Aiya, so ugly! I dont want la!

Just recently, in an online legal classified, a law firm advertised a vacancy in its firm and as one of its requirements, it laid down that potential candidates should be "nice looking".

The furore it created in the legal circle was to some, understandable, considering that in this time and age, people should not discriminate based on looks, wealth or what-not.

So the NYLC (National Young Lawyers Committee for the uninformed) President/Chairman issued a public statement asking for the removal of this advertisement as it was insulting and degrading to judge a potential candidate on his or her looks. And that after all "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" and one should be judged based on their qualifications and their ability to perform at their jobs.

Frankly, I do not see the insulting or degrading part in the ad. So the firm wants to their lawyers to look "nice". So they prefer pretty or handsome looking lawyers over fugly ones. So they want their firm represented by hot chicks and hot guys. They want the firm to look good from the outside with well dressed, immaculate, non-asthetically challenged guys and girls. So, what is the problem?
It IS their firm isnt it? It IS their business and their rice bowl right? Isnt it their right to pick and choose as they like? Why must they adhere to the standards of being "politically correct"?

How many of you are ignorant of the fact that many law firms discriminate against CLP-graduates and UK Bar graduates? What does the NYLC say about that? Are those who are Bar grads better equipped at handling the law than the CLP grads? And some discriminate against those who obtained their legal degrees overseas against those who did it externally. What difference is there? They are both equally good degrees.
So, just because its not politically correct to discriminate based on looks, it is suddenly wrong? When discrimination based on "local" and overseas grads happen ALL the time? Is that politically incorrect too? Who is standing up for external CLP grads? NYLC? I think not. They are too busy making comments about how "beauty should be in the eyes of the beholder".

If I want to discriminate against ugly, I shall.
If I want to discriminate against stupidity, I can.
If I want to discriminate against one's sexuality, I am allowed.
Why shouldnt I?
Of course whether I DO discriminate against them is a different matter altogether. But I should be given the liberty to.

I represent myself. I represent my own business and my own interests. However, if I put myself in a public position such as being elected as MP for the constituent of say, Jinjang (if such a place actually is considered a constituency) then I cannot say I discriminate against Ah Bengs and Ah lians (yes, it is a generalisation of all people in Jinjang- my bad) when I choose councillors or whom I want to help.

But if its a private entity, should I not be allowed to run MY business the way I want it to be? The way I envisioned it to be?

What if the legal ad had placed "only ugly need apply" would the rest of the legal fraternity get their panties in a bunch?

I placed a comment on the discussion board of the legal circle on this issue and got hit from left and right. They yelled that I am promoting discrimination in terms of religion, sexual preference and race.

So examples of the Government discriminating against non Bumis. I have been vocal about this, but I think there is a demarcation here.

That being the Government is there to serve the people, without fear or fervour. Without discrimination. To serve the rakyat and not a section of the rakyat. So, therein lies the BIG difference of why one can discriminate and the other cannot and should not.

I stand by what I believe. It is quite exhausting nowadays to be so politically correct. We are no longer entitled to discriminate- whether it be wrong or right. After all, to each its own. Just as we choose our friends, people can choose whom they want to employ.

I have yet to find a person SO perfect as to be able to declare, I do not discriminate against ANYBODY or ANYTHING. (Ok, maybe Mother Theresa, but hey, who knows for sure?)

We ALL do. It is just whether we say it, or merely think it.