Debated in Parliament on 8 Jan 2025.
Resumption of Debate on Question [7 January 2025], "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." – [Minister for Manpower].
Question again proposed.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) Committee.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this Workplace Fairness Bill today. It is a significant milestone for a cause that is close to my heart. Not only did I address this issue of fair employment practices in my maiden speech in Parliament nine years ago, I have raised two related Adjournment Motions on the topic.
This Bill should be celebrated because, like the United Kingdom (UK), the Equality Act 2010, which I referenced in my 2021 Adjournment Motion speech on the "Strengthening the Singapore Core", this Bill centralises anti-discrimination laws in a single Act and will make the law easier to understand while strengthening protection in some situations.
While this Bill will generally prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, such as sex, caregiving responsibilities, disability and mental health conditions, we must be clear that it prescribes minimum standards and not exhaustive benchmarks. We should and must go beyond these minimum standards in order to promote a diverse workforce that is fairly treated.
For one, I noted that the current prescribed list of protected characteristics account for more than 95% of the discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). For the other roughly 5% of the complaint cases, may I ask: what is the employee characteristic that is allegedly discriminated against, which has not been covered by the proposed Bill?
In our unique system emphasising tripartism and harmonious labour relations, I am sure many would agree that employers should, nevertheless, pay careful attention to these potential fault lines even if they are not covered by the anti-discrimination laws in this Bill.
Second, the Bill sets a relatively low bar of merely preventing discrimination, which is defined as making an employment decision which adversely affects an individual. This is in contrast to equality legislation in the UK and Australia, which mandates an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities (PwDs). If a business chooses to move its office premises from a wheelchair-accessible building to the upper floors of a shophouse without lift access, would it have discriminated against its wheelchair-bound employee under the proposed Bill? Under the UK regime, the employer would quite certainly be obliged to consider if that employee's job function can be performed remotely from outside the office, under its legal duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Mr Speaker, the proposed Bill certainly answers the calls from myself and other Members of Parliament over the years to give more teeth to TAFEP. Employers who are found to discriminate on the basis of one or more protected characteristics can be subject to administrative penalties at the first instance. May I ask, also, would the administrative penalty for each type of contravention described in clause 31 be a standard $5,000 and $10,000 for a second or subsequent occasion, or would it be differentiated? If the latter, how would they be differentiated and structured?
However, the practical bite of the anti-discrimination laws will depend largely how they are enforced and investigated. From the numerous provisions to protect complainants from retaliation, breach of professional conduct rules or ethics as well as civil and criminal liability, am I correct to understand that the authorities will generally rely on aggrieved employees to file a claim and pursue it through the prescribed process?
If so, I hope the Commissioner for Workplace Fairness can be granted meaningful powers to conduct investigations and obtain documents on its own initiative, even outside the formal workplace discrimination claim, in the second piece of legislation that is expected to cover the procedural rights and processes.
As I mentioned in my maiden speech in Parliament back in 2016, what is also key is to debunk any perception that the available opportunities are unequal and there is discrimination. Yet there is bound to be some black sheep, even as many employers are committed to fair employment practices even without the need for legislation. Would the Ministry be open to systematically publishing enforcement decisions, like what is done by the Personal Data Protection Commission? This enables the public to see that employers have been taken to task, what actions they have been penalised for. It can also serve to guide the behaviour of other employers going forward. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Proof of discrimination. If we want these anti-discrimination laws to have practical application for aggrieved employees, we ought to pay particular attention to the burden and standard of proof required to establish discrimination. I noted, in my 2018 speech, that proving discrimination is "challenging". It is often difficult for employees to show that an adverse decision made against them, is due protected characteristics that they have, because any documentary records are usually kept by the employer organisation and such organisations will likely be advised by in-house counsel or external lawyers.
Is this a justifiable case for us to reverse the burden of proof, through a presumption that the adverse decision is linked to the employee's protected characteristic, unless the employer can establish otherwise? Frivolous claims can be deterred by granting authorities the power to summarily strike out manifestly unmeritorious claims and requiring frivolous claimants to pay the costs of their dismissed action, in line with a tripartite committee's recommendation accepted by the Government.
Undoubtedly, the employer bears the burden of proving that a protected characteristic is a genuine job requirement, if it wishes to rely on the "genuine business need" exception. The provision states that a protected characteristic is a genuine job requirement if, among other things, the job "cannot be reasonably performed" by an individual, unless they possess or lack the protected characteristic.
Consider the example of a hearing impaired individual and an audio production manager role - would the threshold be regarded as an impossibility?
What about an individual applying for a sales representative role focused on the Indonesian market, for instance, who does not read or speak Bahasa Indonesia but is willing to learn it?
May I enquire about the proportion of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination as a percentage of total discrimination cases over the past 20 years, and whether there is an increasing trend? As a Member of Parliament in Toa Payoh East, I have encountered residents providing feedback about experiencing or perceiving discrimination at work or during job applications due to their race, wearing a tudung or needing to attend Friday prayers. In such cases, I typically refer them to TAFEP or advise them to contact TAFEP directly. These are highly sensitive and important issues for the Malay/Muslim community. Our handling of such issues is critical in maintaining multiracial and multi-religious harmony in Singapore.
In my capacity as a TAFEP committee member, I have observed how TAFEP manages such cases. It often comes down to open and sensitive communication between employers and employees, applicable not only to Malay/Muslim issues but also to other situations where employees and employers have differing needs and expectations.
If both parties cannot reach a resolution, the employee can approach TAFEP. TAFEP will hear them out and help both parties better understand each other's perspectives, working towards a solution that meets both the employee's needs and the employer's business requirements. For instance, I understand there was a case where an interviewer asked a jobseeker if she was willing to remove her tudung for work. TAFEP intervened in this case, and the employer clarified that it had no such requirement. It was prepared to offer the role to the jobseeker and allow her to wear the tudung at work. However, the jobseeker had already found another job opportunity by then. So TAFEP separately identified gaps in the employer's hiring processes and worked with the employer to improve them. This includes training interviewers to ask only job-related questions.
These issues need to be managed even beyond the bill itself. Regarding the Bill, I would like to understand the process if I am an affected employee. Is the burden of proof on the employee? Would we need to wear a body camera, for example, to provide evidence? I hope this legislation will simplify the process for legitimately affected employees to easily raise cases and will have adequate recourse and won't be deterred from coming forward.
So, it is important to clarify when a job "cannot be reasonably performed", because job descriptions can sometimes be cleverly drafted to achieve a particular objective. During my Meet-the-People sessions over the years, I have encountered many individuals who felt that the jobs they were applying for, contained such bespoke or complicated prerequisites which suggested that the employer had already considered reserving the job for a particular foreign worker. What is the trend of such complaints over the past five years since COVID-19 struck? Could the Ministry of Manpower share some examples of how it “saw through” such patronising attempts to first advertise the job to locals?
(In English): Mr Speaker, since I am on the topic of exceptions, I am glad to see that express exceptions have been created for the two areas which I had focused on in my 2019 Adjournment Motion on tackling workplace and job discrimination.
First, on the problem of age discrimination, clause 21 of the Bill provides that it will not be discrimination for an employer to prefer workers older than a prescribed age. Based on the final set of recommendations by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, the prescribed age would appear to be 55 years old. What is the unemployment rate for persons that are 55 years old and above, compared to the unemployment rate for adults under that age? Why is this age not pegged to our minimum retirement and re-employment ages, which have been adjusted upwards over the years?
More fundamentally, is it not too blunt to prescribe a single age threshold to encourage the employment of older workers? In particular industries, a 55-year-old might be deemed old and ordinarily less preferable than a younger worker. In other industries however, a 55-year-old might still be in his or her prime and the exception should really apply to encourage the employment of even older workers.
Second, on efforts to localise jobs, clause 22 of the Bill provides that it is not discrimination for an employer to favour a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident (PR). But what incentives are there for employers to do so and how do we measure the success of such each incentive in promoting a Singaporean Core?
In the more than 10 years that the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) has been in force, how have we measured the success of the FCF in achieving its objectives? What are the gaps that have been detected in the operation of FCF and how does the present workplace fairness reforms seek to fix that?
As a small population, we will require foreign manpower to augment and complement the local workforce, but not to substitute it. One area that we can focus on more strongly is how we encourage and track the transfer of capabilities from foreign talent to local workers. Having run programmes like the Capability Transfer Programme, can the Ministry shed some light on how have we gone about assessing the success of onshoring capabilities?
One final area that will be key in determining the success of this Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) is whether there is adequate avenue for recourse and relief for aggrieved employees. Under the proposed Bill, an employer who breaches the anti-discrimination provisions may be liable to pay an administrative penalty to the Consolidated Fund and be issued directions to end, remedy or mitigate the contravention. Can an employer be directed to pay compensation to victimised employees?
Compensation for victimised employees is already available for successful wrongful dismissal cases raised with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). There is no reason, in principle, why it should not be extended to other forms of discriminatory employment decisions whether at the pre-employment or employment stages. In fact, compensation may sometimes be the only effective relief if the relationship between the employer and the employee has broken down to such an extent that the employee cannot reasonably be expected to work for that employer again.
I am conscious that the detailed procedure for employees to make private claims will be addressed in a separate Bill to be tabled later in 2025. But I would flag that the procedure should be as simplified as possible so that an aggrieved employee can navigate it without having to engage a lawyer. As I had mentioned in this House back in 2018, I have heard from employees who have given up on legal action against employers because it is too expensive and troublesome.
Before I end, Mr Speaker, being on the TAFEP Committee, I would like to find out from MOM, given the extensive coverage on workplace fairness that will be ongoing if this Bill is passed, may I ask the Minister the extent of support for related agencies, especially TAFEP, in terms of manpower and other resources going forward, if this Bill is passed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I fully support the Bill as a significant milestone to build a diverse and dynamic workforce that is treated fairly and equitably. But this Bill must be seen as a building block, rather than an end in itself. We must continue to bear the principles underlying the Bill and go above and beyond the minimum legal obligations imposed, as our unique tripartite system is used to doing.
Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), has been speaking up on workplace discrimination issues faced by Singaporeans since our founding in 2019. My maiden speech in this 14th Parliament on 1 September 2020 focused on workplace discrimination of Singaporeans vis-a-vis foreign talent.
Job security has been a hot issue since the General Election (GE) in 2011. Prior to that election, the Government gave out very large numbers of PRs, peaking at almost 80,000 new PRs in 2008 before reducing to the 30,000 a year today. There was widespread anger when the Government released the population White Paper in 2013, partly because many Singaporeans felt that the influx of new migrants had been a threat to their jobs and more migrants would worsen this trend. Until today, many still feel the same way.
Workplace discrimination and anxieties over foreign workers, again, became a top concern during GE 2020, amid job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The situation at that time was not good, with some 1,200 companies put on the watchlist of the FCF for potentially discriminatory hiring practices. A study by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) also showed that workplace discrimination is widespread, with about one in two Singaporeans facing such discrimination between 2017 and 2022. A survey by MOM in 2020 found that race, age and nationality were the top three grounds of discrimination.
