Skills and Workforce Development Agency Bill

Mr Speaker, over the past two decades, we have invested heavily in building a national culture of lifelong learning. The former WDA, established in 2003, responded to structural shifts in our economy with a clear mandate – strengthen employability through a more systematic approach to skills development and CET. It did so through initiatives, such as the WSQ framework, accreditation of training providers and funding for job-relevant courses.

In 2016, WDA was restructured into two agencies – SSG, which focuses on skills training, CET and SkillsFuture policy; and WSG, which focuses on job design, career coaching and job matching. This separation was deliberate. Each agency addressed a different part of the employment cycle, with SSG adopting perhaps a "train first, and then find jobs" approach and WSG, a "find jobs, then train" model.

However, if we assess how the system operates today, then several issues present themselves.

The "train first, then find jobs" approach runs the risk of creating incentives for training providers to prioritise course volume over employment outcomes. Some providers secure accreditation without clear evidence of labour market demand or meaningful links to career progression and then market these courses aggressively, sometimes targeting vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. Sometimes these courses are promoted with limited actual career pathways.

As a result, SkillsFuture risked being seen less as a national upskilling effort and more as a commercial opportunity for some providers. The system is now crowded with courses of uneven quality, making it difficult for individuals to identify those that genuinely improve employability.

At the same time, the signalling value of SkillsFuture certifications has possibly weakened over time. Employers cannot always distinguish between courses that build real capabilities and those that do not and therefore, do not consistently recognise these certifications with perhaps the same confidence as qualifications from our IHLs. This, again, weakens the link between training and hiring, and diminishes the value of the effort individuals invest in upskilling.

The "find jobs, then train" approach takes a different approach to the issue and faces a different constraint. Employers hire to meet immediate needs and prioritise candidates who can perform from the outset. It is what they typically do. But for mid-career workers seeking to switch industries, this creates somewhat of a structural barrier. They must demonstrate skills and experience they have not yet had the opportunity to acquire, making it a bit challenging and sometimes even difficult to access new roles not even when training support is available.

Taken together, these approaches are not flawed in intent, but they are incomplete in isolation. One allows training to drift away from validated job demand and the other reflects demand but does not create sufficient entry points for those without prior experience. So, the core issue is a lack of alignment between training, jobs and career progression.

And this is precisely why the shift towards an integrated "train-for-jobs" model under SWDA is both timely and necessary. By bringing together career guidance, skills development and job placement into a coherent system, we can better support Singaporeans across every stage of their working lives.

Sir, to correct current misalignments in the system, our funding model must shift decisively. Today, funding largely follows enrolment and course completion, that is, a participation-based funding model. But participation in courses alone is not the objective. The real measure of success is whether training improves a person's working life, whether training improves their life as a whole, whether it leads to employment, enables a career transition or results in wage progression.

I would therefore propose a move towards a more explicit outcome-based funding model. Under this approach, funding for training providers is tied to tangible career outcomes, such as job placement, successful transitions and wage growth, with part of the funding possibly deferred until these outcomes are achieved. This anchors the system in real economic value. Providers must demonstrate not only that individuals attend courses but that they benefit meaningfully in the labour market.

This shift brings three key benefits.

First, it raises the quality of training. Providers will now be incentivised or will be motivated to design programmes aligned with validated market demand and deliver practical, job-relevant skills. Such courses will need to deliver these skills that can be translated into employable outcomes rather than just simply meeting accreditation requirements.

Second, it corrects misaligned incentives that have led to unintended outcomes, including the proliferation of low-value courses and those marketed aggressively to various vulnerable groups, as I mentioned earlier. An outcome-based funding model reduces the viability of such offerings and re-focuses the ecosystem on meaningful skills development.

Third, and critically, it restores the credibility and employer recognition of SkillsFuture certifications. Today, as I said before, these certifications are possibly not consistently valued in the same way as qualifications from our IHLs, due to uneven quality, and some employers might not even be prepared to rely on SkillsFuture certifications as indicators of job readiness.

By strengthening outcome-based discipline, we improve quality assurance, build employer trust and position SkillsFuture certificates as credible signals of capability, not just proof of course completion. This marks an important shift from participation to labour market signalling.

At the same time, we must be clear, Sir, about the purpose of SkillsFuture. It is fundamentally an instrument of economic mobility and employability. Its primary role is to help Singaporeans access better jobs, transition across sectors and progress in their careers.

Of course, this will not diminish the importance of personal enrichment. Learning for interest, creativity or well-being remains valuable. However, we should distinguish clearly between hobby-related learning or interest-related and job-linked training.

One way forward is a two-tier system. With Tier One focusing on job-linked training, with stronger subsidies tied to clear employment outcomes. Tier Two, perhaps, could support personal enrichment, where individuals may still use their SkillsFuture credits, but with limited or no additional subsidies and with a mandatory co-payment requirement.

This preserves the spirit of lifelong learning while sharpening policy focus. It directs public resources toward workforce outcomes without losing the broader benefits of learning for personal growth.

Sir, beyond funding, we must address a broader structural issue – coherence across the CET ecosystem.

We have built substantial CET capacity across our IHLs, each offering a wide range of programmes through their respective CET centres. While this improves course access and diversity, we have yet to achieve coherence across the system. Courses from different IHLs could possibly overlap, compete or lack clear differentiation, leading to duplication and inefficiencies.

The establishment of SWDA creates an opportunity to address this. SWDA can serve as a national planner, a coordinator, of CET supply and an aggregator of demand signals across sectors. It can coordinate sector-based course mapping to align programmes with industry needs and establish clearer differentiation across institutions. For example, ITE focusing on applied skills, polytechnics on industry practice and autonomous universities on advanced and specialised domains. This allows institutions to complement rather than compete with one another.

At the same time, if SWDA is to deliver end-to-end support, we must look upstream. Today, the system engages individuals largely after they enter the workforce or when they are actively seeking employment. But misalignment often begins earlier, when students make decisions about subject combinations, courses of study and career pathways without possibly a clear understanding of what labour market realities are.

We should, therefore, treat career guidance as a sort of early intervention policy. SWDA can work through strategic partnerships with IHL career centres and, where appropriate, with even MOE's education and career guidance ecosystem in secondary schools, junior colleges and so on. This is not about expanding SWDA's mandates, but about better aligning existing efforts. By connecting career guidance, training pathways and job opportunities, we can reduce downstream mismatches and give young Singaporeans greater clarity and confidence in navigating their careers at an early age.

Mr Speaker, the establishment of SWDA is not merely an administrative merger. It represents a fundamental shift in how we think about work, skills and mobility in Singapore.

This is not just about improving training systems. It is about how Singapore competes in an economy where industries reconfigure quickly, job roles evolve constantly and the shelf-life of skills continues to shorten. Our advantage can no longer rest on static qualifications. It must rest on a system that enables continuous adaptation.

