WHEN I read that Gina Lollobrigida, at 79, was to wed Javier Rigau, aged 45, I was happy for them. They have joined the club of older women marrying younger men.
These couples include Joan Collins, 73, and Percy Gibson, 41; Demi Moore, 43, and Ashton Kutcher, 28; and Madonna, 48, and Guy Ritchie, 38. I too belong to this club, although my husband is only three years younger than I am.
Society likes to accept the pretty picture of a relationship where the couple is of the same age or when the man is older.
When Woody Allen was involved with Soon-Yi Previn, who is 35 years younger, they made headlines not so much because of their age difference, but because of the incestuous flavour to the fact that she was his former lover's adopted daughter.
When Michael Douglas married Catherine Zeta-Jones, who is 25 years younger, the world laughed it off and accepted it as a May-December wedding.
It is different when the woman is older. The argument or the fear is that the man will leave the older woman for a younger one when she ages.
They fail to see that when a younger man starts a relationship with an older woman, he has already seen what she will look like when she grows older. Therefore, the relationship will probably be based on other criterion than looks alone.
When we first started to date, we also set tongues wagging. You see, I knew my husband when he was doing his O levels and I was waiting to go to university.
Everyone, from my parents to the nuns in the convent, was sure that our relationship was doomed to fail.
They could not understand what we could see in each other when our worlds were so far apart — he had yet to celebrate his 16th birthday, I was about to enter the adult world.
Many, including ourselves, were sure we would each find someone else in future more compatible. So, we did not commit to each other for three years.
Younger girls closer to his age were chasing him while I was keeping my options open for older men. But in the end, we chose to stay together as we could communicate well.
One day, a highly-educated girlfriend and I talked about her choice of a life partner. Her selection criteria were as to be expected: Someone of similar age, education and status. We explored the possibility of someone younger or older, but she felt it would not work.
Yet, another friend is waiting to separate from her husband even though they are of similar age, share the same interests and have similar social standing.
Instead of waiting for someone who fits our preconditions, why not be open to others around us? Had I been closed to having a relationship with someone as improbable as my husband, we would have missed out on 18 years of a happy marriage.
I have known my husband for 25 years and many people have asked us the secret of staying in love for so long.
Like Zoe Tay, I too swallow. Not any pills that will keep my skin smooth forever, but my pride, so that our relationship will be smooth-sailing.
Too often, it is tough for us to accept that we may be wrong when our spouse or partner corrects us.
Some of us like to have the last word. But many women do not understand that winning an argument might make us lose the battle to keep the marriage alive. Always try to consider if what our spouse says has a grain of truth.
Instead of asking what Javier Rigau sees in an older woman after being with her for 22 years, we could reflect on how they have managed to keep this relationship alive for so long.
I am sure it is not based on looks alone, even though Gina was once considered the most beautiful woman in the world. Some might say that he's in it for the money, but I would like to suggest that we apply Ockham's razor.
After shaving away all the unnecessary assumptions, the simplest explanation for this unlikely couple is this: Love conquers all things, even warts and saggy skin.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
It's the maid's job.
A TUTOR was giving tuition in a home when she observed that her student did not flush the toilet after he used it. His father said it was the maid job's to flush the toilet.
In another incident, a group of Secondary 1 students were washing up after going sailing. The teacher observed that one student did not turn off the tap after using it. His explanation was that at home, it was the maid's job to do so after he had taken a bath.
And of course, some of us have come across young National Service recruits who do not know how to lace up their boots because they have never learnt how to put their shoes on.
Surely, I joke?
No, the stories are true.
While a maid is a lifeline to many families, perhaps it's time to ask if things have gone over the line.
Many women continue to go to work because the maids have taken over the role of a homemaker. Sometimes, the maids take over the home so completely that family members do not know where things are kept.
Some maids have also taken over the role of bringing up the children, so much so that the kids are traumatised when the maid is sent away.
Where do we draw the line? Should the maid be expected to flush the toilet after we use it? What about waking her up at 2am, as some have been known to do, to make supper for a hungry family member?
Sometimes, we forget that the maid is also a human being in need of encouragement and dignified treatment.
A local pastor was asked to leave a church after advocating that the faithful give their maid a Sunday off as it is a day of rest.
But unless we change the way we relate to our maids, we are in real danger of producing a generation of children who are selfish and look down on the littlest of menial jobs.
An indication of this trend can be observed in many classrooms in Singapore. In the past, classes had a duty roster whereby students took turns to do cleaning jobs — be it sweeping or clearing the rubbish bin.
