Workplace Fairness Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as Assistant Secretary-General of NTUC and a member of the Tripartite Committee in the promulgation of this Workplace Fairness Bill. I congratulate our tripartite partners, various stakeholders and the Attorney-General's Chambers for working tirelessly over three years to see to the introduction of this Bill and its Second Reading today. I rise in strong support of this Bill.

I have raised in this House, since my maiden speech in Parliament in 2011, on this issue and the need to strengthen the Singaporean core and ensuring workers, especially professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), have a level-playing field. Since then, we have, in the past decade, introduced a compendium of legislative changes, tripartite guidelines and tripartite advisories, including new policies and now, this Bill, to address this.

It has been some years since I suggested introducing some form of workplace anti-discrimination law. This call was echoed during NTUC's engagements with more than 10,000 PMEs, employers and stakeholders through the joint NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce from 2020 to 2021, which I co-chaired with SNEF.

The Taskforce found that 67% of mature PMEs aged 40 and above cited age-related bias as a key challenge in job search; and those in the modern services sector, that is, infocomm technology, professional services and financial services, in particular, thought current policies were insufficient in creating a level playing field with foreign PMEs. One of the key recommendations of the PME Taskforce was the need for a dedicated piece of legislation to prevent discriminatory practices that might arise from cost-driven or biased decisions, such as favouring foreign workers who may accept lower wages or are of a certain national origin.

For more than a decade, I have received numerous letters, emails and messages as well as have had many coffee sessions with PMEs of various ages across different organisational levels and in different industries to hear their woes, frustrations and anxieties. Their sentiments correspond with the nationally published statistics that age and nationality discrimination were the top two complaints received by TAFEP and MOM from 2018 to 2022.

This Bill is watershed and landmark as it is a new and dedicated piece of legislation to address workplace discrimination across several important protected characteristics whether pre-employment, during employment and post-employment, such as during terminations or retrenchments. This Bill will answer the Labour Movement's long and consistent calls to ensure fair access to good work opportunities for our workers, especially PMEs. It would confer protection for the most common types of discrimination faced by workers today and our unions will now be able to better protect our members through the expanded suite of individual remedies and calibrated penalties for discriminatory employment practices.

All said, the success of this Bill will depend on five key factors which I call the five "C"s: coverage, clarity, communication, capability and complement.

The first "C" is coverage. It is important that this piece of legislation will cover the majority and most common forms of workplace discrimination. The Labour Movement believes that no form of discrimination should be tolerated at the workplace. Workers must be treated fairly, based on merit, and we want to see that employers do not run afoul of this new law.

Besides the protected characteristics, there may be fewer common areas not explicitly covered, such as sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Even if not covered by the new legislation, an employer who runs afoul of the TGFEP must be subjected to investigation and enforcement actions and measures by MOM and TAFEP.

By the same token, MOM has planned to exempt smaller companies from this Bill for a start. I humbly submit that all companies and employers should be subjected to this new piece of legislation. Aside from giving more time for SMEs to prepare and comply with this new legislation, companies should not be exonerated from such responsibilities by virtue of size indefinitely. SMEs, like larger companies, have an equal responsibility to foster a fair and inclusive workplace for their workers.

During my ground engagements, I also realised that outsourced workers and freelancers, including platform workers, may be an underserved worker segment in this space. I envisage they should, similarly, be protected against discrimination in the course of their work.

However, as this is the first iteration of the workplace fairness legislation, I submit that, after passing as law, the legislation should undergo timely and regular reviews in keeping with possible changes in societal and social norms, in and outside the workplace and a changing workforce profile. This constant and careful review of coverage and exemptions is imperative to ensure no genuine victim of discrimination will be left in the lurch. The Labour Movement will continue to listen closely to workers’ feedback and lobby for further changes to the workplace fairness legislation, even after it is implemented, to ensure its relevancy and cater to the needs, expectations and conditions of workers and the world of work.

The second "C" is clarity. There has been much discussion on the topic of what is fair and what is discrimination, whether the law should cover both direct and indirect discrimination; and what evidence needs to be produced to prove and substantiate a claim by a claimant or complainant. And for the protected characteristics, whether disability covers mental disability and, if so, to what extent? These are pertinent questions which should be exhaustively articulated in the legislation if not otherwise, through the relevant advisories, guidelines, illustrations or frequently asked questions issued by our tripartite partners in a clear and succinct manner. This will provide clarity and certainty to HR, employment and industrial relations practitioners, lawyers and in-house counsels, unions, union leaders and employers. This will further eradicate frivolous or speculative claims in addition to those already provided.

By the same token and for greater clarity, I have a number of clarifications regarding the Bill, which I will go in order of the clause numbers for easier reference by Members of the House.

Clause 4(1)(b) states that the Act will not apply to "any prescribed employer or class of employers". Could the Minister clarify if there are any current plans to exclude any employer or class of employers; and on what grounds would such employers be excluded?

In clause 5(2), "asking for information or documents… for purposes of possible employment" is part of an employment decision. In job application forms, would employers have to remove fields asking for protected characteristics, such as age, race, sex and so on? Will job candidates also have the right to reject providing this information, on the basis that it will "adversely affect" them, as defined in clause 17?

In clause 12, what is 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.

Clause 18 covers discrimination by employers' direction, instruction or policy published in writing. I would like to ask the Minister how would unwritten discriminatory directions, instructions or policies be dealt with? The existence of such directions, instructions or policies may be substantiated by evidence, for example, witnesses' testimonies, and as currently worded, employers may get around clause 18 by not putting things in writing.

Clause 19 prohibits discrimination by published advertisements or description. But employers can also discriminate by asking questions about protected characteristics during the job application process, even when not justified by any genuine occupational requirements. How would such behaviour be deterred?

Clause 20(2)(a) provides an exception if the nature of the job means it cannot be "reasonably performed by an individual unless the individual has (or does not have) the protected characteristic". This is likely to be the most widely used exception and I would call for clear guidance to prevent abuse. Some questions come to mind.

First, if some employees of the employer can only speak proficiently in a particular language, will proficiency of that language be regarded as reasonably necessary for the performance of the job, as otherwise communication would not be possible? Second, can strong preferences by customers be considered reasonably necessary for the performance of the job? For example, parents strongly preferring female early childhood educators at kindergartens or female tutors at tuition centres to teach their young children. As the young pupils would be of different sexes, the preservation of modesty exception would not apply.

Clause 27 requires employers to develop processes in writing to inquire, review, inform, keep records of and maintain confidentiality of grievances. I would like to ask the Minister: first, will there be any prescribed standards or guidelines on what a "good enough" grievance handling policy should look like? Second, given that it is crucial for there not only to be a grievance handling policy, but one that works well in practice, what are the safeguards in the law to ensure that employers not only have written policies but also abide by them in practice? Put in another way, what recourse do workers have if they are dissatisfied with how their grievances were handled? Third, under what circumstances would it be "reasonably necessary" for an employer to disclose victims' identity and the inquiry details to any person, with reference to clause 27(e)?

Clause 28 prohibits employers from taking any retaliatory action against employees who raise grievances or pursue claims under the Bill. I am heartened that the prohibition against retaliation also includes workplace harassment grievances. I would like to clarify: first, for the definition of "retaliatory act" in clause 28(2)(f), would that include pressurising the employee to agree to a variation of the employment contract which is less favourable? Second, 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 employees can make representations to the Minister under the Retirement and Re-employment Act. In those other cases, would evidence of discrimination by the employer be relevant?

Third, would protections against retaliation by employers on the basis of grievances covered by the TGFEP levers be similarly strengthened for parity with the provisions on prohibition against retaliation under this new Workplace Fairness legislation? Finally, I would call for those facing discrimination covered under TGFEP to similarly be protected from retaliation. Small companies, with fewer than 25 employees, who are exempted from the Workplace Fairness legislation should be held accountable for any retaliatory acts against their employees who report discrimination under TGFEP.

Looking at clause 35(2), it appears that some cases may be regarded as both civil contraventions and serious civil contraventions. I would like to ask the Minister, under what circumstances would MOM pursue civil penalties for serious civil contraventions, as opposed to imposing administrative penalties for civil contraventions?

Last clarification, in making a complaint to MOM for employers' discrimination, could the Minister give guidance on what type of relevant evidence would workers need to produce or show before MOM will investigate further?

The third "C" is communication. This landmark legislation will cover much ground and its effective implementation and enforcement will not be easy or straightforward. At the onset, there will be questions from all quarters. These questions are opportunities to sharpen our approach and build trust and unity among all stakeholders. It is, therefore, imperative that we address all concerns and commence communication about this new law and how it will eventually be operationalised at the earliest opportunity.

It is my hope that the nuts and bolts can be well cascaded to every employer as well as every union, union leader, HR and legal practitioner and every worker operating in Singapore. Communication can come in various forms and channels, such as a legal handbook, pocket series or guide, or even a dedicated website with an exhaustive deck of frequently asked questions, coupled with legal primers catered to the various levels of needs and segments.

The fourth "C" is capability. To enhance workplace fairness and the knowledge in this space, more can be done to improve HR capabilities as well as workplace practices. Echoing the recommendations in the PME Taskforce Report, there is a need to improve HR standards and increase take-up of IHRP certification. It is essential for the HR fraternity to be familiar with tripartism, industrial relations as well as this new piece of workplace fairness legislation.

It is therefore, submitted that the IHRP certification should also be updated after the Bill is passed to cover WFL across all certifiable levels, including as an additional module for HR professionals with an internationally recognised HR certification but who may have missed covering topics, such as the WFL, tripartism and industrial relations in Singapore. I would like to reiterate my previous call in this House for the IHRP certification to be made mandatory, especially for companies that hire foreign manpower.

Fifth and final "C" is complement. We need this Bill to complement existing legislation and other worker protections. In short, we need to create a safer environment for workers to report discriminatory practices. Mr Speaker, while the Bill will confer rights and protection on workers, they will need to feel safe to report any discrimination. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices report, from 2022 to 2023, there was a decline in employees seeking help when faced with discrimination at work. Despite the increased availability of formal grievance-handling procedures, workers may not feel safe enough to do so. According to the report, the main reason was the fear of being marginalised at work or making work relations awkward.

I submit that this is where unions can play a crucial role in supporting our members. Our union leaders are trusted and experienced peers and advocates who understand the challenges our members face and are trained to provide relevant support and advice. This is why it is critical to ensure that our unions are able to represent our workers, especially PMEs when they face workplace discrimination. We therefore call for the Industrial Relations Act to be amended, so that unions can provide limited representation for PMEs regarding disputes under this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to see that in clause 25, "grievance" includes harassment by the employer or by another employee. Indeed, there are many overlaps between harassment and discrimination. I have, in the past, made repeated calls to address workplace harassment. While recognising that this Bill makes harassment a type of grievance and that some remedies are currently possible under the Protection from Harassment Act, I would call on the Government to complement existing harassment laws by enhancing extra-legal levers to strengthen protection against workplace harassment, such as more research, education and awareness training on this very important issue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, while legislation must serve to punish and deter errant employers, especially the egregious ones, it is ultimately another step in a continuous journey to foster a fair and inclusive Singapore. All of us – workers, employers and members of society – will need to play our part to achieve this vision.