In this economy where jobs evolve faster than qualifications, our system must evolve faster than jobs. We must give every Singaporean the confidence to move across roles, sectors and stages of life without being constrained by outdated skills or unclear pathways. We must strengthen not only employability, but also the dignity of work where the effort to upskill is recognised and where transitions are supported.

As we strengthen this system, Sir, we should recognise that more than a million Singaporeans have already utilised their initial SkillsFuture credits. If lifelong learning is to remain a national strategy, it is timely to consider a further tranche of SkillsFuture credit, carefully calibrated and aligned with an outcome-based approach. This will signal continued commitment while reinforcing the importance of using these public resources meaningfully.

Ultimately, the success of SWDA will be measured by whether Singaporeans feel more confident navigating change whether they can learn, adapt and progress with assurance. That is the system we must build: one that supports mobility, rewards effort and outcome, and gives every Singaporean the confidence to step forward, even as the ground beneath them continues to shift.

Mr Speaker, we used to think of building our careers as climbing a ladder of success – a clear, upward climb where each rung represents a promotion, a new qualification or a better job. If one works hard and steadily, one is expected to move up.

But in today's economy, that is no longer the case.

A more accurate image may be a rock wall – one that is constantly changing and where there is no single fixed path upwards. Different holds appear at different times. Some routes are visible only to those who have been guided or trained to see them. Success is no longer simply climbing higher in a straight line but about knowing where to move next, which skills to build, how to switch routes entirely and being able to try again after falling from the rock wall.

This Bill responds to that reality. It supports Singaporeans in navigating a changing labour market by bringing skills and jobs under one roof through a new SWDA, so that Singaporeans experience a more integrated and truly "no wrong door" system.

I support this Bill because it strengthens three things: it clarifies our mission; it tightens our safeguards; it lays the foundation for a lifelong and person-centred view of work.

First, on clarifying our mission. I would like to share Mr Lim Boon Cheng's experience when he was laid off suddenly. He took a SkillsFuture course in coffee-making and with a strong, enterprising spirit, he launched Hans Coffee, a hole-in-the wall cafe right in the heart of a wet market in Bishan! These are the kinds of stories we want to see more of.

However, not all SkillsFuture courses have had yielded such results. A resident wrote to me, just today, sharing his difficult mid-career transition. He completed a desktop support engineering course under the SkillsFuture Career Transition programme in 2025 to transition into an entry-level IT role in the hopes of improving his employment prospects. The training provider also said that they would support job placement efforts, but entry-level opportunities in this field are limited, competition is stiff, the market for such roles is niche and many employers prioritise candidates with relevant experience.

Thus, despite acquiring the relevant certifications, he has not received any job offers. Despite these setbacks, my resident continued to persevere, attending career fairs and employment programmes, and he demonstrated openness to take up different roles, even taking on a part-time assignment-based respite caregiver role. He is waiting for confirmation on applications for programme executive roles, school administrative staff roles and even a role with the social service agency. It is a far cry from the IT role he had trained and applied for. Yet, he demonstrates diligence and determination.

He wrote, "I remain committed to securing full-time employment and contributing meaningful to the workforce. I am sharing my situation as I feel that while training support is available, there appear to be gaps in translating training into actual employment opportunities, availability of suitable entry-roles for mid-career individuals, post-event follow-up and job matching support. In addition, it would be very helpful if there could be structured, on-the-job training, practical attachments or industry-based training opportunities to allow individuals, like myself, to gain relevant hands-on experience."

I hope SWDA will consider my resident's requests and I also hope that SWDA, as a single agency, with responsibility for identifying current and emerging skills in close partnership with industries and tripartite partners, can help provide jobseekers with better clarity and concrete pathways that show which courses to take, which work-study options to consider and which jobs are realistically within reach.

Second, this Bill strengthens safeguards and raises standards. When we encourage people to invest their time and savings into training, we carry a responsibility to keep them safe from bad actors. We have seen how some providers try to exploit subsidies or use misleading marketing to pull learners in. I, therefore, welcome the stronger tools enacted in this Bill to act against abusive funding arrangements and false advertising.

Third, this Bill opens the way to a more lifelong and human-centred approach to work. Work is not only about income. It is often an outpouring of a person's purpose and sense of identity. When someone is displaced from work, the impact ripples through the household. Children worry about money, caregivers feel guilt and stress, and the family's collective mental health can suffer. The integrated mandate of this agency gives us a chance to design support that sees the core and the heart of the whole person, and not just the vacancy to be filled.

I am encouraged that the agency will work with schools, IHLs, employers and tripartite partners. I hope it will also work closely with community partners and social service agencies. Many of those who struggle most with training and transitions face multiple stressors at the same time, including caregiving responsibilities, chronic illness, housing challenges and debt. When these issues remain unaddressed, even the best-designed course or job match may not last.

With all of these, Mr Speaker, I have several questions for the Government as we look ahead to execution and the longer term.

First, on near-term execution. How will the Government ensure that the transition from SSG and WSG to the new agency is seamless from the public's perspective?

Second, on long-term plans in a changing economy. We know that the pace of change will accelerate as AI, demographic shifts and climate transition reshape entire sectors. Does the Government see the agency playing a concretely anticipatory role, working with industry bodies to prepare training and transition pathways before major disruptions occur, especially since AI drives structural workforce changes that may lead to substantial layoffs and job obsolescence. How will it move beyond reactive job-matching to help firms proactively redesign career trajectories, ensuring the wider labour force will be meaningfully uplifted, rather than being left to face these shifts alone?

How might the agency evolve to support increasingly salient forms of work, such as gig workers, freelancers and those in informal care roles who may not fit neatly into traditional employer-employee models? And will the agency track and report not just training participation, but also outcomes, like wage progression, job stability and well-being, so that Singaporeans can see whether the system is truly working for all of them together?

Third, on supporting those at greatest risk of being left behind. In this House, I have spoken before about what it feels like to be at the margins and to feel that the system is not set up for you. Many lower-income workers, older workers and caregivers express similar anxieties. They know that there are many schemes, yet they do not know where to start and they worry that they cannot keep up.

In Bishan East-Sin Ming, we have a Career Navigators programme, where volunteers work closely with e2i and journey alongside jobseekers. Can the Government share how the new agency will work with the community to proactively identify and support these groups, perhaps through neighbourhood-based outreach or peer mentors? How will we design flexible training models that respect caregiving responsibilities, health conditions and different learning needs? And can we make more space for a modular learning and micro-credentials that still add up to meaningful progression, so that those who cannot commit to a long qualification do not feel shut out.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is about the kind of Singapore we choose to be in an uncertain world. Do we, as a nation, leave people to fend for themselves in a race that only some can win, or do we commit to walking with them as they learn, work and care?

