maintain

accord in a collective society that emphasized on meritocracy and racial equality. Interviews

and documents were used to measure the dimensions which revealed the type and level of

biasness perceived by the employee. Observations and analysis indicated that racial

chauvinism may prevail within the workforce, accompanied by the public’s misperception of

the true status of the country’s racial equality, therefore supporting the discrimination by

accepting racial differences in a collectivistic manner. It is unclear if Singapore will be able

to recover from this crisis and achieve the ideal workforce that values the employee’s

competency and relevance to the job, as opposed to racial prejudice.

Keywords: Singapore, Workforce, Racial Chauvinism, Discrimination, Ethnic Minority

4

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

1. Introduction

Despite ideologies of meritocracy and racial harmony, racial discrimination remains as

one of the Singapore’s controversial issues. Internationally, Singapore is known for racism,

specifically on the “role of ethnic identity’ and formulation of the People’s Action Party

(PAP) policies through its discernment of the different races (Gomez, 2010). PAP defended

its current policies, stating that racial equality was effectively supervised, and how PAP

themselves were the best overseer on the balance between expression and multiracialism

(Gomez, 2010). Legally, Singapore has also signed UN’s International Convention of the

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) (Channel NewsAsia, 2015).

Despite these efforts, discrimination is still locally acknowledged, in matters of ‘exclusionary

hiring methods’; where mastery of Mandarin would be advantageous, as well as judgment

over choice of attire, such as the Hijab for Malay-Muslim women (Anuar, 2015). Given the

qualities of collectivistic governance, any racial discourse would be prevented through local

media or keeping public expression in check (Gomez, 2010). Therefore, the individual would

be affected upon hearing the word ‘racism’ or ‘discrimination’ as they have been mostly

exposed to portrayals of positive multiculturalism (Vadaketh, 2014).

According to the Department of Statistics (2014), Chinese comprised of 74.3 per cent of

the population as the largest ethnic group. Racial chauvinism would then be a cause for

concern, where Chinese’s interest may supersede the collective interest of the ethnic

minority. While recent research depicted Singapore’s racial harmony in a relatively positive

state, it also showed that the concept is not as widely accepted (Mathews, 2013). Mathews

(2013) reported that while the majority disapproved racial bigotry, the minority ethnic groups

were more supportive of multiracialism, as compared to the Chinese. The society also felt

that Malays and Indians need to work harder to be successful. This could suggest that the

minority races are affected by the Chinese’s attitude towards multiculturalism, while

5

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

attempting to uphold racial equality, in order to maintain societal solidarity. As a

collectivistic secular state, the Singaporean ethnic minorities would have to either adapt to

this cultural shift or accept the racial differences in order to justify the collective majority’s

positive outlook on multiracialism. The comprehension of one’s racial background may also

be affected by one’s practices of faith, which may come under scrutiny of other races.

Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has implemented fair employment practices that values an

employee’s competency and skill, disregarding their age, gender, race or religion (Ministry of

Manpower, 2015). However, government’s monopoly of the public’s interpretation of racial

equality and possible presence of racial chauvinism meant that the ideal workforce is in

jeopardy of discrimination towards the ethnic minorities. Therefore, this study hopes to

explore the biasness present in workforce towards employees within Singapore context,

depending on their racial background. Specifically, this research aims to:

1. Identify the types of biasness presented by employers towards employees.

2. Explore the degree of biasness perceived by the employees in the workforce.

This study was done under the assumption that an employer is influenced by the

employee’s racial identity, and manage their behaviour based on their acknowledgement of

multiracialism and ethnic preferences. For the purpose of this research, employers refer to the

private or government sector, while employees refer to local university graduates.

This research paper will be structured in the following manner. Firstly, readers will be

introduced to the methodology, where measures, data collection methods and participants

will be presented. Next, this paper will focus on the findings as well as conceptualizing the

data into theoretical frameworks. Lastly, this paper will end off with a conclusion.

6

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

2. Methodology

2.1 Measures

2.2.1 Racial Background of the Employees

With reference to figure 1, an employee’s racial background was measured by the

four ethnic types; namely Chinese, Malay, Indian and Other races. ‘Other races’ specifically

referred to Filipinos, Eurasians and Bangladeshi. These variables were controlled by

demographic variables such as the age range of 20 to 62 years, referring to the minimum

retirement age under the Retirement and Re-employment act (RRA) (Ministry of Manpower,

2015), degree qualification requirement as well as the employment status, as either

‘employed’ or ‘looking for work’. Due to the limitation of time and inadequate participants

with acceptable prerequisites as stated above, ‘Other races’ was omitted from this study.

