So I've had requests to keep my entries strictly in English, for the simple reason that some cannot decipher what I'm writing. Ok, I know my Mandarin is not fantastic, but my hanyu pinyin can't be that bad right?
Anyway, rest assured that I'll try to limit the use of dialect in this post to just the title, simply because the effect of "Ai Mai" is more impactful than "Want or Not".
All praise and thanks to certain body/bodies, on whom the realisation has just hit that single mums are mums too, single mums are now entitled to government-paid maternity leave... ...
That is, if they tie the knot with the child's father within 3 months of the child's birth. (C'mon, did you really not see this coming???)
Scenario 1
Perhaps the father of the child is already married and the mother didn't know of his status. (We all know the bastards in some men, don't we?)
Scenario 2
We all have our moment(s) of folly. The father of the child is not responsible enough a man for her to spend the rest of her life with. In this instance, she may well be better off without him.
I could list a myriad scenarios, but my point is: Would the single mother not have wed the father of the child if circumstances had permitted? Find me one person who willingly chooses to be a single mum. We all know how difficult this can be in this sunny gem of an island.
As someone mentioned when I brought up scenario 1 on this topic: I think the value they are really trying to instill is this "Please do not get involved with a married man, or else you lose out on ONE month's maternity leave"
Back to how difficult it is being a single mum in this sunny gem of an island that we live on. Since they have Gone the Extra Mile to provide for single mums' additional month of maternity leave, do single mums now Gian the Extra Month and quickly marry the child's father regardless of the person that he is?
Sheesh. So want to give or not? Want to give, give properly la.
-
Sometimes, when I get bored, I get the urge to head to the hairdresser's and get something done to my hair. This time, I decided that I ...
-
Woke up at 4am to catch the finals between Djokovic and Fish. Disappointing. Wanted Fish to win. By the time the match ended, RT was awake a... -
Caught The Lake House with Shades of Pink last evening. I might as well have spent the time taking the train to Lakeside for a decent dinner...
4 comments:
So if 3 months thereafter, they divorce then how?
Quite duh right?
This is news to me. Like you wrote, some genius (!) finally realised that a single mother is also a mother but the catch is they have to marry the father of the child within 3 months. WTF is that!?!?!?!?
This really is a gem of an island. I wasn't sure to laugh or cringe at the stupidity at the situation.
shades of pink - I think the mother will then have to pay back the one month's leave lor.
PAY????
Ok then when does this 'allowance' period end?
Supposing, you get divorced eight months thereafter, or two years thereafter, does it mean you STILL have to pay back the one month?
If yes, then that's simply ridiculous.
If no, then when is the 'cut off date' and how arbitrary that will be.
They trying to maintain intact families what. But they fail to realise that numbers alone do not make an intact family lor.
So with this rule, one can have kids from different fathers AND still get the extra month, so long as they marry the father of the child, no? Creating intact FAMILIES what. Not one, but many.
haha
Post a Comment