Kindergarten fee hike

Found this out from Mr Brown’s blog.

Sharp hike in kindergarten feesFriday • April 25, 2008Alicia Wong
Some 1,500 students attending the seven PAP Community Foundation (PCF) kindergartens in Woodlands will see their fees shoot up by 30 to 100 per cent from July.
Then, about 50-odd PCF branches will raise their fees when a freeze in effect since last July comes to an end.
The PCF, which has 84 branches, each with up to eight centres, told Today "65 per cent of the branches will be adjusting their fees because operating costs have increased".
A letter sent by the PCF Woodlands branch to notify the parents of its 250 students said that PCF branches in the Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) — which comprises Sembawang, Woodlands, Marsiling, Admiralty, Canberra and Chong Pang wards — "collectively submitted our applications for a standardised GRC fee structure for approval to PCF HQ".
Woodlands kindergartens in Blk 601 and Blk 875 will hike monthly fees from $50.90 to $110 per child because they will be air-conditioned. Air-conditioned kindergartens in blocks 899B, 652 and 824 will increase fees from $86.60 to $110, while non-air-conditioned ones in blocks 624B and 853 will hike theirs from $50.90 to $95.
Nurseries run by PCF Woodlands will also see a $20 to $30 monthly fee increase from July.
PCF Woodlands' letter attributed the hikes to, among other things, rising operational costs and the need to fund training programmes for staff to meet new Ministry of Education (MOE) requirements.
Last month, the MOE raised the bar for kindergarten teachers, who will need a teaching diploma in pre-school education, not just a certificate.
Last year, the PCF froze fees and absorbed the additional 2 per cent Goods and Services Tax from July to December.
Some parents from the Woodlands kindergartens had petitioned against the hike. But PCF Woodlands administrator Amy Chia said "after much consideration", they decided to proceed with the fee adjustment, since the Government Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme is available for low-income parents.
Parent Aileen Lee, 31, who would pay $96 from July instead of $20 now, said she was "quite okay" with the hike.
Meanwhile, fees look set to go up at other kindergartens and childcare centres — if they have not already done so.
A 35-year-old accountant, whose son was enrolled at The Experiential Learning Centre last year, got a "rude shock" when the childcare centre said subsidised fees will increase from $250 to $400 per month by the year end.
Ms Kate Tan, 32, who is self-employed, said within eight months of enrolling her five-year-old son in a kindergarten at Seng Kang Methodist Church last year, fees shot up by 20 per cent to over $500 per term.
A check with four other kindergartens showed Josiah Montessori had raised its fees last year, and Kidzone Kindergarten will do so in May. One school at Jurong East is considering a hike, while Zulfa Kindergarten and Sembawang Mart will stick to its $110 fee.
"PCF school fees are reasonable and affordable … We hope parents will understand," said PCF executive Sherlene Wong.
This article comes from Today.

Several comments left on Mr Brown’s blog struck me.

Firstly, that these PAP kindergartens that are supposed to be public schools are raising their prices so dramatically parents might as well send their children to private schools.

Isn’t it the role of a public school system to provide cheap and affordable education to everyone? Isn’t it about education being the great leveler amongst the people so that regardless of your economic background you have a chance in this so-called meritocracy?

Secondly, someone mentioned why public kindergartens are called PAP schools in the first place? Just because the government is formed by the PAP? Once again there is an appalling lack of separation of party and government. If these kindergartens are funded by state funds, what right does the PAP have to attach them under its banner.

But then again, considering that the PAP uses HDB upgrading (funded by state funds) to coerce voters into voting for them, appropriating pre-school education shouldn’t be below them.

Thirdly, someone suggested that home-schooling might be a better alternative now. At first I thought it was brilliant idea! Just save the money and take on the responsibility of your child’s education! Boycott the entire system and it might be culled into reversing the fee hike.
But then I realised how inherently elitist this statement is. Home schooling your kid isn’t something everyone can do. You must have the time to do so in the first place. If both parents are working and trying to pay the bills, home schooling isn’t an option. Moreover, some parents might view kindergarten as a safe “child care” facility as they are out working.

Parents may also feel they are not up to the job of home schooling. Sure, it might be simple stuff at kindergarten level, but if it was really that simple, we wouldn’t need a kindergarten in the first place right? My parents’ dream (as is all parents’ dreams I believe) was for me to do well in school right from the start, and that includes kindergarten. They believe that school was a way to give me opportunities that they have never enjoyed.

It is unfair to simply say home school your kid if you aren’t happy with the fee increase. Home schooling should be a choice of the parents; it should not be forced upon people who can’t afford school.

School is a public service as much as public transport. It is equally unrealistic to say we should stop taking the train and bus to protest the rising fees. People are taking the train and bus because it’s their only option. Likewise, I’m sure every parent would want kindergarten to remain an option open to him or her.

Singapore makes the front page of the NYT

As sort of a follow up to Ziliang's post: here's the entire NYT article which deals in rather mocking tones with the whole incident while taking numerous side swipes at Singaporeans ...

Escapee Eludes Search Party of 4 Million

By SETH MYDANS

SINGAPORE — The big mistake, officials here say, was letting the terrorist suspect make a trip to the bathroom.

Mas Selamat bin Kastari, alleged by the government to be the leader of a terrorist group here, escaped from a high security prison two weeks ago, while taking a bathroom break, in a major embarrassment for this efficient, tightly battened city-state.

In a furious response, the government put the entire country on alert, setting up checkpoints, sealing its borders, patrolling its parks and its shores, even urging people to keep an eye on their bicycles in case the wanted man decided to pedal to freedom.

With each new empty-handed day the embarrassment deepens as Singapore confronts its Tora Bora moment, its most-wanted terrorist suspect melting into the urban terrain, as Osama bin Laden evaded American troops in Afghanistan.

For some people here, this noisy, flailing search — even more than the escape itself — has cast Singapore in an unfamiliar light of haplessness.

“We had all bought into the image of a well-organized government machinery,” wrote Alex Au, author of a popular political Web site called Yawning Bread. “Suddenly, our picture of Singapore as a kind of Big Brother state is, well, full of holes.” All around the city, police officers are on patrol and their checkpoints have delayed traffic for as much as 15 hours in some places, according to newspaper reports.

Security officers on boats and Jet Skis are patrolling the coastline and the police have removed keys from the ignitions of unattended motor boats.

In what one newspaper called “extensive land, sea and air searches,” military patrols in jungle fatigues and Nepalese Gurkha paramilitary forces have scoured the city for the runaway inmate.

Wanted posters are everywhere, mug shots have been transmitted to millions of cellphones and the entire nation of four million people has been deputized to look out for a round-faced man who is 5-foot-2, weighs 139 pounds and walks — or at least runs — with a limp.

Newspapers here say it is the biggest manhunt in Singapore’s history. Mr. Mas Selamat, 47, who is said to be the chief of operations in Singapore for the Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist network, is accused by the government of being the coordinator of a failed plot to bomb the United States Embassy and several other targets in Singapore. Officials also say he planned to crash an airplane into Singapore’s airport.

He had been in detention here since 2006 under the Internal Security Act, which allows the government to hold suspects without trial, and his escape shocked terrorism experts in the region.

“Everyone thought Singapore had the tightest security system of anyone around,” said Sidney Jones, a leading terrorism expert for the International Crisis Group.

As a nation, Singapore is as lean and mean and flexible as the rapid-response military the Pentagon dreams of, and it reacted with impressive speed and agility to recent Asian outbreaks of bird flu and SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome.

But for the moment it seems to have met its match in Mr. Mas Selamat. His disappearance challenges the government’s basic promise to its citizens that it will keep them safe and comfortable.

The authorities have released little information about his escape on Feb. 27, but they say that he acted alone and on the spur of the moment and that he is probably still in Singapore.

The official account is that the prisoner asked to go to the bathroom while waiting for family members to visit, then simply disappeared from the Whitley Road Detention Center.

If this is true, said Lee Kin Mun, a leading political blogger who calls himself Mr. Brown, the government should “take a leaf from school exams, where security seems to be tighter” and where students must be escorted to the bathroom.

The country’s founder and former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, boiled the whole debacle down to one word: complacency.

He used the episode to strike again with his frequent warning that Singaporeans must work hard to protect the modern but fragile country he created from a social or economic explosion.

“It shows that it is a fallacy, it is stupid, to believe we are infallible,” he said. “We are not infallible. One mistake and we’ve got a big explosive in our midst. So let’s not take this lightly. I think it’s a very severe lesson on complacency.”

His son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said, “It is definitely a setback, and it should never have happened.” And then, echoing his father: “It’s the danger of complacency, of thinking that everything is all right.”

In Singapore, words like that amount to marching orders, and government agencies seem to be rushing to demonstrate that whatever else they are, they are anything but complacent.

Wong Hong Kuan, the assistant police commissioner, is at the center of the storm, commanding both his security forces and the public response.

“He knows machines, so keep an eye on your car,” said the newspaper Today, reporting on a recent briefing by Mr. Wong. “Anyone who discovers their vehicles, including motorcycles and bicycles, missing, should make a police report immediately.”

“Err on the side of caution,” the paper quoted Mr. Wong as saying. “Every second counts.”

The public has swung into action, as it has with previous nationwide campaigns — to have fewer children, to have more children, to keep toilets clean, not to throw things off balconies, to speak good English, to smile and to commit “spontaneous acts of kindness.”

More than a thousand people have telephoned the police with tips. Concerned citizens are stopping people on the street who fit the fugitive’s description. This is not a good place to be a man with a limp.

“Mas Selamat” seems to be everywhere.

He has been seen running into a park wearing only a pair of shorts monogrammed with the initials of the detention center. He has been spotted at an outdoor food stall, “but it turned out to be the man is Chinese,” according to a witness quoted in the news media.

Someone followed his footprints up a flight of stairs to a rooftop, where the footprints disappeared. Someone else saw him running down a highway toward a causeway linking Singapore to Malaysia.

A comedian, Ahmad Stokin, 51, said he had been stopped eight times, but did not seem to find it funny. He said he might look a bit like the picture on the wanted posters and he may have a limp, but it is in his right leg, not his left.

Two weeks into the search, these fruitless sightings are about all the papers have to report about the biggest news story of the day.

The top headline on Thursday about the search in the country’s main newspaper, The Straits Times, read: “I Think I Saw Mas Selamat.”

An unidentified woman, the paper reported, had just recalled seeing someone who fit the description two weeks ago near the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped.

Pondering this report, the newspaper left its readers with what is now a pointless question.

“Was Fugitive Limping Along This Road?” it asked in a headline, and displayed a photograph of an empty, rain-slick road where the witness had been standing.

Only in Singapore…

… Can a dangerous terrorist escape from prison and a government not be held accountable for it.

Up till today, some two weeks after Mas Selamat’s great escape from Whitley Detention Centre, home of the ISA, the government’s official stance on how he escaped is: We don’t know.

Information that could very well aided in his speedy capture trickled agonisingly slowly from police only days after his escape. First they told us he has a limp. After a few days, his limp becomes one that is visible only when he walks fast. The police also deemed it necessary to let us know what he was wearing when he escaped only days after he could very well have gotten rid of the clothes, as the police themselves acknowledge.

Police incompetence aside, what more can we say of our government? A simple “sorry” from the Home Affairs Minister and he expects Singaporeans to be placated? Well, you better believe it. He even had the cheek to admonish us not to speculate on how Mas Selamat escaped but to concentrate on capturing him instead!

How are we going to do that if we had spent the crucial first few days after his escape looking for a man with a limp that didn’t exist, wearing clothes that we had no idea what they looked like.