However, this does not impede the research results as it still provides qualitative insight on

racial discrimination within the workforce, with respect to the type and level of biasness

perceived by employees.

Fig. 1: Empirical Framework of the Research

7

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

2.2.2 Level of Biasness Present in the Workforce

Both concepts of ‘racial harmony’ and ‘meritocracy’ were used to represent the

ideal level of racial equality within the workforce. Meritocracy refers to the principle of

opportunity equalizer, where success is rewarded based on an individual’s merit or abilities,

regardless of one’s background (Prakash, 2014). Racial Harmony refers to the mutual respect,

tolerance and acceptance of the different cultures and races in Singapore (Ann, 2011).

Therefore, biasness in the workforce refers to the violation of either concepts, with respect to

MOM’s ideal workforce.

This variable was further measured along 6 dimensions; namely differences in the

employee’s starting salary, occupational type and position, rate of promotion, perception of

discrimination, followed by the language of preference and level of racial diversity in the

workplace. However, due to overwhelming feedback of little to no promotion experienced by

participants, ‘rate of promotion’ was removed as it presented little qualitative data.

‘Employee’s starting salary’ was also removed due to the high probability of error caused by

the inconsistency of their occupation type, where validity hinges on comparison across

similar job positions within the same industry. The remaining four sub-variables provided

qualitative understanding on the type and degree of biasness perceived by the employees,

which was congruent to the focus of this study.

2.2 Data Collection Methods

Due to the explorative nature of this study, data collection was limited to semi-

structured interviews with employees who met the requirements. Refer to the Appendix

section of this paper for the list of interview questions prepared beforehand, which were

designed to evaluate the interviewee’s perceived biasness in the workforce, specifically by

assessing the aforementioned sub-variables. Though the proposal initially prevented

8

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

questions that suggested biasness towards certain races, it was found that respondents were

consistently aware of the job requirement for Mandarin language, even for positions that

lacked its usage. Therefore, additional questions were provided to the Malay and Indian

respondents regarding their perceived degree of victimization and level of desire towards

learning Mandarin, as well as questions concerning Chinese respondents’ perceived

importance of Mandarin in the workforce. Interviews were conducted within a span of one-

week and lasted between one hour to one and half hour each session. Documentation research

were also utilized, using (1) online articles published by local news providers (E.g. Channel

NewsAsia, The Straits Times Singapore) and (2) documents published by local government

agencies (E.g. Singapore Department of Statistics). The purpose of both these methods was to

provide qualitative data for analysis on the different ethnic groups and employer’s attitude

towards each group. Due to the lack of official documents that expressed the public’s

interpretation of the three different ethnic groups, information provided here will mostly be

derived from online articles. The analysis approach used would be ‘grounded theory’, in

order to link core theoretical frameworks to empirical observations and findings and explain

the phenomena of ‘racial discrimination’ (Trochim, 2006).

2.3 Participants

8 respondents; 4 being Malay participants, 2 being Chinese participants and the

remaining 2 being Indian participants, were consulted for their responses. The reason for

more Malay respondents was due to their educational background, where one group

represented theological background (referring to Islamic Studies), while the other group

represented the standard educational regime implemented by Ministry of Education (MOE).

The aforementioned age limit and employment status were strictly monitored to ensure

relevance of data. With reference to the definition of meritocracy, degree specifications were

more flexible, where both local and foreign degrees were accepted throughout the course of

9

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

this research. Due to participant’s confidentiality, their responses used in this paper will be

coded using the following letters; ‘C’ for Chinese participants, ‘M’ for Malay participants

and ‘I’ for Indian participants, and the following numbering to represent the order of their

interview; M1, M2, M3 and M4 for Malay participants, C1 and C2 for Chinese participants

and I1 and I2 for Indian participants.

3. Findings

In this section, findings will be categorized according to their respective ethnic groups.

This section aims to present the type and level of perceived biasness felt by each of them, by

using the aforementioned sub-variables.

3.1 Malay

There seemed to be marginalization distinguished by the Malays within the

workforce, possibly due to employer’s perception towards their religious practices and

language barrier. The degree of perceived biasness also seemed to be extreme, either

miniscule or large. The main difference between theological background and mainstream

education background, lies in the relevance of their degree and skills, under the jurisdiction of

meritocracy. Despite this, it is often violated due to racial judgment.

Specifically, respondents M1 and M2 pursued Islamic-related studies overseas, and

were both unemployed. M1 experienced easier penetration into the workforce, where M1 was

previously employed at the administrative level on two occasions while M2 struggled with

employment. Despite that, they both considered themselves to be heavily discriminated. This

stemmed from their employment difficulties, where M1 commented that, despite continuous

job applications, “the only times I received feedback was when I chose not to post my picture

on my resume.” Choice of attire was also criticized, where M1 had been “questioned for my

Hijab, and for my prayers during working hours.” However, both admitted that racial

10

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

diversity is beneficial, where M1 preferred a racially balanced workplace over “a Malay-

dominated” one.

Respondents M3 and M4 represented the mainstream education background. They

were both employed at administrative and executive positions respectively, and exposed to

racially diversified workplaces. Both perceived themselves as minimally discriminated and

adapted to cultural differences, mainly affected by job competence rather than racial scrutiny.

However, M3 commented experiencing occasional comments regarding her attire and

practices of faith, where “I was constantly asked about the necessity of my Hijab, and

questioned on how long I took to complete my prayers in between work.”

Overall, all participants were supporters of racial equality and lacked language

difficulties, both prior and after employment. However, it should be noted that they generally

avoided job applications that required Mandarin. On that note, they felt marginalized by the

language necessity, resisting the acquisition of Mandarin skills as a survival demand, and as

“more of a personal interest”, as mentioned by M4. It should also be noted that their

advocacy could be collectivistic tendencies, adapting or accepting racial differences for the

sake of racial cohesion. Despite that, they did acknowledge the existence of unfair

employment practices. Generally, they believed that their religious alignment requires

‘sacrifices’ made by other races.

3.2 Indian

Indians also felt marginalized within the workforce, although the perceived degree of

discrimination appeared to be less extreme as compared to Malays. This was caused by racial

stereotyping and language barrier. Both respondents belonged to the engineering industry and

indicated their support for racial diversity. Despite this, they too acknowledged that racial

discrimination existed, where I1 had no personal experience but “have seen others experience

11

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

it within the office.” However, I1 responded with the word “racist” towards a question

regarding racial differences, “Which of the races have to work harder to be successful in the

workplace?” I2 acknowledged the acceptable racial variety within his workplace but admitted

that Chinese were “mostly in the management level”, Malays “mostly in the worker level”

while Indians were spread evenly in between. Interestingly, I2 declined to explain why such

racial dynamics existed. While English remains the popular language, they too felt victimized

by the necessity of Mandarin skills prior to their employment, although they posed less

resistance towards it.

Overall, it was noted that they took a pragmatist approach towards the interview by

conveying ‘safe’ answers. This could, again confirm collectivistic tendencies towards

solidarity. However, I1’s usage of ‘racist’ as a defensive response contradicted his

acknowledgement of racial discrimination within his workplace, questioning the respondent’s

true grasp of the society’s racial balance. Racial stereotyping of Indians, such as body odour

and accent, did pose some “difficulty to communicate effectively with colleagues,” as

mentioned by I2.

3.3 Chinese

Unlike Malays and Indians, Chinese suffered little discrimination. Both respondents

C1 and C2 were employed at the executive and managerial level respectively, although

exposed to less racial diversity within their workplaces. C1’s job description (of providing

marketing to overseas markets) required more Chinese executives to handle the China market

while C2’s managerial position only saw the management of foreign talents, with executive

positions held by Malays and Indians. Language preference is more varied (usually English

and Chinese), with both languages used during working hours. However, both acknowledged

the presence of Mandarin requirement, where C1 interestingly stated that its necessity was

12

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

due to “the global rise of China’s economy”. C2 also seemed to support this notion, stating

that “Bilingualism is necessary” to cater to the Chinese clients. When asked which races

would have to work harder to succeed, C1 admitted that “Indians would have to work”,

followed by C2 revealing that “Malays would have to generate more effort” to climb the

corporate ladder.

Overall, it was believed that the overwhelming Chinese population could have

provided the respondents with more freedom to express their impressions and preference for

certain races. Unlike Malays and Indians, there was less priority to maintain solidarity,

despite their support for racial equality. As an indirect representation of Chinese employers,

this could signify racial chauvinism, where marginalization of the ethnic minorities are

justified by using China’s economic status to promote Mandarin. This may also cultivate

cultural biasness, where Chinese business cultures would prevail and undermine the interest

of the ethnic minorities.

