Childcare services: daycare and private nursery businesses

Working couples hit by childcare costs

PETALING JAYA: It's a double whammy for working couples with children maids are hard to find while daycare centres have increased their fees in tandem with higher operation costs.

A check with several centres in the Klang Valley showed that they have raised fees by up to 10% over the past two years.

A staff member at a centre in Bukit Damansara, who declined to be named, said that it had to increase its fees by 10% every two to three years.

The centre, which also offers pre-school education inclusive of daycare for children aged three to six years, now charges about RM1,600 per month.

Another centre in Taman Desa, which offers only daycare for children of two years and above without pre-schooling, charges RM500 a month.

“We charged RM450 last year, but had to increase our fees because food prices had gone up,” said the principal who only wanted to be known as Stacey.

A centre in Puchong has maintained its fees at RM500 per month, but expects to raise it soon.

The centre provides lunch and two snacks, a shower in the evening and assistance with school work for the children under its care.

“We will try to hold down our fees for as long as we can, but foresee having to increase it soon as everything else is going up in price,” said its operator.

Demand for childcare centres in the Klang Valley is especially acute as many families have both spouses working while living away from their parents and relatives.

The scarcity of maids has contributed to the increase in demand.

It was reported recently that agencies were asking Malaysians to pay more for maids from Indonesia even as the Philippines was phasing out the sending of its citizens abroad as domestic workers.

Association of Registered Child-care Providers P.H. Wong said the centres had been affected by the increase in living costs as the price of goods had gone up along with public expectation of the quality of service.

“Parents who want quality service must be ready to pay more. Centres have no choice but to increase their fees to survive,” she said.

She urged the Government to introduce a subsidy for parents who need to care for their children while they were at work.

The Health Ministry had announced stricter control of daycare centres, with regular inspection of nurseries to ensure that they are fit to take care of babies in the wake of deaths from choking on milk and other incidents at these establishments.

Social Welfare Department statistics this year showed that 52% of the 3,238 nurseries nationwide were unlicensed.

However, there is no record of the number of children who died while under their care.

According to news reports, at least 22 children under the age of four were believed to have died while in nursery care between 2009 and this year.

By YVONNE LIM yvonnelim@thestar.com.my

Private nurseries struggle to stay in business

PETALING JAYA: About three million children aged four and below need daycare services in this country but many private nurseries are struggling to keep their doors open.

Association of Registered Child Care Providers Malaysia vice-president P.H. Wong said the Government should extend support to private childcare centres because of high operating costs.

As of May this year, 1,086 childcare centres had been registered with the Welfare Department: 989 were privately run, 16 set up by companies at work places, 67 in government offices and 14 were community-based.

Even for community-based childcare centres, there were few takers despite the RM50,000 set-up grant and annual RM64,000 subsidy given by the Government, Wong said.

This was because the subsidy barely covered operating costs since lower income parents could only afford to pay RM200 to RM350 for each child, she added.

A former childcare centre owner, who wanted to be known only as Cheong, said she closed her centre in Sri Petaling last month after operating for more than two years because the RM600 to RM800 monthly fees she collected from 14 parents could not cover the monthly expenses.

“It was really heartbreaking. I don't want to do it (run a centre) again,” said the 36-year-old.

She could not continue paying the RM3,000 rental for a corner unit house, pay providers' salaries, food, beverage and toys for the children, and utility bills, said Chong who spent RM25,000 to set up the centre.

She also had difficulty looking for care providers because the heavy workload made people reluctant to take the job even if she offered more than the RM1,000 to RM1,600 salaries.

Social Welfare Department legal and advocacy division director Dr Zaitol Salleh said that two nurseries had surrendered their licences from January to May, and on average five cease to operate each year.

Another childcare centre operator, who only wanted to be known as Ooi, said she had to close her nursery in a condominium after operating it for seven years because she could not get baby sitters.

“Most baby sitters prefer to work on their own at home while the young people prefer other jobs,” said Ooi, who is in her 50s.

By LOH FOON FONG  foonfong@thestar.com.my

China and US, different but similar

The US and China are said to practise very different systems, but only if the details are excluded.

THE world’s two biggest economies exercised the selection of their next leaders just two days apart.

