Mr Speaker,
Today, workers have to reskill and upskill amidst our rapidly-evolving economy, in order to remain relevant and competitive in a challenging workforce. One of the ways that our policies seek to do so is by getting workers to undertake further training and education. Yet, this is in itself challenging; attending courses, often whilst juggling work and other life commitments, requires a significant expenditure of energy, time, and also money.
As we debate the merger of Skillsfuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore into the Skills and Workforce Development Agency, we must ensure that processes and policies instituted in the new Agency are ultimately rooted in people: a people-centric approach. They must lead to fruitful employment opportunities for workers, and result in a deep pool of talent for employers to draw from.
The “Two-headed Monster” in the Room
A people-centric approach to skills upgrading should also be easy for training providers to navigate. Adult Private Education Institutes (PEI) established under Clause 78 of the Bill will be under the purview of two ministries: MOE and MOM. However, given that institutions would have to satisfy both academic standards and industrial needs, can the Minister clarify what would be the new Agency’s approach should there be any tension between these two aims. For example, how do we resolve competing aims that may arise out of the short-term workforce needs of industry against a longer-term educational and development lens?
How would we end up preventing the creation of a ‘Two-headed monster’ in this new Agency? Specifically, what safeguards will be put in place to prevent fragmented oversight or conflicting directives within the Agency?
KPIs, KPIs, KPIs
Another crucial aspect of a people-centric SWDA is to ensure open availability of granular information for the public and policymakers alike to analyse the outcomes of the Agency’s policies. This is established under Clause 5(1), Paragraph (g), which articulates the Agency’s responsibility to collect and publish data on career, employment, and training matters, alongside labour market insights.
WSG’s annual report noted that in 2024, around 40,000 local workers managed to secure employment via WSG’s and e2i’s career matching services. Do we have data that shows that the opportunities matched, and employment secured via these services, do match job-seeker skills and qualifications?
Effective job-matching requires career advisors with wide networks and a deep understanding of their industry. What is the Minister’s assessment of the Volunteer Career Advisor scheme’s effectiveness in job-matching and what are the Government’s future plans regarding the Scheme?
Drilling down further into our existing programmes, the Career Conversion Programme (CCP) and Graduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) are aimed at mid-career workers and fresh graduates respectively. In addition to providing work experience, these programmes also provide participants a pathway towards full-time employment with their host organisation.
How do we ensure that employers are not exploiting these schemes as a revolving door of Government-subsidised labour instead of meaningfully inducting participants into full-time roles in their host organisations after the programme is completed? Although retention data is available at the industry level via Parliamentary Questions, it would be informative to study the proportion of participants retained as full-time employees by their respective host organisations at the employer level, including how long such employees stay. As mentioned by my Sengkang colleague Jamus Lim during COS this year, we could allow a maximum number of times for an employer to participate in a programme but not employ any trainees upon completion of the programme. These could be a start to help us identify if there are employers who may be exploiting such schemes for cheaper labour, ultimately running counter to the spirit of such programmes.
There was also a rush by many Singaporeans to redeem their expiring SkillsFuture Credits last year. Yet, were these Credits utilised for courses and programmes that genuinely improved our people’s employability or offer positive contributions to personal growth and development that trickle into other life domains? A forum letter to the Straits Times at the end of last year voiced a concern about the quality of some SkillsFuture courses: overpriced, with poor learning outcomes and “laughable” assessments. Currently, SSG-funded courses are evaluated via the Training Quality and Outcomes Measurement (TRAQOM) framework, which surveys participants. However, such self-reported surveys may not accurately reflect the effectiveness of these courses in enhancing the employment prospects of their attendees. To measure employment outcomes, we need to focus more on objective metrics such as longer-term post-course employment status, in order to more accurately evaluate whether these courses genuinely improve employment outcomes. This analysis could be carried out using CPF data to determine the effectiveness of each SkillsFuture course.
While it can be argued that having these schemes are reflective of a government willing to invest in building the capabilities of its people, the jury is still out on their return on investment without sufficient data. The Workers’ Party manifesto includes calls for the government to track and publish clear KPIs on the effectiveness of SkillsFuture and Career Coaching Programmes. Such data may include the take-up rate, duration of employment, and post-training placement. Having public data allows the public to know about the effectiveness of their schemes and will aid to pinpoint potential areas for improvement.
