A. Introduction
1. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by thanking Members for their views and support for the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill and the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill.
2. The various points raised reflect our common interest in strengthening the SkillsFuture movement and equipping Singaporeans with the skills to seize the opportunities ahead.
3. I would also like to thank the Members for their various suggestions on matters, such as tapping more on private training providers and companies for upskilling, accreditation of adult educators, types of training to support and so on. We will continually review our policies and take Members’ suggestions into consideration,
but I will not be addressing them today as they are not directly related to the Bills. I invite Members who would like to have a full reply on these issues to file Parliamentary Questions, so that we can address them properly.
4. Let me now turn to the comments related to the two Bills, which cover three broad areas.
First, why there is a need for these amendments;
Second, how the amendments will be operationalised, including how the offence and enforcement provisions will work in practice; and
Third, whether the penalties and powers of SSG are appropriately calibrated, and whether there are adequate safeguards against abuse.
5. I will address each of these areas in turn.
B. Necessity of Amendments
6. Mr Yip Hon Weng and several Members talked about the importance of giving Singaporeans the confidence to participate in training programmes of good quality. Associate Professor Jamus Lim asked whether the amendments are born out of an abundance of caution. Over the years, the SkillsFuture movement has been growing steadily in strength:
In 2021, about 660,000 individuals and 24,000 enterprises participated in and benefitted from SSG-supported programmes. Companies have also leaned forward to drive skills development, with 25 SkillsFuture Queen Bee companies partnering SSG to uplift skills in their respective sectors;
And there are now close to 1,000 training providers, providing about 25,000 courses supported by SSG.
7. We are continuously strengthening the quality of the CET ecosystem in Singapore. The amendments that we are making today will equip SSG with the necessary powers to take action against errant parties who mislead others or abuse SSG’s funding system. I would characterise them as part of our ongoing efforts to enhance our system, which has grown steadily.
8. Faced with a wide array of training programmes, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Don Wee, and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about how the public can verify the authenticity of programmes and provide feedback to raise the quality of the courses. The list of SSG-supported courses can be found on the MySkillsFuture portal and can serve as a reference for members of the public. Feedback on SSG-funded courses are also taken seriously. Trainees who have undergone training programmes are invited to submit their post-course feedback via the Training Quality and Outcome Measurement, or TRAQOM survey. The results go toward SSG’s evaluation of programmes. Trainees’ feedback will also reflect as ratings on the course listing within the portal. Through this effort, we enable learners, companies, and bona fide training providers to have greater confidence to participate fully in the SkillsFuture movement.
9. While SSG uses a range of tools to identify advertisements that could be false or misleading, members of the public may contact SSG directly as well if they have doubts about the claims made about an SSG-funded programme. I urge learners to take ownership of their learning journey, make good use of the available channels to give feedback to SSG on their learning, and also point out suspect practices, so that collectively we can strengthen our CET ecosystem.
10. Mr Yip Hon Weng, and Mr Sharael Taha asked whether the amendments we are making today will address the under-payment of the SDL owed to SSG. To clarify, this set of amendments seeks to strengthen SSG’s legislative levers and enforcement powers against abuses of SSG’s funding system.
11. As for recovering underpayment of the SDL, which I had previously touched on in Parliament, SSG has contacted all affected employers to reconcile the variances and is in the process of recovering the underpayments. It has also reviewed its processes to resolve future payment issues in a more scalable and timely manner. Mr Sharael Taha also asked about the overpayment of grants. SSG’s plans to streamline its business rules, and use more data-at-source verifications and systems-enabled checks, to avoid future lapses, are progressively being implemented.
How the Amendments Will Be Operationalised
12. Allow me to now turn to questions about how the amendments, such as the offence provisions, will be operationalised. Mr Patrick Tay asked whether taking legal action can be the last resort. SSG appreciates that there are administrative errors and missed deadlines that can occur from time to time. These are not regarded as offences, but areas of improvement to be worked on.
13. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the outcome of the 93 training providers that SSG had taken action against in 2021. Actually, the majority of these cases were related to breaches of SSG’s funding terms and conditions, such as failing to submit the required annual returns, to SSG. Since these were mostly administrative lapses, most of the 93 training providers were suspended from SSG funding for 6 months, without further repercussions.
