[ad_1]
A Mr. Nicholas Bloodworth spoke to social media about an unfortunate case of discrimination at the Singapore Cricket Club (SCC) over the weekend that has no place in this world or community .
Mr. Bloodworth and his family were at the SCC to watch a game of rugby. After the match, he and his family – including his father, brother, sister-in-law, three nieces / nephews and an assistant – were sent to a club restaurant, The Victoria Room.
It should be mentioned that the Singapore Cricket Club, established in 1852 by the British colonial, is a leading sports and social club, the oldest sports club in Singapore. The father of the author is a member. of the CCS.
Apparently, when the family wanted to enter the restaurant, a staff member told them they "do not allow maids here". As the author rightly says, it was a "good old discrimination".
Shocked and disconcerted by this flagrant discrimination, we tried to clarify: "You mean in this particular area or restaurant?
"No. They are not allowed in the club at all.It has to wait in the parking lot," replied the middle-aged Chinese employee.
"Well, how do you know she is not my cousin?", Plaisant my sister-in-law.
"I'll know," he said.
I will know.
The author's father even tried to hire his assistant, Mary, as a guest, but was not allowed either.
Mr. Bloodworth then stated that he had walked around to calm down and try to find another place to dine. However, it was getting late. When she returned, her family was already sitting in the Victoria Room, and Mary "lifted her shoulders in the air" and walked her niece so that the family could rush for dinner and prepare her share for later.
Mr. Bloodworth went on to say that it was not seeking a boycott of the Singapore cricket club, but instead wanted to start a discussion of this discriminatory policy in that country.
He reported another incident in 2001, when a woman was banned for life from the same club for dinner with her help. In this story, the woman even specified that her help was that of a friend, not an employee. But the club has always seen fit to ban it.
As you can imagine, the reaction to this story has been largely heated. People are upset by the fact that such outdated and colonialist policy still exists and is being enforced. Even when the author tried to hire her assistant as a guest, she was not allowed to enter. And the audacity to ask him to "wait in the parking lot" is infuriating.
One of the commentators pointed out that the club prohibited members from using helpers to serve their employers and not to eat, drink or behave as regular guests. The author, however, clarified that the club had refused to let her in, regardless of her guest status. For them, Mary was a helper and nothing more. They essentially discriminated against him for his work.
In the 2001 article published by Mr. Bloodworth about the banned woman of the club for life, it was stated that the majority of members refused to change archaic politics and that they were mainly club members local who were in favor of initialization. to help.
Many commentators felt that such a policy had no place in Singapore:
One person commented that this policy was not unique to the Singapore Cricket Club:
And that similar policies also exist in other places, like condominiums, as it is considered the norm:
The Singapore Cricket Club did not respond to Mr. Bloodworth's Facebook page on his official fan page and TOC solicited his comments.
[ad_2]
Source link
