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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS