An issue which has been recently brought up in the news would be that of organ trading, and its place in Singapore. Apparently, Mr. Tang Wee Sung, a prominent Singaporean businessman, was arrested and charged for illegal organ trading. This refers to the outlawed practice of ‘buying’ and ‘selling’ a person’s organs, in the guise of organ donation. There is a multitude of varying opinions on the issue at hand, ranging from strong approval to calls for it to remain illegal.
According to a recent survey, most young Singaporeans actually disapprove of this practice. They claim that it was “just not right” to buy and sell parts of the human body, even though this may lead to a greater number of lives saved. Out of the two hundred or so people surveyed, seven in ten expressed this opinion.
Personally, I feel that this reaction is unjustified. We must do what we can to spare our fellow human beings from prolonged pain, and even death, even if they are as squeamish as organ trading. There are many times when conducting an organ trade would be beneficial for both the parties, the donor and the recipient. Not only does the recipient have his condition alleviated, but the donor often receives a handsome payment. In fact, I have once come across an article which showed how many men in an Indonesian village have turned to selling their organs in order to escape the poverty cycle. By selling their unneeded organs, such as a part of their liver or a kidney, they have enough money to use as capital in a business and are able to benefit financially, thus bringing about a higher standard of living.
Additionally, another criticism of the majority’s viewpoint would be that it is far too idealistic and sentimental. To quote someone speaking on this topic, “most people who oppose organ trading have probably not have any experience” of the plight of the sufferers of organ failure. They are willing to let patients suffer unnecessary pain, just because they have no relatives who can donate an organ. On an emotional level, I urge everyone who opposes organ trading to empathize with the patients who truly need it. It is naïve to think that it is more important what is “just right”, rather than the practical solution offered by the selling of organs. We must not allow these so-called “ethical issues” to cloud our judgment and deter us from saving more lives.
Of course, organ selling might have some drawbacks. In such a system, the poor patients may be marginalized because the organs go to the highest bidder. Those who cannot afford to pay the costly price of an organ could be left behind, unable to find a replacement organ. Additionally, there may be health risks which allow diseases or conditions to be passed from donor to recipient, especially if there are unscrupulous sellers out there.
However, these arguments are precisely why we should legalize organ trading. These arguments are applicable only because organ trading is illegal. Currently, because organ trading is illegal, it is done unregulated and dangerously, with shady deals between donors and recipients. This is precisely what allows the unscrupulous sellers to cheat patients, and also the reason behind the high prices. If organ selling is legalized, the government could act as an effective third party to make sure everything goes smoothly and is above board. Also, it could help to regulate and subsidize the price of the organs, in order to ensure that the poorer patients would not lose out. With an effective system of checks and balances to prevent any form of abuse, organ trading would be able to proceed smoothly and we would be able to reap the benefits. We can clearly see how organ trading would benefit us practically, through a greater amount of human lives saved, and economically, with organ trading being a viable source of income for those with lower income. It also benefits socially as well, for those without family or friends are still able to relieve their conditions through the buying of organs.
I urge all Singaporeans who oppose organ trading to get off your ethical high horses. Insisting that we outlaw organ trading because it is “just not right” would be to deprive many people of their health and comfort, for the sake of your naïve view of the world. We can all see how it would bring about greater benefit than harm, so it should be legalized. As I have stated, we must not allow a childish view of ethics to overrule our better sense and stop us from being practical. Legalizing organ trading is in fact the best step forward for all of us.
Thursday, 28 August 2008
7 in 10 surveyed say 'no' to lifting ban; those who want it legalised call for government controls
| Section: | News |
| By: | MELISSA SIM, VINCENT LEOW, JOCELYN LEE, CHERYL TAN |
| Publication: | The Straits Times 04/02/2007 |
| Page: | 4 |
| No. of words: | 700 |
SINGAPOREANS are against changing the law to allow organs to be bought and sold here.
In a Sunday Times poll of 200 people aged 17 to 72, about seven in 10 said "no" when asked if the country should lift its ban on organ trading.
The No. 1 reason: It's just not right to allow parts of the human body to be transacted like any other commodity.
The minority who were for such a change felt, understandably, that it would help save more lives.
