Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill represents a vital step for employment rights in Singapore. But as I reviewed this Bill, I found myself thinking not just about the legal frameworks and tribunal procedures outlined in its pages, but also people from all walks of life who will need to navigate these systems to seek justice. Among these will be persons with disabilities and special needs, who most often draw the shortest end of the stick.

Today, I rise in strong support of this Bill. But I also rise to ask four questions that might help this legislation truly deliver fairness for persons with disabilities.

Sir, the Bill before us establishes a comprehensive three-step dispute resolution process: internal grievance handling, mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and as a last resort, adjudication at the ECT or the High Court. This is sound policy architecture. But architecture must be accompanied with the frameworks to ensure that those who need access to its protection can enter.

Let me share a story from a resident who came to see me. My resident is autistic. He had been working in a professional services firm when he began experiencing what he believed was discrimination related to his disability. When he tried to raise his concerns through his company's grievance process, he found the procedures overwhelming. The internal HR process required him to navigate dense policy documents he found difficult to understand. When he attended meetings with HR representatives, they spoke rapidly using corporate jargon and expected immediate verbal responses: something extremely challenging for him as an autistic person who needs time to process information. The sensory environment of the meetings, the bright fluorescent lights, the hum of the air-conditioning and the unpredictability of the discussion, left him feeling psychologically unsafe and unable to articulate his case clearly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my resident's experience is not unique. This is why my first and most urgent clarification is this: is it possible for HR professionals, TADM mediators, ECT staff and High Court personnel involved in employment disputes, to undergo mandatory disability awareness training.

Secondly, can we do more to ensure informed representation? My second recommendation addresses a fundamental asymmetry of power that persons with disabilities face in dispute resolution. The Bill wisely provides for representation at mediation sessions. Employers who are corporate bodies may be represented by officers or employees. In turn, parties may be represented by advocates and solicitors if claims exceed certain thresholds. These provisions are sound.

But Sir, is there space for the provisions under the Bill to go further by allowing social service agencies or non-profit organisations working with such groups of people to represent persons with disabilities during mediation sessions and tribunal proceedings?

Why is this so critical? Let me illustrate with another story from the same resident. During a particularly stressful period at work, my resident was required to participate in work calls with IT colleagues that his autism job coach from the Autism Resource Centre had explicitly recommended he be excluded from, or at minimum, that someone always accompany him during such interactions. These calls were neurologically incompatible for him – they were complex, unstructured, unpredictable, filled with incomplete information and confusing technical jargon. They triggered intense stress and made him feel psychologically unsafe.

Despite this professional recommendation for a reasonable accommodation, business needs overrode the advice. During one exceptionally traumatic call that pushed him near to an autistic meltdown, my resident made a comment expressing his extreme distress. He did not use vulgarities. He did not make personal attacks. He was simply overwhelmed. But in the debrief meeting that followed, his managers ignored his distress entirely and focused solely on what they deemed "unprofessional behaviour". His managers even threatened to negatively impact his performance appraisal, a form of indirect discrimination since his reactions were directly related to his disability, until a more senior leader intervened.

Sir, if my resident had tried to challenge this treatment through mediation or tribunal proceedings on his own, he would have struggled immensely. Sitting across from corporate representatives, he would have difficulty articulating the nuanced context of his disability – why being corrected and reprimanded for a disability-related reaction constitutes harassment, why the denial of recommended accommodations created the conditions for the incident and why threatening his performance appraisal for needing accommodations is discriminatory.

Sir, this is why organisations who are trained at working with persons with disabilities must be present at mediations and tribunals. These organisations understand the unique challenges persons with disabilities face. They can help persons with disabilities prepare their cases, organise their evidence and communicate their experiences differently. They can identify when workplace "performance issues" are actually disability discrimination disguised as legitimate business decisions. The Bill already contemplates that unions can represent parties in dispute resolution but union representatives, while skilled in employment matters, may not have specialised training in disability issues. Disability organisations bring that expertise.

Sir, my third clarification concerns accessibility for the frameworks surrounding the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill. Would it be possible to ensure that all materials, guidelines and submission portals related to workplace fairness disputes comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These guidelines are not aspirational. They are already mandatory for high-traffic Government websites under our Digital Service Standards, with full compliance expected by 2030.

Compliance with WCAG means ensuring that online portals work with screen readers for persons with visual impairments. It means providing text alternatives for all images and charts. It means ensuring sufficient colour contrast for persons with low vision or colour blindness. It means designing forms that are navigable by keyboard for persons with mobility limitations. It means using clear, simple language for persons with intellectual or cognitive disabilities. It would go a long, long way in ensuring that the information and protection provided by the Bill and its guidelines are available to all.

Mr Speaker, in this House, we have spoken much about a society of compassion. The Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill is a commendable, intentional and balanced step to building a system that truly serves everyone. I am deeply grateful to the Minister and the entire Ministry team for their dedication in crafting this landmark piece of legislation, and call on all of us to deliberately and intentionally ensure that the provisions made in this Bill continue to build a system that is accessible and fair for all workers.

When we train our mediators and tribunal officers in disability awareness, we ensure that persons with disabilities are treated with dignity and understanding. When we enable disability organisations to represent persons with disabilities, we level the playing field and ensure that power imbalances do not predetermine outcomes. When we make our systems accessible – our portals, forms, hearing rooms – we remove barriers that exclude persons with disabilities from seeking justice. And when we design evidence rules that account for the realities of how discrimination operates, we ensure that persons with disabilities do not face impossible burdens when asserting their rights.

