Originally posted by Demosthenes:
I can imagine the firestorm that is going to be kicked up
from this load of rubbish. There should be no "duty" involved in
living one's life. A person's freedom of choice in choosing between
procreating or not should never ever be allowed to be impinged
upon. The very thought that our MPs are allowed to spout such
preposterous notions in public debate horrifies me.
I have lived a long and productive life in Singapore and I have
served my duty for Singapore continuously through National Service
and being an active participant in the nation's labour pool.
However, procreation IS AND SHOULD NOT be a duty.
Dr. Ong, as our society progresses, perhaps you should learn to
drop your archaic, dynastic Middle Kingdom throwback behaviour.
Please leave us alone, if we want to be alone in life.
I fervantly believe that Dr. Ong owes this nation's citizens an
apology for his unthinkable remarks. WE ARE NOT SHEEP FOR YOU TO
BREED AND MILK.
[b][b]It's your 'duty' to
procreate
Carrots alone won't work; it's time for the stick,
say several MPs, who want pressure put on married couples who don't
want babies
By Tee Hun Ching
HAVING babies is a duty. Make that a duty to self, society and
country.
Alarmed? You should be, if you are married and have no desire to
procreate.
MPs like Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied GRC) want to pump up the social
pressure on such people whom he described as 'irresponsible'.
Yesterday, even as their counterparts continued pushing for carrots
such as a five-day work week and cash incentives, Dr Ong and
several MPs suggested it was also time to use the stick.
Indeed, the MPs argued passionately that procreation was a
responsibility that people should fulfil regardless of
sweeteners.
Adopting the most hardline stance among them all, Dr Ong emphasised
traditional Asian values as he dismissed the common refrain that
family planning is a personal decision.
Declared the father of three: 'Procreation is not only the duty of
everyone, but also the responsibility of every citizen towards his
family, parents, society and country.'
Those 'irresponsible' people who shun the stork, he said, should
realise they would become a liability to the society in
future.
To prevent this, he suggested making this group bear the costs of
their old age by having them contribute to an account he called the
'Preventive Eldercare Account'.
The money in this account would then provide for their needs when
they are old.
He said he believed that Chinese philosopher Mencius' words on
filial piety - 'bu xiao you san, wu hou wei da' - still has
relevance today. Translated, it means that 'of the three instances
of unfilial behaviour, not having descendants is the worst'.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) also held out a Chinese
phrase for those naysayers against children to ponder over - ai
qing the jie jing. It means a baby is the product of love.
Marriage and having children came naturally to people of his
generation without too much cost-benefit analysis, noted the
45-year-old father of two.
'Sure, there were problems and difficulties, but they add colour
and richness to life. If you ask parents today, few of them would
regret having babies despite all the difficulties,' he said.
He suggested an annual Love Campaign to add spark to the lives of
young couples and help them appreciate the joy and fulfilment of
having a family.
'It is like driving a car. We have the best engine, the lubricant
is new and the tank is full. But when we turn the key, the engine
does not come on because there is no spark in the chamber,' he
said.
Dr Ong went a step further and proposed an all-out media blitz to
promote family values.
Such messages, he said, could be transmitted through TV dramas
'highlighting the sorry plight of a childless old couple and the
great problems faced by an ageing society'.
Joining in the chorus of MPs who lamented the erosion of values
that led to having children being viewed less as a duty than a
personal choice was Ms Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol), who is
single.
She said while children were a status symbol of sorts in the past,
the reverse is true today.
The MP, who admitted she faced pressures to get married especially
during Chinese New Year from well-meaning relatives, said: 'In the
not-so-distant past, we had less to eat and wear, but we had more
children to show. Today, we analyse and analyse the cost until we
become paralysed by it.'[/b][/b]
In the end, who's benefiting and who's having the burden of
having more children? The people or the garmen? 
Getting more rubbish these days.
Garmen wants people to get married and have children. I will say:
get married if you love has reach the next peak phrase - children
or not doesn't matter because IN MARRIAGE, IT'S
ONLY BETWEEN
TWO. Even if the couple is childless due to circumstances
(biological, social, financial, etc), bonds in marriage exist only
in two. It's true children are reasons for fulfilling marriage, but
when circumstances don't allow that - it's like your parents
forbiding your relationship to the extend of disliking your
partner.
Will you let that affect your relationship?
Usually what will people do? Fight and make sure their love remains
stronger than what others thought it would fail.
Do they seriously thinking that having children means fulfilling
marriages? Rubbish. Fulfilling marriage can happen with or without
kids because... marriage is only between two.
P.S: Garmen should spend more time and money in looking after
couples who TRULY desire kids but couldn't have them biologically
(at least its part of their desire to enter the next phrase of
their love) instead of employing negative reinforcement on the
masses to make them breed.
Cheers