The international media made the usual observation that here were two systems working in ways that could not be more different. That is valid only up to a point, beyond which it only obscures the realities of the US and Chinese systems.

Externally, US democracy is said to offer citizens a choice of government every four years. If an incumbent fails to deliver as promised, voters can vote him out the next time.

China’s one-party system undertakes no regular elections for the public. Every 10 years, the Communist Party meets at a National Congress to identify the country’s next president and prime minister.

The common implication is that while the US system offers freedom of choice, China’s does not. These contrasting stereotypes become fuzzy in practice, however.

The US system sets two presidential terms of four years each as the limit for any individual. If an incumbent opts for re-election, his party is unlikely to entertain any challenger from the party’s ranks.

Thus the party’s candidate is predetermined, beyond the control of even party members. For the other party, some jostling among prospective candidates precedes the eventual candidate, over which ordinary party members may have no choice.

For both parties, money and party machinery (monetised infrastructure) are prerequisites. Any candidate, whether from one of the two main parties or any other, can have no hope of seriously running for the presidency without the vast financial backing required.

That is why in the US and many other Western democratic systems, the choice voters have is only one out of two parties. Third, fourth, fifth and other parties have no real chance, regardless of the value of their policies or the virtues of their candidates.

The supposedly free mainstream news media is also an accessory to this limitation. They give alternative parties scant print space or air time, on the premise that they have little clout, which ensures that they continue to have little clout.

The result is that when either the Republi­can or the Democratic Party wins the presidency, they differ little in the flesh. With hardly any alternative ideas penetrating this political establishment, Republicans and Democrats tend to become more conservative.

As far-right neo-conservatives entered the fray in the 2000 election, both parties moved further to the right. Critics describe the two main parties as merely two wings of the same party, or as being two right wings of the Republican Party.

The US presidency is also the choice of the system rather than of the people. The eventual winner is “elected” by the electoral vote of the Electoral College, rather than the popular vote of ordinary voters.

There are currently only 538 members of the Electoral College who decide on the next president and vice-president out of a choice of two teams. The candidacy that can secure 270 votes wins the White House.

In China, 2,270 delegates of the Communist Party meet at the National Congress every five years to elect the party’s highest decision-making body, the Central Committee (CC). Some 350 members of the CC then decide on the party’s General Secretary and members of the Politburo, Standing Committee and Central Military Commission.

The CC is said to experience high turnovers at election time. In each of the past half-dozen national congresses, more than 60% of committee members have been replaced.

There has also been no shortage of candidates, particularly for this year’s 18th National Congress. It was the first time that nominees for the 2,270 party delegates had been assessed, with candidates continuing to outnumber the available slots.

At this latest National Congress, both a new CC and a new Central Commission for Discipline Inspection were elected. The Communist Party’s Constitution is also being amended, with the main themes being intra-party democracy and fighting corruption.

The governing party’s Standing Committee has also sought the views of other political parties in China on the draft report for the 18th National Congress. President Hu Jintao, as party General Secretary, pledged to strengthen cooperation with the other parties.

Beijing has thus become a magnet for journalists during the week more than for previous National Congresses. More than 1,000 international journalists gained accreditation, with another 400 from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.

If more of Beijing’s proceedings were in English, they would enjoy wider global coverage. That day may soon come as China’s prospect grows.

In 1997, China granted the Carter Center in the US the role of observing village-level elections around the country. The next level of governance, the provincial level, has also experimented with elections for the general public, with only the national level still to do so.

Since 2002, the Carter Center has also played a significant part in voter education in China, on issues like improved governance and political reform. In both rural and urban areas, the Carter Center works with China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs and with NGOs
.
Meanwhile during the week’s 18th National Congress in Beijing, a multitude of issues surfaced for the government to consider. Among these are challenges from growing income disparities, corruption, inadequate market access for local businesses, environmental degradation and moral decay from public indifference to private suffering.

As elsewhere, the responsibility of government is to ensure fulfilment of public welfare without neglecting private business needs. Whereas in the US critics of the government accuse Washington of adopting socialist policies, critics of Beijing accuse the government of abandoning them.