True progress requires a collective commitment to check our own biases at work, practice inclusion and speak up when we spot that something is not right. There are available avenues to seek redress and NTUC, together with our unions, will continue to do our part to ensure that our workers are protected and have fair opportunities at work to fulfil their potential. We stand ready to support our members and workers who face any challenging situations at the workplaces because #everyworkermatters.[Applause.]

Mr Speaker, today's Workplace Fairness Bill is a long-awaited law that has clearly gone through many rounds of development since it was first announced in 2021, so I am happy we finally have it up for debate. The WP 2020 manifesto calls for explicit anti-discrimination legislation. This is because we felt that TAFEP guidelines and enforcement via restriction of access to work permits were not enough to stamp out discriminatory practices.

Moreover, we believe that formal legislation would provide clarity for both employers and employees, and Singaporeans in general, because laws do not just provide mechanisms, but are also signals of our society's generally accepted moral intuitions.

The PAP disagreed. Then-Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo said in September 2020, that it might not result in better employment outcomes for vulnerable groups and asked if we might be more interested in form or substance. She further said that Singapore has better employment statistics for women and seniors than some other developed nations, and the threat of getting Work Pass privileges revoked was an extremely serious one.

However, given the use of the term "fairness" in today's Bill, I am glad that the Government has come round to the view that signals and ethical stances are important in tackling discrimination in the workplace and above all, it is important to legislate to outlaw such practices as illegal.

In my speech today, I would like to make some queries to understand why the Government decided to scope the legislation to: one, exclude discrimination outside the workplace; two, exclude indirect discrimination; three, exclude several other protected characteristics that the public has called for protections on; and four, exclude several categories of workers.

The second part of the speech will cover what I believe to be a clear and major gap in the Bill – discrimination via denial of reasonable accommodations. On non-workplace discrimination, I understand that this may feel novel in the Singapore context, but are we simply taking a conservative approach to deciding and prioritising practicable applications of anti-discrimination legislation? Is the Government exploring whether it can legislate against significant and harmful discrimination in interactions that bear similar dynamics to employment, such as in the use of private and public services. For instance, the purchasing of goods and services on gig work platforms could be a scenario where discrimination takes place. Should landlords be allowed to discriminate against those from a certain racial background or a specific family size? The United Kingdom (UK) Equality Act specifically prohibits discrimination in the provision of services in access to premises and education.

And while of course we do not advocate the wholesale copying of such laws, nor do we claim that these other jurisdictions are utopias without their problems, it seems a missed opportunity for us to legislate to outlaw discriminatory practices more generally.

Secondly, the Tripartite Committee deliberately excluded indirect discrimination in a move that would reduce legal obligations on employers and purportedly reduce uncertainty for both employers and employees. However, could the Minister clarify if the Government sees the lack of coverage of indirect discrimination as a problem and how would we effectively address what some might call nationality-based discrimination against Singaporean workers? For example, it is often a practical impossibility to prove such alleged nationality discrimination. Workers are often only able to cite anecdotes about foreign HR managers being biased towards candidates or colleagues from their own country, while statistics showing larger than proportionate representation from some countries can be brushed off as coincidence.

Another concern that has been raised is the use of National Service Physical Employment Standard (PES) status to potentially discriminate against male candidates with non-visible disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities or neurodivergent conditions. While the Tripartite Guidelines do mention that employers should not suggest preference based on National Service liabilities, it is unclear whether they can ask about PES status. PES status can, after all, be used as a blunt tool to assess if the job applicant may have a medical condition or neurodivergent condition.

Again, indirect discrimination is prohibited in several other developed jurisdictions like the UK, and indeed, their Equality Act was considered in the Tripartite Committee's review. Are such claims really that complex to introduce legislation for? And if prohibiting indirect discrimination is meant to be left covered by TAFEP guidelines, when will these guidelines be made available?

After all, our society appreciates that indirect discrimination is unacceptable. For example, there was a significant public outcry after a hijab wearing Muslim worker was asked to remove her hijab in order to work as a promoter at a departmental store just a few years ago. This is a classic example of indirect discrimination, where a neutral policy about uniform and appropriate dress disproportionately affects certain groups, in this case, Muslim women.

Another example of indirect discrimination in a disability context is a requirement for candidates to participate in a phone interview for a data entry role. This requirement disproportionately affects deaf and mute candidates who are not able to complete the phone interview satisfactorily and are disqualified as a result.

Such cases are precisely why indirect discrimination is recognised and regulated in many developed jurisdictions, including the UK, the European Union (EU) and Australia. The principle is that if an apparently neutral criterion or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a group defined by race, religion, gender or other protected traits, the onus should be on the employer to demonstrate a genuine necessity for that criterion.

Our Bill, however, remains silent on this front, which will permit covert biases to continue unaddressed. We should not under-estimate the significance of closing this gap. Those who rely on statutory protections are often the most vulnerable segments of our workforce – employees with disabilities, lower-income workers, older workers, women who juggle caregiving responsibilities and those who start with less advantage in working life. If we only address blatant overt acts of discrimination, we inadvertently leave behind these hidden or systemic patterns, which can be just as corrosive to social harmony and economic security.

Next, several characteristics that are well-known sources of discrimination are also not covered by the Bill. For instance, those who have chronic medical conditions, like arthritis and regular migraines, are not covered. It also appears that the Bill's coverage of intellectual disabilities appears to indicate that learning disabilities are not included.

I based this on SG Enable's definition of intellectual disability as mainly established by a person having an intelligence quotient of 70 and below, or a feature of medical conditions, like Down syndrome, which is quite different from learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, which the Dyslexia Association of Singapore estimates to affect around 10 percent of the population in Singapore.

Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are also explicitly excluded in the Bill, which seems at odds with the Minister for Home Affairs' statements that gay people deserve dignity, respect, acceptance and do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation during his opening speech in 2022, when this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and attendant amendments to the Constitution.

This is notable as researchers as at organisations, such as National University of Singapore's Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health and the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have found that more than half of LGBTQ persons have experienced discrimination at the workplace and that levels are generally higher than those who do not identify as LGBTQ.

This concern about employment has also been raised by LGBTQ individuals to party colleagues, previously sharing that they have experienced discrimination from employers who declined to hire them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This is disturbing, as we should aim to harness the contributions of all Singaporeans.

Even if we are not to include these characteristics in the legislation, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister about how the Ministry plans to address such types of discrimination experienced by fellow Singaporeans, particularly, as it is not currently explicitly covered by TAFEP guidelines.

Fourthly, I would like the Government to clarify why they and the Tripartite Committee excluded large classes of workers from coverage under the Bill. Under the proposed section 4(3), platform workers are explicitly excluded from the protections from discrimination. Foreign domestic workers also appear to not be covered because domestic workers are not covered by the Employment Act.

Mr Speaker, these clarifications on exclusions are important because this Bill took three and a half years of development and many consultations with employers.

It is also not a novel point of law, with many developed jurisdictions and international law to take reference from. Therefore, these decisions must have been deliberate, and the Government should be open with why they were taken. I am not casting aspersions, but I hope that we can have better clarity and understanding of the thought process and timing behind how the Government intends to ensure that these groups too, are eventually afforded legal protections against discriminatory behaviour.

Finally, I would like to speak on the need for reasonable accommodations, which are not covered by the Bill. Reasonable accommodations are necessary, appropriate and practical adjustments made to a job to make it fairer and more accessible to people with disabilities (PwDs), with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) definition, highlighting that the point is to ensure they can exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others.

Singapore is a party to the CRPD, where states recognise the need to protect the provision of reasonable accommodations, and said they would take all appropriate steps to ensure their provision. The Minister mentioned that tripartite partners are working on advisory on the provision of reasonable accommodations for PwDs, and as of May 2024, the Government's view is that the difficulty in clearly defining what constitutes reasonable accommodations could result in heavy litigation, citing what has happened in some other countries.

But disability advocates have highlighted that reasonable accommodations are by far their number one hurdle when it comes to employment. They are essential to PwDs participating in the workforce. Given the Government's own target to increase the employment rate of PwDs to 40% by 2030, I believe that this is a key policy lever to ensure that PwDs have a fair chance in joining the workforce and thriving at work.

Three main questions arise from this. Considering that the Government has tabled the Workplace Fairness Bill today and acknowledge the lack of teeth of tough-help guidelines, what recourse can PwDs expect if their employers fail or refuse to comply with the tripartite advisory when these come into play? Will the Government commit to a timeline to recognising the denial of reasonable accommodations as a prohibited form of discrimination under the Workplace Fairness Act within the next five years?

As a matter of international law, does the Government consider Singapore to be compliant with our obligations under the CRPD if we do not legally recognise a right to reasonable accommodations? If so, how does it reconcile its position with the views on the UNCRPD to the contrary?

As the Government has resisted the call to legislate reasonable accommodations for now, how then does it propose to explore how reasonable accommodations can be mandated and not just through an advisory which can be ignored? Could this mean developing policy mechanisms with a carrot-and-stick approach for employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as outlined below?

Employers should be convinced about the value of having a genuine interactive process upon receiving any request for accommodation, something which has already been introduced in December 2024, with the flexi-work arrangements (FWAs). Like FWA request, this will entail timely acknowledgement of employer requests and good faith aspiration of workable solutions. When a request is deemed impractical, an employer should be required to provide written explanations of proposed alternatives. Such a mutual dialogue builds trust, helps mitigate disputes and ensures that both parties collaborate to arrive at sensible balanced arrangements.

Establishing what is undue hardship for employers will also be helpful in guiding employers as to when a requested accommodation becomes unworkable. Factors, such as employer size, resources and potential operation impact must be taken into account and should also take into account existing subsidies or supportive programmes.

In the meantime, the upcoming advisory should also be made as effective as possible with concrete plans for uptake, targeting companies and industries which are the least likely to be providing reasonable accommodations. That advisory must not just be preaching to the converted. The advisory should also have a basic definition of what a reasonable accommodation is, taking guidance from the UNCRPD that Singapore has ratified.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a welcomed move. It demonstrates that we, as a society, are prepared to take a stronger stance against discrimination. But the Bill excludes significant scenarios of non-workplace discrimination, offers narrow definition of discrimination that leave out indirect and associational forms and leaves entire groups, such as platform workers, migrant domestic workers and people with certain disabilities without clear legislative protection.

Crucially, we risk creating a law that the public might view as tokenistic rather than genuinely transformative. And if people lose faith that this legislation can protect them, a deeper disillusionment sets in where they feel that systemic inequalities cannot be solved. Any subpar results may ironically confirm the Government's prior argument that legislation might be only formed. So, we must ensure it has real substance. We must ensure that the laws are truly robust, that they address real-world discrimination comprehensively and that the Government remains open to future expansions of its scope.

I hope that we will address these gaps to consider future amendments that might strengthen protection for the groups left out and to ensure that reasonable accommodation are not relegated to a footnote. Only then can we confidently say that we have a Workplace Fairness Act that is both firm in principle and forceful in practice.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would just like to provide one point of clarification to the Leader of the Opposition's earlier point on associated discrimination.

I want to, first and foremost, reassure every Member in the House and every Singaporean that we do not tolerate any form of discrimination. But for the purpose of WFL, for the purpose of this Bill, as I have alluded to the journey that we have taken for the last many years, the fact that so many people have come up and we have taken all of their considerations, to move it to a more surefooted way of crafting a Bill, we wanted to be very well-scoped in terms of defining what the definition of this protected characteristic is and what does the protected characteristic cover. Hence, I have outlined five broad categories.

By virtue of the way the Member has described it, Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Leader of the Opposition, in terms of the associated discrimination, by virtue of the fact that an employee is married to someone who is of a different race, let us say, for example, who feels that he is being discriminated against because he is dismissed, TAFEP will take it up. But for the purpose of the prescribed penalty in terms of the Bill, WFL, at this particular point in time, we have not crafted it such that it is covered.

But that does not mean that, moving forward, we would not continue to review. Because it is a live document, we will continue to get data, to look at where the areas of needs are and we will continue to improve that and expand the coverage itself.

I hope that can correct, in case the Member has any misperception.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestion. We, indeed, will cover that in my wrap-up speech. I do not want to belabour the point because we are only at the beginning. I note the fact that there is significant interest. For the record, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for your support of the Bill at just the Second Reading itself.

But I want to, not to belabour the point, the illustration in the explanatory statement was actually taken out of context. It is meant to clarify what is discrimination as defined in the Bill – in this particular Bill itself. It is not what we consider to be discrimination in Singapore. I cannot emphasise and reiterate more, that we do not tolerate any form of racism and we do not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination.

Like I said, TAFEP will continue to be there. TAFEP was the basis on which we built this WFL on. It will continue to assist any worker who experiences workplace discrimination even if they fall outside or beyond the scope of this Bill. This Bill is, really, the first step in introducing legislation for our workplace fairness regime.

I do not want to belabour the point. Thank you, Speaker.

Sir, I will be speaking in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill that has been presented and is currently being debated has been eagerly anticipated by Singaporeans, especially those who are more vulnerable to discrimination when seeking employment as well as those carrying out their duties.

The Workers' Party has long voiced the need for legislation to address the issue of workplace discrimination. We, the Workers' Party MPs, along with Singaporeans, feel relieved that after waiting for so long, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has finally made this decision.

Sir, in part Three of the bill titled Protected Characteristics, clause 8 lists and establishes the protected characteristics, namely age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion and language ability, as well as disability and mental health condition. This protection covers all stages of employment, including recruitment, period of employment and dismissal.

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to raise or bring up again the concerns of Muslim community in Singapore regarding the types of workplace discrimination experienced by certain Muslim individuals.

I will share two scenarios that have been experienced by Singaporean Muslim individuals and would like to seek clarification and confirmation that, based on this bill, discriminatory practices indeed occur in these two scenarios and that the affected individuals can file a report.

The first scenario concerns the observance of Friday prayers for Muslim men. One situation involves Muslim men being rejected for employment during interviews because their request to perform Friday prayers is not granted by the company. The second situation involves Muslim male employees whose request for a slightly longer break on Fridays to perform Friday prayers are refused by their employers.

In general, many Government agencies and employers in the private sector allow Muslim men to perform Friday prayers. However, there are still some or a few who do not permit it. The issue of granting permission to perform Friday prayers was previously raised by former Member of Parliament Mr Zainal Sapari through his social media platform.

Mr Zainal Sapari's sharing on this matter was covered by online media outlet Mothership on 17 July 2019, titled "MP Zainal Bin Sapari suggests S'pore employers give Muslim men time-off for Friday Mosque prayers".

Mr Zainal Sapari, who is currently the Assistant Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), said he had been approached by Muslim male employees who face difficulties in getting permission from their companies or employers to perform Friday prayers. He said that "it would be much appreciated if employers could grant male Muslim workers time-off between 12.30pm to 2.30pm to go to the mosques".

In the same Facebook post, Mr Zainal Sapari also explained the obligation of Friday prayers for Muslim men, and he also opined that "workers should also 'make up for lost company time' by coming to work a little earlier, or leaving later that day".

The second scenario is a situation that has received much attention for a while now, which is the wearing of hijab. For years, there have been occasional accounts or reports about Muslim women facing situations where they are asked to remove their hijab if they want to be accepted for employment or after they have started work.

This matter was mentioned in the Suara Musyawarah report published in 2013. This Suara Musyawarah report was produced by an independent and non-partisan committee formed by the government with the objective of gathering feedback as well as concerns and aspirations of the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.

On page 21, paragraph 32 of the Suara Musyawarah report in Malay, and I quote, "This committee has also heard several personal experiences that give the impression that discrimination is also practiced in employment. Personal examples include employers who clearly state that their preference is for non-Malay workers and Muslim women are sidelined or bluntly told that they are not allowed to wear the hijab".

Sir, this Suara Musyawarah report was published in 2013, almost 12 years ago, and the feedback that was collated are possibly incidents that had occurred several years before 2013. In fact, my wife had a similar experience back in 2000 when she was almost accepted to work at a private language centre but with one condition, which was she cannot wear a hijab.

Moving forward, a recent incident that received attention from many people, including Madam Halimah Yacob, who was the President at that time, was a case that occurred in 2020. It involved a Muslim female worker at a well-known department store who was told to remove her hijab a few minutes after she had just started work on her first day.

In this case, as reported in the media, Madam Halimah firmly stated, "there is no place for discrimination of any form and against anyone in Singapore".

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to seek confirmation from the Ministry of Manpower that both scenarios I have shared, namely not giving permission to perform Friday prayers for Muslim men and the wearing of hijab for Muslim women, are recognised as workplace discrimination under this Bill. That is all.

Mr Speaker, the journey towards equality is a long and arduous one. The Bill that this House is debating today is much-needed and a long-overdue one, if we pride ourselves on being an open and inclusive society.

The passage of a Workplace Fairness Bill in Singapore is not just a legislative necessity. It is a moral imperative that addresses the long-standing issue of workplace discrimination that has affected many workers across various sectors. For too long, employees have faced barriers based on age, race and other personal characteristics without adequate legal protections, which not only undermine their dignity but also hampers our nation's commitment to meritocracy and equality.

In WP's 2020 manifesto, we called for the institution of anti-discrimination legislation on the basis of gender, race and age. Importantly, the manifesto also notes how the Government's strategy of issuing advisories and guidelines does not penalise employers sufficiently for adopting discriminatory practices.

The contents of this Bill largely reflect the Government's approach towards the issue of fair employment practices and the focus on harmonious workplace relations in Singapore. I will be touching on a few areas in which I believe there could be areas of improvement to consider, especially as we look to introduce a second Bill on this matter later in 2025.

The first broad point I wish to highlight is the issue of exclusions in this Workplace Fairness Bill. Granted, workplace fairness and the issue of discrimination are complex ones and the Government may want to take an incremental and cautious approach towards legislation in this area. However, if we are deliberately looking at discrimination in the narrow sense through careful scoping of the Bill, how confident are we in saying that this new legislation will be effective in addressing the concerns and discriminatory barriers of minorities? How can we confidently say that workplace discrimination of any form should not be tolerated, but yet, some forms of discrimination are illegal while others are not?

Let me elaborate on each of the subpoints under the broader exclusion category.

Based on clause 8 of the Bill, employers are prohibited from discrimination on the basis of 11 protected characteristics, which form 95% of the workplace discrimination complaints received by MOM and TAFEP. There are, however, several other classes of people who may face discrimination, but yet will not be covered by this Bill. Are we not then discriminating against this 5% in not according them adequate legal protection?

The first is on physical medical conditions, as I note that mental health conditions are a protected characteristic. I have met residents who have been through a period of medical illness, which has resulted in them being unable to work for an extended period of time, causing them to rack up a significant medical bill. What could be more distressing, however, is that they may face a major hurdle as employers may view their medical history as a liability.

For instance, a resident of mine is on follow-up with a cardiologist for a cardiac condition. However, he was specifically certified by the doctor that from a cardiac perspective, he was fit-to-work based on the nature of his job scope. Yet, despite this, he believes that he was being terminated more than once by different employers because of his condition and especially, when one of them only required him to perform guest services-related duties in an indoor location.

The draft Health Information Bill, which was opened for public consultation in 2023, prohibits the use of National Electronic Health Record data for non-patient purposes. It would also explicitly disallow data to be used to assess one's suitability for employment. Therefore, would this Bill also prohibit employers from discrimination based on one's medical condition or medical history if unjustified?

Second, everyone deserves a second chance. Being an open and inclusive country, Singapore must also grant second chances to those who are keen on joining the workforce after a stint in prison. Although such members of our society are willing and motivated to contribute productively, a CNA article highlights that many of them face discrimination when job-hunting despite being qualified for the role. Therefore, it is only right that those with a past criminal record are also protected against workplace discrimination under this new law.

In certain instances, it could be arguable that restrictions are put in place, given the risks involved. For example, under section 26 of the Child Care Centres Regulations, staff who have been convicted of offences, such as child abuse and neglect, are not allowed to be hired as staff of a childcare centre.

In the financial industry, in response to my PQ in August 2024, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong shared that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not restrict the hiring of ex-offenders in the financial industry in all instances. Rather, it issues prohibition orders to specific individuals who have committed serious offences or misconduct in the financial industry and an ex-offender who has not been issued any prohibition order or an individual whose prohibition order has expired may be employed by a financial institution, if he or she has been assessed to be fit and proper for the role.

Yet, the assessment of whether a person is fit and proper can be a subjective one and at present, MAS does not track the number of ex-offenders hired by financial institutions or require financial institutions to inform MAS of the rejection of candidates.

Given that it has been more than 20 years since the Yellow Ribbon project was launched in June 2004, would the Government also consider prohibiting discrimination on the basis of one's criminal record? This would certainly open more doors for them to start afresh and rebuild their lives.

