Earlier this year, I happened to pass by a career fair taking place in a school near my home. The young staff passed me a Singtel promotional flyer which showed various teenagers with large thought bubbles - revealing rather lewd thoughts. Okay you may think i'm a prude but with 2 young children (who might attend the same school as this one in the future) - i really wasn't amused.
It disturbed me so much that I decided to write in to the ST Forum (again). They published it online on 18 January 2010. This is the original version (since they have already removed the editied published version from their website):
At a recent career fair for young students, I was handed a promotional flyer by school staff for Singtel’s new marketing campaign, the theme of which was “Express yourself freely”.
The front page showed a young boy smiling with the words “I once sent a naughty SMS to my professor thinking it was my girlfriend.”
At the back was a couple – a boy and girl sitting next to each other. They were supposed to be on a date but the girl happily admitted that “I sat next to him and sent SMS to my ex-boyfriend.” Her boyfriend was also smirking, feeling quite pleased that he was able to chat online with his ex-girlfriend without the other girl knowing.
What kind of messages – subtle or otherwise – is Singtel trying to convey to its targeted audience? As a parent, it was not so much the nonchalant attitude of the handsome-but-dirty-minded-guy that bothered me, but the fact that the two lovebirds appeared to have no qualms about two-timing each other (with the help of Singtel technology, of course). It was obvious that while they were together on a date, they would rather use technology to chat with their old flames rather than enjoy the physical presence of their current boy/girlfriend.
Singtel is often referred to as a government-linked corporation. My question, therefore, is: Do the business and government leaders of our country regard the moral fibre of our youth to be degenerated to such an extent these days that such immoral messages are necessary in order to generate more business for a company? Or that Singaporean parents are all too busy working and leaving their child-raising duties to foreign maids and childcare institutions to notice and make a stand about it?
If that is so, then we should have no problem about seeing more adverts telling us how mobile technology could enable us to cheat in exams, or to visit “naughty” websites while at work. Special mobile plans could also be offered to married men who want to chat with their girlfriends without the knowledge of their wives. All these would certainly be in line with the spirit of Singtel’s campaign – the empowerment to do whatever we want, whenever we want, without regard to consequences.
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=29241
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Interview by Today's Parents
Dear friends,
If you have the chance to lay your hands on the April issue of Today's Parents, look out for an article inside on traditional confinement practices. Jill Birch, who is also the Features Editor for Expat Living, interviewed me recently on this topic. i'm excited to see the article for myself, next month!! :-)
If you have the chance to lay your hands on the April issue of Today's Parents, look out for an article inside on traditional confinement practices. Jill Birch, who is also the Features Editor for Expat Living, interviewed me recently on this topic. i'm excited to see the article for myself, next month!! :-)
Monday, January 19, 2009
Quoted in Digital Straits Times
Remember the letter i wrote to ST Forum about the lack of protections for employers of FDWs in Singapore?
Well, i found bits of it quote here:
Maid transfer loophole penalises employers
I AGREE with Mr Loke Kok Wai's letter last Wednesday, 'In all fairness, protect employers too'.
One of my maids who came on a transfer started well in the first month. Subsequently, she became defiant and after six months we were compelled to send her back to the agency. She went shopping without informing us. She was unapologetic when we questioned her and was even brazen enough to say she was dismissed by her previous employers because she took their child out without seeking their permission.
When we sent her back to the agency, she said she did not want to work anymore. The agency said that she could not get a transfer because of her attitude, we would have to pay for her lodging and return airfare. In addition, during this period, we are still liable for the levy and her security bond.
To end our nightmare, we decided to bear the cost of her repatriation and sent her home immediately. But she is likely to return to Singapore, claim that she has even more experience and demand a higher pay.
When I e-mailed the Ministry of Manpower to bar such maids with poor records from returning to Singapore, the reply I received was: 'The ministry will only be able to place a worker on an employment ban if she is charged and found guilty of an offence under our law, including offences under the Penal Code and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.'
In short, a recalcitrant maid cannot be prevented from working in Singapore again unless innocent lives are lost or properties are damaged deliberately. That also means the employers must suffer a loss before the authorities will respond. I appeal to the ministry to look into this matter. Currently, the balance of protection is definitely skewed towards the maids.