A workplace fairness system that works for persons with disabilities is a system that works for everyone. It is like a ramp. We build it for those who need it most – persons who use wheelchairs – but once it is there, it helps everyone: parents with strollers, delivery riders, the elderly. Likewise, when we design our workplace systems to include persons with disabilities, we build a Singapore that is more humane and ultimately, more just for all. And when Singapore proves that every person, regardless of ability, can access justice with dignity, we will have built not just fairer workplaces, but a more compassionate nation. Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important development in our workplace management framework. In today's context, whereby labour is globally mobile and the workplace has essentially become borderless, the competition between economies for jobs is now much more intense. It is now far harder to strike a balance between the needs and interests of employers and employees, especially for a small country with a globally-connected economy like Singapore.

I am standing in support of this Bill because it is an important Bill that aligns Singapore's labour legislation with that of global peers and provides much-needed clarity for companies that choose to operate here. As a business-friendly environment, we have to understand that employers need clarity, flexibility and certainty so that they can continue to innovate and compete without undue fear of litigation or disruption.

The Bill sends an important message: that discrimination has never been and will never be tolerated in our workplaces. Employees will have more certainty and confidence that decisions around hiring, promotion, training and termination will be based on merit. Those who believe they have been unfairly treated now have clearer and more accessible recourse avenues. The internal grievance process helps ensure that matters can be raised within the firm. The mediation-first approach means that disputes can be resolved in a less adversarial manner and allows for the possibility that some semblance of relationship can be preserved. This is also in line with what is commonly known as "not burning bridges".

I hope that employers will view this new development positively and understand that the legislation is helping them to build stronger teams and healthier, more engaged workplaces. With the certainty offered by this piece of legislation, employers now have a clearer framework for setting up grievance mechanisms, conducting fair employment practices, understanding what constitutes adverse employment decisions. As the Bill prioritises internal resolution and mediation, employers have the opportunity to resolve disputes internally or at early stages rather than getting right into expensive, possibly protracted litigation. This helps preserve employer-employee relationships, maintain morale and reduce the risk of reputational damage.

I wanted to just highlight some potential practicalities that may be faced by employees and employers as this is being rolled out. To realise the full potential of this Bill, we need to address the following issues.

First, employees and jobseekers should be aware of their rights and the processes available to them and feel empowered to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Employees may not be aware of their rights or may be unfamiliar with the process. Will the Ministry be planning to raise their awareness and educate them on the steps they need to take, such as keeping records and evidence of discriminatory practices? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Employees and jobseekers should be aware of their rights and the processes available to them, and feel empowered to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Employees may not be aware of their rights or may be unfamiliar with the process. Will the Ministry be planning to raise their awareness and educate them on the steps they need to take, such as keeping records and evidence of discriminatory practices?

(In English): Second, tripartite partners, unions, employer associations, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), TAFEP should continue their education and outreach to ensure that the transition is smooth and that smaller firms are supported.

Third, employers should proactively review and strengthen their internal grievance handling procedures, provide training for managers and staff, and encourage a culture of openness and fairness. I know that this does not happen overnight, but it is in the interests of the company to do so.

Fourth, I hope that the Government devotes some resources to monitor how the entire regime works in practice: examining the average time to resolution, cost to parties, outcomes and whether the mediation-first approach is achieving the harmony and fairness objectives intended.

In addition, while the Bill aims to prevent abuse of the system, the safeguards for employers against unmerited claims could be a barrier to employees seeking redress. Some employees may be worried that they will have to go through a longer and more onerous process than simply sending a complaint to the authorities. What is the Ministry's assessment of this issue? I urge businesses to view this legislation as an opportunity, not simply as a compliance burden, but as a catalyst for better workplaces, where employees feel respected and empowered, where both sides can focus on what matters most and that is doing good work together.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill, which marks an important step in resolving employment disputes fairly, quickly and transparently. By giving statutory force to fair employment principles, this Bill reinforces Singapore's commitment to an inclusive, rules-based labour market where both employers and employees can operate with confidence.

As we implement this framework, I would like to raise several points for clarification and recommendations. First, this Bill introduces mandatory mediation before adjudication. This aligns with our tripartite approach of resolving conflicts through dialogue and conciliation rather than confrontation. But access to mediation is key. Workers without HR support or legal literacy must feel safe in coming forward. How will we ensure that mediation is not just available, but also accessible and impartial, especially for our lower-wage workers? As TAFEP transitions from advisory to enforcement, clear communication is critical so that everyone understands where to go, what to do and what to expect when a dispute arises.

Second, while the Bill emphasises the importance of internal resolution, we must recognise that unequal power dynamics persist in the workplace. Employees may feel intimidated, uncertain, or afraid of retaliation. Could the Ministry share what safeguards and training will be in place to ensure employees can resolve grievances without fear or duress? And where harm or undue pressure is likely, could the Bill allow employees to proceed directly to mediation? This would protect vulnerable workers while preserving fair and proportionate resolution.

Third, employers bear the responsibility to uphold fair practices and cooperate fully with investigations. Yet, many SMEs may lack the HR capacity to meet these new statutory expectations. Our collective goal must be to prevent disputes before they even arise. To achieve this, we need to strengthen HR capabilities across all enterprises, ensuring practices are professional, transparent and consistently applied.

In this regard, promotion and appraisal process deserves special attention. These decisions are often subjective and yet they have profound implications for employee morale, retention and progression. To reduce misunderstanding and build trust, companies, especially SMEs, should be encouraged to review and clarify their performance appraisal and promotion criteria, ensuring that they are fair, evidence-based and relevant to their business context.

