Yesterday we woke up to BBC Radio 4 flagship 'Today' programme in which a man claimed that after the recent changes to benefits, he is left with £53 a week. He wanted to ask IDS (Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions) whether he could survive on £53 a week.
The interviewer John Humphrys (also known as the 'rottweiler') did just that, but he also kept interrupting the Minister who was trying to answer the questions and this really annoyed my husband: Why don't they ask me on radio to talk about how I don't want my taxes to be wasted on such people.
Today, we learn from a newspaper, that the man who claimed to be left with £53 a week was not all he made himself out to be. More crucially, it shows the left-wing bias of BBC in allowing this benefits claimant the air-time.
Those of us in Singapore who grew up on the BBC World Service might be surprised to learn that BBC is very much derided, hated even, by many in the UK because we pay a 'licence fee' which is akin to a tax. The head honchos at BBC make obscene sums of money, and they are clearly left-leaning Labour Party supporters.
Take this guy who challenged IDS. As a market trader he must surely earn quite a bit more than the £200 a month he claims. But that's a good figure to claim, making him 'self-employed' enough to claim Working Tax Credit, but not enough to have to pay Income Tax or National Insurance. At some point, for whatever reason, he also qualified for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.
He talked about how he worked '70 hours a week' and still did not make ends meet. Then he said he was only able to trade 21 days in three months. Hello! Inconsistency there. Either he was very hard-working and shortchanged (working 70 hours a week) or he was unfortunate (only able to trade 21 days in three months = about 70 hours a month).
If he worked only 70 hours a month then his number of hours would be short of the 25 [correction: should be 30] a week he needs (as a single person, as his ex-wife looks after his children) to qualify for Working Tax Credit. If he is working more than 16 hours a week, he also does not qualify for JobSeekers Allowance. So I wonder on what basis this man claimed benefit. ???
Elsewhere we read of churches coming forward to voice their concern with the 'benefit cuts'. I'm afraid these church leaders do not speak for me.
British Christians cannot be selective in their use of the Bible to support their views. One group talks about taking inspiration from Jesus clearing the temple to support people who are exploited and marginalized.
They include amongst the 'exploited' those in the "Workfare" programme requiring benefits claimants who have not worked for years to work in the community for 30 hours a week or lose their benefits (face 'sanctions'). The aims of the programme is to give such claimants some skills and even the habit of getting to work on time which is alien to many claimants.
Objection is particularly vociferous from those who believe that benefits claimants should not be made to work 'for free' for supermarkets and big retailers. To get £71 for 30 hours of work is exploitation.
Hello! No such thing as a free lunch, OK? Claimants usually get more than just the £71 a week. Housing/Council Tax benefits are several times £71, so don't kid yourself. Who is exploiting whom?
Why should my husband work 40-50 hours a week and we only take one real holiday once in two-three years while some people sit on their butts all day long in front of their satellite TV?
What does the Bible say about responsibility for oneself and one's family? About the holy state of matrimony? About not stealing, because benefit fraud is theft.
No jobs, you say. Why then the influx of East European migrants? Why are employers crying for workers to work in restaurants, care homes, farms, etc.? Jobs or no jobs: mutually exclusive categories.
Employers not paying a living wage, you say, better stay on benefits. That's the point, isn't it? We pay one lot of people the minimum wage to do the jobs that are there because the locals do not do those. Then we pay the locals to stay on benefits.
Employers and taxpayers are effectively paying two lots of people. If we paid only for one lot then we can afford to pay this one lot double the amount, right? To do that we must reduce the welfare bill.
About 80 per cent of the clients I see are 'single mothers'. 'Better off' not working. Suffers backache and cannot work.
When clients say they are single mothers and they've just had a new baby, I have to ask whether there was any violence involved. They say 'no'. So it's not like they were forced to have a baby. Modern contraception is very effective, you know. But having a child under five keeps you on Income Support, you see.
I don't want to be included in the group of Christians who condone such irresponsible lifestyles.
There's free healthcare, free education. How could families be three generations out of work? It beggars belief.
Eradicate the fraudsters, the feckless, and give my hard-earned taxes to those who are really not able to help themselves. Please.
Welfare reform isn't about hurting poor people
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Welfare entitlement
Yesterday was manic at the advice bureau, which has to close its face-to-face drop-ins soon due to a drastic drop in funding. The building we now occupy is going to be demolished by the local council. To do what? I don't know.
So I was not happy when our queue was clogged up by people who are fully capable of doing things for themselves: make phone calls, write letters, etc. Instead they came to us expecting us to do this work.
Crutch mentality.
