>There is a lot of hoo-ha going on about SIA’s ruling on the SIA Girl that she has to resign from her job if she gets pregnant. Tan Kin Lian did a good job compiling articles written about the topic – Singapore Girls and Pregnancies. There’s a lot of articles in there, so I’ll help you zoom in to the relevant one here found in this link.
The argument by the writers is that it is unfair to have the SIA stewardesses’ services terminated when they get pregnant, as it goes against the grain of fair employment practices. But everyone missed the Big Fat Elephant sitting in the room. That elephant is that after all these years, the SIA Girl, symbol of not only SIA but Singapore as well, is sending out the stereotypical sexist, racist message.
Yes, that sexist, racist message may have been in order in the early stages of SIA’s growth. But this is the year 2010 and the same outdated stereotypical message is used? Isn’t the following the subtle message the SIA Girl is designed to portray in SIA adverts? The soft, fair-skinned, demure, feminine, young, pretty girl serving your needs.
Why don’t we ever see Malay, Indian or Eurasian SIA girls portrayed in SIA adverts? Why the stereotypical Oriental, sexist message that she must be young?
While other airlines market their service destinations, safety, or engineering, SIA always markets itself as the Singapore Girl who is ever so willing to serve you. And that too, it is the fair skinned Oriental Female from the Far East (not Malay, not Indian and not Eurasian) who is willing to serve you at your calling.
Take a look at these two articles, one from The Online Citizen (TOC) and Aware. I chose them because TOC claims to champion gender issues while Aware as we know, claims to champion Feminist Issues. Note that both of them missed the Big Fat Elephant in the room.
SIA gave a reply to explain their termination upon pregnancy policy. In their attempt to do so, they expose that they have no intention to discontinue their sexist and racist message portrayed by the SIA Girl.
SIA has Returning Mothers Scheme and more being done
I REFER to last Friday’s letter by Ms Corinna Lim (‘Pregnancy and flying: Question of fairness in contractual clauses’).The nature of a flight attendant’s job is multi-faceted, involving not only the provision of service to customers, but also ensuring the safety of our passengers in an unforeseen event. The physical demands of the job mean that all our cabin crew must be fit to perform their duties, and as a responsible employer, we would not think of compromising the physical well-being of pregnant crew and their unborn children.
Our cabin crew are on five-year contracts, rather than on permanent terms, and it is for the reasons stated above that the employment of female crew ceases after the first trimester of a pregnancy. Pregnant crew may then apply for a ground posting. While every effort is taken to produce a match, the reality is that vacancies on the ground are limited and applicants do need to possess relevant skills for a particular job.
We invest heavily in our cabin crew and deeply appreciate their contributions to the company. This is why we have had in place for some years a Returning Mothers Scheme, which allows female crew to rejoin Singapore Airlines in their former capacity, provided they meet the criteria for them to carry out their duties. The scheme has been a success and was formulated in consultation with our staff and unions.
We also recognise that more can be done in the best interests of our female cabin crew population. For some time now we have been in discussion with our unions on a scheme which will provide an ex gratia payment to pregnant crew whose employment ceases. We are in the advanced stages in this process and any new initiative will be communicated to our crew at the appropriate time.
Tan Pee Teck
Senior Vice-President, Cabin Crew
Singapore Airlines
Firstly, note that the reply above does nothing to address why the contract is terminated automatically. Is SIA saying that all pregnancies render a woman “unfit” to do the job she was recruited for?
Secondly, note the rather hypocritical point “but also ensuring the safety of our passengers in an unforeseen event. The physical demands of the job mean that all our cabin crew must be fit to perform their duties” in the letter above.
What is the extent of “physical fitness” that is required so that the SIA girl can execute her duties “ensuring the safety of passengers”? Is it just instructing passengers and supervising orderly evacuation? That doesn’t need you to be physically fit that you can’t be pregnant.
Or is it some more demanding physical work, like mobilizing the elderly who may be on wheelchairs, like what nurses do? If that is the case, why are nurses’ jobs not terminated when they get pregnant?
For that matter, if they do need that kind of physical work to be done, then surely their sarong kebaya and their clogs they wear are ill-suited for mobilizing passengers during emergency. What safety of passengers is SIA talking about?
I am not so concerned about SIA’s sexist and racist message it tries to portray through the SIA Girl. It has been around for years. Neither am I concerned about the “unfair practice” of her termination upon getting pregnant. After all, that is part of the contract and she signed it with her eyes opened.
However, it does seem odd to me that everyone missed the Elephant in the room. In particular, TOC, which claims to be the champion for gender issues, and more glaringly, AWARE.
In today’s context, doesn’t the SIA Girl portray the stereotypical sexist, racist message that you are to be served by a young, demure, oriental girl?
What’s wrong with being served by a mature 55 year old lady, who knows all about what makes customers and passengers happy?
PS – Many feminists object adult ladies being called “girls”. Yet Aware and other feminists don’t seem to mind the SIA Girl is called “girl”?
