Workplace Fairness Bill

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

TAFEP will track, will analyse and share information on the complaints and cases received and resolved, both under the Bill and TGFEP. This will allow us to more meaningfully discuss and decide on our next moves.

To clarify, discrimination by perception, which is making an adverse employment decision because the employer suspects, assumes or believes a protected characteristic exists, is considered discrimination under clause 17(4) of the Bill and this is contrary to Mr Louis Chua's understanding and comment.

Members, such as Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Jean See and Mr Vikram Nair, asked about indirect discrimination. Whether a company's practice or policy not based on a protected characteristic has the effect of putting persons with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage is arguable in many cases. This is a grey area and legislation can have a chilling effect on employers, preventing them from having practices or policies, such as skills tests that are needed for the job and where certain groups can perform better than others.

But nevertheless, this does not mean that employees have no recourse for indirect discrimination. As Mr Vikram Nair said, the current legislation does make reference to some forms of indirect discrimination and a Court is not prevented from finding, as a fact, that a particular requirement may amount to discrimination under one of the protected characteristics.

I also want to thank Mr Fahmi Aliman for highlighting how the tripartite partners have been able to handle workplace discrimination complaints, including indirect discrimination in a sensitive and constructive manner. I also thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for sharing how TAFEP has managed and resolved cases that involve wearing of the tudung and the need to perform Friday prayers. To Mr Faisal Manap's clarifications, thank you. Let me emphasise that race and religion are protected characteristics under the Bill.

This Bill is not about legislating whether a firm must or must not allow someone to go for Friday prayers or accede to any other religion's practices or requests. We have to recognise that there are many operational details and implications and we believe that such issues are best addressed through open communication and trust and dialogue to accommodate both workers' and employers' valid needs. But if a person goes for Friday prayers and is fired for being religious and not because of performance, then it is discriminatory under the law. Let me reassure Members, including Mr Faisal Manap, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Louis Chua, Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Henry Kwek, that TAFEP will continue to seriously look into such cases and engage parties to resolve their issues amicably.

I also thank Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Ong Hua Han for their suggestions on how to better deal with indirect discrimination, which we will consider. We will also look into how we can work with stakeholders to provide illustrations and guidance on scenarios that constitute indirect discrimination, before implementing the legislation.

Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked why the Bill did not include protections against discrimination by association, which is discriminating against an employee due to an employee's connection to someone else with a protected characteristic. It is quite an uphill and complex and difficult task to draw the line where discrimination by association starts and where it ends. It could extend well beyond the employee's spouse to include family members, friends or anyone they have close associations with. Legislating against this, therefore, has far reaching implications that we will not be able to, at this point in time, anticipate and address adequately. And it has the untoward effect of creating a culture of suspicion and distrust between employers and employees. Hence, on balance, we started with a tightly scoped Bill to avoid litigiousness and provide more meaningful protections.

We have included an example in the explanatory statement, which was highlighted a few times during this debate. But let me explain. This explanatory statement, the example, is not part of the Act, but it is an attempt to explain the contours of discrimination under the Act itself. Mr Pritam Singh then asked for examples of TAFEP, the cases of discrimination by association. I have checked with the team, they have trawled through. As far as we are aware, TAFEP has not encountered such cases so far. Notwithstanding, our reassurance is that TAFEP will continue to help workers who face all forms of workplace discrimination, including discrimination by association.

Members like Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Usha Chandrada and Mr Louis Ng have raised the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and why it should be included in this Bill. Let me state clearly that we do not tolerate any forms of workplace discrimination, including towards LGBT individuals. We currently handle such cases under TGFEP and we will continue to do so. In addition, the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) protects all victims against violence, against harassment, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In our engagements, in our consultations with various civic, religious and worker groups, we heard the views, the needs, the concerns of the different stakeholders. Even in this House, during the repeal of section 377A, I recall that the Workers’ Party found it just as hard to take a unified party position. I am not sure if Ms He Ting Ru's emphatic support for the inclusion of SOGI is representative of your party's stance.

Regardless, it is not about questioning your stance. It is about demonstrating the difficulty, the difficulty in reaching a unified position because these issues are complex and they are multifaceted. So, let us focus our attention, our energies on how to provide more concrete support for our workers and, at the same time, build up our expertise, build up our experience in managing such issues under the law.

I thank Ms Usha Chandradas for her suggestions to strengthen the protections for LGBT individuals, including training for our frontline officers. Indeed, in preparation for this legislation, we have undertaken overseas study trips where TAFEP, TADM and MOM officers learned how other jurisdictions manage such discrimination cases and how they manage a diverse group of stakeholders.

