SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Bill

Madam, this Bill seeks to set up a Statutory Board, SSG, to focus and coordinate the operations pertaining to the national SkillsFuture movement.

As I studied this Bill, which I understand is meant to be operational in nature, I cannot help but feel that there is nothing very exciting mentioned on either skills or the future. It belies the significance of SkillsFuture as a national movement to provide Singaporeans with the opportunities to develop their fullest potential throughout life, regardless of their starting point. The SkillsFuture website promises that a variety of resources will be deployed to help Singaporeans own a better future with skills mastery and lifelong learning. I, therefore, hope that when the Bill is passed, the tone of the Act is merely an understatement of the exciting mission and breakthroughs that SSG is expected to deliver.

Kudos to the many supporters of the SkillsFuture team and the many agencies behind it. So much has indeed happened since the SkillsFuture movement was launched two years ago. Let me name a few. Of course everybody knows the $500 SkillsFuture Credit; Education and Career Guidance (ECG) at schools; Earn and Learn Programmes (ELPs) for ITE and polytechnic students; Enhanced Internships; Individual Learning Portfolio which is coming out in 2017; Study Awards; Mentoring Scheme and Sectoral Manpower Plans.

While all the pieces make sense each time they are presented, I fear the day when we cannot see the forest for the trees. As a member of the former SkillsFuture Council and now the combined Council for Skills, Innovation and Productivity (CSIP), I have sat through enough meetings led by the Chairman Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shamugaratnam, to "double confirm" that the intent of the SkillsFuture movement is to future-proof the skills of Singaporeans and Singapore businesses.

The Minister himself, no less, said that people often mistake SkillsFuture for a funding scheme, training programme or an organisation. He said it is not any of those. Rather, it is "everything we do to create a future that is different and better than today, in the way we look at work and careers, and the way we develop ourselves and our next generation".

SkillsFuture is not simply about tapping on the $500 Credit to attend the big menu of courses at our Community Centres. As they say, "Don't use, so wasted!" or in Mandarin,"不用白不用". It is not simply an active ageing programme. It is not just a scheme to persuade one to either not sign up for university or to sign up later.

It is not about reviving the Training, Consulting or Mentoring industries. It is not just about doing up Sectoral Human Resource Manpower Plans to see how we can attract more talents for each selected industry sector. It is not just about doing the same thing that we have to do anyway and then branding it as SkillsFuture – what I would term "old wine in new wine skin".

SkillsFuture has to be more than all that I have mentioned. And the new SSG Agency established with the passing of this Bill, must live up to its name – focus on Skills and Future! All members of the agency must envision the future of the industry, of our nation and future-proof the skills of our Singaporeans.

As it scrutinises the current and potential initiatives, SSG must administer the acid test of whether all these ideas will help Singaporeans future-proof themselves and maximise their potential.

We must strive towards the day when fewer and fewer of our people and businesses are surprised when they find that their jobs or those of their loved ones become irrelevant or, worse, suddenly disappear, disrupted by business models or technologies or the sharing economy revolution that we did not see coming; or did not do anything about even if we knew they were coming.

The new SSG agency is, therefore, our bastion of hope to secure our future; to ensure that the major remains the major and not lose focus that we are trying to build a future for our people.

For the Bill to live up to its name, there are three areas I would urge the Minister to consider: (a) to build strong expertise in the three critical pillars of Content, Pedagogy and Assessment; (b) to become the Uber for current service gaps in some post-education spaces, for example, I will talk about a Special Education Academy in special education space; and (c) to be bold enough to Create and Chase Our Own Rainbow.

First, on building strong expertise in the three critical pillars of Content, Pedagogy and Assessment. Content or What to Learn.

Madam, futurists have predicted that more than 50% of jobs will disappear by 2030, replaced by new jobs requiring new skills and new competencies. For content, we must build a 21st Century Curriculum that provides access by individuals and businesses to new literacy subjects ‒ more than just English and Mathematics and so forth ‒ to add on, such as basic coding for some of us, or basic e-commerce for some of our businesses.

It is not business as usual. We need to consult. We need to abandon the traditional mindset of discarding or hijacking ideas that are "not invented here". There is no way that career educators, who are used to working within the confines of school buildings, systems or classrooms, can hold the monopoly of ideas. SSG must try to research, invest and build bandwidth in "sunrise" new industries. Not an easy task but very necessary.

Next, on SSG's expertise on Pedagogy or How to Deliver Learning. Over the years, I have spoken at length on how e-learning platforms and blended learning platforms are the future of the day. I spoke on how our students, many of whom are digital natives, cannot be left to learn only as far as their adult teachers can or will learn. I spoke on how best education resources and best practices must be made available online and otherwise so that more learners can access them, to level the playing field. I spoke about the potential of an open architecture to which content developers can contribute, where content can be curated and transformed into modules that can be distributed to more learners.

I am not the only one thinking about this. At the school level, MOE has promised an e-learning space. At the tertiary level, I have observed different IHLs trying out different Learning Management Systems, some of them re-inventing the wheels of locating, negotiating the best platforms. I believe it is the role of the Government and, in this case, the SSG agency, to consolidate and share these learnings in pedagogy as I fear that by the time we think we are ready, the game is over and our investments hitherto would have been wasted.

Building SSG's expertise on Assessment or How to Test if One Has Learnt or Mastered a Skill. Madam, there is a strong need to add to the repertoire of assessment modes, the currently popular ones being standard written tests and project work. Madam, we Singaporeans are known for our ingenuity in finding ways to ace examinations, especially written tests. But because PSEIs are a close link to the industry, how we assess and report on results will become the proxy by which employers evaluate the candidates they seek to employ. The SSG agency should work closely with industry to enlarge the assessment and selection toolkit so that there is more focus on skills, aptitude and not just standard academic results.

Next, for the Minister's consideration, to become the Uber for certain service gaps in the post-Secondary education space, such as in special education. At this point, Madam, I want to remind the Ministry about the scope of this Bill, on whom this Bill is meant for. It is not a Bill just to future-proof those who can study in the existing PSEIs. It is for all Singaporeans. Singapore is a nation. It is not a business entity. It is not Singapore Inc. We do not leave behind those who are at risk. We do not throw the crumbs while the rest of us feast and continue to learn what others do not. Every one of us deserves to maximise our potential, whatever level that potential is deemed to be.

Our Singapore brand of lifelong learning must be inclusive. It must include those of us who learn and contribute differently. I am thus a little bit disappointed to see no mention of persons with special needs or their educational needs in the Bill. The cliff-effect of learners, especially those who graduate from special schools, is real. The cost of not helping them to continue learning and to renew their skills is high as they may otherwise seek higher cost social services, such as day activity centres, because they are no more relevant to the workforce. There is also an upside in that a number of adults with special needs may be able to take on jobs in our very tight labour market. But even those with special needs who found jobs earlier, will find that without continual customised training and support, they will soon lose their jobs.

The current efforts by SG Enable need more boosting and scale. SkillsFuture for this group of Singaporeans is necessary but may have to innovatively take on a different complexion, with strong collaboration between SSG and other relevant Government agencies, voluntary welfare organisations and the private sector.

One model that I would advocate in this regard is the formation of a Special Education Academy that can become the Uber or Airbnb in this learning space. This Academy, which may be a blend of physical and online presence, need not provide content itself, just like what Uber does, it does not own any vehicle. It should work with the key disability groups for proper needs analysis and development of curriculum and learning solutions for persons with special learning needs. It must align with the Bill's intent to focus on skills and the future.

To support this, I propose that a fund be set aside, very much from the existing SDF, very much like the way MediFund is set aside in the 3M system in healthcare.

And, lastly, for the Minister's consideration, to be Bold to Create and Chase Our Own Rainbow. We have spoken for too long about our admiration for the German and Swiss vocational and training systems. These systems are backed by a culture of centuries of ingrained mindsets that honour craftsmen and strong private-public education ventures. They are not hindered by bias that has plagued us for generations: our bias against sometimes blue-collar workers and our love for scholars and white-collar jobs.

Singapore has our own ITEs and polytechnics. Let us forget about trying to become like the Germans and the Swiss. I suspect that in the future, the dichotomy between vocational, applied education and academic pathways will be blurred. So, let us gather a group of dream-makers and chase the rainbow, and create our very own Singapore excellence model in post-secondary education. A dream that will allow us to master skills to not just make excellent products and services like the Germans and Swiss, but also to market them well like the Americans, in the case of Uber, Airbnb and so forth.

In conclusion, like a typical kiasu Singaporean, I, for one, believe that we can get there, that space. I am confident that SSG, under the Minister's guidance and the team behind him, can blaze the trail for post-secondary education, but only if it will not simply do business as usual. I am prepared to be part of the solution to contribute to SSG's purpose to secure the future of Singaporeans. And I guess Singapore can count on us. Madam. I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Bill aims to bring about a far-reaching change in our adult education and training landscape by establishing an agency that is solely focused on adult education in ways that are intimately linked to economic goals, such as employability, productivity and innovation. Clearly, in the 21st Century, these are all critical arenas for us to succeed in as a people and as an economy. We do need to take adult education and training far more seriously to enhance economic goals and also individual career progression. It makes sense from the standpoint of our economy, as well as from the standpoint of individual self-actualisation.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to raise a few suggestions in relation to the goals associated with establishing SSG, according to this Bill.

Firstly, the quantum of SkillsFuture funding that individuals can now draw down in the form of the SkillsFuture Credit is too limited to effectively nudge individuals to take up more extended and expensive training courses that would cultivate deep hard skills, in particular, in future-ready industries. I believe others have commented on this point frequently. Would the Ministry consider, as part of the goal-setting process for SSG, to require that the agency develop a wider variety of co-funding models whereby more extensive Government funding will be provided, perhaps on the condition of the availability of matching funding from employers, industry associations or other stakeholders to enable individuals to take up such courses that are more expensive and more extensive?

Secondly, part and parcel of setting good key performance indicators (KPIs) is setting up good measurement systems. In relation to the new SSG, will the Ministry implement some process to measure the impact of SkillsFuture initiatives on the actual employment outcomes of individuals who benefit from SkillsFuture programmes? Would the Ministry regularly publish such indicators for public and Parliamentary scrutiny? And would such measurements go beyond measuring correlation to measuring causation, that is to say, would such measurement disentangle other causative factors and focus on the impact of just the SkillsFuture programmes normalised for other causative factors? In this way, Mdm Speaker, we can really enhance the effectiveness and national return on investment of SkillsFuture year by year, as opposed to merely highlighting good outcomes that may or may not be directly tied to the actual programmes.

Next, aside from assessing the quality of training in adult education, will SSG go beyond this to stimulate the development of new training and education content in Singapore and how would it do so? I do have a suggestion in this regard. There is a golden opportunity here. There is a large base of local education and training providers and this represents an economic opportunity as well. With the support of SSG, we could create training content that not only enhances employment outcomes for Singaporeans, but will also become exportable services that help drive economic growth and good job creation at home.

There is also an industry that undertakes high-quality translation of such content in the Asian languages like Chinese and Malay. The new SSG could work with economic agencies to grow this translation industry in Singapore to generate foreign source income streams.

Lastly, I would like to highlight one particular group of stakeholders that would benefit from SSG, which is Singaporeans who are serving their prison terms within our penal system.

Mdm Speaker, SSG would be in a position to be proactive in delivering training content to Singaporeans serving prison terms through e-learning platforms or other modalities, other means of reaching out to this particular group of people. And if such Singaporeans could benefit from such training while they are serving their terms, that would make it better for their prospects, rehabilitation and help them to integrate better into the economy as productive contributors to the economy, perhaps even as entrepreneurs upon their release. I would urge SSG to consider this particular group and to take that on as one particular goal that it addresses.

Mdm Speaker. I stand in support of the Bill. The SkillsFuture movement seeks to prepare Singaporeans for a future that places new demands on jobs and earning a livelihood. It does so through promoting lifelong learning and skills mastery.

This Bill will take SkillsFuture into its next phase. The institutionalisation of SkillsFuture shows that it is not just another policy to be implemented, but it is a movement critical in charting our future. For this movement to be pervasive and sustainable, it must have, at its core, a mission to provide better jobs and better lives for Singaporeans.

There is much to be said about learning and acquiring skills and knowledge as an end in itself. In fact, this intrinsic thirst for learning is critical to mastery and job security. Indeed, both are intrinsically linked. But for the movement to build momentum and gain traction, it must, first, be able to translate how training and learning can lead to better jobs and better job security especially in this current economic climate.

Madam, workers want to train meaningfully and purposefully. In the Labour Movement, during our interactions with workers, the most asked questions are: how can these courses help me to get better wages? How can learning this help me to find the next job? And are these the future skills that we need to stay secure? Answering these questions allow people to see how SkillsFuture can positively change their lives.

Let me now touch on another point. With MOE overseeing SkillsFuture, how can we ensure that this will not only be a movement for the younger Singaporeans? There is a need to prepare our young Singaporeans for jobs that do not exist today. But we should also focus on our current workforce. Every year, 40,000 to 50,000 polytechnic and university students enter the workforce. But this number is small compared to the current resident workforce of more than two million people. How will the new agency work with WSG, MOM, employers and unions so that the agency can be in touch with the type of skills that are needed in the workforce now and tomorrow? Indeed, perhaps, it is the work with the existing workforce that will result in substantive productivity gains that Singapore is striving for.

A key initiative under SkillsFuture is the Earn and Learn programme (ELP) which is a work-study programme to give fresh polytechnic and ITE graduates a headstart in their careers. This is a good initiative but understandably limited in scope and capacity as it is still new. How would initiatives, such as ELP, scaled up to reach a bigger group of graduates nationally? Will SkillsFuture also have a similar programme for working adults or will that be part of WDA and now WSG's Place and Train programme?

Clearly, mapping training to skills, to jobs is critical to helping workers decide what to train for. Equally important is the final mile, that of facilitating workers to train. Online delivery of courses is the right way to go. Yet, many courses require hands-on training. Many workers, especially those on shift find it very difficult to go for training. How can the agency help workers especially those in sunset industries and on shift work to go for training? Can it also consider subsidising in-company training so that the workers can have more options to improve themselves?

We should also consider how we can protect and maintain the integrity of the SkillsFuture framework. For example, it was reported that there are companies offering cash or vouchers when Singaporeans sign up for courses, an indirect way of cashing out on the SkillsFuture Credit. This is reprehensible and must be stemmed. How will the agency act to ensure that guilty parties are punished and the system is robust enough to prevent such incidents from happening? Will the agency have the requisite enforcement capabilities?

Madam, my last point is on outcomes of SSG. How would the new Statutory Board measure its success? More people utilising SkillsFuture Credits and going for courses, picking up new skills are important. However, I encourage the agency to adopt employment outcomes as one of its core KPIs. This will correctly set in context what the mastering of future skills means for workers and, that is, better jobs and better lives. With that, I support this Bill.

Madam, first, I would like to declare my interest as an employee of the Singapore Institute of Management University (UniSIM) which has a large enrolment of working adults and is registered under CPE.

Madam, the passing of this Bill will signify a major step forward for the SkillsFuture initiative. It will herald the creation of an entity that will see the SkillsFuture philosophy further take shape. This is more than just bureaucratic re-shuffling because we will then have a public face to go with the name, a national entity to take on the eponym of what has already become one of the most salient aspects of Singapore life today.

Although SkillsFuture is in many ways unique, Singapore has not been alone in awakening to the urgent need to plug the skills gap in the labour market. Many countries, especially advanced economies, are concerned about the gap between workforce skills levels and those demanded by employers.

