Manpower Minister Tan See Leng responded to MPs ‘ concerns about the bill’s spaces, saying “we’ve only just begun.”
The minister had stated on Tuesday that 95 % of complaints to the authorities are made in the five areas covered by the Bill, and that those who fall outside those areas can still get mediation from the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices ( TAFEP ). The law covers discrimination based on age, ethnicity, race and gender, among various features.  ,
This Bill is just the beginning, I want to emphasize once more. In accordance with the TGFEP ( Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices ), TFEP will monitor, analyze, and share information regarding complaints and cases that have been resolved. He said,” This will enable us to have more meaningful discussions and make decisions about our next steps.”
MPs questioned why the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ( LGBT ) community was excluded from the Bill because it includes discrimination due to marital status, pregnancy, or caregiving responsibilities, despite the fact that the clause on gender does not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Mr Louis Ng ( PAP-Nee Soon ) said studies show that such employees already face significant workplace discrimination.
Are we letting Gay people know that they are not protected from working bias because of their physical orientation and gender personality? Are we letting companies know that it is acceptable to treat anyone differently based on their sexual orientation and gender personality? he asked.
Additionally, Nominated MP Usha Chandradas addressed the concerns of Gay artists in the community regarding this rejection.
” Taken to an extreme, some may view this as the state condoning this kind of office discrimination. She said that this was even unintentionally indicate to employers that for discriminatory practices may go largely unnoticed.
On Tuesday, Ms He Ting Ru ( WP-Sengkang ) had also called for discrimination against LGBT workers to be included in the Bill. This rejection seems “at odds” with governmental statements made during the reform of area 377A of the Penal Code that “gay people deserve respect, value, acceptance” and “do not need to remain stigmatised because of their physical orientation”, she said.
Dr. Tan argued that discrimination against LGBT employees is hardly tolerated, even in the work, and that TGFEP will continue to handle such cases.  ,
Nonetheless, there has always been difficulty in reaching a compromise on this matter, he said, noting that even the WP found it hard to get a “unified group place” on the reform of 377A.
He questioned whether Ms. He’s “emphatic support” for the inclusion of LGBT workers was consistent with the Workers ‘ Party’s position.  ,
” Let us concentrate our efforts and efforts on providing material support to our staff, while we strengthen our knowledge and understanding of managing such issues under the law,” said Dr. Tan.
Pritam Singh, the party’s leader, responded by saying that the group supports Ms. He on this because 377a’s reform is a different issue than it is with discrimination at work. He noted that TGFEP may address sexual discrimination, but he anticipates that it will be addressed in future legal reforms.
Time, Prejudice BY ASSOCIATION
Regarding ageism, Dr. Tan stated that he and other MPs need to handle age discrimination and alter attitudes toward older workers.
” This calls for a multi-faceted view, including adopting age-friendly work practices and addressing rooted views of ageism,” he said.  ,
A number of MPs, including Mr. Singh, had questioned why the Bill does not allow bias by connection when a worker is subject to discrimination because of their relationship to another. When a spouse is discriminated against because of their culture, as an example.
Dr. Tan claimed that this was primarily because it would be difficult to define the beginning or end of discrimination based on organization because it could affect people’s friends or those they have ties to.
” Legislating against this has far-reaching implications that we can’t ignore and predict, and it fosters a culture of distrust and suspicion between employees and employers.” Thus, we started with a securely scoped Bill to prevent litigiousness and provide valuable protections”, he said.
To Mr Singh’s issue from Tuesday on whether TAFEP had encountered like circumstances, Dr Tan said, to his information, it has not encountered cases of prejudice by relationship.
Dr Tan also addressed queries from Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap ( WP-Aljunied ).  ,
Mr. Manap inquired whether discrimination based on religion may result from Muslim men being denied permission to attend Friday prayers and Arab girls being asked to remove their tudungs.
Dr. Tan asserted that the Bill is not about enacting a law requiring a company to permit people to attend Friday blessings or to adhere to practices and requests for any other church.  ,
There are a lot of administrative details and implications, and opened communication and discussion about the needs of the worker and the employer are best ways to address these issues.
However, he said,” [but ] it is discriminatory under the law if a person attends Friday prayers and is fired for being religious and not because of performance.”
The labor department said that while there is now legal remedy for work bias, it will still take an “education-first approach” to maintain the right mindsets among employers and workers.  ,
According to the ministry,” The Bill introduces calibrated enforcement levers that allow the government to take action based on the severity of the breach.”  ,
” These include issuing directions to attend educational workshops, administrative financial penalties, and heavier civil penalties. This judicious strategy aims to promote compliance among the small number of errant employers while preventing misconduct.
The Workplace Fairness Act will become effective in 2026 or 2027.