Tan See Leng
Singapore
“We are aware of the Singapore Workplace Report 2026, produced by the Singapore Institute of Directors and Gallup, and we are studying its findings.”
“The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation (Taskforce) actively reaches out to all retrenched local employees. In 2025, 77% of Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications (MRNs) were submitted at least seven days ahead of the employee's last working day and 73% of MRNs were submitted at least two weeks ahead.”
“From 2022 to 2025, vacancy rates for technical maintenance roles in the real estate services sector, which includes facilities management, have been lower than the overall job vacancy rate, except in 2025 (see Table 1).”
“The Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) works with sector agencies to determine the courses which are required by the respective industries. The SWDA currently funds more than 100 courses, spanning a wide range of mental health-related fields.”
“In the first quarter of 2026, the profile of retrenched residents aged 50 to 59 was broadly similar to the profile of all retrenched residents, predominantly comprising professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and were mainly from wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing, financial and insurance services and profession…”
“In 2025, around 4,200 resident professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) aged 45 to 59 were retrenched, higher than 3,200 in 2024 and 3,500 in 2023. Their six-month re-entry rate remained stable at 48.5% in 2025, compared with 48.9% in 2024 and 50.1% in 2023.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,238 lines we hold for Tan See Leng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 45.
“The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) tracks non-compliance with overtime pay requirements that are detected through complaints or inspections. These include cases where the employer under-reports the overtime hours worked or underpaid for the overtime worked. For breaches of overtime regulations due to lack of knowledge, MOM will generally take an educational approach and employers will cooperate to rectify the breach. For egregious cases, we take a strong stance against any infringements. We will take enforcement action, which can include fines and prosecution. For employers who provide inaccurate payslips, MOM can issue caution letters or impose administrative penalties of $100 for the first breach and $200 for the subsequent breach. In the past five years, on average per year, MOM took action against about 40 employers for under or non-provision of overtime pay and against about 10 employers for issuing inaccurate payslips. Employees who are not paid for their overtime work or who are given inaccurate payslips are advised to approach MOM for assistance or the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management to file claims.”
“The Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board adopts a "digital first, but not digital only" approach. This means that the Board strives to make digital services easy to use but also makes non-digital alternatives available and supports member education in digital literacy. CPF Board's non-digital alternatives for members include the following. First, members can attend in-person consultations at any of CPF Board's five service centres on matters including submitting CPF cash top-ups, transfers or appeals. These consultations are offered in English and vernacular languages. Members can also visit any of the nine ServiceSG centres in person for assistance with frequently used CPF e-services. Second, members can make enquiries on CPF transactions or appeals in their preferred language through CPF Board's call centre. Third, CPF Board offers support to members who may be less digitally savvy or need more support. For example, CPF Board sends hardcopy notifications to seniors under the Silver Support Scheme. CPF Board staff visits immobile members to assist them in completing their CPF withdrawal applications. Digital services do provide more convenience to all members. The number of digital enquiries and transactions in 2023 was 102.9 million, an increase from 98.4 million in 2022. To support member education in digital literacy, CPF Board conducts E-Xperience workshops to guide members on how to use their mobile devices to perform CPF e-services and protect themselves against scams.”
“The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducts around 5,000 Workright inspections yearly to check on employers' compliance with employment laws, including on regulations against excessive overtime. Employers found to have lapses are referred to Employment Act clinics for training and rectification. More serious enforcement actions, such as fines and prosecution, will be taken if the lapses identified are more severe or systemic. Our calibrated enforcement efforts have been effective. In the past five years, there was no uptrend of cases involving excessive overtime, neither overall nor in any particular sector. On average, MOM received complaints on about 50 employers each year for excessive overtime exceeding 72 hours in a month and took enforcement action on around 25% of these employers. MOM will continue to educate employers and take enforcement action to ensure compliance with the law.”
“Companies must submit this plan in their application and update the plan again when claiming reimbursement. To fulfil these criteria, employers and employees must do their part to follow through and make the most of their overseas training experience. This is why WSG requires companies to get their trainees and their supervisors to acknowledge the CDP. OMIP is open for application to both small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and non-SME companies. Each OMIP application is assessed based on merit and potential impact, rather than company size. We hope that through OMIP, many more Singaporeans can gain overseas work experience to help them progress into higher positions; and companies, too, will be equipped with a globally-oriented workforce to support their overseas expansion plans.”
“The Overseas Markets Immersion Programme (OMIP), launched in November 2024 by Workforce Singapore (WSG), aims to encourage companies to send more local employees with little or no overseas experience for overseas work postings. This enables workers to gain regional or global work experience, alongside with building overseas networks that will help them progress in their careers. It also supports employers to build a globally competitive workforce to realise their overseas expansion and business growth plans. OMIP will run for two years till 2026. After two years, we will review the outcomes of OMIP to assess its success. These outcomes include the number of local employees successfully placed in overseas postings and the number of companies supported in expanding into new overseas markets. We have also put in place measures to ensure meaningful career outcomes for employees embarking on OMIP. First, companies must submit a business growth or transformation plan to show that the overseas posting will contribute to business expansion. Second, companies must provide a comprehensive on-the-job training plan describing the developmental skills and competencies that the trainee is expected to acquire by the end of their in-market training. Both the business plan and training plan must be approved by either WSG or the Singapore Business Federation, which is WSG's appointed programme partner for OMIP. Third, to ensure the training leads to meaningful career outcomes, companies must prepare a career development plan (CDP) outlining the employee's development over the next 24 months, including the potential career pathways that the trainee will have after completing the overseas posting.”
“The (i) 25th, (ii) 50th, and (iii) 75th percentile, as well as (iv) mean of the gross monthly incomes of residents who are full-time, self-employed taxi drivers and private hire car drivers are in Table 1 below.”
“The Silver Support Scheme is targeted at seniors who had lower incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support and resources in their retirement. We review the Silver Support Scheme periodically to target support at seniors who need it the most and consider factors, such as inflation, while ensuring that the scheme remains fiscally sustainable. From January 2025, the qualifying per capita household income threshold has been raised from $1,800 to $2,300 and the quarterly payments are increased by 20%. The Total Central Provident Fund Contribution is indicative of the incomes that seniors earned during their working years. The contribution threshold is reviewed periodically and was raised significantly in the last review, doubling in 2021 from $70,000 to $140,000. The Government has rolled out additional measures to support all Singaporeans with cost-of-living pressures, by enhancing the Assurance Package to more than $10 billion. This includes measures, such as the Budget 2024 Cost-of-Living Special Payment that was disbursed in September 2024, Community Development Council vouchers and additional utilities save (U-Save) and service and conservancy charges rebates. Seniors who need more assistance can also tap on ComCare assistance.”
“The Ministry of Manpower is discussing with its tripartite partners, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation, on how and when restrictive clauses in employment contracts can and should be used, based on established principles that the Courts have articulated. More details will be made available in due course.”
“The Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone will strengthen economic cooperation and connectivity, including facilitating the cross-border movement of people and goods, to bring mutual benefit to the businesses and people of both countries. However, there is no intent to harmonise workforce regulations between Singapore and Malaysia. Singaporeans who wish to work in Malaysia and vice versa, must meet the requirements of the respective work pass frameworks.”
“Around 2,000 Work Permit holders (WPHs) approach the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for assistance annually on issues related to dismissal. Depending on the circumstances of each case, MOM will advise and assist the worker to file salary or wrongful dismissal claims. WPHs with valid salary claims or who are assisting with investigations may also obtain another job in Singapore in the meantime and will not be repatriated. MOM does not track if dismissed WPHs owe fees to foreign recruiters. To safeguard the interests of workers, MOM regulates employment agency activities in Singapore. This includes setting limits on the amount of recruitment fees that agents can collect from workers. However, Singapore does not have legal jurisdiction to influence the recruitment fees incurred in the WPHs' home countries, which form the bulk of the recruitment fees borne by WPHs. Instead, MOM works with the industry to explore measures, such as direct outreach and referral programmes, to reduce the need for workers to approach foreign recruiters or middlemen to find jobs in Singapore. To ensure employers of WPHs manage their foreign workforce responsibly, the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act prescribe the obligations of employers, such as ensuring prompt payment of salaries, as well as the penalties for failure to comply.”
“The Member may refer to the reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 39, 40 and 41 for Oral Answer at the 7 January 2025 Sitting, which addressed the same issues. [Please refer to "Effectiveness of Workplace Safety Time-out at Construction Sites", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I thought you told me to sit down. I did not respond because I do not see how it is relevant to our debate on WFL today. If Mr Leong Mun Wai has a separate PQ, as how Mr Speaker has also appropriately advised, he can file a PQ. MOM will never step away from answering his PQ. 6.48 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I do not intend to interrupt, but I have already made it clear. For the record, I hope that this would be the last point. We are working with the International Labour Organization on the under-employment data. When it is ready, we will release the results. So, can we please focus on the Bill.”
“We have plans to review. For the time itself, we need to cross the bridge first and, after crossing the bridge, work out the rest of the subsidiary legislations. Post-implementation, we can have greater clarity before we can commit to a particular timeline. But the reassurance that I want to share with Ms Usha is that we will constantly review. We will constantly improve on the framework. I am sure that given the universal huge amount of interest in this particular Bill, I am sure we will be kept on our toes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for the first part, I ask for a bit of time for clause 31 for my team to revert. I have to admit, I am not a lawyer. So, I am waiting for the explanation to come. But broadly, the administrative penalties will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. With regard to naming, what we intend to do is that for the breaches, our first approach is to engage them and provide an education first approach. Because our basic intention is that, thus far, it has worked well for us. I do not think that a particular employer would have intended or set it up to discriminate, unless they are very egregious. In which case, then, there will be the administrative and, on top of that, there will be the civil penalties. But what we intend to do is engage them, educate them, point them to the right resources, the help and to see how we can also help them and educate them. If we are not able to get them beyond that, then obviously, we will blacklist them as a last resort, put it up in the public. But, thus far, from our past experiences, each time when TAFEP engages the companies, they have been very, very understanding and they have been very compliant. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.”
“I thank Mr Saktiandi and applaud him for his optimism. We have not passed the Bill today, yet. But assuming that we can get all Members' support today, we envisage that the second Bill will come sometime in the second half of this year. We should get the Bill implemented by 2026/2027. Contemporaneously, we are tightening TAFEP. We are tightening TGFEP, because we need to ensure that it continues to support WFL well. At the same time, we have also committed to reasonable accommodations, how we want to step up education efforts, grievance handling and so on and so forth. So, there is a lot of work to be done and all that will move simultaneously so that by the time the Bill is up and fully implemented, all of the other supporting entities will be ready. I know that embedded in the Member's second question is that we will, indeed, be reviewing and, hopefully, increasing the resources of TAFEP. I will personally appeal to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for that.”
“The war continues to go on. We are at a crucial inflexion point. Some things we can try, but our total fertility rate continues to drop. The tax burden will start to shift to our future young. So, we are in this state of hyper competition all over the world. Countries are competing, top companies are competing for global talent. I hope that we can work together, Mr Leong, for your grandchildren and my grandchildren. [Applause.]”
“About 60% of locals in the highest income decile, who are earning about approximately $13,000 a month and above, are working in foreign-owned firms. The median salaries of our resident employees working in foreign-owned firms are more than 70% higher compared to locals working in local-owned firms. The Member talked about foreign high-skilled workforce displacing resident PMETs. Let me tell the Member, categorically, the answer is no. The number of resident PMETs has, in fact, grown faster than EP and S Pass holders between 2014 and 2024. Resident PMETs grew by 34% over this period, significantly higher than the EP and S Pass holders' increase of 11%. As a result, the ratio of EP or S Pass to resident PMETs has improved, from one EP or S Pass holder for every three local PMETs in 2014 to now, one EP/S Pass holder for every four local PMET in 2024. This improvement is observed across most sectors, including the growth sectors of Information and Communications, Professional Services and Financial Services. The Member talked about labour market performance. Has the labour market performance of locals been impacted by foreign workers? Our locals continue to enjoy favourable employment outcomes. Singapore leads globally in labour force participation rate of its residents and we are ahead of other major cities, such as Tokyo, Helsinki, Berlin and Hong Kong. In the last decade, incomes have grown across all percentiles, with the larger increases for lower income groups. In the last five years, Singapore's real income growth is also higher than countries, such as the UK, US, Japan and Germany, many of whom are seeing income stagnation or declines. I urge Mr Leong – we are here to pass this very landmark, historic Bill. We are facing increasing global geopolitical contestation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, out of due respect to you, I will answer his two questions. But I do not see how they are related to the WFL. I hope that after this, we can come back to issues that are pertinent because we just had a seven-hour debate, starting from yesterday till now and we will continue. I have given clear statistics. Through my last four years, I am privileged and very honoured to be given the opportunity to be able to come to the highest office here, to be able to have this debate. But Mr Leong Mun Wai has consistently been looking for a smoking gun. The fact of the matter is that each time the Member asks for certain statistics, I give him the statistics. He would say that this is not what he is looking for. Has he ever considered the fact that maybe something that he is looking for does not exist? Let me put it to the Member. Because of the fact that, after a while, the Member's cadence, my understanding has not changed. Hence, I also pre-emptively prepared the statistics for him because I expected that he will bring it up today. Just to put it into perspective and I hope that, after this, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I humbly request that we just stick to the debate on the WFL? I seek your indulgence on this. Foreign-owned firms today account for 24% of all companies in Singapore and they employ about one-third of our local resident workforce and more than one-third of our fresh graduates. I just wanted to tell the Member about foreign firms first. If we talk about what kinds of jobs they offer, because they do hire a very high number of foreigners as well, but let me just give the Member the breakdown. Foreign-owned firms provide high-paying jobs to our locals.”
“On the definition, we certainly can take the Member's points and, like I said, we are still reviewing in terms of in the final Bill when it comes out. Without appearing to be over-delegating, TAFEP will work on the other two items. From the perspective of even the definition of the age of an infant, should there be reasonable indication beyond even whatever the defined age is, because of extenuating circumstances, it is something that any sort of employee can bring up. But, of course, the first thing that we hope to be able to get everyone into the same cadence is, first and foremost, because most employers are reasonable, the employee should try to resolve it through the grievance handling mechanism within the company. If that does not work, come to us. We will, then, try to organise mediation and we believe that just the first two steps would resolve the vast majority of the cases. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.”
“We should not belabour the point. I have sort of made it very clear that we will not tolerate any form of discrimination and, today, if we are able to pass the Bill, it is a very significant landmark. And we started off with these 11 protected characteristics because when we have enough experience, we have also got a treasure trove of information as to how to deal with them, let us grow. Let us move ahead and as we accumulate more information, we can widen the reach. I ask for the Members' understanding and support in that. So, this is surefooted, it is a prudent approach and it is also in tandem with our societal norms today and how we can move forward.”
“I thank Mr Ng for the clarification. Our sense is that, if you list it on a website, it may actually have a counter-effect that each and every single attribute has to be listed. If you do not list it, it means that it is not covered. By the way we have approached it, we have given enough reassurance. On the Member's point about whether the penalties, because of the fact that it is under TAFEP and TGFEP, whether it is sufficient, thus far, our experience is that when TAFEP calls up the company, they rarely, rarely dare to not comply. If the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, knows of any company after being called up by TAFEP, still ignores TAFEP's guidance, I would be very interested to know the company.”
“I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the support. My point about raising the differences during the time of the repeal of the 377A was not to highlight differences, but to demonstrate that it is a complex issue. And you can be rest assured that we are actively, actively sending our officers to overseas jurisdictions to get training, to see how they deal with it. We have also opened up access channels between the different groups, with TAFEP, with MOM, so that we, in the same way as we have built up experience, we have built up expertise in handling the 11 protected characteristics, we hope to be able to come to speed to also manage other characteristics. In time to come, if we are able to reach a level where we are comfortable with and also, in terms of societal norms, it is always, like I have said in my concluding remarks, that we are always a work-in-progress and we will always want to improve our system. I hope that gives you enough reassurance.”
“I want to thank all partners who have helped to make this first Workplace Fairness Bill in Singapore possible, especially our tripartite partners, NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation. I also want to thank Members, the various stakeholders, who took the time, the efforts to contribute to our engagements. The employers, our HR professionals, our non-governmental organisations, the legal practitioners and members of the public. Please bear with me. Bear with us if we could not take all of your suggestions onboard at this point in time. I seek your patience, your understanding, but I want to reassure you, we will take time to further build and consolidate this regime. We also need to demonstrate patience and understanding, towards one another, in our very own workplaces, knowing and acknowledging that there are unique situations where employers' and employees' needs and their expectations may differ. To each and everyone of you, within and outside the House, please continue to walk with us as we strive towards fairer and more harmonious workplaces in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.”
“As mentioned previously, there will be a second Bill that sets out the claims process for individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against and we hope to have an equally fruitful debate on the second Bill when it is introduced in this House. The Public Service, too, plays a role in promoting workplace fairness, as Mr Henry Kwek pointed out. To address Mr Pritam Singh’s question, the Public Service, comprising the Government and the Statutory Boards, will not be covered under the Workplace Fairness Act because public officers deal with sensitive areas of work and it will not be appropriate to involve external parties, such as the tribunals, to handle grievances or resolve disputes involving public officers. However, I want to reassure Members that public officers will be accorded a similar level of protection as the Bill and the Public Service has put in place policies and processes that adhere to the key principles of the legislation as well as the existing TGFEP. The Public Service is committed to providing a safe workplace for all public officers and it does not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination and harassment. Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, I am heartened by the strong support for this Bill. It has been an immense endeavour to develop a Bill of this magnitude. It was not easy and we have worked hard with our partners on this. We have the conviction that this is the right thing to do. But we acknowledge, we have the humility to acknowledge, that we have to continue to work hard, to continue to learn and to continue to improve. But importantly, the mindset is that we should start somewhere. I know, listening to the speeches today, we can always do a lot more. But we cannot let perfection be the enemy of progress.”
“Several Members, such as Mr Fahmi Aliman, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Jean See, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay, have rightfully pointed out that managers and human resources professionals play a critical role. As suggested by Mr Tay, we will update the IHRP certification curriculum. Beyond that, we will also work with tripartite partners and certified HR professionals to uplift broad HR capabilities and ensure compliance with employment-related legislation, particularly the Workplace Fairness Act. We also thank Mr Mark Lee for his suggestions on supporting companies in implementing the requirements of the legislation and we will take them into consideration. I will now address the last set of issues on this Bill. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Patrick Tay raised concerns on employers requesting information relating to a protected characteristic, such as mental health conditions. Requesting information, in itself, is not an adverse employment decision and thus is not prohibited by this Bill. But having said that, we recognise that jobseekers may find it concerning to be asked for information unrelated to job requirements. In this regard, TGFEP already states that employers should only collect information or ask questions that are relevant to the job requirements to assess an applicant. In such cases, employers should also explain the reasons for doing so and how it relates to the job requirement. Some Members, such as Mr Sharael Taha, have also asked about private employment claims, such as how they will be managed.”
“Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the civil and administrative penalties for contraventions. If an employer commits an act of discrimination that does not amount to a serious civil contravention, we can impose administrative financial penalties. But if there is a systemic element where an employer has a longstanding practice of hiring workers of a certain nationality, we may treat this as a serious contravention and pursue a civil penalty action in Court. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, yes, a serious civil contravention refers to one under clause 30. More details will be included in subsidiary legislation. Next, I thank Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay for their questions on whether employees who report discrimination not covered by the Bill will be protected from retaliation. This protection will not apply to them, currently, but we thank Mr Tay for the suggestion to include this in the Act and we will certainly keep this in mind. At the same time, while we have gone through very intense debate, I think we all can acknowledge that legislation and guidelines are not a panacea. At the core, we must continue our efforts to educate our employers and, generally, our population at large, in order for us to promote fair employment practices. Discrimination, at its root, is a mindset issue and this is also something that Mr Sharael Taha pointed out. Our priority is to provide information and support to employers so that they get it right in the first place and I certainly hope that enforcement is a last resort. I agree with Mr Patrick Tay on the importance of communicating the legislation thoroughly to employers, the unions, employees and other stakeholders.”
“To explain, this exception applies to two categories of job roles: roles that are religious in nature and roles related to the running of places of worship, institutions of religious instruction and groups that oversee religious affairs or other religious groups. Social service agencies, hospices and charities with a secular purpose, I suppose some hospitals can be included as well, established by religious groups, will not automatically qualify for the exception. We have scoped this exception tightly to preserve the common space for jobs, even as we provide some flexibility to cater to the purpose and character of religious groups. I will move on to the queries on the Government's approach towards errant practices. Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua commented that it would be difficult for employees to prove discrimination, and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the types of evidence needed. When making a complaint, the complainant should clearly cite the incident that led him or her to believe that an adverse employment decision was made against him or her because of a protected characteristic. Placing the burden of proof on the claimant is an approach that strikes a balance between facilitating employees’ access to redress and safeguarding employers against frivolous claims. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia and Hong Kong, also take the same approach. The claimant can provide evidence in various forms, including emails, phone messages, documents and signed testimonies. To Mr Pritam Singh’s query, just to share an example of a case managed by TAFEP, TAFEP intervened against a company for age discrimination for rescinding its job offer to a group of senior workers and hiring only sales promoters below 30 years old.”
“Dr Wan Rizal also queried on how to ensure grievance handling processes are unbiased and transparent. TAFEP has available resources, such as the Tripartite Standard on Grievance Handling, setting out good practices which employers can refer to. We hear Miss Rachel Ong's call to consider persons with disabilities and we will develop our resources on grievance handling with this consideration in mind. So, thank you, Miss Ong. To Mr Patrick Tay’s point on non-legislative levers to strengthen protection against harassment, we will develop a Tripartite Standard to emphasise the importance of creating harassment-free workplaces. Anyone who faces workplace harassment can approach TAFEP for assistance. TAFEP also guides employers and runs the Workplace Harassment Resource and Recourse Centre to support victims. The Bill will also prohibit employers from retaliating against those who report workplace discrimination or harassment. Together with the grievance handling processes, which provide a safety net, we want to encourage workers to step forward to resolve their disputes early at the firm level, which are points also raised by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Fahmi Aliman. Both spoke about it earlier. Dr Wan Rizal asked how employees will be protected from subtle forms of retaliation. We recognise that not all retaliatory acts are overt in nature and have prohibited any act that is detrimental to the complainant such as pressurising him or her into accepting less favourable contractual terms, to address Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Jean See's queries. Other than preserving workplace harmony, the Bill also provides provisions to cater to the role of religious groups in Singapore's multi-religious society. Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested providing more clarity on this exception.”
“Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about supporting SMEs in the journey towards upholding workplace fairness. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Yip and Mr Tay also asked about our plans and considerations in reviewing this exemption. Let me try to make the following clarifications. First, the exemption threshold will apply to each individual corporate entity. Second, this Bill, as it is, if it gets passed by all of your support, will still cover around 75% of employees. Third, this exemption does not mean that the remaining 25% of our workforce are unprotected and that small firms are free to discriminate against them. All firms today are already expected to abide by TGFEP, including small firms. So, even in a group setting or contracts of service with multiple small firms, each of these firms will still need to follow fair employment practices. TAFEP has also been collaborating with partners, like the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, to prepare and to support small firms to create fair and progressive workplaces. Lastly, we agree with Mr Tay and Mr Yip that the exemption should not be indefinite. Hence, we plan to review this five years after the commencement of the Workplace Fairness Act and small firms which are ready earlier can position themselves, of course, we encourage them to position themselves earlier, as the employer of choice amongst their counterparts. Moving on to the next segment. I will, next, explain how the Bill will preserve harmony in the workplace and society. The Bill requires companies to have clear grievance handling processes for their employees. Mr Patrick Tay spoke about ensuring that employers abide by their grievance handling processes and provide recourse for employees dissatisfied with the process.”
“Employers have given us feedback, that they support the need to uphold fairness in the workplaces and most employers do want to do the right thing. Yet, we have to be cautious about how onerous the requirements under the Bill will be, so that we do not inadvertently disrupt businesses' abilities to compete and provide jobs for our workers. As Mr Mark Lee highlighted, the Bill allows employers flexibility in hiring the right people for jobs where there are genuine requirements to have or not to have a protected characteristic. As suggested by Mr Patrick Tay, we will provide guidelines on how this exception may be applied. This will include illustrations to give more clarity including when a job can or cannot be reasonably performed, as highlighted by Mr Saktiandi Supaat. Let me also assure the businesses that when TAFEP examines the cases, we will take a balanced and nuanced approach and that is to support workers with genuine needs, but we will also triage and manage the cases to avoid burdening employers if there are frivolous claims. Small firms may lack the capabilities and resources to implement the legislation and they may need more time to prepare for it, and this is something that Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng have also acknowledged. Several Members have expressed concern about the exemption of small firms with fewer than 25 employees from the Bill at the start. Mr Pritam Singh questioned whether the exemption threshold of 25 employees would collectively apply to a group of companies operating as one entity or to each individual corporate entity; while Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if contracts for service with small firms can be used to bypass the protections under the Bill.”
“I thank Ms Usha Chandradas for her suggestions to strengthen the protections for LGBT individuals, including training for our frontline officers. Indeed, in preparation for this legislation, we have undertaken overseas study trips where TAFEP, TADM and MOM officers learned how other jurisdictions manage such discrimination cases and how they manage a diverse group of stakeholders. TAFEP has also engaged third-party trainers and will continue to train its officers to manage cases of discrimination and harassment delicately and sensitively, including potentially adopting a trauma care approach for vulnerable individuals. Direct referral channels have been established between TAFEP and key stakeholders, including the LGBT and other community groups, to institute a safe process for affected workers to make complaints. We will continue to collaborate with community groups to raise awareness on the TGFEP, so that individuals are assured and they know that TAFEP is ready to provide advice and assistance. Ms Jean See, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Raj Thomas asked about outsourced workers and platform workers. TGFEP will be updated to clarify that platform operators and corporate service buyers should not discriminate based on non-job-related characteristics. Let me, again, be clear. Any such worker who faces discrimination should approach TAFEP for assistance. To Ms Sylvia Lim’s point, rest assured that we will investigate complaints and we will take action against employers who place workers on contract for services to avoid their legal obligations. Let me now move on to how the Bill supports the genuine business needs of employers.”
“Mr Pritam Singh then asked for examples of TAFEP, the cases of discrimination by association. I have checked with the team, they have trawled through. As far as we are aware, TAFEP has not encountered such cases so far. Notwithstanding, our reassurance is that TAFEP will continue to help workers who face all forms of workplace discrimination, including discrimination by association. Members like Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Usha Chandrada and Mr Louis Ng have raised the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and why it should be included in this Bill. Let me state clearly that we do not tolerate any forms of workplace discrimination, including towards LGBT individuals. We currently handle such cases under TGFEP and we will continue to do so. In addition, the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) protects all victims against violence, against harassment, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In our engagements, in our consultations with various civic, religious and worker groups, we heard the views, the needs, the concerns of the different stakeholders. Even in this House, during the repeal of section 377A, I recall that the Workers’ Party found it just as hard to take a unified party position. I am not sure if Ms He Ting Ru's emphatic support for the inclusion of SOGI is representative of your party's stance. Regardless, it is not about questioning your stance. It is about demonstrating the difficulty, the difficulty in reaching a unified position because these issues are complex and they are multifaceted. So, let us focus our attention, our energies on how to provide more concrete support for our workers and, at the same time, build up our expertise, build up our experience in managing such issues under the law.”
“Let me reassure Members, including Mr Faisal Manap, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Louis Chua, Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Henry Kwek, that TAFEP will continue to seriously look into such cases and engage parties to resolve their issues amicably. I also thank Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Ong Hua Han for their suggestions on how to better deal with indirect discrimination, which we will consider. We will also look into how we can work with stakeholders to provide illustrations and guidance on scenarios that constitute indirect discrimination, before implementing the legislation. Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked why the Bill did not include protections against discrimination by association, which is discriminating against an employee due to an employee's connection to someone else with a protected characteristic. It is quite an uphill and complex and difficult task to draw the line where discrimination by association starts and where it ends. It could extend well beyond the employee's spouse to include family members, friends or anyone they have close associations with. Legislating against this, therefore, has far reaching implications that we will not be able to, at this point in time, anticipate and address adequately. And it has the untoward effect of creating a culture of suspicion and distrust between employers and employees. Hence, on balance, we started with a tightly scoped Bill to avoid litigiousness and provide more meaningful protections. We have included an example in the explanatory statement, which was highlighted a few times during this debate. But let me explain. This explanatory statement, the example, is not part of the Act, but it is an attempt to explain the contours of discrimination under the Act itself.”
“This is a grey area and legislation can have a chilling effect on employers, preventing them from having practices or policies, such as skills tests that are needed for the job and where certain groups can perform better than others. But nevertheless, this does not mean that employees have no recourse for indirect discrimination. As Mr Vikram Nair said, the current legislation does make reference to some forms of indirect discrimination and a Court is not prevented from finding, as a fact, that a particular requirement may amount to discrimination under one of the protected characteristics. I also want to thank Mr Fahmi Aliman for highlighting how the tripartite partners have been able to handle workplace discrimination complaints, including indirect discrimination in a sensitive and constructive manner. I also thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for sharing how TAFEP has managed and resolved cases that involve wearing of the tudung and the need to perform Friday prayers. To Mr Faisal Manap's clarifications, thank you. Let me emphasise that race and religion are protected characteristics under the Bill. This Bill is not about legislating whether a firm must or must not allow someone to go for Friday prayers or accede to any other religion's practices or requests. We have to recognise that there are many operational details and implications and we believe that such issues are best addressed through open communication and trust and dialogue to accommodate both workers' and employers' valid needs. But if a person goes for Friday prayers and is fired for being religious and not because of performance, then it is discriminatory under the law.”
“Unlike what Mr Leong Mun Wai had tried to portray, there is no indication that underemployment is increasing. PMETs now make up 64% of all employed residents – up from 54% 10 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, the past decade. Resident PMETs grew by 34% over this period, significantly higher than the EP and S Pass holders' increase of 11%. Let us move 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. Again, let me re-emphasise that this Bill is just the start. Like the song by the Carpenters: we have only just begun. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] TAFEP will track, will analyse and share information on the complaints and cases received and resolved, both under the Bill and TGFEP. This will allow us to more meaningfully discuss and decide on our next moves. To clarify, discrimination by perception, which is making an adverse employment decision because the employer suspects, assumes or believes a protected characteristic exists, is considered discrimination under clause 17(4) of the Bill and this is contrary to Mr Louis Chua's understanding and comment. Members, such as Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Jean See and Mr Vikram Nair, asked about indirect discrimination. Whether a company's practice or policy not based on a protected characteristic has the effect of putting persons with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage is arguable in many cases.”
“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 also hire talent globally. At the same time, we recognise that our fellow Singaporeans are concerned about fair treatment and fair competition at the workplace. Our robust checks today ensure employers fairly consider all job applicants and we have been rooting out discriminatory employers even before this Bill. I have highlighted earlier, before in the past, over 600 EP applications from companies were withdrawn or rejected over the last five years following MOM investigations. COMPASS encourages employers to develop their own local pipeline. It is one of the foundational criteria. It encourages employers to develop their own local pipeline and reduce their reliance on foreign talent, 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 PMETs and the Associate Professional and Technicians' wages respectively. This is 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 always well-placed to seize, to create better opportunities and build a better future for ourselves. This Bill adds to the suite of measures already in existence by further strengthening our ability to deter and to penalise discriminatory hiring practices. Our strategy has yielded good results. Over the past decade, unemployment rate for Singapore Citizens has remained low at 3.2% on average.”
“In Singapore, we have been able to improve employment outcomes for PwDs over the years through various measures, including under the Enabling Masterplan. Hence, rather than at the outset, mandating employers to provide reasonable accommodations, we have embarked on an education first approach via the upcoming Tripartite Advisory. We want to be able to shift and ultimately change mindsets and to 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. And we want to reassure Members that these efforts will be taken concurrently with our preparations to implement the legislation. To Miss Rachel Ong's query, we aim to release the Tripartite Advisory around about the same time with the implementation of legislation. 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. My humble request to you is, let us focus, let us work hard on the education first approach, strengthen the understanding and support first, get the buy-in. Then, we can consider other measures. Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested giving Singapore Citizens the first right to jobs over foreigners. I believe that Singaporeans know that we need a calibrated position that will work well for our economy and our people, instead of swinging to the extremes.”
“This requires a multi-faceted approach, including adopting age-friendly workplace practices and addressing ingrained perceptions of ageism. We agree and we 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. 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. Several Members – Miss 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 PwDs, including legislating it in the Bill. Let me put on record. We recognise the importance of reasonable accommodations in enabling PwDs 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.”
“We revisited this issue, the moment the COVID-19 pandemic abated. We consulted widely, we 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 a prudent approach, which reflects current societal and workplace norms. We will complement this Bill with the 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 many foreign jurisdictions, there are some areas that are heavily litigated. This has created uncertainty for employers. It has imposed significant costs. It has also resulted in workers waiting years to have their case heard out in court and we know that justice delayed is justice denied. Let me now address Members' clarifications on age, nationality, mental health and disabilities. Please let me reiterate: this does not mean that the other characteristics are any less important. I just intend to address the questions that our Members have raised for the purpose of this debate. 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.”
“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 – I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate her on behalf of all of us here in the House. So, heartiest congratulations to you. Perhaps, maybe you could join me in a round of applause. [Applause.] 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 it is complex and it is challenging to define and to design a Bill that strikes not just the right balance, I would add, a very fine and delicate balance. So, instead of rushing into this, we have approached this in a prudent and a circumspect manner so that we do not disrupt our hard-earned social harmony. We wanted a balanced approach. If it becomes untenable for businesses to operate in Singapore, this will affect jobs for Singaporeans and for our workers. What we do not want, is for the law to change the nature, to alter to such an extent the employer-employee relations, such that our workplaces become more litigious and more divided. But what we do want is for our workplaces, not just to remain, but to improve in terms of its fairness and harmonious nature. Through our engagements, we know that employers generally do the right thing and they 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 Members of Parliament.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, 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 all balancing many considerations, across multiple stakeholders. Some want to move quickly, move much further, but others, a lot more apprehensive, with significant trepidations and therefore, want to hold back. We will not be able to resolve all issues overnight. We cannot build Rome in one day. But rest assured, we will continue to work on it and with all of your support, with all of your feedback, with all of your suggestions, we take them on board, we will work on it and we will improve over time. What we all agree on, collectively today and this is really the type of unity we need to see across the entire House, is the need to create fairer workplaces which provide good opportunities for all of our workers. We are very, very thankful to have each and every one of you, those of you who have spoken and I am sure many more who have not found the opportunity to speak, within this House and beyond, on this journey, to build fairer workplaces for all of us. I will now address Members' specific clarifications. And like I said, I want to reassure Members 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. Just because we cannot agree at this point in time does not mean that it is a "no". We need to consider the entire ramifications with all the different permutations before we come to a nuanced solution. Let me start with why we chose to take a prudent approach for this Bill.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I did not want to venture into this discussion, but for the purpose of my wrapping-up speech later, I just needed to understand from the Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap. Did I understand him correctly that he wanted privileges for Muslim men for Friday worship? What about Muslim ladies, because they also go to mosques for worship? We are all here trying to create a more equitable, a fairer society where we take into consideration all aspects of sex, race, nationality, PwDs, mental health and age. So, I am just trying to understand what his stand was when he put up this point yesterday. And I will try my best to address it in my wrap-up speech later. So, I will be grateful for that clarification.”
“Migrant workers are not prevented from seeking employment in Singapore by other employers who abuse the in-principle approval (IPA) system. Employers are required to obtain the worker's written consent before submitting a Work Permit application. Workers who discovered that an IPA has been obtained without their consent can approach the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for assistance. MOM will require the employer to produce proof of consent. In many of the cases where the worker alleged that consent had not been obtained, the worker had changed his mind about working for the employer and the employer was able to produce proof of consent. In a smaller number of cases, MOM revoked IPA as the employer was not able to produce such proof. Depending on the circumstances of the case, MOM may also conduct further investigations and take enforcement actions. Employers who make false declarations on workers' consent when submitting Work Permit applications may face prosecution, which carries severe penalties, including imprisonment. MOM will continue to take in feedback to review and improve our processes.”
“Foreign workers who are required to remain in Singapore to assist in investigations will be issued a Special Pass by the respective law enforcement agencies. These Special Pass Holders are generally allowed to work under the Temporary Job Scheme (TJS), unless there are concerns over public safety or interference with investigations. Special Pass Holders do not need to apply to participate in TJS. They will be informed of their eligibility to work under the scheme. If a Special Pass Holders chooses to take up this option, their potential employer can submit an application for a TJS work permit to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to hire Special Pass Holders. Since 2022, an annual average of about 850 Special Pass Holders have worked under TJS. Special Pass Holders may choose not to seek employment under TJS if they are able to support themselves. Special Pass Holders who face issues with their upkeep can approach MOM for assistance.”
“To help employers understand and comply with the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has worked with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), Singapore National Employers Federation and National Trades Union Congress to provide employers with practical resources, such as toolkits and playbooks, to implement Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) effectively. Employers can also tap on grants, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, to offset the costs of adopting FWAs, such as for consultancy services to redesign jobs or business processes and upgrade their IT systems to support FWAs. In drawing up the Guidelines, tripartite partners studied the experience in other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. These countries have legislations that give employees the right to request for FWAs, but do not mandate that employers provide the FWAs requested. Disputes are mostly resolved through mediation. Our Tripartite Guidelines, while not legislated, adopt a similar approach of allowing employees to request for FWAs, while employers retain the prerogative to decide on FWA provision in line with their business needs. Building on the strengths of Singapore's tripartite system, the tripartite partners have further taken on an enabling and educational approach to guide and support employers to comply with TG-FWAR. TG-FWAR recently took effect on 1 December 2024 and MOM is working with TAFEP to monitor utilisation and compliance with the Guidelines.”
“The Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) and Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) do not track compliance with their orders. We, therefore, cannot identify the sectors that have higher percentages of firms that do not comply with orders that were made in favour of freelancers or workers. Under existing law, any person who intentionally disobeys or breaches an order of Court, including orders by SCT and ECT, may be subject to committal proceedings under the Rules of Court. If found to have committed contempt of Court, the person is liable to be punished with a fine or imprisonment under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016. Employers who fail to comply with ECT orders may also face punishment, including warnings, fines, debarment from applying for work passes and prosecution in Court.”
“The Cultural Orientation Programme (COP) was launched as a pilot in December 2023 to familiarise new S Pass holders with working and living in Singapore. As of November 2024, about 10% of eligible S Pass holders have voluntarily completed COP. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will review COP after the pilot ends in 2025. MOM has implemented the Settling-in Programme (SIP) for the Construction, Marine shipyard, Process and Manufacturing sectors. We have no plans to extend SIP to the Services sector for now but will assess this in future.”
“Households are eligible to employ a second migrant domestic worker (MDW) if they have caregiving needs and have the requisite financial ability. They are free to mutually agree with the MDW on an employment period that is shorter than the work permit validity of two years. Households that need interim help while their MDWs are on extended home leave may also consider tapping on the Household Services Scheme, which offers domestic, child-minding and elder-minding services on part-time and short-term basis.”
“The Employment of Foreign Manpower Act requires employers to ensure that their migrant workers living in dormitories have access to food. Employers can fulfil this obligation by catering food, enabling the purchase of cooked food or providing their workers with facilities to cook their own meals. Most migrant workers prefer to cook or purchase their own meals. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) educates and reminds workers on the importance of good nutrition through the distribution of posters and videos and working with partners, such as doctors and non-governmental organisations. Employers that directly cater food for their workers are required to do so from licensed food caterers, who, in turn, have to adhere to food safety requirements. MOM is also working on how to encourage such employers to provide more nutritious food for their workers. Migrant workers with food-related issues can approach MOM's Forward Assurance and Support Team (FAST) officers or report the issues via the FWMOMCare mobile application. MOM will follow-up with the employer and/or the dormitory operator to rectify the issues.”