The "After-school Child Care Initiative" passed by the Ministry of Education a few days ago, allows elementary schools to provide after-school programs for their students. It attempts to take care of the needs of both parents and children by utilizing the resources available from schools, parents, communities and private groups. Such a well-intended policy, however, is encountering criticism from supplementary-education operators, who suspect that the government is trying to steal business from them. Their claims are beyond comprehension.
We support the popularization of after-school day care for the following reasons:
First, with economic development and rising living standards, Taiwan has seen an increasing number of families in which both parents have to work to make ends meet. Occupied with work, they find it difficult to spend time with their children. Therefore, many women either exhaust themselves by handling their careers and kids at the same time, or simply stay away from work to take care of their family. The latter choice explains why women's employment rate has not risen for a long time.
Child-care businesses charge around NT$4,000 to NT$16,000 per month. Those unable to afford such service cannot but leave their children at home alone when they are at work. The ministry's initiative takes advantage of the safe and spacious environment of schools, with which children are already familiar. Children can stay there until their parents finish work. Each school may engage parents, private groups and local communities in the child-care responsibilities.
It is truly a benign policy that helps parents, especially women, to work without having to worry about their children.
Second, the ministry's statistics shows there were1,918,034 students enrolled in elementary schools last year. There are only 922 registered child-care centers, accommodating only 38,000 pupils after school. The current provision of after-school child care is insufficient.
It is risky to turn children between the ages of seven and 12 into latch-key kids. As they are not taken good care of, they may wander the streets, causing other social problems. The ministry's initiative, utilizing resources currently available, places kids in the safe environment of schools, provides good care and solves the problem of insufficient child care.
Third, the after-school programs outlined in the initiative cannot go beyond tutoring, activities and child care. No talent classes or teaching ahead of the school schedule are allowed. There is a clear distinction between such programs and those offered by supplementary-education businesses, so the ministry is not trying to steal business from private companies.
Besides, the initiative does not exclude supplementary-education businesses. They are welcome to participate in the child-care work. Therefore, contrary to their claims, the initiative is not unfair rivalry against after-school child care businesses, talent classes, or the whole industry of supplementary education.
Fourth, the recent move to raise university tuition fees stirred up sweeping criticism. Students protested on the streets and political figures scrambled to make promises. As we eagerly examine the reasonability of university tuition, we should pay more attention to the availability and affordability of child care.
Compared to university tui-tion, the fees charged by private child-care businesses place an even heavier burden on ordinary families. University students have various means to finance their study, such as loans, part-time jobs and so on. They can even consider working first and going back to school later in life. Yet basic education that does not include child care will have a tremendous impact on children's growth as well as women's development and parents' careers. Therefore, this issue demands more attention from society.
Fifth, supplementary education and child-care businesses maintain that after-school programs should be provided by professionals. It is not true since the programs outlined in the initiative aim to provide care, rather than enhancement courses or talent lessons. Therefore parents, private groups and anyone who cares about the community can participate. Mothers who stay at home will be excellent candidates after some training as they are already experienced in child care. At the same time this policy solves their problems in re-entering the workforce.
Based on the reasons outlined above, we support the initiative proposed by the ministry to make child care service more readily available.
Huang Sue-ying is chairperson of Taiwan Women's Link and Liu Yi-chieh is a secretary.
TRANSLATED BY JENNIE SHIH
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS