the week: FWA guidelines will do nothing for the worker

The Tripartite Alliance issues new guidelines on flexible work arrangement requests

The Tripartite Alliance for Fair & Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) has released new guidelines for flexible work arrangement (FWA) requests which will come into effect on 1 December 2024. The guidelines require employers to put in place a process for employees to apply for FWAs which vary from the standard work arrangement in these ways:

1. Location: allowing employees to work a location different from the usual office location;

2. Time: allowing employees to work at different timings without changing their total workload or compensation; or

3. Work load: allowing employees to assume different workloads with commensurate pay.¹

Once an employee submits a request, the employer needs to communicate the decision within 2 months. If the employer wishes to reject a claim, it will need to be on what TAFEP calls “reasonable business grounds”, examples of which include but are not limited to cost, feasibility or practicality, or the work arrangement being detrimental to productivity or output. Examples of “unreasonable” reasons include management not believing in FWAs, supervisors preferring to have direct sight of employees, and traditions of not having FWAs in their organization.

How effective are these guidelines in protecting the Singaporean worker? Even if you’re highly optimistic about these guidelines, I think you would have to admit the most you could say is that it is nothing more than a step in the right direction. If you’re less charitable, you might say that the introduction of these guidelines are largely performative, that the PAP government once again want to seen to be doing something, rather than actually doing something to make lives better for the Singaporean worker.

What I mean is this: the guidelines are toothless, there is no bite to them. The guidelines merely impose an administrative burden on employers, all employers need to do is show that they have put in place a system which can process FWA requests from their employees, and upon receiving these requests, ensure they do not give any “unreasonable” reasons when rejecting the requests. Given Singapore’s reputation for strict laws, surely a failure to do that results in a massive fine and or at least a warning which could escalate to a fine? Wrong. You see, these are merely guidelines, and in the spirit of greater government-industry cooperation, TAFEP will opt to instead educate these errant employers. This isn’t even a slap on the wrist so much as a stern talking to. But most importantly, nothing in these guidelines actually increase the employee’s likelihood of having flexible work arrangements. All that an employer needs to do to be compliant is to have systems in place, there is nothing that provides for actually improving the working conditions of employees, and in fact might make some human resource manager’s conditions worse by increasing their workload. In all likelihood employees who already enjoy FWAs will continue enjoying them and employees who do not enjoy FWAs will continue going without.

Who are these guidelines supposed to help? In a report cited by The Straits Times, 83 per cent of Singapore employers already support flexible arrangements.² Are the guidelines meant to cudgel the remaining 17 per cent into compliance? Are these employers who have not already been offering FWAs now suddenly keen to do so now that there are guidelines in place? That seems very unlikely to me. These guidelines also do nothing to help Singaporeans for whom FWAs do not apply, anyone working in retail or a job which requires them to physically be there (most commonly in hospitality or service industries) will not benefit from these guidelines. I’m not saying every policy has to benefit all Singaporeans, that would be impossible, but I do think these guidelines in particular don’t seem to benefit anyone.

Already most multi-national corporations (MNCs) offer at least some version of FWAs. The employers who struggle the most to offer FWAs will be local small-medium enterprises (SMEs). In fact the predictable outcome of this is SMEs will have the additional administrative burden of implementing these guidelines, but still reject any application for FWAs (given how ridiculously easy it is to give “reasonable business grounds”). And I don’t blame them for it. Smaller SMEs do not benefit from the same economies of scale as MNCs, they may not have the same infrastructure or resources as an MNC. Not every SME will be able to afford a laptop for everyone, or have their documents on the cloud or servers accessible to employees at home. Sure, there are government grants, but most of these require some level of copayment from the SME, some of which just do not have the spare capital.

Among developed countries Singapore has some of the worst labour protections: one of the lowest annual leave entitlement starting at 7 days to a maximum of 14 days in law and we work some of the longest hours per week at over 43 hours (by contrast the average for OECD countries is about 37). Instead of introducing these guidelines, will the government be willing to enshrine more employee protections into law? Let me address some of the common objections to this, and also elaborate on why any change to worker protections must necessarily come from the government.

The MNCs are going to leave

This is the common refrain whenever it is suggested that Singapore should have better worker protections. It has been largely the Singapore strategy from way back in the 1960s first implemented by Lee Kuan Yew that Singapore would rely on MNCs to be the main driver of employment and investment in Singapore.³ The accepted wisdom in Singapore is that we have an overwhelming reliance on these MNCs, and should they leave everyone in Singapore would suffer.