I believe this new agency is key to a further and necessary shift in our national psyche. Over the last decade, SkillsFuture has successfully changed the mindset of our society toward the necessity of lifelong learning. For the next phase, I hope the new SWDA will lead us toward a deeper transformation.

To return to the analogy of the rock wall that I used at the beginning of my speech, the SWDA is the rope system, anchored firmly by the state, employers and unions together. It ensures that when a worker reaches for a hold and slips, they are not left to fall without support, but are given the safety to regain their footing, to be guided back to the wall and to continue their ascent with renewed confidence and clearer direction.

I hope that as we build this new agency, we hold fast to a simple measure of success: that more Singaporeans, especially those who feel anxious today, can say with confidence that even if they stumble in their climb, they are not alone and they are able to rise again. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at my Meet-the-People Session, I regularly meet residents who come to me looking for jobs. Some are fresh jobseekers, anxious about their first step into the workforce. Many are older workers and mid-career PMEs, trying to find their footing again after displacement.

One resident, Mr K, came to see me. He had attended many SkillsFuture courses. He went to e2i for help. He met a job coach, worked on his curriculum vitae, took advice, followed through on what was recommended. But he still could not land a job. When he came back again, it was not because he had not tried. It was because, in his own words, the problem was not effort but his age. And it was the gap between what he had hoped for and what the market was willing to offer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr K's story is not unique. I am sure many Members have similar stories to tell. And this is precisely why this Bill matters. I rise in support of the intention behind the new SWDA to bring skills, careers and workforce support together into a more coherent and coordinated system.

As this is an enabling Bill, Parliament's responsibility is not only to examine the powers that are being created, but to ask a deeper question. What outcomes will these powers guarantee for our people?

My residents, especially older workers, displaced PMEs and fresh graduates do not merely need a larger agency. They need earlier help, clearer pathways, fairer decisions and measurable results. It is in this spirit that I seek clarifications in five areas.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the strategic rationale of the merger. We began with one agency more than a decade ago under the WDA, moved to two with SSG and WSG and now returning to one. So, the fundamental question is not whether integration sounds right. The question is what has fundamentally changed. If SSG and WSG have largely achieved their intended objectives, then what specific coordination gaps or overlaps remain today? What could not be done under two agencies that now requires a single statutory board with a consolidated and expanded mandate under section 5?

This is a question of design clarity. If the problem is fragmentation between agencies, then consolidation is logical. But if the problem lies in execution on the ground, then merging agencies alone may not solve anything.

Section 5 confers a broad mandate, including additional functions assigned by the Minister. At the same time, clause 6 gives the agency wide-ranging operational powers, from funding to partnerships. This reinforces the need for clarity on how such broad discretion will translate into better outcomes for residents.

We must, therefore, be clear. Are we streamlining the system or are we concentrating complexity within a single institution? Because structure is only a means. The real test is whether this design will improve outcomes for residents like Mr K.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, on timing. This is about when the system intervenes. For displaced PMEs and older workers, timing determines outcome. Support that comes from redundancy often comes too late.

This Bill gives the agency the power to act. But it does not impose a duty to act early. Clause 5(3) makes clear that these functions do not create an enforceable duty. Section 5(1)(g) allows the collection and analysis of labour market data. But such data has already been collected across agencies. The question is not data collection, but whether data now leads to earlier and more decisive intervention.

So, what triggers early action? Will it be wage decline, sector disruption or repeated job transitions? Will outreach be proactive or still largely reactive? And if decisions are data driven, what resources does a resident have, if the system misclassifies risk?

When we speak of success, how will it be measured? Is it participation in programmes, or is it how quickly someone returns to work, at what age and what wage, and for how long they remain employed? More fundamentally, should we move decisively towards a place-and-train model, where employment is secured upfront and training follows rather than asking residents to train first without a clear job pathway?

To strengthen this pillar, I suggest: first, clear triggers for proactive intervention. Second, public reporting on time to placement and retention outcomes. And third, defined governance and appeal mechanisms for data and AI-driven decisions. Because for residents like Mr K, help that comes too late does not change the outcome.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, on service delivery. This is about how residents experience the system. The Bill defines functions and powers, but it does not define service guarantees. Section 5(1)(c) speaks of coordination. But coordination must translate into a real experience. Will residents be case managed end-to-end, or will they still move across multiple touchpoints?

How will MyCareersFuture and MySkillsFuture be streamlined under SWDA to provide a truly integrated, one-stop platform for individuals? If these platforms remain separate, we risk preserving fragmentation in the user journey, even as we merge agencies at the top.

If the intention is seamless service, why is there no explicit "no wrong door" commitment? This matters especially for older workers and residents who require high-touch support. Section 66 allows for codes and guidelines. But these do not have legislative effect. If these codes are non-legislative, how will Parliament know what standards are actually being enforced in practice?

To make the system real for residents, I suggest that we need: first, a formal "no wrong door" protocol. Second, published service standards for response and case continuity. And third, transparency on digital versus assisted access. Because residents, like Mr K, do not see agencies. They experience whether someone stays with them throughout the journey or whether they are passed along.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, on quality and funding. This is about what we fund and what we measure. Mr K did everything right. He attended courses. He sought help. But the system did not deliver the outcome he needed. That is the gap we must confront. Clause 52 addresses false advertising. But there is a deeper issue. Possible misleading quality. Courses that are technically compliant but may not improve employability. A course that is completed but does not improve employability is not a success. It is a displacement deferred.

Hence, will SWDA track whether training actually leads to jobs? Will providers be assessed based on placement rates, wage outcomes and retention? Will low-performing programmes be removed? What mechanisms will SWDA put in place to ensure that training curricula of its funded courses are tightly aligned with industry demand and not lagging behind it? Will there be stronger accountability for training providers whose programmes do not lead to actual job placements?

We must also avoid a system where providers focus only on easy cases. Those who need the most support must not be left behind. To strengthen this pillar, I suggest first, having outcome-based reporting by programme type; second, disclosure of placement and wage outcomes; and third, funding tied to sustained employment, not just completion. Because for residents, like Mr K, training is not the goal. A job is the goal.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, on implementation. This is about who delivers the system. Sections 69 and 70 protect staff transfers. That ensures continuity at the point of merger. But what happens after? Once integration begins in earnest, what is the plan for restructuring? Will there be duplication? Will roles be restructured? How will officers be redeployed?

We must provide clarity to those who will implement this system. We must also clarify the role of ecosystem partners, especially NTUC and e2i. They are central to outreach and delivery. But the Bill does not define their role in the new structure. Will they be delivery partners, referral partners or advisory partners? Will there be a formal tripartite framework? Will standards be consistent across all partners? And critically, will residents have a single complaints and appeals pathway? Because integration at the top must not lead to fragmentation below.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to Mr K. He did everything we asked of him. But effort did not lead to a desirable outcome. That is the gap this Bill must close. Because we are not just preparing Singaporeans for the jobs of today. We are also preparing them for the jobs of tomorrow in a future shaped by technology and AI.

