Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month
Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month - Hallo World !!! News Today in World, In this article you read by title Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month, We've prepared this article well so you can read and retrieve information on it. Hopefully the contents of the post
Article LIFT, What we write can you understand. Okay, happy reading.
Title : Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month
link : Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month
You are now reading the article Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month With link address https://newstoday-ok.blogspot.com/2018/06/raising-family-of-7-children-on-s2500.html
Title : Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month
link : Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month
news-today.world | Every now and then, my readers alert me to a controversial story and I feel that this is one I wanted to comment on. CNA Insider recently did a piece on the Heng family in Singapore with seven children and the father Mr Heng only earns S$2,500 a month so you do the maths, they are not just struggling to make ends meet but are dependent on the government and charity to even keep the kids in school. Firstly, I felt somewhat disappointed that the CNA team didn't really ask any difficult questions with the family and almost went out of their way to portray them in a positive light but if they did make the family feel uncomfortable, then they would have probably refused to have participated in the programme especially if they felt that they were going to be mocked by the public after the story comes out; so perhaps I will have to let CNA off the hook on that one. In fact, this happened with another article recently in the Straits Times about a woman who chose to study at SIM despite having gained herself a place at NUS - I thought her decision was dumb, well, bizarre at best, but the reporter didn't seem to ask any difficult questions and I suppose if the reporter was as merciless as I was, the woman in question would have probably said, "forget it, I don't want to do this interview, you may not use me in your story, don't ever contact me again."
But what is interesting is the comments on Youtube because it seems that the bulk of Singaporeans are judging this couple for their self-induced poverty, for choosing to have so many children despite not having the means to raise them all and having to turn to the government for help. However, when I expressed sympathy for the children in that family, I was shot down for being materialistic and was told "even if I could afford it, I wouldn’t spoil my children as per your suggestion." Wow, what a pathetic loser of a father he must be, this man cannot afford to give his family what they want so instead of admitting that he isn't earning as much as his peers who are more successful, he turns it around and makes it sound like giving his children nice things in life would somehow poison them and turn them into spoilt brats. What a truly awful father he is - but then, he sounds just like my dad, so that was why I got really angry and laid into him. But since CNA won't hold Mr & Mrs Heng to account, I will here on my blog. If CNA won't criticize them, then I gladly will.
1. Your poverty is denying your children opportunities other parents are giving their kids.
It is a very competitive world out there, it is hard to get a well paid job with a reputable company. I am a gatekeeper and I have seen the quality of the CVs put in front of me. Young people need a lot more than a good degree to get a job, they need to speak several foreign languages fluently, they need work experience and good internships, they need to have traveled and seen the world, they need to have done volunteer work and demonstrate a wide range of skills from leadership to teamwork, they need to demonstrate that they are cultured (oh do you play the violin or have you participated in a ballet festival in Vienna?), they need to be great with technology (have you participated in several hackathons?), they need to have charm and poise - guess what? Rich kids get to do all that because their parents can afford to send them to the best private schools, they attend expensive courses and take part in programmes overseas to make their CVs shine brighter than the crystals at Swarovski's. Poor parents are completely reliant on the programmes available for free (or at hugely subsidized rates) usually within the school - in case you didn't get the memo, life is not fair. Oh it is incredibly unfair. Yeah the rich kids get a much better start in life, they get better grades in school because their parents are paying for a much better quality of education and on top of that, they have done all these other amazing things that the poor kids can't afford to do; and you wonder why the rich stay rich and the poor get poorer.
The only real way to break the cycle of poverty is to allow your children to have a decent start in life, grant them access to the same opportunities as their peers in order to hopefully get a good job, that will allow them to earn a lot more than their parents. But think about the poor kids in the Heng family, their classmates and friends are probably attending private tuition, getting piano lessons, tennis coaching, learning a foreign language or two outside school, attending specialist computer courses and their parents are probably regularly taking them on trips to educational places which will enrich their young minds. For example, two years ago I was at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida because I was invited there to witness the launch of a satellite. Now that's the kind of tourist attraction that is really create for children (and space geeks) in mind and I imagine it would be a very educational experience for the kids in the Heng Family. But would Mr & Mrs Heng ever afford to take their children on a holiday abroad to America? No, that's never going to happen when they can barely make ends meet. Heck, can they even afford to bring their kids to some of the local tourist attractions like the SEA Aquarium in Sentosa? Mind you, nothing in Sentosa is cheap. Sure Mr & Mrs Heng can shower them with love, but is that going to make up for the fact that their children are simply not getting the same opportunities as their peers? The odds are already set against them from the start and it's not even the children's fault - I feel so sorry for them and I blame the parents.
2. You only have 24 hours a day, children need your attention.
Mr Heng is working so hard to try to provide for his family that he is always tired and sleeping when he is at home, thus he is leaving most of the childcare to poor Mrs Heng whose limited waking hours is divided (unevenly) amongst her seven children. As a result, the children are simply not getting the kind of attention they require and this is simply not fair on the children. It goes way beyond being able to invest a decent amount of money in your children's education - sure there are some things that money cannot buy such as quality time between a parents and a child, but guess what? Poor Mrs Heng doesn't have that much time for each individual child, even if she has given up working to be a housewife. How much time does she spend a day doing something as simple as checking the child's homework? Say if she had 3 children instead of 7, she could then double the amount of time she spends with each child. If a mother can spend more time with her child, helping them with their studies, then perhaps the child wouldn't need extra help from tuition teachers but in Mrs Heng's case, she just doesn't have enough hours in a day to get round to helping all her children with so little help from her husband. It's fine if the kids are doing well, but what if say a child falls ill and she needs to dedicate a lot of the time to care for that child - will the other children be neglected then? So this brings me neatly onto the next point.
3. The burden unfairly placed on the two oldest siblings.
The two oldest children in the family are Samantha, 16 and Rachael, 11. When Mrs Heng is simply too busy to take care of all the younger children, then the two oldest children have to help with the childcare. Now you can argue that this is a pretty normal kind of arrangement with big families, but surely both girls have important exams coming up - Samantha will have her O levels and Rachael will have her PSLE coming up. Their peers would be busy preparing for these crucial exams whilst these two girls are busy taking care of their young siblings when they really should be studying. And of course, their peers would be probably getting loads of external help from tuition teacher - something the Hengs cannot afford. So, even if the two girls are quite intelligent, the odds are set against them from the start and it is really hard for them to compete against their peers to try to get the same results under such circumstances. Most Singaporean parents would at least make sure their children are spared the burden of childcare and housework during the crucial exam periods, so as to let them focus on their studies and get enough rest - but that's a luxury that Samantha and Rachael are probably never going to get because if they don't take care of their younger siblings, Mrs Heng simply would not be able to cope and if they don't help out, then the younger siblings will be the ones who suffer from neglect. So you can praise the two older girls for being so helpful, but you can't deny the fact that their studies are going to suffer under such circumstances and I blame their parents. It does seem massively unfair on Samantha and Rachael.
