In contemporary society, various experts have sought ways to compare the disparities and convergence of statistics, policies and outcomes between nations. While these measures have traditionally focused on social and economic data, recent trends have extended to address other features. One important aspect in this regard is the underlying societal gender discrimination and the diverse outcome for males and females. This is commonly referred to as gender inequality. According to Dorius and Firebaugh (2010), gender inequality is where one gender possesses an excessively large proportion of valued items, such as political influence, wages or good health. Although every region of the world has developed policies and laws to tackle gender inequality, Asia-Pacific has countries with varying social and economic circumstances. This essay will examine gender inequality in two Asia-Pacific states, namely China and Singapore. The essay will consider employment and family-based gender inequality in each nation and assess the similarities and differences between them.

Gender inequality has major impacts on nations, in particular on the Asia-Pacific zone. Francisco (2007) delineates various forms of inequality, namely mortality, natality, basic facility, special opportunity, professional, ownership and household forms of inequality. In this field, Jutting, Morrison, Dayton- Johnson and Drechsler (2008) argue that gender equality is vital to promote economic growth, wealth creation and poverty reduction. As an illustration, the Asia-Pacific region foregoes approximately 2-4 percent of GDP per year due to low female workforce participation rates (UNDP 2014a). Similarly, Plagnol and Scott (2009) cite a leading study that shows women are subject to a “pay penalty”. This is evidenced by females being paid between 15 and 50 percent less for the same job (Burnett 2010). This underlines that there is a notable economic and financial cost associated with failing to address gender inequality. In fact, this often derives from the misconception that the standard of women’s work is inferior because females undertook it (Li 2007). Dorius and Firebaugh (2010) comment that gender equality is not only related to social and economic improvements. In truth, the ‘glass ceiling’ remains in most Western societies, albeit gender discrimination occurs differently in the Asia-Pacific region (Burnett 2010). Consequently, serious measures to redress gender inequality are imperative and addressing this issue necessitates a better understanding of some of the underlying factors.

China, notwithstanding notable legislative efforts, continues to experience noteworthy gender discrimination in employment. Burnett (2010) points out that prior to the Chinese Revolution working women were regarded with disapproval. Nevertheless, policies to increase openness in the 1980s loosened some restrictions on women in work (Turner 2006). In terms of workplace discrimination, Yang and Li (2009) cite recruitment practices, promotion policies, social insurance provision, compulsory retirement, and harassment. The advent of foreign investment has increased opportunities for women, although since most investment comes from Japan and Taiwan, which hold broadly similar views of women’s role, the chance for professional advancement and promotion is minimal (Turner 2006). Li (2007) comments that pay differentials are highest in foreign firms. In fact, the average salary for women is less than two-thirds of males (Burnett 2010). Moreover, the rate of unemployment among recent graduates with matching qualifications is about eight percent greater among females (Burnett 2010). Although Chinese women account for slightly less than half of the entire workforce, males hold more than four times as many senior positions (Burnett 2010). According to Yang and Li (2009), female migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination. In truth, they commonly have to sign a statement vowing not to become pregnant or face dismissal (Burnett 2010). Alternatively, Burnett (2010) argues that older migrant women often have problems being hired owing to competition from younger workers. While laws have been enacted to ban gender-based discrimination, more subtle approaches are now used to perpetuate inequality (Yang & Li 2009). Furthermore, Li (2007) demonstrates that female workers undergo greater surveillance and are assigned more demanding duties, leading to segregation and lower wage levels. Accordingly, gender inequality in Chinese workplaces remains a considerable issue in pay, promotion, recruitment and conditions.

Furthermore, some of these issues also permeate the treatment of females in the family. Until recent times, women, regardless of their education and work experience, were encouraged to remain at home (Turner 2006). While three-quarters of females partake in housework, the corresponding figure for males is only four percent (Burnett 2010). In terms of marriage and the family, men retain the primary role with favouritism prevailing, and women undertaking the housework (Yifei 2011). The OECD (2013a) also states that most families prefer male children, and sex-selective abortions have caused a skewed ratio between males and females. Additionally, support for working mothers is exceptionally limited, given most workplaces do not provide childcare forcing many women to remain at home to provide this facility (Burnett 2010). Conversely, many dual-income families are now dependent on parents and relatives to care for their children (Yifei 2011). According to the OECD (2013a), domestic violence is rife in China with a recent survey indicating one-third of Chinese wives suffer. In truth, Yifei (2011) sees patriarchy and female emancipation as mutually exclusive, since the expansion of female rights will weaken the male-dominated order. While a new inheritance law grants equal rights to females, most parents leave their estate to their male child(ren) in reality (OECD 2013a). Furthermore, females’ ability to purchase land in rural areas is prevented by local traditions favouring males in spite of laws allowing them to own land (OECD 2013a). This underlines that despite legal attempts to overcome discrimination, implementation and prejudices prevent females achieving parity in their family and home life.

