SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.45 pm

The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Education, I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a second time."

Sir, the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill, or the SSG (Amendment) Bill for short, is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, which is the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill, or SDL (Amendment) Bill for short. 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 SDL (Amendment) Bill to ensure that the procedural requirements are dealt with.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

Ms Gan Siow Huang: Sir, the SkillsFuture Singapore, or SSG, was established in 2016 to administer the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act and drive the implementation of the SkillsFuture movement. SSG is also the appointed agency to administer the SDL Act and the Private Education Act.

To support the skills development of the Singapore workforce, SSG draws on various Government funds, including the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund (LLEF), the National Productivity Fund (NPF) and the Skills Development Fund (SDF).

In particular, the SDF, which is one of SSG's main funding sources, comes from the SDL collected from employers for all employees wholly or partly working in Singapore, as required by the SDL Act.

SDL collections are channelled into the SDF to support individuals and employers to upskill themselves and their employees respectively.

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 the 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.

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.

First, the SSG Act currently has limited provisions to deal specifically with the 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.

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, 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 advertisements.

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.

To address these issues, the SSG (Amendment) Bill 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 piece of legislation to deal with the range of criminal conduct that SSG needs to regulate.

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.

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.

Clause 12 also inserts section 57C to set out a specific offence for entering into or facilitating an abusive funding arrangement.

The key elements of the new offence are as follows: (a) the offenders must have entered into or facilitated an abusive funding arrangement which I have just described; (b) they must have known or have had reason to believe that the funding arrangement is abusive in nature; and (c) 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.

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.

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.

With the proposed amendments, such abuses will be covered and, hopefully, deterred.

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. 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.

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 the SkillsFuture movement.

The new offence of "false or misleading advertisements" will allow the SSG to take actions to deter such activities. Those who are guilty of this offence will be liable for a fine and/or imprisonment.

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.

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.

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.

Lastly, providing false or misleading information for the 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.

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 have to refer the case to AGC to determine the 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, where companies and individuals participate in and will benefit from skills upgrading.

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.

In view of the new offences, SSG's enforcement powers will need to be enhanced. 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.

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.

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.

Clause 9 of the SDL (Amendment) Bill will amend the SDL Act to confer on SSG-appointed inspectors similar enforcement powers for the purpose of investigation of offences relating to SDL.

We will also take this opportunity to make other amendments to streamline operational processes within the SSG Act and the SDL Act.

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.

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. Offences and enforcement powers that pertain to the levy will remain in the SDL Act.

Second, we will make it easier for employers to compute SDL liabilities and make monthly contributions for both Central Provident Fund (CPF) and SDL. Today, employers use the definition of "wages" under the 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.

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.

Mr Deputy 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.

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 channelled 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. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

6.05 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I rise in support of these amendment Bills to strengthen SSG's regulatory powers, but I am highlighting the need for robust safeguards in place to prevent abuse of power and to ensure the continued vital role of private training providers and CET centres in lifelong learning.

With increased CET expenditure and expansion of the CET landscape, we have observed increasingly elaborate funding abuse cases that extend beyond the current purview of the existing SSG and SDL acts such as: One, training providers falsely indicating that its courses are recognised by the Government, or that they are free when, in fact, individuals need to use their SkillsFuture Credit to pay for out-of-pocket fees. Two, marketing agents soliciting sign-ups without intention to offer a course and submitting claims without the individuals' knowledge. Three, collusion involving multiple companies, where claims were submitted to SSG for disguised "employees" whose only role was to attend SSG-funded courses.

At present, SSG has some avenues of recourse to act against those who abuse SSG funding, those who misrepresent SSG and to verify information submitted for fund application and fund usage. For example, one, SSG can take legal and civil actions against errant training providers who abuse SSG funding but there are limitations. Cases that constitute a cheating offence under the Penal Code can be referred to the Police for investigation.

Since its inception in 2016, SSG has encountered three unrelated cases of fraudulent claims. However, not all cases of training grant abuse can constitute an offence as defined under the Penal Code. They are also not covered by current offences under the SSG Act. For these cases, SSG does have the option to terminate funding and recover wrongfully disbursed funds through civil action. Civil action however does not effectively deter training providers, companies and individuals who are all out to abuse the system.

Two, SSG can use contractual levers to take action against errant training providers who misrepresent SSG-approved funding courses and funding information, but they can be difficult to enforce in practice and insufficient in deterrence. From time to time, SSG encounters cases involving misrepresentation of SSG-approved courses or funding information. These include falsely indicating that the course is recognised by the Government, falsely indicating that a course is free when, in reality, SkillsFuture Credits is needed to be used or even false promises of obtaining nationally recognised qualifications upon course completion.

While contractual levers such as terminating funding and approved status of delinquent training providers can be used, SSG lacks the legislative levers to direct errant training providers to take remedial actions, such as refunding out-of-pocket course fees paid by trainees or repaying subsidies obtained from SSG. A concern here is that the continued misrepresentation of SSG's funding schemes could mislead the public into signing up for unsuitable courses and undermine public confidence in our lifelong learning ecosystem and how SSG is using its funds to drive the SkillsFuture movement.

Three, SSG officers have the powers to verify information submitted for fund application and usage, but they are intended for routine inquiries only. The current SSG Act gives SSG officers powers to verify information provided by a person who applies for SSG funding and whether the funding has been used properly. Persons who provide false or misleading information will be guilty of an offence, punishable at up to 12 months' imprisonment, or a fine up to $10,000 or both. However, these powers are intended for routine inquiries to verify information collected and ensure funds are used properly, and are not sufficient to investigate funding abuse cases, especially those that are more elaborately concealed.

The proposed amendments to the SSG Act aim to target these shortfalls and shortcomings. It aims to do this by designating abusive funding arrangements and misleading advertisements as an offence, allowing SSG to direct errant persons to make refunds and to expand SSG's scope of investigative powers.

There is definitely a pressing need for these greater powers to be bestowed on SSG to investigate and prosecute as we weed out abuses by training providers, and in particular, the "black sheep" which we have seen in past years when SkillsFuture and other training funding schemes were meant to encourage individual-initiated training, company-supported training and lifelong learning. However, we do not want to dampen the important role which private training providers play in the training, transformation and lifelong learning ecosystem. As such, even as SSG is given greater powers, I further submit that we need the four "Cs" – of communication, clarity, credentials and contemporaneity.

One, communication. I call for the creation of additional modes and levels of communication and clarification between SSG and our training providers before a direction is issued to facilitate a cooperative relationship between training providers and SSG, relegating the issuance of directions for remedial actions only as a last resort. Additionally, there should be in place proper public and training provider communications on these new set of powers including frequently asked questions (FAQs) and detailed illustrations in a simple-to-read format.

Two, clarity. A clearer explanation and breakdown that is simple and easily accessible to training providers on what constitutes an "abusive funding arrangement" and "misleading information" should be provided. Additionally, there should be clarification on the conditions for exercising the investigative powers that are vested in SSG inspectors.