An older man, very fluent in spoken and written language, was in for the third/fourth time, for advice on how to get his Pension Credit which he insisted was underpaid him. He wanted to know whether he should sue the government (Department of Work and Pension) for their tardiness in looking into his appeal.
This is what I had meant in previous posts about 'mission creep'.
Pension Credit is "designed to provide those over qualifying age ... with a minimum level of income and give extra cash to those aged 65 and over with modest incomes who have made savings for their retirement".
This man is not poor. He has assets to the tune of thousands of pounds from the sale of his house. Sure he has spent much of this on a 'medical holiday' (ie going back to India for cheap treatment and care) and repaying a previous mortgage, etc. But he still has capital, quite a lot of it, well above £10,000.
PC is calculated upon the person's savings/capital. He claims that he should be awarded more than £150 PC (a week). Instead, after all the deductions, he only gets £65. He has been fighting for the additional '£90'.
I refused to give Mr G an appointment to see an adviser. He has the means to go to a solicitor.
The point is Mr G is getting more than what a lot of people are getting. (He and his wife have other benefits.) But no, he felt that he was 'entitled' to a much higher PC. If he and Mrs G were destitute we would have bent over backwards to assist him. Not when he has the means to go on 'medical holidays'. Mr G does not need this PC but is expending lots of his energy and the time of civil servants to get his 'entitlement'.
==
My fellow volunteer was bursting to tell me about her client who faces a bill of £60,000 in overpayment. That means this client has claimed and was given more than £60,000 in error and the government is now clawing it back.
In other circumstances -- if fraud can be proven -- the client might have been taken to court.
When people claim benefits, they are reminded with virtually every letter that they must report 'change of circumstances'. Many pretend to forget or plead ignorance about having to inform the authorities. Clearly because they know that if a change is 'for better', their benefits will be reduced. If in doubt, report, and let the authorities take the responsibility.
For instance if someone who had broken a leg, or claims to have one, gets a huge amount of benefit, and then gets better, he/she is often tempted to keep quiet about their improved health. IF our civil servants are doing their job, these claimants are caught.
This client is 'lucky' it is only a demand for repayment. The newspapers are full of reports about people being jailed for fraud.
==
Two weeks ago I saw a client who attended in anticipation of changes in the system for advice on how to prepare for them. I like people like this. They bother. They are proactive.
I think the word 'guileless' is good to describe her. She claimed to have some mental health issues. When I explained to her the changes that might affect her in the long run, saying that she might wish to put in effort to get herself mentally back into a condition which makes it possible for her to find work, she said, 'Yes, I want to get well so I can work.'
She said she was not aware of the different benefits she might be eligible for. She takes what is given her. She came across as being a person who is not manipulative.
This is completely opposite to the client I saw earlier who insisted that she cannot work, presumably ever again. The doctor has certified her backache and she thinks she now has a life-long passport to benefits.
This is welfare entitlement.
Welfare should always be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. But preventing the former from morphing into the latter is almost impossible when the attitude of entitlement has set in.
It was refreshing therefore to read -- briefly -- about the Singapore Budget. Workfare is an interesting concept. It is an incentive to work. But we have to be careful it does not morph into a benefit that subsidizes big businesses.
Which is what minimum wage and Working Tax Credit seem to have become in the UK.
Beware!
So I was not happy when our queue was clogged up by people who are fully capable of doing things for themselves: make phone calls, write letters, etc. Instead they came to us expecting us to do this work.
Crutch mentality.
An older man, very fluent in spoken and written language, was in for the third/fourth time, for advice on how to get his Pension Credit which he insisted was underpaid him. He wanted to know whether he should sue the government (Department of Work and Pension) for their tardiness in looking into his appeal.
This is what I had meant in previous posts about 'mission creep'.
Pension Credit is "designed to provide those over qualifying age ... with a minimum level of income and give extra cash to those aged 65 and over with modest incomes who have made savings for their retirement".
This man is not poor. He has assets to the tune of thousands of pounds from the sale of his house. Sure he has spent much of this on a 'medical holiday' (ie going back to India for cheap treatment and care) and repaying a previous mortgage, etc. But he still has capital, quite a lot of it, well above £10,000.
PC is calculated upon the person's savings/capital. He claims that he should be awarded more than £150 PC (a week). Instead, after all the deductions, he only gets £65. He has been fighting for the additional '£90'.
I refused to give Mr G an appointment to see an adviser. He has the means to go to a solicitor.
