A. Introduction
1. Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Education, I beg to move ‘That the Bill be read a second time.’
2. Sir, the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, which is the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill. With your permission, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on the two Bills be taken together now as they are related. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with.
3. Sir, the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency or SSG was established in 2016 to administer the SSG Act and drive the implementation of the SkillsFuture movement. SSG is also the appointed Agency to administer the Skills Development Levy or SDL Act, and the Private Education Act.
4. To support the skills development of the Singapore workforce, SSG draws on various Government funds, including the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, the National Productivity Fund, and the Skills Development Fund (SDF).
In particular, the SDF, which is one of SSG’s main funding sources, comes from the Skills Development Levy collected from employers for all employees wholly or partly working in Singapore, as required by the SDL Act.
SDL collections are channelled into the Skills Development Fund to support individuals and employers to upskill themselves and their employees respectively.
5. The Continuing Education and Training (CET) landscape in Singapore has evolved over the years. More Singaporeans and employers are participating in upskilling and reskilling. The Government’s investment in CET has also increased significantly. Hence, it is timely to review the SSG and SDL Acts to put in place tighter mechanisms to protect against potential abuse of funds provided by SSG, as well as misrepresentation of SSG’s funding and SSG-funded courses, while ensuring that we continue to support individuals, employers and training providers to further the SkillsFuture movement.
B. Current Context
6. With the substantial increase in government investments in CET, the risk of abuse of SSG funding has risen correspondingly. SSG has come across advertisements that contain false or misleading descriptions about SSG’s funding schemes, SSG-funded training courses, or SSG-funded training providers. Against this backdrop, there are two key gaps to be addressed.
7. First, the SSG Act currently has limited provisions to deal specifically with abuse of SSG funding.
Today, SSG can recover wrongly obtained funds through contractual and civil actions. But recovering funds through civil action can be costly and time consuming. More importantly, it does not effectively deter potential abusers from trying to wrongly obtain funds for purposes other than what they are intended for.
Legislative levers to deal with funding abuse cases are thus required. However, today, only funding abuse cases that involve the provision of false or misleading information are covered under the existing provisions of the SSG Act.
Beyond this, SSG will have to rely on the Penal Code to prosecute egregious cases of cheating.
It is necessary to expand the set of offences regulated under the SSG Act, to comprehensively and clearly cover the different forms of funding abuse that may arise.
8. Second, SSG’s levers to deal with false or misleading advertisements are limited today.
When SSG detects these cases, SSG relies on contractual levers to terminate the errant entity’s status as an approved training provider, thereby preventing them from offering SSG-subsidised courses further.
However, SSG does not have legislative levers to direct errant entities to take remedial actions, such as to take down or correct these false advertisements.
9. If there is continued misrepresentation of SSG’s funding schemes and its funded courses, the public could be misled into signing up for unsuitable courses, wasting their resources and effort. This could undermine public confidence in the broader SkillsFuture movement, to the detriment of other training providers as well.
C. Expand Coverage of Offences Under Ssg Act
10. To address these issues, the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill, or the SSG (Amendment) Bill for short, creates specific offences against the abuse of SSG funding, as well as misrepresentation of SSG’s funding schemes, SSG-funded courses, and SSG-funded providers. These new offences will make the SSG Act a more comprehensive set of legislation to deal with the range of criminal conduct that SSG needs to regulate.
11. I will now highlight the key features of these new offences and their related provisions inserted by Clauses 12 and 13 of the SSG (Amendment) Bill.
12. First, Clause 12 inserts section 57B to define “abusive funding arrangement” as one where a person obtains funding that they would not have gotten, or higher than what they would have otherwise gotten from SSG.
13. Clause 12 also inserts Section 57C to set out a specific offence for entering into or facilitating an abusive funding arrangement.
14. The key elements of the new offence are as follows:
First, the offenders must have entered into or facilitated an abusive funding arrangement which I have just described;
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.