Ask any teacher now and likely, he or she will tell you that it is getting tougher to make students do these simple tasks. Sometimes students retort: "Why should I?"
Once I heard this argument from a student. He said that since his father pays income tax, the school can employ cleaners to clean the classroom.
When our three teenagers were growing up, we did not have a maid till they were in primary school. They were sent to a daycare centre where they learnt to bathe themselves. They had to pack their towel and a change of clothes every day, and they even had to make their own breakfast.
Even now, although we have a maid, we still train our kids to look after the youngest, a one-year-old.
They know how to bathe him, change his diapers and make milk for him. They know how to cook and wash plates and if the maid were to pack up and go, they would be able to look after the house.
The maid is our helper who is there to make our life more comfortable; she is neither a surrogate parent nor a slave.
Unless we learn to treat her with respect, our children will not be able to learn to show respect to others.
Do we want to turn our children into little emperors?
This article was first published in TODAY on 17th October 2006
In another incident, a group of Secondary 1 students were washing up after going sailing. The teacher observed that one student did not turn off the tap after using it. His explanation was that at home, it was the maid's job to do so after he had taken a bath.
And of course, some of us have come across young National Service recruits who do not know how to lace up their boots because they have never learnt how to put their shoes on.
Surely, I joke?
No, the stories are true.
While a maid is a lifeline to many families, perhaps it's time to ask if things have gone over the line.
Many women continue to go to work because the maids have taken over the role of a homemaker. Sometimes, the maids take over the home so completely that family members do not know where things are kept.
Some maids have also taken over the role of bringing up the children, so much so that the kids are traumatised when the maid is sent away.
Where do we draw the line? Should the maid be expected to flush the toilet after we use it? What about waking her up at 2am, as some have been known to do, to make supper for a hungry family member?
Sometimes, we forget that the maid is also a human being in need of encouragement and dignified treatment.
A local pastor was asked to leave a church after advocating that the faithful give their maid a Sunday off as it is a day of rest.
But unless we change the way we relate to our maids, we are in real danger of producing a generation of children who are selfish and look down on the littlest of menial jobs.
An indication of this trend can be observed in many classrooms in Singapore. In the past, classes had a duty roster whereby students took turns to do cleaning jobs — be it sweeping or clearing the rubbish bin.
Ask any teacher now and likely, he or she will tell you that it is getting tougher to make students do these simple tasks. Sometimes students retort: "Why should I?"
Once I heard this argument from a student. He said that since his father pays income tax, the school can employ cleaners to clean the classroom.
When our three teenagers were growing up, we did not have a maid till they were in primary school. They were sent to a daycare centre where they learnt to bathe themselves. They had to pack their towel and a change of clothes every day, and they even had to make their own breakfast.
Even now, although we have a maid, we still train our kids to look after the youngest, a one-year-old.
They know how to bathe him, change his diapers and make milk for him. They know how to cook and wash plates and if the maid were to pack up and go, they would be able to look after the house.
The maid is our helper who is there to make our life more comfortable; she is neither a surrogate parent nor a slave.
Unless we learn to treat her with respect, our children will not be able to learn to show respect to others.
Do we want to turn our children into little emperors?
This article was first published in TODAY on 17th October 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
A Clear Solution to a Hazy Problem
"Tigers and elephants are fleeing the burning jungles. Birds are falling from the murky skies. School children are fainting at their desks. Ships are colliding at sea.
"As a filthy haze from vast Indonesian forest fires continues to darken the sky across seven South-east Asian nations, illness, ecological destruction and economic hardship are growing... "
After reading the above extract from The New York Times, you can be forgiven for thinking it describes the haze we have been experiencing over the past few days.
In fact, this article was published on Oct 26, 1997. Nine years have passed and the solution to this ecological disaster still seems hazy (pun intended).
After surviving the 1997 haze, we should have put in place a set of protocols agreed upon by Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia to prevent this from recurring.
This was partially achieved when the Asean (Association of South-east Asian Nations) Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution was signed in 2002. Its objective is to prevent and monitor haze pollution as a result of land and/or forest fires which should be mitigated, through concerted national efforts and regional and international cooperation.
The problem is that as of August 2005, only seven out of the 10 member countries have ratified the agreement. Indonesia, where the fires originate, has yet to ratify the treaty. If nothing more is done, the same excerpt quoted above might be used to describe the situation five, 10, even 15 years later.