May I ask the Minister for an update on efforts to professionalise and certify the HR industry and how the Ministry can further support employers, particularly smaller firms, in strengthening their internal HR systems? For example, could TAFEP or MOM provide advisory resources, templates or capability programmes to help companies design fair and defensible HR frameworks aligned with the intent and spirit of this Bill?

Fourth, we must also guard against frivolous claims. For example, some employees may allege discrimination over return-to-office policies. The system must remain balanced, protecting genuine cases, but preventing misuse. Clear definitions and examples of discrimination will give both employers and employees the confidence to act fairly and reasonably. May I ask the Minister what safeguards are in place to prevent against frivolous claims?

Fifth, where discrimination is proven, tribunals may order compensation or reinstatement. To clarify, can the Minister share how compensation will be determined and whether guidelines, similar to those at the ECT, will apply? This Bill will expand the roles of MOM and TAFEP in mediation and enforcement. What resources will be provided to ensure timely resolution and consistent outcomes, because predictability builds confidence for both employers and employees?

Lastly, legislation can set the rules, but it cannot change culture alone. Education and outreach are vital. Workers must know their rights. Employers, especially SMEs, need guidance to put these new requirements into practice. Our tripartite partners play a key role. Through workshops, toolkits and real examples, they can help both employers and employees understand their responsibilities. Because fairness should not just be a legal requirement, it should be a shared workplace value.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill sends a clear message that fairness, respect and dignity are non-negotiable in our workplaces. My clarifications are made in the spirit of strengthening its implementation, ensuring that both employers and employees can operate in a system that is fair, balanced and trusted by all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a member of the TAFEP Committee.

The Bill marks a landmark first for Singapore – the establishment of a comprehensive, statutory framework for workplace fairness and anti-discrimination. It represents one of the most structured and progressive statutory frameworks of its kind in our region in past.

For me personally, this has been a long-awaited milestone. Ten years ago, in my maiden speech, I spoke about fair employment practices and the need for enhanced anti-discrimination protections. Other MPs have also spoken about it over the years. After we passed the first part of the WFA in January this year, this Bill now stands between us and finally having statutory anti-discrimination protections that employees can avail themselves of.

This is more than a legal reform; it is a social compact for the future of work in Singapore, one that balances fairness, accountability and economic competitiveness. Singapore's approach, grounded in tripartism and trust between Government, unions and employers, makes this framework uniquely Singaporean and regionally possibly distinctive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I actually wanted to ask a few questions about the implementation of the timeline and the role of TAFEP, but I think Minister Tan, in his opening speech, already answered my question. He mentioned about it being scheduled by end of 2027. But what I want to reiterate here is the fact that for employers to plan ahead, a clear timeline and transparent update ahead of implementation will be useful, especially in the current economic and trading environment that we are seeing globally.

My question, therefore, on TAFEP, would be, as Minister Tan has shared earlier, he has elaborated in his opening speech about the role that TAFEP will play. My question is, after hearing what Minister Tan has asked, is given the range of work to be done by TAFEP, would TAFEP's budget and resources be scaled up or down, or maintained, following the implementation of the WFA? I think TAFEP will play a significant role, going forward, from what I have heard from Minister Tan, given the expectations also from the Members in the Chamber, especially in the need to simplify things and in particular, possibly making things in vernacular so that our employees can understand it further, including employers.

Second point, Mr Speaker, is on the claims procedure and internal grievance handling processes. As I understand it, an aggrieved individual would need to go through three sequential stages to pursue a claim against an employer or firm.

First, the employee must resort to the firm's internal grievance handling process at the first instance. Would there be minimum standards that such internal processes would have to meet and would they be subject to audit by supervising agencies? I think this is the first hurdle before things get progressive. This is important, especially if you are also subjecting an individual who is complaining about a discriminatory decision not to hire him or her under section 5 of the WFA.

Unlike individuals complaining about discriminatory employment decisions during employment, or in respect of dismissal, retrenchment or termination, such an individual would not have signed a contract with the firm where he or she might have agreed to the firm's internal grievance handling process.

In a similar vein, would the Ministry and/or its agencies roll out training on how to institute or improve an acceptable grievance handling process before the WFA goes live, and as mentioned, end 2027 – so, we still have a few years to go before then. So, when will this be done?

Next, Mr Speaker, claims, procedure and mediation. I think many in this room have shared about their concerns on the mediation front. Second, an aggrieved individual would have to attempt mediation as a precondition to filing a claim against the employer or firm. The Bill provides that this will be evidenced by a "claim referral certificate", issued by an approved mediator if the dispute cannot be settled by mediation. What is the duration that the individual has to commence a claim after receiving a "claim referral certificate"? Will each certificate stipulate a bespoke time limit for that particular claim to be brought in the High Court or the ECT? If so, what should an individual claimant do if his or her "claim referral certificate" lapses or expires? A bit of a technical question that I have.

So, we must have mediators, if other Members have spoken, mediators who are sensitive to the context of our unique system, emphasising tripartism and harmonious labour relations. What is the size of the pool of approved mediators that will be maintained? Where will they be drawn from? Practising lawyers, HR specialists or Public Service officers?

The new section 36E to be introduced by this Bill, provides that a mediation request must be made within one, two or six months of the alleged discriminatory employment decision, depending on the nature of the claim and whether the employer gave notice of the employment decision or not. What is the consequence if a claimant is out of time? Is any and all recourse precluded, such that the claimant cannot pursue the workplace fairness claim in mediation or in Court? I believe this has been raised by others as well before me.

