Comments
Netizens raise skepticism over Inclusiveness of Singapore’s new Jobseeker Support scheme
Despite the government’s assurance, the online community is pessimistic about the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme. Concerns include the residential property value as an eligibility criterion, which may not accurately reflect an individual’s need for support. Additionally, middle-aged or senior retrenched workers who previously earned over S$5,000 are facing significant financial burdens while struggling to reenter the job market.
Despite Manpower Minister Dr Tan See Leng’s assurance that the new SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme will provide interim support for workers facing financial pressures due to involuntary unemployment, many Singaporeans have expressed concerns.
They worry that numerous retrenched individuals may struggle to qualify for the scheme, even though they are also in urgent need of support to sustain their families amid financial difficulties and rising cost of living.
Following Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s announcement of the new scheme during the National Day Rally on 18 August, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) unveiled more details on Tuesday (27 August).
The scheme is set to launch in April 2025 for Singaporean citizens and in the first quarter of 2026 for Permanent Residents.
To be eligible for the scheme, which provides up to S$6,000 in financial support over six months for retrenched individuals, applicants must have previously earned an average monthly salary of up to S$5,000 and reside in a property with an annual value of S$25,000 or less.
This condition includes all Housing Board flats and some lower-value private properties, focusing on lower- and middle-income workers who may face financial pressure after losing their jobs.
Applicants are required to participate in job search activities as part of the scheme.
These activities include submitting job applications, attending career coaching sessions, and enrolling in eligible training courses.
Notably, the JS scheme can be combined with other existing financial assistance programmes.
Eligible individuals may also receive additional support through schemes such as the ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher scheme.
Those participating in full-time, long-form training under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme or company attachments under WSG’s Mid-Career Pathways Programme may receive extra training allowances.
Pessimism Over Eligibility Criteria for Retrenched Workers
Following MOM’s announcement, comments on Singapore’s state media CNA and The Straits Times’ Facebook pages, reveal a range of concerns and criticisms regarding the new scheme.
Some expressed pessimism, noting that the scheme’s criteria might exclude numerous retrenched workers who do not fit the specific requirements, leaving them without support.
There were questions about the relevance of including residential property as a factor in the scheme, with critics arguing that it may not accurately reflect an individual’s need for support.
One comment highlighted that property is not easily liquidated to cover unemployment expenses and questioned why a sole breadwinner earning S$10,000 and supporting a family of five while living in a property valued over S$25,000 annually should be considered less vulnerable than a single person earning S$5,000 and living in a property valued under S$25,000.
A comment highlighted that the annual value cap of $25,000 equates to a monthly rental value of approximately $2,000 for the entire unit.
This restricts eligibility to smaller properties, such as three-room flats or less, excludes larger properties, such as those in prime areas or private housing, making it difficult for many residents in more expensive or larger homes to qualify.
Concerns Over Support for Middle-Aged and Senior Retrenched Workers
Some expressed frustration with the policy, noting that it does not benefit individuals who were earning more than $5,000.
They feel misled by the initial announcement, as the final details appear to contradict earlier promises, much like the previous Assurance Package.
One comment pointed out that many retrenched workers, especially those who are middle-aged or seniors, earned more than $5,000 and may be supporting their families, thus facing significant financial burdens.
Netizens questioned why there is a gap in support for these individuals and criticized the policy for failing to provide genuine assistance despite its initial promising appearance.
A netizen sarcastically suggested that the scheme appears to offer approval that may not be guaranteed or practical, with the perception that it is more about appearing effective on paper rather than providing real assistance.
Concerns were also raised about unethical employers who might encourage employees to resign voluntarily rather than face retrenchment, thus potentially disqualifying them from the scheme and adding to their unfair disadvantage.
Concerns About Lack of Inclusiveness
There were also calls to consider other affected groups, such as caregivers who resigned to care for elderly parents and individuals who left their jobs due to chronic illnesses.
Some comments suggested that the current scheme lacks inclusiveness and adequate support for these individuals, who face their own unique challenges.
Notice to Our Readers: Moving Back to The Online Citizen
Construction worker dies in Changi worksite accident; Driver arrested
Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents
Singapore’s Yip Pin Xiu secures historic three-peat at Paris Paralympics
Jamus Lim on Minister Chee Hong Tat’s remarks on fiscal policy: Calls for genuine debate over rhetoric
Philippine migrant group in SG hosts successful blood donation drive
China’s ex-convict jailed six years in Singapore for S$6.7M crypto scam
Chee Hong Tat’s call for fiscal prudence rings hollow amid contradictory government spending
UN food agency halts operations in Gaza after vehicle shot by Israeli forces
KL City Hall cancels National Day event following sinkhole incident
Swiss court convicts 2 executives for embezzling S$1.8 billion from 1MDB
We give them more. It will end up the rest paying more tax in the future. TBH, I don’t know why we need this policy to help others. Everyone should take care of themselves.
