In a recent commentary on Instagram, Jamus Lim compared the Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS) to unemployment insurance, framing it as People’s Action Party’s (PAP) variation of the Workers’ Party’s (WP) redundancy insurance proposal first released in 2006.
Lim argues that the JSS, despite being branded differently, is essentially unemployment insurance with job-seeking preconditions. However, this comparison is a classic case of conflating two distinct concepts.
Lim’s argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scheme’s purpose.
The JSS is not designed to provide a safety net for the unemployed, but rather to equip jobseekers with the skills they need to re-enter the workforce. It’s a proactive approach that empowers individuals, rather than encouraging dependency.
Lim also champions the Workers’ Party’s redundancy insurance plan as a more balanced approach, emphasising shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government.
He downplays concerns about dependency as exaggerated, but evidence from a 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research study suggests otherwise.
The study found that extended unemployment benefits often reduce job search intensity and increase unemployment duration.
The JSS mitigates this risk by focusing on skills upgrading, positioning jobseekers to be more competitive in the labor market rather than relying on prolonged financial support.
The real profligacy – misallocation of resources
Lim critiques the JSS as a drain on state resources and suggests that the Workers’ Party’s unemployment insurance would be more fiscally responsible. Yet, this argument ignores the potential long-term costs of persistent unemployment.
By investing in skills development, the JSS reduces the duration of unemployment and, in doing so, alleviates the strain on state resources over time.
The JSS is a forward-looking initiative designed to shorten unemployment spells by providing jobseekers with the tools they need to get back on their feet, reducing the risk of prolonged dependence on government assistance.
Conclusion
In his critique of the JSS, Lim misses the mark.
His comparison of the scheme to unemployment insurance reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose.
His dismissal of dependency concerns ignores empirical evidence, and his criticism of the scheme’s funding overlooks the potential cost savings of reducing long-term unemployment.
At its core, the JSS provides Singaporeans with the resources and skills necessary to thrive in a rapidly changing job market.
It’s not about political survival, as Lim suggests, but about fostering resilience and adaptability.
Isn’t that a more meaningful approach to supporting workers?