The Prime Minister reminded us in Budget 2026 and also at May Day that AI will transform the way we work, the way businesses operate and the way jobs are created. Skills will age more quickly, industries will shift faster and workers will have to adapt continuously.

So, the question before us is not just how we help someone find a job. The question is whether we are building a system that helps Singaporeans stay employable and employed over a lifetime.

As Vice Chair of the Health GPC, I often reflect on how we approach healthcare. We do not wait for people to fall sick before we act. We screen early, we intervene upstream and we support individuals over time. We should take the same approach to careers. SWDA should not just be reactive. It should be proactive. It should help Singaporeans monitor their career health, anticipate change and act early.

And if I may summarise the key points I have raised in my speech. First, clarity of purpose in this merger. Second, earlier and more proactive interventions. Third, a truly seamless resident experience. Fourth, accountability for training quality and outcomes. And fifth, clarity in implementation and partnerships.

Ultimately, all of these come down to one test. When a person steps forward, when he invests his time in training, when he does everything right, does that training lead to a job and does that job last? Not enrolment, but employment. Not completion, but continuation. Because without that, the system risks measuring effort, not outcomes. If SWDA can track that, measure it and act on it, then residents, like Mr K, will not have to come back again asking for help. They will move forward. And this system will not just deliver programmes. It will deliver outcomes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is essential that the skills upgrading of our workers is more closely mapped to our economic needs and there are good jobs for our workers. In that regard, I therefore support the Bill to merge and form the SWDA, but I have some clarifications on some of the underlying principles, perceptions and operational issues.

First, merger as a force multiplier. There is an obvious synergy between the educational and training work that is currently spearheaded by SSG, and the workforce design and transformation that is supported by WSG. After all, both agencies were restructured out of the WDA that was set up in 2003 to focus on CET to mitigate against job displacement of Singaporeans. Even after they were housed under different Agencies, SSG and WSG, they collaborate to work together to build a robust and integrated jobs and skills ecosystem.

So, when we look at the functions of the new SWDA under clause 5 of the Bill, what are the new thrusts that go beyond the existing functions in the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act 2016 and in the Workforce Singapore Agency Act 2003? It would be helpful for Singaporeans to understand that this is not merely a bureaucratic combination, but a transformational change where one plus one gives you more than two.

Post-merger, how would existing initiatives and programmes be continued and/or enhanced? This is especially with the skills and jobs initiatives and workgroups that have only been rolled out in the past 12 months or so, such as AfA-ACES and the Tripartite Workgroup on Human Capital Capability Development (TWG-HC). May I ask whether the Minister can share how the continuity of these initiatives, programmes and workgroups will or will not be affected by the establishment of SWDA?

More fundamentally, this brings up the question of how we have been measuring the success of our skills and jobs transformation efforts? What metrics are being used? A few years down the road, what objective and subjective indicators can we rely upon to tell us whether the SWDA has been a true force multiplier, or merely an administrative combination of SSG and WSG with no real value add to outcomes?

Second, costs and drawbacks of the merger. There may be some perception that the merger is unnecessary wastage since we had split the WDA to create SSG and WSG in 2016, and now we are bridging it under one umbrella agency again.

From my reading of the Hansard, I do not think there is any inconsistency between the rationale behind creating SSG to create better synergies with MOE and education institutions, and the SWDA's objective of a unified strategy for the training, career and employment services ecosystem. But perhaps the Minister could help to assuage any such concerns.

What are the estimated costs of bringing the SSG and WSG together as one SWDA? I expect that some costs will need to be expended for rebranding, including on materials and collaterals. In addition, has there been any assessment of the costs of the increased size of the organisation, along with any associated externalities? Notwithstanding the vesting provisions at clause 68 of the Bill, I presume there will also be administrative costs in reflecting changes to the bank accounts, property and funds held by the respective agencies.

Third, operational issues. Finally, my last group of clarifications relate to operational issues of the new SWDA. Beyond organisational structure, the effectiveness of the SWDA will ultimately depend on how quickly it can translate industry signals into skills development and training outcomes.

Clause 9 of the Bill provides that the new SWDA will consist of seven to 15 members. What is the role of these members and what kind of knowledge, skills and experience would these members be expected to possess? Would this be a tripartite group in and of itself, or is it expected that the new SWDA will continually engage with and partner NTUC and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) in devising and executing its plans? How is the relationship between the new SWDA, NTUC and SNEF expected to be like on a working level?

Could the Minister also elaborate on the intended composition of the SWDA Board and the types of knowledge, skills and experience that these members are expected to bring? Given the fast-changing nature of the global economy and labour market, it would be useful to understand whether there will be strong representation from the private sector, particularly senior HR practitioners and business leaders at the managing director level and above from multinational corporations and leading local enterprises.

Such practitioners are often at the frontline of hiring, skills transformation and workforce planning, and are therefore well-placed to provide timely insights into emerging skills gaps and evolving job roles. Their perspectives could help ensure that SWDA remains closely attuned to real-world industry developments and is able to respond more quickly to shifts in demand. In addition, will there be mechanisms beyond Board representation, such as advisory panels or sector-specific councils, to systematically capture and incorporate these industry insights into policy design and programme implementation?

For public servants that are currently serving under SSG and WSG, may I ask how would their roles be restructured or reorganised after the merger? While clauses 69 and 70 of the Bill seek to transfer every SSG and WSG employee to the new SWDA and present their employment terms, I do not suppose the intention is for every such employee to retain their current portfolios in the new and enhanced SWDA.

The Prime Minister's Budget 2026 speech also announced that the new SWDA will be jointly overseen by the MOM and the MOE, some of the Members before me have already mentioned this. When the proposed WSDA Bill refers to "Minister" without specifying his/her portfolio, for example at clauses 1, 4 and 7, does that refer to the Minister for Manpower or the Minister for Education? It may be helpful to have a simple, graphical representation of the allocation of Ministerial responsibility, so that it is clear to members of the public, or even us Members of Parliament, on who we should be raising specific SWDA-related issues to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, building on the point about the joint oversight by MOM and MOE, I would like to seek clarification on how SWDA will work more closely with our ITEs, polytechnics and universities to ensure that curricula remain aligned with rapidly evolving industry needs.

Today, the pace of change in areas, such as AI, advanced manufacturing and digital services, is accelerating. Skills that are relevant today may become outdated within just a few years. While our institutions have done well to update programmes periodically, there may be scope to move towards a more dynamic and iterative model of curriculum design.

