Finally an essay that is " for" singles
July 27, 2008
My singular existence Promoting marriage and babies is for the national good, we all know that, but why do singles have to be short-changed? By Sumiko Tan Okay, so here we go again.
Marriage and making babies are back in the news. It's enough to make a single person weep.
Every couple of years, the problem of Singapore not having enough babies will be resurrected and the nation will plunge into another period of soul-searching.
The Government will then announce a raft of fresh incentives to get Singaporeans to marry and have kids, and the matter will rest for a bit.
But clearly the measures don't really work because the issue will invariably get another airing, as it has in recent weeks. This time, the Government is looking at free childcare and paid paternity leave.
In 1983, the Great Marriage Debate - the one where men were encouraged not to ignore graduate women - took place.
I was in university then and at my reproductive peak, although I wasn't ready for marriage.
Fast forward 25 years and I'm still unmarried, although no longer at my biological best, baby-wise.
Maybe I'm getting querulous as I grow older, but all this talk about incentives to promote procreation makes me see red.
It's not that I don't grasp the big picture and the need for babies. I do.
It's not even that I'm not fond of children. I am. I even wish I had my own.
Neither am I unsympathetic to the heavy load of working parents. As a boss, I've been understanding to colleagues who need time off to tend to kids-related emergencies.
It's just that measures rewarding marriage and parenthood can smack of singlism.
Singlism? Yes, it's a word that's been concocted to depict the negative stereotypes and discrimination against people who are unmarried.
While the term includes folks who are divorced and widowed, it applies mostly to those like me who have never walked down the aisle (or whatever else people do in the name of getting hitched).
Singles are single for different reasons. Some want to be married but can't find a partner. Others genuinely prefer the unmarried lifestyle. There are also those who have a partner (and might be living with him or her, too) but don't see the need to marry, or can't marry - gays and lesbians come to mind.
Unlike other forms of discrimination like racism and sexism, singlism is not overt, which makes it all the more invidious.
Prejudices have in fact become so ingrained that one doesn't bat an eyelid at them. The thinking goes: If singles are slighted, too bad, it's their problem for being ultra-sensitive, not society's fault for being insensitive.
Singlism happens in the way singles are perceived as some alien life form.
A poll of 1,000 undergraduates in the United States found that most of them viewed singles in a negative light: immature, insecure, self-centred, lonely, ugly and prone to envy were words most used to describe people like me. Married people were seen as honest, caring and kind.
Singlism happens when people pass patronising comments about your single status and, worse, think there's nothing wrong with that.
As an article on the Internet notes, how would married people feel if the tables were turned? How would they like it if, upon announcing that they are getting married, they get pitiful looks and remarks like: 'Hey, don't worry, your turn to divorce will come soon.'
But, ah well, we singles have long learnt that names shouldn't hurt us.
But institutionalised forms of singlism do. You see it in the workplace where singles have to cover for married colleagues when they need time off because baby has a fever, the maid's run off or there's a parent-teacher event to attend.
When it comes to taking leave in June and December, parents get priority because we can't deprive them of the school holidays, can we?
In companies with shift, night and weekend work, it's often the singles who are rostered for these slots. After all, the thinking goes, singles don't have much of a life outside the office anyway.
When colleagues go on maternity leave or switch to part-time work, singles pick up the slack - for the same pay.
In one company I know, long-service employees get a paid-for trip as a reward.
Thing is, married employees can take their spouse or child along, with the company footing their bill. But singles aren't allowed to take along a boyfriend, girlfriend or parent. The difference in benefits? About $1,500. Not a great sum but, oh, the unfairness of it all.
Housing perks and tax reliefs remain perennial sticking points.
Yes, the Government has liberalised housing rules by a lot and singles can now buy resale HDB flats of any size when they turn 35.
But singles still can't buy new, subsidised HDB flats, which are way cheaper than resale ones. And this despite how, at one stage, HDB had so many unsold flats to get rid of.
As a single friend put it, it's like the Government is telling you: Even if we can't sell the flats, we don't want you to have them.
How does that make us feel, especially those who can't afford to pay open market prices for resale flats?
Things get even more hurtful when it comes to tax relief for the foreign maid levy.
The relief is open only to married women (note: the rules don't even say they have to be mothers; just married) and women who are separated, divorced or widowed and living with their children.
Singles and males aren't eligible because the scheme is meant to 'encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children and to encourage procreation'.
This means singles get no respite even if the only reason they hire a maid is to help look after their aged parents.
Do singles matter so little? Don't we perform a family function too? Would it cost the Government much to allow us to claim tax relief in this instance?
Everyone knows that when it comes to looking after aged parents, it's always the unmarried sibling who gets lumped with the heaviest load.
Besides, so many of us are also contributing to the welfare of our nieces and nephews, paying for their 'enrichment' classes and whatnot. We are part of family units too.
So much is already being done to promote procreation that one wonders just what else the Government has in store.
What makes it harder for singles to stomach is how some parents clamour for even more help, whether it is more money from the state or more 'family-friendly' practices at work.
For goodness' sake, parenthood comes with responsibilities and sacrifices. Live with it. And isn't it enough that you have children who should be reward in themselves?
We haven't heard the last of marriage and babies and I doubt we ever will.
It'll just be nice that in the debate to come, singles will get their recognition and due.