Best of all, our meek media does not even dare us the question that everyone was asking – how he escaped – immediately after Mas Selamat disappeared like Houdini. Instead we had these grant reports on the country’s efforts to capture him. Cherian George, media expert of Singapore, puts the point across succinctly here.

Without the media, or anyone for that matter, questioning how all these oversights in the workings of our government and police force can happen, all these important points are not brought to public consciousness.

For one, do we deserve the reputation of good security in Singapore if something like this can happen. Are our leaders held accountable when something goes wrong, are they getting away too easily when things don’t go the way they normally do in this supposedly clean and efficient country.

People may argue that our leaders have got it down right most of the time and we should give them a break when once in while something goes wrong. Well, I would say that our leaders, having grown accustomed to being immune to public opinion and having grown complacent that everything goes well, failed to react decisively when Mas Selamat waltzed out of Whitley.

If giving out information freely and quickly had been the government’s way of doing things, we might have gotten privy to his escape and crucial clues that may have led to his capture. instead, the government predictably closed ranks, grew their hide thick enough to withstand all public opinion and proceeded to exclude the citizenry in the hunt for Mas Selamat, only giving details when it became clear the trail had gone cold.

So, when MM Lee spoke of the complacency that led to Selamat’s escape, he forgot to mention the complacency that came out after the escape as well.

Obama? More of the Same

So -- Barack Obama's impact on young people is clearly evident in the posts preceding this one. Sure, he inspires (through a very talented speech-writer ... which explains why he does better in set-piece speeches than in debates), represents something "new" (though to get to this stage of his political career one wonders how many favors he's promised), and portends to give historic representation to traditionally marginalized groups (in spite of his penchant for pandering after the 'white' vote). But the fact is, even if Barack Obama wins the nomination and defeats McCain in November, it will be business as usual in Washington. Different sections of the immense political establishment will benefit but no real change will occur.

So -- instead of pulling for Barack Obama, I think the candidate that best represents genuine political will and dedication to public service is Ralph Nader. This sounds silly as most people know him as the narcissistic spoiler of the 2000 Elections, as the man who robbed Al Gore of victory and the villan who sent Bush into the White House. But what fewer Singaporeans (I'm assuming we've heard of the man to begin with) realize is that Ralph Nader has been a tireless public advocate on a range of issues that are bound up with our daily lives since the early 1960s. One example: Seat belts in cars and all-around safety in automobiles? It was Nader's land-mark investigations into the dishonest profit making short-cuts of the automobile industry that have made safety features the norm in our world. Forty years before Al Gore, Nader was already talking about the environment and how corporations need to be accountable for their industrial practices. Nader has an amazing list of accomplishments that look out for the little guy, from airline policy to nutritional labels on food; but more profoundly, he's demonstrated that more can be achieved if non-partisan citizens take an interest in politics and challenge the Corporate-Government complex. It is a sad thing that the two-party system (much like the PAP's stranglehold on political discourse) has essentially kept Nader out of any kind of meaningful political debate. There's an excellent film that documents Nader's career: An Unreasonable Man which would inspire anyone, regardless of political persuasion.

In an ideal world, I would root for the party (and by default, that Party's nominee) that has a socialist bent. But "The Government", so crucial in effecting key legislative reform that straightened out inequalities in an earlier time, has allied itself with corporate interests at the expense of taking proper care of ordinary citizens. And this is pretty much a global phenomenon. The fact that "Singapore, Inc." is touted as an excellent model of government is a sad case in point. Perhaps the best way to BE political is to cultivate small victories in local ways - for instance, getting individuals interested in issues to begin with, as this blog tries to do - rather than rally around the most fashionable icon of the political establishment.

Why I Unreservedly Endorse Barack Obama

For the past few months, I have been unable to make up my mind between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But my choice was made when it dawned upon me how Clinton is a symbol of the establishment and Obama is the call for change.

For Hillary Clinton, she has time and again emphasised her ability to be “commander in chief from day one” and often cites her experience in the government as a plus point. I must admit I found that argument pretty convincing.

However, as I listened to her speak after winning Ohio last night in the presidential primary, I felt a haunting sense of déjà vu. Her promises of being the best-prepared candidate are exactly the kinds of argument that the ruling party in Singapore uses every single time there is an election.

Deriding her opponent as nothing but an empty call for change is the same as how Lee Kuan Yew described opposition rallies as nothing but cheap entertainment that Singaporeans go to.

Declaring that Barack Obama will not be prepared to take the reins of the government is also akin to the scare tactic that the PAP often uses. Vote the opposition in and they will bring Singapore into ruin they say.

I have often told my friends to get real, that a few opposition members in the parliament will not cause Singapore’s economy to collapse overnight. Why did it take me so long to see through Clinton’s attacks?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both promise a change in the way government functions. But the fact is Clinton is simply too entrenched in the political system, having been in Washington so long. With someone owing so many favours to politicians and donors alike, how much can she possibly venture off the beaten track?

As for Obama, having not much experience might really work against him. But if we don’t give him the chance to prove himself, where is that experience going to come from. Just like if we never give the opposition in Singapore the chance to appear in parliament, where are they going to get the opportunity to speak up for Singaporeans?

Listen to Obama and you will know that his calls for change are not empty. Just be glad that we get to hear him on TV. To hear a proper opposition standpoint, one has to go stand in an opposition rally. The press rarely, if ever, reports it.

And so as a person who finds much reason to support the opposition I cannot but feel a need to support Obama. As a person who feels the establishment is so arrogant they think they have a god-given right to rule, I cannot but feel Clinton’s current fall from grace is a kick up her ass that she needs.

One can only hope the people of Singapore gets the guts to kick our government up its ass soon.

Obama for Singapore?

If the media is to be believed, Barack Obama is the most exciting person in American politics right now. Actually, that is an understatement. Barack Obama is probably the most exciting person in politics worldwide right now.

Most politicians will be happy to have delivered one speech that gets people talking about the eloquence of the delivery for days. Obama has made it a weekly habit of his. “We are the change we seek,” thundered Obama at one of his campaign speeches, mixing alliteration with his favourite pronoun.

His political star is burning so bright a student in our country, halfway around the world, threw up this question a at recent political forum – will we ever see our very own Obama?

Well, our very own Obama will have to come from a political party and it certainly will not be the PAP. It has long been the ruling party’s style to groom its future leaders through a methodical fashion. For the PAP, it is not about change we can believe in, but about a track record that we can trust. We are more likely to see a Hillary Clinton who expounds on her ability to be a leader from day one in the PAP. There does not seem to be any room for the meteoric rise in profile that Obama, a relatively inexperienced senator, is enjoying in the US.

And the younger members of the PAP are hardly able to reach out to younger voters the way Obama has appealed to college students in the US. The post-65 MPs have simply been hard-selling themselves too much. The cringe-worthy dance routine they tried to pass off as hip-hop was panned by many and the MPs spent much time defending their dance effort on their blog.

Obama inspires viral videos from everyday people and celebrities alike. Netizens blog about his speeches on the presidential campaign. The Post-65 MPs have to blog about their own speeches in Parliament on their own blog.

So we turn to opposition parties for our Obama, but they are unlikely to produce one either. Much has been said about Obama’s grassroots support and his ability to raise massive amounts of money from internet donors alone.

But we forget that he had a swooning media circus that catapulted him into the minds of the public when he was just a green senator from Illinois state. The extensive coverage of Obama in the news, which actually started way before his decision to run for president, gave people awareness of the books that he wrote, the speeches he made, and his appearances in the US Senate.

Now that he is running for president, cameras are ever-ready to televise every single motivating word he utters. The media has made him visible to the average American who is supporting Obama right now. The media has created Obama.

In Singapore, the opposition hardly makes the news. Whether it is because they are not worth covering or because the media is unwilling to give them coverage, we will never know. But the fact remains that the opposition is hardly in the public’s eye.

The only time the opposition appears regularly in the news is during the short period of general elections every five to six years. And though the opposition parties are able to come up with fresh faces from time to time, they lack the ability to stay in politics for long.

