Questions raised about including PRs in Singapore’s new Jobseeker Support Scheme

On Tuesday (27 August), Manpower Minister Dr Tan See Leng unveiled details of Singapore’s new SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme, which will provide up to S$6,000 in financial support over six months to individuals who have been retrenched.

A heated discussion emerged on social media. While some affirmed the need for support for those involuntarily retrenched and still seeking employment in a challenging job market, many Singaporeans expressed concerns about the adequacy of the support and the difficulty of meeting the eligibility criteria, particularly for those with families who may require more assistance.

Notably, some netizens argued against including Permanent Residents (PRs) in the scheme, contending that Singaporean citizens should receive priority for support, especially given the rising cost of living.

The scheme, which was first mentioned by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during the National Day Rally earlier this month, is scheduled to launch in April 2025 for Singaporean citizens and in the first quarter of 2026 for permanent residents.

To be eligible, applicants must have previously earned an average of up to S$5,000 per month and must 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.

The scheme’s payouts are tiered, starting at a maximum of S$1,500 in the first month and gradually decreasing over the following months. The total payout will not exceed the individual’s previous monthly salary, and payments will stop if the person finds new employment during the support period.

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.

For instance, a displaced mature worker earning S$5,000 a month could potentially receive up to S$21,000 over six months, combining training allowances and jobseeker support payouts.

Question over the Scheme’s Adequacy and Call for More Targeted Support

Observing comments on Singapore’s state media CNA and The Straits Times’ Facebook pages, several netizens expressed doubts about the scheme’s adequacy.

They advocated for allocating more funds to retrenched individuals, particularly those with families, arguing that the current amount may not be sufficient and could lead to potential abuse.

For example, one comment suggested that the support would be more effective if it took into account key factors such as household income and number of children.

It noted that a single person losing a S$5,000 income is not as severely impacted as a parent of three children losing a S$10,000 salary.

Government Urged to Prioritize Singaporeans Amid Rising Cost of Living

Some netizens argued that priority should be given to Singaporean citizens over PRs, suggesting that the salary benchmark should be increased to better support more Singaporeans. They highlighted that many ordinary citizens have been struggling with the rising cost of living amid ongoing economic challenges.

Others contended that there should be a disparity in the level of assistance provided to Singaporeans compared to PRs.

One comment noted that if PRs are included, it seems unfair to Singaporeans, who, unlike PRs, cannot return to their country of origin and reclaim their CPF savings if they choose to leave.

However, others suggested that PRs with local families might also need support, though they felt there should be distinctions between PRs with local children and those without.

Netizen Calls Out JS support for Resembling WP’s Unemployment Insurance Proposal

A comment pointed out that the scheme resembles unemployment insurance, a concept previously advocated by the Workers’ Party.

The netizen criticized the government for initially rejecting opposition proposals and accusing them of mismanaging reserves, only to later introduce a similar scheme themselves.

Advocate for More Inclusive Support and Extended Assistance

Some expressed concerns that the scheme does not adequately support individuals with families who are working in contract or temporary jobs.

The netizen pointed out that just because someone is in a contract position doesn’t mean they don’t want a permanent job; it’s often a matter of taking whatever work is available.

He emphasized the need for the scheme to be designed with a more nuanced understanding of people’s circumstances, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach based strictly on policy and terms and conditions.

A netizen suggested that the scheme should extend the unemployment support period beyond 12 months and lower the minimum employment period requirement. He argued that the current criteria might leave some people without the help they need, causing them to “fall through the cracks.”