SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, US-China tensions, China's trajectory as it recovers from COVID-19, the likelihood of recessions in US and EU, political instability in other countries and many more macroeconomic trends, cast uncertainties on the economy's prospects for the short-to-medium term.

Despite these uncertainties, there remains opportunities, provided we continue to stay united and demonstrate to the world that Singapore remains an open, safe, stable and reliable country and most importantly possess a capable and relevant workforce so that we can continue to attract investments and, as a result, have good jobs for our people. That has been and continues to be Singapore's formula for success. However, the global competition for investment is intensifying and we must continue to upskill and reskill ourselves to strengthen our value proposition and remain relevant to the world.

Beyond the short-to-medium term macroeconomic challenges, the need to upskill and reskill is nothing new for Singapore. This has been integral for our success and will continue to be a cornerstone of our economic strategy as we continue to ensure that we remain relevant to the world by having the right skillsets that the world requires.

Education should be understood broadly and not stop prematurely at the end of a person's schooling life. Nor should education be defined solely within the confines of a school. Continuous education must constantly prepare Singapore's workers for future workplace demands which is evolving very rapidly.

I am pleased that we remain committed to our Continuing Education and Training (CET) Masterplan and I am happy to hear from Minister Chan that our education system and MOE will "move beyond the first 15 years of education to the next 50 years" as mentioned in the Straits Times last Friday.

Furthermore, MOE has extended its portfolio to include not only classroom learning, but more importantly, lifelong learning. Since the Skills Development Levy Act in 1979 and the establishment of Skill Development fund, we have shown and proved that in Singapore, we remain committed to training our workforce and have been improving and developing how we continuously train and upskill our workforce; including the passing of the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act 2016 which established the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency and the topping up of SkillsFuture credit during the COVID-19 period.

SkillsFuture is a key enabler in developing the culture, infrastructure and platform for continuous education and learning. SkillsFuture also represents a repository of resource for our workforce to attain mastery of skills and it must remain so.

Education must be more than just having the right paper qualification. We must strive to achieve excellence through continuous knowledge acquisition and application, and building relevant experience required in the industries.

For our workforce to continuously develop, attain skills mastery and remain nimble to take advantage of new opportunities and also to plug skills gap around the world, SkillsFuture must aspire to have the participation of as many people in our workforce as possible. This is only possible through collaboration with education and training partners.

Hence, I am glad to hear from Minister Chan in the November Parliamentary Sitting that since the introduction of SkillsFuture, 840,000 Singapore citizens have utilised their SkillsFuture Credit (SFC). However, that is only 30% of eligible Singaporeans. Worryingly, the percentage of people who use SFC is highest among those in their 30s and it reduces among those in their 40s and 50s and older.

And as we move towards increasing the participation rate in developing skills and improving the effectiveness and the value of training, the underlying process of disbursing grants, collecting levies and onboarding the support of trusted education and training partners must be simple to encourage participation yet robust to prevent any abuse.

Unfortunately, some have taken the opportunity to abuse the funding arrangements such as the case of the husband and wife masterminds, Ng Cheng Hwee and Lee Lai Leng, who were behind the $40 million SkillsFuture scam by submitting and forging falsified documents between May and August 2017. Hence, I stand in support of this Bill to strengthen the regulatory powers of SkillsFuture against fraud and abuse of its incentives and grants.

However, I have three clarifications for the Minister.

Firstly, given that there have been a few cases on SSG such as the total of $42 million fraudulent claims, AGO's finding on overpayment and the shortfall of outstanding Skills Development Levy, how can we improve and enhance governance such that there are no leaks and similar incidents do not occur?

Secondly, how do we increase the participation rate of utilising SkillsFuture for eligible Singaporeans?

And lastly, how do we improve the training efficacy and assess SkillsFuture's success in meeting its strategic goals?

Allow me to elaborate on these three points.

Firstly, given the cases of fraud, overpayment and shortfall in collecting Skills Development Levy (SDL), what were the lessons learnt from all these cases and have they been implemented and if not, what is the timeframe for implementation?

For example, the overpayments for SkillsFuture Singapore is attributed to errors in manual processing and SSG has shared that it is taking measures to reduce reliance on declarations and manual processing. Has this been implemented? And if not, what is the implementation plan?

