More students in Singapore juggle studying and working to support their families, Singapore News
Chan, who graduated in May from Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) with a diploma in food and beverage business, worked up to five hours a day on weekdays and 12 hours a day on weekends — all while studying full-time.
While there is no official data on the number of students who have to study and work to support their families, social service agency Allkin Singapore said that it has seen a more than threefold increase in the number of post-secondary students aged 17 and above who have to work while studying, from five in 2024 to 17 in 2025.
This is according to data gathered from applications for its Allkin ElevatED! study grant.
Natalie Lim, deputy director of the family and community support division at Allkin Singapore, said that this increase 'suggests a growing trend of students having to assume financial responsibilities while pursuing their education'.
Two other social service organisations The Straits Times reached out to did not have this data.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) said that in academic year 2023, over 70 per cent of Singaporeans studying at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and around 50 per cent of Singaporeans studying in polytechnics received the Higher Education Community Bursary and the Higher Education Bursary. The figures have remained stable over the past five years, MOE added.
These are government bursaries for post-secondary students from lower- to middle-income group households that help them to offset tuition fees. Families eligible for the Higher Education Community Bursary take home $4,400 or less monthly, while families eligible for the Higher Education bursary take home $10,000 or less monthly. Sharing their families' burden
For some students, working part-time is a choice they make to help supplement their family's income.
Second-year Temasek Polytechnic (TP) business student Lucas Lim works part-time as a retail assistant at Fairprice to alleviate the financial burden on his 63-year-old bus captain father, who is the sole breadwinner of the family, which includes his 56-year-old homemaker mother and two older brothers, aged 25 and 29.
The 18-year-old said of his father, who is looking to retirement soon: "I've seen him working tirelessly for his entire life. I want to be able to carry some of the burden for him."
When Singapore Polytechnic (SP) civil engineering student Yap Jie Er started working at Takagi Ramen as a kitchen crew member in October 2021, she did it for her own extra pocket money.
Two months later, it became a necessity for her to own her own keep after her father died from cancer.
"I stopped taking an allowance from my mum. Since I was earning my own money, I wanted my mum to be able to give more allowance to my three younger siblings," said Yap, 20, whose younger siblings are aged 18, 11 and seven years old respectively.
Jennifer Lau, a third-year immersive media student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic (NP), works once a week as a retail assistant at a Lego store.
She would like to work more, but she cannot do so because she has to juggle studies as well as visiting her father in a nursing home.
Her father was admitted to a nursing home to receive full-time care in November 2023, after being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, a neurodegenerative disease that leads to difficulty with walking, balance, coordination and even speech.
Lau, 23, earns about $400 a month during the school term. Most of her salary is spent on personal expenses like food and transport costs, as well as food for her father when she visits him two to three times a week.
For now, her household bills and her father's nursing home costs are covered by her father's savings and her school fees are covered by financial assistance programmes.
"The biggest challenge of working and studying at the same time is that I can't work enough. I want to be able to work more," said Lau, who has no siblings. How they balance school and work
Many students who work part-time focus on academics during the weekdays and go to their jobs on weekends.
Yap would work up to two shifts at Takagi Ramen every weekend. Each shift lasted from 10am to 10pm.
Her job involved preparing drinks, serving customers and assisting the ramen chef. Yap recalls that she had to be on her feet throughout her shifts except during a one-hour break each shift.
She said: "Standing all day can be tiring, especially during the evening peak hours when it's extremely busy. We (also) have to stay a 100 per cent focused on our work without making any mistakes."
Despite working only twice per week, Yap's part-time job took a toll on her studies.
She said: "I would be too tired (from work) to study on weekends, so I would often stay up past midnight to catch up on studies during weekdays."
"Sometimes, when I am sleeping, I would even have dreams about working (at my job). It definitely affected my concentration in class and there's been an obvious drop in my grades," said Yap, whose grade point average has dropped from 3.4 to 3.2.
She stopped working in July 2024 in order to focus on her studies as she is in her final year. Financial aid programmes, such as the bond-free HSBC Centenary Scholarship she won in 2023 and 2024, have helped with her financial situation.
She said: "It's allowed me to work less and have more time to focus on studies and socialising." 'I wish I could spend the money I earn on myself'
For Mr Lim, working part-time means having to sacrifice time that could be spent on co-curricular activities or socialising.
He said: "I don't have much of a chance to rest, so I'm usually too exhausted from work to participate in sports."
