Which is better – to work for Malaysia Airlines System (MAS) than Singapore Airlines (SIA)?
Well, here’s something that Malaysians women need to know before making the decision.
In SIA, when a stewardess becomes pregnant, she will be terminated. Sometimes, she may be offered a ground job that typically pays less than half of what she is earning.
The SIA Staff Union is negotiating with the company to give female flight crew maternity benefits when they are terminated due to pregnancy.
As both Malaysia and Singapore are signatories to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) – Singapore ratified it in October 1995 – why is it that such a discriminatory practice against women in SIA is still allowed? I understand that MAS does not do this.
In this connection, only three airlines in the world have this discriminatory policy. They are SIA, Tiger Airways and Jetstar Asia, all Singapore-based airlines. So, isn’t it better to work for a Malaysia-based airline?
Since the president of the SIA Staff Union said that on average, about 20 Singapore Girls (‘Singapore Girl’ is the SIA advertisement that it has used for decades focusing on their women flight attendants) become pregnant every month, does it mean that since the founding of SIA in 1972, and its former names of Malayan Airlines (MAL) and Malaysia-Singapore Airlines (MSA) since 1937, more than 10,000 women have lost their jobs without any compensation, due to this historical discriminatory policy?
The proposal to pay Singapore Girls who are permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners – both include Malaysians – half of what Singaporeans may get, is also discriminatory.
Pregnancy bad for image?
Whilst the negotiations for maternity leave is a step forward now, why did it take so long? Why was nothing done by the union about this discriminatory policy over the last 38 years? Did MAS ever have this policy?
When the former Malaysia-Singapore Airlines (MSA) split in 1965 due to Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, was this policy continued by SIA, but discontinued by MAS (left)? Perhaps some Malaysians who used to work in MSA or MAS can help to enlighten us.
In my view, Singapore’s Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) should not, in a sense, continue to condone such a policy by saying that it would assess each appeal by SIA for the Singapore government to foot part of the bill (one to two months) for the stewardess’ four months paid maternity leave, on a case-by-case basis.
Even if the proposal to compensate them with four months paid maternity leave is approved by SIA, it does not address the fundamental discriminatory issue of terminating Singapore Girls when they become pregnant.
The right to bear children is a universal God-given right, that should not be penalised in the interest of maintaining a ‘prettier’ image of ‘unpregnant” Singapore Girls.
SIA is in a way making a mockery of the Singapore government’s efforts to boost procreation, since Singapore’s birth rate at 1.09 is one of the lowest in the world. Malaysia’s total fertility rate has also been declining gradually over the years to 2.95 and is ranked 74 in the world, compared to Singapore’s 218 ranking (third lowest in the world).
What if other employers also follow SIA’s policy?
Aren’t women supposed to be protected by the Singapore Ministry of Manpower’s employment regulations that female employees cannot be dismissed due to pregnancy?
The ‘Singapore Girl’ is arguably the most internationally recognised Singapore icon because of SIA’s renowned advertisements. It may no longer be something that Singaporeans are proud of, when the world knows about how they have been discriminated all these years, even now and into the future.
Finally, perhaps the next time you fly, you may like to choose MAS instead of SIA until this discriminatory policy is stopped.