Has SSG completed the process of recovering the outstanding SDL owed by companies and how do we prevent similar occurrences? Given this Bill will give SSG greater enforcement powers, will SSG be resourced with additional staff with the right skillset to implement effective enforcement? I also note that the Bill indicates extra financial expenditure, what is the expected increase in operating cost?

Secondly, how can we boost the participation rate of eligible Singaporeans in utilising their SkillsFuture to more than 30%? Based on data shared by Minister Chan in the November Sitting, what is more worrying is the decreased rate of participation as age increase. Are there plans to encourage more of our mature workers to participate in upskilling and retraining? Possibly, one opportunity is to encourage our mature workers to transit to a second career to be trainers and impart their experience to the rest of the workforce.

Lastly, how do we increase the effectiveness of training for the courses supported by SkillsFuture? On quality of training, I do note from the website that there are many training partners. From just a search between "A" and "C" alone, there are already 60 training partners. How do we ensure the quality of training is preserved, to which I agree with what our fellow colleague Mr Mark Chay has mentioned earlier. Beyond the accreditation of the instructor, are the training partners regularly audited too?

On effectiveness of training, can SSG considering using outcome-based course subsidies? Can we have a tiered course subsidy system where the full subsidy is only granted when the individual or organisation can show proof that they have implemented or applied what was learnt during the course.

For example, for the Implementing Lean Sigma course, which is a course on productivity, can the full subsidy be given only after the individual or company show that they have delivered projects to improve their productivity?

And on simplicity, there is a SSG website, SkillsFuture website, MySkillsFuture portal, SSG-WSG website. As an end-user, the landscape can be very confusing. Can this be simplified to be more customer-centric similar to the "Support-Go-Where" portal that provides the inter-agency support available for individuals? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Skillsfuture is important in promoting lifelong learning amongst Singaporeans. Since its launch in 2015, more than 840,000 Singaporeans have used their SkillsFuture credits to take up skills upgrading courses. However, this figure represents only 30% of those eligible. This means that 70% of eligible Singaporeans have yet to use their SkillsFuture credits. What is more worrisome, its utilisation is highest among the younger ones, compared to those who are 40 years and above.

How can we boost the participation rate from the current 30%? As it is essential that older workers upgrade their skills, how can we encourage more mature workers to participate in the SkillsFuture programmes?

Lastly, how can we enhance the effectiveness of training in SkillsFuture courses? We must ensure that the quality of training is not affected, even as we increase the amount being offered. I am also aware that Singaporeans who wish to participate in these courses must visit various websites, such as SkillsFuture, My SkillsFuture, SSG-WSG sites, and this can cause some confusion. Perhaps, SSG can consolidate these websites into one website such as the "Support-Go-Where" portal to facilitate participation in SkillsFuture.

(In English): Notwithstanding the clarification above, I stand in support of the Bill to enhance the regulatory powers of SkillsFuture against fraud and abuse of its incentives and grants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Lifelong learning is now an integral part of our social compact in Singapore. Through continuous education, our people are staying updated with the relevant knowledge and skillsets. This enables us to be competitive in employment and contribute meaningfully to our families and community.

SkillsFuture plays an important role in our Continuing Education and Training (CET) landscape. In MySkillsFuture portal, these available courses and training providers are grouped by industries and areas of training. Learners can register for courses and claim SkillsFuture Credits via this website. Most assume that the courses offered on this website have been vetted and are recognised by the Government. Otherwise, why would the Government permit Government funds to be used on these programmes?

(In English): Hence, I would like to seek clarifications regarding circumstances in which training providers falsely indicate that their courses are recognised by the Government. How can we provide greater clarity on the validity and quality of these courses? Does the Ministry plan to make the portal even simpler and more straightforward, so that the public can check for accredited training providers easily? Are there any guidelines to help the training providers promote their programmes?

Will the Ministry exert greater control over where such courses are offered, in addition to the website? In addition, how will the Ministry familiarise Singaporeans with Industry Transformation Maps so that Singaporeans will know which relevant certified courses to enrol in?