In his National Day Message in 2021, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted that the Government has to adjust its policies to manage the quality, numbers and concentration of Work Pass holders. He later announced, at the National Day Rally, that the Fair Employment Guidelines would be enshrined into law. It has been more than three years since then. The Workplace Fairness Bill we are debating today is long awaited. It begs the question as to why the Government has taken so long to table this Bill when it should be the Government's top concern to ensure that Singaporeans have fair access to employment opportunities.
PSP welcomes this Workplace Fairness Bill, which protects workers from discrimination on ground of 11 clearly designated, protected characteristics. However, we have some concerns and reservations.
Firstly, whether this new law will be sufficient to protect Singaporeans from discriminatory practices at the workplace. This should be the paramount goal of this Bill. Secondly, will the exemptions granted in the new law reduce its effectiveness? And lastly, what are the plans to extend the coverage of the Bill to platform workers and expand the list of protected characteristics in future?
Firstly, on the protection of Singaporean workers. Over the years, we have heard many complaints on the ground from Singaporeans who feel aggrieved that foreigners have been preferred for jobs. PSP notes that nationality is one of the characteristics protected under clause 9 of the proposed Bill; and clause 22 says that it is not discrimination for an employer to make an employment decision that adversely affects an individual if that individual is neither a Singapore Citizen nor a PR of Singapore. This is a clear indication that the Bill provides for preference to Singaporeans and PRs.
However, how did we reach a point where we need to explicitly state that preference for Singaporean workers are not considered discrimination? When and how did Singaporeans lose their first right to jobs in their own country? Why can the Bill not stipulate directly that all else being equal, Singaporeans should have the first right over a foreigner to any job in Singapore? The Government owes an answer to Singaporeans, especially those who have been displaced and underemployed in the last two decades.
And like the Minister has said, this Bill is not a panacea. It has to be backed up by other policies that remove the causes or incentives for discrimination. For example, one example is to ensure that there is no wage disparity between a Singaporean and a foreign worker. We can manage the level of wages in the economy to maintain our competitiveness, but we should never allow a wage disparity to exist that disadvantages the Singaporean workers.
As a result, we have urged the Government on many occasions to introduce a Central Provident Fund (CPF) equalisation levy of $1,200 per month on Employment Pass (EP) holders. That is the only way to stop employers from favouring cheaper foreign workers over Singaporean workers. PSP welcomes quality foreign workers who have skillsets that are not readily available in Singapore to be recruited to enrich and complement our workforce, but not cheaper foreign workers who only displaces our more expensive Singaporean workers.
Similarly, while age is stipulated as a protected characteristic in the Bill, this may not be enough to eliminate the temptation for employers to substitute older and more expensive Singaporean workers with cheaper foreign workers to boost the bottom line. We have to back up the Bill with additional measures to strengthen protection of our older workers. These measures may take the form of job support subsidies for older workers, which can be funded by the foreign levies collected.
Next, I will discuss how the exemptions granted may reduce the effectiveness of the new law. Under clause 4(1) of the Bill, the Act will not apply to businesses with fewer than 25 workers. This same exemption is already used in the used in the Complementary Assessment Framework (COMPASS) system.
During the Committee of Supply in 2023, I highlighted that this exemption could provide a potential loophole that will allow larger companies to set up subsidiaries that can discriminate based on nationality, for example, by employing one local and 24 foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).
Alternatively, foreigners could partner locals to set up small companies to supply manpower to our bigger companies, hence depriving Singaporeans of good jobs in the bigger companies. PSP understands the need to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in this transition, but we hope the Minister can assure us that this exemption will be strictly enforced and not abused as a conduit to increase the supply of cheaper foreign manpower.
We have the same concerns about exempting contracts for service under clause 4(3) of the Bill. This exemption means that a service buyer could include discriminatory provisions in his bid document or contract with the service provider. Hence, clauses 4(1) and 4(3) could potentially be used together by a big company to contract SMEs with less than 25 persons to supply it with Work Pass holders and even from one single nationality. Hence, we hope MOM will diligently monitor these exemptions and ensure that they are not abused.
Finally, I would like to address how the coverage of this Bill can be expanded. Under clause 3 of the Bill, the law will exclude platform workers. During the debate on the Platform Workers' Bill last September, I and other Members, including the Leader of the Opposition and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, have spoken about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions. This concern is especially pertinent in the short-term until we reach a point where the majority of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF.
Platform workers may now enjoy more legal protections under the Platform Workers Act, but they will not have access to the remedies available to employees under the Workplace Fairness Bill if they experience discriminatory treatment while working on the platforms. PSP calls on the Government to study whether we can similarly cover platform workers under the new law within the next two years.
Additionally, we find it hard to understand the intention of clause 17(3) of the Bill. Can the Minister explain whether this clause 17(3) allows an employer to dismiss a worker A on the ground of the race or religion of A's husband? The Leader of the Opposition has also raised this yesterday and I look forward to a clearer explanation from the Minister later.
The Minister has said that this Bill will be constantly reviewed, but we hope that the Government will commit, today, to periodically reviewing the Bill, after it is passed, every two years to ensure that the protected characteristics are kept up-to-date and keep up with any new types of discrimination that may become prevalent.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I have said in my maiden speech in 2020 that a job is the foundation of human dignity. Work is fundamental in providing a person with meaning in life. That is why I have spoken out repeatedly about job security and workplace fairness.
The Government's policies should communicate to all employers in no uncertain terms that all else being equal, Singaporeans will have the first right to a job. We need additional policies to oblige employers to justify why a foreigner is favoured over a Singaporean when both have the same skills to do the same job.
For example, in Australia, employers can sponsor foreign workers only if they can demonstrate that they cannot find an Australian citizen or permanent resident with the skills and experience needed for the job. Similarly, in Canada, most employers need to conduct a labour market impact assessment to determine that there is a need for a temporary foreign worker and that no Canandian citizens or permanent residents are available, before they can hire a temporary foreign worker.
This Bill is a landmarked piece of legislation for Singapore. I acknowledge the hard work put in by the Minister and his Ministry. But its real worth is in substantially improving the job prospects of Singaporeans in general and protecting more vulnerable workers from workplace discrimination. If that is done, it will be a big step towards realising a harmonious and cohesive society.
I have been actively engaging Singaporeans, especially in the West of Singapore for the past four years as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. A consistent message has emerged from these engagements. It is increasingly difficult for Singaporeans to find a job that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. It appears that rising under-employment amongst Singaporeans is a growing menace to us as a nation.
The Government needs to do a lot more and not rest on its laurels by just focusing on the low unemployment numbers. The low unemployment numbers may be camouflaging serious underemployment. A whole-of-Government approach is needed to reset our education, training, manpower and immigration policies so that Singaporeans can have stable that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. We must prevent under-employment from taking root in Singapore, or the Singapore we know today may become extinct in the near future. We must have a Parliament that heeds this message and a Government that implements effective manpower policies for Singapore.
Sir, notwithstanding the concerns and reservations that I have expressed today, PSP supports the Bill. For country, for people.
Mr Fahmi Aliman.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to speak on an issue that cuts to the very heart of our nation's values – workplace fairness.
The Workplace Fairness Bill marks a significant step towards equality and inclusivity in our workforce. For more than a decade, various advocates within the Labour Movement, including fellow Labour Member, our brother, Mr Patrick Tay, have called for more to be done to level the playing field for our workers.
More recently in 2021, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) together with the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), called for more legislative measures to better protect our PMEs against age and nationality discrimination. We are glad that our calls for stronger protections have been heeded.
While necessary, legislation cannot be the only tool to tackle discrimination, especially when it concerns issues on race and religion. We must recognise that these are sensitive issues that can impact our racial and religious harmony.
Today, I will speak on three areas. First, I will highlight the often-invisible cost of racial and religious discrimination to workers. Second, I will speak on what more must be done to foster safer workplace cultures where sensitive issues involving race, language and religion are respectfully navigated. Lastly, I will share my views on some issues raised by the Malay/Muslim community that have been covered by other Members in this debate.
In 2020, NTUC's LabourBeat reported on Michael, a business consultant in his 40s who faced humiliation and mistreatment at work due to his ethnicity. With support from NTUC's U PME Centre, he was able to rebuild his confidence, secure a new job aligned with his career goals and even enjoy a 25% pay increase. This story is a testament to the power of targeted support, but it also highlights that racial discrimination is still present in our workplaces.
Data underscores this reality. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices 2023 report, race discrimination was the second most common form of workplace discrimination, affecting 1.7% of workers. Among job seekers, race discrimination ranked among the top three forms of bias since 2021, impacting 5.1% of individuals in 2023.
A 2021 joint study by CNA and the Institute of Policy Studies on race relations found that only 32.3% of respondents who experienced racial discrimination at work would file a report. This low reporting rate indicates that many workers feel disempowered or fear repercussions for speaking out.
Mr Speaker, Sir, behind these statistics lie real struggles faced by workers. The workplace is a highly competitive environment where individuals spend a significant portion of their lives. Many travel far from home to work here, contributing to Singapore's economic success. It is only fair that their contributions are judged on merit, free from prejudice or unconscious bias.
However, the complexities of racial and religious issues often result in genuine grievances being overlooked and dismissed. Victims may be accused of using their race or religion as an excuse for poor performance, causing them to question their self-worth. This silent killer, workplace discrimination, can infect and weaken the very fabric of our society. Left unaddressed, it threatens not only individual well-being but also the trust and respect that underpin our social defence, a critical pillar of our Total Defence strategy. I therefore stand in support of the Bill which strengthens protection against discrimination based on race and religion. It sends a signal that our racial and religious harmony must be safeguarded with the utmost care. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] While the Bill is a commendable milestone, it is not sufficient on its own. What more should be done to foster safer workplace cultures, where employers and employees respectfully navigate sensitive issues involving race, language and religion?
We must consider our changing workforce demographics, and the evolving complexities of workplace challenges. That is why, beyond the WFL, we will require a more holistic approach to foster safer workplace cultures upstream in order to stamp out prejudices and biases that can lead to disharmonious workplaces, even if they may not cross the legislative threshold to constitute an offence.
Here are my recommendations to foster safer workplace cultures.
First, the Government should dedicate more resources to equip employers and HR practitioners to manage complex workplace disputes. Training programmes should be enhanced to ensure practical ways in navigating differing perspectives on discrimination.
Second, ongoing education for employees and employers is essential to prevent unconscious bias and discrimination from taking root. This includes fostering and engaging in dialogue that cultivate a culture of respect and understanding.
Third, workers must feel safe to voice their concerns without fear of retaliation. Strengthening mediation processes and offering confidential reporting mechanisms can help address grievances before they escalate.
Yesterday, Mr Faisal Manap raised two issues affecting our Muslim workers: namely, flexibility to participate in Friday prayers and flexibility to don the hijab while working.
