on family
Monday, September 21, 2009

The Straits Times has been filled with nothing of interest these few days, and it seems like everything that the paper can pick up on has been picked up on, even down to small affairs that don't seem all that important. (As a qualifier, this is of course, speaking from my point of view.)
Today was a mild change of course, there was a small debate that branched off from the whole Hotel Mama discussion, on why we Asian kids tend to live with our parents even as we get older. This time, it was about the usual; the law that makes it compulsory for kids to look after their parents in their golden years.
As it always has been the case, some people have voiced their incredulity over the need for such a law, citing the usual instances of how it should be an automatic gesture, etc. One guy, however, pointed out he understood why the government had to do what it had to do, because apart from the familial ties, this law is grounded in the economic implications of an ageing population, no matter how cold and removed it may sound from the concept of family.
However, he took off from there and said, perhaps it is not enough for the government to introduce penalties to those who do not take care of their aged parents; there should be rewards in place for those who do, too.
Surely, this is wrong. As quickly as anyone will venture, there should be no need to reward those who take care of their parents. Was there a reward for our parents for bringing us up? Additionally, for those who haven't done their rightful duty already, is this the right way to instill such filial piety in these individuals? Thirdly, even if it had to happen because the situation grew dire (which would be very sad for our races well-known for its emphasis on filial piety) the fact is that the rewards would have to be significant to bring about any change in mindsets. Those who already don't do so are not about to do so simply because their income taxes may dip slightly. And once these benefits are substantial, we simply increase the practicality-driven nature of this society.
Enough of the mooted rewards, though. To add to this post, I was looking for a cartoon strip from Baby Blues featured recently; the one where Wanda wants Hammie to give her a goodnight kiss, but the growing years have grown on him, just like they've done to all of us. I couldn't get it because of some restrictions to the archiving of the website, but I found that cartoon strip really... reminiscent of old times.
Does your dad ever talk to you about inheritance, hint about the will or any of that sort of thing to warn of things to come? Mine does, for things that range from the house, the car, the old place and all sorts of things. At the end of the year, he has planned to buy his sister's Merc from her (she buys a new merc about once every two years) and that will leave us with two cars, which may be the norm in this neighbourhood, but serves no practicality to us. He has constantly hinted to my oldest brother about the old car, him being the only one with a driving license of the four of us. But my brother is not the least it interested in it, in something my dad dubs a splinter of the law of
Adverse Possession. Show that you take active care of it, and eventually it will become yours. Apparently he is only interested in a Mini Cooper, and an MPV doesn't catch his fancy. I think there are many more implications to his actions, or the lack thereof.
Regardless, I think it's only right to do what you can for your parents, beginning from our age. We shouldn't be motivated on the basis of rewards either, but I guess that's a point that has been reiterated too often to really sink in deeply.
Labels: opinion, straits times, thoughts, weblinks
posted by joseph at 7:56 AM