Data on Companies with More Than 25 Workers Paying Retrenchment Benefits in Line with Tripartite Guidelines

15 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2020 to 2025 for companies with more than 25 workers, how many have paid retrenchment benefits at (i) above and (ii) below the prevailing tripartite guidelines governing retrenchment payouts respectively, to workers.

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, my reply will also address Question No 46 for written answer, raised by Mr Patrick Tay in today's Order Paper, as the subject matter is similar.

Mr Speaker: Go ahead.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Based on Mandatory Retrenchment Notification (MRN) data submitted by companies with 10 or more employees, around nine in 10 eligible employees received retrenchment benefits from 2020 to 2025. Among them, around eight in 10 received retrenchment benefits of at least two weeks’ salary per year of service, in line with the norms stated in the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM).

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the second half of 2025 saw a raft of reports on retrenchments in Singapore, ranging from foreign and local companies, affecting both professional, managers, executives and technicians (PMET), and rank and file workers. In one case, a unionised company did not inform the Ministry of its intentions, leaving workers in the lurch, while there are reports of another company including a clause in its severance agreement to disentitle workers from retrenchment benefits if they report the retrenchment to the authorities.

My first supplementary question is this. Will the Government mandate that all retrenchments by companies, regardless of size, be it more or less than 25 workers, would have to be reported before an exercise is carried out? And second, that a company that includes punitive and unreasonable clauses with respect to retrenchment, like the one I referred to earlier, can at minimum expect to have its Work Pass privileges revoked, in addition to other penalties?

My second supplementary question: I note Senior Minister of State's reply and the differentiating factor was companies with 10 or more employees, and my Parliamentary Question covered companies with 25 or more employees. I use the number "25" because the recent Workplace Fairness Act created a differentiated regime based on this number of employees. Companies with more workers were deemed to have more resources to comply, while those with less were exempt, even though they still have to comply with the spirit of the law through the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices.

In view of the reply given by the Senior Minister of State, would the Government similarly consider a differentiated guideline on retrenchment benefits, requiring an increase in benefits for companies with more than 25 workers, above the Government's prevailing retrenchment guidelines, rather than having a one-size-fits-all guideline that extends the same recommended retrenchment benefits to companies, both big and small, so that our workers receive equitable retrenchment benefits?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. His first question pertains to whether we can mandate companies of all sizes to notify the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) of retrenchments. I think there is no real right or wrong answer to this, whether it should be companies of a certain size to notify MOM. At this moment, our requirement for mandatory retrenchment is for companies that retrench five or more workers to notify MOM – and not specific to company size per se. The reason for this is that we want to understand if a company has a sizeable retrenchment of more than five workers, MOM would want to know and we want to extend early support to these workers who may be losing their jobs. So, notification is not necessarily related to company sizes per se. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 4 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 16, Correction By Written Statement section.]

But to require every single company to notify MOM of just one worker being retrenched, I think that would impose a lot of extra burdens. So, we want to just size it where we can make a meaningful contribution to helping workers who may be in need without imposing excessive legislative demands on companies.

On the issue of punitive clauses, I believe there was a Parliamentary Question that was asked about the specific company, and I have addressed it in a previous Parliamentary reply. So, I will not go into further details on this particular instance, on the punitive clauses. The Member can check the answer for that previous Parliamentary reply.

His third question is whether companies of different sizes, especially those which have more than 25 workers, can be mandated to give more retrenchment benefits, rather than what he calls a "one-size-fits-all" requirement. I think, when it comes to retrenchment, we must understand that companies retrench workers for various reasons. And the tripartite partners have actually deliberated extensively on whether to make retrenchment benefits mandatory at all, regardless of company sizes – just the idea of a retrenchment benefit being made mandatory. And in fact, to also think about whether we should specify the minimum quantum in legislation.

