Netizens raise skepticism over Inclusiveness of Singapore’s new Jobseeker Support scheme

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.