Poor employer response

Employers enable an environment where harassment is condoned when they shield perpetrators and try to hush the victims so they can keep such incidents quiet.

Our experience, unfortunately, shows that employers are inclined to sweep the incidents under the rug and, in some instances, even defend the offender.

Of the cases reported, a 2021 survey by Aware found that only about four in 10 harassers were reassigned or dismissed. About another two in 10 reported a lack of action taken against the harasser despite clear evidence of the harassment.

Perpetrators may not be held to account because employers fear they are harder to replace, or have power and influence in the industry and might take retaliatory action against the organisation.

Others may have personal friendships with senior management and the board, making HR generally disinclined to rock the boat.

HR departments have even approached Catalyse, Aware’s training and consulting arm, asking for advice on how to persuade their CEOs to take action against senior leaders – often close friends of the CEO – who have well-documented records of harassment.

It goes without saying that workplace harassment must end. People deserve safe and inclusive places where they can give their best and thrive in what they do, instead of being subjected to insidious bullying and misconduct.

Employers have a duty of care to their staff. Swift action must be taken when such reports surface, instead of leaving the victims to fend for themselves.

And fend for themselves, they do. The 2021 Aware report found that workplace harassment has detrimental effects on work performance and career and financial progression.

Many respondents took leave of absence or changed jobs, often switching industries altogether, to escape the hostile environment.

In Singapore, laws protecting against harassment are the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code. Both require the victims to take action against the perpetrator on their own.

Employers currently have no expressed obligation under any of Singapore’s laws to ensure their workplaces are free of harassment. Although there is the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment issued in 2016, which outlines progressive workplace practices, employers are encouraged but not required by law to adopt its procedures, principles and values.

While victims of workplace harassment can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (Tafep) for assistance in harassment cases, in 2022, only 5 per cent of WHDA cases were ultimately referred to Tafep. Many victims tell us they are discouraged from doing so when they hear that Tafep has no legal enforcement powers and limited administrative abilities.

Fixing workplaces

Singapore has a chance to fix the scourge of workplace harassment. Mooted at the 2021 National Day Rally, efforts are under way to strengthen workplace fairness under the umbrella of the Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL).

Although first framed as a move to tackle discriminatory hiring practices, a tripartite committee has since submitted 22 recommendations that aim to strengthen employment practices more broadly including addressing retaliation, which the Government has accepted.

Unfortunately, although the final report of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness does make noteworthy recommendations to move us closer to protecting workers against discrimination – including defining discrimination, broadening protected characteristics to encompass mental health and caregiving responsibilities, and expanding pregnancy to encompass breastfeeding mothers and those aspiring to have children – the proposals fall short of tackling harassment in the workplace.

Some recommendations – such as prohibiting retaliatory actions against those who report workplace discrimination or harassment, and the requirement for grievance handling procedures – can alleviate issues pertaining to workplace harassment. Yet, these do not mandate employers to take steps to prevent and address harassment nor hold them liable if they fail to do so.

Employers are in a position to take steps to prevent and effectively manage such issues. They should be required to do so.

In fact, while discrimination and harassment may appear to be completely separate issues on the surface, they are often closely intertwined. The people most susceptible to discrimination are also most at risk for harassment and vice versa, given unconscious bias and unhelpful stereotyping. For example, many cases seen by WHDA involve pregnant employees who suffered both discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

The same is true for many employees with caregiving responsibilities whom WHDA has supported.

We should not miss this opportunity to expand the ambit of the WFL, put in place protections against workplace harassment, and create a truly fair environment for all workers in Singapore.

The WFL must genuinely embody its name. It has to be a strong framework ensuring fairness, safety and inclusion in all workplaces.

If the law protects only against discrimination and not harassment, it will fall short of living up to its name.

Sugidha Nithiananthan is director of advocacy, research and communications at Aware. Apoorva Shukla is executive at Aware’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory.