Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Part 3 of thoughts on Budget 2007 – The post secondary education account
I had a friend who commented to me on MSN that the post secondary education account (PSEA) is just tokenism. The most that the government is willing to give is $400. As if $400 is a big deal, right?
Well, if we look at things more closely, from ages 7-12, students whose annual value of home less than $10,000 will get $200 a year. That’s $1,000 in total. From ages 13 – 20, those in this group will get $400 a year, and that amounts to $2,800. So, there’s a total of $3,800 for post secondary education given by the government.
$3,800 isn’t a big sum of money, considering that it will cover only one semester’s worth of fees now, or cover general expenditure (i.e. pocket money) for a year. As the cost of education increases, this amount of money would be worth less in future (maybe it’ll cover only half a semester of fees 10 years down the road). However, considering the number of students there are in Singapore, the total cost to the government is quite substansial.
Some assistance is perhaps better than no assistance at all. I just hope that the government will take into account the rise in cost of education over the years and adjust the amount to be given out every year accordingly. I hope that the PSEA will eventually be able to offset up to two semester’s worth of payable fees, or 2 years worth of general expenditure.
As a current undergraduate (and a relatively poor one), if I have the PSEA now and that it can cover 2 semester’s worth of fees or 2 years of general expenses, it means alot. I can either pay off my study loan faster, or concentrate better on my studies because I don’t have to worry too much about pocket money.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 16/02/2007 at 1:54 pm, and is filed under Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 6 years ago
Anyway…i have heard from credible sources that sometime in the near future they hope to get rid of the university subsidy that people enjoy now…perhaps this PSEA is a precursor to the above…
about 6 years ago
Actually, PSEA or not, what is most important is for people to get rid of the idea that you’re not supposed to do a certificate or diploma but only a degree after O-levels.
And also, to get rid of the idea that you have to do a Masters or a PhD after having done a degree.
Some people just don’t have the time nor money to spare for university. And not all courses of interest to the individual is going to be available at a university.
about 6 years ago
oskar,
Not all courses are available in Singapore, and some are obviously under-valued. If i wanted to study, say, philosophy in Singapore, i’d better not waste my parents’ money.
As for Masters/PhD, I don’t think there is a prevalent mentality amongst Singaporeans to go for one. The impression i get is that a lot of students are very, very tired of studying and aim to go out and start earning money.
But when they go out and start earning money, they find that money is hard to come by.
Mentalities are deep-rooted and hard to get rid of…rather, i would advocate the mentality of ‘doing what you want’ – a modification to the previous mindset, but from there perhaps it would be easier to implement the changes you mentioned
about 6 years ago
Oskar,
I disgree with you. I think it is important to go for higher education. However, the problem is not higher education itself, but why people are doing it. If people are doing it not to learn but to boost the resume, that stupid. If people are going for higher education to learn something new, and to exercise some critical thinking, that’s good investment for the future.
about 6 years ago
Actually, the question of why university education should even continue to be subsidized remains unanswered. Why can’t people just take loans and repay the loans upon graduation like in the US?
Just because the Government has along been subsidizing tertiary education doesn’t mean that it should always be the case. The Government’s responsibility is to ensure equal “access” to education, not “free/cheap education”.
The strangeness of the current situation is that the present subsidies are actually “regressive”. The Government is effectively paying more money to people who will be earning more eventually.
To a great extent, replacing university subsidies with PSEA reconciles this anormaly.
about 6 years ago
Happy Chinese New Year, KTM.
Fair enough that the government’s responsibility is to ensure equal access, and not free/cheap access. Therefore, those who can afford to pay more will be subsidised less, while those who can’t will be subsidised more by differentiating the amount received through PSEA. This is most logical if we take other socio-political factors out of the picture. I don’t really think that anyone enjoys being discriminated against for being rich. And being rich usually means high mobility, so I suppose the government has to be a little careful on this. Not all rich people think that it’s alright for them to pay more because they can afford it.
about 6 years ago
Aaron:
If people are going for higher education to learn something new, and to exercise some critical thinking, that’s good investment for the future.
Yes, but if people can think for themselves, then the choice of what sort of education to have ought to lie with them.
And that’s all I’m saying.
about 6 years ago
guojun:
Mentalities are deep-rooted and hard to get rid of…rather, i would advocate the mentality of ‘doing what you want’ – a modification to the previous mindset, but from there perhaps it would be easier to implement the changes you mentioned
Yes.
about 6 years ago
Not all rich people think that it’s alright for them to pay more because they can afford it.
Aiyah, rich or poor is irrelevant. Nobody wants to pay more, period. At the end of the day, Garmen also cannot be too kiam siap. If we really have a lot a lot of spare cash then certainly should give out more ang bao’s lah, but now that we’re going into deficit, may be a good time to rethink how we should be re-distributing our wealth.
To think about: instead of increasing GST, why not reduce tertiary education subsidies to pay for the poor, the aged and the sick? Let the undergrads take loans and then repay upon graduation loh. The net effect is to put the GST burden on the college graduates of tomorrow (since they will be the middle class or rich duded mah).
No lah, the KTM is not actually SUGGESTING this. Scully people stone him. He’s merely raising this point as a Devil’s advocate.
Happy New Year!
about 5 years ago
about 4 years ago
ibm we deliver ocean land right me yes boy deliver