Chan Sook Yee (Ms)
Employers deserve better
'We deserve better than to be on the losing end every time an errant maid gets pregnant, does her job badly, steals our money or breaks her contract prematurely.'
MS VANESSA TEO: 'Recently, the Ministry of Manpower made it compulsory for employers to buy medical insurance for their maids. As maids are now covered by medical insurance, employers should no longer be held responsible for all other health, medical or dental costs that their maids incur. This would not only be fairer to the employer, but also prevent the maid from taking unfair advantage of her employer. Second, it is time to implement laws to protect employers. We deserve better than to be on the losing end every time an errant maid gets pregnant, does her job badly, steals our money or breaks her contract prematurely.'
Well, i found bits of it quote here:
Maid transfer loophole penalises employers
I AGREE with Mr Loke Kok Wai's letter last Wednesday, 'In all fairness, protect employers too'.
One of my maids who came on a transfer started well in the first month. Subsequently, she became defiant and after six months we were compelled to send her back to the agency. She went shopping without informing us. She was unapologetic when we questioned her and was even brazen enough to say she was dismissed by her previous employers because she took their child out without seeking their permission.
When we sent her back to the agency, she said she did not want to work anymore. The agency said that she could not get a transfer because of her attitude, we would have to pay for her lodging and return airfare. In addition, during this period, we are still liable for the levy and her security bond.
To end our nightmare, we decided to bear the cost of her repatriation and sent her home immediately. But she is likely to return to Singapore, claim that she has even more experience and demand a higher pay.
When I e-mailed the Ministry of Manpower to bar such maids with poor records from returning to Singapore, the reply I received was: 'The ministry will only be able to place a worker on an employment ban if she is charged and found guilty of an offence under our law, including offences under the Penal Code and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.'
In short, a recalcitrant maid cannot be prevented from working in Singapore again unless innocent lives are lost or properties are damaged deliberately. That also means the employers must suffer a loss before the authorities will respond. I appeal to the ministry to look into this matter. Currently, the balance of protection is definitely skewed towards the maids.
Chan Sook Yee (Ms)
Employers deserve better
'We deserve better than to be on the losing end every time an errant maid gets pregnant, does her job badly, steals our money or breaks her contract prematurely.'
MS VANESSA TEO: 'Recently, the Ministry of Manpower made it compulsory for employers to buy medical insurance for their maids. As maids are now covered by medical insurance, employers should no longer be held responsible for all other health, medical or dental costs that their maids incur. This would not only be fairer to the employer, but also prevent the maid from taking unfair advantage of her employer. Second, it is time to implement laws to protect employers. We deserve better than to be on the losing end every time an errant maid gets pregnant, does her job badly, steals our money or breaks her contract prematurely.'
Who's Calling the Kettle Black?
I was rather amused to see this article on Yahoo! News today:
Civil servant rapped over cooking holiday
SINGAPORE — A senior Singaporean civil servant has been reprimanded for publicising his family’s vacation at a top French cooking school when his country is suffering from a recession, a minister said Monday.
"It struck a discordant note during the current difficult economic circumstances when it is especially important to show solidarity and empathy for Singaporeans who are facing uncertainties and hardship," Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said in parliament.
The civil servant, Tan Yong Soon, wrote early this month in a local newspaper about his family’s experience learning to cook at Le Cordon Bleu in Paris.
He said he attended with his wife and son.Tan, permanent secretary at the ministry of environment and water resources, showed "a lack of sensitivity" and poor judgement, the minister said.
The head of the civil service has already spoken to Tan about the matter, the minister added.
"What the civil servant in question, Mr Tan, does during his vacation leave, this is (a) private decision," said Teo, who is also minister in charge of the civil service.
"However, I was disappointed with what he wrote in to The Straits Times."