In South Korea, for instance, the government has given industry a leading role in creating a set of National Competency Standards for job competencies, which the state then certifies and disseminates. In September 2013, South Korea also introduced its "Work-Study Dual System" of apprenticeship training. And just recently, in July, the then-Skills Minister of the United Kingdom (UK) announced a radical overhaul of their system of technical education. Thousands of courses which are considered ineffective are now being replaced, with the system simplified to provide 15 high-quality routes. More importantly, employers will be setting the standards.

Madam, as countries around the world modify their approach to preparing entrants to the labour market, what they are doing is jostling to get a headstart in ensuring that the next generation of workers are much more nimble in adapting to the needs of the market. In the future landscape which these countries and we are trying to prepare for, growth rates will have to be eked out despite slowing population growth, an ageing workforce and disruptive technological advances.

The challenges are already apparent in many ways, such as with polarisation in the jobs market, leading to a hollowing out at the mid-skills level. The structure of employment opportunities is changing to produce significantly different rates of job creation at different points of the skills spectrum.

Madam, I believe we are already seeing evidence of this occurring in Singapore. At one extreme, employment and earnings prospects for the highly trained PMET roles have been surging ahead for quite a while. At the other extreme, there has been a high demand for low-skilled manpower for many years and this was, to some extent, met by foreign manpower infusions. In fact, I strongly believe this was one of the main factors which influenced our reliance on foreign manpower for many years. This is similar to the observation in advanced economies like the United States (US) of improved jobs opportunities at both the high and low ends of the skills spectrum, but a significant deterioration in opportunities for middle-skill jobs.

Even in China, which is the last country we would expect to worry about labour shortages, we see the manufacturing sector there turning to robotisation, a fact which the Minister for Finance recently explained in this House during his Budget round-up speech. Although China is not yet an advanced economy, its economy has been developing so rapidly that certain sectors, such as those in high-end manufacturing, are displaying signs of the same polarisation phenomenon I have mentioned earlier.

When we look more closely at Singapore, Madam, we find that at the top end, the demand for highly-skilled workers is not being fully met by the supply from our tertiary-trained cohorts, mainly because our small population cannot cater to every niche area of specialisation. At the low end of the skills spectrum, what we also find is that demand exceeds supply regularly, ironically because our education system has successfully ensured that almost every citizen reaches minimal education standards. One of the things we did not have was a large formalised structure of apprenticeship training which would channel mid-skilled aspirants directly towards the roles in demand within specific areas, and this is one of gaps which the new SkillsFuture intends to plug. Of course, apprenticeships themselves can also vary in appeal but that really brings us back to the key driver, in my view, behind the polarisation process, and that is the race for the best paying jobs. We should not underestimate the effort required to make apprenticeships attractive even under SkillsFuture.

Expectations will build about SkillsFuture, about how it will aid in protecting our workforce against specific longer-term challenges caused by outdated and inadequate skills. Some types of expectation, however, will have to be tempered by reality. Employers will still have to contend with a tight supply of manpower in the short run, even as they participate in schemes to provide training places which are aimed at addressing their long-term needs. And there will be some tension between the two, which employers will look to the new agency to help them navigate.

In any case, an important aspect of SkillsFuture is the emphasis on relevant skills. While it may be possible for an individual to disregard relevance temporarily, for the economy as a whole, being productive without being relevant to the demands of the economy is definitely not viable. So, the SkillsFuture drive should prioritise the long-term goal of an overarching framework so as to create potential, and not be concerned only with short-term gains.

As the SkillsFuture initiative progresses and as the agency develops as an institution, just as with other institutions in Singapore, anticipation will also begin to grow about funding. Already, an extraordinary amount of the focus of SkillsFuture has centred on the SkillsFuture Credits. This is natural, of course, and one of the stated functions of the new agency is to provide funding for the provision of adult education.

Adequate funding is clearly important, and a lack of resources can severely impede progress of the initiative. However, I hope we will be cognitive of the fact that while national funding is necessary, it is only one of several factors that are needed to ensure that demands for the provision of adult education are met. By itself, funding is not sufficient and we should be mindful not to trigger a spiral in which funds chase after limited resources. Rather, the alignment of the agency's goals with the long-term aspirations of the Singapore workforce, as well as the commitment of individual workers to the fundamental ideal of a desire for self-improvement, is much more important.

I would now like to point out two areas, which are related to each other, which I hope the Minister can provide some clarification on.

First, section 5(2)(a) of the Bill identifies Singapore workforce productivity and international competitiveness of our economy as key priorities of focus of the new agency. Given the challenges of defining and implementing measures of productivity that are relevant and appropriate, should this not be more carefully qualified?

Second, given that SkillsFuture is an investment for the long term, and taking into account the multifaceted nature of the proposed agency's functions, what will be the approaches taken to assessing the performance outcomes of both the SkillsFuture movement as well as the agency? In addition, if there are plans to implement measures of performance for SkillsFuture, will a distinction between the short-, medium- and long-term horizons be factored in? Please let me elaborate.

My concern is not with the designation of productivity improvement as a clear goal, because this is part of the bold vision of the Bill that I clearly support. My concern is that if the difficulties with productivity measurement are not qualified, whether this would mire the agency before it even gets around to dealing with the core of the issue.

While the primary concern at this point in time is how to make up our productivity shortfall, the SkillsFuture drive itself is much more important for the long term. SkillsFuture looks at capacity building, without which not just productivity but the essential viability of our local workforce will be called into question.

One way to look at this difference is to ask how critical productivity actually is. Of course, without productivity, we all know that we would not be able to justify our wage increases. However, how critical then is the SkillsFuture drive? If we do not make the necessary improvements on this score, we may end up facing not just productivity issues, but also shortfalls in our future productive capacity. The latter could lead to a litany of problems, such as a lack of competitiveness, unemployment and under-employment, all of which other economies are painfully familiar with.

Next, there is also the difference between the long term and short term in considering the performance of the economy. In some cases, one may have to allow for a trade-off. For the present Bill, this should be particularly relevant because education and training often require making short-term sacrifices. This is something which students I meet in UniSIM, adult workers and adult learners are very familiar with. I think it is very important to emphasise the long term because this is where personal drive and motivation have a critical bearing on the final outcomes. Government policy can only push so much. When the going gets tough, individual motivation will be needed to make the final mile.

Finally, an important practical reason for preferring a longer-term focus on performance is that sometimes, short-term productivity performance may deteriorate even when you are doing the right thing; conversely, short-term productivity could actually temporarily improve in certain absurd situations.

In conclusion, Madam, this Bill serves as a blueprint for the realisation of the SkillsFuture initiative. This is particularly timely, in view of the current juncture which our economy has reached. Workers in possession of a strong foundation of relevant skills are needed in order to be able to maintain an even keel during the ongoing process of deep restructuring, as well as to embrace the future economy with confidence.

In a dynamic and globally competitive environment, such workers will be able to provide the drive and steering needed for a vision of the future. I support this Bill, Madam.

Mdm Speaker, I welcome the Bill with enthusiasm as it places important emphasis on adult education and relevance of skills for the current, emerging and future needs of the Singapore workforce and acts with responsiveness to the needs of the companies and employers for a skilled workforce in relevant areas and sectors.

The young should learn skills and acquire knowledge in careers or jobs which they desire and must long to deepen their skills. And those in employment or are retrenched should be given an opportunity to develop in new industries with suitable relevant skills. As what Peter Senge said, one must be willing to "learn, unlearn and relearn" and to add more, be willing to embrace lifelong learning as this is the part that we savour as Singapore's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) for the workforce of today and tomorrow and for years to come.