4. Further education and skills training cost money
The Hengs barely have enough to make ends meet, how are they going to put all seven children through further education without the government effectively paying for their education through grants, bursaries and handouts? Currently the fees at NUS start from S$8,200 for the cheapest courses to S$28,400 for dentistry and medicine. Yeah and that's for one year - so even if we were to go with the lowest figure, that's 8200 x 4 year course x 7 children = $235,200 in just fees and don't forget, there are other expenses as well like food, clothes, housing, utility bills. Basically, Mr Heng needs well over a quarter of a million dollars to just put his children through further education - money that he doesn't have and he expects someone else - the government, the Singaporean taxpayer - to pay for him. Is this fair? There was this other story of a Singaporean woman whose parents are hawkers, yet because she was their only child, they worked day and night without rest at the hawker centre in order to pay for her education to make sure that she could have a degree. You have to respect the dignity and determination of the parents in that story - compare that to Mr & Mrs Heng who have no qualms in expecting someone else to pay for their children's education. Oh this must really piss off a lot of Singaporeans who don't just expect handouts from the government, who take financial responsibility for their own children.
Furthermore, there is a huge gap between the kind of generation education you get in school and the kinds of quite specialist skills you need to get a well paid job that only a highly skilled expert can get. If you want to go into accountancy for example, you will need to study for an ACCA qualification on top of your degree and you're unlikely to get any kind of bursary or subsidy for that kind of qualification and there are a lot of exams to take. There are fees for the courses and then fees for each exam - now those who aspire to be accountants simply bite the bullet and find the money one way or another, in most cases their parents just pay for it. This is not a cheap process but people do it in order to access better paid work in the future. In the case of the Hengs, unless they find some kind of fairy godmother who is willing to pay for their children to do all these additional courses and specialist training to attain additional skills, they will be a lot more limited in the kind of employment opportunities they can access in the job market even if they do have a degree. Remember what I said about life being unfair and rich people having an unfair advantage? Yup, through no fault of their own, the Heng children are being penalized before they are even old enough to think about applying for their first job - once again, I blame the parents and feel very sorry for the children.
5. Saving for a rainy day
This is just common sense, you need to save not just for your retirement but to make sure you have a pot of money stashed away for a rainy day because you never know what life may throw at you. Touch wood, what if Mrs Heng falls ill or has an accident, then they will need not just money for her medical bills (which the government will probably help out with) but also with things like childcare (which the government is unlikely to help out with). If Mr Heng stops working to take care of his children under those circumstances, then who is going to earn the money to feed the family? The precarious situation the family has put themselves in does not even allow for either parent to take some time off should they suffer a bout of illness or even sprain an ankle. Having some money stashed away as your 'rainy day fund' allows you to take care of your family without having to worry about money in the short run, because when something unforeseen does happen to your family, you want to be able to focus on them. Besides, as the children get older, there will be other opportunities that the children may want to take advantage of - say for example the school organizes is a field trip to visit Cambodia but the students are expected to pay for the air fare and accommodation, how would Samantha feel if all her best friends at school are going but she can't despite the fact that she has been the perfect daughter helping her parents take care of her younger siblings? Surely that's what savings are for - to allow your children to take advantage of such rare opportunities.
What kind of parent do you want to be: one who can provide for your family or one who can only teach your children to beg others for help? I believe in the principle of self-reliance: that is why I find it hard to delegate at work because I know I can always trust myself to do a better job. What kind of example are Mr & Mrs Heng setting for their children by making themselves so reliant on the charity of others to even make ends meet? How do they justify their financial situation to their children? Imagine being the head of a big family where you have no idea whether or not you can afford all the things that the various family members would like to do because it all depends on someone else granting you a favour in the name of charity, because they feel sorry for you. It is hardly an ideal situation to be in because with that level of uncertainty, you just can't plan for the future and whilst that may be fine for the adults, think about how that would affect the children who need and deserve a decent education. But of course, there's a far more important reason why you need to save, which brings me neatly onto the next point.
6. Depending on your children vs saving for your retirement
This is like the old days when parents had many children and usually didn't save for their retirement, when they become old, they end up totally dependent on their children to support them - if their children are not in a position to do so, then they become reliant on the state. By all means have children but do not rely on them to support you in your old age, I believe in self-reliance. Ensure that you can provide for yourself before you try to have children and if you can't provide for that many children, sort out your financial situation before you have yet another child. There are so many reasons why your children may not be able to take care of you when you are elderly - perhaps they will struggle to make ends meet like you: if history repeats itself, if the Heng children end up having so many children as well, then where are they going to find any spare cash to spend on their parents? Do Mr & Mrs Heng currently have any money to spend on their parents? Clearly not, not when they can barely take care of their children I wonder how their parents are doing? Do they need help or are they helping the Hengs out? Oh the irony, they are unable to support their parents (and might even be getting help from their elderly parents to make ends meet), yet somehow they have left themselves in a position where they expect their own children to support them when they are elderly? Talk about being unreasonable and unrealistic.
If you want your children to become rich enough to support you when they are old, you should at least make sure they have a good start in life by making sure they get a great education, fortified with loads of external courses and training so they can become one of those mega-rich millionaires who will have the money to take care of you when you're old. Instead, the complete opposite is happening: instead of studying hard for their vital exams, the two oldest girls Samantha and Rachael are busy helping their parents with child care - how are they supposed to compete with their peers in the job market if the odds have already been stacked against them from the start? What if say, one of the children goes on to have a disabled child and thus need all their earnings to care for the disabled child, leaving them unable to support their parents? Besides, even if they do have money, is it fair to expect the child to spend every spare dollar they earn supporting their parents when they could be instead saving up for a deposit for their first home or accumulating capital to start their own business? Indeed, Mr & Mrs Heng are creating a situation whereby they are holding back their children in the future. And did you consider the possibility that some of the children may turn around and say, "why should we support you? You support yourselves." Look at the number of elderly people working in Singapore doing jobs like clearing trays and cleaning tables in food courts and hawker centers, many of them have children but for some reason are not being supported by their children. That's why I believe in self-reliance as the only person you can count on is yourself.
