Workplace Fairness Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.52 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Tan See Leng: I think it is five more minutes. I do not know whether I will exceed the five minutes.

Mr Speaker: Alright. Deputy Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, you may proceed.

6.33 pm

Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, given the significance of this Bill, please allow me to attempt to say a few words in Malay. To my Malay speaking colleagues and friends, please pardon my errors in delivery and pronunciation.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Workplace Fairness legislation will help preserve and enhance the fair and harmonious norms that have worked well thus far. After studying the experiences in other countries, we recognise the complexities in introducing such laws. We want to preserve our hard-earned harmony in the workplace and in society.

We also do not want to make the workplace a litigious environment. So, this WFL is not a panacea. Instead, it is an additional layer of measured protection that helps to ensure workers are evaluated and hired based on their abilities and not discriminatory biases. For employees and jobseekers, this Bill sends a strong message – everyone has an opportunity to fulfil their potential at work.

It will ensure that there is recourse available and no worker should have to suffer in silence – such as in cases where they face racial or religious discrimination at work. This law also ensures that employers retain the flexibility to make decisions based on genuine business needs.

At the same time, we will afford religious groups some flexibility to make employment decisions based on religion. Meanwhile, we will preserve the common space for secular jobs. We recognise that most employers have adopted fair employment practices and want to do the right thing. Notwithstanding this new legislation, we will take an education-first approach. We will only take action against employers that blatantly flout the rules.

(In English): To conclude, while this Bill is not a silver bullet for upholding workplace fairness, it will enhance our current model of promoting fair and harmonious workplaces in a way that is tailored to our local context. It will encourage an atmosphere of trust and openness where issues on workplace discrimination can be raised safely and resolved amicably. In doing so, we aim to preserve, we aim to reinforce and to improve our existing workplace norms on fair and harmonious workplaces.

Beyond the WFL and TGFEP, we need to cultivate the right mindsets and a shared understanding that everyone benefits from a fairer workplace. The tripartite partners are committed to continuing our efforts at nurturing these mindsets and norms in the workplaces and beyond.

We welcome everyone to join us in this whole-of-society effort to build fairer and more harmonious workplaces together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move. [Applause.]

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Before I call the first speaker to kick off the debate, Deputy Leader, would you like to move the Motion on Exempted Business?

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

6.38 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, when the Workers' Party (WP) participated in the General Election of 2020 to seek a mandate from Singaporeans, the call to introduce anti-discrimination legislation was an important proposal in the party manifesto. Separately, and for some years now, several Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have also called for such legislation.

But as late as 2018, MOM spoke out against the codification of the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices into legislation. It argued that doing so would not lead to superior employment outcomes and, separately, that the specific anti-discrimination legislation may have the unintended consequence of deterring businesses from hiring workers because these businesses would become fearful of dismissing workers without legitimate reasons.

I spoke at some length about the importance of such legislation in my first speech as Leader of the Opposition in 2020 during the debate after the opening of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, the reality is that the spirit of any anti-discrimination legislation does far more than just supporting and helping workers. This Bill sends a fundamental and powerful message. It speaks to how the state deals with where Singaporeans stand at workplaces in their own country. It speaks to how the state recognises multi-racialism, especially when minorities form about 25% of the population. It is a powerful signal, particularly when one considers the domestic context over the last decades. This would include the fears of some Singaporeans becoming second class citizens in their own country, where some believe job prospects are better if you are a foreigner on an Employment Pass (EP) than a local born or naturalised Singaporean.

Mr Speaker, the WP supports the Workplace Fairness Bill. I will speak on some issues the Bill raises and seek clarifications on some others. My colleagues, Sylvia Lim, He Ting Ru, Faisal Manap and Louis Chua will also speak on this important Bill.

First, on clause 3, which covers the purpose of the Bill. It states four purposes to this proposed legislation.

First, to protect individuals from discrimination by employers on the grounds of the protected characteristics listed in clause 8, covering age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language, ability, disability and mental health conditions.

Second, it establishes fair employment practices, including the codification of the Fair Employment Framework and legislating how employers handle grievances.

Third, and very significantly, in my view, it ensures that Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) are fairly considered for employment opportunities and continue to form the core of the workforce in Singapore, with foreigners as a complement.

Finally, to preserve harmonious workplace relations. Where does this Bill leave foreigners who are critical complementary components in many sectors of the economy? The Bill correctly offers wide and significant protections to them as well, notwithstanding clause 22. Clause 22 reads that it is not discrimination to say that an employment opportunity is for a Singaporean or PR at the expense of someone who is a foreigner. It is a simple exception, worded in the negative but clear in its intent.

Employers should always aim to recruit Singaporeans and PRs first. This must be so. Otherwise, how do we build and sustain a united people and nation heavily reliant on immigration, which is a fault line in many parts of the world? How do we convince Singaporeans that their National Service commitments are not in vain? How do we convince them that the state will always have their backs?

Hence, employers should not see this legislation just as an administrative process, or worse, a burden. It is far more important than that. I would even go so far as to say that it is a critical piece of legislation with a view towards nation building in the years to come, where many of our challenges will be domestic.

Mr Speaker, the Bill is also significant in how it seeks to achieve certain important goals and to balance the relationship between workers and employers. It covers discrimination, not just with respect to hiring decisions but to in-employment decisions, such as performance appraisals, promotions, training opportunities and finally, dismissals.

On the protected characteristics or the specific discriminatory grounds set out, Part 3 of the Bill seeks to define the meaning of eight out of 11 characteristics. Clauses 9 to 16 seek to clarify the ambit of these characteristics and must be read with exceptions at Part 5 to be properly contextualised and understood by workers.

Employers are allowed to consider a discriminatory hire if there are genuine job requirements on the grounds of age, in favour of citizens and PRs, on religious grounds and on grounds of disability.

In the main, the exceptions are fair and practical and they provide significant operating space for employers to make employment decisions in the best interest of their corporate entities and companies. However, I found the explanatory statement to clause 17(3) intuitively problematic and odd, especially since this Bill addresses discrimination. This clause deals with what is commonly referred to as "associated discrimination" and it reads, "an employment decision made only on the ground of a protected characteristic of a relative or an associate of the individual is not discrimination".

This reads rather innocently until one peruses the explanatory statement to the clause at the end of the Bill, which reads, I quote, "An employer does not discriminate against A if the employer dismisses A on the ground of the race of A's husband."

Prima facie and without more, this explanation makes it clear to me, at least, that A's employer is a racist. What has the race of A's husband got to do with A's employment and dismissal? By extension, other extreme examples that would not be out of place here would be when A chooses to fire the worker if the worker's spouse is a foreigner, or their parents are too old, or the child or A's child is mentally disabled.

These examples show how mind-boggling discrimination by association can be insofar as the explanatory statement is concerned. Can the Minister clarify what this clause seeks to achieve in favour of an employer with concrete examples from TAFEP's history, given that TAFEP has been around for close to 20 years? These examples may be more useful than explaining what is sought to be achieved by this clause.

Workers must note that for practical purposes, they would need to secure evidence to lodge a workplace fairness claim. I note the Tripartite Committee's Workplace Fairness legislation final report which listed two key requirements to that end. First, the claimant or the worker should clearly cite the incident that led him or her to believe that he or she suffered an adverse employment outcome because of a protected characteristic, and the cited incident should show how the consideration of the discriminatory action, for example, on the grounds of age or nationality led to that adverse employment outcome.

The report also says that documentary evidence, such as emails, mobile phone messages and oral testimonies, which are signed by witnesses, will strengthen the claim. This is from the workers' perspective.

These requirements are likely to be a bridge too far for many workers, and discriminations on the grounds of the protected characteristics may be quite difficult to prove, particularly at the moment of employment. I would be grateful if the Minister could share some examples of how TAFEP helped workers who made such complaints on the grounds of nationality and age at the moment of employment, were successfully resolved.

I choose nationality and age because these are the two characteristics which rank highest in terms of complaints by workers on the grounds. These examples would help workers appreciate the evidentiary threshold that has to be overcome to succeed in a claim.

To this end, the Tripartite Committee's report does list out some helpful examples that would be useful to guide workers. In the absence of illustrations in the Bill, it would be important for these examples to be profiled and updated, as appropriate, on easily accessible public resources on a public service website or channel, not just for the convenience of workers and employees, but for a more realistic understanding of what is perceived to be discrimination as envisaged by this legislation. The fact that not all the illustrations in the Committee's report are automatically determinative of discrimination is a reminder that proving workplace discrimination is not always straightforward and many workers will also have to be alive to the reality of indirect discrimination. The prospect of indirect discrimination was raised by my colleague Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru in a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in 2023.

The Bill before the House does not cover indirect discrimination as the Tripartite Committee opined that it would impose very wide legal obligations on employers, resulting in uncertainty for both employers and employees. In addition, there was a concern of an overly legalistic relationship between employer and employee.

While this perspective is not completely without merit, it must be remembered there could be some cases of employment decisions that arise out of norms, culture or processes that are nonetheless discriminatory. This would be one area to monitor closely going forward to better support workers who are commonly in a more inferior bargaining position compared to their bosses and employers, who exert significant control over them.

I note that TAFEP will welcome complaints covering indirect discrimination, even if this Bill does not list indirect discrimination as a protected characteristic. To complement the Bill, it would be critical for TAFEP to list out examples of such indirect discrimination going forward, which it should profile publicly. My colleagues, Sengkang GRC Members of Parliament, Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Louis Chua will speak on the development of the common law with regard to indirect discrimination in other jurisdictions, which have a longer history of hosting anti-discrimination legislation to better address such problems. They will also speak on the important subject of reasonable accommodations, including for workers who are differently abled.

Sir, MOM's press release on the First Reading of the Bill in November last year states that small firms with fewer than 25 employees will be exempt from this Bill and that tripartite partners will monitor the situation and review the exception in five years time. If this Bill comes into force in 2026, for example, it follows that all our workplaces will only be covered in 2031 at the earliest. My colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, will speak on this issue of timing and other matters in her speech.

This exemption was the subject matter of my PQ to MOM in 2023, when I enquired how many discrimination-related complaints were made by workers and employees working in companies with a headcount of less than 25. While the intent of MOM is that firms with less than 25 workers will continue to be covered by the guidelines, the Minister confirmed that between 2018 and 2022, 35% of workplace discrimination complaints were received from workers working in firms with a headcount of less than 25. This is not an insignificant number and I have some queries in this regard.

For clarity, can the Minister confirm if the threshold number of 25 is to be understood on a group basis for companies that have a holding company and multiple corporate entities for corporate planning and risk management purposes, but effectively operate as one entity or for an individual corporate entity, such as a company? And in addition to this, are the Civil Service and public service officers, including uniformed services and Statutory Boards, also covered by this Bill?

More significantly, as provided for in clause 28, the Bill provides not insignificant protection for workers when they raise grievances to the employer. As it stands, workers who are employed by companies with less than 25 individuals will not be covered by clause 28, at least for the next five years.

In view of the protections available for workers who make legitimate claims and the prospect of other civil relief which will be made known by the Government later in the year through sister legislation, I hope more resources can be placed at the feet of these smaller companies to help them come up to speed with the requirements of this legislation by way of regular updates from TAFEP, so that all workers can be covered by this anti-discrimination law in good time. I note Minister, in his opening speech to this Bill, stressed about various educational resources that will be developed, so I take the point that the Minister raised.

I understand and respect the approach of the tripartite partners in taking a staggered approach out of practical necessity. However, a clear roadmap with intermediate goals towards compliance for companies with less than 25 workers would be necessary as the Bill today still does not cover 25% of our workforce. Why are such intermediate checkpoints important?

Sir, as I alluded to earlier, the Bill before the House today is not just a piece of manpower legislation, it is a social legislation too. For many Singaporeans, work takes up a significant part of almost all our lives. In a recent podcast last month, the Prime Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, remarked, and I quote, "In any multiracial society, it is harder to be a minority than the majority." The Prime Minister urged those in the majority community to be sensitive, engaged and to reach out to minorities across all aspects of life. These remarks are relevant to the Bill before the House and promotes the outcomes that this Bill seeks.

To this end, workers need to consider that some employers' perceived lack of sensitivity may be down to ignorance, inexperience and a lack of exposure, as opposed to malice. For things to change, greater professionalism and mutual respect at the workplace must be promoted. Such HR improvements welcomed through open conversations can boost productivity, if sincerely undertaken by both workers and employers. My colleague, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap, will speak on this point from a different perspective, with a view to engender greater understanding for some of our workers and compromise from employers.

For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with less than 25 employees that professionalise more swiftly and adopt workplace fairness practices and are ready before the five-year exemption period is over, such workplaces may well generate greater interest from jobseekers. A fair workplace-ready TAFEP accreditation scheme for workplaces with less than 25 employees may well be something the Ministry can consider as an intermediate option before the review of the applicability of this legislation for these companies comes up.

To that end, I hope the Government can pay close attention to the processes by which these smaller companies currently not covered by the Bill are educated about their obligations under the TGFEP after this Bill is passed, with a view to their prospective coverage under the Bill in future.

Next, on administrative penalties, clause 31 details the administrative penalties that will be invoked when employers are issued with a contravention notice, requiring them to pay an administrative penalty of the prescribed amount. The nature of the civil contraventions is wide, ranging from penalties for retaliation against complainants to the publication of a discriminatory direction to providing inaccurate particulars to the Commissioner, amongst others.

Can the Minister clarify if the Bill contemplates a specific penalty amount for each of the civil contraventions listed in clause 31(1)(a) to (i), or is there an open-ended range of penalties, for example, up to $5,000 for any contravention? For example, clause 34 of the Bill covers the specific penalty amount that will be imposed on an employer in the case of a serious civil contravention – $50,000 for a first order and $250,000 for subsequent cases. I hope the Minister can provide some clarity with respect to the dollar value of the administrative penalties under clause 31(a) to (i).

Clause 34(1) devolves significant powers to the Commissioner to determine what constitutes a serious civil contravention by the use of the term, and I quote, "whenever it appears". Can I confirm if these powers relate directly to what has been established as serious civil contraventions in clause 30, or are there other serious civil contraventions which are contemplated and not captured by the Bill? If so, some guidance and clarity as to what these are would be useful and stated for the record.

The Bill requires workers to go for compulsory mediation before considering the prospect of legal recourse, ostensibly with a view to maintain harmonious industrial relations and to avoid a litigious culture. However, litigation can be necessary when egregious cases present themselves and workers are on the receiving end of the same. We know that between 2018 and 2022, the two protected characteristics that host the most number of complaints to TAFEP were discrimination by nationality and discrimination by age. The legal process and legal proceedings would reveal the identity of the companies that commit such egregious discrimination or serious civil contraventions. To this extent, is it the intention of the Bill for the Commissioner to also reveal the names and circumstances of companies that are subject to administrative penalties as envisaged under clause 31?

TAFEP has hitherto been conservative in revealing the names of companies found to have fallen foul of their fair employment practices. Naming the employers who fall foul of this Bill is not to encourage a name and shame culture. On the contrary, such an approach would be useful in supporting the purposes of the Bill, educating companies and workers at large about discriminatory practices at the workplace and to nudge employers to always take workplace discrimination very seriously to the benefit of workers. After all, the only natural resource of Singapore is our human resource and it is in our interest as a nation to ensure that all our workers receive protection from discrimination.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, the Government has announced that there will be a second Bill associated with workplace fairness, which will introduce the procedural rights and processes for individuals to make private claims under this Bill. The WP will debate this separately at its Second Reading. It is assumed that this will give better options for workers to pursue claims against unscrupulous employers.

Sir, the Bill before this House today marks a major philosophical shift in the People's Action Party (PAP) Government's thinking on workplace discrimination. For some Singaporeans, the signalling of this philosophical shift has taken too long, particularly when one recalls the deep discontent over the last decade or so of some Singaporeans over perceptions of being overlooked by some employers on the grounds of nationality, in particular, but also age. Late, though it is, the change is for the better and WP will support this Bill. I look forward to the Minister's responses to my clarifications.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

7.00 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In clause 12, what is the age range for an "infant"? Clarity is important because if the maximum age for who is deemed to be an infant is too low, a female worker may lose her protection when breastfeeding an older child.

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 28 prohibits employers from taking any retaliatory action against employees who raise grievances or pursue claims under the Bill. I am heartened that the prohibition against retaliation also includes workplace harassment grievances. I would like to clarify: first, for the definition of "retaliatory act" in clause 28(2)(f), would that include pressurising the employee to agree to a variation of the employment contract which is less favourable? Second, not offering re-employment is an adverse employment decision only if it is attributable to retaliation. In other cases where the employer did not offer re-employment, the affected employees can make representations to the Minister under the Retirement and Re-employment Act. In those other cases, would evidence of discrimination by the employer be relevant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

7.18 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How.

