In a statement on last Wednesday (16 December), Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEC)’s executive director Sim Gim Guan (Sim) said that introducing anti-workplace discrimination laws in Singapore could likely lead to “rigidities for responsible employers and entail lengthy dispute resolution processes.”
Sim’s statement was in response to a letter by Mamta Melwani (Melwani), senior executive at the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE)’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory, published on TODAY, urging the Government to enact laws to hold errant employers who practice unfair hiring practices accountable. In her letter, Melwani referred to a number of reports which showed an increase in discriminatory hiring practices in Singapore. She also pointed to the lack of legislation to enforce the guidelines outlined in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.
Sim could well be correct in saying that regulations could lead to rigidities and delays in resolution but the real question to ask is not one about efficacies but one about effectively protecting minority employees. When it comes to employment disputes, is the main goal solely to resolve the dispute? Or is it to resolve the underlying concerns that led to the dispute in the first place? In other words, is Sim talking about a solution that actually eradicates discrimination or just a solution to quickly close a particular case in point?
Moreover, is it the intention to reach a resolution that is fair to both parties or is it a resolution for the sake of resolution — with it being more likely than not, a resolution that is weighted in favour of the employer, given that they would usually be in the stronger bargaining position of “institution versus individual”.
The nature of discrimination is such that if left just to the employer’s discretion, it will not be dealt with equitably. This is because the person or persons being discriminated against will be in the minority. Just from a balance of power perspective, the odds will already be stacked against the person or persons being discriminated against. So, if such minorities are not being protected by a clear and unequivocal law, chances are, they run a strong risk of being pressured into a resolution even if such a resolution isn’t fair. So, even though, there is a solution on paper, it isn’t really one that is just.
The whole premise of protection against discrimination is that it has to be rigid in order to serve its purpose. It may not be the most convenient or the fastest – but if it is not black or white and spelt out in the letter of the law, it will be open to abuse.
To buffer his point, Sim states that the number of complaints about discrimination handled by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (Tafep) has reduced over the years. However, is the reduction of complaints due to a genuine reduction of discriminatory practices or is it due to employees believing that complaining is a lost cause due to the fact of there being no proper law to protect their rights?
Sim further also pointed out that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) takes action against these errant employers through methods such as suspending their work-pass privileges. However, if the MOM never gets to hear of such discriminatory behaviour in the first place, it will not be in a position to deal with anything!
Without a systematic framework to govern discriminatory practices, the issue of discrimination can never really be dealt with in an open, transparent and objective manner. It takes great courage to speak out in situations where the power balance is weighted against you. If there is no law to support you, many with genuine complaints may never speak out of fear.
This takes us to the root of the issue — do we want a quick resolution or do we actually want to protect the minorities?