There exist no legal protections for LGBT people in Singapore against job discrimination, whether it be at the stages of hiring, promotion or firing. Moreover, many have experienced unfair treatment and harassment at the workplace. As such, they have had to engage in "covering" behaviors to avoid this abuse, including altering their mannerisms or physical appearance, avoiding talking about their families or social lives at work, or changing when, where, or how frequently they used the bathroom. The situation is especially acute for transgender people, many of whom, owing to the difficulty in securing mainstream employment, have had to resort to sex work to earn a living or have ended up destitute and homeless.

On 13 February 2023, a Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness recommended that five categories of characteristics be protected under a proposed Workplace Fairness Act. These included age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy status and caregiving responsibilities, race, religion and language, and disability and mental health conditions. Glaringly left out were sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. However, on 9 December 2023, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) reassured the LGBT community that it would look into all cases of workplace discrimination, even if they arose from attributes that were not explicitly protected by the new law. Whether this promise will be kept remains to be seen.

A seminal 2024 report by Open for Business, a coalition of leading global companies, estimated that LGBTQ+ discrimination cost Singapore between SGD$1.2 to 2.8 billion (0.19% to 0.43% of GDP) per annum[1],[2],[3].

Government sector[]

Civil Service[]

See also: PM Goh Chok Tong liberalises employment of openly gay individuals in civil service, July 2003

See also: Archive of Time magazine article "The Lion in Winter" by Simon Elegant, 7 July 2003

Prior to 2003, homosexuals were barred from being employed in "sensitive positions" within the Singapore Civil Service. However, in the 7 July 2003 issue of Time (Asia) magazine which carried a feature article entitled The Lion in Winter[4] examining Singapore's prevailing bleak economic climate against a wider backdrop of Asian NIE malaise at the time., Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, unprompted and of his own volition, was quoted as saying, 'So let it evolve, and in time the population will understand that some people are born that way. We are born this way and they are born that way, but they are like you and me.' He also stated that gays would henceforth be allowed to serve in sensitive positions in the Civil Service [5],[6].

An academic paper by Christopher K. K. Tan entitled "Pinking the Lion City: Interrogating Singapore's Gay Civil Servant Statement" presented in July 2005 at "Sexualities, Genders, and Rights in Asia: 1st International Conference of Asian Queer Studies" held in Bangkok explored the legal basis for discrimination against homosexuals in Singapore and argued that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s June 2003 statement was not a discourse of tolerance. Data gathered from Tan's fieldwork suggested that while gay Singaporeans welcomed the statement, they also strongly doubted the Government's sincerity. When civil servants in Tan's survey pool were asked whether their individual ministries or statutory boards had done anything to realise the statement, the answer was a uniformly resounding 'No!'

Singapore Armed Forces[]

Main article: Gay men in the Singapore Armed Forces

Discrimination against gay men exists in the Singapore Armed Forces because even though the military does not regard homosexuality as a disease or mental illness requiring counselling or therapy, it is obliged to treat gay servicemen who declare their sexual orientation differently because, according to some accounts, "homosexuality" and "transsexualism" are listed in the outdated ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision)[7], a medical classification system which is still being used by the SAF today. Homosexuals and effeminate servicemen are managed according to the dictates of a manpower directive which incorporates this classification framework.

Category 302[]

Main article: Category 302

The most notorious classification is Category 302, a medical code given to personnel who are "homosexuals, transvestites, paedophiles, etc." Category 302 (popularly referred to as "cat 302") homosexuals are further classified into those "with effeminate behaviour" and those "without effeminate behaviour". This form of discrimination persists despite the fact that homosexuality was depathologised by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, and homosexuality is not regarded as a psychiatric condition by the local medical profession. Moreover, the military's grouping of homosexuality together with transvestism and paedophilia further reinforces the public misconception that it is abnormal.

Management[]

Self-declared or discovered servicemen are referred to the Psychological Medicine Branch of the Headquarters of Medical Services for a thorough psychiatric assessment, which involves their parents being called in for an interview.

They are medically downgraded to a Physical Employment Status of C (PES C), regardless of their level of fitness, and put through modified Basic Military Training. On graduation, they are deployed in a vocation which has no security risks, posted to non-sensitive units and given a security status which restricts their access to classified documents.

Formerly, Category 302 personnel were not allowed to stay overnight in-camp, nor were they required to perform night duties, but these restrictions have been relaxed. Effeminate homosexuals are also posted to a holding list upon completion of National Service and not required to do reservist training, whilst non-effeminate ones have undergo it in non-sensitive units.

Category 30-B[]

A less well known classification is Category 30-B, a medical code given to servicemen "with effeminate behaviour not amounting to sexual disorders". These individuals are further subdivided into "mildly effeminate", "effeminate" and "severely effeminate". Presumably, this group only includes effeminate heterosexual men and not homosexuals, so there have historically been very few servicemen slapped with this label; hence, its relative obscurity.

Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports[]

In January 2006 the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) granted S$100,000 (US$61,500) to Liberty League, an organisation affiliated with the so called ex-gay movement which "promotes gender and sexual health for the individual, family and society". ^[1]

Private sector[]

Lawrence Wee fired by Robinsons[]

In 2013, Lawrence Wee sued Robinsons in 2013 for claiming "constructive dismissal"[8]. Wee, then 40 years of age and an ex-senior manager of the company, claimed that former boss at the departmental store, Jim McCallum, had harassed him because he did not agree with Wee's homosexuality.

Wee said that he resigned from Robinsons in August 2012 "not as a matter of choice", but due to "unrelenting and unceasing persecution" by McCallum, who was the Asia head of the store's Middle-Eastern owner, the Al-Futtaim Group. Wee claimed that in April or May 2-12, his direct supervisor, Shia Yew Peck, was told by McCallum that "anything from Lawrence cannot be right to begin with as Lawrence is wrong already as a person". A few months earlier, Shia, who has known since 2006 that Wee was gay, had allegedly asked him whether he had ever considered turning "straight"."

