Forum: Still looking for work, but outside the safety net

Take the example of two people still searching for work. One lost their job two months ago. The other has spent 18 months sending applications, attending interviews and retraining, while savings disappear and bills mount. The first may qualify for SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support. The second cannot meet its recent-employment requirement.

The scheme offers up to $6,000 over six months, but applicants must have worked at least six months in the preceding 12 months. This generally excludes those who have already been continuously unemployed for more than six months.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) says the rule targets recent unemployment shocks. Early intervention makes sense. But that explains who the scheme intends to help, not why someone still searching after 18 months should be excluded. 

An 18-month employment gap tells us how long someone has been without work. It does not tell us what they have been doing during that time. They may have spent those months applying for jobs, retraining and attending interviews. Ultimately, employers decide whom to hire.

In September 2025, MOM reported that more than 4,300 of over 7,200 applications for the scheme were rejected. Insufficient recent employment was among the top three reasons, but its individual rejection count was not provided.

In a parliamentary reply on Oct 7, MOM reported that, as of July 31, 2026, 66.5% of scheme beneficiaries had found new jobs within six months of joining the scheme. What happened to those excluded?

Forum writers have discussed training and career services. These matter, but coaching does not pay a mortgage or electricity bill. ComCare assesses household circumstances separately; room-rental income may count even when mortgage obligations remain. Who checks whether excluded job seekers receive adequate financial relief?

The labour movement has also proposed raising the scheme’s previous salary ceiling from $5,000 to $7,600. If one eligibility boundary merits review, why not examine the one that excludes people whose job searches have lasted a long time?

Could MOM publish the number rejected specifically under the recent-employment rule; whether their subsequent employment and access to financial assistance are tracked; and what the findings show? If no such tracking exists, how is the adequacy of alternative support being assessed? Would a documented hardship-based exception be considered?

People who keep trying do not stop needing food, housing or dignity because their unemployment has lasted too long.

Tan Teck We