The point is Mr G is getting more than what a lot of people are getting. (He and his wife have other benefits.) But no, he felt that he was 'entitled' to a much higher PC. If he and Mrs G were destitute we would have bent over backwards to assist him. Not when he has the means to go on 'medical holidays'. Mr G does not need this PC but is expending lots of his energy and the time of civil servants to get his 'entitlement'.
==
My fellow volunteer was bursting to tell me about her client who faces a bill of £60,000 in overpayment. That means this client has claimed and was given more than £60,000 in error and the government is now clawing it back.
In other circumstances -- if fraud can be proven -- the client might have been taken to court.
When people claim benefits, they are reminded with virtually every letter that they must report 'change of circumstances'. Many pretend to forget or plead ignorance about having to inform the authorities. Clearly because they know that if a change is 'for better', their benefits will be reduced. If in doubt, report, and let the authorities take the responsibility.
For instance if someone who had broken a leg, or claims to have one, gets a huge amount of benefit, and then gets better, he/she is often tempted to keep quiet about their improved health. IF our civil servants are doing their job, these claimants are caught.
This client is 'lucky' it is only a demand for repayment. The newspapers are full of reports about people being jailed for fraud.
==
Two weeks ago I saw a client who attended in anticipation of changes in the system for advice on how to prepare for them. I like people like this. They bother. They are proactive.
I think the word 'guileless' is good to describe her. She claimed to have some mental health issues. When I explained to her the changes that might affect her in the long run, saying that she might wish to put in effort to get herself mentally back into a condition which makes it possible for her to find work, she said, 'Yes, I want to get well so I can work.'
She said she was not aware of the different benefits she might be eligible for. She takes what is given her. She came across as being a person who is not manipulative.
This is completely opposite to the client I saw earlier who insisted that she cannot work, presumably ever again. The doctor has certified her backache and she thinks she now has a life-long passport to benefits.
This is welfare entitlement.
Welfare should always be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. But preventing the former from morphing into the latter is almost impossible when the attitude of entitlement has set in.
It was refreshing therefore to read -- briefly -- about the Singapore Budget. Workfare is an interesting concept. It is an incentive to work. But we have to be careful it does not morph into a benefit that subsidizes big businesses.
Which is what minimum wage and Working Tax Credit seem to have become in the UK.
Beware!
Monday, 11 February 2013
Where university is a different universe
Another letter to Straits Times that did not make the cut pre-Punggol East election, but had been too busy/ill to post:
=========
At Tiong Bahru Primary my Brownie Owls organized a Christian group and we once met at a flat where I saw framed photographs of young people in funny gowns and hats. Someone explained to me they were graduating university.
University? It was a different planet.
Years later I told my mother I worried ab out not being ab le to afford to attend university. She said, “Don’t worry. You could get a scholarship.”
You see, every year at Raffles Girls we were encouraged by reading of sons and daughters of taxi-drivers and housewives winning prestigious scholarships.
I did not get a scholarship. Like most of my mates I was supported by generous family and friends, and worked as a private tutor.
As a research student I became a participant observer in a garment factory. The women on the shopfloor wondered why a ‘da-shuei’ (university) student was working for $9 a day.
One day the best machinist in the factory asked, “Is ‘da-shuei’ the same as ‘zhong-si’”? (Is ‘university’ the same as ‘secondary four’?)
In her world, school did not extend to secondary four and so university, much like secondary four, is a totally different universe.
Clearly, my university world and the world of the factory workers were light years apart. Had no one explained those graduation gowns to me, how different might my life have been?
Some people say that naming top scorers in public examinations would only cause people to think that only the academically inclined are honoured. They have conflated two issues here.
Young people need role models, particularly those from disadvantaged or ‘humble’ backgrounds, to spur them on, as it did me.
Conversely had mum only seen scholarships being awarded to sons and daughters of the rich and powerful, she would not have given me hope.
The other issue is that news blackouts on academic successes are merely treating the symptoms.
If you have (say) cancer, do you want the doctors to only stop the pain, or would you rather they killed the cancer?
So, what has changed in the meritocratic system that has helped people like Chan Chun Seng, Koh Poh Koon and me to get to university?
===========
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
I don't want to work!
After having seen hundreds of clients regarding their benefits, one cannot help but notice the different attitudes with which these have come for help.
There are those who are really sickly, breathless, unable to walk, depressed, etc who only ask for some help to get better. Some are so ill I would suspect they would never be able to work.
There are also those who are very sprite, very vocal, very well-dressed and very adamant that they have decided that they are not well enough to work for the rest of their lives. So someone else must pay for their livelihood and several children.
[It also puzzles me that women who claim to be so ill they could not work are not too ill to have children with men who are not their husbands.]