The world’s two largest economies are often compared to see how different they are, while neglecting how much they are similar and how exactly they actually differ. Economically they have become so interdependent within a single global system as to become mutually complementary.

By implication, they are also not as different politically as is so often presumed. While classical ideologists may persist, the reality is that the political business of government has largely become managing national economies competently in a single globalised world.

Kenichi Ohmae is wrong; countries are in no danger of being replaced by corporations in the present or the foreseeable future, no matter how much some corporate budgets dwarf some national incomes. Rather, countries will remain unitary entities, albeit essentially as political economies increasingly governed by national economic needs and supranational economic parameters.

A symptom of this is how economic ideo­logies have replaced political ideologies between the world’s leading major powers. The Washington Consensus of supposedly antagonistic public and private sectors is under serious challenge by the Beijing Consensus of a harmonious complementary relationship between state and industry.

The latter model in Asia originated in Japan, and was soon adopted by the Newly Industrialising Economies (NIEs) of Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore. Now China is the main player of this game, with its size of play earning it the “Beijing Consensus” as the name of the game.

But some of it had already been seen before in Europe, particularly Germany. It had also been evident in the US itself, in a different time and under a different name.

All of which serves to confirm the unitary nature of the global economy, with time, circumstance and level of development being the real differentials.

BEHIND THE HEADLINES By BUNN NAGARA

Related post:
America's problem: Money politics seldom supports reforms

World's Simplest Management Secret

Forget what you learned in those management books. There's really only one way to ensure that everyone on your team excels.

Management books have it all wrong. They all try to tell you how to manage "people."

It's impossible to manage "people"; it's only possible to manage individuals. And because individuals differ from one another, what works with one individual may not work with somebody else.

Some individuals thrive on public praise; others feel uncomfortable when singled out.

Some individuals are all about the money; others thrive on challenging assignments.

Some individuals need mentoring; others find advice to be grating.

The trick is to manage individuals the way that THEY want to be managed, rather than the way that YOU'd prefer to be managed.

The only way to do this is to ASK.

In your first (or next) meeting with each direct report ask:

• How do you prefer to be managed?
• What can I do to help you excel?
• What types of management annoy you?

Listen (really listen) to the response and then, as far as you are able, adapt your coaching, motivation, compensation, and so forth to match that individual's needs.

BTW, a savvy employee won't wait for you to ask; he or she will tell you outright what works. When this happens, you're crazy not to take that employee's advice!

Unfortunately, most individuals aren't that bold, which is why it's up to you to find out how to get the best out of them.

And you'll never get that out of a management book.

There is no one-size-fits-all in a world where everyone is unique.

Read more:

How to Avoid Social Networking Pitfalls

6 Infallible Ways to Earn Respect

8 Easy Tweaks to Win More Customers

Geoffrey James writes the Sales Source column on Inc.com, the world's most visited sales-oriented blog. His newly published book is Business to Business Selling: Power Words and Strategies From the World's Top Sales Experts. @Sales_Source

Is property building management a professional?

Have separate board 

WE refer to the letter “Leave it to professionals”, (see article below) on the issue of strata management.

Building management is not a profession: it is a multi-disciplinary management function encompassing a wide range of skills such as engineering, architecture, accounting, law, vocational skills, etc.

It cannot and should not be the exclusive domain of any particular profession like registered valuers.

No country has laws that specify that only registered valuers admitted as property managers pursuant to Section 21(1)(a) of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act, 1981 (VAEA Act) can undertake property management.

To put things in perspective, the Building Management Association of Malaysia (BMAM) is not objecting to registered valuers managing stratified properties.

What we are strongly opposed to is the creation of a monopoly favouring registered valuers if the Bill is signed into law in its present form.

The Board of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents is offering to open a sub-register for non-valuer managing agents to be admitted as property managers.

We are not accepting the board’s proposal as it would only further entrench its monopoly over property management, given that the admission, suspension and even eventual deregistration of non-valuer property managers will be at the sole discretion of the board.

We are calling for the establishment of a separate multi-disciplinary Board of Building Managers under the jurisdiction of the Housing and Local Government Ministry with regulatory support from the Commissioner of Buildings (COB).

