MPs raise concerns over indirect discrimination, ageism during debate on Workplace Fairness Bill
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 08 Jan 2025
Author: Sharon Salim
The Workplace Fairness Legislation will retain the flexibility for employers to hire workers based on skills that support their business needs.
Job seekers and employees will have greater protection against discrimination on grounds like age and nationality through a proposed law to ensure fairness in the workplace, Manpower Minister Tan See Leng told Parliament on Jan 7.
At the same time, the Workplace Fairness legislation (WFL) will retain the flexibility for employers to hire workers based on skills that support their business needs, he added.
“Even as we take this next step in our workplace fairness journey, please also let me emphasise upfront that the WFL is not a panacea,” he said.
“It is a measured approach that seeks to preserve our current workplace norms, and guard against divisions in our workplaces and society,” he added.
Over the four-hour-long debate on the first Bill in the legislation, 14 MPs raised concerns such as documenting evidence of bias, the economic impact of ageism, and the lack of coverage of indirect discrimination.
Several People’s Action Party MPs, including Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar GRC) and Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang), spoke about the need to tackle age discrimination in the workplace.
Ms Yeo recounted speaking to a retrenched 62-year-old worker, who told her how, during a job interview, the interviewer made a comment that he was the same age as her father.
This gave the impression that he was too senior, both in age and experience, for the role.
Mr Yip noted that many senior workers still experience overt discrimination and remarks about being too old for the job, and being offered fewer training opportunities.
“The real challenge lies in detection and resolution,” he said, adding that many senior workers hesitated to approach human resources departments, fearing they would be labelled “troublemakers”.
In the debate, Mr Heng, who is NTUC deputy secretary-general, also emphasised the economic importance of leveraging the experience of older workers amid a shrinking labour force.
He called for employers to be more vigilant against ageist bias and other barriers that might affect older job seekers and workers.
“Even not-so-old workers, like those retrenched in their 40s or 50s from these industries, may struggle to find new employment opportunities due to biases in recruitment and hiring practices,” he said.
Workers’ Party MPs He Ting Ru and Louis Chua (Sengkang GRC) sought clarifications on the lack of coverage of indirect discrimination practices.
Mr Chua noted that examples of indirect discrimination may include working hours that unnecessarily disadvantage employees with children, or an attire policy that unreasonably discriminates against employees of a particular racial or religious group.
Ms He said an example of indirect discrimination could be the use of the national service Physical Employment Standard (PES) status to potentially discriminate against male candidates with non-visible disabilities such as intellectual disabilities or neurodivergent conditions.
“It is unclear whether employers can ask about PES status, as it can after all be used as a blunt tool to assess if the job applicant has a medical or neurodivergent condition,” she said.
On the topic of indirect discrimination, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC) also asked for examples of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices’ (Tafep) experience in illustrating a particular clause in the Bill, which stated that “an employer does not discriminate against A if the employer dismisses A on the ground of the race of A’s husband”.
Responding to Mr Singh, Dr Tan said he would address that issue in his closing speech when debate on the Bill resumes on Jan 8, but emphasised that workplace discrimination of any sort, including racism, is not tolerated.
He reiterated that Tafep would continue to assist workers facing workplace discrimination, even if it falls outside the Bill.
“This Bill is the first step in introducing workplace fairness regime,” he said.
Mr Singh also pointed out that requiring workers or claimants to cite documentary evidence such as e-mail and oral testimonies signed by witnesses may be “a bridge too far”, as these could be difficult to get, particularly at the moment of employment.
He asked if Dr Tan could share successfully resolved examples of how Tafep had helped workers who made complaints on the grounds of nationality and age while employed.
Mr Melvin Yong (Radin Mas) and Nominated MP Keith Chua recommended expanding the definition of protected mental health conditions, and including continuing efforts in addressing stigma in the workplace, respectively.
As stated in the Bill, workers with mental health conditions are protected from discrimination only if they see and are treated by a psychiatrist.
But Mr Chua pointed out that workers may not be willing to seek help because of the stigma, and instead suffer in silence.
Mr Yong urged the Government to expand the definition of protected mental health conditions beyond the clinical environment of seeing a psychiatrist, which would benefit workers with milder mental health issues.
“Could the Government recognise allied healthcare professionals in the mental health space, as part of our push to better protect workers from mental health discrimination?”
He also sought clarification on how the Ministry of Manpower would police bosses who mandate that current and future employees declare mental health conditions, even when there are no genuine job requirements or good reasons to do so.
Ms Denise Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) and Mr Keith Chua wanted a clearer definition and scope of the conditions that fall under disability.
For instance, Mr Chua wanted a clarification on whether attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) would fall under one of the four categories of disability or mental health conditions.
“The Bill’s current definition of disability is too narrow, covering only autism, intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, and sensory disabilities,” said Ms Phua.
She added that this excludes workers with learning disabilities such as dyslexia and ADHD, and conditions like cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis.
The second Bill, which will be separately tabled in 2025, will pertain more specifically to how private employment claims can be made for workplace discrimination.
“It will take us some time to work through the details, which are complex and novel, on how such claims are adjudicated,” said Dr Tan, adding that adjudication should be a last resort.
He said that for cases that cannot be resolved through firms’ grievance handling process, mediation between bosses and workers would take place before a workplace discrimination claim proceeds.
If passed, both Bills are expected to take effect concurrently in 2026 or 2027.
Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
432