Apart from the short-term effect of the haze where the effect on human beings is most noticeable, the haze also has long-term serious consequences.
According to Mr Klaus Toepfer, the United Nations Environment Programme's executive director, a study by 250 scientists released in 2002 showed that "the thick brown haze which forms over much of Asia during the tropical dry season could have profound effects on human health, crop yield and rainfall patterns in the Asian region".
It is reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the tropical Indian Ocean surface by as much as 10 per cent, with a larger percentage reduction over the Indian subcontinent.
Up till now, the haze has been dealt with as a national problem of Indonesia. It is easy to point the finger at corrupt local officials who turn a blind eye to allow plantation owners to continue clearing their land by setting fire to it.
Similarly, it is easy to send satellite photographs of the hotspots and expect Indonesia to take action against the plantation owners, or to offer fire-fighting equipment.
Perhaps there is a need to change the way the haze problem is approached. As the Asean agreement so aptly indicated, the haze does not respect national boundaries. It goes where the wind blows. Hence, the ownership of this problem should not rest on Indonesia's shoulders alone.
But what can we do as we do not wish to intrude on Indonesia's sovereignty?
Perhaps a fund can be set up to provide plantation owners and farmers with incentives to clear the forest in other ways. An educational campaign could be embarked on to get farmers to look beyond their individual needs to the collective need of Asia.
This would be difficult. But if an effort is not made to change mindsets, the haze problem will continue. The recurrence of the haze has shown that this crisis cannot be solved at the individual or national level alone.
Are we ready to play a more active role, or do we continue to be content to breath in air with a PSI that exceeds 100, as it did on Saturday?
The choice is clear.
"As a filthy haze from vast Indonesian forest fires continues to darken the sky across seven South-east Asian nations, illness, ecological destruction and economic hardship are growing... "
After reading the above extract from The New York Times, you can be forgiven for thinking it describes the haze we have been experiencing over the past few days.
In fact, this article was published on Oct 26, 1997. Nine years have passed and the solution to this ecological disaster still seems hazy (pun intended).
After surviving the 1997 haze, we should have put in place a set of protocols agreed upon by Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia to prevent this from recurring.
This was partially achieved when the Asean (Association of South-east Asian Nations) Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution was signed in 2002. Its objective is to prevent and monitor haze pollution as a result of land and/or forest fires which should be mitigated, through concerted national efforts and regional and international cooperation.
The problem is that as of August 2005, only seven out of the 10 member countries have ratified the agreement. Indonesia, where the fires originate, has yet to ratify the treaty. If nothing more is done, the same excerpt quoted above might be used to describe the situation five, 10, even 15 years later.
Apart from the short-term effect of the haze where the effect on human beings is most noticeable, the haze also has long-term serious consequences.
According to Mr Klaus Toepfer, the United Nations Environment Programme's executive director, a study by 250 scientists released in 2002 showed that "the thick brown haze which forms over much of Asia during the tropical dry season could have profound effects on human health, crop yield and rainfall patterns in the Asian region".
It is reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the tropical Indian Ocean surface by as much as 10 per cent, with a larger percentage reduction over the Indian subcontinent.
Up till now, the haze has been dealt with as a national problem of Indonesia. It is easy to point the finger at corrupt local officials who turn a blind eye to allow plantation owners to continue clearing their land by setting fire to it.
Similarly, it is easy to send satellite photographs of the hotspots and expect Indonesia to take action against the plantation owners, or to offer fire-fighting equipment.
Perhaps there is a need to change the way the haze problem is approached. As the Asean agreement so aptly indicated, the haze does not respect national boundaries. It goes where the wind blows. Hence, the ownership of this problem should not rest on Indonesia's shoulders alone.
But what can we do as we do not wish to intrude on Indonesia's sovereignty?
Perhaps a fund can be set up to provide plantation owners and farmers with incentives to clear the forest in other ways. An educational campaign could be embarked on to get farmers to look beyond their individual needs to the collective need of Asia.
This would be difficult. But if an effort is not made to change mindsets, the haze problem will continue. The recurrence of the haze has shown that this crisis cannot be solved at the individual or national level alone.
Are we ready to play a more active role, or do we continue to be content to breath in air with a PSI that exceeds 100, as it did on Saturday?
The choice is clear.
Sunday, October 8, 2006
SOMETHING FISHY IS GOING ON
Recently, I gave birth to my sixth child, Anicius, by caesarean at Gleneagles Hospital. When I awoke after the operation, my husband broke the bad news that our child had been warded in the Neonatal Intensive Care unit (NICU)because of a
lung infection.