7.33 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Speaker, Sir, despite progress in many areas of employment equity, age discrimination continues to be cited as a barrier. This challenge will be heightened by our growing demographic shift toward an ageing population and if age discrimination is not adequately addressed, it could have serious economic and social implications.

Recent reports indicate that age discrimination is not only present in our labour market. In 2023, age discrimination was the most commonly cited form of workplace discrimination according to TAFEP figures and is placed ahead of complaints about race discrimination and gender discrimination.

The stickiness in age bias indicates that there are older workers who will continue to face barriers in accessing good job opportunities and prospects on a fair basis. This issue would be particularly pertinent in industries where experience and expertise are highly valued and where older workers still find themselves sidelined in favour of younger candidates.

The struggle is especially evident in PME workers who are in their 40s and 50s. These workers often report that their age is viewed as a disadvantage and it limits their in-employment prospects. A survey conducted by NTUC found that 60% of older workers surveyed felt they were discriminated against when it came to training opportunities, with younger workers receiving priority for consideration for upgrading and upskilling programmes.

This gap in access to opportunities for growth and development across because of age is not trivial. The effects of age discrimination extend beyond individual workers. They ripple through the entire economy. The ageing population is one of the most significant challenges facing global economies today. As populations age, fewer young workers enter the workforce while more older workers reach the end of their work lives, they retire, leading to a declining labour force participation rate.

In our case in Singapore, for example, our labour force participation rate has shown a small, gradual decline, for example, over the last three years. This demographic trend is expected to limit workforce growth, exacerbating the challenges of economic sustainability.

Older workers represent a critical component of the workforce. In Singapore, workers aged 50 and above account for approximately 37% of our resident workforce and this is a substantial portion that cannot be overlooked. However, when ageism hinders their employment opportunities, wages and career progression, it not only impacts individual workers but also reduces the overall productivity potential of the economy.

An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study has shown that an age-diverse workforce actually offers a larger set of skills and enhances organisational sustainability and profitability. By excluding older workers from the labour force or by not giving them fair opportunities due to age bias, businesses miss out on valuable experience and expertise that can help drive growth and innovation.

Furthermore, with the increasing rate of job turnover, especially in sectors like informcomms technology and financial services, mid-career workers are especially vulnerable to age discrimination. Even not-so-old workers, like those retrenched in their 40s or 50s from these industries, may struggle to find new employment opportunities due to biases in recruitment and hiring practices. This not only affects the workers but also their families, as they face what could be prolonged periods of unemployment or under-employment.

To address these issues, it is important that our legislative frameworks evolve to offer stronger protection against age discrimination and promote age fairness. I therefore welcome the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Bill. This Bill marks a significant step in the fight against workplace discrimination, including workplace ageism, in Singapore. I am glad that this point is acknowledged on both sides of the House.

Under the WFL, age is recognised as a protected characteristic, meaning that employers cannot make adverse employment decisions based solely on a person's age. This legislative clarity sends a clear signal and message that age discrimination will not be tolerated and that every worker, regardless of age, deserves equitable opportunities in the workforce and in the workplace.

The WFL not only prohibits discriminatory practices but it also allows for policies that favour older workers in certain contexts. For instance, employers can give preferential treatment to senior workers in hiring decisions, which can be particularly beneficial in addressing the challenges of an ageing population. The WFL, together with other age-friendly laws, such as the Retirement and Re-employment Act will further strengthen the advocacy and realisation of equitable protection of the rights of older workers vis-a-vis their younger counterparts.

While legal protections are essential, they are not sufficient in their own to eliminate ageism or, as the Minister puts it, it is not a panacea. Together with the law, it is critical that organisations also adopt age-friendly workplace practices that promote inclusion and provide equal opportunities for workers of all ages. FWAs is one of the common ways in which employers can accommodate the needs of older workers, allowing them to remain productive and engaged in the workforce longer, while simultaneously facilitating succession and renewal for the organisation.

A joint study conducted in 2023 by NTUC with the Singapore University of Social Sciences and Tsao Foundation revealed that nearly half of the employers surveyed said that they had implemented such practices to extend the employment of their older workers. These flexible arrangements help to mitigate the challenges that come with ageing, such as physical limitations or caregiving responsibilities and allow workers to continue contributing their skills and expertise to the organisation.

Additionally, job redesign is another key area where employers can create more inclusive workplaces. Age-friendly job design takes into account the needs and capabilities of older workers and provides them with the tools and resources necessary to succeed. For example, companies can offer training programmes to help older workers develop new skills, especially in areas like digital literacy, which is critical in today's rapidly evolving job market.

Through various Government schemes and tripartite initiatives, including the NTUC's Company Training Committee and various job redesign grants, employers can work together with their unions to create age-friendly workplaces and businesses can ensure that their multi-generational workforce remains competitive and well-equipped to meet the challenges of the future.

The recruitment stage is also an area that employers must be vigilant about to carefully examine the tools they use in recruitment and hiring. For example, on top of potential human biases, in other words, the interviewers, you can also see that companies might increasingly make use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in their hiring processes. And depending on the way in which their algorithms are determined, that can inadvertently also introduce bias into the process.

Therefore, it is important that employers be vigilant about these potential downsides and take concrete action to make sure that their human recruiters are properly selected and trained and briefed and that their AI filters and hiring algorithms avoid ageist biases so that the companies can benefit from capable candidates, regardless of their age and give all candidates a fair shot at securing employment and that their organisation can bring on the best candidate to serve its purpose.

Age discrimination undermines the potential of older workers and the broader economy. As our workforce ages, it is critical that we address the barriers that prevent older workers from accessing good jobs that bar them from training opportunities and deprive them of fair career progression.

This requires a multi-faceted approach, combining strong legal protections, age-friendly workplace practices and ongoing efforts at the tripartite level and in each workplace to promote inclusivity and diversity in the workforce. By strengthening and systematically promoting age fairness and tackling ageism resolutely, we can help ensure that older workers are given the respect and opportunities they deserve and that businesses can benefit from the wealth of experience and knowledge that they bring to the table.

Ultimately, fighting age discrimination is not only a legal matter nor is it just a moral imperative. It is also an economic necessity that will help sustain long-term prosperity for all.

Mr Speaker, the slant of my speech is really to say that age discrimination has got to be tackled in terms of its negative manifestations, the biases against older workers. But at the same time, I think we should pay good attention to the name of this Bill and I think it is core intent – which is fairness. And I think there is a difference between just acting against discrimination as against, also focusing enough attention on promoting and operationalising fairness. I think those two must go hand-in-hand in terms of how we can get the best out of our workforce and how we can leverage our strong tripartite relationship and industrial harmony to do the best for Singapore and Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap. Sorry, Mr Faisal Manap, could you just take a seat first? Minister Tan.

7.45 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker and the Minister. I take the Minister at his word. The issue I had was specifically with clause 17(3) and the way it has been drafted in the explanatory statement. I am not going to repeat my speech. If I recall correctly, in my speech, I sought clarity on examples which would show why clause 17(3) would be important for an employer.

What I am suggesting is the explanation on clause 17(3) and the explanatory statement of the Bill on page 44, to me, sounds intuitively odd. That is what I shared. It would be helpful, through the experience of TAFEP, if the Minister could share, perhaps, later, in the round-up speech, examples of why this particular clause is important and is to be included in the Bill. Why is it so important for employers? That would be helpful, so we can understand the clause better.

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

7.50 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, I will be speaking in Malay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

7.57 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I rise today in support of the Workplace Legislation Bill. I commend the Government and all stakeholders for their efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition. After more than three years of research, public consultation and thoughtful revision, it addresses five protected characteristics: nationality, age, sex/marital status/pregnancy status/caregiving responsibilities, race/religion/language and disability/mental health conditions. Together, these cover 95% of workplace complaints received.

The Workplace Fairness Bill is a significant milestone in promoting fairness and inclusivity in Singapore's employment landscape. I will focus my remarks, today, on the impact of this Bill on PwDs, drawing on my experience serving this community. I will also use the terms "disabled", "special needs", "differently abled" interchangeably.

Let me declare the different roles that I play in the disability space.

I am an activist involved in developing the Enabling Masterplan and initiatives, such as The Purple Parade, The Purple Symphony, and social enterprises, creating jobs for the disabled. I also head disability charities, such as the Autism Resource Centre, which provides job placement services. I am also the parent of a special needs adult. I, therefore, will speak from different perspectives, hoping to balance the interests of all stakeholders.

First, let me talk about the progress of Singapore's disability landscape

Sir, Singapore has made remarkable progress in disability inclusion over the past two decades, thanks to former Prime Minister and current Prime Minister and the Cabinets as well. The focus on children with special needs in their early and school years have been transformative over the last two decades. These efforts have actually given many families much needed hope and support. The challenge now is to extend these efforts into adulthood, ensuring that PwDs have meaningful opportunities in the workforce if they can work.

Key initiatives, very well appreciated, included the setting up of the following: SG Enable and its job placement partners, such as SPD, MINDS and the Autism Resource Centre, which have supported over 4,000 job seekers with disabilities through job placement and training programmes. The Open Door Programme (ODP), which also funds job redesign, workplace modifications and staff training, has benefitted over 400 companies; Special Employment Credit (SEC) and the Job Redesign Grants, which incentivise businesses to hire and accommodate PwDs, have catalysed changes in the corporate sector employment scene; schemes, such as the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), and other accessibility grants ensure that PwDs also remain engaged in the workforce; and introduced in 2021, the Enabling Mark recognises businesses for their inclusive practices in employment.

As of 2023, the employment rate for working-age PwDs exceeded 32%, it is about 32.7%, with over 600 companies adopting inclusive hiring practices. The latest Enabling Masterplan sets a target to increase this to 40% by 2030. So, I want to thank and congratulate the Government for doing this. But while much has been achieved, there is still significant work to be done.

Let me, first, speak on the importance of inclusive employment. Sir, inclusive employment is not just about fairness. It is about unlocking potential at the individual and societal level. With proper training and support, PwDs can contribute meaningfully to workplaces and society. Work provides dignity, identity and purpose. For PwDs, it is a bridge to inclusion. It is also a bridge to financial independence, allowing them to move beyond being welfare recipients.

Inclusive employment also unlocks economic potential. Research from the International Labour Organization shows that inclusive workplaces can boost gross domestic product by up to 7%. Locally, in Singapore, SG Enable's success in matching over 4,000 PwDs with jobs highlights how inclusion enhances economic participation. Companies like UOB, Deutsche Bank and DBS Bank have shown that neurodiverse employees excel in areas, like cybersecurity and digitalisation, proving that inclusion also drives innovation.

Now, with Singapore's ageing population and workforce constraints, PwDs represent an untapped talent pool. With proper training and support, they can contribute effectively across sectors, from blue-collar to white-collar to silver-collar jobs.

Despite its importance, inclusive employment comes with challenges. Having overseen job training and placement services for PwDs, I have seen both successes and failures. Success cannot rely solely on goodwill. It requires systemic changes.

The key challenges include, one, society's attitudes and bias. PwDs are often misunderstood, especially those with non-visible or neurodivergent conditions. Stigma and lack of awareness hinder their potentials. The second challenge is in workplace readiness. Many businesses lack the infrastructure and knowledge to support PwDs. An SG Enable survey found that over 50% of SMEs perceive hiring PwDs as challenging, due to insufficient accommodations. The third challenge is this, that PwDs themselves have to be ready as well. PwDs often require extended training in both vocational and life skills to be adequately prepared for the workforce.

Sir I would like to put up three proposals for the Workplace Fairness Bill: one, in broadening the definition of disability; two, in mandating reasonable accommodations; and three, developing a roadmap to legislate reasonable accommodations by 2030. I want to thank, also, the individuals and organisations who have put in work by stakeholders, such as the PWDs themselves, employers who are enlightened and inclusive, disability organisations, such as Autism Resource Centre, whom I work with, and the Disabled People's Association.

First proposal, broaden the definition of disability. The Bill’s current definition of disability is too narrow, covering only autism, intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities and sensory disabilities. This excludes individuals with learning disabilities, like dyslexia and ADHD, as well as conditions like cerebral palsy, which is more than just a physical disability. The UNCRPD adopts a broader definition, encompassing all impairments that hinder full participation in society. Singapore should align with this inclusive standard.

Why is broadening the definition of disability for this Bill important? Because they are under-represented communities. Individuals, especially those with less-visible disabilities, face significant barriers due to stigma and lack of accommodations. There is also economic impact. Expanding the definition of disabilities would unlock a broader talent pool, for example, dyslexia, contributing significantly to Singapore's economy. And that is proposal one: broadening the definition of disability.

Proposal two: mandate reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodations, which are, basically, adjustments to the workplace enabling PwDs to perform to their potential, are fundamental to equitable employment. Examples include modifications, like ramps and ergonomic furniture; flexible schedules for medical needs; and assistive technologies, such as screen readers or using visual or appropriate communication methods. The current proposal for a Tripartite Advisory on reasonable accommodations is a good start, but it lacks enforceability. So, legislation is necessary to ensure consistency and accountability.

Why does this matter? Because mandatory accommodations will support even more PwDs to contribute meaningfully to the workforce. Successful policies in Singapore, like our Compulsory Education Act, have shown that phase-by-phase legislation following public education can indeed drive meaningful change.

So that leads to my third proposal, which is developing a roadmap for legislation by 2030 in this space. Sir, if immediate legislation for reasonable accommodations is not feasible for now, a phased approach should be adopted and a clear roadmap should be established, aiming for full implementation by 2030, which aligns with the expiration of the current Enabling Masterplan.

Successful policies, such as Singapore's Compulsory Education Act, demonstrate that phased legislation can drive meaningful change by allowing adequate preparation time for education and capability building. Sir, the decision to delay the implementation of the Act until schools and disability service providers were ready for the Compulsory Education Act until they were better prepared, this was widely appreciated, such that when it was implemented, the landscape was a lot more ready and it was very smooth. So, we can learn from that experience.

Sir, while we wait for 2030 and prepare, I propose that the following key elements be included in developing the roadmap to get 2030 inclusion. I have seven key elements to be included.

First, review and enhance the effectiveness and outreach of the existing programmes, such as the Open Door Programme, the Place and Train Programme and the Job Placement and Support Scheme.

Two, extend the Enabling Mark concept from beyond employers to service providers, such as job placement agencies and coaches, whether they are Government-supported or not, to ensure better support and quality assurance for employers and PwDs.

Third, enlarge and professionalise the pool of job and life coaches.

Fourth, to develop a SkillsFuture Masterplan for PwDs for them to upskill and remain competitive and not be left behind.

Fifth, develop a joint national service between the Ministry of Manpower and SG Enable under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), modeled on the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) in the United States, to guide employers in implementing reasonable accommodations. JAN's online database of best practices, live chat support and tailored solutions is a model that Singapore can learn from and adapt.

In fact, Singapore can have our own version of JAN, which should also the education and guiding employees with disabilities so that they can be stronger in self-advocacy, showing also sensitivity to their employers' business needs, understanding what is reasonable on their part and also taking proactive steps that they, like anyone else, can take to support themselves in the workplace. So, let us help PwDs, employees with disabilities themselves, at the workplace to self-advocate.

And lastly, to ensure measurement and accountability through annual progress reports on readiness and inclusion metrics, that is, for developing the roadmap for legislation to include reasonable accommodations by 2030.

And lastly, on public sector leadership. The public sector must lead by example. I am not asking for targets or quotas. I am asking for whatever is done, we need to scale it. Agencies like the National Library Board, VITAL, GovTech, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), the Ministry of Health (MOH) Holdings, Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and several more, they have already seriously embarked on inclusive hiring and doing quite well, giving jobs in blue-, white- and new-collar spaces. So, scaling these efforts will set the tone for private sector adoption and aspire a community of practice. So, the public sector should take leadership in this.

So, Sir, in conclusion, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a necessary step forward in protecting workers against discrimination. To make a real difference for PwDs, reasonable accommodations must, eventually, be legislated. While readiness concerns are valid, they must not delay progress indefinitely. So, I urge the House to support a clear roadmap that mandates reasonable accommodations by 2030, aligned with the expiration of the current Enabling Masterplan for the disabled. I urge the Government, PwDs and their advocates and employers and families as well, to each take our place and create and support an inclusive Singapore workforce. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

8.12 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

8.31 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

8.39 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.

8.52 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

9.12 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, in modern day Singapore, while meritocracy marks our gold standards in fair rewards and recognition in the workplace, discrimination does rear its ugly head, sometimes in deliberately framed opinions, sometimes in thoughtless offhand remarks, but always resulting in insidious, unfair and even harmful consequences in the workplace.

In the course of us going about our daily lives, we have heard and bore witness to acts or words of discrimination.

