TODAY’s headlines

Ad on pg 6 in TODAY

You know which coffee cafe it is? Think hard. You know it.

But what I fear most is not having to give up our “social lives” and lose touch with the “scene”, but that we may be creating a “social chasm” between us and our friends, not being able to relate to the same experiences or understand what each other are going through.

I have already felt this chasm when I got married at 21 – while most of my friends were complaining about NS, university or their foray into the working world, my mind was filled with getting the best deals for the renovation and purchasing furniture for my home, applying for the monthly parking fees to be deducted from my giro account, considering the different CPF investments in the market, and very importantly, which dust sweeper would be most effective.

You could tell me about the latest designer sale, blockbuster movie or fancy gadgetry, but the husband and I buy clothes from reject stores, watch rented DVDs on our couch (bought at a great sale price), and buy second-hand DSLRs and lenses to feed our passion in photography.

When talking to girlfriends especially, there is a great divide to overcome – I always find it hard to find meaning in their newest interests, while they wish and pray hard that they will never become as “domesticated” as I am.

Having already seen the rift between the married or even long-time couple, and our more single and available friends, makes me even more afraid that I will become completely incomprehensible to my friends when I start speaking in the alien language of diapers and breastfeeding.

Hence the husband and I wisely thought about waiting for the others in our circle to “catch up”, and time having a family such that we will all be in the same phase in our lives. But considering that we’ve been married for 3 years and the rest are starkly single, I really wonder how much more of our youth we can throw away before finally deciding to perhaps more wisely expend our youthful energy and wits to raising children now, and enjoying them as they grow.

But I foresee a sad future in which, as we excitedly tell cute anecdotes to our friends, we will receive in return polite smiles, as the conversation then moves on more enthusiastically to the newer, darker superhero remake.

At the end of the day, while having children is a personal choice, it is still influenced by those around us. If our friends won’t understand and be able to relate to us as parents, are we willing to give up the camaraderie we enjoy now for the joy of having children? Can we have both? Or is that being too greedy?

see published letter here

Some time ago, readers suggested imposing fines on those who fail to give up their seats on public transport. Now, we want to fine those who do not keep left on escalators.

As it is, Singapore is known as a “fine” city. Though we may laugh it off a joke, it has negative implications when viewed by the rest of the world.

We are fined for stepping on the grass, for littering and for speaking in public without a permit. You can even find the full list of fines in Singapore on a souvenir T-shirt.

As a result, we could boast that our grass grows healthily and that our streets are clean. But that doesn’t make us a more gracious, considerate society – it only makes us one that is fearful of being fined.

Imposing fines as a deterrent may work for a while, but in the long run, it does nothing to change attitudes and the motivation behind the act.

Public education is more important to ensure that we apply the same consideration towards others in all social situations.

Otherwise, we will need to impose fines on those who squeeze onto MRT trains before anyone can alight.

Or on those who refuse to move to the back of the bus.

Or on those who hog a seat on public transport.

I believe that education doesn’t have to be a top-down approach. As citizens and members of the community, we have the responsibility of educating one another.

So if you see someone being inconsiderate, find the courage to inform him about his behaviour. Should you receive such advice, accept it with humility and apologise respectfully, for you have just learnt a valuable life lesson.

Each of us has a part to play in moulding our society to become a more gracious one.

We certainly don’t want the government to rule with an iron fist and punish inconsiderate people with fines all the time.

I hope that Singapore will one day be known as a truly fine city because of its people’s good manners and courtesy – something that Singa The Courtesy Lion would be proud of.

see published letter here

While I agree that the most important motivation for having children should rightfully be unconditional love, even the most die-hard of romantics would admit that no marriage or family can survive on love alone.

For many young married couples, it is exactly their strong love for their unborn children that prevents them from having kids when they are not financially confident of providing the best for them.

Unlike days of yore when, perhaps, providing a child with three simple meals a day and the teachings of moral values were enough to prepare them for the world, today’s society requires parents to be able to give much more.

The gift of life is not a gift to be taken lightly. It comes with great responsibility – being able to provide not only emotionally and mentally, but also financially, towards a child’s overall well-being.

Many married couples may want to have children, no doubt a decision that is sparked off by a deep love for each other and the desire to start a family.

But desire born out of love is not enough. Couples must still weigh the practical factors of having children, and they will want to make sure that they have the prerequisites for doing so in place, such as a loving relationship, a happy home, but also, the financial means to provide for a child’s physical needs, education and hopefully, be able to give them a good life.

