Opinion
PAP’s Jobseeker Support Scheme: A tactical shift rooted in political survival, not genuine care
Opinion: The SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme, touted as NTUC’s win, is more about PAP’s political survival than genuine care for workers. Unlike WP’s 2006 unemployment insurance, which was funded by contributions, this scheme taxes state resources, raising questions about who’s truly being profligate.
![](https://gutzymedia.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp/2024/08/20104757/Screenshot-2024-08-20-104659.png)
The recent announcement of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during his inaugural National Day Rally on 18 August may seem like a progressive step towards supporting unemployed workers. However, crediting this move to the persistent lobbying of MP Patrick Tay and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) would be a gross misrepresentation of the underlying political reality.
The introduction of this scheme, which provides financial aid to lower- and middle-income workers who have lost their jobs, comes with strings attached—namely, participation in training, career coaching, and job-matching services.
While Mr Tay and the NTUC have touted themselves as having long advocated for such temporary financial support—claiming to have been speaking up since 2014—it is crucial to recognize that the Workers’ Party (WP) had already clearly called for unemployment insurance in their 2006 manifesto.
The WP’s proposal was both comprehensive and pragmatic, designed to provide a robust safety net for workers facing the uncertainties of unemployment.
According to the WP’s 2006 manifesto, their proposed unemployment insurance would help workers cope during the difficult period of unemployment by offering a payout to those who have been with the same company for more than two years when they are retrenched. The payout would be 75% of their last drawn salary, gradually reducing by 7.5% per month until the payout is exhausted. This support would help workers cover their immediate expenses while they search for new employment or undergo retraining.
The funding for this unemployment insurance would come from a compulsory deduction of 1% of the worker’s earned income, matched by a 1% contribution from the employer. These funds would be managed by third-party corporations, ensuring transparency and efficiency in disbursement. This approach not only provided financial security to workers but also promoted shared responsibility between employees and employers in supporting those who faced job loss.
Additionally, the WP suggested that citizens in dire financial straits should be allowed to withdraw from their own CPF savings to cover their living expenses during periods of unemployment, under strict guidelines to prevent abuse. However, these withdrawals would not earn the standard 2.5% nominal interest, reflecting the WP’s commitment to balancing financial prudence with the needs of unemployed workers.
These suggestions have remained in WP’s manifesto for their election campaigning even up to the recent GE2020.
In stark contrast, the PAP’s newly introduced SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme and the SkillsFuture Level-Up programme that provides a training allowance of up to S$3,000 per month places the financial burden squarely on state resources. This scheme, funded entirely by the government, provides up to S$6,000 over six months to eligible workers, contingent upon their participation in designated support activities.
Unlike the WP’s insurance-based proposal, which distributes the cost across workers and employers, the PAP’s approach effectively taxes public funds to support the unemployed.
This raises a critical question: who is truly guilty of profligate spending here? The WP’s proposal is designed to be self-sustaining through contributions, while the PAP’s scheme draws directly from the state coffers, potentially leading to greater fiscal strain in the long term.
Despite the clear and forward-thinking nature of the WP’s proposal, the PAP dismissed the idea at the time, sticking to their principle of prioritizing job creation and upskilling over direct financial aid.
In 2017, then-Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo criticized the WP’s proposed unemployment insurance, arguing that automatic insurance payouts could significantly reduce the incentive to find work.
She cited studies from Denmark that showed while many jobless individuals secure employment within the payout period, a considerable number wait until just before the benefits expire to accept available jobs. Mrs Teo emphasized that this delay not only prolongs unemployment but also makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to re-enter the workforce, ultimately leading to higher long-term unemployment.
In 2020, Mrs Teo once again voiced strong opposition to unemployment insurance, arguing that it could reduce workers’ motivation to find new employment and deter employers from offering retrenchment benefits. Her argument was clear: Singapore’s focus should remain on employment support rather than direct financial assistance for the unemployed. The PAP’s philosophy was that such measures would create a culture of dependency, which would be detrimental to both workers and the economy.
Yet now, we see a shift—a scheme that looks remarkably like what the PAP previously rejected. The timing of this reversal is suspect.
It appears to be less about the influence of NTUC and more about the PAP’s recognition of the growing threat of losing votes to the opposition, particularly in light of the upcoming General Election that has to be called before November 2025.
The PAP’s history of policy shifts in response to political pressure is well-documented. After losing its first Group Representation Constituency (GRC) to the Workers’ Party in 2011, the PAP initiated the national conversation in 2012, significantly curtailed immigration, adjusted its stance on work passes, and made many other policy changes that would suggest the PAP was taking a progressive step forward.
However, many would say that these changes were not driven by the PAP’s MPs advocating for their constituents but by the party’s realization that it could no longer ignore the growing discontent among Singaporeans.
