Workplace Fairness Bill

Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

We currently address workplace discrimination complaints under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, or TGFEP, through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP. This framework has worked well for us thus far. Most employers have fair employment practices and our surveys show a declining trend of workplace discrimination over the years.

However, we are also contending with an ageing population and economic headwinds. Amidst these demographic and economic realities, a complementary foreign workforce remains important to Singapore's continued economic success as well as ensuring good jobs and good wages for locals. But we are also clear that these benefits will only accrue to Singaporeans if there is a level playing field that prevents discriminatory practices. This allows all employees to grasp the opportunities in our vibrant economy.

So, even as we have made progress, we must not take our generally harmonious and fair workplace conditions for granted. Instead, we should take proactive steps to ensure that employees and jobseekers in Singapore continue to be assured of fair treatment in the workplace.

This Workplace Fairness Bill has therefore been designed to improve protections against workplace discrimination, while preserving our fair and harmonious workplace norms. It is the result of close cooperation amongst tripartite partners – the Government, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) – to develop a balanced approach. We have taken in the Labour Movement's feedback, such as through the Professionals, Managers and Executives, or PME, Taskforce and Every Worker Matters Conversations.

At the same time, we have taken note of SNEF's views on the need to provide operational flexibility for employers, so they can apply fair employment practices while meeting genuine business needs. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness also consulted widely. We have held more than 70 in-person engagements, with more than 2,000 individuals from all walks of life – including unions, workers, employers, human resources (HR) and legal professionals, and civil society and community organisations.

We have also studied other countries with anti-discrimination laws. And there are a couple of observations. First, different countries have different national contexts and so, the laws are not quite comparable across countries. For example, the characteristics that are legally protected and how disputes are legally resolved, differ from country to country. Second, introducing such laws is complex, and well-meaning legal protections for workers can have unintended consequences that end up hurting workers. For instance, if employers become more reluctant to hire certain groups or the laws result in protracted litigation between employers and employees.

We have taken the time to consult and study these experiences carefully, instead of rushing to introduce and implement the Bill, because we want to keep our hard-earned harmony in our workplaces and society. The comprehensive process that we have gone through and the effort we have made to understand different stakeholder groups give us confidence that the Bill strikes the right balance for now. At the end of the day, employers must fundamentally be able to hire employees based on the skills and attributes that support their business needs. What we want to achieve is to ensure that jobseekers and employees are evaluated fairly based on those skills and those attributes.

Even as we take this next step in our workplace fairness journey, please also let me emphasise upfront that Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) is not a panacea. Rather, it is an additional layer of protection that allows us to take certain actions against the more frequently encountered forms of workplace discrimination where there is societal consensus today. It is a measured approach that seeks to preserve our current workplace norms and guard against divisions in our workplaces and society.

I will now cover how the Bill will: first, strengthen protections for jobseekers and employees against discrimination, while retaining flexibility for employers; second, provide grievance handling processes to promote better communication and amicable resolution of issues; and third, complement our education-first approach, with calibrated levers, to deal with the small number of bad employers who persist in egregious discrimination.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first share the overarching principles that underpin the protections in this Bill. Singapore is a meritocracy and employers here must hire and assess workers based on their ability to do the job well. Every worker should also have the opportunity to develop their potential, without employment decisions being distorted by discriminatory biases. So, let me explain how the Bill gives effect to this.

The Bill prohibits employers from making an adverse employment decision on the ground of a protected characteristic. Under clause 17 read with clauses 5, 6, and 7, employers are prohibited from choosing not to hire someone, or giving them a poor performance appraisal, denying a promotion or training opportunity or dismissing them because the jobseeker or employee has a protected characteristic.

The Bill will also prohibit company policies or job advertisements that discriminate on the ground of a protected characteristic under clauses 18 and 19.

After extensive consultations, we have decided on a more nuanced and calibrated approach by first starting with five categories of protected characteristics under clause 8. These are areas where there is broad societal consensus and we have national policy imperatives to prevent discrimination against in the workplace. Together, they account for more than 95% of discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). This provides some assurance that we have the requisite experience and the capabilities to handle such cases under WFL, without disrupting business operations or workplace harmony.