Just this weekend, during my block visit in Punggol, one resident shared with me his challenges in finding a job when he was retrenched. He is 62, and during a job interview, the interviewer commented that he was the same age as her father. The interview, charming as it was, did not turn out well for my resident, as there was a low-humming preconception that he was too "senior" for the position, both in age and in experience. This is a form of discrimination and one that this Bill serves to address.

Mr Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to declare that I run the Secretariat team for our Labour Movement's Women's Committee and am the Director of our Women and Family Unit.

Our union leaders have told us that discrimination against women in the workplace circle around pregnancy, caregiving and gender role stereotypes. Hence, the Labour Movement welcomes the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Legislation. This marks a significant milestone for Singapore and the Labour Movement towards levelling the playing field for women and caregivers. This journey has been a long and deliberate one towards this Bill and one that has been championed by many generations of female union leaders.

As early as 2007, then NTUC Assistant Secretary-General Mdm Halimah Yacob called on the MOM to address discrimination against pregnant employees beyond dismissal, highlighting the need for proper HR practices and fair access to opportunities.

In 2018, our President Thanaletchimi, then Nominated Member of Parliament, pushed for a more targeted approach to enhance the adoption of tripartite standards, recognising their crucial role in grievance handling and FWAs. I, more recently in 2022 and 2024, advocated for fair employment practices for caregivers on FWAs and had asked for more support for companies to implement progressive performance appraisals.

We have made great strides in making the workplace fairer for females and caregivers. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices 2023 report, the incidence of workplace discrimination based on sex and family status across all reported discrimination was just 2% for employees and below 5% for jobseekers.

However, Mr Speaker, statistically low as they seem, behind these statistics are real people with real challenges and it is important that this Bill forms part of the larger ecosystem of protection.

Redressing discrimination is not new to the Labour Movement. Let me share a recent case my team at NTUC worked on.

Kelly, not her real name, is a resident of mine and an NTUC union member. Just before Kelly started on a new full-time job, she found out that she was pregnant and decided to inform her future employer. She was presented then with two options, either work part-time or work full-time but only for two months.

To my team, this was an attempt by her future employer to avoid providing maternity benefits, though ironically, the employer seemed unaware that maternity benefits apply to part-time employees as well. Understandably, Kelly was no longer keen to join the company. As a union member, we put Kelly in touch with TADM@NTUC and they managed to negotiate with the company to cancel her employment agreement without penalties. And with the help of the Women and Family Unit, Kelly subsequently found work near Punggol where she stays and embarked on a fruitful career as an educarer.

Mr Speaker, Kelly was able to seek redress and assistance as she is a union member. The example given would highlight the importance of union membership and representation. Cases similar to Kelly's are unfortunately not unique nor one off and if this Bill is passed into law, it will serve as another safety net should our workers find themselves out of the union network and looking for redress.

I appreciate the protected traits for sex, marital status, caregiving responsibilities and pregnancy and the coverage of other areas, such as sexual orientation and gender identity or expression through the TGFEP. I seek clarification on the Ministry's investigation and enforcement measures should employers run afoul of the TGFEP.

Indeed, for this legislation to truly succeed, we must ensure its effective implementation. A 2022 survey by Women and Family Unit and the PAP Women's Wing highlighted some concerns. Women perceive that they are disproportionately facing workplace discrimination and highlighted the prevalence of a lack of company know-how and policy against such workforce discrimination and harassment, particularly among companies that do not enjoy the abundance of resources and manpower.

In this survey of 3,000 respondents, only 40% of women surveyed, as compared to 60% of men, were willing to report gender discrimination that they had witnessed or personally experienced. This possibly suggests that women are less likely to report gender discrimination. In addition, the fear of retaliation and the lack of clear reporting procedures were main reasons that discouraged the reporting of workplace gender discrimination. Survey results also showed that only a third of respondents say that their companies have clearly communicated a policy against workplace gender discrimination.

While companies we spoke with welcomed this legislation and shared that this provides a fair level playing field amongst companies with the same rules at play, many were worried about implementing this effectively. Some quoted the lack of understanding when it comes to the finer details of employment laws and for others, the lack of resources when coming out with progressive HR policies and practices.

One recent case that my team at the NTUC USME, the department that works with SMEs and SME workers came across, was an aggrieved female worker who reported on an unfair clause in her employment contract. Essentially, the clause stated that the company reserves the rights to terminate a female employee should she conceive during her first six months of employment and she must tell the company during her job interview session if she is pregnant.

This is a discriminating practice and when we spoke with the business owner about the clause, he shared that he was unaware that it was there in the first place and was sincerely aghast about the matter. He and his team are now part of the Labour Movement and are working with the NTUC on coming up with better worker outcomes.

Mr Speaker, my belief is that our Singapore businesses fundamentally are progressive companies and with support and awareness, can be strong advocates of fair workplace practices. To this end, the NTUC has been proactive in addressing this gap for our SME workers. We have 2,000 SMEs in our Labour Movement network now and they have committed to providing fair, progressive and safe workplaces for their workers.

To promote better fairer workplaces, the NTUC together with our tripartite partners, have provided advice, templates, playbooks and training for our SME workers and business owners.

Four years ago, we introduced the NTUC Better Workplace Programme, where we provide breastfeeding and wellness spaces to our partner companies. By the way, breastfeeding in the workplace is a protected characteristic of "pregnancy" under the proposed Bill.

I would like to ask the Ministry if there are plans to further avail resources to companies in the implementation of anti-discrimination practices and to better equip HR professionals in SMEs to handle workplace discrimination disputes effectively.

In addition, I ask for consideration for the legislation to be extended to all companies in Singapore regardless of size in time to come. An interim measure could also be to recognise SMEs who have implemented WFL practices in their workplaces voluntarily. This will allow all companies to be on a level playing field and to uplift the image of SMEs to be equally progressive employers alongside all Singaporean companies.

Mr Speaker, while the NTUC and our Unions will continue playing our part to address workplace grievances to eradicate discrimination and unfair work practices, I urge the Government and our tripartite partners to view the WFL not as a destination, but as a stepping stone towards creating a truly inclusive workplace.

Like fleas confined in a jar, the WFL cannot be the jar that conditions and limits us to how high we can jump. Workplace fairness must become a societal norm because every worker matters. Mr Speaker, my concerns notwithstanding, I strongly support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

9.21 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to set out the key principles of discrimination, lay out fair employment practices and prescribe the relevant dispute resolution processes and penalties for breaches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

9.29 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.

9.37 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.

9.45 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.

Resumption of Debate on Question [7 January 2025], "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." – [Minister for Manpower].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.45 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) Committee.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this Workplace Fairness Bill today. It is a significant milestone for a cause that is close to my heart. Not only did I address this issue of fair employment practices in my maiden speech in Parliament nine years ago, I have raised two related Adjournment Motions on the topic.

This Bill should be celebrated because, like the United Kingdom (UK), the Equality Act 2010, which I referenced in my 2021 Adjournment Motion speech on the "Strengthening the Singapore Core", this Bill centralises anti-discrimination laws in a single Act and will make the law easier to understand while strengthening protection in some situations.

While this Bill will generally prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, such as sex, caregiving responsibilities, disability and mental health conditions, we must be clear that it prescribes minimum standards and not exhaustive benchmarks. We should and must go beyond these minimum standards in order to promote a diverse workforce that is fairly treated.

For one, I noted that the current prescribed list of protected characteristics account for more than 95% of the discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). For the other roughly 5% of the complaint cases, may I ask: what is the employee characteristic that is allegedly discriminated against, which has not been covered by the proposed Bill?

In our unique system emphasising tripartism and harmonious labour relations, I am sure many would agree that employers should, nevertheless, pay careful attention to these potential fault lines even if they are not covered by the anti-discrimination laws in this Bill.

Second, the Bill sets a relatively low bar of merely preventing discrimination, which is defined as making an employment decision which adversely affects an individual. This is in contrast to equality legislation in the UK and Australia, which mandates an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities (PwDs). If a business chooses to move its office premises from a wheelchair-accessible building to the upper floors of a shophouse without lift access, would it have discriminated against its wheelchair-bound employee under the proposed Bill? Under the UK regime, the employer would quite certainly be obliged to consider if that employee's job function can be performed remotely from outside the office, under its legal duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Mr Speaker, the proposed Bill certainly answers the calls from myself and other Members of Parliament over the years to give more teeth to TAFEP. Employers who are found to discriminate on the basis of one or more protected characteristics can be subject to administrative penalties at the first instance. May I ask, also, would the administrative penalty for each type of contravention described in clause 31 be a standard $5,000 and $10,000 for a second or subsequent occasion, or would it be differentiated? If the latter, how would they be differentiated and structured?

However, the practical bite of the anti-discrimination laws will depend largely how they are enforced and investigated. From the numerous provisions to protect complainants from retaliation, breach of professional conduct rules or ethics as well as civil and criminal liability, am I correct to understand that the authorities will generally rely on aggrieved employees to file a claim and pursue it through the prescribed process?

Would the authorities also be conducting active investigation and enforcement if it catches wind of potential infringements of anti-discrimination laws? Especially for errant employers where the aggrieved employees find it futile to come forward? If so, I hope the Commissioner for Workplace Fairness can be granted meaningful powers to conduct investigations and obtain documents on its own initiative, even outside the formal workplace discrimination claim, in the second piece of legislation that is expected to cover the procedural rights and processes.

As I mentioned in my maiden speech in Parliament back in 2016, what is also key is to debunk any perception that the available opportunities are unequal and there is discrimination. Yet there is bound to be some black sheep, even as many employers are committed to fair employment practices even without the need for legislation. Would the Ministry be open to systematically publishing enforcement decisions, like what is done by the Personal Data Protection Commission? This enables the public to see that employers have been taken to task, what actions they have been penalised for. It can also serve to guide the behaviour of other employers going forward. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Proof of discrimination. If we want these anti-discrimination laws to have practical application for aggrieved employees, we ought to pay particular attention to the burden and standard of proof required to establish discrimination. I noted, in my 2018 speech, that proving discrimination is "challenging". It is often difficult for employees to show that an adverse decision made against them, is due protected characteristics that they have, because any documentary records are usually kept by the employer organisation and such organisations will likely be advised by in-house counsel or external lawyers.

Is this a justifiable case for us to reverse the burden of proof, through a presumption that the adverse decision is linked to the employee's protected characteristic, unless the employer can establish otherwise? Frivolous claims can be deterred by granting authorities the power to summarily strike out manifestly unmeritorious claims and requiring frivolous claimants to pay the costs of their dismissed action, in line with a tripartite committee's recommendation accepted by the Government.

Undoubtedly, the employer bears the burden of proving that a protected characteristic is a genuine job requirement, if it wishes to rely on the "genuine business need" exception. The provision states that a protected characteristic is a genuine job requirement if, among other things, the job "cannot be reasonably performed" by an individual, unless they possess or lack the protected characteristic.

Consider the example of a hearing impaired individual and an audio production manager role - would the threshold be regarded as an impossibility?

What about an individual applying for a sales representative role focused on the Indonesian market, for instance, who does not read or speak Bahasa Indonesia but is willing to learn it?

May I enquire about the proportion of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination as a percentage of total discrimination cases over the past 20 years, and whether there is an increasing trend? As a Member of Parliament in Toa Payoh East, I have encountered residents providing feedback about experiencing or perceiving discrimination at work or during job applications due to their race, wearing a tudung or needing to attend Friday prayers. In such cases, I typically refer them to TAFEP or advise them to contact TAFEP directly. These are highly sensitive and important issues for the Malay/Muslim community. Our handling of such issues is critical in maintaining multiracial and multi-religious harmony in Singapore.

In my capacity as a TAFEP committee member, I have observed how TAFEP manages such cases. It often comes down to open and sensitive communication between employers and employees, applicable not only to Malay/Muslim issues but also to other situations where employees and employers have differing needs and expectations.

If both parties cannot reach a resolution, the employee can approach TAFEP. TAFEP will hear them out and help both parties better understand each other's perspectives, working towards a solution that meets both the employee's needs and the employer's business requirements. For instance, I understand there was a case where an interviewer asked a jobseeker if she was willing to remove her tudung for work. TAFEP intervened in this case, and the employer clarified that it had no such requirement. It was prepared to offer the role to the jobseeker and allow her to wear the tudung at work. However, the jobseeker had already found another job opportunity by then. So TAFEP separately identified gaps in the employer's hiring processes and worked with the employer to improve them. This includes training interviewers to ask only job-related questions.

These issues need to be managed even beyond the bill itself. Regarding the Bill, I would like to understand the process if I am an affected employee. Is the burden of proof on the employee? Would we need to wear a body camera, for example, to provide evidence? I hope this legislation will simplify the process for legitimately affected employees to easily raise cases and will have adequate recourse and won't be deterred from coming forward.

So, it is important to clarify when a job "cannot be reasonably performed", because job descriptions can sometimes be cleverly drafted to achieve a particular objective. During my Meet-the-People sessions over the years, I have encountered many individuals who felt that the jobs they were applying for, contained such bespoke or complicated prerequisites which suggested that the employer had already considered reserving the job for a particular foreign worker. What is the trend of such complaints over the past five years since COVID-19 struck? Could the Ministry of Manpower share some examples of how it “saw through” such patronising attempts to first advertise the job to locals?

(In English): Mr Speaker, since I am on the topic of exceptions, I am glad to see that express exceptions have been created for the two areas which I had focused on in my 2019 Adjournment Motion on tackling workplace and job discrimination.

First, on the problem of age discrimination, clause 21 of the Bill provides that it will not be discrimination for an employer to prefer workers older than a prescribed age. Based on the final set of recommendations by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, the prescribed age would appear to be 55 years old. What is the unemployment rate for persons that are 55 years old and above, compared to the unemployment rate for adults under that age? Why is this age not pegged to our minimum retirement and re-employment ages, which have been adjusted upwards over the years?

More fundamentally, is it not too blunt to prescribe a single age threshold to encourage the employment of older workers? In particular industries, a 55-year-old might be deemed old and ordinarily less preferable than a younger worker. In other industries however, a 55-year-old might still be in his or her prime and the exception should really apply to encourage the employment of even older workers.

Second, on efforts to localise jobs, clause 22 of the Bill provides that it is not discrimination for an employer to favour a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident (PR). But what incentives are there for employers to do so and how do we measure the success of such each incentive in promoting a Singaporean Core?

In the more than 10 years that the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) has been in force, how have we measured the success of the FCF in achieving its objectives? What are the gaps that have been detected in the operation of FCF and how does the present workplace fairness reforms seek to fix that?

As a small population, we will require foreign manpower to augment and complement the local workforce, but not to substitute it. One area that we can focus on more strongly is how we encourage and track the transfer of capabilities from foreign talent to local workers. Having run programmes like the Capability Transfer Programme, can the Ministry shed some light on how have we gone about assessing the success of onshoring capabilities?

One final area that will be key in determining the success of this Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) is whether there is adequate avenue for recourse and relief for aggrieved employees. Under the proposed Bill, an employer who breaches the anti-discrimination provisions may be liable to pay an administrative penalty to the Consolidated Fund and be issued directions to end, remedy or mitigate the contravention. Can an employer be directed to pay compensation to victimised employees?

Compensation for victimised employees is already available for successful wrongful dismissal cases raised with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). There is no reason, in principle, why it should not be extended to other forms of discriminatory employment decisions whether at the pre-employment or employment stages. In fact, compensation may sometimes be the only effective relief if the relationship between the employer and the employee has broken down to such an extent that the employee cannot reasonably be expected to work for that employer again.

I am conscious that the detailed procedure for employees to make private claims will be addressed in a separate Bill to be tabled later in 2025. But I would flag that the procedure should be as simplified as possible so that an aggrieved employee can navigate it without having to engage a lawyer. As I had mentioned in this House back in 2018, I have heard from employees who have given up on legal action against employers because it is too expensive and troublesome.

Before I end, Mr Speaker, being on the TAFEP Committee, I would like to find out from MOM, given the extensive coverage on workplace fairness that will be ongoing if this Bill is passed, may I ask the Minister the extent of support for related agencies, especially TAFEP, in terms of manpower and other resources going forward, if this Bill is passed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I fully support the Bill as a significant milestone to build a diverse and dynamic workforce that is treated fairly and equitably. But this Bill must be seen as a building block, rather than an end in itself. We must continue to bear the principles underlying the Bill and go above and beyond the minimum legal obligations imposed, as our unique tripartite system is used to doing.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

3.01 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), has been speaking up on workplace discrimination issues faced by Singaporeans since our founding in 2019. My maiden speech in this 14th Parliament on 1 September 2020 focused on workplace discrimination of Singaporeans vis-a-vis foreign talent.

Job security has been a hot issue since the General Election (GE) in 2011. Prior to that election, the Government gave out very large numbers of PRs, peaking at almost 80,000 new PRs in 2008 before reducing to the 30,000 a year today. There was widespread anger when the Government released the population White Paper in 2013, partly because many Singaporeans felt that the influx of new migrants had been a threat to their jobs and more migrants would worsen this trend. Until today, many still feel the same way.