4. Theory

In this section, “grounded theory” will be used to conceptualize the findings into factors

that contributed to the social phenomena of ‘racial discrimination’ within the workforce.

It is understandably clear that racial chauvinism was demonstrated by the majority race

(being the Chinese), which challenged the interest of ethnic minorities in the workforce

setting. The Malays and Indians were both marginalized within the workforce, through

Mandarin requirement and possibly Chinese’s perception of multiculturalism as the majority

race. In response, both ethnic minorities remained positive towards racial equality, while

either accepting the racial dynamics or adapting to the cultural changes with their

acknowledgement of discrimination. Given Singapore government’s own collectivistic

tendencies, it is no surprise that they would strive to minimize racial discontent by means of

13

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

media manipulation and control over freedom of expression, in order to prevent a racial

disorder from occurring (e.g. the Maria Hertogh riots). This resulted in the public’s

misinterpretation on racial equality. As Singaporean’s own collectivistic Asian nature would

suggest, upholding the ideologies of meritocracy and racial harmony would be considered as

the ‘safest’ option, primarily to prevent from harming the society’s existing accord and to

ensure the lack of deviance from the society’s positive opinion of Singapore’s state of

multiculturalism. In a sense, there was control implemented over the populace with regards to

the nuances of this issue, directly or indirectly.

It could also be said that CMIO (Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others) Model, which was

supposed to simplify the overall perspectives of each race (Lee, 2015), could have given rise

to generalized racial stereotypes and formulated a racial hierarchy, which supports the notion

of racial chauvinism. Despite progressive achievements, the Malays were generally portrayed

for their traditionalism and lack of motivation towards hard work (Suratman, 2004). On the

other hand, Indians were known for their recognizable accent and first impressions, which

was mentioned by C1. These factors positioned the ethnic minorities on a lower spectrum of

the hierarchy, where Chinese would occupy the higher placement as the “westernised”

(Bread, 2006) and “diligent” (Sartor, 2011) section of the populace. While not representative

of the Singapore population, this hierarchical model is reflected in the distribution of the

respondents’ occupational type and positions, where Chinese were observed to be employed

in the executive or managerial levels while Malays and Indians were merely in the

administrative or executive level at best.

In summary, racial discrimination, a phenomenon caused by the violation of rules where

Singapore is both “meritocratic” and “racially harmonized”, is caused by Singapore’s

principles of meritocracy and racial equality. Both of these concepts sought to maintain

solidarity within a collective society, where confrontations remained minimal. The

14

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

government, both wanting to maintain the outstanding public impression of multiculturalism

and contain issues of racism, controlled the discernment of the populace through media and

aggression against public expressions. As a result of this positive outlook on racial diversity,

any form of bigotry experienced by the ethnic minority will be responded with adaptation or

acceptance of the racial difference, which inadvertently resulted in racial harmony and

meritocracy. The social hierarchy within the society and overwhelming Chinese population

also served to justify racial chauvinism, where Chinese working ethnics were more preferred,

resulting in marginalization towards ethnic minorities who do not share similar

characteristics. Despite positive attitudes towards multiracialism, ethnic minorities will have

to settle for the lower end of the social spectrum, which rationalized racial discrimination in

an attempt to maintain unity within a “meritocratic” and “racially harmonized” workforce.

5. Conclusion

It is evident that racial discrimination does exist to a certain extent within the workforce,

fuelled by racial chauvinism demonstrated by the Chinese and the compliance over racial and

cultural difference by the racial minorities. Therefore, the racial background of an employee

does influence the employer, which results in the biasness perceived within the workforce.

Fundamentally guided by collectivistic tendencies and false perceptions of the society’s racial

balance, it is clear that discrimination will remain as Singapore’s controversial issue, both

locally and internationally. However, it is uncertain if the issue can be tackled effectively,

given the political stance on the issue. The only method of reconciliation lies in PAP’s

willingness to review their policies to unveil loopholes within the system or simply

challenging the government (Gomez, 2010), which remains to be seen in a collective society

such as Singapore.

Word Count: 3165 Words

15

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

Bibliography

Ann, S. (2011, July 21). Speech by Ms Sim Ann, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of

Education and Ministry of Law at the Racial Harmony Day Celebration at 9.20am on 21

July 2011 at St Hilda’ Primary School. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from

http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2011/07/21/speech-by-ms-sim-ann-at-the-

ra.php.

