China earmarks $12.5 billion budget for 2025 childcare subsidies
HONG KONG - China's finance ministry on Wednesday said it had earmarked 90 billion yuan ($12.54 billion) as an initial budget for childcare subsidy payments this year, an amount that experts said would probably be insufficient to boost a flagging birth rate.
China on Monday announced a childcare subsidy of 3,600 yuan per year for every child, until they reach the age of three.
Subsidies will start from this year, and children born before 2025 who are less than three years old will get partial subsidies.
Families can apply for the support from late August, Wang Haidong, director of the Department of Population and Family of the National Health Commission, said at a press conference on Wednesday to explain the programme.
Chinese provinces have started issuing local childcare subsidies in the last two years, but the amounts are not uniform and range from 1,000 yuan per child to as much as 100,000 yuan including housing subsidies.
Guo Yang, director at the Ministry of Finance, said the central government would subsidise local administrations.
"This demonstrates the central government's high attention and strong support for local governments and will further strengthen local management responsibilities," he said.
The high cost of childcare and education, as well as job uncertainty and a slowing economy have discouraged many young Chinese couples from starting a family, at a time when China is already ageing. Roughly 300 million Chinese are expected to enter retirement in the coming decade - the equivalent of almost the entire U.S. population.
Authorities rolled out a series of "fertility-friendly" measures in 2024, including enhanced maternity insurance and leave, to try and boost the birth rate, which hit a record low in 2023.
China's current spending on family-friendly policies is estimated to be well below 1% of GDP, compared to 2% to 4% in many OECD countries, said Xiujian Peng, senior research fellow in the Centre of Policy Studies at Victoria University.
"If China can increase its spending on family support even to 2% of GDP — about 3 trillion yuan annually — it might create a strong system to address various economic and social factors that discourage childbirth," she said.
Promoting family-friendly work environments, including childcare services, breastfeeding rooms and strengthening female workers' rights are also being urged, said Liu Hongmei, director of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, a state-run body. REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
16 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
AsiaOne
16 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
Zelenskiy says 'mercenaries' from China, Pakistan and other countries fighting for Russia, World News
KYIV — President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday (Aug 4) that Ukrainian troops in northeastern Ukraine were fighting foreign "mercenaries" from various countries including China, Pakistan and parts of Africa, and vowed a response. Zelenskiy has previously accused Moscow of recruiting Chinese fighters for its war effort against Ukraine, charges Beijing denied, while North Korea has also provided thousands of its own troops in Russia's Kursk region. "We spoke with commanders about the frontline situation, the defence of Vovchansk, and the dynamics of the battles," Zelenskiy wrote on X after visiting a frontline area in the northeastern Kharkiv region. "Our warriors in this sector are reporting the participation of mercenaries from China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and African countries in the war. We will respond." Reuters contacted the embassies of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan in Kyiv to request comment. Russia did not immediately comment publicly on Zelenskiy's comments. [[nid:720860]]
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
The 20-somethings are swarming San Francisco's AI boom
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox The entrepreneurs are part of a fast-growing cohort of chief executives in their 20s who have flocked to San Francisco's AI boom. SAN FRANCISCO – Mr Brendan Foody had just finished his sophomore year at Georgetown University in 2023 when he dropped out to jump into the artificial intelligence fray in San Francisco. Mr Karun Kaushik dropped out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that year to move to California after constructing an AI tool in his dorm room. And Mr Jaspar Carmichael-Jack, who was traveling the world after high school, had the same idea in 2022. Now Mr Foody, 22, Mr Kaushik, 21, and Mr Carmichael-Jack, 23, are each running AI startups within a 30-minute walk of one another in San Francisco. They have raised millions of dollars for their businesses and are supervising dozens of employees. They all have a dream that their companies will make it big. 'When ChatGPT came out, it was so clear to me that this is obviously going to be a paradigm shift,' said Mr Carmichael-Jack, the chief executive of Artisan, which makes an AI sales assistant and has raised more than US$35 million (S$45 million) in funding. 'I knew I wanted to be involved in that.' The entrepreneurs are part of a fast-growing cohort of chief executives in their 20s who have flocked to San Francisco's AI boom. Among others, there are also Mr Scott Wu, 28, of Cognition AI, which makes a software coding assistant; Mr Michael Truell, 24, of Cursor, which sells an AI code editor; and Mr Roy Lee, 21, of Cluely, an AI software startup. Perhaps the most prominent is Mr Alexandr Wang, 28, who led the startup Scale AI before Meta tapped him in June to run its new superintelligence lab. Their growing ranks have injected a dose of youthful elan to the AI frenzy, which has been dominated by longtime tech giants like Google and Nvidia and decade-old startups like OpenAI. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia What's it like to deal with brutal US tariffs? Ask Malaysia Singapore Singapore launches review of economic strategy to stay ahead of global shifts Singapore A look at the five committees reviewing Singapore's economic strategy Opinion Keeping it alive: How Chinese opera in Singapore is adapting to the age of TikTok Life Glamping in Mandai: Is a luxury stay at Colugo Camp worth the $550 price tag? Sport World Aquatics C'ships in S'pore deemed a success by athletes, fans and officials Singapore Strong S'pore-Australia ties underpinned by bonds that are continually renewed: President Tharman Many of the entrepreneurs know one another from college or startup incubators like Y Combinator. Work is often at the centre of their lives – founders have to grind, after all – but they also host ping-pong nights, play poker together and meet up at networking events in the city. Venture capitalists are adding to the new blood with intensive startup programs geared to high school and college students. It's part of a well-worn pattern in which droves of young hopefuls are drawn to the nation's tech capital by a promising technology, much as 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and his friends did in the mid-2000s when they showed up in Silicon Valley with Facebook. Mr Zuckerberg, now 41, dropped out of Harvard. 'When you have these big technology waves, the whole chessboard changes and everything is up for grabs,' said Mr Saam Motamedi, an investor at the venture capital firm Greylock Partners. Greylock's San Francisco office recently hosted four 19-year-olds who are working on a 'stealth' artificial intelligence startup, he said, though the teenagers have since moved into their own space. Mr Pete Koomen, a general partner at Y Combinator, said the median age of the San Francisco incubator's most recent cohort of participants this year was 24, down from 30 in 2022. 'This is a group of largely young founders that have picked up everything and moved and gone all in on a crazy dream,' he said. 'They're all in close proximity with each other. They're helping each other out. They're competing with each other. It just creates this incredible energy.' Mr Foody runs Mercor, which provides automatic screening of resumes and AI job interviews. He established the company with two high school friends from San Jose, California, Mr Surya Midha and Adarsh Hiremath. Mr Midha, 22, is Mercor's chief operating officer and Mr Hiremath, 22, the chief technology officer. In February, they raised US$100 million, bringing Mercor's total funding to more than US$132 million and valuing the startup at US$2 billion. Investors include the venture capital firms General Catalyst and Benchmark. As Mercor flourished, it hired 150 employees in San Francisco and India. The startup is outgrowing its current space, which has a ping-pong table and dog cages dedicated to office pets, and is preparing to move into a bigger office nearby. Mr Midha said there was a sense of 'extreme urgency' and 'existential dread' among his peers who felt that now was the time to start an AI company. It 'just felt crazy not to go all in' on Mercor, he added. Mercor has already spawned other young chief executives. Ms Rithika Kacham, 22, who dropped out of Stanford during her senior year in 2024 to join Mercor as Foody's executive assistant, started her own company, Verita AI, in May. Her company hires professionals in various fields to help train AI models to recognise images more accurately, such as an intellectual property expert to help AI determine whether a Mickey Mouse cartoon is real. 'It's kind of this AI inflection point where it felt like almost everyone I knew at Stanford was dropping out to cofound a company,' said Ms Kacham, who was majoring in computer science and product design and is trying to raise money for Verita. To cut through the crowd, some of the young leaders have tried to go viral. In November, Mr Carmichael-Jack's Artisan plastered ads across bus stops in San Francisco with the outrage-inducing directive to 'stop hiring humans' and instead 'hire' the startup's AI sales agent, Ava. People were 'shocked' by the marketing campaign because it tapped into fears that AI would replace humans, Mr Carmichael-Jack said, but it also 'made them intrigued about what we were doing'. Mr Kaushik, the chief executive of Delve, a startup that automates the compliance busywork for businesses dealing with sensitive data, founded the company with his MIT classmate Selin Kocalar, 21. 'I don't think about age,' Ms Kocalar said. 'In today's day and age, the barrier to entry is so low with the help of AI.' Soon they may be mingling with an even younger crowd. A billboard in San Francisco on April 28, 2025, announcing Artisan's fund-raising this year. PHOTO: CAROLYN FONG/NYTIMES On a recent Friday in Fort Mason, a converted military hub in the city, the venture capital firm Founders Inc held a summer programme for high schoolers and college students to nurture their startup ideas. Long tables were covered in wires and open boxes of crackers, with some teenagers clustered together tweaking robots while others took a break to play videos games. Among the attendees was Mr Mizan Rupan-Tompkins, 18, a rising sophomore at San Jose State University who is studying computer science but pausing school in 2026 to build an AI-powered device to help unmanned air traffic control towers land airplanes safely. His company, Stratus AI, just got an investment from Founders Inc, which he declined to detail. Founders Inc, which also declined to share the investment amount, typically writes checks of US$100,000 to US$250,000 for startups. 'Stuff moves so quickly' that he could not wait until he'd graduate in 2028 to build a company, Mr Rupan-Tompkins said. 'It's better to be earlier than later, just in case I missed some type of wave,' he said. NYTIMES
