I have been badgering my brother to be a guest writer on my blog, but he says he is on holiday so do not wish to have anything to do with any writing whatsoever. Lazy bum! But he related this story to me which I find very touching. It was on one episode of “Full Circle”, the new series which touches on heartlanders' real life events. The first episode was on how a set of twin sisters, one brought up by a Malay family, the other brought up by a Chinese family, got reunited only fifty years later. The one my brother recounted to me was on this week’s episode, about how a mother got reunited with her youngest son only to see him on the Death Row.
Apparently the boy was fostered out when his parents divorced, to a family who only had three daughters but no son. However, when his foster mother got pregnant again and gave birth to a son, he started being abused. When he was fifteen, he could not stand it anymore and ran away from home.
He dropped out of school and started mixing around with all the bad company. He worked as a pimp in a lounge. After a big brawl, he beat up a client and accidentally killed him. Although there was no intention to kill in the first place, he was sober and strong enough to render enough hurt to kill the victim, and when the victim had already collapsed, still continued beating him. Thus he was sentenced to death, at the age of 18. His natural mother sat through every court appearance and broke down when she heard the verdict. The defending lawyer said had he been just eight months and one day younger, he would have been too young to be sentenced to death and be sentenced to life imprisonment to be kept at the President’s pleasure instead.
A sad story indeed. How many parents can be reunited with their long-lost children in the first place, let alone to be reunited only to lose the kid again? When the mother last saw her son in the prison cell before he was hanged, he declared that she was not at fault so should not blame herself for his plight. Seemed like he was remorseful afterall. I think the mother would be glad to see him so sensible at least.
In cases like these, where do the faults lie? The natural parents? The foster parents? The boy? There is no right or wrong answer to this. This can make a good General Paper topic, “Who is solely responsible for the downfall of the boy? Discuss.”
In my opinion, all parties were at fault in one way or another. The natural parents were so irresponsible to foster him out in the first place just because they faced problems in their own marriage. Even if a couple split up, they should agree or let the court decide on the upbringing and custody of the child. However I believe it was very painful for the mother to give him away like that.
The foster parents were even more at fault. If they wanted to adopt him, then they should take the full responsibility of taking care of him and treating him as their own child, regardless of whether they have anymore children after that. It was totally inexcusable for treating him as an outcast just because they managed to have their highly-desired son and abused him as he was not of their own.
What about the boy himself? No doubt he fell into bad company, but he grew up thinking nobody wanted him, and there was no role model for him to look out for. Naturally he would go with his friends whom he thought were more there for him than his own family, even if his friends indulged in bad habits like smoking or taking drugs. He was just a misguided teenager as there was no one to teach him the right values. That is why I feel for him more than anyone else.
I feel that for a couple to even start a family, both must ensure they are willing to be committed and take the responsibility of raising the kids in spite of whatever circumstances later on. My cousin is also divorced, but she and her ex-husband are sharing the child-rearing responsibility between them. And for a couple who wants to adopt a kid, they must also be committed to take full responsibility for the child’s well-being, even though they may have their own children later on.
Giving a child away is not that big a sin. If the child is forced to grow up under poor circumstances with just a single parent who cannot afford to give him the best and send him to school, then perhaps giving him away to a good family may turn out to be a better thing. But adopting a child and later mistreating him is a bigger sin. It is not just irresponsible but downright mean.
No wonder my cousins and friends who are married still do not plan to have any children. They always say that if they are still not financially stable to provide the best to the child, then it is better not to bring a kid into the world. Makes sense to me. But what is the joy in marriage if there is no children? I always think a couple can only enjoy a honeymoon stage for just a year or two the most, after that it is best to have children to spice up the marriage. But that also depends how old I will be if and when I ever get married. If I get married before 30 (still hoping) then I can still afford to wait a little. If I get married after 30, then I want to have kids fast because I do not wish to be an overaged mother and give birth to an abnormal child.
Apparently the boy was fostered out when his parents divorced, to a family who only had three daughters but no son. However, when his foster mother got pregnant again and gave birth to a son, he started being abused. When he was fifteen, he could not stand it anymore and ran away from home.
He dropped out of school and started mixing around with all the bad company. He worked as a pimp in a lounge. After a big brawl, he beat up a client and accidentally killed him. Although there was no intention to kill in the first place, he was sober and strong enough to render enough hurt to kill the victim, and when the victim had already collapsed, still continued beating him. Thus he was sentenced to death, at the age of 18. His natural mother sat through every court appearance and broke down when she heard the verdict. The defending lawyer said had he been just eight months and one day younger, he would have been too young to be sentenced to death and be sentenced to life imprisonment to be kept at the President’s pleasure instead.
A sad story indeed. How many parents can be reunited with their long-lost children in the first place, let alone to be reunited only to lose the kid again? When the mother last saw her son in the prison cell before he was hanged, he declared that she was not at fault so should not blame herself for his plight. Seemed like he was remorseful afterall. I think the mother would be glad to see him so sensible at least.
In cases like these, where do the faults lie? The natural parents? The foster parents? The boy? There is no right or wrong answer to this. This can make a good General Paper topic, “Who is solely responsible for the downfall of the boy? Discuss.”
In my opinion, all parties were at fault in one way or another. The natural parents were so irresponsible to foster him out in the first place just because they faced problems in their own marriage. Even if a couple split up, they should agree or let the court decide on the upbringing and custody of the child. However I believe it was very painful for the mother to give him away like that.
The foster parents were even more at fault. If they wanted to adopt him, then they should take the full responsibility of taking care of him and treating him as their own child, regardless of whether they have anymore children after that. It was totally inexcusable for treating him as an outcast just because they managed to have their highly-desired son and abused him as he was not of their own.
What about the boy himself? No doubt he fell into bad company, but he grew up thinking nobody wanted him, and there was no role model for him to look out for. Naturally he would go with his friends whom he thought were more there for him than his own family, even if his friends indulged in bad habits like smoking or taking drugs. He was just a misguided teenager as there was no one to teach him the right values. That is why I feel for him more than anyone else.
I feel that for a couple to even start a family, both must ensure they are willing to be committed and take the responsibility of raising the kids in spite of whatever circumstances later on. My cousin is also divorced, but she and her ex-husband are sharing the child-rearing responsibility between them. And for a couple who wants to adopt a kid, they must also be committed to take full responsibility for the child’s well-being, even though they may have their own children later on.
Giving a child away is not that big a sin. If the child is forced to grow up under poor circumstances with just a single parent who cannot afford to give him the best and send him to school, then perhaps giving him away to a good family may turn out to be a better thing. But adopting a child and later mistreating him is a bigger sin. It is not just irresponsible but downright mean.
No wonder my cousins and friends who are married still do not plan to have any children. They always say that if they are still not financially stable to provide the best to the child, then it is better not to bring a kid into the world. Makes sense to me. But what is the joy in marriage if there is no children? I always think a couple can only enjoy a honeymoon stage for just a year or two the most, after that it is best to have children to spice up the marriage. But that also depends how old I will be if and when I ever get married. If I get married before 30 (still hoping) then I can still afford to wait a little. If I get married after 30, then I want to have kids fast because I do not wish to be an overaged mother and give birth to an abnormal child.
0 comments:
Post a Comment