SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill

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, 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, 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, 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.