Mr Speaker,
Today’s Workplace Fairness Bill is a long-awaited law that has clearly gone through many rounds of development since it was first announced in 2021, so I am happy we finally have it up for debate.
The Workers’ Party’s 2020 manifesto calls for explicit anti-discrimination legislation. This is because we felt that the TAFEP guidelines and enforcement via restriction of access to work permits are not enough to stamp out discriminatory practices. Moreover, we believed that formal legislation would provide clarity for both employers and employees, and Singaporeans in general, because laws don’t just provide mechanisms but are also signals of our society’s generally accepted moral intuitions.
The PAP disagreed. Then-Manpower Minister Josephine Teo said in September 2020 that “it might not result in better employment outcomes for vulnerable groups,” and asked if we might be more interested in form or substance. She further said that Singapore has better employment statistics for women and seniors than some other developed nations, and the threat of getting work pass privileges revoked was an extremely serious one. However, given the use of the term “fairness” in today’s bill, I am glad that the Government has come around to the view that signals and ethical stances are important in tackling discrimination in the workplace, and above all, it is important to legislate to outlaw such practices as illegal.
In my speech today, I would like to make some queries to understand why the Government decided to scope the legislation to: 1. exclude discrimination outside the workplace, 2. exclude indirect discrimination, 3. exclude several other protected characteristics the public has called for protections on, and 4. exclude several categories of workers.
The second part of the speech will cover what I believe to be a clear and major gap in this bill: discrimination via denial of reasonable accommodations.
Discrimination outside the workplace
On non-workplace discrimination, I understand that while this may feel novel in the Singapore context, are we simply taking a conservative approach to deciding and prioritising practicable applications of anti-discrimination legislation? Is the Government exploring whether it can legislate against significant and harmful discrimination in interactions that bear similar dynamics to employment, such as in the use of private and public services? For instance, the purchasing of goods and services on gig work platforms could be a scenario where discrimination takes place. Should landlords be allowed to discriminate against those from a certain racial background or with a specific family size? The UK Equality Act specifically prohibits discrimination in the provision of services, in access to premises and education. And while of course we do not advocate the wholesale copying of such laws, nor do we claim that these other jurisdictions are utopias without their problems, it seems a missed opportunity for us to legislate to outlaw discriminatory practices more generally.
Indirect Discrimination
Secondly, the Tripartite Committee deliberately excluded indirect discrimination in a move that would reduce legal obligations on employers and purportedly reduce uncertainty for both employers and employees.
However, could the Minister clarify if the Government sees the lack of coverage of indirect discrimination as a problem, and how would we effectively address what some might call “nationality-based” discrimination against Singapore workers. For instance, it is often a practical impossibility to prove such alleged nationality discrimination. Workers are often only able to cite anecdotes about foreign HR managers being biased towards candidates or colleagues from their own country, while statistics showing larger-than-proportionate representation from some countries can be brushed off as coincidence.
Another concern that has been raised is the use of National Service PES status to potentially discriminate against male candidates with non-visible disabilities such as intellectual disabilities. While the Tripartite guidelines do mention that employers should not suggest preference based on National Service liabilities, it is unclear whether they can ask about PES status. PES status can after all be used as a blunt tool to assess if the job applicant may have a medical condition or neurodivergent condition.
Again, indirect discrimination is prohibited in several other developed jurisdictions like the UK, and indeed their Equality Act was considered in the Tripartite Committee’s review. Are such claims really that complex to introduce legislation for? And if prohibiting indirect discrimination is meant to be left covered by TAFEP guidelines, when will these guidelines be made available?
After all, our society appreciates that indirect discrimination is unacceptable. For example, there was significant public outcry after a hijab-wearing Muslim worker was asked to remove her hijab in order to work as a promoter at a departmental store just a few years ago. This is a classic example of indirect discrimination, where a neutral policy about uniform and appropriate dress disproportionately affects certain groups – in this case, Muslim women.
Another example of indirect discrimination in disability context is a requirement for candidates to participate in a phone interview for a data entry role. This requirement disproportionately affects deaf and mute candidates who are not able to complete the phone interview satisfactorily and are disqualified as a result.
Such cases are precisely why indirect discrimination is recognised—and regulated—in many developed jurisdictions, including the UK, the EU, and Australia. The principle is that if an apparently neutral criterion or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a group defined by race, religion, gender, or other protected traits, the onus should be on the employer to demonstrate a genuine necessity for that criterion. Our Bill, however, remains silent on this front, which will permit covert biases to continue unaddressed.
We should not underestimate the significance of closing this gap. Those who rely on statutory protections are often the most vulnerable segments of our workforce—employees with disabilities, lower-income workers, older workers, women who juggle caregiving responsibilities, and those who start with less advantages in working life. If we only address blatant, overt acts of discrimination, we inadvertently leave behind these “hidden” or systemic patterns, which can be just as corrosive to social harmony and economic security.
Other characteristics that are well-known sources of discrimination
Next, several characteristics that are well-known sources of discrimination are not covered. For instance, those who have chronic medical conditions like arthritis and regular migraines are not covered. It appears to me that the Bill’s coverage of intellectual disabilities appears to indicate that learning disabilities are not covered. I base this on SG Enable’s definition of intellectual disability as mainly established by a person having an IQ of 70 and below or a feature of medical conditions like Down Syndrome, which is quite different from learning disabilities such as dyslexia – which the Dyslexia Association of Singapore estimates to affect around 10% of the population in Singapore.
Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are also explicitly excluded in the Bill, which seems at odds with the Minister for Home Affairs’ statements that “gay people deserve dignity, respect, acceptance” and “do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation” during his opening speech in 2022 when this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and attendant amendments to the Constitution. This is notable as researchers at organisations such as NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health and AWARE have found more than half of LGBTQ persons have experienced discrimination at the workplace, and that levels are generally higher than those who do not identify as LGBTQ. This concern about employment has also been raised by LGBTQ individuals to party colleagues previously, sharing that they have experienced discrimination from employers who decline to hire them on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
This is disturbing, as we should aim to harness the contributions of all Singaporeans. Even if we were to not include these characteristics in the legislation, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister about how the ministry plans to address such types of discrimination experienced by fellow Singaporeans, particularly as it is not currently explicitly covered by TAFEP guidelines.
Exclusion of several categories of workers
Fourthly, I would like the Government to clarify why it and the Tripartite Committee excluded large classes of workers from coverage under the bill. Under Section 4(3), platform workers are explicitly excluded from the protections from discrimination. Foreign domestic workers also appear to not be covered because domestic workers are not covered by the Employment Act.
Mr Speaker, these clarifications on exclusions are important because this bill took 3.5 years of development and many consultations with employers. It is also not a novel point of law, with many developed jurisdictions and international law to take reference from. Therefore these decisions must have been deliberate and the Government should be open with why they were taken in order. I am not casting aspersions, but hope that we can have better clarity and understanding of the thought process and timing behind how the Government intends to ensure that these groups too are eventually afforded legal protections against discriminatory behaviour.
Working quickly to introduce guidelines for reasonable accommodations
Finally, I would like to speak on the need for reasonable accommodations, which are not covered by the Bill. Reasonable accommodations are necessary, appropriate, and practical adjustments made to society to make it fairer and more accessible to people with disabilities, with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ definition highlighting that the point is to ensure they can exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others. Singapore is a party to the CRPD, where states recognised the need to ensure provision of reasonable accommodations and said they would take all appropriate steps to ensure their provision.
To this, the Minister mentioned that the tripartite partners are working on an advisory on the provision of reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, and as of May 2024, the Government’s view is that the difficulty in clearly defining what constitutes reasonable accommodations could result in heavy litigation, citing what has happened in some other countries.
But disability advocates have highlighted that reasonable accommodations are by far their number one hurdle when it comes to employment. They are essential to people with disabilities participating in the workforce. Given the Government’s own target to increase the employment rate of persons with disabilities to 40% by 2030, I believe that this is a key policy lever to ensure that people with disabilities have a fair chance in joining the workforce and thriving at work.
Three main questions arise from this:
- Considering that the Government has tabled the WFL and acknowledged the lack of teeth of the TAFEP guidelines, what recourse can persons with disabilities expect if their employers fail or refuse to comply with the tripartite advisory (if any at all)?
- Will the Government commit to a timeline to recognising the denial of reasonable accommodations as a prohibited form of discrimination under the WFA within the next five years?
- As a matter of international law, does the Government consider Singapore to be compliant with our obligations under the CRPD if we do not legally recognise a right to reasonable accommodations? If so, how does it reconcile its position with the views of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the contrary?
As the Government has resisted the call to legislate reasonable accommodations, how then does it propose to explore how reasonable accommodations can be mandated – and not just through an advisory which can be ignored. Could this mean developing policy mechanisms with a carrot-and-stick approach for employers to provide reasonable accommodations such as outlined below?
Employers should be convinced about the value of having a genuine, interactive process upon receiving any request for accommodation – something which has already been introduced in December 2024 with the Flexi-Work Arrangements. Like FWA requests, this would entail timely acknowledgement of employee requests and good-faith exploration of workable solutions. When a request is deemed impractical, employers should be required to provide written explanations or propose alternatives. Such a mutual dialogue builds trust, helps mitigate disputes, and ensures that both parties collaborate to arrive at sensible, balanced arrangements.
Establishing what “undue hardship” for employers will also be helpful in guiding employers as to when a requested accommodation becomes unworkable. Factors such as an employer’s size, resources and potential operational impact must be taken into account, and should also take into account existing subsidies or supportive programmes.
In the meantime, the upcoming advisory should be made as effective as possible with concrete plans for uptake, targeting companies and industries that are the least likely to be providing reasonable accommodations. The advisory must not be just preaching to the converted. The advisory should also have a basic definition of what a “reasonable accommodation” is – taking guidance from the UN CRPD that Singapore has ratified.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a welcome move. It demonstrates that we, as a society, are prepared to take a stronger stance against discrimination. But the Bill excludes significant scenarios of non-workplace discrimination, offers narrow definitions of discrimination that leave out indirect and associational forms, and leaves entire groups — such as platform workers, migrant domestic workers, and people with certain disabilities — without clear legislative protection.
Crucially, we risk creating a law that the public might view as tokenistic rather than genuinely transformative. And if people lose faith that this legislation can protect them, a deeper disillusionment sets in, where they feel that systemic inequalities cannot be solved. Any sub-par results may ironically confirm the Government’s prior argument that legislation might be ‘only form’, so we must ensure it has real substance. We must ensure that our laws are truly robust, that they address real-world discrimination comprehensively, and that the Government remains open to future expansions of its scope.
I hope that we will address these gaps as a matter of priority, to consider future amendments that might strengthen protection for the groups left out, and especially to ensure that reasonable accommodations are not relegated to a mere footnote. Only then can we confidently say we have a Workplace Fairness Bill that is both firm in principle and forceful in practice.
Thank you.