The Workers’ Party captured the imagination of voters when they fielded young candidates in the prime minister’s ward. But these Kamikaze Six, as the prime minister called them, disappeared from view as the ballot boxes were put away. Disagreement within the ranks later led two other members to quit the party.

Another opposition member, Steve Chia, made such a big impact in the 2001 elections that Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong praised his credibility. But he shot himself in the foot when a scandal involving compromising photographs of his maid emerged.

These are just about the only reports we see in the media about the opposition parties. The news-making juggernaut that is the government simply sucks up all the coverage in the media.

So can Singapore have an Obama? To borrow a line from Obama himself: yes, we can. We might even already have one in our midst. But without the media telling us so, we will never know.

I will sing

"Foreigners should not be encouraged to organise and lead Singaporeans in making complaints about the nation.

Information, Communications and The Arts Minister, Dr Lee Boon Yang, made this point in Parliament on Friday when he reiterated the government's position that only Singaporeans can be involved in domestic politics.

Dr Lee said letting foreigners lead Singaporeans to make complaints in public, run contrary to established principles that comments for domestic affairs should be reserved for Singaporeans.

To Mr Siew's (Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong ) point that Singapore had commented on the domestic politics of other countries, notably Myanmar, Dr Lee noted that the situation was different.

He said reactions to what was happening in Myanmar were in line with international sentiments. " Above-mentioned quoted from -CNA 15 February 2008 1842 hrs

Hmm, if Dr Lee says that only Singaporeans can be involved in domestic politics, does this policy presume that Singaporeans can freely be involved in domestic politics without being a victim of the politics of fear?

It seems to me that this policy presumes the presence of a certain vibrant and safe public sphere where Singaporeans can express their emotions and reactions to local politics. But how true is this? How many Singaporeans would gladly attest that we are free to express our political views about Singapore, in Singapore. How many of us would tend to hide behind the excuse of being 'politically apathetic' instead of embracing the opportunities given to us to spread political awareness and recognise that a political life is an everyday reality, whether one admits it or not.

Befitting the context, if some Singaporeans felt like forming a choir or an improvised drama group or even just a book sharing session to express and share political views, would they ever be granted a license from the MDA to perform in public? Would it ever be legal to bring out our political opinions into the public sphere? Is a civil society viable in Singapore in the near future?

These are important questions that we should at least stop in our busy upper middle class lives to think about. These are critical questions that should somehow touch a nerve within you. How long more will we be able to hide behind materialism and economic development and repress our natural desires to be engaged in a political life, whether it is simply hoping to see some real competitive politics on TV or being able to decide what to do with your lifelong savings.

I would like to commend CNA for mentioning Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong's counter-point to Dr. Lee, pointing out the inconsistency of the government's professed policy towards non-interference in other nations' domestic politics. Even if we accept Dr. Lee's caveat that it is in line with international sentiment, the same caveat can be used to support my point that there is alot of unhappiness with Singapore's domestic politics (or lack of), whether emanating from inside Singapore or outside. I believe there is a certain undercurrent of international sentiment that does not exactly agree with the oppressive and authoritarian type of democracy that exists in Singapore. This underlying sentiment may be much diluted and dwarfed by international perception of Singapore as a successful business hub and post-colonial developing country in Asia, and also perhaps the active use of libel laws here.

I will sing in protest, not at the state of domestic politics in Singapore, but to spread awareness among my friends and fellow Singaporeans. Wake up from your dreamy cushy upper middle class life and stand up for your rights, act in the full capacity of a political citizen, for the strengthening and renewal of this beautiful country and state. 'Political apathy' seems like an oxymoron for me, I cannot understand how it can truly exist unless you are truly that easily satisfied with things in life. I will sing, whether in hokkien or teochew or singlish or english or mandarin or arabic or malay if you teach me. If you are willing to hear, I will sing, for I believe certain fundamental things in life like music and liberty are a universal language that transcends many barriers.