It also appears difficult for a claimant to determine the expiry of the time bar if the employer does not give notice of the employment decision. In the new section 36E, how does the Ministry expect the time bars in limbs (2)(b) and (3)(b) to work? Where a claim for a discriminatory hiring decision is concerned, is section 36E(2)(b) even meaningful since there are express provisions on deemed notice and implied notice where a prospective employer has "ghosted" the employee after the employment application, interview or test?

The prescribed time bars also make reasonable concessions for pregnant individuals. In relation to the new section 36E(4)(a) of the Bill, must there be formal certification of pregnancy or is a clinical diagnosis by a registered medical practitioner enough? Is it truly the intent to subject pregnant women, for example, to dispute resolution under the WFA, prior to the end of their confinement, just because they only got their pregnancy confirmed by a doctor after the employer's alleged discriminatory dismissal or termination?

Mr Speaker, my next point on claims procedure on ECT or High Court, but will be made in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to state for the record my appreciation to the Government for the amendments to the Workplace Fairness Act that aim to protect Singapore workers from any form of discrimination. However, I have a few questions. At the third and final stage, any workplace fairness claims that cannot be resolved through the company's internal processes or through mediation may be brought to the General Division of the High Court, or to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) if the claim amount is S$250,000 or less.

For cases brought to the ECT, individuals are not permitted to be represented by lawyers, whether during mediation or during tribunal proceedings. This is in line with the ECT's objective to maintain a simple, personal and judge-led process.

However, I would like to ask — has any satisfaction survey or study ever been conducted on individuals and employers regarding the process and outcomes of ECT proceedings, given that legal representation is generally not permitted?

This situation could create an inequality of opportunity, as companies, partnerships or organisations can still be represented by in-house counsel who are their full-time officers or employees. I understand that this is the current rule for ECT proceedings. However, does the Ministry have data on how many cases involve employers being represented by full-time in-house lawyers?

To maintain the principle of equality of arms, could aggrieved individuals be permitted to be accompanied by lawyer friends during mediation sessions or tribunal proceedings — provided that the lawyer does not act as their legal representative? If so, I hope this matter can be clarified in the subsidiary legislation to be introduced under Section 36I(3) in this Bill.

This principle of equality also exists in other regulations, where employers may only be represented by trade union representatives if workers are also represented by their own union. Hence, I would like to seek a clarification — must workers actually have union representation, or is it enough that they are eligible for union representation in order to allow employers to also have union representatives?

Finally, what is the rationale of the policy allowing representation by trade unions, but not allowing representation by lawyers for claims amounting to S$250,000 or less?

(In English): The need for legal representation is underscored by the need to navigate alternative avenues of recourse for unfair dismissal, such as bringing a claim in the Industrial Arbitration Court or making representations to the Minister under the Industrial Relations Act 1960 or the Retirement and Re-employment Act 1993.

The new sections 36L and 36M deal with this. From my layman reading, it appears that you cannot commence a WFA claim after making representations to the Minister, but you can maintain both if you commence the WFA claim first before making representations to the Minister. That seems complicated and confusing for an individual to navigate without a lawyer.

And in terms of remedies, Mr Speaker, the new clause 36N to be introduced in the WFA, as well as the new section 12A to be introduced in the Employment Claims Act 2016, stipulate the remedies that an individual can obtain in a WFA claim. In essence, the general relief that the claimant can obtain is damages and for discriminatory dismissal claims, there is an additional option of ordering reinstatement of the claimant in his or her previous employment.

How practical is such an option for reinstatement, especially when trust and confidence would have broken down between the employer and the employee? From past cases which have been determined by the ECT or dealt with by the TADM, may I know how many cases actually saw the reinstatement and re-establishment of the employer-employee relationship at the end of the process? And what proportion of these were voluntarily agreed by the parties and how many were foisted on the parties by an order?

The proposed additions to the WFA and the Employment Claims Act 2016 also suggest, but do not detail, that a monetary limit will be set for claims of discriminatory hiring under section 5(1) of WFA. What is the rationale for such a claim limit when no similar limit is suggested for discriminatory employment decisions during employment or in respect of termination? How will such a limit be calculated? Will there be one limit or multiple limits for different scenarios? Another concern is that it may be difficult to quantify the precise loss or damages that flow from a discriminatory employment decision. For example, what would be the precise loss for someone who was passed over for a promotion because of a protected characteristic, besides any bonus or pay increment that he or she should have gotten?

Even for the pay increment, what is the number of months or years that should be used to calculate the total loss? There are a few ways that we can possibly fill this gap, based on existing solutions used elsewhere. One, we can stipulate a default amount or rate of statutory damages where actual loss need not be proven, as already done for intellectual property infringement under the Trade Marks Act or Copyright Act. Two, we can allow the ECT or Court to appoint a single joint expert to determine damages if a discriminatory decision is established. Three, we can publish simple illustrations and infographics to educate workers on how to calculate their claimed losses, all centralised in one accessible location.

Related to this is another suggestion that I raised when we debated the first part of WFA back in January 2025. Would the Ministry publish and consolidate WFA decisions on a publicly accessible website, as done by the Personal Data Protection Commission? This would help employees understand how damages have been assessed and serve the goals of deterrence and open justice as errant employers are named and taken to task.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, as the Minister had stated when we passed the first part of WFA, he mentioned, "we have only just begun", and I am sure we will continue to fine-tune and strengthen our workplace fairness legislation as we put it in place and practice. But for now, I thank MOM for their immense work in giving Singapore our own version of anti-discrimination laws which have been promulgated in most developed countries and which I have had to cite in my 2019 and 2021 Adjournment Motions on fair employment practices. Today, we have our own, if passed, to operate and improve in years to come for the benefit of Singaporeans.

Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I fully support the Bill, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, in January this year, this House debated the first part of the resolution process on the Workplace Fairness Bill. In that debate, I shared my own personal experience of encountering racial prejudice in the workplace and how, while the situation has improved significantly over the years, workplace discrimination remains a concern for many Singaporeans.

Discrimination today may not always be overt. It can be subtle, in hiring decisions, in career progression opportunities or in the way performance feedback is given. It can appear in informal networks, in workplace culture or in the unconscious biasness that shape decisions. These experiences may not always make the news, but for the individuals involved, they can be deeply painful and affect their dignity and confidence. That is why the Workplace Fairness Legislation is important. Together with the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill before us today, it sends a strong signal of our national commitment to fairness, respect and equal opportunity for all workers in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill because it establishes a clear, fair and balanced process for resolving discrimination disputes, one that seeks to balance justice with harmony in our workplaces. The framework recognises that while legal redress is important, the best outcome is not always found in the courtroom. It is often better for both worker and employer to resolve disputes early through open communication, internal processes and mediation rather than escalation and litigation.

This Bill, therefore, introduces a three-step framework for handling discrimination grievances and this staged approach is consistent with Singapore's long-standing tripartite model: one built on trust, mutual respect and the shared responsibility between the Government, employers and workers. However, for the legislation to be truly effective, most disputes should ideally be resolved within the first two steps: the internal grievances process and mediation. If every case goes straight to adjudication, we risk fracturing workplaces, relationships and creating an adversarial climate that benefits no one. Hence, my clarifications today will focus on how we can strengthen these first two steps to make them more accessible, fair and effective for both employers and employees.

Firstly, may I seek clarification on the total number of workplace discrimination grievances that have been raised since the passage of the first part of the Bill earlier this year. Having such data, even in aggregate, would allow us to monitor trends, identify common types of discrimination and understand which industries or sectors are most affected. For instance, are most cases related to gender, age, race or disability? Are they concentrated in certain job functions or company sizes? Having this insight will help us to fine-tune future policies and training resources. It would also be useful to understand how many of these cases were successfully resolved at the internal or mediation stage before, now, queuing up for adjudication. This would give us a clear sense of whether the grievance handling process is working as intended.

Second, how can we better assist companies, especially small and medium enterprises, to manage the internal grievance handling process effectively? Many large firms already have HR departments or diversity leads who can manage such cases. But for smaller organisations, HR may be one person juggling multiple roles or the business owner themselves. Without clear procedures or adequately trained staff to manage discrimination complaints, employees may be reluctant to raise concerns, either out of fear of retaliation, a perception that nothing will change or concern that a poorly handled process could further strain relationships at the workplace.

Hence, I would like to ask the Ministry: how will it support firms in developing fair and transparent internal processes for handling grievances on discrimination? Will there be standard templates or model grievance frameworks provided to guide companies, which many in the House have talked about so I will not belabour on such an approach. Will TAFEP or Workforce Singapore offer training and certification for HR personnel or line managers in managing discrimination complaints sensitively and fairly? And how will the Ministry ensure that outcomes of internal grievance handling are properly documented so that employer and employee are protected from misunderstanding or misuse? Beyond compliance, grievance handling must be done with empathy and professionalism. It should not be seen as a box-ticking exercise, but as a way to rebuild trust, heal relationships and strengthen the workplace culture.

Thirdly, I note that the Workplace Fairness Legislation currently applies to employers with more than 25 employees. While this covers the majority of workers, about close to 18% of companies in Singapore employ fewer than 25 people. This includes many start-ups, family-run firms, social enterprises and small contractors. These are often the most vulnerable workplaces where HR structures are informal and power dynamics can be more pronounced.

I, therefore, seek clarification on how workers in these smaller companies will be protected. For example, can these workers still seek recourse through TAFEP or mediation if they experience discrimination? Will there be a transitional assistance or advisory services to help smaller employers adopt fair practices without the same administrative burden as large firms? Something which was shared by many Members. Could the Ministry consider a phased approach or incentives, such as grants or toolkits, to help businesses build fair employment systems over time? And will there be plans to include these smaller businesses into the legislation?

It is important that our national commitment to fairness is not dependent on company size. Every worker, regardless of where they work, should feel protected from discrimination and be treated with dignity and with respect.

Mr Speaker, laws can mandate fairness but they cannot create inclusion alone. That requires culture, requires leadership and requires empathy. Our goal must be not just to punish discrimination after it occurs, but to prevent it from taking root. We can do so by helping employers and workers to recognise unconscious bias, to build inclusive hiring practices and to foster workplaces where diversity is seen as a strength.

In this regard, I am heartened that the tripartite partners of MOM, NTUC and SNEF have consistently worked together to promote fair employment through TAFEP. The success of this legislation will depend greatly on how well we continue that partnership and how effectively we communicate to both employers and workers that fairness benefits everyone. It builds trust, it attracts talent and strengthens social cohesion. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, last January, this House debated the first part of the Workplace Fairness Bill. In that debate, I shared my personal experience of encountering racial prejudice in the workplace. Although the situation today has changed and improved significantly, workplace discrimination remains a concern for many Singaporeans.

Sometimes, such discrimination is not overt. It can happen subtly — during promotion opportunities, or the way performance appraisal is conducted. Some also occurs through work culture or subconsciously, such as conversing in a foreign language that is not inclusive. Although not always visible, its effects can be deeply painful and affect a worker's dignity and confidence.

