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

社会关怀计划 去年逾亿元助7万9500人

社会与家庭发展部的社会关怀计划(ComCare),在去年发出的援助总额达到1亿3100万元,使7万9500人受惠。 该部在昨日发文告,发表社区关怀计划2017财政年报告和2013-2017年社会关怀计划进展报告。 社区关怀计划分为:短期援助(SMTA)、长期援助(LTA)、学术托管费援助\、临时补助(Comcare Interim Assistance)和社区补助。 中短期援助,旨在协助低收入家庭或个人,例如因疾病等因素而临时无法工作者、或收入低而需要辅助。 在2017财政年,有2万7986家庭,以及6万4191个人获得中短期援助,总值8千529万元。他们可获得针对不同开销的补助,例如生活开销、租金、水电费、医药费和就业补助。 在长期援助计划下,则有4千409家庭,以及4千675个人受惠,总拨款达2千352万元。长期援助主要针对年迈、疾病或伤残、收入/无收入、无家庭依靠的人士。其中79巴仙为年长者。 他们获得的援助可分为日常生活开销、保健储蓄补助和其他必需品的额外援助。 补助低收入家庭孩童上托管中心 在学生托管费援助下,去年则有8千413家庭和1万331名孩童受惠,拨款达2千045万元。有关补助针对年龄7至14岁的低收入家庭孩童,提供每月补助,在他们父母上班时,上学生托管中心(SCCs)。 至于社会关怀临时补助,在去年共援助了7千090人。由社会服务中心(SSO)、公民咨询委员会、家庭服务中心和社区正义中心等单位评估,需要紧急财务援助的家庭和个体。…

Brad Bowyer: "When questions arise just asserting something is false or giving irrelevant information does not answer valid questions"

by Brad Bowyer As many have asked for my detailed views or…

Mayday protest: Independent labour unions, a must for labour rights

[vimeo id=”126659116″ align=”center” mode=”normal”] Over 400 individuals turned up at Hong Lim…

Chiam fulfils walkway promise made at 2006 polls

The project, which costs the town council $250,000, also ended a dispute between Mr Chiam and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin from the People’s Action Party, who lost the contest for the ward in 2006 polls. When some of the lights were vandalised, Mr Sitoh declined to repair them, saying the land’s lease was due to expire.