Yesterday my first client was from a country where he has no rights to benefits if he is not self-supporting. He is homeless and has been sleeping in a park and the temperature has been sub-zero for days. He had been a hardworking person until he lost his job. Somehow managed to get onto Jobseekers Allowance (JSA, which he is not actually entitled to), found a job, informed JobCentrePlus (JCP) as one should, but lost his job again.
When he tried to apply for JSA he was told that the rules had changed. They had not changed. Someone at JCP made a mistake. Now this man thinks he is eligible for JSA because he had been on JSA. My manager has to step in and even then did not manage to sort him out. (Manager has special numbers to call.)
Then Z, single mother with two teenage children and a five-year-old. She had been moved from Incapacity Benefit to ESA (Employment and Support Allowance), and in the process her income has dropped drastically. She has also to apply for Child Tax Credit (CTC) to make up the shortfall. She receives Housing Benefit (which pays her rent) and Council Tax Benefit (which pays her Council Tax).
She had seen another staff member whom she insisted on calling the 'manager', implying that I was not good enough for her. [Did she think that because I am Chinese and not white like the other staff I was inferior? Was I facing discrimination?] She wanted me to call the tax office to harass them to expedite her Child Tax Credit application. Her situation was dire. She had received her ESA payment but it went straight via direct debit to pay her gas and electricity.
I said, why are you paying so much for gas and electricity? She explained that there is a lot of damp in her house/flat. When I checked with my manager later, she suggested that Z stopped paying her gas and electricity for a while if she did not have money to feed her children. Z said she was afraid that she would build up debts.
She had been previously advised to apply for a 'Crisis Loan' but client said it is only for £100 and it will not be enough. Enough for what? I thought. If she does not have money for food or shoes for her son, as she claimed, then she must apply for the loan. In her notes we also read that she was referred to a food bank, but she refused to go, saying that it was too far.
No, she wanted me to call and harass the Tax Office. I said they have asked her to submit some evidence and it was best that she did it as soon as possible rather than having me call them, taking up time they could use to process her case. Then she went on about how the previous manager who saw her knows all about her case and wanted to see this person.
When we see clients running from pillar to post trying to plug gaps in their finances on a regular basis we normally say, let's stop for a moment and think how we can try to resolve ALL these inter-related issues. One of these would be the damp in her house. That means she might need to move to another property.
I asked if she was fit to work and she said she was clearly not fit to work as the doctor says she is not fit to work. I looked at her medical certificate and it says "Back pain", no other details.
So I said, if money is always so tight, it may be worth her looking to doing some work in the future when her health has improved.
"O no. I came here today for help. I didn't come here today to be told that I have to look for work."
You know, by this time at the interview, I was not surprised at this comment. She had been very reluctant to divulge details about her medical condition, and kept saying the previous manager (who is not a manager) knows all about it. She refused to leave my office and so another manager (a real one) had to step in. (Two 'fails' in a day. That is a record for me.)
The manager told her to call the number I had given her to see if she could get an emergency CTC, which was what I told her. The manager promised to follow up the next day (something that I cannot do), and she finally left.
The truth is sooner or later her case will be up for review with a WCA (Work Capability Assessment) and she would almost certainly be deemed suitable for work being young, fit and quite healthy, and she will be back again, asking for help to appeal her case. She refused to contemplate working when she could work up to 16 hours a week and still keep most of her benefits.
Back pain is relative. I put my back out some years ago. The pain was excruciating. As soon as I could I started on Pilates classes to strengthen my back, and learned how not to strain my back muscles by using my abdominal muscles instead. For my own good health and peace of mind. For crying out loud I might live till 90 this side of eternity.
My knees have been bad for most of my life. I blamed it on the basketball I used to play and the cross-country I loved doing. They are so bad these days that if I did ANY running the knees swell up and the GP said it's the body telling me I must stop running on hard ground. So now, a bit like Mo Farrah, I can only run under water! Never did I think that I should sit back and do nothing.
But this client, probably 20 years younger than I, has no intention of getting better because she knows that her benefits will be reduced. What sort of warped thinking is this???
There are those who are really sickly, breathless, unable to walk, depressed, etc who only ask for some help to get better. Some are so ill I would suspect they would never be able to work.
There are also those who are very sprite, very vocal, very well-dressed and very adamant that they have decided that they are not well enough to work for the rest of their lives. So someone else must pay for their livelihood and several children.
[It also puzzles me that women who claim to be so ill they could not work are not too ill to have children with men who are not their husbands.]