But even within this group, the bulk or 81 per cent, felt that checks and balances in the form of government regulation would be necessary. This will forestall a free-for-all situation where organs go to the highest bidder, leaving the poor with nothing.
The survey reflects the ground sentiment on a debate which has been raging over the last two weeks.
It was sparked by a Forum letter in The Straits Times written by director of the National Neuroscience Institute Lee Wei Ling.
Dr Lee had argued that there was nothing wrong in incentivising a potential living donor with money, provided a competent doctor has first determined that there were no health risks. The end result, she said, is still another life saved.
Currently, living transplants are mostly between relatives – where money is not likely to have changed hands – though non-relatives can be considered. In both cases, the Transplant Ethics Committee of the hospital gives the go-ahead.
The Human Organ Transplant Act also allows for the removal of the kidney, liver, heart and cornea from non-Muslim Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) who have died.
Those who want the law on organ trading changed feel that it would mean a bigger supply of organs to better meet the needs of patients.
There were a total of 85 kidney transplants – from dead and living donors – performed on Singaporeans and PRs last year.
As at Jan 26 this year, there were 543 end-stage renal patients on the waiting list for kidneys, though this was down from a peak of 673 in 2003.
But for Singaporeans like trainee teacher Karen Thiang, organs are "sacred" and not meant to be traded, good intentions notwithstanding. "You can't put a price on them," said the 33-year-old.
Others who don't buy the argument are equally wary about a situation where organs go to the highest bidder, leading to escalating prices which would preclude the poor.
So even if organ trading is legalised, the state should preferably be the sole buyer, while giving a helping hand to the poor, they said.
"A system of subsidies and incentives would be an effective way to increase supply and ensure that patients who can't afford it are not deprived of the opportunity of a transplant," said undergraduate Chew Yun Zhi.
Dr Lam Pin Min, an ophthalmologist and a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Health, said the relevant government agencies can set strict rules and regulations to determine the priority of organ recipients.
They can also decide the amount of "compensation" for donors because of "extra pain and discomfort" they undergo and "downtime" post-surgery.
Commenting on the survey results, MP Halimah Yacob, who heads the Health GPC, said it showed the dilemma faced by Singaporeans who recognise that organ sales could save lives but feel a natural revulsion towards the idea.
"This means that Singaporeans are not yet ready to deal with the issues that arise from organ trading, particularly the ethical considerations," she said.
"It is difficult for the Government to move ahead of people's values and norms and allow organ trading."
The Health Ministry added that it was not surprised by the survey results.
"Ethically, it is indeed very hard to accept organs as a commodity that can be bought and sold, as the possibilities of abuse and profiteering are tremendous.
"While ethical boundaries do change with time and public sentiments, we would need to study the implications of organ trading carefully. More importantly, society as a whole needs to discuss the issue openly. We welcome the debate."
Additional reporting by Jocelyn Lee & Cheryl Tan
simlinoi@sph.com.sg
leowmc@sph.com.sg
'You can't attach a value to how much an organ is worth. If I smoke, it's worth $5,000; if I don't, it's worth $10,000? I don't think that's right.'
– JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENT TAN GUANG LING, 18
Monday, 7 July 2008
Reply
I shall be addressing Suphasak's point about the economic successes of democracy as opposed to other political systems. While I agree that not all democracies have perfect, or even stable economies, there is certainly a greater likelihood for a nation to have economic success if it is democratic. As I have stated in my essay, this would be due to several virtues of democracy, such as the greater amount of support it gets from world superpowers. If you would compare a different political system, such as communism, you would find a distinct gap in the per capita incomes of citizens. For example, in the old USSR, often considered to be the most "perfect" epitome of Communism, citizens earned far less than other democracies of the day, such as the United States.
Also, Suphasak comments on the rich-poor divide. Yes, although it is possible that democracies may suffer from this problem, but if you consider the alternative you would find other political systems suffer from this to an even greater degree! In an country ruled by aristocrats or a tyrant, it is obvious that the oligarchy would inherently fare much better than the plebians, and compared to this, democracy is clearly not so blatant. Additionally, as stated before, most democracies have constitutions which clearly aim to prevent abuse of any one group of people- including the poor. It is likely that a democratic country would have checks and balances to protect the economically disadvantaged, because clearly, it depends on the power of the people.
