INHERITING a fat windfall from your parents has its fair share of pros and cons on the individual's development, said sociologists The New Paper spoke to.

Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser, a sociologist at the National University of Singapore, noted that some trust-fund babies might lack certain life-skills and characteristics.

He said: 'They may not learn responsibility and self-reliance. They may also become obnoxious and look down on others.'

Assistant Professor Chung Wai Keung, a sociologist from the Singapore Management University, agreed with British composer Andrew Llyod Webber's view that leaving kids an inheritance might spoil them.

Moreover, he pointed out that such fat inheritances contribute to social inequality in society.

And even if rich parents don't leave their kids any money, their children would have already received a much better education and life experience than their poorer counterparts, noted Prof Chung.

That in itself, places them in a better position to compete with the rest of society.

However, both sociologists also felt there were definite advantages to having kids grow up with the assurance of an substantial inheritance.

Prof Tan noted: 'To be rich is a good thing. After all we live in a capitalist society, very much driven by profits. The rich have the option to live a life of giving time and resources, which the very poor can't.'

Having this security blanket means one has the option of pursuing work that is enjoyable without being overly concerned about career advancement or making money.

This allows one to be charitable, discover the meaning and joy of giving and be involved in worthy social causes.

Nevertheless, while growing up wealthy could have an impact on someone's character, it doesn't ultimately determine the kind of person a child grows up to be.

Prof Chung said: 'I think the more important issue is the parents' attitude on this matter, whether they actually educate their children with a positive attitude on ambition and personal effort or not.'

Prof Tan agreed, saying that regardless of wealth and status, no one had the monopoly of bringing children up in the right way.

- Report by Shree Ann Mathavan

This article was first published in The New Paper on 1 Nov 2008.