7. "But you get so much from a big family!"
There were many comments pointing out the benefits of having a big family such as having more siblings to rely on and how you are never lonely when there's always someone to play with. That is of course, based on a best case scenario assumption that everyone in your family is nice and you don't get any evil people amongst your family members. Now please note that I'm not talking about the Heng family here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that none of us get to choose our family members, that's the one thing in life you definitely have no say over. Many of the people who sang praises about being a part of a big family based their arguments on no more than the fact that they themselves had many siblings and so it must be good. It's a very flawed argument based on anecdotal evidence: just because you came from a big happy family doesn't mean that all big families are happy. That depends entirely on the individuals in the family you're talking about and of course, we all hope that we have nice people in our families but even the most detested characters in our society - the murderers and rapists - have family members as well and I do wonder what you would do if you found out one day that your brother or sister committed such a horrible crime that you would find hard to forgive? So how happy your family is entirely dependent on how nice your family members are rather than the size of the family. How would you like to have a bunch of siblings who are all evil criminals?
8. Mrs Heng only wanted two kids. Mr Heng wanted more.
In the video, Mrs Heng clearly stated that she originally wanted only two children. If they only had two children, Mrs Heng could have probably continued her work as a teacher (given there's a five year age gap between her first two children). That would have meant that the family would have had a lot more disposable income given that even a primary school teacher would have taken home more than S$2,500 a month - which begs the question, if Mrs Heng was clearly earning more than her husband, why didn't he give up his job and allow her to be the sole breadwinner for the family then? In fact Mrs Heng could have had a very different life had she kept her job as a school teacher: with more money and only two kids, she could have had a far more middle class lifestyle. She could have had the pride of being an working mum with a respectable career, she could have had a lot more free time and most of all, she would have financial independence without having to depend on the charity of others and the government to make ends meet. Is this the kind of life she wanted? Quite a few of the comments on Youtube reflected on the fact that it looks like this wasn't what she wanted but her husband coerced her into having more children - this makes one wonder what kind of relationship they have, if she actually gets a say in decisions like whether or not they have another child.
9. "We are not materialistic."
Some of the Youtube comments were waxing lyrical about how money can't buy you happiness but something a former classmate of mine said to me on Facebook. Look, we didn't have Facebook back in the 1990s and if you're my age, then you would have gone through the process of tracking down some of your old classmates on Facebook and sure you would chat for a bit when you first re-establish contact. I discovered that Nancy (not her real name) got married and had five children - she's a stay at home mum who works part time, but somebody has got to take care of the kids and like the Hengs, her husband doesn't earn much. But she declared to me, "We're not materialistic, we don't need fancy things in our lives. We have our religion, we have each other and that's all we need." She tried hard to give me the impression that there's a certain dignity in being poor, that there's a new found joy she has found in her family which money can't buy - but imagine if somehow, Nancy won the lottery the next day and had a prize money of one million dollars. Would she donate it all to charity with the, "we don't need money, we're not materialistic" mantra, or would she then finally spend the money on herself and her family - for there must be a long list of things she wish she and her family could do but had never been able to because they were poor? How about treating the kids to a nice holiday abroad, somewhere like New Zealand? Of course she would spend the money on herself and her family if she was given a million dollars just like that, but until that day comes (however unlikely, good luck with the lottery tickets Nancy), she is going to keep on protesting that she is perfectly happy and dignified being poor because "we are not materialistic". Yeah, right. Whilst money can't buy you happiness, the lack of money can cause a family of a lot misery and stress.
10. Talking about spoilt brats again.
Another comment that I found laughable was that because the Heng children have grown up in a poor family, they won't grow up to be 'spoilt brats'. Let's pause for a moment and consider what a spoilt brat is: it is a child who makes demands and doesn't take no for an answer, throwing a tantrum if necessary to get their way. So for example, if a girl tells her father, "daddy I want you to take me to the park to play now" and her father says, "no, it is so close to dinner time, so can you go read a book and wait for dinner please." An obedient child would simply accept the father's decision whilst the spoilt brat would scream, cry and throw a tantrum until the father gives in to his daughter's demands. Note that I deliberately chose a situation where no money exchanged hands - this could have been a rich or poor family, it is specifically to demonstrate that this kind of behaviour has nothing to do with whether or not the family is rich or whether the parents can afford to buy their children expensive toys. Would children throw a tantrum if they know that they will only get a beating as a result of the tantrum and not get what they want? No. Why would they do that if it is not going to get them what they want? Children only throw tantrums if they know they can manipulate their parents into giving them what they want if they scream, cry and make a scene in public, to embarrass their parents by attracting as much attention as possible
So are you telling me that children in poor families do not throw tantrums? Of course they do, the psychology behind getting what you want through this kind of emotional blackmail and using a tantrum doesn't really vary whether you are rich or poor. And conversely, rewarding your children with expensive gifts like iPhones, iPads and beautiful clothes does not automatically turn them into 'spoilt brats' if they children obtained these items through hard work - for example, if you set your child a target for an exam and the new iPhone was a reward if s/he managed to achieve that target, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with rewarding the child with an expensive new iPhone. However, if the child comes home and throws a tantrum, "everybody in my class has a new iPhone, I want one too - you are making me the social outcast and if you don't buy me a new phone today, I may as well just die" and then proceeds to cry, threaten suicide etc until you get the child the new iPhone, then that's a completely different story. The price of the iPhone really isn't the issue here, it is the way the parents manage their children's expectations and the way they reward effort that is the issue here. By that token, of course a very poor family can raise a spoilt brats who use tantrums to get their way with their parents and this is a matter of raising your child to respect your authority. Thus if your child doesn't respect your authority, then there's something wrong with your parenting style - don't blame those expensive toys, clothes and mobile phones turning your children into spoilt brats, you're not going to get away with making them your scapegoat when you have failed as a parent to establish your authority at home.
11. "What is the point of having money when you're all alone? Family is everything."
Yeah, that was one of the comment on Youtube in support of the Hengs having so many children. But let's analyze this for a moment: this is based on so many assumptions that the people in big families are always happy and that adults very few or no children are somehow unhappy. Once again, that's bullshit. Look I have been poor before, I have seen my parents argue over money when I was a young child - yup, it sucks to be poor and poor people often argue over money because there's only so much money: the mother wants to use it for one thing and the father for something else, you can't have both things and so you end up arguing, fighting and it is ugly, bitter and quite nasty because there's always going to be someone who doesn't get what s/he wants but even if you're the person who wants what you want, you still had to fight to get what you want and it sucks to be reminded that you're so very poor when your peers who are more rich would simply say, "oh let's just get both things then, it's just money, we have plenty of it". When you have several family members fighting over money, it is a recipe for a pretty miserable family. And what makes you think that rich people are somehow lonely? Rich people can afford to have a really varied and interesting social life, they are also not working all the time and have the time to indulge themselves in fun activities - whether they choose to spend time with their family members or friends, what makes you think they are somehow lonely?