Third, credentials. I ask for further specifications of the credentials of those who will be appointed as SSG inspectors and whether they will be staff who are trained and equipped to carry out such investigative and enforcement work, or whether this role will be outsourced, out of SSG? And, since SSG inspectors and officers are also now exempt from personal liability as per their inclusion in section 42, how will accountability be established in the case of abuse of powers?

Four, contemporaneity. With these enhanced powers, how long will SSG take before they complete an investigation, on average, for any offence or possible offence? I ask this as training providers may be suspended and kept hanging in the air while waiting for investigations to be carried out. In a similar vein, will the punishments now set out in this Bill, be reviewed regularly and if so, how regularly to ensure it provides a deterring effect on would-be perpetrators, especially if scams and fraudulent schemes become more complex and egregious?

To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of these amendments to strengthen SSG's regulatory powers to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and to achieve greater deterrence in preventing and remedying funding abuse, and inhibiting false or misleading advertising, which could damage public perception of SSG and the entire SkillsFuture initiative. I support the expanded scope of powers given to SSG-appointed inspectors, but opine that it is imperative to have the robust safeguards in place such that these powers are not abused.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

6.13 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the two associated Bills to amend the SSG Agency and SDL Acts are sensible efforts to improve regulatory oversight over SSG grantees and training providers while simultaneously strengthening investigative powers available to the agency.

As someone who had previously sought clarifications on lapses identified by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) for SkillsFuture grants, I agree with the revisions embedded in these two Acts, the aim to plug gaps in the framework. Hence, I support both Bills.

My comments today will first focus, however, on offering some constructive critique on the stipulations in the respective Bills including the benefits, but also what I regard as minor shortcomings that remain. I will go on to ask a meta-question, whether the proposed regulatory enhancements alone are sufficient to ensure that SSG is able to identify and ensure the training providers for our workers are the very best available.

The proposed measures that lend greater agency to SSG to investigate potential abuses of SSG grants and additional authority to pursue external providers that engage in fraudulent or predatory practices are sound. Clause 12 of the Bill embodies a type of clawback provision, beyond fines, per se. This distinction is important, because channelling recovered monies toward funding operational costs, which I believe is what clause 9 allows, may strike one as a pragmatic way to finance the agency tasked with oversight.

But in my view, there is one downside from such an approach, which I hope SSG will guard against. Tying enforcement actions to funding can give rise to potentially perverse incentives toward zealous or over-regulation and possible abuse by state authorities. This has been the case with asset seizure and civil forfeiture laws in the United States, which, in the most egregious cases, have given rise to predatory police misbehaviour, excessive punishments and the erosion of due process.

In August last year, I, along with others, had filed queries based on the AGO report about how identified overpayments would be recovered. Minister Chan's written response at the time was that and I quote, "lapses… were primarily due to wrong declarations by the grant applicants and errors in manual processing of grants". This conveys the notion that there had not been much gaming of the system, and that most disbursements were simply due to idiosyncratic human error.

In an oral response to other Members of this House – including my Workers' Party colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim – Ms Gan went on to elaborate that the bulk of these errors had occurred, "prior to November 2020, when SSG's previous IT system… had used a declaration-based approach".

To provide yet more context, the AGO report itself had estimated overpayments of around $4.2 million, over the course of three years. This is a comparatively small fraction of the between $670 and $870 million provided for the agency in its budget. This, of course, should be contrasted against reported cases of attempted fraud, which in one instance, amounted to $40 million over 14 years.

Taken together, however, one is left wondering if SSG misappropriations are the result of genuine errors which are relatively small, and probably, a matter of the past. While, of course, no misappropriation of public monies should be deemed acceptable, one is led to wonder if the Ministry currently regards the sort of abuses that the Bill seeks to address as a chronic and worrisome issue, or if the safeguards introduced are more out of an abundance of caution and prudence.

Relatedly, may I ask the Ministry to elaborate on how it currently tracks such abuses? By this, I mean, how SSG goes beyond internal and external audits of grant disbursements, per se, to how it goes about evaluating where the progress proposed by training providers meet not just their stated objectives but contribute toward genuine, economically valuable skills acquisition, and how subpar performance may be assessed.

For example, the new sections 57E and F introduced by the Bill allow for the policing of false or misleading advertising. But what if there is collusion between a given provider and trainee or trainees, where a provider receives the funds, shares the proceeds with the trainees and skips delivery of the training? What if the courses offered appear to be associated more with consumption – home decoration or flower arrangement or wine tasting – rather than evidently future-relevant skills, which presumably is the purpose of the agency? I will return to this second concern later in my speech.

Clause 2 of the proposed amendments to the SDL Act will align the definition of "remuneration" in section 2 of the Act with that of "wages" defined in section 2(1) of the CPF Act. The Ministry assures us that, in practice, employers are already doing so.

The concern here is that, were this realignment to come to pass, such wages then go on to become part of the earned income of SkillsFuture recipients. More specifically, I am concerned if the changes proposed by clause 2 will be limited to just the manner by which employers file SDL, or will the SDL amounts also be included into total compensation for employees?

If so, I can imagine how doing so may result in an unintended consequence of discouraging the use of SkillsFuture credits. Many Government subsidy programmes are pegged to total compensation, and if SkillsFuture credits become recognised as another component of this mix, this may unintentionally lead workers to forgo training, to ensure that they fall below some income threshold that qualifies them for a higher tier of subsidy.

For example, I had recently appealed for a resident who, having received an IT device allowance to assist with the transition to work-from-home arrangements, found herself inadvertently and unwillingly bumped into a higher income threshold, thereby qualifying for lower subsidies, as a result. The last thing we would want is for SkillsFuture, which is made for investment in one's human capital, to become perceived as an undesirable component of total income.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in principle, the idea of allowing external training providers for SkillsFuture, rather than limiting it to a small set of in-house expertise, allows trainees to access a wider set of options for their SkillsFuture needs. Providers, in turn, could focus on course content and delivery, rather than be pressed with identifying and locating students. This specialisation can, therefore, improve the overall efficiency of the SkillsFuture ecosystem.

However, for the system to work and operate well, it is key that the courses are adapted to the needs of both the future economy, as well as those of firms seeking skilled workers. To best calibrate courses with the demand side and hence, mitigate the risk I mentioned earlier, that courses become more a form of consumption rather than investment, the Ministry has stated that it will eliminate funding for non-certifiable courses that are less relevant to industry, beginning in 2025.

Presumably, this means that SSG will have done its homework in being in conversation with employers, to ensure that certified courses and competencies do indeed match the needs of industry. Minister Chan has stated in the past that SSG will make efforts to encourage the development of skills in future-oriented sectors, such as the green, care and digital economies. I agree with this forward-thinking approach. I would only add that the agency should not apply a blanket ban but consider the context as each case may present itself. While my suggestion that flower arrangement or wine tasting could be regarded as forms of consumption, and perhaps, frivolous consumption, they could well become spinoffs into viable businesses. We do not wish to stamp out the entrepreneurial spirits that could launch the next Edible Arrangements or Coravin.

But, at the same time, we should not neglect the other elements of the supply side. It is essential that the pool of external providers be kept as large as possible, even as the set of courses eligible for funding narrow. Hence, while it is crucial to ensure that trainers are indeed qualified to deliver the courses they offer, accreditation as a SkillsFuture provider should not conversely be too onerous, so as not to otherwise discourage legitimate trainers and courses from becoming part of that pool.