I have another concern regarding training companies. Has the Government received complaints about training providers using IT gadgets to bait elderly Singaporeans to sign up for IT courses? When they turn up on the day of the courses, they are asked to click on a few buttons and leave the training venues shortly after signing the attendance sheets, without learning what the courses promised to offer. In other words, does the Act prohibit the training providers from offering irrelevant items to attract course participants, even though such courses are funded by SSG?

I have also received feedback about seniors being recruited to attend courses, especially the IT-related ones, even though they do not have the required language or foundation subject knowledge to understand the training materials. Do SSG's authorised inspectors and persons contact the participants and check on the learning outcomes? How does SSG check on the courses which are conducted virtually, if any? Such random checks will deter training providers from making fraudulent representations about participants passing courses when they had failed.

If the Bill is passed, can the persons convicted of the offences be blacklisted and barred from setting up or financing other training operators for a minimum period of time?

Will the Ministry share how many suspension notices have been issued against errant training operators since 2016?

How does Government prevent scammers from posing as accredited training providers, which can be found on SkillsFuture's online portal and obtain personal information from potential applicants?

The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are credible training providers. But are we relying too much on these IHLs? How does the Government encourage credible professionals to become SkillsFuture's certified trainers? Private sector players maybe more updated and relevant as they can be more nimble and quicker to customise programmes for Singaporeans.

Gone are the days when Universities were the main authority on one's qualifications for a job. Tech companies must continue to drive movement where one's proficiency in a particular software leads to a new career opportunity. Smaller training providers may be more flexible than the conventional IHLs when customising training syllabus.

To raise the quality of adult training and education in Singapore, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) sets out Adult Educators (AE) Qualifications Requirements that apply to training providers providing SSG-funded certifiable courses. Can SkillsFuture work with the respective sector agencies, like the Singapore Accountancy Commission, to groom more individual trainers, like the Chartered Accountants, lawyers and engineers who will advertise their courses responsibly?

Finally, may I request that the more experienced adult educators be granted more credit exemptions for the Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) Advanced Certificate in Learning and Performance (ACLP) modules from the Institute for Adult Learning. Thank you. I support the Bill.

Sir, these two Bills will consolidate enforcement powers and offences under the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act, regulate abusive funding arrangements as well as offences relating to false or misleading advertising and empower the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (SSG) to direct refunds for cancelled courses. This will create a centralised system and better support career development for all Singaporeans.

I have three points of clarification on both Bills.

My first point is on the difficulty in determining the competencies, expertise or skills to be advanced by a course or programme. The new section 57E amended by the SSG Bill will make it an offence to publish false or misleading advertising. This includes advertising on the curriculum, modules or subjects to be covered or competencies, expertise or skills that will be advanced. There are good faith reasons for why curriculum, modules or subjects to be covered may change after advertising for a course has started. The subject matter may have evolved, or the curriculum may need to adapt to the interests and proficiency of the class. The competencies, expertise or skills that a course actually succeeds in advancing may also be fairly subjective.

Can Minister share if the Ministry intends to proactively monitor advertising by course providers? Or will the Ministry rely on complaints by the public to identify potentially false or misleading advertisements before intervening?

Can Minister also share if the Ministry will provide guidance to course providers on best practices on advertising and in managing communications with participants especially on changes in course content to avoid any dispute over false advertising in the first place?

My second point is on identifying fraudulent claims at an earlier stage.

In the case of Public Prosecutor vs Ng Cheng Kwee, the Prosecution described most of the fraudulent claims as having been "automatically approved by SSG" and that only "a small proportion of the claims were flagged for a manual check".

Following this incident of fraud which occurred in 2017, the SSG announced in 2018 that it has strengthened its fraud detection systems using data analytics. This follows the recommendations of an inter-agency task force set up to review SSG's fraud mitigation capabilities.

Given that it has been four years since these systems were introduced, can the Ministry share how it is monitoring the effectiveness of these fraud detection systems? Can the Ministry also provide an update on how effective these systems have been?

My final point is on the incorporation of a deferred payment model.

The Lambda School in California teaches information technology skills online and charges no tuition fees. Instead, students can agree to pay a percentage of their income after they are employed, and only if they are making more than US$50,000 a year in the first five years. The deal is that students pay back 17% of their income from their first two years of work after, if earnings exceed US$50,000 a year, with a cap of US$30,000 of fees they pay in total. Otherwise, students also have the option of paying US$20,000 in tuition upfront and keeping their future income. The incentive structure is clear. If the training institute does not impart transferable knowledge to trainees that results in a successful outcome, the institute will not benefit.