After all, what loving parents will bring a child into the world only for him or her to suffer?

Therefore, financial incentives are only a catalyst to nudge married couples towards their child-raising decision, instead of being the main motivation for them to have children.

see published letter here

Following the arrival of a new colleague who is single, it became apparent to a friend of mine that “singletons” are a preferred breed at the workplace.

It also dawned on her that marriage and family were “awful diseases” which her boss wished would disappear from the office.

Over a casual lunch, my friend’s boss told her: “I actually didn’t want to hire you because you were married.”

The concern was that married women would soon be sporting baby bumps, require frequent medical leave and eventually go on three months of maternity leave.

As mothers, their priorities would also be their children and family. Thus, the assumption is that they would not be able to devote all their time and attention to their work.

They would also take leave should their child fall sick or rush home when they get a call telling them that their child is hurt, said the boss. What work could get done? he asked.

The boss also said that if the company could manage without the employee during her maternity leave, then she must not expect to return and still have a job.

Additionally, the boss said that women should not be so stupid as to sacrifice their careers for family.

Should they get divorced, their husband would get custody of the children because, with a career, he is better equipped to provide for the kids. Hence, women should always put their careers first, the boss said.

Needless to say, this attitude shocked my friend and me.

Yes, if we have children, our families would naturally come first. Why should we be made to feel guilty about caring for them or feel guilty about having brought them into the world in the first place?

Married couples should be encouraged to have children and employers and the Government need to continually support them in this area.

The Government has done its part in providing child subsidies, but what about the employers? With employers holding such negative views about married women and family life, who would dare to have children?

see published letter here

The smoke blew in my direction and I started coughing. I covered my nose and mouth and took a few steps away from him.

He then said in a loud voice: “Why? Cannot smoke, is it? I paid $10 (for the cigarettes) and I have the right, okay?”

It is exactly this kind of attitude that gives smokers a bad name. If we cannot force them to smoke within designated smoking booths or yellow boxes, then they should at least be considerate to non-smokers.

($10 does not give them the right to go around killing others with their secondhand smoke.)

see published letter here

The employees who take the company bus can then continue making their way home via the public bus or train from the designated drop-off points.

This would not only help ease traffic congestion on major roads and congestion on public transport, but it would also benefit the company.

Providing company transport to and from the office ensures that the employees are always on time for work. It would also increase efficiency as the workers will have to finish their work for the day in order to catch the transport home.

Staggering knock-off times between 5pm to 8pm would also help reduce the extent of traffic jams during the rush hours, resulting in a smoother journey home.

By providing company transport – a form of “bus-pooling” – we can also reduce air pollution which happens if each staff member were to drive to and from work.

Employees would reach home faster as well, which is beneficial to their family and social life, and thus their overall well-being.

With all these benefits, company transport may well be the way to go. Just remember to make seat belts on the buses mandatory.

see published letter here

It’s all about “my right”.

Questions have been raised about who really has the “right” to request for a seat on the bus or train, sparking debates in favour of the elderly, or on the other hand, those who are feeling ill.

I myself have met many older folk who elbow their way into cutting queues, glaring at people who visibly disapprove of their behaviour, even shouting at them, “It’s my right ok? Can’t you see that I’m old?” Such attitudes clearly do not evoke the compassionate spirit that will move us to willingly give up our seats.

And that is what is more important – instilling a kinder, more thoughtful ethos into our core belief systems, in other words, changing our mindsets, so that no one will have to ask, fight, demand, for a seat, whether on the transport itself or in forum pages. Being inwardly thoughtful will move a person to be alert as to how they are able to help others, and therefore be aware and not turn a blind eye when such situations arise. Humility will also help us not take offence when someone requests something of us, if we believe that everyone is superior to us, and we don’t have “a right” to anything.

Unfortunately with affluence comes the arrogant notion that “I’m paying for it, so it should be done my way.” While it’s alright to, say, return a well-done order of steak served bloody to the chef, some customers take this way of thinking to the extreme, kicking up big fusses if they are not given “their right”, and expecting all wait staff to be subservient to them.

So too, when the BYOBag campaign started, many folks were heard muttering that it was “their right” as paying customers to plastic bags. In the similar vein, many hawker customers believe it is “their right” to not have to pay for takeaway containers.