15. Those convicted of this offence will be liable for a penalty equal to the amount that they wrongly obtained or would have wrongly obtained; and a fine and/or imprisonment. In addition, the Court may order the convicted offender to return the wrongly obtained funds to SSG, so that the funds can be used for their intended purposes.
16. A past example of an abusive funding arrangement that is not covered by the current SSG Act was where training providers colluded with several companies to apply for grants from SSG. Individuals were recruited to be employees for the sole purpose of attending a course and drawing training grants from SSG. The individuals’ employment was terminated after the course.
17. With the proposed Amendments, such abuses will be covered, and hopefully deterred.
18. Second, Clause 12 inserts the new section 57E to set out a specific offence for publication or distribution of an advertisement that is false or misleading in a material way.
19. Subsection 4 under the new section 57E defines a “false or misleading advertisement” as an advertisement that falsely represents that SSG has provided funding, approval or endorsement, for a course or its provider, when this is not the case. It also includes an advertisement that falsely represents the contents or skill sets that would be acquired through attending an SSG-funded course.
20. The definitions are based on actual cases of misrepresentations that SSG has encountered. For example, courses were advertised to be funded by SSG, accredited under the Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) credentials, or would lead to a government-issued diploma, when they are not. This misleads individuals into signing up for unsuitable courses. If left unaddressed, such misrepresentations could undermine public confidence in SkillsFuture.
21. The new offence of “false or misleading advertisements” will allow SSG to take actions to deter such activities. Those who are found guilty of this offence will be liable for a fine and/or imprisonment.
22. We also intend to give SSG powers to direct remedial actions under the new section 57F in the SSG Act, as inserted by Clause 12. SSG can direct remedial actions if it assesses a person has published or distributed such false or misleading advertisement, or caused them to be published or distributed. Examples of appropriate remedial actions include removing the false and misleading advertisement, and publishing a corrective advertisement as approved by SSG.
23. In addition, to better safeguard public interests, Clause 12 inserts the new section 57G to empower SSG to direct training providers and other recipients of SSG funding to refund monies paid by trainees, and/or funding provided by SSG, if the course did not start on the scheduled start date, or ceases to be provided before it is completed.
24. Under Sections 57F and 57G, failure to comply with these directions will be an offence. Those who are guilty of this offence will be liable for a fine and/or imprisonment.
25. Lastly, providing false or misleading information for purpose of obtaining SSG funding is currently an offence under section 58 of the SSG Act, and those convicted of the offence are liable for a fine and/or imprisonment. However, SSG currently has to rely on contractual levers and civil proceedings to recover the funds that have been wrongly obtained as a result of such false or misleading information. Clause 13 will insert subsection 4 under section 58 to empower the Court to order those convicted of the offence to repay the wrongly obtained funds to SSG.
26. At this juncture, I would like to make it clear that our intention is not to penalise administrative lapses or genuine mistakes of the training providers that could occur from time to time. However, if the facts of a case constitute an offence, SSG will refer the case to AGC to determine the next appropriate course of action. By safeguarding those that are genuine in the pursuit of training, we hope to create a vibrant CET ecosystem of quality training providers and programmes, and where companies and individuals participate in, and benefit from, skills upgrading.
27. Further, I would like to assure Members that there will be due process where SSG exercises these expanded regulatory powers:
For example, before directing a person to remove an advertisement, or to refund trainees or SSG if the course is cancelled, SSG will first give a written notice for the person to submit written representations to explain their actions, unless it is not practicable or desirable, within a reasonable specified timeline.
SSG will decide whether to issue the direction, or to modify it, after considering the written representation by the person.
If a person is aggrieved by SSG’s direction, the person can appeal to the Minister.
Clause 12 will insert section 57H to provide for this.
D. Enhance Enforcement Powers
28. In view of the new offences, SSG’s enforcement powers will need to be enhanced.
29. Under the SSG Act today, SSG’s enforcement powers are for limited purposes, mainly to verify information submitted to SSG for SSG funding, as well as to ensure that SSG funding had been properly applied by the funding recipient. Persons authorised by SSG may enter premises, take photos and videos, access documents, and ask for returns within a specified period. However, these powers are limited and are not sufficient for the investigation of offences.