Our workplaces are an important common space for workers from all walks of life to earn a living. This diversity is a complex issue as different workers may choose to express their beliefs, practices and convictions differently. Our union leaders understand the difficulties in balancing workers’ different needs for flexibility and accommodations, and work hard to support this diversity.
We are glad that Mr Faisal Manap is appreciative of our unions’ efforts and highlighted that NTUC’s leaders had called for more understanding amongst employers to try to accommodate diverse needs where possible.
However, we are concerned about the approach suggested to resolve these sensitive issues through discrimination claims under the legislation. A claims-based approach may not be adequate to grapple with the sensitivities of the issues involved, beyond the individuals affected. Resolving issues through discrimination claims under the legislation will not lead to the goal of achieving harmonious, diverse and productive workplaces to power Singapore’s economy.
A better way is to handle the issue collectively and sensitively, involving tripartite partners in close dialogue. This is not the first time that such issues have been surfaced and resolved harmoniously. From 2021, Muslim staff working in the public healthcare sector including nurses were allowed to wear a tudung or headscarf at work if they chose to do so. This followed dialogues and close engagements with religious groups and public healthcare institutions, and demonstrates our ability to work through these matters in a constructive manner that promotes rather than erodes our religious harmony.
Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns of some of my fellow Muslim workers around certain workplace practices that may restrict their ability to practice their religion in the way they desire. In a multi-racial, religious Singapore, we will need to work through these issues together. But let us do so sensitively and in a spirit of mutual understanding, rather than through a legal claims process.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a significant step forward, but it is only the beginning. To uphold our nation's social defence and ensure that every worker feels respected, valued and included, we must go further. By equipping HR professionals, fostering inclusive workplace cultures and addressing discrimination proactively, we can build a workforce that truly reflects the values of meritocracy and fairness.
Singapore's continued safety and prosperity depend on our ability to safeguard the trust between our diverse communities. Let us commit ourselves to this cause, ensuring that our workplaces are not only spaces for productivity but also bastions for respect and dignity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Faisal Manap.
Thank you, Sir. I would like to pose one clarification to Member Mr Fahmi Aliman. I would just like to clarify whether, the two instances that I cited yesterday that are not covered by the law or the WFL. One of them is about allowing Muslim males to go for Friday prayers and the other one is the wearing of tudung for female Muslims. Am I right to say that the Member disagrees that these two instances are supposed to be covered under WFL?
I thank the Member for the questions and clarifications. I did not mention it that way, but I think what is important is that we can take these two issues together in a form of communications and addressing this in a dialogue, so that we can address this issue in a way to enhance productivity and enhance inclusivity in a workplace situation. That is the thing that I wanted to highlight.
Mr Faisal Manap.
Sir, I am not discounting about using dialogue to manage such issues. But what I am trying to say is, whether under the current Bill, which is going to be enacted soon, most probably, I just wanted to know whether he actually agrees that it should be covered under this legislation, this Bill, for the two instances that I mentioned?
I thank the Member for the question. It is something that, as what I mentioned, is being highlighted in the Malay/Muslim community because of the current issues. I have got this information through my interactions with some in the Malay/Muslim community, that these issues need to be addressed. And I guess, one of the best ways to address it is through this Workplace Fairness Bill. But the way and how we do it is actually through conversations, through communications and through addressing some of the issues highlighted by the employers and hearing what are the needs of their employees too.
So, that is the gist of what I am trying to promote here – open conversations, open discussions, so that the workers will continue to be productive and not be impacted by all this.
Minister Tan See Leng, do you want to add some clarity to this?
Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I did not want to venture into this discussion, but for the purpose of my wrapping-up speech later, I just needed to understand from the Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap. Did I understand him correctly that he wanted privileges for Muslim men for Friday worship? What about Muslim ladies, because they also go to mosques for worship?
We are all here trying to create a more equitable, a fairer society where we take into consideration all aspects of sex, race, nationality, PwDs, mental health and age. So, I am just trying to understand what his stand was when he put up this point yesterday. And I will try my best to address it in my wrap-up speech later. So, I will be grateful for that clarification.
Thank you to the Minister for his clarification. On his seeking of clarification regarding the gender equality, if I can put it that way, basically, as what I have quoted yesterday, even the former Member of Parliament, Mr Zainal Sapari, and I think most Muslims know, the Friday prayers are only obligatory upon the male Muslims, not for females. That is why I am asking on behalf of male Muslims.
And my clarification yesterday was pertaining to the two scenarios to get an affirmation and certainty from the Minister that the two scenarios have been happening for so many years, and are even reflected in the Suara Musyawarah, which is the Singapore Conversations equivalent, and even the issue about Friday prayers being highlighted on social media by Assistant Secretary-General, Mr Zainal Sapari.
So, I just want to have a confirmation and certainty that the two scenarios that I cited yesterday can come under the legislation. That is all.
Ms Sylvia Lim.
Speaker, this Bill has been a long time in the making. After hesitation for several years, the Government has heeded calls from several quarters, including from the Workers’ Party (WP), to go beyond Tripartite Guidelines and to legislate against discrimination in the workplace. Since the former Prime Minister announced the Government decision to proceed with such legislation at the National Day Rally in 2021, more than three years ago, the day has finally come, at least for the first part of the legislation.
Sir, the Bill has several positive aspects, and two aspects should be mentioned. First, it covers all stages of employment from pre-employment hiring, in-employment decisions to end-employment decisions. Second, when employers are assessed to have breached their obligations, there is a range of responses from financial penalties and corrective directions to state prosecution, with employers having recourse to the courts if necessary.
In my speech today, I would like to raise three questions related to the Bill.
First, on the timing of implementation. We first understood that the anti-discrimination law was expected to be passed by the end of last year. When there was no indication by October last year that the law was being tabled, I was puzzled and filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about this for the November Sitting. The Minister replied then that the Workforce Fairness Bill would be tabled in Parliament that month.
We understand that the legislation is being tabled in two parts, the first part now and with a second part on employment claims, to be tabled later this year. Thus, the earlier-indicated timelines have been missed.
The Government has announced that the provisions of both parts would be effective in 2026 or 2027, that is, possibly two years from now. Could the Ministry be more specific as to the various milestones and approximate target dates, so that we can better understand why it will take so much time?
My second question arises from the scope of the Act, that is, what situations are covered or not covered. I note from clause 4(3) that the Act does not cover contracts for service, that is, those who are engaged under arrangements that make them independent contractors.
While I do not disagree with this, I wish to highlight ground feedback I have received about some unscrupulous employment practices. A resident told me that he had worked for his employer for years and when he was nearing retirement age, his work arrangement with the employer was converted from the status of employee to a contract for service, that is, he was re-hired as an independent contractor. This was despite the fact he was working at the same tasks.
Such a change in status from employee to independent contractor would deprive the worker of significant protections, such as CPF contributions, work injury compensation insurance and soon, from the provisions of the Workforce Fairness Act as well. This is not acceptable as such a practice is tantamount to discrimination on the grounds of age. Is the Ministry tracking such situations of potential bullying of older workers, and if so, what is being done?
My last question relates to what the Bill calls “protected characteristics”. The Bill lists 11 protected characteristics, meaning that employers should not use those characteristics to discriminate against jobseekers or employees. These 11 protected characteristics range from age, sex and nationality to marital status, race and mental health condition.
My query relates to the pre-employment stage, that is, when the employer is deciding whether or not to hire an individual. Fundamentally, my question is this: what exactly are the restrictions on what the employer can or cannot do?
While the Bill states that the employer should not make an adverse employment decision based on any of the protected characteristics, it is silent on how the employment processes need to change. For instance, is the employer permitted to ask any questions about the protected characteristics? For instance, it is common in Singapore to see pre-employment forms asking potential hires for their marital status, race and whether they have been ever treated for any mental health condition. During hiring interviews, women especially are often asked about their caregiving responsibilities or potential parenthood plans.
Regarding what sorts of questions cannot or should not be asked during hiring interviews, a brief look at some other jurisdictions is useful. At one end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions, such as South Korea and Denmark, legally prohibit employers from asking for information on marital status and race. Mid-way in the spectrum would be other jurisdictions, such as the United States (US) and the UK, where questions about some characteristics are not permitted at all, for example, on disability and health. However, for other characteristics, such as pregnancy or parenthood plans, employers are merely advised not to ask those questions, as such questions could be considered to be evidence of discrimination.
Is the Ministry’s intention to prohibit certain lines of questioning or is the intention merely to discourage such questions? Will there be, for instance, subsidiary legislation covering prohibited questions and what the consequences will be if they are asked? For questions that are to be discouraged, this change itself will involve overhauling long-standing hiring norms. How will MOM work with employers to adjust their hiring practices and to monitor whether these practices have indeed changed?
Sir, for protected characteristics to be meaningfully protected, a strong framework needs to be in place. If questions about the protected characteristics continue to be asked, it opens the door for employers to make decisions based on those characteristics, but to disguise the real reason in more kosher language to avoid complaints and investigations. Such a loophole should be avoided where possible, as this would render the protection toothless.
Sir, to conclude, this Bill has an important signalling effect that discrimination in the workplace will attract consequences for employers. The WP supports the Bill. I look forward to the Ministry’s clarifications on the three points I have raised concerning timing of implementation, employers who disguise employment as contracts for service and on what is permissible during the hiring process.
Ms Usha Chandradas.
Mr Speaker, this Bill represents a significant step forward in codifying protections against discrimination in the workplace, and I support it. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I would like to express my support for clause 8(a)(i), which considers "language ability" as a protected characteristic. Clause 20 goes on to clarify that the ability to "read, speak, write or understand a language" is not considered necessary for the performance of a job, just because other employees happen to regularly communicate in that language. This express statement is something that deeply resonates with me as a minority woman. Many Singaporean minorities, including myself, have experienced being in work situations where the majority of their co-workers and, sometimes, even their superiors have preferred to communicate in Mandarin. In these cases, they have little regard for the people around them who may not be able to understand what they are saying. This kind of behaviour is isolating and goes against Singapore’s core commitment to multiculturalism. I wish to thank the Government for being clear that this kind of discrimination, if performed in connection with the acts set out in Part 4 of this proposed law, is totally unacceptable.
(In English): Notwithstanding my particular support for this aspect of the Bill, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
My main clarifications in my speech are on the definition of “sex” as it is set out in clauses 8(c) and 10 of the Bill. The definition includes biological characteristics from birth and after the completion of sex re-assignment procedures. What it clearly leaves out is discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
A person’s gender identity and expression, as well as their sexuality, are a part of who they are. They are not lifestyle choices that can be changed on a whim. While the proposed law supports individuals who have undergone sex re-assignment procedures, it seems to ignore the reality that the transition from one gender to another is something that happens over time and involves more than just surgical changes. Sometimes, individuals may not even choose to undergo surgical procedures. This is a complex process and it involves medical, psychological and social aspects. Individuals in the process of transitioning, or who choose not to surgically transition, can also be susceptible to discriminatory practices in the workplace.