Can Minister share if the Ministry has looked into such a deferred payment model for certain SkillsFuture courses? If so, what are the Ministry's findings on the usefulness of such a model in Singapore Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the two Bills which seek to strengthen the regulatory powers of the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (SSG) to deter the abuse and misrepresentation of SSG funding and schemes. However, I have a few questions and some suggestions.

In a recent speech at the Singapore Perspectives 2023 Conference, the Minister for Education highlighted how we needed to better support Singaporeans in their lifelong learning ambitions. I cannot agree more. Lifelong learning ensures that our workforce stays productive, adapts to fast-changing global and industrial changes and becomes more resilient in both employment and employability.

Singapore's movement towards lifelong learning must be underpinned by assurance that our training institutions are credible. I therefore support the proposals in the Bills to strengthen SSG's funding and schemes which will serve to enhance the credibility of adult learning programmes as a whole.

However, given the enhanced powers of SSG officers to enter premises, search for and seize documents, and to conduct interviews, I would like to ask if the proposed new powers are to be given to all SSG officers. What type of training would be provided to those officers who are assigned these powers, and what sort of safeguards will be put in place to ensure that these new powers will be used appropriately and not be abused?

When entering a premise against the will of the premise owners, the officers may face hostile resistance. Officers should therefore be adequately trained to exercise their new powers and the requisite rules of engagement.

Mr Speaker, beyond strengthening our regulatory framework to deter fraud, we also need to ensure that SSG-funded courses adequately support Singaporeans' changing aspirations. I would like to provide two suggestions: (a) regularly review and remove courses and training providers that have poor take-up rates and poor reviews; and (b) to on-board courses that support Singaporeans who work remotely.

Let me elaborate. First, we need to regularly review and remove courses that have poor enrolment figures to free up funding for courses that Singaporeans actually need and want. We should also regularly review training providers for the conduct of their SSG-funded courses and the effectiveness of these courses.

I would like to ask how often are SSG-funded courses subject to review. What is the average number of courses that had their funding status removed due to poor sign-ups? Does SSG require and take into consideration participants' post-course feedback?

I feel that only by holding courses and training providers to a high bar can we attract more Singaporeans to use their SkillsFuture Credits purposefully for training.

Sir, we also need to change the way we fund courses to better support Singaporeans who work remotely. The Work-From-Anywhere trend has meant that more Singaporeans are working remotely even if the work is done for a local company. We should move away from funding classes that are held in-person and explore extending more funding to online courses. Let us support all Singaporeans, regardless of where they are based in their lifelong learning journey.

Sir, the proposed amendments will help in deterring abuse and misrepresentation of SSG funding and schemes. As we work to improve the governance of our lifelong learning funding, we should also ensure that we support the changing aspirations of Singaporeans, as we continue to encourage every Singaporean to be a lifelong learner. With that, I support the two Bills.

Mr Speaker, in 2021, over 247,000 Singaporeans utilised their SkillsFuture Credits, up from 188,000 in 2020. Thus far, it has served Singaporeans well in helping individuals make well-informed choices in education, training and in their careers. Ongoing efforts in maintaining and developing a high-quality education and training system ensure a responsive and relevant resource for the industry and its future developments.

This system must be a platform that can give employers confidence that the skills and training are practical and recognised by the industry, becoming a trusted system for acquiring skills and mastery of capabilities.

Above all, it must foster a culture that supports and celebrates lifelong learning. Why do we do this? The main objective is to provide Singaporeans with opportunities to develop their fullest potential throughout their life, regardless of their starting point.

And no matter at which phase in life, one will have access to the resources to attain the skills and training required to be more effective at work and progress further in their career, for some, a less difficult transition into a new industry.

The integrity, credibility and quality of the system underpin these core tenets. Of late, the rise of abuse cases has threatened these.

We have heard about examples of such abuse. We have training providers falsely indicating that the Government recognises their courses. We have bogus claims being submitted for courses that were not conducted. We have multiple companies where claims were submitted to SSG for employees whose only role and job was to attend SSG-funded courses. These are growing concerns, and it affects the credibility SkillsFuture in Singapore.

