Introduction
Mr Speaker, earlier this year, I spoke during the debate on the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Bill, where together with my fellow Workers’ Party MPs, we raised several proposals to strengthen the Bill, such as prohibiting indirect discrimination, plugging the gaps in terms of characteristics which are not currently protected, and legislating the right to request for reasonable accommodations, amongst others.
I emphasised then that while the Bill was both timely and necessary, it also posed significant questions: whether the scope of protection is adequate, whether access to justice will be meaningful, and whether the reality of power asymmetries in the employment relationship will be sufficiently addressed.
Today, we turn our attention to the second Bill on this matter, covering dispute resolution. An inclusive and just society demands robust protections against discrimination, not just regulatory compliance. I will address five linked themes: first, a review of claim limits across legislation; second, access to the claims process; third, evidential burden and power imbalance; fourth, transparency and information availability; and fifth, reconsidering the time bars.
Review of claim limits across legislation
Under the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill, which sets out the grievance-handling process for workplace discrimination claims, parties involved in a workplace discrimination claim must first undergo mediation. If a settlement agreement is not reached, the case would be adjudicated at either the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) for claims up to and inclusive of $250,000, or the High Court for amounts beyond that.
On a tangential point about the claim limits for cases heard before the ECT, the $250,000 benchmark far exceeds the claim limits for salary and wrongful dismissal claims which are $20,000 and $30,000 respectively, depending on whether one attends union-facilitated mediation.
Often, discriminatory practices, salary disputes and wrongful dismissal claims are intertwined and point towards poor workplace culture and hiring practices. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the call made in 2016 by WP MPs during the debate on the Employment Claims Bill, for the claim limits for salary and wrongful dismissal claims heard before the ECT to be reviewed and raised, which is all the more pertinent today, given that the claim limits under the ECT are now raised to $250,000.
Access to the claims process and mandatory mediation
Next, on ensuring access to the claims process. The claims process must be accessible to the worker who is already disadvantaged compared to the employer, be it economically or in terms of information and other resources. Many workers with protected characteristics may not have the resources to engage in proceedings that they are unfamiliar with, to gather extensive documentary evidence, or to take time off work to pursue claims given the significant opportunity costs involved.
It is shocking, yet telling, that according to the MOM’s Fair Employment Practices Report for 2023, 70.7%, a significant majority of respondents who reported having experienced discrimination at work, did not seek help.
Employers are now required to establish an internal grievance process for discrimination claims. These serve to resolve issues at the ground level and preserve working relationships where possible. Should these efforts be unsuccessful, parties must then attend mediation; currently a mandatory step before adjudication.
The heavy emphasis on mediation for dispute resolution, according to the Tripartite Committee's report, is aimed at preserving workplace harmony and maintaining a non-litigious workplace culture. MOM’s 2024 Employment Standards Report does suggest its effectiveness in resolving employment disputes, with over 80% of all employment claims that make it to the TADM resolved through mediation.
However, I am concerned that all is not as it seems. Despite the report highlighting that 94% of employees who lodged salary claims fully recovered their salaries via the TADM and ECT, the fine print states that the amount agreed between the involved parties during mediation is also considered as the full salary payable, even though this agreement might be reached due to compromise on the part of the claimant, thus resulting in them settling for less on the worry that, “something is better than nothing”.
Further, concerns remain about mandatory mediation, especially after employment termination. Mediation works best when both parties participate in good faith, but claimants may be unwilling or unable to further engage, especially after experiencing psychological distress or toxic environments.
Although the Tripartite Committee’s report recommended compulsory mediation for both parties prior to the adjudication stage, it also acknowledged that workplace discrimination cases could be challenging to mediate. This observation is echoed by AWARE’s position paper on Discrimination in the Workplace, which highlights that when the claimant suspects that they had been discriminated against, they would prefer seeking redress via adjudication over mediation as they do not wish to settle the matter.
Will the Government reconsider its position or leave the door open on mandatory mediation in the future, at least for acute or egregious claims, empowering victims to opt for adjudication instead if they choose? In such cases, the ECT may still retain the option to direct the parties for mediation, if it believes it to be appropriate, or accept the case and hear the case directly.
Evidential burden and power imbalance
My third theme is on the evidential burden. In employment discrimination claims, the power lies almost invariably with the employer who controls data, documents, HR decisions, appraisals, records and future opportunities, while the employee may have very limited evidence. This structural imbalance demands that the law provide a fair evidential structure.
