I refer to the article “Parliament: Charging teachers for parking will result in revenue of $8 million to $10 million a year” (Straits Times, Jul 9).
It states that “The estimated revenue from charging teachers for parking will be $8 million to $10 million a year.”
As to “Mr Ong said the revenue will be retained by the schools. There are 360 primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges in Singapore” – according to the article “Citizens not pacified by revelation that schools get to keep the parking fees from teachers” (theonlinecitizen, Jul 11) – Singaporeans are unhappy about the latest revelation that the revenue will be kept by the individual schools.
As some of my friends said – people may not be so angry now – if – so, why didn’t they say when the “parking fees for teachers” policy change was announced in March – that the revenue will be kept by the individual schools?
Why was there also no mention of this in the article “No absorption of parking charge for Hwa Chong teachers” (Straits Times, Apr 21).
So, it begs the question – when was it decided that the revenue will go to the individual schools – in March or later or only now?
By the way, as to “All five polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education started charging for parking on their premises in October last year” – have these six institutions been getting the revenues individually from the parking charges?
Like what my friends said – what may make Singaporeans even angrier than the subject “revelation” is that the reply in Parliament may have conveniently ignored the question of MPs paying just $365 a year to park in any HDB car park in Singapore and Parliament.
Isn’t this an affront to “The carpark rates were imposed in line with the Public Service Division’s “clean wage” policy, which stipulates that salaries should be fully accounted for, with no hidden perks and privileges”?