Protection by Discrimination ?

Singapore's HDB racial integration policy set out to integrate the various races into our state. For those who are not sure, it basically sets a quota for the ratio of Chinese, Malay, Indian and other races within each heartland estate. This is to prevent racial riots, I guess, arising from locality. Afterall, you are more likely to go and burn the houses of another race who lives in the next village than to burn their houses that are just few doors away from you.

It looked great on paper. But it created a few problems when people want to sell their house. If, the Chinese quota (the majority) for the estate has been reached, the house can only be sold to one of the minority race. Since they are minority race, demand will be less and many-a-times, closing price will be less too.

So what happens if this person who wants to sell is a Chinese ? No problem, he/she can sell to anyone, since replacement of Chinese does not break the quota, and selling to any of the minority race is not a problem.

The above problem will happen to the minority race. Thus, they are frequently not able to fetch the best price for their house, simply because they cannot sell to Chinese.

So how ironic is this ? The law is to there to protect the minority by physically integrating them into the society as a whole, but it hits them in the pocket.

*~*~*~*~*

So lets look at other laws here. Specifically, I want to look at "Hate Crimes". Laws against crimes committed where the victim is targetted by race, religion, sexuality, etc.

What I do not get is :

(1) Person A attacks and stabs Person B with a knife, because Person A does not like Person B's face

(2) Person A attacks and stabs Person B with a knife, because Person A does not like Person B's skin colour

How is the 2nd case more serious than the first ? Assuming both are equally opportunity-based (that is, not premeditated).

Stabbing someone, regardless of the motive, is equally wrong.

By prosecuting Person A based on the victim's skin colour or sexual orientation, aren't we trying to discriminate by creating groups ? We are "educating" those who did not, in the first place, to segregate by race, to be now more aware of these unequal treatment ?

Isn't the original objective supposed to be trying to integrate these groups into the society ? How does this "discrimination by victim" hopes to achieve it ? Aren't these hate-crime laws just make these distinction more obvious ?

Are we telling people that it is less serious to stab someone of the same skin colour ? What does these hate-crimes hope to achieve ?

*~*~*~*~*

I understand that some laws are needed to protect or help the minority (of anything). But these laws are supposed to be protecting the minority from being out-voted by the majority. Sometimes, it is called minority-interest.

Eg. Legislating a number of handicapped lots.

These are supposed to give benefits. But criminal actions, no matter the victim's attribute, should be punished equally.