According to the newspaper, a basic cuisine course at Le Cordon Bleu costs S$15,500. — AFP/vm
Almost 2 years ago, i wrote into the Straits Times Forum about the insensitivity of the government in raising the issue of ministerial pay at a particularly difficult time for many Singaporeans. i was pleasantly surprised when the editor of the Forum gave me a personal call, telling me that he agreed with many of the points raised in my letter. After it was published, it was rather warmly received on a number of online forums :-)
Here's the letter that i wrote in 2007:
March 28, 2007
NZ govt took heed of public views in setting pay
I AM rather disappointed with the Government's insensitivity in raising the issue of ministerial pay at a time when many ordinary Singaporeans are still trying to cope with rising living costs.
In 1994 when the then Prime Minister urged Parliament to approve the formula for setting ministers' pay, he suggested that paying $22 million a year for his team was a small price, compared to the cost of having an incompetent and corrupt government.
However, according to the TI 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index, there are four other countries which are less corrupt than Singapore. New Zealand is placed No. 1 (together with Finland and Iceland) whereas Singapore is ranked No. 5. Does this mean that the salaries of NZ ministers should be many times higher than those of Singapore ministers?
This doesn't seem to be the case. In a 2003 article by the NZ Herald, it was pointed out that even though the Prime Minister had the 'toughest job in the country' and an equivalent private-sector position would command a seven-figure salary, this would not be acceptable to taxpayers. Her increased salary of NZ$305,000 was deemed reasonable as US President George W. Bush earned only about NZ$330,470 a year.
In setting the remuneration packages of its ministers, the New Zealand government was sensitive to the perceptions of the public (whom it described as 'paying customers') and benchmarked figures against those of its Western counterparts.
As Singapore is an Asian country, should we not be benchmarking our figures against our Asian counterparts'? Even if we consider ourselves as a Western country, our ministers are already being paid many times more than President Bush himself.
So far, the impression we have been given is that serving our country is like any other financial transaction or commercial project; money is the primary focus and motivation. There is no altruism or patriotism linked to the discussion.
I hope that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his Government can take a different approach to this issue.
The style of writing here is a little simpler than what i'm used to; furthermore i remember the editor having changed or added 1 or 2 of the sentences in the first few paragraphs. i must also give credit to a blog that i'd read prior to drafting this letter - it was a blog that belonged to a very intelligent 16-year-old i think by the name of Gail-something, she was the one who originally came up with the idea of comparing our ministers with those of less corrupt countries; i then extrapolated on this idea and fleshed it out in the above discourse :-)
Civil servant rapped over cooking holiday
SINGAPORE — A senior Singaporean civil servant has been reprimanded for publicising his family’s vacation at a top French cooking school when his country is suffering from a recession, a minister said Monday.
"It struck a discordant note during the current difficult economic circumstances when it is especially important to show solidarity and empathy for Singaporeans who are facing uncertainties and hardship," Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said in parliament.
The civil servant, Tan Yong Soon, wrote early this month in a local newspaper about his family’s experience learning to cook at Le Cordon Bleu in Paris.
He said he attended with his wife and son.Tan, permanent secretary at the ministry of environment and water resources, showed "a lack of sensitivity" and poor judgement, the minister said.
The head of the civil service has already spoken to Tan about the matter, the minister added.
"What the civil servant in question, Mr Tan, does during his vacation leave, this is (a) private decision," said Teo, who is also minister in charge of the civil service.
"However, I was disappointed with what he wrote in to The Straits Times."
According to the newspaper, a basic cuisine course at Le Cordon Bleu costs S$15,500. — AFP/vm
Almost 2 years ago, i wrote into the Straits Times Forum about the insensitivity of the government in raising the issue of ministerial pay at a particularly difficult time for many Singaporeans. i was pleasantly surprised when the editor of the Forum gave me a personal call, telling me that he agreed with many of the points raised in my letter. After it was published, it was rather warmly received on a number of online forums :-)
Here's the letter that i wrote in 2007:
March 28, 2007
NZ govt took heed of public views in setting pay
I AM rather disappointed with the Government's insensitivity in raising the issue of ministerial pay at a time when many ordinary Singaporeans are still trying to cope with rising living costs.
In 1994 when the then Prime Minister urged Parliament to approve the formula for setting ministers' pay, he suggested that paying $22 million a year for his team was a small price, compared to the cost of having an incompetent and corrupt government.
