Update on Tripartite Discussions on Advance Mandatory Retrenchment Notification

At present, firms with 10 or more employees are required to submit a mandatory retrenchment notification (MRN) to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) within five working days of notifying employees of their retrenchment.

Not all jurisdictions require employers to notify their governments when conducting retrenchments. And among those countries that do, practices vary. Some countries, like Singapore, adopt a regime where notification to the Government is made within a specified period after the employees are informed. In many other countries, employers must notify the Government a fixed number of days before the employee's last working day. So, the starting point is different.

Nevertheless, we have been able to achieve comparable outcomes. That is because employers here notify the Government shortly after informing their employees, and employees are typically informed well in advance of their last working day. In 2025, 77% of MRNs were submitted at least seven days ahead of the employee's last working day and 73% of MRNs were submitted at least two weeks ahead.

As part of an ongoing review of the Employment Act, tripartite partners are studying how to encourage earlier notification by employers – both to affected employees and to the Government. In particular, we would like to see notification to the Government happening before or by the employee's last working day as far as possible. Because this will enable timely employment facilitation support and outplacement services for the affected employees. We will provide an update on the tripartite discussions in due course.

I thank the Minister for sharing the response to the Parliamentary Question by the fellow Member of the House. I was wondering, and I think I have brought this up before on previous occasions, whether we can consider stricter penalties against those who do not comply, with this requirement. Because as the Minister shared earlier, there are more than 20% of companies that do not comply with the MRN requirement. So, whether MOM will consider tougher, more stringent measures, as a form of deterrence to would-be offenders.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Currently, the penalty for non-compliance is an administrative penalty of $1,000 for the first contravention and $2,000 for subsequent contraventions. The Member would be happy to note that the majority – and I want to emphasise, the majority – of employers comply with the MRN requirement. In 2025, 80% of the MRNs were submitted within the five-working-day deadline. This is an improvement from the 70% in 2024.

Late submissions were often due to administrative oversight. Companies who submit MRNs late are issued with caution letters. Most of these companies have been compliant thereafter. For the recalcitrant employers, we will impose administrative penalties.

Currently, the MRN compliance rate has been high. We do not see a need to raise the penalties at this point in time. I want to emphasise, at this point in time. Nevertheless, we will review our enforcement approach and our penalties regularly. And we will work closely with our tripartite partners, and we will assess if there is a need to review and to raise the penalties.

I understand the intent behind the early notification, to better support displaced workers. I have two clarifications, if I may.

Based on past data, most workers take a few months to secure the next job. In that context, may I ask whether there is evidence that advancing notification by a short period materially improves re-employment outcomes beyond providing just earlier visibility?

At the same time, many employers have actually shared that restructuring decisions are often iterative and only finalised when all options to preserve jobs have been exhausted. Given these trade-offs, could the Minister elaborate on whether tripartite discussions are considering an alternative approach, one that focuses less on mandating earlier notification, but more on strengthening immediate post-notification support, such as rapid job matching, industry redeployment and place-and-train mechanism, which I believe may have more direct impact on worker outcomes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not have the exact data that the Member has requested. But we can go back, assess and check, and trawl through our available data to see whether we have such data.

What we have is that for the last three years ending 2024 – that means 2022, 2023 and 2024 – seven in 10 retrenched workers, who have received career coaching from both Workforce Singapore and/or the Employment and Employability Institute's (e2i's) career coaches, were actually placed within six months. The median time to placement averaged around three months.

Today, the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation reaches out to all retrenched locals with available contact details to provide them with employment facilitation support. We will continue with our efforts to support all retrenched locals.

To the Member's second point, we recognise that if we require all companies to notify the Government in advance, in some cases, that requirement could inadvertently affect our workers adversely; not to the same desired impact that we want to to help our workers with. From many accounts, many discussions that we have had with employers, during retrenchments, which is often a painful process, many companies do try to preserve as many jobs as possible through backend negotiations. So, we are conscious and we are mindful of that potential impact if we want to mandate advance notification. Because this may – and I want to emphasise that this may – push companies to finalise the retrenchments faster and therefore, discourage such backend negotiations. Our tripartite partners are indeed mindful of such concerns and they will continue to take a very careful and balanced approach in the discussions. Such discussions are still ongoing because of the review of the Employment Act.

I hope that gives you the reassurance that this series of discussions, even as we are now debating it, answering this Parliamentary Question in the House, at the backend, these negotiations and discussions are ongoing.