Shoe:

Sharing a link I found online...


http://www.childcarelink.gov.sg/ccls/uploads/Statistics_on_child_care%28STENT%29.pdf

Shows that childcare fees increased abt 200 bucks since 2006 from $680-878 but it seems fees will increase even further this year, judging from what parents are saying... Need more subsidy! Our salaries not increasing fast enough with increasing prices of everything!

Unfortunately, I am afraid that any govt childcare subsidy will only result in higher childcare fees unless the subsidies come with some form of govt regulation to prevent Childcare service providers from taking advantage and raising fees in tandem.

snaw:

JoetheSC:

[quote=\"Daddy D\"]I don't see the need to get personal with rebuttals...

Don't turn this to a SC against PR topic..
:celebrate:

First of all, let me clarify...THIS IS a SC against PR/FT topic.

I can't see how we can not make it so, when this is a discussion on a policy that clearly pits PRs/FTs' entitlements against SCs'.

I am equally offended by Mr Snaw's arrogance and sense of entitlement as those who were offended by my rebuttal, but my rebuttal was not meant to be \"personal\". Instead, it is meant to strongly REMIND the non-SCs in general (esp. those who don't \"Get it\"), that as much as we SCs welcome REAL (F)TALENTs to our motherland, they can NEVER and should NEVER expect to be granted equal entitlements/concessions in areas like primary/basic education and accommodation simply because unlike SCs, PRs/FTs were not born/raised/will raise a family/live/and die HERE. I am sure they would agree that the same holds true in reverse.

In simple unsavoury terms, FTs/PRs are transient migrants whose main focus is to enrich themselves first (as anyone would), in whichever land that offers the best opportunities/returns. All other benefits that the host (country) receives from FTs/PRs' \"contributions\" are incidental rather than primary to their decision to relocate (here). And I would expect that once the factors that were beneficial to PRs/FTs are taken away, they CAN and WILL relocate..as what Mr Snaw so clearly mentioned or even threatened, albeit mis-guidedely.

That is why Mr Snaw threatened \"I'll never go SC, why would I want to?...... If Singapore keeps forcing the issue with moves like this I'll leave\".

The SG government is FINALLY acknowledging that they had neglected its own citizens and the CONSEQUENCES have not been desirable, and hence, it looks like the main agenda going forward (at least until the next GE) is to win back the hearts of SCs...AT THE EXPENSE OF PRs/FTs.

So...get used to it..SCs, PRs and FTs alike

I think I may have missed something, not been keeping up with the thread just logged in and saw this. Why all the hostility?

<JoetheSC> The hostility is stemming from the arrogance and sense of entitlement thats overflowing from your original comments.

I talked about arrogance and sense of entitlement as something I didn't want my kids to have by going to international school, so I'd prefer to go local. If that offends you then sorry I'd like my kids to integrate into Singapore society more, not less.

<JoetheSC> Its not this particular statement that I find offensive. Its the overall tone and message of your posting. If an FT/PR in UK or Australia had written anything like this on a public forum I would not be surprised if the consequent reaction from the citizens there would have been more extreme.

I never stated I should be granted equal entitlement, in fact I said I understand why SC's were frustrated. I never threatened to leave either

<JoetheSC>You wrote \"If Singapore keeps forcing the issue with moves like this I'll leave, there are plenty of other countries which would value my skills and aren't quite as hostile\". I might have misunderstood the meaning of that statement although I still can't see how that was the case.

, I pointed out why people like my wife and I come to Singapore - and it's not just money, I can earn as much or more in many other countries, it's a combination of factors with schooling being one of them.

<JoetheSC> Ability and opportunity are mutually exclusive factors. Just like many SCs have the ability to earn as much (and mostly even more if we were to relocate overseas), unfortunately, the employment opportunities are not always there given that MOST governments, unlike SG, are less accommodating/have the political might to implement policies that favour FTs/PRs over their own citizens. Which had been the crux of SCs' unhappiness, which was clearly demonstrated in the last GE.

So, again, this statement of yours with regards to your earning capacity reeks of arrogance. I view the \"lower\" salary you suggest you earn in SG compared to other countries, as the security premium you pay for the stability, orderliness and general level of safety that generations of SCs had worked hard to achieve and maintain, and which you and your family are enjoying and taking for granted by the looks of things.

If that dynamic changes then undoubtedly it impacts foreign talents desire to live in certain places. I probably didn't put that across as well as I could, but I'm not having a go at the decision, as I stated (And you seem to have missed or completely misunderstood) I'm simply saying big decisions like these have consequences.

<JoetheSC>Thats an oxymoron of a statement. The government obviously felt the impact/consequence of NOT acting earlier and decided, FINALLY, that the balance has to be recalibrated in SCs' favour.

Reading through this thread and I sense a lot of animosity to foreign workers. If you want people to become SC then I'm not sure hostility is a great base to start from, it's also not my general impression of people I meet here but I'm now starting to wonder if maybe it's what everyone is thinking. It's certainly a theme I'm picking up in the last year or so.

The hostility is in reaction to your arrogance and misguided sense of entitlement which you intentionally or otherwise portrayed in the original post. Judging from the reactions of the majority who read your post, it is obvious that you missed your intended point by a wide berth. I am surprised it happened given that you are a native English speaker. But I do appreciate the conciliatory tone in your latest reply...or was that unintended? :yikes:

SCs are amongst the most tolerant people on earth when it comes to accepting people of varying nationalities/races/culture/religions. I dare say you will not be able to find another more densely populated city state with a more diverse and inclusive community as ours.