For instance, could the Minister elaborate on whether SWDA will play a more active role in feeding real-time industry insights into curriculum development, so that the course content, modules and skill pathways can be refreshed more frequently and responsively? This would help, importantly, ensure that our students graduate not just with qualifications, but with skills that are immediately relevant and adaptable to the needs of employers and are not redundant in five years.

In this regard, will there be structured mechanisms for closer and more continuous engagement between industry, training providers and MOE, so that we can better anticipate skills demand rather than respond to it after the fact?

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this move to consolidate our efforts to uplift our training, career and employment services ecosystem holistically is welcome. Amidst rapid technological advancements, such as AI and geopolitical shifts that are getting more uncertain and unpredictable, change is the only constant. We must continue to keep our world-leading and maturing workforce nimble, so that we can capitalise on the opportunities that spring up and capture value and good jobs for Singaporeans today and tomorrow and for our students still in school, in our IHLs, at the moment. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the SWDA Bill.

When the Workforce Development Agency was split in 2016 to form the SSG and WSG, it was the right move for that time. Each agency had a clear mission. SSG focused on kickstarting and building lifelong learning and continuing education among Singaporeans. WSG focused on job matching and employment support.

Both agencies have made real contributions over the past decade. The question before us today is whether our institutions are still suited to the labour market that Singaporeans now face. This Bill is a timely and necessary response to a changed world of work.

In the past, we could treat skills and employment as two separate journeys. You went to school to get skills and then you went to the job market to find work. But today, skills and work are tied together in an ongoing journey.

Based on an NTUC survey, more than three in four workers expect to make career changes in their lifetime. They see a winding path due to change, new responsibilities and the need to be ready for what the future holds – and that is why the merger matters. It recognises that career security is the new social compact. It does not mean workers expect the Government to guarantee every job.

Singaporeans understand that change and disruption are part of modern working life, but they do expect something fair and fundamental. If you work hard, learnt and adapt, they should have a fair chance to progress, to move into new opportunities and to provide for their families with dignity and confidence.

Career security is not the promise of no disruption. It is a promise that workers will not be left alone to navigate disruption.

Back in 2016, I argued that training and job outcomes must stay connected. I still believe in that today. The true test of a policy is not how many people attend the course or how many certificates are handed out. The real test is whether workers can move into better jobs and feel more confident about the future.

Right now, the system can feel a bit fragmented for some workers. They might get career guidance in one office. They go to another place for training advice. They look for job support somewhere else. When you are in the middle of a stressful career change, this fragmented journey can make things appear harder. You are left to bridge the gaps yourself.

The new SWDA seeks to change this by bringing everything under one roof. It will link business transformation, training and employment support into a smoother workstream. We must remember that training, by itself, is not enough if the jobs themselves are not being redesigned. Skills training must match work, how work is actually being organised in the real world. When merging these agencies, we ensure that training is always tied to real industry needs.

Mr Speaker, the anxieties in the workplace are also changing. Many workers are not only worried about losing their jobs, they are worried about falling behind. They are worried that the skills they have today may not be enough for tomorrow. When workers make the effort to upskill but cannot see how that leads to better jobs or real mobility, confidence in the system starts to weaken. And when effort no longer appears to lead to opportunity, the issue is not just economic, it is social as well.

One area that deserves close attention is what some have called the broken rung, something I spoke about during my Budget speech. Many academics and researchers have also spoken up on this matter, and you will find increasing literature on this topic.

For young people, the first foothold in the labour market matters. It shapes confidence, habits, skills and future earnings. It often sets the direction of an entire career, but today the first rung is less secure. Entry-level work is changing. Employers are rethinking junior roles. New technologies, including AI, are changing what firms expect, even from those just entering the workforce. For some young workers, the challenge is no longer simply finding a job. It is finding a start.

If the first rung weakens, it affects progression, wage growth and long-term mobility. The old assumption that one can simply enter, learn on a job and move up steadily can no longer be taken for granted. New entrants need stronger career guidance earlier. They need better information on where demand is growing and training that is more closely tied to real workplace needs. They may also need more support in moving from school to work and from first job to a sustainable career.

This is where a more integrated agency can make a real difference. When the same system can connect career guidance, training advice, market labour signals and employment support, it becomes easier to help younger Singaporeans where they are most likely to fall through the cracks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no Statutory Board, however well designed, can build career security on its own. This effort requires the full strength of tripartism.

Government can shape policy and provide systems of support. Employers create jobs, redesign work and invest in their people. Unions bring workers' voice, trust and a deep understanding of how change is felt on the ground. Training providers helped turn broad ambition to practical capability. All parts of this ecosystem matter.

We recently announced the Tripartite Jobs Council on May Day. This Council will help workers and the businesses navigate the big changes brought by AI. It will work hand-in-hand with the SWDA to make sure that businesses adopt new technology, that workers are trained and supported to move into new roles.

The Labour Movement stands ready to support this effort in concrete ways. NTUC has a long-standing partnership with Government on business transformation, training and worker support. Through our unions and our work on the ground, we see where anxieties are rising and where support is most needed. We can help workers and employers understand where opportunities lie and navigate the path from uncertainty to action.

The e2i will continue its deep partnership with the new agency. Over the years, WSG has transferred various career jobs and skills centres to e2i, enabling it to serve more jobseekers on the ground. Building on this foundation, e2i can work closely with the new agency to translate national strategies into practical support through direct engagement with workers and businesses on career guidance, job matching and workforce transformation.

This is especially important for younger workers. As the broken rung becomes a more real concern, support should begin earlier. Career guidance should not only start after a young person struggles to find work. It should begin before graduation and continue through the early career years, where expectations are shifting quickly and confidence is still being formed.

Let me share two examples of how this can be done.

First, e2i can and will bring its labour market knowledge, employer network and ground-sensing to partnerships with IHLs. Its recent Memoranda of Understanding with National University of Singapore and Singapore Institute of Technology showed how this can strengthen students' career readiness, connect them to broader range of opportunities and help them understand the skills needed in a changing workplace.

Second, NTUC can scale up our AI career coach. This tool has already seen over 9,000 sign-ups, providing 24/7 help to young people as they take first steps into the workforce.

Mr Speaker, NTUC will also continue to support workers making career transitions. For many mid-career workers, the fear is not only just change itself but the cost of change. A transition may mean temporary income loss, uncertainty for the family and real doubt about whether a new path will work out. Workers need support – the lower the friction of transition, it gives them greater confidence to make a move when change becomes necessary.

With the merger of this agency, we should consider a few things.

First, expand place-and-train programmes. This is where a worker is matched to a job before they start training. It gives them certainty of a pay cheque and a clear path forward, reducing the stress in their lives. NTUC Learning Hub can further support this new social compact by helping workers and employers translate transformation into capability. We know training only works if it is tied to a real job. Through our Company Training Committees, we help companies, especially small businesses, figure out how to redesign their work and help their workers to improve.

