Introduction
Mr Speaker Sir, the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill before this house seeks to establish crucial mechanisms for individuals to seek recourse against workplace discrimination. This Bill, together with the Workplace Fairness Act passed on 8 January 2025, represents a significant step forward in protecting Singapore's workers. However, I wish to raise several important questions and concerns regarding the implementation of this dispute resolution framework.
Representation at Mediation
Firstly, on the matter of representation at mediation. Section 36I provides that individuals may be represented by persons prescribed under regulations made under Section 44. I seek clarification on whether these regulations will mirror the First Schedule of the Employment Claims Regulations 2017.
Under the current framework, trade union members face restrictions—they cannot be represented during settlement discussions, and executive employees have even narrower representation rights. While I understand the intent to facilitate direct communication during mediation, we must ask: are these restrictions appropriate for discrimination cases, which often involve complex power dynamics and emotional distress?
Moreover, I am even more concerned about vulnerable workers who are not trade union members. What support will be available to them? Will pro-bono channels be expanded to ensure all parties can access legal advice about their rights under the WFA?
Additionally, the current regulations only mandate parental representation for those below 18 years of age. I urge the Ministry to consider extending support to young workers who have just entered the workforce—fresh graduates who may be experiencing discrimination but lack the knowledge, resources, or union membership to navigate the system effectively, particularly those with less than five years of full-time, permanent employment.
Time Limits and Extensions
My second point concerns the discretion to extend time limits under Section 36E(4). The Bill stipulates that dismissed employees must file for mediation within one month of their last day of employment, with special provisions for pregnant employees.
Mr Speaker, I have encountered residents during Meet the People Sessions who, having just lost their jobs, were overwhelmed by distress, mental health challenges, or the urgent need to support their families. In such circumstances, one month passes quickly, and by the time they seek help, the deadline has expired.
Section 36F(1)(a) allows the Commissioner to accept late requests if there is a "reasonable excuse." However, this term requires greater clarity. I ask the Minister: What constitutes a reasonable excuse? Will the Commissioner adopt the broader "just and equitable" approach found in the UK's Equality Act 2010, which the Employment Appeals Tribunal has interpreted as requiring a wide discretion based on the factual matrix?
According to a parliamentary reply by SMS Dr Koh Poh Koon in 2022, approximately 6% of wrongful dismissal claims filed with TADM each year exceeded the time limit. TADM still assisted parties willing to settle amicably. I would like to know: Is this proportion still accurate? How many of these cases actually achieved settlement? And critically, in 2024 and 2025, how many appeals for time extensions were filed, and how many were granted?
These statistics will help us understand whether the current framework adequately serves workers who may need additional time due to genuine hardship.
Grievance Handling Processes
My third point addresses the implementation of grievance handling processes. Section 36D(2) requires that mediation requests follow internal grievance handling, which Section 27 of the WFA mandates employers to establish.
While Tripartite Standards and Implementation Guides exist, I ask: How many TADM claims involve employers who lacked proper grievance handling processes? This data is essential to assess compliance and effectiveness.
More importantly, have HR professionals in affected companies received adequate training on these processes? What support has the Ministry provided? For small and medium enterprises, which may lack dedicated HR teams, implementation presents particular challenges.
I urge the Ministry to work closely with SMEs to boost their HR capabilities. Does the Ministry have a roadmap—perhaps over five years—to help companies with fewer than 25 employees implement robust grievance handling processes? Without such support, the dispute resolution framework risks being undermined at its very foundation.
Outsourced Workers
Finally, Mr Speaker, I must address a significant gap in this Bill: the exclusion of outsourced workers.
Section 36A limits civil action to alleged discriminatory employment decisions made by employers under Section 17(1) of the WFA. An "employer" is defined as a person who employs another under a contract of service. This excludes workers on contracts for service, platform workers, and critically, outsourced workers.
Outsourced workers are among our most vulnerable—often older workers in lower-income jobs. Currently, the Tripartite Advisory on Outsourced Workers does not cover anti-discriminatory practices by service buyers. This creates a troubling situation where service buyers can specify preferred race, age, or religion of workers, forcing service providers to implement discriminatory practices or face contractual penalties.
It is unjust to penalise service providers when service buyers are the ones making discriminatory demands. We are, as the saying goes, barking up the wrong tree.