I was depressed,as I did not wish my newborn son to spend his days in a cold, sterile environment. When I gave birth to my five other children at a restructured hospital, my experience of the nursery was not a happy one. Often, newborns were left to cry as there seemed to be too few nurses around. The nursery was quite an uninviting place and parents were not allowed in.
What a surprise it was when I entered the NICU at Gleneagles for the first time.
I saw Fish come alive — that is to say, the Fish! philosophy is practised in this unit.
The philosophy comes from a book by writer and film-maker Dr Stephen Lundin, inspired by the author ’s visit to Seattle ’s Pike Place Fish Market. The market is famous for being madly successful thanks to its fun, bustling, joyful atmosphere and great customer service.
The Fish! philosophy advocates an innovative work environment where a playful, attentive and engaging attitude leads to more energy, enthusiasm, productivity and creativity.
The NICU was decorated as an aquarium, with cute little fish hanging from the ceiling and pictures of fish plastered on the wall. Music from Gold 90.5FM was always playing. The visual and audio environment is meant to stimulate the development of premature babies.
In the course of more than 10 days in the NICU,I had the privilege to observe the staff constantly practising the four principles of the Fish! philosophy.
The first principle is: Play. I have seldom seen other nurses play with the newborns as much as those at Gleneagles. They constantly tease, joke and talk to the babies, more often than not calming a crying baby in the process.
The second principle is: Make their day. As is the policy in other NICUs, only the parents of the children warded there are allowed in. But, knowing that grandparents, siblings and other anxious relatives are also eager to see the latest additions to their families, the nurses came up with a simple solution.
They take digital photos of the babies and print out copies to pass around to relatives. They even footprint each baby and turn it into a cute little poster, complete with stickers and stars. It is simple actions like these that make the parents ’ day.
The third principle is: Be there. The nurses don ’t just make time for the new-borns, they also keep an eye on the parents. They pay attention to make sure the mother gets enough rest and that she is
not too tired from looking after her child.
The last principle is: Choose your attitude. It is stressful working in the NICU. Nurses spend long hours in a pressure-packed environment and have to respond to every beep from the machines monitoring the patients.
It is easy for a nurse to become task-oriented and overlook the fact that she is dealing with human lives. Yet, I observed that the nurses’ attitude towards these babies was one of hope and joy.
They truly believe that their patients will get better, and this hope rubs off some-how on these fragile newborns.
Singapore has placed a premium on training its workforce. For example, teachers must undergo 100 hours of training every year.
The civil service, through the Institute of Public Administration and Management, has invited many world-renowned trainers to Singapore.
Psychologist Daniel Goleman has espoused emotional intelligence here, motivational speaker Stephen Covey has advocated the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and education expert Dr Spencer Kagan is invited every year to conduct workshops on cooperative learning.
Teachers have also received training in using the Fish! Philosophy. However, being trained does not necessarily mean one puts the ideas into practice.
My NICU experience has prompted me to reflect on the training I have received in my career as a teacher. Most of the time, the concepts taught remain at the cognitive level.
But after seeing the Fish! Philosophy in action in the Gleneagles NICU, I now feel motivated to put what I have learned into practice.
This article was first published in TODAY on 29.8.2005
Recently, I gave birth to my sixth child, Anicius, by caesarean at Gleneagles Hospital. When I awoke after the operation, my husband broke the bad news that our child had been warded in the Neonatal Intensive Care unit (NICU)because of a
lung infection.
I was depressed,as I did not wish my newborn son to spend his days in a cold, sterile environment. When I gave birth to my five other children at a restructured hospital, my experience of the nursery was not a happy one. Often, newborns were left to cry as there seemed to be too few nurses around. The nursery was quite an uninviting place and parents were not allowed in.
What a surprise it was when I entered the NICU at Gleneagles for the first time.
I saw Fish come alive — that is to say, the Fish! philosophy is practised in this unit.
The philosophy comes from a book by writer and film-maker Dr Stephen Lundin, inspired by the author ’s visit to Seattle ’s Pike Place Fish Market. The market is famous for being madly successful thanks to its fun, bustling, joyful atmosphere and great customer service.
The Fish! philosophy advocates an innovative work environment where a playful, attentive and engaging attitude leads to more energy, enthusiasm, productivity and creativity.