Yesterday my first client was from a country where he has no rights to benefits if he is not self-supporting. He is homeless and has been sleeping in a park and the temperature has been sub-zero for days. He had been a hardworking person until he lost his job. Somehow managed to get onto Jobseekers Allowance (JSA, which he is not actually entitled to), found a job, informed JobCentrePlus (JCP) as one should, but lost his job again.
When he tried to apply for JSA he was told that the rules had changed. They had not changed. Someone at JCP made a mistake. Now this man thinks he is eligible for JSA because he had been on JSA. My manager has to step in and even then did not manage to sort him out. (Manager has special numbers to call.)
Then Z, single mother with two teenage children and a five-year-old. She had been moved from Incapacity Benefit to ESA (Employment and Support Allowance), and in the process her income has dropped drastically. She has also to apply for Child Tax Credit (CTC) to make up the shortfall. She receives Housing Benefit (which pays her rent) and Council Tax Benefit (which pays her Council Tax).
She had seen another staff member whom she insisted on calling the 'manager', implying that I was not good enough for her. [Did she think that because I am Chinese and not white like the other staff I was inferior? Was I facing discrimination?] She wanted me to call the tax office to harass them to expedite her Child Tax Credit application. Her situation was dire. She had received her ESA payment but it went straight via direct debit to pay her gas and electricity.
I said, why are you paying so much for gas and electricity? She explained that there is a lot of damp in her house/flat. When I checked with my manager later, she suggested that Z stopped paying her gas and electricity for a while if she did not have money to feed her children. Z said she was afraid that she would build up debts.
She had been previously advised to apply for a 'Crisis Loan' but client said it is only for £100 and it will not be enough. Enough for what? I thought. If she does not have money for food or shoes for her son, as she claimed, then she must apply for the loan. In her notes we also read that she was referred to a food bank, but she refused to go, saying that it was too far.
No, she wanted me to call and harass the Tax Office. I said they have asked her to submit some evidence and it was best that she did it as soon as possible rather than having me call them, taking up time they could use to process her case. Then she went on about how the previous manager who saw her knows all about her case and wanted to see this person.
When we see clients running from pillar to post trying to plug gaps in their finances on a regular basis we normally say, let's stop for a moment and think how we can try to resolve ALL these inter-related issues. One of these would be the damp in her house. That means she might need to move to another property.
I asked if she was fit to work and she said she was clearly not fit to work as the doctor says she is not fit to work. I looked at her medical certificate and it says "Back pain", no other details.
So I said, if money is always so tight, it may be worth her looking to doing some work in the future when her health has improved.
"O no. I came here today for help. I didn't come here today to be told that I have to look for work."
You know, by this time at the interview, I was not surprised at this comment. She had been very reluctant to divulge details about her medical condition, and kept saying the previous manager (who is not a manager) knows all about it. She refused to leave my office and so another manager (a real one) had to step in. (Two 'fails' in a day. That is a record for me.)
The manager told her to call the number I had given her to see if she could get an emergency CTC, which was what I told her. The manager promised to follow up the next day (something that I cannot do), and she finally left.
The truth is sooner or later her case will be up for review with a WCA (Work Capability Assessment) and she would almost certainly be deemed suitable for work being young, fit and quite healthy, and she will be back again, asking for help to appeal her case. She refused to contemplate working when she could work up to 16 hours a week and still keep most of her benefits.
Back pain is relative. I put my back out some years ago. The pain was excruciating. As soon as I could I started on Pilates classes to strengthen my back, and learned how not to strain my back muscles by using my abdominal muscles instead. For my own good health and peace of mind. For crying out loud I might live till 90 this side of eternity.
My knees have been bad for most of my life. I blamed it on the basketball I used to play and the cross-country I loved doing. They are so bad these days that if I did ANY running the knees swell up and the GP said it's the body telling me I must stop running on hard ground. So now, a bit like Mo Farrah, I can only run under water! Never did I think that I should sit back and do nothing.
But this client, probably 20 years younger than I, has no intention of getting better because she knows that her benefits will be reduced. What sort of warped thinking is this???
Sunday, 23 December 2012
Two layers of manliness
To say that my son is growing UP is an understatement.
He's not yet 13 but I've just bought him men's size pyjamas. He's about 3cm taller than I, but that is clearly because I am a very short Singaporean female at 1.58m.
It's also my fault that I have been feeding him 'man-size meals' since he was five.
He was 90cm tall at two years old so that before one visit back to Singapore I had to drill him on using the MRT gates. We practised the action of mum slotting in his card, imagining the barrier opening , and him having to go through quickly before the barrier closed , mum retrieving his card before mum going through herself.
He was tall in stature but young in years.