Robinsons on the other hand denied Wee's claims and countered that Wee was the one who made the decision to leave in June 2012 to pursue other interests, outside of Robinsons with effect from 2013". The company denied Wee's allegations that he was unfairly harassed by his boss, McCallum. The company also expressed dissatisfaction with Wee's failure to provide written or verbal proof of his claims of what McCallum had said to him or to his supervisor, Shia Yew Peck.

It denied that any of Wee's claims were true, including his allegation that McCallum had told Shia that Wee was "wrong already as a person". In defence papers filed in the High Court, Robinsons said Wee had tendered his resignation twice in his six years with the store, to pursue other career opportunities.

Article 12 Constitutional suit for equal protection of LGBT people in the workplace[]

Main article: Article 12 Constitutional suit for equal protection of LGBT people in the workplace

In August 2013, Wee filed an affidavit asking the court to declare that Article 12 of the Constitution applied, regardless of sexual orientation[9],[10],[11]. Article 12 states that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". Moreover, at the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Review held in May 2011, the Singapore government declared, “The principle of equality of all persons before the law is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Civil suit against Robinsons[]

Wee also brought a separate civil suit against the department store. That case was dismissed on contractual grounds but he appealed against the decision[12].

High Court strikes out application to have discrimination against gay men declared unconstitutional[]

On Monday, 25 November 2013, the High Court struck out Wee's application to have discrimination against gay men declared unconstitutional. The Court, which heard the case in chambers, also ordered him to pay the costs of the case[13],[14],[15],[16],[17].

The Attorney-General's Chambers explained why it had applied to strike out the case in a statement issued the following day, on Tuesday, 26 November 2013. "The Court agreed with the AG that Mr Wee had failed to show an arguable case that the Government had violated his Article 12 constitutional rights. Mr Wee had therefore failed to show that he even had standing to seek the declaration," said the statement. Mr Wee's "real grievance of alleged discrimination is against his former employer, and not the Government", it added. The AG also contended that his bid was "an abuse of process" as "it was taken to gain a collateral advantage" in his suit against his former employer, which is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal. Hence, his claim was rejected on the basis that "it is not sustainable in law, is frivolous and vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the Court process".

PM Lee Hsien Loong promises to enshrine workplace anti-discrimination guidelines into law but leaves out sexual orientation and gender identity[]

On 29 August 2021, PM Lee Hsien Loong delivered his National Day Rally speech at Mediacorp [18]. Regarding tackling job discrimination, he said:

"To deal with workplace discrimination more broadly, we have TAFEP – the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices. TAFEP has laid out clear guidelines on fair treatment. Most companies comply. If a company falls short, TAFEP will counsel it and if it still fails to get its act together, MOM can impose administrative penalties, including restricting it from hiring foreign workers.

This has generally worked quite well. But over the years, the government has received repeated requests to toughen up TAFEP. In particular, the Labour Movement and NTUC MPs have pushed for anti-discrimination laws that carry penalties. The government has held back, because we did not want the process to become legalistic or confrontational. It is better if disputes can be resolved amicably, through persuasion or mediation but after consulting the tripartite partners, we have decided to adopt the Labour MPs’ suggestions. We will enshrine the TAFEP guidelines in law. This will give them more teeth and expand the range of actions we can take. We will model our approach on how we deal with another class of disputes: those over salaries or wrongful dismissal. In such disputes, conciliation and mediation are tried first. Only when those fail, does the matter go before an Employment Claims Tribunal, which will arbitrate and decide the case. We will create a similar Tribunal to deal with workplace discrimination. This will protect workers against discrimination based on nationality whether you’re Singaporean or non-Singaporean. It will also prohibit other kinds of discrimination covered by TAFEP. Women will get better protection and discrimination based on age, race, religion, and disability will also be disallowed. Philosophically, writing TAFEP guidelines into the law is a major move. It signals that we do not tolerate discrimination at workplaces. But in practice, we hope to operate in a similar way as today, except better. We should still resolve workplace disputes informally and amicably, if at all possible.

The legal redress should be a last recourse but whose existence will cause the parties to work harder to settle the dispute, through conciliation and mediation."

AWARE's survey on workplace discrimination[]

See also: Singapore LGBT surveys

On 20 September 2020, gender equality organisation AWARE published a press release announcing Singapore's first comprehensive survey on workplace discrimination[19],[20] conducted with market research company Milieu Insight. The study, which commenced in August 2022, a year after PM Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally speech in which he promised to write TAFEP guidelines into law, found that around 1 in 2 workers in Singapore had experienced workplace discrimination in the previous five years. It polled 1,000 respondents, nationally representative by age, gender and race, on their experiences of:

direct discrimination
indirect discrimination and
discrimination-related harassment in the previous five years

To capture the first, respondents were asked if they had ever been treated less favourably than others at work because of their age, race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, family responsibilities, disability or other characteristics. To capture the second, respondents were asked if any company policy or organisational practice had put them and others like them at a particular disadvantage compared with those who did not share the same characteristics. Finally, respondents were asked if they had experienced conduct that made them feel disrespected or that made their work environments intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive, based on aforementioned characteristics.

In total, 55% of respondents had experienced at least one form of discrimination. Certain groups proved more vulnerable to discrimination at work than others: Persons with disabilities experienced discrimination at a significantly higher rate (78%) than persons without disabilities (50%), as did LGBTQ persons (68%) compared to those who did not identify as LGBTQ (56%), and those of minority race (89%) compared to those of majority race (44%). Compared to 53% of men, 58% of women had experienced at least one type of discrimination. Overall, the three most common experiences of discrimination were:

Unfair company policies or practices, e.g. inaccessible office spaces, or prohibitions against flexible schedules that made it difficult for workers to manage family responsibilities (18% of all respondents experienced this)
Job advertisements that mandated or specified preference for certain characteristics that were not job requirements (17% of all respondents experienced this)
Discriminatory employment practices in relation to performance appraisal and promotion, e.g. receiving a poorer performance appraisal after disclosing pregnancy, disability or health conditions (17% of all respondents experienced this)

When asked the grounds upon which they faced discrimination, respondents chose race (41% of those who experienced discrimination), age (35%) and gender (23%) as the top three. Others included: family responsibilities (18%), religion (16%), marital status (11%), medical conditions (7%), sexual orientation (7%), gender identity (6%), pregnancy (6%) and disability (5%). (Respondents could select more than one.)