To that end Singapore has one of the most pro-company regimes in the world. We have one of the lowest corporate tax rates at 17 per cent and some of the most lax financial regulations around the world⁴ (something which all us ex-British island colonies seem to have in common). We also have a low tolerance for corruption, and a reputation for public safety. In other words, it is very conducive for companies to set up businesses here, even if there is a premium to be paid on rentals and work force.

Are we to believe that the second the Singapore government increases mandatory annual leave or cuts the weekly working hours or implements a right to disconnect these MNCs will start running? Is the educated Singapore work force and human capital worth so little? If indeed these companies flee at the first sight of pro-worker policies, then the PAP strategy has indeed been an abject failure - there has been no skills transfer between the MNCs and the Singapore population, we don’t have the elite human capital that the PAP has often taken credit for creating, and the only reason these MNCs even put up with us is because we are the cheapest and most exploitable people they can find. This cannot be the reason we don’t implement more pro-worker laws in Singapore, it is fearmongering to suggest it is.

But it won’t stop people from saying things like:

Why don’t I just hire remote workers

These guidelines, as toothless as I’ve shown them to be above, are still generating some pushback. In a CNA article titled “'Singaporeans need to level up': Companies say flexi-work could push them to hire overseas”, some employers expressed that they would start looking overseas for remote workers instead of hiring locally if they had to adopt FWAs for their employees. First off, they could already do that, there’s nothing stopping them from hiring remote workers if they truly believe that it is better for them. Second, of course the employers are going to say that, they will push back against anything that is against their interest.

The subject of hiring foreigners, or “foreign talent” as coined by the Singaporean government all the way back in 1988 is a touchy one. Singapore like any other developed nation struggles with balancing the needs of the locals with the needs of the country’s labour needs. The debate is still ongoing today, and as recent as 2021 this topic is still heatedly debated in Parliament. Singapore seemingly needs an endless supply of “foreign talent” to supplement the workforce, and the supposed skill transfers that should have taken place over the course of the last 20 years since the term first entered the national lexicon is nowhere to be found. Part of the problem is the government is always trying to bandwagon onto the latest economic fad instead of trying to cultivate a comparative advantage in specific fields which would be hard to disrupt. An example would be how Taiwan manufactures more than 90 per cent of the world’s supply of microchips. This cannot be easily replaced or offshored, and creates a stable job market for the country. In contrast, the Singapore government is always chasing the next big fad. First it was trying to establish Singapore as a financial center, then it was creating a biomedical manufacturing hub, and most recently was the push for Singapore to become a leader in artificial intelligence (AI). These are not bad things in and of itself, it is good that Singapore becomes a leader in AI, it is good that Singapore is a biomedical hub. What is not good is that the government in trying to create these industries where Singaporeans have no expertise in are now “forced” by necessity to bring in “foreign talents”.⁵

Why do I bring up “foreign talents”? Because the threat of hiring remote workers or offshoring parts of a business is very similar to that. After years of the promise of skills transfer to the local population are we no better off now then we were back then? Is the Singaporean workforce that replaceable that the mere threat of increased employee protections is enough to scare employers away from Singapore to forage our neighbours for cheaper labour?

A government which is openly on the worker’s side

Where does this leave us? I hate to say this, but I think the only way we will ever get better employee protections and more pro-worker rights is through the government. Singaporeans are often accused of overreliance on the government, but on this matter I think there is simply no other way.

In the 1950s, Lee Kuan Yew rode the unions to power. Then in the 1960s, he crippled them. He had good reason to do so, in his memoirs he recounts how the British unions had ruined the British economy, and determined not to let Singapore suffer the same fate he rid the unions of communist influence through Operation Cold Store and in 1968 he imposed strict restrictions on industrial action through the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. Today the unions are but a shadow of their former selves, and it is an open secret that there is a revolving door between the government and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), and the secretary general of the NTUC has been either a member of the PAP or a PAP Minister for the last 40 years.

So the Singaporean worker can only rely on the government to advance their rights. In a speech given on Singapore’s inaugural May Day public holiday in 1960, Lee Kuan Yew said the following:

“For this is the first time that May Day is celebrated in Singapore when there is a government which is openly on the worker's side. The P.A.P. said clearly before and during the elections that a P.A.P. Government is a Government on the side of the workers.”