"CCAs I'm interested in, like dragonboat and archery, train only on the weekends, so I'm unable to commit due to my work."
Not only does he miss socialising with his friends due to his work commitments on the weekends, he also feels like his life is about "constantly running from task to task".
"I have no time to unwind," he said.
Lau said her sacrifice is in terms of the things she wants but does not need.
"I wish that I could spend some of the money I earn on things I want to buy. Sometimes I'll see things like games or (video game) consoles and tell myself that I'm going to buy it next month, but that next month never comes around," she said.
When she first began working, she often found herself comparing her situation with those of her classmates. "Why do I have to work while they don't? Why can they have things that I can't?" she would think.
"But as I've gotten older, I've gotten more used to it and I've realised that everyone has different journeys any way."
Lau said that despite the challenges, she has benefited from her time working and studying at the same time. She said: "It's helped me improve my confidence and built important skills I'll need for working in the real world, like public speaking."
Senior clinical and counselling psychologist at Allkin Singapore Tan Ying Yin said that working at a young age can benefit students: "It provides early opportunities to develop essential life skills. Through work, youth can learn valuable skills such as time management and financial responsibility."
Mr Lim agrees. "Working has given me a new perspective. It's developed my time management skills, and it's taught me to be disciplined and resolved," he said.
"Even though I may be exhausted now, I think it'll benefit me in the long run. I want to take these skills to give my dad peace of mind when he retires, and contribute to a better future for my family." What are the impacts of studying and working to support the household simultaneously?
Allkin Singapore's Ms Lim said students who have to study and work to support their households face "significant challenges", including difficulty focusing on academics due to the demands of multiple roles and persistent worries about having enough financial resources to meet both personal and family needs.
There are also psychological impacts on students. Tan Ying Yin, senior clinical and counselling psychologist at Allkin Singapore, said: "Youth seek acceptance and a sense of belonging through their peer relationships.
"Taking on work and family responsibilities may cause them to miss out on key relational milestones, as they have less time for social and recreational activities with their peers. The challenge of balancing both work and school can heighten feelings of stress and anxiety." What help is available for students who work and study at the same time?
An MOE spokesperson said that there is a "wide range of financial assistance schemes available to support Singaporean citizen students from low to middle-income families".
These include government bursaries, such as the Higher Education Community Bursary and Higher Education Bursary, and loans for diploma and undergraduate students, as well as individual aid schemes from institutes of higher learning.
Additionally, there are other forms of financial assistance offered by foundations, community groups, self-help groups, as well as private and professional organisations.
Family service centres, such as Allkin, also offer financial assistance programmes for students in difficult financial situations. Some of these programmes, such as the Allkin Family Support Fund, provide financial assistance to students beyond just school-related materials, and help students and their families afford basic needs and significant family expenses.
However, despite the availability of financial assistance, some students still feel the need to work to support their families. Ms Lim said that in these instances, students may continue to work because: They need to contribute to household income, especially when family members are unable to work due to their medical condition(s).
Eligibility criteria of current financial assistance options that may exclude certain students from receiving aid.
The rising cost of living, which outpaces the financial assistance received.
Cultural values that may discourage young people from relying on their parents who are facing financial challenges.
Limitations of financial aid — while some forms of aid cover school fees, they may not fully address other essential expenses such as educational resources (for example, books, laptops) or daily living costs (for example, transport, meals). As a result, students may still need to work to meet these needs.