An article by Minister Ong Ye Kung published on The Straits Times website on 21 April 2016 eloquently explains that "SkillsFuture is about three  big ideas", more appropriately known as a movement instead of just a scheme, as it encompasses the three "M"s. The first "M" is me or ourselves. We should be chasing after what we are interested in and what we are talented in or what we are prepared to devote our life to in order to become a master at it. "Mastery" means being a master at one's craft. It involves continuous learning and being at the top of the game or craft. And the third "M" is "Meritocracy" which means recognising a person for being good at what he is doing.

Madam, I sincerely hope that SSG can be pivotal in encouraging and supporting a SkillsFuture movement, that is, a journey in itself that needs to complement our education system. It needs all parties, not limited to the Government, but employers, associations, licensing bodies and unions, to commit to come together to ensure employability of our people so as to meet the needs of our economy. SkillsFuture Credit given to each Singaporean is certainly a booster for individuals to come into the movement.

Having said that, is there a concerted effort to make sure that there is skill mastery that can match the current, emerging and future needs of our economy? The Skills movement, if it is much desired, needs to gain momentum and can the Government go beyond promoting public awareness and encourage enthusiasm for lifelong learning? And how will it do so?

Support for apprenticeship. In regard to the support for apprenticeship model, can the industry players play a greater role in supporting apprenticeship and on-the-job training that is applicable and transferrable within and out of the industry? How can we help change the mindset that focuses on academic qualifications over applied industry skills and knowledge that are trialled and tested? How can we harmonise and synergise these?

On the roles of unions and licensing bodies, what roles do the unions and licensing bodies for certain professions play in the development of the SkillsFuture models and frameworks? I do not see that being emphasised in the framework.

Can the licensing bodies play a bigger role in accreditation and certification? Can the union, that is, union leaders and its members who are themselves experienced working people in various industry sectors, including PMEs, take on the role of career counsellors for the young? Can the Minister consider an active involvement of the unions with the young but soon-to-be working people?

Of late, there is also grave concern with private education and training providers. Especially with the announcement of SkillsFuture Credit, these providers sprung into action to provide varied courses and training programmes. How can we then ensure high teaching standards of our private institutions and how do they measure up? How applicable and credible are these private institutions? How do we ensure the standards of teachers and trainers at the private institutions, and maybe even lecturers and teaching assistants at polytechnics and universities? How can we help to facilitate the development of the private education sector, which is very important? In my opinion, there must be a concerted effort to maintain standards and help level up the capabilities of these institutions.

On the need for gatekeeping of SkillsFuture Credit, perhaps, we should have more independent career coaches who do not have vested interests in the courses provided by their own companies. This will go towards helping people make better informed decisions. Can licensing bodies and industry players play a greater role in the approval of courses listed in the Approved List of Courses?

What are the financial incentives offered by SSG to the working people and training providers? Will there be abuse of such incentives? For example, the $4 hourly allowance given to working people for attending courses may attract interest on the wrong track.

On the composition of SSG members, does this cover all industry sectors? For this will ensure employers' full-hearted participation to upskill and deepskill the existing workforce. Workers, too, must do their part to gradually get used to the idea of continuous learning.

Madam, my hope and desire for each and every working person of Singapore is for them to be ever relevant with skills, walk the talk of lifelong learning and succeed through the test of times as the next wave of industrial and technological evolution sets in to prey upon us if we are left unguarded. Let us be well-informed of what the future skills, jobs and careers are that we can look forward to and equip ourselves to be nimble and adaptable and ever ready to embrace change and brave the challenges of time. Madam, with this, I fully support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Bill, a Bill that serves as a catalyst to encourage individuals to take charge of their lifelong learning needs. It also shows that the Government is 100% committed to developing a quality workforce which is equipped to meet the needs and challenges of the future economy.

Recently, I attended a presentation by a company on their masterplan to use new technology and automation going forward. They showed a nice video where goods and vehicles are moving fast and autonomously. It was all very exciting. However, during the break, the worker came up to me. He told me that he was worried. He could not find himself in the video. His job was not in the video, not in the future of the company.

Mdm Speaker, current jobs are evolving, and new jobs are being created every day. Our future generations of workers must understand the importance of acquiring work-ready skills and they must never stop learning. Likewise, our older workers need to embrace learning so that they continue to stay relevant. Current skill sets need to be upgraded and new skills need to be acquired so that our workers remain employable and are able to add value to their jobs.

In this speech, let me focus on the mid-career workers, in particular, PMEs, and how more can be done to ensure that the SkillsFuture initiative impacts them positively. Many of our mid-career PMEs, having worked in a particular industry or in a certain job function for a number of years, become contented in their "comfort zones". And some could be fearful of change.

We need our PMEs to, first, find it within themselves to want to explore or learn new skills and develop their interests professionally. Such is best exemplified by the "MasterChef" reality television series, where individuals participate in a slew of gruelling cooking contests to become professional chefs. These contestants come from all walks of life. Regardless of age, they have something in common – that passion for cooking, and they are not afraid to pursue their dream of becoming a professional chef. This is the spirit that I hope our mid-career PMEs can emulate.

How can we help Singaporeans leverage their interests and pursue them on a more professional level? On the Government's part, the proposed SSG is one good way, and it will need to develop a wide range of courses to cater to the different interests of our people. It will also need to ensure that these courses are relevant to those seeking out a second career option. This brings me to my second point − to increase awareness on the courses available.

I note that one of the functions of the proposed SSG will be "to promote public awareness in Singapore of the importance of adult education and further education and encourage enthusiasm for lifelong learning". Many people I spoke to during my worksite visits and house visits told me that they know about the $500 SkillsFuture Credit. However, there are challenges, like not knowing how to use it, not having the time to use it or not being able to go for training courses due to work patterns like working shifts. SSG will need to explore ways and deepen its efforts in helping people understand and appreciate the value of the training courses available. Communication channels must be targeted effectively towards the different groups, different segments of workers.

Thirdly, we need the strong support of employers. A nurturing company that is willing to invest in the continuous training and lifelong learning needs of its employees will see that their employees are more loyal and more motivated. When the trained staff applies newly acquired knowledge to their work, it helps to boost the productivity levels of the company.

In fact, we already have companies which are supportive of the national SkillsFuture initiative and are leading by example. One is Singtel, which signed a memorandum of understanding with WSG in January this year, to collaborate on building a pipeline of skilled ICT and customer service professionals through programmes like Place-and-Train. It is also applaudable that Singtel grants its staff two extra days of leave each year to attend SkillsFuture courses. I hope that SSG can persuade more such enlightened companies to come on board to similarly support the SkillsFuture initiative.

Mdm Speaker, to allow our economy to flourish in challenging times, our people need to embrace the SkillsFuture initiative. It will be tough to keep up with the macro changes if we do not see the value in upgrading our skillsets. As SSG strives to establish a comprehensive learning infrastructure, I urge Singaporeans, especially our PMEs, to spare a portion of their valuable time and invest it in skills upgrading.

The drive to succeed has to come from within ourselves and we need to seek the support from all stakeholders to continually upgrade our skills, to pursue new skills. It is time to take ownership of our lifelong learning needs. It will be an investment with great rewards. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, having read the objectives and functions of the SSG, I support the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Bill.

This Bill brings vocational education and lifelong learning under the jurisdiction of MOE. This is a very fundamental change in the national education concept. In order for this concept to succeed, we cannot just rely on the Government and Statutory Boards. It is important for all enterprises and trade associations to be actively involved.

Changes in Singapore's demography have already created serious manpower challenges. The ageing population, higher educational standards, low fertility rates and the continued decline in new workforce are some of the contributing factors. At the same time, some workers lack the skills to cope with the restructuring economy, and, with the curbs on foreign workers, the manpower woes faced by businesses are becoming more apparent.

Even as businesses are unable to find workers, there are reports in the media on university graduates who are unable to find jobs. MOM statistics show that between 2007 and 2015, the employment rate of local university graduates has declined, from 94.5% to 88.9%. Among these, the employment rate of graduates working full-time dropped from 89.8% to 82.4%, while the employment rate of those working part-time has risen from 4.7% to 6.6%. This is, certainly, a regrettable situation. This predicament prompts the question of whether the nurturing of talent via our education system has been too advanced to match real market needs. Students are educated in an ideal environment, with the latest technology. However, when they enter the job market, they may find that the work requirements are less advanced than the skills they had learnt. Although we are constantly urging SMEs to upgrade their work environment and to build up their brands, the process of transformation takes time.

Thus, setting up the SSG, putting basic education and continuing education into one integrated system, and treasuring every Singaporean's social value, allowing education and training to directly complement the needs of society, are a significant mindset change for the Government. Under the coordination of MOE, SSG could work closely with ITEs, polytechnics, universities and private training institutes to make timely adjustments to the skills training framework according to market requirements.

However, my reservation is that once SSG comes under MOE, would MOE have a comprehensive understanding of employment needs? Would it be sufficiently in-depth? At this stage of economic transformation, market changes are not only accelerated but complex. Emerging industries need manpower, and so do traditional industries, while MNCs have the greatest appeal for young people. When the Government started to promote SkillsFuture, large companies started to get involved and provided internship opportunities to compete for the best talent. In this regard, SMEs are at a real disadvantage.

In the current vocational education system, including polytechnics and ITEs, there has always been a mismatch in supply and demand. Some students are choosing a discipline blindly with no understanding of the industry. They only find out after graduating that they do not like what they studied. Some have graduated but do not enter the job market and hope to pursue further studies; there are other students whose areas of study are too advanced and cannot be applied in local enterprises. All of these scenarios aggravate the manpower shortage.

Hence, I do hope that when SSG draws up its policies, it would look after the interests of traditional industries and SMEs and not only consider the high value-added industries or emerging industries. Enterprises can only function if they have people. Without people, it is pointless to discuss anything. Basically, we have to fill our stomachs before considering growth.

In this area, trade associations can play an important role. Every trade and industry association fully understands their manpower needs and could provide the latest industry development scenarios. Local trade associations must collaborate closely with MOE and SSG to tailor the skills framework for specific industries and to make the necessary preparations for the future growth of their industries. Grooming talent entails a continuous process and mutual coordination. Each stage has its focus. Participating in the training process as early as possible could narrow the gap between manpower needs and the supply of talent.

Looking back, MOE has undergone many strategic changes in direction, from the mode of survival in 1959, to the direction of effectiveness in 1979, on to skills in 1997, and to that of value in 2011. Now, with the establishment of SSG, MOE will coordinate the manpower plans of all trades and industries and look after the lifelong learning journey of every individual. Hence, I earnestly hope that MOE could balance the relations between the education system and manpower needs, and that in this crucial period of economic restructuring, it could adapt to the changes in the environment and restructure the workforce to continually provide the Singapore economy with skilled and quality talent, and enable each and every Singaporean to realise his or her full potential.

Mdm Speaker, I fully support the establishment of SSG to take charge of our national initiative for lifelong learning and skills upgrading.

New developments in technology are driving change at our workplace at an unprecedented pace. Without constant refreshment and upgrading, our workforce will find it increasingly difficult to stay relevant in the global market.

SkillsFuture allows Singaporeans to take ownership of their own learning and is flexible enough to support evolving career needs and personal interests at different life stages. Individuals can choose from a wide range of studies and skillsets from various accredited institutions island-wide.

My main concern, however, is how to get our seniors to benefit from SkillsFuture and develop the relevant skills. I acknowledge that our elderly are not a homogenous group but, indeed, most of them are not as well-educated nor Internet-savvy.

It is important for the Government to find out in greater detail what occupations our older workers and seniors are in, where they aspire to go in the next stage of their careers or post-retirement and develop related courses and programmes suitable for them. I would like to ask if the Ministry has already looked into this aspect and if the current list of accredited SkillsFuture courses has taken it into consideration.

The Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), a study of adults' skills by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), had recently found that there is a big gap between our older and younger workers. Singaporeans aged between 16 and 34 ranked second in problem-solving using digital tools, fifth in numeracy and ninth in literacy. Those aged 45-65 scored lower than the OECD average. They ranked 31st in literacy and numeracy skills and 18th for problem-solving.

The difference in scores is among the widest, compared to other countries, although OECD attributed it to the reason that the survey was conducted in English here, which many of the older generation in Singapore are not as proficient in.

The survey also found that about 12% of Singapore adults had no prior experience with computers, compared to the OECD average of 10%. This is a phenomenon of concern and should be rectified as we are a highly connected economy and depend heavily on ICT in the workplace. Our older workers are, hence, particularly vulnerable if they are unable to keep up with developments in IT usage skills. This has a great impact on their ability to stay integrated at work, and those without IT skills will suffer from depressed wages or, even worse, retrenchment.

English is the main language of the Internet and I would like to ask the Ministry how it intends to overcome the challenges of teaching seniors, who are more comfortable in their mother tongues, computer usage skills. Will the Ministry need to open more English proficiency classes to cater to older Singaporeans, especially those from the lower-income groups who had little education in their youth?

I was heartened to read a recent press report that our polytechnics had increases of between 15% and over 60% in part-time students over the last few years. More and more of those in their 50s or 60s are signing up for part-time diploma courses, attending classes after a long day at work. They shared with the journalist that they were usually tired but persevered because they wanted to improve themselves and got a sense of satisfaction from learning something new.

I hope the Government will eventually look into mandatory time-off for upgrading courses to be hardwired into employment contracts to support employees' upgrading. Singapore's working hours are amongst the longest in the world but we are not the most productive. This indicates that our work culture and employers' attitude need to change from emphasising "face time" to focusing on efficiency and actual work done. Mandating a prerequisite number of hours to be set aside for upgrading courses will help to keep our workforce up to date and enable them to be more productive. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I recognise with enthusiasm the growing emphasis the Government is placing on lifelong learning. We started in 1979 with SDF as our first training initiative at the national level. Today, we are about to welcome a brand new agency to helm the national objective of continued learning. In this regard, I stand in full support of the Bill.

The job market is changing in ways and at a speed not seen in the past. It is of utmost importance to ensure that the Singapore workforce continue to develop "skills for the future" and be well-prepared to predict and plan for medium- to long-term manpower needs. A culture of constant upskilling must be instilled among Singaporeans to help them stay ahead of changing workplace trends.

Today's workforce is also different, as young people spend the earlier part of their career on a journey of self-discovery. SkillsFuture will provide them with a window to explore alternative skills and career tracks with little opportunity cost as they can pursue classes alongside their full-time jobs.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to raise two points with regard to this Bill. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister if there are provisions in place to ensure that the quality of private courses is upheld.

Clause 5(1)(h) highlights accreditation of providers of adult education. Private institutions can quickly take advantage of the influx of Government funding for their courses, taking in more students at the expense of the quality of their courses. Will there also be checks in place to ensure that course providers do not inflate their course fees? How does the Government decide which private education courses enjoy accreditation and which do not? For example, if a Singaporean would like to pick up a course on film-making, there is currently only one SkillsFuture-approved institution and course available, although there are many similar courses available in the market.

It is also the students themselves who can best testify if the courses are relevant to their needs. In light of clause 5(1)(i), to improve the quality of courses, can the Minister clarify if a mechanism will be put in place to measure the students' levels of satisfaction for the course and course provider?

Secondly, clause 5(1)(f) refers to the need to instil enthusiasm for lifelong learning. I could not agree more with the importance of this function. This ensures that we do not miss the point that as we encourage adults to embark on self-improvement, we do not run the risk of turning adult learning into a mere paper chase. A certificate is not an end-all, and what this new agency must focus on is to instil a genuine curiosity for learning, a desire for self-improvement and the resolve to take ownership of one's career. These are the hallmarks of a motivated, robust and highly adaptable workforce, ready to take on the rapid changes in the 21st century workplace.

Employability is measured by a complex matrix of attributes, including not just hard skills, but inherent behavioural attributes, such as resilience, creativity, risk-taking and curiosity – traits which are not often considered the core strengths of the Singaporean workforce. These are soft skills which can never be taught in a classroom, much like attempting to teach children moral values through textbooks.

As we shine the spotlight on adult learning, I urge that we continue our efforts to improve the mainstream education system, giving children space outside of the classroom to acquire soft skills and instilling a genuine desire for self-learning and discovery from a young age.

These comments notwithstanding, Madam, this Bill can only serve the interests of Singapore's workforce, and I stand in support of it.

Mdm Speaker, I applaud the Government for setting up SSG. This shows the Government's commitment to helping Singaporean workers survive and thrive in a world that is changing faster than ever.

Many people may not be aware that the real wage in Singapore has grown 1.1% per year from 2011 to 2015. Meanwhile, real wages in the US have been basically stagnant over the past four decades, and in Britain and Germany, they have been stagnant over the past decade. I think we can see how that has affected their societies and politics. By contrast, Singapore has managed to protect rank-and-file workers, to a certain extent, against global trends of technology displacing workers.

At the same time, we must not forget that real productivity growth was at only 0.4% per year in the same period. Wage increased 1.1%, but productivity only increased 0.4%. So, we have some way to go in our productivity drive. Given that sectors with higher productivity growth have higher real wage growth, productivity growth is key to our workers doing well in the years to come.

I have noticed an issue in our push towards continuous learning and high productivity. From the feedback from my residents, it seems like there may be some mismatch. The courses that the residents wanted to take are not in the list of SkillsFuture Credit courses. And the courses that are available are not those that they want. So, according to my residents, SkillsFuture credits cannot be used for certain professional qualifications like Certified Internal Auditor and Certified Information System Auditor. And these are qualifications that are highly sought after in the marketplace. Perhaps, there are other professional courses that the residents wanted to take as well.

I think SSG will have to periodically review the courses offered and include courses that Singaporeans request for if they are suitable. This will enable it to fulfil its mission of funding courses that are responsive to the needs of industry.

Another potential issue is the number of people using their SkillsFuture credits. About 18,000 used their credits in the first three months of the programme. But the number could taper off as many people do not find the time or motivation to upgrade themselves. I hope SSG will come up with a plan to reach out to Singaporeans who have not used their credits yet. SSG could remind them of their credits and offer guidance on how to use them.

There are also course providers who jumped onto the bandwagon, hoping to make money from the Government. According to my residents, there are course providers who hard-sell their courses at shopping centres and busy town centres.

According to one resident, he was approached by a course provider at Khatib central. So, he was told, "You don't need to pay. The Government will pay for it. At the end of the course, you will get a free iPad." He signed up for an English course for adults. And he said that when he started to attend the class, the course instructor was not well-prepared and was from another country which is predominantly Chinese-speaking. The way he puts it, "I hope there will be more audits on the quality of the instructors and how well prepared they are." Please allow me to summarise in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government is setting up SSG to demonstrate our commitment to lifelong learning. Data shows that after inflation adjustment, real wage in Singapore has grown 1.1% per year, higher than many developed countries. However, our productivity growth was only 0.4% per year. Hence, we must raise our productivity so that Singaporeans' salaries can rise in tandem.

Some residents told me that the SkillsFuture credits cannot be used for some professional certifications, such as internal auditors or IT auditors. I hope SSG can periodically review people's feedback, and consider adding or removing some courses. After SSG is moved to MOE, I hope it will continue to communicate with MOM on our manpower needs and promote lifelong learning to benefit Singaporeans.

(In English): We can continue to coordinate manpower needs so as to maximise its benefits to our economy and our people. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, first, I want to thank Members for supporting this Bill and for recognising that these are not just boring legal clauses. This is a very exciting mission ahead and a new structure for us "to chase our own rainbows".

I want to start with Mr Melvin Yong's comment about the worker who saw the video and said, "My job is not in there", and also Mr Thomas Chua's point that there are still many traditional jobs, "还 有 很 多 传 统 的 工 作".

So, SkillsFuture is not about, as what the Chinese translation sometimes says, "未 来 技 能", that is, literally, "skills for the future". It is not meant to be that. SkillsFuture is for both traditional skills, traditional industries, as well as for new industries that are going to come up. Both will need SkillsFuture. We are saying you need to build a foundation of skills, of depth, and with that, we can build our future. If you are in a traditional industry, you must have that and then you can compete globally and regionally. If you are in a new area, you also need that.

Yesterday, Joseph Schooling was here. I was walking out of the Chamber and I bumped into him and his family. So, I asked him, "Tokyo 2020, are you going to compete in more events?" He said he would compete in the 100-metre freestyle, 200-metre butterfly, maybe individual medley. But I said, "Then why not this round?" He said he wanted to focus on 100-metre butterfly this round. This is SkillsFuture. When you focus on one area and you are excellent at it, it gives you the foundation to do many other things.

Versatility comes from depth, and I think we need to let all our workers know that we must really be excellent in our craft, and then we will have the versatility to move to new sectors. If we just touch the surface of everything, we will not have the versatility. SkillsFuture is applicable to everybody, whether in traditional sectors or in new sectors.

Mr Thomas Chua said he noticed that there is a slight drop in the employment outcomes of our graduates and a slight increase in the unemployed graduates. He said he is a little bit worried "他 有 一 点 点 担 心". Actually, I am very worried "我 很 担 心". Not for now, because I think slight changes in employment outcomes for our undergraduates, for our graduates coming out from universities will happen as the economy goes up and down.

But what I am very worried about whether is 10 or 20 years from now, we will continue to be able to achieve this kind of excellent employment outcomes for our graduates, both from the ITEs, polytechnics, as well as from our universities?

Today, the part in MOE dealing with higher education, there is a very acute awareness of the need for industry, that we have to produce graduates that are needed by the industries. How else will we achieve high employment outcomes if we do not have that mindset? What I am very worried about is how do we sustain that for the long term, say, 10 years, 20 years down the road?

Mr Desmond Choo expressed a similar concern whether by moving SSG to MOE, will we dilute the focus on industry and only focus on the young. This has also been our preoccupation for the longest time. MOE (Higher Education) pays a lot of attention on industry needs, and we know that we must do this better over time. We have introduced (a) compulsory internships in ITE and polytechnics, even overseas internships; and (b) ELP.

Today, all the curricula of all our programmes are done in consultation with the industry.

How do we do that better? I think the best way is we take an outfit which has deep knowledge in engaging industries, which understands the philosophy of adult training very well and inject them into MOE. This is why we restructured WDA and placed SSG within MOE, so that we can work with the industry and understand the philosophy of adult training even better.

To do this, I think there are two caveats. First, this should not dilute the research efforts of our universities. In fact, I think there is concern on the other side of the House which does research on whether this industry focus will dilute research efforts. It should not. Second, if there are company-specific skills, sometimes, it is better to be taught in the company because, if it is so specific, I think the company should take it up.

There was a suggestion by Mr Henry Kwek that coding is now very "in", needed by many industries, and whether we should start to put them into our curriculum. Likewise, you can make a similar argument for data science, and I think all our IHLs – polytechnics and universities are today, starting these courses, whether it is coding or data science.

But I will just be cautious – my colleague Minister Ng Chee Meng, who is not here, has also been very cautious – to put this content into the primary school curricula. We all know our school kids are already quite stressed with a very heavy curriculum. Sometimes, when it is so industry-specific, you might want to leave it to later when you are in an IHL. For younger students, give them the important foundational skills, usually literacy, numeracy and values. Focus on those. Specific skills, leave them for later.

There was a large point made by Ms Denise Phua which is that, for SSG to do well, we have to do better in terms of content, pedagogy or andragogy, as well as assessment. How to learn, when to learn, what to learn and how to assess? All these are part of the philosophy of adult workers' training, which is very different from teaching and educating a student. And SSG has done a lot of work in this. It even has a research outfit to research into adult training philosophy. All that, we will now inject into MOE to uplift our capabilities in this area.

But to do well, we have to make collaborations and partnerships with many partners, as many Members have pointed out. Let me go through some of the key partners that we need to work with.

First, companies and industries. This is a point made by Mr Thomas Chua, Mr Melvin Yong and also Ms Thanaletchimi. There are many existing efforts already in place. For example, we have the Sectoral Tripartite Committees (STC). This is formed at each sector, and within each committee, we always have industry and company representatives to guide the work of the STCs. We also work with associations and chambers, including for training delivery. The latest was the logistics industry which is now also delivering training for the industry. And of course, at the apex, we have the CSIP, where industry leaders are also represented, which is chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

There is a suggestion from Mr Desmond Choo that we have an ELP scheme now, but it is catered mostly to the young and not to adult workers. I think it is a very valid suggestion. This is definitely an area that we want to look into – how we expand ELP, not just for the young, fresh graduates from ITE or the polytechnics, but also for adult workers who have worked for a few years and want to do an ELP to upgrade themselves with higher qualifications. It is definitely a priority we will look at.

We are also working on cooperative education programmes, which we announced some time ago. Cooperative programmes mean there is cooperation between the universities and industries. It is different from just an internship where you study three years and, for three to six months, you are out in the company doing work, sometimes ending up photocopying a lot, or buying coffee. But a cooperative programme is much more than that. You spend a whole semester on campus studying the theory and then another entire semester working in a company, working on actual projects.

The big difference is that the company and the universities are working together to design the curriculum. You are bringing the industry into the universities. So, that is a very different concept. It is a point also made by Mr Louis Ng that this is actually the best way to learn soft skills. I always find people describe soft skills and technical skills as a T-shaped skill. One is horizontal and one is vertical. It is actually quite an unfortunate description because first, you assume that they are distinct and separate. Second, because of the way you write "T", it implies that learning soft skills and technical skills are sequential. Actually, it is not. It is more like an "A", you start with nothing, and then you go deep and broad at the same time. We learn generic skills in the context of practising our technical skills.

With a cooperative programme, students get to work on actual projects, which is when they practise their technical skills and, at the same time, learn the generic skills – teamwork, management, HR, getting along with people, working across cultures. You have to put them in the context of a real technical project. So, we try to achieve this as we roll out more cooperative programmes. We expect the first few pilot projects to be rolled out next year.

This will be our form of apprenticeships, whether it is ELP or cooperative programmes. We will expand them, and extend it to not just the young but also the not so young.

For companies, too, they will have a big role to play, in the way they choose to hire, reward and promote. If what all companies do is look at academic results and hire and promote based on academic results, it would miss the point of SkillsFuture. Companies have to look deep to understand what kind of competencies they are looking for, who are displaying those competencies, who are performing well at the job? Hire and promote people on those basis.

If enough companies do that and it becomes the mainstream way of developing our human resource, then the signal to Singaporean workers and students is very clear. It is your competency and skills that matter, not just your grades. Grades matter a lot, but as you step into the workforce, it is your competency, how well you are performing at the job that matters.

I strongly urge companies to go out, tweak your HR systems, emphasise competency. As you do so, mature workers will have greater chances to get employed. Today, many mature workers do not get a chance even to be interviewed because maybe years ago when they were 18 or 21, their academic results were not as strong. But they might have made up for that with years of experience and doing well in their jobs. They should be recognised as they apply for new jobs or seek new careers.

Besides companies, unions will play a critical role. It is a specific point raised by Ms Thanaletchimi. For unions, the role is especially important in guiding workers because you have 60 to 62 unions now, with wide outreach channels to workers. You also have institutions like the e2i that also has separate outreach platforms to workers. If we can get the whole union network and all their resources to help reach out and guide workers on how to go about their training and development, how to make use of their SkillsFuture Credit of $500, I think that is powerful.

Mr Thomas Chua, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Joan Pereira, all pointed out the importance of helping to communicate and guide workers on how to use their $500 credit. Our plan is this. Once this restructuring is done, we will have a team in MOE, within ITE, the universities and polytechnics who will help to guide students. We also have a team in WDA today doing the same thing for workers but, at the same time, they are in partnership with e2i, the unions, self-help groups and also trade associations and chambers. They are all what you would describe as independent coaches, which is what Ms Thanaletchimi described. No vested interests. With the restructuring, we can bring them all together, coordinate their efforts, reach out to Singaporean workers and guide them in the use of their SkillsFuture credits in a much more coordinated and effective way. And this is something, a priority, that we want to look into.

Several Members have raised concerns about specific groups. Ms Joan Pereira talked about seniors. We will try to do more for seniors. We have set up a National Silver Academy where there are more than 500 courses and 10,000 learning places in there − in IT, finance, arts, design − and catered to Singaporeans aged 50 and above.

And I do agree with the Member that we can do a lot more in language training. Language training, whether it is English, Chinese, Malay, Tamil, is also a lifelong pursuit. We have to get better and better at the language, through lifelong learning. The fortunate thing is that WDA, over many years, has developed the Workplace Literacy and Numeracy training framework which supports language training. It is not academic in nature but tailored to meet the needs of the workforce. They have done that and they have trained tens of thousands of workers. I think we should see how we can proliferate that so that more seniors can benefit from language training.

The next group that needs special attention are persons with disabilities. That is the point that Ms Denise Phua had raised. We will do several things to help persons with disabilities even more. First, we already have SG Enable. In a way, that could be the nucleus of what the Member described as a special education academy over time. SG Enable courses have been included into the SkillsFuture Credit course directory. So, for persons with disabilities, they can use their $500 for those courses and if there are more suggestions, we will include them.

Second, I still remember the Member and Ms Chia Yong Yong, who is not here, had requested, during the Committee of Supply debate, that MOE review the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to see whether we can relax the rules so that persons with disabilities can use the money more flexibly. We are almost completing the review. Once done, we will announce the changes.

Third, we have opened a Special Education Needs support office in every Government-funded university, polytechnic and ITE. This is a first-stop office for students who require special education assistance. It will coordinate all the support, including counselling and workshops, for the students who have special education needs. It also administers the Special Education Needs (SEN) Fund. The students can tap on this fund to buy devices, such as hearing and visual aids that can help them with their education journey. At the same time, they will also train academic staff so that they have basic special needs awareness. So, these are all the things we are doing.

I am of the view that there is space for a place like a special education academy or SG Enable that is focused on helping the disabled. There is also a space for everyone else to do their bit. I visited Bizlink last week. At Bizlink, they do not profess to take in people with all disabilities. They know where they can contribute. They have three or four kinds of work which were suitable for persons with certain disabilities, and they try to fit each individual to the work.

Likewise, I think every company and institution must look at disabilities by asking themselves which individuals they can help and then go out to help them. It is not possible for a single agency or institution to cater to disabilities of all forms. But everyone can contribute to some.

A third group, raised by Mr Leon Perera, is ex-offenders. WDA, even before SSG, has been working with the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) for quite some time. It is part of the Yellow Ribbon project. They have a project called Project Phoenix through which they help inmates to re-integrate by going into industries, such as culinary, retail and other services. This is ongoing and is certainly an area that we can do more over time. But as SCORE always says, imprisonment is one issue, but when you are released, society can imprison you again. So, again, industry, companies, agencies, we can all do our bit, each one of us. If we are a bit more open-hearted, I think ex-offenders will be able to integrate into society much more.

The other important stakeholder is the training industry. Dr Intan Mokhtar pointed out the need for us to work with the private education industry as well. I fully agree. We always have different tiers in our partnerships with private training providers. The first tier is what we called the Continuing Education and Training (CET) Centres. These are private providers. They could offer courses in film-making, digital animation or culinary arts. There are over 40 of them now. We work closely with them to build up the curriculum, accredit their programmes in line with industry needs, set out their objectives clearly, make sure that the courses are open to all. We buy training places from them, audit the quality of the programmes very tightly and also measure the outcomes.

So, in response to Mr Leon Perera, we do have such a system to support individuals in skills development for more expensive courses. We actually put in a lot more resources to buy the training places so that a member of the public can attend those pre-subsidised programmes, except that we do this on the supply end, whereas SkillsFuture Credit is funding at the demand end. We fund at the supply end because we have to be assured that the supply is of good quality.

Beyond the 40-over CET Centres today, WDA also supports a lot of training in other areas, including in-company training. Some areas of training are useful and we should look at those. This would include, maybe, internal audit or IT audit that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned. We will take an inclusive approach. If there are, indeed, programmes that help our workers professionally, to deepen their skills or chart a new career, we should look at them. There are plenty of precedents for us to do so.

The last layer of partners includes other training providers that deliver courses that are listed in the SkillsFuture Credit course directory. There are over 15,000 of these courses now. There are many of them because we started off with an inclusive approach and because there were so many workers that needed training. So, whenever we get a suggestion to include a particular course, we do some audit and checks. If the course meets our criteria, we include it in the course directory. That is why, over the last few months, we built it up to 15,000 courses. This is not a small number. In fact, the complaint we usually hear is with so many courses, how to choose? Which goes back to the issue of guidance. But over time, we will have to start streamlining the list of courses and step up audits on training providers. This is a point also raised by Mr Louis Ng which I think is very valid.

We have some upfront checks and some regular audits. Over time, we need to make use of the power of public feedback. WDA is developing an Individual Learning Portfolio (ILP) portal. The portal will host all 15,000 courses. Trainees who attend the courses can rate them and there will be user reviews. So, if you attend a language course where your English is better than the trainer, you can put in the feedback and your rating. No different from shopping on Amazon or Taobao. This is a feature that we will put into the ILP. Hopefully, it will be ready sometime next year and then we will have an additional mechanism to curate the course directory.

There is a comment, by Dr Intan Mokhtar and Ms Thanaletchimi, on PEIs which deliver degree programmes to young people. The latter attend those courses, get their degrees and then are disappointed because they did not get the jobs they wished to have.

This is a concern. We totally understand that for the young, they want to get a degree. We should support as many of our young people to get degrees, provided that our economy can sustain that many graduates. At the same time, we have to make sure that the degree they get is something that the industry needs. If not, it will be very frustrating for our young graduates. So, as I have mentioned in this House before, we need to have more transparency about the employment outcomes for graduates of PEIs. I think this is a point that Mr Leon Perera made as well. If you train people, you educate them to have a degree, are you just fuelling their desire for a degree, or are you trying to answer and address an industry need? That is best measured by employment outcomes.

We have done some work on this with the top six biggest PEIs. We should do more so that students have the information to decide whether to take up the courses. Where possible, try to shift them from providing just general degrees that maybe the industry does not need, to SkillsFuture-related programmes that the industry needs. We will do the students a big service by doing so.

The SSG board, and this is a point raised by Dr Intan Mokhtar and Ms Thanaletchimi, must have a good mix of members representative of our partners and stakeholders. I will maintain the character of the current WDA board which largely comprises industry representatives, with a sprinkling of different expertise from other sectors, including from the unions, and people who are well-versed in finance and audit. As I mentioned very early on, we are not diluting or trying to change the character of WDA. We are taking their DNA and injecting into MOE.

But it will not be possible for every sector to be represented. The Bill only provides for 15 people on the board. We have more than 15 sectors. We will supplement that with the Sectoral Tripartite Committees that we have.

Finally, ultimately, what we are achieving – short term, medium term or long term, as Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and Mr Desmond Choo have talked about – is what kind of outcomes we are trying to achieve. As the saying goes, if you do not measure, it does not matter. For us to want to do something well, there has to be some measurement.

This is also an issue about vision and plan. Vision with no plan is just a dream; a plan with no vision, you are just busy for nothing. So, there must be both a vision for the long term and a plan for the short and medium term.

For the short term, there has to be a plan that is aligned with what we want to achieve. These will be plans that are within SSG's control. These are pretty much measuring what kind of output they will deliver in the short term. For example, how many ELPs you will roll out, what is the training participation rate, how many students or workers you will give guidance to, to bring them into the training and development journey, how many SkillsFuture Study Awards and SkillsFuture Fellowships you will be issuing and awarding, how many cooperative programmes we will roll out. We can measure all these.

But it is harder to measure progress in the medium to long term. In reply to Mr Leon Perera's point, academics and other individuals who have been studying this area have done so for many years, and it is still very difficult to draw causality between training and employment outcomes. You can draw correlation, but it is very difficult to draw causality because there are so many factors at play. Nevertheless, we will always try.

There is the Kirkpatrick Model, which I assume the Member is familiar with. Every year, WDA does a survey to collect feedback on employment outcomes from training and the results are published every year. In that survey, they measure whether, first, the trainee is satisfied with the training; second, after he starts work, is the employer satisfied with the training; third, is there an assessment that he is performing better after the training; fourth, did he get promoted or get a pay rise after the training. But even if there is correlation, we cannot claim causality; it is hard to claim causality.

In 2012, WDA went a step further. They established, econometrically, that more training did lead to better wage outcomes and that obtaining full qualifications resulted in even better wage outcomes. This was a one-time fairly big study done in 2012. I think every few years, we ought to do something; if anything, just to satisfy ourselves that the correlation is still there even if we cannot prove causality.

In the very long term, ultimately, we want to raise productivity; we want to raise competitiveness for the Singapore economy. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan talked about this. I think we cannot rely on one measure because every sector measures productivity and competitiveness differently. It also should not just be SSG's KPI; these are the collective KPIs of all the agencies which are involved. That is why we have so many agencies involved in each Sectorial Tripartite Committee. Each sector develops their own KPIs to measure their competitiveness as well as their productivity.

Other than economic competitiveness and productivity, SkillsFuture goes beyond being just an economic movement in the longer term. I thank Ms Thanaletchimi for reading parts of my article on the "3M" definition on SkillsFuture. It is about Mastery, Meritocracy and Me. Ultimately, we want Singaporean workers to want to master something, just like how Joseph Schooling mastered swimming.

We all define ourselves often, not just by who we are, where we are born, but also what we are good at, what is our profession. That mastery is as important to a person's identity. With mastery, we can do something very well and that is when we can derive our future competitiveness.

If we encourage these multiple pathways for every Singaporean to chase their own rainbows and be good at what they are doing in their respective fields, we will have a much more inclusive, much broader concept of meritocracy. We embrace them all and society recognises them all. SkillsFuture is, therefore, not just an evolution in education and training, but also an evolution in society.

Finally, it is about Me, not me as the Education Minister but Me as in every Singaporean knowing what you are best at and putting in the determination to chase your own rainbow.

Restructuring of SSG is just one small step, it is the starting point. We are really combining the tremendous delivery capability of MOE with the adult learning philosophy of WDA into one Ministry. This is not just an SSG endeavour but it is a Singapore endeavour for the long term. Madam, with that, I beg to move. [Applause.]

I would just like to thank the Minister for the explanations. He engaged very deeply on all the points that were made, so I thank him for that. Just a very brief clarification. My point on pushing education to prisoners was actually referring to prisoners who are currently serving their sentence. My question is: will SSG give some thought to working with the Ministry of Home Affairs to see how we can push out training to prisoners actually serving their sentence. In other countries, you hear stories of people earning their degree when they are in prison. So, that is my point.

The short answer is yes. I think we already have a good working relationship and this is certainly something that we will continue to work on. With Internet, with e-learning, actually the opportunity for everyone to learn, wherever you are, including from prison, becomes more available, with all these technologies that we can leverage on to reach out to many more vulnerable groups, including prisoners who are still serving their sentence.

*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. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung].*

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