Recommendation 15 of the Tripartite Committee’s report notes that when lodging a workplace discrimination claim, the claimant should provide prima facie evidence such as emails, mobile phone messages, or signed oral testimonies to support their case that discrimination has occurred. Can the Minister clarify the burden of proof, what would constitute sufficient evidence at the ECT should a claimant wish to file a claim?
It is often difficult to prove that an employer’s adverse employment decision is due to discrimination on the basis of one’s protected characteristic. Moreover, Singapore’s employment laws do not require any reason to be furnished when terminating the services of an employee. Meanwhile, errant employers may deploy Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) as a formality despite already being intent on terminating an employee’s services. These actions might obfuscate discrimination beneath a veneer of legitimacy, thus making it harder for claimants to prove their case.
The Disabled Persons Association of Singapore (DPA) put forth that a victim should be required only to establish a prima facie case by adducing facts from which it may be presumed that the employer had discriminated against them. The burden should then shift to the employer to prove that it did not commit the alleged prohibited action.
As I have shared in my speech on the Workplace Fairness Bill earlier this year, the point about circumstantial evidence is 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 employee would perhaps hear it via word-of-mouth from a fellow colleague. In fact, they might even hear it directly from their line managers, but have no concrete recording of it, allowing him or her to subsequently deny having said such a thing at all. It would further add insult to injury if the employee were compelled to resign on his or her own accord, at least on paper, when he or she is compelled to do so given the discriminatory workplace environment. 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.
Transparency and information availability
The fourth theme I wish to touch on is transparency and information availability. While I respect the Government’s emphasis on workplace harmony and confidentiality to safeguard all parties involved, secrecy may also undermine public confidence.
One of the requirements regarding workplace discrimination claims is that the claims will be heard in a private setting. According to the MOM, this provides a private forum for all the parties involved to air their views freely without “worrying that third parties may misrepresent or sensationalise issues in the public domain”.
However, court judgements provide an important reference point for prospective claimants to understand from precedent whether their case holds water. Moreover, it also educates the general public on the types of behaviour that would be unacceptable under these regulations, and provides employers with an opportunity to review their own policies and processes.
In a reply to a Parliamentary Question raised earlier this year by my Sengkang GRC colleague Ms He Ting Ru, the Manpower Minister shared that starting from the second half of 2026, the Judiciary would publish selected ECT judgements, while judgements would continue to be made available to individuals upon request and with the Courts’ approval. Furthermore, ECT judgements are not subject to a gag order as well.
For High Court judgements, while Section 36O of the Bill calls for all proceedings held in the High Court under the Workplace Fairness Act to be conducted in private, Section 45, subsection 2 of the Bill empowers the General Division of the High Court or the Registrar of the Supreme Court to publish information regarding a High Court judgement pertaining to the Act.
In the interest of open justice, I hope that the government will publish all ECT and High Court judgements pertaining to workplace discrimination cases by default on an anonymised basis. This would help to enrich the public’s understanding of workplace discrimination, whilst factoring in the need for confidentiality.
Additionally, revealing the company names that are charged under this Bill, as mentioned by Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, would help educate employers and the general public about discriminatory workplace practices, whilst sending a strong signal that this is a matter that should be taken seriously.
Reconsidering the time bars
Finally, I recognise the MOM’s rationale on having time bars to encourage individuals to come forward in a timely manner, before evidence degrades, while providing employers with some certainty that incidents will not be dredged up.
This limit is one month after the date of notice for pre-employment, six months after the date of notice for in-employment, and one month after the last day of employment for end-employment claims.
However, for pre- and post- employment claims, the claimant would also be busy with the job search process, thus leaving them with little time, energy or mind space to build their case. Hence, would the government clarify how it determined the duration of the time bars and would they consider extending them, especially for pre- and post- employment cases, in the interest of our workers?
Conclusion
To round up Mr Speaker, in my speech I have sought to emphasise five critical themes: the need to review claim limits for salary and wrongful dismissal alongside the new $250,000 cap for discrimination; ensuring access to the claims process for workers who are already disadvantaged; clarifying the evidential burden and establishing protections against the structural power imbalance that favours employers; strengthening transparency through publication of anonymised judgments and company names; and reconsidering time bars that may otherwise exclude workers still navigating job transitions.
The Workplace Fairness Bill represents meaningful progress. Yet an inclusive and just society demands that we do not rest on our laurels, but to constantly ensure that dispute resolution mechanisms serve workers fairly, and that our laws reflect not merely regulatory compliance but a genuine commitment to worker protection.
I hope the Government can remain open to the refinements posed in my speech as well as those of my colleagues, as we work towards a fairer and more equitable employment landscape. Thank you.
