Progress and Impact of Proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation and Support Measures Available

38 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last five years, what have been the commonly reported forms of workplace discrimination; (b) whether there has been an increasing trend of discriminatory practices; and (c) how will the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation address these issues.

39 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the proposed Workplace Fairness legislation; and (b) when considering the proposed legislation, whether the Ministry will take into account (i) plans to mitigate any negative impact (ii) how employees can seek help and (iii) the impact on the employer-employee relationship.

40 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will provide SMEs with additional support measures to ensure that they are compliant with fair employment best practices and processes; and (b) if so, what are they.

41 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower given that firms with fewer than 25 employees are exempted from the Workplace Fairness legislation, what recourse will employees of such firms have when faced with workplace discrimination.

42 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the expected impact of the proposed Workplace Fairness legislation on employer-employee relationships; (b) how does the Government intend to mitigate any negative impact such as more litigious workplaces; and (c) how does the Government intend to mitigate the challenges that small firms may face such as lack of human resource capabilities.

43 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower besides Government legislation and guidelines on workplace fairness, what are the efforts needed to address the mindsets, attitudes, and perceptions of individuals, to root out discrimination and build fairer workplaces.

44 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower how will the Government mitigate any negative impact of the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation, such as a more litigious workplace culture.

45 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation; (b) when will the proposed legislation be implemented; (c) what are the possible negative impact of the proposed legislation; and (d) how will the Ministry manage any negative impact of the legislation.

46 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there has been competing definitions of workplace discrimination between employers and employees raised during investigations conducted by the Ministry; and (b) how does the Ministry communicate what constitutes workplace discrimination to both employees and employers to help employees assess if they have a case and that employers are clear about their obligations.

47 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower regarding the acts of discrimination that will be made clear in the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation (a) how will the Ministry educate and make it clear to the public on unacceptable acts of discrimination; and (b) how will the Ministry assist employers, especially the smaller firms with limited human resource practitioners, understand more about discriminatory practices.

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Oral Questions Nos 38 to 47 on today's Order Paper, please?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in the questions filed by Members Mr Yip Hon Weng, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Mr Louis Ng¹ and Ms He Ting Ru² which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I would like to invite Members to see clarifications today if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the questions for future Sittings.

Sir, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has received a number of Parliamentary Questions on workplace fairness, including the upcoming legislation. I wish to thank Parliamentary colleagues for their interest in this important issue.

The proposed legislation is a significant step forward in enhancing protection for workers from workplace discrimination, as well as strengthening fair employment practices and outcomes. It builds on progressive efforts by Tripartite Partners over the years to enhance workplace fairness through a range of education and enforcement efforts and will send a strong signal against workplace discrimination. This is increasingly important in view of our ageing population and our marriage and parenthood efforts. It must also assure locals that they are fairly considered for job opportunities. Employers will benefit from a more productive and engaged workforce, be better able to attract and retain talent and can continue to access a complementary foreign workforce, contributing to stronger business outcomes. In this way, the legislation will benefit workers, employers and society-at-large.

This was indeed the experience in the United Kingdom (UK). In a study trip led by myself and our tripartite partners, we learned that the UK's Equality Act has had a positive impact on the workplace and workers look to join organisations that operate fairly and treat all workers with respect. It is clearly in the interest of both employees and employers to create more trusting and harmonious workplaces by taking a strong stand against discrimination.

Thus, strengthening our framework for workplace fairness through legislation is the right thing to do, but it should be done with an eye on maintaining a workplace culture that is harmonious and not litigious. The steps have to be precise and clear, leaving little scope for subjective interpretation. This has always been one of the key objectives of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness as we formulated our recommendations. This is why we have tried to scope the recommendations more tightly and to the common and familiar forms of discrimination in the first instance. We believe it is better to take a measured first step, let our stakeholders adjust to the new rules before reviewing if more needs to be done.

To Mr Seah Kian Peng's question, over the years, the number of workplace discrimination complaints has, in fact, fallen, but the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices, or TAFEP, and MOM still received about 315 complaints of discrimination a year, over the last five years. The most common types of discrimination complaints received were on nationality, age, sex, race and language. The Committee has proposed that legislation provide protection against the common and familiar forms of workplace discrimination, including these characteristics I have just mentioned. The legislation will work in tandem with the existing Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practice, or TGFEP, to cover all forms of workplace discrimination.

