http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,129914,00.html?
A multi-generation family torn asunder over monetary disputes ...
The way I see it, the person ultimately responsible was the patriarch Tan Poh Hiang (98 years old), because he wanted to keep all 9 his children (and by extension, the children's families) all around him.
From a medicine hall to a T-shirt printing company, he kept them together in 3 units (a shop and 2 shophouses) at Hock Kee road.
"There had never been a clear line between 'my money' and 'your money', said third son Loon Khoh, 61. It has always been 'our money'."
All that got derailed when the government acquired the family property for construction of a new MRT line and paid S$1.2 million for it. The money went into a bank account opened in the name of 3 of the brothers.
Yes, it has always been a very traditional Chinese mentality to think of clan living together and pooling the money together for common use, to be decided by the elders or the patriarch/matriarch.
But Singapore is not China, especially not China of the past.
People do not subordinate their lives to the clan. Each have his/her own aspirations.
What the patriarch Tan Poh Hiang did reduced the individuality of the sons and kept them from becoming fully-realised adults, taking full responsibilities for their own households.
In an earlier blog, I mentioned about social contract being necessary for different individuals who live in the same society to interact. If the terms of the contract are vague, what will be inevitable are frustrations, disputes, protracted disagreements because the boundaries are not clearly drawn.
That is why sometimes the most problematic disputes are within the family rather than between non-relatives.
We don't need a black&white for every little detail, but we need to make sure what is significant are covered properly, especially where monetary issues are concerned.
At 98, patriarch Tan Poh Hiang was very much a product of his times in terms of how he thought and wanted to keep his family together.
But as someone who did not form his own family within such a clan system, as someone who moved from China to Thailand in the 1920s, then to Batam, before finally settling in Singapore in 1950s, he had never experienced what his children and their families would go through. He was at the top of the pyramid right from the start.
No wonder he did not forsee his children's family members would feel strongly about whether they are getting what they perceive to be their fair share.
He just wanted his children and his grandchildren to be just that, without really understanding what makes them tick inside.
I know I'm basing these thoughts on my own personal experience with my parents and the extended family, that I'm seeing the Hock Kee House family saga through my own past.
From bitter lessons learned the hard way, I'll have my children set up their own nests when they are grown up. I'll keep in touch with them, continue to love and support them, but will make it clear they will be their own persons.
Assuming we all continue to live in Singapore, will I actually dare to let my daughter move out to a place of her own when she's earning her own keep but before she gets married?
As much as the father in me wants to continue to protect and care for her, I must encourage her to do so.
I'm very pro-family. I am also aware that a young professional staying on his/her own can become very selfish and self-centred when he/she does not have to take care of another family member (a contributor to divorce rates, I'm sure).
I think it's very much to do with the earlier upbringing. When they come of age, they come of age. If they have been raised being pro-family, then that's all I can do, except to pray they will meet life partners who are just as pro-family.
Well, my grandfather had a plot of land and a few houses in Payoh Lai, somewhere in the rural Punggol, that was back in the 1950s-60s. Yes, he too want his family to stay together. My father was the first to leave the nest, partly because when he married my mother, it was kind of without much of a blessing from his family. They did not like my mother because she speaks Cantonese, whilst the whole family spoke either Hakka or Teochew. My mother insisted that my father move out. He did after almost losing my mother. His moving out was consitituted as a betrayal of the family. However, my grandfather insisted that after his passing, my father gets a share of the properties, he did, he had the ancesteral house to his name. My dad never went back to claim the house, nor did he truly sever his ties with his family. After my grandfather passed on, my father left the house to his brother, who wanted to remain at the ancesteral house.
ReplyDeleteAgain the government came into the scene, the family lost their houses together with the land around them, including the several acres of coconut plantation, as well as fruit trees. In those days they paid out pittance. In any case, my father ploughed back the money into the family concern and whatever money the investment company made, he gave them to his four elder sisters. I guess my father too had lived in that era and time. He could have kicked up high hell for not getting a single cent off the family estate, but he did not... perhaps, should it be because he given an upbringing that states family is very important, incidentally, all the members of the family were not educated in Chinese, but in English, as Montfort School and Holy Innocent School were just round the corner, and being Catholic, made it easy for them.
I could see that perhaps, our values had eroded, sometimes, something should go, but values are the guidelines that makes us human, if we loose it, it would not be surprising that the law of the jungle should kick in.
From what I understand from your post, Centaur, is that the assets involved were landed properties which originally belonged to the grandfather. In Hock Kee's, it was both a business and a residence.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong on the distinction, but to me, if a property belonged to the buyer, it was his to do as he pleased, to give to whomever he pleased.
Children should not assume they have automatic rights to inherit it - especially if they have not done anything towards paying or supporting it.
I was told according to customs, as I'm eldest son and firstborn, my firstborn, even if a girl, is entitled to a share of the inheritance from grandparents.
Well, that's not something I'll teach my daughter. Rather, I'll teach all my children whatever they gets from *daddy and mummy* will be because we love them, not because they has a right to it.
Most importantly, we want them to learn to stand on their own two feet instead of expecting they'll be inheriting or depending on family money to make their way.
I don't see this so much as a "values" issue rather than a matter of traditions and expectations.
Jumping Jacks. Reminds me of Ba Jin's Jia. Sad.
ReplyDeleteI just don't adhere to the Five Generations Under One Roof thingey. That is better scraped than retained. Sorry.
I wish my parents thought so as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the Singapore context of relative safety, etc., I don't see why there should be a differentiation between sons and daughters.
It could still work if the mentality is changed, and individuals actually got enough personal space under the same roof as well as personal space in a non-literal sense.
ReplyDeleteBut not with the olden days mentality, and in a small country like Singapore. Very few could afford a palatial residence.
The thingey you mention don't have to be scrapped, I think it will die a natural death.
I think si liao...
ReplyDeleteI used to hear "儿子在外面最多给人家打死" ...
ReplyDeleteEh?
ReplyDeleteThe traditional mindset is a woman has more to lose, her 'dishonour' brings shame to the family as well. On the other hand, it is perfectly fine for guys to sow their wild oats, while not promoted, certainly is condoned and accepted.
ReplyDeleteSo your parents (and by extension you) live with your grandparents too?
ReplyDeleteNo no. Not with grandparents.
ReplyDelete