Why living with parents is a stultifying Singaporean trait

Sep 19, 2009

I REFER to the replies which criticised my letter, 'Few babies? It's the Hotel Mama mindset' (Sept 9).

Let me emphasise that there are many reasons for a low fertility rate and that the situation in the West is similar to Singapore's.

But being forced to live with one's parents is something uniquely Singaporean, which has some negative consequences.

Human development goes through stages. To become an adult, not just in years, but in the truest sense of the word, one has to 'leave the dependency of childhood and adolescence...explore a variety of possible life directions in love, work and world views...before entering the enduring responsibilities that are normative in adulthood' (Wikipedia, Emerging adulthood).

Staying at home in one's 20s and early 30s keeps individuals dependent on the services of their parents (shelter, food, laundry and cleaning) and prevents them from proceeding in their personal development in some areas. Perhaps a psychologist could explain why facing challenges on our own and becoming independent is so important to our development?

My guess is that 50 years ago, people in Singapore got independent earlier, that the parent generation had to stand on their own feet and reached 'maturity' at an age when their children nowadays still enjoy the comfort of their parents' home.

In Switzerland, I had a neighbour who lived with his mother until she died when he was 60. Of course, he remained single for the rest of his life.

I grew up with my grandmother sharing our home, as my sister's family does now with my parents. But my sister had her own household before and lived in the United States and Japan for many years. Taking care of one's parents is a value cherished around the world, but it does not mean one should depend on one's parents long into adulthood.

I have a friend in Singapore who hates his father. Some years ago, when his mother got sick, the father refused to come back from Vietnam, where he worked. When she was terminally ill, he had to come back, but refused to pay for her treatment, sending his money to Vietnam instead, insisting it was his money.

His wife died and not long after he got involved with a woman 30 years younger, who wanted to marry him. But he had to prove his sincerity. So the father, who had just retired, gave her all his Central Provident Fund savings, upon which she disappeared.

My friend is so angry with his stubborn, selfish father who would not listen to reason. When my friend is at home, he locks his door and avoids seeing his father at all costs. But my friend is stuck with him in the same HDB flat.

Another friend in his early 30s goes to his room around 11pm and waits until his parents are asleep. Sneaking out, he locks his bedroom door so his parents think he is still asleep when they get up early in the morning, while he spends the night in a cheap hotel with a girl.

But I have another friend whose father got too sick to work. The son supports his parents and lives with them happily, with his wife and their first baby.

If someone wants to take care of his parents out of his free will and lives with them, I would be the first to applaud him for that. But filial piety should not be confused with the many who have no choice than to stay with their parents and where the parents support their adult children instead the other way round. This might feel comfortable, but for some it becomes so comfortable that they will never break free and start a family on their own, like my neighbour in Switzerland.

I am convinced that Singapore would benefit if it gave young adults a chance to live on their own. Singapore's population is supposed to grow to six million people, which means nearly 50 per cent more housing is needed. If that is possible, why not a small 10 per cent increase to cater for the needs of the young?

Peter Huber

---------- Online comment ---------

Hi all,

Stop critisizing Peter Huber for a moment and read his letter again. Peter is in fact pointing the finger at our govt for the lack of housing. This housing shortage (which leads to high property prices) will only worsen if PAP really goes for 6 million population!!!
Posted by: legolass at Sun Sep 20 00:13:01 SGT 2009

[Peter is rambling all over the place and drawing on any and all anecdotes to support his argument that children shouldn't live with their parents - for the sake of the children's psychological development and health. And if legolass is correct about his real point, she (and he) is missing the big picture. If 200,000 singles were suddenly free to buy their own flats under HDB rules, their entry into the market is going to increase demand and increase prices, not reduce them. And when Peter finally finds someone who will marry him, he will find that he and his wife will be competing with so many singles looking for a flat and prices will be even higher. Then he will be writing to the press to say why HDB should give priority to newly weds like him so that they can produce the children that Singapore wants and needs. He's not arguing from principle. He's arguing from self-interests and trying to disguise it as high principles. And even if he were arguing from high principles, then he needs to propose a solution that takes into account the real and local constraints. Otherwise, he's just a whiny impatient brat.]

ADORABLE WAY OF SPEAKING - Ris Low & her RazorTV interview

19 Sep 2009

I think the way Ms Low speaks is adorable. She really 'shouts me'. It is Singlish of the highest order and I lurve it.

Yes, we can make fun of Singlish for its peculiar pronunciation and queer sentence structure but it is our own self-evolved lingua franca.

The Speak Good English Movement chairman Goh Eck Keng is right. When we laugh at Ms Low, we are laughing at half of Singapore (maybe more).

I used to lament that we had no sense of language identity. Travelling around Asia, I have observed that every country has its unifying patois. The Thais speak Thai, Malaysians speak Malay tinged with English pronouns, the Indonesians have Bahasa and Filipinos have Tagalog.