Members of the arts community who are also members of the LGBTQ+ community have told me that they feel very concerned about the additional exclusions at clause 10(2) of this Bill. These exclusions could have the effect of reiterating the fact that characteristics which are relevant to the community will resolutely not have the protection of this law. This could in fact signal to the wider population, as well as employers, that discrimination on the basis of one’s sexuality and gender identity, are not sufficiently serious or valid concerns.
Taken to an extreme, some might interpret this as the Government condoning this kind of workplace discrimination. It could also inadvertently signal to employers that such discriminatory practices will go largely unpunished.
This is not the only place where we see a similar kind of signalling in the Bill. At the explanatory note on clause 17, there is a statement there that when an employer dismisses someone on the ground of the race of that person’s husband, this will not be considered as discrimination under the new proposed law.
Speaking as someone who actually does have a husband of a different race, this was slightly alarming for me to read in the Bill. I understand that given the prescriptive approach that has been adopted by the Government in this piece of legislation, certain lines have to be drawn and clear positions have to be elucidated. To put it another way, when lists are made, there will always be questions on why certain things are included and others are left out. To an extent, this is just something inherent in the structure of the legislation that has been adopted. I think most members of the public and Members of this House can understand that.
But that being said, it is important too that the specific wording in the Bill does not send out unintended messages that seem to actually endorse certain acts of discrimination. To this end, it would be good if the Minister could explain the basis behind the explanatory note on clause 17 and on how members of the public are expected to interpret it.
Yesterday, I note that the Minister has explained and mentioned that the acts that are described in the explanatory note would be caught by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and just not by this Bill. But notwithstanding his explanation, I would like to ask, was it then necessary to include an example like this in the Bill? Could the explanatory note have been clearer that such acts are very much discriminatory, even if they are not covered by this Bill?
Coming back to the definition of sex, very recently, this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. In connection with this, many Members on both sides of the House reiterated their views that discriminatory behaviour towards people on account of their sexuality should simply not be tolerated. So, I do not think at all that the Government intends to send the message to the LGBTQ+ community that discrimination against them is in any way permissible.
I was also heartened to hear the Minister yesterday say that no one would be turned away with their workplace grievances just because they do not happen to be covered by the Bill. The Minister seems to have taken a very strong approach towards ensuring that tolerance is displayed by employers and by members of the public. So, I hope the Minister takes the opportunity during this debate to assure the LGBTQ+ community that their rights in the workplace will be protected, regardless of the wording in clause 10(2) of this Bill.
I note from a Straits Times article in November 2024 that the protected characteristics set out in clause 8 of the Bill account for 95% of workplace discrimination complaints which have been made to MOM and the TAFEP. On one level, this is a very logical way to proceed.
However, we should not forget that it is also possible for discrimination to exist in the absence of formal complaints. The report Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace: The Lived Experiences of Singapore LGBTQ+ Individuals, raises some notable feedback. According to the report, which was based on a survey of around 700 respondents, almost one third had experienced at least one form of discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Close to half of the people surveyed reported some form of harassment at the workplace. However, the report also noted that among the participants who had experienced discrimination and harassment, only a very small number had actually reported their experiences to their respective companies, to MOM or to TAFEP. Some of the reasons for this included a fear of retaliation, social stigma and the expectation of little support if reports were actually made.
We can see how this fear creates a harmful loop. Victims remain unheard, leading those in positions of authority to mistakenly believe that there are no issues of concern. As a result, protections remain inadequate and those facing workplace discrimination continue to suffer quietly.
So, my questions for the Minister are these: first, Did the Ministry take into account the research and feedback from the ground which indicate that LGBTQ+ individuals tend to under-report incidents of workplace discrimination and harassment? If so, how then was the decision arrived at, to exclude sexuality and gender identity from the protected characteristic of “sex”?
Secondly, how will the Minister ensure that employers do not discriminate against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, given that the proposed law explicitly excludes these two traits? Is the Minister able to provide any assurances that discrimination against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, will not be tolerated by the Ministry? For example, will the Minister consider including specific protections, templates and resources for LGBTQ+ individuals through TAFEP and the TGFEP? Will any measures be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons? The Minister yesterday alluded to updates being made to the TGFEP, so I look forward to hearing his further explanations and clarifications later.
I would also like to ask if any measures would be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons. For example, would the Ministry work with LGBTQ+ groups on the ground to conduct training for TAFEP and other frontline MOM staff to ensure that cases of discrimination are dealt with seriously and professionally, and to encourage reporting of such incidents, when they do take place?
Finally, I would like to ask if there any plans for the law to be re-examined at a specific point in the future and to consider whether the exclusions at clause 10(2) may be removed or amended? MOM has indicated in its factsheet on the proposed Bill that tripartite partners will review the exemption set out at clause 4(1) of the Bill in five years’ time. If so, will a similar reconsideration of clauses 8(c) and 10 also take place? A number of countries, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand have codified provisions against workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexuality. If we in Singapore were to change our position in future, we would certainly not be alone in doing so.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Dr Wan Rizal.
Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly its provisions on mental health. The Bill signifies a significant step towards ensuring that our workplaces are not only productive but also inclusive, compassionate and fair.
Sir, mental health remains as a pertinent topic. One in seven individuals in Singapore experience mental health challenges in their lifetime. In the workplace, this often translates to stigma, reduced opportunities and hesitance to seek help.
Beyond the personal toll, mental health issues have a significant economic impact. Research by Duke-NUS Medical School and the Institute of Mental Health estimates that anxiety and depression alone cost Singapore’s economy approximately 2.9% of gross domestic product annually, translating to a staggering S$16 billion in productivity losses. Such barriers affect individuals and hinder workforce morale, efficiency and overall economic growth. Therefore, addressing mental health in the workplace is a moral responsibility and an economic imperative.
The Bill addresses these gaps by recognising mental health conditions as a protected characteristic. Employers are prohibited from making adverse decisions based on an employee’s mental health status, whether during hiring, promotions or dismissals. It requires that grievance processes be established to ensure employees can report discrimination without fear of retaliation. These measures create a much-needed safety net for workers, encouraging equitable treatment and reducing stigma.
However, Sir, I do have some concerns and questions about the Bill, particularly regarding our mental health provisions.
Firstly, these concerns revolve around the definitions of mental health conditions. What diagnostic criteria or medical certifications are required for a mental health condition to qualify as a protected characteristic? Employers and employees need clarity to avoid disputes over whether a condition is eligible for protection. I ask because mental health conditions vary significantly from chronic disorders like schizophrenia, to temporary conditions such as acute stress. Without a clear criteria, confusion or inconsistencies could arise. As an example, an employee with an anxiety might present a certificate from a general practitioner, while any other with a similar condition may seek a psychiatrist diagnosis. Ensuring clarity in what is accepted is crucial to avoid unfair outcomes.
Second revolves around balancing safety and fairness. How can employers assess whether a mental health condition genuinely affects an employee's ability to perform safety critical roles? Employers must navigate a fine line between ensuring workplace safety and avoiding discrimination. I ask simply because certain industries, for example, in aviation or healthcare, or even construction, may involve high risk tasks where safety concerns are paramount. Employers need clear guidance or guidelines to make balanced and reasonable decisions. As an example, we can have a construction worker who has severe anxiety and might require temporary re-assignment to lower-risk duties. The Bill ensures such decisions are grounded in genuine safety concerns rather than bias.
The third revolves around the grievance processes and retaliation. The question is, what mechanisms are in place to ensure grievance handling processes are unbiased and transparent. Employees may mistrust internal process if they are entirely employer driven, undermining the Bill's intent. I ask simply because employers, especially SMEs, might lack the resources or expertise to set up impartial grievance system. External oversight could ensure fairness and accountability. As an example, if an employee files a complaint against their manager and, because it is an SME, the same manager may oversee the grievance process and this creates a clear conflict of interest. Thus, we need to establish independent reviews to mitigate such concerns.
How also will this Bill protect employees from subtle forms of retaliation after they raise a mental health related grievance? Employees often fear indirect retaliation, such as being excluded from promotions or sidelined in projects, even if overt discrimination is addressed. I ask simply because subtle retaliation is harder to detect and prove, making robust protections vital.
The Bill explicitly prohibits such acts and provides penalties for violations. As an example, an employee who discloses that he or she may have post-traumatic stress disorder and subsequently notices a drop in their responsibilities despite consistent performance, might suspect retaliation. Employers must demonstrate that such changes are justified and not punitive.
My fourth point is regarding privacy and confidentiality. What safeguards ensure that employees' mental health information remains confidential during the grievance investigations or workplace discussions. Breaches of privacy could discourage employees from disclosing their conditions, and we want them to come forward, but this may undermine the Bill's intent. I ask simply because sensitive information about mental health must be handled carefully to avoid stigma and protect employees' dignity. Employers must implement robust confidentiality protocols during investigations or accommodations. As an example, if an HR team inadvertently shares details about an employee's mental health condition with co-workers, it could lead to workplace gossip, further alienating the individual. Clear confidentiality protocols then must be enforced.
Sir, beyond these clarifications, this Bill represents a broader cultural shift in how we view mental health in the workplace and in the society. I am encouraged by how this Bill aligns with our broader efforts to strengthen mental health advocacy in Singapore. The Workplace Fairness Bill is not a standalone initiative. It builds on the foundation of community programmes, public awareness campaigns and mental health education.
Last year, during the Motion on mental health, the Government affirmed that mental health is a national priority. Therefore, the inclusion of mental health in this Bill underscores that commitment, translating our national vision into actionable policies that directly impact the workplace and beyond.
Last Sunday, I had the opportunity through the People's Action Party (PAP) Mental Health Group to hold its first meet-up session of 2025, bringing together passionate individuals and organisations that are dedicated in advancing mental health initiative. Some of them include Silver Ribbon (Singapore), SCMH, Calm Collective, Campus Psy, Limitless, Growthbeans and many more. During our discussions, the Workplace Fairness Bill featured prominently as a key legislative step that aligns with our shared vision of creating a healthier, more inclusive workplace. It is inspiring to see so many shared aspirations among the community to make mental health a national priority. Together, I believe we are driving impactful change and this Bill plays a critical role in shaping that transformation.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill is more than just a legislation. It is a declaration of our values as a nation. By standing against discrimination and upholding mental health as a national priority, we reaffirm our commitment to fairness, dignity and inclusivity. Together, let us take this important step towards a society where no one feels excluded or undervalued due to their mental health challenges. It sends a clear message: mental health matters and discrimination has no place in our society, and especially in our workplaces.
Ms Jean See.
Mr Speaker, through work, many of us reinforce our sense of dignity. Pope Francis said, and I quote, “Work is fundamental to the dignity of a person. It gives one the ability to maintain oneself, one's family, and to contribute to the growth of one's own nation."