My singular existence Promoting marriage and babies is for the national good, we all know that, but why do singles have to be short-changed? By Sumiko Tan Okay, so here we go again.
Marriage and making babies are back in the news. It's enough to make a single person weep.
Every couple of years, the problem of Singapore not having enough babies will be resurrected and the nation will plunge into another period of soul-searching.
The Government will then announce a raft of fresh incentives to get Singaporeans to marry and have kids, and the matter will rest for a bit.
But clearly the measures don't really work because the issue will invariably get another airing, as it has in recent weeks. This time, the Government is looking at free childcare and paid paternity leave.
In 1983, the Great Marriage Debate - the one where men were encouraged not to ignore graduate women - took place.
I was in university then and at my reproductive peak, although I wasn't ready for marriage.
Fast forward 25 years and I'm still unmarried, although no longer at my biological best, baby-wise.
Maybe I'm getting querulous as I grow older, but all this talk about incentives to promote procreation makes me see red.
It's not that I don't grasp the big picture and the need for babies. I do.
It's not even that I'm not fond of children. I am. I even wish I had my own.
Neither am I unsympathetic to the heavy load of working parents. As a boss, I've been understanding to colleagues who need time off to tend to kids-related emergencies.
It's just that measures rewarding marriage and parenthood can smack of singlism.
Singlism? Yes, it's a word that's been concocted to depict the negative stereotypes and discrimination against people who are unmarried.
While the term includes folks who are divorced and widowed, it applies mostly to those like me who have never walked down the aisle (or whatever else people do in the name of getting hitched).
Singles are single for different reasons. Some want to be married but can't find a partner. Others genuinely prefer the unmarried lifestyle. There are also those who have a partner (and might be living with him or her, too) but don't see the need to marry, or can't marry - gays and lesbians come to mind.
Unlike other forms of discrimination like racism and sexism, singlism is not overt, which makes it all the more invidious.
Prejudices have in fact become so ingrained that one doesn't bat an eyelid at them. The thinking goes: If singles are slighted, too bad, it's their problem for being ultra-sensitive, not society's fault for being insensitive.
Singlism happens in the way singles are perceived as some alien life form.
A poll of 1,000 undergraduates in the United States found that most of them viewed singles in a negative light: immature, insecure, self-centred, lonely, ugly and prone to envy were words most used to describe people like me. Married people were seen as honest, caring and kind.
Singlism happens when people pass patronising comments about your single status and, worse, think there's nothing wrong with that.
As an article on the Internet notes, how would married people feel if the tables were turned? How would they like it if, upon announcing that they are getting married, they get pitiful looks and remarks like: 'Hey, don't worry, your turn to divorce will come soon.'
But, ah well, we singles have long learnt that names shouldn't hurt us.
But institutionalised forms of singlism do. You see it in the workplace where singles have to cover for married colleagues when they need time off because baby has a fever, the maid's run off or there's a parent-teacher event to attend.
When it comes to taking leave in June and December, parents get priority because we can't deprive them of the school holidays, can we?
In companies with shift, night and weekend work, it's often the singles who are rostered for these slots. After all, the thinking goes, singles don't have much of a life outside the office anyway.
When colleagues go on maternity leave or switch to part-time work, singles pick up the slack - for the same pay.
In one company I know, long-service employees get a paid-for trip as a reward.
Thing is, married employees can take their spouse or child along, with the company footing their bill. But singles aren't allowed to take along a boyfriend, girlfriend or parent. The difference in benefits? About $1,500. Not a great sum but, oh, the unfairness of it all.
Housing perks and tax reliefs remain perennial sticking points.
Yes, the Government has liberalised housing rules by a lot and singles can now buy resale HDB flats of any size when they turn 35.
But singles still can't buy new, subsidised HDB flats, which are way cheaper than resale ones. And this despite how, at one stage, HDB had so many unsold flats to get rid of.
As a single friend put it, it's like the Government is telling you: Even if we can't sell the flats, we don't want you to have them.
How does that make us feel, especially those who can't afford to pay open market prices for resale flats?
Things get even more hurtful when it comes to tax relief for the foreign maid levy.
The relief is open only to married women (note: the rules don't even say they have to be mothers; just married) and women who are separated, divorced or widowed and living with their children.
Singles and males aren't eligible because the scheme is meant to 'encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children and to encourage procreation'.
This means singles get no respite even if the only reason they hire a maid is to help look after their aged parents.
Do singles matter so little? Don't we perform a family function too? Would it cost the Government much to allow us to claim tax relief in this instance?
Everyone knows that when it comes to looking after aged parents, it's always the unmarried sibling who gets lumped with the heaviest load.
Besides, so many of us are also contributing to the welfare of our nieces and nephews, paying for their 'enrichment' classes and whatnot. We are part of family units too.
So much is already being done to promote procreation that one wonders just what else the Government has in store.
What makes it harder for singles to stomach is how some parents clamour for even more help, whether it is more money from the state or more 'family-friendly' practices at work.
For goodness' sake, parenthood comes with responsibilities and sacrifices. Live with it. And isn't it enough that you have children who should be reward in themselves?
We haven't heard the last of marriage and babies and I doubt we ever will.
It'll just be nice that in the debate to come, singles will get their recognition and due.