Therefore, it is timely to review the SSG Act to uphold the integrity and the reputation of SkillsFuture.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, how are the penalties ascertained, and how will they evolve?

Given the expanded scope, how do we ensure that the Statutory Board can adhere to high standards of conduct? How does SSG plan to raise, train and sustain this capability? Are there any precedents of such expanded powers in other Government Statutory Boards?

Whilst under investigation, will there be powers to impose or lift any interim restrictions imposed on the companies or individuals? How do we ensure the process is swift and reasonable during the investigation to avoid unnecessary disruptions? Mr Speaker, I support the Bills.

Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking Members for their views and support for the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (Amendment) Bill and the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill.

The various points raised reflect our common interest in strengthening the SkillsFuture movement and equipping Singaporeans with the skills to seize the opportunities ahead.

I would also like to thank Members for their various suggestions on matters such as tapping more on private training providers and companies for upskilling, accreditation of adult educators, types of training to support and so on. We will continually review our policies and take Members' suggestions into consideration.

I will not be addressing them today as they are not directly related to the Bills. I invite Members who would like to have a full reply on these issues to file Parliamentary Questions, so that we can address them properly.

Let me now turn to the comments related to the two Bills which cover three broad areas. First, why there is a need for these amendments? Second, how the amendments will be operationalised, including how the offence and enforcement provisions will work in practice? Third, whether the penalties and powers of SSG are appropriately calibrated, and whether there are adequate safeguards against abuse?

I will address each of these in turn.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and several Members talked about the importance of giving Singaporeans the confidence to participate in training programmes of good quality, while Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether the amendments are born out of an abundance of caution.

Over the years, the SkillsFuture movement has been growing steadily in strength. In 2021, about 660,000 individuals and 24,000 enterprises participated in and benefited from SSG-supported programmes. Companies have also leaned forward to drive skills development, with 25 SkillsFuture Queen Bee companies partnering SSG to uplift skills in their respective sectors.

There are now close to 1,000 training providers, providing about 25,000 courses supported by SSG.

We are continuously strengthening the quality of the Continuing Education and Training (CET) ecosystem in Singapore. The amendments that we are making today will equip SSG with the necessary powers to take action against errant parties who mislead others or abuse SSG's funding system. I would characterise them as part of our ongoing efforts to enhance our system, which has grown steadily.

Faced with a wide array of training programmes, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Don Wee and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about how the public can verify the authenticity of programmes and provide feedback to raise the quality of the courses. The list of SSG-supported courses can be found on the MySkillsFuture portal and can serve as a reference for members of the public. Feedback on SSG-funded courses is also taken seriously. Trainees who have undergone training programmes are invited to submit their post-course feedback via the Training Quality and Outcome Measurement, or TRAQOM survey. The results go toward SSG's evaluation of programmes.

The trainees' feedback will also reflect as ratings on the course listing within the portal. Through this effort, we enable learners, companies and bona fide training providers to have greater confidence to participate fully in the SkillsFuture movement.

While SSG uses a range of tools to identify advertisements that could be false or misleading, members of the public may contact SSG directly as well if they have doubts about the claims made about SSG-funded programmes. I urge learners to take ownership of their learning journey, make good use of the available channels to give feedback to SSG on their learning and also point out suspect practices so that collectively we can strengthen our CET ecosystem.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Sharael Taha asked whether the amendments we are making today will address the underpayment of the SDL owed to SSG. To clarify, this set of amendments seeks to strengthen SSG's legislative levers and enforcement powers against abuses of SSG's funding system. As for recovering underpayment of the SDL which I had previously touched on in Parliament, SSG has contacted all affected employers to reconcile the variances and is in the process of recovering the underpayments. It has also reviewed its processes to resolve future payment issues in a more scalable and timely manner.

Mr Sharael Taha also asked about the overpayment of grants. SSG's plans to streamline its business rules and use more data-at-source verifications and systems-enabled checks, to avoid future lapses, are progressively being implemented.

