Balancing Life and Work: Supporting An Inclusive Workplace Culture in Singapore

TAFEP entered the scene amid rampant discrimination. Job advertisements showed preferences for gender, race and nationality – not only was there no way to call them out, public opinion often took the employer’s side. Without laws to refer to or charge errant employers with, TAFEP was seen as fighting a losing battle. A closer look at the recommendations reveals some areas for improvement though: both the Committee and TAFEP use language that could be misconstrued as favouring employers, the goal of legislation is to complement existing guidelines instead of replacing them⁴, and the approach for workers is still reactive rather than proactive or preventive. TAFEP’s mandate was formed almost 20 years ago, and it doesn’t appear to have changed since 2006. Its mission statement commits to “promote the adoption of fair, responsible and progressive employment practices”. This assumes that employment practices are not always fair, responsible, and progressive – and without legislation, that is not surprising.

The Tripartite Committee’s recommendations aim to preserve workplace harmony; If we consider that this drives their efforts, it seems understandable to retain what has stood the test of time. However, maintaining status quo in this manner is something that may seem at odds with all the hype. That said, neither the Committee nor TAFEP has publicly acknowledged concerns raised about bias towards employers and industry⁵. Neither appear to represent nor be able to adequately speak for groups most impacted by workplace discrimination: ageing workers, women and those living with mental health conditions. Of these, women can be said to be most discriminated against – more reported being discriminated against for pregnancy and/or being a mother than for age (Figure 1)⁶.

TAFEP’s most recent progress is benchmarked against a Ministry of Manpower report – the 2021 Fair Employment Practices Report – which was written and released in March 2022, and references the previous report for 2018 as a baseline. Although it’s been confirmed that this report will now be released annually⁷, the lack of a year-on-year comparison and clear key performance indicators against TAFEP’s own objectives seems like a glaring oversight.

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND

It doesn’t appear like this situation will change much with the recommendations as they are now; one made with reference to the 2020-2021 Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development is again framed as reactive rather than preventive: prohibit six specific retaliatory behaviours employers may display against workers who report discrimination⁸. Until an employer is documented engaging in these types of retaliation, it’s unlikely that this can be addressed before it happens.

The Committee also recommended that small-medium companies (SMEs) with 25 employees or less be exempted for 5 years from the laws planned to take effect in 2024. It’s clear that such a move is meant to support employers, giving them time to adopt or improve employment practices. While that’s certainly fair, it may entrench issues SMEs face more than it would help. If SMEs need government support to access opportunities and expedite HR standards to attract talent and remain competitive⁹, a head start may not matter much if a case is not made for a competitive employer market. Attrition and running out of cash are very real and immediate threats to such businesses. Addressing these through better employment practices should certainly be timely.

Another recommendation proposes to allow employers to show preference only if hiring persons with disabilities (PWDs) or those older than 55. It doesn’t take a HR expert like me to deduce that any kind of bias can backfire, even if it’s well-intended. How will employees in these groups be protected from discrimination after the point of hire? This seems problematic, especially without safeguards in place.

While the recommendations address the need to legislate against workplace discrimination, they perpetuate how it has been reactively addressed and reported. Furthermore, an emphasis on fairness seems to generate the opposite effect – and some recommendations may create more problems than they solve. Without more clarity or additional measures, it may not prevent abuse of such loopholes and subsequent exploitation.

SOLVING FOR A HARMONIOUS WORKPLACE

Although the examples given may seem disheartening at first, almost a third of recommendations directly refer to legislation or action to define a need for it. This is certainly a step in the right direction and has been a long time coming.

As a talent consultant who practises strategic DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), it is clear to me that the committee’s report lacks the voices of those who have been at a disadvantage without legislation. In fact, what’s missing from the recommendations is evidence to support what they propose. For example, in 2020 only 3.6% of resident persons with disabilities (PWDs) were without a job and actively looking for one. The Ministry of Social and Family Development estimated that this group consisted of 1,000 PWDs¹⁰.

The following year it was stated that close to 6,400 employers hired more than 9,700 PWDs¹¹. Based on these data points, it appears that the PWD employment rate has improved significantly, even for PWDs previously considered outside the working population. Why, then, is it necessary to recommend exemptions for PWDs if there are established channels and sufficient employers?