[[nid:719617]]
This article was first published in The Straits Times . Permission required for reproduction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
DBS Foundation in tie-up with IMDA to accelerate digital inclusivity for the elderly
[SINGAPORE] 'I am a dad planning for a three-day family trip to Bangkok with my wife and 10-year-old son. Create an itinerary in bullet points.' 'Create a colourful and cute image of a big Hello Kitty sitting on top of a Merlion for my daughter's artwork.' The above are not random questions but prompts taught at a generative artificial intelligence (AI) workshop conducted by DBS Foundation and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) on Monday (Aug 4). The SG Digital Society Report 2023 stated that while Singapore is among the most digitally inclusive nations in the world, many seniors, who make up close to 20 per cent of citizens in Singapore, need more support in adopting modern technology as only 45 per cent of them are willing to try out modern technologies. This is compared with 65 per cent of Singaporeans aged 15 to 59. Singapore society is projected to become super-aged by 2026, and by 2030, one in four people in Singapore will be aged 65 and above. Hence, the new three-year partnership's key focus will be to increase Gen AI literacy and proficiency among seniors and vulnerable individuals. Through these efforts, the organisations aim to collectively reach out to 250,000 individuals – including senior citizens, youth, and individuals with special needs. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 2 pm Lifestyle Our picks of the latest dining, travel and leisure options to treat yourself. Sign Up Sign Up At the workshop, which included about 30 people above 60-years-old from Lions Befrienders, Lim Him Chuan, DBS Singapore country head, said it is not true that people in the older age group have less interest in technology. 'The seniors want to be protected from scams and frauds but continue to be engaged.' He added: 'Besides widening access to technology, we are enabling beneficiaries to understand what Gen AI is and how it works, as well as to boost their confidence to navigate it confidently.' Hence, DBS Foundation is also contributing S$3 million (inclusive of the government's dollar-for-dollar matching) to the national Digital for Life (DfL) fund. Jasmin Lau, minister of state for digital development and information, was guest of honour at the DBS Foundation Generative AI Workshop. The volunteers from the bank and DBS' brand ambassador and Olympic medallist Max Maeder were also on site to participate in activities with the elderly, as well as spread the message to have fun while learning Gen AI. As Karen Ngui, head of DBS Foundation and DBS Group Strategic Marketing and Communications, said: 'This requires a deliberate, collective, whole-of-society effort.' Retiree Lim Siew Gin said that she will be using Gen AI to plan her upcoming holiday. The 70-year-old participant added: 'Everything (nowadays) is digital so we (need to) learn and improve.' This renewed partnership builds on an earlier partnership between DBS Foundation and IMDA in 2022 where the former, supported by the government's dollar-for-dollar matching, contributed S$1 million to the DfL movement and step up its volunteer participation to drive digital literacy training.
Singapore Law Watch
3 hours ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Decoupling to save on tax? You may lose right to property if ties go awry
Decoupling to save on tax? You may lose right to property if ties go awry Source: Straits Times Article Date: 03 Aug 2025 Author: Tan Ooi Boon Test is whether transaction was done in good faith or was a deliberate attempt to avoid tax. Just google the word 'decoupling' and you will see multiple listings from realtors and lawyers alike promoting their services to help property buyers avoid paying additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD) with such a creative home ownership plan. But those who have been peddling such services for years may want to hit the pause button for now so that they can study the recent High Court case which found that such transactions are not without pitfalls. Indeed, the court found that owners who decouple can run afoul of the tax law if they are not upfront with their arrangements. This is especially so if property buyers are lured into thinking that decoupling is a watertight loophole that allows Singapore home owners to buy a second property without paying ABSD, while still retaining ownership in both properties. Joint owners who decouple – that is, one takes over the whole property – often have the endgame of letting the person who sold out buy a second property as a first-timer who does not have to pay the 20 per cent ABSD levied on Singaporeans. To further save on stamp duty, some couples plan ahead and buy their first property in a 99-to-1 share, so they need to pay the normal stamp duty on just that 1 per cent share if the 99 per cent co-owner takes over that tiny share. This scheme is not the same as that in the recent 99-to-1 saga that saw some families penalised for avoiding ABSD. Such cases involved first-time buyers who could not afford a home, so they roped in their relatives, who already own homes, to support mortgage applications. But instead of buying as joint owners, which would attract ABSD on the full price, the first-timers bought solely as 100 per cent owners and then 'sold' just 1 per cent of the property to relatives. So the relatives paid ABSD on only that minute share. Owners caught using the two-stage sham have been ordered to pay the full ABSD and a 50 per cent surcharge. But decoupling has long been viewed as a legitimate move for longer-term planning because owners can hold and dispose of properties in whatever proportions they choose. The spotlight fell on such transactions recently because a couple who fought over their property stakes highlighted to the High Court that such deals were not as simple as they had made them out to be. Ironically, the case that sparked the court's probe into this popular tax-saving move did not even involve decoupling, as the then dating couple broke up before any prospect of another purchase. During the