NTUC Learning Hub can play a vital role here. They do not just offer random courses. They build skills pathways that industries actually value. For example, the Tech Talent Academy works with tech firms like AWS, Microsoft and Goggle to train and place workers into tech jobs. Since 2024, the Tech Talent Academy has trained over 53,000 workers. About 4,000 of these were people switching careers through the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme. More than half of them have already found jobs in a softening job market. This shows that when we link training directly to employment, better things can happen.

Mr Speaker, the success of this Bill will be judged by whether workers experience a system that is more coherent or responsive and more relevant to their daily lives. If this new agency can help Singapore move closer to that goal, it will build the social compact for a new era of work. The Government has an important role, but it cannot do this alone. NTUC will continue with the new SWDA to strength career security for workers at every stage of their life. Career security is the new social compact. This Bill is an important step towards building that compact for workers for today and tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support as well as their questions and suggestions on the SWDA Bill. There are many points raised. I will attempt to address all of them holistically. I will group the issues raised thematically and of course, reply to the questions as best as possible.

I have decided to group it into eight broad pillars. First, why this merger, why now. Second, raising the quality as well as the forms of training. Three, connecting training to matching them to good jobs. Four, catering to diverse and ever-changing needs. Five, become even more proactive and to provide anticipatory support. Six, what are the outcome measures of success. Seven, the governance of the new merged entity. And of course, eight, last but not least, on transition and continuity.

So, why this merger and why now?

First, I would like to address some fundamental questions raised over the purpose of this merger. In particular, Mr Gerald Giam characterised the merger as a reversal of the position from 2016. I disagree with this characterisation. It is more important to ask if the restructuring in 2016 was the right call then and whether the merger, moving forward is the right call now and for the future. The answer to both questions is yes. Let me explain.

The restructuring in 2016 allowed SSG and WSG to develop specialised capabilities in adult training and employment facilitation respectively. The House then supported the Skills Future Singapore Agency Bill in 2016. Mr Giam's former colleague, Mr Leon Pereira, supported the aim 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. This is in the Hansard.

SSG has achieved that aim. Through SSG's nexus with MOE, the IHLs have become the key pillars of CET delivery today. Meanwhile, WSG expanded public employment services and introduced new programmes to address mismatches. Both agencies have substantially achieved the objectives of the restructuring. Earlier on, when I gave the speech, I elaborated extensively on the achievements of SSG and WSG.

As for why the merger is the right decision today, let me quote John Maynard Keynes, which is the father of macroeconomics, "When the facts change, I change my mind."

Members of the House, with the rapid advances in AI, with technology disruptions happening at a rapid pace and mounting geopolitical disruptions, our operating reality has changed significantly – and so must we.

The next bound of our workforce strategy requires an end-to-end system that connects skills to jobs more quickly and more accurately than before. It requires a more integrated structure so that we can be more agile and nimble in predicting, in pre-empting and preparing for new opportunities and disruptions. It also requires a greater variety, a greater volume of services to meet the ever more complex and diverse needs of workers and their employers.

So, hence, in addition to delivering better services and programmes, SWDA has an expanded mandate to develop the broader career employment and training ecosystem in Singapore, supporting innovative solutions and improving access to quality services. This is what will make SWDA more than the sum of its parts.

To address Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question, this is a key function in the SWDA Bill which goes beyond those in the SSG and the WSG Act.

At the same time, we must not lose the specialised capabilities that we have built over the past 10 years. Mr Shawn Loh rightly highlighted the importance of preserving the strong relationship between IHLs and the SkillsFuture movement. And Assoc Prof Terence Ho asked how we will ensure that IHLs will continue to develop as institutions of lifelong learning. Through MOE's joint oversight of SWDA, we will continue to deepen this relationship, strengthen complementarity between IHLs and private training providers and improve coordination between CET and pre-employment training.

To address Ms He Ting Ru's question on how SWDA might manage the reporting relationship to two Ministries, MOM will be the parent Ministry of SWDA, but the joint oversight arrangement with MOE, that means between myself and Minister Desmond Lee, will bring the IHLs into closer alignment with our workforce agenda, ensuring that skills development is pursued in a coherent way. Members of the House, this is not a two-headed monster. This is a two-horse chariot, pulling in the same direction, charging ahead. [Applause.]

Mr Saktiandi and Mr Giam asked about the costs. The 2016 restructuring of WDA into two separate Statutory Boards did not require additional funding from the Ministry of Finance. Similarly, the merger also not require additional budget allocation. There will be some costs incurred for branding, marketing and systems integration. These costs would have been budgeted for any regular refreshes, even if there was no merger. These costs will be managed within the existing budgets of SSG and WSG, and their reserves.

On the second point, raising the quality and the focus of training, Ms Gho Sze Kee asked about the curation of SkillsFuture courses. She is right that not everything in the SkillsFuture catalogue has been directed towards our workforce development goals. But SkillsFuture is much more than just training for industry.

SkillsFuture is a national movement to promote a culture of lifelong learning. Cultivating the habit of lifelong learning matters. Remember I kept emphasising earlier on about getting everyone to have that mindset change. So, how do we initiate them, how do we start them into that habit, that matters.

In response to Assoc Prof Terence Ho's question, lifelong learning that is not targeted at employment will still come under SWDA's purview. SWDA will work with agencies, such as the People's Association on the curation of such programmes. And we encourage all Singaporeans to learn not just for their current job, or the next job, but also in their areas of interest. Not all training leads to immediate employment and wage gains. And so, the SkillsFuture catalogue includes some interest-based courses.

However, when it comes to funding, we do make a distinction, a very clear distinction between industry-oriented and interest-based courses.

While the base tier of SkillsFuture Credit is applicable to a wide range of courses, including those for personal interests, Government funding for course fees is only applicable for courses that offer skills relevant to that specific industry, which will support the workforce's upskilling needs. The additional SkillsFuture Credit for mid-careerists is further scoped to courses that meet more stringent criteria on employability outcomes and industry relevance.

On a third group, connecting and matching training to good jobs, it is essential that SWDA's good work is closely linked to industry and of top tier quality.

I would like to address two misconceptions from Mr Kenneth Tiong's speech.

First, unlike what Mr Tiong shared earlier on, there are significant guardrails to ensuring that SkillsFuture courses are top quality, with industry playing a big role in ensuring the relevance of training.

Our trade associations and chambers, and professional bodies, they come together to help curate and signpost courses and some employers serve as SkillsFuture Queen Bees to provide training for other companies, including SMEs in their respective sectors. As SWDA, we will work with industry to play an even bigger role, which also brings me to my second point.

I think Mr Tiong, perhaps, may not have fully understood. He has over-simplified SkillsFuture. It is not just an individual credit scheme. SkillsFuture sits alongside the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit, which employers can use to send their workers for training. These employers and individuals need to co-pay for training programmes, whether through their credits or out-of-pocket, and they must also invest their time and effort. This creates skin in the game. Companies and workers must choose the best courses worth their while and training providers must regularly up the game to compete.