On the other hand, women continue to be left out and ignored when it comes to their pain points in employment. Laws may also be reactive and offer remedies only after discrimination occurs, or income lost from being out of the workforce involuntarily¹². We will continue to lose women from the workforce once they become mothers, and this may exacerbate societal pressures such as loss of household income, the gap between middle- and low-income groups as well as national fertility rates.

We simply cannot afford to leave women in the lurch; however, the organisations, programmes and schemes in place are either company or industry specific, membership-based or for profit. It’s uncertain at this point if Singapore can bear the burden of caregivers choosing to work instead of staying home with loved ones who need them, or women refusing to have children for fear of losing careers they worked for decades to build.

LEFT BEHIND – OR JUST FORGOTTEN?

In 2005, a year before TAFEP existed, a report was authored by a working group representing industries and business sectors such as healthcare, infocomm technology, and hospitality. The Strategies for Work-life Harmony report shared case studies and sector-specific support for employers to “use work-life strategies to improve business performance”¹³.

It’s unfortunate that this approach to work-life harmony was before TAFEP’s time and as a result, failed to receive more attention or funding; the report itself hasn’t been updated in the almost 20 years since it was first published but continues to live on the MOM website. Not just a missed opportunity to showcase a diversified approach to employment practices, it also laid out the business case for how having a HR management framework in place makes for better employee engagement and productivity – ultimately resulting in business competitiveness.

This is exactly what isn’t addressed in the current recommendations. Employers are being quoted as having valid concerns about the lack of definition for what constitutes discrimination, whether that’s behaviours or language, or both, and HR experts say the recommendations are insufficient to address the power imbalance already present in most workplaces.

Oddly, a few suggest that public apologies may be a better deterrent than financial penalties for employers¹⁴. One wonders how employees making salary claims may feel about an apology instead of compensation. It certainly doesn’t increase public confidence in reporting workplace discrimination and protecting workers from retaliation.

ONLY AS STRONG AS OUR WEAKEST LINK

It’s not too late to change the future of our workplace discrimination laws – and there are ways to address gaps in the recommendations if we cast the net wider to include experts in workplace disputes, global hiring trends and organisational development as well as equity and inclusion. Companies must begin working now to keep up with changes required; whether it’s manager upskilling, training HR, or even setting up facilities for whistleblowing – all are useful tools for when new laws become official¹⁵.

There is also a perspective that to be truly progressive and anti-discriminatory, existing guidelines should be replaced by legislation entirely; enshrining a rhetoric that prioritises Singaporeans and PMETs is at odds with the desire for workplace fairness and progressive employment practices¹⁶. This kind of sentiment may become common as Singapore must involve foreign labour at all levels to function optimally¹⁷.

What’s also troubling: the private sector has moved on to other tracks of the same conversation; government officials are discussing topics such as discrimination against one’s sexual orientation¹⁸ while the recommendations currently do not address this. When policies do not keep pace with globally trending topics, we must be realistic about how long it will take before laws become white elephants.

Singapore’s openness to foreign talent is already under fire given the difficulty in filling high-demand roles locally as well as cost of living increases borne by employers¹⁹. The economy will also take a hit if the global workforce rejects it for greener pastures where discrimination is more progressively addressed. As our minority president speaks on the world stage about combatting gender bias²⁰ locally, national agencies can do more in engaging with advocacy and business interest groups addressing such issues through formal partnerships²¹.

Just as it takes a village to raise a child, we need to involve all levels of society to ensure workplaces serve all and can build for as well as sustain work-life harmony. If we design without diversity of thought or experiences, that vision of harmony can and will become less than fair for most.

Tasha Enright is a Singaporean career coach and talent consultant who advocates for personal growth and meaningful work that is informed by Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). She is a youth community lead for the Somerset Belt Project, Mentor/Advisor at Tech For She and a member of the *SCAPE board of directors. Tasha was formerly Singapore Managing Director at Girls in Tech, a global non-profit, and has been in the business of people and culture

since 2012.