Unfortunately, this has not been my impression of the manner by which SkillsFuture currently recognises training providers.

One example is how difficult it is for individual educators to qualify and become an approved training provider. And, as Members of this House are aware, I declare that I am, of course, an educator myself, working at a private tertiary educational institution in Singapore. Training professionals are required to secure an Advanced Certificate in Learning and Performance (ACLP). The original ACLP programme required almost 130 hours, while the 2.0 version still requires about 89 hours. The fee is a non-trivial $5,940, although I would happily note that SSG is fully internally consistent and provides Singaporeans and PR with generous subsidies, including 90% funding for mid-career Singaporeans.

Even so, asking experienced educators, such as university professors or tertiary education instructors, to go through additional pedagogical training is a severe impediment to their involvement, not least given the extensive demands already on the time of such professionals, who juggle a slate of existing teaching, research and service commitments. The last thing we wish to do is to burden them with so-called "busy work", which would diminish their incentives to participate as a training provider. But also, for a moment, imagine asking an academic from one of our world-class universities, which may be one of subject-matter experts in the world, to sit through months of classes, just so that they may have the privilege of offering education to our continuing education students.

In response to a Parliamentary Question that I filed about this approach, Minister Chan indicated that "adults with prior relevant experience can seek credit exemption… if they have comparable TAE qualifications and can provide evidence of relevant practice and experience." But such exemptions tend to be based on other comparable adult education qualifications and there is little indication on the Institute of Adult Learning site that experience alone, coupled with domain-specific expertise, which tends to be the case for many university professors, would itself be sufficient. Moreover, the revised ACLP 2.0 does not seem to offer any credit exemptions, perhaps due to its novelty and already truncated nature.

University educators are not the only ones constrained by the current set-up. The scheme that allows for in-house training providers was wound down in October 2022 and in-house training will no longer be available from 2025 onwards. I understand that only 10% of SSG-funded courses were previously performed in-house. Was the scheme cancelled then due to perceived lack of interest? If so, it would strike me as strange to wind down funding for in-house training based on this statistic alone, rather than seeking to further promote take-up, because there is evidence that such in-house training can be particularly effective.

Finally, skilled practitioners may also receive short shrift as a SkillsFuture training providers. Member Mr Raj Joshua Thomas had asked in this House about how apprenticeships would be accredited, and Minister Chan's response was that the "Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) Framework includes an Assessment-Only Pathway (AOP)… and is available across more than 500 courses". To be clear, this is wonderful, but it remains unclear the extent to which the WSQ AOP is being utilised. Would the Minister be willing to share with the House how many skilled practitioners have already qualified under this pathway and if the AOP is being envisioned as the basis of a more fully-fledged national apprenticeship programme?

In addition, the assessment of the WSQ competency standards still comes across as extremely academic. And I am fully aware of the irony of this observation, coming from an actual academic. After all, while ensuring minimum standards are surely necessary, do we want journeymen and master skillsmen to subject themselves to curriculum design and development, or painstakingly document pedagogical objectives for each and every lesson, rather than to actually go about teaching the craft? Are we subjecting them to knowledge assessment questions that test whether they are able to recall, and this is from the actual literature, what "three types of food contaminants" are, or if they can "list four unhygienic personal habits", to the detriment of chefs who genuinely possess the creativity and skills to helm Michelin-starred restaurants?

The entire purpose of an apprenticeship scheme is to allow those who are less likely to excel in acquiring paper qualifications to demonstrate their abilities by doing, rather than knowing. Hence, while there is certainly some value in having such pedagogical tools weaved in, continuity after staff turnover, ensuring coverage of critical concepts, I would go so far as to argue that these should be defined only at a very high level, rather than preoccupy the time of otherwise erstwhile teachers.

While these Bills have been focused on the supply side, we also do need to pay some attention to fostering demand. This is, of course, the topic of another speech. But one common feedback we often hear is – how we can reduce the opportunity costs of individuals who are concurrently working, rather than those who have already separated from a job, so that they also receive incentives to pursue such upgrading. What are the agency's plans to strengthen incentives for existing employers to encourage SkillsFuture credit use, if it is revealed to them that their employees are indeed under-utilising them?

Mr Deputy Speaker, if we truly want to build a future-proofed workforce, we need to ensure that the training we are providing them are fit for purpose. These Bills before the House today are important common sense steps to improve the functioning of the system, and for that reason, they have my support.

But I am hopeful that even as we tighten the regulatory constraints to eliminate fraud and abuse of the system, we will also explore ways to reduce the hurdle rate placed on the legitimate training providers, to ensure that the skills imparted on our trainees and mid-career switchers are, indeed, the best available ones for the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

6.30 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak specifically on the SSG (Amendment) Bill. The amendments tabled in this Bill are urgent and deserve the full support of the House. The SSG plays an important role to drive and implement the national SkillsFuture movement, to promote a culture of lifelong learning through skills mastery by the people of Singapore.

There has been an increasingly complicated developments of abuse of SSG fundings, I guess because of the rapidly expanding and CET market and the seduction of the funds.

The most infamous abuse is that of a criminal syndicate in 2017, who cheated SSG of $40 million in training grants, through a series of complicated financial arrangements and forged documents. Then, there are people, the individuals who submitted false claims without taking any courses. Then, there are some employers are known to falsely submit names of trainees who are not really employees, with the intent to just access SSG grants. In addition, some training providers also knowingly market their courses through misrepresentation of information, such as free courses when they are truly not; or untrue learning outcomes and untrue training durations.

Persons guilty can be anyone in the value chain of training, it can be training providers, marketing agents, employers, employees and even training participants themselves. The issue has to be urgently resolved; lest SSG be wrongly perceived as a toothless agency and abuses and frauds become rampant. But there is a more important reason, in my view, for quickly resolving this and for our support of this Bill. Just a few days ago, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing delivered a brilliant public speech on the future of the education landscape of Singapore. He said that the first 15 years of one's education are important; but what happens to one's education in the next 50 years will make or break one's future career, and collectively, I believe, Singapore's future.

The adult CET landscape will see further growth. SSG, therefore, cannot afford to spend too much of its attention on fending off abuses and frauds, so that it can direct resources to focus on its core business of designing and delivering lifelong learning nationally.

Notwithstanding my support, I seek clarification for specific provisions of the Bills, most of which are in clause 15, which inserts a new section 57. First, the Bill will make it an offence for anyone to enter or facilitate an abusive funding arrangement. An errant party guilty of the offence would be punished in three ways – pay a penalty equal to the amount of the wrongly obtained funding; or fined not exceeding $10,000; and/or imprisonment for not exceeding three years; and/or ordered to repay the wrongly obtained funding. My questions are these: one, do the penalties in fines and/or imprisonment commensurate with the size of the offence? For instance, is a fine of $10,000, plus imprisonment, sufficient to deter a potential gain of $10 million? Should there, or ought there be, heavier penalties, as suggested during public consultations?

What interim measures can be taken by SSG whilst potentially long investigations are ongoing? And in the event that the errant party who is guilty, is an entity, to whom will the punishment be meted – the staff, the management or the director?