In the last three months however he was, more importantly, growing up emotionally in a way I did not expect, and in a most delightful way.
He went through a very rough patch in the early summer that caused us a lot of grief, but then suddenly he started behaving like a young man as mothers would like young men to behave.
Recently I checked to see if he was warm enough in the clothes he was wearing. His answer, "Mum, don't worry. I have one layer of clothes and two layers of manliness."
His voice is only just breaking but he is thinking and learning ways of being manly ... and POLITE. That can be a shock to the system. But I am not complaining. The other mothers at school keep telling me how 'charming' he is. I reassure them that he's not always like that at home.
So it was interesting to read this article about how women like their men: Bring back the gentleman!
Someone asked a Bible College lecturer, "The Bible has lots of principles that wives are supposed to follow. What about the husbands?"
The lecturer said, without hesitation, that what God expects of the wife, He also expects of the husband.
Now we are not going to debate that here as it shades into the region of 'equality' and how equality is not the same as 'sameness', but some of the comments to this news report also suggest that men also expect women to be 'gentlewomen'.
Kindness, politeness, graciousness, awareness of others, both men and women are free to give these 'gifts' away. So why not give as generously as possible?
Instead just yesterday I saw a young lady speaking in a very agitated manner with her neck sticking out, finger jabbing in the air, as she told her companion (or victim?) what she was most unhappy about in a very loud voice in a very public place.
I see groups of older and younger teenagers, boys and girls, swaggering in the shopping precinct effing and blinding, eating and talking loudly, throwing rubbish onto the ground, etc. I often stopped my son if he were with me to say, "On no account do I want to see you or even hear reports of you behaving like that."
Worse, if I may say so, "If a girl behaves like that, then she is not worthy of you."
Manliness? Sometimes young men think that to be seen as kind or polite is to be seen as being weak, a wimp, not macho enough, etc. The truth is it takes a big man to be kind, and polite, and gracious and all that.
Because a big man knows that when push comes to shove, he is (probably) bigger, stronger and more courageous than those who merely talk. As my primary school teacher told me once, and I have never forgotten, empty vessels make the most noise.
If we had a daughter I would also expect her to be all that.
When I was young I read about girls being sent to 'finishing schools', to learn etiquette and the manners to help them get on with life.
I wonder if there is a market for my next business idea: a 'prep school' for young men and women as they go into the world, and as they prepare to settle down in a relationship. How many of our young book-smart people are able to live independently, keeping house, managing budgets, cooking, cleaning, ironing, etc without a live-in 'foreign domestic worker'?
Manliness? I think it begins at home. When dad shows that it is not beneath him to make tea and coffee, cook, etc.
What about 'womanliness' then? How does one practise womanliness without shading into flirtatiousness? I think that is a more complex matter.
He's not yet 13 but I've just bought him men's size pyjamas. He's about 3cm taller than I, but that is clearly because I am a very short Singaporean female at 1.58m.
It's also my fault that I have been feeding him 'man-size meals' since he was five.
He was 90cm tall at two years old so that before one visit back to Singapore I had to drill him on using the MRT gates. We practised the action of mum slotting in his card, imagining the barrier opening , and him having to go through quickly before the barrier closed , mum retrieving his card before mum going through herself.
He was tall in stature but young in years.
In the last three months however he was, more importantly, growing up emotionally in a way I did not expect, and in a most delightful way.
He went through a very rough patch in the early summer that caused us a lot of grief, but then suddenly he started behaving like a young man as mothers would like young men to behave.
Recently I checked to see if he was warm enough in the clothes he was wearing. His answer, "Mum, don't worry. I have one layer of clothes and two layers of manliness."
His voice is only just breaking but he is thinking and learning ways of being manly ... and POLITE. That can be a shock to the system. But I am not complaining. The other mothers at school keep telling me how 'charming' he is. I reassure them that he's not always like that at home.
So it was interesting to read this article about how women like their men: Bring back the gentleman!
Someone asked a Bible College lecturer, "The Bible has lots of principles that wives are supposed to follow. What about the husbands?"
The lecturer said, without hesitation, that what God expects of the wife, He also expects of the husband.
Now we are not going to debate that here as it shades into the region of 'equality' and how equality is not the same as 'sameness', but some of the comments to this news report also suggest that men also expect women to be 'gentlewomen'.
Kindness, politeness, graciousness, awareness of others, both men and women are free to give these 'gifts' away. So why not give as generously as possible?
Instead just yesterday I saw a young lady speaking in a very agitated manner with her neck sticking out, finger jabbing in the air, as she told her companion (or victim?) what she was most unhappy about in a very loud voice in a very public place.