The Government, of course, plays a role in regulating the provider, the course and adult educator as well. And as pointed out by Ms Jessica Tan, our success depends on the ecosystem: on the individuals, employers and other stakeholders and partners playing a big role.

This ecosystem is, therefore, central to the SkillsFuture movement and will continue to be so under SWDA. As Mr Darryl David rightly pointed out, SkillsFuture is fundamentally an instrument of economic mobility and employability.

This now brings me to the core of SWDA's mandate and that is to support Singaporeans at every stage of their careers through promoting lifelong learning, strengthening their career health and enhancing access to good jobs.

Dr Wan Rizal identified two distinct gaps that SWDA must close. The first-job gap for fresh graduates and the career transition gap for mid-careerists. Mr Darryl David highlighted that students often make decisions about courses and career pathways without a clear understanding of labour market realities. Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Jessica Tan also raised concerns on how SWDA will support entry-level hiring amidst business restructuring and AI-driven change.

On supporting fresh graduates to get their first jobs, I agree with Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Darryl David that we cannot wait until students graduate before we intervene.

SWDA will work with IHLs and MOE to bring industry exposure upstream so that our students can have a clearer picture of the labour market well before they graduate. I am not confident that we can go all the way to the secondary school as suggested by a Member here, but we certainly will go upstream to bring the industry exposure to our undergraduates.

This means more systematic pathways into industry attachments and clearer signals on skills and roles in demand. At the same time, we will review measures to better support graduates who face difficulties in securing employment.

To support mid-careerists to chart their careers amidst a fast-evolving world, SWDA will empower them to take charge and strengthen their career health. We will make good quality career guidance services more accessible to the broad middle of workers and equip them with data-driven insights on jobs and skills so that they can undertake the right training that connects them to the opportunities that they are seeking.

We will look at tying course funding more closely to demand signals so that training translates into better career prospects.

The calls from Mr Darryl David, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Shawn Loh and Assoc Prof Terence Ho to tighten the nexus between training grants and employment outcomes are directionally aligned with our plans. Dr Neo Kok Beng's suggestion for SWDA to partner professional institutions to align training to professional accreditations will also help to ensure that the skills acquired are recognised by the industry and can pave the way for career progression.

We are also supporting Singaporeans to acquire the skills and the perspectives needed for a globalised economy. The OMIP that Mr Tiong talked about allows companies to send to Singaporeans on overseas postings to build first-hand knowledge of international markets and bring these insights back home. We agree that such schemes can be made accessible to benefit even more Singaporeans and we had announced at the Committee of Supply this year that we will be expanding OMIP to young professionals even earlier in their careers.

Supporting our workers to acquire skills, experience and career agility is only part of the equation. To maximise their potential, workers must also be able to signal their skills and experience to employers, be matched to jobs that make use of these skills and experience and to be rewarded fairly.

To this end, SWDA will also work to reduce information asymmetries in the labour market to facilitate more efficient job matching.

MyCareersFuture.gov.sg will continue to be our national jobs bank, where good jobs are visible, accessible and intelligently matched to jobseekers. To strengthen the pipeline of quality job listings, MOM, SWDA and sector agencies will work together to encourage more companies to list vacancies on the portal.

Today, there are already over 60,000 job postings published on MyCareersFuture. We aspire to reach 100,000 job postings in 12 months from SWDA's establishment. We have forged partnerships with five online job portals. Singaporeans can use verified employment history and training data in their Careers and Skills Passport to apply for jobs on these job portals. The results are promising. Applicants with verified credentials are 1.5 times more likely to be shortlisted by hirers.

In line with SWDA's expanded mandate, we will build ecosystem enablers, such as data sharing mechanisms and accreditation frameworks, to facilitate faster and better job matches.

The fourth pillar: catering to diverse and ever-changing needs.

Several Members have asked how SWDA will serve the diverse needs of workers and employers. Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Dr Hamid Razak, Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Jessica Tan have asked about worker segments, such as caregivers, seniors, persons with disabilities, ex-offenders and those who have experienced health setbacks.

We will partner community organisations, like SG Enable, Yellow Ribbon Singapore and Community Development Councils, to reach the more vulnerable segments. As Mr Melvin Yong suggested, we are also studying ways to provide stronger support for more flexible work models, such as fractional work, that may better cater to their needs.

Mr Yip asked specifically about the role of NTUC and e2i. e2i operates 27 out of 31 touchpoints island-wide for career matching and advisory. NTUC is spearheading the Company Training Committee initiative, which involves $300 million funding to drive enterprise and workforce transformation.

Echoing Mr Desmond Choo, the Labour Movement will continue to be a strategic partner of SWDA in translating national strategies to practical support by providing high-touch support to different worker segments through employment facilitation, training and workforce transformation.

For employers, they also have diverse needs depending on their industry size, sector and business development plans. Mr Mark Lee asked whether support will be differentiated for SMEs and large enterprises and whether SWDA will retain sector-specific expertise. SWDA will tailor its strategies to better suit the different profiles of the companies that it serves.

In line with suggestions from Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Eileen Chong, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Mark Lee and Assoc Prof Terence Ho, SWDA will also explore ways to step up support for job redesign and on-job-training so that training is customised to different workplaces and different business models, helping our workers to take on higher-value-added jobs.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling called for SWDA to support more companies in job redesign and workforce transformation, just like FairPrice Store of Tomorrow at Punggol. This will indeed be a priority for SWDA. And then to address Ms Chong's question about how we will support skill-based HR practices, we have recently introduced tools, like TalentTrack and TalentTrack+, which help employers assess the skills readiness of their workforce and identify suitable training interventions.

Mr Gerald Giam also asked how will SWDA coordinate with the economic agencies under the MTI. Today, WSG and SSG already work closely with MTI and sector agencies through established inter-agency coordination platforms. With the merger, we will build on these mechanisms to deepen this coordination even further, tightening the nexus between jobs and skills and between enterprise and workforce transformation.

Mr Giam, perhaps it is late in the evening and he may have forgotten, I personally have a stake in this because I am also a Minister in MTI. So, I wear two hats. Perhaps I am the political officeholder that he is talking about striding two Ministries because I am also the current Manpower Minister. So, the Member can be assured on this point.

Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Mark Lee, Ms Elysa Chen and Ms Jessica Tan asked whether and how SWDA will work with the trade chambers and associations, industry bodies and sectoral partners. Let me reassure them, reassure all Members, that they will be key partners of SWDA in supporting employers and they will play three important roles. It will not be limited to these three roles, but they will play three very important roles.

