An unwed mother is less of a mother than a married one
Is this the stand the government is taking in its pro-family drive?
Part of Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s reply when queried as to why pro-family benefits do not extend to unwed mothers:
“We recognise they [unwed mothers] have needs and we will do our best to help them. But they cannot be pegged at the same level as women who are married or who were previously married and are now divorced or are widowed through no fault of their own.”
This is hogwash.
Married or not, a mother is a mother and she will need help in raising her children. This is even more so in the case of unwed mothers and yet the government decides that these are exactly the type of people they will graciously turn their backs on.
But of course, the state claims there are reasons for this, no doubt for the greater good as inevitably seems to be the case.
For one, Dr Balakrishnan claims that we cannot afford to let the state become a surrogate father.
But he’s missing the point totally.
The issue here isn’t whether unwed mothers should get more benefits than married ones, it’s whether they should get equal benefits. We’re not talking about the government making any special effort to help them. We’re talking about giving them the assistance and respect they deserve based on their status as mothers and NOT on their marital status.
Dr Balakrishnan goes on to say:
“Our intention was not to make it harder for them. But we did need to send a social signal that in marriage and procreation... the best environment which children are born into must be a nuclear family.”
Let me get this straight. By denying these benefits to a single mother, who in all probability, will have to work, raise her child and endure some level of discrimination, the government isn’t intentionally making things difficult? Maybe he means this on some higher metaphysical level which I am unable to comprehend cos it sure looks like unwed mothers are getting the short end of the stick here.
And what’s that I hear about a “social signal”? Maybe he could’ve been clearer by saying this “We want to make sure that people will look at an unwed mother’s situation and think to themselves “I wouldn’t wanna be in her shoes”.
An aside: Why didn’t Irene Ng, the MP who raised this question, have any rebuttals? Oh wait, I forgot I was reading the Straits Times.
Part of Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s reply when queried as to why pro-family benefits do not extend to unwed mothers:
“We recognise they [unwed mothers] have needs and we will do our best to help them. But they cannot be pegged at the same level as women who are married or who were previously married and are now divorced or are widowed through no fault of their own.”
This is hogwash.
Married or not, a mother is a mother and she will need help in raising her children. This is even more so in the case of unwed mothers and yet the government decides that these are exactly the type of people they will graciously turn their backs on.
But of course, the state claims there are reasons for this, no doubt for the greater good as inevitably seems to be the case.
For one, Dr Balakrishnan claims that we cannot afford to let the state become a surrogate father.
But he’s missing the point totally.
The issue here isn’t whether unwed mothers should get more benefits than married ones, it’s whether they should get equal benefits. We’re not talking about the government making any special effort to help them. We’re talking about giving them the assistance and respect they deserve based on their status as mothers and NOT on their marital status.
Dr Balakrishnan goes on to say:
“Our intention was not to make it harder for them. But we did need to send a social signal that in marriage and procreation... the best environment which children are born into must be a nuclear family.”
Let me get this straight. By denying these benefits to a single mother, who in all probability, will have to work, raise her child and endure some level of discrimination, the government isn’t intentionally making things difficult? Maybe he means this on some higher metaphysical level which I am unable to comprehend cos it sure looks like unwed mothers are getting the short end of the stick here.
And what’s that I hear about a “social signal”? Maybe he could’ve been clearer by saying this “We want to make sure that people will look at an unwed mother’s situation and think to themselves “I wouldn’t wanna be in her shoes”.
An aside: Why didn’t Irene Ng, the MP who raised this question, have any rebuttals? Oh wait, I forgot I was reading the Straits Times.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home