Beyond the issue of protected characteristics, one of the other glaring omissions in the Bill is that on indirect discrimination. Aside from being difficult to detect, workplace discrimination comes in all shapes and forms. While this Bill covers direct discrimination, which refers to an instance where someone is treated less favourably than someone else in a comparable situation on the basis of a protected characteristic, my Sengkang colleague He Ting Ru observed that the proposed Bill does not cover discrimination by association, which is when someone is treated less favourably as they are acquainted with someone who possesses a protected characteristic. Furthermore, discrimination by perception, which is when someone is treated unfairly as they are falsely believed to possess a protected characteristic, is also beyond the remit of this Bill.

Crucially, this Bill does not protect workers against indirect discrimination, which refers to a policy or practice that while being neutral in appearance, results in a disadvantage for persons who may fit a certain criterion, unless it is justified by a legitimate aim and the "means to achieve that aim are necessary and appropriate". Examples of indirect discrimination may include working hours that unnecessarily disadvantage employees with children, or perhaps an attire policy that unreasonably discriminates against employees from a particular racial or religious group.

According to a Parliamentary reply by Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, he noted that including indirect discrimination as part of the Bill would "impose very wide legal obligations on employers", which results in "uncertainty for both employees and employers alike". Instances of indirect discrimination could be reported to TAFEP instead.

However, having two separate frameworks, one enshrined in law and the other based on guidelines for handling discrimination, may also cause confusion to both employers and employees alike.

Instead of omitting it from the Bill entirely, I suggest that as an intermediary step, guidance be provided to educate employers and their staff on indirect discrimination, its seriousness and the importance of addressing it appropriately. This would only be beneficial for employers.

If we look at UK case law, it establishes a precedent regarding what constitutes indirect discrimination and how such cases are to be handled. According to a UK Supreme Court ruling, employees need not prove why a Provision, Criteria or Practice (PCP) disadvantages people of a particular group in order to show indirect discrimination but instead requires a causal link between the PCP and the particular disadvantage suffered by the group and the individual. At the same time, it is open to an employer to show that their PCP is justified and there will be no finding of unlawful discrimination unless the justification is not made out.

One key instance of indirect discrimination would be the denial of reasonable accommodation, which would be useful for certain workers, such as those with disabilities and older workers. Clause 15 of the Bill refers to someone with a disability as an individual who has any one or more of the following, namely autism, any intellectual disability, any physical disability and/or any sensory disability.

PwDs face an uphill climb when navigating through the various hurdles in society. The findings of the 2024 Disability Trends report show that only 53.5% of the PwDs surveyed felt that they were included and not discriminated against. Worryingly, there was also a decrease in the percentage of respondents who expressed positive attitudes toward PwDs in the workplace compared to the last survey in 2019.

It is imperative that Singaporeans ought to cultivate a society where our PwDs could feel included. While mindset shifts are certainly crucial, we also ought to strengthen our legislative tools to create a barrier-free society.

The Bill's coverage of PwDs under clause 8 would certainly offer greater protection for PwDs against discrimination. However, one of the barriers that PwDs experience when seeking gainful employment is the lack of reasonable accommodations in their workplaces.

According to the CRPD, reasonable accommodations are "necessary and appropriate adjustments" to ensure that in the workplace, PwDs would be able to function "on an equal basis with others on all human rights and fundamental freedoms". Examples of reasonable accommodation include ensuring step-free access to workplaces for employees with mobility issues and work-from-home arrangements for workers with sensory impairments.

There have been governmental programmes to encourage business to implement reasonable accommodations for PwDs, such as SG Enable's Job Redesign Grant. Moreover, a Tripartite Advisory on Providing Reasonable Accommodations to Persons with Disabilities, which is not legally-binding, would also be released.

However, the Government has stopped short of enshrining the right to request for reasonable accommodations into law, with Manpower Minister Tan See Leng articulating that it could result in heavy litigation and prevent employers from hiring employees that require such accommodations.

This approach could be seen as being reliant on the moral suasion of employers and sends a signal that reasonable accommodations are "good to have" when it is a "must-have" for PwDs to carry out their tasks.

Therefore, the new Bill must reflect that aspiration by legislating the right for employees to request for reasonable accommodation, especially when Singapore has in 2013 ratified the UNCRPD. As pointed out in a report by the Disabled People's Association, in their 2022 Concluding Observations to Singapore, the UNCRPD noted on more than one occasion within their recommendations to the Singapore Government on the need to prohibit the denial of reasonable accommodations. For example, it is "concerned about the lack of recognition of denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination on the basis of disability" in Singapore and recommends that Singapore "adopt legal provisions and create practice to recognise denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination in all areas of life and include an express definition of reasonable accommodation consistent with Article 2 of the Convention".

To ensure its effective implementation, the Tripartite Advisory for Reasonable Accommodations could function as a source of guidance for employers and employees alike. Besides PwDs, other workers, such as those with caregiving duties, parents and older workers, would also benefit from reasonable accommodations in the workplace.

The second point I am concerned about is the requirement that TAFEP serve as the first port of call outside the firm for workers who experience discrimination. While this is a point to be covered under the second Workplace Fairness Bill, I hope that the Government can give this point due consideration, before it is being raised for First Reading.

Now that we have made the all-important step to introduce legislation to combat discrimination, I am concerned that having TAFEP and TADM as the first port of call could mean that, in practice, we are back at square one and there may not be much of a difference to the current means to deal with discrimination via the TAFEP guidelines.

While the articulated aim by the Government is to preserve workplace harmony, in the case of a termination of employment, we can be clear that there is no intention by the employer to be in a continuing work relationship with the employee, much less a harmonious one and it is more likely going to be an acrimonious rather than harmonious relationship after the termination.

Relying on mediation could place employees at a disadvantage, as they may lack the resources, such as time, energy, money and support to effectively challenge powerful and well-resourced employers. Mediation can often also favour the more dominant party, leading to outcomes that do not adequately address the grievances of those who experience discrimination and wrongful termination.

This brings me to the third broad point I wish to highlight in that the ease at which employees can be terminated. Employment law in Singapore is such that an employer can terminate an employee's contract without cause, simply by giving notice or by paying the employee his or her base salary in lieu of the notice period. No reason whatsoever needs to be given to the employee.

To successfully claim that a dismissal with notice is wrongful, where no reason is given for the dismissal, an employee must substantiate a wrongful reason for the dismissal, for example, discrimination.

The point about circumstantial evidence is thus an important one, given the colossal task faced by employees in proving discrimination. It is not easy to detect workplace discrimination as employers would attempt to hide it. For example, employers would not indicate in black and white that an employee is being terminated due to their age. But rather, the said employee would perhaps hear it via word-of-mouth from a fellow colleague. In fact, they might even hear it directly from the line managers in passing, but have no concrete recording or evidence of it, allowing him or her to subsequently deny having said such a thing at all. Hence, the employee would most likely have at best indirect or circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing by the employer in such cases.

The establishment of a framework for the handling of indirect evidence would be helpful for workers who might be afraid of seeking redress as they feel that they lack substantial evidence.

For instance, in US case law, the Mcdonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework places the burden of proof on employers to argue that there is a justification for their employment decision, after the employee has ascertained that they are rejected from a role despite being qualified for the job.

Finally, let me touch on some other matters relating to the Bill, such as the FCF and the use of AI.

A key tenet of this Bill is also to ensure that Singaporeans and PRs are fairly considered for employment. This is reflected in the implementation of the FCF under clause 26 of this Bill.

The FCF mandates that employers who are submitting EP and S Pass applications must first advertise that position on the MyCareersFuture portal. However, employers may also pre-select a candidate and go through the motions of interviewing applicants from the MyCareersFuture portal without considering them fairly. Hence, how is the Government monitoring such employers and how would such employers be penalised? Would the Government also consider implementing a mechanism that monitors the outcomes of job postings uploaded to MyCareersFuture?

On a related note, one crucial development in the HR industry is the proliferation of AI in the hiring process. For instance, an Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) could be used to filter out curriculum vitaes based on the employer's needs, while an AI-powered video-interviewing software could analyse the candidate's speech and behaviour. However, AI could also perpetuate discrimination if the algorithm or data is biased.

In a Parliamentary reply late last year, Minister Tan See Leng noted that candidates could approach TAFEP to seek recourse should AI usage result in discriminatory employment practices. The Minister also highlighted the Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI, which encourages AI developers to adopt data quality control measures and to disclose information regarding the AI model's make-up.

Instead of adopting a "soft touch" approach towards AI usage in recruitment, we ought to pivot towards enacting robust legislation that would provide workers with greater assurance and transparency with regards to how AI is being used when hiring. After all, it is crucial to unpack the "black box" that is AI to ensure that it is not a tool deployed by employers to enable discrimination.

For instance, the EU AI Act imposes obligations on employers seeking to deploy AI systems as part of their HR practices. These obligations include, amongst others, instituting the right for candidates to request an explanation of AI's role in the decision-making process, ensuring sufficient human oversight over the AI system and adhering to data management practices that eliminate biases within the input data. Candidates must also be informed when AI is being used during the hiring process.

Aside from mitigating the risk of discrimination arising from the usage of AI systems, this would also help to assuage public scepticism towards AI's usage in recruitment due to its perceived unfairness compared to a human recruiter.

On that note, while mindset changes amongst employers and employees are a key ingredient towards building a fairer workplace, the legislation that we pass in this House sends a signal about where our priorities lie and charts a direction in which society heads towards. Advisories and guidelines hold little weight compared to legislation. Therefore, I am glad that we are finally putting forth this long overdue Workplace Fairness Bill, and I hope that the suggestions that my WP colleagues and I will be taken into consideration as we await the second Bill to be passed.

As cliché as it may sound, if we wish to build a society that is "based on justice and equality" that ensures "happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation", then we should take greater strides in ensuring that within every facet of society, everyone will have the opportunity to thrive and flourish.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Workplace Fairness Bill, which establishes clear rules against workplace discrimination while safeguarding core values of trust, fairness and open dialogue. It strikes a necessary balance between an employee's right to redress and an employer's need to manage operations effectively.

In my speech, I will raise the following three points: one, concerns about a litigious work environment are addressed through a mediation-first approach to foster trust and reduce disputes; two, resource limitation challenges that smaller enterprises may face in implementing the Bill, the unintended consequences of exemption and initiatives, such as HR-as-a-service to support SMEs; and three, the need to equip HR professionals, managers, employees and jobseekers with training and resources for consistent understanding and fair application of the law while proactively aligning employee expectations with employer capabilities to foster a harmonious and inclusive workplace.

Regarding my first point, there are concerns that additional legislation might lead to increased litigations. International examples highlight this risk. In some cases, while addressing unfair treatment, this has led to overcorrection by employers, resulting in rigid procedures rather than fostering trust. There is also the fear of lawsuits, which sometimes stifled open communication.