The Workplace Fairness Bill matters because it opens doors for more persons to access work opportunities regardless of background and personal characteristics. As important, it upholds every person's right to be treated fairly and with respect because it strengthens protections against discrimination and empowers workers to seek remedial action from their employers directly without fear of retaliation. On these grounds, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
While I acknowledge the Bill as a sound first step in the right direction, I seek clarity on how the Bill would be implemented to counter facets of discrimination in traditional and new workspaces. I also seek clarity on how the Bill would deliver sustained positive impact for less-advantaged communities that have the odds stacked up against them in the job market and the workplace.
First, clause 28 of the Bill outlines the prohibition against retaliation. Could the Minister explain what constitutes, I quote, "subjecting the employee to any other detriment in relation to the employee's employment".
Next, the Bill outlines what constitutes direct workplace discrimination in respect of the protected characteristics. However, the Bill leaves out what are reasonable accommodations that must be put in place to facilitate employment outcomes. Clarity on the provision of reasonable accommodations would pave the way for more Singaporeans to be purposefully engaged in work, to develop viable careers and livelihood and to contribute economically to Singapore.
Fellow Parliamentarians, such as Mayor Ms Denise Phua, Mr Ong Hua Han and Miss Rachel Ong spoke extensively yesterday about the need for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities and offered sound suggestions to nudge more employers into action. I stand in support. In this regard, could the Minister outline how the Ministry plans to normalise for employers to make reasonable accommodations that cater to the different needs of different demographics in the workforce? Such expansion would be in tandem with Singapore's Enabling Masterplan 2030 that gives a big push for inclusive hiring.
Next, advocates for PwDs such as Po Chien who I spoke with had surfaced concern about less-enlightened employers working around the law by asking for a candidate's National Service status or refusing to accept reasonable accommodations. Such concern is shared by those impacted by clause 10 of the Bill on the protected characteristics for sex where characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity were excluded. These communities seek assurance that the Ministry would make every effort to guard against indirect methods of discriminating and protect those whose employment opportunities are undermined as a result.
What measures would the Ministry consider putting in place to deter such forms of discrimination?
In the context of new workspaces, over 70,000 individuals are regular platform workers and are now protected under the Platform Workers Act that has taken effect from 1 January 2025. Nonetheless, I note that platform work arrangement is excluded from the Bill. This is despite the efforts to differentiate platform workers from other self-employed workers because of the employee-like characteristics of platform workers.
Some platform workers are from less-advantaged communities. They became platform workers because of the limitations that they have. They asked if the Bill could be extended to cover platform workers and protect platform workers against discrimination by platform algorithms.
Because the Platform Workers Act imposes financial obligations on platform operators, these platform workers worry that platform operators would favour workers the operators deem as more productive and thus tighten control on who is allowed to onboard the platform and to participate in platform work. Such control is typically executed by platform algorithms that manage platform job allocation, fares and supervision.
Thus, biases or preferences introduced deliberately or inadvertently by operators or picked up and internalised by platform algorithms would factor into the platform's algorithmic decision-making that could consistently deprioritise a particular worker in job allocation and/or fares or prioritise some workers over others. Such actions hurt the livelihoods of affected platform workers. Workers ask if this Bill would grant them the right and avenue to seek fairness. Could the Ministry consider expanding the Bill to cover the platform workspace and to provide protection to platform workers impacted by such algorithmic discrimination?
In the debate on the Platform Workers Bill, I had recommended for the Government to require platform operators to apply AI Verify to the platform algorithms. Doing so would motivate platform operators from the get-go to design and build artificial intelligence (AI) systems that are aligned with the 11 AI ethics principles. Given the push for fairer workplaces, would the Ministry consider mandating platform operators to apply AI Verify to their platform algorithms and for operators to address gaps flagged out by AI Verify?
Apart from platform work, technology has also evolved recruitment practices. It is now common for companies to advertise their job postings on social media platforms. To maximise advertising spend, recruiters would typically set limitations on the target audience receiving the job post. This inadvertently narrows the audience for the job post to certain segments of the population. In the absence of guardrails, employers could target by options that describe or relate to the protected characteristics. In respect of clause 19 of the Bill on advertising, what are measures that the Ministry plans to undertake with social media platforms to prevent employers from exploiting social media to engage in discriminatory job advertising? Such measures matter to Singapore's push for non-discrimination and fairness in a digital economy.
To prepare for this debate, I had spoken with different stakeholders and members. Many had suggested for efforts to be directed to educate and equip managers and human resource practitioners because these individuals would be much involved in implementing the Bill at the workplace.
Although TAFEP and tripartite bodies have been active in educating the public on fair employment and hiring practices, there are employers that are less familiar with TAFEP's work and the discussions leading up to the drafting of this Bill. These employers might have missed or deliberately ignored TAFEP's messages and thus would not have impressed upon their managers and HR team the importance of fair workplace practices. These employers could also continue to hold on to stereotypes that perpetuate biases and unfair workplace practices.
To give a sense of the potential size of challenge of dismantling such stereotypes and biases, allow me to share a personal example from my capacity as a unionist. To this day, I have union members who were told to terminate their union membership if they accepted a promotion to executive roles. This was told to them by their manager or HR. These management and HR had also communicated to staff members that executives cannot join the union. Such myths have been widely propagated in the hospitality sectors where I am now serving in a unionist capacity.
Despite such myths being baseless and in fact, unlawful given that it is an offence under the Industrial Relations Act to induce persons not to join trade unions or platform work associations, it remains an uphill task for the union leaders and I to debunk these myths. Therefore, I cannot overstate the need for the Government to be relentless in its efforts to level the awareness and implementation capabilities of managers and HR practitioners.
In this regard, Given the scale of implementation of the Bill, how does the Government plan to work with stakeholders to level up managers and human resource practitioners by 2026?
I would like to conclude this speech on an encouraging note. Some of us might have caught Wicked, a recent movie release and the highest-grossing film adaptation of a Broadway musical. Wicked featured a wheelchair-bound actress, Marissa Bode. Allow me to share a quote from Jon M Chu, Wicked's director. He said, "Creating the set was one of the most enlightening and beautiful processes I have ever gone through" adding, "You need accessibility, not just when we are on set behind the scenes, but you need to present accessibility in Oz itself."
I commend Mr Chu. His mindset and approach must be the desired states which the Workplace Fairness Bill is seeking to steer employers, colleagues and employees to embrace and aspire towards. The Bill is a milestone for Singapore. As important, it is a beacon of hope and resilience for less-advantaged communities.
NTUC and our unions have been championing fair and inclusive workplaces. This Bill gives us firmer ground to work closely with employers and tripartite stakeholders to pave the way for more workplaces to be fair and inclusive. The Bill also gives individuals the courage to surface discriminatory practices that they might experience or come across. NTUC and the unions stand ready to support members in these situations.
In closing, I call upon this House and fellow Singaporeans to unite in purpose and action so that all working people, regardless of their background, can be empowered to uphold that dignity to their right of work.
Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.10 pm until 4.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
WORKPLACE FAIRNESS BILL
Debate resumed.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill is an important milestone in Singapore's journey to update employment practices and improve the work environment.
I would like to appeal to the Ministry to consider including more measures in the interest of employees, such as prohibiting indirect discrimination and requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodation in the workplace.
These measures are necessary to enable more PwDs to find, maintain and advance in employment. For those who wish to work, they should be encouraged and supported in their endeavours to earn their own living and gain financial independence. Many PwDs want to participate in the workforce, make use of their skillsets and education and contribute to our economy. Workplace accommodation will benefit employers too, as a more diverse and inclusive workplace can add benefits to businesses.
The Ministry's responses to prior feedback on indirect discrimination highlighted its concerns over the wider legal obligations for employers and potential uncertainty for both employers and employees.
Would the Ministry consider this issue from another angle, that legislation is necessary to minimise such workplace uncertainties? Presently, affected employees face the uncertainty of whether the indirect discrimination they experience would be taken seriously, which results in unreported cases. There are grey areas where errant employers exhibit a range of indirect discriminatory behaviours.
The number of cases of discrimination, direct and indirect, are under-reported. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness Final Report took note of this. Under Part IV of the section on Recommendations, paragraph 19, I quote, "Some employees may hesitate to come forward to report workplace discrimination or harassment within the company or to MOM or TAFEP, out of fear of subsequently being disadvantaged in the workplace. This sentiment was raised by participants during the 2020-2021 Conversations on Singapore Women's Development. In addition, the MOM Fair Employment Practices Survey 2022 showed that only one in three employees who experienced workplace discrimination sought help."
In August 2022, the gender equality group, AWARE in partnership with a consumer research company Milieu Insight, conducted a comprehensive survey on workplace discrimination. They polled about 1,000 respondents on their experiences of workplace discrimination. The results showed approximately 55% of respondents had experienced at least one form of discrimination in the preceding five years.
For disability-based discrimination, the survey showed that PwDs experienced discrimination at a significantly higher rate of 78%, compared to persons without disabilities who have experienced discrimination of 50%.
The Ministry has stated that it is worried about employee-employer relationship becoming more legalistic if it starts prohibiting indirect discrimination. This is highly unlikely. As it is now, many employees are afraid of reporting the discrimination they face. Most employees would seek to resolve the issue internally through internal channels and avenues, such as by reporting the issue to their manager or the HR department and try to resolve the issue amicably first. This is why it is important to mandate mediation first, before further action, such as litigation, can be taken.
As for the issue of reasonable accommodations in the workplace, the Ministry can consider referencing comparative legislation and studying the experience of other countries. For example, the US Department of Labor has established reasonable accommodation as a legal concept with clear criteria.
Many jurisdictions' laws also include the intertwined concept of "undue burden" where employers are not required to grant accommodation that impose "undue burden”. Hence, employers are protected from making accommodation which they cannot make with reasonable resource allocation.
In Singapore, employers can approach MOM and disability organisations, such as SG Enable, Disabled People's Association, Autism Resource Centre (Singapore), Serving People with Disabilities and the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled for assistance and guidance on reasonable accommodation. Would the Ministry consider providing greater incentives to encourage employers to proactively work with these organisations to support staff who are PwDs?
How would the Ministry boost awareness and utilisation of the Open Door Programme, Assistive Technology Fund and the Accessibility Fund by employers to fund the costs of reasonable accommodation?
Reasonable accommodation is essential and necessary for PwDs to perform their jobs and is not a matter of personal preferences. For example, blind persons need screen readers, deaf people need written communication, autistics need environments that accommodate their sensory sensitivity. Hence, it is important to recognise that by issuing an advisory instead of legislation on reasonable accommodation, employers would interpret them as optional provisions, when, in fact, they are necessary and indispensable means for PwDs to perform their daily tasks.
Without reasonable accommodation, PwDs are disadvantaged at every stage of the employment process. For example, wheelchair users who are denied interviews because the venue of the interview is not wheelchair accessible. Therefore, the denial of such essential reasonable accommodation would constitute an "adverse employment decision" as defined in the Workplace Fairness Final Report.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore ratified the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2013 and participated in the Constructive Dialogue with the UNCRPD Committee in 2022. It would be timely for our Government to set a timeline and work towards legislating the prohibition of indirect discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation. Doing so will help us move closer to achieving the Enabling MasterPlan 2030's goal of 40% PwD employment rate and upholding the UNCRPD principles.
