Racial and Religious Discrimination in Workplace

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Manpower over the past five years (a) what is the trend in the number of cases relating to race- and language-related discrimination in the work place; and (b) how many of such cases in respect of job interviews, hiring practices and workplace practices have been enforced.

Page: 25

Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) has been effective in reducing discrimination at workplaces; (b) whether the existing framework of measures are sufficient to send a strong message that workplace discrimination, particularly those related to race and religion, will not be tolerated; and (c) what recourse can an individual take should the person feel that there is discrimination due to race and religion

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Manpower): Madam, with your permission, can I take Question Nos 8 and 9 together?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you, Madam. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) was set up in 2006 to promote fair employment practices. TAFEP released the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices in 2007. Recognising that the key to dealing with discrimination issues is to change employers' mindsets, TAFEP adopts both a promotional and capability building approach in helping employers to adopt the Tripartite Guidelines.

An employee who feels discriminated against can approach TAFEP for assistance. In the last five years, TAFEP has, on average, received less than 80 race-, language- and religion-related discrimination complaints per year against employers. This number has remained fairly stable. When TAFEP engages these employers, the large majority will rectify their employment practices.

Where there is evidence of non-compliance with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, TAFEP will refer these cases to MOM for investigation. In 2014, MOM investigated and took action against nine employers for race, language and religion-related discriminatory employment practices. These employers were issued stern warnings and had their work pass privileges curtailed.

I am happy to note that most employers that have been approached by TAFEP have responded positively and have adopted fair employment practices. Only a small minority are referred to MOM for enforcement. This shows that our current approach has worked well.

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): What was the outcome of MOM's investigation into the recent alleged cases of discrimination that went viral over the social media, in particular, I am referring to the first case of an alleged discrimination against a Chinese-Muslim woman and the second an alleged discrimination of a foreign national recruiting his own nationality for a position in the company?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me note that Ministry of Manpower takes a very firm and serious stance against workplace discrimination. There is no place for discrimination at the workplace and we expect all employers to consider and treat employees fairly, complying with the Fair Consideration Framework and the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. MOM together with TAFEP will seriously follow-up on every discriminatory case received.

For Ms Heng's case, I understand that TAFEP contacted both Ms Heng as well as the company in question. According to the company, the person who posted the discriminatory post is not one of their employees. In fact, they have actually lodged a police report to investigate the incident. With regard to the other nationality-based case, I think it is in relation to a Myanmar national. I understand that we are currently looking into the matter.

Page: 26

Let me highlight that given that social media has the potential to amplify a case, it is important that we get our facts right. And let me also assure the House that MOM together with TAFEP will continue to work at addressing workplace discrimination. In fact, recently, my Minister has also announced additional measures under the Fair Consideration Framework as well as the National Jobs Bank to address nationality-related discrimination cases, and to build a strong Singapore core.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank Senior Minister of State for her earlier clarification. Just a couple of things. One, I am surprised that the numbers of 80 per year, in terms of complaints related to race and religions is quite low, considering the fact that many Singaporeans and especially among the minority communities, the Malay and Indian communities who have come up to raise concern that there is a discrimination that goes on. Does MOM think that this number is a little under-declared, or do you think that it is barrier for people to come forward to make reports?

Secondly, specific to the example given by the hon Member, Mr Zainal Sapari was that about the case of Ms Heidi Heng. That is one way in which it is very difficult to prove in the sense that you do not overtly put up the requirements but at the same time at the back end, when they found out she was a Chinese Muslim, but she meets the language criteria, not specific for this case but there are cases which we have heard of - how many of such cases have been reported? And out of the 80 cases that MOM receives a year, how many are actually found to be guilty and what form of recourse does MOM have with regard to race and religious discrimination by employers? Work Pass discrimination only works if you are dealing with the nationality-based discrimination, but for religious- and race-based discrimination, what is the recourse taken on such employers and how many of them are found guilty per year, for the last five years?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have noted earlier in my reply, we believe that the way to tackle workplace discrimination, whether it is age-related, nationality-based or race, language or religion, or any other workplace discrimination, fundamentally, you have to change the mindsets of employers. And therefore, we have adopted the promotional approach as well as the capability-building approach but coupled that with enforcement by MOM for cases where there are prima facie evidence of discriminatory practices.

As I have also noted, the number of cases over the last five years have actually remained relatively stable, about 80. We encourage anyone who feels that they are victims of discriminatory workplace practices, to come forward and inform TAFEP, but when we talk about promotional and capability-building approach, we are also talking about educating the employers, the human resource (HR) practitioners, the supervisors in the companies not to inadvertently practise discrimination at the workplace.

In addition to that, last year, 2014, there were nine cases. As I have said, for the 80, less than 80 actually, cases that comes up to us, TAFEP will investigate every case and when there is no evidence, as you have noted, it is not easy. It is unlike other employment offences, it is actually not easy to prove discriminatory practices. And therefore, if TAFEP sees that there are gaps in HR practices, or gaps in some of the hiring practices, TAFEP will advise and share guidelines with these employers.

Page: 27

In most instances, the employers respond positively. They will either take down or refine the job advertisements. For gaps in HR practices, employers will rectify them. In most cases, they indicate that they are supportive of fair hiring employment practices.

So, for the cases which are unresponsive or recalcitrant, and where there are prima facie evidence of discriminatory practices, they will be referred to MOM for investigation. So, for last year, we enforced action against the nine companies. Whilst it is true that these are not nationality-based, the fact is that most companies do employ some numbers of foreign workers and therefore, curtailing their work pass privileges, is very serious for them. We curtail the work pass privileges for six months and more.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Just a clarification -- for the nine cases that were found guilty, what were the measures taken on them? Were they all deprived of Work Passes or were there other measures taken?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Out of the nine companies, one received a stern warning, which means that they will be on our watch list and eight had their work pass privileges curtailed.

Page: 27