The NICU was decorated as an aquarium, with cute little fish hanging from the ceiling and pictures of fish plastered on the wall. Music from Gold 90.5FM was always playing. The visual and audio environment is meant to stimulate the development of premature babies.
In the course of more than 10 days in the NICU,I had the privilege to observe the staff constantly practising the four principles of the Fish! philosophy.
The first principle is: Play. I have seldom seen other nurses play with the newborns as much as those at Gleneagles. They constantly tease, joke and talk to the babies, more often than not calming a crying baby in the process.
The second principle is: Make their day. As is the policy in other NICUs, only the parents of the children warded there are allowed in. But, knowing that grandparents, siblings and other anxious relatives are also eager to see the latest additions to their families, the nurses came up with a simple solution.
They take digital photos of the babies and print out copies to pass around to relatives. They even footprint each baby and turn it into a cute little poster, complete with stickers and stars. It is simple actions like these that make the parents ’ day.
The third principle is: Be there. The nurses don ’t just make time for the new-borns, they also keep an eye on the parents. They pay attention to make sure the mother gets enough rest and that she is
not too tired from looking after her child.
The last principle is: Choose your attitude. It is stressful working in the NICU. Nurses spend long hours in a pressure-packed environment and have to respond to every beep from the machines monitoring the patients.
It is easy for a nurse to become task-oriented and overlook the fact that she is dealing with human lives. Yet, I observed that the nurses’ attitude towards these babies was one of hope and joy.
They truly believe that their patients will get better, and this hope rubs off some-how on these fragile newborns.
Singapore has placed a premium on training its workforce. For example, teachers must undergo 100 hours of training every year.
The civil service, through the Institute of Public Administration and Management, has invited many world-renowned trainers to Singapore.
Psychologist Daniel Goleman has espoused emotional intelligence here, motivational speaker Stephen Covey has advocated the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and education expert Dr Spencer Kagan is invited every year to conduct workshops on cooperative learning.
Teachers have also received training in using the Fish! Philosophy. However, being trained does not necessarily mean one puts the ideas into practice.
My NICU experience has prompted me to reflect on the training I have received in my career as a teacher. Most of the time, the concepts taught remain at the cognitive level.
But after seeing the Fish! Philosophy in action in the Gleneagles NICU, I now feel motivated to put what I have learned into practice.
This article was first published in TODAY on 29.8.2005
Saturday, September 30, 2006
HOW TO BE YOUR KIDS BEST FRIEND
As a parent with six children, three of whom are teenagers, my heart goes out to Felix Kumar (Sept 26) when he lost the respect of his daughter.
As a school educator, I have encountered many parents with similar problems and learnt lessons that have prevented our children from being disengaged from the family.
Firstly, a rich life filled with family activity does not automatically ensure the development of respectful and obedient children. Increasingly, I have observed that children are pampered with luxury goods and expensive overseas trips. Such treats, on their own, will not earn the respect of children.
Rather, time spent communicating with them and establishing relationships is more important.
One Sunday, at the NUS Guild House, I saw a father having dinner with his wife and children. He could proudly claim to be a good father as he had provided a restaurant meal for his children. But throughout dinner, he was looking at his laptop playing blackjack and other computer games, and he did not once talk with his wife or children.
Although my husband and I have demanding jobs, we spend time listening, observing and discussing interesting topics with our children. When one of them felt too stressed by his polytechnic life, we went for a long walk after midnight to allow him to ventilate.
When another was infatuated with a friend working at a fast-food joint, we went as a family to observe his service attitude. When our youngest daughter's tooth fell out, we were there to catch it and ensure that the tooth fairy replaced it with a coin.
If we are there when they are up or down, the children will learn to trust us with their problems, joys and fears. This process doesn't happen overnight but has to be started when they are young. As long as we are their best friends, they will consider our views when we offer them.
Secondly, the Internet and the phone are tools; they are neither good nor bad in themselves. We instilled the belief that technological gadgets can be our friend or our enemy. We ensure that when the kids use the tools, they set a limit and stick to it.
Thirdly, we try not to embarrass the children. If there is a need to reprimand them, we do not do so in public as this would only alienate them. As much as we want them to respect us, we must also learn to show respect for our children.
Sometimes, they have secrets they are uncomfortable to share with us. When this happens, we wait patiently until they are ready to share their problems. We must give them space to form their own tastes and interests, within acceptable limits.
Lastly — and this is the most difficult lesson of all — as parents, we must constantly reflect and realise we can be wrong at times. Once we have made a mistake, we share it with our children and sincerely ask them to accept our apology. This way, they learn that mistakes are not the end of the world and reconciliation is a possibility.
