Forum: Tweak SkillsFuture scheme to avoid overconsumption and overpaying of training providers

I attended a two-day generative artificial intelligence (AI) course in December to use my expiring SkillsFuture credits.

The course fee before subsidy was more than $1,000, but I paid nothing after the 70 per cent government subsidy and using the SkillsFuture credits.

While I applaud the objective of the SkillsFuture Credit scheme and appreciate the government subsidy provided for training, I believe the scheme needs to be tweaked.

I observed that the course was basic and stretched over two days when a shorter programme would have sufficed. The course was overvalued, and I would not have paid the $300 after-subsidy fee. 

The test was also laughable, consisting of some questions, with the answers already provided by the instructor, and a case study which was a cut-and-paste from an AI tool.

I believe the test was for the purpose of determining learning outcomes tied to the subsidy, but unfortunately, I don’t believe this was achieved.

I see some similarities between the Integrated Shield Plan and the SkillsFuture scheme. In both cases, there is overconsumption when consumers don’t pay and, ultimately, it leads to overcharging by the service providers. By my estimate, the service provider would have made 70 to 80 per cent gross margins after factoring in lecturer and venue costs. 

I believe there should be some non-waivable co-payment amount to be paid by the learner. This would indirectly keep the training fees in check, the same way co-payment keeps healthcare costs in check.

The co-payment amount should be at least 15 to 20 per cent to be meaningful and will force consumers to think carefully whether they will benefit from the course, rather than attend a course for the sake of using their SkillsFuture credits.

Without meaningful co-payment, it will essentially be a transfer of supernormal profits paid by taxpayers to the service providers.

James Tan