Next, the Bill will make it an offence to knowingly publish or distribute any false or misleading advertisement. Does the onus to ensure accuracy fall on the advertising agency or the content provider? Should SSG consider the provision of guidelines, rules or templates to better guide training providers, their marketing agents or advertisers in what constitutes acceptable and non-acceptable marketing practices, since prevention is indeed better than cure? Are there means by which potential trainees can protect themselves, by referring to a repository of SSG-supported courses and information for validation before one registers for courses?

On to the next feature of the Bill. The Bill will grant an expanded scope of powers to SSG-appointed inspectors to investigate the added offences and provide for a series of power to do so. In addition to that provided in the Bill, do the powers of these inspectors grant them access to information stored, for example, in the cloud, in view of the rise of cloud storage sitting in, perhaps, external parties? How will SSG tap on the use of technology, example: Artificial Intelligence (AI), to detect discrepancies routinely?

And as white-collar crime investigations require a high degree of specialised expertise – how does SSG plan to access this body of expertise? How will SSG groom homegrown forensic experts to carry out this newly expanded scope of duties?

Finally, the Bill will also involve the Government in "extra financial expenditure, the exact amount of which cannot at present be ascertained". I am keen to know when and how the sum of this extra financial expenditure will be determined. And instead of only budgeting for the capacity and capability needed to carry out the additional regulatory powers of this Bill, I strongly urge SSG to work on the following two pieces of work for its future plan.

One, to strengthen self-monitoring as a feature of the ecosystem of the landscape. With more than 1,000 training providers and 25,000 SSG-supported courses, no number of SSG-appointed inspectors will be enough to ensure better governance. Besides a better whistle-blowing practice, for example, SSG should appoint credible training partners, such as National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), or SSG's larger Queen Bee partners, or the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), larger industry partners to assist it, in not just curating or developing training solutions, but also help build systems to strengthen self-monitoring in their respective specific market segments.

Another piece of work that I feel is cut out for SSG to do would be to review the SkillsFuture ecosystem for stronger impact. Sir, I started my speech on what Education Minister Chan Chun Sing had recently articulated on the future of education, the future of work. The future of work and education will be a landscape characterised by mass customisation, by tighter industry academia tie-ups and by spreading education resources throughout one's lifespan, and not only front-loaded in the first 15 years.

With more resources expected to come through the education space throughout one's lifespan, SSG cannot afford to do things in the same way. Its initial open and flexible strategy, for example, to encourage as many training and training providers as possible – and that is what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is trying to encourage – this may be necessary in the first instance, but it has also led to SSG's support of a number of less than competent, and worse, dishonest training providers, due to the sheer size of the market that was created.

More importantly, the current strategies may not sufficiently address critical motivation and training gaps of Singaporeans, such as the middle-aged workforce, such as the disabled, such as those who should, and can, take up better jobs. The adult education and training market needs to be further studied and further streamlined. There must be found better ways to design, organisation and re-allocate resourcing of learning at all ages and levels.

More dialogues and actions for SSG and its trusted partners to bring the SkillsFuture movement to the next height. The five Community Development Council (CDCs) are looking forward and ever ready to support SSG also, to help build and develop learning communities at the ground level. Sir, I fully support the Bills. I thank the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the SSG for their tenacity and hard work in equipping Singaporeans for the future. Kudos.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

6.40 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I agree with the amendments to better protect public funds and to strengthen enforcement actions against any misuse or abuse of SSG funding and programmes. We have seen in 2017, a crime syndicate attempted to defraud SSG of nearly $40 million dollars. In 2018, a human resources (HR) consultancy tried to cheat SSG of $145,000. Just last year, SSG overpaid approximately $4.2 million dollars of grants.

As such, by making changes in the Bills, we can avoid such incidents and ensure that our public resources are used effectively and for their intended purposes. I have several clarifications and proposals on the Bills.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we can do more to improve the quality of training providers by better taking in feedback from users. It is heartening to hear that there are already different tiers of funding for training providers. Steps are also in place to remove funding and subsidies from courses which are deemed to be non-certifiable, to better fund quality ones. Will the Government consider setting up a dedicated channel for users to provide feedback to SSG on courses and trainers? For instance, users can provide feedback on courses from the relevance of the courses to their work, to the quality of the trainers and teaching agencies.

This is important because some of my residents in Yio Chu Kang have informed me that they were hesitant to use their SkillsFuture credits, due to a lack of confidence in the quality of available courses. They may have heard anecdotal feedback from other students about courses being too basic or impractical. There is also no way to seek recourse if the training providers under-deliver or fail to match students' expectations.

As such, I believe the Government can do more to provide better quality assurance for SkillsFuture courses. This is so that more Singaporeans are willing to commit their credits, time and energy to these opportunities, at the assurance that they will not be wasted. As of June 2022, only 29% of eligible Singaporeans, aged 25 and above, had utilised their SkillsFuture credits for the year. Does the Ministry have more recent data on the total utilisation for the year 2022? What is considered an acceptable outcome? Can we do more to assure Singaporeans that the quality of the SkillsFuture courses is worth spending their time and credits on?

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, more clarity is needed on the skills and roles of enforcement personnel. As enforcement personnel will receive additional investigative powers, where will they receive training in investigative skills? Will we leverage on industry professionals, or the Police, to guide them? Why is there a need for authorised persons and inspectors? While these roles are differentiated by the need for routine versus intrusive investigative powers, could they not be consolidated under the role of the inspector? Additionally, how does the agency identify suitable individuals to be authorised persons or inspectors?

I have spoken to training providers who are concerned by the presumption of intention created by clause 57C(7). As such, I seek clarification as to the mechanics of the presumption, and to understand the rationale behind the necessity of such a presumption. This is important as we do not wish to create a chilling effect on legitimate training providers, who may otherwise be deterred because of the presumption.

Besides the IHLs are private training agencies audited every year on both the skills they provide and the claims that they file, who is responsible for ensuring that they do not commit fraud? It is my understanding that, in order to be a Training Provider under SkillsFuture, an organisation must, unless otherwise permitted, be an organisation registered in Singapore with the relevant authorities. What about foreign individuals or organisations who seek to provide training under the SkillsFuture scheme? If so, would their qualifications and expertise be subject to authentication or evaluation, in order to ensure that they meet the necessary standards for providing training?

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must also consider escalating the penalties and enforcement efforts for those who abuse SkillsFuture funding or breach its terms and conditions. I support the higher penalties recommended in the Bill.

In 2021, SSG took action against 93 training providers and companies for such infractions. Can the Ministry provide more information on the outcomes of these actions? How can we use this experience to better calibrate the severity of the new penalties and to safeguard our public monies?

In addition to increasing penalties, will the Ministry consider barring recalcitrant companies and their respective officers and creating a blacklist of companies with major infractions? We should also consider having a whitelist of companies that are seen as role models in the industry, to make it easier for residents to choose a trusted provider.

