1. Introduction
Mr Deputy Speaker, in August 2016, at the Debate during the second reading of the Employment Claims Bill, I had said that employment claims disputes are often mired in the context of contending allegations of breaches of employment contract and unfair dismissal or discrimination could well be part of the factual matrix in some cases. I also suggested for one Tribunal to hear all types of labour disputes including employment claims and claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. Today I am happy to support and welcome this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the intent of this Bill, which establishes a dispute resolution framework to address workplace discrimination. Employees will have a direct right to seek redress on discrimination through a defined process of mediation and, where necessary, adjudication by a tribunal or the High Court.
This is a welcome development, especially in the context of our ageing population and changing social landscape, which puts the spotlight on fair employment practices. However, as with many new frameworks, the true test of its effectiveness will lie in how it works in practice - whether ordinary workers can navigate the process, and whether smaller employers can comply without being unduly burdened.
It is therefore important that the Bill’s implementation is accessible, balanced, and workable for all parties involved.
2. Accessibility for Workers
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill, together with other existing legislations, empower affected employees to initiate mediation or claims against employers relating to discrimination claims, and discrimination related disputes and dismissal claims. However, for many lower-income or less-educated workers or employees, they may still not be aware that they have such rights, or may be intimidated by the process of filing a claim as it is often not just the information itself, but the practical process that is challenging.
Understanding what happens next - for example, what to expect after filing a claim, what documents to bring, or how to respond during mediation - can be intimidating for those unfamiliar with formal dispute processes. Ensuring that help is not only available but understandable and usable will make the right to redress truly meaningful.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister:
- Will the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management be publishing information and guidelines on filing discrimination claims, similar to what has been done for salary-related employment or dismissal claims?
- Will there be any public education efforts in vernacular languages to ensure that low-wage workers are also aware of their rights pertaining to workplace discrimination and recourse available to them, as outlined in this Bill?
- Will there be practical, step-by-step support available, such as assistance with completing claim forms or responding to procedural queries, for workers who may lack the literacy or confidence to file a claim? For instance, the Community Justice Centre currently provides volunteers to assist litigants-in-person in our Courts. A similar scheme could perhaps be adapted for TADM mediations, to ensure that workers who need it can receive practical guidance and reassurance throughout the process.
Mr Deputy Speaker, from my contact with quite a number of my residents who were embroiled in neighbours’ disputes, many were deterred by the procedural requirements for Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal and would even rather not sought resolution through CDRT. Even if the procedure for filing claims at CDRT may have been relatively simplified as compared to civil or criminal procedure for the State and High Courts, lay people are often not comfortable, even with say the need to file sworn evidence to start the claims. In this connection, I urge the government to continue to work towards simplifying claims procedure for lay people across different applications including for the discrimination claims at ECT or in the High Court.
Next, I would like to seek clarification in respect of Work Pass Holders. Do they have a right to bring a claim for discrimination? I believe the answer is yes. If so, should we be concerned that employers have the ability to cancel work passes and repatriate their employees upon termination of employment, before or in the midst of pursuing or initiating a claim, and they may not be able to remain in Singapore to attend mediation or hearings, weakening the practical effect of the protections afforded under the Bill. I would like to seek the Minister’s assurances that Work Pass Holders will receive adequate protection but without overtaxing employers, pending the claims outcome. Employers should not of course be penalised for unsuccessful claims e.g. they should not be responsible for employees’ additional expenses resulting from their unsuccessful claims including expenses for prolonged stay in Singapore.
3. Impact on smaller employers
Mr Deputy Speaker, I also wish to highlight the impact on SMEs or even smaller employers amongst the SMEs. Many SMEs operate on lean manpower and limited administrative support. Even though the system is designed to be a lawyer-free process at ECT level, the reality is that an employer still needs to gather facts, compile documentation, and prepare explanations to defend its case.
A small enterprise with say 25-30 employees, for example, is unlikely to have the HR or legal support that a larger company can afford. Given that this Bill introduces new procedural obligations and the possibility of claims being lodged against employers, how can it be ensured that smaller enterprises are not overwhelmed by the process?
What kind of clear guidance or advisory support will be given for SMEs to understand the process and their responsibilities?
What safeguards will be in place to identify and dismiss clearly unsubstantiated or frivolous claims early, so that small employers are not subject to unnecessary administrative or even reputational burden?
This is not to discourage legitimate complaints as every genuine claim should be heard fairly, but the system should also ensure that smaller employers are protected from disproportionate strain.
4. Accountability Through Transparency and Prevention of Repeat Offenders
Mr Deputy Speaker, while confidentiality for employees and employers must be respected, complete opacity also limits public learning and deterrence. A people-centred balance would be to keep case details confidential, but at the very least require the publication of anonymised, aggregated outcomes and quarterly data.
Such data - for instance, the number of cases by sector, the types of discrimination alleged, and their outcomes - would help identify trends and systemic issues. If certain sectors consistently show higher proportions of age-related or gender-related claims, the Ministry could then target outreach, training, or policy interventions more effectively.
Beyond transparency, data can also strengthen accountability by helping to detect repeat offenders.
The proposed new Section 45 of the Workplace Fairness Bill allows the Commissioner or the Registrar of the High Court to share data “to a public agency for the purpose of policy formulation or review,” or “to a public agency, and is necessary in the public interest.” There is room to build on this by establishing a more systematic internal process to monitor and flag repeated breaches by rogue employers. This would enable earlier intervention and signal that the framework is responsive to patterns of behaviour, not just individual disputes. It can also help to study undesirable practices or behaviour on the part of errant employers or even employees, which MOM can use to consider improvements and revisions to prevailing laws.
Ultimately, Mr Deputy Speaker, the true measure of workplace fairness lies not only in the number of disputes resolved, but in how many are prevented. By embedding a capacity for early intervention within this framework, we make fairness not just a recourse, but a shared habit, woven into the daily life of our workplaces and the moral fabric of our economy.
5. New civil course of action and quantum
Mr Deputy Speaker, the new Section 3A provides that a new civil action may be brought for a newly created statutory tort of discrimination by an individual who is the subject of an alleged discriminatory employment decision made by an employer under section 17(1). The Bill has provided for the jurisdictional limits of discrimination claims between the employment claims tribunal and the High Court. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be new heads of claim peculiar to this new tort.
Aside from possible loss of earnings, possible loss of benefits and even possibly expenses arising from discrimination such as actual medical expenses to treat stress caused by discrimination, which may arguably be supported under current laws on quantum, would there be new or other heads of damage? For example, can losses such as injury to feelings be claimable and if so, how will such claims be quantified?
The Government’s answers can provide helpful and important preliminary guidance and reference via the Hansard for implementation of the new law.
I hope the typical quantum of claims arrived at by the Employment Claims Tribunal and the High Court for the new tort will be reasonable for both employer and employee so that there will be fairness for both employees and employers.
6. CHINESE SPEECH
Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin please,
议长先生，这项职场公平法案 配合现有 的规定，让员工在遇到不公平 对待时，可以找雇主调解，或向仲裁 、机构 申诉。无论是因为年龄、性别、怀孕、生育、婚姻状况、照顾家人、国籍、种族、宗教、语言能力 或 残疾 而被歧视，还是被 不当解雇，员工都能依法 维护自己的权益。
这确实是一个往前迈出的重要一步。可是，有权利，不代表人人都能 行使权利。
对于一些收入或教育程度 较低 的员工 来说，他们可能还不知道自己有这样的权利。就算知道，也可能不敢、不懂，或不知从何下手。就算听过，也可能会觉得：“哎呀，这些程序好复杂，我讲不清楚，也不懂那些表格。”
有些人会怕——怕讲错话，怕得罪上司，怕麻烦。结果，有理也不敢讲，有冤也不敢伸。对他们来说，去申诉就好像走进一个陌生的地方，“一头雾水，不知从哪里开始。”
所以我想请问部长：
第一，劳资政纠纷 调解 联盟（TADM）是否会 发布适当和足够的资料和指南，让工友清楚地明白 怎么提出 职场歧视 的申诉？
第二，政府是否会用多种语言——包括华语、马来语、淡米尔语——让更多员工也知道他们的权利？
第三，是否会对那些教育程度 较低 的员工 提供 实务上 的协助，比如教他们怎样填写表格、准备文件，以及解答程序疑问，帮助读写能力较弱或没信心的工友把第一步走稳？
议长先生，我接触过不少后港居民在邻里纠纷中，因担心 程序与证据 要求，而不敢走到社区调解中心（CMC）或邻里纠纷仲裁庭（CDRT）。即使这些程序 已比 普通法庭 过程 简单，但对普通人来说还是有挑战的。程序再简化，对不熟悉的人 仍然 艰难。
所以我希望政府在落实这项法案时，不要忽略这些实践上的困难。尽可能让申诉程序更容易理解，好让不太懂 或 不太会写英文 的员工 能顺利地 走完程序。
议长先生，职场公平法案的方向是正确的。为了确保 其 成功，关键是我们必须 致力于 让员工 肯，会，并能用得上，而雇主 则 承担 得起，社会更是 都能 信其公正。
Conclusion
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the Workplace Discrimination Bill represents an important move toward fairness at work. To ensure its success, we must focus on making the process accessible to ordinary workers and manageable for small employers, while maintaining the confidence of all stakeholders through transparency and fairness.
I look forward to the minister’s clarifications on the questions I have raised. Notwithstanding the questions and concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.