Also, Suphasak comments on the rich-poor divide. Yes, although it is possible that democracies may suffer from this problem, but if you consider the alternative you would find other political systems suffer from this to an even greater degree! In an country ruled by aristocrats or a tyrant, it is obvious that the oligarchy would inherently fare much better than the plebians, and compared to this, democracy is clearly not so blatant. Additionally, as stated before, most democracies have constitutions which clearly aim to prevent abuse of any one group of people- including the poor. It is likely that a democratic country would have checks and balances to protect the economically disadvantaged, because clearly, it depends on the power of the people.
Disagreement
Anurak has already written down the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, and I agree with his argument to a large extent.
However, there is a point which I will like to point out in his essay that I disagree with.
Anurak has stated that 'democracy creates better standards of living for all the people'. This statement is definitely not true. If democracy is really able to create better standards of living for all the people, then why are there still chaos and instability in a country that is democratic (eg. Thailand)? Even if it is in an economy sense, democracy is not able to create better standards of living for all the people. I agree that free markets are better as people are allowed to choose their own jobs and join labour unions. Moreover, if the government totally control the economy, then there tent to create dishonesty and corruption. Yet, there is a loop hole in the system of free market itself. In countries where great inequality of wealth exists (due to past discrimination or other unfair practices), the states should play a stronger role in them. If not, they poor will definitely be of disadvantages. For example, in Indonesia, the richer becomes richer, and the poorer becomes poorer. The phenomenon becomes a vicious cycle, unable the poor to get out of their social status. Therefore, even in economic sense, democracy fails to become a system which suits the need of all the people, and it is not even come close to a point where everyone's standard of living is better.
Pesonally, I feel that democracy as a system itself is able to create peace within a society. However, what make the system impossible to become as close as a 'utopia' state is because of external factors, such as tyranny of majority or corruption.
How to avoid all these complications?
However, there is a point which I will like to point out in his essay that I disagree with.
Anurak has stated that 'democracy creates better standards of living for all the people'. This statement is definitely not true. If democracy is really able to create better standards of living for all the people, then why are there still chaos and instability in a country that is democratic (eg. Thailand)? Even if it is in an economy sense, democracy is not able to create better standards of living for all the people. I agree that free markets are better as people are allowed to choose their own jobs and join labour unions. Moreover, if the government totally control the economy, then there tent to create dishonesty and corruption. Yet, there is a loop hole in the system of free market itself. In countries where great inequality of wealth exists (due to past discrimination or other unfair practices), the states should play a stronger role in them. If not, they poor will definitely be of disadvantages. For example, in Indonesia, the richer becomes richer, and the poorer becomes poorer. The phenomenon becomes a vicious cycle, unable the poor to get out of their social status. Therefore, even in economic sense, democracy fails to become a system which suits the need of all the people, and it is not even come close to a point where everyone's standard of living is better.
Pesonally, I feel that democracy as a system itself is able to create peace within a society. However, what make the system impossible to become as close as a 'utopia' state is because of external factors, such as tyranny of majority or corruption.
How to avoid all these complications?
Friday, 6 June 2008
“Democracy creates stability in society.”
I would say that this statement is largely true, and will discuss this reasoning in the course of this essay. To start, we must first define the terms within this statement. “Democracy” refers to a state of government where political sovereignty is held by the people, who either exercise it directly in the decision-making process or elect representatives. By “society”, we refer to the general population within the country in which this democracy takes place. Lastly, “stability” means that the people are content politically, socially and economically and as such will not raise protests over issues concerning these areas. I will be basing my argument on the following points: Firstly, democracy ensures that the common man has a choice. Secondly, democracy allows a better standard of living. Thirdly, democracy promotes foreign relations.
As my first point, I say that democracy ensures that the common man has a choice. This means that the everyman has the right to make his own decisions and play an active role in developing the future of his country. Obviously, the people believe that they themselves should know what is best for their country. By letting them make this choice, democracy satisfies them and makes them content. For example, in Myanmar, people protested vigorously because the junta did not allow them to have any say while making the decisions. This led people to campaign for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.
