PAP's Jobseeker Support Scheme: A tactical shift rooted in political survival, not genuine care

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.