I refer to the article “Universities, polytechnics and ITE raise tuition fees” (Straits Times, Mar 30).

It states that “At polytechnics and the ITE, the fee increase will affect new and existing students. At the universities, only the incoming freshmen will be affected.”

For example, the tuition fees for the normal courses at NUS and NTU will increase to $7,650.

7.5% p.a. increase in fees?

As I understand that the fee was less than $1,000 in 1987, does it mean that fees have increased by about more than 7.5 per cent per annum, in the last 26 years?

Expenditure per University student: 2.3% p.a. increase?

In contrast, Government Recurrent Expenditure on Education per Student for University was an annual increase of only about 2.3 per cent from 1998 to 2012 (14 years), from $15,125 to $20,805. (Note: I am unable to find the data for 1987)

2% inflation?

Also, inflation increased by about 2 per cent per annum from 1987 to 2012 (25 years).

So did fees increased about 7.5 per cent per annum, versus Expenditure per Student at about 2.3 and inflation of about 2 per cent?

Budget surpluses?

Why did we accumulate billions of dollars of Budget surpluses almost every year, over the years, and spent so much less on university students, relative to tuition fees increase? (“Budget surplus: $3.9b or $36b?”, Mar 24)

6.6% p. a. GDP growth?

Moreover, GDP growth was about 6.6 per cent per annum, over the 25 years, from 1987 to 2012. If there was such an increase of GDP, Why wasn’t GDP growth translated into more spending on university students?

 

You May Also Like

AIM debate in Parliament: MND vs WP (Round 3)?

  By Leong Sze Hian I refer to MP Teo Ho Pin, Co-ordinating Chairman…

Reflections on Singapore reserves with changes to Norway GPF

By Chris Kuan The news that there will be changes in Norway’s Governance…

Straits Times opinion piece suggesting measures for employees fails to address root cause of job insecurity

The Straits Times published an opinion piece on Tuesday which urges Singaporean workers to manage their career health proactively. However, Leong Sze Hian points out that it fails to address the fundamental issue of job insecurity caused by employers’ preference for foreign workers.