We had nothing until Singlish came along.

Let's rejoice. Just as the Chinese have Chingrish and the Japanese have Japlish, we can take great pride in having our own Singlish.

And like any other language, it will evolve. You cannot stop it because this is the language of comfort and convenience.

We feel good when we hear it. It is warm, witty, humorous and musical. And it has such wonderful words.

Just the other day, I heard a Singapore Airlines stewardess say: 'Thankchew for frying with Sinkapor Allies, a member of Style Lions.'

What on earth was that? I had to think for a few seconds before connecting the dots. 'Style Lions' is 'Star Alliance'. But what a great name - Style Lions!

As for Ms Low, she is just gorgeous and 'Boomz', whether or not she wears a 'piss of rad bigini' or 'duck gins with leopard and zibbra preens'.

If she needs a dress that 'shouts' her for the big occasion, I offer to buy her one and I will get my cousin Tina Tan-Leo (the owner of The Link boutique) to style her, too.

Go for it, Ms Low. Do us proud.

Dr Woffles Wu

[This letter made me feel happy for Ris Low.  It made me think about what this opportunity means to her. We are not all born beautiful, and we don't all have the same skills and abilities. This is perhaps a chance of a lifetime for her. Let's not rain on her parade. I hope she has a good time at the final show.]

S'pore not the only dragon that scores well in public policy

Sep 16, 2009

IN HIS commentary last Wednesday ("The Republic of Common Sense"), Professor Kishore Mahbubani compared the PUB's 99.9 per cent water delivery record with the problem of irregular maintenance of hundreds of miles of water pipes in the United States to illustrate Singapore's superior public policies.

But the US is so much bigger with so many more pipes to maintain. The US infrastructure is also much older. The recent stink about the Pasir Ris coast being contaminated by old, leaking sewerage pipes shows just how difficult it is to tackle the problem of aged infrastructure.

Singapore may often be cited as one of the models of development, but that does not mean Singapore is unique in and of its own in its rapid development. What is often forgotten is that Singapore is merely one of four East Asian dragons and much of the success of our policies and institutions is rooted in who we are - East Asians.

It would be good indeed if the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, which Prof Mahbubani heads, can help raise the level of reflection and questioning in Singapore.

Ng Kok Lim

[So by raising the level of reflection and questioning, we would conclude that the success of our policies and institutions is because we are East Asians? So Hong Kong, Taiwan & S. Korea being the other 4 dragons also have good and sound public policies?

Then what about Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, and the Indochina countries? They are East Asians too? Ng's letter is ironic evidence that there is a lack of reflection and questioning by Singaporeans, if his conclusion is based more on cultural/racial prejudice rather than well thought out arguments.

(edit: In other words, thinly veiled racism)

As for the Pasir Ris problem, Ng apparently makes no differentiation between water pipes and sewerage pipes. He may be taking Newater a little too literally. But not to sweep the problem under the carpet, at least the authorities recognise there is a problem and is acting to solve the problem, and there is a plan to resolve the problem. It is not unknown for other countries to deny there is a problem and let people swim in contaminated waters, or give up on the problem - no budget and other priorities, and make vague promises to solve the problem... which then drags on for decades without resolution. That's poor public policy.

There are some cities in the US that uses a tagline "The city that works" If any city deserves such a tag, it is Singapore.]

Few babies? It's the Hotel Mama mindset

[And now we bring you the tale of a sexually frustrated young man in Singapore...]

Sep 9, 2009

IT IS not by chance that Singapore has such a low fertility rate. There are many contributing factors, but an important one is the housing policy and the mindset behind it.

In Europe and the United States, people leave their homes in their early 20s or even earlier. With their salaries, they can afford to rent a place, maybe with a friend or two. Those aged 25 and above, who are still living at home, are considered strange, immature and lacking in independence.

In the West, people in their 20s experiment, enjoy their freedom and have probably more than one relationship before they settle down and start a family.

[And what are their TFR?]

In Singapore, it is a policy that only married couples can have an affordable, subsidised flat. It is way too expensive for someone who has just entered the workforce to rent or buy an apartment on the resale market. So they live with their parents and enjoy Hotel Mama, which is comfortable and saves them some money.

But they have to follow their parents' rules, such as, 'When I wake up, you have to be in your bed, alone'. Bringing a lover home is out of the question. For them, childhood continues until they are well into their 30s.

Is it then really surprising that there are not many babies?

[You really need to learn from our students. They somehow managed it. At home, when their parents are at work. At void decks, stairwells, holiday chalets, parks, etc. And they start as young as 10 now. and they don't need to be Americans or Europeans. :-)]

It is not just a question of having no private space. It is also a question of mentality. In the West, young people learn early to stand on their own feet, to take care of themselves, to live their own lives.

In Singapore, the young are conditioned to follow the rules, to live for their schools or jobs, to listen to their parents and to be obedient citizens.