Of course, when they make a mistake, they have to accept the consequences and be punished — but only after the punishment is explained to them.
Ultimately, parents are responsible for the way their children turn out. If we focus on establishing and developing values such as respect, honesty, diligence and self-confidence, our children will not be easily swayed by peer pressure, be it at school, the playground or workplace.
The writer, an educator, is a mother of six.
As a school educator, I have encountered many parents with similar problems and learnt lessons that have prevented our children from being disengaged from the family.
Firstly, a rich life filled with family activity does not automatically ensure the development of respectful and obedient children. Increasingly, I have observed that children are pampered with luxury goods and expensive overseas trips. Such treats, on their own, will not earn the respect of children.
Rather, time spent communicating with them and establishing relationships is more important.
One Sunday, at the NUS Guild House, I saw a father having dinner with his wife and children. He could proudly claim to be a good father as he had provided a restaurant meal for his children. But throughout dinner, he was looking at his laptop playing blackjack and other computer games, and he did not once talk with his wife or children.
Although my husband and I have demanding jobs, we spend time listening, observing and discussing interesting topics with our children. When one of them felt too stressed by his polytechnic life, we went for a long walk after midnight to allow him to ventilate.
When another was infatuated with a friend working at a fast-food joint, we went as a family to observe his service attitude. When our youngest daughter's tooth fell out, we were there to catch it and ensure that the tooth fairy replaced it with a coin.
If we are there when they are up or down, the children will learn to trust us with their problems, joys and fears. This process doesn't happen overnight but has to be started when they are young. As long as we are their best friends, they will consider our views when we offer them.
Secondly, the Internet and the phone are tools; they are neither good nor bad in themselves. We instilled the belief that technological gadgets can be our friend or our enemy. We ensure that when the kids use the tools, they set a limit and stick to it.
Thirdly, we try not to embarrass the children. If there is a need to reprimand them, we do not do so in public as this would only alienate them. As much as we want them to respect us, we must also learn to show respect for our children.
Sometimes, they have secrets they are uncomfortable to share with us. When this happens, we wait patiently until they are ready to share their problems. We must give them space to form their own tastes and interests, within acceptable limits.
Lastly — and this is the most difficult lesson of all — as parents, we must constantly reflect and realise we can be wrong at times. Once we have made a mistake, we share it with our children and sincerely ask them to accept our apology. This way, they learn that mistakes are not the end of the world and reconciliation is a possibility.
Of course, when they make a mistake, they have to accept the consequences and be punished — but only after the punishment is explained to them.
Ultimately, parents are responsible for the way their children turn out. If we focus on establishing and developing values such as respect, honesty, diligence and self-confidence, our children will not be easily swayed by peer pressure, be it at school, the playground or workplace.
The writer, an educator, is a mother of six.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Showing our true face
NOW that the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has declared the SK-II products sold in Singapore are safe, women can with ease of mind use these products to whiten their complexions and delay the ageing process.
When women are discontented with themselves, there is always a demand for such products and their seductive promises. As long as we refuse to accept the natural process of ageing and fight tooth-and-nail to halt or reverse it, the market will continue to be saturated with ads that promise to turn women into Cinderellas.
So it is reassuring to know that the HSA has taken the effort to test and ensure the safety of the SK-II products.
But what about other beauty products sold here? Should we wait for a cue from other countries that raise the alarm first before we take the necessary steps?
Could we instead set the standard for others to benchmark their products with proactive testing? We could work towards the goal that if it is safe in Singapore, it would be considered safe to use in other regions.
That aside, this recent incident has made me reflect on why some women feel so naked without make-up.
Why do we have to put on a mask daily to hide our true faces? Why are we so afraid to grow old or to proclaim our real age?
After fighting so hard to be emancipated from the clutches of gender stereotypes and male dominance, why are we enslaving ourselves to a particular image that is most often defined by the advertising industry, which is dominated by men?
When I got married in the 1980s, it was typical of most brides to engage professional make-up artists. Often when the latter was done with the bride, the bridegroom would have a shock as the make-up artist would have transformed her into a stranger.
My husband not only insisted that I did not engage a make-up artist but also that I did not put on make-up after we got married. He said that cosmetics would only produce a temporary illusion and, in the long run, hasten the ageing process.
Eighteen years and six children later, many people still cannot believe that I am "over the hill" at 43, with a 17-year-old son at my side. But even without make-up, my face has remained firm and smooth with hardly a visible crow's foot line.