Corinna Lim, executive director of AWARE said: "Our goal with this survey was for the results to contribute to the drafting of Singapore’s upcoming anti-discrimination legislation—the government’s best opportunity to make far-reaching change in this arena. The findings highlight particular ‘pain points’ that deserve attention, such as indirect discrimination, which is frequently left out of conversations and policy decisions. Accordingly, we hope the legislation can employ an expansive definition of discrimination, one that captures the full range of experiences workers face at all points of the employment cycle.”

She noted that AWARE's Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory (WHDA) had seen a rise in discrimination cases since its inception in 2019. WHDA saw 59 discrimination cases in the first two quarters of 2022, up from 44 in the same period of 2021, and 26 in 2020. "Furthermore, these results add to the body of evidence that people with marginalised identities are particularly vulnerable,” said Lim, “which is useful, in light of recent national discourse about who requires protection. Anti-discrimination legislation must also include a comprehensive range of protected characteristics, including sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.”

When it came to seeking recourse, 1 in 2 respondents (54%) who had experienced workplace discrimination did not report it to any channels (e.g. Human Resources, a boss or senior, Ministry of Manpower and so on). Those who did not report cited these top reasons: not believing that the discrimination was “severe” enough (36%); not trusting authorities to act on the report (30%) and not having enough evidence of discrimination (29%).

An almost identical proportion of those who reported discrimination (29%) and those who did not report (28%) ended up quitting their jobs. Other actions taken by those who reported included avoiding their perpetrator as much as possible (34%); requesting transfer to another department or location (29%) and refraining from applying for jobs in that industry (13%). Of those who did not report, besides quitting, 23% avoided their perpetrator while 4% requested transfer and another 4% refrained from applying to jobs in that industry.

“The adverse career impacts on even those who did report discrimination are a grim indictment of organisations' ability to deal with this issue,” said Lim. “It’s clear that companies cannot be relied upon to tackle discrimination on their own without further incentive and guidance. With the government's leadership, we look forward to a new era of fairer workplaces in Singapore.”

TODAY Youth Survey, 2022[]

In the 2022 TODAY Youth Survey, interviewee Mandy Chng, then 28 years of age, said she worried about her future because she identified as a lesbian and, because she had faced discrimination at work before, she constantly worried that she would have to deal with that again for future jobs. “In 2021, when I was working for a multinational corporation, I faced a lot of bullying for my sexual orientation. I was often the butt of jokes,” the consultant said. She had since left the company and now worked in the social services sector where her current manager and colleagues were accepting and inclusive. “It’s not just work. There are anxieties that come with not knowing what my future entails since there are things that my partner and I cannot have (such as getting married)," she said, adding that she tried not to think “too far ahead”."[21]

Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness leaves out sexual orientation and gender identity from report on anti-discrimination workplace legislation[]

On Monday, 13 February 2023, a Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness released an interim report containing 20 recommendations for anti-discrimination workplace legislation[22]. These included stronger protections, a wider range of enforcement tools and prohibiting retaliation by employers. If accepted by the Government, the new law would be introduced on top of current guidelines against discrimination by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP).

The interim report came after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his 2021 National Day Rally speech that the Government intended to write these TAFEP guidelines into law. The Tripartite Committee, convened in July 2021, was chaired by Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, labour chief Ng Chee Meng and the Singapore National Employers Federation's (SNEF) president Robert Yap. A Bill could be proposed in Parliament in 2024.

The Tripartite Committee recommended that five categories of characteristics be protected under a law for workplace fairness. The categories were:

Age
Nationality
Sex, marital status, pregnancy status and caregiving responsibilities
Race, religion and language
Disability and mental health conditions

These were selected because the protection of these characteristics supported Singapore's social and economic objectives, according to a joint press release from the Ministry of Manpower, SNEF and the National Trades Union Congress. 95% of discrimination complaints also fell into these categories. The list of protected characteristics was not closed and could expand to include other categories in future.

When asked why sexual orientation was not included, Dr. Tan said that while all forms of workplace discrimination would not be tolerated, there was a need to be "judicious" about which aspects to include in legislation. He said the five categories were "basic building blocks" for a start, with the Government "prepared to consider" including other forms of discrimination in the legislation. Dr Yap of SNEF agreed that other characteristics could be added on in future.

Response from AWARE[]

On 7 March 2023, AWARE published its response to the report and stated that the latter must explicitly define discrimination to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression (SOGIE) in addition to the other five categories, and protect all workers against workplace harassment and bullying. AWARE's position on workplace discrimination and further recommendations were also detailed in the group's new position paper, titled Beyond Fairness: A legal framework for anti-discrimination in the workplace[23],[24].

"Workplace discrimination is an issue that we have long kept in our cross hairs,"” said AWARE Executive Director Corinna Lim, “especially since 2019, when our Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory began providing specialised support to workers. International Women's Day is a timely occasion to review the upcoming anti-discrimination legislation, considering the profound impact it has on working women, including mothers, and other marginalised persons.”

In Beyond Fairness, AWARE identified various limitations of Singapore’s current measures against workplace discrimination. Notably, existing TAFEP guidelines did not explicitly define discrimination and instead simply set out a list of dos and don'ts. This provided only limited guidance for factual situations involving discrimination not covered in the list. AWARE also observed that the grounds on which discrimination was prohibited, as listed by TAFEP's website, are age, race, gender, religion, disability, marital status and family responsibilities; the list excluded characteristics such as sexual orientation. Excluding those characteristics may discourage employees from reporting discrimination on those grounds because they were unsure if what they experienced constituted proscribed conduct.