In democracy, the people are able to take matters into their own hands, instead of just feebly protesting the decisions made by the government which they feel are wrong. Although this is most apparent in direct democracy, where the people get to vote during each and every decision, this is also true for representative democracy. Voters get to select a candidate whose policies they agree with, so they can be assured that the choices their representative makes are correct, in their opinion. All of this means that socially, society will be stable because of the contentment people experience in making their own choices.
Secondly, democracy creates better standards of living for all the people, in an economic sense. Democracies have a free market, where the people themselves regulate the economy, and the government imposes little control over the prices or market forces. This generally means that there are fewer taxes, as compared to other political systems like totalitarianism, and would mean that the people can prosper. In an oligarchy or autocracy, for example, there is a significant divide between the ruling classes and the so-called plebians, who suffer from this system. This definitely will not promote stability, for the disparity would surely draw much ire from the citizens.
Some might bring up the idea of communism, where the people share all possessions and wealth, ensuring that there is little disparity. In theory, this sounds good, but if we turn to nations such as Soviet Russia, we can see that it did not work. The government heavily regulated the prices of resources and ended up increasing inflation, to the point where the economy was in danger of collapsing. Thus, from these examples we can see that democracy, in which people can make their own economic choices, promotes economic stability as well.
Thirdly, democracy promotes foreign relations as well. Cynical as it may seem, democracy indeed allows a country to have better foreign ties, especially with world superpowers such as the United States of America. In fact, the United States is so keen on democracy that they actively try to “convert” other, non-democratic nations to their political system. We also know that it has different, better foreign policies for countries which practice democracy, and is more likely to give foreign aid to a democratic country. In fact, one interesting example would be the way “democracy” and its derivatives are used in the names of countries. North Korea, though clearly a dictatorship under Kim Jong Il, calls itself the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea”. It lives under a façade of democracy in order to improve relations, though this did not work. Thus, democracy gives a country an advantage in its ties and relations with other countries, and allows it political stability.
However, there are still problems with the concept of democracy, and some criticism must be made. Firstly, democracy as a process is inefficient, especially direct democracy. If there is a vote taken every time a decision has to be made, this would surely delay the process and take up time. Even if representatives are used, some time would still be needed to debate the issue in Parliament among the government and opposition members. In a dictatorship, for example, the dictator can instantly pass a bill without needing to consult anyone. This ensures efficiency, which is important in the running of a country.
Secondly, majority rule in a democracy sometimes leads to marginalization of the minority of the people. If the people decide to push a bill which is disadvantageous to a minority group, and then vote to pass it, they could successfully marginalize this group. It would be a case of the strong bullying the weak, because it can wield greater political clout. This detracts from social stability.
Thirdly, and perhaps most relevant would be the fact that the common man may not know what is best for himself. A normal man on the street might not be perceptive or politically aware enough to make a decision for his country, or choose the best representative to make these kinds of decisions. It could be argued that decision-making should be left to experts in the respective fields, such as politics and economics, for they know what is best for the country in their fields.
I shall address these criticisms point by point. To the first point, that democracy is inefficient, this is untrue. With the advent of technology, the government can streamline the voting process. An example of this would be in Switzerland, where citizens can take part in polls online. This still ensures that the country is not bogged down by its own decision making process.
To the second point, there are always safeguards against this in all nations. Normally, this would be in the constitution upon which the nation is founded, such as in the United States of America. It states that “every man has the right to pursue his own happiness”, meaning that every individual has rights which cannot be infringed on. The constitution, or any similar document, ensures this social stability.
To the last point, this problem is easily resolved in representative democracy. If the people do not make their decisions directly, they can always elect a representative to make their decisions for them, to the best of their interests. Detractors might ask, “What if the people do not know which representative is best for them?” To this I answer that the leaders of their country always have a limited term in which they can serve in office, so they can always re-elect a different representative to power if they are unsatisfied with their current one. In direct democracy, experts on their fields could be brought in to advise the public before they make a decision, so that the public will know the advantages and disadvantages of each choice they are making. Additionally, as stated before, letting the people choose actually contributes to the stability of the nation as well.