Singapore has made notable advances in tackling workplace gender discrimination, although some problems remain. During the country’s economic advances over the past few decades, female labour force participation has grown substantially whereas male figures have remained relatively static (Ministry of Manpower 2013). One of the most interesting aspects is that younger women are assuming more managerial and professional roles than their male counterparts (Ministry of Manpower 2013) However, in other age groups males continue to predominate in senior positions. Notwithstanding some gains for females, a glass ceiling still prevails. Wages in the total economy are one-third less for females while male managers still are paid approximately one-fifth more than female ones (Ministry of Manpower 2013). This minimal movement in male-female earnings ratio underlines that men are paid more for doing the same job, regardless of efforts to diminish inequality and discrimination (Peebles & Wilson 2002, p.138). Although some sectors are better paid than others, Lee (1998) insists these disparities are a result of gender inequality. According to the Ministry of Manpower (2013), the rise of wages in the general population has grown more rapidly for males than females, thereby increasing the ‘pay gap’. Nonetheless, the gender wage gap has narrowed appreciably to 0.82 in 2010 (UNDP 2014b). Moreover, unemployment among females in the 20-29 age group is higher than males, which may highlight some discrimination in hiring policies (Ministry of Manpower 2013). Less than half of women over 50 are in employment whereas three-quarters of males in the same cohort are working (Ministry of Manpower 2013). Peebles and Wilson (2002, p.138) point out that gender empowerment is worse in Singapore than most other highly developed countries, indicating entrenched gender equality. Therefore, younger female employees are achieving gains due to new policies, although wage levels, recruitment, and employment levels show that workplace gender discrimination remains a considerable problem.

Additionally, the impact of new policies has had a mixed impact on females in the family environment. In terms of households, women generally remain in charge of most homes and are responsible for the bulk of housework (Lee 1998). Furthermore, while some financially advantaged families can afford to employ a maid, this option is not available for most families, thereby preventing them entering or returning to the workforce. Graham (2005) notes that, while traditionally a preference for sons prevailed, there has been a sharp decline in this aspect. As a result, the Singaporean government has taken measures to restrict abortion and has outlawed sex-selective procedures (Graham 2005). In fact, since the government have encouraged larger families the male-female ratio is approaching parity (Graham 2005). Moreover, a recent amendment to the Constitution allows females to also pass Singaporean citizenship to the foreign-born offspring (OECD 2013b). This right had previously been limited to males. In addition, women in Singapore can own property without any restriction (OECD 2013a). In truth, Singapore is governed by two legal codes, namely civil law and Sharia. While Sharia gives primacy to males in inheritance, the civil code now gives equal rights to men and women (OECD 2013b).The shows that government policies and legislation as well as changing perceptions have improved the status of females in the family and home, albeit further adjustments are essential.

Critical similarities and differences exist between China and Singapore in terms of employment and family-based gender inequality. Both countries attempted a legislative approach to tackle discrimination. Burnett (2010) points out that the People’s Republic first Constitution gave full legal equality to Chinese women. Similarly, the OECD (2013b) points out that the Singaporean Constitution grants females full political, social and economic rights. Although China has ratified international treaties, they have been tardy to enact domestic laws to counteract discrimination (Yang & Li 2009). Burnett (2010) acknowledges some clear limitations in China’s anti-discrimination regimes in female role stereotypes, inadequate enforcement, women’s employment disincentivised, litigation cost and duration, and vague penalties for breaches. Nevertheless, Singapore’s approach to implementation, punishment and judicial action has been more effective, as evidenced by the greater number of Singaporean females in high-ranking positions and reducing pay differentials (Ministry of Manpower 2013). Both nations have difficulties with older females and migrant workers. In this domain, Seguino (1997, p.25) affirms that Singaporean attract guest workers to curtail wage growth, mainly occurs in female dominated industries while Li (2007) implies that some Chinese employers are replacing workers with female migrants on lower wages and conditions. Singapore has advanced female labour force participation through the provision of subsidised childcare and maid use (Seguino 1997, p.24). However, most firms in China have been unwilling to provide any childcare while maids are uncommon. Graham (2005) points out that major differences in male-female sex ratios derive from changed policies and strict enforcement. In reality, major ratio gaps remain in China whereas Singapore has drastically lessened the figure. Moreover, Singaporean females also have greater rights in inheritance and property ownership, although the use of the Sharia hinders this among a segment of the population. In terms of outcomes, Singapore has a gender inequality index of 0.229 whereas China has a value of 0.393 (UNDP 2014a, b). This indicates that Singapore has made appreciably more advances in reducing inequality. While the city-state’s wealth is undoubtedly a factor, Graham (2005) attributes the differences to greater flexibility among Singaporeans than their Chinese counterparts. This signifies that despite considerable similarities in policies and perception, Singapore has been more successful in implementation, thinking and outcomes.