Once, at Ikea, I took a seat at a table with a newspaper strewn onto one side of the table. Minutes later a man came up with his tray, shouting at me, “This is my table! I have already reserved this table. How can you be so rude as to take my table?” I immediately got up, apologized, and explained I didn’t know it was reserved, to which he yelled, “Then?? Can’t you see this is my newspaper? What do you expect me to put – my laptop?” Again, I apologized, explaining that sometimes customers do leave behind their newspapers after they are done reading them, to which he continued yelling, “Does it look like I’m finished with my newspaper? You are really extremely rude to take other people’s tables!” I politely replied, “Sir, I have apologized numerous times and am merely explaining to you why a person would not recognize that you have reserved your table. I would like to ask you to stop being rude to me instead.” and simply walked away in disgust. I wonder, did he think it was “his right” to be rude or to call others rude?

If it’s not claiming a right to something, then it’s shirking responsibility for something.

Also at Ikea, a mother told her daughter to sit at a table while she bought food, and instructed the girl to make sure the cleaners clear the table. The girl, old enough to read the signs, politely told her mother that it was their responsibility as patrons to clear the table themselves. To my shock the mother started scolding the daughter in a loud voice, saying, “Then what do they pay the cleaners for? The aunties should clear it – it’s their job.” I found that most appalling, and I hoped that the girl would not learn the terrible lesson her mother was teaching her but would hold on strongly to her own moral beliefs.

At the end of the day, changing our own mindsets will help in almost all social aspects of life. Helping others is not the act of a martyr; we do not always have to sacrifice our own interests in the process. The “thank you” from the person we give up our seat to, from the auntie whom we helped clear the table for, and from the cashier happy to see your green efforts, can be more satisfying than selfishly getting “our rights”. It’s a great morale and self-esteem booster, and it puts a smile on your face, and even for others witnessing the act. One little selfless act can make everyone’s day a little better. So why not?

Firstly, vandalism is an illegal offence as determined by the Vandalism Act in our legal statutes. I hope the vandals can be aware that there are more than 100 families sharing that one HDB block of flats, and we would all like to share a vandalism-free living space. Feeding cats, on the other hand, when done responsibly, is not illegal.

Secondly, though I am not one who feeds cats around the neighbourhood, I have seen many of them at work, and I feel nothing but immense respect and admiration for them. They take out time from their busy schedules, and fork out their own hard-earned money to not only feed, but groom and even sterilize the cats.

Responsible feeding means not littering the area with leftover food, which would create a pest-hazard. The cat-carers around the neighbourhood take the effort to wait until the cats are done with their food, before throwing away what’s left and then making sure the area is clean – if not cleaner than before.

In fact, they even make use of used plastic food containers and milk cartons to create ‘new’ food dishes and drink trays for the cats, setting an example in executing one of the 3 ‘R’s, that is, to reuse items to help save the environment.

They also take care of these cats, taking them to the vet and paying for their sterilization. This is a far better – and more humane – approach to controlling the stray population. Sending them to the SPCA or having the NEA capture them will only lead to their deaths. If we know how to punish the behaviour but not condemn the child, we should know better than to condemn these harmless cats – creatures who naturally like being clean and who dispose of their waste in a most hygienic manner.

The vandals’ message also read: “If you want to feed them, bring them home to feed!” Bringing these street cats home is not a good idea, as much as catlovers would like to do so, because taking free-roaming cats and confining them to the small area of an HDB flat may cause severe mental problems and resulting disruptive behaviour, and may even lead to their suicide.

These cat-carers are doing a noble deed of preserving the lives and wellbeing of the peaceful animals that watch over our neighbourhood while we’re away at work, and greet us with a gentle ‘meow’ every evening when we return home.

To those who oppose their work: You don’t have to like cats, and no one’s asking you to get your hands dirty. Just try and have a little more compassion in your hearts. In a world where compassion is sorely lacking, maybe we all need to take the time to stop, smell the flowers, and start appreciating our neighbourhood cats – and their carers.

Many vendors charge more when a customer wants extra rice, for example, but no discount is given for less rice.

With prices becoming a serious cause of concern, especially among the lower income group, food stall owners should do what they can to make their prices still affordable.

A stall did just that, as mentioned in a letter published in my paper some time ago, and it showed that lowering prices does not mean less profits. Rather, due to the economies of scale and better prices, the stall was able to attract more customers, which led to better sales.

Setting prices according to the portion of food served would be welcomed by those finding it difficult to cope with the rising cost of living. Besides helping to cut down wastage, it would also appeal to those who wish to reduce their food intake for health reasons.

I hope that all stalls can look into implementing “small, medium and large” meals in the near future – because one size doesn’t always fit all.

see published letter here