There are more than 4,000 stratified projects (80% of them residential) in Malaysia at the moment, and about five million Malaysians belonging to the low and middle income groups live in them.

Since the common properties and facilities in the flat and apartment premises cannot be sold or subdivided and are meant for the exclusive use of the residents, all that the owners need is a building manager to maintain the common areas and facilities, and not a property manager whose portfolio includes leasing, collection of rent, promotion of sales, etc.

A building manager appointed by the joint management body (JMB) or management corporation (MC) upon mutually agreed terms and conditions of scope of work and remuneration would be significantly cheaper than a property manager whose fees are subject to a schedule under the VAEA Act.

The building manager is only expected to carry out his duties and responsibilities according to the terms and conditions of his appointment as well as the instructions of the JMB or MC Management Committee.

All fiduciary responsibilities, particularly the management of the Building Fund Account, are undertaken by the JMB or MC pursuant to the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act, 2007 and the Strata Titles Act, 1985.

These records are submitted to the COB every year after the annual general meeting.

PROF S. VENKATESWARAN
Secretary General
Building Management Association of Malaysia

Leave it to professionals

THE public deserves an unbiased understanding beyond the shadow play leading up to the third reading of the Strata Management Bill 2012 in parliament.

The proposed Act stipulates that a managing agent for stratified property must first be free from any potential conflict of interest (i.e. independent) and secondly, a registered property manager.

The Act replaces the Building and Common Property Act, which did not emphasise that such functions are to be performed by a registered property manager.

The key problem is that property management at present is also practised by an unregulated group and such parties are not accountable to a regulatory body unlike registered persons i.e. property professionals or chartered surveyors.

The new Act aims to rectify this disparity by uniformly regulating all property managers of stratified properties.

Under the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act (VAEA), a Registered Property Manager must possess:

1) An academic qualification from an approved institution of higher learning or recognised professional examinations; and

2) Pass the Test of Professional Competence set by the regulating body.

These robust standards and established processes are aimed towards registering professionals of sound qualifications and adequate competency levels.

A registered property manager is continuously subjected to a code of conduct, professional standards and various stipulations under VAEA to ensure they discharge their duties in a manner that serves the public adequately and to the highest possible industry standards.

The registration of property managers and firms is undertaken by the Board of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Malaysia (board).

The board, a governmental regulatory body under the purview of the Finance Ministry, was set up in 1981 to regulate Estate Agents, Valuers, Appraisers and Property Managers in Malaysia.

It is legislatively empowered to deal with complaints from the public and take disciplinary action against any errant registered persons or firms, including stripping them of their licence and barring them from further practice, amongst other possible disciplinary measures.

Given the established competency requirements and standards imposed on registered property managers, I cannot see beyond reasonable logic for such professionals to utterly fail in their professional duties to a joint management corporation, management corporation or individual owner.

The board, in the spirit of laissez-faire, has opened the registration of property managers to include these non-regulated practitioners.

Property management was always the domain of property professionals but only in recent history, primarily property developers and others have set up property management businesses to rival property professionals for the property management trade but in an unregulated fashion, taking advantage of the limitations of statutes. This is where the battle lies and the public should take notice.

If a non-regulated practitioner wishes to practise as a property manager in efforts to legally comply with the greater standards as demanded by the new Act, I cannot see why they should shy away and not readily subject themselves through the established process and competency test in order to become a registered property manager.

The process is not designed to penalise individuals but to assess if a candidate has the required level of competency, in order to be accountable to the public as a practising professional.

The merit of regulating the property management profession far outweighs any self-serving agenda, and the public must insist for high standards in lieu of the nation’s Vision 2020 agenda.

To the lawmakers and members of Parliament, my plea is to make the right decisions in cognisance of standards, accountability and professionalism.

The last thing we want is a mushrooming of “urban slums” in our beautiful country.

A. PADMAN  Kuala Lumpur - The Star, Nov 5 2012

Related posts:
Managing strata properties in Malaysia
Poor services from JMBs, Unlicensed Property Managers and Lucrative Trade!

Watch out for get-rich-quick schemes

Good profitability comes from making the right-buying decision
 
HAVE you bought any gold in the last five years? If you had bought, either you are laughing all the way to the bank or you are worried sick that you might never see your life savings back in your bank account.

