Videos: 3 MPs query MOM why discrimination against sexual orientation & gender identity left out of Workplace Fairness Bill

[groyn88]

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 Workplace Fairness Bill.
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."

[groyn88]

 

[groyn88]

 

[doncoin]

The basis of argument is this, since sexual orientation and gender identity are not explicitly included in the legal language, an employer can terminate an employee on those grounds. While there are other support structure in place for non-discrimination, etc. and they cover protection for LGBTQIA+ individuals, they do not cover employment. This will be the loophole, or basis of tossing out any discrimination lawsuit brought forth by the LGBTQIA+ employee. 

 

As the employer who fired the gay employee for sexual orientation, I have technically not broken any employment regulation under the Workplace Fairness Bill, as the bill does not yet explicitly cover sexual orientation as a protected characteristic. However, I may have violated other areas, such as those related to the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, which require employers to adopt fair hiring, management, and termination processes based on merit. However, the keyword on Fair Employment Practices is "guidelines," meaning they are not part of the law. 

 

For the fired gay employee, it means loss of income, and due to financial reasons may opt not to fight for their rights. 

 

Yes, the gay employee can go to watchdog organizations or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), for assistance, but it is a process and in the mean time, what is he or she going to do about income? 

 

I do think it is important to be explicitly clear in the Bill to state LGBTQIA+ and gender identity as protected classes. 

Edited 8 hours ago by doncoin

[groyn88]

On Wednesday, 8 January 2025, during second of the two-day Parliamentary debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, Nominated Member of Parliament Usha Chandradas rose to speak up against the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the proposed Bill.
Transcript:
My main clarifications in my speech are on the definition of sex as it is set out in Clauses 8C and 10 of the Bill. The definition includes biological characteristics from birth and after the completion of sex reassignment 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 reassignment 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 procedures. 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 LGBT+ 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. Now, 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. Now speaking as someone who actually does have a husband of a different race, this was slightly alarming for me to read in the Bill. Now I understand that given the prescriptive approach that's 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. Now 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 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. Now 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 behavior 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 LGBT+ 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 um 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 LGBT+ 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 Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive  Employment Practices or 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 LGBT+ individuals raises some notable feedback according to the report which was based on a survey of around respondents almost / 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 tab. 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 LGBT+ individuals tend to underreport 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 LGBT+ individuals through tep and the tripartite guidelines on Fair Employment Practices or the TGF. Now the minister yesterday alluded to updates being made to the TGF, 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 LGBT+ persons, for example will the ministry work with  LGBT+ groups on the ground to conduct training for tep and other Frontline 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 are any plans for the law to be re-examine at a specific point in the future and to consider whether the exclusions at Clause may be removed or amended. MOMM has indicated in its fact sheet on the proposed Bill that tripartite Partners will review the exemption set out at Clause of the Bill in years time if so will a similar reconsideration of Clauses C and also take place a number of countries including the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand have codified provisions against workplace discrimination based on identity and sexuality. So 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. Thank you.

Edited 8 hours ago by groyn88

[groyn88]

Links:

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Workplace_discrimination_against_LGBT_people_in_Singapore