“We know from our 2022 workplace discrimination survey that under-reporting of discrimination is a grave problem,” said Lim. “Half of all discrimination victims did not file official complaints; 30% of these workers said that they hesitated because they did not trust authorities to take commensurate action. It is imperative, therefore, that the government remove every possible barrier to reporting, including any lingering confusion about what grounds are ‘valid’ for discrimination. It was encouraging that the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness’s report reflected some of the issues previously raised by AWARE and other advocates against workplace discrimination. Yet we were disappointed that the Committee failed to address a number of other pressing concerns such as the glaring exclusion of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression from the list of protected characteristics. Can the Committee assure the most marginalised in our society that they will be protected by the upcoming legislation? We look forward to further consultation with the government in this arena.”

Corinna Lim comes out as gay woman to impress on public the need for legislation to protect LGBT employees[]

During the Institute of Policy Studies' 35th Anniversary Conference[25] on Monday, 12 June 2023 held at the Sands Grand Ballroom on level 5 of the Sands Expo and Convention Centre, Corinna Lim, speaking as Executive Director of AWARE, revealed to the audience and the media that she was a gay woman[26]. She was part of the 3-member panel in a discussion topic entitled Revisiting pluralism which was moderated by Prof Chan Heng Chee from the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design. The other two panelists were K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, and Zuraidah Ibrahim, Executive Managing Editor of the South China Morning Post [27]:

Lim said: "A precondition for pluralism is this: The Government must protect minorities. If we are to embrace diversity, we must ensure that minority groups are not bullied by the majority. So, things like the Workplace Fairness Act are critical. I am very disappointed that, at this point, it looks like the Workplace Fairness Act will not protect against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. With Section 377A repealed, there is no reason not to extend protection against workplace discrimination to everyone, including LGBT persons. It would be ironic for our first workplace anti-discrimination legislation to be itself discriminatory by excluding LGBT persons. Going forward, this issue can only get more complex. How we deal with pluralism has a deep impact on people’s lives. It’s important that we get this right."

SOGIE in the Workplace Survey, 2023[]

In March 2023, a survey was launched aimed at finding out more about LGBT individuals' past experiences of employment and workplace discrimination in Singapore based on their sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression (SOGIE)[28]. The study recruited individuals who identified as minorities in the context of SOGIE, had ever worked or been employed in Singapore, and aged between 18 to 85 years old, who were willing to complete a one-off, online survey that would take no longer than 20 minutes. The principal investigator was Dr. Rayner Tan, contactable at rayner.tan@nus.edu.sg

PSP's Leong Mun Whye recommends sexual orientation be included as protected category[]

See also: Progress Singapore Party politicians' views on LGBT rights

During the Budget 2023 COS (Committee of Supply) Debate in mid-February 2023, Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Whye of the Progress Singapore Party recommended that sexual orientation be included as a protected category in workplace anti-discrimination legislation[29]:

Transcript:

"The second area that I am concerned about is the secular nature of our workplace and employment laws. Everyone should be free to practice their religion but this should not hinder anyone else from earning a living. I noted Recommendation No. 10 in the interim report that religious organisations should be allowed to make employment decisions based on religion and religious requirements for all workers. This appears to be a reversal of MOM’s stance in 2013. At that time, a pregnant church employee was sacked in the seventh month of her pregnancy because she had conceived the child in an extra-marital relationship against church teachings. MOM intervened to secure compensation for her because employment law had been violated. MOM also stressed that workplaces must be preserved as a secular space in Singapore. Thus, I hope the Minister can clarify how Recommendation No. 10 is aligned with MOM’s stance in 2013, or whether MOM’s stance has changed since then.

If Recommendation No. 10 is adopted, then I would like to call on the Government to include sexual orientation as a protected category in the anti-discrimination law. This is in line with the spirit of repealing Section 377A and will better protect LGBT workers from discrimination based on their sexuality, which still exist in Singapore. LGBT workers should be allowed to earn a living on a level playing field based on merit like anyone else in Singapore."

TAFEP reassures LGBT community that it will look into all cases of workplace discrimination[]

On Saturday, 9 December 2023, representatives from 12 different local organisations working with the LGBT community attended a briefing by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP)[30]. It was part of their ongoing community outreach and engagement efforts to help all job seekers and employees, including those from the LGBT community, to understand that workplace discrimination had no place in Singapore. TAFEP said that it would look into all cases of workplace discrimination, even if they arose from attributes that were not cited as examples in the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair and Progressive Employment (TGFEP). The session was proudly co-organised by Oogachaga, Pelangi Pride Centre and TransBefrienders.

New Workplace Fairness Bill introduced to counter discrimination excludes LGBT workers[]

On Tuesday, 12 November 2024, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) introduced a Bill on workplace fairness in Parliament that would provide more ways for workers to seek recourse when they faced discrimination. MOM said the law aimed to entrench existing workplace norms and strengthen protection, and built on progress made since the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) were introduced in 2007. The legislation would be introduced through two Bills, with the second one to be tabled in 2025. Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng tabled the first Bill, which set out the scope of what the workplace fairness law would cover and what employers were expected to comply with.

The second Bill would introduce the processes for individuals to make private claims, and would be an expansion of the existing Employment Claims Tribunals. Some of these details would take time to work through. “We didn’t want to delay the first Bill to get all that (settled). We wanted to put the first Bill up...so that firms can start to make preparations,” an MOM spokesperson said. If both Bills were passed by lawmakers, the legislation was likely to take effect in 2026 or 2027.

The first Bill set out five areas that would be protected if the Bill is passed, namely:

Age
Nationality
Sex, marital status, pregnancy status, caregiving responsibilities
Race, religion and language
Disability and mental health conditions

These areas accounted for more than 95% of discrimination complaints received by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and MOM. Between 2018 and 2022, an average of 315 discrimination complaints were received by TAFEP and MOM. More than half of the complaints, 176 of them, were to do with nationality, and 77 involved age. Just nine were categorised under “others”. Complaints that fell outside of the protected characteristics would remain covered under TAFEP. If the law was passed, employers would also be required to put in place grievance handling processes to facilitate dispute resolution within the company. Employees who reported discrimination or harassment would be protected from retaliation by employers, disclosure of identity and civil or criminal liability, such as where employers tried to claim damages for breach of confidence or defamation.