So, the questions of minimum quantum and mandatory retrenchment benefits have been deliberated extensively by the tripartite partners. And we concluded that a balanced approach to protect workers, while at the same time providing businesses flexibility, would achieve better outcomes for both workers and businesses. Because there are many reasons why a retrenchment exercise takes place. Imposing strict conditions, such as legally mandating retrenchment benefits, may affect the viability of companies who are already in financial difficulties and put existing employees, other employees who may still be in employment with the company, at risk of also being retrenched, if the company then gets into further financial difficulties by the fact that we mandate a certain requirement for monetary compensation that actually makes it difficult for them to even continue.

The second reason, of course, is that mandatory retrenchment benefit may also result in employers becoming more hesitant to offer long-term or permanent contracts to employees. And stipulating a minimum retrenchment benefit quantum in law will likely result in that quantum becoming the norm itself, such that even when companies are able to give more, they may then say, "if this is the only thing that is required by the law, let us just do the minimum as required and not go beyond that". So, this will not benefit workers in situations where the employers are able to pay higher amounts.

The tripartite partners agreed on a balanced approach to issue guidelines instead, which stipulate the prevailing norms for retrenchment benefit quantum and as mentioned in my reply, most employees today already receive retrenchment benefits in line with these tripartite guidelines.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two quick questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one is, when was the last time the tripartite partners deliberated on retrenchment benefits and the legislation of retrenchment benefits, or the appropriate amount that ought to be set for these benefits?

The second question, I may have not heard the Senior Minister of State accurately at the beginning. My question pertains to companies that pay out retrenchment benefits at the prevailing guidelines and those above the prevailing guidelines. Because that will give us a sense of whether there could be some adverse selection arising from setting one fixed guideline, which then forces companies instead of paying more, they just pay the lowest amount. So, the question is, do we have data on how many companies pay above that guideline and how many companies pay at the prevailing guideline, which was the Parliamentary Question that was asked?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I refer to my main reply, which said that for companies with 10 or more employees, around nine in 10 eligible employees received retrenchment benefits and among them eight in 10 received retrenchment benefits of at least two weeks' salary per year of service. But I do not have the breakdown of how many among these eight in 10 received more than two weeks per year of service, because the difference also arises from whether this is a company where the employees are unionised.

In general, for unionised companies, if they have a collective agreement, the prevailing norm in unionised companies with a collective agreement is one month per year of service. So, depending on whether the worker is a union member, whether this company is unionised, workers who were retrenched could get at least two weeks, maybe even more, per year of service. And there are instances in which certain companies actually value their long-term workers who may have been with them for longer and give in excess of a month per year, up to a month and a half, sometimes with a lot more ex gratia as well.

So, that is why I said it is a balanced approach, given flexibility to the company and for companies which may have better financial means where the number of workers retrenched are lesser, they could lean forward a lot more and support the workers a lot more. But for companies who are in financial distress, where they have to lay off a large number of workers, they may not have the financial wherewithal to go beyond that two weeks per year of service quantum, and they have to then spread the financial support to a lot more of their workers who are being retrenched. I hope the Member understands where that kind of flexibility afforded to the workers and to the company is important in such instances.

Mr Speaker: Okay, last supplementary question. Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: It is not a supplementary question. It is the question that I asked prior, with regard to when was the last time the tripartite partners deliberated.

Mr Speaker: Your first supplementary question, yes.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I am afraid I do not have the detail of the exact date in which we did this review, but I would say TAMEM, I think, there was a recent update, probably just around the period of the COVID-19 crisis. So, I will have to check back on that. But the Member could also maybe check on the website and see when that guideline was revised.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State on retrenchment benefits payout. I have noticed anecdotally some multinational companies set retrenchment benefit caps. They are lower than the prescribed benchmark set in TAMEM. In that, we have 25 years, but some may have set lower, for example, 12, 15, especially for the PMEs that are affected. Is MOM doing anything about this?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think this is something that we will have to continue to engage with companies on, because some of these multinational companies may follow certain norms that they bring over from their operations in other jurisdictions or their home country. But in general, we do encourage our unions to continue to engage with multinationals, and many of them do engage with these multinationals. And through a more interactive understanding between the unions and the companies, we hope to socialise them to the norms that are here. And in general, many of these companies, once they understand the different tripartite environment in which they operate here in Singapore, many of them, over time, will consider moving closer to that kind of norm, especially in a collective agreement setting.