Debated in Parliament on 6 Nov 2025.
Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what measures are in place to proactively detect and prevent the misuse of SkillsFuture credits, especially by operators using multi-level marketing tactics or exploiting the credit expiry timeline; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure training quality and learner protection against the marketing tactics by such operators.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) what steps are the Ministry and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) taking to pro-actively monitor and enforce compliance with marketing requirements and practice guidelines by training providers to better protect all learners, including low-income and older workers; and (b) whether the Ministry would consider mandating public disclosure of provider-level data, such as drop-out rates and course-to-job conversions, to strengthen these safeguards.
Mr Speaker, under SkillsFuture Singapore's (SSG's) Terms for Training Providers, there are strict marketing guidelines which prohibit training providers from making exaggerated claims, offering monetary incentives in exchange for course sign-ups, or engaging in aggressive marketing tactics. For example, SSG has reminded training providers to focus on promoting the merits of the courses, and not use the expiry of the SkillsFuture Credits to hard-sell their courses to individuals.
Given the large number of training providers, SSG supplements its own monitoring of their marketing behaviour by relying on feedback and whistle-blowing by the general public and learners. When SSG guidelines are flouted, SSG takes enforcement actions. These include suspension or termination of a training provider's registration with SSG. SSG publishes the list of training providers who have flouted the terms and were subject to enforcement actions.
From 1 December 2025, SSG will disallow registered training providers from engaging, requesting or procuring any third party to market courses directly to learners. This is necessary given an increase in public feedback on undesirable marketing practices involving third parties over the past year. This new prohibition will reduce the risk of the public being subject to misrepresentation, over-promising or undue influence when third parties are involved in the marketing of training programmes. It can also avoid the compromise of personal data when third parties ask for such data to facilitate course sign-ups.
The majority of our training providers comply with SSG's marketing guidelines, and the practice of engaging third parties for direct marketing is not widespread. Nevertheless, SSG has taken action to address public feedback to avoid such undesirable practices from proliferating, which could bring the training sector into disrepute and harm the interests of learners.
Publishing performance data of training providers is another safeguard for learners. SSG requires learners taking SSG-funded programmes to give feedback on course quality and how well the training supports their career growth. The ratings of each course are published on the MySkillsFuture Portal to help learners make informed training decisions.
Safeguarding public trust and confidence in our lifelong learning system is a key priority for SSG. We will continue to monitor training providers' marketing behaviour, adjust our guidelines and take fair and proportionate enforcement actions where necessary. We remind our training providers to abide strictly by the marketing guidelines. We also seek continued support from the public, to be vigilant and to provide feedback on non-compliant marketing practices.
Senior Minister of State Janil, I assume your reply is also in response to Oral Question No 17?
My apologies, Mr Speaker. Yes, please, if you do not mind, I would like to address oral Question Nos 16 and 17 together.
Alright. Dr Chen.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Many Singaporeans, including our residents in Tampines, are anxious about employability. Skills upgrading must be built on trust to protect our learners and we need to ensure that training providers are credible, relevant courses are provided and public funds are used responsibly. I have a couple of supplementary questions.
Number one, what avenues are available for whistle-blowers, especially those who are not digitally-savvy to report unethical course practises? And number two, if participants find that courses fall short of the promised content, what recourse or mechanisms are there? And lastly, will there be regular audits besides relying on feedback from course participants?
Sir, I thank Dr Charlene Chen for the questions. There are a number of reporting mechanisms. Not all of them are online and digital, and we do engage directly with training providers to make sure that they also are looking for feedback, as well as the institutions that are curating the courses. So, the feedback can be about the service provider as a whole – the faculty, for example, or the course. We have several lines of communication to make sure that we do receive feedback.
The recourse will depend very much on what the nature of the complaint is. It is not always possible to get a refund, if that is what Dr Chen is asking about. But indeed we want to get the feedback so that we can take remedial action to make sure that the course, the subject, the approach and the assessment techniques, for example, are fit for purpose and serve learners as a whole. And indeed, we do conduct audits so that we have various methods of assessing the quality and to verify that the training that is stated is actually being delivered.
PAPERCUTS