TAFEP has also engaged third-party trainers and will continue to train its officers to manage cases of discrimination and harassment delicately and sensitively, including potentially adopting a trauma care approach for vulnerable individuals. Direct referral channels have been established between TAFEP and key stakeholders, including the LGBT and other community groups, to institute a safe process for affected workers to make complaints. We will continue to collaborate with community groups to raise awareness on the TGFEP, so that individuals are assured and they know that TAFEP is ready to provide advice and assistance.

Ms Jean See, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Raj Thomas asked about outsourced workers and platform workers. TGFEP will be updated to clarify that platform operators and corporate service buyers should not discriminate based on non-job-related characteristics.

Let me, again, be clear. Any such worker who faces discrimination should approach TAFEP for assistance. To Ms Sylvia Lim’s point, rest assured that we will investigate complaints and we will take action against employers who place workers on contract for services to avoid their legal obligations.

Let me now move on to how the Bill supports the genuine business needs of employers. Employers have given us feedback, that they support the need to uphold fairness in the workplaces and most employers do want to do the right thing. Yet, we have to be cautious about how onerous the requirements under the Bill will be, so that we do not inadvertently disrupt businesses' abilities to compete and provide jobs for our workers.

As Mr Mark Lee highlighted, the Bill allows employers flexibility in hiring the right people for jobs where there are genuine requirements to have or not to have a protected characteristic. As suggested by Mr Patrick Tay, we will provide guidelines on how this exception may be applied. This will include illustrations to give more clarity including when a job can or cannot be reasonably performed, as highlighted by Mr Saktiandi Supaat. Let me also assure the businesses that when TAFEP examines the cases, we will take a balanced and nuanced approach and that is to support workers with genuine needs, but we will also triage and manage the cases to avoid burdening employers if there are frivolous claims.

Small firms may lack the capabilities and resources to implement the legislation and they may need more time to prepare for it, and this is something that Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng have also acknowledged. Several Members have expressed concern about the exemption of small firms with fewer than 25 employees from the Bill at the start. Mr Pritam Singh questioned whether the exemption threshold of 25 employees would collectively apply to a group of companies operating as one entity or to each individual corporate entity; while Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if contracts for service with small firms can be used to bypass the protections under the Bill. Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about supporting SMEs in the journey towards upholding workplace fairness. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Yip and Mr Tay also asked about our plans and considerations in reviewing this exemption. Let me try to make the following clarifications.

First, the exemption threshold will apply to each individual corporate entity. Second, this Bill, as it is, if it gets passed by all of your support, will still cover around 75% of employees. Third, this exemption does not mean that the remaining 25% of our workforce are unprotected and that small firms are free to discriminate against them. All firms today are already expected to abide by TGFEP, including small firms.

So, even in a group setting or contracts of service with multiple small firms, each of these firms will still need to follow fair employment practices. TAFEP has also been collaborating with partners, like the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, to prepare and to support small firms to create fair and progressive workplaces.

Lastly, we agree with Mr Tay and Mr Yip that the exemption should not be indefinite. Hence, we plan to review this five years after the commencement of the Workplace Fairness Act and small firms which are ready earlier can position themselves, of course, we encourage them to position themselves earlier, as the employer of choice amongst their counterparts.

Moving on to the next segment. I will, next, explain how the Bill will preserve harmony in the workplace and society. The Bill requires companies to have clear grievance handling processes for their employees. Mr Patrick Tay spoke about ensuring that employers abide by their grievance handling processes and provide recourse for employees dissatisfied with the process. Dr Wan Rizal also queried on how to ensure grievance handling processes are unbiased and transparent. TAFEP has available resources, such as the Tripartite Standard on Grievance Handling, setting out good practices which employers can refer to.

We hear Miss Rachel Ong's call to consider persons with disabilities and we will develop our resources on grievance handling with this consideration in mind. So, thank you, Miss Ong.

To Mr Patrick Tay’s point on non-legislative levers to strengthen protection against harassment, we will develop a Tripartite Standard to emphasise the importance of creating harassment-free workplaces. Anyone who faces workplace harassment can approach TAFEP for assistance. TAFEP also guides employers and runs the Workplace Harassment Resource and Recourse Centre to support victims.

The Bill will also prohibit employers from retaliating against those who report workplace discrimination or harassment. Together with the grievance handling processes, which provide a safety net, we want to encourage workers to step forward to resolve their disputes early at the firm level, which are points also raised by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Fahmi Aliman. Both spoke about it earlier.