However, according to the TI 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index, there are four other countries which are less corrupt than Singapore. New Zealand is placed No. 1 (together with Finland and Iceland) whereas Singapore is ranked No. 5. Does this mean that the salaries of NZ ministers should be many times higher than those of Singapore ministers?
This doesn't seem to be the case. In a 2003 article by the NZ Herald, it was pointed out that even though the Prime Minister had the 'toughest job in the country' and an equivalent private-sector position would command a seven-figure salary, this would not be acceptable to taxpayers. Her increased salary of NZ$305,000 was deemed reasonable as US President George W. Bush earned only about NZ$330,470 a year.
In setting the remuneration packages of its ministers, the New Zealand government was sensitive to the perceptions of the public (whom it described as 'paying customers') and benchmarked figures against those of its Western counterparts.
As Singapore is an Asian country, should we not be benchmarking our figures against our Asian counterparts'? Even if we consider ourselves as a Western country, our ministers are already being paid many times more than President Bush himself.
So far, the impression we have been given is that serving our country is like any other financial transaction or commercial project; money is the primary focus and motivation. There is no altruism or patriotism linked to the discussion.
I hope that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his Government can take a different approach to this issue.
The style of writing here is a little simpler than what i'm used to; furthermore i remember the editor having changed or added 1 or 2 of the sentences in the first few paragraphs. i must also give credit to a blog that i'd read prior to drafting this letter - it was a blog that belonged to a very intelligent 16-year-old i think by the name of Gail-something, she was the one who originally came up with the idea of comparing our ministers with those of less corrupt countries; i then extrapolated on this idea and fleshed it out in the above discourse :-)
Friday, December 26, 2008
Pay $67,00 hospital bill for maid? Not me
i don't get many chances to read the newspaper, whether online or offline (alas, one of the hazards of being a full-time SAHM). But if i do, i get very irritated when i read stories about errant maids, unfair employment laws and MOM officials who seem to live in a cloud in a sky... (and who seem to have never had kids or to hire maids to look after them)
So i was particularly disturbed when i read about the story of this maid, Nina, who got pregnant, kept it from her employer, managed to escape detection by the doctor, went to KKH, got herself an expensive caesarean operation to deliver the baby and chalked up $67,000 in hospital bills!!
Guess who the hospital is now chasing for payment - her employer!!
i find this so ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the story of the other maid who climbed out of the window of her agent's flat, fell 6 or so storeys down and injured herself so badly she incurred more than $70,000 in hospital bills - all of which were sent to her employer.
Why do such stupid things happen to such stupid people (the maids, i mean)?? Does the government honestly and reasonably expect non-corporate employers - many of whom are young couples trying to raise young children under a tight budget - to bear responsibility for ALL the medical and hospitalisation costs of their FDWs, without limit?? If even big companies and their insurance firms know how to impose limitations on the amount of medical benefits they mete out to employees, how much more should non-corporate employers?? It just doesn't make any sense.
So i took out my pen (er, MS Word) and started writing (typing) a letter to ST Forum. It was a bit long, so i don't know if they'll publish it (they have published 3 of my letters before, but those were short and sweet :-). Let's hope that even if they don't, MOM officials will wake up one day and realise how much damage they're doing with their one-size-fits-all regulations that don't fit in with how things really work in the real world.
Your recent story about an employer who was made responsible for the $67,000 hospital bill of her errant maid raises many alarming issues for all the FDW employers here in Singapore.
Firstly, in the working world, there are very few (and possibly none) companies or employers who are required, by law, to pay ALL medical and hospital bills of their employees, without limit. Most corporate employers rely on insurance plans to cover their employees’ medical costs; and these insurance plans (or corporate health policies) will normally impose a limit on how much an employee may claim towards his medical or hospitalisation costs. Not only is this fair to both the employer and employee, it also prevents irresponsible behaviour on the employee’s part (e.g. deliberate self-injury).
Many health plans also impose conditions that exclude certain medical claims, such as in the case of illegitimate births or pregnancies/conditions that were not declared prior to the start of the insurance period.