14. In cases such as the publication or distribution of misleading advertisements, opportunity will be given for the errant party to take corrective action, for example, to take down or correct the advertisement. However, if the facts of a case constitutes an offence, or if there are recalcitrant persons who refuse to comply with SSG’s directions, SSG will have to refer the case to AGC to determine the next course of action.
15. Ms Denise Phua asked who would be held liable for offences. Where the person who commits an offence is an entity, the existing SSG Act and SDL Act already contain provisions which explain the circumstances in which individuals can also be liable for the same offence committed by an entity. For example, under section 61 of the SSG Act, a director or manager of the company who conspired with others to effect the commission of the offence, may also be guilty of the same offence as the company.
16. Ms Denise Phua asked whether the onus to ensure accuracy is on the advertising agency or the training provider. The training provider may be held liable if the court ascertains that a training provider had known or ought to reasonably have known that the advertisement is false or misleading, or had been reckless as to whether the advertisement is false or misleading.
17. Mr Mark Chay asked whether the definition of advertisements can include what is communicated to potential learners at roadshows. The provision covers advertising materials that are distributed at roadshows.
18. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the presumption of intention. As I mentioned in the opening speech, there are three elements to the offence of entering into or facilitating an abusive funding arrangement:
First, the offenders must have entered into or facilitated an abusive funding arrangement;
Second, they must have known, or have had reason to believe, that the funding arrangement is abusive in nature; and
Third, they must have entered into or facilitated the abusive funding arrangement with the intention to dishonestly or fraudulently induce SSG to provide funding to them, or to someone else
19. It is only when the first two elements are present, and when it is proven that the person has taken steps to help the person or someone else to obtain funding from SSG, that the statutory presumption comes into effect to put the onus on the person charged with the offence to demonstrate that he did not have dishonest or fraudulent intentions. It is therefore open to the person to rebut the presumption. The court will consider all the evidence in deciding whether there is intent, and whether all the other elements of the offence are present.
20. I will also add that a statutory presumption is not novel and is also found in other similar offences, such as the offence of promoting abusive funding arrangements through the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme.
21. Several members highlighted the need to clearly communicate the changes to training providers. I agree. SSG has existing channels of communications with training providers, including circulars, engagements and feedback channels. SSG intends to have dedicated sessions to explain to training providers the intent and substance of the amendments, and engage them on any clarifications they might have. We will do our best to communicate these changes, but the onus rests on the training providers to ensure that they, their partners, and their staff adhere to the law.
22. Mr Patrick Tay asked how long it would take for SSG to complete investigations for possible offences. The length of investigation depends on the scope, complexity of the issue and the level of cooperation received by the involved parties in the investigation. Nonetheless, I assure Members that SSG will take swift and timely action in its investigations. Following the commencement of the Amendments, SSG will also review the offences to see which ones may be compoundable.
23. On whether recalcitrant companies will be barred or blacklisted, SSG takes a serious view of SSG-funded training providers that do not comply with prevailing regulations. The enforcement actions taken against the errant training providers are published on the Training Partners Gateway portal today, including suspension and termination.
24. Ms Denise Phua, and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the extra financial expenditure arising from the Amendments. Together with MOE, SSG evaluates its manpower and resourcing requirements on a regular basis to ensure that it is adequately resourced. We will consider the Amendments as part of this regular review and ensure that SSG is adequately resourced.
25. Associate Professor Jamus Lim said that the amendments seemed to allow for the wrongly obtained funds recovered by SSG to be channeled towards funding its operational costs, and that this could create potentially perverse incentives for overzealous regulation and possible abuse. Now, let me clarify that any recovered funds would not be channeled towards SSG’s operating costs. They will be paid back to the funds they were drawn from, so that they can be used for their intended purpose, which is to support upskilling efforts.
26. Mr Don Wee asked whether SSG would obtain feedback from participants on learning outcomes during investigations. As I mentioned earlier, SSG collects feedback on learning outcomes comprehensively and also regularly, from trainees via post-training surveys; immediately after the course is completed, and six months after course completion. Such feedback is to monitor quality, and guide the CET sector on how we can improve. The survey is not done in conjunction with investigations, and questions are not designed with the intent of aiding investigations into abuse of SSG’s funding. However, I will not preclude investigators using such feedback, or indeed any other available data, if they are relevant to the cases.