Singapore must learn from these experiences. The proposed Bill targets familiar and common forms of discrimination. By maintaining clear definitions and focusing on prevalent issues, we reduce the likelihood of disputes requiring legal interventions while ensuring broad coverage.

Additionally, the Bill mandates mediation before adjudication. Overseas, early conciliation services have proven effective. For instance, the UK's Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service resolves most disputes before they reach tribunals. Here, employees will be encouraged to seek internal resolutions first. If that fails, mediation through TAFEP or TADM will follow. Only as a last resort, will cases proceed to the Employment Claims Tribunals. This tiered approach prioritises workplace harmony and encourages efficient and equitable resolutions.

Regarding my second point on the potential burden on employers, particularly smaller businesses. Compliance can be costly. In the UK, the proposed Employment Rights Bill is projected to raise business costs by billions annually. Similarly, Canada's Employment Equity Act demands extensive reporting and complex policies, while Australia's Fair Work Act has driven many employers to seek costly legal advice to avoid compliance errors. Mr Speaker, Sir, this has implications to prices, hiring and job quality.

Singapore's economy depends on an ecosystem of multinational corporations, SMEs and startups. Smaller enterprises, in particular, are concerned about the administrative costs of compliance, such as hiring consultants, lawyers or additional staff. While the Bill initially exempts firms with fewer than 25 employees, I would like to ask the Minister about the consideration factors that would determine the period of exemption and the Ministry's action plan to level up smaller firms.

An unintended consequence could be that employees may avoid smaller companies, perceiving them as offering weaker workplace protections. This could worsen the existing talent attraction and retention challenges faced by SMEs. To address this, there is an urgent need to support smaller companies in understanding and implementing the Bill effectively. Additionally, could there be provisions allowing exempted companies to voluntarily opt in to the Bill's framework and receive formal recognitions for doing so? Such a measure would enable forward-thinking SMEs to enhance their employer branding and position themselves as employers of choice.

Smaller enterprises often lack the full range of HR capabilities due to resource limitations. Hence, I reiterate my earlier calls for the MOM to introduce HR-as-a-service, similar to Infocomm Media Development Authority's Chief Technology Officer-as-a-service. Such a service could be facilitated by the IHRP, which is well-positioned to pool HR expertise and deliver scalable solutions for SMEs. I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider such support services to boost smaller enterprises' HR capabilities.

The Workplace Fairness Bill sets minimum standards, a welcome step in signalling to errant employers that workplace fairness is non-negotiable. At the same time, we must also recognise and reward progressive HR practices. The SHRI's annual Singapore HR Awards is one such initiative, but there is potential to enhance and expand these efforts. Aside from traditional means to encourage progressive HR practices such as award ceremonies, will the Minister consider widening the range of strategies, such as financial incentives, Government procurement quality credits, certification, spotlighting best practices and scaling up existing ones?

Regarding my third point, good legislation sets standards, but it is ultimately HR professionals, supervisors and team leaders who translates standards into fair outcomes. We must ensure they are equipped to interpret and apply the law confidently and consistently.

Singapore can do better by offering robust support. Through partnerships with SNEF, NTUC and TAFEP, the Government will prepare materials, conduct outreach and provide practical tools to train HR professionals, hiring managers and supervisors. These resources will help them identify discrimination, handle grievances effectively and communicate decisions. With proper training, managers can apply the rules confidently, reducing the likelihood of disputes and fostering a culture of fairness.

However, fostering workplace harmony requires a concerted effort from both employers and employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is often said that employers and employees are two sides of the same coin. While much training focuses on employers, we must also empower employees and jobseekers. The TADM currently provides advisory services to manage employment or payment-related disputes, but more proactive measures are needed.

I would like to ask the Minister what specific training and education programmes to familiarise employees and jobseekers with workplace protections, ensuring they understand and can navigate the processes that are in place to safeguard their rights in the workplace. This would also promote greater alignment between employee expectations and employers' resource capacities. Managing expectations through an accurate understanding of the provisions is essential to fostering a harmonious and inclusive work environment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill signals that we do not tolerate discrimination in our workplaces. It draws a clear line on what is acceptable and what is not. This is a positive move, one that aligns with our national values of fairness, respect and meritocracy.

By posing these questions today, we acknowledge that implementing this Bill will be a journey. We must stay vigilant, ensuring stakeholders have the resources they need and remain open to improvements. If we do this, we can be confident that the Bill will enhance trust, support inclusivity and strengthen the harmonious relationship between employers and employees that is the backbone of Singapore's success.

Mr Speaker, it is heartening that MOM's 2022 Fair Employment Practices Survey shows progress. Workplace discrimination in Singapore has significantly decreased, with only 24% of job applicants reporting discrimination, compared to 43% in 2018. Moreover, just 8% of resident employees reported workplace discrimination, lower than the EU average of 11%.

While these figures highlight improvement, discrimination remains a concern for many Singaporeans. Beyond these statistics are deeply personal stories of exclusion and unfair treatment, underscoring the importance of continued action, and I thank Minister Tan for acknowledging that. For instance, I recall moments from my career, both in Singapore and abroad, where I faced discrimination as a minority. As a young engineer in Singapore, I was once told, "You are quite smart, for a Malay". I also felt excluded when colleagues held meetings entirely in Mandarin. Overseas, when I was mistaken for a Latino American, I encountered overt racial prejudice.

These experiences, shared by many, reminds us that discrimination persist in both overt and subtle forms. Tackling these issues requires sustained efforts to create a fairer, more inclusive society, where opportunities are accessible to all, regardless of race, religion or other attributes. The Workplace Fairness Bill is a critical milestone in this journey. It complements the tripartite guidelines of on fair employment practices, addressing discrimination across 11 protected characteristics and establishing a strong foundation for fair treatment. Together, these measures reflect Singapore's commitment to fostering workplaces where everyone can thrive.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill, as it fortifies our system to uphold workplace fairness, protecting workers while balancing the interests of employers. However, I seek clarification on three areas: firstly, the definition of character of protected characteristics; secondly, the application of the Bill; and thirdly, the grievance resolution process and its effectiveness.

Mr Speaker, part three of the Workplace Fairness Bill identifies 11 protected characteristics, covering 95% of workplace discrimination complaints received by MOM and TAFEP. Could the Ministry clarify what other characteristics constitute the remaining 5% of complaints? While the inclusion of these protected characteristics is a great step forward, the legislation remains punitive in nature. Legislation is an important step, but how do we shift from punishing discrimination to actively fostering the employment of seniors, PwDs and caregivers? How can the Workplace Fairness Legislation work in tandem with the tripartite guidelines on fair employment practices, to tackle workplace discrimination holistically?

For many seniors seeking employment, discrimination remains painfully real. Some are denied even an interview once their age is revealed. This reflects entrenched biasness that legislation alone cannot address. Beyond punitive measures, how will we challenge and change such ingrained attitudes to create an inclusive mindset among employers? Education also plays an important role. Jobseekers must understand their rights and avoid providing sensitive information like age, race, religion or marital status on their CVs, a practice once very common. Schools, career services and organisations like e2i and Workforce Singapore should embed this knowledge in career preparation efforts.

Additionally, some employers still request sensitive personal details during the application process. Clearer guidelines must discourage such practices to ensure equal opportunities for all candidates, and by addressing these systemic issues alongside the legislative framework, we can move closer to workplace culture rooted in fairness and inclusivity.

Mr Speaker, Part 5 of the Bill addresses genuine job requirements for protected characteristics. Can TGFEP recommend that employers provide upfront clarity on why a characteristic is necessary, such as specifying that language proficiency, is required for customer interaction in specific markets? For example, if the Chinese language ability is required, the advert could read "Chinese-speaking preferred as employee is required to address customers from the Chinese market". Having such details would definitely help remove the perceived discrimination.

Mr Speaker, while the 11 protected characteristics are well defined in the Workplace Fairness Bill, the issue of reasonable accommodation has not been fully addressed. Reasonable accommodation refers to modification or adjustments to enable employees with disabilities to perform essential job functions and enjoy equal employment benefits. For instance, adapting a workspace for an employee with a physical disability is relatively straight-forward. However, cases like accommodating someone with anxiety disorder requesting a completely quiet workplace, with less people in an office and set away from others can pose significant practical and financial challenges.

Hence, I understand why the Bill may have avoided explicitly addressing reasonable accommodation – ambiguities in its interpretation could lead to disputes, increasing the risk of a litigious culture where formal adjudication becomes the default mechanism for resolving uncertainties.

Indeed, under the Americans with Disabilities Act in the US, which mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodation, numerous cases have ended in formal adjudication due to disagreements over what constitutes "reasonable." However, we cannot simply discard the principle of reasonable accommodation because of its complexities. The critical question is: how can we address genuine cases of reasonable accommodation effectively under WFL and TGFEP?

Recommendation 13 of the TGFEP suggests that TAFEP issues advisories and facilitates dialogues between employees and employers. While this is promising, it remains too ambiguous to drive meaningful change. To advance inclusivity, we must strengthen our approach. WFL or TGFEP should mandate, or at least, strongly encourage, organisations to establish clear processes for reasonable accommodation requests.

Linking this effort with the work of the taskforce on Inclusive Employment Practices under the Enabling Masterplan 2030 can provide financial support and resources, reducing employer burden and fostering workplace inclusivity. Burden on employers and encourage the hiring of persons with disabilities, making workplace inclusivity a tangible reality.

My second clarification links to the application of the Bill. In Part 1, clause 4, para 2, WFL applies to employers with more than 25 employees. According to the 2019 Department of Statistics, 18% of companies in Singapore employ fewer than 25 people. How many employees will remain uncovered under this threshold? What percentage of our workforce is not covered under this Bill. While I understand the phased approach, when will WFL apply to smaller organisations? In the meantime, how will we prepare these companies with more robust HR practices?

My third clarification is on the process of resolving grievances. How does the legislation safeguard the identity of the complainants and protect them from retaliation? How will the Ministry support firms in developing effective processes to meet WFL requirements? Could this lead to a more litigious culture, particularly around subjective areas, like performance appraisals and promotions? How will frivolous claims be managed? What volume of cases does the Ministry anticipate under this framework and what proportion might escalate to formal adjudication? Success hinges on the organisations' ability to resolve issues internally and TAFEP's capacity to mediate. Are resources adequate to ensure TAFEP's effectiveness? Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to speak in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A survey on Fair Employment Practices Survey by the Ministry of Manpower in 2022 revealed encouraging progress, with discrimination during job searches among residents dropping from 43% in 2018 to 24% in 2022. Workplace discrimination among workers in Singapore was also at 8%, which is significantly lower than the European Union average of 11%. Despite these improvements, discrimination remains real, emphasising the need for continued efforts to address this issue.