In conclusion, gender inequality remains a serious problem in the Asia-Pacific region. Chinese workplace gender inequality characterised by greater openness, foreign investment, male-female pay differentials, higher unemployment, minimal management participation, migrant exploitation, subtle discrimination, and surveillance. Additionally, women’s family situation in China shown by housework inequality, male favouritism, skewed sex ratio, parental dependence, violence, patriarchal community, new inheritance and property laws. Alternatively, Singapore’s employment equality indicated by increased female participation, enlarged managerial involvement, significant, although narrowing, pay gap, higher unemployment, lower employment levels, and empowerment issues. Furthermore, family circumstances illustrate female housework responsibility, childcare problems, reduced son preference, increased fertility, and new rights in citizenship, inheritance and property ownership. Similarities between China and Singapore include constitutional approach, older and migrant mistreatment, while differences entail legal enforcement, higher management participation, childcare provision, gender gap, inheritance and property rights, outcomes and pragmatism. Consequently, gender inequality is a recurring issue in Asia-Pacific nations, although replicating Singaporean policies of enforcement, rights extension, and awareness are likely to diminish the phenomenon greatly.

References:
Burnett, J. 2010, ‘Women’s Employment Rights in China: Creating Harmony for Women in the Workforce’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, Summer, pp. 289-319.
Dorius, S. & Firebaugh, G. 2010, ‘Trends in Global Gender Inequality’, Social Forces, vol. 88, no. 5, July, pp. 1941-1968.
Francisco, J. 2007, ‘Gender Inequality, Poverty and Human Development in South East Asia’, Development, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 103–114.
Graham, E. 2005, ‘Son preference, female demographic deficit and Singapore’s fertility transition’, Conference Paper, CEPED-CICRED-INED Seminar on Female Deficit in Asia: Trends and Perspectives, 05-07 December, Singapore, viewed 11 September 2014, <http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Seminars/Details/Seminars/FDA/PAPERS/34_EGraham.pdf>
Jutting, J., Morrison, C., Dayton-Johnson, J. & Drechsler, D. 2008, ‘Measuring Gender (In) Equality: The OECD Gender, Institutions and Development Data Base’, Journal of Human Development, vol. 9, no. 1, March, pp. 65-87.
Lee, W. 1998, ‘Gender Inequality and Discrimination in Singapore’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 28, issue 4, pp. 484-497.
Liu, J. 2007, ‘Gender Dynamics and Redundancy in Urban China’, Feminist Economics, vol. 13, no. 3-4, July/October, pp. 125-158.
Ministry of Manpower 2013, Singapore Yearbook of Manpower Statistics, 2013, June, Singapore Government, viewed 11 September 2014, <http://www.mom.gov.sg/Documents/statistics-publications/yearbook11/mrsd_2013YearBook.pdf>
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2013a, Gender Equality and Social Institutions In: China, viewed 11 September 2014, <http://genderindex.org/country/china>
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2013b, Gender Equality and Social Institutions In: Singapore, viewed 11 September 2014, <http://genderindex.org/country/singapore>
Peebles, G. & Wilson, P. 2002, Economic growth and development in Singapore: past and future, Edward Elgar, Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Plagnol, A. & Scott, J. 2009, ‘Conference report: Gender inequalities in the twenty-first century’, Equal Opportunities International, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 687-692.
Seguino, S. 1997, ‘Export-Led Growth and the Persistence of Gender Inequality in the Newly Industrialised Countries’, in J. Rives & M. Yousefi (eds), Economic Dimensions of Gender Inequality: A Global Perspective, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, pp. 11-34.
Turner, Y. 2006, ‘Swinging open or slamming shut? The implications of China’s open-door policy for women, educational choice and work’, Journal of Education and Work, vol. 19, no. 1, February, pp. 47–65.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 2014a, International Human Development Indices: China, viewed 11 September 2014, <http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/CHN.html>
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 2014b, International Human Development Indices: Singapore, viewed 11 September 2014, <http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/SGP.html>
Yang, S. & Li, A. 2008, ‘Legal protection against gender discrimination in the workplace in China’, Gender & Development, vol. 17, no. 2, July, pp. 295-309.
Yifei, S. 2011, ‘China in the “Post-Patriarchal Era” Changes in the Power Relationships in Urban Households and an Analysis of the Course of Gender Inequality in Society’, Chinese Sociology and Anthropology, vol. 43, no. 4, Summer, pp. 5–23.