There is more work to be done to build greater inclusion in the workplace. Singapore has reached a commendable milestone in introducing the Workplace Fairness Bill. Our PwDs and persons with other conditions would be heartened that the Government has heard their concerns and taken the first steps to improve their employment opportunities and work environment. Hence, I would like to conclude with my full support for the Bill.
Mr Mark Lee.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill 2024 represents a significant milestone in Singapore's commitment to creating equitable workplaces. This Bill codifies principles that have long been championed under the TGFEP, giving them legal weight and enforceability. By addressing workplace discrimination, it sends a strong message that such discriminatory practices have no place in Singapore.
This Bill is timely. A 2022 Harvard Business Review article highlights that organisations prioritising fairness can achieve up to a 26% increase in productivity. More than a reflection of our shared values of inclusivity and fairness, this Bill demonstrates how fairness is integral to enhancing business competitiveness.
I also like that the Bill achieves a commendable balance between promoting inclusivity and addressing the practical realities of businesses. For example, by applying its provision to employers with 25 or more employees and acknowledges that SMEs often lack the resources to implement extensive frameworks. By allowing smaller businesses more time to adapt, it ensures workplace fairness becomes a shared responsibility across businesses of all sizes.
Section 8 of the Bill also provides vital protections for vulnerable groups, including older employees, women with caregiving responsibilities and PwDs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while the intent of the Bill is clear and noble, we must also recognise the genuine concerns of businesses, particularly SMEs. According to a recently released Singapore Business Federation's National Business Survey 2024, while business outlook has improved slightly, only 26% of businesses are confident about economic improvement in the year ahead, with 22% of businesses expecting conditions to worsen. Rising manpower costs, cited as the top challenge by 66% of businesses, further strain their ability to invest in fair employment practices.
SMEs face heightened challenges as they navigate rapid global changes while trying to sustain their operations with limited resources. Let me elaborate on five key challenges faced in the implementation of the Bill. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First, implementing the measures outlined in this Bill comes with costs. Setting up grievance handling systems, for example, requires businesses to train staff, create reporting mechanisms and document complaints. For smaller firms, these costs can range from $5,000 to $10,000 annually – significant sums for businesses already facing economic pressures.
Second, employers may also hesitate to hire individuals requiring significant accommodations, fearing operational disruptions or additional costs. This reluctance could inadvertently hinder the inclusion of those most in need of workplace fairness policies.
Third, section 26 requires employers to demonstrate fair consideration for local candidates before hiring foreign talent. While this safeguards opportunities for Singaporeans, it can create challenges for industries experiencing acute talent shortages. For instance, in the technology sector, where roles such as software engineers, cybersecurity experts and AI specialists are in high demand, the limited local talent pool may lead to significant project delays and missed business opportunities.
Fourth, the anti-retaliation provisions under section 28 are crucial to protecting employees who raise legitimate grievances. However, there is concern about potential misuse. For instance, an underperforming employee facing dismissal could file a frivolous discrimination complaint to avoid termination, even if the action was based on legitimate reason like poor performance. Such cases could increase administrative burdens on businesses and undermine team morale.
(In English): Finally, many SMEs express concerns over "policy fatigue", particularly as they are already navigating multiple regulatory requirements. These include the Fair Consideration Framework, implementing flexible work arrangements and enhanced parental leave guidelines. Adding new compliance obligations could stretch their resources further, particularly for businesses without dedicated HR functions.
To address these concerns while supporting the Bill's objectives, I propose eight recommendations.
First, we need a clear and comprehensive implementation framework. It is vital to retain the TAFEP's role as the primary point of contact for workplace fairness complaints. Over the years, TAFEP has successfully championed conciliation, education and mindset shifts, earning the trust of both employers and workers. MOM's statutory enforcement powers, while necessary, should remain a last resort.
My concern is the transition to this new framework may create public confusion. Employees may bypass TAFEP and approach MOM prematurely, undermining the conciliation-first approach. Employers, on the other hand, may fear immediate enforcement actions without being given an opportunity for mediation.
To address these concerns, I propose a comprehensive public education campaign, working together with chambers and trade associations, to clarify the process: TAFEP as the first point of contact, mediation as the second step and MOM's intervention as a final recourse for unresolved disputes. Possible feedback mechanisms could also be set up for employers and employees to share their experiences with the new legislation, informing future refinements of the Bill over time.
Second, for the Workplace Fairness Bill to be effective, HR personnel must be equipped with the necessary skills to implement fair workplace practices effectively. I propose that TAFEP collaborate with the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) to establish a robust framework for accrediting HR capabilities.
Under this model, IHRP would serve as the standards and accreditation hub, while Institutes of Higher Learning, trade associations and chambers as well as training providers act as deployment spokes. To support this, IHRP, in partnership with TAFEP, could issue jointly branded skills badges. These badges would serve as formal accreditation, demonstrating that HR personnel have been trained and are equipped with the knowledge and skills to implement workplace fairness policies effectively.
Third, to address concerns about the anti-retaliation provisions and to better support both employees and businesses, the Minister could consider introducing clearer definitions of "good faith" to prevent misuse of the provisions. It is important to clarify what constitutes a failure to fulfil contractual obligations or subjecting an employee to detriment in employment, as well as outline the relative burdens of proof for all parties.
Including penalties for frivolous complaints and allowing employers to take documented disciplinary actions unrelated to complaints would help maintain fairness. Additionally, MOM could enhance TAFEP’s role to filter out frivolous claims during the initial triage process, streamlining the grievance resolution process and minimising undue burdens on businesses.
Fourth, a tiered compliance framework can be adopted that differentiates obligations based on business size. Large corporations with 250 or more employees should achieve full compliance within one year. Medium-sized firms could have up to three years to adjust, while SMEs with fewer than 25 employees could fulfil lighter but meaningful requirements. This approach ensures that all businesses contribute to workplace fairness while considering their unique capacities.
Forward-looking SMEs, particularly those with 25 or fewer employees, that demonstrate exemplary workplace fairness practices and implementing them ahead of time, should be recognised and publicised. And the Tripartite Alliance Awards could be a useful platform for this. Beyond recognition, SMEs could be rewarded with tangible incentives, creating a balanced approach that includes not just the "stick" of compliance but also the "carrot" of acknowledgment and support.
Fifth, while MOM’s enforcement framework already categorises breaches into "low", "moderate" and "high" severity levels, the distinctions between these categories remain unclear to businesses. Providing detailed guidelines on what constitutes each level of severity would offer greater clarity and confidence to employers. Furthermore, prioritising education over penalties, particularly for first-time breaches, would allow businesses to adapt in time while maintaining deterrence for repeat or severe violations.
Sixth, simplified compliance reporting should be introduced to ease administrative strain on SMEs. Pre-approved templates tailored for SMEs could reduce administrative overhead and help smaller firms navigate the new requirements more efficiently.
Seventh, financial support is essential in fostering inclusive workplaces. The Government has already demonstrated commendable foresight with initiatives such as the Job Redesign Grant, Open Door Programme and Enabling Employment Credit, which help businesses accommodate seniors, PwDs through workplace modifications and job redesign. However, there is a continued need to shift mindsets and build capacity for inclusivity. I would therefore like to propose expanding grants to support diversity training, grievance system implementation and inclusive hiring practices. For example, the Government could co-fund anti-discrimination training programmes for HR personnel and provide subsidies for setting up grievance systems, particularly for smaller businesses.
Lastly, targeted measures are needed for industries facing acute manpower shortages. Sectors critical to our long-term goals, such as manufacturing, which plays a key role in the Manufacturing 2030 ambitions, could benefit from targeted exemptions or expedited processes for hiring foreign talent. This would help these sectors address their constrained talent pools without compromising the broader principles of workplace fairness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to acknowledge and express my understanding of the concerns raised by the community advocates regarding the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. These voices are important and their advocacy highlights the need for continued dialogue and progress toward greater inclusivity.
The Workplace Fairness Bill represents a significant first step in codifying anti-discrimination measures. It establishes a foundational framework that can evolve to address broader concerns in the future. Expanding protections prematurely, without addressing implementation challenges, could create unintended uncertainties for both employers and employees. By focusing on practical and actionable measures today, this Bill lays the groundwork for future enhancements, paving the way for a more inclusive workforce as society and businesses adapt and progress together. I look forward to continued collaboration to address these concerns in the journey ahead.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by expressing my gratitude to MOM and all stakeholders for their dedicated efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition. While I have outlined some concerns and recommendations, I extend my strong support for this Bill.
Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a landmark Bill for employment law in Singapore that I am happy to support. This Bill gives the MOM express powers to take action against discrimination in the workplace.
I have been speaking up in favour of anti-discrimination legislation in this House several times over the years, including the very first Sitting of this term of Government in September 2020. And I am grateful to the Minister and the team at MOM that has had the openness of mind to move ahead with this change.
This Bill now makes it an offence to discriminate against employees based on characteristics such as nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, language ability, disability and mental health. There are important carve-outs, of course, including genuine job requirements, referring citizens and PRs over foreigners, and in relation to age, having minimum age requirements. I think there has been broad consensus, both on the characteristics that have been identified, as well as the exceptions carved out.
In dialogues I have had with women's groups over the years, one of the common issues they face in returning to the workforce is that employers are likely not to employ them because of concerns about their age and expected caregiving responsibilities. Now that it will be prohibited to discriminate on these characteristics, they may have better opportunities to return to the workforce.
Likewise, older workers who are moving between jobs and face difficulty with younger, less experienced candidates being hired ahead of them may now also have express protection under the law. I acknowledge that the Government and the unions have done a good job of encouraging workplace fairness over the years, including with the Tripartite Guidelines, but these have generally had the most fight with employers seeking EPs for foreign employees.
The MOM's denial of new work pass applications is already a potent stake against employers whose businesses depend heavily on foreign workers, and these employers had to become extra careful in ensuring they give Singaporeans fair consideration first. This will continue to be the case even with the new legislation.
The provisions in this Bill are unlikely to surprise multinational employers, particularly those from the West, where anti-discrimination legislation is quite common. Indeed, many of these companies already have anti-discrimination provisions as part of their internal policies. I would suggest though, that assistance be provided to local employers, including SMEs, on compliance with these provisions and in particular, the requirements of sections 25 to 27 of the new Bill that require employers to put in place fair employment practices.
I know a number of my colleagues have spoken in favour of recognising indirect discrimination as well. I think it is important to acknowledge that indirect discrimination exists, although these may be more difficult to establish in court. An example is where a person puts out characteristics for a job that may favour some groups over others, such as say a requirement for fair skin or curly hair.
