Mr Speaker, Sir,

The Workplace Fairness Bill 2024 represents a significant milestone in Singapore's commitment to creating equitable workplaces. This Bill codifies principles that have long been championed under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), giving them legal weight and enforceability. By addressing workplace discrimination, it sends a strong message that such discriminatory practices have no place in Singapore.

This Bill is also timely. It is not only a reflection of our shared values of inclusivity and fairness but also a testament to how fairness can enhance business competitiveness. Research from a Harvard Business Review 2022 article reveals that organizations prioritizing fairness experience up to a 26% increase in productivity. This Bill is not just about setting rules; it is about unlocking the potential of our workforce by fostering an environment where every individual can thrive.

Mr Speaker, this Bill achieves a commendable balance between promoting inclusivity and addressing the practical realities of businesses. It focuses on actionable and targeted measures, ensuring that businesses are supported even as we take steps to protect vulnerable groups.

For example, by applying its provision to employers with 25 or more employees, it acknowledges that SMEs, which make up 99% of all enterprises in Singapore, often lack the resources to implement extensive frameworks. By allowing smaller businesses more time to adapt, it ensures workplace fairness becomes a shared responsibility across businesses of all sizes.

Section 8 of the Bill also provides vital protections for vulnerable groups, including older employees, women with caregiving responsibilities, and persons with disabilities.

For example, the Bill facilitates measures such as installing ramps or creating accessible workstations for a software engineer with mobility challenges, while also supporting caregivers through flexible arrangements like telecommuting or staggered hours. These initiatives help employees stay productive while managing their responsibilities, fostering a more inclusive and adaptable workforce.

Mr Speaker, while the intent of the Bill is clear and noble, we must also recognize the genuine concerns of businesses, particularly SMEs. According to recently released SBF National Business Survey 2024, while business outlook has improved slightly, only 26% of businesses are confident about economic improvement in the year ahead, with 22% of businesses expecting conditions to worsen. Rising manpower costs, cited as the top challenge by 66% of businesses, further strain their ability to invest in fair employment practices.

SMEs face heightened challenges as they navigate rapid global changes while trying to sustain their operations with limited resources. Let me elaborate on 5 key challenges:

First, implementing the measures outlined in this Bill comes with costs. Setting up grievance-handling systems, for example, requires businesses to train staff, create reporting mechanisms, and document complaints. For smaller firms, these costs can range from $5,000 to $10,000 annually — significant sums for businesses already facing economic pressures.

Second, employers may also hesitate to hire individuals requiring significant accommodations, fearing operational disruptions or additional costs. This reluctance could inadvertently hinder the inclusion of those most in need of workplace fairness policies.

Third, Section 26 requires employers to demonstrate fair consideration for local candidates before hiring foreign talent. While this safeguards opportunities for Singaporeans, it can create challenges for industries experiencing acute talent shortages. For instance, in the technology sector, where roles such as software engineers, cybersecurity experts, and AI specialists are in high demand, the limited local talent pool may lead to significant project delays and missed business opportunities.

Forth, the anti-retaliation provisions under Section 28 are crucial to protecting employees who raise legitimate grievances. However, there is concern about potential misuse. For instance, an underperforming employee facing dismissal could file a frivolous discrimination complaint to avoid termination, even if the action was based on legitimate reason like poor performance. Such cases could increase administrative burdens on businesses and undermine team morale

Finally, many SMEs express concerns over “policy fatigue,” particularly as they are already navigating multiple regulatory requirements. These include the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF), implementing flexible work arrangements and enhanced parental leave guidelines. Adding new compliance obligations could stretch their resources further, particularly for businesses without dedicated HR functions.

To address these concerns while supporting the Bill’s objectives, I propose the 7 recommendations:

First, we need a clear and comprehensive implementation framework. It is vital to retain TAFEP’s role as the primary point of contact for workplace fairness complaints. Over the years, TAFEP has successfully championed conciliation, education, and mindset shifts, earning the trust of both employers and workers. MOM’s statutory enforcement powers, while necessary, should remain a last resort.