30. To provide SSG with stronger levers to investigate offences under the SSG Act, Clause 12 of the SSG (Amendment) Bill enhances SSG’s enforcement powers by inserting the new section 57A to empower SSG-appointed inspectors to verify identities of persons reasonably believed to have committed the offence, require attendance, conduct interviews, and where necessary, search for and seize documents or equipment for the purpose of investigating offences under the SSG Act.
31. These powers are largely similar to the ones that SSG has currently under the Private Education Act, where SSG-appointed inspectors are already equipped to investigate offences under the Act, such as publishing false or misleading advertisements.
32. Clause 9 of the SDL (Amendment) Bill will amend the SDL Act to confer SSG-appointed inspectors similar enforcement powers for the purpose of investigation of offences relating to SDL.
E. Other Amendments to Streamline Operations
33. We will also take this opportunity to make other amendments to streamline operational processes within the SSG Act and the SDL Act.
34. First, because SSG currently taps on various funding sources, including SDF and other sources, we intend to consolidate offences and enforcement powers relating to the funding provided by SSG within the SSG Act, so that the offences and enforcement powers can be applied consistently regardless of the funding source.
35. Currently, offences and enforcement powers relating to incentives, grants or loans are set out in the SDL Act or SSG Act, depending on whether the funding source is SDF monies or non-SDF monies. Clause 6 of the SDL (Amendment) Bill repeals the offence and related provisions concerning SSG funding out of SDF monies. Offences relating to SSG funding, paid wholly or partly out of SDF monies, will be ported over to the SSG Act from the SDL Act, and will be enforced using enforcement powers under the SSG Act.
36. Offences and enforcement powers that pertain to the levy will remain in the SDL Act.
37. Second, we will make it easier for employers to compute SDL liabilities and make monthly contributions for both CPF and SDL. Today, employers use the definition of ‘wages’ under the Central Provident Fund Act (or CPF Act) to calculate the CPF payable for their local employees, and a slightly different definition of ‘remuneration’ to compute the SDL payable for their employees. For example, certain medical benefits are currently considered part of ‘remuneration’ but not part of ‘wages’, and therefore subject to SDL and not CPF. This can result in additional administrative burden on employers.
38. Clause 2 of the SDL (Amendment) Bill will replace the definition of ‘remuneration’ in the SDL Act with a definition of ‘wages’ as in the CPF Act. We currently intend for employers to adopt the same definition in the CPF Act of what constitutes wages, before applying the respective formulas to compute SDL payable. The computation formula for SDL, and the scope of employees for whom SDL is payable, remain unchanged.
F. Conclusion – Stronger Skillsfuture Ecosystem
39. Mr Speaker, Sir, the changes described above aim to provide SSG with the necessary powers to investigate and take appropriate actions against errant activities, and to do so consistently across the different funding sources administered by SSG.
40. The Government’s continued investment in SkillsFuture is critical, given that lifelong learning and employability is a new pillar under our social compact. With the increasing pace of change in industries and jobs brought about by automation and digitalisation, we must continue to prepare the Singapore workforce for the future economy. To do so, we need to strengthen the quality of the training and adult education ecosystem, including stepping up our legislative levers.
The new offences and related provisions in the Bills seek to enable SSG to better deter and take appropriate actions against abuse of funding given by SSG, and misrepresentation of SSG’s schemes.
This will allow individuals and employers to have greater confidence to participate in training. We will also better protect genuine learners from being misled into taking courses that are of little or no value.
This will also benefit the majority of training providers who are bona fide in their commitment to workforce training and skills development.
The enhanced measures will also help ensure that investments from the Government, individuals, employers, and other stakeholders will be channeled towards legitimate training providers and courses, and put to their intended use.
Together, these moves will strengthen the SkillsFuture movement and support our effort to equip Singaporeans with the skills needed to seize the opportunities ahead.
41. Sir, I beg to move.
Source: Ministry of Education, Singapore