Furthermore, for normal parents, their children will grow up and by the time your children are in their teens, hopefully they would already be fairly independent and have their own friends and social life. And in about 25 years, they will be working adults, probably in relationships, possibly contemplating marriage or already married. What do the parents do then? Are they lost without their children to keep them company? Hell no, most older parents in their 50s then start to focus on their careers because by then, they are senior and experienced enough in their respective fields to actually really enjoy their jobs. Or if they are closer to retirement, they will have more free time to dedicate to themselves: how wonderful is that, to see them actually learn a new sport or musical instrument instead of taking their children to a sports or music class. Most well adjusted parents are pretty happy to let their children lead quite independent adult lives - they then have the money and the free time to have quite active and interesting social lives. Instead of having to rush home from work to pick up their children from school, they can go see their friends for dinner, go salsa dancing or do something they have always wanted to do but never had the time. It is quite fucking ridiculous to expect parents to have their whole lives revolve around the children, as if they don't have the right to have friends or hobbies once they become parents. I know there are people like that - they're the freaks. My friends who are parents actually have a life away from their children - is that such a bizarre concept?
For the adults who are have both successful careers and children, their lives don't actually revolve around their children. It's not to say that their children are not important to them, but it is hard to ignore the fact that they have also achieved a lot in their careers. It is only those who have dead end jobs who somehow turn their daily grind into some kind of noble sacrifice for their children. "I get out of bed every morning and go clean toilets/go drive that taxi because I need to provide for my children, because I love my children." Yeah I don't question that love for a moment, but just imagine if you actually enjoyed your job, then perhaps you would not need to make it all about your children - maybe then, just maybe, you would be glad to get out of bed to do something you enjoyed because you are doing it for yourself. And if that sounds selfish, then oh dear - guess what? Loads of parents out there actually do have meaningful jobs that they do enjoy, that they are not just doing to put food on the table for their children. In a recent post, I wrote about my experience at a conference in Barcelona and there was that same guy everyday in the toilets cleaning the piss off the floor around the urinals, talk about a job that stinks. When you're in that kind of predicament, yeah then family becomes a lot more important - because it then turns what is a yucky job into a noble sacrifice and for someone like that, all he has is his family. So I can imagine someone like that coming up with a statement like, "family is everything" - yeah, only if you have nothing else in your life.
12. If money is the solution to the problem, then why not solve it?
I am reminded of a story from my army days, back then our allowance was so meager and unless you had rich parents who could support you, get ready to endure poverty - my friend Vincent wanted to get a nice motorcycle, his parents said, "no we can't afford it, but you can certainly get a part time job and earn the money, so you can get the motorcycle you want." So Vincent did just that, with the help of a friend from school, he managed to get a part time job during the weekends and after a year, he managed to save up enough money to get the motorcycle he wanted. Everyone in the story acted in a completely reasonable manner of course, Vincent was expected to earn the money for something nice he wanted. So if Mr Heng is only earning S$2,500 and he wanted a nice, new motorcycle, what would you ask him to do? You would give him exactly the same advice that Vincent got - that he should either take on a part time job to earn that money or he should consider a career change if he is currently not earning enough in his current job to afford all the things he would like in his life. Now having 7 children raise is going to cost him a lot more than even the best Harley Davidson motorcycle you can find in Singapore, so why should the principle of earning the money for the things you would like to have in life be any different then? Why do people like Vincent have to work so hard to get the things he wants, whilst people like Mr Heng get to turn to the state and say, "pay for my kids, or else they will starve and can't get an education." It is of course, massively unfair and the state ought not condone this kind of irresponsible behaviour.
Thus Mr Heng's right to have 7 kids should be balanced with his responsibility to provide for his family - something which he is clearly failing to do adequately. But look, I have a simple solution - has Mr Heng even tried to look for a job that pays more money? Certainly when you're earning only S$2,500 a month, good grief, what have you got to lose by trying to find a better job that will pay you more especially when you have a big family that is completely dependent on you? Pardon me for having to state the obvious, but it really isn't that hard to increase the amount of money you earn a month, it just depends on whether or not you're willing to make the sacrifices necessary for more money. For example, you're always paid a lot more for working in very unpleasant situations - that's why in Australia, the best paid jobs for engineers are in mining and they are usually working out in the hottest and most remote parts of the Australian outback where temperatures regularly hit 50 degrees at surface level but even hotter in the mine itself. If you want a nice 9 to 5 job where you get to sit in an air-conditioned office in the Sydney with stunning views over Darling Harbour, you don't get compensated for that! This is sometimes referred to as 'blood money' whereby you are compensated for your blood, sweat and tears that you have to put into your job. That is why many people from poor countries get attracted to go work in places like the Gulf countries in the Middle East, because you do get compensated for working in the horrific desert heat.
The main reason why people don't challenge themselves to earn more money is because they get extremely defensive. I can just imagine people jumping to his defence, "what is wrong with Mr Heng working as a social worker? It is a perfectly respectable job, our country needs social workers. Are you looking down on social workers just because they don't earn a lot?" And the answer is of course not, this is not about social workers - I really don't give a damn what Mr Heng does for a living, the issue here is whether or not he is being a good father and husband, whether he is able to provide for his family and if he isn't, well is he trying to do something about it or is he accept the status quo as it is, leaving his family totally dependent on the charity of others for even the most basic things like paying his children's school fees and medical bills? If Mr Heng was single or even if he was married with less children, then how much (or little) he earned is none of my business - but when he deliberately puts his children through poverty and does nothing to help with the situation, that's when I feel his irresponsibility has become immoral. Has he actually tried looking for a job that would enable him to provide better for his family, or has he become his own worst enemy by giving in to the "there's nothing wrong with what I do for a living" mentality? How harshly should we judge Mr Heng - has he tried and failed or has he not even bothered trying?