Workplace discrimination and anxieties over foreign workers, again, became a top concern during GE 2020, amid job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The situation at that time was not good, with some 1,200 companies put on the watchlist of the FCF for potentially discriminatory hiring practices. A study by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) also showed that workplace discrimination is widespread, with about one in two Singaporeans facing such discrimination between 2017 and 2022. A survey by MOM in 2020 found that race, age and nationality were the top three grounds of discrimination.

In his National Day Message in 2021, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted that the Government has to adjust its policies to manage the quality, numbers and concentration of Work Pass holders. He later announced, at the National Day Rally, that the Fair Employment Guidelines would be enshrined into law. It has been more than three years since then. The Workplace Fairness Bill we are debating today is long awaited. It begs the question as to why the Government has taken so long to table this Bill when it should be the Government's top concern to ensure that Singaporeans have fair access to employment opportunities.

PSP welcomes this Workplace Fairness Bill, which protects workers from discrimination on ground of 11 clearly designated, protected characteristics. However, we have some concerns and reservations.

Firstly, whether this new law will be sufficient to protect Singaporeans from discriminatory practices at the workplace. This should be the paramount goal of this Bill. Secondly, will the exemptions granted in the new law reduce its effectiveness? And lastly, what are the plans to extend the coverage of the Bill to platform workers and expand the list of protected characteristics in future?

Firstly, on the protection of Singaporean workers. Over the years, we have heard many complaints on the ground from Singaporeans who feel aggrieved that foreigners have been preferred for jobs. PSP notes that nationality is one of the characteristics protected under clause 9 of the proposed Bill; and clause 22 says that it is not discrimination for an employer to make an employment decision that adversely affects an individual if that individual is neither a Singapore Citizen nor a PR of Singapore. This is a clear indication that the Bill provides for preference to Singaporeans and PRs.

However, how did we reach a point where we need to explicitly state that preference for Singaporean workers are not considered discrimination? When and how did Singaporeans lose their first right to jobs in their own country? Why can the Bill not stipulate directly that all else being equal, Singaporeans should have the first right over a foreigner to any job in Singapore? The Government owes an answer to Singaporeans, especially those who have been displaced and underemployed in the last two decades.

And like the Minister has said, this Bill is not a panacea. It has to be backed up by other policies that remove the causes or incentives for discrimination. For example, one example is to ensure that there is no wage disparity between a Singaporean and a foreign worker. We can manage the level of wages in the economy to maintain our competitiveness, but we should never allow a wage disparity to exist that disadvantages the Singaporean workers.

As a result, we have urged the Government on many occasions to introduce a Central Provident Fund (CPF) equalisation levy of $1,200 per month on Employment Pass (EP) holders. That is the only way to stop employers from favouring cheaper foreign workers over Singaporean workers. PSP welcomes quality foreign workers who have skillsets that are not readily available in Singapore to be recruited to enrich and complement our workforce, but not cheaper foreign workers who only displaces our more expensive Singaporean workers.

Similarly, while age is stipulated as a protected characteristic in the Bill, this may not be enough to eliminate the temptation for employers to substitute older and more expensive Singaporean workers with cheaper foreign workers to boost the bottom line. We have to back up the Bill with additional measures to strengthen protection of our older workers. These measures may take the form of job support subsidies for older workers, which can be funded by the foreign levies collected.

Next, I will discuss how the exemptions granted may reduce the effectiveness of the new law. Under clause 4(1) of the Bill, the Act will not apply to businesses with fewer than 25 workers. This same exemption is already used in the used in the Complementary Assessment Framework (COMPASS) system.

During the Committee of Supply in 2023, I highlighted that this exemption could provide a potential loophole that will allow larger companies to set up subsidiaries that can discriminate based on nationality, for example, by employing one local and 24 foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).

Alternatively, foreigners could partner locals to set up small companies to supply manpower to our bigger companies, hence depriving Singaporeans of good jobs in the bigger companies. PSP understands the need to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in this transition, but we hope the Minister can assure us that this exemption will be strictly enforced and not abused as a conduit to increase the supply of cheaper foreign manpower.

We have the same concerns about exempting contracts for service under clause 4(3) of the Bill. This exemption means that a service buyer could include discriminatory provisions in his bid document or contract with the service provider. Hence, clauses 4(1) and 4(3) could potentially be used together by a big company to contract SMEs with less than 25 persons to supply it with Work Pass holders and even from one single nationality. Hence, we hope MOM will diligently monitor these exemptions and ensure that they are not abused.

Finally, I would like to address how the coverage of this Bill can be expanded. Under clause 3 of the Bill, the law will exclude platform workers. During the debate on the Platform Workers' Bill last September, I and other Members, including the Leader of the Opposition and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, have spoken about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions. This concern is especially pertinent in the short-term until we reach a point where the majority of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF.

Platform workers may now enjoy more legal protections under the Platform Workers Act, but they will not have access to the remedies available to employees under the Workplace Fairness Bill if they experience discriminatory treatment while working on the platforms. PSP calls on the Government to study whether we can similarly cover platform workers under the new law within the next two years.

Additionally, we find it hard to understand the intention of clause 17(3) of the Bill. Can the Minister explain whether this clause 17(3) allows an employer to dismiss a worker A on the ground of the race or religion of A's husband? The Leader of the Opposition has also raised this yesterday and I look forward to a clearer explanation from the Minister later.

The Minister has said that this Bill will be constantly reviewed, but we hope that the Government will commit, today, to periodically reviewing the Bill, after it is passed, every two years to ensure that the protected characteristics are kept up-to-date and keep up with any new types of discrimination that may become prevalent.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I have said in my maiden speech in 2020 that a job is the foundation of human dignity. Work is fundamental in providing a person with meaning in life. That is why I have spoken out repeatedly about job security and workplace fairness.

The Government's policies should communicate to all employers in no uncertain terms that all else being equal, Singaporeans will have the first right to a job. We need additional policies to oblige employers to justify why a foreigner is favoured over a Singaporean when both have the same skills to do the same job.

For example, in Australia, employers can sponsor foreign workers only if they can demonstrate that they cannot find an Australian citizen or permanent resident with the skills and experience needed for the job. Similarly, in Canada, most employers need to conduct a labour market impact assessment to determine that there is a need for a temporary foreign worker and that no Canandian citizens or permanent residents are available, before they can hire a temporary foreign worker.

This Bill is a landmarked piece of legislation for Singapore. I acknowledge the hard work put in by the Minister and his Ministry. But its real worth is in substantially improving the job prospects of Singaporeans in general and protecting more vulnerable workers from workplace discrimination. If that is done, it will be a big step towards realising a harmonious and cohesive society.

I have been actively engaging Singaporeans, especially in the West of Singapore for the past four years as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. A consistent message has emerged from these engagements. It is increasingly difficult for Singaporeans to find a job that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. It appears that rising under-employment amongst Singaporeans is a growing menace to us as a nation.

The Government needs to do a lot more and not rest on its laurels by just focusing on the low unemployment numbers. The low unemployment numbers may be camouflaging serious underemployment. A whole-of-Government approach is needed to reset our education, training, manpower and immigration policies so that Singaporeans can have stable that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. We must prevent under-employment from taking root in Singapore, or the Singapore we know today may become extinct in the near future. We must have a Parliament that heeds this message and a Government that implements effective manpower policies for Singapore.

Sir, notwithstanding the concerns and reservations that I have expressed today, PSP supports the Bill. For country, for people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fahmi Aliman.

3.18 pm

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to speak on an issue that cuts to the very heart of our nation's values – workplace fairness.

The Workplace Fairness Bill marks a significant step towards equality and inclusivity in our workforce. For more than a decade, various advocates within the Labour Movement, including fellow Labour Member, our brother, Mr Patrick Tay, have called for more to be done to level the playing field for our workers.

More recently in 2021, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) together with the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), called for more legislative measures to better protect our PMEs against age and nationality discrimination. We are glad that our calls for stronger protections have been heeded.

While necessary, legislation cannot be the only tool to tackle discrimination, especially when it concerns issues on race and religion. We must recognise that these are sensitive issues that can impact our racial and religious harmony.

Today, I will speak on three areas. First, I will highlight the often-invisible cost of racial and religious discrimination to workers. Second, I will speak on what more must be done to foster safer workplace cultures where sensitive issues involving race, language and religion are respectfully navigated. Lastly, I will share my views on some issues raised by the Malay/Muslim community that have been covered by other Members in this debate.

In 2020, NTUC's LabourBeat reported on Michael, a business consultant in his 40s who faced humiliation and mistreatment at work due to his ethnicity. With support from NTUC's U PME Centre, he was able to rebuild his confidence, secure a new job aligned with his career goals and even enjoy a 25% pay increase. This story is a testament to the power of targeted support, but it also highlights that racial discrimination is still present in our workplaces.

Data underscores this reality. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices 2023 report, race discrimination was the second most common form of workplace discrimination, affecting 1.7% of workers. Among job seekers, race discrimination ranked among the top three forms of bias since 2021, impacting 5.1% of individuals in 2023.

A 2021 joint study by CNA and the Institute of Policy Studies on race relations found that only 32.3% of respondents who experienced racial discrimination at work would file a report. This low reporting rate indicates that many workers feel disempowered or fear repercussions for speaking out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, behind these statistics lie real struggles faced by workers. The workplace is a highly competitive environment where individuals spend a significant portion of their lives. Many travel far from home to work here, contributing to Singapore's economic success. It is only fair that their contributions are judged on merit, free from prejudice or unconscious bias.

However, the complexities of racial and religious issues often result in genuine grievances being overlooked and dismissed. Victims may be accused of using their race or religion as an excuse for poor performance, causing them to question their self-worth. This silent killer, workplace discrimination, can infect and weaken the very fabric of our society. Left unaddressed, it threatens not only individual well-being but also the trust and respect that underpin our social defence, a critical pillar of our Total Defence strategy. I therefore stand in support of the Bill which strengthens protection against discrimination based on race and religion. It sends a signal that our racial and religious harmony must be safeguarded with the utmost care. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] While the Bill is a commendable milestone, it is not sufficient on its own. What more should be done to foster safer workplace cultures, where employers and employees respectfully navigate sensitive issues involving race, language and religion?

We must consider our changing workforce demographics, and the evolving complexities of workplace challenges. That is why, beyond the WFL, we will require a more holistic approach to foster safer workplace cultures upstream in order to stamp out prejudices and biases that can lead to disharmonious workplaces, even if they may not cross the legislative threshold to constitute an offence.

Here are my recommendations to foster safer workplace cultures.

First, the Government should dedicate more resources to equip employers and HR practitioners to manage complex workplace disputes. Training programmes should be enhanced to ensure practical ways in navigating differing perspectives on discrimination.

Second, ongoing education for employees and employers is essential to prevent unconscious bias and discrimination from taking root. This includes fostering and engaging in dialogue that cultivate a culture of respect and understanding.

Third, workers must feel safe to voice their concerns without fear of retaliation. Strengthening mediation processes and offering confidential reporting mechanisms can help address grievances before they escalate.

Yesterday, Mr Faisal Manap raised two issues affecting our Muslim workers: namely, flexibility to participate in Friday prayers and flexibility to don the hijab while working.

Our workplaces are an important common space for workers from all walks of life to earn a living. This diversity is a complex issue as different workers may choose to express their beliefs, practices and convictions differently. Our union leaders understand the difficulties in balancing workers’ different needs for flexibility and accommodations, and work hard to support this diversity.

We are glad that Mr Faisal Manap is appreciative of our unions’ efforts and highlighted that NTUC’s leaders had called for more understanding amongst employers to try to accommodate diverse needs where possible.

However, we are concerned about the approach suggested to resolve these sensitive issues through discrimination claims under the legislation. A claims-based approach may not be adequate to grapple with the sensitivities of the issues involved, beyond the individuals affected. Resolving issues through discrimination claims under the legislation will not lead to the goal of achieving harmonious, diverse and productive workplaces to power Singapore’s economy.

A better way is to handle the issue collectively and sensitively, involving tripartite partners in close dialogue. This is not the first time that such issues have been surfaced and resolved harmoniously. From 2021, Muslim staff working in the public healthcare sector including nurses were allowed to wear a tudung or headscarf at work if they chose to do so. This followed dialogues and close engagements with religious groups and public healthcare institutions, and demonstrates our ability to work through these matters in a constructive manner that promotes rather than erodes our religious harmony.

Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns of some of my fellow Muslim workers around certain workplace practices that may restrict their ability to practice their religion in the way they desire. In a multi-racial, religious Singapore, we will need to work through these issues together. But let us do so sensitively and in a spirit of mutual understanding, rather than through a legal claims process.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a significant step forward, but it is only the beginning. To uphold our nation's social defence and ensure that every worker feels respected, valued and included, we must go further. By equipping HR professionals, fostering inclusive workplace cultures and addressing discrimination proactively, we can build a workforce that truly reflects the values of meritocracy and fairness.

Singapore's continued safety and prosperity depend on our ability to safeguard the trust between our diverse communities. Let us commit ourselves to this cause, ensuring that our workplaces are not only spaces for productivity but also bastions for respect and dignity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

3.29 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I would like to pose one clarification to Member Mr Fahmi Aliman. I would just like to clarify whether, the two instances that I cited yesterday that are not covered by the law or the WFL. One of them is about allowing Muslim males to go for Friday prayers and the other one is the wearing of tudung for female Muslims. Am I right to say that the Member disagrees that these two instances are supposed to be covered under WFL?

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman: I thank the Member for the questions and clarifications. I did not mention it that way, but I think what is important is that we can take these two issues together in a form of communications and addressing this in a dialogue, so that we can address this issue in a way to enhance productivity and enhance inclusivity in a workplace situation. That is the thing that I wanted to highlight.

Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I am not discounting about using dialogue to manage such issues. But what I am trying to say is, whether under the current Bill, which is going to be enacted soon, most probably, I just wanted to know whether he actually agrees that it should be covered under this legislation, this Bill, for the two instances that I mentioned?

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman: I thank the Member for the question. It is something that, as what I mentioned, is being highlighted in the Malay/Muslim community because of the current issues. I have got this information through my interactions with some in the Malay/Muslim community, that these issues need to be addressed. And I guess, one of the best ways to address it is through this Workplace Fairness Bill. But the way and how we do it is actually through conversations, through communications and through addressing some of the issues highlighted by the employers and hearing what are the needs of their employees too.

So, that is the gist of what I am trying to promote here – open conversations, open discussions, so that the workers will continue to be productive and not be impacted by all this.

Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng, do you want to add some clarity to this?

3.31 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): 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.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Thank you to the Minister for his clarification. On his seeking of clarification regarding the gender equality, if I can put it that way, basically, as what I have quoted yesterday, even the former Member of Parliament, Mr Zainal Sapari, and I think most Muslims know, the Friday prayers are only obligatory upon the male Muslims, not for females. That is why I am asking on behalf of male Muslims.

And my clarification yesterday was pertaining to the two scenarios to get an affirmation and certainty from the Minister that the two scenarios have been happening for so many years, and are even reflected in the Suara Musyawarah, which is the Singapore Conversations equivalent, and even the issue about Friday prayers being highlighted on social media by Assistant Secretary-General, Mr Zainal Sapari.

So, I just want to have a confirmation and certainty that the two scenarios that I cited yesterday can come under the legislation. That is all.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.34 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, this Bill has been a long time in the making. After hesitation for several years, the Government has heeded calls from several quarters, including from the Workers’ Party (WP), to go beyond Tripartite Guidelines and to legislate against discrimination in the workplace. Since the former Prime Minister announced the Government decision to proceed with such legislation at the National Day Rally in 2021, more than three years ago, the day has finally come, at least for the first part of the legislation.

Sir, the Bill has several positive aspects, and two aspects should be mentioned. First, it covers all stages of employment from pre-employment hiring, in-employment decisions to end-employment decisions. Second, when employers are assessed to have breached their obligations, there is a range of responses from financial penalties and corrective directions to state prosecution, with employers having recourse to the courts if necessary.

In my speech today, I would like to raise three questions related to the Bill.

First, on the timing of implementation. We first understood that the anti-discrimination law was expected to be passed by the end of last year. When there was no indication by October last year that the law was being tabled, I was puzzled and filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about this for the November Sitting. The Minister replied then that the Workforce Fairness Bill would be tabled in Parliament that month.

We understand that the legislation is being tabled in two parts, the first part now and with a second part on employment claims, to be tabled later this year. Thus, the earlier-indicated timelines have been missed.

The Government has announced that the provisions of both parts would be effective in 2026 or 2027, that is, possibly two years from now. Could the Ministry be more specific as to the various milestones and approximate target dates, so that we can better understand why it will take so much time?

My second question arises from the scope of the Act, that is, what situations are covered or not covered. I note from clause 4(3) that the Act does not cover contracts for service, that is, those who are engaged under arrangements that make them independent contractors.

While I do not disagree with this, I wish to highlight ground feedback I have received about some unscrupulous employment practices. A resident told me that he had worked for his employer for years and when he was nearing retirement age, his work arrangement with the employer was converted from the status of employee to a contract for service, that is, he was re-hired as an independent contractor. This was despite the fact he was working at the same tasks.

Such a change in status from employee to independent contractor would deprive the worker of significant protections, such as CPF contributions, work injury compensation insurance and soon, from the provisions of the Workforce Fairness Act as well. This is not acceptable as such a practice is tantamount to discrimination on the grounds of age. Is the Ministry tracking such situations of potential bullying of older workers, and if so, what is being done?

My last question relates to what the Bill calls “protected characteristics”. The Bill lists 11 protected characteristics, meaning that employers should not use those characteristics to discriminate against jobseekers or employees. These 11 protected characteristics range from age, sex and nationality to marital status, race and mental health condition.

My query relates to the pre-employment stage, that is, when the employer is deciding whether or not to hire an individual. Fundamentally, my question is this: what exactly are the restrictions on what the employer can or cannot do?

While the Bill states that the employer should not make an adverse employment decision based on any of the protected characteristics, it is silent on how the employment processes need to change. For instance, is the employer permitted to ask any questions about the protected characteristics? For instance, it is common in Singapore to see pre-employment forms asking potential hires for their marital status, race and whether they have been ever treated for any mental health condition. During hiring interviews, women especially are often asked about their caregiving responsibilities or potential parenthood plans.

Regarding what sorts of questions cannot or should not be asked during hiring interviews, a brief look at some other jurisdictions is useful. At one end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions, such as South Korea and Denmark, legally prohibit employers from asking for information on marital status and race. Mid-way in the spectrum would be other jurisdictions, such as the United States (US) and the UK, where questions about some characteristics are not permitted at all, for example, on disability and health. However, for other characteristics, such as pregnancy or parenthood plans, employers are merely advised not to ask those questions, as such questions could be considered to be evidence of discrimination.

Is the Ministry’s intention to prohibit certain lines of questioning or is the intention merely to discourage such questions? Will there be, for instance, subsidiary legislation covering prohibited questions and what the consequences will be if they are asked? For questions that are to be discouraged, this change itself will involve overhauling long-standing hiring norms. How will MOM work with employers to adjust their hiring practices and to monitor whether these practices have indeed changed?

Sir, for protected characteristics to be meaningfully protected, a strong framework needs to be in place. If questions about the protected characteristics continue to be asked, it opens the door for employers to make decisions based on those characteristics, but to disguise the real reason in more kosher language to avoid complaints and investigations. Such a loophole should be avoided where possible, as this would render the protection toothless.

Sir, to conclude, this Bill has an important signalling effect that discrimination in the workplace will attract consequences for employers. The WP supports the Bill. I look forward to the Ministry’s clarifications on the three points I have raised concerning timing of implementation, employers who disguise employment as contracts for service and on what is permissible during the hiring process.

Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.

3.40 pm

Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, this Bill represents a significant step forward in codifying protections against discrimination in the workplace, and I support it. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I would like to express my support for clause 8(a)(i), which considers "language ability" as a protected characteristic. Clause 20 goes on to clarify that the ability to "read, speak, write or understand a language" is not considered necessary for the performance of a job, just because other employees happen to regularly communicate in that language. This express statement is something that deeply resonates with me as a minority woman. Many Singaporean minorities, including myself, have experienced being in work situations where the majority of their co-workers and, sometimes, even their superiors have preferred to communicate in Mandarin. In these cases, they have little regard for the people around them who may not be able to understand what they are saying. This kind of behaviour is isolating and goes against Singapore’s core commitment to multiculturalism. I wish to thank the Government for being clear that this kind of discrimination, if performed in connection with the acts set out in Part 4 of this proposed law, is totally unacceptable.

(In English): Notwithstanding my particular support for this aspect of the Bill, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.

My main clarifications in my speech are on the definition of “sex” as it is set out in clauses 8(c) and 10 of the Bill. The definition includes biological characteristics from birth and after the completion of sex re-assignment procedures. What it clearly leaves out is discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

A person’s gender identity and expression, as well as their sexuality, are a part of who they are. They are not lifestyle choices that can be changed on a whim. While the proposed law supports individuals who have undergone sex re-assignment procedures, it seems to ignore the reality that the transition from one gender to another is something that happens over time and involves more than just surgical changes. Sometimes, individuals may not even choose to undergo surgical procedures. This is a complex process and it involves medical, psychological and social aspects. Individuals in the process of transitioning, or who choose not to surgically transition, can also be susceptible to discriminatory practices in the workplace.

Members of the arts community who are also members of the LGBTQ+ community have told me that they feel very concerned about the additional exclusions at clause 10(2) of this Bill. These exclusions could have the effect of reiterating the fact that characteristics which are relevant to the community will resolutely not have the protection of this law. This could in fact signal to the wider population, as well as employers, that discrimination on the basis of one’s sexuality and gender identity, are not sufficiently serious or valid concerns.

Taken to an extreme, some might interpret this as the Government condoning this kind of workplace discrimination. It could also inadvertently signal to employers that such discriminatory practices will go largely unpunished.

This is not the only place where we see a similar kind of signalling in the Bill. At the explanatory note on clause 17, there is a statement there that when an employer dismisses someone on the ground of the race of that person’s husband, this will not be considered as discrimination under the new proposed law.

Speaking as someone who actually does have a husband of a different race, this was slightly alarming for me to read in the Bill. I understand that given the prescriptive approach that has been adopted by the Government in this piece of legislation, certain lines have to be drawn and clear positions have to be elucidated. To put it another way, when lists are made, there will always be questions on why certain things are included and others are left out. To an extent, this is just something inherent in the structure of the legislation that has been adopted. I think most members of the public and Members of this House can understand that.

But that being said, it is important too that the specific wording in the Bill does not send out unintended messages that seem to actually endorse certain acts of discrimination. To this end, it would be good if the Minister could explain the basis behind the explanatory note on clause 17 and on how members of the public are expected to interpret it.

Yesterday, I note that the Minister has explained and mentioned that the acts that are described in the explanatory note would be caught by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and just not by this Bill. But notwithstanding his explanation, I would like to ask, was it then necessary to include an example like this in the Bill? Could the explanatory note have been clearer that such acts are very much discriminatory, even if they are not covered by this Bill?

Coming back to the definition of sex, very recently, this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. In connection with this, many Members on both sides of the House reiterated their views that discriminatory behaviour towards people on account of their sexuality should simply not be tolerated. So, I do not think at all that the Government intends to send the message to the LGBTQ+ community that discrimination against them is in any way permissible.

I was also heartened to hear the Minister yesterday say that no one would be turned away with their workplace grievances just because they do not happen to be covered by the Bill. The Minister seems to have taken a very strong approach towards ensuring that tolerance is displayed by employers and by members of the public. So, I hope the Minister takes the opportunity during this debate to assure the LGBTQ+ community that their rights in the workplace will be protected, regardless of the wording in clause 10(2) of this Bill.

I note from a Straits Times article in November 2024 that the protected characteristics set out in clause 8 of the Bill account for 95% of workplace discrimination complaints which have been made to MOM and the TAFEP. On one level, this is a very logical way to proceed.

However, we should not forget that it is also possible for discrimination to exist in the absence of formal complaints. The report Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace: The Lived Experiences of Singapore LGBTQ+ Individuals, raises some notable feedback. According to the report, which was based on a survey of around 700 respondents, almost one third had experienced at least one form of discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Close to half of the people surveyed reported some form of harassment at the workplace. However, the report also noted that among the participants who had experienced discrimination and harassment, only a very small number had actually reported their experiences to their respective companies, to MOM or to TAFEP. Some of the reasons for this included a fear of retaliation, social stigma and the expectation of little support if reports were actually made.

We can see how this fear creates a harmful loop. Victims remain unheard, leading those in positions of authority to mistakenly believe that there are no issues of concern. As a result, protections remain inadequate and those facing workplace discrimination continue to suffer quietly.

So, my questions for the Minister are these: first, Did the Ministry take into account the research and feedback from the ground which indicate that LGBTQ+ individuals tend to under-report incidents of workplace discrimination and harassment? If so, how then was the decision arrived at, to exclude sexuality and gender identity from the protected characteristic of “sex”?

Secondly, how will the Minister ensure that employers do not discriminate against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, given that the proposed law explicitly excludes these two traits? Is the Minister able to provide any assurances that discrimination against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, will not be tolerated by the Ministry? For example, will the Minister consider including specific protections, templates and resources for LGBTQ+ individuals through TAFEP and the TGFEP? Will any measures be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons? The Minister yesterday alluded to updates being made to the TGFEP, so I look forward to hearing his further explanations and clarifications later.

I would also like to ask if any measures would be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons. For example, would the Ministry work with LGBTQ+ groups on the ground to conduct training for TAFEP and other frontline MOM staff to ensure that cases of discrimination are dealt with seriously and professionally, and to encourage reporting of such incidents, when they do take place?

Finally, I would like to ask if there any plans for the law to be re-examined at a specific point in the future and to consider whether the exclusions at clause 10(2) may be removed or amended? MOM has indicated in its factsheet on the proposed Bill that tripartite partners will review the exemption set out at clause 4(1) of the Bill in five years’ time. If so, will a similar reconsideration of clauses 8(c) and 10 also take place? A number of countries, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand have codified provisions against workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexuality. If we in Singapore were to change our position in future, we would certainly not be alone in doing so.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

3.51 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly its provisions on mental health. The Bill signifies a significant step towards ensuring that our workplaces are not only productive but also inclusive, compassionate and fair.

Sir, mental health remains as a pertinent topic. One in seven individuals in Singapore experience mental health challenges in their lifetime. In the workplace, this often translates to stigma, reduced opportunities and hesitance to seek help.

Beyond the personal toll, mental health issues have a significant economic impact. Research by Duke-NUS Medical School and the Institute of Mental Health estimates that anxiety and depression alone cost Singapore’s economy approximately 2.9% of gross domestic product annually, translating to a staggering S$16 billion in productivity losses. Such barriers affect individuals and hinder workforce morale, efficiency and overall economic growth. Therefore, addressing mental health in the workplace is a moral responsibility and an economic imperative.

The Bill addresses these gaps by recognising mental health conditions as a protected characteristic. Employers are prohibited from making adverse decisions based on an employee’s mental health status, whether during hiring, promotions or dismissals. It requires that grievance processes be established to ensure employees can report discrimination without fear of retaliation. These measures create a much-needed safety net for workers, encouraging equitable treatment and reducing stigma.

However, Sir, I do have some concerns and questions about the Bill, particularly regarding our mental health provisions.

Firstly, these concerns revolve around the definitions of mental health conditions. What diagnostic criteria or medical certifications are required for a mental health condition to qualify as a protected characteristic? Employers and employees need clarity to avoid disputes over whether a condition is eligible for protection. I ask because mental health conditions vary significantly from chronic disorders like schizophrenia, to temporary conditions such as acute stress. Without a clear criteria, confusion or inconsistencies could arise. As an example, an employee with an anxiety might present a certificate from a general practitioner, while any other with a similar condition may seek a psychiatrist diagnosis. Ensuring clarity in what is accepted is crucial to avoid unfair outcomes.

Second revolves around balancing safety and fairness. How can employers assess whether a mental health condition genuinely affects an employee's ability to perform safety critical roles? Employers must navigate a fine line between ensuring workplace safety and avoiding discrimination. I ask simply because certain industries, for example, in aviation or healthcare, or even construction, may involve high risk tasks where safety concerns are paramount. Employers need clear guidance or guidelines to make balanced and reasonable decisions. As an example, we can have a construction worker who has severe anxiety and might require temporary re-assignment to lower-risk duties. The Bill ensures such decisions are grounded in genuine safety concerns rather than bias.

The third revolves around the grievance processes and retaliation. The question is, what mechanisms are in place to ensure grievance handling processes are unbiased and transparent. Employees may mistrust internal process if they are entirely employer driven, undermining the Bill's intent. I ask simply because employers, especially SMEs, might lack the resources or expertise to set up impartial grievance system. External oversight could ensure fairness and accountability. As an example, if an employee files a complaint against their manager and, because it is an SME, the same manager may oversee the grievance process and this creates a clear conflict of interest. Thus, we need to establish independent reviews to mitigate such concerns.

How also will this Bill protect employees from subtle forms of retaliation after they raise a mental health related grievance? Employees often fear indirect retaliation, such as being excluded from promotions or sidelined in projects, even if overt discrimination is addressed. I ask simply because subtle retaliation is harder to detect and prove, making robust protections vital.

The Bill explicitly prohibits such acts and provides penalties for violations. As an example, an employee who discloses that he or she may have post-traumatic stress disorder and subsequently notices a drop in their responsibilities despite consistent performance, might suspect retaliation. Employers must demonstrate that such changes are justified and not punitive.

My fourth point is regarding privacy and confidentiality. What safeguards ensure that employees' mental health information remains confidential during the grievance investigations or workplace discussions. Breaches of privacy could discourage employees from disclosing their conditions, and we want them to come forward, but this may undermine the Bill's intent. I ask simply because sensitive information about mental health must be handled carefully to avoid stigma and protect employees' dignity. Employers must implement robust confidentiality protocols during investigations or accommodations. As an example, if an HR team inadvertently shares details about an employee's mental health condition with co-workers, it could lead to workplace gossip, further alienating the individual. Clear confidentiality protocols then must be enforced.

Sir, beyond these clarifications, this Bill represents a broader cultural shift in how we view mental health in the workplace and in the society. I am encouraged by how this Bill aligns with our broader efforts to strengthen mental health advocacy in Singapore. The Workplace Fairness Bill is not a standalone initiative. It builds on the foundation of community programmes, public awareness campaigns and mental health education.

Last year, during the Motion on mental health, the Government affirmed that mental health is a national priority. Therefore, the inclusion of mental health in this Bill underscores that commitment, translating our national vision into actionable policies that directly impact the workplace and beyond.

Last Sunday, I had the opportunity through the People's Action Party (PAP) Mental Health Group to hold its first meet-up session of 2025, bringing together passionate individuals and organisations that are dedicated in advancing mental health initiative. Some of them include Silver Ribbon (Singapore), SCMH, Calm Collective, Campus Psy, Limitless, Growthbeans and many more. During our discussions, the Workplace Fairness Bill featured prominently as a key legislative step that aligns with our shared vision of creating a healthier, more inclusive workplace. It is inspiring to see so many shared aspirations among the community to make mental health a national priority. Together, I believe we are driving impactful change and this Bill plays a critical role in shaping that transformation.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill is more than just a legislation. It is a declaration of our values as a nation. By standing against discrimination and upholding mental health as a national priority, we reaffirm our commitment to fairness, dignity and inclusivity. Together, let us take this important step towards a society where no one feels excluded or undervalued due to their mental health challenges. It sends a clear message: mental health matters and discrimination has no place in our society, and especially in our workplaces.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.

4.00 pm

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, through work, many of us reinforce our sense of dignity. Pope Francis said, and I quote, “Work is fundamental to the dignity of a person. It gives one the ability to maintain oneself, one's family, and to contribute to the growth of one's own nation."

The Workplace Fairness Bill matters because it opens doors for more persons to access work opportunities regardless of background and personal characteristics. As important, it upholds every person's right to be treated fairly and with respect because it strengthens protections against discrimination and empowers workers to seek remedial action from their employers directly without fear of retaliation. On these grounds, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

While I acknowledge the Bill as a sound first step in the right direction, I seek clarity on how the Bill would be implemented to counter facets of discrimination in traditional and new workspaces. I also seek clarity on how the Bill would deliver sustained positive impact for less-advantaged communities that have the odds stacked up against them in the job market and the workplace.

First, clause 28 of the Bill outlines the prohibition against retaliation. Could the Minister explain what constitutes, I quote, "subjecting the employee to any other detriment in relation to the employee's employment".

Next, the Bill outlines what constitutes direct workplace discrimination in respect of the protected characteristics. However, the Bill leaves out what are reasonable accommodations that must be put in place to facilitate employment outcomes. Clarity on the provision of reasonable accommodations would pave the way for more Singaporeans to be purposefully engaged in work, to develop viable careers and livelihood and to contribute economically to Singapore.

Fellow Parliamentarians, such as Mayor Ms Denise Phua, Mr Ong Hua Han and Miss Rachel Ong spoke extensively yesterday about the need for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities and offered sound suggestions to nudge more employers into action. I stand in support. In this regard, could the Minister outline how the Ministry plans to normalise for employers to make reasonable accommodations that cater to the different needs of different demographics in the workforce? Such expansion would be in tandem with Singapore's Enabling Masterplan 2030 that gives a big push for inclusive hiring.

Next, advocates for PwDs such as Po Chien who I spoke with had surfaced concern about less-enlightened employers working around the law by asking for a candidate's National Service status or refusing to accept reasonable accommodations. Such concern is shared by those impacted by clause 10 of the Bill on the protected characteristics for sex where characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity were excluded. These communities seek assurance that the Ministry would make every effort to guard against indirect methods of discriminating and protect those whose employment opportunities are undermined as a result.

Could the Minister share the recourse available to an individual with grounds to suspect that he or she has been discriminated by an employer because of their disability or sexual orientation or gender identity? What measures would the Ministry consider putting in place to deter such forms of discrimination?

In the context of new workspaces, over 70,000 individuals are regular platform workers and are now protected under the Platform Workers Act that has taken effect from 1 January 2025. Nonetheless, I note that platform work arrangement is excluded from the Bill. This is despite the efforts to differentiate platform workers from other self-employed workers because of the employee-like characteristics of platform workers.

Some platform workers are from less-advantaged communities. They became platform workers because of the limitations that they have. They asked if the Bill could be extended to cover platform workers and protect platform workers against discrimination by platform algorithms.

Because the Platform Workers Act imposes financial obligations on platform operators, these platform workers worry that platform operators would favour workers the operators deem as more productive and thus tighten control on who is allowed to onboard the platform and to participate in platform work. Such control is typically executed by platform algorithms that manage platform job allocation, fares and supervision.

Thus, biases or preferences introduced deliberately or inadvertently by operators or picked up and internalised by platform algorithms would factor into the platform's algorithmic decision-making that could consistently deprioritise a particular worker in job allocation and/or fares or prioritise some workers over others. Such actions hurt the livelihoods of affected platform workers. Workers ask if this Bill would grant them the right and avenue to seek fairness. Could the Ministry consider expanding the Bill to cover the platform workspace and to provide protection to platform workers impacted by such algorithmic discrimination?

In the debate on the Platform Workers Bill, I had recommended for the Government to require platform operators to apply AI Verify to the platform algorithms. Doing so would motivate platform operators from the get-go to design and build artificial intelligence (AI) systems that are aligned with the 11 AI ethics principles. Given the push for fairer workplaces, would the Ministry consider mandating platform operators to apply AI Verify to their platform algorithms and for operators to address gaps flagged out by AI Verify?

Apart from platform work, technology has also evolved recruitment practices. It is now common for companies to advertise their job postings on social media platforms. To maximise advertising spend, recruiters would typically set limitations on the target audience receiving the job post. This inadvertently narrows the audience for the job post to certain segments of the population. In the absence of guardrails, employers could target by options that describe or relate to the protected characteristics. In respect of clause 19 of the Bill on advertising, what are measures that the Ministry plans to undertake with social media platforms to prevent employers from exploiting social media to engage in discriminatory job advertising? Such measures matter to Singapore's push for non-discrimination and fairness in a digital economy.

To prepare for this debate, I had spoken with different stakeholders and members. Many had suggested for efforts to be directed to educate and equip managers and human resource practitioners because these individuals would be much involved in implementing the Bill at the workplace.

Although TAFEP and tripartite bodies have been active in educating the public on fair employment and hiring practices, there are employers that are less familiar with TAFEP's work and the discussions leading up to the drafting of this Bill. These employers might have missed or deliberately ignored TAFEP's messages and thus would not have impressed upon their managers and HR team the importance of fair workplace practices. These employers could also continue to hold on to stereotypes that perpetuate biases and unfair workplace practices.

To give a sense of the potential size of challenge of dismantling such stereotypes and biases, allow me to share a personal example from my capacity as a unionist. To this day, I have union members who were told to terminate their union membership if they accepted a promotion to executive roles. This was told to them by their manager or HR. These management and HR had also communicated to staff members that executives cannot join the union. Such myths have been widely propagated in the hospitality sectors where I am now serving in a unionist capacity.

Despite such myths being baseless and in fact, unlawful given that it is an offence under the Industrial Relations Act to induce persons not to join trade unions or platform work associations, it remains an uphill task for the union leaders and I to debunk these myths. Therefore, I cannot overstate the need for the Government to be relentless in its efforts to level the awareness and implementation capabilities of managers and HR practitioners.

In this regard, could the Minister share the Ministry's assessment of the level of readiness of companies to implement the Bill in 2026 and if the Bill is passed? Given the scale of implementation of the Bill, how does the Government plan to work with stakeholders to level up managers and human resource practitioners by 2026?

I would like to conclude this speech on an encouraging note. Some of us might have caught Wicked, a recent movie release and the highest-grossing film adaptation of a Broadway musical. Wicked featured a wheelchair-bound actress, Marissa Bode. Allow me to share a quote from Jon M Chu, Wicked's director. He said, "Creating the set was one of the most enlightening and beautiful processes I have ever gone through" adding, "You need accessibility, not just when we are on set behind the scenes, but you need to present accessibility in Oz itself."

I commend Mr Chu. His mindset and approach must be the desired states which the Workplace Fairness Bill is seeking to steer employers, colleagues and employees to embrace and aspire towards. The Bill is a milestone for Singapore. As important, it is a beacon of hope and resilience for less-advantaged communities.

NTUC and our unions have been championing fair and inclusive workplaces. This Bill gives us firmer ground to work closely with employers and tripartite stakeholders to pave the way for more workplaces to be fair and inclusive. The Bill also gives individuals the courage to surface discriminatory practices that they might experience or come across. NTUC and the unions stand ready to support members in these situations.

In closing, I call upon this House and fellow Singaporeans to unite in purpose and action so that all working people, regardless of their background, can be empowered to uphold that dignity to their right of work.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.10 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

WORKPLACE FAIRNESS BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

4.30 pm

Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill is an important milestone in Singapore's journey to update employment practices and improve the work environment.

I would like to appeal to the Ministry to consider including more measures in the interest of employees, such as prohibiting indirect discrimination and requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodation in the workplace.

These measures are necessary to enable more PwDs to find, maintain and advance in employment. For those who wish to work, they should be encouraged and supported in their endeavours to earn their own living and gain financial independence. Many PwDs want to participate in the workforce, make use of their skillsets and education and contribute to our economy. Workplace accommodation will benefit employers too, as a more diverse and inclusive workplace can add benefits to businesses.

The Ministry's responses to prior feedback on indirect discrimination highlighted its concerns over the wider legal obligations for employers and potential uncertainty for both employers and employees.

Would the Ministry consider this issue from another angle, that legislation is necessary to minimise such workplace uncertainties? Presently, affected employees face the uncertainty of whether the indirect discrimination they experience would be taken seriously, which results in unreported cases. There are grey areas where errant employers exhibit a range of indirect discriminatory behaviours.

The number of cases of discrimination, direct and indirect, are under-reported. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness Final Report took note of this. Under Part IV of the section on Recommendations, paragraph 19, I quote, "Some employees may hesitate to come forward to report workplace discrimination or harassment within the company or to MOM or TAFEP, out of fear of subsequently being disadvantaged in the workplace. This sentiment was raised by participants during the 2020-2021 Conversations on Singapore Women's Development. In addition, the MOM Fair Employment Practices Survey 2022 showed that only one in three employees who experienced workplace discrimination sought help."

In August 2022, the gender equality group, AWARE in partnership with a consumer research company Milieu Insight, conducted a comprehensive survey on workplace discrimination. They polled about 1,000 respondents on their experiences of workplace discrimination. The results showed approximately 55% of respondents had experienced at least one form of discrimination in the preceding five years.

For disability-based discrimination, the survey showed that PwDs experienced discrimination at a significantly higher rate of 78%, compared to persons without disabilities who have experienced discrimination of 50%.

The Ministry has stated that it is worried about employee-employer relationship becoming more legalistic if it starts prohibiting indirect discrimination. This is highly unlikely. As it is now, many employees are afraid of reporting the discrimination they face. Most employees would seek to resolve the issue internally through internal channels and avenues, such as by reporting the issue to their manager or the HR department and try to resolve the issue amicably first. This is why it is important to mandate mediation first, before further action, such as litigation, can be taken.

As for the issue of reasonable accommodations in the workplace, the Ministry can consider referencing comparative legislation and studying the experience of other countries. For example, the US Department of Labor has established reasonable accommodation as a legal concept with clear criteria.

Many jurisdictions' laws also include the intertwined concept of "undue burden" where employers are not required to grant accommodation that impose "undue burden”. Hence, employers are protected from making accommodation which they cannot make with reasonable resource allocation.

In Singapore, employers can approach MOM and disability organisations, such as SG Enable, Disabled People's Association, Autism Resource Centre (Singapore), Serving People with Disabilities and the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled for assistance and guidance on reasonable accommodation. Would the Ministry consider providing greater incentives to encourage employers to proactively work with these organisations to support staff who are PwDs?

How would the Ministry boost awareness and utilisation of the Open Door Programme, Assistive Technology Fund and the Accessibility Fund by employers to fund the costs of reasonable accommodation?

Reasonable accommodation is essential and necessary for PwDs to perform their jobs and is not a matter of personal preferences. For example, blind persons need screen readers, deaf people need written communication, autistics need environments that accommodate their sensory sensitivity. Hence, it is important to recognise that by issuing an advisory instead of legislation on reasonable accommodation, employers would interpret them as optional provisions, when, in fact, they are necessary and indispensable means for PwDs to perform their daily tasks.

Without reasonable accommodation, PwDs are disadvantaged at every stage of the employment process. For example, wheelchair users who are denied interviews because the venue of the interview is not wheelchair accessible. Therefore, the denial of such essential reasonable accommodation would constitute an "adverse employment decision" as defined in the Workplace Fairness Final Report.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore ratified the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2013 and participated in the Constructive Dialogue with the UNCRPD Committee in 2022. It would be timely for our Government to set a timeline and work towards legislating the prohibition of indirect discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation. Doing so will help us move closer to achieving the Enabling MasterPlan 2030's goal of 40% PwD employment rate and upholding the UNCRPD principles.

There is more work to be done to build greater inclusion in the workplace. Singapore has reached a commendable milestone in introducing the Workplace Fairness Bill. Our PwDs and persons with other conditions would be heartened that the Government has heard their concerns and taken the first steps to improve their employment opportunities and work environment. Hence, I would like to conclude with my full support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

4.38 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill 2024 represents a significant milestone in Singapore's commitment to creating equitable workplaces. This Bill codifies principles that have long been championed under the TGFEP, giving them legal weight and enforceability. By addressing workplace discrimination, it sends a strong message that such discriminatory practices have no place in Singapore.

This Bill is timely. A 2022 Harvard Business Review article highlights that organisations prioritising fairness can achieve up to a 26% increase in productivity. More than a reflection of our shared values of inclusivity and fairness, this Bill demonstrates how fairness is integral to enhancing business competitiveness.

I also like that the Bill achieves a commendable balance between promoting inclusivity and addressing the practical realities of businesses. For example, by applying its provision to employers with 25 or more employees and acknowledges that SMEs often lack the resources to implement extensive frameworks. By allowing smaller businesses more time to adapt, it ensures workplace fairness becomes a shared responsibility across businesses of all sizes.

Section 8 of the Bill also provides vital protections for vulnerable groups, including older employees, women with caregiving responsibilities and PwDs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while the intent of the Bill is clear and noble, we must also recognise the genuine concerns of businesses, particularly SMEs. According to a recently released Singapore Business Federation's National Business Survey 2024, while business outlook has improved slightly, only 26% of businesses are confident about economic improvement in the year ahead, with 22% of businesses expecting conditions to worsen. Rising manpower costs, cited as the top challenge by 66% of businesses, further strain their ability to invest in fair employment practices.

SMEs face heightened challenges as they navigate rapid global changes while trying to sustain their operations with limited resources. Let me elaborate on five key challenges faced in the implementation of the Bill. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First, implementing the measures outlined in this Bill comes with costs. Setting up grievance handling systems, for example, requires businesses to train staff, create reporting mechanisms and document complaints. For smaller firms, these costs can range from $5,000 to $10,000 annually – significant sums for businesses already facing economic pressures.

Second, employers may also hesitate to hire individuals requiring significant accommodations, fearing operational disruptions or additional costs. This reluctance could inadvertently hinder the inclusion of those most in need of workplace fairness policies.

Third, section 26 requires employers to demonstrate fair consideration for local candidates before hiring foreign talent. While this safeguards opportunities for Singaporeans, it can create challenges for industries experiencing acute talent shortages. For instance, in the technology sector, where roles such as software engineers, cybersecurity experts and AI specialists are in high demand, the limited local talent pool may lead to significant project delays and missed business opportunities.

Fourth, the anti-retaliation provisions under section 28 are crucial to protecting employees who raise legitimate grievances. However, there is concern about potential misuse. For instance, an underperforming employee facing dismissal could file a frivolous discrimination complaint to avoid termination, even if the action was based on legitimate reason like poor performance. Such cases could increase administrative burdens on businesses and undermine team morale.

(In English): Finally, many SMEs express concerns over "policy fatigue", particularly as they are already navigating multiple regulatory requirements. These include the Fair Consideration Framework, implementing flexible work arrangements and enhanced parental leave guidelines. Adding new compliance obligations could stretch their resources further, particularly for businesses without dedicated HR functions.

To address these concerns while supporting the Bill's objectives, I propose eight recommendations.

First, we need a clear and comprehensive implementation framework. It is vital to retain the TAFEP's role as the primary point of contact for workplace fairness complaints. Over the years, TAFEP has successfully championed conciliation, education and mindset shifts, earning the trust of both employers and workers. MOM's statutory enforcement powers, while necessary, should remain a last resort.

My concern is the transition to this new framework may create public confusion. Employees may bypass TAFEP and approach MOM prematurely, undermining the conciliation-first approach. Employers, on the other hand, may fear immediate enforcement actions without being given an opportunity for mediation.

To address these concerns, I propose a comprehensive public education campaign, working together with chambers and trade associations, to clarify the process: TAFEP as the first point of contact, mediation as the second step and MOM's intervention as a final recourse for unresolved disputes. Possible feedback mechanisms could also be set up for employers and employees to share their experiences with the new legislation, informing future refinements of the Bill over time.

Second, for the Workplace Fairness Bill to be effective, HR personnel must be equipped with the necessary skills to implement fair workplace practices effectively. I propose that TAFEP collaborate with the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) to establish a robust framework for accrediting HR capabilities.

Under this model, IHRP would serve as the standards and accreditation hub, while Institutes of Higher Learning, trade associations and chambers as well as training providers act as deployment spokes. To support this, IHRP, in partnership with TAFEP, could issue jointly branded skills badges. These badges would serve as formal accreditation, demonstrating that HR personnel have been trained and are equipped with the knowledge and skills to implement workplace fairness policies effectively.

Third, to address concerns about the anti-retaliation provisions and to better support both employees and businesses, the Minister could consider introducing clearer definitions of "good faith" to prevent misuse of the provisions. It is important to clarify what constitutes a failure to fulfil contractual obligations or subjecting an employee to detriment in employment, as well as outline the relative burdens of proof for all parties.

Including penalties for frivolous complaints and allowing employers to take documented disciplinary actions unrelated to complaints would help maintain fairness. Additionally, MOM could enhance TAFEP’s role to filter out frivolous claims during the initial triage process, streamlining the grievance resolution process and minimising undue burdens on businesses.

Fourth, a tiered compliance framework can be adopted that differentiates obligations based on business size. Large corporations with 250 or more employees should achieve full compliance within one year. Medium-sized firms could have up to three years to adjust, while SMEs with fewer than 25 employees could fulfil lighter but meaningful requirements. This approach ensures that all businesses contribute to workplace fairness while considering their unique capacities.

Forward-looking SMEs, particularly those with 25 or fewer employees, that demonstrate exemplary workplace fairness practices and implementing them ahead of time, should be recognised and publicised. And the Tripartite Alliance Awards could be a useful platform for this. Beyond recognition, SMEs could be rewarded with tangible incentives, creating a balanced approach that includes not just the "stick" of compliance but also the "carrot" of acknowledgment and support.

Fifth, while MOM’s enforcement framework already categorises breaches into "low", "moderate" and "high" severity levels, the distinctions between these categories remain unclear to businesses. Providing detailed guidelines on what constitutes each level of severity would offer greater clarity and confidence to employers. Furthermore, prioritising education over penalties, particularly for first-time breaches, would allow businesses to adapt in time while maintaining deterrence for repeat or severe violations.

Sixth, simplified compliance reporting should be introduced to ease administrative strain on SMEs. Pre-approved templates tailored for SMEs could reduce administrative overhead and help smaller firms navigate the new requirements more efficiently.