Allow me to now turn to questions about how the amendments, such as the offence provisions, will be operationalised. Mr Patrick Tay asked whether taking legal action can be the last resort. SSG appreciates that there are administrative errors and missed deadlines that can occur from time to time. These are not regarded as offences, but areas of improvement to be worked on.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the outcome of the 93 training providers that SSG had taken action against in 2021. Actually, the majority of these cases were related to breaches of SSG's funding terms and conditions, such as failing to submit the required annual returns to SSG. Since these are administrative lapses, most of the 93 training providers were suspended from SSG funding for six months, without further repercussions.

In cases such as the publication or distribution of misleading advertisements, opportunity will be given for the errant party to take corrective action, for example, to take down or correct the advertisement. However, if the facts of a case constitute an offence, or if there are recalcitrant persons who refuse to comply with SSG's directions, SSG will have to refer the case to AGC to determine the next course of action.

Ms Denise Phua asked who would be held liable for offences. Where the person who commits an offence is an entity, the existing SSG Act and SDL Act already contain provisions which explain the circumstances in which individuals can also be liable for the same offence committed by an entity. For example, under section 61 of the SSG Act, a director or manager of the company who conspired with others to effect the commission of the offence, may also be guilty of the same offence as the company.

Ms Denise Phua asked whether the onus to ensure accuracy is on the advertising agency or the training provider. The training provider may be held liable if the Court ascertains that the training provider had known or ought to reasonably have known that the advertisement is false or misleading or has been reckless as to whether the advertisement is false or misleading.

Mr Mark Chay asked whether the definition of advertisements can include what is communicated to potential learners at roadshows. The provision covers advertising materials that are distributed at roadshows.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the presumption of intention. As I mentioned in the opening speech, there are three elements to the offence of entering into or facilitating an abusive funding arrangement. First, the offenders must have entered into or facilitated an abusive funding arrangement. Second, they must have known, or have had reason to believe, that the funding arrangement is abusive in nature. And third, they must have entered into or facilitated the abusive funding arrangement with the intention to dishonestly or fraudulently induce SSG to provide funding to them, or to someone else.

It is only when the first two elements are present and when it is proven that the person has taken steps to help the person or someone else obtain funding from SSG, that the statutory presumption comes into effect to put the onus on the person charged with the offence to demonstrate that he did not have dishonest or fraudulent intentions. It is therefore open to the person to rebut the presumption. The Court will consider all the evidence in deciding whether there is intent and whether all the other elements of the offence are present.

I will also add that a statutory presumption is not novel and is also found in other similar offences, such as the offence of promoting abusive funding arrangements through the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme.

Several members highlighted the need to clearly communicate the changes to training providers. I agree. SSG has existing channels of communications with training providers, including circulars, engagements and feedback channels. SSG intends to have dedicated sessions to explain to training providers the intent and substance of the amendments, and engage them on any clarifications they might have. We will do our best to communicate these changes, but the onus rests with training providers to ensure that they, their partners and their staff adhere to the law.

Mr Patrick Tay asked how long it would take for SSG to complete investigations for possible offences. The length of investigation depends on the scope, complexity of the issue and the level of cooperation received by the involved parties in the investigation. Nonetheless, I assure Members that SSG will take swift and timely action in its investigations. Following the commencement of the Amendments, SSG will also review the offences to see which ones may be compoundable.

On whether recalcitrant companies will be barred or blacklisted, SSG takes a serious view of SSG-funded training providers that do not comply with prevailing regulations. The enforcement actions taken against these errant training providers are published on the Training Partners Gateway portal today, including suspension and termination.

Ms Denise Phua and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the extra financial expenditure arising from the Amendments. Together with MOE, SSG evaluates its manpower and resourcing requirements on a regular basis to ensure that it is adequately resourced. We will consider the Amendments as part of this regular review and ensure that SSG is adequately resourced.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said that the amendments seem to allow for the wrongly obtained funds recovered by SSG to be channelled towards funding is operational costs and that this could create potentially perverse incentives for over-zealous regulation and possible abuse. Let me clarify that any recovered funds would not be channelled towards SSG's operating costs. They would be paid back to the funds they were drawn from so that they can be used for the intended purpose, which is to support upskilling efforts.