While the focus was on educating employers and maintaining a harmonious workplace, the legislation would allow a range of actions to be taken against errant individuals or companies. These included corrective orders to address stereotypes and shape mindsets, administrative financial penalties and state-led legal action for the most severe breaches. The Tripartite Committee's report on workplace fairness outlined several examples of breaches. A firm posting a job advertisement indicating a preference for females because of a belief that females performed better in sales roles may be issued a correction order for its first breach. On the other end of the spectrum, a company that favoured workers of one nationality for promotions despite others performing well could be ordered by the courts to pay a financial penalty. MOM would also take action if the company retaliated against employees who complained about discriminatory practices.

The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) said the range of penalties would be better than what was currently available – where companies mostly faced restriction of work pass privileges, which was a “blunt tool”. Companies that had genuine business needs would be allowed to consider protected characteristics when making employment decisions. Four circumstances were outlined under the legislation – for reasonable performance of the job, for health and safety reasons, for privacy reasons and for legal and regulatory reasons. For example, an employer could consider an applicant’s fluency in a language if the job opening was for an interpreter. A spa may also seek female employees to serve female customers. Separately, employers who preferred to hire local workers could also continue doing so.

If the law was passed, employers would be legally required to advertise on MyCareersFuture – a job search portal targeted at Singapore citizens and permanent residents – and fairly consider all local candidates before submitting applications for work passes for foreigners. The law would also support employers who chose to hire people with disabilities or senior workers. Smaller firms with fewer than 25 employees would be exempted from the legislation, while religious organisations could make employment decisions based on religion. The exemption for smaller firms would be reviewed five years after the law was implemented.

The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) said it supported fairer workplace practices and had been advocating for measures to ensure older workers as well as professionals, managers and executives (PME) were fairly treated. A spokesperson said that PMEs in their 40s and 60s had reported feeling concerned about discrimination and comparison with foreigners. “NTUC will continue to champion fair treatment for all workers,” the congress said. “We are committed to listening to their concerns and advocating for them as their work challenges evolve.” The SNEF said the legislation struck a “crucial balance” with operational flexibility for employers who were mostly committed to fair employment practices. It encouraged companies to view the law as “more than just a compliance requirement”, but to see it as part and parcel of cultivating cohesive and inclusive workplaces.

Parliamentary debate on Workplace Fairness Bill[]

He Ting Ru[]

On Tuesday, 7 January 2025, during the first of the two-day Parliamentary debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, Workers' Party Member of Parliament He Ting Ru rose to speak up against the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the proposed Bill[31].

Transcript:

"Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are also explicitly excluded in the Bill which seems at odds with the Minister for Home Affairs' statements that gay people deserve dignity, respect, acceptance and do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation during his opening speech in 2022 when this House debated the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code and attendant amendments to the Constitution. This is notable as researchers at organisations such as NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health and AWARE have found that more than half of LGBTQ persons have experienced discrimination at the workplace, and that levels are generally higher than those who do not to identify as LGBTQ. This concern about employment has also been raised by LGBTQ individuals to party colleagues previously sharing that they have experienced discrimination from employers who declined to hire them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This is disturbing as we should aim to harness the contributions of all Singaporeans even if we are not to include these characteristics in the legislation. I would like to seek clarification from the minister about how the ministry plans to address such types of discrimination experienced by fellow Singaporeans particularly as it is not currently explicitly covered by TAFEP guidelines."

Usha Chandradas[]

On Wednesday, 8 January 2025, during second of the two-day Parliamentary debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, Nominated Member of Parliament Usha Chandradas delivered a lengthy speech decrying the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the proposed Bill[32].

Transcript[33]:

My main clarifications in my speech are on the definition of “sex” as it is set out in clauses 8(c) and 10 of the Bill. The definition includes biological characteristics from birth and after the completion of sex re-assignment procedures. What it clearly leaves out is discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

A person’s gender identity and expression, as well as their sexuality, are a part of who they are. They are not lifestyle choices that can be changed on a whim. While the proposed law supports individuals who have undergone sex re-assignment procedures, it seems to ignore the reality that the transition from one gender to another is something that happens over time and involves more than just surgical changes.

Sometimes, individuals may not even choose to undergo surgical procedures. This is a complex process and it involves medical, psychological and social aspects. Individuals in the process of transitioning, or who choose not to surgically transition, can also be susceptible to discriminatory practices in the workplace.

Members of the arts community who are also members of the LGBTQ+ community have told me that they feel very concerned about the additional exclusions at clause 10(2) of this Bill. These exclusions could have the effect of reiterating the fact that characteristics which are relevant to the community will resolutely not have the protection of this law. This could in fact signal to the wider population, as well as employers, that discrimination on the basis of one’s sexuality and gender identity, are not sufficiently serious or valid concerns.

Taken to an extreme, some might interpret this as the Government condoning this kind of workplace discrimination. It could also inadvertently signal to employers that such discriminatory practices will go largely unpunished.

This is not the only place where we see a similar kind of signalling in the Bill. At the explanatory note on clause 17, there is a statement there that when an employer dismisses someone on the ground of the race of that person’s husband, this will not be considered as discrimination under the new proposed law.

Speaking as someone who actually does have a husband of a different race, this was slightly alarming for me to read in the Bill. I understand that given the prescriptive approach that has been adopted by the Government in this piece of legislation, certain lines have to be drawn and clear positions have to be elucidated. To put it another way, when lists are made, there will always be questions on why certain things are included and others are left out. To an extent, this is just something inherent in the structure of the legislation that has been adopted. I think most members of the public and Members of this House can understand that.

But that being said, it is important too that the specific wording in the Bill does not send out unintended messages that seem to actually endorse certain acts of discrimination. To this end, it would be good if the Minister could explain the basis behind the explanatory note on clause 17 and on how members of the public are expected to interpret it.

Yesterday, I note that the Minister has explained and mentioned that the acts that are described in the explanatory note would be caught by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and just not by this Bill. But notwithstanding his explanation, I would like to ask, was it then necessary to include an example like this in the Bill? Could the explanatory note have been clearer that such acts are very much discriminatory, even if they are not covered by this Bill?

