Mr Speaker, through work, many of us reinforce our sense of dignity. Pope Francis said, and I quote, “work is fundamental to the dignity of a person…it gives one the ability to maintain oneself, one’s family and to contribute to the growth of one’s own nation.”
The Workplace Fairness Bill matters because it opens doors for more persons to access work opportunities regardless of background and personal characteristics. As important, it upholds every person’s right to be treated fairly and with respect because it strengthens protections against discrimination and empowers workers to seek remedial action from their employers directly without fear of retaliation.
On these grounds, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Clarification on countering indirect discrimination
While I acknowledge the Bill as a concrete step in the right direction, I seek clarity on how the Bill would be implemented to counter facets of discrimination in traditional and new workspaces.
I also seek clarity on how the Bill would deliver sustained positive impact for less-advantaged communities that have the odds stacked up against them in the job market and the workplace.
First, Clause 28 of the Bill outlines the prohibition against retaliation. Could the Minister explain what constitutes “subjecting the employee to any other detriment in relation to the employee’s employment”?
Next, the Bill outlines what constitutes direct workplace discrimination in respect of the protected characteristics.
However, the Bill leaves out what are reasonable accommodations that must be put in place to facilitate employment outcomes. Clarity on the provision of reasonable accommodations would pave the way for more Singaporeans to be purposefully engaged in work, to develop viable careers and livelihood, and to contribute economically to Singapore. Fellow Parliamentarians such as Mayor Denise Phua, Mr Ong Hua Han and Ms Rachel Ong had spoken extensively yesterday about the need for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities and offered suggestions to nudge more employers into action. I stand in support.
In this regard, could Minister outline how the Ministry plans to normalise for employers to make reasonable accommodations that cater to the different needs of different demographics in the workforce? Such expansion would be in tandem with Singapore’s Enabling Masterplan 2030 that gives a big push for inclusive hiring.
Next, advocates for persons with disabilities such as Po Chien who I spoke with had surfaced concern about less-enlightened employers working around the law by asking for a candidate’s National Service status or refusing to accept reasonable accommodations. Such concern is shared by those impacted by Clause 10 of the Bill on the protected characteristics for sex where characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity were excluded. These communities seek assurance that the Ministry would make every effort to guard against less direct methods of discriminating and protect those whose employment opportunities are undermined as a result.
Could the Minister share the recourse available to these individuals with grounds to suspect that he or she has been discriminated by an employer because of his or her disability or sexual orientation and/or gender identity? What measures would the Ministry consider putting in place to deter such forms of discrimination?
Protection for Platform Workers
In the context of new workspaces, over 70,000 individuals are regular platform workers and are now protected under the Platform Workers Act that has taken effect from January 1. Nonetheless, I note that platform work arrangement is excluded from the Bill. This is despite the efforts to differentiate platform workers from other self-employed workers because of the employee-like characteristics of platform workers.
Some platform workers are from less-advantaged communities. They became platform workers because of the limitations they have. They asked if the Bill could be extended to cover platform workers and protect platform workers against discrimination by platform algorithms.
Because the Platform Workers Act imposes financial obligations on platform operators, these platform workers worry that platform operators would favour workers the operators deem as more productive and thus tighten control on who is allowed to onboard the platform and to participate in platform work. Such control is typically executed by platform algorithms that manage platform job allocation, fares, and supervision.
Thus, biases or preferences introduced deliberately or inadvertently by operators or picked up and internalised by platform algorithms would factor into the platform’s algorithmic decision-making that could consistently deprioritise a particular worker in job allocation and/ or fares or prioritise some workers over others.
Such actions hurt the livelihoods of affected platform workers. Workers ask if this Bill would grant them the right and avenue to seek fairness. Could the Ministry consider expanding the Bill to cover the platform workspace and to provide protection to platform workers impacted by such algorithmic discrimination?
In the debate on the Platform Workers Bill, I had recommended for the government to require platform operators to apply AI Verify to the platform algorithms. Doing so would motivate platform operators from the get-go to design and build AI systems that are aligned with the 11 AI ethics principles. Given the push for fairer workplaces, would the Ministry consider mandating platform operators to apply AI Verify to their platform algorithms and for operators to address gaps flagged out by AI Verify?
Apart from platform work, technology has also evolved recruitment practices. It is now common for companies to advertise their job postings on social media platforms. To maximise advertising spend, recruiters would typically set limitations on the “target audience” receiving the job post. This inadvertently narrows the audience for the job post to certain segments of the population.
In the absence of guardrails, employers could target by options that describe or relate to the protected characteristics. In respect of Clause 19 of the Bill on advertising, what are measures that the Ministry plans to undertake with social media platforms to prevent employers from exploiting social media to engage in discriminatory job advertising?
Such measures matter to Singapore’s push for non-discrimination and fairness in a digital economy.
Education and Implementation Readiness
To prepare for this debate, I had spoken with different stakeholders and members. Many had suggested for efforts to be directed to educate and equip managers and human resource practitioners because these individuals would be much involved in implementing the Bill at the workplace.
Although TAFEP and tripartite bodies have been active in educating the public on fair employment and hiring practices, there are employers that are less familiar with TAFEP’s work and the discussions leading up to the drafting of this Bill. These employers might have missed or deliberately ignored TAFEP’s messages and thus, would not have impressed upon their managers and HR team the importance of fair workplace practices. These employers could also continue to hold on to stereotypes that perpetuate biases and unfair workplace practices.
To give a sense of the potential size of challenge of dismantling such stereotypes and biases, allow me to share a personal example from my capacity as a unionist: to this day, I have union members who were told to terminate their union membership if they accepted a promotion to executive roles. This was told to them by their manager or HR. These management and HR had also communicated to staff members that executives cannot join the union.
Such myths have been widely propagated in the hospitality sectors where I am now serving in a unionist capacity. Despite such myths being baseless and in fact, unlawful given that it is an offence under the Industrial Relations Act to induce persons not to join trade unions or platform work associations, it remains an uphill task for the union leaders and I to debunk these myths. Therefore, I cannot overstate the need for the Government to be relentless in its efforts, to level up the awareness and implementation capabilities of managers and HR practitioners.
In this regard, could the Minister share the Ministry’s assessment of the level of readiness of companies to implement the Bill in 2026, if the Bill is passed? Given the scale of the implementation of the Bill, how does the government plan to work with stakeholders to level up managers and human resource practitioners by 2026?
Conclusion
I would like to conclude this speech on a hopeful note. Some of us might have caught Wicked, a recent movie release and the highest-grossing film adaptation of a Broadway musical. Wicked featured a wheelchair-bound actress, Marissa Bode. Allow me to share a quote from Jon M. Chu, Wicked’s director. He said, “creating the set was “one of the most enlightening and beautiful processes I’ve ever gone through,” adding, “You need accessibility, not just when we’re on set behind the scenes, but you need to present accessibility in Oz itself.”
I commend Mr Chu; his mindset and approach must be the desired states which the Workplace Fairness Bill is seeking to steer employers, colleagues, and employees to embrace and aspire towards. The Bill is a milestone for Singapore. As important, it is a beacon of hope and resilience for less-advantaged communities.
NTUC and the unions have been championing fair and inclusive workplaces. This Bill gives us firmer ground to work closely with employers and tripartite stakeholders to pave the way for more workplaces, to be fair and inclusive.
The Bill also gives individuals the courage to surface discriminatory practices that they might experience or come across. NTUC and the unions stand ready to support members in these situations.
In closing, I call upon this House and fellow Singaporeans to unite in purpose and action so that all working people regardless of their background, can be empowered to uphold their dignity, to the right of work.