As a starting point, the current legislation does make reference to some forms of indirect discrimination, one of the most common being irrelevant language requirements, which is essentially indirect racial discrimination. Additionally, there is nothing in the legislation that prevents a court finding as a fact that a particular requirement may amount to discrimination under one of the protected characteristics.
In my view, the current legislation may be used to deal with such discrimination, for example, under section 19(1), since they would give an advantage or disadvantage to certain races or nationalities. I think these types of indirect discrimination can be left to the court to determine as and when the situation arises, although if common threats arise, such as in relation to the irrelevant language requirements, then the legislation can be modified to give express protection on these matters.
As with any new legislation, there will likely be a spike in complaints when the legislation comes out and likely, some employers will be taken to task. This is to be expected and natural. However, once people get comfortable with and understand the obligations under the law, there will likely be a cultural shift and change in mentalities amongst both employers and employees, which I believe is healthy in the long run.
One point I had also made in this House in my speech in September 2020 was that anti-discrimination legislation should ideally also give the victim a personal remedy against the employer, rather than just a punishment for the employer by the state. I understand from the Minister's introductory speech that this is exactly the intention – and I support this as well, and look forward to the next Bill on this topic.
Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support this important Bill, which among many things, addresses a matter close to my heart, which is ensuring respect, regard and recognition for our seniors.
As someone deeply engaged in senior policy, I have witnessed first-hand the challenges that some of our seniors face in the workplace. Many have the experience, wisdom and resilience to contribute meaningfully, yet some are unfairly sidelined. This Bill represents a bold step toward changing that reality.
Let me start by sharing a story. A senior construction project manager came to my Meet-the-People Session for help recently. Despite decades of service and a stellar record, he struggled to find work after his company downsized, even after we spent months tapping on our extensive network to help him find a job. “Am I too old to matter?” he asked. His question was heartbreaking. It reflects the silent battle some of our seniors face daily – not against a lack of ability, but against prejudice.
Our seniors want to work and they deserve the chance. From 2018 to 2022, complaints to TAFEP and MOM show that age discrimination is the second largest category, making up nearly a quarter of all complaints. Ageism is a hidden barrier that deprives our society of valuable skills and creates a culture of exclusion. Without more action, we risk wasting the potential of our seniors, losing their contributions to our economy and our shared future. This Bill takes practical, meaningful steps to address these challenges. It not only targets direct discrimination but also sets the stage for a workplace culture that values inclusion and fairness.
I would like to highlight three key reasons why this Bill is a game-changer.
One, it is practical. It focuses on clear, enforceable actions: (a) protecting seniors against direct discrimination; (b) targeting companies with more than 25 employees for the next five years; and (c) prioritising mediation through TADM to resolve disputes constructively.
Second, it is comprehensive. It recognises the realities seniors face: (a) age is now a protected characteristic; (b) hiring practices that exclude seniors are directly addressed; and (c) caregiving responsibilities of seniors is also a protected characteristic.
Third, it supports inclusion. This law supports employers to hire seniors above 55 when candidates are equally qualified, ensuring that experience and maturity are not overlooked.
The PAP Senior Group supports this law because real changes happens through practical, step-by-step progress. This law avoids overreaching, which can lead to defensive HR practices, frivolous lawsuits, or even job losses as companies move overseas. Just look at the controversies surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, in America. The PAP Senior Group will work closely with the Government to ensure that this law is properly implemented.
We can afford to take practical steps towards progress because we have been building on decades of senior-friendly policies by successive PAP governments, which includes, just to recap, reskilling initiatives like SkillsFuture Mid-Career schemes preparing our seniors for evolving industries, incentives for employers to hire seniors and encourage the creation of age-friendly workplaces, a very tight foreign manpower policy prioritising local employment and investments in healthcare, preventive care and fitness, helping our seniors remain active and ready for work. The PAP Government have always championed respect, regard and recognition for our seniors and this Bill continues that legacy.
While this Bill is a major step forward, there are also areas we can consider further action over the coming years.
First, deepening our understanding. Let us survey seniors more extensively, not just those who have exited the workforce, but also those who are trying to re-enter the workforce or those who deem themselves unemployed, to better understand the nature of discrimination.
Second, we should also monitor HR practices to ensure that indirect discrimination does not rise as a response to this law and this requires monitoring, indirect discrimination by sector, industry and company size.
Third, improving how we measure workers' well-being and mental health. Our tripartite partners can build a consensus on how the mental, emotional and physical health are evaluated through affordable psychometric and fitness tests. This will reduce the scope of disputes over what constitutes discrimination.
Fourth, lead by example. Our Civil Service should, at all levels, implement the Bill in both form and spirit, and ensure that their outsourced HR service providers meet the same standard.
Fifth, share learnings from TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT). Given that the law calls for TADM and ECT to take the lead in fighting indirect discrimination, regular updates from both groups to Parliament and the public will help us adapt policies effectively.
Sixth, and the last, plan for the future. Start a review in three years to ensure this Bill remains relevant amidst rapidly changing geopolitics, trade-flow and technological changes. It will also allow us to factor our seniors' better health, as Healthier SG bears fruits.
Let me now address our seniors directly: you matter. This Bill opens doors, but it is up to all of us to walk through them together. Stay curious and committed to lifelong learning. Prioritise your health because an active body fuels an active mind. Believe in your ability to contribute, you are not just workers; you are mentors, leaders and role models for younger generations.
Employers, too, have a role to play. Choosing inclusiveness is not just good policy, it is good business, because a diverse workplace brings experience, balance and strength.
Let me now wrap up my comments on fighting ageism. This Bill is more than legislation. It is a statement about who we are as a society. It says that every individual, regardless of age, has value, purpose and potential. It is about building workplace fairness through practical, step-by-step progress. Together, we can build a future, where seniors are not just included but celebrated, where experience is not just respected, but cherished.
Let me now conclude by touching briefly on the rest of the Bill. I am heartened that the practical approach to fight ageism extends to most forms of discrimination. We are staring at a period of significant upheaval – changing geopolitics, trade-flow, global taxation, technology innovation are reshaping employment everywhere. Singapore is not be immune from these upheavals.
Singapore has, frankly, become a high-cost location, with many employers are struggling to adapt. Therefore, by having a very good balance, by strengthening workplace fairness in a practical manner, this Bill provides the stability and the fairness that Singaporeans need to thrive and for Singapore to stay open and successful. With that, I wholeheartedly support this Bill.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Workplace Fairness Bill. As highlighted by the Minister for Manpower in his introductory comments, the Bill will provide protections against discrimination for employees who possess protected characteristics, while supporting the business needs of employers and our national objectives, including processes to preserve harmonious workplaces and resolve disputes amicably, as well as a range of levers to augment MOM’s education-first approach to address errant workplace practices.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workplace Fairness Bill aligns with the final recommendations of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness and is an important step forward in protecting the rights of employees and potential employees in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, treating all people equitably and with respect and dignity, no matter their personal, social, cultural or economic circumstances, is an essential characteristic of a sophisticated society. Workplace fairness provides all Singaporeans the same opportunities to participate and contribute. It ensures that the places we work are representative of the broader community and is a powerful contributor to an inclusive, cohesive and diverse society. Workplace fairness also assists to maximise the economic potential and competitive edge of employers. By broadening the diversity of its people, employers broaden the diversity of available talent, ideas and solutions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in an ideal world, we would not need this Bill. We would just naturally treat everyone the same. It is, however, a universal phenomenon that most humans treat certain types of people differently to others and Singapore is not immune to this peculiarity. We all have our personal biases, preferences and prejudices; and it is not uncommon for these to consciously or unconsciously influence our thoughts and actions, including in the workplace. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill commendably attempts to address this imbalance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I proceed, I would like to declare my position as President of Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS), a non-profit organisation focused on women empowerment – a note that some of the data I am presenting is drawn from many years of PPIS' engagement with Muslim women and their families.
While my following comments focus heavily on women, I recognise that discrimination and disadvantage affects several other groups in our community, including people living with disabilities or mental illness; individuals from diverse racial, cultural and religious backgrounds; those from varying socio-economic and educational backgrounds; children and young people; older people; those with a criminal history; and people with carer responsibilities.
As we move forward, we need to ensure that we recognise and address the individual needs and circumstances of all Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, women frequently bear a disproportionate burden in the workplace. They often face what I call the "triple squeeze" – managing career advancement, family responsibilities and societal expectations, all while navigating workplace biases that can be subtle yet significant. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Feedback gathered through PPIS' RED space engagement with Muslim women highlights specific workplace challenges that many women encounter.
For instance, some women reported to PPIS that they are often passed over for promotion during their childbearing years, regardless of their intentions to start a family; they are frequently assumed to be less committed to their careers if they have caregiving responsibilities; they are far more likely to face interruptions in their career trajectory due to family obligations; and society and culture still assumes that there are certain roles that women are better and worse at, or should and should not do.
(In English): Women also reported to PPIS that discriminatory hiring and workplace practices are prevalent, especially in male-dominated sectors, with many women reporting a gender pay gap and gender-biased promotions. The burden of proof for discrimination cases often rests on employees, making it difficult to address injustices effectively.
The so-called "motherhood penalty" significantly impacts career progression, with mothers perceived as less competent and thus less likely to be hired or promoted. They also face biased evaluations and are often given less challenging work upon returning from maternity leave.
Ageism further marginalises older women, pushing them into manual labour roles despite their skills and penalising them for necessary health-related leave. And "career returners" face stereotypes of being less productive and adaptable, with insufficient support for reintegration into the workforce.
To combat these issues, this Bill must address structural barriers related to gender stereotypes, particularly for minority women. Additionally, it should include protections for foster parents as caregivers as well. Furthermore, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must address the unique challenges faced by women returning to work after caregiving breaks.
While the Bill provides protection against discrimination, we also need practical measures to support the re-integration of women into the workplace, including, for example, structured return-to-work programmes, skills updating initiatives, mentorship schemes and flexible working arrangements during the transition period.
Mr Deputy Speaker, effectively combatting discrimination requires us to create harmonious and inclusive workplace environments and I wanted to touch on the related issue of "quiet quitting"; where employees merely fulfil basic job requirements without going above and beyond. According to a survey conducted in 2023 by HR agency Randstad, 35% of Singaporean workers have engaged in quiet quitting, which is four percentage points higher than the global average. Among those who have quiet quit, 41% indicated that they did so to improve their work-life balance; 38% attributed it to low compensation and the rising cost of living; and 33% noted a lack of career growth opportunities.
Even more troubling is the persistence of toxic workplace cultures. Toxic workplace is a metaphor used to describe a place of work that is marked by significant personal conflicts between those who work there, including management. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a toxic work environment is characterised by disrespectful, non-inclusive, unethical, cut-throat and abusive behaviours and attitudes.
The cost of inaction is substantial. Toxic workplaces do not just harm individuals, they damage our entire economy through increased turnover, reduced productivity and wasted talents. When capable professionals step back from leadership roles, underperform, or exit the workforce entirely due to their workplace culture, we all lose.