Dr Wan Rizal asked how employees will be protected from subtle forms of retaliation. We recognise that not all retaliatory acts are overt in nature and have prohibited any act that is detrimental to the complainant such as pressurising him or her into accepting less favourable contractual terms, to address Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Jean See's queries.

Other than preserving workplace harmony, the Bill also provides provisions to cater to the role of religious groups in Singapore's multi-religious society. Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested providing more clarity on this exception. To explain, this exception applies to two categories of job roles: roles that are religious in nature and roles related to the running of places of worship, institutions of religious instruction and groups that oversee religious affairs or other religious groups. Social service agencies, hospices and charities with a secular purpose, I suppose some hospitals can be included as well, established by religious groups, will not automatically qualify for the exception. We have scoped this exception tightly to preserve the common space for jobs, even as we provide some flexibility to cater to the purpose and character of religious groups.

I will move on to the queries on the Government's approach towards errant practices. Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua commented that it would be difficult for employees to prove discrimination, and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the types of evidence needed. When making a complaint, the complainant should clearly cite the incident that led him or her to believe that an adverse employment decision was made against him or her because of a protected characteristic. Placing the burden of proof on the claimant is an approach that strikes a balance between facilitating employees’ access to redress and safeguarding employers against frivolous claims. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia and Hong Kong, also take the same approach. The claimant can provide evidence in various forms, including emails, phone messages, documents and signed testimonies. To Mr Pritam Singh’s query, just to share an example of a case managed by TAFEP, TAFEP intervened against a company for age discrimination for rescinding its job offer to a group of senior workers and hiring only sales promoters below 30 years old.

Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the civil and administrative penalties for contraventions. If an employer commits an act of discrimination that does not amount to a serious civil contravention, we can impose administrative financial penalties. But if there is a systemic element where an employer has a longstanding practice of hiring workers of a certain nationality, we may treat this as a serious contravention and pursue a civil penalty action in Court. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, yes, a serious civil contravention refers to one under clause 30. More details will be included in subsidiary legislation.

Next, I thank Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay for their questions on whether employees who report discrimination not covered by the Bill will be protected from retaliation. This protection will not apply to them, currently, but we thank Mr Tay for the suggestion to include this in the Act and we will certainly keep this in mind.

At the same time, while we have gone through very intense debate, I think we all can acknowledge that legislation and guidelines are not a panacea. At the core, we must continue our efforts to educate our employers and, generally, our population at large, in order for us to promote fair employment practices.

Discrimination, at its root, is a mindset issue and this is also something that Mr Sharael Taha pointed out. Our priority is to provide information and support to employers so that they get it right in the first place and I certainly hope that enforcement is a last resort. I agree with Mr Patrick Tay on the importance of communicating the legislation thoroughly to employers, the unions, employees and other stakeholders.

Several Members, such as Mr Fahmi Aliman, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Jean See, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay, have rightfully pointed out that managers and human resources professionals play a critical role. As suggested by Mr Tay, we will update the IHRP certification curriculum.

Beyond that, we will also work with tripartite partners and certified HR professionals to uplift broad HR capabilities and ensure compliance with employment-related legislation, particularly the Workplace Fairness Act. We also thank Mr Mark Lee for his suggestions on supporting companies in implementing the requirements of the legislation and we will take them into consideration.

I will now address the last set of issues on this Bill. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Patrick Tay raised concerns on employers requesting information relating to a protected characteristic, such as mental health conditions. Requesting information, in itself, is not an adverse employment decision and thus is not prohibited by this Bill. But having said that, we recognise that jobseekers may find it concerning to be asked for information unrelated to job requirements.

In this regard, TGFEP already states that employers should only collect information or ask questions that are relevant to the job requirements to assess an applicant. In such cases, employers should also explain the reasons for doing so and how it relates to the job requirement.

Some Members, such as Mr Sharael Taha, have also asked about private employment claims, such as how they will be managed. As mentioned previously, there will be a second Bill that sets out the claims process for individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against and we hope to have an equally fruitful debate on the second Bill when it is introduced in this House.

The Public Service, too, plays a role in promoting workplace fairness, as Mr Henry Kwek pointed out. To address Mr Pritam Singh’s question, the Public Service, comprising the Government and the Statutory Boards, will not be covered under the Workplace Fairness Act because public officers deal with sensitive areas of work and it will not be appropriate to involve external parties, such as the tribunals, to handle grievances or resolve disputes involving public officers.