But different qualities are needed for starting a family, such as readiness to take risks, independence and the ability to have fun.

[Ya. Those are the qualities to start a pregnancy. But the qualities to be a good parent should include sense of responsibility, discipline, resourcefulness, and tenacity.]

In Singapore, there is too much emphasis on obedience, too little on independence. That is not good for having babies.

[Wong (below) will say something about this. Much better than I can. You dodo.]

Some might say that Singapore has no choice because it is a small island. But I don't know any other big city which has so much empty land, even at the best locations next to underground train stations.

[There you are! have sex next to the train station!]

It seems to be the policy here to make available only a little land for buildings and to keep property prices sky-high.

[Damn! you found out our national secret. We'll have to stop you from procreating!]

Peter Huber

-------- online comments ---------
[And now, a comment from our resident misogynist & bigot:]

The writer, Peter Huber, is entitled to his theory to explain SG's low birth rate just like any of us. He may have something when he points to the high property prices ( as part of the high costs of living in general). In the main, though, he blames it on us for being docile obedient dodos when compared with the ("superior") risk-taking independent die-die-must-move-out Westerners. 

If he had put more thought into it, he might have noticed: 

1. When SG had a post-war baby boom, the pre-conditions to which he ascribes higher birth rates in the West didn't obtain then, in some ways even less than now. Rent was not cheap relative to income, extended families lived under-one-roof and social norms were far more conservative than now. 

2. In fact, in none of the Asian countries that experienced a baby boom were you likely to have found the pre-conditions to which the writer ascribes Western birth rates. Indeed, relative to these Asian countries during their baby boom years, Western birth rates were LOWER. 

3. He might have noticed that if we were indeed obedient docile dodos, we would NOT HAVE a birth rate problem because we would obey the exhortations of the govt and our own parents to pro-create.

[Bravo! *clap* *clap*. Wong, despite his misogyny, is an intelligent man. But then he goes on...]

But, of course, Mr. Huber was not really interested in a deeper look into his own theory. His letter was about ideology i.e. pushing the stock Western line about "superior" Western freedom versus stifling Asian conformity. Same ole same ole. This kind of superiority complex underpinned the whole era of overt imperialism and the thing to note is how alive and well it is up to now. (So much for the Westernised who claim differently.) 

 [No, no, Mr Wong. You're misinterpreting the sexual frustrations of a young man with no privacy with higher ideals. In doing so, you ridiculously elevate the testosterone ranting of a sex-starved young man to the level of a clash of civilisations. Samuel Huntington, he is not. Mr Wong is born in the wrong era. He would have made a wonderful anti-colonialist.]

Look, if we don't care for generalisations about Asian societies being "morally superior" to Western societies then we must recognise Mr. Huber's letter for what it is - merely a similar generalisation in the opposite direction. Come back when you have a real take on our problems, Mr. Huber, but spare us the cold war era ideological broadcast.

[And Mr Wong should take off his tunnel-vision glasses. :-) ]

Posted by: WongHoongHooi at Wed Sep 09 15:00:42 SGT 2009

...
[And now a word from our resident Anti-PAP...]

WongHoongHooi,
The reason for the stop at two policy was obvious - the govt projected the population based on the birth rates then (1960's) to be untenable for whatever developmental plans it had in mind.
And as they say, things tend to acquire their own momentum once things get rolling. One thing leads to another. Small families and policies designed as disincentive for having large families inevitably led to the 'nuclear' family, more liberal abortion law etc.
The stop at two policy became so ingrained in govt policy consideration order of the day that nobody gave a dot when reproduction rates dived below renewal level. And of course, the making of an aging population obviously crossed nobody's mind. The dominant thought was probably this: the overpopulation issue has been effectively
tackled. And it didn't help when the PM is such a dominant and overpowering figure that no well meaning and career minded senior civil servant dared to point out the looming problem to him in order to live another day1
What did people like Ngiam Tong Tow and the Chief Statistician who probably have the ears of the top do then?
I have a cynical belief that many probable did see the problem looming but were AFRAID to speak for they love their families' and their own future more.
THERE IS NO RUNNING AWAY FROM RESPONSIBILITY BY THE POLITICIANS IN THE MANNER THINGS TURN OUT IN A COUNTRY. THE BUCK STOPS SQUARELY AT THE DOOR STEP OF THE LEADERSHIP. IN THIS CASE WE KNOW WHO.
Posted by: commentator_sc at Wed Sep 09 16:22:24 SGT 2009

...

[Commentator was having such a good run, I didn't have the heart to interject. :-)

But this is a case study of hijacked agendas. Huber writes a barely disguised piece on his sexual frustration. which is translated by the anglophobe as an attack on his culture and rises to defend his civilisation while casting Huber in the role of imperialist. Then commentator comes along and says, "it's all LKY's fault!"

And that is a day in the life at the ST forum.

You have to laugh.]