In conclusion, we can see that democracy does indeed create stability in society, in terms of political, economic and social factors, and the advantages it offers far outweigh its disadvantages, if there are any at all.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
My reflections on the article
After reading this article on the internet, I have to say that I am growing increasingly disturbed by a trend. Apparently, many teens, who are around the same age as my peers and I, are into this 'emo' fad, and some go to the extent of slashing their wrists and other body parts in order to show how tormented they feel. They mutilate themselves in order to feel 'better', or to relieve themselves of their angst, and are often depressed and socially inactive.
Firstly, I shall cover what I think is the reason behind this 'emo' fad, which seems to be all the rage now. The first group of teens who mutilate themselves would be those who are attention-seekers. They feel that they are not loved or noticed by their parents enough, so they slash at their wrists in an attempt to draw attention to themselves. By cutting themselves, they seem to be saying, "Look at me! I'm so pitiful, I have to resort to this to deal with my emotions!"
The second group of people who would cut themselves would be the 'sheep', or those who subcribe to the herd mentality. After watching some of their peers act depressed, write sorrowful poetry and cut themselves, these teens think this is 'cool' and do it themselves. This might be a way of fitting in with friends who also mutilate themselves, or might be an attempt to impress others with their newfound anguish.
Now, it is obvious why this trend of self-mutilation is extremely worrying and should be stopped as soon as possible. Not only is there an enormous risk of physical harm, such as losing too much blood and permanent scarring, there is also the psychological and emotional aspect too. The 'emo' teens might form a dependancy on cutting themselves, and rely on it to release their pent up emotions, instead of other healthier ways such as talking to their parents.
There are various problems which complicate this issue as well. One would be the extent to which this 'emo' trend has spread. Even in school, I encounter many classmates and friends who seem depressed, whether because of stress or personal problems. I myself admit to have a penchant for black clothes, and there was even a point in time where I would lock myself in my room and write angst-ridden poetry for hours on end.
However, I feel that if 'emo' behavior is limited to this, it is acceptable. As long as a person does not start hurting himself, he is free to wear whatever colour clothes he wants, or to write any kind of poetry. On the other hand, once his thoughts become more morbid, and turn to self-mutilation and suicide, something is wrong.
I beseech all teens to think twice before continuing on this trend. One thing to note would be the fact that many teens who do such things are actually from stable families, and are getting younger. However, what is there to be depressed about now? As long as you have a roof over your head and food to eat, why is there a the need for such tormented lamentations of agony? It is said that a person's childhood is the most carefree period in his or her life, so why mar it with such extreme overreaction to minor problems?
I conclude by saying that although teens should be allowed to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, it is certainly not okay to go to the extent of hurting themselves to do so.
Firstly, I shall cover what I think is the reason behind this 'emo' fad, which seems to be all the rage now. The first group of teens who mutilate themselves would be those who are attention-seekers. They feel that they are not loved or noticed by their parents enough, so they slash at their wrists in an attempt to draw attention to themselves. By cutting themselves, they seem to be saying, "Look at me! I'm so pitiful, I have to resort to this to deal with my emotions!"
The second group of people who would cut themselves would be the 'sheep', or those who subcribe to the herd mentality. After watching some of their peers act depressed, write sorrowful poetry and cut themselves, these teens think this is 'cool' and do it themselves. This might be a way of fitting in with friends who also mutilate themselves, or might be an attempt to impress others with their newfound anguish.
Now, it is obvious why this trend of self-mutilation is extremely worrying and should be stopped as soon as possible. Not only is there an enormous risk of physical harm, such as losing too much blood and permanent scarring, there is also the psychological and emotional aspect too. The 'emo' teens might form a dependancy on cutting themselves, and rely on it to release their pent up emotions, instead of other healthier ways such as talking to their parents.
There are various problems which complicate this issue as well. One would be the extent to which this 'emo' trend has spread. Even in school, I encounter many classmates and friends who seem depressed, whether because of stress or personal problems. I myself admit to have a penchant for black clothes, and there was even a point in time where I would lock myself in my room and write angst-ridden poetry for hours on end.