I am heartened that Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Cheng Li Hui share the Committee's concern over the potential impact of legislation on the workplace culture. Indeed, workplace harmony is an invaluable hallmark of Singapore's employment landscape and needs to be protected too.

Therefore, the Committee's recommendations focus on resolving disputes at the source as much as possible and emphasising mediation rather than litigation.

To this end, the Committee recommends requiring employers to put in place grievance handling channels and processes at their workplace to facilitate amicable dispute resolution within the firm. If that fails, mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management, or TADM, will be the next step, with a focus on educating employers on fair employment practices and mending the relationship between employer and employee where possible. Adjudication at the Employment Claims Tribunals, or ECT, is the last resort. To ensure that employees who experience discrimination feel assured to come forward to report it, there will also be protection against retaliation for making a complaint of discrimination.

As Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Sharael Taha have pointed out, small firms may lack the expertise or resources to fully implement the legislated requirements from the get-go. Therefore, the Committee recommends exempting small firms with fewer than 25 employees from the legislation for a start, with a view to lowering this exemption in five years.

The Government will work closely with partners, including TAFEP and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) to support small firms in their journey to ramp up capabilities. More details on this will be shared later.

I want to encourage smaller firms to work with the partners as early as possible to strengthen their HR practices and capabilities, as well as nurture a fair and harmonious workplace culture. As mentioned earlier, this will contribute to stronger business outcomes.

Although exempted from the legislation at the start, small firms will continue to be subject to the TGFEP which prohibits all forms of workplace discrimination. Anyone who has faced any form of workplace discrimination can approach TAFEP for advice and assistance. Where there is a breach of the TGFEP, TAFEP will report the case to MOM for enforcement action.

We agree with Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Sharael Taha that a coordinated and sustained effort by employers, employees, unions and the Government is required to educate all stakeholders and shape mindsets and attitudes. Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman also rightly points out that complaints of workplace discrimination may be borne out of different understandings of what constitutes discrimination.

Today, TAFEP works closely with employer groups, Human Resource (HR) partners and community groups to increase awareness of fair employment practices among employers. TAFEP also offers workshops and training tools to help employers implement fair employment practices in their organisations. With the impending legislation, tripartite partners will provide case illustrations of what may constitute discrimination and what may not, and regularly review and refresh these illustrations. Tripartite Partners will also continue working closely to educate employers and workers, to help advance fair and progressive employment practices in Singapore.

To Mr Louis Ng's question on protection for women who are breastfeeding, and Ms He Ting Ru's question on reasonable accommodations, these are matters that the Committee is still considering.

To Mr Patrick Tay's and Mr Sharael Taha's questions on the timeline, the Committee targets to complete its deliberations and release its final recommendations in the later part of this year. Thereafter, drafting of the legislation will commence and we aim for that to be ready in the second half of 2024.

Mr Deputy Speaker, rooting out discrimination is a whole-of-society effort. It requires knowledge, understanding and ownership by employers, and the support from employees. The Workplace Fairness Legislation will significantly strengthen our stand against discrimination, while maintaining a workplace culture that is harmonious and not litigious.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. With regards to the discrimination at breastfeeding mothers' phase, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing that the Committee is reviewing this.

Could I ask whether the Committee is engaging the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), like the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group, Singapore to get their feedback and to consult them on this process?

Second, I do understand some forms of discriminations are not going to be covered under the proposed legislation and would be just covered under the Tripartite guidelines. Could I ask Senior Minister of State whether we can strengthen the penalties under the Tripartite guidelines? Because, again, as I raised many times in this House, it would not make sense if you discriminate against the women and the penalty is that you cannot hire foreigners. I hope we can strengthen those penalties to again send a very strong deterrent message.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his suggestion of engaging widely some of the other stakeholders. We will get the Committee to look at this and engage as widely as we can.

On the second question of whether we can strengthen penalties under the guidelines, let me just say that when the protected characteristics of sex were included in the new legislation, it will look into how we can protect maybe women who are pregnant as well as, perhaps, in the postpartum period as well. Whether in the specific issue of breastfeeding ought to be one of the sub-characteristics, for example, within the sex category, that is something that the Committee will deliberate on.

We need to look at how we can also educate employers to ensure there is a more conducive workplace that will cater to all the diverse needs of their workers as well.

Currently, there are penalties that will be included in the legislation will be graded towards the level of egregiousness of that particular offence and discrimination. And when the legislation is tabled for discussion in Parliament, it will be clearer what levels of penalties may be effected.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Firstly, I declare my interest as part of the Tripartite Work Group looking at this piece of legislation.

