Use of Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) Monies for Studies at Private Universities

Mr Speaker, Sir, various Members, including Mr Zainal Sapari, had previously raised similar questions in this House. The Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) scheme was introduced in 2008 to provide additional financial support for post-Secondary education. Before 2016, we had restricted the use of PSEA to publicly-funded institutions, namely ITE, Polytechnics, Autonomous Universities and the Arts Institutions, NAFA and LaSalle, and also Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) courses. This is because being part of the publicly-funded system, we are assured of the quality of the courses. Further, the programmes are already significantly subsidised and extending PSEA support is a natural thing to do.

The usage of PSEA was broadened in 2016. We included other approved skills development programmes and modular courses that are subsidised by our continuing education and training policy, and delivered by Government agencies and private training providers. Examples include the training programmes offered at BCA Academy and Digital Marketing in Hospitality offered at SHATEC Institutes.

If there is any unused amount in the PSEA when the account holder turns 30, this will be transferred to his or her CPF Ordinary Account in the following year.

Quality and relevance remain the key considerations in deciding whether an education and training programme can qualify for PSEA usage. We need to protect the interests of account holders by ensuring that all courses eligible for PSEA support will meet quality standards and the needs of industries.

Sir, there is a wide range of courses offered by Private Education Institutions (PEIs), with varying quality and learning outcomes. While SkillsFuture Singapore regulates these private commercial players, they are not part of the public education system and we do not extend public subsidy to them. Likewise, we do not have a blanket policy to allow the usage of PSEA for their courses.

Thank you, Speaker. Four supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State.

First, as he mentioned in his reply, any unused balance in the PSEA account will be transferred to the holder's CPF Ordinary Account (OA) by the time he reaches 31. I would like to ask he knows of the percentage or numbers of such students or young persons who have balances that are left and are transferred in this way. That is the first question.

The second question is, in his reply, I think he repeated the Ministry's stand that the restrictions on PSEA's use are due to concerns about quality as well as relevance. We have come across some residents who had appealed to use PSEA for degree programmes offered by foreign universities that have good international reputation and, in fact, who have collaborations within Singapore with Polytechnics and, in one case, an aeronautical university that has a collaboration with the Air Force. So, would the Senior Minister of State agree that such collaborations are signs that there is an acceptance of the quality of the university offering those degrees and, in a sense, also of the relevance of studies in such fields. That is why there are collaborations in Singapore.

The third question is, he mentioned also that PSEA is only allowed for Government-subsidised programmes as a natural consequence. Would he not agree that in the sense there is a certain perversion in that logic because a person with less resources would need a support if there is a lack of subsidies in that sense. So, I think that reason is not that convincing.

And finally, perhaps he could elaborate a bit on the purpose of Private Educational Institutions (PEIs) in Singapore having the EduTrust mark because I believe some of these private institutions are collaborating with foreign universities to offer degree programmes. So, what is the relevance of the EduTrust mark? Is it not also a sign of quality assurance?

Sir, I do not have the data on the CPF Ordinary Account transfer but if the Member could file a separate Question, we would provide the information to her separately.

As for the other questions from Ms Sylvia Lim, she first asked about the collaborations of different programmes. I think I have explained this in my answer which is that we look at both the quality and also the relevance. Some of these programmes that she mentioned are offered by foreign universities. We understand there is a range of courses offered globally. But it would not be possible for MOE to maintain a comprehensive list of approved overseas programmes because we do need to safeguard the usage of PSEA monies. For practical reasons, it is limited to local institutions. So, if you have a foreign university but they have a local institution and they run some programmes here, as I explained in my answer, some of them do qualify for CET funding. We are looking at the range of possible courses but based on the criteria of quality and also industry relevance.

