As with most people who surf the net everyday, we have our own set of sites that we would surf religiously. For my case, it's usually the SPUG website to keep update on Palm stuff (or rather up to date with anything that interested the Palm crowd) as well as Clubsnap which is very popular with Singapore's amateur (well, maybe pro as well) photographers and some other minor ones which include soccer news. The usual read will include the new and updated threads in their forums.
The one that I encountered today was this thread that someone was suggesting to create an exclusive area for SPUG singles. From there someone placed a link to an old topic, concerning this letter that was published in the ST Forum page. This was a very old link that had reactions (from SPUGers, well at least those that are registered in the SPUG forum) to that letter in the forum. Interestingly enough... it's again about how government should do something (like giving incentives, *again!*) about the increasing rate of unmarried Singapore women. This, somehow, also ties into the latest buzz about how government is trying to do something to entice married couples to have more children.
Has it comes to a point whereby the government needs to step in every time something, especially in the social but leading toward private life, seems to be lacking? Hasn't all these issues got to do with how people run their lives? Do we need government interference in our daily lives? Has getting married and having children becomes a monetary issue that you could tick off in your tax plan so that you could get to pay less taxes - which is supposedly means more $$$ for you to spend? Of course if there are fewer children born each year, the government would get worried of the aging population triangle, especially in a small island like Singapore.
Perhaps the issue here is not just people's wants, but more of how they have been brought up - especially in such an environment. We have always been told to strive for the best, to be world class - isn't it surprising that we want also the best for our children? If so, isn't it surprising to find that our family circle could get smaller, I mean how much can you afford to make sure your children - all of them - could get the best education/ a head start in the academic area/ some other 'enrichment' arena like music, arts, etc? If you want everything to be the best for your children, isn't a wonder that you can only concentrate on 1 or 2 child at the most?
Of course, there are those that reject such notions, but then that lies the paradox. You said you want the best for your child, and yet you don't need to spend to get the best? How could that be? You know that the best, which will translate to being the popular, and thus will translate to being expensive (simple economics - the more the demand, with little supply, drives up the $$$ - to a certain point). So how could you balance both of them - if you want your child to be up there with the Jones (or rather in local terms, shall we say, the Lees/Ongs/Ngs/etc, .... whatever)? Your child will need music lessons, extra play/learn time sessions with Kinderland or Montessori or whatever that is popular at this moment. They will also most probably have Kumon classes so that they can brush up their language skills in order to be bilingual and to do well in their school. Perhaps to help them to keep up in other subject areas, they will have tuition. Or even lessons in tennis or swimming or even horse riding (well, maybe not this activity, then again you will never know). Oh, not forgetting some basic lessons in computing such that they could be comfortable with computers, which most probably a "feature" in their home.
I shudder when I started to think about the life a child has to live. Thank goodness it's all over for me. I wonder if I would survive if I am at that age now.... What's worst is that I am not certain if I would become like that if (and that's a big if) I do become a parent. To push them in order, in my rationalisation, for them to be able to have some foothold or at least some head start in this country.
But I am jumping the gun again in this... There is also this other area for singles to ponder... Has the environment pushes us to be "unreasonable" in our search for a partner? I mean, looking at the posting of the people in the thread, has it come to past that we are so idealistic that we do not wish to readjust our standpoint? Of course there are those that have a more realistic view, but then again, are they the majority or minority?
Take myself for example. I don't think I am that of an idealist. I mean with only 3 main criteria of 1. God fearing; 2. Caring and 3. Able to accept me for what I am, not what they want me to be.... Is that so difficult?!?!??! Ok, ok, maybe throw in humour as well (Hmmmm... then again humour for one may not be for another.... Hmmmm). But then again, it's not just about what I want isn't it. Just as I have a criteria list, the other person will also have their list. To get the people matching up with their listing, to me, is like a miracle, but I think for them to work towards a marriage and working on the marriage to ensure its survival in this age is a greater miracle.
I have seen marriages that are still surviving and also marriages that crumbles in less than 1 year. Yes, the couples may have gone through counselling, courses, etc, to help them to prepare for marriage life, but ultimately isn't it allows boils down to how much do you want to spend effort/time as well as how much you will want to compromise with each other? I have heard of an advice that marriage is about 80% of giving and 20% of taking which basically means that you would be willing to compromise 80% of the time and 20% of the time where you would insist on your way. It does seem to be very sound or is it not? Would this mean that 60% of the time there will be no resolution? Ok, I jest - I don't think most people could stand it if you do not have resolution for 60% of the time... I mean, you have to know what you want for dinner right? To cook or not to cook, to buy or not to buy, etc.
Oh well... whatever, I am still mulddering through this. There are so many theories and advice out there that it just too overwhelming... Meantime... Anyone has any idea what I am getting at??? Must be the timing of this... Ok... time to sleep, and rest, and... You know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I guess we are very much influenced by the majority's views of what is "best" for our kids. I mean, is music lesson or Montessori play time really that important? I don't believe that just because a kid doesn't have such stuff, the kid cannot grow up to be a useful person to society. IMO, Giving the best to a kid includes educating the child on godly values and inculcating in the child a sense of integrity, honesty, social responsibility and civic consciousness. The rest are all immaterial. I pity the parent who thinks that "best" means giving the child the most expensive tuition and music lessons, enrolling the child in a branded school etc. That is so supernally shallow. Of course if you could afford it, why not? But to insist that this is a requirement - that would be too elitist. I think children who grow up without such things would still turn out fine.
*hear hear*! Just like how we turned out! Very important is the teaching of the right values. Once that is in place, everything else will follow cos the kid will not turn out to be 'useless scum of society' and be useless. But having said that, I think all parents want the best for their child and its another form of sacrificial love if the family have to scrimp and save to let the child go to expensive schools and extra lessons. And I still insist on having my girl be sent to my all girls alma mater and my boy...erh. to at least a good pri sch. I maybe 'atas' when it comes to schools but I believe sch and the students environment also play a very impt part in nurturing a child, coupled with family upbringing.
Post a Comment