 |
| The PS Cafe @ Ang Siang Hill |
Recently, one of the four branches of Singapore's PS Café banned children under 13 years of age from dining there, while the other 3 branches are “children-friendly”. According to CNNgo, Mr. Edward Lee, the chain’s business development manager said that “while it was a difficult decision, it was implemented from a practical and safety point of view”. The children are banned for "disturbing the peace" by being too loud or mischievous. For some, the ruling seems to separate families and does not seem fair, while others find it reasonable as they find it tedious to dine with screaming children. Other restaurants around Singapore have done the same by banning children under a certain age, such as the Kuriya Penthouse and Gunther's Modern French Cuisine.
The issue may bring up a few questions. Do restaurants have the right to ban certain customers from dining in the premises? Is this not a violation of freedom? Is it discriminating? Is age the true problem? The ways of knowledge involved are language and sense perception. As expected, the decision resulted in different opinions addressing these questions.
YAY: Many of those who agree with the new rule quickly embrace the change completely. All the restaurants previously mentioned are pricey, not as casual restaurants that many parents escape to after a long, exhausting day with their children. CNNgo interviewed Patricia Chong, a mother of two teenagers herself, who agreed with the ban. Her opinion is that if parents pay for a babysitter to take care of their "screaming kids" while they're enjoying their night out, "the last thing [they] want is to encounter it during [their] hard-earned meal or date". In a restaurant like PS Cafe or even Kuriya Penthouse, where the atmosphere is quiet and comforting, a single child crying could break the entire mood. Restaurants do have a right to ban patrons under a certain age, just as formal restaurants have a right to ban patrons that are not dressed in formal attire. It defeats the purpose of the atmosphere they have set for the diners.
NAY: Although there are definitely some benefits to this decision, others question whether or not that is fair. For families who want to enter an environment together (that is, adults with their children), such limitations can provide problems and give them an unwanted feeling within the community. They may feel that they are discriminated against because a family member is of a certain age. The age limit is also an issue. Why 13 for PS Café, or 7 for Gunther's? Does it mean that your children haven't matured mentally until the exact day they have reached their 13th or 7th birthday? Are all 8 year olds "mature" enough that they won't be loud as to disturb the rest of the patrons? The age someone matures at differs for everyone. Some also argue that the restaurants shouldn't blame the children for their mannerisms as it is discriminating. Parents should be held responsible for their childrens' behaviour and should better discipline them because some children cannot help but act that way.
I personally agree with this rule completely. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ban children from top-notch, pricier restaurants. They are not as "family themed" as American restaurants like Denny's or Applebee's. They are more likely to be choices for a fancy date or a night away from the quick, tiring lifestyle many adults have. To an extent, I agree the child is not completely to blame, as parents should teach their children proper etiquette for fine or formal dining. However, I'm sure it's difficult to control a child under 7 or so throwing a temper tantrum as it's their nature to do so. If this rule did not exist, it's also unfair for the child. I'm sure it would be uncomfortable for the child if he or she was forced to avoid making any noise. Quiet children definitely do exist, but they seem rare, as I have spent too many times clutching my ears in pain as children start screaming in quiet restaurants or even airplanes that I begin to stare down any child that I suspect would burst out crying for no reason at all. These restaurants have obviously put up with screaming children already and maybe even have politely asked some to leave, and I trust that there must have been one too many incidents with children that they are forced to enforce this rule. As mentioned before, only one of the PS Café locations have implemented this ban. Then, children can experience dining at the restaurant at the other locations and the Ang Siang Hill branch can be enjoyed by adults seeking peace and quiet. Perhaps some restaurants can set up a separate room for children (kind of like a "childrens' play area" that can sometimes be seen in McDonald's), but this can be a question of safety to the children since they must always be supervised. Another possible alternative is allowing children at breakfast and lunch time but making it exclusive to teenagers and adults for dinner.
Another similar issue is the prohibiting smoking in certain areas, such as restaurants or even around buildings. Smoking may be pleasurable to the smoker, but not everyone wants to suffer from their enjoyment. Many people agree with this choice, saying that they choose not to smoke because they don't want to damage their lungs, and so why would they want to expose themselves to secondhand smoke? Going somewhere more appropriate to smoke that wouldn't affect the health of others would be a reasonable solution for everyone.
