Workplace Act covers only discrimination in ‘employment decisions’: Forum

I disagree with Madam Adelin Tan Geok Lin’s characterisation of the Workplace Fairness Act (“Including sexual orientation in new workplace law would have wide-ranging implications”, Jan 17).

Madam Tan refers to two decisions by foreign authorities that applied anti-discrimination laws. She says those decisions show that laws on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) discrimination can “undermine and redefine the values of our society”.

But we cannot make assumptions based merely on the conclusions in these cases. We must consider the authorities’ precise reasoning carefully, in the light of the laws of their respective countries. Even putting aside SOGI discrimination, these laws are worded quite differently from Singapore’s Workplace Fairness Act.

Madam Tan suggests that, if Singapore’s Act were to cover SOGI, the two foreign examples show that it would be unlawful in Singapore not to provide employment-related benefits to employees’ same-sex partners, or to require transgender employees to use a restroom not in line with their gender identity.

Singapore’s Act has nothing to do with employment-related benefits. It covers only discrimination in “employment decisions”, which refer to hiring, appraisal, promotion and demotion, training, and dismissal. These have nothing to do with spousal benefits or toilets.

It is true that some countries’ anti-discrimination laws may cover such issues, but Singapore’s Act does not.

Madam Tan adds that if the Act were to explicitly cover discrimination on SOGI grounds, it may “coerce” employers to “endorse same-sex relationships or subjective gender identities, contrary to the values of others”.

But nothing in the Act forces employers to hold or express any view. For example, while the Act prohibits religious discrimination in “employment decisions”, it clearly does not “coerce” any employer to “endorse” any particular religious belief or engage in any religious practice.

Discrimination in making employment decisions on irrelevant grounds – such as race, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or even eye colour or eyebrow width – is irrational and anti-meritocratic. The Act explicitly allows employers to make employment decisions based on a job’s genuine requirements. Such decisions, based on factors relevant to the job, are not irrational.

Rationality and meritocracy are among the values on which Singapore was founded. Nothing in the Act threatens these values, nor would the Act do so even if it were extended to cover SOGI.

Benjamin Joshua Ong

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

When a ‘mysterious’ new will is used to claim a million-dollar inheritance Deepfake nude apps are ruining lives and have no place in app stores: Opinion