As any mother would know, during those infant months, when it is time for a feed, one must drop everything to make sure that the screaming baby's tummy is filled. And often such episodes are unpredictable especially during a growth spurt. Fast forward to a year later when that cherub is now a busy toddler. Sometimes the only break our sleep-deprived bodies get from having to run after the active tot is when they get a favorite snack.
If you are a parent that would fit into either of these categories, and if you plan to visit Singapore (or you already live here!) you may want to be informed that you can be fined up to S$500 for either breastfeeding or giving an impatient rug rat some snacks (for keeping him from another meltdown) on Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) train system. This no-food, no-drink rule applies not only on the trains themselves but also in the station. So, the next time your two-month old wails for your breasts, do not even think that you can appease her until you "approach our customer service officers who will accord them the temporary use of the staff room" - according to the FAQ's on the SMRT website (click here to read the restrictions).
While I love the fact the trains are mostly pristinely clean due to this restriction on eating and drinking, I do wonder if this regulation has been taken to its impractical extreme. Here's a scenario from a personal experience: you're in a crowded train with your 18-month old and you've a 30-minute ride on the train. After 10 minutes of reading the books you've brought along to entertain him, he starts to get bored - and finicky. His verbal protest soon turns into squealing and his noisy retaliation is clearly bothering the other passengers. The ONLY thing that will stop him from a full-fledged meltdown is his favorite string cheese. Question - should I give him his snack - that will immediately ease the stressful situation for everyone - OR should I maintain my adherence to the "rule" and let my poor tot bawl for 20 minutes till we reach our destination?
My other question: Should some of these rules be reviewed for their baby-friendliness (or unfriendliness) in view of the Singapore government's drive to increase the national birth rate?
(Pix credit: www.nydailynews.com)
It would be interesting to note here that back in 1994, a legislation was signed in New York to protect a woman's right to breast-feed "in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether or not the nipple of the mother's breast is covered during or incidental to the breast-feeding."
No comments:
Post a Comment