I see groups of older and younger teenagers, boys and girls, swaggering in the shopping precinct effing and blinding, eating and talking loudly, throwing rubbish onto the ground, etc. I often stopped my son if he were with me to say, "On no account do I want to see you or even hear reports of you behaving like that."
Worse, if I may say so, "If a girl behaves like that, then she is not worthy of you."
Manliness? Sometimes young men think that to be seen as kind or polite is to be seen as being weak, a wimp, not macho enough, etc. The truth is it takes a big man to be kind, and polite, and gracious and all that.
Because a big man knows that when push comes to shove, he is (probably) bigger, stronger and more courageous than those who merely talk. As my primary school teacher told me once, and I have never forgotten, empty vessels make the most noise.
If we had a daughter I would also expect her to be all that.
When I was young I read about girls being sent to 'finishing schools', to learn etiquette and the manners to help them get on with life.
I wonder if there is a market for my next business idea: a 'prep school' for young men and women as they go into the world, and as they prepare to settle down in a relationship. How many of our young book-smart people are able to live independently, keeping house, managing budgets, cooking, cleaning, ironing, etc without a live-in 'foreign domestic worker'?
Manliness? I think it begins at home. When dad shows that it is not beneath him to make tea and coffee, cook, etc.
What about 'womanliness' then? How does one practise womanliness without shading into flirtatiousness? I think that is a more complex matter.
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
Say "Sing-nga-pore"
A Singaporean says in ST Forum that we should learn to pronounce "Singapore" correctly. And I am with him.
However he goes on to say how it should be pronounced as "singer", which threw me.
Where I live one often hears people pronouncing 'singer' as "sing-ger" and 'singing' as "sing-ging" instead of what I would say as "sing-nging". (And 'drawing' is pronounced "draw-ring".)
I am almost certain that I am pronouncing it wrong as I often do, but my 'singing' sounds a bit like on this link: http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=singing&submit=Submit , and I believe this is the way the writer meant.
Interestingly on the same site, you will also find "Singapore":
http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=singapore&submit=Submit
which gives an alternative "American" pronunciation. Here it could be "Sing-nga-pore" or "Sing-ga-pore".
I am 'old school', and with a legacy of Bahasa Kebangsaan would prefer to say "Sing-nga-pore", which means that it is not pronounced as written. I think it sounds more elegant, less vulgar. But that's only my opinion.
I worked very briefly in Jakarta and noticed that a particular person in the office spoke Bahasa Indonesia in a very lilting manner. My colleagues said it's because she's from a certain part of Indonesia (eastern Java? I don't remember exactly) where they spoke more gently there.
My conclusion is the letter writer's quarrel is not "sing-guh" or "sing-gah", but the writer is asking for Sing-nga-poreans to use the more gentrified(?) 'ng' sound.
However he goes on to say how it should be pronounced as "singer", which threw me.
Where I live one often hears people pronouncing 'singer' as "sing-ger" and 'singing' as "sing-ging" instead of what I would say as "sing-nging". (And 'drawing' is pronounced "draw-ring".)
I am almost certain that I am pronouncing it wrong as I often do, but my 'singing' sounds a bit like on this link: http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=singing&submit=Submit , and I believe this is the way the writer meant.
Interestingly on the same site, you will also find "Singapore":
http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=singapore&submit=Submit
which gives an alternative "American" pronunciation. Here it could be "Sing-nga-pore" or "Sing-ga-pore".
I am 'old school', and with a legacy of Bahasa Kebangsaan would prefer to say "Sing-nga-pore", which means that it is not pronounced as written. I think it sounds more elegant, less vulgar. But that's only my opinion.
I worked very briefly in Jakarta and noticed that a particular person in the office spoke Bahasa Indonesia in a very lilting manner. My colleagues said it's because she's from a certain part of Indonesia (eastern Java? I don't remember exactly) where they spoke more gently there.
My conclusion is the letter writer's quarrel is not "sing-guh" or "sing-gah", but the writer is asking for Sing-nga-poreans to use the more gentrified(?) 'ng' sound.
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Today at the advice charity (3)
I can deal with mental illness (client #1). I can deal with debt (client #2). But I find it most difficult to deal with clients who are homeless.
It does not faze me when clients behave strangely, usually from a nervous tic, as a result of their physical or mental issues. She listened, she took notes, and she was going to do what I told her to do in order to help herself. "God bless," she said, when she left.
I was most impressed by the client who listed all his outgoings neatly and asked how he was to find the additional £200-£300 every month to make up the shortfall in income. This is certainly something that we could help with, and so an appointment was made for the client to return. Again, I sent him away with some 'homework'. He has to do the preparatory work before we could help him.