With regard to repayment of owed funds, are the provisions for recovery set out in proposed section 57D(2)(b) of the proposed Bill adequate? I note that an estimated $43 million of the SDL is still being owed to SSG. This is despite efforts to effect collection from 2015 to 2020. How does this Bill ensure that SSG is able to improve the enforcement of recovering owed payments? Also, what steps have been taken to address this gap in enforcement?

Enforcement of judgement debt in the Civil Court would incur time and costs. It would also be subject to the nuances of the various enforcement methods. For instance, these include the issue of how recovered funds should be divided amongst various creditors. These funds are important for the foremost reason that the funds belong to Singaporeans and are necessary in supporting workforce upgrading, as we increase our focus on CET. I believe the recovery of such wrongly disbursed funding should be made as seamless as possible. Such debts owed to SSG should also be given priority over other creditors.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are facing a more fragmented and uncertain world. Even as we are coming out of the pandemic, we are seeing major nations engaging in big power contestations, both in the East and in the West. We would not have anticipated today's events, say five to 10 years ago. All these uncertainties and insecurities have major implications on important issues, such as trade and digital connectivity and on our place in the world.

One undeniable response to the macro environment must be to evolve our education system. As a country with no natural resources, Singaporeans continue to be Singapore's best asset. We must ensure that our education system delivers and continues to deliver for the future. Our citizens must continue to engage in lifelong learning and respond to the larger environment.

Lifelong learning is never easy. It requires the individual to be inquisitive, resilient, have an open mind and go outside his comfort zone to master new skillsets relevant for the new environment. And this is an unremitting process – learning, unlearning and sometimes, relearning.

Often times, it requires sacrifice of time and effort. I know this from a first-hand experience. While I was doing one of my Masters, I remember going off work at 6.30 pm to travel from my workplace at Buona Vista to Jalan Bahar to attend financial engineering classes at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and returning to office at 11.00 pm to finish up work. This happened two times a week, for close to two years. I never regretted taking up the course. It has opened my mind to new knowledge and value, and has helped me develop new competences to take up different responsibilities in my career.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The proposed amendments to SkillsFuture will certainly support citizens in their lifelong learning journey. By increasing the regulatory power over adult learning providers, it gives more certitude to the public on the quality and integrity of Singapore as an education hub. A robust education system will prepare our people to learn for life. I support the Bills.

Resumption of Debate on Question [9 January 2023], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Education].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.

3.02 pm

Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Happy Birthday!

And thank you for the opportunity to join this debate on the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill. At the outset, I would like to declare that I am a director of three institutions that provide SkillsFuture-funded courses.

As a practitioner in the industry, I wholeheartedly welcome these amendments and I would like to seek the following clarifications and make the following suggestions.

First, regarding the appointment of inspectors, I would like to ask the Minister what the qualifications are to be an appointed inspector? As inspectors are given a degree of power and authority, what happens when such powers are abused? It would be expected that these inspectors discharge their duties professionally and in a demeanour expected of any public officer.

Second, the definition of "advertisement" in article 57(E) seems relatively narrow. I should be grateful if the Minister could address how the Bill captures other forms of marketing, such as roadshows or in-person hard selling.

Mr Speaker, I have been in the education and training industry for over a decade. I have encountered a variety of dishonest actors in the industry. Some of them are educators and a majority of them are agents. Education institutions that engage agents may provide accurate information about a programme; however, there is little education institutions can do should such marketing agents go off script and use unethical means to close a sale. This is particularly so as it is not realistic to expect all prospective students to be familiar with the prevailing rules and regulations in order to qualify them for funding support from the Government.

It is incredibly upsetting to see marketing agents going to the heartlands using potentially inaccurate and misleading information to recruit students. I, therefore, am happy that this Bill also captures marketing agents. There should be no room for unscrupulous agents to profit from Government-funded training programmes. And let me say that again. There should be no room for unscrupulous agents to profit from Government-funded training programmes. And in my humble opinion, Mr Speaker, training providers should not be allowed to engage commission-based recruitment agents for any SkillsFuture-funded courses.

Singapore takes pride in many things. A high standard of education is one of them. The SkillsFuture programme has delivered in many ways to encourage Singaporeans to take charge of their learning and career development. It promotes lifelong learning, ensuring the workforce in Singapore is equipped with the relevant skills to meet the changing economy, thereby facilitating Singaporeans to transition into new industries and occupations. However, care should be taken that funding should only be provided for students who genuinely wish to upgrade themselves.

At this juncture, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to comments made by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim in his speech yesterday.

I believe that even more so trainers of SkillsFuture and WSG courses should undergo appropriate training to teach. I myself have undergone the Advanced Certificate of Training Assessment (ACTA) course which was a precursor to the ACLP programme which Assoc Prof Lim had referred to yesterday.

In my course of work, I have hired and observed many trainers and there is a difference between those who have and have not gone through the programme. They learn pedagogical and andragogical training. They understand curriculum. They are able to design a programme and the definition of teaching is the engagement of learners to enable understanding and application of knowledge, concepts and processes through design, content selection, delivery, assessment and reflection. That is in itself, a skill. Also, the nature of such courses is competency-based, practical and vocational in nature and not necessarily academic.

I often lean on my experience in sports and I know that the best athlete may not be the best coaches. Of course, if you are a practitioner, of course if you are great at what you do, you are able to impart passion and ignite a fire to it to enable your students, your charges, your athletes to go further and pursue this.

But let us be very clear, that when you are in the training ground, when you are at the pool or the court, you are there to teach, you are there to coach and having the right skills is of utmost importance.

In conclusion, I believe the SkillsFuture movement will continue to be an essential part of lifelong education and strengthen the competitiveness of Singapore's workforce. I believe the proposed amendments to the Bill will safeguard not just Singaporeans but the reputation and brand of Singapore and its training and education system.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

3.08 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, US-China tensions, China's trajectory as it recovers from COVID-19, the likelihood of recessions in US and EU, political instability in other countries and many more macroeconomic trends, cast uncertainties on the economy's prospects for the short-to-medium term.

Despite these uncertainties, there remains opportunities, provided we continue to stay united and demonstrate to the world that Singapore remains an open, safe, stable and reliable country and most importantly possess a capable and relevant workforce so that we can continue to attract investments and, as a result, have good jobs for our people. That has been and continues to be Singapore's formula for success. However, the global competition for investment is intensifying and we must continue to upskill and reskill ourselves to strengthen our value proposition and remain relevant to the world.

Beyond the short-to-medium term macroeconomic challenges, the need to upskill and reskill is nothing new for Singapore. This has been integral for our success and will continue to be a cornerstone of our economic strategy as we continue to ensure that we remain relevant to the world by having the right skillsets that the world requires.

Education should be understood broadly and not stop prematurely at the end of a person's schooling life. Nor should education be defined solely within the confines of a school. Continuous education must constantly prepare Singapore's workers for future workplace demands which is evolving very rapidly.

I am pleased that we remain committed to our Continuing Education and Training (CET) Masterplan and I am happy to hear from Minister Chan that our education system and MOE will "move beyond the first 15 years of education to the next 50 years" as mentioned in the Straits Times last Friday.