That is why the Workplace Fairness Bill is so important. Together with the Dispute Resolution Bill presented today, it demonstrates our nation's commitment to ensuring every worker is treated fairly, respected and given equal opportunities.

However, for the legislation to be truly effective, most disputes should be resolved at an early stage — through internal grievance processes and joint discussions. If all cases continue to be brought to tribunals, workplace relationships could become tense and unhealthy.

Therefore, my clarification today focuses on how we can strengthen these first two stages — so that every worker feels protected and safe to speak up, and every employer has a fair way to resolve discrimination issues.

Mr Speaker, laws can establish fairness, but laws alone cannot build a sense of togetherness. That requires culture, leadership and empathy.

Our goal is not merely to penalise discrimination after it occurs, but to prevent it from taking root; so that we can build workplaces that are fair and inclusive for all.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the two Bills that bring the Workplace Fairness Legislation together marks a significant milestone in Singapore's journey towards a more equitable workplace. They show that while we value competitiveness and meritocracy, we also value compassion and justice. They affirm that every worker regardless of race, gender, age, religion, disability, family status or any of the protected characteristics deserves to be treated fairly and have equal opportunities to thrive. As we implement these Bills, let us focus not only on the enforcement, but also on the education, the empowerment and the empathy, for fairness is not just a rule to be followed. It is a value to be lived every day in the workplace. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, let me begin first by thanking Members for their support for the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill and the questions raised. Perhaps, just one clarification, I am not sure whether Mr Louis Chua supported the Bill because he did not specifically state. Just a point of clarification – so, you support the Bill? [Inaudible.] Okay. Thank you.

So, we have heard a wide spectrum of views from Members. There have been calls to make the claims process more supportive and favourable to workers. On the other hand, there are also Members who have expressed the need to strengthen safeguards so that employers are not dragged through claims without merit, to the detriment of workplace harmony and economic progress.

What we can all agree, what we all agreed on is the need to ensure that workplace discrimination disputes are resolved in an amicable and in an expeditious manner.

This Bill seeks to do that through a careful balance of the interests of the various stakeholders to achieve this objective.

I will now address Members' specific clarifications.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether this Bill signals the Government's intent for workplace discrimination to be addressed through private claims rather than state enforcement. This is not the case – the WFA provides for both and each serves different purposes.

This Bill covers the right of individuals who faced workplace discrimination to lodge private claims to obtain redress and closure.

The state enforcement framework was part of the first Bill passed in January this year and it empowers the state to adopt a range of penalties against errant employers, such as issuing directions and imposing financial penalties.

Mr Saktiandi, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Shawn Loh, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Muhaimin Malik and Mr Sharael Taha asked about supporting employers, including SMEs, to put in place grievance handling processes and imposing minimum standards on such processes. The WFA will set baseline requirements such as requiring employers to have a written grievance handling process in place.

Given the diversity of firms, differing HR capabilities and their unique operational considerations, we refrained from being overly prescriptive so that each firm will be able to develop a process which is suited to its needs. TAFEP will support firms with practical resources, such as the Grievance Handling Handbook which will provide sample procedures for employers, including SMEs, to reference.

Mr Chia, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Joan Pereira also spoke about empowering workers to raise grievances without fear of retaliation. Mr Dennis Tan asked how work pass holders would be protected from having their work pass cancelled for filing a claim for workplace discrimination.

The first Bill prohibits employers from retaliating against those who have raised a workplace grievance, including by cancelling their work passes. Employers who retaliate could be subject to penalties imposed by MOM.

To Mr Louis Chua and Ms He Ting Ru's suggestions to allow workers to bypass the mediation and go straight to adjudication in certain circumstances, let me recap the intent of mandatory mediation. Mediation allows parties to have open conversations to arrive at a mutually agreeable outcome, tailored to their respective needs. Litigation leads to a zero-sum outcome where parties either win or lose, and it should always be a last resort. Our mediators are trained to provide a safe space for parties to share their views honestly and support the parties to come to an amicable agreement amongst themselves. That said, under circumstances in new sections 36H(2) and 36K(2) of the Act, certain claims may proceed to adjudication without mediation sessions being conducted.

I will move on to address Members' comments on the time bars for mediation requests and claims.

Mr Saktiandi sought clarification on how the time bars will work in certain scenarios, and labour MP and NTUC Secretary-General Mr Ng Chee Meng, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Muhaimin Malik called for flexibility in enforcing the time bars when there are exceptional circumstances.

Let me recap the intent of the time bars. These time bars represent what tripartite partners agree are reasonable for both employers and employees in different scenarios, including where employers do not give notice of their decisions, but employees have evidence that they were discriminated against. The time bars are designed to encourage timely filing of valid claims before evidence degrades over time, while also providing reassurance to employers that old claims will not be dredged up many years later.

At the same time, the time bars also account for extenuating circumstances.

For example, the new section 36E(4) of the WFA is intended to give employees who are dismissed when certified pregnant more time to come forward. MOM also has the discretion to accept late mediation requests and where there are reasonable grounds to do so, such as when the worker is incapacitated or seriously ill. This discretion is broad to accommodate various circumstances, and we do not intend to be prescriptive. We will monitor the implementation of the time bars and we will make adjustments, where necessary.

I should also add that regardless of which time bar is applicable, the worker is still required to provide prima facie evidence of being discriminate against.