I just want to weigh in with what the Member Louis brought up about the TGFEP and those characteristics that are not covered within the main piece of legislation. I thought more teeth and more enforcement measures would help, particularly the investigative powers.

My supplementary question would be, in this upcoming piece of workplace fairness legislation, it is very important to take cognisance of the fact that we are going to help employees or workers in general. They are usually in a weaker bargaining position and usually do not have deep pockets. Therefore, I hope to see in this upcoming piece of legislation, some form of tilting of the burden of proof towards them. Traditionally, you want to establish a prime facie case, you want reasonable doubt, but in different parts of the world, in certain jurisdictions, the burden is a bit lower, especially when employees and workers file complaints. So, I hope this can be taken in cognisance of.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I want to assure the Member that the Committee is aware of some of these challenges at the workplaces when it comes to burden of proof. And we will take this into account when drafting the legislation. But, I must say that emphasis is also on ensuring that companies have in place a proper grievance handling process and that will include documentations about how to engage with employees when a complaint surfaces. So, that can become one of the documented evidence when the adjudication needs to take place or where TADM needs to look at the dispute resolution between employer and employee.

In the instance where the employer has insufficient documentation, that may be taken against the employer. I believe that the process would be seen to be fair to both the employers and employees in this instance.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, just a quick question for the Senior Minister of State on the legislation and the earlier point he made the in excess of 300 complaints with regard to discrimination. Of those complaints, can I confirm whether the Senior Minister of State how many of them involve companies with a headcount of less than 25? That would give us a sense of whether the five-year timeline is too long and whether it can be shortened or whether more work needs to be done to try and bring smaller firms up to speed.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his question.

When I mentioned that there are 315 complaints, I do not have the exact breakdown of the complaints by company sizes, but I would say that the complaints like these do span across companies of varying sizes as well. In our thinking and deliberation of initial exemptions for companies with employees less than 25, it was really to give them more time to really build up their capabilities and ability to deal with more of these workplace grievances so that there is also time for stakeholders to engage smaller companies to up their capabilities to put in grievance handling processes within the companies. So, it is really more targeted towards building capacity.

Having said that, smaller companies today are already subjected to the TGFEP guidelines which also stipulate that all forms of discrimination are not to be tolerated at the workplace. The only difference between the guidelines and the legislation is that the legislation allows us to have more finely calibrated penalties on the companies. The guidelines today allow MOM to actually take administrative measures against companies of any sizes which discriminate against a worker by imposing, say, a blacklist for them to hire further foreign workers. So, there is already some pain that we can inflict on companies which undertake discriminatory practices today under the TGFEP.

But obviously, that is a very blunt approach and certain companies may find that such forbidding of hiring foreign workers over a case of infringement against one hiring of a Singaporean, may become too overly excessive and impede the company's ability to function properly, thereby impacting the wider business operations, that will impact a larger workforce within a company as well.

So, in drafting the legislation, what we are trying to do is have a graded approach of penalties that is more commensurate with the egregiousness of the company's offence in workplace discrimination. But companies that are already less than 25 workforce today will still have to follow the TGFEP guidelines that forbid all forms of discrimination.

I hope that kind of clarifies that we are not letting smaller companies completely off the hook, but we are giving them more time to build their capabilities so that through this process, we can build a more harmonious workplace and not a more litigious one.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Just a quick supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. First, I must say I am surprised but happy that the number of cases has gone down. Having said that, I think we need to also pay attention to the number of unreported cases. Personally, I am sure we have heard of many of residents who come to us for these cases.

In firming up the framework that is coming up, I would like to suggest to the Senior Minister of State that we make it easy for people who feel aggrieved to report such cases. So, I hope as the Ministry firms up this, let us make it easy for people to file such complaints.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his observation that, indeed, there may be cases who are hesitant to step forward and report any form of discrimination that they experience. One of the things we want to prevent and encourage people who faced discrimination to actually come forward to report is to make sure that when they do report a case of discrimination, whether as a victim or as a fellow worker who witnessed any form of discrimination is to make sure that in the legislation we put in place safeguards against retaliation from these employees or workers who raised issues of discrimination.

So, there will be sufficient safeguard that we hope to put into the legislation to make sure that if any retaliatory action is taken by the employer against the employee, there will be penalties on the employers as well just so that we can encourage those to step up to report any discrimination they face.

1.29 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statements. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]