So there you go, that's it from me on this story - what do you think? Do you think the Hengs deserve generous help from the government? What do you think about their decision to have 7 children like that? Compare this with say, the highly unlikely situation if a mother who has a complicated pregnancy and ends up giving birth to seven babies all at the same time (as in septuplets, otherwise known as very high-order multiple births), so through no fault of their own, the parents suddenly have 7 children? What if you met a millionaire who had 7 children, how would you feel about a man like that if money wasn't an issue but he still wouldn't spend enough time with each child? Or am I simply being extremely harsh to Mr & Mrs Heng and am not extending enough empathy to them, to try to understand their situation? But then again, I am not going to beat around the bush here: I think they've made a huge error of judgment in having so many children and it is the two oldest daughters who are bearing the brunt of their mistake. It's fine if adults suffer the consequences of their actions, but the children have done nothing wrong, why should they be punished? Over to you, please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. Many thanks for reading.
But what is interesting is the comments on Youtube because it seems that the bulk of Singaporeans are judging this couple for their self-induced poverty, for choosing to have so many children despite not having the means to raise them all and having to turn to the government for help. However, when I expressed sympathy for the children in that family, I was shot down for being materialistic and was told "even if I could afford it, I wouldn’t spoil my children as per your suggestion." Wow, what a pathetic loser of a father he must be, this man cannot afford to give his family what they want so instead of admitting that he isn't earning as much as his peers who are more successful, he turns it around and makes it sound like giving his children nice things in life would somehow poison them and turn them into spoilt brats. What a truly awful father he is - but then, he sounds just like my dad, so that was why I got really angry and laid into him. But since CNA won't hold Mr & Mrs Heng to account, I will here on my blog. If CNA won't criticize them, then I gladly will.
1. Your poverty is denying your children opportunities other parents are giving their kids.
It is a very competitive world out there, it is hard to get a well paid job with a reputable company. I am a gatekeeper and I have seen the quality of the CVs put in front of me. Young people need a lot more than a good degree to get a job, they need to speak several foreign languages fluently, they need work experience and good internships, they need to have traveled and seen the world, they need to have done volunteer work and demonstrate a wide range of skills from leadership to teamwork, they need to demonstrate that they are cultured (oh do you play the violin or have you participated in a ballet festival in Vienna?), they need to be great with technology (have you participated in several hackathons?), they need to have charm and poise - guess what? Rich kids get to do all that because their parents can afford to send them to the best private schools, they attend expensive courses and take part in programmes overseas to make their CVs shine brighter than the crystals at Swarovski's. Poor parents are completely reliant on the programmes available for free (or at hugely subsidized rates) usually within the school - in case you didn't get the memo, life is not fair. Oh it is incredibly unfair. Yeah the rich kids get a much better start in life, they get better grades in school because their parents are paying for a much better quality of education and on top of that, they have done all these other amazing things that the poor kids can't afford to do; and you wonder why the rich stay rich and the poor get poorer.
The only real way to break the cycle of poverty is to allow your children to have a decent start in life, grant them access to the same opportunities as their peers in order to hopefully get a good job, that will allow them to earn a lot more than their parents. But think about the poor kids in the Heng family, their classmates and friends are probably attending private tuition, getting piano lessons, tennis coaching, learning a foreign language or two outside school, attending specialist computer courses and their parents are probably regularly taking them on trips to educational places which will enrich their young minds. For example, two years ago I was at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida because I was invited there to witness the launch of a satellite. Now that's the kind of tourist attraction that is really create for children (and space geeks) in mind and I imagine it would be a very educational experience for the kids in the Heng Family. But would Mr & Mrs Heng ever afford to take their children on a holiday abroad to America? No, that's never going to happen when they can barely make ends meet. Heck, can they even afford to bring their kids to some of the local tourist attractions like the SEA Aquarium in Sentosa? Mind you, nothing in Sentosa is cheap. Sure Mr & Mrs Heng can shower them with love, but is that going to make up for the fact that their children are simply not getting the same opportunities as their peers? The odds are already set against them from the start and it's not even the children's fault - I feel so sorry for them and I blame the parents.
2. You only have 24 hours a day, children need your attention.
Mr Heng is working so hard to try to provide for his family that he is always tired and sleeping when he is at home, thus he is leaving most of the childcare to poor Mrs Heng whose limited waking hours is divided (unevenly) amongst her seven children. As a result, the children are simply not getting the kind of attention they require and this is simply not fair on the children. It goes way beyond being able to invest a decent amount of money in your children's education - sure there are some things that money cannot buy such as quality time between a parents and a child, but guess what? Poor Mrs Heng doesn't have that much time for each individual child, even if she has given up working to be a housewife. How much time does she spend a day doing something as simple as checking the child's homework? Say if she had 3 children instead of 7, she could then double the amount of time she spends with each child. If a mother can spend more time with her child, helping them with their studies, then perhaps the child wouldn't need extra help from tuition teachers but in Mrs Heng's case, she just doesn't have enough hours in a day to get round to helping all her children with so little help from her husband. It's fine if the kids are doing well, but what if say a child falls ill and she needs to dedicate a lot of the time to care for that child - will the other children be neglected then? So this brings me neatly onto the next point.
3. The burden unfairly placed on the two oldest siblings.
The two oldest children in the family are Samantha, 16 and Rachael, 11. When Mrs Heng is simply too busy to take care of all the younger children, then the two oldest children have to help with the childcare. Now you can argue that this is a pretty normal kind of arrangement with big families, but surely both girls have important exams coming up - Samantha will have her O levels and Rachael will have her PSLE coming up. Their peers would be busy preparing for these crucial exams whilst these two girls are busy taking care of their young siblings when they really should be studying. And of course, their peers would be probably getting loads of external help from tuition teacher - something the Hengs cannot afford. So, even if the two girls are quite intelligent, the odds are set against them from the start and it is really hard for them to compete against their peers to try to get the same results under such circumstances. Most Singaporean parents would at least make sure their children are spared the burden of childcare and housework during the crucial exam periods, so as to let them focus on their studies and get enough rest - but that's a luxury that Samantha and Rachael are probably never going to get because if they don't take care of their younger siblings, Mrs Heng simply would not be able to cope and if they don't help out, then the younger siblings will be the ones who suffer from neglect. So you can praise the two older girls for being so helpful, but you can't deny the fact that their studies are going to suffer under such circumstances and I blame their parents. It does seem massively unfair on Samantha and Rachael.
