Having children and getting married has nothing to do with studying

It would appear that the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) will offer free modules to part-time students who marry or have children while studying. Although I understand Singapore's desperate push to encourage more babies, I wonder if it's going too far in the wrong direction.

First and foremost, taking a child responsibly does not stop at birth. With the resources needed to provide the child with the basic necessities of life, a parent will also have to devote his or her time to feeding that child. I guess a lot of part time students work part time because they are also part of the workforce. Between school and work, is this really the best time to have a child? Would it be the most responsible time to have a child since the individual would have little time?

Second, does this not hurt part-time students who may not be able to have a child? And if they are infertile or in poor health. Is not this a flagrant and ignorant act of discrimination?

Providing part-time students who marry free modules is another means of stigma and discrimination. This type of incentive completely ignores the realities of dating and marriage. This is not to say that just because you want to get married, you will find someone with whom you are compatible. Many people want to get married but may not have had the opportunity to meet someone from a compatible one. Does this system punish those who do not have the chance to meet a life partner?

I can understand offering free modules to students who can not afford the course or who show outstanding performance. These are related to the study. Marriage and having children, however, have no connection with the study. I do not see any direct correlation between the offer of free modules and the encouragement of marriage and procreation. The offer of free modules in this way is no more than a useless exercise of "shaming" those who are childless and / or unmarried?

Finally, why did the author of this article in the Straits Times mention only favorable people? ? To have a balanced image, should both sides of the barrier be represented? The media has a duty to report the news objectively and, to do this, a wider range of people must be interviewed and interviewed. That's not enough for me, I'm afraid of it.