Furthermore, MOE has extended its portfolio to include not only classroom learning, but more importantly, lifelong learning. Since the Skills Development Levy Act in 1979 and the establishment of Skill Development fund, we have shown and proved that in Singapore, we remain committed to training our workforce and have been improving and developing how we continuously train and upskill our workforce; including the passing of the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act 2016 which established the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency and the topping up of SkillsFuture credit during the COVID-19 period.

SkillsFuture is a key enabler in developing the culture, infrastructure and platform for continuous education and learning. SkillsFuture also represents a repository of resource for our workforce to attain mastery of skills and it must remain so.

Education must be more than just having the right paper qualification. We must strive to achieve excellence through continuous knowledge acquisition and application, and building relevant experience required in the industries.

For our workforce to continuously develop, attain skills mastery and remain nimble to take advantage of new opportunities and also to plug skills gap around the world, SkillsFuture must aspire to have the participation of as many people in our workforce as possible. This is only possible through collaboration with education and training partners.

Hence, I am glad to hear from Minister Chan in the November Parliamentary Sitting that since the introduction of SkillsFuture, 840,000 Singapore citizens have utilised their SkillsFuture Credit (SFC). However, that is only 30% of eligible Singaporeans. Worryingly, the percentage of people who use SFC is highest among those in their 30s and it reduces among those in their 40s and 50s and older.

And as we move towards increasing the participation rate in developing skills and improving the effectiveness and the value of training, the underlying process of disbursing grants, collecting levies and onboarding the support of trusted education and training partners must be simple to encourage participation yet robust to prevent any abuse.

Unfortunately, some have taken the opportunity to abuse the funding arrangements such as the case of the husband and wife masterminds, Ng Cheng Hwee and Lee Lai Leng, who were behind the $40 million SkillsFuture scam by submitting and forging falsified documents between May and August 2017. Hence, I stand in support of this Bill to strengthen the regulatory powers of SkillsFuture against fraud and abuse of its incentives and grants.

However, I have three clarifications for the Minister.

Firstly, given that there have been a few cases on SSG such as the total of $42 million fraudulent claims, AGO's finding on overpayment and the shortfall of outstanding Skills Development Levy, how can we improve and enhance governance such that there are no leaks and similar incidents do not occur?

Secondly, how do we increase the participation rate of utilising SkillsFuture for eligible Singaporeans?

And lastly, how do we improve the training efficacy and assess SkillsFuture's success in meeting its strategic goals?

Allow me to elaborate on these three points.

Firstly, given the cases of fraud, overpayment and shortfall in collecting Skills Development Levy (SDL), what were the lessons learnt from all these cases and have they been implemented and if not, what is the timeframe for implementation?

For example, the overpayments for SkillsFuture Singapore is attributed to errors in manual processing and SSG has shared that it is taking measures to reduce reliance on declarations and manual processing. Has this been implemented? And if not, what is the implementation plan?

Has SSG completed the process of recovering the outstanding SDL owed by companies and how do we prevent similar occurrences? Given this Bill will give SSG greater enforcement powers, will SSG be resourced with additional staff with the right skillset to implement effective enforcement? I also note that the Bill indicates extra financial expenditure, what is the expected increase in operating cost?

Secondly, how can we boost the participation rate of eligible Singaporeans in utilising their SkillsFuture to more than 30%? Based on data shared by Minister Chan in the November Sitting, what is more worrying is the decreased rate of participation as age increase. Are there plans to encourage more of our mature workers to participate in upskilling and retraining? Possibly, one opportunity is to encourage our mature workers to transit to a second career to be trainers and impart their experience to the rest of the workforce.

Lastly, how do we increase the effectiveness of training for the courses supported by SkillsFuture? On quality of training, I do note from the website that there are many training partners. From just a search between "A" and "C" alone, there are already 60 training partners. How do we ensure the quality of training is preserved, to which I agree with what our fellow colleague Mr Mark Chay has mentioned earlier. Beyond the accreditation of the instructor, are the training partners regularly audited too?

On effectiveness of training, can SSG considering using outcome-based course subsidies? Can we have a tiered course subsidy system where the full subsidy is only granted when the individual or organisation can show proof that they have implemented or applied what was learnt during the course.

For example, for the Implementing Lean Sigma course, which is a course on productivity, can the full subsidy be given only after the individual or company show that they have delivered projects to improve their productivity?

And on simplicity, there is a SSG website, SkillsFuture website, MySkillsFuture portal, SSG-WSG website. As an end-user, the landscape can be very confusing. Can this be simplified to be more customer-centric similar to the "Support-Go-Where" portal that provides the inter-agency support available for individuals? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Skillsfuture is important in promoting lifelong learning amongst Singaporeans. Since its launch in 2015, more than 840,000 Singaporeans have used their SkillsFuture credits to take up skills upgrading courses. However, this figure represents only 30% of those eligible. This means that 70% of eligible Singaporeans have yet to use their SkillsFuture credits. What is more worrisome, its utilisation is highest among the younger ones, compared to those who are 40 years and above.

How can we boost the participation rate from the current 30%? As it is essential that older workers upgrade their skills, how can we encourage more mature workers to participate in the SkillsFuture programmes?

Lastly, how can we enhance the effectiveness of training in SkillsFuture courses? We must ensure that the quality of training is not affected, even as we increase the amount being offered. I am also aware that Singaporeans who wish to participate in these courses must visit various websites, such as SkillsFuture, My SkillsFuture, SSG-WSG sites, and this can cause some confusion. Perhaps, SSG can consolidate these websites into one website such as the "Support-Go-Where" portal to facilitate participation in SkillsFuture.

(In English): Notwithstanding the clarification above, I stand in support of the Bill to enhance the regulatory powers of SkillsFuture against fraud and abuse of its incentives and grants.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

3.18 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Lifelong learning is now an integral part of our social compact in Singapore. Through continuous education, our people are staying updated with the relevant knowledge and skillsets. This enables us to be competitive in employment and contribute meaningfully to our families and community.

SkillsFuture plays an important role in our Continuing Education and Training (CET) landscape. In MySkillsFuture portal, these available courses and training providers are grouped by industries and areas of training. Learners can register for courses and claim SkillsFuture Credits via this website. Most assume that the courses offered on this website have been vetted and are recognised by the Government. Otherwise, why would the Government permit Government funds to be used on these programmes?

(In English): Hence, I would like to seek clarifications regarding circumstances in which training providers falsely indicate that their courses are recognised by the Government. How can we provide greater clarity on the validity and quality of these courses? Does the Ministry plan to make the portal even simpler and more straightforward, so that the public can check for accredited training providers easily? Are there any guidelines to help the training providers promote their programmes?

Will the Ministry exert greater control over where such courses are offered, in addition to the website? In addition, how will the Ministry familiarise Singaporeans with Industry Transformation Maps so that Singaporeans will know which relevant certified courses to enrol in?

I have another concern regarding training companies. Has the Government received complaints about training providers using IT gadgets to bait elderly Singaporeans to sign up for IT courses? When they turn up on the day of the courses, they are asked to click on a few buttons and leave the training venues shortly after signing the attendance sheets, without learning what the courses promised to offer. In other words, does the Act prohibit the training providers from offering irrelevant items to attract course participants, even though such courses are funded by SSG?