It is naive to believe that Mr Tay’s lobbying alone led to the adoption of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme. If the PAP had maintained its strong electoral support in the last General Election, Mr Tay’s “continued” efforts would likely have been met with the same rejection that Mrs Teo offered the Workers’ Party.
Let’s not be fooled into thinking that the PAP has suddenly become more caring and consultative. This latest policy move is less about empathy and more about electoral strategy.
It is a reminder that the PAP is willing to bend its principles when it feels its hold on power slipping — whether it is about profligate spending or protection for workers.
As we approach the next General Election, it is important for Singaporeans to see through the political manoeuvring and recognize that these policy shifts are not born out of newfound compassion but out of a necessity to stay in power.
![](https://gutzy.asia/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gutzy-Logo-whiteS.png)
-
Politics2 weeks ago
Jamus Lim on Minister Chee Hong Tat’s remarks on fiscal policy: Calls for genuine debate over rhetoric
-
Community2 weeks ago
Toast Box faces backlash and boycott calls amid price increases
-
Media1 week ago
Notice to Our Readers: Moving Back to The Online Citizen
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Singapore introduces new scheme in April 2025 offering up to S$6,000 in financial support for retrenched workers
-
Politics2 weeks ago
Jamus Lim raises concerns over high cost of living and its impact on Singaporeans’ sense of belonging
-
Opinion2 weeks ago
Chee Hong Tat’s call for fiscal prudence rings hollow amid contradictory government spending
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Tan Suee Chieh: Sacrificing NTUC Income’s values for short-term gains undermines its foundation
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Netizens raise skepticism over Inclusiveness of Singapore’s new Jobseeker Support scheme
Can’t anyone see clearly while it’s true better to teach someone to fish than to give him fishes, isn’t the PAP WORST DAMN BASTARD, than ABROGATE from creating fishing ponds, from rearing fishes, making RESOURCES to enable fishing successes.
Fast and easiest way to makes more than $500 per day online. Start earning extra cash by working easy job online from home. Last month i made $17542 from this job and i am doing this job for only 2 hours a day online. Every person can get this and start making more cash simply by going to this website and follow instruction….
On This Website—>>> Www.NetPay1.Com
There is a reason why NTUC Enterprise says that they will use part of the money from the sale of Income to invest in skill training. This is where future money can be made from Singaporeans in the name of upskilling to benefit employer to pay their employee lesser in the name of providing employment in order to support the Gov / Union so call Singaporeans Core. They are taking Singaporeans for a ride of their life.
VTO. VTO.
There is no need to delve deep, just look at the simple trend of the Pappy declining vote share and number of Oppositions voted into Parliament. There is a direct linkage. The more votes and seats they lost, the more they are willing to loosen their grip for their own survival but package it in the name of helping Singaporeans. Does this happen during the 1G & 2G time? It merely started from 3G onwards. Shouldn’t the employer be responsible for their employee upskilling? If need be with Gov support. The scheme is basically a collusion between the tripartite partners,… Read more »
In bare truth this is ‘unemployment benefit’ but only for 6 mths till the election is over. The employment suituation on the ground has been pretty bad for the locals starting even before pre-Covid period. As with any job market scene around the world, many ppl are seeking jobs, the moment the Covid started to clear, hordes of FTs from all countries started to flood in for jobs. The worse were those within the Asian region and India. In the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, locals never experienced such job issues as there wasn’ t such a great competition of… Read more »
So many Singaporeans have died prematurely due to the government’s refusal to let them access monies of even as littleas $1000/- from their own CPF account when they have lost their jobs. The accolades of successfully getting this scheme implemented belongs to the Opposition. Let us not allow the ruling party to shamelessly hijack it.
Ask Harimau. Eat Fish if Chicken is Expensive. tsk tsk tsk
Be HONEST and Admit if it is true – is the PAP Administration a TRUE LEADER of Singapore?
Do the PAP has the ABILITY to PROGRESS SG AHEAD WITHOUT FOREIGN TRASH?
Do PAP Administration LOVE their Million Dollars Salaries more or SG more?
Do Singaporeans BELIEVE it’s time the PAP Administration VOTED OUT, and give others a CHANCE to try NEW THINGS?
All the politicians, celebs, exes …all wanna be slave master owning slaves equivalent to scapegoating the next generation. No?!?
Nobody wants to work for a Slave Master, much less an inhumane slave master who can accuse you of all sorts of shit just so they can be overlords over you.
Answer!
Are there strings attached?!?
No?!? Why can’t you set things right?!?
Ask about their subtle slavery system ( the whole left right and 3rd realms knows it, the overlords know it … ), do they practice that?!? Is it stated in the contract or make up as and when they go ?!?
PAP Administration coy, and cunning – using tax payers money to solve PAP created tax payers hardships.
Standard. Give PAP a big hug, a big clap.
The painted picture has always been Singaporeans enjoy good jobs and pay.
What does the focus on CDC voucher handouts and skillsfuture and this tell us about reality?
Are sporeans wise enough to discern?