Speech on Workplace Fairness Bill by NCMP Leong Mun Wai

In the Parliament session on the 8th January 2025, NCMP Leong Mun Wai welcomed the Workplace Fairness Bill as a step toward addressing workplace discrimination but raised concerns about its adequacy in protecting Singaporeans’ job prospects. Highlighting issues like wage disparities, underemployment, and exemptions, he called for stronger measures and a holistic approach to ensure fair and meaningful employment for all Singaporeans.


Mr Speaker Sir, 

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has been speaking up on workplace discrimination issues faced by Singaporeans since our founding in 2019. My maiden speech in this 14th Parliament on 1 September 2020 focused on workplace discrimination of Singaporeans vis-à-vis foreign talent.

Job security has been a hot issue since the General Election in 2011 or GE2011.  Prior to that election, the Government gave out very large numbers of PRs, peaking at almost 80,000 new PRs in 2008, before reducing to the 30,000 a year today.

There was widespread anger when the Government released the Population White Paper in 2013, partly because many Singaporeans felt that the influx of new migrants have been a threat to their jobs, and more migrants would worsen this threat. Until today, many still feel this way.

Workplace discrimination and anxieties over foreign workers again became a top concern during GE2020 amid job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The situation at that time was not good with some 1,200 companies put on the watchlist of the Fair Consideration Framework for potentially discriminatory hiring practices[1].

A study by AWARE also showed that workplace discrimination is widespread, with about 1 in 2 Singaporeans facing such discrimination between 2017 and 2022[2]. A survey by the Ministry of Manpower in 2023 found that race, age, and nationality were the top 3 grounds of discrimination[3].

In his National Day Message in 2021, then-PM Lee admitted that the Government has to adjust its policies to manage the quality, numbers and concentrations of work pass holders. He later announced at the National Day Rally that the Fair Employment Guidelines would be enshrined into law. 

It has been more than three years since then. The Workplace Fairness Bill we are debating today is long-awaited.

It begs the question as to why the Government has taken so long to table this Bill when it should be the Government’s top concern to ensure that Singaporeans have fair access to employment opportunities.  

PSP welcomes this Workplace Fairness Bill, which protects workers from discrimination on the ground of 11 clearly-designated protected characteristics. However, we have some concerns and reservations.

Firstly, whether this new law will be sufficient to protect Singaporeans from discriminatory practices at the workplace.  This should be the paramount goal of this Bill;

Secondly, will the exemptions granted in the new law reduce its effectiveness; and

Lastly, what are the plans to extend the coverage of the Bill to platform workers and expand the list of protected characteristics in future.

Nationality

Firstly, on the protection of Singaporean workers. 

Over the years, we have heard many complaints on the ground from Singaporeans who feel aggrieved that foreigners have been preferred for jobs.

PSP notes that “nationality” is one of the characteristics protected under Clause 9 of the proposed Bill, and Clause 22 says that “it is not discrimination for an employer to make an employment decision that adversely affects an individual if that individual is neither a Singapore citizen nor a permanent resident of Singapore”.  This is a clear indication that preference can be given to Singaporeans and PRs.

But how did we reach a point where we need to explicitly state that preference for Singaporean workers are not considered discrimination?  When and how did Singaporeans lose their first right to jobs in their own country?  Why can’t the Bill stipulates directly that all else being equal, Singaporeans should have the first right over a foreigner to any job in Singapore. I think the Government owes an answer to Singaporeans especially those who have been displaced and underemployed in the last two decades. 

And like the Minister has said, this Bill is not a panacea. It has to be backed up by other policies which remove the causes or incentives for discrimination.  One example is to ensure that there is no wage disparity between a Singaporean and a foreign worker. 

We can manage the level of wages in the economy to maintain our competitiveness but we should never allow a wage disparity to exist that disadvantages the Singaporean workers.

As a result we have urged the Government on many occasions to introduce a CPF equalization levy of $1,200 per month on EPs. That is the only way to stop employers from favouring cheaper foreign workers over Singaporean workers.

PSP welcome quality foreign workers who have skillsets that are not readily available in Singapore to be recruited to enrich and complement our workforce but not cheaper foreign workers who only displace our more expensive Singaporean workers.

Ageism

Similarly, while age is stipulated as a protected characteristic in the Bill, this may not be enough to eliminate the temptation for employers to substitute older and more expensive Singaporean PMETs with cheaper foreign manpower to boost the bottom lines. 

We have to back up the Bill with additional measures to strengthen protections of our older workers. These measures may take the form of job support subsidies for older workers which can be funded by the foreign levies collected.

Businesses with less than 25 workers

Next, I will discuss how the exemptions granted may reduce the effectiveness of the new law. 

Under Clause 4(1) of the Bill, the Act will not apply to businesses with fewer than 25 workers. This same exemption is already used in the COMPASS system. 