Combatting toxic workplace culture is not easy, but can be achieved and I would like to suggest some potential ways forward. For example, regular respect, equity and diversity training for all staff, including senior managers and executives, the establishment of trained Respect, Equity and Diversity Officers in workplaces, in-house systems that routinely and anonymously seek the feedback of employees, enhanced in-house whistle-blowing mechanisms and protections and linking individual managerial reward and bonuses to independent assessments of workplace culture.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address two other issues of particular interest: reporting mechanisms and psychological safety, as well as workplace discrimination and bias.
First, reporting mechanisms and psychological safety. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices 2023 report, only 29.5% of employees who experienced discrimination sought help, down from 35.3% in 2022. While the reasons behind this decline are unclear, international data suggests that reasons may include: fear that speaking up will jeopardise their career, lack of knowledge about reporting mechanisms and lack of faith in the investigation process.
For this Bill to succeed we need to reverse this trend and I encourage the Ministry to establish an independent Statutory Board with the legislative authority to receive, investigate and report on discrimination complaints by employees in the public, private and community sectors.
In the absence of such a body, the Ministry should require all employers to have and actively promote safe and accessible internal mechanisms for employees to report discrimination complaints and to have policies and procedures that guarantee an impartial, confidential, expert and timely investigation of all complaints.
The Ministry should also require all employers who prepare annual reports, to include in their annual report data on workplace diversity and inclusion trends and goals; number and outcome of discrimination complaints received and investigated; key strategies to address toxic workplace culture and create a harmonious and inclusive workplace environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my second point addresses workplace discrimination and unconscious bias, particularly their impact on vulnerable and minority groups. This Bill correctly prohibits discrimination based on "protected characteristics", such as nationality, age, gender and caregiving responsibilities. However, I encourage the Ministry to either now, or in the future, extend the definition of protected characteristics to include, for example, criminal history.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we must also recognise and acknowledge that discrimination often operates in subtle ways, through unconscious biases that can be difficult to identify and address. We have seen successful approaches in other jurisdictions that we might consider. For example, the UK's blind recruitment processes and structured interview protocols have shown promising results in reducing hiring bias.
Incorporating AI into these processes could be also useful. AI can help generate unbiased interviews and provide consistent evaluation metrics, reducing unconscious biasness. By leveraging on AI, we can enhance the fairness and transparency of reporting and investigating procedures, ultimately contributing to a more equitable workplace.
Other strategies could include recruiting, requiring recruitment panels to include members from varied backgrounds to minimise bias and promote diverse perspectives during the recruitment process, the development of mentorship programmes that pair employees from different backgrounds and in-house information and support networks for under-represented employees group, the use of data analytics to identify patterns of discrimination or bias within the organisation and to inform policy procedure and practice review.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my final comments relate to monitoring and evaluation. It is essential that we do not simply pass this Bill and assume that work is done. To ensure that we keep momentum on this important issue, I would like to suggest that the Ministry establish a dedicated task force comprising relevant members from public, private and community sector to monitor the Bills implementation, gather data on the effectiveness of the Bill, provide regular updates and recommend adjustments based on real world outcomes.
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill represents more than just legislation. It is a statement about the kind of society we want to be. It reflects that Singapore gives priority to fairness, respect, diversity and inclusion, and that workplace fairness is not just a legal requirement but a lived reality for all Singaporeans. Clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng.
The Workplace Fairness Bill aims to foster fairer and more harmonious workplaces by protecting employees from unfair employment decisions. This Bill is the culmination of three years of efforts by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness. I thank the Committee for their hard work in studying laws from other countries, consulting a wide range of stakeholders and publishing both interim and final reports.
Members have spoken on groups that will benefit from protection on the basis of age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language ability, disability and mental health condition.
I just have one point to raise. The Workplace Fairness Bill is an inclusive and progressive one, but it has a glaring carve-out. As many Members have mentioned, specifically, section 10(2) excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from the definition of "sex". These are the only two characteristics that are expressly excluded from the Bill.
What message are we sending? Are we telling LGBTQ+ people that they are not protected from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Are we telling employers that it is okay to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation and gender identity?
When we repealed section 377A, Minister Shanmugam explained, "The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people". He said, "They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation." By repealing 377A, Minister Shanmugam said that we will "start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain".
But now, do we not think that we may deepen the stigmatisation by having our workplace fairness law single out sexual orientation and gender identity for exclusion? With this Bill, will we deepen the divides that we started to heal with the repeal of 377A? The Bill's carve-out of sexual orientation and gender identity is not merely hurtful to LGBTQ+ employees; it could also cause them to face additional workplace discrimination.
Studies have shown that LGBTQ employees already face significant workplace discrimination. A 2024 study by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health found that over half of their respondents who were LGBTQ experienced discrimination or harassment at the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2022 study by AWARE and Milieu Insight found that 68% of LGBTQ+ persons reported experiencing discrimination compared to 56% of those who did not identify as LGBTQ.
One respondent to the NUS School of Public Health study, who is lesbian, said that a headhunter warned her against bringing up her sexual orientation at a job interview because a previous candidate had been rejected for mentioning their same-sex spouse. Another respondent, who is gay, said he was told by his employer that he would not be appointed to a managerial position because of his sexual orientation. Indeed, hiring managers and HR representatives themselves have described this same type of discrimination.
The Singapore LGBTQ+ Workforce Audit 2022, which polled 200 HR professionals and business leaders, found that only 64% of respondents said yes when asked if companies were open to recruiting and hiring diverse candidates, including LGBTQ individuals. It is likely that the data understates the scale of the problem and that LGTBQ individuals are under-reporting the discrimination they face.
From 2018 to 2022 none of the 312 workplace discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM were related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The NUS School of Public Health survey found that for LGBTQ respondents who experienced workplace discrimination and harassment, only 10.71% reported it to their employer, 0.32% reported it to MOM, and only 0.97%, not even 1%, reported it to TAFEP.
The express exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity from this law is likely to worsen this discrimination. Employers may think they are free to discriminate against LGBTQ employees. Employees may have the belief that TAFEP, TADM and MOM will not assist them.
Can the Minister provide a clear statement that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace is wrong and unacceptable? Can the Minister also confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited under the TGFEP and Prevention from Harassment Act? Will the Minister confirm that TAFEP, TADM, ECT and MOM will assist individuals who report being discriminated against at their workplace due to sexual orientation or gender identity and that LGBTQ+ individuals who face discrimination should feel safe to report workplace discrimination to TAFEP, TADM and MOM?
Moving forward, This would not be a radical step. The UK's Equality Act already includes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic. This is the law that the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness has cited as having had a positive impact on workplaces.
I know that in Minister Tan's reply in Parliament in July 2023, he said that the Committee's recommendations were scoped tightly and to address the more common and familiar forms of discrimination. He said that it is better to take a measured first step, let stakeholders adjust to the new rules, before reviewing if more needs to be done.
I agree that our workplace fairness laws should be measured. I welcome the suggestion that our laws will be reviewed and updated. However, it is one thing for the Bill to be silent on sexual orientation and gender identity and a very different thing for the Bill to expressly exclude sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, do we not feel this is a step back by reinforcing discrimination and promoting stigma against LGBTQ+ individuals?
Given that the exclusions already exist under the Bill, I hope again that the Minister can provide a clear assurance that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong, regardless of whether this position is codified under legislation.
I would like to end by thanking groups who have been fighting hard and tirelessly to ensure that we can live in a world without discrimination. In particular, I thank groups that have been speaking up against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. They include Pink Dot SG, Oogachaga, Same But Different, SAFE, Project X, Q Chamber of Commerce, Action for Aids and AWARE. There are many, many more groups and individuals who have fought hard for a more inclusive Singapore, including for LGBTQ+ individuals. While there are too many to name, I thank them too for their perseverance and advocacy.
As former US President, Bill Clinton, said, "All of the country loses when any person is denied or forced out of a job because of sexual orientation. Being gay, the last time I thought about it, seemed to have nothing to do with the ability to read a balance book, fix a broken bone, or change a spark plug." Indeed, a person's sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with their ability to do a job well.
I support this Bill which ensures that we can live in a world without discrimination. And a world that is without discrimination must be inclusive regardless of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Sir, today's Bill is, as many of our Parliamentary colleagues have reiterated, a landmark legislation that will go a long way to create fairer and more equitable workplaces. I support the Bill, notwithstanding the points I will be making in this speech.
I am of the view, Sir, that this Bill is a missed opportunity to extend protections to outsourced workers. By way of explanation, outsourced workers are workers whose nature of work requires that they work on a permanent basis at a different location from their employer's premises. These workers include cleaners, landscape workers and security officers.
Outsourced workers' actual workplaces are therefore the external site that they are deployed at and the terms of deployment are subject to agreement between their employer and the service buyer, for example a Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST). These workers often take instructions and are subject, to a large extent, to the management and instruction of service buyers or their managing agents. Because this Bill covers employer's responsibilities, service buyers are therefore not subject to the obligations and penalties under this Bill. This presents a gap in the protection regime for outsourced workers because the key determinant of their workplace conditions are actually site owners and not their employers.
I can cite examples I have seen myself. In a contract for the deployment of cleaners between an MCST and a cleaning company, a particular MCST had prescribed that the cleaners be of a particular race. I have also seen many security service tenders and contracts between MCSTs and security agencies that stipulate that officers must be younger than a particular age. The Security Association Singapore has publicly called out several MCSTs and managing agents over the past few years who have imposed discriminatory requirements and affected the workplace fairness of workers.
Such contractual requirements then trickle down to the employment practices of service providers, which become inherently discriminatory in order to meet their commercial contract obligations. While this may open the service provider, who is the employer by law, to penalties under the Act, the service buyers get away scot-free and can continue to stipulate discriminatory deployment practices pursuant to the service contract with the service provider. Many service buyers also impose liquidated damages on service providers if they do not comply with the discriminatory deployment requirements.
It is also not uncommon for service buyers to exercise, often in arbitrary fashion, the ability to axe the deployment of these workers at their site, often with immediate effect. This affects workers' security of employment and peace of mind. It also creates an environment in which outsourced workers work perpetually in terrorem of the service buyer or managing agent at the site they are deployed to. There is therefore a significant lacuna in workplace protections that affects hundreds of thousands of outsourced workers.
While I raise this, Sir, I am also aware that it is legally complex to place obligations under law on such service buyers and I can understand if the Minister adopts an incremental approach to possibly eventually impose obligations on such service buyers because they are essentially de facto employers and controllers of the workplace fairness of outsourced workers. I hope the Minister will consider eventually extending the obligations and penalties under the Bill to buyers of outsourced services.
One way, Sir, that we can immediately deal with this would be to issue tripartite guidelines or amend existing guidelines to specifically proscribe such practices by service buyers. This will enable us to increase protections for our outsourced workers, and I hope that the respective tripartite partners can look into this urgently. Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join the debate today. I support the Bill.
PAPERCUTS