Four training providers warned or penalised by SkillsFuture Singapore for marketing malpractices

The agency is currently investigating feedback on such third-party agents offering rewards or cashback to learners.

SSG said it has seen more feedback on seniors being approached and persuaded to enrol in courses for which they do not meet the requirements.

Some are persuaded to take English-medium courses despite lacking proficiency in the language.

National Trades Union Congress assistant secretary-general Patrick Tay said job seekers or individuals under financial stress might also be more easily swayed by promises of quick job placements or incentives.

Those who have yet to use their expiring SkillsFuture top-up may also feel a sense of urgency to use their credits, which can make them more susceptible to hard-sell approaches, he added.

The one-off $500 SkillsFuture Credit top-up introduced in 2020 will expire at the end of 2025.

Other learners also report being led by incorrect course advisories to sign up for courses that did not meet their learning needs and goals.

One person who was lured by false advertising to a SkillsFuture course in 2025 is Rose (not her real name), who spoke to ST on condition of anonymity.

Rose, a stay-home mum in her 40s, thought she had signed up with her SkillsFuture credits to learn TikTok marketing skills in a course run by an academy. But the three-day course, which cost around $900 before subsidies, turned out to be a recruitment exercise for a company’s multi-level marketing for a skincare and travel brand.

She heard about the course through TikTok Live, where the company owners promoted it, claiming they had made money through the platform to entice people to sign up to learn to do the same.

SSG’s marketing guidelines, published in August, state that training providers should refrain from making exaggerated claims that could potentially mislead the public to sign up for courses out of misguided belief.

The guidelines cite the case of a fictitious training company, Ingenious, which offered e-commerce courses focusing on digital marketing and online store management.

Ingenious had marketed these courses as a “profitable side business”, promising “guaranteed success in e-commerce” and urging individuals to sign up to “become a millionaire influencer”.

SSG said that while there has not been an increase in suspected fraud or abuse of its grants, it is investigating feedback on third-party agents offering rewards or cashback to learners to incentivise sign-ups.

Training providers must not provide gifts, vouchers or any monetary incentives for referrals or enrolments.

SSG holds training providers accountable for how their courses are marketed, and will take actions if its terms and guidelines are breached.

Separately, the agency also announced stricter measures to raise the quality of SkillsFuture-funded courses, such as requiring trainers to undergo regular training and suspending courses with the lowest quality ratings by participants.

The Training Partners Gateway, a portal for training providers, lists 10 providers whose SSG contracts were terminated in 2025 for failing to undergo a quality assessment or achieve the minimum required grade.

Nine providers had their contracts terminated in 2024.

A training provider whose contract with SSG is terminated may reapply after 12 months.

Mr Ives Tay, a specialist adult educator who helps training providers with course accreditation and quality assessment, said aggressive marketing practices have existed for years, with some providers finding ways to game the subsidy system to boost profits.

“Every time new credits are announced, these actors re-emerge,” he said.

Mr Tay said SSG’s ban on third-party promoters is a “necessary and overdue” measure, but noted that it can be easily circumvented by reclassifying external agents as “in-house” staff.

He said the next phase of SkillsFuture should go beyond access to training to focus on accountability for outcomes, with subsidies tied more closely to verified learning impact and job relevance.

Many assessments now are superficial, Mr Tay said, mainly to secure funding rather than to show mastery of skills taught.

“Learners almost never fail, because if they do, the provider risks losing funding. That creates a perverse incentive to pass everyone,” he added.

Mr Tay said SSG can take a cue from institutes of higher learning, where programme outcomes are publicly tracked through graduate employability and skills application metrics.

“CET (Continuing Education and Training) should be held to the same level of accountability – after all, both are publicly funded and aimed at producing work-ready talent,” he said.

“If funding depends on verified capability instead of guaranteed passes, quality becomes the provider’s business model – not an afterthought.”

Ms Serene Tay, president of SAPTCO Singapore, an association for learning service providers, called for more support.

She suggested giving training providers more opportunities, such as roadshows or virtual events, to showcase their courses.

Providers could directly handle queries and enrolments, while being given some leeway to engage third-party firms to help attract and engage potential learners, she added.

“While the ban will be challenging, it’s an opportunity for the SkillsFuture training industry to grow stronger, more ethical, and more focused on what matters most: delivering high-quality upskilling that empowers Singapore’s workforce,” Ms Tay said.

Correction note: This story has been corrected to reflect that Ingenious is a fictitious company name.