We’re enshrining workplace fairness in law. Let’s go further

MY OVER-A-DECADE-LONG lobbying in Parliament stems from the devastating impact that workplace discrimination has on employees if discrimination is not prohibited.

Apart from shattering the rice bowls and livelihoods of employees and their families, an episode of discrimination also crushes the hopes, dreams and confidence of employees. Some suffer from mental health issues, while others question their ability to find a new job.

The Workplace Fairness Bill passed in January 2025 (the First Bill), together with the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill (the Second Bill) scheduled to be debated in Parliament this November (collectively, the “Bills”) represent the tripartite partners’ commitment to securing a fair working environment for all employees in Singapore. The National Trades Union Congress and its unions support both Bills because they serve to enhance workers’ protection against discrimination at the workplace.

With the passing of the First Bill, and now, the tabling of the Second Bill in Parliament, we have indeed made significant progress in this area. However, we cannot rest on our laurels.

Having read the Second Bill, I have the following queries:

First, it is not clear how damages for an action for discrimination are quantified. Will discrimination based on different protected characteristics and different circumstances warrant different compensation amounts? If so, the publication of a guide on this by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) after the Second Bill is passed would be useful.

Second, will judgments be published? While we understand the need for private proceedings to preserve workplace harmony, this should be balanced against the need for development of case law and jurisprudence.

Third, the Second Bill seeks to expand the scope and monetary jurisdiction of the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) from hearing salary-related and wrongful dismissal claims to hearing workplace discrimination claims of up to S$250,000.

Even though judges will play an active role in ECT proceedings, what more can be done to assist and educate the less-educated claimants? Having publications, guides, and infographics on the same would be useful.

Fourth, as a remedy, employees should be allowed to opt for either damages or directions that employers undertake certain measures to rectify the breach. For instance, if an employee has been denied a training opportunity based on a protected characteristic, he or she should be given the option of either damages, or a direction that the employer provides him or her with the relevant training opportunity. This provides employees with the option to decide which remedy best suits them, in their circumstances.

These practical details are critical to the Bills’ success. The new framework, if passed and established, will provide workers with fair recourse, while resolving workplace discrimination more expeditiously and affordably at the ECT. To preserve Singapore’s harmonious employment scene, parties must attempt mediation before their disputes may be heard in the courts.

As we await the parliamentary debate of the Second Bill, I am reminded of the many late-night negotiations and discussions that the tripartite partners have held for the development of the Bills. I am grateful for their support, dedication and commitment to this journey and I look forward to the passing of the Second Bill.

That said, the rest of the journey towards achieving fairness in the workplace requires more than just legislation, but a change in deep-seated beliefs, and a firm commitment to uphold workplace fairness practically because every worker matters.

Let us therefore work hand in hand to make workplace fairness more than just an aspiration, but our reality – by ensuring the new framework provides clear damages, allows for the development of case law and jurisprudence, educates all claimants, and offers meaningful remedies.

The writer is assistant secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress