Round Up Speech at Workplace Fairness Bill

Dr Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower, Parliament House

8 January 2025

Creating Fair and Harmonious Workplaces

Mr Speaker, I would first like to thank Members for their strong support for the Workplace Fairness Bill. We all recognise that this is a landmark Bill. But this is just the start. We are balancing many considerations, across multiple stakeholders. Some want to move quickly, others less so. We cannot resolve all the issues overnight, but we will continue to work on it and improve over time. What we all agree on is the need to create fairer workplaces which provide good opportunities for our workers. We are very thankful to have each and every one of you, within this House and beyond, on this journey with us.
I will now address Members’ specific clarifications. Please be assured that we are listening closely. Where there are suggestions that we are unable to take on board at this point in time, we will consider if they are suitable at a later stage as part of our regular review.

(I) Starting with a prudent and balanced approach
Let me start with why we chose to take a prudent approach for this bill. Mr Pritam Singh and Ms He Ting Ru said that the Government had disagreed with calls for an anti-discrimination law earlier. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked why the government took so long with this Bill. It is easy to call for a new anti-discrimination law, but complex and challenging to design a Bill that strikes the right balance. Instead of rushing into this, we have approached this in a prudent and circumspect manner, so that we do not disrupt our hard-earned social harmony. We want a balanced approach – if it becomes untenable for businesses to operate in Singapore, this affects jobs for workers. What we do not want, is for the law to change the nature of employer-employee relations, such that workplaces become more litigious and divided. What we do want, is for our workplaces to remain harmonious and fair.
Through our engagements, we know that employers generally do the right thing and support fairer workplaces that contribute to better business outcomes. We have tried to set the baseline standard with this Bill, recognising that employers need time to adjust to new requirements. Jobseekers and employees also need time to understand how to use the new protections responsibly. Even so, we have always been committed to this agenda, in response to the active advocacy from our labour MPs. We revisited this issue, the moment the COVID-19 pandemic abated.
We consulted widely and deliberated extensively to put together a balanced Bill that preserves our current workplace norms, and guards against divisions in our workplaces and society. With the support of our tripartite partners, we decided to start with a surefooted and prudent approach, which reflects current societal and workplace norms. We will complement this Bill with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), which will continue to cover other forms of workplace discrimination. This includes the remaining 5% of complaints received. To Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s queries, such complaints involve discrimination based on factors such as physical attributes, medical conditions and criminal records.
This approach allows us to continue building our expertise in managing cases under the law, while ensuring that other characteristics remain protected from workplace discrimination under the guidelines. In our surveys of foreign jurisdictions, there are some areas that are heavily litigated. This has created uncertainty for employers and imposed significant costs. It has also resulted in workers waiting years to have their cases heard in court – and we know that justice delayed is justice denied.

(II) Strengthening protections for workers
Let me now address Members’ clarifications on age, nationality, mental health and disabilities. This does not mean that the other characteristics are any less important, I just intend to address the questions that members have raised.

Age
Members like Mr Heng Chee How, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Yip Hon Weng agreed with the need to address age discrimination and how we need to go beyond the Bill to fundamentally address perceptions and mindsets towards senior workers. This requires a multi-faceted approach including adopting age-friendly workplace practices and addressing ingrained perceptions of ageism. We agree, and will continue efforts to change mindsets on the ground. Our guidelines and resources will support training and job redesign to nurture more age-friendly workplaces.

Mental Health
Moving on to mental health issues, we agree with Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Keith Chua and Mr Yip Hon Weng’s comments that beyond legislation, there is a need for greater education to stamp out stigma against those with mental health conditions and create more inclusive workplaces. We will continue to normalise conversations on mental health, share best practices with employers and co-workers to better support persons with mental health conditions, and encourage help-seeking by individuals in distress. We also agree with Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Melvin Yong that it is important to be clear about what constitutes a genuine job requirement to prevent inadvertent discrimination against those with mental health conditions. We will publish further guidance developed with tripartite partners to support employers’ compliance.