However, I feel that if 'emo' behavior is limited to this, it is acceptable. As long as a person does not start hurting himself, he is free to wear whatever colour clothes he wants, or to write any kind of poetry. On the other hand, once his thoughts become more morbid, and turn to self-mutilation and suicide, something is wrong.
I beseech all teens to think twice before continuing on this trend. One thing to note would be the fact that many teens who do such things are actually from stable families, and are getting younger. However, what is there to be depressed about now? As long as you have a roof over your head and food to eat, why is there a the need for such tormented lamentations of agony? It is said that a person's childhood is the most carefree period in his or her life, so why mar it with such extreme overreaction to minor problems?
I conclude by saying that although teens should be allowed to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, it is certainly not okay to go to the extent of hurting themselves to do so.
Parents, beware the emo kids
Parents, beware the emo kids BY SANDRA DAVIE
EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT
IF YOU have teenage kids and have not heard of the latest teen fad "emo", it is time you looked it up.
Shops catering to teens say this angst-filled youth sub-culture, called emo, short for "emotional", has been gathering a following here.
It has also left youth counsellors worried if the fad is behind the increasing incidence of teenagers cutting their wrists.
Emo fashion is characterised by teens wearing dark T-shirts, a little undersized or deliberately worn down to look old.
Their choice of sneakers is Converse canvas shoes. Look closer and these might have words like "pain'' scribbled in red ink or a drawing of a broken heart.
But the defining trademark for emo kids has to be the heavily lined eyes and long fringed hair which covers half their face.
The point of that, said emo teen Mervyn Lee, 17, a polytechnic student, is because "we are tortured souls unable to face the world".
Another tell-tale sign – they listen to angst-filled music from bands like Hawthorne Heights, Aiden, The Used, My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy, which performed here earlier this month.
Youth counsellors interviewed say they are worried that the fad, carried to extremes, can lead to self-
mutilation or even suicidal thoughts.
As it is, some emo teens have penned poems about suicide and death and slashing their wrists to "ease their pain''.
The trend may be behind the increased incidence of teenagers injuring themselves.
There have been no studies done on how prevalent self-injury is, but five youth counsellors interviewed said they have seen an alarming increase in their young charges cutting themselves.
Anecdotally, it seems more common among girls, and they are getting younger.
Just last month, The Straits Times reported that a group of 12-year-olds in an all-girls primary school made a collective pact and slashed their arms with penknives. The incident came to light after teachers discovered the scars the next morning. The girls were counselled and are being monitored.
Said Dr Carol Balhetchet, Singapore Children's Society director of youth services: "It is okay for kids to follow a fashion. That is very normal. What is worrying is if they start blindly following the other things like cutting themselves and writing poems glorifying their suicide attempts.''
Eight of 12 teens The Straits Times spoke to, who follow emo fashion, admitted as much.
One, an 18-year-old girl from a junior college, said she started cutting herself out of curiosity after listening to songs by an emo rock band.
She said she now does it weekly, but hides the scars from her doctor father and accountant mum.
Another emo teen, an 18-year-old polytechnic boy, said it is part of the fashion.
"It's a form of expression, just like the poems I write. I will go mad if I can't, don't have these forms of release,'' he said.
What is surprising is that most of these angst-filled teens come from stable homes, where their parents are professionals.
When pressed, they admitted there were no issues that were really depressing.
Parents seem clueless. One, Mrs Daisy Lim, 48, a businesswoman, said she had heard her daughter using the word "emo" but never realised it was a teen fad.
Her 16-year-old daughter wears under-sized, worn-out tees over tight black jeans. On weekends, the Secondary 4 girl also wears two lip rings and six earrings on one ear alone.
Mrs Lim recently discovered that her daughter cuts her wrists with a razor. She is trying to get her to seek help.
But counsellors say parents should not overreact.
Said Dr Balhetchet: "They should talk to the kids to find out the extent of it.
"If the child has taken the fad to the extent of harming himself, they should not panic and scream at the child. They should be open to listening him out.
"Then they will find it easier to persuade him to seek counselling help.''
sandra@sph.com.sg
WHY TEEN CUTS HIMSELF
"It's a form of expression, just like the poems I write. I will go mad if I can't, don't have these forms of release."