As a minority, I have also faced discrimination like many minority communities in Singapore. And I would like to thank Minister Tan for highlighting that, although the number is not as high as before, there are still cases of racial and religious discrimination. In one of my previous jobs in Singapore, I was once told, "You're quite smart... for a Malay," and felt marginalised when colleagues held meetings entirely in Mandarin.

Unfortunately, I also had the chance to compare the discrimination faced in other countries when I faced more overt racial discrimination such as being called derogatory names due to the colour of my skin. These experiences reflect how discrimination can manifest both subtly and overtly, and this is a common experience of many from minority groups.

The Workplace Fairness Bill to protect against discrimination, including those based on race, language and language, is a significant step forward. However, it is not an absolute solution. Discrimination is a complex issue that requires ongoing efforts.

The Workplace Fairness legislation itself is not a panacea, but rather a measured additional protection for our workers. Although the law will play its role will play a part, individuals can also protect themselves from discrimination through personal resilience—by enhancing their skills and achieving excellence in their respective fields to eliminate any doubts about their capabilities. Individuals can strive to be the best candidate for their job, leaving no room for prejudice.

The Workplace Fairness Bill is a significant step that complements the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and sets a baseline to address workplace discrimination across 11 Protected Characteristics.

However, I would like to suggest that the Workplace Fairness Bill require employers to explain the necessity of certain characteristics, such as language proficiency. For example, if language proficiency is required to deal with customers from the China market, the job advertisement could state that, "The ability to speak Chinese is encouraged in order to deal with customers from the China market." This would help remove any perceived discrimination.

Finally, I fully support this bill as it strengthens protections for our workers. While workplace fairness has certainly improved, creating a more just society with equal opportunities requires an ongoing effort. Together, through legislation and individual action, we can build a more inclusive and equitable workplace for all.

(In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarification sought, I stand firmly in support of this Bill. It represents a pivotal step towards a fairer workplace and a more inclusive society.

Mr Speaker, today Parliament debates the Workplace Fairness Legislation, a landmark Bill that sends a clear message: discrimination has no place in our work environment. Discrimination, in all its forms, must be eradicated if we are to build a truly inclusive community. As the saying goes, "the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members". This Bill reflects that principle, representing a step forward in the right direction and I commend the Government for reaffirming our pledge to fairness and dignity.

The proposed Act defines 11 protected characteristics, taking a pragmatic approach to cover 95% of discrimination based on complaints to TAFEP and MOM. Among them, disability has been designated as one protected characteristic, bringing much-needed attention to a vulnerable minority.

Before today, there has not been any legislation that specifically addresses discrimination against persons with disabilities in the workplace, making this an exciting milestone for many in the community. My speech will focus on what this legislation means for those with disabilities in the employment landscape.

Under section 17 of the Bill, it is discrimination for an employer to make an employment decision that adversely affects an individual if at least one of the grounds for the decision includes the individual's protected characteristic. This means that direct discrimination is expressly prohibited. This is a good thing. We cannot allow fair employment opportunities to be denied on the basis of one's disability.

However, discrimination may not always be direct. An individual may also face indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral policy disproportionately puts persons with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage, even if the adverse outcome is unintended.

For example, sharing key information solely through verbal communication would exclude employees who are deaf or hard of hearing and pose challenges for autistic individuals who need direct and explicit messaging. An employer might believe they are being fair by giving instructions to all employees in the same way. They may think there is no discriminatory practice. But this approach disadvantages those of us who genuinely require tailored adjustments to thrive.

When accessibility is disregarded, opportunities at the workplace gradually narrow. Performance is unfairly evaluated at year-end. Promotions or career advancements are stifled. The result is an adverse employment outcome that unjustly penalises someone for circumstances beyond their control.

Sir, unlike direct discrimination, indirect discrimination is often difficult to prove or perhaps not as easily understood. It may be subtle and less obvious, but it is a real issue that needs to be tackled. Policies or common practices are rarely designed with sufficient thought for including minorities or the disadvantaged. This makes indirect discrimination more pervasive and harder to address, especially when biases are unconscious. Without sufficient intervention, it leaves disadvantaged minorities even more vulnerable. The WFL does not provide for indirect discrimination.

In the absence of legislation, those who believe they have suffered from indirect discrimination have little recourse besides seeking help from TAFEP. Employers and employees in Singapore who wish to understand the principles of fair employment practices can refer to TAFEP's TGFEP. The guidelines outline the dos and do nots for ensuring fairness across all stages of employment. However, the current recommendations and examples that accompany them deal only with direct discrimination. Since protections against direct discrimination will now be elevated through legislation, the issue of indirect discrimination remains insufficiently addressed in existing guidelines.

Given this, can MOM consider, in collaboration with the tripartite partners, updating and improving the guidelines to incorporate explicit messaging that indirect discrimination is not to be tolerated? These guidelines should include clear examples of indirect discrimination. By helping employers and employees better understand the concept, the TGFEP can serve as a valuable tool for providing practical guidance for employers and employees to navigate such situations. This may be especially helpful for employers with fewer than 25 employees who are currently not in the scope of this Bill.

Most who experienced discrimination at work often do not report to official channels. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices Report, in 2023 only 29.3% of employees who encountered discrimination at work sought help. Perhaps, they believed that their concerns will not be taken seriously, or worse, that they will face negative consequences.

Under section 28 of the Bill, "prohibition against retaliation", only prohibits retaliation for anything done under or by reference to the proposed Act. It is unclear if these protections extend to those who seek help from TAFEP or MOM for indirect discrimination. It is crucial that those who suffer from discrimination feel safe and empowered to report such unfortunate instances. Given this, can the Government clarify, how employees who seek help in cases of indirect discrimination will be protected against retaliation since this falls, technically, outside of the Bill's coverage.

Addressing this clearly will encourage more employees to come forward without fear of reprisal, ensuring they report their concerns and finally receive the support they need. While the Government has chosen not to include protections for indirect discrimination in the Bill at this juncture, such legislation is not new.

There are other jurisdictions that have legally defined indirect discrimination to protect vulnerable persons in all settings beyond just the workplace. For instance, the UK has its Equality Act. Australia makes this definition in its Disability Discrimination Act as well as in the respective discrimination Acts for age and sex. Similarly in Hong Kong, the Ordinances for each protected attribute of disability, sex, family status and race, all explicitly provide for protections against indirect discrimination.

The passing of the Workplace Fairness Act is an important step in helping our workplace mature, paving the way for deeper commitments to fairness and inclusivity in the future. In parallel, I urge the Government to examine how other jurisdictions have defined and implemented such protections against indirect discrimination and adapt these learnings to strengthen our local approach in future amendments to our WFL.

Mr Speaker, discrimination can take many forms. One such form is the denial of reasonable accommodations. This is recognised in some jurisdictions as a discriminatory practice. Taking reference from SG Enable and the UNCRPD, reasonable accommodations are necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments. They are adjustments that do not impose a disproportionate or undue burden and puts persons with disabilities on equal footing with the rest of society.

Many of us rarely consider the accommodations we rely on daily, like having a table to write on or a chair to sit on, because they are so integrated into our lives. Supporting PwDs is not about large-scale changes. It is about small, thoughtful considerations. Just as having a table or a computer is a basic necessity for work, PwDs also need accommodations – only that they are tailored to their specific needs to carry out their tasks effectively.

For example, a wheelchair user may require a height-adjustable desk at work. An autistic employee might benefit from a relaxed dress code to reduce sensory discomfort or require clear, direct instructions to enable productive work delivery. PwDs merely want to be treated equitably, not with sympathy or pity.

Sir, denying the space to provide reasonable accommodations undermines a fundamental right. Yet, the WFL does not prohibit the denial of reasonable accommodations. In place of legislation, I understand that the tripartite partners plan to release an advisory on the provision of reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. This is expected to work in concert with the WFL.

We all know an advisory is not law, but if harnessed effectively, it could still lay important groundwork. If we want employers to embrace and buy into the idea of reasonable accommodation, we must first demonstrate its necessity, share best practices and debunk the myths. Taking this stepwise approach may be a prudent way to build consensus and readiness, before moving towards strengthening our law in the near future.

To ensure the advisory is effective, I would like to offer a few suggestions.

First, the advisory needs to emphasise that reasonable accommodations are a necessity, not a good-to-have. It needs to address common misconceptions and clearly show that the outcome is a net positive to the employer and the employee. In the context of workplaces, reasonable accommodations are indispensable adjustments made to enable persons with disabilities to perform their job duties.

The goal of reasonable accommodations is not to give anyone an unfair advantage. It is about levelling the playing field. It allows persons with disabilities to enjoy equal opportunities in the workplace.

According to the US Job Accommodation Network, 85% of employers reported a direct benefit of retaining a valuable employee as a result of having made an accommodation. Other widely mentioned benefits include increased employee productivity and company morale. These points show that when employees are given the right tools and environment, they are happier and well positioned to become valuable contributors that stay for the long term.

Second, the advisory should draw attention to the financial support available to allay any costs concerns. Reasonable accommodations are not meant to be overwhelming or create excessive strain on any organisation. Some employers may worry that providing accommodations would come at a heavy cost. But this fear is unfounded.

The US Job Accommodation Network found that 56% of workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities came at no cost to employers – free of charge. Another 37% experienced a one-off cost with a median of US$300 or roughly S$410.

Closer to home, Singapore offers grants specifically designed to support employers in creating workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities. Employers will be happy to know that if they are registered under the Open Door Programme, they can tap on the Job Redesign Grant that covers up to 90% of costs incurred. The grant, administered by SG Enable, can be used to defray the cost for the purchase of equipment, workplace modifications, redesigning of job scopes or processes and consultancy services.

Fifty percent of employers who used the grant reported that workplace accommodations cost less than $1,000 on average. Between 2020 and 2022, 20 employers hiring 60 persons with disabilities benefited from the Job Redesign Grant per year on average.

We need to do more to encourage higher uptake of available support. I hope that the tripartite partners can play a crucial role in raising awareness of such schemes.

Third, the advisory needs to outline how the process of providing reasonable accommodations should be managed. Requesting for accommodations is not a one-sided demand. Instead, it should be a collaborative process that addresses concerns of both employees and employers. This can be clarified by providing specific examples of reasonable accommodations and what falls outside the scope of reasonableness. This balanced approach ensures that such workplace accommodations are validated and implemented in a practical and fair manner.

Finally, MOM should consider specifying a timeline for transitioning the tripartite advisory into enforceable guidelines, laying the foundation for future legislation. Such transitions are not without precedent. Our very debate today is one such example. Direct discrimination was once only addressed in the TGFEP. Now, protections against direct discrimination are enshrined in law.

Another example is the recently introduced Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which replaced the earlier tripartite advisory on FWAs. The same approach can be applied to reasonable accommodations in the future.

While an advisory can serve to provide a starting point, there is a real risk it may not be taken seriously or is seen as optional. Therefore, it is crucial that the transition into enforceable guidelines is prompt and deliberate.

As employers adapt to new practices under the advisory, the Government can study how to legislate reasonable accommodations. On the surface, defining what is "reasonable" might sound tricky, but it is not an abstract concept. Just like for indirect discrimination, other jurisdictions provide for reasonable accommodations.

For instance, the Canadian Human Rights Act provides that employers and service providers have a duty to accommodate up to the point of "undue hardship", considering health, safety and cost. This is scoped not to only provide coverage for PwDs, but to cover all other prohibited grounds of discrimination, which means protected characteristics in our context. It also states that, "the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing standards for assessing undue hardship".

Similarly, Australia's Disability Discrimination Act states that an adjustment is reasonable unless making the adjustment would impose an "unjustifiable hardship" on the person. In determining whether a hardship is unjustifiable, the Disability Discrimination Act adopts a multifactorial approach by taking into account all relevant circumstances of the particular case.

These legal frameworks, while not identical, all uphold a holistic and thoughtfully applied principle of reasonableness, which safeguards the vulnerable while ensuring a judicious process. By studying how other jurisdictions have embedded their laws into practice, we can refine our approach and adapt these lessons to Singapore's unique context.

Mr Speaker, we can be proud of the progress we have made for PwDs over the past decade. The Disability Trends report released by MSF last month revealed that public attitudes towards persons with disabilities were largely positive. Yet, based on the survey by the National Council for Social Service, there has also been a decrease in positive attitudes towards persons with disabilities in the workplace, from 59.6% in 2019 to 50.6% in 2023.

While the reasons for this are not stated by MSF, more work needs to be done. NCSS' survey also revealed one interesting finding, which I will quote: "respondents who had contact with persons with disabilities at least twice in the past year reported higher proportions of positive public attitudes across the four disability types, compared to those who had no contact with persons with disabilities at all".

This highlights the need to consistently raise awareness and promote meaningful interactions in the community. The more we live, play or work with PwDs, the more understanding and accepting we become.

I agree with Minister Tan See Leng – there is no silver bullet to eradicate discrimination. Legislation alone cannot be a panacea that solves for fair and nurturing workplaces. As we debate the finer points today, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The WFL works in support of our broader ambitions – to build a more inclusive society, beyond just the workplace.

Hence, the law and its associated initiatives should be harnessed to realise the vision of the Enabling Masterplan 2030, not only to meet the aspirational target of 40% employment rate for persons with disabilities by 2030, but to embed inclusion into every aspect of society.

Let me now conclude. In 2013, Singapore ratified the UNCRPD and we have done a lot since. Today marks a meaningful step in our ongoing effort to address the remaining gaps in our laws. But the passing of this Bill will not be of material concern for employers who are already inclusive, nor will it automatically transform every organisation into an equitable employer. It simply sets the minimum standards for fair employment practices.

Real change requires much more than that. It is my hope that more employers take fairness beyond just a legal obligation. It is an opportunity to embrace the benefits of workplace diversity and above all, to do what is right.

Let us continue striving for a Singapore where every individual is valued and where our workplaces reflect the best of our shared values. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to set out the key principles of discrimination, lay out fair employment practices and prescribe the relevant dispute resolution processes and penalties for breaches.

Sir, my fellow Labour Members of Parliament have already spoken about NTUC's support for this Bill, particularly in the areas of protecting vulnerable PMEs and our older workers. My speech today will touch on the importance of protecting workers with mental health conditions and to ensure that workers working in small businesses do not fall through the cracks during the transition period.

Sir, mental health issues at the workplace are becoming commonplace. According to a June 2024 survey by Telus Health, almost half of the 1,000 workers surveyed in Singapore reported feeling exhausted after a day's work. The company which commissioned the survey said that these findings point to the growing risk of burnout among workers and highlighted a need for greater mental health support.

According to a 2022 study by The Instant Group, Singapore was found to be the most overworked country in the Asia Pacific region. The Straits Times also reported recently in November 2024, that stress bragging, that is bragging of overworked, was becoming more prevalent at the workplace, with negative consequences on workplace culture and relationships.

Despite this, unfortunately, many workers remain afraid to speak up or seek help for their mental health issues, because of the perceived negative attitudes and reactions from others. Some also worry that they will be discriminated against during employment decisions.

According to a survey by MOM on Fair Employment Practices, mental health discrimination was the most common form of discrimination faced by employees in 2022 and was one of the top four main forms of discrimination in 2023.

In NTUC's own #EveryWorkerMatters Conversations, young workers shared with us that, while they felt mental health support was important, only about a quarter of them felt that there have been improvements in the way society and the workplace treat individuals with mental health issues.

Sir, I have repeatedly raised in this House about the importance of addressing the stigmatisation of mental health at the workplace and I am very glad to see that the Government is making a timely move to legislate and to protect workers who face mental health challenges. However, I have some questions and some suggestions.

First, clause 16 of the Bill states that the protected mental health condition, in relation to an individual, means that the individual has been diagnosed with any mental disorder by a medical practitioner registered under the Medical Registration Act. In effect, this would mean that workers with mental health conditions are only protected from discrimination if they see and are treated by a psychiatrist. I would like to urge the Government to review and expand this definition.

There is a wide array of mental health conditions, with a range of treatment options, depending on how early someone seeks assistance. Beyond the clinical environment of seeing a psychiatrist, some workers with milder mental health issues would benefit greatly from seeing a therapist or a psychologist. Could the Government recognise allied healthcare professionals in the mental health space, as part of our push to protect workers from mental health discrimination?

The Singapore Psychological Society today already runs a voluntary register of psychologists. The Ministry of Health could amend the Allied Health Professions Act to make registration among psychologists and counsellors mandatory, which would then allow us to expand the definition of a mental health condition under the Workplace Fairness Legislation to include diagnosis by these allied health professionals.

Sir, tackling mental health stigmatisation requires us to understand that workers with mental health issues should be allowed to seek treatment beyond a clinical setting. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this proposal.

Sir, my next point pertains to employers enquiring about employees’ mental health conditions. Under clause 20 of the Bill, employers will need to have genuine job requirements in order to consider protected characteristics when making employment decisions.

I would like to seek clarification on how MOM will operationalise this. Would there be white list of jobs provided by MOM, where certain protected characteristics, such as mental health conditions, should be considered? Without any clarity, I worry that some employers will insist on asking their current and prospective workforce in declaring mental health conditions, even when there are no good reasons to do so. How would MOM police this?

Next, I would like to highlight the importance of ensuring that workers working in small businesses do not fall through the cracks during the transition period. MOM plans to exempt businesses who employ fewer than 25 workers from the requirements of the WFL for five years after the legislation comes into effect. This is to ensure that smaller companies have sufficient time to transition and adjust to the requirements of the legislation. I can understand this.

However, I would like to ask how MOM would treat companies that deliberately set up multiple business entitles, all controlled by a single director and his associates, to get around such legislative requirements during the transition period. Today, there exist companies that seemingly operate under a single brand name but in reality, they are made up of multiple smaller business entitles. How would MOM ensure that workers working for such companies have their rights protected during the transition period?

Sir, in closing, I would like to commend the Government, in particular, MOM, for working closely with NTUC over all these years to better protect workers from discrimination. Mental health issues can be a difficult and complex topic and I hope that the Government will consider an expanded definition of a mental health condition under this Bill to safeguard more workers. I also hope that the MOM will protect workers working in small businesses during the transition period. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and suggestions, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill marks a pivotal moment in our journey towards inclusivity and fairness in our workplaces. However, I would like to offer some clarifications and suggestions that will help ensure its true impact.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is about our seniors in the workforce. Although age is explicitly protected under clause 8 of the Bill, many seniors still face what I term "covert discrimination". This refers to subtle biases, like dismissing their expertise or denying them growth opportunities, not the overt remarks like "you are too old for this job."

In my Meet-the-People Sessions, seniors like Mr A, in his 50s, shared how their extensive experience is often overlooked in favor of younger, untested ideas. Mrs B recounted how she is offered fewer training opportunities, leaving her feeling stagnant and unvalued. These experiences, though often invisible, create significant barriers to equality.

While the Bill addresses training opportunities and prohibits age discrimination, the real challenge lies in detection and resolution. Many seniors hesitate to approach HR, fearing they will be labelled as troublemakers. Small businesses may not even have formal HR departments to mediate such issues.

To resolve this, we need alternative and non-confrontational channels that allow seniors to address concerns without fear of retaliation. These neutral spaces could facilitate honest dialogue, where employers explain challenges and employees share their feelings of exclusion. This will build trust, foster open communication and ensure that seniors' contributions are fully recognised.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the inclusion of mental health conditions as a protected characteristic under clause 16. This is a critical step forward, recognising that mental well-being is as important as physical health.

I am especially heartened that the Bill acknowledges mental health as a protected characteristic without requiring mandatory disclosure. This voluntary approach should persist as disclosure is only required when there is a measurable impact on performance. Otherwise, mandatory disclosure risks reinforcing stigma and deterring individuals from seeking employment or support.

At the same time, we must handle mental health cases sensitively. The requirement for a formal diagnosis in cases of alleged discrimination is necessary to prevent abuse. However, the process should be handled with compassion and respect, ensuring that employees do not feel alienated or judged.

I propose greater awareness and education for employers to dispel myths and on the benefits of accommodating employees with mental health conditions. Many of these individuals are highly capable when provided the right support. Training programmes can dispel myths about absenteeism and productivity and equip employers with practical solutions like flexible working hours or quiet spaces. Such measures will ensure mental health is no longer a barrier to success.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill's exemption for religious organisations as outlined in clause 23 acknowledges their unique roles. However, we need to clarify the scope of this exemption to avoid confusion. Many religious organisations run preschools, charities and welfare services that cater to people of all faiths. Does the exemption extend to these institutions? And if so, to what extent?

To prevent misunderstandings, I urge the Minister to provide greater clarity on the necessity and limits of these exemptions. Clearer communication will help avoid division and ensure that these provisions are fairly and consistently applied, preserving the harmony we value in Singapore.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I appreciate the phased implementation of this Bill to give SMEs more time to adapt, we must guard against unintended loopholes. The exemption for companies with fewer than 25 employees, as mentioned in clause 4(1), could inadvertently encourage some employers to keep their workforce artificially small to avoid compliance costs.

To mitigate this risk, I propose that we phase out the exemption as businesses grow. Alternatively, we could offer financial incentives and practical guidance to ease the compliance burden for SMEs. Grants for workplace upgrades and training programmes would help SMEs adopt fair practices without placing undue strain on them.

Similarly, reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities should be addressed. While larger companies can absorb the costs of accessibility, smaller businesses may struggle. TAFEP's advisory and financial support will be critical to ensure that SMEs can create accessible and inclusive workplaces.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we look to the future, let me ask: what will the workforce or the workplace of tomorrow look like? How will it evolve to meet the challenges of an increasingly digital and AI-enabled world?

The 2024 World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs report reveals that the workplace will be shaped by generative AI, digital transformation and the demand for constant upgrading. To thrive in this new world, we must harness the power of diversity. Diverse perspectives are no longer just a nice-to-have, they are the key to innovation and success.

Take NASA's Mars Rover project, for example. The team included not just engineers, they also had anthropologists and historians. This diversity led to groundbreaking solutions, such as adapting ancient bridge designs for a reliable landing system. As highlighted in Matthew Syed's "Rebel Ideas", this story exemplifies how embracing diverse minds leads to innovative breakthroughs. It shows us that diversity is not just about representation, it is about creating better and more effective solutions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill is an essential step forward in fostering fairness and inclusivity in Singapore's workplaces. It tackles the challenges faced by our senior workers, breaks down barriers for those with mental health conditions, provides clarity on religious exemptions and offers SMEs a thoughtful approach to compliance. But our work does not end here.

This Bill is a call to action for all stakeholders. To employers, value experience, embrace inclusivity and create workplaces where everyone has an equal chance to succeed. To employees, speak up, seek support and encourage understanding. And to all of us, let us ensure that this Bill does not just remain a set of rules, but becomes a foundation for real change in our workplaces and in the lives of all Singaporeans. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first declare my position as the executive chairman of a food service business and also as vice president of a charity providing mental health services.

For persons recovering from and coping with mental health issues, meaningful employment can be both helpful and vital. If I would look back over the past 20 years or more, many employers have been extremely generous in providing employment opportunities for persons in recovery. In the more recent years, with efforts to help persons in recovery gain meaningful employment, even more employers have stepped forward. Employment support specialists have also been engaged to assist both employees in the workplace and also the employers.

I would like to acknowledge with gratefulness all who have provided and continue to provide employment opportunities for persons in recovery.

In passing the Workplace Fairness Bill, it will provide a good framework for issues involving potential discrimination and provide guidance for fair employment practices.

I would like to touch on three of the stated protected characteristics: mental health condition, disability and caregiving.

Let me continue with mental health and the protected characteristic of mental health condition. Recent studies and reports show – and have been mentioned by the Minister – that mental health issues will be an area of increasing need for intervention and support. Including this in the proposed Bill is therefore very timely.

The added complexity for mental health conditions is the issue of stigma. Individuals may not disclose this even within their family and friends and may also choose not to advise their employers of their condition. Even of more concern, they may not be willing to seek proper help and suffer in silence.

In order for the individual to be included under mental health condition, there will need to be a professional diagnosis. This seems fair and reasonable. However, the outworking of this will require better understanding and awareness of mental health conditions and the benefits of seeking proper professional intervention.

Public education on mental health and wellness needs to continue. Employers will also need to better understand mental health conditions and how this may impact the employee and their ability to continue in their roles after appropriate treatment – not unlike other medical issues that result in temporary incapacity to work.

The workplace must therefore see transformation to one where any person with a mental health condition can be accepted and supported without the agony of stigma. While discrimination is addressed in the Bill, the broader challenge of stigma will need continuing efforts.

Many employers have also provided employment opportunities for PwDs. For some years now, social enterprises and charities have been active employers for persons with disabilities. We are also seeing increasingly a much wider group of employers providing employment opportunities for PwDs.

Today, PwDs are prepared for suitable jobs from the time they attend schools. This therefore removes some of the anxiety, but this will also be dependent on there being enough job vacancies once they enter the job market.

There also needs to be alignment, as mentioned by hon Member Denise Phua earlier, on conditions that fall under disability. One condition is, for example, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD. Statistics show that about two thirds of individuals diagnosed with ADHD present with other disorders which could fall under either the protected characteristic of disability or mental health condition. But that would leave out some who are specifically diagnosed with ADHD. Could the Minister kindly clarify whether ADHD falls under one of the protected characteristics if an individual is not concurrently diagnosed with any of the four categories under disability or mental health condition?

Caregivers, too, have been a group requiring more avenues of support. In recent years, more support for caregivers has been provided across various fronts. While caregivers are more than likely to be family members as defined, there are caregivers who provide care but fall outside this definition. Could the Minister clarify if there is scope for broadening this category of caregivers?

This Bill needs to be seen as an initial step towards workplace fairness as it covers broad key areas. Some concern has been raised on whether more clarity should be given in addressing issues arising in the workplace. We need to strike a reasonable balance between employers and those who fall under the protected characteristics. The workplace should not become a litigious environment as this Bill intends to preserve harmony and fairness. Nevertheless, some degree of recourse as provided in this Bill will help minimise discrimination and unfair practices should these arise. We should see this as a positive first step and therefore as a work in progress.

Many employers are already providing excellent work environments and giving care to employees who fall under protected characteristics. Some employers, whether by nature of the sector or other factors, may need time to adjust. We should enable this so that every employer can ultimately embrace the intent of this Bill.

Businesses need to do well in order to do good. At the same time we want responsible employers who take care of their employees. Employees, too, must remain diligent and responsible and be reasonable in exercising the protection this Bill provides.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my questions notwithstanding, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, during the past Committee of Supply debates, I highlighted that while employers might view reasonable accommodation as optional, it is a necessity for PwDs and caregivers of vulnerable individuals, whether children, PwDs or seniors.

If workplace fairness is the goal, then reasonable accommodation is the bridge to achieving it for PWDs. It is the essential foundation that empowers them to access, sustain and thrive in their livelihoods, fostering equal opportunities not just in employment but also in career growth and development. Without this bridge, the promise of workplace fairness becomes a hollow ideal.

In May 2024, MOM shared that the Tripartite Advisory on Reasonable Accommodation would be introduced alongside WFL. May I confirm if this advisory will indeed be released concurrently with Part 2 of WFL? This advisory holds great significance for those in the PwD community, who are keenly awaiting its guidance. This will serve as a critical framework for fostering inclusive workplaces. However, its importance also highlights why reasonable accommodation cannot remain separate from the discussion on workplace fairness.

Consider this: if a PwD is deemed unsuitable for a role, solely because the employer did not provide a basic accommodation, such as screen-reading software, would that decision not amount to discrimination? Similarly, if a caregiver of a severely-disabled child is denied a job simply because they requested FWAs or hybrid meeting options, when the role can reasonably accommodate these requests, should that not also be seen as an unjust barrier under WFL?

As first steps, I would like to propose two aspects of reasonable accommodation to be legislated as part of WFL. First, FWAs as a legislated reasonable accommodation. The Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs rolled out last December, are indeed a step forward. However, they raise an important question: if FWAs can be strongly encouraged, should we not go further and make FWAs a required reasonable accommodation for those with specific protected characteristics, particularly, PwDs or caregivers of vulnerable persons?

For PwDs and their caregivers, remote or hybrid work arrangements is very much welcomed due to their unique needs. This also is profitable for our labour pool. Incorporating FWAs into the WFL as a legislated accommodation for PwDs and caregivers would send a clear and powerful message that inclusivity is not optional, but an essential principle.

As we explore other potential accommodations that balance the needs of employers with those of employees, it is critical that we act with urgency and intent. Today's decisions will shape workplaces where those who need the most support are given the opportunity to thrive and where fairness is embedded in every aspect of our work culture.

Second, the Open Door Programme grant scoped as legislated reasonable accommodation. Accommodations covered by grants under SG Enable's Open Door Programme should also be legislated as reasonable accommodations. The Open Door Programme supports employers by covering up to 90% of the costs for job redesign and staff training to accommodate PwDs.

This significantly reduce the financial burden of inclusive hiring. However, many companies may find the application process daunting due to administrative challenges. To address this, I urge MOM and MSF to collaborate with SG Enable to simplify and streamline the application process. By reducing administrative barriers and improving access to information, agencies can encourage more companies to take advantage of these grants, fostering a greater willingness to make reasonable accommodations.

For WFL to succeed, we must include education and training for hiring agents and managers. Awareness of what constitutes discrimination, at every stage of employment, is critical. I will share two examples where two hiring officers have, unknowingly, discriminated against PwDs.

The first example, at the pre-employment stage, some deaf individuals have faced overt discrimination. For instance, one deaf applicant included a note in her CV requesting responses via email. After weeks without replies, she added a friend's phone number. When the hiring officer called the friend and learned the applicant was deaf, they responded, "In that case, we will delete her name from the list." As the role did not require hearing or speaking on the phone, this was a clear and unjust act of discrimination.

Here is a second example: a neurodivergent individual shared that his manager explicitly marked him down during a performance appraisal because he requested clarifications and step-by-step guidance on tasks. The markdown was based on the performance criterion of "ability to work independently with minimal supervision". But requests for clarifications are common for neurodivergent individuals and should not be penalised.

Managers and HR departments working with PwDs must be trained to reasonably adjust performance appraisal criteria, particularly regarding what "working independently" means for someone with disabilities. I urge MOM to incorporate training programmes, supported by disability Social Service Agencies (SSAs), as part of the WFL roll-out. These programmes should aim to raise awareness and foster understanding among hiring agents and managers, about what constitutes discriminatory behavior towards PwDs.

Understandably, many may be unaware of what fair requests and reasonable accommodations entail. This also underscores the critical role of the Advisory on Reasonable Accommodation in ensuring the successful implementation of WFL. As WFL rolls out, particularly with clarifications on reasonable accommodations and what constitutes discrimination, may I emphasise the importance of making grievance handling processes accessible to PwDs? This means ensuring that both online forms and physical spaces for filing grievances, whether within companies or with TAFEP, are accessible to individuals with visual, hearing or physical disabilities. Without accessible grievance mechanisms, we risk leaving PwDs without recourse to address workplace fairness violations.

Imagine constructing a state-of-the-art office building and declaring it open, yet failing to include a wheelchair ramp. How can we genuinely call the space "inclusive" or "equitable", if an entire group is excluded from ease of entrance? Reasonable accommodations, such as wheelchair ramps, are not just conveniences, they are fundamental enablers of participation and inclusion. Without them, WFL risks being an unfulfilled promise, falling short of its true purpose for our PwD community.

As we advance WFL, let us ensure it becomes more than just a vision or a set of ideals. It must function as a practical, inclusive framework that truly works for everyone. Embracing reasonable accommodations for PwDs will be a testament to our nation's shared commitment to equity and inclusivity. Like a bridge that creates access, these accommodations open the doors to equal opportunities.

Together, let us construct a bridge to workplace fairness; one that leaves no one behind and ensures everyone can cross to the other side comfortably. Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.