I REFER to Ms Esther Au Yong's commentary (my paper, July 14).
It is controversial as the writer thinks that the Government should take the initiative and help educate local companies and bosses to be more open and receptive to "high-flying working mums".
She suggested that with such initiatives, women can then compete with men on equal terms and not be disadvantaged after becoming mothers.
Is the writer suggesting that high-flying working mums are worthier female workers, compared to less high-achieving working mums?
If this is so, then it is like the controversial policy of graduate mothers being given more incentives to have babies, as their offspring are supposedly brighter.
Has the writer ever explored the fact that high-flying working mums usually have very strong family support?
In such families, the men are even prepared to stay home and be the caregivers.
Further, high-income women have the means to seek childcare alternatives, compared to women who earn less.
If anything, the Government should take care of these lower-income earners so that their children can compete with those from privileged families on a more equal footing.
I gave up my legal career to be a stay-at-home mother. It is a choice and required a lifestyle adjustment.
To me, there is no such thing as being both a high-flying career woman and a loving mother to the children when they need me most.
The writer, in hoping that the "career woman and the loving mummy can co-exist" before having her own babies, is obviously not ready to be a mother.