However, I want to reassure Members that public officers will be accorded a similar level of protection as the Bill and the Public Service has put in place policies and processes that adhere to the key principles of the legislation as well as the existing TGFEP. The Public Service is committed to providing a safe workplace for all public officers and it does not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination and harassment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, I am heartened by the strong support for this Bill. It has been an immense endeavour to develop a Bill of this magnitude. It was not easy and we have worked hard with our partners on this. We have the conviction that this is the right thing to do. But we acknowledge, we have the humility to acknowledge, that we have to continue to work hard, to continue to learn and to continue to improve.

But importantly, the mindset is that we should start somewhere. I know, listening to the speeches today, we can always do a lot more. But we cannot let perfection be the enemy of progress. I want to thank all partners who have helped to make this first Workplace Fairness Bill in Singapore possible, especially our tripartite partners, NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation.

I also want to thank Members, the various stakeholders, who took the time, the efforts to contribute to our engagements. The employers, our HR professionals, our non-governmental organisations, the legal practitioners and members of the public. Please bear with me. Bear with us if we could not take all of your suggestions onboard at this point in time. I seek your patience, your understanding, but I want to reassure you, we will take time to further build and consolidate this regime.

We also need to demonstrate patience and understanding, towards one another, in our very own workplaces, knowing and acknowledging that there are unique situations where employers' and employees' needs and their expectations may differ. To each and everyone of you, within and outside the House, please continue to walk with us as we strive towards fairer and more harmonious workplaces in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

I thank the Minister for the reply and the confirmation again that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is covered under the TGFEP. But, and it is a big but, this is actually not explicitly stated on the TAFEP website.

It would mean a lot for the LGBTQ+ community if we can explicitly state on the TAFEP website that discrimination based on SOGI is covered under the Tripartite Guidelines. This would also help address the issue of under-reporting. Many might go on the website and realise it is not there, so they do not report it. So, explicitly stating it might help with the under-reporting.

My second point is on whether it is fair to just leave SOGI under the Tripartite Guidelines because of the penalties. So, if you discriminate against someone who is lesbian or gay and the penalty is you cannot hire foreigners, how would that make sense?

I thank Mr Ng for the clarification. Our sense is that, if you list it on a website, it may actually have a counter-effect that each and every single attribute has to be listed. If you do not list it, it means that it is not covered. By the way we have approached it, we have given enough reassurance.

On the Member's point about whether the penalties, because of the fact that it is under TAFEP and TGFEP, whether it is sufficient, thus far, our experience is that when TAFEP calls up the company, they rarely, rarely dare to not comply. If the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, knows of any company after being called up by TAFEP, still ignores TAFEP's guidance, I would be very interested to know the company.

I am not giving a name of the company now, but I thought again that the problem now is we do list certain characteristics on the TAFEP website. We already state age, race, gender, religion, marital status, family, responsibility or disability. So, it is not a case where we do not state anything. We do state some characteristic that is protected under TAFEP, but we just leave out again sexual orientation and gender identity, and that is the issue where the LGBTQ+ community feel that then, it is not fair. TGFEP just sort of leaves them out and, to be inclusive, the website already lists some, it is fair enough that we should list these additional two characteristics.

We should not belabour the point. I have sort of made it very clear that we will not tolerate any form of discrimination and, today, if we are able to pass the Bill, it is a very significant landmark. And we started off with these 11 protected characteristics because when we have enough experience, we have also got a treasure trove of information as to how to deal with them, let us grow. Let us move ahead and as we accumulate more information, we can widen the reach.

I ask for the Members' understanding and support in that. So, this is surefooted, it is a prudent approach and it is also in tandem with our societal norms today and how we can move forward.

I thank the Minister for the round up, but I brought up three questions, specifically, on three clauses, which I hope the Minister can articulate and answer, if not, otherwise, provide it later in the accompanying deck when this is rolled out.

First, it is on three clauses: clause 12, clause 18 and clause 28.

Firstly, clause 12. I asked about the age range for an infant. Clarity is important because if the maximum age for who is deemed to be an infant is too low, a female worker may lose her protection when breastfeeding an older child. Hopefully, some clarity on this as we implement.

Secondly, clause 18 covers discrimination by employer's direction, instruction or policy published in writing. I would like to ask the Minister how would unwritten disciplinary directions, instructions or policy be dealt with. As currently worded, employers may get around clause 18 by not putting things in writing.

And, finally, clause 28, I did ask a question earlier, hoping to get an answer. Clause 28 prohibits employers from taking any retaliatory action against employees who raise grievances or pursue claims under the Bill, so not offering re-employment is an adverse employment decision, only if it is attributable to retaliation. In other cases where the employer did not offer re-employment, the affected employee can make representations to the Minister under the Retirement and Re-employment Act. So, in those other cases, would evidence of discrimination by the employer be relevant? Just these three.