My concern is the transition to this new framework may create public confusion. Employees may bypass TAFEP and approach MOM prematurely, undermining the conciliation-first approach. Employers, on the other hand, may fear immediate enforcement actions without being given an opportunity for mediation.

To address these concerns, I propose a comprehensive public education campaign to clarify the process—TAFEP as the first point of contact, mediation as the second step, and MOM’s intervention as a final recourse for unresolved disputes. Establishing standardized SOPs for both employers and employees will further enhance transparency and consistency, and confidence in the system.

Possible feedback mechanisms could also be set up for employers and employees to share their experiences with the new legislation, informing future refinements of the Bill over time.

Second, to address concerns about the anti-retaliation provisions and to better support both employees and businesses, the Minister could consider introducing clearer definitions of 'good faith' to prevent misuse of the provisions. It is important to clarify what constitutes a failure to fulfil contractual obligations or subjecting an employee to detriment in employment, as well as outline the relative burdens of proof for all parties.

Including penalties for frivolous complaints and allowing employers to take documented disciplinary actions unrelated to complaints would help maintain fairness. Additionally, MOM could enhance TAFEP’s role to filter out frivolous claims during the initial triage process, streamlining the grievance resolution process and minimizing undue burdens on businesses

Third, a tiered compliance framework can be adopted that differentiates obligations based on business size. Large corporations with 250 or more employees should achieve full compliance within one year.  Medium-sized firms could have up to three years to adjust, while SMEs with fewer than 25 employees could fulfil lighter but meaningful requirements. This approach ensures that all businesses contribute to workplace fairness while considering their unique capacities.

Fourth, while MOM’s enforcement framework already categorizes breaches into Low, Moderate, and High severity levels, the distinctions between these categories remain unclear to businesses. Providing detailed guidelines on what constitutes each level of severity would offer greater clarity and confidence to employers. Furthermore, prioritizing education over penalties, particularly for first-time breaches, would allow businesses time to adapt while maintaining deterrence for repeat or severe violations.

Fifth, simplified compliance reporting should be introduced to ease administrative strain on SMEs. Pre-approved templates tailored for SMEs could reduce administrative overhead and help smaller firms navigate the new requirements more efficiently. Additionally, digital tools could also be introduced to streamline reporting processes.

Sixth, financial support is essential in fostering inclusive workplaces. The government has already demonstrated commendable foresight with initiatives such as the Job Redesign Grant, Open Door Programme, and Enabling Employment Credit, which help businesses accommodate persons with disabilities (PwDs) through workplace modifications and job redesign.

However, there is a continued need to shift mindsets and build capacity for inclusivity. I would like to propose expanding grants and subsidies to support diversity training, grievance system implementation, and inclusive hiring practices.

For example, the government could co-fund anti-discrimination training programs for HR personnel and provide subsidies for setting up grievance systems, particularly for smaller businesses that may lack the resources to implement these critical systems independently. These measures would not only ease financial burdens but also encourage businesses to prioritize workplace fairness and inclusivity.

Lastly, targeted measures are needed for industries facing acute manpower shortages. Sectors critical to Singapore’s long-term goals, such as manufacturing, which plays a key role in the Manufacturing 2030 ambitions, could benefit from targeted exemptions or expedited processes for hiring foreign talent. This would help these sectors address their constrained talent pools without compromising the broader principles of workplace fairness.

Mr Speaker, I want to acknowledge and express my understanding of the concerns raised by SAFE+ and other community advocates regarding the exclusion of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as protected characteristics. These voices are important, and their advocacy highlights the need for continued dialogue and progress toward greater inclusivity.

The Workplace Fairness Bill represents a significant first step in codifying anti-discrimination measures. While it does not yet encompass all forms of workplace discrimination, it establishes a foundational framework that can evolve to address broader concerns in the future.

Expanding protections prematurely, without addressing implementation challenges, could create unintended uncertainties for both employers and employees. By focusing on practical and actionable measures today, this Bill lays the groundwork for future enhancements, paving the way for a more inclusive workforce as society and businesses adapt and progress together. I look forward to continued collaboration to address these concerns in the journey ahead

Mr Speaker Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking the Ministry of Manpower and all parties involved for all the hard work put into this Bill. I extend my strong support for this Bill. Thank you.