4. Further education and skills training cost money
The Hengs barely have enough to make ends meet, how are they going to put all seven children through further education without the government effectively paying for their education through grants, bursaries and handouts? Currently the fees at NUS start from S$8,200 for the cheapest courses to S$28,400 for dentistry and medicine. Yeah and that's for one year - so even if we were to go with the lowest figure, that's 8200 x 4 year course x 7 children = $235,200 in just fees and don't forget, there are other expenses as well like food, clothes, housing, utility bills. Basically, Mr Heng needs well over a quarter of a million dollars to just put his children through further education - money that he doesn't have and he expects someone else - the government, the Singaporean taxpayer - to pay for him. Is this fair? There was this other story of a Singaporean woman whose parents are hawkers, yet because she was their only child, they worked day and night without rest at the hawker centre in order to pay for her education to make sure that she could have a degree. You have to respect the dignity and determination of the parents in that story - compare that to Mr & Mrs Heng who have no qualms in expecting someone else to pay for their children's education. Oh this must really piss off a lot of Singaporeans who don't just expect handouts from the government, who take financial responsibility for their own children.
Furthermore, there is a huge gap between the kind of generation education you get in school and the kinds of quite specialist skills you need to get a well paid job that only a highly skilled expert can get. If you want to go into accountancy for example, you will need to study for an ACCA qualification on top of your degree and you're unlikely to get any kind of bursary or subsidy for that kind of qualification and there are a lot of exams to take. There are fees for the courses and then fees for each exam - now those who aspire to be accountants simply bite the bullet and find the money one way or another, in most cases their parents just pay for it. This is not a cheap process but people do it in order to access better paid work in the future. In the case of the Hengs, unless they find some kind of fairy godmother who is willing to pay for their children to do all these additional courses and specialist training to attain additional skills, they will be a lot more limited in the kind of employment opportunities they can access in the job market even if they do have a degree. Remember what I said about life being unfair and rich people having an unfair advantage? Yup, through no fault of their own, the Heng children are being penalized before they are even old enough to think about applying for their first job - once again, I blame the parents and feel very sorry for the children.
5. Saving for a rainy day
This is just common sense, you need to save not just for your retirement but to make sure you have a pot of money stashed away for a rainy day because you never know what life may throw at you. Touch wood, what if Mrs Heng falls ill or has an accident, then they will need not just money for her medical bills (which the government will probably help out with) but also with things like childcare (which the government is unlikely to help out with). If Mr Heng stops working to take care of his children under those circumstances, then who is going to earn the money to feed the family? The precarious situation the family has put themselves in does not even allow for either parent to take some time off should they suffer a bout of illness or even sprain an ankle. Having some money stashed away as your 'rainy day fund' allows you to take care of your family without having to worry about money in the short run, because when something unforeseen does happen to your family, you want to be able to focus on them. Besides, as the children get older, there will be other opportunities that the children may want to take advantage of - say for example the school organizes is a field trip to visit Cambodia but the students are expected to pay for the air fare and accommodation, how would Samantha feel if all her best friends at school are going but she can't despite the fact that she has been the perfect daughter helping her parents take care of her younger siblings? Surely that's what savings are for - to allow your children to take advantage of such rare opportunities.
What kind of parent do you want to be: one who can provide for your family or one who can only teach your children to beg others for help? I believe in the principle of self-reliance: that is why I find it hard to delegate at work because I know I can always trust myself to do a better job. What kind of example are Mr & Mrs Heng setting for their children by making themselves so reliant on the charity of others to even make ends meet? How do they justify their financial situation to their children? Imagine being the head of a big family where you have no idea whether or not you can afford all the things that the various family members would like to do because it all depends on someone else granting you a favour in the name of charity, because they feel sorry for you. It is hardly an ideal situation to be in because with that level of uncertainty, you just can't plan for the future and whilst that may be fine for the adults, think about how that would affect the children who need and deserve a decent education. But of course, there's a far more important reason why you need to save, which brings me neatly onto the next point.
6. Depending on your children vs saving for your retirement
This is like the old days when parents had many children and usually didn't save for their retirement, when they become old, they end up totally dependent on their children to support them - if their children are not in a position to do so, then they become reliant on the state. By all means have children but do not rely on them to support you in your old age, I believe in self-reliance. Ensure that you can provide for yourself before you try to have children and if you can't provide for that many children, sort out your financial situation before you have yet another child. There are so many reasons why your children may not be able to take care of you when you are elderly - perhaps they will struggle to make ends meet like you: if history repeats itself, if the Heng children end up having so many children as well, then where are they going to find any spare cash to spend on their parents? Do Mr & Mrs Heng currently have any money to spend on their parents? Clearly not, not when they can barely take care of their children I wonder how their parents are doing? Do they need help or are they helping the Hengs out? Oh the irony, they are unable to support their parents (and might even be getting help from their elderly parents to make ends meet), yet somehow they have left themselves in a position where they expect their own children to support them when they are elderly? Talk about being unreasonable and unrealistic.
If you want your children to become rich enough to support you when they are old, you should at least make sure they have a good start in life by making sure they get a great education, fortified with loads of external courses and training so they can become one of those mega-rich millionaires who will have the money to take care of you when you're old. Instead, the complete opposite is happening: instead of studying hard for their vital exams, the two oldest girls Samantha and Rachael are busy helping their parents with child care - how are they supposed to compete with their peers in the job market if the odds have already been stacked against them from the start? What if say, one of the children goes on to have a disabled child and thus need all their earnings to care for the disabled child, leaving them unable to support their parents? Besides, even if they do have money, is it fair to expect the child to spend every spare dollar they earn supporting their parents when they could be instead saving up for a deposit for their first home or accumulating capital to start their own business? Indeed, Mr & Mrs Heng are creating a situation whereby they are holding back their children in the future. And did you consider the possibility that some of the children may turn around and say, "why should we support you? You support yourselves." Look at the number of elderly people working in Singapore doing jobs like clearing trays and cleaning tables in food courts and hawker centers, many of them have children but for some reason are not being supported by their children. That's why I believe in self-reliance as the only person you can count on is yourself.
7. "But you get so much from a big family!"
There were many comments pointing out the benefits of having a big family such as having more siblings to rely on and how you are never lonely when there's always someone to play with. That is of course, based on a best case scenario assumption that everyone in your family is nice and you don't get any evil people amongst your family members. Now please note that I'm not talking about the Heng family here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that none of us get to choose our family members, that's the one thing in life you definitely have no say over. Many of the people who sang praises about being a part of a big family based their arguments on no more than the fact that they themselves had many siblings and so it must be good. It's a very flawed argument based on anecdotal evidence: just because you came from a big happy family doesn't mean that all big families are happy. That depends entirely on the individuals in the family you're talking about and of course, we all hope that we have nice people in our families but even the most detested characters in our society - the murderers and rapists - have family members as well and I do wonder what you would do if you found out one day that your brother or sister committed such a horrible crime that you would find hard to forgive? So how happy your family is entirely dependent on how nice your family members are rather than the size of the family. How would you like to have a bunch of siblings who are all evil criminals?