good times, they had planned to hold their first property in the ratio of 99 to 1, in favour of the girlfriend. A reason for doing so was to avoid paying ABSD if they were to purchase a second property. When they fell out, the true picture emerged, because the boyfriend claimed he paid more and so should own a lot more than his tiny share. In the end, he was awarded a share of over 50 per cent, only because the court took note that no taxes were avoided as the couple did not decouple or buy another property. The outcome might have been different had the boyfriend bought a second property after decoupling without paying ABSD and then staked a claim for a share in the first property. High Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin noted that while there was nothing inherently wrong with buyers holding their stakes in the 99-to-1 proportion, the transaction could turn illegal if the decoupling was not a genuine outright transfer but merely a scheme to avoid paying tax. For instance, if the 1 per cent owner gives up the share but has an arrangement with the other owner to still co-own that same property, this owner would be deemed to have evaded tax by wrongly declaring his true beneficial ownership. If he then buys another property as a 'first-time buyer' and so saves 20 per cent of ABSD, he could be accused of duping the taxman because he is still a 'beneficial' co-owner of the first property. If that is not risky enough, using the 1 per cent as a ploy to save on buyer's stamp duty in an anticipated decoupling move could also attract penalties for underpayment of tax. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) noted that whether tax avoidance or tax evasion has been committed would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The test often boils down to whether the property transactions are carried out in good faith as a financial planning move or a deliberate attempt to avoid paying more tax, such as using a contrived scheme that has little or no commercial substance or withholding crucial information from the taxman. Penalties aside, the recent case provides a cautionary tale that those who commit an 'illegal' act, such as using a scheme to deliberately avoid paying taxes, may find it hard to stake claim on any disputed property. Assume co-owner Jim 'transfers' his share in the property to co-owner Jane to avoid paying more tax on his next purchase. Jim is likely to face an uphill task to claim that he still owns a share in the property fully owned by Jane because the courts are unlikely to uphold a sham deal. So before owners think about saving on taxes, they should ask whether they are prepared to give up the decoupled real estate should they end up in a dispute or divorce later. Still prudent to go 99 to 1? The stark manner in which one owner holds 99 per cent while the other has 1 per cent is a dead giveaway to the taxman that this could be a scheme to pay less tax. After all, the couple in the High Court case admitted that they held their property in this way because they had planned to decouple later. But this was done solely to pay less tax because the 1 per cent owner actually viewed himself as an equal owner and had contributed substantially to the property purchase. Based on Justice Lee's analysis, such decoupling cases would minimally attract the penalty for underpayment of stamp duty unless the owner can convince the taxman that he genuinely held only 1 per cent of the property. However, the 1 per cent owner who makes such a declaration and then transfers away the share is as good as forgoing the rights to the decoupled property. After all, claiming otherwise would amount to an admission of giving false information to Iras, which is a serious offence. No wrongdoing for genuine gifts and sales National University of Singapore tax expert Stephen Phua said he knew of owners who were holding unequal shares in their properties long before the ABSD scheme started in 2011 to curb speculation. 'Some may just hold 1 per cent because they genuinely only wanted to help pay down the mortgage,' said Associate Professor Phua, who also practises as a tax consultant with Allen & Gledhill. So, if such owners subsequently transfer their 1 per cent share in the property before buying another one, it would be difficult to accuse them of wrongdoing since the arrangement was a genuine gift. Similarly, existing joint owners who decouple cannot be said to be under-declaring their shares if the transfer was genuine and stamp duty was properly paid on 50 per cent of the market value. If the spouse who no longer owns any residential property buys another property, no ABSD is payable, Prof Phua added. This means that if you decouple, you no longer own that property. If that is not your intention, you should do your sums to see if it's worth losing your stake in this property just because you want to save on ABSD for the next purchase. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
New Paper
6 hours ago
- New Paper
Decoupling to save on tax may just cost you the right to your property
Just google the word "decoupling" and you will see multiple listings from realtors and lawyers alike promoting their services to help property buyers avoid paying additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD) with such a creative home ownership plan. But those who have been peddling such services for years may want to hit the pause button for now so that they can study the recent High Court case which found that such transactions are not without pitfalls. Indeed, the court found that owners who decouple can run afoul of the tax law if they are not upfront with their arrangements. This is especially so if property buyers are lured into thinking that decoupling is a watertight loophole that allows Singapore home owners to buy a second property without paying ABSD, while still retaining ownership in both properties. Joint owners who decouple - that is, one takes over the whole property - often have the endgame of letting the person who sold out buy a second property as a first-timer who does not have to pay the 20 per cent ABSD levied on Singaporeans. To further save on stamp duty, some couples plan ahead and buy their first property in a 99-to-1 share, so