Disabilities
Several Members (like Ms Rachel Ong, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Jean See and Mr Saktiandi Supaat) raised the issue of reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, including legislating it in the Bill. Let me put on record that we recognise the importance of reasonable accommodations in enabling persons with disabilities to access and perform their jobs. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness had observed that in other countries, the provision of reasonable accommodations was heavily litigated. This is a point that Mr Sharael Taha also acknowledged. In Singapore, we have been able to improve employment outcomes for persons with disabilities over the years through various measures, including under the Enabling Masterplan.
Hence, rather than mandating employers to provide reasonable accommodations at the outset, we have embarked on an education first approach via the upcoming Tripartite Advisory. We want to change mindsets and mainstream the concept of reasonable accommodations in the employment space first, guiding employers and employees to discuss accommodations that will suit their specific work context. As suggested by Mr Yip Hon Weng, we will support employers to implement such accommodations, like through the Job Redesign Grant to defray the cost of job redesign and workplace modifications. We will also work with the relevant partners such as SG Enable and the trade associations and chambers to strengthen outreach to employers. We want to reassure Members that these efforts will be taken concurrently with our preparations to implement the legislation. To Ms Rachel Ong’s query, we aim to release the Tripartite Advisory around the same time the legislation is implemented. Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Denise Phua and Ms He Ting Ru made various suggestions, including asking the Government to have a clear roadmap to mandate reasonable accommodations – let us focus on education, to strengthen understanding and support first.

Nationality and local-foreign issues
Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested giving Singapore citizens the first right to jobs over foreigners. I believe Singaporeans know that we need a calibrated position that works for our economy and people, instead of swinging to the extremes. Foreigners complement local workers to grow the economy, and create job opportunities for Singaporeans. Our workforce is small, and in order to attract the best global companies here, we must allow them to hire talent globally. At the same time, we recognise that Singaporeans are concerned about fair treatment and fair competition at the workplace.
Our robust checks today ensure employers fairly consider all job applicants have been rooting out discriminatory employers even before this Bill – over 600 EP applications from companies were withdrawn or rejected over the last five years following MOM’s investigations. The Complementarity Assessment Framework, or COMPASS, encourages employers to develop their local pipeline and reduce their reliance on foreigners, both generally and from a single source. The minimum cost of hiring EP and S Pass holders are also benchmarked to the top one-third of local Professional, Manager, Executive and Technician (PMET) and Associate Professional and Technician (APT) wages respectively, to ensure a level playing field for locals. More fundamentally, we continue to invest in Singaporeans through lifelong upskilling, reskilling, and career health initiatives, so that our fellow citizens are well-placed to seize and create better opportunities and build a better future for ourselves.
This Bill adds to this suite of measures by further strengthening our ability to deter and penalise discriminatory hiring practices. Our strategy has yielded good results – over the past decade, unemployment for Singapore citizens has remained low at 3.2% on average. Unlike what Mr Leong tried to portray, there is no indication that underemployment is increasing. PMETs now make up 64% of all employed residents, up from 54% ten years ago, matching the proportion of residents with tertiary education in the workforce. In fact, the number of resident PMETs has grown faster than EP and S Pass holders between 2014 and 2024. Resident PMETs grew by 34% over this period, significantly higher than the EP and S Pass holders’ increase of 11%.

Other forms of discrimination
Now, moving on to other forms of discrimination not covered by the Bill. I want to start off by broadly addressing the concern of Members that the Bill does not cover all types of discrimination. I want to emphasise again that this Bill is just the start. TAFEP will track, analyse, and share information on the complaints and cases received and resolved – both under the Bill and the TGFEP. This will allow us to more meaningfully discuss and decide on our next moves.
To clarify, discrimination by perception, which is making an adverse employment decision because the employer suspects, assumes or believes a protected characteristic exists, is considered discrimination under clause 17(4) of the Bill, contrary to Mr Louis Chua’s comment.
Members such as Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Jean See and Mr Vikram Nair asked about indirect discrimination. Whether a company’s practice or policy not based on a protected characteristic has the effect of putting persons with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage is arguable in many cases. This is a grey area, and legislation can have a chilling effect on employers, preventing them from having practices or policies such as skills tests that are needed for the job, where certain groups perform better than others.
Nevertheless, this does not mean employees have no recourse for indirect discrimination. As Mr Vikram Nair said, the current legislation does make reference to some forms of indirect discrimination, and a court is not prevented from finding as a fact that a particular requirement may amount to discrimination under one of the protected characteristics. I thank Mr Fahmi Aliman for highlighting how the tripartite partners have been able to handle workplace discrimination complaints, including indirect discrimination in a sensitive and constructive manner. I also thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for sharing how TAFEP has managed and resolved cases that involve wearing of the tudung and the need to perform Friday prayers. To Mr Faisal Manap’s clarifications, let me emphasise that race and religion are protected characteristics under the Bill. This Bill is not about legislating whether a firm must or must not allow someone to go for Friday prayers, or accede to any other religion’s practices and requests. We have to recognise that there are many operational details and implications, and such issues are best addressed through open communication, trust, and dialogue to accommodate both workers’ and employers’ valid needs. But, if a person goes for Friday prayers and is fired for being religious and not because of performance, this is discriminatory under the law. Let me reassure Members, including Mr Faisal Manap, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Louis Chua, Ms He Ting Ru, and Mr Henry Kwek that TAFEP will continue to seriously look into such cases and engage parties to resolve their issues amicably.
I also thank Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Ong Hua Han for their suggestions on how to better deal with indirect discrimination which we will consider. We will also look into how we can work with stakeholders to provide illustrations and guidance on scenarios that constitute indirect discrimination, before implementing the legislation.
Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Usha Chandradas, and Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked why the Bill does not include protections against discrimination by association, which is discriminating against an employee due to the employee’s connection to someone else with a protected characteristic. It is difficult to draw the line where discrimination by association starts and ends – it could extend beyond the employee’s spouse to include family members, friends or anybody they associate with. Legislating against this has far reaching implications that we cannot anticipate and address, and has an untoward effect of creating a culture of suspicion and distrust between employers and employees. Hence, we started with a tightly scoped Bill to avoid litigiousness and provide meaningful protections. We also included an example in the Explanatory Statement, which is not part of the Act, to clearly explain the contours of discrimination under the Act. Mr Pritam Singh asked for examples of TAFEP cases of discrimination by association. As far as I am aware, TAFEP has not encountered such cases so far. Notwithstanding, TAFEP will help workers who face all forms of workplace discrimination, including discrimination by association.

Sexual orientation and gender identity
Members like Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Louis Ng have raised the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and why it should be included in this Bill. Let me state clearly that we do not tolerate workplace discrimination, including towards LGBT individuals. We currently handle such cases under the TGFEP and will continue to do so. In addition, the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act (or POHA) protects all victims against violence and harassment, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In our engagements and consultations with various civic, religious, and worker groups, we heard the views, needs and concerns of the different stakeholders. Even in this House, during the repeal of section 377A, I recall that the Workers’ Party found it hard to take a unified party position. I am not sure if Ms He Ting Ru’s emphatic support for the inclusion of SOGI is representative of the Workers’ Party stance. Regardless, the difficulty in reaching a unified position shows us how complex and multi-faceted such issues are. So let us focus our attention and energies on providing concrete support to our workers, while we build up our expertise and experience in managing such issues under the law.
I thank Ms Chandradas for her suggestions to strengthen the protections for LGBT individuals, including training for our frontline officers. In preparation for this legislation, we have undertaken overseas study trips where TAFEP, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and MOM officers learned how other jurisdictions manage discrimination cases and manage a diverse group of stakeholders. TAFEP has also engaged third party trainers and will continue to train its officers to manage cases of discrimination and harassment sensitively, including potentially adopting a trauma care approach for vulnerable individuals. Direct referral channels have been established between TAFEP and key stakeholders, including the LGBT and other community groups, to institute a safe process for affected workers to make complaints. We will continue to collaborate with community groups to raise awareness on the TGFEP, so that individuals are assured and know that TAFEP is ready to provide advice and assistance.

Platform workers and other workers
Ms Jean See, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Raj Thomas asked about platform workers and outsourced workers. TGFEP will be updated to clarify that platform operators and corporate service buyers should not discriminate based on non-job-related characteristics. Let me be clear, any such workers who face discrimination should approach TAFEP for assistance. To Ms Sylvia Lim’s point, rest assured that we will investigate complaints and will take action against employers who place workers on contract for services to avoid their legal obligations.

(III) Addressing business needs and constraints

Genuine Job Requirements
Let me now move on to how the Bill supports the genuine business needs of employers. Employers have given us feedback – that they support the need to uphold fairness in the workplaces and most employers do want to do the right thing. Yet, we have to be cautious about how onerous the requirements under the bill will be, so that we do not inadvertently disrupt businesses’ ability to compete and provide jobs for our workers. As Mr Mark Lee highlighted, the Bill allows employers flexibility in hiring the right people for jobs where there are genuine requirements to have or not to have a protected characteristic. As suggested by Mr Patrick Tay, we will provide guidelines on how this exception may be applied. This will include illustrations to give more clarity including when a job can or cannot be reasonably performed, as highlighted by Mr Saktiandi Supaat. Let me also assure the businesses that when TAFEP examines the cases, we will take a balanced and nuanced approach – to support workers with genuine needs, but also to triage and manage cases to avoid burdening employers if there are frivolous claims.

Small Firm Exemption
Small firms may lack the capabilities and resources to implement the legislation and need more time to prepare for it, something that Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng have also acknowledged. Several Members have expressed concern about the exemption of small firms with fewer than 25 employees from the Bill at the start. Mr Pritam Singh questioned whether the exemption threshold of 25 employees would collectively apply to a group of companies operating as one entity or to each individual corporate entity, while Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if contracts for service with small firms can be used to bypass the protections under the Bill. Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about supporting SMEs in the journey towards upholding workplace fairness. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Yip and Mr Tay also asked about our plans and considerations in reviewing this exemption. I would like to make the following clarifications.
First, the exemption threshold will apply to each individual corporate entity. Second, this Bill will still cover around 75% of employees. Third, this exemption does not mean that the remaining 25% of our workforce are unprotected and small firms are free to discriminate against them. All firms today are already expected to abide by the TGFEP, including small firms. So even in a group setting or contracts of service with multiple small firms, each of these firms will still need to follow fair employment practices. TAFEP has also been collaborating with partners like the Association of Small & Medium Enterprises (ASME) to prepare and support small firms to create fair and progressive workplaces.
Last, we agree with Mr Tay and Mr Yip that the exemption should not be indefinite. Hence, we plan to review this 5 years after the commencement of the Workplace Fairness Act. Small firms which are ready earlier can position themselves as the employer of choice amongst their counterparts.

(IV) Preserving harmony in the workplace and society

Grievance handling
I will next explain how the Bill will preserve harmony in the workplace and the society. The Bill requires companies to have clear grievance handling processes for their employees. Mr Patrick Tay spoke about ensuring that employers abide by their grievance handling processes and provide recourse for employees dissatisfied with the process. Dr Wan Rizal also queried on how to ensure grievance handling processes are unbiased and transparent. TAFEP has available resources such as the Tripartite Standard on Grievance Handling setting out good practices which employers can refer to. We hear Ms Rachel Ong’s call to consider persons with disabilities and will develop our resources on grievance-handling with this consideration in mind.

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

Protections against retaliation
The Bill will also prohibit employers from retaliating against those who report workplace discrimination or harassment. Together with the grievance-handling processes which provide a safety net, we want to encourage workers to step forward to resolve their disputes early at the firm level, which are points also raised by Associate Professor Razwana Begum and Mr Fahmi Aliman. Dr Wan Rizal asked how employees will be protected from subtle forms of retaliation. We recognise that not all retaliatory acts are overt in nature, and have prohibited any act that is detrimental to the complainant such as pressuring him/her to accept less favourable contractual terms, to address Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Jean See’s queries.

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

(V) Education and Enforcement Efforts
I will move on to the queries on the Government’s approach towards errant practices. Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua commented that it would be difficult for employees to prove discrimination. and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the types of evidence needed. When making a complaint, the complainant should clearly cite the incident that led him or her to believe that an adverse employment decision was made against him or her because of a protected characteristic. Placing the burden of proof on the claimant is an approach that strikes a balance between facilitating employees’ access to redress and safeguarding employers against frivolous claims. Other jurisdictions such as the UK , Australia and Hong Kong also take the same approach. The claimant can provide evidence in various forms, including emails, phone messages, documents and signed testimony. To Mr Pritam Singh’s query, just to share an example of a case managed by TAFEP, TAFEP intervened against a company for age discrimination for rescinding its job offer to a group of senior workers and hiring only sales promoters below 30 years old.
Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the civil and administrative penalties for contraventions. If an employer commits an act of discrimination that does not amount to a serious civil contravention, we can impose administrative financial penalties. If there is a systemic element where an employer has a longstanding practice of hiring workers of a certain nationality, we may treat this as a serious contravention and pursue a civil penalty action in court. To Mr Pritam Singh’s question, yes, a serious civil contravention refers to one under clause 30. More details will be included in subsidiary legislation.
Next, I thank Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay for their questions on whether employees who report discrimination not covered by the Bill will be protected from retaliation. This protection will not apply to them. We thank Mr Tay for the suggestion to include this in the Act and will keep this in mind.
At the same time, legislation and guidelines are not a panacea. We must continue with our education efforts to promote fair employment practices, as discrimination is at its root, a mindset issue as Mr Sharael Taha pointed out. Our priority is to provide information and support to employers so that they get it right in the first place and enforcement is a last resort. I agree with Mr Patrick Tay on the importance of communicating the legislation thoroughly to employers, the unions, employees and other stakeholders.
Several Members such as Mr Fahmi Aliman, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Jean See, Ms Rachel Ong, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay have rightfully pointed out that managers and human resources (HR) professionals play a critical role. As suggested by Mr Tay, we will update the Institute for Human Resources Professionals (IHRP) certification curriculum. Beyond that, we will also work with Tripartite Partners and certified HR professionals to uplift broad HR capabilities and ensure compliance with employment-related legislation, particularly the Workplace Fairness Act. We also thank Mr Mark Lee for his suggestions on supporting companies in implementing the requirements of the legislation, and will take them into consideration.

(VI) Other Issues
I will now address the last set of issues on this Bill. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Patrick Tay raised concerns on employers requesting information relating to a protected characteristic, such as mental health conditions. Requesting information, in itself, is not an adverse employment decision and thus not prohibited by this Bill. Having said that, we recognise that jobseekers may find it concerning to be asked for information unrelated to job requirements. In this regard, the TGFEP already states that employers should only collect information or ask questions that are relevant to the job requirements to assess an applicant. In such cases, employers should also explain the reasons for doing so and how it relates to the job requirement.
Some members such as Mr Sharael Taha have also asked about private employment claims, such as how they will be managed. As mentioned previously, there will be a second Bill that sets out the claims process for individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against. We hope to have an equally fruitful debate on the second Bill when it is introduced in this House.

(VII) Our Whole-of Society Approach
The Public Service, too, plays a role in promoting workplace fairness as Mr Henry Kwek pointed out. To address Mr Pritam Singh’s question, the Public Service, comprising the Government and Statutory Boards, will not be covered under the Workplace Fairness Act because public officers deal with sensitive areas of work. It will not be appropriate to involve external parties, such as the tribunals, to handle grievances or resolve disputes involving public officers. However, I would like to reassure Members that public officers will be accorded a similar level of protection as the Bill and the Public Service has put in place policies and processes that adheres to the key principles of the legislation as well as the existing Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). The Public Service is committed to providing a safe workplace for all public officers and does not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination and harassment.

Conclusion
Mr Speaker, to conclude, I am heartened by the strong support for this Bill. It has been an immense endeavour to develop a bill of this magnitude. It was not easy and we have worked hard with our partners on this. We have the conviction that this is the right thing to do, the humility to continue learning and improving, and the mindset that we should start somewhere –. Listening to the speeches today, we know we can do a lot more, but we cannot let perfection be the enemy of progress. I thank all partners who helped to make this first Workplace Fairness Bill in Singapore possible – especially our tripartite partners – the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation.
I thank members and the various stakeholders who took the time and effort to contribute to our engagements – employers, HR professionals, non-governmental organisations, legal practitioners and members of the public. Please bear with us if we could not take your suggestions onboard at this point in time. I seek your patience and understanding that we will take time to further build this regime. We also need to demonstrate patience and understanding, towards one another, in our very own workplaces, knowing that there are situations where employers’ and employees’ needs and expectations may differ. To each and everyone of you, within and outside the House, please continue to walk with us as we strive towards fairer and more harmonious workplaces in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Round Up Speech at Workplace Fairness Bill

Information and Services

Social media