Anuar, Z. (2015, Aug 13). Let’s not deny the reality of racism. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015,

from http://www.aware.org.sg/2015/08/lets-not-deny-the-reality-of-racism/.

Bread, Y. (2006, May). Race and ethnicity: the Singaporean perspective. Retrieved on Nov

5, 2015, from http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-589.htm.

Channel NewsAsia. (2015, Oct 20). Singapore signs international convention against racial

discrimination. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015 from

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-signs/2204686.html.

Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2014, Sept). Population Trends.

Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-

document-

library/publications/publications_and_papers/population_and_population_structure/popu

lation2014.pdf.

Gomez, J. (2010, Dec 1). Politics and Ethnicity: Framing Racial Discrimination in

Singapore. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from

http://www.academia.edu/314007/Politics_and_Ethnicity_Framing_Racial_Discriminati

on_in_Singapore.

Lee, A. (2015, Apr 10). Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others categorisation a hindrance to cohesive

society: Ho Kwon Ping. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/chinese-malay-indian/1775732.html.

Mathews, M. (2013). Indicators of Racial and Religious Harmony: An IPS-OnePeople.sg

Study. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-

content/uploads/sites/2/2013/08/Forum_-Indicators-of-Racial-and-

Religious_110913_slides.pdf.

16

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

Ministry of Manpower. (2015, May 26). Fair employment practices. Retrieved on Nov 5,

2015, from http://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/good-work-practices/fair-

employment-practices.

Ministry of Manpower. (2015, May 26). Retirement. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from

http://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/retirement.

Prakash, P. (2014, June 25). Understanding Meritocracy. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/understanding-meritocracy?singlepage=true.

Sartor, V. (2011, Dec 26). Why All the Hard Work? Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from

http://www.bjreview.com.cn/eye/txt/2011-12/26/content_416231.htm.

Suratman, S. (2004). “Problematic Singapore Malays” – The making of a portrayal.

Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from

http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/malay/publications/working_papers/Problematic%20Singapor

e%20Malays.pdf.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Qualitative Approaches. Retrieved on Nov 5, 2015, from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualapp.php.

Vadaketh, S. T. (2014, Apr 28) On racism and xenophobia in Singapore. Retrieved on Nov 5,

2015 from http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/Musings-

from-Singapore-_On-racism-and-xenophobia-in-Singapore_280414.pdf.

17

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

Appendix

Interview Questions

Pre-interview:

1.) Which university did you graduate from and when?

2.) Are you currently looking for a job or already employed?

If they answer yes to the job:

1.) What type of occupation is it?

2.) How long did you take to be employed into your current job?

3.) What was your starting salary?

4.) How fast would you rate your promotion?

5.) What do you feel about the racial harmony in Singapore?

6.) Do you feel that there is some form of discrimination towards you, and in your

workplace?

If they answer no to the job:

1.) What are the difficulties that you faced whenever you apply for a job?

2.) How frequent did you submit your resume?

3.) What do you feel about the racial harmony in Singapore?

4.) Do you feel that employees are practising fair employment practices?

During the interview:

If they answer yes to the job and discrimination in the workplace:

1.) What is the current diversity of race in the workforce?

2.) Do you consider the current racial diversity is a reflection of the Singapore population

and the population of the respective ethnic groups?

3.) What is the preferred language of choice in the workforce?

4.) Are you given important tasks to do by your employee?

5.) Do you see others being promoted faster than you?

6.) How easy is it for you to ask for salary increments?

If they answer no to the job and feel that employment practices are not adhered to:

1.) What were the reasons for the employer’s rejection of your job application?

2.) Do you have stories where your friends may have encountered the same issue?

3.) Will you take up language classes in the future in order to get employed in the future?

4.) Are there other methods of improving yourself, for a chance at employment?

18

CCO105 SOCIAL RESEARCH – END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENT

Additional interview questions:

Chinese

1. Do you think that mastery of Mandarin is an important asset in the workforce?

2. Which of the races have to work harder to be successful in the workplace?

Malay

1. What are some of your concerns and issues within your workplace? (E.g., attire,

culture, religious practices, etc.)

2. Do you feel victimized, in any way, towards the need to learn Mandarin?

3. Do you feel that you still stand a chance at getting a job, without any knowledge of

Mandarin language?

Indian

1. Which of the races have to work harder to be successful in the workplace?

2. Do you feel victimized, in any way, towards the need to learn Mandarin?