I have also received feedback about seniors being recruited to attend courses, especially the IT-related ones, even though they do not have the required language or foundation subject knowledge to understand the training materials. Do SSG's authorised inspectors and persons contact the participants and check on the learning outcomes? How does SSG check on the courses which are conducted virtually, if any? Such random checks will deter training providers from making fraudulent representations about participants passing courses when they had failed.

If the Bill is passed, can the persons convicted of the offences be blacklisted and barred from setting up or financing other training operators for a minimum period of time?

Will the Ministry share how many suspension notices have been issued against errant training operators since 2016?

How does Government prevent scammers from posing as accredited training providers, which can be found on SkillsFuture's online portal and obtain personal information from potential applicants?

The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are credible training providers. But are we relying too much on these IHLs? How does the Government encourage credible professionals to become SkillsFuture's certified trainers? Private sector players maybe more updated and relevant as they can be more nimble and quicker to customise programmes for Singaporeans.

Gone are the days when Universities were the main authority on one's qualifications for a job. Tech companies must continue to drive movement where one's proficiency in a particular software leads to a new career opportunity. Smaller training providers may be more flexible than the conventional IHLs when customising training syllabus.

To raise the quality of adult training and education in Singapore, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) sets out Adult Educators (AE) Qualifications Requirements that apply to training providers providing SSG-funded certifiable courses. Can SkillsFuture work with the respective sector agencies, like the Singapore Accountancy Commission, to groom more individual trainers, like the Chartered Accountants, lawyers and engineers who will advertise their courses responsibly?

Finally, may I request that the more experienced adult educators be granted more credit exemptions for the Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) Advanced Certificate in Learning and Performance (ACLP) modules from the Institute for Adult Learning. Thank you. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.23 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, these two Bills will consolidate enforcement powers and offences under the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act, regulate abusive funding arrangements as well as offences relating to false or misleading advertising and empower the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (SSG) to direct refunds for cancelled courses. This will create a centralised system and better support career development for all Singaporeans.

I have three points of clarification on both Bills.

My first point is on the difficulty in determining the competencies, expertise or skills to be advanced by a course or programme. The new section 57E amended by the SSG Bill will make it an offence to publish false or misleading advertising. This includes advertising on the curriculum, modules or subjects to be covered or competencies, expertise or skills that will be advanced. There are good faith reasons for why curriculum, modules or subjects to be covered may change after advertising for a course has started. The subject matter may have evolved, or the curriculum may need to adapt to the interests and proficiency of the class. The competencies, expertise or skills that a course actually succeeds in advancing may also be fairly subjective.

Can Minister share if the Ministry intends to proactively monitor advertising by course providers? Or will the Ministry rely on complaints by the public to identify potentially false or misleading advertisements before intervening?

Can Minister also share if the Ministry will provide guidance to course providers on best practices on advertising and in managing communications with participants especially on changes in course content to avoid any dispute over false advertising in the first place?

My second point is on identifying fraudulent claims at an earlier stage.

In the case of Public Prosecutor vs Ng Cheng Kwee, the Prosecution described most of the fraudulent claims as having been "automatically approved by SSG" and that only "a small proportion of the claims were flagged for a manual check".

Following this incident of fraud which occurred in 2017, the SSG announced in 2018 that it has strengthened its fraud detection systems using data analytics. This follows the recommendations of an inter-agency task force set up to review SSG's fraud mitigation capabilities.

Given that it has been four years since these systems were introduced, can the Ministry share how it is monitoring the effectiveness of these fraud detection systems? Can the Ministry also provide an update on how effective these systems have been?

My final point is on the incorporation of a deferred payment model.

The Lambda School in California teaches information technology skills online and charges no tuition fees. Instead, students can agree to pay a percentage of their income after they are employed, and only if they are making more than US$50,000 a year in the first five years. The deal is that students pay back 17% of their income from their first two years of work after, if earnings exceed US$50,000 a year, with a cap of US$30,000 of fees they pay in total. Otherwise, students also have the option of paying US$20,000 in tuition upfront and keeping their future income. The incentive structure is clear. If the training institute does not impart transferable knowledge to trainees that results in a successful outcome, the institute will not benefit.

Can Minister share if the Ministry has looked into such a deferred payment model for certain SkillsFuture courses? If so, what are the Ministry's findings on the usefulness of such a model in Singapore Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

3.27 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, as an educator, I believe strongly in the value of lifelong learning. I have seen first-hand the transformative power of education and I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to continue learning and growing.

This is why I rise in support of the two Bills, which aim to strengthen the regulatory powers of SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) to prevent fraud and abuse of its incentives and funds but, above all, protect lifelong learners and their interests.

One of the key amendments in these Bills is the prescription of new offences related to "abusive funding arrangements" and the power for SSG to recover its funds or take action against false advertisements. This will help to deter training providers from trying to abuse SSG's incentives and funds and ensure that the money provided by SSG is being used in a way that supports lifelong learning and the growth of individuals.

In addition, the amendment will allow SSG to appoint authorised persons and inspectors who would have greater investigative power and conduct enforcement actions. This will help ensure adequate oversight and accountability but, importantly, put errant training providers to task.

However, there are a couple of concerns about the amendments. One concern is that the amendments may disproportionately affect small businesses and organisations, as they may not have the resources to defend themselves against enforcement actions. This could lead to an unfair distribution of the burden of compliance and discourage small businesses and organisations from participating in SSG's programmes.

Small businesses and organisations are vital for driving innovation and economic growth. Additionally, it could indirectly impact students, such as reduced access to certain courses or programmes or increased cost.

Another concern is the need for clarity, transparency and accountability in the enforcement process. Without adequate oversight and clear guidelines on how enforcement actions will be carried out, there is a risk that SSG's powers may be perceived as misused or abused. This could lead to a lack of trust in the system and discourage people from participating in the SSG's programmes.

To address these concerns, there are a few suggestions for the Ministry to consider.

The first would be to clarify the criteria and definition that SSG will use to determine whether a funding arrangement is abusive. This could help ensure that the powers given to SSG are being used fairly and consistently and reduce the risk of abuse by providing clear guidance on what constitutes an abusive funding arrangement.

Another suggestion would be to provide more oversight and accountability in the enforcement process. This could be achieved through the establishment of an independent body that is responsible for reviewing and approving enforcement actions, as well as providing guidance as how they should be carried out. This would provide an independent and impartial source of oversight and help to build trust in the system.

Finally, it would be helpful to provide more guidance and support for small businesses and organisations that may be affected by these amendments. This could include providing legal assistance or educational resources to help them understand and comply with the new rules. Sir, may I conclude in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the SSG Act and SDL Act are necessary to address fraud and abuse of the SSG funding scheme.

However, it is important for SSG to ensure that these amendments are implemented in a fair and transparent manner and take into account the concerns and needs of small businesses. By addressing these issues, SSG can help to ensure that its funding schemes are used effectively and efficiently to support the skills development of Singaporeans.

Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone who have not used their Skills Future credits to start considering courses that they may be interested in, be it to upgrade themselves or their skills.

If this Bill is passed, I hope it will give greater confidence to Singaporeans and reduce any doubts about registering for a course to upgrade themselves.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

3.32 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the two Bills which seek to strengthen the regulatory powers of the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (SSG) to deter the abuse and misrepresentation of SSG funding and schemes. However, I have a few questions and some suggestions.

