Review of Employment Act
The Employment Act was last reviewed in 2018. That review coincided with the Act's 50th anniversary. One of its more far-reaching amendments was to extend the Act's protections to 430,000 more workers, comprising Managers and Executives. It follows that the broadening of coverage makes the current review of the Employment Act more significant than previous iterations.
The Ministry of Manpower first announced its plans to review the Act at the Committee of Supply last year. Almost immediately, Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) moved quickly to caveat that the review should not (and I quote) "inadvertently mandate progressive employment practices that may reduce flexibilities for employers and undermine business competitiveness." Unquote
There have been little further announcements on the areas under review beyond the broad objectives which were announced when the tripartite workgroup first met in August last year. There has been some speculation of specific enhancements, including raising the minimum statutory annual leave entitlement. According to MOM, in 2022, more than 90% of full-time resident employees between 25 and 64 already receive more than the statutory minimum of 7 days' leave. Any increase through proposed amendments to the Act here would be akin to pushing against an open door if proposed amendments substantively amount to what is a common market practice.
Can the Minister share what deliberations have taken place thus far, and if there has been a significant gap in positions between the Ministry, the unions, and employer organisations such as SNEF? What areas of amendment have been scuttled or deferred to date in view of divergences in position? Will the Ministry consider a public consultation in parallel with tripartite negotiations given the significantly larger number of workers covered by the Employment Act today?
Moving forward, the Government should review its tripartite posture to lean on the side of workers more - particularly in today's employment landscape. As the Prime Minister observed in this year’s budget speech - we must always take care of our own.
One long-standing anomaly in the Act is the distinction between workmen and non-workmen — a distinction that has become arguably blurred in today's environment of AI, skills upgrading and job convergence. Are there plans work to achieve parity with respect to salary thresholds for workmen and non-workmen alike?
In addition, both the Act and the tripartite guidelines envisage the payment of retrenchment benefits. Previous MoM surveys indicate that in general, a very large number of companies - around 90% - are already able to pay a retrenchment benefits to the level of the tripartite guidelines. The time has come for these guidelines to be legislated as a norm in an advanced economy like Singapore - a manifestation of a basic Singapore standard for all our workers. Larger companies, those with more than 25 workers should be expected to pay more, at a minimum of one month for every year of service, which is the norm for unionised companies.
Based on MOM's own data on retrenchments, legislating for a reasonable quantum of retrenchment benefits that are already the overwhelming norm in Singapore, would not be an earth-shattering legislative development. However, it would be consistent with the objective of commitments like "every worker matters" and a "we-first society”. Can MOM confirm if retrenchment benefits are a subject under discussion as part of the current review of the Act?