8. Mrs Heng only wanted two kids. Mr Heng wanted more.
In the video, Mrs Heng clearly stated that she originally wanted only two children. If they only had two children, Mrs Heng could have probably continued her work as a teacher (given there's a five year age gap between her first two children). That would have meant that the family would have had a lot more disposable income given that even a primary school teacher would have taken home more than S$2,500 a month - which begs the question, if Mrs Heng was clearly earning more than her husband, why didn't he give up his job and allow her to be the sole breadwinner for the family then? In fact Mrs Heng could have had a very different life had she kept her job as a school teacher: with more money and only two kids, she could have had a far more middle class lifestyle. She could have had the pride of being an working mum with a respectable career, she could have had a lot more free time and most of all, she would have financial independence without having to depend on the charity of others and the government to make ends meet. Is this the kind of life she wanted? Quite a few of the comments on Youtube reflected on the fact that it looks like this wasn't what she wanted but her husband coerced her into having more children - this makes one wonder what kind of relationship they have, if she actually gets a say in decisions like whether or not they have another child.
9. "We are not materialistic."
Some of the Youtube comments were waxing lyrical about how money can't buy you happiness but something a former classmate of mine said to me on Facebook. Look, we didn't have Facebook back in the 1990s and if you're my age, then you would have gone through the process of tracking down some of your old classmates on Facebook and sure you would chat for a bit when you first re-establish contact. I discovered that Nancy (not her real name) got married and had five children - she's a stay at home mum who works part time, but somebody has got to take care of the kids and like the Hengs, her husband doesn't earn much. But she declared to me, "We're not materialistic, we don't need fancy things in our lives. We have our religion, we have each other and that's all we need." She tried hard to give me the impression that there's a certain dignity in being poor, that there's a new found joy she has found in her family which money can't buy - but imagine if somehow, Nancy won the lottery the next day and had a prize money of one million dollars. Would she donate it all to charity with the, "we don't need money, we're not materialistic" mantra, or would she then finally spend the money on herself and her family - for there must be a long list of things she wish she and her family could do but had never been able to because they were poor? How about treating the kids to a nice holiday abroad, somewhere like New Zealand? Of course she would spend the money on herself and her family if she was given a million dollars just like that, but until that day comes (however unlikely, good luck with the lottery tickets Nancy), she is going to keep on protesting that she is perfectly happy and dignified being poor because "we are not materialistic". Yeah, right. Whilst money can't buy you happiness, the lack of money can cause a family of a lot misery and stress.
10. Talking about spoilt brats again.
Another comment that I found laughable was that because the Heng children have grown up in a poor family, they won't grow up to be 'spoilt brats'. Let's pause for a moment and consider what a spoilt brat is: it is a child who makes demands and doesn't take no for an answer, throwing a tantrum if necessary to get their way. So for example, if a girl tells her father, "daddy I want you to take me to the park to play now" and her father says, "no, it is so close to dinner time, so can you go read a book and wait for dinner please." An obedient child would simply accept the father's decision whilst the spoilt brat would scream, cry and throw a tantrum until the father gives in to his daughter's demands. Note that I deliberately chose a situation where no money exchanged hands - this could have been a rich or poor family, it is specifically to demonstrate that this kind of behaviour has nothing to do with whether or not the family is rich or whether the parents can afford to buy their children expensive toys. Would children throw a tantrum if they know that they will only get a beating as a result of the tantrum and not get what they want? No. Why would they do that if it is not going to get them what they want? Children only throw tantrums if they know they can manipulate their parents into giving them what they want if they scream, cry and make a scene in public, to embarrass their parents by attracting as much attention as possible
So are you telling me that children in poor families do not throw tantrums? Of course they do, the psychology behind getting what you want through this kind of emotional blackmail and using a tantrum doesn't really vary whether you are rich or poor. And conversely, rewarding your children with expensive gifts like iPhones, iPads and beautiful clothes does not automatically turn them into 'spoilt brats' if they children obtained these items through hard work - for example, if you set your child a target for an exam and the new iPhone was a reward if s/he managed to achieve that target, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with rewarding the child with an expensive new iPhone. However, if the child comes home and throws a tantrum, "everybody in my class has a new iPhone, I want one too - you are making me the social outcast and if you don't buy me a new phone today, I may as well just die" and then proceeds to cry, threaten suicide etc until you get the child the new iPhone, then that's a completely different story. The price of the iPhone really isn't the issue here, it is the way the parents manage their children's expectations and the way they reward effort that is the issue here. By that token, of course a very poor family can raise a spoilt brats who use tantrums to get their way with their parents and this is a matter of raising your child to respect your authority. Thus if your child doesn't respect your authority, then there's something wrong with your parenting style - don't blame those expensive toys, clothes and mobile phones turning your children into spoilt brats, you're not going to get away with making them your scapegoat when you have failed as a parent to establish your authority at home.
11. "What is the point of having money when you're all alone? Family is everything."
Yeah, that was one of the comment on Youtube in support of the Hengs having so many children. But let's analyze this for a moment: this is based on so many assumptions that the people in big families are always happy and that adults very few or no children are somehow unhappy. Once again, that's bullshit. Look I have been poor before, I have seen my parents argue over money when I was a young child - yup, it sucks to be poor and poor people often argue over money because there's only so much money: the mother wants to use it for one thing and the father for something else, you can't have both things and so you end up arguing, fighting and it is ugly, bitter and quite nasty because there's always going to be someone who doesn't get what s/he wants but even if you're the person who wants what you want, you still had to fight to get what you want and it sucks to be reminded that you're so very poor when your peers who are more rich would simply say, "oh let's just get both things then, it's just money, we have plenty of it". When you have several family members fighting over money, it is a recipe for a pretty miserable family. And what makes you think that rich people are somehow lonely? Rich people can afford to have a really varied and interesting social life, they are also not working all the time and have the time to indulge themselves in fun activities - whether they choose to spend time with their family members or friends, what makes you think they are somehow lonely?