During the Committee of Supply in 2023, I highlighted that this exemption could provide a potential loophole that will allow larger companies to set up subsidiaries that can discriminate based on nationality, for example, by employing one local and 24 foreign PMETs.

Alternatively, foreigners could partner locals to set up small companies to supply manpower to our bigger companies hence depriving Singaporeans of good jobs in the bigger companies. 

PSP understands the need to support SMEs in this transition but we hope the Minister can assure us that this exemption will be strictly enforced and not abused as a conduit to increase the supply of cheaper foreign manpower.

Contracts for Service

We have the same concerns about exempting contracts for service under Clause 4(3) of the Bill. This exemption means that a service buyer could include discriminatory provisions in its bid document or contract with its service provider. 

Hence, Clauses 4(1) and 4(3) could potentially be used together by a big company to contract SMEs employing less than 25 persons to supply it with work pass holders and even from one single nationality.  

Hence we hope the MOM will diligently monitor these exemptions and ensure that they are not abused. 

Platform workers

Finally, we would like to address how the coverage of this Bill can be expanded. 

Under Clause 4(3) of the Bill, the law will exclude platform workers.

During the debate on the Platform Workers Bill last September, I and other Members including the Leader of Opposition and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim have spoken about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions.

This concern is especially pertinent in the short-term until we reach a point where the majority of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF.

Platform workers may now enjoy more legal protections under the Platform Workers Act, but they will not have access to the remedies available to employees under the Workplace Fairness Bill if they experience discriminatory treatment while working for the platforms.

PSP calls on the Government to study whether we can similarly cover platform workers under the new law within the next two years.  

Discrimination on the grounds of a protected characteristic of a relative

Additionally, we find it hard to understand the intention of Clause 17(3) of the Bill. 

Can the Minister explain whether this Clause 17(3) allows an employer to dismiss a Worker A on the ground of the race or religion of A’s husband? 

The Leader of Opposition has also raised this yesterday and I look forward to a clearer explanation from the Minister later.

The Minister has said that this Bill will be constantly reviewed but we hope that the Government will commit today to periodically reviewing the Bill after it is passed, every two years, to ensure that the protected characteristics are kept up to date and to keep up with any new types of discrimination that may become prevalent. 

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, in conclusion.

I have said in my maiden speech in 2020 that “a job is the foundation of human dignity”. Work is fundamental in providing a person with meaning in life.  That is why I have spoken out repeatedly about job security and workplace fairness.

The Government’s policies should communicate to all employers in no uncertain terms that all else being equal, Singaporeans will have the first right to a job.  We need additional policies to oblige employers to justify why a foreigner is favoured over a Singaporean when both have the skills to do the same job. 

For example, in Australia, employers can sponsor foreign workers only if they can demonstrate that they cannot find an Australian citizen or permanent resident with the skills and experience needed for the job[4]. Similarly, in Canada, most employers need to conduct a Labour Market Impact Assessment to determine that there is a need for a temporary foreign worker and that no Canadian citizens or permanent residents are available before they can hire a temporary foreign worker.[5]

This Bill is a landmark piece of legislation for Singapore.  I acknowledge the hard work put in by the Minister and his ministry.  But its real worth is in substantially improving the job prospects of Singaporeans in general and protecting more vulnerable workers from workplace discrimination. If that is done, it will be a big step towards realising a harmonious and cohesive society.

I have been actively engaging Singaporeans, especially in the west of Singapore, for the past four years as an NCMP. A consistent message has emerged from these engagements. It is increasingly difficult for Singaporeans to find a job that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. It appears that rising underemployment among Singaporeans is a growing menace to us as a nation.

The Government needs to do a lot more and not rest of its laurels by just focusing on the low unemployment numbers. The low unemployment number may be camouflaging serious underemployment. 

A whole-of-government approach is needed to reset our education, training, manpower and immigration policies, so that Singaporeans can have stable jobs that are commensurate with their skills and aspirations.

We must prevent underemployment from taking root in Singapore or the Singapore we know today may become extinct in the near future.

We must have a Parliament that heeds this message and a Government that implements effective manpower policies for Singaporeans. 

Sir, notwithstanding the concerns and reservations that I have expressed today, PSP supports the Bill.

For Country For People.


[1] https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/2020/0805-another-47-employers-placed-on-the-fair-consideration-framework-watchlist

[2] 1 in 2 experienced workplace discrimination in Singapore over the past five years, with race, age and gender discrimination most common | AWARE Singapore

[3] More job seekers cite discrimination over age and nationality in 2023: MOM survey | The Straits Times

[4] https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/employing-and-sponsoring-someone/sponsoring-workers/learn-about-sponsoring

[5] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/work-canada/hire-temporary-foreign/find-need-labour-market-impact-assessment.html#do_you_nedd_LMIA


Find out more about the team driving the Progress Singapore Party

Scroll to Top
Stay Updated

Subscribe to our Newsletter