Recently, the Ministry of Manpower made it compulsory for all FDW employers to purchase medical insurance for their maids. Even though this increased the financial burden of hiring maids, many employers had no choice but to comply with this new requirement.
Since all FDWs are now covered by medical insurance, employers should no longer be made responsible for all other health, medical or dental costs that their maids incur while working here in Singapore. This would not only be fairer to the employer, it would also prevent the FDW from taking unfair advantage of her employer.
Secondly, it is time that the Ministry of Manpower implements laws and regulations that protect FDW employers as well. As taxpayers who pay $170 or more every month for the right to hire maids, surely we deserve better than to be on the losing end every time an errant maid gets pregnant, does her job badly, steals our money or breaks her contract prematurely.
For example, in cases where the maid is clearly in the wrong or has done something illegal, she should bear responsibility for all her own medical or repatriation costs. In the case of Nina who delivered at KKH without informing her employer, both she and her friend Shushma should be held responsible for the $67,000 bill. Another party that could be held liable is the doctor who failed to detect her pregnancy in the first place.
Another question that has to be asked is this: Why did the hospital admit Nina in the first place, knowing that she was an FDW (hence illegal for her to deliver a baby in Singapore)? If the undertaking signed by her friend (presumably a maid too) was to be deemed worthless by the hospital, why did they accept this undertaking in the first place and not seek consent from her employer instead?
So i was particularly disturbed when i read about the story of this maid, Nina, who got pregnant, kept it from her employer, managed to escape detection by the doctor, went to KKH, got herself an expensive caesarean operation to deliver the baby and chalked up $67,000 in hospital bills!!
Guess who the hospital is now chasing for payment - her employer!!
i find this so ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the story of the other maid who climbed out of the window of her agent's flat, fell 6 or so storeys down and injured herself so badly she incurred more than $70,000 in hospital bills - all of which were sent to her employer.
Why do such stupid things happen to such stupid people (the maids, i mean)?? Does the government honestly and reasonably expect non-corporate employers - many of whom are young couples trying to raise young children under a tight budget - to bear responsibility for ALL the medical and hospitalisation costs of their FDWs, without limit?? If even big companies and their insurance firms know how to impose limitations on the amount of medical benefits they mete out to employees, how much more should non-corporate employers?? It just doesn't make any sense.
So i took out my pen (er, MS Word) and started writing (typing) a letter to ST Forum. It was a bit long, so i don't know if they'll publish it (they have published 3 of my letters before, but those were short and sweet :-). Let's hope that even if they don't, MOM officials will wake up one day and realise how much damage they're doing with their one-size-fits-all regulations that don't fit in with how things really work in the real world.
Your recent story about an employer who was made responsible for the $67,000 hospital bill of her errant maid raises many alarming issues for all the FDW employers here in Singapore.
Firstly, in the working world, there are very few (and possibly none) companies or employers who are required, by law, to pay ALL medical and hospital bills of their employees, without limit. Most corporate employers rely on insurance plans to cover their employees’ medical costs; and these insurance plans (or corporate health policies) will normally impose a limit on how much an employee may claim towards his medical or hospitalisation costs. Not only is this fair to both the employer and employee, it also prevents irresponsible behaviour on the employee’s part (e.g. deliberate self-injury).
Many health plans also impose conditions that exclude certain medical claims, such as in the case of illegitimate births or pregnancies/conditions that were not declared prior to the start of the insurance period.
Recently, the Ministry of Manpower made it compulsory for all FDW employers to purchase medical insurance for their maids. Even though this increased the financial burden of hiring maids, many employers had no choice but to comply with this new requirement.
Since all FDWs are now covered by medical insurance, employers should no longer be made responsible for all other health, medical or dental costs that their maids incur while working here in Singapore. This would not only be fairer to the employer, it would also prevent the FDW from taking unfair advantage of her employer.
Secondly, it is time that the Ministry of Manpower implements laws and regulations that protect FDW employers as well. As taxpayers who pay $170 or more every month for the right to hire maids, surely we deserve better than to be on the losing end every time an errant maid gets pregnant, does her job badly, steals our money or breaks her contract prematurely.
