<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Why living with parents is a stultifying Singaporean trait
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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
