Leong Sze Hian

In their joint-reply to letters to the Straits Times forum page, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) and the Education Ministry (MOE) defended the Government’s policy on pre-school subsidies. (Click here to read the letters.)

In February, the Government announced a $290 million investment in the preschool sector, over five years. Among the initiatives is more funding for kindergartens. However, this applies to only kindergartens run by the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) and the PAP Community Foundation (PCF).

The ministries’ replies did not address the question of why state funds, which are taxpayers’ money, are being used to give NTUC – My First Skool (formerly NTUC Childcare) – and PCF kindergartens an unfair competitive advantage over privately run kindergartens?

Is there not a conflict of interest when the ruling Government decides that money to parents under the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KFAS) can only go to two kindergarten operators that are headed by Members of Parliament (MPs) who are part of the Government in the case of PCF, and a cabinet minister as well as MPs in the case of NTUC?

Is this not a case of anti-competitive behaviour, which the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) should look into?

What kind of message are we sending to entrepreneurs – that competitors that are linked to Government are more equal than others?

No freedom of choice for parents?

Shouldn’t parents be given the freedom of choice to choose the best kindergarten for their children? What if the only ‘eligible’ kindergartens with vacancies are much farther from their homes than ‘ineligible’ private kindergartens?

As I understand that the 240 ‘eligible’ kindergartens are often fully enrolled, some parents may end up being unable to avail themselves of the KFAS, or may have to pay more for transport costs, extra travelling time, etc.

With the huge $1,700 jump in the household criterion to $3,500, many more households will qualify, which I believe may be beyond the current vacancy capacity of the ‘eligible’ kindergartens.

It may also not be good for some children who may have to transfer from a familiar ‘ineligible’ kindergarten to an ‘eligible’ one.

Some private kindergartens have lower fees?

If private kindergartens can charge comparable fees to ‘eligible’ kindergartens, and provide the timing, services, quality, location, costs, convenience, etc, that suit the requirements of parents, I see no reason why their freedom of choice should be curtailed.

In this connection, according to the listing of kindergartens’ fees on the MOE web site, some private kindergartens have lower fees than the ‘eligible’ ones.

When the Budget statement announced the KFAS household income eligibility increase, why was it not made clear then that private kindergartens are not eligible? This may have caused some inconvenience to parents and private kindergartens, as time, travelling costs and effort may have been wasted in making enquiries.

$290 million upgrading funds for PCF and NTUC only?

How will the $290 million investment in the preschool sector, over five years, be implemented?

Why is it that this funding to help kindergartens keep fees affordable, upgrade centres and programmes, etc, will only go to PCF and My First Skool kindergartens?

After all, aren’t these kindergartens already generally enjoying lower rents than the market rates that private kindergartens pay?

By the way, NTUC kindergartens (My First Skool) recently sent parents a notification dated 31 March – after the subsidy initiatives by the Government were announced – that the current $615.25 monthly fee before subsidy for full-day nursery playgroup will be increased to $642 from 1 July. (See here, here and here.)

For one parent I spoke to who sends her child to My First Skool in Toa Payoh Central, her after subsidy $305 monthly fee for full-day playgroup will be increased to $355 from 1 July.

The last time My First Skool raised its fees was in 2008, shortly after kindergarten subsidies were increased.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Police apologises to restaurant owner for “unpleasant experience” after mistaking venue for pivoted nightlife establishment

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has issued an apology to the owner…

政府已积极防疫 旅游局:他国没理由对我国发旅游警示

旅游局表示,我国已经采取适当措施,遏制新型冠状病毒疫情,因此其他国家没有理由对新加坡实施旅游警示。 新加坡旅游局行政总裁陈建隆,于今日(11日)记者会上指出,“我们的政府已经采取了相关措施,以遏制病毒的爆发,因此我们非常有信心(控制疫情),他国没有任何理由应对新加坡发出旅游警示。 他补充说道,若其他国家仍对我国发布采取旅游警示,外交部还是会和他们密切合作。 随着新型冠状病毒的疫情不断升级,一些国家也开始针对部分国家采取旅游警示,而新加坡也是其中之一。 上周,英国发现四起确诊病例,其中包含两名韩国人、一名马来西亚人,以及一名英国人,他们均曾到访新加坡,参与君悦酒店的商务会议。因此英国建议从其九个国家返国的人民应在家自行隔离14天,其中包括新加坡。 周日(9日),以色列卫生部也将旅游警示扩大至其他亚洲地区,包括新加坡;周一(10日),中东国家包括科威特和卡塔尔也分别发布了旅游警示,敦促人民应延缓去新加坡的行程;邻国马来西亚砂拉越政府也表示,若最近曾到访新加坡的国民一旦进入马来西亚,必须进行14天的隔离。 周二(11日),韩国亦强烈建议市民勿前往六国旅游,其中包括中国和新加坡,而台湾也建议人民在前往新加坡时应采取预防措施。 目前新型冠状病毒已有逾四万人感染,其中最严重疫区为中国,死亡人数也达致1017例,而新加坡也在疫情爆发期间,被确诊出45例,成为中国以外,确诊人数最多的国家。 因此,卫生部也上升至橙色警戒,但陈建隆也表示,政府目前已正采取积极措施,遏制病毒扩散。 询及病毒情况是否会影响新加坡长期形象时,他表示,根据传闻作出决策是不对的,因此其他国家在采取任何措施前,应该先充分了解事实,并清楚当局所采取的相关措施。

Govt intends to seize Hyflux’s Tuaspring plant, Salim Group to reconsider company takeover

Following the Singapore government’s recent plans to seize Hyflux’s Tuaspring desalination plant,…

拒绝UTICO暂缓申请 公用事业局按计划明接管凯发水厂

据了解,公用事业局拒绝了阿联酋事业集团Utico,要求该局暂缓接管凯发大泉海水淡化厂的申请。 公用事业局告知《海峡时报》,指该局会按照早前的宣布,即按原计划在本周六(18日)接管大泉海水淡化厂。 “购水协议将在5月17日终止,公用事业局会在5月18日接管该厂。” 公用事业局是在上月17日发文告,表示为了保障新加坡水资源,正式向凯发集团旗下的大泉水电厂,发出终止购水协议(WPA)的通知,并将接管大泉海水淡化厂。 在本月16日,Utico总裁梅奈斯(Richard Menezes) 指出,若公用事业局能展延接管计划,能让该公司对凯发注入营运资本和其他急需应用的资金。并出于善意和令公用事业局满意,为水厂进行补救和改善措施。 梅奈斯认为,这有助于建立对凯发的信誉和信心,Utico也准备与凯发合作,确保水厂在不忽略任何安全因素的情况下运作,且在公用事业局的支持下,能提供回酬。 梅奈斯也透露,Utico计划和凯发零售债券和优先股投资者进行商谈。凯发集团在2011年和2016年分别发售四亿元优先股和五亿元永久证券,如今散户投资者也向凯发追索赔偿。 Utico 目前是已知的凯发潜在“白武士”。与此同时,凯发也接到基金公司Oyster Bay…