Furthermore, for normal parents, their children will grow up and by the time your children are in their teens, hopefully they would already be fairly independent and have their own friends and social life. And in about 25 years, they will be working adults, probably in relationships, possibly contemplating marriage or already married. What do the parents do then? Are they lost without their children to keep them company? Hell no, most older parents in their 50s then start to focus on their careers because by then, they are senior and experienced enough in their respective fields to actually really enjoy their jobs. Or if they are closer to retirement, they will have more free time to dedicate to themselves: how wonderful is that, to see them actually learn a new sport or musical instrument instead of taking their children to a sports or music class. Most well adjusted parents are pretty happy to let their children lead quite independent adult lives - they then have the money and the free time to have quite active and interesting social lives. Instead of having to rush home from work to pick up their children from school, they can go see their friends for dinner, go salsa dancing or do something they have always wanted to do but never had the time. It is quite fucking ridiculous to expect parents to have their whole lives revolve around the children, as if they don't have the right to have friends or hobbies once they become parents. I know there are people like that - they're the freaks. My friends who are parents actually have a life away from their children - is that such a bizarre concept?
For the adults who are have both successful careers and children, their lives don't actually revolve around their children. It's not to say that their children are not important to them, but it is hard to ignore the fact that they have also achieved a lot in their careers. It is only those who have dead end jobs who somehow turn their daily grind into some kind of noble sacrifice for their children. "I get out of bed every morning and go clean toilets/go drive that taxi because I need to provide for my children, because I love my children." Yeah I don't question that love for a moment, but just imagine if you actually enjoyed your job, then perhaps you would not need to make it all about your children - maybe then, just maybe, you would be glad to get out of bed to do something you enjoyed because you are doing it for yourself. And if that sounds selfish, then oh dear - guess what? Loads of parents out there actually do have meaningful jobs that they do enjoy, that they are not just doing to put food on the table for their children. In a recent post, I wrote about my experience at a conference in Barcelona and there was that same guy everyday in the toilets cleaning the piss off the floor around the urinals, talk about a job that stinks. When you're in that kind of predicament, yeah then family becomes a lot more important - because it then turns what is a yucky job into a noble sacrifice and for someone like that, all he has is his family. So I can imagine someone like that coming up with a statement like, "family is everything" - yeah, only if you have nothing else in your life.
12. If money is the solution to the problem, then why not solve it?
I am reminded of a story from my army days, back then our allowance was so meager and unless you had rich parents who could support you, get ready to endure poverty - my friend Vincent wanted to get a nice motorcycle, his parents said, "no we can't afford it, but you can certainly get a part time job and earn the money, so you can get the motorcycle you want." So Vincent did just that, with the help of a friend from school, he managed to get a part time job during the weekends and after a year, he managed to save up enough money to get the motorcycle he wanted. Everyone in the story acted in a completely reasonable manner of course, Vincent was expected to earn the money for something nice he wanted. So if Mr Heng is only earning S$2,500 and he wanted a nice, new motorcycle, what would you ask him to do? You would give him exactly the same advice that Vincent got - that he should either take on a part time job to earn that money or he should consider a career change if he is currently not earning enough in his current job to afford all the things he would like in his life. Now having 7 children raise is going to cost him a lot more than even the best Harley Davidson motorcycle you can find in Singapore, so why should the principle of earning the money for the things you would like to have in life be any different then? Why do people like Vincent have to work so hard to get the things he wants, whilst people like Mr Heng get to turn to the state and say, "pay for my kids, or else they will starve and can't get an education." It is of course, massively unfair and the state ought not condone this kind of irresponsible behaviour.
Thus Mr Heng's right to have 7 kids should be balanced with his responsibility to provide for his family - something which he is clearly failing to do adequately. But look, I have a simple solution - has Mr Heng even tried to look for a job that pays more money? Certainly when you're earning only S$2,500 a month, good grief, what have you got to lose by trying to find a better job that will pay you more especially when you have a big family that is completely dependent on you? Pardon me for having to state the obvious, but it really isn't that hard to increase the amount of money you earn a month, it just depends on whether or not you're willing to make the sacrifices necessary for more money. For example, you're always paid a lot more for working in very unpleasant situations - that's why in Australia, the best paid jobs for engineers are in mining and they are usually working out in the hottest and most remote parts of the Australian outback where temperatures regularly hit 50 degrees at surface level but even hotter in the mine itself. If you want a nice 9 to 5 job where you get to sit in an air-conditioned office in the Sydney with stunning views over Darling Harbour, you don't get compensated for that! This is sometimes referred to as 'blood money' whereby you are compensated for your blood, sweat and tears that you have to put into your job. That is why many people from poor countries get attracted to go work in places like the Gulf countries in the Middle East, because you do get compensated for working in the horrific desert heat.
The main reason why people don't challenge themselves to earn more money is because they get extremely defensive. I can just imagine people jumping to his defence, "what is wrong with Mr Heng working as a social worker? It is a perfectly respectable job, our country needs social workers. Are you looking down on social workers just because they don't earn a lot?" And the answer is of course not, this is not about social workers - I really don't give a damn what Mr Heng does for a living, the issue here is whether or not he is being a good father and husband, whether he is able to provide for his family and if he isn't, well is he trying to do something about it or is he accept the status quo as it is, leaving his family totally dependent on the charity of others for even the most basic things like paying his children's school fees and medical bills? If Mr Heng was single or even if he was married with less children, then how much (or little) he earned is none of my business - but when he deliberately puts his children through poverty and does nothing to help with the situation, that's when I feel his irresponsibility has become immoral. Has he actually tried looking for a job that would enable him to provide better for his family, or has he become his own worst enemy by giving in to the "there's nothing wrong with what I do for a living" mentality? How harshly should we judge Mr Heng - has he tried and failed or has he not even bothered trying?
So there you go, that's it from me on this story - what do you think? Do you think the Hengs deserve generous help from the government? What do you think about their decision to have 7 children like that? Compare this with say, the highly unlikely situation if a mother who has a complicated pregnancy and ends up giving birth to seven babies all at the same time (as in septuplets, otherwise known as very high-order multiple births), so through no fault of their own, the parents suddenly have 7 children? What if you met a millionaire who had 7 children, how would you feel about a man like that if money wasn't an issue but he still wouldn't spend enough time with each child? Or am I simply being extremely harsh to Mr & Mrs Heng and am not extending enough empathy to them, to try to understand their situation? But then again, I am not going to beat around the bush here: I think they've made a huge error of judgment in having so many children and it is the two oldest daughters who are bearing the brunt of their mistake. It's fine if adults suffer the consequences of their actions, but the children have done nothing wrong, why should they be punished? Over to you, please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. Many thanks for reading.
That's an article Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month
Fine for article Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month This time, hopefully can benefit for you all. Well, see you in other article postings.
You are now reading the article Raising a family of 7 children on S$2,500 a month With link address https://newstoday-ok.blogspot.com/2018/06/raising-family-of-7-children-on-s2500.html