First, as advocates for the manpower needs of their respective sectors. TACs and industry bodies will help SWDA to sharpen its workforce development programmes. Against the backdrop of recent global developments, such as trade tariffs and the Middle East oil crisis, the SNEF and the Singapore Business Federation have provided timely insights on hiring sentiments and business outlook through dipstick business polls. This helped to inform the Government's policy responses.

Second, they will serve as key programme partners that will increase the breadth and depth of SWDA's coverage. The Singapore Business Federation and SNEF, for example, have already been appointed as anchor programme partners for the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. This is our response to Assoc Prof Terence Ho's question about how SWDA will scale impact across the large number of SMEs in different industries.

The third point, they will serve as multipliers, amplifying outreach to employers and driving mindset change on workforce transformation. SNEF has been co-leading tripartite efforts, such as the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment and the Tripartite Workgroup on Human Capital Capability Development, and can support efforts to engender mindset shifts towards the hiring of senior workers and HR practices.

Members may be wondering how SWDA's approach to working with partners will be different from before. There will be two key shifts.

First, what we partner on. Today, most partnerships are focused on training. WSG has also partnered on job matching, career guidance and job redesign but these partnerships have been more targeted and scoped. With SWDA, we will expand and deepen these partnerships to spur new innovations, raise the quality of career and employment services and training. Our initial efforts have begun through pilots under the AfA-ACES and we will continue to build on these.

Second, who do we partner with? SSG works with about 500 training providers, while WSG has only a handful of appointed partners for career matching and guidance. So, with this merger, SWDA will broaden this network beyond training providers to include more recruitment agencies, online job portals and other ecosystem players to diversify services. The goal is for workers and employers to have more options and better support, even as we safeguard and uplift the quality of service provision.

Moving to the fifth group, which is more proactive and more anticipatory support. In a more volatile global environment, the needs of worker and employer segments evolve very rapidly. Ms Elysa Chen, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Mark Lee asked how SWDA would play a more proactive and anticipatory role, to prepare workers and businesses ahead of disruptions.

Data will be the critical enabler – SWDA will tap on various data sources, including MOM's rich labour market data, demand signals from job postings as well as training take-up. We can splice and fuse the data in new ways to triangulate and distil fresh jobs as well as provide skills insights. These insights can then be applied to personalise services and deliver more targeted support proactively.

We seek to leverage these insights to help more individuals enter into good jobs, build careers with better prospects and extend their career trajectories. As I explained earlier, SWDA will also work with the broader career and employment services and training ecosystem to create more value out of shared data, through analysis or building of value-added services.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the relationship between SWDA, NTUC and SNEF, and if SWDA will engage them in devising and executing its plans. Ms Yeo Wan Ling called on SWDA to establish regular contact with stakeholders to remain plugged in with ground realities.

NTUC and SNEF and their networks – they have and they are formidable resources – and SWDA will leverage with their resources, their network, to intervene more decisively ahead of upcoming disruptions or downturns. This is also why we recently announced, just last week, on Friday, the set-up of a Tripartite Jobs Council, co-chaired by NTUC, SNEF and MOM to bring our collective capabilities to bear on the challenges and the opportunities brought by AI. Many Members today also spoke about AI.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about the importance of treating workers as co-creators for AI adoption to ensure better outcomes. Ms Eileen Chong spoke about making job redesign a priority when companies integrate AI into their workflows. Later this evening, depending on what time we end or tomorrow, this House will discuss how we can work together in an era where AI transformation is increasingly pervasive. And I will speak about the importance of concurrent enterprise and workforce transformation in making AI adoption more human-centric.

Moving on to the sixth point, which is on what measurements of success do we look at. Several Members indeed asked us, how would we measure SWDA's success? For individuals, our ultimate goal is to help Singaporeans enter into good jobs and progress in their careers. We will measure SWDA's effectiveness in doing so through indicators, such as time to placement and wage growth, in addition to training and placement numbers.

We already track these outcome indicators today to measure the effectiveness of our interventions. For example, about nine in 10 Career Conversion Programme participants remain employed 24 months after embarking on the programme, and about six in 10 of those who participated in these Career Conversion Programmes earn more than their last drawn salaries.

For employers, we will look at outcomes on adoption of progressive practices in areas, such as job redesign, on-job-training and skills-first hiring. As a first step, we have introduced the Singapore Opportunity Index to provide transparency to job seekers on employers who promote opportunity and deliver strong career outcomes for their workers.

So, to Ms Chong's point, we are tracking such indicators and we will continue to do so. We will continue to tweak and refine and up the ante.

At the economy level, SWDA will contribute to a more inclusive labour market with high resident labour force participation and sustained wage growth. Median wages have grown over the last decade and we will do our best to extend that growth trajectory.

While not so easily measured, we also want to engender a culture of lifelong learning and career health to take root in the DNA of the Singapore workforce.

On my last two points, just bear with me. The seventh point on governance. On the SWDA Board, Mr Saktiandi asked about its composition and the knowledge it will bring. Mr Sanjeev Tiwari asked whether there will be worker representation. The Board will draw from diverse backgrounds – public sector representatives, senior business leaders from multinational corporations and local enterprises across different sectors and key partners, such as NTUC, SNEF and the trade associations and chambers.

Beyond the Board, we also plan to engage international experts, so that our labour market programmes are informed by global trends and by effective interventions elsewhere. The composition of the Board will be announced ahead of SWDA's establishment.

Moving on to the last group – transition and continuity. Mr Mark Lee, Ms Elysa Chen, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have asked about the impact of the transition on existing schemes, applications and commitments. I would like assure Members that SSG's and WSG's operations will be fully undertaken by SWDA from Day One. We will ensure uninterrupted service delivery and the existing grant and employment assistance commitments will be honoured.

To the concerns raised by Mr Mark Lee, Mr Shawn Loh and Ms Yeo Wan Ling about potential overlaps, over time, we will work to rationalise programmes and streamline touchpoints to simplify the user journey.

Specific to Mr Yip Hon Weng's and Assoc Prof Terence Ho's questions on whether MyCareersFuture and MySkillsFuture will be streamlined, we will holistically review the user journey across digital touchpoints to build a more seamless user experience with better signposting to guide users to the appropriate digital services.

Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip also asked about how the roles of SSG and WSG employees will change, while Ms Elysa Chen asked how front-line officers will be equipped to adopt a holistic instead of scheme-by-scheme mindset. We will organise SWDA by stakeholder segments so that those at the frontline can provide more holistic support across jobs and skills for their clients.

As SWDA builds a more integrated operating model, roles and structures will evolve. We have identified suitable roles for all officers and we are committed to managing this with care. We will redeploy officers where their experience is most valuable and we will develop those who need new skills to take on new roles.

Our people have been the backbone of SSG's and WSG's achievements. SWDA's success will depend on all of them and on bringing them alongside with us. Mr Speaker, may I say a few words in Mandarin?