The issue may bring up a few questions. Do restaurants have the right to ban certain customers from dining in the premises? Is this not a violation of freedom? Is it discriminating? Is age the true problem? The ways of knowledge involved are language and sense perception. As expected, the decision resulted in different opinions addressing these questions.
YAY: Many of those who agree with the new rule quickly embrace the change completely. All the restaurants previously mentioned are pricey, not as casual restaurants that many parents escape to after a long, exhausting day with their children. CNNgo interviewed Patricia Chong, a mother of two teenagers herself, who agreed with the ban. Her opinion is that if parents pay for a babysitter to take care of their "screaming kids" while they're enjoying their night out, "the last thing [they] want is to encounter it during [their] hard-earned meal or date". In a restaurant like PS Cafe or even Kuriya Penthouse, where the atmosphere is quiet and comforting, a single child crying could break the entire mood. Restaurants do have a right to ban patrons under a certain age, just as formal restaurants have a right to ban patrons that are not dressed in formal attire. It defeats the purpose of the atmosphere they have set for the diners.
NAY: Although there are definitely some benefits to this decision, others question whether or not that is fair. For families who want to enter an environment together (that is, adults with their children), such limitations can provide problems and give them an unwanted feeling within the community. They may feel that they are discriminated against because a family member is of a certain age. The age limit is also an issue. Why 13 for PS Café, or 7 for Gunther's? Does it mean that your children haven't matured mentally until the exact day they have reached their 13th or 7th birthday? Are all 8 year olds "mature" enough that they won't be loud as to disturb the rest of the patrons? The age someone matures at differs for everyone. Some also argue that the restaurants shouldn't blame the children for their mannerisms as it is discriminating. Parents should be held responsible for their childrens' behaviour and should better discipline them because some children cannot help but act that way.
I personally agree with this rule completely. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ban children from top-notch, pricier restaurants. They are not as "family themed" as American restaurants like Denny's or Applebee's. They are more likely to be choices for a fancy date or a night away from the quick, tiring lifestyle many adults have. To an extent, I agree the child is not completely to blame, as parents should teach their children proper etiquette for fine or formal dining. However, I'm sure it's difficult to control a child under 7 or so throwing a temper tantrum as it's their nature to do so. If this rule did not exist, it's also unfair for the child. I'm sure it would be uncomfortable for the child if he or she was forced to avoid making any noise. Quiet children definitely do exist, but they seem rare, as I have spent too many times clutching my ears in pain as children start screaming in quiet restaurants or even airplanes that I begin to stare down any child that I suspect would burst out crying for no reason at all. These restaurants have obviously put up with screaming children already and maybe even have politely asked some to leave, and I trust that there must have been one too many incidents with children that they are forced to enforce this rule. As mentioned before, only one of the PS Café locations have implemented this ban. Then, children can experience dining at the restaurant at the other locations and the Ang Siang Hill branch can be enjoyed by adults seeking peace and quiet. Perhaps some restaurants can set up a separate room for children (kind of like a "childrens' play area" that can sometimes be seen in McDonald's), but this can be a question of safety to the children since they must always be supervised. Another possible alternative is allowing children at breakfast and lunch time but making it exclusive to teenagers and adults for dinner.
Another similar issue is the prohibiting smoking in certain areas, such as restaurants or even around buildings. Smoking may be pleasurable to the smoker, but not everyone wants to suffer from their enjoyment. Many people agree with this choice, saying that they choose not to smoke because they don't want to damage their lungs, and so why would they want to expose themselves to secondhand smoke? Going somewhere more appropriate to smoke that wouldn't affect the health of others would be a reasonable solution for everyone.
There is another knowledge issue that deals with the age limits: how would PS Cafe know that a kid is thirteen? In addition to the age ban at PS Café, a lot of restaurants in Taipei ban customers over the age of twelve to order a kid’s meal. How could they accurately know that the age of the customer? Do they check the customers’ ID, or by visually estimating their age? When I was eleven, I somehow looked older than the kids of my age, and there was this one time I was asked to order a regular set meal instead of a kid’s meal because I “looked 15”, according to the waitress. I had to show my ID to prove that I was eleven.
ReplyDeleteLike Kali said, the official birthday is the society’s measure of how old or how mature a person is. And when identification is not present, the visual way of knowing will tell about how old a person is. Since birthday is a universal measurement of age, I would also agree that the best way for a restaurant to keep down the noise is to set an age limit on its customers, despite the fact that there will be awkward cases in which customers who are almost thirteen could not enter the restaurant.