Coming back to the definition of sex, very recently, this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. In connection with this, many Members on both sides of the House reiterated their views that discriminatory behaviour towards people on account of their sexuality should simply not be tolerated. So, I do not think at all that the Government intends to send the message to the LGBTQ+ community that discrimination against them is in any way permissible.

I was also heartened to hear the Minister yesterday say that no one would be turned away with their workplace grievances just because they do not happen to be covered by the Bill. The Minister seems to have taken a very strong approach towards ensuring that tolerance is displayed by employers and by members of the public. So, I hope the Minister takes the opportunity during this debate to assure the LGBTQ+ community that their rights in the workplace will be protected, regardless of the wording in clause 10(2) of this Bill.

I note from a Straits Times article in November 2024 that the protected characteristics set out in clause 8 of the Bill account for 95% of workplace discrimination complaints which have been made to MOM and the TAFEP. On one level, this is a very logical way to proceed. However, we should not forget that it is also possible for discrimination to exist in the absence of formal complaints. The report Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace: The Lived Experiences of Singapore LGBTQ+ Individuals, raises some notable feedback. According to the report, which was based on a survey of around 700 respondents, almost one third had experienced at least one form of discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Close to half of the people surveyed reported some form of harassment at the workplace. However, the report also noted that among the participants who had experienced discrimination and harassment, only a very small number had actually reported their experiences to their respective companies, to MOM or to TAFEP. Some of the reasons for this included a fear of retaliation, social stigma and the expectation of little support if reports were actually made. We can see how this fear creates a harmful loop. Victims remain unheard, leading those in positions of authority to mistakenly believe that there are no issues of concern. As a result, protections remain inadequate and those facing workplace discrimination continue to suffer quietly.

So, my questions for the Minister are these: first, Did the Ministry take into account the research and feedback from the ground which indicate that LGBTQ+ individuals tend to under-report incidents of workplace discrimination and harassment? If so, how then was the decision arrived at, to exclude sexuality and gender identity from the protected characteristic of “sex”?

Secondly, how will the Minister ensure that employers do not discriminate against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, given that the proposed law explicitly excludes these two traits? Is the Minister able to provide any assurances that discrimination against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, will not be tolerated by the Ministry? For example, will the Minister consider including specific protections, templates and resources for LGBTQ+ individuals through TAFEP and the TGFEP? Will any measures be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons? The Minister yesterday alluded to updates being made to the TGFEP, so I look forward to hearing his further explanations and clarifications later. I would also like to ask if any measures would be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons. For example, would the Ministry work with LGBTQ+ groups on the ground to conduct training for TAFEP and other frontline MOM staff to ensure that cases of discrimination are dealt with seriously and professionally, and to encourage reporting of such incidents, when they do take place?

Finally, I would like to ask if there any plans for the law to be re-examined at a specific point in the future and to consider whether the exclusions at clause 10(2) may be removed or amended? MOM has indicated in its factsheet on the proposed Bill that tripartite partners will review the exemption set out at clause 4(1) of the Bill in five years’ time. If so, will a similar reconsideration of clauses 8(c) and 10 also take place? A number of countries, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand have codified provisions against workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexuality. If we in Singapore were to change our position in future, we would certainly not be alone in doing so.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Louis Ng[]

See also: Louis Ng's views on LGBT rights

Also on the second day of the debate, People's Action Party Member of Parliament Louis Ng gave an impassioned speech against the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the proposed Workplace Fairness Bill[34].

Transcript[35]:

5.17 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): The Workplace Fairness Bill aims to foster fairer and more harmonious workplaces by protecting employees from unfair employment decisions. This Bill is the culmination of three years of efforts by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness. I thank the Committee for their hard work in studying laws from other countries, consulting a wide range of stakeholders and publishing both interim and final reports.

Members have spoken on groups that will benefit from protection on the basis of age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language ability, disability and mental health condition.

I just have one point to raise. The Workplace Fairness Bill is an inclusive and progressive one, but it has a glaring carve-out. As many Members have mentioned, specifically, section 10(2) excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from the definition of "sex". These are the only two characteristics that are expressly excluded from the Bill.

What message are we sending? Are we telling LGBTQ+ people that they are not protected from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Are we telling employers that it is okay to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation and gender identity?

When we repealed section 377A, Minister Shanmugam explained, "The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people". He said, "They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation." By repealing 377A, Minister Shanmugam said that we will "start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain".

But now, do we not think that we may deepen the stigmatisation by having our workplace fairness law single out sexual orientation and gender identity for exclusion? With this Bill, will we deepen the divides that we started to heal with the repeal of 377A? The Bill's carve-out of sexual orientation and gender identity is not merely hurtful to LGBTQ+ employees; it could also cause them to face additional workplace discrimination.

Studies have shown that LGBTQ employees already face significant workplace discrimination. A 2024 study by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health found that over half of their respondents who were LGBTQ experienced discrimination or harassment at the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2022 study by AWARE and Milieu Insight found that 68% of LGBTQ+ persons reported experiencing discrimination compared to 56% of those who did not identify as LGBTQ.

One respondent to the NUS School of Public Health study, who is lesbian, said that a headhunter warned her against bringing up her sexual orientation at a job interview because a previous candidate had been rejected for mentioning their same-sex spouse. Another respondent, who is gay, said he was told by his employer that he would not be appointed to a managerial position because of his sexual orientation. Indeed, hiring managers and HR representatives themselves have described this same type of discrimination.

The Singapore LGBTQ+ Workforce Audit 2022, which polled 200 HR professionals and business leaders, found that only 64% of respondents said yes when asked if companies were open to recruiting and hiring diverse candidates, including LGBTQ individuals. It is likely that the data understates the scale of the problem and that LGTBQ individuals are under-reporting the discrimination they face.

From 2018 to 2022 none of the 312 workplace discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM were related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The NUS School of Public Health survey found that for LGBTQ respondents who experienced workplace discrimination and harassment, only 10.71% reported it to their employer, 0.32% reported it to MOM, and only 0.97%, not even 1%, reported it to TAFEP.

