Answer to your second question:
The current policy does not meaningfully reduce the financial burden on parents because it addresses symptoms rather than the real cost drivers in education. Parents are not overwhelmed simply because of workbooks or graduation ceremonies; they are burdened by school fees, transportation, uniforms, feeding, infrastructure costs, and the overall underfunding of public education. Removing or restricting certain items does not eliminate these expenses—it merely shifts costs elsewhere or reduces the quality of learning experiences.
While the policy directly affects publishers, printers, authors, and the broader book value chain, that impact alone is not the core reason the policy appears repugnant. The deeper concern is that it was introduced without adequate stakeholder consultation and lacks clear evidence of cost savings for parents. Instead of strengthening textbook reuse systems, encouraging local publishing, or subsidizing learning materials, the policy risks weakening the educational ecosystem and discouraging investment in quality content.
In essence, the policy creates the impression of action without delivering real relief, leaving parents unconvinced, education stakeholders unsettled, and the underlying problems of affordability and quality still unresolved.