[Then an adviser told me how she had just seen a client I had interviewed. This client told her that I had done nothing for her. The adviser explained that I had been so concerned with her that I had phoned the manager to organize an appointment for her to see an adviser. She asked the client if she had done as I told: phone those people who would be able to advise her.
Client said "no". Adviser told her that she is the one who must make the phone calls. We are here to empower, not do their work for them. Adviser did give her a sample letter that she could use. Client apologized for making the comment about my being unhelpful.]
Then, two young homeless people. My heart went out to them.
I do not know the whole story, but I think the girl had been thrown out of her house by her mum, possibly because the mum was not happy with her relationship with the boy.
They have been messed about by a potential landlord after being supported by a homeless charity for a short period. The local council said it was "too late" to extend any help that day. They had to return the following day. The girl was petrified by the prospect of spending a (cold) night on the streets.
I rang around but could only leave her mobile number for the shelters to call her back.
Finally we found a shelter (the same one I phoned this time last year) that would take them if they could get a 'police referral' from a police station. They have extra beds, but only beds, to cope with the demand for shelter this winter.
On her notes I read that the couple had gone to Housing Services and she was told that she was not deemed 'vulnerable' unless she was pregnant or had a child.
Again, we see people are incentivized to have babies in order to access benefits. (She already has benefits, but needs housing.)
I said, "You are not planning to get pregnant, I hope." No, she said, they are both still in education although clearly neither has been able to attend class. She seems a really level-headed young woman and I pray and hope that they would settle somewhere soon, get their training done and find a job.
I very nearly offered to pray for them in my interview room, but I don't think my charity would accept that. However they could see how distressed I was by their plight.
"You know, I am a mother, too."
So I turned to my FB to ask friends to pray for these two.
As we come to the end of another year when we tend to take stock, I must count my blessings. It has not been an altogether smooth year. There was a major heartache right in the middle of it, but at least we have our little family to cling to.
For others, for the many I meet at the charity, the meaning and experience of family is quite, quite different
It does not faze me when clients behave strangely, usually from a nervous tic, as a result of their physical or mental issues. She listened, she took notes, and she was going to do what I told her to do in order to help herself. "God bless," she said, when she left.
I was most impressed by the client who listed all his outgoings neatly and asked how he was to find the additional £200-£300 every month to make up the shortfall in income. This is certainly something that we could help with, and so an appointment was made for the client to return. Again, I sent him away with some 'homework'. He has to do the preparatory work before we could help him.
[Then an adviser told me how she had just seen a client I had interviewed. This client told her that I had done nothing for her. The adviser explained that I had been so concerned with her that I had phoned the manager to organize an appointment for her to see an adviser. She asked the client if she had done as I told: phone those people who would be able to advise her.
Client said "no". Adviser told her that she is the one who must make the phone calls. We are here to empower, not do their work for them. Adviser did give her a sample letter that she could use. Client apologized for making the comment about my being unhelpful.]
Then, two young homeless people. My heart went out to them.
I do not know the whole story, but I think the girl had been thrown out of her house by her mum, possibly because the mum was not happy with her relationship with the boy.
They have been messed about by a potential landlord after being supported by a homeless charity for a short period. The local council said it was "too late" to extend any help that day. They had to return the following day. The girl was petrified by the prospect of spending a (cold) night on the streets.
I rang around but could only leave her mobile number for the shelters to call her back.
Finally we found a shelter (the same one I phoned this time last year) that would take them if they could get a 'police referral' from a police station. They have extra beds, but only beds, to cope with the demand for shelter this winter.
On her notes I read that the couple had gone to Housing Services and she was told that she was not deemed 'vulnerable' unless she was pregnant or had a child.
Again, we see people are incentivized to have babies in order to access benefits. (She already has benefits, but needs housing.)
I said, "You are not planning to get pregnant, I hope." No, she said, they are both still in education although clearly neither has been able to attend class. She seems a really level-headed young woman and I pray and hope that they would settle somewhere soon, get their training done and find a job.
I very nearly offered to pray for them in my interview room, but I don't think my charity would accept that. However they could see how distressed I was by their plight.
"You know, I am a mother, too."
So I turned to my FB to ask friends to pray for these two.
As we come to the end of another year when we tend to take stock, I must count my blessings. It has not been an altogether smooth year. There was a major heartache right in the middle of it, but at least we have our little family to cling to.
For others, for the many I meet at the charity, the meaning and experience of family is quite, quite different
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)