Mr Saktiandi asked about the duration claimants would have to file their claims to the courts when the dispute cannot be resolved by mediation. This duration will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, referencing the current duration of four weeks from the issuance of the claim referral certificate for other ECT claims.

Members have also sought clarification on the support for workers in the dispute resolution process, including those who are not union members.

Let me start with the support for union members. As mentioned by NTUC Secretary-General Mr Ng in his speech earlier, union members can turn to NTUC and their unions for support, every step of the way.

From the moment a dispute arises, members can turn to unions for assistance, and unions can represent members at mediation and at the ECT hearing. To Mr Muhaimin Malik's question, I wish to clarify that PMEs who are unionised can be represented by their unions in mediation and at the ECT. As we have expanded the ECT's threshold to $250,000 for workplace discrimination claims, this means that even more PMEs can file claims.

Next, I move to union members working in companies that are non-unionised. Ms Gho Sze Kee asked why unions cannot represent their members in non-unionised companies in mediation sessions and ECT hearings. To explain, union representation is premised on mutual recognition and trust between the employer and the union. This is why our laws provide for a process of recognition of a union by the employer.

Allowing unions to represent workers when they have not been recognised by their employer would undermine this fundamental tenet of tripartism and seed an adversarial relationship between unions and employers, to the detriment of industrial peace and workplace harmony in Singapore.

Notwithstanding this, as mentioned by Mr Ng, NTUC members in non-unionised companies can turn to NTUC's team of industrial relations experts and Tripartite Mediation Advisors for their support and advice on their claims.

Last but not least, workers who are not union members. Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Muhaimin Malik and Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about the support for this group of workers.

As I had mentioned when moving the Bill, TAFEP should be their first port of call when they face workplace discrimination. Such workers can approach TAFEP for advice and assistance. Ms Mariam Jaafar suggested that TAFEP help workers understand their rights and options.

I would like to reassure Members that TAFEP will provide advice on the provisions of the WFA, including an initial assessment of their claims and guidance on the WFA claims criteria. TAFEP will also help them with filing the mediation request as the next step of the claim process.

And I am glad that Mr Saktiandi Supaat realises how much resourcing we would have to fundamentally provide TAFEP with. I thank him for that support, and I certainly hope that when I put up for next year's Budget, Committee of Supply, we would get the support of the House. I believe that in the first Bill, Leader of the Opposition also asked me the same point and I registered that. Thank you very much for that appreciation of TAFEP.

Additionally, we note that vulnerable workers may need additional support, such as persons with disabilities, fresh graduates who may not be familiar with the law and employment norms, and low-wage workers with fewer resources, as Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Muhaimin, Ms Denise Phua and Ms He Ting Ru have pointed out. Mr Saktiandi and Ms Phua suggested having a friend or an independent advocate accompany the worker in the dispute resolution process.

I would like to mention that the Judiciary already has a Community Courts and Tribunals Friend Scheme where parties can apply for someone to provide administrative or emotional support during proceedings. Beyond this scheme, we will consider how we can help these vulnerable workers to better navigate the dispute resolution framework.

We note Mr Louis Chua's comment on the inherent difficulties for workers to prove workplace discrimination. We have to strike a balance between helping workers seek redress and, at the same time, safeguarding employers from frivolous accusations. So, for this reason, a worker alleging workplace discrimination must support his claim with evidence such as documents or oral accounts. Further, under the ECT's judge-led process, the Court will proactively manage the fact-finding process and can direct the employer to disclose relevant documents or information.

Mr Loh has asked about the costs of commencing a workplace discrimination claim. We are still working out the relevant fees for the various stages of the dispute resolution process, but I can share our general approach.

Overall, while fees should be kept affordable so that the dispute resolution process is accessible to genuine claimants, they should also reflect the complexity and the efforts needed to resolve higher value claims and deter frivolous claimants and unnecessary inflation of claims.

Mr Saktiandi asked why there were claim limits for discriminatory hiring decisions but not for other types of decisions. To clarify, clause 14 of the Bill actually provides MOM with the discretion to set claim limits for all types of workplace discrimination claims in the ECT, including for in- and end-employment claims.

To Mr Dennis Tan's question on whether this Bill introduces new heads of claim for damages, such as injury to feelings, emotions, this is not prescribed in the Bill. But I thank Mr Saktiandi and Mr Dennis Tan for their suggestions on quantifying damages arising from discriminatory decisions. We had considered this, and we are still considering it. We will work on it during the implementation.

We agree with Mr Saktiandi's observation that reinstatement is often not a practical remedy given that the employment relationship would likely have broken down. From our experience with wrongful dismissal claims, compensation is generally preferred to reinstatement, precisely for that reason.

Nonetheless, we have provided for reinstatement as a possible remedy, since we do not preclude the possibility that there could be situations where a claimant may desire reinstatement, and the relationship can still be mended.

To Mr Loh's question on how the courts would award costs against the parties, this is a matter for the Judge hearing the claim to decide based on the facts of the case. The Judge may consider factors such as the conduct of the parties during the proceedings and the efforts made by the parties at amicable resolution.

Mr Saktiandi, Mr Cai Yinzhou, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Louis Chua and Dr Wan Rizal called for WFA judgments to be published for transparency. I thank them all for the suggestion and would like to assure them that the requirement for hearings to be private does not mean judgments will be kept private.

The point they make is an important one, we agree. Making WFA judgments publicly accessible will help employers and workers better understand how the law is applied. We are working with the courts on making ECT judgments publicly accessible and this will include WFA judgments.

So, it is a work in progress, we have to work with the Courts.