In a recent speech at the Singapore Perspectives 2023 Conference, the Minister for Education highlighted how we needed to better support Singaporeans in their lifelong learning ambitions. I cannot agree more. Lifelong learning ensures that our workforce stays productive, adapts to fast-changing global and industrial changes and becomes more resilient in both employment and employability.

Singapore's movement towards lifelong learning must be underpinned by assurance that our training institutions are credible. I therefore support the proposals in the Bills to strengthen SSG's funding and schemes which will serve to enhance the credibility of adult learning programmes as a whole.

However, given the enhanced powers of SSG officers to enter premises, search for and seize documents, and to conduct interviews, I would like to ask if the proposed new powers are to be given to all SSG officers. What type of training would be provided to those officers who are assigned these powers, and what sort of safeguards will be put in place to ensure that these new powers will be used appropriately and not be abused?

When entering a premise against the will of the premise owners, the officers may face hostile resistance. Officers should therefore be adequately trained to exercise their new powers and the requisite rules of engagement.

Mr Speaker, beyond strengthening our regulatory framework to deter fraud, we also need to ensure that SSG-funded courses adequately support Singaporeans' changing aspirations. I would like to provide two suggestions: (a) regularly review and remove courses and training providers that have poor take-up rates and poor reviews; and (b) to on-board courses that support Singaporeans who work remotely.

Let me elaborate. First, we need to regularly review and remove courses that have poor enrolment figures to free up funding for courses that Singaporeans actually need and want. We should also regularly review training providers for the conduct of their SSG-funded courses and the effectiveness of these courses.

I would like to ask how often are SSG-funded courses subject to review. What is the average number of courses that had their funding status removed due to poor sign-ups? Does SSG require and take into consideration participants' post-course feedback?

I feel that only by holding courses and training providers to a high bar can we attract more Singaporeans to use their SkillsFuture Credits purposefully for training.

Sir, we also need to change the way we fund courses to better support Singaporeans who work remotely. The Work-From-Anywhere trend has meant that more Singaporeans are working remotely even if the work is done for a local company. We should move away from funding classes that are held in-person and explore extending more funding to online courses. Let us support all Singaporeans, regardless of where they are based in their lifelong learning journey.

Sir, the proposed amendments will help in deterring abuse and misrepresentation of SSG funding and schemes. As we work to improve the governance of our lifelong learning funding, we should also ensure that we support the changing aspirations of Singaporeans, as we continue to encourage every Singaporean to be a lifelong learner. With that, I support the two Bills.

Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.

3.36 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, in 2021, over 247,000 Singaporeans utilised their SkillsFuture Credits, up from 188,000 in 2020. Thus far, it has served Singaporeans well in helping individuals make well-informed choices in education, training and in their careers. Ongoing efforts in maintaining and developing a high-quality education and training system ensure a responsive and relevant resource for the industry and its future developments.

This system must be a platform that can give employers confidence that the skills and training are practical and recognised by the industry, becoming a trusted system for acquiring skills and mastery of capabilities.

Above all, it must foster a culture that supports and celebrates lifelong learning. Why do we do this? The main objective is to provide Singaporeans with opportunities to develop their fullest potential throughout their life, regardless of their starting point.

And no matter at which phase in life, one will have access to the resources to attain the skills and training required to be more effective at work and progress further in their career, for some, a less difficult transition into a new industry.

The integrity, credibility and quality of the system underpin these core tenets. Of late, the rise of abuse cases has threatened these.

We have heard about examples of such abuse. We have training providers falsely indicating that the Government recognises their courses. We have bogus claims being submitted for courses that were not conducted. We have multiple companies where claims were submitted to SSG for employees whose only role and job was to attend SSG-funded courses. These are growing concerns, and it affects the credibility SkillsFuture in Singapore.

Therefore, it is timely to review the SSG Act to uphold the integrity and the reputation of SkillsFuture.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, how are the penalties ascertained, and how will they evolve?

Given the expanded scope, how do we ensure that the Statutory Board can adhere to high standards of conduct? How does SSG plan to raise, train and sustain this capability? Are there any precedents of such expanded powers in other Government Statutory Boards?

Whilst under investigation, will there be powers to impose or lift any interim restrictions imposed on the companies or individuals? How do we ensure the process is swift and reasonable during the investigation to avoid unnecessary disruptions? Mr Speaker, I support the Bills.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

3.40 pm

The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, 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.

The various points raised reflect our common interest in strengthening the SkillsFuture movement and equipping Singaporeans with the skills to seize the opportunities ahead.

I would also like to thank 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.

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.

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? Third, whether the penalties and powers of SSG are appropriately calibrated, and whether there are adequate safeguards against abuse?

I will address each of these in turn.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and several Members talked about the importance of giving Singaporeans the confidence to participate in training programmes of good quality, while Assoc Prof 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 benefited 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.

There are now close to 1,000 training providers, providing about 25,000 courses supported by SSG.

We are continuously strengthening the quality of the Continuing Education and Training (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.

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 is 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.

The 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.

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 SSG-funded programmes. 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.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Sharael Taha asked whether the amendments we are making today will address the underpayment 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. 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.

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.

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 are administrative lapses, most of the 93 training providers were suspended from SSG funding for six months, without further repercussions.

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 constitute 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.

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.

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 the training provider had known or ought to reasonably have known that the advertisement is false or misleading or has been reckless as to whether the advertisement is false or misleading.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 with training providers to ensure that they, their partners and their staff adhere to the law.

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.

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 these errant training providers are published on the Training Partners Gateway portal today, including suspension and termination.

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.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said that the amendments seem to allow for the wrongly obtained funds recovered by SSG to be channelled towards funding is operational costs and that this could create potentially perverse incentives for over-zealous regulation and possible abuse. Let me clarify that any recovered funds would not be channelled towards SSG's operating costs. They would be paid back to the funds they were drawn from so that they can be used for the intended purpose, which is to support upskilling efforts.

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.

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.

I would like to reassure Members that we have calibrated the powers appropriately. Broadly, the principle is that investigative powers should be commensurate with the nature of the 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.

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 best practices and experiences. Now, even the inspectors need upskilling.

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 abused their powers would be subjected to disciplinary action.

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.

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.

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.

Finally, Dr Wan Rizal raised the suggestion of having an independent body to 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.

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.

We must and will continue on this path to strengthen our lifelong learning system, 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 levers so as to deter errant behaviour as well as to preserve public confidence and trust in the training system.

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 deterrence effect. Second, by protecting learners from being misled into courses through false or 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.

My final point is that building a strong continuing education and training ecosystem is a shared responsibility with learners, enterprises, training providers and the Government. I would like to thank the team in SSG for its perseverance and hard work. Through partnerships with the stakeholders, I am confident that we can collectively strengthen the SkillsFuture movement and enable more Singaporeans to acquire the skills that they need, to seize the opportunities ahead.

With this, Mr Speaker, I hope that I have addressed Members' questions and suggestions. And with your permission, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications? None.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Gan Siow Huang].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.02 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]