I am neither a scientist nor a beautician and I cannot provide any definitive reason or evidence for why I have managed to keep my skin in such good condition.
And yes, when I reached the big 40, I was plagued with insecurities and doubts about whether I was still attractive as a woman — as I am constantly confronted with images of beautiful, youthful women through the mass media.
Yet, I can continue to have engaging and fun conversations with men. They still enjoy my company despite my less-than-flawless skin and far-from-ideal weight (did I mention I have six kids?).
Perhaps it is time we give men more credit. There are those who enjoy being in the company of authentic, confident women, rather than pandering to the whims and fancies of women whose beauty is adulterated with layers of cream and face paint.
This article first appeared in TODAY on 27th September 2006
When women are discontented with themselves, there is always a demand for such products and their seductive promises. As long as we refuse to accept the natural process of ageing and fight tooth-and-nail to halt or reverse it, the market will continue to be saturated with ads that promise to turn women into Cinderellas.
So it is reassuring to know that the HSA has taken the effort to test and ensure the safety of the SK-II products.
But what about other beauty products sold here? Should we wait for a cue from other countries that raise the alarm first before we take the necessary steps?
Could we instead set the standard for others to benchmark their products with proactive testing? We could work towards the goal that if it is safe in Singapore, it would be considered safe to use in other regions.
That aside, this recent incident has made me reflect on why some women feel so naked without make-up.
Why do we have to put on a mask daily to hide our true faces? Why are we so afraid to grow old or to proclaim our real age?
After fighting so hard to be emancipated from the clutches of gender stereotypes and male dominance, why are we enslaving ourselves to a particular image that is most often defined by the advertising industry, which is dominated by men?
When I got married in the 1980s, it was typical of most brides to engage professional make-up artists. Often when the latter was done with the bride, the bridegroom would have a shock as the make-up artist would have transformed her into a stranger.
My husband not only insisted that I did not engage a make-up artist but also that I did not put on make-up after we got married. He said that cosmetics would only produce a temporary illusion and, in the long run, hasten the ageing process.
Eighteen years and six children later, many people still cannot believe that I am "over the hill" at 43, with a 17-year-old son at my side. But even without make-up, my face has remained firm and smooth with hardly a visible crow's foot line.
I am neither a scientist nor a beautician and I cannot provide any definitive reason or evidence for why I have managed to keep my skin in such good condition.
And yes, when I reached the big 40, I was plagued with insecurities and doubts about whether I was still attractive as a woman — as I am constantly confronted with images of beautiful, youthful women through the mass media.
Yet, I can continue to have engaging and fun conversations with men. They still enjoy my company despite my less-than-flawless skin and far-from-ideal weight (did I mention I have six kids?).
Perhaps it is time we give men more credit. There are those who enjoy being in the company of authentic, confident women, rather than pandering to the whims and fancies of women whose beauty is adulterated with layers of cream and face paint.
This article first appeared in TODAY on 27th September 2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
DRAWING THE LINES WITH RULES
RECENTLY, one of my students attended the birthday party of his friend who turned 17.
At the party, there were alcoholic drinks ranging from champagne to beer. The teenagers were allowed to drink freely with the blessing of the birthday boy's parents. A few got drunk and some had to be sent home in a taxi. And a neighbour had to call the police around midnight to control the noise level.
A few questions arose in my mind. How did the birthday boy manage to stock up on such a large assortment of alcoholic drinks? Why did the parents condone such behaviour? What would I do if my son attended such a party and got home drunk?
While contemplating the issue, my acquaintance said I should not control my children too much, or they might rebel against me. For example, she prefers her teenager to tell her what he is doing, to minimise the risk of him doing something without her knowledge. In this case, she would rather her son get drunk at home than at a pub. She argues that being an accommodating parent in this manner is preferable to being autocratic.
But is this the beginning of a slippery slope? Should we, as parents, accept any behaviour that a child does without establishing any concept of right or wrong behaviour?
For example, what should we do if our teenage children decided to smoke? Or drink excessively? Should we accept them as they are in the name of honesty, or would we feel better if they smoked and drank in secret?
To take it to the extreme: If our child killed someone in front of us, would it make the act any less wrong?
As a parent, where do we draw a line when it comes to disciplining our children? Excessive discipline often leads to children who conform to expected behaviour in front of the parents, but it does not necessarily lead to permanent changes in behaviour. If a parent is too lax, a child is free to do whatever he or she wants and there is no guarantee he or she will grow up to be a functioning member of society.