The first category is age. The Bill protects age discrimination because all workers, young and old, deserve to be assessed based on how well they do their jobs rather than their age. For instance, employers should not assume that an older worker or an older person has less strength than a young person to carry out manual tasks. At the same time, we also recognise that senior workers are disproportionately impacted by age discrimination. Given our ageing population, we must empower our senior workers to contribute to our workforce if they wish to, for as long as they remain productive and continue learning and refreshing their skills. So, this is why an exception under clause 21 provides employers with the flexibility if they intend to tap on these seniors' experience and expertise and retain them in the workforce. At the same time, we also know that the law can only go so far in preventing discriminatory practices and we will continue our efforts to dispel negative stereotypes and create more age-inclusive workplaces.

The second category is nationality. Many Singaporeans understand the economic case for why we need foreigners. They grow the economic pie by anchoring companies and investments that create better prospects for Singaporean workers and businesses. Other countries also know this. They have been competing hard to attract more global talent so that they can anchor global and regional functions, cutting-edge technology and skills in emerging industries. Without foreigners to complement our local workforce, we will lose out on better jobs, higher wages and stronger business opportunities. So, it is essential that we remain open, connected and welcoming to global talent and to businesses that can make our team stronger.

At the same time, we recognise the lived experiences and concerns of Singaporeans about whether foreigners are taking over their jobs. From time to time, we hear of biased employment preferences for specific nationalities. We have been taking strong measures to counter such discriminatory practices to ensure that our locals are treated fairly.

The Bill is our next step to further strengthen protections for Singaporeans and ensure a fair playing field. It will enable us to take stronger action against nationality discrimination. We have also gone a step further in clause 22, to provide an exception that will allow employers to make employment decisions based on whether the person is part of the local workforce. This means employers will be given the flexibility to strengthen their local workforce core, to build stronger local networks and greater resilience to disruptions like the recent pandemic and, hence, achieve stronger business outcomes.

Separately, clause 26 codifies into law the existing Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) job advertisement requirements and the duty to fairly consider candidates. By doing so, we will have a greater range of enforcement levers calibrated to the severity of the breaches and further deter discriminatory employers.

The third category is sex, marital status, pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities. Based on earlier feedback, including from the Conversations on Singapore Women's Development, these areas are important to ensure fair, merit-based treatment for men and women alike and to support our national marriage and parenthood objectives. So, this is why the Bill protects against discrimination on the basis of sex, which under clause 10 refers to the sex that is legally assigned to the individual, either at birth or post re-assignment.

While we have made progress, women continue to be underrepresented in areas, such as science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) fields and leadership roles. Women in STEM jobs were 29% in 2013. However, this improved to 34% in 2023 over a 10-year horizon. Women's participation on the boards of the top 100 Singapore Exchange-listed companies is currently 25%. We recognise that this could be due to an interplay of many social and economic factors. The Government will keep working hard to empower women to fulfil their aspirations and we hope this Bill can contribute towards our efforts for a more balanced representation of men and women across sectors and across occupations.

The protection for caregivers is in line with the Government's efforts to build a family-friendly environment in support of both fathers and mothers, in their marriage and parenthood journey, especially to signal the important role fathers play as an equal partner in the care of their children. It will also support the greater care needs for our ageing population.

The fourth category is race, religion and language ability. While racial and religious harmony is part of our long-standing societal values, we still hear that some members of the minority races face racial discrimination at the workplace. This Bill protects against such discriminatory biases. For instance, employers cannot assume that a person of another race does not know Malay or Mandarin. This will send a strong statement that racial and religious discrimination are not acceptable in Singapore.

Relatedly, clause 23 affords religious groups with some flexibility to make employment decisions for roles that are religious in nature, such as imams and priests, and roles related to the running of religious institutions, while preserving common space for secular jobs. This is appropriate in view of Singapore's multi-religious society and the longstanding role that religious groups play in our social fabric.

The fifth category is disability and mental health conditions. The Bill complements the Government's Enabling Masterplan 2030 by prohibiting discrimination against disabilities. Clause 24 also provides an exception to facilitate greater employment opportunities for this group by allowing employers to favour persons with disabilities in their hiring decisions.

We have also received feedback on the importance of employers making accommodations for persons with disabilities to participate in the workforce. To this end, we are working on a Tripartite Advisory for Reasonable Accommodations to raise awareness and to provide practical guidance to employers. We hope this will help to bring the concept of reasonable accommodations into the mainstream employment space. This greater public awareness will lay the foundation for future moves as part of our Enabling Masterplan, to further support persons with disabilities.

For persons with mental health conditions, this Bill recognises that they are more likely to face challenges at the workplace. As raised multiple times in Parliament, mental health issues are a growing challenge, both in Singapore and globally. We must take an evidence-based approach to mental health issues at the workplace, rather than perpetuate stigmas that limit the potential contributions of these fellow members of our society.

Let me also explain our approach, given questions on why we have not covered discrimination against more or even all characteristics, or indirect discrimination. Like us, other jurisdictions, such as Australia and Hong Kong, also have a positive list of protected characteristics as it is not practicable to legislate broad principles without causing uncertainty. Just as each jurisdiction has its own bespoke set of protected characteristics, we decided on each protected characteristic for their own policy reasons which I have shared earlier, such as supporting our older workers to contribute to our ageing workforce amidst demographic constraints and reaffirming racial and religious harmony as part of our key societal values.

It is also important to note that discrimination can arise in many ways. It is a complex and nuanced topic which engages various socio-economic issues. For instance, indirect discrimination is when an employer takes an apparently neutral action that disadvantages people with a protected characteristic in practice. It can impose very wide legal obligations that can create uncertainty and litigiousness for both employers and employees and we have seen cases overseas where employers who had standardised ability tests were challenged because certain racial groups tended to fare worse than others. So, examples like this remind us why it is important that our laws are not overly prescriptive. This is to avoid undermining labour market flexibility and inhibiting our ability to leverage our long-standing and successful model of labour relations to manage such complex issues.

So, we have designed this Bill knowing it cannot be the only tool to tackle all forms of workplace discrimination. Instead, this Bill starts on a more scoped and surer footing to ensure that we can preserve the precious workplace and social harmony that we enjoy today, while remaining open to future updates to the list of protected characteristics. The Bill complements TGFEP, which will enable TAFEP to tackle workplace discrimination based on all other characteristics.

Internationally, this approach of having a law to cover certain protected characteristics with a more flexible tool to cover all other characteristics is quite unique. It enables any employee who faces discrimination to seek support and is only made possible because of good tripartite relations and strong institutions, like TAFEP. We will also update TGFEP in tandem with the WFL's implementation to ensure alignment. Sir, I would like to reiterate to all employees: if you are facing workplace discrimination, MOM and TAFEP will support you. You will not be turned away simply because it is not a protected characteristic. TGFEP will continue to cover all forms of workplace discrimination.

Next, I will talk about how the Bill provides room for genuine business needs. Clause 20 sets out the ways that employers can legitimately consider protected characteristics when making employment decisions. Let me give some examples to explain how they may work in practice. First, for the reasonable performance of the job. For example, an employer can consider if a jobseeker is fluent in a particular language for the role of an interpreter. Second, for health and safety reasons, to protect employees and the people around them. For instance, a security company can consider whether an officer with a recently diagnosed but untreated case of depression can carry firearms, for the safety of the officer and for others. Third, for reasons of privacy. For instance, a spa can choose to hire female therapists to serve their female clientele. Fourth, for legal and regulatory reasons. For example, a bus company may only hire bus driver trainees above 21 years old because this is the regulatory age needed to obtain a bus driver's vocational licence.

In designing these flexibilities, we also want to assure employers that they will not run afoul of the law if they need to make employment decisions based on requirements set by the Government, such as those involving public safety or national security.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when grievances arise, open communication is vital to help employers and employees to preserve the relationship and avoid further misunderstandings. Let me now talk about how the Bill will require employers to put in place grievance handling processes and provide stronger protection from retaliation for employees who step forward.