AN 18-YEAR-OLD EMO TEEN
OK UNTIL THEY START HURTING THEMSELVES
"It is okay for kids to follow a fashion. That is very normal. What is worrying is if they start blindly following the other things like cutting themselves and writing poems glorifying their suicide attempts."
DR CAROL BALHETCHET, Singapore Children's Society director of youth services
EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT
IF YOU have teenage kids and have not heard of the latest teen fad "emo", it is time you looked it up.
Shops catering to teens say this angst-filled youth sub-culture, called emo, short for "emotional", has been gathering a following here.
It has also left youth counsellors worried if the fad is behind the increasing incidence of teenagers cutting their wrists.
Emo fashion is characterised by teens wearing dark T-shirts, a little undersized or deliberately worn down to look old.
Their choice of sneakers is Converse canvas shoes. Look closer and these might have words like "pain'' scribbled in red ink or a drawing of a broken heart.
But the defining trademark for emo kids has to be the heavily lined eyes and long fringed hair which covers half their face.
The point of that, said emo teen Mervyn Lee, 17, a polytechnic student, is because "we are tortured souls unable to face the world".
Another tell-tale sign – they listen to angst-filled music from bands like Hawthorne Heights, Aiden, The Used, My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy, which performed here earlier this month.
Youth counsellors interviewed say they are worried that the fad, carried to extremes, can lead to self-
mutilation or even suicidal thoughts.
As it is, some emo teens have penned poems about suicide and death and slashing their wrists to "ease their pain''.
The trend may be behind the increased incidence of teenagers injuring themselves.
There have been no studies done on how prevalent self-injury is, but five youth counsellors interviewed said they have seen an alarming increase in their young charges cutting themselves.
Anecdotally, it seems more common among girls, and they are getting younger.
Just last month, The Straits Times reported that a group of 12-year-olds in an all-girls primary school made a collective pact and slashed their arms with penknives. The incident came to light after teachers discovered the scars the next morning. The girls were counselled and are being monitored.
Said Dr Carol Balhetchet, Singapore Children's Society director of youth services: "It is okay for kids to follow a fashion. That is very normal. What is worrying is if they start blindly following the other things like cutting themselves and writing poems glorifying their suicide attempts.''
Eight of 12 teens The Straits Times spoke to, who follow emo fashion, admitted as much.
One, an 18-year-old girl from a junior college, said she started cutting herself out of curiosity after listening to songs by an emo rock band.
She said she now does it weekly, but hides the scars from her doctor father and accountant mum.
Another emo teen, an 18-year-old polytechnic boy, said it is part of the fashion.
"It's a form of expression, just like the poems I write. I will go mad if I can't, don't have these forms of release,'' he said.
What is surprising is that most of these angst-filled teens come from stable homes, where their parents are professionals.
When pressed, they admitted there were no issues that were really depressing.
Parents seem clueless. One, Mrs Daisy Lim, 48, a businesswoman, said she had heard her daughter using the word "emo" but never realised it was a teen fad.
Her 16-year-old daughter wears under-sized, worn-out tees over tight black jeans. On weekends, the Secondary 4 girl also wears two lip rings and six earrings on one ear alone.
Mrs Lim recently discovered that her daughter cuts her wrists with a razor. She is trying to get her to seek help.
But counsellors say parents should not overreact.
Said Dr Balhetchet: "They should talk to the kids to find out the extent of it.
"If the child has taken the fad to the extent of harming himself, they should not panic and scream at the child. They should be open to listening him out.
"Then they will find it easier to persuade him to seek counselling help.''
sandra@sph.com.sg
WHY TEEN CUTS HIMSELF
"It's a form of expression, just like the poems I write. I will go mad if I can't, don't have these forms of release."
AN 18-YEAR-OLD EMO TEEN
OK UNTIL THEY START HURTING THEMSELVES
"It is okay for kids to follow a fashion. That is very normal. What is worrying is if they start blindly following the other things like cutting themselves and writing poems glorifying their suicide attempts."
DR CAROL BALHETCHET, Singapore Children's Society director of youth services
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)