If you had bought physical gold because you believe the price of gold will go up, then you have made a great investment decision. If you had bought because there is a high income return in the form of interest or share of profits, then you have let greed cloud your buying decision. You are buying for all the wrong reasons.

Other than buying shares in the stock market based upon reliable insider information, I know of no other buying opportunities that guarantees you high returns in a short period of time. You might argue that corruption is a guaranteed clean profit scheme but then it is not a buying decision where personal financial risk is involved. It is always other people's money.

The only common denominator in any get rich scheme is greed. Lots of human greed preyed upon by conmen who will continue to thrive because of gullible people buying for the wrong reasons. Their belief that “there is a greedy sucker born every minute” is justified.

In business, you are hailed a marketing wizard when you sell well. If you had bought well, it will be reflected in your gross margins, cash flow and bottom line. So who should be rewarded more, seller or buyer?

Most businesses are obsessed with selling decisions and place less emphasis on buying decisions. You will find these businesses having higher cost of goods, higher obsolescence, poor cash flow and weaker profits.

In this era of commoditisation where final prices for similar products in the market tend to level out, the buying decision becomes even more important and crucial if you intend to eke out any ounce of strategic advantage over your competition. Buying accurately products that sells, negotiating for the lowest prices, buying the right quantity to prevent inventory overstocking, improving cash flow and in this process creating operational efficiency that will help you survive the battle and eventually win the war.

Even the biggest organisations make poor buying decisions. One great example is Tenaga Nasional Bhd's (TNB) buying deal with the original independent power producers. Granted that the buying decision was right in view of the energy crisis at that time, the one-sided negotiated deal to buy at high prices and all the power produced, caused massive amount of losses to TNB. Just to show how one major buying decision can change the fortunes of a company.

In contrast, AirAsia's early decision to buy massive numbers of new aircraft of one type and from one supplier has defined their success path that you are seeing today. New planes versus old leased planes reduces maintenance costs and are more fuel efficient. Reduced training required for flying and cabin crew. Familiarity breeds efficiency.

Planes can be rerouted anywhere and replacement easily available as there are same numbered seats in all the planes. Expensive spare parts are kept to a minimum and maintenance procedures easily standardised. AirAsia, being the single largest customer of Airbus Industries, will definitely pay the lowest price for an A320 aircraft with the best financing terms from European banks.

These buying decisions are driven by the low cost business model plan. The only buying decision beyond its control is the supposedly high charges of operating out of the new LCC airport. Protracted negotiation between the only authorised airport operator and its biggest customer who will win?

To make money when you sell at a lower price than your competitors, you must have a comparable lower operating cost and lower cost of goods. Selling price is now determined by your buying cost.

So if you want to go into a price war, just make sure you can continuously buy cheaper than your competitors and your operating cost kept even lower. The best example is Walmart, the biggest retailer in the world. Using its massive buying power to have the lowest cost of goods, it has out-priced its competitors by a margin across all categories. To ensure it has the lowest operating cost, it has deliberately built its low-cost warehouse buildings on low-cost land in the outskirts where labour is easily available and cheap.

Buy cheap, sell cheap. Forever cheap. Proven successful formula when products and services become commoditised. Just make sure your buying strategy is sustainable.

I have been trading for 27 years and I have lost count on how many wrong buying decisions that I had made. Some were really inexcusable silly mistakes, some were downright poor judgement calls and some out of pure greed. In all these cases, I was not focused enough and was buying for all the wrong reasons and it had caused me considerable amount of discomfort and agonising moments in my business life.

I have a successful brand because I developed a great buying strategy that is able to meet my customers' needs on a sustainable basis. I have a profitable company because I bought well and because I am personally involved in all the major buying negotiations.

If you are on your own, be fully involved in the buying process. What you buy determines what you sell and how you sell. How you buy determines your profitability.

Just remember not to buy pieces of paper that promises you immediate high returns. For your children's sake... Wise up!

ON YOUR OWN
By TAN THIAM HOCK

To access earlier articles of On Your Own, log on to www.thiamhock.com. Honest comments welcomed and approved.