Seventh, financial support is essential in fostering inclusive workplaces. The Government has already demonstrated commendable foresight with initiatives such as the Job Redesign Grant, Open Door Programme and Enabling Employment Credit, which help businesses accommodate seniors, PwDs through workplace modifications and job redesign. However, there is a continued need to shift mindsets and build capacity for inclusivity. I would therefore like to propose expanding grants to support diversity training, grievance system implementation and inclusive hiring practices. For example, the Government could co-fund anti-discrimination training programmes for HR personnel and provide subsidies for setting up grievance systems, particularly for smaller businesses.

Lastly, targeted measures are needed for industries facing acute manpower shortages. Sectors critical to our long-term goals, such as manufacturing, which plays a key role in the Manufacturing 2030 ambitions, could benefit from targeted exemptions or expedited processes for hiring foreign talent. This would help these sectors address their constrained talent pools without compromising the broader principles of workplace fairness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to acknowledge and express my understanding of the concerns raised by the community advocates regarding the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. These voices are important and their advocacy highlights the need for continued dialogue and progress toward greater inclusivity.

The Workplace Fairness Bill represents a significant first step in codifying anti-discrimination measures. It establishes a foundational framework that can evolve to address broader concerns in the future. Expanding protections prematurely, without addressing implementation challenges, could create unintended uncertainties for both employers and employees. By focusing on practical and actionable measures today, this Bill lays the groundwork for future enhancements, paving the way for a more inclusive workforce as society and businesses adapt and progress together. I look forward to continued collaboration to address these concerns in the journey ahead.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by expressing my gratitude to MOM and all stakeholders for their dedicated efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition. While I have outlined some concerns and recommendations, I extend my strong support for this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

4.51 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a landmark Bill for employment law in Singapore that I am happy to support. This Bill gives the MOM express powers to take action against discrimination in the workplace.

I have been speaking up in favour of anti-discrimination legislation in this House several times over the years, including the very first Sitting of this term of Government in September 2020. And I am grateful to the Minister and the team at MOM that has had the openness of mind to move ahead with this change.

This Bill now makes it an offence to discriminate against employees based on characteristics such as nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, language ability, disability and mental health. There are important carve-outs, of course, including genuine job requirements, referring citizens and PRs over foreigners, and in relation to age, having minimum age requirements. I think there has been broad consensus, both on the characteristics that have been identified, as well as the exceptions carved out.

In dialogues I have had with women's groups over the years, one of the common issues they face in returning to the workforce is that employers are likely not to employ them because of concerns about their age and expected caregiving responsibilities. Now that it will be prohibited to discriminate on these characteristics, they may have better opportunities to return to the workforce.

Likewise, older workers who are moving between jobs and face difficulty with younger, less experienced candidates being hired ahead of them may now also have express protection under the law. I acknowledge that the Government and the unions have done a good job of encouraging workplace fairness over the years, including with the Tripartite Guidelines, but these have generally had the most fight with employers seeking EPs for foreign employees.

The MOM's denial of new work pass applications is already a potent stake against employers whose businesses depend heavily on foreign workers, and these employers had to become extra careful in ensuring they give Singaporeans fair consideration first. This will continue to be the case even with the new legislation.

The provisions in this Bill are unlikely to surprise multinational employers, particularly those from the West, where anti-discrimination legislation is quite common. Indeed, many of these companies already have anti-discrimination provisions as part of their internal policies. I would suggest though, that assistance be provided to local employers, including SMEs, on compliance with these provisions and in particular, the requirements of sections 25 to 27 of the new Bill that require employers to put in place fair employment practices.

I know a number of my colleagues have spoken in favour of recognising indirect discrimination as well. I think it is important to acknowledge that indirect discrimination exists, although these may be more difficult to establish in court. An example is where a person puts out characteristics for a job that may favour some groups over others, such as say a requirement for fair skin or curly hair.

As a starting point, the current legislation does make reference to some forms of indirect discrimination, one of the most common being irrelevant language requirements, which is essentially indirect racial discrimination. Additionally, there is nothing in the legislation that prevents a court finding as a fact that a particular requirement may amount to discrimination under one of the protected characteristics.

In my view, the current legislation may be used to deal with such discrimination, for example, under section 19(1), since they would give an advantage or disadvantage to certain races or nationalities. I think these types of indirect discrimination can be left to the court to determine as and when the situation arises, although if common threats arise, such as in relation to the irrelevant language requirements, then the legislation can be modified to give express protection on these matters.

As with any new legislation, there will likely be a spike in complaints when the legislation comes out and likely, some employers will be taken to task. This is to be expected and natural. However, once people get comfortable with and understand the obligations under the law, there will likely be a cultural shift and change in mentalities amongst both employers and employees, which I believe is healthy in the long run.

One point I had also made in this House in my speech in September 2020 was that anti-discrimination legislation should ideally also give the victim a personal remedy against the employer, rather than just a punishment for the employer by the state. I understand from the Minister's introductory speech that this is exactly the intention – and I support this as well, and look forward to the next Bill on this topic.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.

4.56 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support this important Bill, which among many things, addresses a matter close to my heart, which is ensuring respect, regard and recognition for our seniors.

As someone deeply engaged in senior policy, I have witnessed first-hand the challenges that some of our seniors face in the workplace. Many have the experience, wisdom and resilience to contribute meaningfully, yet some are unfairly sidelined. This Bill represents a bold step toward changing that reality.

Let me start by sharing a story. A senior construction project manager came to my Meet-the-People Session for help recently. Despite decades of service and a stellar record, he struggled to find work after his company downsized, even after we spent months tapping on our extensive network to help him find a job. “Am I too old to matter?” he asked. His question was heartbreaking. It reflects the silent battle some of our seniors face daily – not against a lack of ability, but against prejudice.

Our seniors want to work and they deserve the chance. From 2018 to 2022, complaints to TAFEP and MOM show that age discrimination is the second largest category, making up nearly a quarter of all complaints. Ageism is a hidden barrier that deprives our society of valuable skills and creates a culture of exclusion. Without more action, we risk wasting the potential of our seniors, losing their contributions to our economy and our shared future. This Bill takes practical, meaningful steps to address these challenges. It not only targets direct discrimination but also sets the stage for a workplace culture that values inclusion and fairness.

I would like to highlight three key reasons why this Bill is a game-changer.

One, it is practical. It focuses on clear, enforceable actions: (a) protecting seniors against direct discrimination; (b) targeting companies with more than 25 employees for the next five years; and (c) prioritising mediation through TADM to resolve disputes constructively.

Second, it is comprehensive. It recognises the realities seniors face: (a) age is now a protected characteristic; (b) hiring practices that exclude seniors are directly addressed; and (c) caregiving responsibilities of seniors is also a protected characteristic.

Third, it supports inclusion. This law supports employers to hire seniors above 55 when candidates are equally qualified, ensuring that experience and maturity are not overlooked.

The PAP Senior Group supports this law because real changes happens through practical, step-by-step progress. This law avoids overreaching, which can lead to defensive HR practices, frivolous lawsuits, or even job losses as companies move overseas. Just look at the controversies surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, in America. The PAP Senior Group will work closely with the Government to ensure that this law is properly implemented.

We can afford to take practical steps towards progress because we have been building on decades of senior-friendly policies by successive PAP governments, which includes, just to recap, reskilling initiatives like SkillsFuture Mid-Career schemes preparing our seniors for evolving industries, incentives for employers to hire seniors and encourage the creation of age-friendly workplaces, a very tight foreign manpower policy prioritising local employment and investments in healthcare, preventive care and fitness, helping our seniors remain active and ready for work. The PAP Government have always championed respect, regard and recognition for our seniors and this Bill continues that legacy.

While this Bill is a major step forward, there are also areas we can consider further action over the coming years.

First, deepening our understanding. Let us survey seniors more extensively, not just those who have exited the workforce, but also those who are trying to re-enter the workforce or those who deem themselves unemployed, to better understand the nature of discrimination.

Second, we should also monitor HR practices to ensure that indirect discrimination does not rise as a response to this law and this requires monitoring, indirect discrimination by sector, industry and company size.

Third, improving how we measure workers' well-being and mental health. Our tripartite partners can build a consensus on how the mental, emotional and physical health are evaluated through affordable psychometric and fitness tests. This will reduce the scope of disputes over what constitutes discrimination.

Fourth, lead by example. Our Civil Service should, at all levels, implement the Bill in both form and spirit, and ensure that their outsourced HR service providers meet the same standard.

Fifth, share learnings from TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT). Given that the law calls for TADM and ECT to take the lead in fighting indirect discrimination, regular updates from both groups to Parliament and the public will help us adapt policies effectively.

Sixth, and the last, plan for the future. Start a review in three years to ensure this Bill remains relevant amidst rapidly changing geopolitics, trade-flow and technological changes. It will also allow us to factor our seniors' better health, as Healthier SG bears fruits.

Let me now address our seniors directly: you matter. This Bill opens doors, but it is up to all of us to walk through them together. Stay curious and committed to lifelong learning. Prioritise your health because an active body fuels an active mind. Believe in your ability to contribute, you are not just workers; you are mentors, leaders and role models for younger generations.

Employers, too, have a role to play. Choosing inclusiveness is not just good policy, it is good business, because a diverse workplace brings experience, balance and strength.

Let me now wrap up my comments on fighting ageism. This Bill is more than legislation. It is a statement about who we are as a society. It says that every individual, regardless of age, has value, purpose and potential. It is about building workplace fairness through practical, step-by-step progress. Together, we can build a future, where seniors are not just included but celebrated, where experience is not just respected, but cherished.

Let me now conclude by touching briefly on the rest of the Bill. I am heartened that the practical approach to fight ageism extends to most forms of discrimination. We are staring at a period of significant upheaval – changing geopolitics, trade-flow, global taxation, technology innovation are reshaping employment everywhere. Singapore is not be immune from these upheavals.

Singapore has, frankly, become a high-cost location, with many employers are struggling to adapt. Therefore, by having a very good balance, by strengthening workplace fairness in a practical manner, this Bill provides the stability and the fairness that Singaporeans need to thrive and for Singapore to stay open and successful. With that, I wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

5.04 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Workplace Fairness Bill. As highlighted by the Minister for Manpower in his introductory comments, the Bill will provide protections against discrimination for employees who possess protected characteristics, while supporting the business needs of employers and our national objectives, including processes to preserve harmonious workplaces and resolve disputes amicably, as well as a range of levers to augment MOM’s education-first approach to address errant workplace practices.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workplace Fairness Bill aligns with the final recommendations of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness and is an important step forward in protecting the rights of employees and potential employees in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, treating all people equitably and with respect and dignity, no matter their personal, social, cultural or economic circumstances, is an essential characteristic of a sophisticated society. Workplace fairness provides all Singaporeans the same opportunities to participate and contribute. It ensures that the places we work are representative of the broader community and is a powerful contributor to an inclusive, cohesive and diverse society. Workplace fairness also assists to maximise the economic potential and competitive edge of employers. By broadening the diversity of its people, employers broaden the diversity of available talent, ideas and solutions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in an ideal world, we would not need this Bill. We would just naturally treat everyone the same. It is, however, a universal phenomenon that most humans treat certain types of people differently to others and Singapore is not immune to this peculiarity. We all have our personal biases, preferences and prejudices; and it is not uncommon for these to consciously or unconsciously influence our thoughts and actions, including in the workplace. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill commendably attempts to address this imbalance.

Mr Deputy Speaker, before I proceed, I would like to declare my position as President of Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS), a non-profit organisation focused on women empowerment – a note that some of the data I am presenting is drawn from many years of PPIS' engagement with Muslim women and their families.

While my following comments focus heavily on women, I recognise that discrimination and disadvantage affects several other groups in our community, including people living with disabilities or mental illness; individuals from diverse racial, cultural and religious backgrounds; those from varying socio-economic and educational backgrounds; children and young people; older people; those with a criminal history; and people with carer responsibilities.

As we move forward, we need to ensure that we recognise and address the individual needs and circumstances of all Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, women frequently bear a disproportionate burden in the workplace. They often face what I call the "triple squeeze" – managing career advancement, family responsibilities and societal expectations, all while navigating workplace biases that can be subtle yet significant. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Feedback gathered through PPIS' RED space engagement with Muslim women highlights specific workplace challenges that many women encounter.

For instance, some women reported to PPIS that they are often passed over for promotion during their childbearing years, regardless of their intentions to start a family; they are frequently assumed to be less committed to their careers if they have caregiving responsibilities; they are far more likely to face interruptions in their career trajectory due to family obligations; and society and culture still assumes that there are certain roles that women are better and worse at, or should and should not do.

(In English): Women also reported to PPIS that discriminatory hiring and workplace practices are prevalent, especially in male-dominated sectors, with many women reporting a gender pay gap and gender-biased promotions. The burden of proof for discrimination cases often rests on employees, making it difficult to address injustices effectively.

The so-called "motherhood penalty" significantly impacts career progression, with mothers perceived as less competent and thus less likely to be hired or promoted. They also face biased evaluations and are often given less challenging work upon returning from maternity leave.

Ageism further marginalises older women, pushing them into manual labour roles despite their skills and penalising them for necessary health-related leave. And "career returners" face stereotypes of being less productive and adaptable, with insufficient support for reintegration into the workforce.

To combat these issues, this Bill must address structural barriers related to gender stereotypes, particularly for minority women. Additionally, it should include protections for foster parents as caregivers as well. Furthermore, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must address the unique challenges faced by women returning to work after caregiving breaks.

While the Bill provides protection against discrimination, we also need practical measures to support the re-integration of women into the workplace, including, for example, structured return-to-work programmes, skills updating initiatives, mentorship schemes and flexible working arrangements during the transition period.

Mr Deputy Speaker, effectively combatting discrimination requires us to create harmonious and inclusive workplace environments and I wanted to touch on the related issue of "quiet quitting"; where employees merely fulfil basic job requirements without going above and beyond. According to a survey conducted in 2023 by HR agency Randstad, 35% of Singaporean workers have engaged in quiet quitting, which is four percentage points higher than the global average. Among those who have quiet quit, 41% indicated that they did so to improve their work-life balance; 38% attributed it to low compensation and the rising cost of living; and 33% noted a lack of career growth opportunities.

Even more troubling is the persistence of toxic workplace cultures. Toxic workplace is a metaphor used to describe a place of work that is marked by significant personal conflicts between those who work there, including management. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a toxic work environment is characterised by disrespectful, non-inclusive, unethical, cut-throat and abusive behaviours and attitudes.

The cost of inaction is substantial. Toxic workplaces do not just harm individuals, they damage our entire economy through increased turnover, reduced productivity and wasted talents. When capable professionals step back from leadership roles, underperform, or exit the workforce entirely due to their workplace culture, we all lose.

Combatting toxic workplace culture is not easy, but can be achieved and I would like to suggest some potential ways forward. For example, regular respect, equity and diversity training for all staff, including senior managers and executives, the establishment of trained Respect, Equity and Diversity Officers in workplaces, in-house systems that routinely and anonymously seek the feedback of employees, enhanced in-house whistle-blowing mechanisms and protections and linking individual managerial reward and bonuses to independent assessments of workplace culture.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address two other issues of particular interest: reporting mechanisms and psychological safety, as well as workplace discrimination and bias.

First, reporting mechanisms and psychological safety. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices 2023 report, only 29.5% of employees who experienced discrimination sought help, down from 35.3% in 2022. While the reasons behind this decline are unclear, international data suggests that reasons may include: fear that speaking up will jeopardise their career, lack of knowledge about reporting mechanisms and lack of faith in the investigation process.

For this Bill to succeed we need to reverse this trend and I encourage the Ministry to establish an independent Statutory Board with the legislative authority to receive, investigate and report on discrimination complaints by employees in the public, private and community sectors.

In the absence of such a body, the Ministry should require all employers to have and actively promote safe and accessible internal mechanisms for employees to report discrimination complaints and to have policies and procedures that guarantee an impartial, confidential, expert and timely investigation of all complaints.

The Ministry should also require all employers who prepare annual reports, to include in their annual report data on workplace diversity and inclusion trends and goals; number and outcome of discrimination complaints received and investigated; key strategies to address toxic workplace culture and create a harmonious and inclusive workplace environment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my second point addresses workplace discrimination and unconscious bias, particularly their impact on vulnerable and minority groups. This Bill correctly prohibits discrimination based on "protected characteristics", such as nationality, age, gender and caregiving responsibilities. However, I encourage the Ministry to either now, or in the future, extend the definition of protected characteristics to include, for example, criminal history.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we must also recognise and acknowledge that discrimination often operates in subtle ways, through unconscious biases that can be difficult to identify and address. We have seen successful approaches in other jurisdictions that we might consider. For example, the UK's blind recruitment processes and structured interview protocols have shown promising results in reducing hiring bias.

Incorporating AI into these processes could be also useful. AI can help generate unbiased interviews and provide consistent evaluation metrics, reducing unconscious biasness. By leveraging on AI, we can enhance the fairness and transparency of reporting and investigating procedures, ultimately contributing to a more equitable workplace.

Other strategies could include recruiting, requiring recruitment panels to include members from varied backgrounds to minimise bias and promote diverse perspectives during the recruitment process, the development of mentorship programmes that pair employees from different backgrounds and in-house information and support networks for under-represented employees group, the use of data analytics to identify patterns of discrimination or bias within the organisation and to inform policy procedure and practice review.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my final comments relate to monitoring and evaluation. It is essential that we do not simply pass this Bill and assume that work is done. To ensure that we keep momentum on this important issue, I would like to suggest that the Ministry establish a dedicated task force comprising relevant members from public, private and community sector to monitor the Bills implementation, gather data on the effectiveness of the Bill, provide regular updates and recommend adjustments based on real world outcomes.

In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill represents more than just legislation. It is a statement about the kind of society we want to be. It reflects that Singapore gives priority to fairness, respect, diversity and inclusion, and that workplace fairness is not just a legal requirement but a lived reality for all Singaporeans. Clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.17 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): The Workplace Fairness Bill aims to foster fairer and more harmonious workplaces by protecting employees from unfair employment decisions. This Bill is the culmination of three years of efforts by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness. I thank the Committee for their hard work in studying laws from other countries, consulting a wide range of stakeholders and publishing both interim and final reports.

Members have spoken on groups that will benefit from protection on the basis of age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language ability, disability and mental health condition.

I just have one point to raise. The Workplace Fairness Bill is an inclusive and progressive one, but it has a glaring carve-out. As many Members have mentioned, specifically, section 10(2) excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from the definition of "sex". These are the only two characteristics that are expressly excluded from the Bill.

What message are we sending? Are we telling LGBTQ+ people that they are not protected from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Are we telling employers that it is okay to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation and gender identity?

When we repealed section 377A, Minister Shanmugam explained, "The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people". He said, "They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation." By repealing 377A, Minister Shanmugam said that we will "start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain".

But now, do we not think that we may deepen the stigmatisation by having our workplace fairness law single out sexual orientation and gender identity for exclusion? With this Bill, will we deepen the divides that we started to heal with the repeal of 377A? The Bill's carve-out of sexual orientation and gender identity is not merely hurtful to LGBTQ+ employees; it could also cause them to face additional workplace discrimination.

Studies have shown that LGBTQ employees already face significant workplace discrimination. A 2024 study by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health found that over half of their respondents who were LGBTQ experienced discrimination or harassment at the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2022 study by AWARE and Milieu Insight found that 68% of LGBTQ+ persons reported experiencing discrimination compared to 56% of those who did not identify as LGBTQ.

One respondent to the NUS School of Public Health study, who is lesbian, said that a headhunter warned her against bringing up her sexual orientation at a job interview because a previous candidate had been rejected for mentioning their same-sex spouse. Another respondent, who is gay, said he was told by his employer that he would not be appointed to a managerial position because of his sexual orientation. Indeed, hiring managers and HR representatives themselves have described this same type of discrimination.

The Singapore LGBTQ+ Workforce Audit 2022, which polled 200 HR professionals and business leaders, found that only 64% of respondents said yes when asked if companies were open to recruiting and hiring diverse candidates, including LGBTQ individuals. It is likely that the data understates the scale of the problem and that LGTBQ individuals are under-reporting the discrimination they face.

From 2018 to 2022 none of the 312 workplace discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM were related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The NUS School of Public Health survey found that for LGBTQ respondents who experienced workplace discrimination and harassment, only 10.71% reported it to their employer, 0.32% reported it to MOM, and only 0.97%, not even 1%, reported it to TAFEP.

The express exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity from this law is likely to worsen this discrimination. Employers may think they are free to discriminate against LGBTQ employees. Employees may have the belief that TAFEP, TADM and MOM will not assist them.

Can the Minister provide a clear statement that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace is wrong and unacceptable? Can the Minister also confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited under the TGFEP and Prevention from Harassment Act? Will the Minister confirm that TAFEP, TADM, ECT and MOM will assist individuals who report being discriminated against at their workplace due to sexual orientation or gender identity and that LGBTQ+ individuals who face discrimination should feel safe to report workplace discrimination to TAFEP, TADM and MOM?

Moving forward, can the Minister share a timeline for reviewing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? This would not be a radical step. The UK's Equality Act already includes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic. This is the law that the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness has cited as having had a positive impact on workplaces.

I know that in Minister Tan's reply in Parliament in July 2023, he said that the Committee's recommendations were scoped tightly and to address the more common and familiar forms of discrimination. He said that it is better to take a measured first step, let stakeholders adjust to the new rules, before reviewing if more needs to be done.

I agree that our workplace fairness laws should be measured. I welcome the suggestion that our laws will be reviewed and updated. However, it is one thing for the Bill to be silent on sexual orientation and gender identity and a very different thing for the Bill to expressly exclude sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, do we not feel this is a step back by reinforcing discrimination and promoting stigma against LGBTQ+ individuals?

Given that the exclusions already exist under the Bill, I hope again that the Minister can provide a clear assurance that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong, regardless of whether this position is codified under legislation. Will the Minister also share what data and factors he will consider in deciding when our laws should expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity?

I would like to end by thanking groups who have been fighting hard and tirelessly to ensure that we can live in a world without discrimination. In particular, I thank groups that have been speaking up against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. They include Pink Dot SG, Oogachaga, Same But Different, SAFE, Project X, Q Chamber of Commerce, Action for Aids and AWARE. There are many, many more groups and individuals who have fought hard for a more inclusive Singapore, including for LGBTQ+ individuals. While there are too many to name, I thank them too for their perseverance and advocacy.

As former US President, Bill Clinton, said, "All of the country loses when any person is denied or forced out of a job because of sexual orientation. Being gay, the last time I thought about it, seemed to have nothing to do with the ability to read a balance book, fix a broken bone, or change a spark plug." Indeed, a person's sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with their ability to do a job well.

I support this Bill which ensures that we can live in a world without discrimination. And a world that is without discrimination must be inclusive regardless of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

5.26 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, today's Bill is, as many of our Parliamentary colleagues have reiterated, a landmark legislation that will go a long way to create fairer and more equitable workplaces. I support the Bill, notwithstanding the points I will be making in this speech.

I am of the view, Sir, that this Bill is a missed opportunity to extend protections to outsourced workers. By way of explanation, outsourced workers are workers whose nature of work requires that they work on a permanent basis at a different location from their employer's premises. These workers include cleaners, landscape workers and security officers.

Outsourced workers' actual workplaces are therefore the external site that they are deployed at and the terms of deployment are subject to agreement between their employer and the service buyer, for example a Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST). These workers often take instructions and are subject, to a large extent, to the management and instruction of service buyers or their managing agents. Because this Bill covers employer's responsibilities, service buyers are therefore not subject to the obligations and penalties under this Bill. This presents a gap in the protection regime for outsourced workers because the key determinant of their workplace conditions are actually site owners and not their employers.

I can cite examples I have seen myself. In a contract for the deployment of cleaners between an MCST and a cleaning company, a particular MCST had prescribed that the cleaners be of a particular race. I have also seen many security service tenders and contracts between MCSTs and security agencies that stipulate that officers must be younger than a particular age. The Security Association Singapore has publicly called out several MCSTs and managing agents over the past few years who have imposed discriminatory requirements and affected the workplace fairness of workers.

Such contractual requirements then trickle down to the employment practices of service providers, which become inherently discriminatory in order to meet their commercial contract obligations. While this may open the service provider, who is the employer by law, to penalties under the Act, the service buyers get away scot-free and can continue to stipulate discriminatory deployment practices pursuant to the service contract with the service provider. Many service buyers also impose liquidated damages on service providers if they do not comply with the discriminatory deployment requirements.

It is also not uncommon for service buyers to exercise, often in arbitrary fashion, the ability to axe the deployment of these workers at their site, often with immediate effect. This affects workers' security of employment and peace of mind. It also creates an environment in which outsourced workers work perpetually in terrorem of the service buyer or managing agent at the site they are deployed to. There is therefore a significant lacuna in workplace protections that affects hundreds of thousands of outsourced workers.

While I raise this, Sir, I am also aware that it is legally complex to place obligations under law on such service buyers and I can understand if the Minister adopts an incremental approach to possibly eventually impose obligations on such service buyers because they are essentially de facto employers and controllers of the workplace fairness of outsourced workers. I hope the Minister will consider eventually extending the obligations and penalties under the Bill to buyers of outsourced services.

One way, Sir, that we can immediately deal with this would be to issue tripartite guidelines or amend existing guidelines to specifically proscribe such practices by service buyers. This will enable us to increase protections for our outsourced workers, and I hope that the respective tripartite partners can look into this urgently. Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join the debate today. I support the Bill.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Minister for Manpower, Dr Tan See Leng.

5.32 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

6.17 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, I thank the Minister for clarifying clause 17(3) and the Minister shared that the explanatory statement on this clause is not part of the Bill. I thank him for that clarification.

The second point was the Minister raised the example made by my colleague for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency, Ms He Ting Ru, about the call for the legislation to cover individuals of a different sexual orientation and gender identity, what the Minister referred to as SOGI. I can confirm that all the WP Members of Parliament stand behind our colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, on the point she made. And we do so because we see the repeal of 377A and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals at the workplace as two very different issues, two separate issues. LGBTQ individuals deserve to be treated fairly at the workplace.

That said, I also note even though the coverage is not explicitly included in the Bill, Minister shared that they would be covered under the TGFEP guidelines. I hope the call made by my colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, can be considered in future iterations, as the Minister shared that the Bill will be reviewed and it is akin to a work-in-progress and that this is just – not the first chapter – it is just the start.

Dr Tan See Leng: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for the reply and the confirmation again that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is covered under the TGFEP. But, and it is a big but, this is actually not explicitly stated on the TAFEP website.

It would mean a lot for the LGBTQ+ community if we can explicitly state on the TAFEP website that discrimination based on SOGI is covered under the Tripartite Guidelines. This would also help address the issue of under-reporting. Many might go on the website and realise it is not there, so they do not report it. So, explicitly stating it might help with the under-reporting.

My second point is on whether it is fair to just leave SOGI under the Tripartite Guidelines because of the penalties. So, if you discriminate against someone who is lesbian or gay and the penalty is you cannot hire foreigners, how would that make sense?

Dr Tan See Leng: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I am not giving a name of the company now, but I thought again that the problem now is we do list certain characteristics on the TAFEP website. We already state age, race, gender, religion, marital status, family, responsibility or disability. So, it is not a case where we do not state anything. We do state some characteristic that is protected under TAFEP, but we just leave out again sexual orientation and gender identity, and that is the issue where the LGBTQ+ community feel that then, it is not fair. TGFEP just sort of leaves them out and, to be inclusive, the website already lists some, it is fair enough that we should list these additional two characteristics.

Dr Tan See Leng: 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.

Mr Speaker: The Minister's assurances will all be recorded in the Hansard. Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Minister for the round up, but I brought up three questions, specifically, on three clauses, which I hope the Minister can articulate and answer, if not, otherwise, provide it later in the accompanying deck when this is rolled out.

First, it is on three clauses: clause 12, clause 18 and clause 28.

Firstly, clause 12. I asked about the age range for an infant. Clarity is important because if the maximum age for who is deemed to be an infant is too low, a female worker may lose her protection when breastfeeding an older child. Hopefully, some clarity on this as we implement.

Secondly, clause 18 covers discrimination by employer's direction, instruction or policy published in writing. I would like to ask the Minister how would unwritten disciplinary directions, instructions or policy be dealt with. As currently worded, employers may get around clause 18 by not putting things in writing.

And, finally, clause 28, I did ask a question earlier, hoping to get an answer. Clause 28 prohibits employers from taking any retaliatory action against employees who raise grievances or pursue claims under the Bill, so not offering re-employment is an adverse employment decision, only if it is attributable to retaliation. In other cases where the employer did not offer re-employment, the affected employee can make representations to the Minister under the Retirement and Re-employment Act. So, in those other cases, would evidence of discrimination by the employer be relevant? Just these three.

Dr Tan See Leng: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, I have debated in this Parliament many times on the manpower policies and I have two questions to ask the Manpower Minister today. But let me have a short preamble.

I am very concerned, having debated this Government over the last few years, that the Government seems to be very complacent about the effect of its foreign manpower policies on Singaporean workers – and every time the Manpower Minister has countered me with selected macro indicators.

Today, in the same fashion, I have said that low unemployment does not mean there is no significant under-employment. So, the first thing, the first question —

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, ask your clarification. Do not make another long speech, please.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, the first question I want to ask is: has the MOM conducted any study on the possibility of under-employment in the Singapore job market?

The second question I want to ask is – this is also something that I have debated with the Manpower Minister over the years – just now, he had written off my assertion that low unemployment does not mean no significant under-employment. By quoting another macro indicator, that is the PMET or PME ratio, he quoted roughly that the ratio has gone up from 50% to 60% over a certain period.

But I want to know, has the Government actually looked at this ratio again after stripping out the immigration effect? We know that this ratio is very corrupted, with original Singaporeans at the beginning of a period, new citizens that came in and new PRs. So, there is a lot of immigration effect on these macro indicators. So, did MOM look into a kind of pure indicator, rather than having all these effects and then, now, telling Singaporeans that the ratio has gone up from 50% to 60%? These are my two questions. I hope that is clear enough.

Dr Tan See Leng: 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. 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. 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.]

Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

6.38 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Mr Speaker, I have just two short clarifications to the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister and his team in MOM for setting this landmark Bill forward.

The first question is in terms of timeline, when will this Bill be implemented? I am not sure whether I missed the exact date in his speech. But can the Minister share when the implementation would be? I am aware that there is going to be another Bill with regard to the ECT.

Second is, in terms of, I heard the word TAFEP mentioned many times in this Bill and me being in the TAFEP Committee – and I have seen the TAFEP staff and resource constraints there and how much good work they have done. Can the Minister share, in terms of budget and in terms of resources, going forward, after the implementation, whether there will be more resources for TAFEP?

Dr Tan See Leng: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you for calling on me again, Mr Speaker. I missed out another clarification for the Minister pertaining to the Bill. I have asked some questions on clause 31. These are the administrative penalties. What is the range of the penalties that the Bill envisages, vis-a-vis, clause 31(A) to (I)?

The second clarification, pertaining to clause 31, again, is whether the Ministry intends for the companies that commit violations and are subject to administrative penalties, whether they will be named and if not named, at least the circumstances of their infractions made public so workers and employees alike would be educated.

Dr Tan See Leng: 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.

Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.

Ms Usha Chandradas: I thank the Minister for his very extensive replies to all the questions that have been raised, including my own. I just have one very brief question for the Minister. Does the Ministry have a window of time in mind, after which it will review the definition of the protected characteristic of sex, as it is set out in clauses 8C and 10?

Dr Tan See Leng: 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: Mr Leong, just ask your clarification.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I would just like to reiterate my clarification because the Minister did not really answer my question. So, I would just like to confirm that the MOM has not done any study into under-employment? Two, the MOM has also not —

Dr Tan See Leng: 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.

Mr Speaker: Minister, please take a seat. So, Mr Leong —

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, I appreciate the answer.

Mr Speaker: Okay. That is all?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Can I ask one more question? One more clarification?

Mr Speaker: Okay, final clarification, alright. You recall what I said? Ideally, if you have clarifications, ask them all at one go, do not to break it up.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, but the Minister interjected. I wanted to ask.

Mr Speaker: Anyway, ask your clarification. One final one and a short one.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes. So, the Minister also denied that the effect of immigration has not altered his conclusion on the PME ratio that he had raised? Does the Minister understand my question? Because the PME ratio is not a pure ratio.

Mr Speaker: You mentioned that you had a clarification to his response.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Which is?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Can he clarify that MOM has confirmed that the effect of immigration has not altered the conclusion of the PME ratio that he has raised? Because he is trying to say that there is no under-employment, Singaporean PMEs are doing well. And why are they doing well? It is because there is low unemployment, it is because the PME ratio is increasing.

So, I raised my point because every economic indicator the Minister has raised, I can actually raise a lot of issues about it, as I am an economics statistician.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, then I suggest, maybe, if you have specific points to ask, you could file a PQ on them, with the specifics and ask your questions.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: But we can get an answer from the Minister now.

Mr Speaker: But it is rather general.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: He just need to confirm that.

Mr Speaker: Okay, please take a seat. Minister, would you like to respond?

Dr Tan See Leng: 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: We have spent a long time discussing this. Twenty-eight Members have spoken. The Minister has also given a very comprehensive reply. I will now put the question to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan See Leng].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: The citation year "2024" will be changed to "2025" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.