Also, while the Government is an active creator of early-career opportunities such as internships and traineeships, I also hope that they would work towards providing more opportunities for mid-career transitioners as well.
Employment for PwDs
I would also like to make a few remarks on how we develop a significant part of our workforce: persons with disabilities, or PWDs. If we wish to see the greater integration of PWDs into the wider community, the targets we set must encompass a wider range of factors. For instance, while the Enabling Masterplan 2030 aims to achieve a 40% employment rate amongst PwDs by that year, there are other factors to be considered as well. While skill- and qualification-related underemployment within the overall labour market was tracked in a recent NTUC study on underemployment, the Disabled People’s Association (DPA) suggested in 2024 that these metrics should also be tracked for the PwD community.
Coordination with SG Enable needs to take place to collect and publish data surrounding the retention of participants under the School-to-Work and Place-and-Train programmes to ensure these programmes’ effectiveness in boosting full-time employment amongst PwDs.
As many jobseekers with disabilities experience demoralising hurdles when job-hunting, a people-centric and inclusive SWDA should be attuned to the needs of PWDs, thus helping to address underemployment amongst PWDs.
Although the employment rate for PWDs has increased to 34.7% in 2025, many PWDs have expressed concerns that the roles offered to them by employment support services often do not meet their career aspirations and skill sets. Interviews with PWDs by the DPA also highlighted the tendency for jobseekers with disabilities to be pigeon-holed into certain roles – especially within the services industry.
If we wish for PWDs to thrive in our society, they should not be constrained to a select few job scopes. I hope that the SWDA would factor in the prior skills and experience of job-seekers with disabilities when job-matching. Additional support could be rendered via an in-house accessibility office, which could provide services such as consulting with employers regarding reasonable accommodations.
We must additionally ensure that PWDs have fewer barriers to access the wide-range of courses available for reskilling and upskilling. This is in alignment with Article 27 of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which calls on governments to enable PWDs effective access to general technical and vocational guidance programmes, placement services and vocational and continuing training.
Many PWDs were affected by the recent closure of Mountbatten Vocational School, which provides PWDs with higher support needs an avenue to pick up skills in preparation for a subsequent education at ITE or entry into the workforce. For PWDs with lower support needs, many have cited difficulty participating in SkillsFuture courses due to accessibility issues. This is backed up by the 2024 Disability Trends Report highlighting that 61.6% of PWDs noted that they found it difficult to attend training programmes due to barriers because of their disability.
While the Enabling Academy’s work in developing training courses catered to PwDs on topics such as AI and cooking is important, in the spirit of inclusivity, SkillsFuture courses should be made accessible to all via the provision of reasonable accommodations, a point that I and others in this House have previously made.
People-Centered, not just Economically Centered
Finally, what it means to be a people-centred economy. During the recent Budget statement, the Prime Minister highlighted the outsized role AI plays in our economic strategy. In the domain of reskilling, this includes revamping the SkillsFuture website with an increased focus on AI and offering participants of select AI courses a free 6-month premium AI subscription. Similarly, the recently-updated criteria for courses to obtain government funding requires either certification from a Course Endorsement Body (CEB), or 50% of the skills taught should be listed on the Course Approval Skills List (CASL). For the CASL in particular, the skills listed “support good growth jobs and are important for Singapore’s economy.”
While skills important to the social sector, such as social services, youth development, and casework management are included in the CASL, I believe we can do more to drive up our social service manpower capacity and overall interest in the sector. As I previously mentioned in my Budget 2024 speech, I hope that the Agency would platform these skills in addition to economic growth drivers, such as tech and AI.
Conclusion
To conclude, while the SWDA drives economic growth by widening and deepening our talent pool, the Agency’s work also impacts the livelihoods of individual Singaporeans and we must ensure that it is people-centric. This involves untangling unnecessary red tape for training providers, and broadening the types of data collected to monitor the Agency’s effectiveness in securing fruitful employment outcomes for Singaporeans. Furthermore, the Agency should also boost its capabilities serving marginalised communities, such as PwDs and ex-offenders, whilst promoting the people sector, not just focus on areas with strong economic potential.
I support the Bill. Thank you.