An alternative solution is that when parents bring kids who are around the age of 9-11 to PS Café, the restaurant will hold the right to ask them to leave if the kids are being disruptive. This will solve the age discrimination problem that Kali has mentioned in this post. The restaurant will judge the kids based on how well they behave, and not on how old they are.
The biggest problem here, as pointed out in your article, is the ambiguity of maturity. This ban is causing so much trouble is because there is no line to indicate a "mature individual" from a "disruptive child." There is also no way for us to measure maturity directly, which makes the indirect measurement of maturity with age a problem. Drawing this line at age 13 of course would disappoint responsible parents who want to spend more time with their children. But of course, there is no way to measure the responsibility of parents either. Therefore, age limits would be the best way to control the quality of the restaurant ambiance.
ReplyDeleteAlthough age limits are going to be the way restaurants control the quality of the customers and ambiance, I don't think that confirming the exact age (checking IDs) should be a big concern for the restaurants. The main concern here is the maturity of the customers, not the age. Age is only an indirect way to control the level of maturity in the restaurant. I've seen concerts try and control the quality of the audiences by setting a height requirement. Children have to be at least how tall to be thought old and mature enough to sit through the concert quietly and responsibly. Like age, height is an indirect measurement of maturity, and is another way that could help control the quality of the restaurant. I think that these limitations should be there as guidelines and to make the parents more aware that the environment that they are bringing their kids into asks for respect and maturity.
While reading this article, I notice you bring up the issue of discrimination, and even though you are pointing to the discrimination of age, I thought this issue relates to the example of discrimination of race.In the 1950's and 1960's many restaurants and other public and private places in America prohibited Blacks to enter their restaurants, and also during WWII, similar things happened where Jews are banned to go into some establishments. Although it is arguable that you can't compare the intolerance of screaming children to the discrimination of the race of people, isn't it possible that the owners of theses places in America in the 1960's and in Europe during WWII just didn't want something or someone that could disrupt the atmosphere of their establishments, just like how the managers of the mentioned restaurants in Singapore don't want some children to ruin certain aspects that they have hope to establish of their restaurants.I think any discrimination against any people shouldn't be allowed. If a child or any person is acting disruptively in any places, just simply ask them politely to leave or stop. It isn't necessary to ban a whole group of people.
ReplyDeleteBanning children from expensive restaurants is completely incomparable to racial discrimination, because first and foremost, "children" are not a "race." Age will never be a permanent trait of any person, so that from a child's perspective, this prohibition is only a temporary one. This relates to the second point, that the repercussions of this ban at PS Café are hardly as devastating as the deaths of a million people. Not only will children inevitably be allowed to enjoy the privilege of high dining, but there are other restaurants including other branches of PS Café that are willing to cater to children. Like Kali said young children cannot be expected to sit quietly for hours on end and should not be forced to. As for whether this is a violation of freedom, yes it is, but children have their own unique characteristics such as size, behavior and preferences, so that they cannot be held to the same standard as adults. In fact, thirteen year olds are minors in every country, meaning that their freedom is legally infringed upon for the betterment of themselves and for others. For example, minors do not have the freedom to drink, drive, vote, marry because they are not physically or mentally suitable. Though less extreme, it remains true that children are likewise unsuited for high dining experience, but will be once they grow up. And it is true that maturity instead of age is the problem here, but I agree with Kali and Katie that age is best determinant of maturity, and that waiting for a disturbance before taking action is hardly effective.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see the merit in banning children from these high-end pricey restaurants, I think that it is a little extreme and unfair for the children to be banned. The children may be intruding on the comfort of other diners, but it is necessary for them to learn. If children are told that their behavior is inappropriate in a certain area, they will learn to not repeat this behavior. The restaurants banning children are reducing the learning opportunity for these children to learn what is proper and what is improper in certain places. The best way for children to learn is to experience things first hand. For example, if a child touches a piece of hot coal near a barbecue, his hand will burn and the child knows not to touch the hot coal. This is arguably more effective than simply telling the child that it is dangerous to touch the coal.
ReplyDeleteAn example of how the ambiguity of language leads to a ban can be seen closer to home. Students were allowed to consume certain food in the library in previous years. However, after the dispute about what can be considered legal or illegal food, all food has been banned from the library. I think that a proper screening process is necessary to ensure and maintain the environment of any public place.
All this debate can be avoided if parents maintain discipline within the family, so that children are not excessively loud in places where the expectation is for them to remain quiet. If my child is being loud in a quiet cafe, then I will lecture him/her on keeping the volume down in quiet areas. If that fails, then I will remove myself and my child from the premises. If one goes by this kind of thinking, then the establishments would not have to be pushed to these kinds of extreme measures. It is largely the parent's fault for either not disciplining their children or understanding that the place they are visiting is not one where it is appropriate to bring their children to. It's just like parents buying movies and video games of violent or sexual nature for their children when the content is clearly advertised on the cover and synopsis, and then blaming the media and game developers for harming their children. After the Columbine massacre, there was an obsession over what media the perpetrators were watching or listening to. There was less questioning about what their parents did/did not do. It's always fun to try and match the pretentious, loud, and mischievous children to their parents during parent/pick-up day, because unless the child is suffering from some sort of disorder, improper behaviour is the fault of the guardian.
ReplyDeleteWinnie's alternative solution for having the kids to leave after being disruptive is interesting, it doesn't show discrimination towards children's age and it allows children who behave well in that kind of environment a chance to not be blamed wrongly. But then again who is to say that people above the age of 13 won't be disruptive? Sometimes when I go on public transportation after a long day to get home, there would be a group of high schoolers chanting on the bus like they want to reveal their secrets to everyone, and it's completely possible for them to change the setting from the bus to a restaurant like PS Cafe.
ReplyDeleteFrom the blog post, PS Cafe seems like libraries, where loudness is being viewed with contempt. It prohibits kids of a certain age, but people of other age can also induce loud and disruptive noises. Taiwan has this coffee house named the Rose Garden where they kick people out when you're too loud. I think this would be a much better solution than to restrict kids of a certain age to enter, in a sense of fairness but not efficiency.
I want to point out that I think there is a difference between the real life issue you start with and the one with smoking. As scientific findings have proven, smoking damages the health of those around the smokers. However, on the other hand, having children disrupt your dinner is not a health hazard. Also, I believe that restaurants should have the right to ban certain customers from their premises. For restaurants, they are not only selling their food, but also their environment and setting to their customers. As you've pointed out, if parents have paid babysitters to take care of their children, they will not want to enter another hectic environment in which they have to deal with other screaming children. It is a basic part of customer service to provide a desirable and suitable environment for their customers as well.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree that banning children should not be related to racial discrimination. There is very little, almost irrelevant relation between the two. While racial discrimination deals with the demeaning of other races and involves damaging life prospects. However this is not true of age, especially as all people must go through the same aging experience.
I feel that Kali's post was well developed, but I have to disagree with her conclusion that "it is perfectly reasonable to ban children from top-notch, pricier restaurants". I think discrimination plays a large role in this issue and I will try to discuss why.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Regina's comment that there is "irrelevant relation" between this issue and racial discrimination. Melody mentioned how Blacks and Jews were not allowed in restaurants in the past, and how it can also be because they did not want any disruptions. Age discrimination cannot be non-existent just because "all people must go through the same aging experience". Should restaurants start banning women during their menstruation then, since there is a potential for disruptions? Would that be okay since all women go through this? Racial discrimination does not have to involve "damaging life prospects". Not letting a certain ethnicity into a restaurant is racial discrimination. With your string of 'logic', it is also possible for "all people" to go through the same experience. In fact, the fact that Regina does not think racial discrimination applies for everyone is racial discrimination in itself.
I agree with Leo's comment on how child discipline should be the family's responsibility, and that restaurants should not ban all children because there are some that have not been disciplined properly. There will naturally be children under the age limit that can behave properly, and adults that act like children. katiec discussed this in her post, age and maturity are two different things, and restaurants cannot assume they are tangential to one another, and substitute maturity with age because it is harder to measure. This is actually analogous to the issue of language as a way of knowing. The words we attribute to certain things do not always convey their essence, just like how age does not denote maturity. The solution AnnaK mentions seems to be the most viable, to ban customers based on their individual actions, and not a group of people based on their expected actions. This will eliminate any discrimination from the issue.