This op-ed was originally published in The Straits Times on 7 November 2024.

The Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) is expected to be tabled in 2024. In that context, accurate and meaningful data about workplaces is important and relevant to inform policymaking and legislation.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) released on Sept 24 its annual report on fair employment practices (FEP), based on a survey conducted in 2023, which aims to track the prevalence of workplace discrimination. The findings appear highly encouraging, as they suggest that discrimination has been decreasing over the years and that having formal procedures is effective in reducing some forms of workplace discrimination.

According to the FEP report, 6 per cent of employees experienced workplace discrimination in 2023. This was lower than in 2022 (8.2 per cent), 2021 (8.5 per cent) and 2018 (24.1 per cent). The report also showed that during the same period, there was a downtrend in the proportion of job seekers who faced discrimination.

However, a closer look at how data is collected and reported in the FEP report shows there are limits to the conclusions that can be drawn.

Not comprehensive enough

The FEP survey did not include discrimination based on family responsibilities (like caregiving), medical conditions, sexual orientation and indirect discrimination. By not measuring characteristics such as these, the incidences of discrimination reported are much less.

And while discrimination on the basis of gender identity and criminal history was measured, the report did not present this data in any meaningful way.

This means we do not have a more detailed picture of the types of discrimination experienced by employees.

The data is also not segmented and measured in a way that enables us to more meaningfully understand and address the actual trends in discrimination.

For example, by measuring discrimination only by age or race as a category and not by separating the respondents into age groups or races, we are not identifying whether there is a difference in the incidence of discrimination against some segments – such as older workers or minority races – compared with other segments, such as younger workers or the majority race. We are also not able to see the trend in such discrimination over the years.

Here’s an example: Take a sample size of 100 respondents, who each need to report whether they have noise complaints from living close to an airport. Seventy-four of them live beyond the range at which the loud sounds of planes can be heard (Group Far), but the remaining 26 reside within that (Group Near).

In 2022, 44 per cent of Group Far and 89 per cent of Group Near reported noise complaints from passing aircraft. Overall, the rate of complaints would be 55.7 per cent. In 2023, only 20 per cent of Group Far and 95 per cent of Group Near reported noise complaints from passing aircraft. Now the overall rate of complaints would be 39.5 per cent.

Without knowing the rates of reporting for the different groups, we would simply conclude that rates of noise complaints decreased, and that any interventions being made are working.

However, this trend is because there is a large number of people in Group Far, and their many reports cancelled out and overshadowed those from the smaller Group Near, which actually saw an increase of 6 percentage points in reports. Without this segregated information, we wouldn’t see that conditions are worsening for Group Near, and the need for solutions for this minority group would be overlooked.

The figures in this example are the exact rates of discrimination reported by the different races in the 2022 Aware-Milieu survey: Chinese reported discrimination by ethnicity at a rate of 44 per cent, while Indians (92 per cent) and Malays (85 per cent) reported it at an overall rate of 89 per cent.

Given that Chinese make up three-quarters of Singapore’s population, we can see that a decrease in rates of discrimination reported by this group might very well result in a skewed overall decrease, even if discrimination against minorities increased.

The FEP report shows a decrease of race-based discrimination from 2.6 per cent to 1.7 per cent. However, we do not know if this means that all races experienced less discrimination or if some races are, in fact, experiencing increasing rates of discrimination by race.

Lack of segmentation in the data not only obscures certain trends but also draws attention away from the roots of discrimination, which have to do with the broader systemic, social, economic and cultural realities of life in Singapore.

By comparison, the Aware-Milieu survey in 2022 of 1,000 respondents, nationally representative by age, gender and race, measured the segmented data, which showed that certain groups proved more vulnerable to discrimination at work than others.

Minority races experienced discrimination at a significantly higher rate (89 per cent) compared with those of the majority race (44 per cent); and 58 per cent of women had experienced at least one type of discrimination, compared with 53 per cent of men.

People with disabilities experienced discrimination at a significantly higher rate (78 per cent) than people without disabilities (50 per cent). And LGBTQ people experienced discrimination at a significantly higher rate (68 per cent) compared with those who did not identify as LGBTQ (56 per cent).

By not segmenting the data, the FEP report does not present a picture of which specific categories of people are experiencing higher rates of discrimination, and so we are unable to see the trends of discrimination for each of these categories.

Segmented data would help us to understand discrimination in the way it is actually being experienced by people and inform interventions that should be implemented.

Harassment is not measured

Harassment is a serious and prevalent problem among employees.

Aware’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory service, which ran for almost five years from September 2019 to May 2024, found that of the 1,122 clients we served, 50 per cent reported either sexual harassment or other forms of harassment and bullying in the workplace.

Yet, the FEP survey did not measure the incidence of harassment in the workplace and the WFL is not expected to provide employees with protection against harassment.

While we have the Protection from Harassment Act, the onus is on the employees who suffer such abuse in the workplace because they have to take legal action against the harasser.

It should be the employer’s duty to provide a workplace free from discrimination and harassment. Aware maintains its strong recommendation that protection against harassment in the workplace should be legislated.

Correlation is not causation

One of the key findings from the FEP report was that having formal procedures to manage discrimination at work was effective in reducing the likelihood of experiencing age discrimination.

This conclusion was drawn using a statistical tool that showed a correlation between two things: the presence of formal reporting methods in an employee’s workplace, and the chances of an employee saying whether they have ever experienced age discrimination at work.

The correlation could be explained by the fact that more progressive workplaces tend to employ formal reporting systems, and they also tend to have lower incidences of reports of discrimination. Without better data, we can’t draw the conclusion that having formal reporting systems reduces the incidence of age discrimination in the workplace.

What would have been more useful data to collect for this purpose?

One example would be knowing whether the outcome of reporting an instance of discrimination was positive, and the extent to which the discrimination was resolved or addressed by such reporting.

Analysis of employee satisfaction from different formal procedures would also be helpful in evaluating and providing evidence about which procedures are more helpful than others.

What useful data can help us to achieve

Some of the best workplace discrimination studies in other countries have resulted in legislation and solutions which equipped workers, the government and employers with significant rights and protection to enable the identification and addressing of workplace discrimination. These measures include the setting up of commissions that oversee and monitor discrimination in the workplace in the US, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Sweden.

Aware repeats the call for such a commission to monitor compliance with the WFL and other forms of harassment and discrimination in Singapore.

The annual FEP report provides valuable insights on the landscape of workplace discrimination in Singapore, but has the potential to become an even more effective tool to deal with workplace discrimination and harassment.

With further data collection and segregation, we can paint a more detailed picture of our current workplaces and inform the direction of future policy and legislative intervention.

Sugidha Nithiananthan is AWARE’s Director of Advocacy and Research.

MOM replied to this op-ed via a forum letter to the Straits Times on 19 November 2024.