First, grievance handling processes. TAFEP has seen disputes arise from miscommunication that could have been easily or quickly resolved if the parties had discussed openly from the start. Workplace disputes should, where possible, be resolved within the firm itself. This encourages employers and employees to settle differences more amicably whilst minimising disruptions and it also builds trust.

Today, six in 10 firms already have formal procedures to manage workplace discrimination. Most firms are fair and equitable workplaces. By making a push for firms to put in place processes to handle grievances professionally and sensitively, we can help these employers ensure that genuine cases do not fall through the cracks. Grievance handling processes will also help to build trust by providing a safe space to have conversations about sensitive or difficult issues.

Clause 27 of the Bill requires firms to inquire into the grievance they have received, review it and inform the employee of the result. Throughout the process, the employer must also protect the employee's confidentiality to the extent possible.

The Bill focuses on ensuring that employers have a grievance handling process in place and it refrains from being overly prescriptive on the detailed requirements. This approach is a pragmatic, practical and a sensible one, given the diversity of firms in our economy – a process that works for a technology startup with 30 employees might not work for a construction company with 300 employees or a bank with 3,000 employees. The grievance handling requirement will serve as a baseline requirement that most of our employees can benefit from. Unions will continue to play a key role in setting the right norms, educating workers about their rights and amicably resolving disputes.

For firms that do not already have such processes in place, TAFEP has prepared accessible and practical resources and templates. For instance, there is a Grievance Handling Handbook on TAFEP's website that provides details on internal grievance handling procedures. TAFEP is also working on a new e-learning courseware to guide employers on how to implement the grievance handling process.

At the same time, we know formal processes alone may not be sufficient. In MOM's 2023 survey, we saw a decline in the proportion of employees who sought help after experiencing discrimination, despite a rise in firms with formal procedures. Employees were worried about impacting their work relationships or careers.

Clause 28 of the Bill provides better assurance by prohibiting employers from retaliating against those that file complaints and claims. The message we want to send out is clear: we will not hesitate to take action against employers that retaliate against those who raise valid grievances and employees should therefore feel safe to bring them up.

Beyond these formal legal protections, MOM and TAFEP will continue our longer-term educational efforts so that employers and employees see the value of keeping communications and attitudes open.

Beyond grievance handling and retaliation, we also received suggestions including on workplace harassment issues in the WFL. In Singapore, we have a multi-pronged approach to address harassment issues, including in the workplace. There are criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code. We also have a Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment. The grievance handling processes required under this Bill can also be used by victims of workplace harassment, to surface their cases to employers for resolution. Beyond this, the tripartite partners have agreed to develop a Tripartite Standard to complement the existing Tripartite Advisory, that will guide and encourage employers to adopt best practices in this area. This bolsters our educational efforts and complements our current legal protections, to create safer workplaces.

What if in spite of all that, the employer and employee are unable to settle their differences within the firm? While an employee should first bring up the issue to the firm, not every instance of communication and conciliation within the firm will be successful. In such cases, the employee can decide if they wish to make a private employment claim under the Bill. We will introduce a second Bill later to provide this option for claimants.

Today's Bill is the first of two Bills and will cover the substantive rights and obligations under the WFL. We have chosen to introduce it early so that employers can have more time to prepare themselves for the new law. The second Bill will pertain more specifically to how private employment claims can be made for workplace discrimination. It will take us some time to work through the details, which are complex and novel, on how such claims are adjudicated. If both Bills are passed, we intend to implement the WFL sometime in 2026 or 2027.

But let me give Members a preview and share the broad approach towards private claims, which was recommended by the Tripartite Committee.

For cases that cannot be resolved through the firms' grievance handling process, we intend for the parties to go through mediation before a workplace discrimination claim proceeds. As with all employment disputes, adjudication is a last resort. This preserves a non-litigious culture, encourages open communication and trust and achieves better outcomes for everyone.

Today, the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) already hears employment claims, such as for wrongful dismissals. It adopts a judge-led approach focused on resolving the dispute quickly, privately and amicably. We are studying how we can empower the ECT to hear workplace discrimination claims with the same principles as far as possible, while deterring frivolous and vexatious claims against employers with the appropriate safeguards.

Let me now turn to the Government's education and enforcement efforts. We will educate on what is discrimination, what is not discrimination, such as when language proficiency is a business requirement, and what to do where there is discrimination. We will illustrate with examples and provide accessible channels of advice and support. Most employers are responsible and comply with TGFEP. They will not see a heavy increase in their obligations. The WFL is not about making it more difficult or burdensome for these employers or companies to operate. Instead, what it does is that it provides employers with greater certainty on the rules and expectations, so that they know how to act.

On the education and capability building front, TAFEP is working closely with partners like SNEF, the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP), the Singapore Human Resources Institute and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises. TAFEP has set up a one-stop resource webpage for employers, employees and HR professionals. There will also be briefings, clinics and webinars, including those catered to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Finally, there will be training resources for companies and HR to incorporate into their own in-house corporate training, including tapping on the IHRP-certified HR community to share best practices for SME employers.

MOM will continue to support firms on this journey by helping employers that may be in breach of the WFL to understand their obligations and to rectify the breach. In line with our educational approach, we will provide time for employers to prepare themselves for the new legislation. This is why we have chosen to introduce this first Bill earlier.

We also recognise that small firms may have limited capabilities and resources, and that this can make full compliance from day one difficult. Clause 4 of the Bill exempts firms with fewer than 25 employees, who will be given more time to build up their capabilities before the WFL requirements apply to them. We will review this in five years after the law is implemented. In the meantime, the TGFEP will continue to apply to these small firms. So, it does not mean that we are going to tolerate discrimination because the same guidelines within the TGFEP will continue to apply to these small firms.

For the small number of errant employers that blatantly flout the rules, the Bill empowers the Government to take enforcement action based on the severity of the breach. Part 7 provides calibrated levers that balance between effective deterrence and rehabilitation. For less severe breaches, these include directions to attend educational workshops and administrative financial penalties imposed by MOM. For the more severe breaches, MOM can bring the offenders to Court to recommend heavier civil penalties. To be clear, there are enforcement actions that the Government can take, which are in addition to the private claims that employees can make. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our current fair and harmonious workplace norms did not come by easily. Therefore, the Workplace Fairness Bill will protect these norms. We have considered the experiences of other countries and recognise the complexity of introducing this legislation.

Protecting workplace and social harmony requires striking an appropriate balance to avoid creating a litigious culture in the workplace. Thus, the Bill is not a panacea. It provides an additional layer of protection to ensure employers evaluate and hire employees fairly based on work capabilities.

The Bill will strengthen existing workplace protections, ensuring employees and job seekers are not discriminated due to age, nationality, sex, marital or pregnancy status, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language, disability or mental health conditions.

The Bill will also stipulate protective measures for handling disputes, allowing employees to report discriminatory behaviours without fear.

For businesses, the Bill ensures that employers can make hiring decisions based on genuine business needs. This includes considering whether job applicants can fulfil job responsibilities. Employers may also decide not to hire certain employees for health and safety reasons or regulatory requirements.

Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be temporarily exempted from the Bill for the first five years after implementation, giving them more time to adapt to the new regulations.

There is an old saying, "The law is not separate from human sentiment", meaning that legal principles must be established according to common sense and human nature.

We understand that most employers adopt fair employment practices and understand the importance of a harmonious workplace. Therefore, after the new Bill takes effect, we will adopt an education-first approach, guiding employers to correct their behaviour rather than imposing penalties immediately. Only employers who commit serious violations will face fines or be prosecuted in Court.

Minister, you are almost reaching your speech limit. If you are going to stretch it a bit more, I will ask the Deputy Leader to raise the Motion.

I think it is five more minutes. I do not know whether I will exceed the five minutes.

Alright. Deputy Leader.