Will the PAP once again fulfil this promise to the workers of Singapore and introduce pro worker legislation instead of merely pushing ineffectual guidelines under the guise of helping the Singaporean worker? If the aim of FWAs is to make life easier for Singaporeans with dependents, then passing the following legislation would have the same if not even greater effect:

1. Lower the working hours for Singaporeans, instead of a 44 hour work week working from 9am to 6pm, instead allow for Singaporeans to have an actual 9am to 5pm job. This would allow parents to spend more time with their children, actually have time to pick their children from after school activities, and maybe even prepare dinner. Improving working conditions and allowing for more family time is a way of making Singapore livable again, and I believe would be a step in the right direction for increasing our TFR;

2. Enshrine the right to disconnect into law. As above, this would allow workers to enjoy their time outside of work, and would have a greater effect on improving the mental health of Singaporeans. Already we are ranked one of the most overworked and fatigued countries;

3. Make it illegal to ask for the last drawn salary. This is a simple way to protect workers’ interests. There is actually no reason an employer ever needs to know the last drawn salary of their employee. Employers should be offering what the job is worth to them, and knowing the last drawn salary does nothing to help them arrive at the figure. This is an incredibly simple way to protect workers’ rights without prejudicing the employer.

Actual legislation rather than loose guidelines from TAFEP should be the way to improve the lives of our workers. As May Day approaches, we will take our well deserved rest to celebrate the workers who have built Singapore into the country it is today, and it is an excellent time to reflect on the reform that we wish to see for our country and our workers. “For the State must protect your rice bowl, your friend's rice bowl and also that of your children.”

1. As an aside, I’ve been seeing more and more discussion about a 4 day work week in Singapore, driven in no small part by the media with sensationalist headlines like “Singaporeans expect 4-day work week to be common within 4 years” and “Want a four-day workweek? Head to Singapore”. There is a poll conducted by ADP in which 1 in 3 Singaporeans supposedly expect a 4 day work week to be the norm in the next 5 years. Who are these Singaporeans? We have one of the longest working hours of any country, fifth on this 2017 list. It is true that the guidelines do give an example of FWAs to be less working days, but it is also stated that you would receive commensurate pay for less working days. This is already available for some employers, and it is increasingly common in some MNCs to have employees opt for a 4 day work week presumably with the accompanying pay cut. I suspect when Singaporeans are talking about a 4 day work week they expect to draw the same pay as they do for a 5 day work week, which is a delusion born in fantasy. Even if we were to implement a 4 day work week, I sincerely doubt the Singapore government would be the first to do it, given the “wait and see” approach they have taken for most changes.

2. The article in question cites the report which says that “83 per cent of Singapore employers think their workplaces support flexible arrangements, while only 61 per cent of employees feel the same way”. The contention here is not whether the employee is getting FWAs but whether the employer has a system in place to handle FWA requests. I’m therefore using the 83 per cent number because when an employer says they support flexible arrangements it likely means they have a system in place (even if they don’t ever give FWAs) whereas when an employee says their employer does not support FWAs it probably means their employer does not specifically give them FWAs.

3. Even then as noted in his memoirs From Third World to First Lee Kuan Yew understood there could be tradeoffs, namely that we could become a nation beholden to the MNCs and our people and land exploited. He did not think we had any natural resources to be plundered, and he believed that we could learn from the MNCs how business was done. It has however come at the cost of developing our own SMEs, as legendary civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow has pointed out. As an analogy, MNCs are like large trees, which are excellent for providing many people with shade and shelter. But they also choke out attempts to plant smaller plants in their presence. I do not begrudge Lee Kuan Yew his decision, after all it was a difficult time and he made the best decision he could at the time, and had he decided otherwise who knows if Singapore could have survived? But I do think that in the intervening years since a more concerted effort to pivot to local SMEs is warranted.

4. Some might say too lax, given the spate of money laundering cases that are happening now.

5. I’m also a firm believer that the government should not be picking winners and losers in an economy. The government should be letting the free market decide who succeeds and who doesn’t - I don’t think the government should be investing money without actual skin in the game (because the money belongs to the taxpayer). For that reason I am also against government linked companies (GLCs), though I also understand that removing GLCs would cause a lot of pain to Singaporeans before things get better and I’m not sure anyone has the stomach or political will to do it. One need only look at Argentina to see how Peronism has ruined what was once one of the largest economies in the world. NOL struggles to turn a profit as a GLC but almost immediately turn around when sold off to private industry, SPH Media Trust is unable to operate without billion dollar funding from the government, and don’t even get me started on Hyflux. More recently Ubisoft which received a grant from EDB in 2016 to headquarter in Singapore on the promise that it developed a game here, which ultimately released to poor to mixed reviews after spending 10 years in development hell.