While there are many ways to discipline children, some general strategies are worth considering.
Firstly, the rules must be clear. As a general guideline, my children know they must not be rude to their grandmother, mother or the maid, or they will be reprimanded. They are not allowed to ask us to buy anything for them when they are at a shopping centre. They have to seek permission when they want to eat sweets.
Our teenagers have a 10pm curfew but my husband and I are open to allowing them to come home later if they ask us first. These rules are reviewed and changed to accommodate our growing children's needs.
Secondly, rules must be consistently enforced. Often, children approach the other parent when the first has already said no to a request. If my children ask my husband and I permission for anything, we ask for the other parent's response. In this respect, both parents must speak with one voice or the child will learn to be manipulative.
Thirdly, parents should focus on the behaviour, not the child. We avoid calling our children "stupid" or "idiots" — rather, we say their behaviour is unacceptable and that there is a consequence to their actions. Telling lies is unacceptable and when they are caught with their hand in the pie, privileges are withdrawn.
Each family has different set of rules for their children and what applies for one family may not be acceptable to another. What is important is to remember that children need boundaries defined for them, so that they may learn to handle their freedom correctly.
When they grow up and leave the nest, we as parents can be at peace knowing their life will be guided by a set of values that will see them through many storms. However, if we fail in this aspect and give them unlimited freedom to do as they like, when they like, the result could be a selfish, self-seeking adult.
The choice is ours to make.
This article first appeared in TODAY on 12th September.
At the party, there were alcoholic drinks ranging from champagne to beer. The teenagers were allowed to drink freely with the blessing of the birthday boy's parents. A few got drunk and some had to be sent home in a taxi. And a neighbour had to call the police around midnight to control the noise level.
A few questions arose in my mind. How did the birthday boy manage to stock up on such a large assortment of alcoholic drinks? Why did the parents condone such behaviour? What would I do if my son attended such a party and got home drunk?
While contemplating the issue, my acquaintance said I should not control my children too much, or they might rebel against me. For example, she prefers her teenager to tell her what he is doing, to minimise the risk of him doing something without her knowledge. In this case, she would rather her son get drunk at home than at a pub. She argues that being an accommodating parent in this manner is preferable to being autocratic.
But is this the beginning of a slippery slope? Should we, as parents, accept any behaviour that a child does without establishing any concept of right or wrong behaviour?
For example, what should we do if our teenage children decided to smoke? Or drink excessively? Should we accept them as they are in the name of honesty, or would we feel better if they smoked and drank in secret?
To take it to the extreme: If our child killed someone in front of us, would it make the act any less wrong?
As a parent, where do we draw a line when it comes to disciplining our children? Excessive discipline often leads to children who conform to expected behaviour in front of the parents, but it does not necessarily lead to permanent changes in behaviour. If a parent is too lax, a child is free to do whatever he or she wants and there is no guarantee he or she will grow up to be a functioning member of society.
While there are many ways to discipline children, some general strategies are worth considering.
Firstly, the rules must be clear. As a general guideline, my children know they must not be rude to their grandmother, mother or the maid, or they will be reprimanded. They are not allowed to ask us to buy anything for them when they are at a shopping centre. They have to seek permission when they want to eat sweets.
Our teenagers have a 10pm curfew but my husband and I are open to allowing them to come home later if they ask us first. These rules are reviewed and changed to accommodate our growing children's needs.
Secondly, rules must be consistently enforced. Often, children approach the other parent when the first has already said no to a request. If my children ask my husband and I permission for anything, we ask for the other parent's response. In this respect, both parents must speak with one voice or the child will learn to be manipulative.
Thirdly, parents should focus on the behaviour, not the child. We avoid calling our children "stupid" or "idiots" — rather, we say their behaviour is unacceptable and that there is a consequence to their actions. Telling lies is unacceptable and when they are caught with their hand in the pie, privileges are withdrawn.
Each family has different set of rules for their children and what applies for one family may not be acceptable to another. What is important is to remember that children need boundaries defined for them, so that they may learn to handle their freedom correctly.
When they grow up and leave the nest, we as parents can be at peace knowing their life will be guided by a set of values that will see them through many storms. However, if we fail in this aspect and give them unlimited freedom to do as they like, when they like, the result could be a selfish, self-seeking adult.
The choice is ours to make.
This article first appeared in TODAY on 12th September.
Saturday, September 2, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