On the definition, we certainly can take the Member's points and, like I said, we are still reviewing in terms of in the final Bill when it comes out. Without appearing to be over-delegating, TAFEP will work on the other two items. From the perspective of even the definition of the age of an infant, should there be reasonable indication beyond even whatever the defined age is, because of extenuating circumstances, it is something that any sort of employee can bring up.

But, of course, the first thing that we hope to be able to get everyone into the same cadence is, first and foremost, because most employers are reasonable, the employee should try to resolve it through the grievance handling mechanism within the company. If that does not work, come to us. We will, then, try to organise mediation and we believe that just the first two steps would resolve the vast majority of the cases. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.

So, the first question I want to ask is: has the MOM conducted any study on the possibility of under-employment in the Singapore job market?

The second question I want to ask is – this is also something that I have debated with the Manpower Minister over the years – just now, he had written off my assertion that low unemployment does not mean no significant under-employment. By quoting another macro indicator, that is the PMET or PME ratio, he quoted roughly that the ratio has gone up from 50% to 60% over a certain period.

But I want to know, has the Government actually looked at this ratio again after stripping out the immigration effect? We know that this ratio is very corrupted, with original Singaporeans at the beginning of a period, new citizens that came in and new PRs. So, there is a lot of immigration effect on these macro indicators. So, did MOM look into a kind of pure indicator, rather than having all these effects and then, now, telling Singaporeans that the ratio has gone up from 50% to 60%? These are my two questions. I hope that is clear enough.

Mr Speaker, Sir, out of due respect to you, I will answer his two questions. But I do not see how they are related to the WFL. I hope that after this, we can come back to issues that are pertinent because we just had a seven-hour debate, starting from yesterday till now and we will continue.

I have given clear statistics. Through my last four years, I am privileged and very honoured to be given the opportunity to be able to come to the highest office here, to be able to have this debate. But Mr Leong Mun Wai has consistently been looking for a smoking gun. The fact of the matter is that each time the Member asks for certain statistics, I give him the statistics. He would say that this is not what he is looking for. Has he ever considered the fact that maybe something that he is looking for does not exist?

Let me put it to the Member. Because of the fact that, after a while, the Member's cadence, my understanding has not changed. Hence, I also pre-emptively prepared the statistics for him because I expected that he will bring it up today. Just to put it into perspective and I hope that, after this, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I humbly request that we just stick to the debate on the WFL? I seek your indulgence on this.

Foreign-owned firms today account for 24% of all companies in Singapore and they employ about one-third of our local resident workforce and more than one-third of our fresh graduates. I just wanted to tell the Member about foreign firms first.

If we talk about what kinds of jobs they offer, because they do hire a very high number of foreigners as well, but let me just give the Member the breakdown. Foreign-owned firms provide high-paying jobs to our locals. About 60% of locals in the highest income decile, who are earning about approximately $13,000 a month and above, are working in foreign-owned firms. The median salaries of our resident employees working in foreign-owned firms are more than 70% higher compared to locals working in local-owned firms.

The Member talked about foreign high-skilled workforce displacing resident PMETs. Let me tell the Member, categorically, the answer is no. The number of resident PMETs has, in fact, grown faster than EP and S Pass holders between 2014 and 2024. Resident PMETs grew by 34% over this period, significantly higher than the EP and S Pass holders' increase of 11%.

As a result, the ratio of EP or S Pass to resident PMETs has improved, from one EP or S Pass holder for every three local PMETs in 2014 to now, one EP/S Pass holder for every four local PMET in 2024. This improvement is observed across most sectors, including the growth sectors of Information and Communications, Professional Services and Financial Services.

The Member talked about labour market performance. Has the labour market performance of locals been impacted by foreign workers? Our locals continue to enjoy favourable employment outcomes. Singapore leads globally in labour force participation rate of its residents and we are ahead of other major cities, such as Tokyo, Helsinki, Berlin and Hong Kong. In the last decade, incomes have grown across all percentiles, with the larger increases for lower income groups. In the last five years, Singapore's real income growth is also higher than countries, such as the UK, US, Japan and Germany, many of whom are seeing income stagnation or declines.

I urge Mr Leong – we are here to pass this very landmark, historic Bill. We are facing increasing global geopolitical contestation. The war continues to go on. We are at a crucial inflexion point. Some things we can try, but our total fertility rate continues to drop. The tax burden will start to shift to our future young. So, we are in this state of hyper competition all over the world. Countries are competing, top companies are competing for global talent. I hope that we can work together, Mr Leong, for your grandchildren and my grandchildren. [Applause.]