Deborah Choo
"Love cannot be a legal obligation, and genuine concern cannot be commanded by a court order."
- Alice Chen Yan, Sydney Globalist writer
A devoted mother, drenched from running miles under the rain to the nearest hospital, cradled her child in her arms and sang the old classic "天黑黑" ("Dark skies"). Years passed. Her son soon set up his own family.
Day by day she grew older. Her husband passed away. She developed problems walking. Her health deteriorated, and she was soon admitted into hospital, her life relying on machines for support.
That day, it was raining too.
"Dad, grandma always treated mum and you so badly. How can you still be sad for her?" the grandson asked his father at the hospital.
His father looked out into the rain. Pitter-patter, pitter-patter…
It was Singapore in the 60s. A mother cradled her feverish son in her arms, desperately flagging a vehicle. None stopped. Rushing to the hospital on foot, she frantically grabbed a nurse to seek help. Wait, she was told.
Settling in a chair, she sung that classic song.
This fictional story is the plot for a 2010 TV advertisement 'Father and Son'. Spearheaded by the National Family Council and supported by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), the ad aimed to promote the value of filial piety.
Setting aside the controversy that followed, an MCYS spokesperson told The New Paper last year that the reason for the ad was because "Singapore's population is rapidly ageing and the traditional value of filial piety may be lost in an increasingly globalised society."
But is it true that filial piety is making way for modernity?
An alarming story broke this week of an elderly couple who was forced out of their eldest son's home after a heated discussion that eventually culminated in the police's involvement.
Foo Tin Tak, 62 and his wife, Tham, 55, claimed their son owes them money. He in return claimed his father had threatened to kill him with a knife during the quarrel.
Foo and his wife, both of whom have difficulties walking, resorted to spending two sleepless nights at a fast-food outlet before approaching the HDB Hub in Toa Payoh for help. They are now settled into a congested three-room flat with another family. Their youngest son, 27, is also living together with them now.
To be fair, a single story is not suggestive of an emerging trend.
Law used to underscore tradition
Respect and filial piety has long been the cornerstone in Asian societies. Almost like an unspoken defining social contract that has been carried on through generations, the government is now taking on a proactive -- and some might argue, an invasive -- role to preserve this tradition.
In this Asian country, singles face limitations such as the purchase of HDB flats since most children are expected to live with their parents until marriage. Also, a special type of CPF housing grant is made available for married child living near his or her parents -- specifically either in the same town/estate or within 2 km of the married child's HDB flat.
Monthly monetary contributions too are seen as an act of reciprocity. In the event filial piety fails though, there is the Maintenance of Parents Act of 1995 where parents can use to sue their scions for monthly allowances.
As of 2009, there has been about 1,400 applications filed for maintenance at the Tribunal, out of which about more than 1,000 maintenance orders were made. It is recorded that in 2008, over 170 applications were received.
Interestingly enough, most parents who resorted to this measure are Chinese fathers, usually single -- either widowed or divorced.
The burgeoning need, it seems, to take recalcitrant children to task may serve as a safeguard for the cultural value of filial piety.
However, as Vivian Balakrishnan, former Minister of MCYS and current Minister for the Environment and Water Resources rightfully pointed out, the law should be used as a "last resort".
A blunt instrument as that might be a tad too harsh; sometimes almost tantamount to inflicting damage on a family relationship that might already be teetering precariously on the edge of resolution.
Moreover, blatant propaganda does not go over well with the public. In a recent NUS survey, one in two out of 200 Singaporeans revealed that the campaigns are excessive.
The staggering amount of finances poured into campaigns might go a lot longer — and in a more subtly supportive way — when it's given out as financial support to the elderly who need it.
I do not speak for all Singaporeans when I say this: Yes, we are modern and may prefer our freedom and independence, but we remain willing to provide for our parents.
The metaphorical saying goes that "If you tell a child he can fly, he will believe he can fly".
To draw a parallel, positive reinforcements such as awards (which are comparatively given less prominence in our society) encourages not only the polite and filial citizens in our midst, it also acts as an invisible check on the people by the people.
If the next generation is continually being raised under a highly reprehensive society where constant reminders via campaigns or even legal conditioning that elicits only fear, over time they will believe that they are ungracious and unfilial. This only serves to propagate the opposite intention more pervasively through generations.
So instead of legislative imposition from higher authorities down the societal pyramid, let's work collectively as a society — to lead by example, and be generous where credit is due.
Deborah Choo used to write for an array of websites such as Youth.SG and The Online Citizen. She now blogs in her free time.
No comments:
Post a Comment