Fluttering around for company

Social relationships may glitter like diamonds, but not all will last forever. And we need to accept that relationships that promise high benefits will also carry high costs.

IN our brief lives, we always look out for good company. Like butterflies, we constantly flutter in the air, gazing at flowers, and sometimes landing on a petal which gives us a good feeling like we’ve never had before.

Although rarely do we linger for long, deep inside we all secretly hope to find that perfect petal to rest upon forever till the end of our brief lives.

Sometimes, people want much more than a social contract.

They yearn for a closer social relationship, with greater social commitments.

They are willing to invest all their efforts and emotions on a single relationship.

It can revolve around family, friendship, work or even a political, religious or social organisation. Wel- come to the Social Company.

Finding the right petal is very much like starting the right business company. A company is formed by business people of similar business interests.

They become shareholders and partners, and they have rights and responsibilities against each other. Whilst a contract is used for a one-off transaction, a company is used to get down to serious business for the long haul.

When a company is riding the high tide of success, its members have every reason to grow in confidence of greater things to come.

Why fear for the future? When the party is rocking, everybody’s singing and dancing, and nobody cares too much about who’s cleaning up the pool and picking up the broken shards later on.

But sometimes it’s good to turn on the lights, and check that everything’s alright. When the party’s over, and it will be over, there’s a heavy hangover waiting the morning after.

Likewise, when a company collapses, and no company is too big to fail, its shareholders, creditors and employees are bound to suffer heavy losses. Think of Enron, Lehman Brothers and Kodak.

That’s the difference between a mere social contract, and a social company. In a breach of contract, only the parties involved will be busy squabbling with each other.

However, in a breakdown of a company, there’s collateral damage to various third parties.

Thus, as much as it’s important and cool to live the moment, it’s also important (though less cool) to occasionally stop to think, have a sobering reality check, and account for what’s been said and done.

Under the law, it is mandatory for a company to perform annual audits on their financial affairs.

Likewise, people should constantly review their deep social relationships, to make sure that their company doesn’t turn from good to bad.

A simple example of a social company is marriage. It’s about two people exchanging vows to stick together through good times and bad times.

Sadly, nowadays, many people fail to follow through such vows. Divorces may be hard on the innocent spouse, but it’s definitely devastating to the innocent children.

They are robbed from enjoying a normal childhood filled with love and affection, and sometimes, deprived from sufficient maintenance and educational support.

So before entering into a marriage, think hard about the serious commitments that come with it, and the catastrophic consequences that follow if the marriage falls apart.

Think about your future children. Think about your relatives who will be forced to take sides, and spilt into irreconcilable clans.

Problems may also arise during the courtship stage, prior to marriage. Many of us are guilty of being consumed by love, or at least what we perceive as love.

After all, two’s a company, three’s a crowd. It’s easy to manage a company of two, whilst letting the rest of our family and friends fall by the wayside.

We ignore their calls and advice. We tell them to mind their own business and get the hell out of our lives.
But the easy thing to do is not always the best. Someday, you will long for their company.

Being married to our career can also be taxing on our social lives.

We burn all our days and nights for the sake of levelling up our corporate status.

We console ourselves that it’s only momentarily, until comes harvest time when we can reap the fruits of our labour.

But there is truly no end to the cycle. By the time we eventually find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, chances are we are too old, too weak and too late to share our riches with our loved ones.

These are mere examples of the larger problem, which is putting one’s entire mind, heart and soul into a shngle social company.

The key is to be aware that every deep social relationship takes a toll on our other relationships.

Social relationships may glitter like diamonds, but not all will last forever.

And we need to accept that relationships that promise high benefits will also carry high costs.

Hence, we need to think deeply before we leap into any social company. If we cannot bear the high cost, then don’t.

But if we do, we need to be bold enough to back out from a social company once the cost spirals beyond what we can bear.

In our brief lives, someday our wings will turn brittle and our favourite flowers will wilt away.

Until that day comes, we should cherish the freedom of the skies.

Sometimes, we may flutter too closely to a pretty petal in a thicket of thorns, and get our wings clipped.

But even then, we should never fear to flutter away. For there will always be a bed of flowers below to catch our fall.

Putik Lada By Raphael Kok
> The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my