For example, in cases where the maid is clearly in the wrong or has done something illegal, she should bear responsibility for all her own medical or repatriation costs. In the case of Nina who delivered at KKH without informing her employer, both she and her friend Shushma should be held responsible for the $67,000 bill. Another party that could be held liable is the doctor who failed to detect her pregnancy in the first place.
Another question that has to be asked is this: Why did the hospital admit Nina in the first place, knowing that she was an FDW (hence illegal for her to deliver a baby in Singapore)? If the undertaking signed by her friend (presumably a maid too) was to be deemed worthless by the hospital, why did they accept this undertaking in the first place and not seek consent from her employer instead?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Wrong Priorities Harming Children
By Suganthi Suparmaniam, Laviinia Dhanangunan and Ili Liyana Mokhtar
(Although this article was written in Malaysia, i found it pertinent and relevant to modern parenting life in Singapore too)
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA: Four children go missing every day. One in three children has mental health problems.One in 11 children scored straight As in their Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah this year.
These figures and the growing legion of obese children, with rising cases of Type 2 diabetes, high-blood pressure and high cholesterol level, have got experts wondering whether Malaysians have got their priorities right -- focusing on educational excellence to the detriment of the children's safety and health.
They are questioning if the misplaced focus could be the cause of the woes facing children.
The medical profession has blamed parents' indulgence for the growing number of obese children and health problems such as diabetes, high-blood pressure and high cholesterol level.
Sri Murugan Centre director and founder Datuk Dr M. Thambirajah said everything began with the family unit.
He said in the past, teachers took it upon themselves to play the dual role of educator and parent.
"But today, because of the workload and pressure to perform, they can no longer play the dual role. It is unfair to expect that from them."
Thambirajah said children from middle-class families faced competition every day in examinations, piano lessons, art classes and others. He said these children faced stress.
Human Dynamic child counsellor Wong Yee Men agreed that children were stressed out these days, but disagreed that this problem was confined to middle-class families.
"Today, both parents have their own careers. Children want their parents to spend time with them, period."
Wong said she had seen an increase in referral cases from parents, teachers and counsellors for children with behavioural problems, learning difficulties or even emotional blockages.
"I feel the root problem lies with the parents."
Wong said parents often brought back their "baggage" from work and this would have an adverse impact on the child's life.
"For example, because of a bad day at work, the parent could have snapped at the child over a simple matter like watching television. This will stress out the child."
Children's safety has also become a crucial issue.
With more than 8,000 children reported missing over the last five years and more than 500 in the first six months of this year, experts are wringing their hands on what can be done.
Even the missing children alert system remains just a proposal.
Health-wise, our children are not doing too good, either.
Children as young as 7 are developing Type 2 diabetes as a result of their couch-potato lifestyle and high-calorie food.
Hospital Putrajaya, the referral hospital for diabetes cases in the country, has been recording an "alarming" increase in the number of cases.
Hospital Putrajaya paediatrics department head Dr Fuziah Md Zain said children with a propensity for Type 2 diabetes were usually the youngest in the family.
"We believe that because the youngest child is usually the pet in the family, parents give in to their demands for high-calorie food."
The latest National Health and Morbidity Study showed that 20 per cent of children and teenagers in Malaysia have mental ailments.
The figure was 13 per cent in 1996.
Gleneagles Medical Centre Penang consultant psychiatrist Dr Zasmani Shafiee, during a Family Day gathering last month, said some 130,000 Malaysian children and adolescents suffered mental illnesses.
Selayang Hospital saw a 300 per cent increase in the number of children seeking psychiatric help in the past four years.
HELP University College's developmental and counselling psychologist Dr Brendan J. Gomez said depression, stress, violence and suicide were on the rise among young people.
"It is a really worrying trend, and we want to try and address that problem right now."
Universiti Teknologi Mara's Faculty of Medicine consultant psychiatrist Associate Professor Dr Osman Chik Bakar disagreed that parents should be blamed for the malaise.
"Genetically, children are not the same, so parents need to approach their children by how they respond. Sometimes, a child can respond just by communicating with the parents.
"Other times, a more forceful approach is needed."
He said other factors could also contribute to stress experienced by children such as influence from peers, media and Internet.
"We can't protect our children from everything.
"After all, we live in very challenging times where everything is made available to them."
National Union of the Teaching Profession secretary-general Lok Yim Pheng said parents could control and monitor younger children but it was not that easy with older ones.
"Parents should control their children but just how much can they control them?
"Cyber cafes, for example, are like a magnet for children.
"If the attraction is too great, how much can the parents control their children?"
Lok said the authorities should not allow cyber cafes to operate near schools and should stop schoolchildren from entering them.
"If it is difficult for the child to enter the cyber cafe, I think he or she will have no choice but to go home."
Women's Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah said it was insensitive to place the blame on parents alone, as keeping a child safe was the responsibility of the whole community.
She said the focus should not be on parents but on creating a safer environment for children.
(Although this article was written in Malaysia, i found it pertinent and relevant to modern parenting life in Singapore too)
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA: Four children go missing every day. One in three children has mental health problems.One in 11 children scored straight As in their Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah this year.
These figures and the growing legion of obese children, with rising cases of Type 2 diabetes, high-blood pressure and high cholesterol level, have got experts wondering whether Malaysians have got their priorities right -- focusing on educational excellence to the detriment of the children's safety and health.
They are questioning if the misplaced focus could be the cause of the woes facing children.
The medical profession has blamed parents' indulgence for the growing number of obese children and health problems such as diabetes, high-blood pressure and high cholesterol level.
Sri Murugan Centre director and founder Datuk Dr M. Thambirajah said everything began with the family unit.
He said in the past, teachers took it upon themselves to play the dual role of educator and parent.
"But today, because of the workload and pressure to perform, they can no longer play the dual role. It is unfair to expect that from them."
Thambirajah said children from middle-class families faced competition every day in examinations, piano lessons, art classes and others. He said these children faced stress.
Human Dynamic child counsellor Wong Yee Men agreed that children were stressed out these days, but disagreed that this problem was confined to middle-class families.
"Today, both parents have their own careers. Children want their parents to spend time with them, period."
Wong said she had seen an increase in referral cases from parents, teachers and counsellors for children with behavioural problems, learning difficulties or even emotional blockages.
"I feel the root problem lies with the parents."
Wong said parents often brought back their "baggage" from work and this would have an adverse impact on the child's life.
"For example, because of a bad day at work, the parent could have snapped at the child over a simple matter like watching television. This will stress out the child."
Children's safety has also become a crucial issue.
With more than 8,000 children reported missing over the last five years and more than 500 in the first six months of this year, experts are wringing their hands on what can be done.
Even the missing children alert system remains just a proposal.
Health-wise, our children are not doing too good, either.
Children as young as 7 are developing Type 2 diabetes as a result of their couch-potato lifestyle and high-calorie food.
Hospital Putrajaya, the referral hospital for diabetes cases in the country, has been recording an "alarming" increase in the number of cases.
Hospital Putrajaya paediatrics department head Dr Fuziah Md Zain said children with a propensity for Type 2 diabetes were usually the youngest in the family.
"We believe that because the youngest child is usually the pet in the family, parents give in to their demands for high-calorie food."
The latest National Health and Morbidity Study showed that 20 per cent of children and teenagers in Malaysia have mental ailments.
The figure was 13 per cent in 1996.
Gleneagles Medical Centre Penang consultant psychiatrist Dr Zasmani Shafiee, during a Family Day gathering last month, said some 130,000 Malaysian children and adolescents suffered mental illnesses.
Selayang Hospital saw a 300 per cent increase in the number of children seeking psychiatric help in the past four years.
HELP University College's developmental and counselling psychologist Dr Brendan J. Gomez said depression, stress, violence and suicide were on the rise among young people.
"It is a really worrying trend, and we want to try and address that problem right now."
Universiti Teknologi Mara's Faculty of Medicine consultant psychiatrist Associate Professor Dr Osman Chik Bakar disagreed that parents should be blamed for the malaise.
"Genetically, children are not the same, so parents need to approach their children by how they respond. Sometimes, a child can respond just by communicating with the parents.
"Other times, a more forceful approach is needed."
He said other factors could also contribute to stress experienced by children such as influence from peers, media and Internet.
"We can't protect our children from everything.
"After all, we live in very challenging times where everything is made available to them."
National Union of the Teaching Profession secretary-general Lok Yim Pheng said parents could control and monitor younger children but it was not that easy with older ones.
"Parents should control their children but just how much can they control them?
"Cyber cafes, for example, are like a magnet for children.
"If the attraction is too great, how much can the parents control their children?"
Lok said the authorities should not allow cyber cafes to operate near schools and should stop schoolchildren from entering them.
"If it is difficult for the child to enter the cyber cafe, I think he or she will have no choice but to go home."
Women's Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah said it was insensitive to place the blame on parents alone, as keeping a child safe was the responsibility of the whole community.
She said the focus should not be on parents but on creating a safer environment for children.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama and Abortion
Did you know that Barrack Osama (oops, sorry i meant Obama ;-) is one of the most extreme pro-abortion candidates ever to seek the Presidential Office of the United States?
According to articles like this (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama's%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml) and videos like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfL_H7zg1QI&feature=related), Obama is NOT only pro-abortion, but he is pro-infanticide too. This means that if a baby were to survive a late-term abortion, he believes that he/she should be left outside to die. In 2002, he voted AGAINST the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies like these. As an Illinois legislator, he also voted against a bill that would give babies who survived abortions the same rights as other babies.
He is extreme because he is not only pro-choice (which could be defined as supporting the right of a woman to choose abortion in certain circumstances but also respecting pro-life Americans not to fund abortions with their tax dollars or to implicate themselves in other feticides), but pro-abortion in all its forms.
"Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies." (Robert George, The Witherspoon Institute)
In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDX52pEC7_w&feature=related) Jill Stanek talks about Barrack Obama's reaction during her testimony about how as a nurse, she witnessed many babies who were born alive and then left to die. He was unmoved, and even later opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. For your info, on a federal level, EVERY Democrat in the U.S. Senate has supported this Act (including Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, etc) and even the hard-core pro-abortion group NARAL didn't oppose it. BUT Obama was the only one who voted against it!
In speeches like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0faPpO0CaY), Obama - in the same breath that he uses to describe his own daughters as "miracles" - implies that having a baby would be akin to being punished.
If you don't know what late-term abortion is, watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THS2zZ4m260&feature=related (The Silent Scream)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVVXbAOSko (Killing Girls Documentary)
By the way, Barrack Obama himself was born as a result of a teenage pregnancy. By his own measure, then, does he consider himself as a "punishment" to his own mother?
According to articles like this (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama's%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml) and videos like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfL_H7zg1QI&feature=related), Obama is NOT only pro-abortion, but he is pro-infanticide too. This means that if a baby were to survive a late-term abortion, he believes that he/she should be left outside to die. In 2002, he voted AGAINST the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies like these. As an Illinois legislator, he also voted against a bill that would give babies who survived abortions the same rights as other babies.
He is extreme because he is not only pro-choice (which could be defined as supporting the right of a woman to choose abortion in certain circumstances but also respecting pro-life Americans not to fund abortions with their tax dollars or to implicate themselves in other feticides), but pro-abortion in all its forms.
"Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies." (Robert George, The Witherspoon Institute)
In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDX52pEC7_w&feature=related) Jill Stanek talks about Barrack Obama's reaction during her testimony about how as a nurse, she witnessed many babies who were born alive and then left to die. He was unmoved, and even later opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. For your info, on a federal level, EVERY Democrat in the U.S. Senate has supported this Act (including Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, etc) and even the hard-core pro-abortion group NARAL didn't oppose it. BUT Obama was the only one who voted against it!
In speeches like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0faPpO0CaY), Obama - in the same breath that he uses to describe his own daughters as "miracles" - implies that having a baby would be akin to being punished.
If you don't know what late-term abortion is, watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THS2zZ4m260&feature=related (The Silent Scream)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVVXbAOSko (Killing Girls Documentary)
By the way, Barrack Obama himself was born as a result of a teenage pregnancy. By his own measure, then, does he consider himself as a "punishment" to his own mother?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)