The UK's Equality Act 2010 addresses this through Section 41, which defines "contract workers" and "principals." A principal is one who makes work available for individuals employed by another party, and contract workers are those supplied in furtherance of such contracts. This framework effectively extends protection to outsourced workers.
I ask the Minister: Will the Tripartite Advisory on Outsourced Workers be updated to cover anti-discriminatory practices by service buyers? Does the Ministry plan to extend WFA protections to outsourced workers in future amendments, and if so, what is the timeline? How is the Ministry currently educating service buyers on fair employment practices and monitoring discriminatory clauses in service contracts?
Mr Speaker, in Malay please,
Tuan Speaker, Rang Undang-Undang Keadilan di Tempat Kerja (Penyelesaian Pertikaian) bertujuan untuk membantu para individu yang menghadapi diskriminasi di tempat kerja. Rang Undang-Undang ini, bersama dengan Akta Keadilan di Tempat Kerja, merupakan langkah penting dalam melindungi para pekerja di Singapura. Walau bagaimanapun, saya ingin mengemukakan beberapa soalan dan kebimbangan saya mengenai pelaksanaannya.
Representation at Mediation (Perwakilan dalam Pengantaraan)
Pertama, mengenai perwakilan dalam pengantaraan. Kita perlu menimbang semula beberapa sekatan peraturan yang diletakkan ke atas para pekerja semasa mereka melalui proses ini. Buat masa ini, ahli kesatuan sekerja tidak boleh diwakili semasa perbincangan – malah pekerja eksekutif pula mempunyai perwakilan yang lebih sempit. Bagi para pekerja yang bukan ahli kesatuan sekerja pula, mereka tentunya memerlukan sokongan yang lebih. Tambahan lagi, saya juga menggesa agar para pekerja muda diberikan lebih sokongan agar mereka tidak mudah mengalami diskriminasi atas sebab kurang pengalaman dan pengetahuan.
Time Limits and Extensions (Had dan Lanjutan Masa)
Perkara kedua, dalam isu had dan lanjutan masa. Para pekerja yang telah diberhentikan kerja perlu memfailkan pengantaraan dalam tempoh satu bulan sahaja dari hari terakhir mereka. Tuan Speaker, saya ada berjumpa dengan beberapa individu sedemikian semasa Sesi Bertemu Penduduk (MPS). Lazimnya, mereka berada dalam keadaan yang terdesak dan mengatakan bahawa masa satu bulan itu terlalu singkat. Antara lain, saya menggesa agar pendekatan yang bersandarkan budi bicara boleh dipertimbangkan dalam menerima permintaan lewat, jika ada sebab yang munasabah.
Grievance Handling Processes (Proses Pengendalian Aduan)
Perkara ketiga, berkaitan dengan pelaksanaan proses pengendalian aduan. Oleh kerana pihak majikan perlu menyediakan aduan dalaman, kita perlu memastikan bahawa pegawai HR di dalam syarikat mempunyai latihan yang mencukupi. Ini penting terutama sekali bagi perusahaan kecil dan sederhana, yang mana kakitangan mereka mungkin kurang berkemampuan untuk mengendalikan proses aduan dengan sempurna.
Outsourced Workers (Pekerja Sumber Luar)
Tuan Speaker, perkara yang terakhir, kita perlu menangangi jurang ketara di dalam Rang Undang-Undang ini, iaitu para pekerja dari sumber luar. Akta Keadilan di Tempat Kerja (WFA) tidak merangkumi para pekerja kontrak, pekerja platform, dan pekerja sumber luar. Mereka merupakan golongan yang paling terdedah kepada diskriminasi. Saya menggesa agar diwujudkan rangka kerja yang memperluaskan perlindungan kepada para pekerja sumber luar. Ini akan memastikan amalan pekerjaan yang lebih adil untuk semua golongan pekerja.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill is a welcome development. However, for it to truly deliver justice, we must ensure that vulnerable workers can access representation, that time limits accommodate genuine hardship, that employers—especially SMEs—have the capacity to implement proper processes, and that our most vulnerable workers, including those outsourced, are not left behind.
I call on the Ministry to address these concerns so that the promise of workplace fairness becomes a reality for all workers in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the questions and concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.
