In the last decade the multicultural nature of populations has become more prominent in many countries. Processes of migration and globalisation are often associated with these changes. Take for instance the Netherlands. Labour migration and, more recently, refugee streams have added to the cultural pluralism. In the past (im)migrating groups were often small and each year there were more emigrants than immigrants. In the last 30 years the pattern has changed and the immigration stream is larger than the emigration stream. Whereas in the past immigrants always adapted fully to the Dutch culture and became fully assimilated, it seems now that the recent groups of migrants, mainly from Morocco and Turkey, show more cultural adherence and are less inclined to fully adopt the Dutch culture. This multicultural nature is a novel feature of the Dutch society; not surprisingly, it has received much attention, both in scientific and public discourse. However, there are very few countries in which this change has taken a more visible form and has had more implications than in South Africa. The current article focuses on the implications for psychological assessment of this change.The cultural appropriateness of psychological tests and their usage were placed in the spotlight with the promulgation of the new Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, Section 8 (Government Gazette, 1998), which stipulates that: "Psychological testing and other similar assessments are prohibited unless the test or assessment being used -(a) has been scientifically shown to be valid and reliable, (b) can be applied fairly to all employees; and (c) is not biased against any employee or group."This law differs in two aspects with legislation in various other countries. First, in most countries the legislator adopts the opposite perspective by stipulating that discrimination and unfair treatment in psychological assessment are forbidden. The latter position assumes the fairness of psychological tests, unless proven otherwise. The South African law, on the other hand, requires psychologists to be proactively involved by requiring evidence that tests are fair and unbiased. Second, in various countries issues of bias and fairness are not primarily enacted in national laws, but in codes defined by professional organizations of psychologists and enforceable on their members. Although many countries have both legal and professional regulations, their enforcement shows considerable cross-cultural variation. For example, whereas in South Africa court cases are the main option available to plaintiffs, in a country like the Netherlands the ethics committee of the national association of psychologists is more likely to see a complaint being filed than is one of the courts.The question can be raised as to whether psychology as a profession in South Africa is ready for the challenge implied by the Equity Act. It is probably fair to say that the law is ahead of the daily practice here and that, to date no single country can live up to the expectations and demands rais...