The express exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity from this law is likely to worsen this discrimination. Employers may think they are free to discriminate against LGBTQ employees. Employees may have the belief that TAFEP, TADM and MOM will not assist them.

Can the Minister provide a clear statement that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace is wrong and unacceptable? Can the Minister also confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited under the TGFEP and Prevention from Harassment Act? Will the Minister confirm that TAFEP, TADM, ECT and MOM will assist individuals who report being discriminated against at their workplace due to sexual orientation or gender identity and that LGBTQ+ individuals who face discrimination should feel safe to report workplace discrimination to TAFEP, TADM and MOM?

Moving forward, can the Minister share a timeline for reviewing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? This would not be a radical step. The UK's Equality Act already includes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic. This is the law that the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness has cited as having had a positive impact on workplaces. I know that in Minister Tan's reply in Parliament in July 2023, he said that the Committee's recommendations were scoped tightly and to address the more common and familiar forms of discrimination. He said that it is better to take a measured first step, let stakeholders adjust to the new rules, before reviewing if more needs to be done.

I agree that our workplace fairness laws should be measured. I welcome the suggestion that our laws will be reviewed and updated. However, it is one thing for the Bill to be silent on sexual orientation and gender identity and a very different thing for the Bill to expressly exclude sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, do we not feel this is a step back by reinforcing discrimination and promoting stigma against LGBTQ+ individuals?

Given that the exclusions already exist under the Bill, I hope again that the Minister can provide a clear assurance that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong, regardless of whether this position is codified under legislation. Will the Minister also share what data and factors he will consider in deciding when our laws should expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity?

I would like to end by thanking groups who have been fighting hard and tirelessly to ensure that we can live in a world without discrimination. In particular, I thank groups that have been speaking up against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. They include Pink Dot SG, Oogachaga, Same But Different, SAFE, Project X, Q Chamber of Commerce, Action for Aids and AWARE. There are many, many more groups and individuals who have fought hard for a more inclusive Singapore, including for LGBTQ+ individuals. While there are too many to name, I thank them too for their perseverance and advocacy.

As former US President, Bill Clinton, said, "All of the country loses when any person is denied or forced out of a job because of sexual orientation. Being gay, the last time I thought about it, seemed to have nothing to do with the ability to read a balance book, fix a broken bone, or change a spark plug." Indeed, a person's sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with their ability to do a job well.

I support this Bill which ensures that we can live in a world without discrimination. And a world that is without discrimination must be inclusive regardless of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Facebook post[]

The following day, on 9 January 2025, Ng made the following post on his Facebook accompanied by a video clip of his debate with Manpower Minister Tan See Leng[36],[37]:

"[ Not fair for LGBTQ+ community? ]

I thank Minister for confirming that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity IS COVERED under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices BUT this is currently not stated on the TAFEP website.

I asked that TAFEP explicitly state on their website that sexual orientation and gender identity is included.

Check out the video for the reply and the debate we had.

What do you think Let me know your thoughts and I will help raise them in Parliament.

Help spread the word Thanks!"

Tan See Leng[]

At the conclusion of the debate, Manpower Minister Tan Seng Lee responded to all the queries and suggestions provided by the contributing MPs.

After the debate, the Workplace Fairness Bill was passed with unanimous support from all MPs present and was set to take effect in 2026 or 2027. Manpower Minister Tan See Leng was interviewed by Channel NewsAsia that night.

Reaction of LGBT and civic groups, and public[]

Straits Times forum[]

15 January 2025[]

LGBTQ+ workers left behind again in new legislation[38]

The Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) passed on Jan 8 marks an important step against work-related discrimination in Singapore. Yet, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) community were conspicuously shunted to the margins.

Several MPs, including Mr Louis Ng and Ms He Ting Ru, and NMP Usha Chandradas questioned the explicit exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) from the law’s protected characteristics, pointing to studies showing widespread SOGI-based discrimination in Singapore. Pink Dot’s own research with Milieu Insight found that seven in 10 LGBTQ+ Singaporeans face work-related discrimination.

The MPs noted that the WFL’s exclusions perpetuate further discrimination, sending the wrong signals to errant workplaces. Also, LGBTQ+ workers, already distrustful of a system that has repeatedly marginalised them, may lose hope in seeking redress, fuelling a vicious cycle of severe underreporting.

Manpower Minister Tan See Leng stated that the Government does not tolerate “any forms of workplace discrimination, including towards LGBT individuals”, and that such cases of discrimination can be heard through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (Tafep). We also note ongoing efforts to establish reporting channels through community groups.

While Dr Tan’s words were reassuring, they regrettably do not carry the force of law; nor do Tafep’s guidelines and decisions. They also ring as deeply ironic: the new anti-discrimination law itself discriminates, by offering protections to other marginalised groups but leaving LGBTQ+ Singaporeans behind.

When Parliament repealed Section 377A of the Penal Code, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said that “(gay people) deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation”. Yet the exclusions in the latest legislation seem to contradict those words, as Mr Ng and Ms He noted. Why are we undoing hard-earned progress by passing new laws that entrench discrimination as the status quo?

Dr Tan replied that the Bill was “just the start” and the Government would seek improvements. We certainly hope so. Minimally, he should take up Mr Ng’s suggestion that LGBTQ+ individuals be explicitly mentioned on Tafep’s website – but that is far from sufficient. We strongly urge the Government to review its decision to exclude SOGI within the WFL. There is still time to show it truly stands for a Singapore where all workers are treated fairly.

Clement Tan

Spokesperson, Pink Dot SG

17 January 2025[]

Including sexual orientation in new workplace law would have wide-ranging implications[39]

I refer to the letter “LGBTQ+ workers left behind again in new legislation” (Jan 15).

Singapore is a meritocratic society, and I support the idea that anyone should be hired as long as that person is suitable for the job. People should not be discriminated against at work for any personal characteristics that are irrelevant to merit.

Thus, I am glad that the Ministry of Manpower has clarified that, although sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) are not included in the Workplace Fairness Act, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices continue to protect LGBTQ+ individuals.

