OCTOBER 7 — It is a well-known fact that co-curricular activities help in shaping a student’s character, personality and so on.

After-school sports clubs and societies support the National Education Philosophy of developing the “potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner” and to produce talents who are “intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious”.

What follows isn’t about questioning the above tenets but wondering if sometimes we may push it too far?

When I was a teenager, my weekly extra classes included piano, tennis, chess and the occasional athletics.

Even then — and we’re talking more than 35 years ago — this was considered no big deal.

I knew classmates who, in addition to going for tuition and almost all the activities I listed above, included badminton training and football practice to the list.

If you’ve been keeping count, that’s half a dozen non-academic activities plus post-school tuition.

One of my cousins was into piano, swimming, karate, chess, Outdoor Pursuit Club, all before reaching Form 3.

Another one replaced karate with ballet and chess with tennis and the Outdoor Pursuit Club with scouts.

I recall one of my aunts telling (one of) my uncles that maybe my cousin, his son, should take it easy on all these pursuits because, among other things, kids need time to read, to reflect, to relax.

Today many parents send their children for numerous extra-curricular activities which may make me and my cousin’s endeavours seem low-level and boring by comparison.

I personally know one parent whose son goes for extra classes for Maths, Science, BM, badminton, drumming, coding, graphic design and even French!

Interestingly enough, I don’t recall many discussions which echo my aunt’s concerns from all those decades ago.

Yet her question still rings true today: If a child is involved in so many programs throughout the week, what time will he or she have to “power down”?

Of course, nobody wants our very young people to be spending 16 hours a day on their phones or playing Roblox but surely the other extreme leaves much to be desired too.

A weekly schedule which resembles world-class performers or athletes is necessary for world-class performers or athletes (!) but could border on the unhealthy for the average child.

This is especially concerning if said child isn’t as enthusiastic about such activities as her parents are.

How many times have we heard of children complaining they don’t particularly enjoy a certain sport or class but they were just forced into it? (see note 1)

Which probably leads to a top criterion for selecting these extra-curricular endeavours: It should be something the child has expressed at least initial interest or ability in, and it should never be something a child ends up “dreading” to attend.

Better yet, he or she should derive enjoyment from indulging in such activities with friends (which could be a critical factor especially for younger teens).

My two cents, long and short, is that fun and enthusiasm should be primary guides towards the intensity and even variety with which we should be packing our children’s schedules.

But in the end, if nothing else, some caution and reflection on our part surely can’t hurt. We don’t want more kids losing their childhoods even as we wish to encourage more young people to become like Roger Federer, whose parents in fact gave him a lot of freedom and flexibility to experiment with different activities.

Letting our kid specialise in one or two pursuits they’re in love with may be wiser than exposing them to so many things.

* Note 1: Granted there will always be early inertia, but in the long-term if a child hates the guitar yet is required to attend two hours of strumming and theory a week there’s a good chance his interest in the instrument may be snuffed out.

** This is the personal opinion of the columnist.