Ms Lim also said that she has some disagreement with the explanation about quality because these courses are not given subsidy, therefore, we should be allowing the students to use PSEA. I think we have to look at what is the objective that we are trying to achieve in the first place. If you look at the quality of the programme, there is a reason why they are not receiving public subsidy. The quality is uneven amongst the PEIs. For example, we have the Graduate Employment Survey that is done and if you look at the full-time permanent employment rate of their graduates, it ranged from 17% to 60%. There is also a spread in the median gross monthly salary from $2,300, to the highest of $3,200.

So, because of this, it is not possible to use this approach to say that just because a programme is not subsidised, therefore, you should allow students to use their PSEA. In fact, if you agree that quality of a course and the relevance of the course and the outcomes that the graduates are able to achieve are important considerations, then we should first and foremost, be looking at what is the quality of this course and does it offer students good employment outcomes. In the end, we should not forget that the student has to put in considerable amounts of resources, both time and money to be able to attend and complete the course. So, if the outcomes are not good, I do not think we should be sending mixed signals to confuse people that they are encouraged to sign up for this course when the outcomes are actually not very desirable. I think we do have an obligation and duty to signal clearly to students who are looking at options to consider what are the outcomes and therefore, please think carefully before you decide.

Sir, I think the more important point I want to highlight is this: that there are alternative pathways available to students who wish to pursue further studies and to be able to upgrade their skills along the way. Going to a PEI is not the only option for someone who has completed "A" Level or Polytechnic. It is not the only means for young Singaporeans to be work-ready. We have very good employment outcomes for Polytechnic Diploma graduates and for many of them, after they join the workforce, there are still opportunities available for them to do their degrees on a part-time basis or on a full-time basis subsequently after they have started working.

We have also introduced new pathways, including the post-Diploma Advanced or Specialist Diploma for Polytechnic students and the Work-Study Diploma and Post-Diploma pathways that are now available to our students in ITE or Polytechnics. These are applied programmes that combine structured on-the-job training and institution-based courses. The good thing is that when they are under this programme, the Earn-and-Learn programme or the Work-Study Programme, they can earn a salary while they are working and also go back to school. For the students who are doing the Advanced or Specialist Diploma, it takes up to 18 months. For the new pathway that we introduced, where students would pursue a Work-Study programme leading to a Degree, it will take about three years for Polytechnic students.

So, I think it is important that we provide our students with a good understanding of what are the options, what are the pathways and what are the outcomes of the different pathways so that parents and students are better able to make good decisions on how they want to commit their time and resources.

Sir, I think Ms Lim had one last question on EduTrust. EduTrust is something which the Committee for Private Education (CPE) awards, looking at the standards on corporate governance, administration and fee protection but this does not directly relate to the content of the individual programmes and the quality of the academic programmmes or their industry relevance. It is about whether the governance, administration and the fee protection, whether these elements are adequately provided. More to protect students from cases where, like in the past, some of the PEIs folded halfway through the course and the students were then left in the lurch because the money that they had paid, they could not get it back.

So, EduTrust is meant more for that purpose. It does not say anything about the quality of the course or the industry relevance or even the outcomes for the graduate.

I think we should separate the two and not mix it up. Getting EduTrust does not mean that you have good outcomes for your students. So, I will still go back to what I said earlier about the importance of looking at the quality of the course, the relevance and the outcomes in deciding where we should be encouraging people to pursue the different skills upgrading and training options.

Okay. One question. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify that he is not actually saying that currently, the courses that are offered by other universities such as reputable foreign universities that are available to students in Singapore, he is not saying that all of them lack quality or relevance. And I would like to ask whether in this sense, the Ministry would be open, at least, to looking at case-by-case appeals for the use of PSEA.

Sir, I think if Ms Lim listened to my main reply carefully, I ended by saying we do not have a blanket policy to allow the usage of PSEA for PEI courses. But I also mentioned in my reply that we do have private providers that we have allowed to qualify for subsidies. Let us not make classifications based on what type of entity you are as the main focus of our efforts. Let us look at the quality of the courses, the relevance to the industry and the outcomes to the graduates. If there are suitable courses that are offered by private training providers that can achieve those outcomes, I think it is certainly something that we can take a look at.