WE, SCs however, like anyone else, anywhere else in the world, do not tolerate arrogance and ignorance spewing from a transient migrant with no permanent stake in our country.
[/quote]

Daddy

I don't see the need to get personal with rebuttals...

Don't turn this to a SC against PR topic..
:celebrate:

First of all, let me clarify...THIS IS a SC against PR/FT topic.

I can't see how we can not make it so, when this is a discussion on a policy that clearly pits PRs/FTs' entitlements against SCs'.

I am equally offended by Mr Snaw's arrogance and sense of entitlement as those who were offended by my rebuttal, but my rebuttal was not meant to be \"personal\". Instead, it is meant to strongly REMIND the non-SCs in general (esp. those who don't \"Get it\"), that as much as we SCs welcome REAL (F)TALENTs to our motherland, they can NEVER and should NEVER expect to be granted equal entitlements/concessions in areas like primary/basic education and accommodation simply because unlike SCs, PRs/FTs were not born/raised/will raise a family/live/and die HERE. I am sure they would agree that the same holds true in reverse.

In simple unsavoury terms, FTs/PRs are transient migrants whose main focus is to enrich themselves first (as anyone would), in whichever land that offers the best opportunities/returns. All other benefits that the host (country) receives from FTs/PRs' \"contributions\" are incidental rather than primary to their decision to relocate (here). And I would expect that once the factors that were beneficial to PRs/FTs are taken away, they CAN and WILL relocate..as what Mr Snaw so clearly mentioned or even threatened, albeit mis-guidedely.

That is why Mr Snaw threatened \"I'll never go SC, why would I want to?...... If Singapore keeps forcing the issue with moves like this I'll leave\".

The SG government is FINALLY acknowledging that they had neglected its own citizens and the CONSEQUENCES have not been desirable, and hence, it looks like the main agenda going forward (at least until the next GE) is to win back the hearts of SCs...AT THE EXPENSE OF PRs/FTs.

So...get used to it..SCs, PRs and FTs alike

snaw:

I'm a PR, with a daughter about to enter school next year. I think this change is pretty major, and will have an impact on PR's in Singapore and how they feel about being here.


<joetheSC>In case Mr Snaw has not realised, this (and recent as well as upcoming policies) where formulated after much deliberation, to have the maximum impact on non-SCs. If you are still wondering why that is the case, you may want to be \"a little bit more concerned\" with the recent developments esp. within the political scene, in Singapore. Its about time you did so, by the way, seeing how you have been here long enough to have acquired your (misguided) sense of entitlement.

I could easily send her to an international school, but I'd choose not to for several reasons - the primary one being I want my kids to integrate as much as possible, and I feel international schools have a tendency to produce kids who can be a little arrogant and 'entitled'. It's a common debate among expats, and there are always a significant minority who feel the same way I do.

<joetheSC>To this I say, please feel free to do so ie. send your daugther to international schools charging exhorbitant fees instead of your noble goal of \"intergration\". I am surprised that your decision has nothing to do with costs since most MNCs nowadays have been offering/converting previously lucrative (and obviously unsustainable) expat packages to \"local package\" for those here on long-term assignments.

I'll never go SC, why would I want to? I've no desire to give up my UK passport, and my wife would never give up her Aussie passport. If Singapore keeps forcing the issue with moves like this I'll leave, there are plenty of other countries which would value my skills and aren't quite as hostile as Singapore is starting to appear to be to foreign talent.

<joetheSC>Then why do you feel so strongly that you should be entitled to the same benefits (at least where schools are concerned) as SC? Would SCs with PR status get the same previledge in the UK or even Australia as what you already are getting even with this change? I am not too sure what valuable skills/talents you have, but I have no doubt that it can be easily replaced if you leave. On the other hand, outside of Singapore, can you can confidently say that you can find employment, say in the US, Europe given that they have unemployment rates of 10% and above. In Australia, outside of the mining/raw materials sector, the employment scene is terrible. And don't even get me started on the state of \"protectionism\" there. You can of course return to the UK. In any case, I doubt we will miss you very much.

Property will be impacted, those areas with good schools in the past had higher property prices for school reasons, now though there's no point when an SC 10KM away will have priority over you.

<joetheSC>Property prices will definitely be affected. But most SCs will not be complaining since most are owner-occupiers or young adults struggling to own their first property to start a new phase in their lives. The real impact will be on expats/speculators (like yourself?) who will have to liquidate when you (finally) leave Singapore

Schools will be impacted, as mentioned PR's will find it very difficult now to get into good schools. What this will mean for those schools, and the knock on effect on other schools remains to be seen, but clearly it's a game changer. Will some PR's leave because of it, absolutely - education of your kids is an essential part of most peoples lives, and one of the reasons people come to Singapore is because of the reputation of the schools. This move clearly changes that dynamic for PR's.

<joetheSC>Let me remind you that Singapore built its reputation for good schools providing great education from elementary level upwards (in stark contrast to the UK, US or Europe..again time to brush up on current affairs I think) BEFORE the influx of FTs like yourself. In any case, for FTs who leave ONLY because of this change in ruling, I doubt the contributions they can/have been making in other areas anyways. So, I guess its good riddance.

I understand where this move has come from, and the frustrations of SC's losing out to PR's for school places, I'd feel the same way. But as in all thinks in life there are consequences and while I'm not sure we know fully what these will be with this move, I'm certain there will be some fall out in the longer term not just for PR's but for Singapore in it's global reputation for foreign talent given the main reason most of us come here is as much about family as the financials.

<joetheSC>Yupe. Just as you seem to have thought through the consequences before posting your commentary, I am looking forward to the positive long-term outcome of the Singapore government's recent measures.