they need to pay the normal stamp duty on just that 1 per cent share if the 99 per cent co-owner takes over that tiny share. This scheme is not the same as that in the recent 99-to-1 saga that saw some families penalised for avoiding ABSD. Such cases involved first-time buyers who could not afford a home, so they roped in their relatives, who already own homes, to support mortgage applications. But instead of buying as joint owners, which would attract ABSD on the full price, the first-timers bought solely as 100 per cent owners and then "sold" just 1 per cent of the property to relatives. So the relatives paid ABSD on only that minute share. Owners caught using the two-stage sham have been ordered to pay the full ABSD and a 50 per cent surcharge. But decoupling has long been viewed as a legitimate move for longer-term planning because owners can hold and dispose of properties in whatever proportions they choose. The spotlight fell on such transactions recently because a couple who fought over their property stakes highlighted to the High Court that such deals were not as simple as they had made them out to be. Ironically, the case that sparked the court's probe into this popular tax-saving move did not even involve decoupling, as the then dating couple broke up before any prospect of another purchase. During the good times, they had planned to hold their first property in the ratio of 99 to 1, in favour of the girlfriend. A reason for doing so was to avoid paying ABSD if they were to purchase a second property. When they fell out, the true picture emerged, because the boyfriend claimed he paid more and so should own a lot more than his tiny share. In the end, he was awarded a share of over 50 per cent, only because the court took note that no taxes were avoided as the couple did not decouple or buy another property. The outcome might have been different had the boyfriend bought a second property after decoupling without paying ABSD and then staked a claim for a share in the first property. High Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin noted that while there was nothing inherently wrong with buyers holding their stakes in the 99-to-1 proportion, the transaction could turn illegal if the decoupling was not a genuine outright transfer but merely a scheme to avoid paying tax. For instance, if the 1 per cent owner gives up the share but has an arrangement with the other owner to still co-own that same property, this owner would be deemed to have evaded tax by wrongly declaring his true beneficial ownership. If he then buys another property as a "first-time buyer" and so saves 20 per cent of ABSD, he could be accused of duping the taxman because he is still a "beneficial" co-owner of the first property. If that is not risky enough, using the 1 per cent as a ploy to save on buyer's stamp duty in an anticipated decoupling move could also attract penalties for underpayment of tax. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) noted that whether tax avoidance or tax evasion has been committed would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The test often boils down to whether the property transactions are carried out in good faith as a financial planning move or a deliberate attempt to avoid paying more tax, such as using a contrived scheme that has little or no commercial substance or withholding crucial information from the taxman. Penalties aside, the recent case provides a cautionary tale that those who commit an "illegal" act, such as using a scheme to deliberately avoid paying taxes, may find it hard to stake claim on any disputed property. Assume co-owner Jim "transfers" his share in the property to co-owner Jane to avoid paying more tax on his next purchase. Jim is likely to face an uphill task to claim that he still owns a share in the property fully owned by Jane because the courts are unlikely to uphold a sham deal. So before owners think about saving on taxes, they should ask whether they are prepared to give up the decoupled real estate should they end up in a dispute or divorce later. Still prudent to go 99 to 1? The stark manner in which one owner holds 99 per cent while the other has 1 per cent is a dead giveaway to the taxman that this could be a scheme to pay less tax. After all, the couple in the High Court case admitted that they held their property in this way because they had planned to decouple later. But this was done solely to pay less tax because the 1 per cent owner actually viewed himself as an equal owner and had contributed substantially to the property purchase. Based on Justice Lee's analysis, such decoupling cases would minimally attract the penalty for underpayment of stamp duty unless the owner can convince the taxman that he genuinely held only 1 per cent of the property. However, the 1 per cent owner who makes such a declaration and then transfers away the share is as good as forgoing the rights to the decoupled property. After all, claiming otherwise would amount to an admission of giving false information to Iras, which is a serious offence. No wrongdoing for genuine gifts and sales National University of Singapore tax expert Stephen Phua said he knew of owners who were holding unequal shares in their properties long before the ABSD scheme started in 2011 to curb speculation. "Some may just hold 1 per cent because they genuinely only wanted to help pay down the mortgage," said Associate Professor Phua, who also practises as a tax consultant with Allen & Gledhill. So, if such owners subsequently transfer their 1 per cent share in the property before buying another one, it would be difficult to accuse them of wrongdoing since the arrangement was a genuine gift. Similarly, existing joint owners who decouple cannot be said to be under-declaring their shares if the transfer was genuine and stamp duty was properly paid on 50 per cent of the market value. If the spouse who no longer owns any residential property buys another property, no ABSD is payable, Prof Phua added. This means that if you decouple, you no longer own that property. If that is not your intention, you should do your sums to see if it's worth losing your stake in this property just because you want to save on ABSD for the next purchase.