Mr Don Wee asked whether SSG would obtain feedback from participants on learning outcomes during investigations. As I mentioned earlier, SSG collects feedback on learning outcomes comprehensively and also regularly, from trainees via post-training surveys; immediately after the course is completed, and six months after course completion. Such feedback is to monitor quality and guide the CET sector on how we can improve. The survey is not done in conjunction with investigations and questions are not designed with the intent of aiding investigations into abuse of SSG's funding. However, I will not preclude investigators using such feedback, or indeed any other available data, if they are relevant to the cases.

Let me now address the queries regarding penalties, powers and safeguards. Mr Mark Chay and several Members asked about SSG-appointed inspectors, including whether their powers are appropriate, whether there are safeguards to prevent abuse of power and whether the inspectors have the necessary capabilities to carry out their work.

I would like to reassure Members that we have calibrated the powers appropriately. Broadly, the principle is that investigative powers should be commensurate with the nature of the offences. The enhanced investigative powers in the SSG Act are similar to those that SSG currently has and exercises to investigate offences under the Private Education Act.

There is a robust process to appoint only a selected group of SSG officers as inspectors to exercise powers to investigate offences and their tenure will be subject to regular review. To ensure that inspectors have the necessary and up-to-date skills, they undergo capability development programmes regularly. SSG officers are trained to leverage technologies and use tools such as data analytics to spot anomalous patterns in support of the enforcement work. SSG also participates in the regular inter-agency forum where public agencies such as the Police share best practices and experiences. Now, even the inspectors need upskilling.

The legislative amendments include safeguards against the abuse of these powers. For instance, an inspector must produce the identification card issued by SSG before they can exercise powers under the Act. In addition, powers to require the attendance of a person by written order can only be exercised if the inspector has information that the person appears to be acquainted with the case. Inspectors who abused their powers would be subjected to disciplinary action.

The differentiation of roles between authorised persons and inspectors, which Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about, is another safeguard to prevent abuse of power. The role of authorised persons is to verify information provided by persons who apply for funding from SSG and whether the funds obtained have been properly applied. On the other hand, inspectors require stronger powers as their role is to investigate offences. Because their roles are different, we have differentiated the powers that they can exercise.

Ms Denise Phua asked whether inspectors can access information stored in the cloud. For the purpose of investigating an offence under the SSG Act, inspectors have the powers to require any person to provide or grant access, without charge, to electronic documents.

Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Denise Phua asked about how penalties are ascertained and whether they are commensurate with the offences. The penalties will be decided by the Court, within the limits stipulated in the Bill. As for how the limits are determined, we have referenced the penalties for offences in other Acts to ensure that the penalties in the Bill are appropriate and proportionate.

Finally, Dr Wan Rizal raised the suggestion of having an independent body to review and approve enforcement actions. To be clear, it is the Court that determines whether to convict a person of the offence and the penalties to be imposed on a convicted person. As for other enforcement actions that SSG can take, such as taking down a false advertisement, we assess that it is not necessary to have an independent body.

Over the years, we have taken concrete steps to enhance the relevance and quality of adult training and education in Singapore. Confidence and trust in the training ecosystem have grown, with more individuals participating in upskilling and more companies, trade associations, sector agencies and unions leaning forward to partner SSG to drive skills development in Singapore.

We must and will continue on this path to strengthen our lifelong learning system, involve industry more closely and encourage innovation, and quality in our training. As the Government continues to ramp up our investments in SkillsFuture and prepare for the future economy, it is important for us to strengthen SSG's legislative levers so as to deter errant behaviour as well as to preserve public confidence and trust in the training system.

The two Bills will help enable us to do so in three main ways. First, by allowing SSG to take legal action against errant parties and achieve a stronger deterrence effect. Second, by protecting learners from being misled into courses through false or misleading advertisements. Third, by enabling the timely and proper restitution of public funds, which ensures that investments from all our stakeholders be it the Government, individual learners, or employers, can be put to good use.

My final point is that building a strong continuing education and training ecosystem is a shared responsibility with learners, enterprises, training providers and the Government. I would like to thank the team in SSG for its perseverance and hard work. Through partnerships with the stakeholders, I am confident that we can collectively strengthen the SkillsFuture movement and enable more Singaporeans to acquire the skills that they need, to seize the opportunities ahead.

With this, Mr Speaker, I hope that I have addressed Members' questions and suggestions. And with your permission, I beg to move.