Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Sir, the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) will be important in ensuring that certain groups do not experience discrimination at the workplace. I would like to share views on several key areas.
First, the Tripartite Committee recommended that WFL only cover direct discrimination. This means that workers may still be exposed to indirect discrimination, discrimination-related harassment, as well as discrimination by association and perception.
The laws of many countries already prohibit all these forms of discrimination, and the Tripartite Committee’s recommendations are inconsistent with our obligations under international law, including Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which require us to prohibit all forms of discrimination.
TAFEP, which is meant to run alongside WFL, also do not address the types of discrimination mentioned above. As a first step, will it be made clear that all of these different forms of discrimination are prohibited under the guidelines?
Will MOM also commit to a timeline to update WFL to protect Singaporeans from all forms of discrimination at the workplace in the next five years?
On grievance handling, the processes in WFL must be inclusive and accessible to all who may face barriers when seeking redress, whether because workers have disabilities or have difficulties navigating a perceived intimidating tribunal system, in a language they are not familiar or comfortable with, MOM must pay attention to their particular needs to ensure that they are able to exercise their rights under WFL on an equal basis as others.
This also extends to the mandatory mediation and Employment Claims Tribunal. More needs to be done to ensure that workers who face barriers are able to access justice if they have been discriminated against at the workplace.
The Committee further recommended an expansive approach to prohibit all acts done to victimise an individual who has reported their employer for workplace discrimination. However, are workers protected from retaliation for reporting forms of discrimination that are not prohibited under WFL? Can MOM clarify if the WFL’s prohibition against retaliation would also protect employees who report their employers to TAFEP for forms of discrimination that are not prohibited under WFL?
Next, on the gender pay gap, I was disappointed that WFL does not include any mechanism to address this. Other developed economies have taken steps to legislate salary and transparency to address the gender pay gap. I reiterate the Workers’ Party’s manifesto’s call, that employers with 10 or more employees should be required to report to MOM the gender pay gap for the same job description. This information must be made publicly available in aggregate form. Only with such publicly available basic data on a regular basis could we have a better idea of the problem and move to close the gender wage gap.
On information to be provided by jobseekers, MOM has accepted the Committee’s recommendation to prohibit the use of words or phrases in job advertisements that indicate a preference for a protected characteristic. But we can include the prohibition of asking for other information, such as last drawn salary, relationship and NS PES status.
An employer should be exempted from this prohibition, only if such information is a genuine and reasonable job requirement, a concept already used in the Committee’s final report. The burden should be on the potential employer to explain why such personal information is needed when requesting the information.
Finally, for reasonable accommodation, the Tripartite Committee recommended that this be covered by an advisory instead of legislation. However, many countries already recognise the right to reasonable accommodations and the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has also called on Singapore to adopt legal provisions to recognise the denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination, not just in the employment context, but in all areas of life.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): First, we recognise the importance of fair workplaces. This is why the Government accepted the recommendation by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness to introduce a new Workplace Fairness Legislation. This will further strengthen protections against discrimination and provide greater assurance to workers who wish to report grievances. We note Ms He Ting Ru’s views and we look forward to discussing this Bill robustly in the House in time to come.
The Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Ms He Ting Ru’s call for employers to be mandated to report their gender pay gap regularly may not be the best way to address this issue. It may hurt women’s employability if employers choose to hire fewer women to boost their gender pay gap numbers. Countries, such as Canada, which require such reporting have an adjusted pay gap of about 8%, higher than Singapore’s 6%. We should and will continue to focus on helping more women take on good jobs and fulfil their career potential.
As Miss Rachel Ong and Ms He Ting Ru highlighted, it is also important to enable persons with disabilities to undertake meaningful jobs that make good use of their skills.
One way is by providing them with reasonable accommodation at the workplace. MOM will work with NTUC and SNEF to develop a Tripartite Advisory to guide employers on modifying jobs and workplaces to support persons with disabilities. We encourage employers to embark on such efforts, including tapping on existing support, such as SG Enable’s Open Door Programme Job Redesign Grant to do so. More details on the Tripartite Advisory will be released when ready.
Ministry of Manpower
4 March 2024
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=budget-2369
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 