Mr Shawn Loh also highlighted the risk of an individual publicising a claim in social media even while it is being heard by the Courts. Such an act may contravene the sub judice rule, if it risks prejudicing or interfering with the proceedings. Such individuals may be subject to a fine, imprisonment or both.

Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Cai Yinzhou spoke about naming errant employers. I would like to assure them that if the state pursues enforcement action against discriminatory employers in Court, the proceedings would be conducted in open Court and accessible to the public.

So, the first Bill that we passed was on state-led enforcement. This is a private claim.

Mr Desmond Tan asked whether the ECT's jurisdiction should similarly be expanded for other types of employment disputes. Mr Louis Chua also suggested reviewing the limit for these claims. I do not think we should conflate the dispute resolution process for wrongful dismissal and salary disputes, with workplace discrimination disputes. There is an existing process for wrongful dismissal and salary claims above $30,000 to be pursued in the civil Courts. We are prepared to consider Mr Tan's proposal, and we would have to discuss this further with our tripartite partners, but I seek Mr Desmond Tan's understanding that this is a discussion for another day.

Members of the House, let us focus on this Bill, which is to strengthen protections for jobseekers and employees against workplace discrimination.

We are working towards the timeline of end-2027 because we recognise the significant scale of the work that lies ahead. As I have shared earlier, extensive groundwork is needed to prepare both employers and workers for the WFA.

In response to Mr Edward Chia, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Joan Pereira's questions on educating workers on their claims, MOM, NTUC and TAFEP will do their part to inform workers on the WFA, including what constitutes a legitimate claim and the matters that should be raised in such a claim. The handbook that I spoke about earlier would complement these efforts by educating workers on their rights and obligations under the WFA.

Equally important is the work to put the infrastructure in place before the WFA comes into force. As Mr Loh and Ms Gho pointed out, the devil is in the implementation. And I think, in addition, Mr Loh talked about the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to make sure that we will not go on that road to hell. We will need to make sure we get it right the first time.

So, we are developing the necessary systems and processes and ensuring sufficient well-trained personnel to support the mediation and adjudication of workplace discrimination claims. This includes uplifting the capabilities of our mediators and developing the pool of suitably qualified mediators for higher value claims.

On Mr Loh, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Chia's comments again on resourcing the agencies implementing the WFA, I want to assure and reassure Members that we will provide them with the necessary resources to do so. Ensuring their readiness to effectively implement the WFA is our top-most priority.

We also hear Ms Pereira's call to monitor the implementation of the WFA. Today, MOM conducts regular surveys and reports on fair employment practices, including on discrimination-based dismissals and how they have been resolved. We will extend this work to the implementation of the WFA, and we are studying ways to see how we can augment these monitoring efforts.

Ms Gho Sze Kee and Mr Sharael Taha asked if we plan to include small firms with fewer than 25 employees in the scope of the WFA. As mentioned, when moving the Workplace Fairness Bill in January, small firms may not have the resources or expertise to comprehensively implement the new rules. Hence, we decided to exempt small firms with fewer than 25 employees for a start, and we will work with tripartite partners and TAFEP to ramp up the capabilities of these firms. This exemption will be reviewed five years after the law is implemented.

However, to reassure Members, such firms will continue to be subject to the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), and workers can also approach TAFEP should they encounter workplace discrimination.

Mr Cai Yinzhou and Mr Muhaimin Malik also asked for outsourced workers and platform workers to be included in the WFA in the future. I have said it before, a couple of times, we want to take a sure-footed and prudent approach to implement the WFA. Hence, the WFA focuses on protecting workers in employer-employee relationships. Nonetheless, as I had shared in the debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill in January, the TGFEP will be updated to clarify that platform operators and corporate service buyers should not discriminate based on non-job-related characteristics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, today is a pivotal moment as we pass the second and final Bill of the WFA. It has been a long journey since the legislation was first announced, I believe, it was during the National Day Rally in 2021. I want to take this opportunity to express our deep appreciation and our gratitude to our tripartite partners, NTUC and SNEF, for journeying hand in hand with us to safeguard fair and harmonious workplaces in Singapore.

I also want to thank the various stakeholders who took the time and the effort to contribute to our engagements, including the employers, our HR professionals, our non-governmental organisations, the legal practitioners and members of the public. I want to thank Members, both from the past, in January, the past term of Government to the current term of Government, for the suggestions raised, and many of which are also ongoing in discussions still with tripartite partners.

But I want to also be clear and like I said, sure-footed, and I also want to humbly put this across to everyone in the House that while this legislation is a new landmark in our journey towards a fair workplace, it is not the end of the journey. In fact, it is not even the beginning of the end, but the end of a beginning. I said before that we have only just begun. The real work starts now, with all of you supporting, as we turn our attention now to the task of implementation.

As I shared earlier, efforts are already underway. These will continue once the Bill is passed so that when the WFA comes into force at the end of 2027, employers will fully understand their duties and workers will clearly know their rights. I invite everyone to continue working with us towards this goal.

I would like to end with a Chinese proverb from Laozi and a Malay pantun.

"合抱之木，生于毫末；九层之台，起于累土；千里之行，始于足下." It means, a tree that can be embraced grows from a tiny sprout. The nine-storey tower rises from a mound of earth. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

"Bunga cempaka harum mewangi, Disiram embun di waktu pagi. Adil saksama asas harmoni, Tempat kerja makmur dan berseri." Just as the cempaka flower flourishes with the morning dew, a workplace thrives when fairness and equality are upheld. Justice ensures trust and respect, nurturing harmony and productivity amongst all employees.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]