The real truth as to why you local fucktard subsequent gen born after 1970 are such now becos your kind are balless, largely useless strawberries that expect this PAP gov to save your ass. Well, as you now find out ,too late, everyone including the PAP would save themselves first. It is simple economics. Profits equal GDP increase – equal 1st world First status – equal Rich getting richer. Whoever has workers that are…. Faster-est, Cheaper-est, Better-est gets the job and Boss gets the profits.- by upturn the down turn tooth pick thief Lim definition. While you fucktard Sinkie are…..Slower-est,… Read more »
There is no free lunches in SG…LHL.
Even that $6k if u get it…One day or other IRAS will catch up with you…
To the ruling elites, locals mean SC and PR. Therefore PR who are retrenched are equally entitled to be helped. So much for being a Singaporean.
My concern here is for those mid and upper career citizens whom have lost their jobs, have actually achieved a certain career status and salary in their line of work. The criteria of $5000 salary cap will put them out of considerations but I don’t care because $6000 over 6 months is a joke. My question is will these mid and upper career citizens whom have lost their jobs be able to find jobs of similar status and salary as their old jobs after the skillsfutures training? If not, it is underemployment for them with a drop in job status… Read more »
So long as they hold onto this scepticism, see it out, see it for what it truly is and act~tually do something about it, … otherwise such sentiments, similar to outrage at GST increments, cost of living crisis, FT and utility increments, … will amount to nothing more than just a passing whimsical thought !!!
There is no point complaining we all know the NDR is a bull shit especially this job support nonsenses. Just look carefully at the criterion, it is meant to help the entry level workers whom actually might be easier to get a new job on their own. It is the middle and upper rank staff that have problems once been let go. These are the ones that most likely replaced by newer cheaper staff or foreigners and ended up driving Grab or we some lower end jobs for to the market condition created by pAp. They are the ones needing… Read more »
S2
For all we know, the recipients need to contribute CPF on that $6000 and pay COMPOUNDED interests on this Jobseeker “grant” for as long as it is not FOOLY paid back into their CPF.
They should remove the income of $5000 cap for eligibility. (Formerly) higher earners usually have even HIGHER financial commitments and so actually need an even BIGGER bailout support quantum. I mean, they are likely FORCED to buy BTO? or private as they are not eligible for “affordable” HDB pigeon holes right?
$6000 spread over that many months with first month getting $1500 and reducing downwards.
$1500 per mth CANNOT EVEN SUPPORT ONE NORMAL PERSON!
And the PAP thought $6000 can buy ther vote?
Actually can, since sinkie are known to be gian png so even with $6000 these unemployed Sinkie would take first…AND GO TO HELL LATER!😆😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣
it’s like giving unemployed residents carrots under a magnifying glass.
when the scheme starts, the magnifying glass is removed …
what is this different from illusion ???
The wordings “six thousand dollars” sounds good but on scrutinizing, the requirements to get is tough and only $1k a month for up to 6 months
Another Papeeee’s EXAHIBITNISM like $earning $1000 can own a flat CRAP,the way this is being charted like Papees’s aother schemes is to mke sure the least of people mahe it like th man behing the sugar cane squeezer – what reamins after 4 squeeze?
The PAP Administration IS PLAYING a VERY DIRTY numbers game. When question, they would certainly POINT OUT they have this for who, they have what for another, then they say, they have so many 1001 schemes. They start so many 101 initiatives. Last year they have A, this year they have B.
At the end, PAP point fingers, sheeps are choosy.
THIS IS HOW THEY PUSH every blames towards sheeps.
Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh has used his May Day message to reiterate his party’s call for insurance for retrenched workers to better protect and more strongly safeguard workers’ interests. In a statement on April 30, he highlighted that companies big and small are faced with high business operating costs. Singaporean workers “may have become pessimistic even with full employment” against the backdrop of companies’ cost-cutting measures that have dominated headlines in 2024, added Mr Singh, who is the Leader of the Opposition. I prefer WP’s idea . Not on taxpayer’s money . I prefer WP’s minimum wage Not… Read more »