Calibration of Penalties and Powers, and Safeguards
27. Let me now address the queries regarding penalties, powers, and safeguards. Mr Mark Chay and several members asked about SSG-appointed inspectors, including whether their powers are appropriate, whether there are safeguards to prevent abuse of power, and whether the inspectors have the necessary capabilities to carry out their work.
28. I would like to reassure Members that we have calibrated the powers appropriately. Broadly, the principle is that investigative powers should commensurate with the nature of offences. The enhanced investigative powers in the SSG Act are similar to those that SSG currently has and exercises to investigate offences under the Private Education Act.
29. There is a robust process to appoint only a selected group of SSG officers as inspectors to exercise powers to investigate offences, and their tenure will be subject to regular review. To ensure that inspectors have the necessary and up-to-date skills, they undergo capability development programmes regularly. SSG officers are trained to leverage technologies and use tools such as data analytics to spot anomalous patterns in support of the enforcement work. SSG also participates in the regular inter-agency forum where public agencies such as the Police share the best practices and experiences.
30. The legislative amendments include safeguards against the abuse of these powers. For instance, an inspector must produce the identification card issued by SSG before they can exercise powers under the Act. In addition, powers to require the attendance of a person by written order can only be exercised if the inspector has information that the person appears to be acquainted with the case. Inspectors who abuse their powers will be subjected to disciplinary action.
31. The differentiation of roles between authorised persons and inspectors, which Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about, is another safeguard to prevent abuse of power. The role of authorised persons is to verify information provided by persons who apply for funding from SSG, and whether the funds obtained have been properly applied. On the other hand, inspectors require stronger powers as their role is to investigate offences. Because their roles are different, we have differentiated the powers that they can exercise.
32. Ms Denise Phua asked whether inspectors can access information stored in the cloud. For the purpose of investigating an offence under the SSG Act, inspectors have the powers to require any person to provide or grant access, without charge, to electronic documents.
33. Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Denise Phua asked about how penalties are ascertained and whether they are commensurate with the offences. The penalties will be decided by the Court, within the limits stipulated in the Bill. As for how the limits are determined, we have referenced the penalties for offences in other Acts to ensure that the penalties in the Bill are appropriate and proportionate.
34. Finally, Dr Wan Rizal raised the suggestion of having an independent body review and approve enforcement actions. To be clear, it is the court that determines whether to convict a person of the offence, and the penalties to be imposed on a convicted person. As for other enforcement actions that SSG can take, such as taking down a false advertisement, we assess that it is not necessary to have an independent body.
Conclusion
35. Over the years, we have taken concrete steps to enhance the relevance and quality of adult training and education in Singapore. Confidence and trust in the training ecosystem have grown, with more individuals participating in upskilling, and more companies, trade associations, sector agencies, and unions leaning forward to partner SSG to drive skills development in Singapore.
36. We must, and will, continue on this path to strengthen our lifelong learning ecosystem, involve industry more closely, and encourage innovation and quality in our training. As the Government continues to ramp up our investments in SkillsFuture and prepare for the future economy, it is important for us to strengthen SSG’s legislative powers so as to deter errant behaviour as well as to preserve public confidence and trust in the training system.
37. The two Bills will help enable us to do so in three main ways:
First, by allowing SSG to take legal action against errant parties and achieve a stronger deterrent effect;
Second, by protecting learners from being misled into courses through false and misleading advertisements;
Third, by enabling the timely and proper restitution of public funds, which ensures that investments from all our stakeholders, be it the Government, individual learners, or employers, can be put to good use.
38. My final point is that building a strong CET ecosystem is a shared responsibility with learners, enterprises, training providers and the government. I would like to thank the team at SSG for their perseverance and hard work. Through partnerships with the stakeholders, I’m confident that we can collectively strengthen the SkillsFuture movement and enable more Singaporeans to acquire the skillsets they need to seize the opportunities ahead.
39. With this, Mr Speaker, I hope that I have addressed Members’ questions and suggestions. And with your permission, I beg to move.
Source: Ministry of Education, Singapore
