Basket.

Just a few days after I bitched them out, the ST Forum throws me a bone. So here we are: My children are not my personal responsibility, Part X.


Ban teen parties that go on past midnight

ONE of the best things about living in Singapore is the knowledge that it is a very safe city. Low crime rates have led to us developing a casual take on certain matters. However, as the adage goes: 'Low crime does not mean no crime'. I sometimes wonder if Singaporeans are basking in a false sense of security, taking their personal and property safety for granted.

What is particularly alarming is the fact that nightspots like Zouk and Play in Tanjong Pagar are organising non-alcoholic parties for teenagers under the legal drinking age of 18. These establishments point to the fact that they are not breaking any laws because they do not serve alcohol at these parties.

However, as a father of a 16-year-old girl, I find it irresponsible for such establishments to encourage teenagers who are yet of a responsible and mature age to engage in a 'late-night' lifestyle. These parties may not serve alcohol, but they carry on well into the early morning. My daughter recently attended a party on March 15 that lasted until 4am.

Singapore's streets are relatively safe, compared to those in other countries. However, as a parent, I cannot help but worry when my teenage daughter is out roaming the streets after a party.

I understand the establishments want to cultivate new business and are not seen to be breaking the law as long as they ensure that no alcohol is served.

However, responsible businesses need to run on a moral obligation to society as well, especially when youth and children are concerned.

I am all for my daughter having a social life. But I want her to be safe, and one of the best ways to be sure of that is for her to come back at a reasonable hour. Parties like the one she went to should end no later than midnight.

Perhaps establishments like Zouk, and even government bodies such as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, should look into developing guidelines regulating the conduct of these parties with youth participation. Parents, businesses and the Government should work hand in hand to cultivate healthy and responsible lifestyle habits among youth.


The first thing you ought to notice is that the first paragraph is almost completely irrelevant to the rest of the letter. From reading the rest of the letter, this individual is obviously a concerned parent who wishes that his daughter will not stay out so late. Understandably, he is worried about her safety. I do not, however, see how such worries necessitate a haughtily moralistic admonishment of Singaporeans for being complacent on crime. He could have replaced it with something more relevant and a lot less nauseatingly moralistic. But then again being moralistic is a distinct hallmark of Singaporeans.

What is unfortunately also a distinct hallmark of Singaporeans (or, to be fairer, humanity in general, but this island seems to have a particular affection for this affliction) is a tendency to blame and question others with regards to matters of personal responsibility. Hence the yearly ritual of parental complaints about exams being too hard, or children not being able to enter NUS, that sort of thing. What we have got here is an identical concept - the abdication of personal responsibility, in this case personal responsibility for the safety, well-being and general upbringing of one's own offspring.

Our letter-writer here, as mentioned earlier, is concerned as his teenaged daughter has been coming home very late from parties. However, he appears to believe that the fault does not lie with him as a parent, but rather with the clubs that conduct such parties. He goes on to admonish the clubs for even daring to conceive such events of undoubtedly Bacchanalian decadence, and suggests that in order to get his daughter to come home at a more earthly hour, they should cut their events short. Somehow, of course, not one thing in the letter is any of his fault. Never mind that this is his daughter, his own flesh-and-blood, we are talking about here; and no matter that he as a father has the ultimate responsibility - along with his wife, if he has one - for his child.

I mean, isn't it the responsibility of parents to nurture and discipline children? Is not one aspect of this discipline the ability to set rules and get children to follow them? Obviously it's easier said than done, but look: if you can't get your daughter to listen to a word you say then you've got bigger problems than her being out all night at non-alcoholic parties. Our author apparently either has not thought of this, or does not agree. The clubs are responsible and they should be punished and regulated instead. He is effectively asking the state to do his parenting for him, and that is thoroughly ridiculous.

At least he was smart enough to hastily put in that last sentence about parents, the state and businesses working together, so that his abdication of parental responsibilities doesn't seem too obvious. But it's a mere fig leaf for his indefensible position. Bottom line: you want your daughter safe in bed at a time you desire, achieve it by acting like a responsible parent. Can't do that? You have bigger problems than a complaint letter can solve.