There are, however, wide-ranging consequences to including SOGI in the Workplace Fairness Act, which go beyond merit-based hiring. These laws may be used to coerce employers to endorse same-sex relationships or subjective gender identities, contrary to the values of others.

For example, even before same-sex marriage was legalised in Canada, a tribunal ruled that same-sex partners were entitled to employment-related spousal benefits.

Such a position is at odds with Singapore’s laws and the values of a majority of Singaporeans, who consider marriage to be a union between a man and a woman.

In addition, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken the position that “all women (including transgender women) should be allowed to use the women’s facilities” under the applicable anti-discrimination law.

This means that a biological male who identifies as a woman must be allowed access to women’s bathrooms, despite the impact on the privacy of women.

These examples show the potential of SOGI anti-discrimination to undermine and redefine the values of our society, and impose a set of norms which a majority of Singaporeans do not accept in our multiracial and multi-religious society.

Adelin Tan Geok Lin

20 January 2025[]

Workplace Act covers only discrimination in ‘employment decisions’[40]

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

22 January 2025[]

Govt committed to building fair and harmonious workplaces[41]

We refer to the letters and commentary discussing the Workplace Fairness Bill and thank the writers for their views (New legislation leaves LGBTQ+ workers behind again, Jan 15; The Workplace Fairness Act must go further if we are to stamp out discrimination, Jan 16; Including sexual orientation in new workplace law would have wide-ranging implications, Jan 17; and Workplace Act covers only discrimination in ‘employment decisions’, Jan 20).

Employment decisions in Singapore must be fair and merit-based.

No form of workplace discrimination should be accepted. This includes discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, or other characteristics such as medical conditions, or discrimination by association.

Anyone who believes he has been unfairly treated at the workplace should contact the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices for advice and assistance.

The Workplace Fairness legislation builds on the existing Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.

The legislation is tightly scoped for now, because we want to preserve and evolve our workplace norms over time, rather than disrupt them too suddenly.

The public and parliamentary discussions over the Bill have highlighted the diverse views of our society. It is therefore important that we maintain an open space to discuss these views, while respecting the values and beliefs of others.

The Government is committed to building fair and harmonious workplaces in Singapore.

The Bill has taken on board many of the key concerns articulated through engagements and consultations.

We will continue to listen to feedback, build up our experience and capabilities and review the legislation regularly.

Tan Li Sheng

Divisional Director, Workplace Policy and Strategy Division, Ministry of Manpower

Faith Li

General Manager, Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices

Business support for LGBT workplace equality[]

See also: Singapore LGBT business organisations

Local companies did not traditionally have LGBT-friendly HR policies. It was only after the influx of large multinationals, especially American ones, into Singapore that inclusive workplace policies and practices found their way into organisations here.

Open for Business' report, 2024[]

In September 2024, Open for Business, a coalition of leading global companies, launched a report, the first of its kind, exploring the economic case for inclusion in Singapore, as well as five other Southeast Asian focus countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam)[42],[43],[44]. The study, which combined findings from a range of quantitative and qualitative research methods, explored several factors that if addressed could improve economic performance. It estimated that LGBTQ+ discrimination cost Singapore between SGD$1.2 to 2.8 billion (0.19% to 0.43% of GDP) per annum and suggested that:

addressing health inequalities relating to depression rates and HIV/AIDS response could further bolster GDP.
"brain drain" data indicated that Singaporean talent was moving to more inclusive countries such as Australia and Japan.
SOGIE (sexual orientation, gender identity and expression) inclusion could help boost tourism from all communities, not just those who were LGBTQ+.

Key findings[]

Economically successful countries had better records on LGBTQ+ rights[]

Analyses demonstrated correlations between LGBTQ+ rights and:

World Bank Per Capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Global Innovation Index (GII) from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
World Bank Labor Force Participation Rates

Newly developed Granger causality testing demonstrated that not only were LGBTQ+ rights and these metrics correlated, but they also showed that improvements in LGBTQ+ rights preceded – and predicted – these key economic indicators.

Conversely, corrupt countries had worse records on LGBTQ+ rights. Data from Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) showed that the higher levels of corruption in some of these Southeast Asian countries were strongly correlated with LGBTQ+ rights. Granger causality testing demonstrated that not only were LGBTQ+ rights and a country’s level of corruption highly correlated, but they also showed that improvements in LGBTQ+ rights preceded – and predicted – improvements in anti-corruption activities.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) “Decriminalization Dividend”[]

A new analysis of World Bank FDI data showed that countries that did not have punitive laws around same sex intimacy received and gave significantly more foreign investment.

National reputation on LGBTQ+ issues played a large part in employee mobility and tourism decisions[]

How LGBTQ+ issues in Southeast Asian countries were covered in the media hade a great impact on decisions being made about relocation and travel to the region.

Skilled workers in the region were leaving to work in more open societies[]

An analysis of a new World Bank-LinkedIn database showed that regional workers were leaving to work in more open societies.

LGBTQ+ friendly companies outperform their rivals[]

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs not only differentiated companies in a competitive labor market, but actually impacted the bottom line. A new Open For Business report demonstrated that companies which were transparent on LGBTQ+ inclusion hade superior financial performance, improved brand reputation, and enhanced talent attraction. Case studies from a diverse group of locally and globally owned companies, large and small, and from various sectors, further underscored this crucial point.

New data from BCG also showed that companies were embracing LGBTQ+-specific DEI programs in the region. Even in Indonesia, one in six companies surveyed had such programs.

Most Southeast Asian capital cities were not fully open for business[]

Open For Business’ 2022 Cities Ratings Report found the majority of Southeast Asian cities underperforming on key economic and LGBTQ+ inclusivity ratings, and that Manila and Ho Chi Minh City’s ratings had actually fallen since 2020.

References[]

Acknowledgements[]

This article was written by Roy Tan.

↑ File:Rcti 34 tahun original by feud1995 dg5n9jr.png

[1] File:Rcti 34 tahun original by feud1995 dg5n9jr.png

[1]

Workplace discrimination against LGBT people in Singapore