Legal Update

Jan 30, 2025

2024 Year in Review – Singapore Employment Law

2024 saw the introduction of a series of updates in the employment law landscape in Singapore. This article provides a brief overview of the key developments that occurred over the past year and a brief commentary on the outlook for 2025 as we enter into the new year.

For the full version of this article, please click here.

1 January: The Central Provident Fund ordinary wage ceiling was raised. Click here to read more.
31 January: The Singapore High Court (“HC”) issued its judgment in the case of Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29 in which the Court dismissed Shopee’s application to restrain its former employee, Lim Teck Yong, from commencing employment with a competitor. Click here to read more.
29 February: The Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”) indicated that it would be working together with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices to develop a set of tripartite guidelines to shape norms and provide employers with further guidance on the inclusion of non-compete provisions in employment contracts. Click here to read more.
4 March: The MOM announced that the monthly minimum qualifying salary for new Employment Pass applicants will be raised. Click here to read more.
2 April: The HC reiterated in the case of MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94 that an employer enforcing a non-compete clause would have to establish that the clause covered a legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information or trade secrets. Click here to read more.
1 June: The MOM increased the maximum monetary fines for safety breaches at work resulting in death, serious bodily injury, or dangerous occurrence. Click here to read more.
9 July: The MOM clarified that Employers of Record are not permitted to apply for work passes for foreigners to be based in Singapore if the company seeking the services of the Employer of Record is an overseas company. Click here to read more.
13 August: In the case of BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and another v Sumit Grover [2024] SGHC 206, the HC clarified that whether an employee is entitled to a bonus under an employment agreement turns on the construction of the bonus clause in question. Click here to read more.
18 August: Singapore’s Prime Minister announced in his National Day rally speech that eligible employees will be entitled to increased Government-paid paternity leave and shared parental leave from 1 April 2025. Click here to read more.
10 September: The Platform Workers Bill was passed in Singapore Parliament. Following from this, the Platform Workers Act 2024 came into effect on 1 January 2025. Click here to read more.
14 October: In the case of Dabbs, Matthew Edward v AAM Advisory Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 260, the HC considered, amongst other issues, the criteria for establishing summary dismissal. Click here to read more.
12 November: The Workplace Fairness Bill was read for the first time in Singapore Parliament and has since been passed on 8 January 2025. Click here to read more.
1 December: The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements came into effect. Click here to read more.

2025 Outlook

The anticipated changes to Singapore employment law in 2025 include:

the introduction of a second Workplace Fairness Bill on the procedural rights and processes for individuals to make private claims;
the implementation of the Platform Workers Act 2024, which came into force on 1 January 2025;
increased Government-paid paternity leave and shared parental leave coming into force for eligible employees from 1 April 2025;
the introduction of a set of guidelines on the use of non-compete provisions in employment contracts.

Click here to read more.

2024 Year in Review – Singapore Employment Law (Full Version)

Significant updates have occurred in the employment law landscape in Singapore in 2024, including the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Bill, which will be Singapore’s first anti-discrimination legislation. This article provides a summary of the key developments over the past year and an outlook on anticipated changes to note in 2025.

January

On 1 January 2024, the Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) Ordinary Wage (“OW”) ceiling was raised from S$6,300 to S$6,800. The OW ceiling limits the amount of OW that attracts CPF contributions in a calendar month. This was effective until 31 December 2024. From 1 January 2025, the OW ceiling has been raised from S$6,800 to S$7,400. The OW ceiling will be raised further to S$8,000 from 1 January 2026.

On 31 January 2024, the Singapore High Court issued the judgment in the case of Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29 in which the Court dismissed Shopee’s application to restrain its former employee, Lim Teck Yong (“Lim”) from commencing employment with a competitor. At the point of accepting Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd (“Shopee”)’s offer of employment, Lim had agreed to and signed both an agreement containing non-compete and non-solicitation provisions, as well as an employee confidentiality agreement which contained provisions requiring him to undertake post-employment obligations relating to the protection of Shopee’s confidential proprietary information.

The Court stressed that where the protection of the confidential information or trade secrets is already covered by another clause in the contract, the employer will have to demonstrate that the restraint of trade clause in question covers a legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information or trade secrets. As there was already an employee confidentiality agreement in force imposing post-employment obligations relating to the protection of Shopee’s confidential proprietary information, Shopee was unable to establish any legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information that would require enforcement of the non-compete clause.

With regard to the non-solicitation provision, parties did not dispute that Shopee has a legitimate interest in respect of the non-solicitation restrictions. However, the Court took the view that Shopee did not have any specific evidence that Lim had breached the non-solicitation restrictions.

February

On 29 February 2024, the Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”) indicated that it would be working together with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices to develop a set of tripartite guidelines to shape norms and provide employers with further guidance on the inclusion of non-compete provisions in employment contracts. The MOM has cautioned that in a tight and competitive labour market, employers would be wise to carefully weigh their use of non-compete provisions against their ability to attract prospective employees. The guidelines are still in the process of being finalised but are anticipated to be released in 2025.

March

On 4 March 2024, the MOM announced that the monthly minimum qualifying salary for new Employment Pass applicants (for employees in all industries except financial services) will be raised from S$5,000 to S$5,600 per month with effect from 1 January 2025.

For employees in the financial services sector, the monthly minimum qualifying salary will be raised from S$5,500 to S$6,200 per month with effect from 1 January 2025.

April

On 2 April 2024, the Singapore High Court issued the judgment in the case of MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94. Artem Musienko (“Musienko”), a former employee of MoneySmart, took up employment with a subsidiary of MoneyHero Limited (“MoneyHero”), a competitor of MoneySmart. MoneySmart sought to obtain interim injunctions to prevent Musienko from working with the competitor. Musienko had entered into an agreement containing a non-compete provision, as well as a confidentiality provision imposing post-employment obligations relating to the protection of MoneySmart’s confidential information.

In considering the issue of whether the non-compete clause protects a legitimate proprietary interest, the Singapore High Court reiterated that MoneySmart would have to establish that the non-compete clause covered a legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information or trade secrets. The Court further clarified that difficulties associated with policing any breach of the confidentiality clause would not be sufficient to show that a non-compete clause should be enforced, as such difficulties do not establish any legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information or trade secrets.

June

From 1 June 2024, the MOM increased the maximum monetary fines for safety breaches at work resulting in death, serious bodily injury, or dangerous occurrence from S$20,000 to S$50,000 as a stronger deterrence against breaches of the Workplace Safety & Health Act subsidiary legislation. The increase in maximum fines is a proactive step towards strengthening ownership and accountability of workplace safety and health, particularly among senior company leadership who are responsible for shaping the safety culture within the workplace.

July

On 9 July 2024, the MOM clarified that Employers of Record are not permitted to apply for work passes for foreigners to be based in Singapore if the company seeking the services of Employers of Record is an overseas company. In order to apply for a work pass, foreigners need to be employed by a Singapore-based company. If an employing entity has no local presence in Singapore, it can consider either setting up a representative office through Enterprise Singapore’s representative office scheme or incorporating a company with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority.

August

On 13 August 2024, in the case of BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and another v Sumit Grover [2024] SGHC 206, the Singapore High Court clarified that whether an employee is entitled to a bonus under an employment agreement turns on the construction of the bonus clause in question.

The Court further stated that there is no absolute rule that all contractual bonuses are discretionary in nature. Even where the contract expressly states that any bonus awarded is “discretionary” or that the employer reserves an “absolute right” to declare bonuses, the Court will look at all relevant circumstances to ascertain the parties’ true intentions. This means that the manner in which parties label the nature of a bonus is not definitive.

On 18 August 2024, Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, announced in his National Day rally speech that eligible working fathers of Singapore citizen children born on or after 1 April 2025 will be entitled to four weeks of mandatory Government-paid paternity leave. This marks an increase in the paid paternity leave entitlement as currently eligible fathers are only entitled to two weeks of Government-paid paternity leave with the option for employers to grant an additional two weeks of Government-paid paternity leave on a voluntary basis. Government-paid paternity leave is reimbursed at a capped rate of S$2,500 per week.

In addition, with effect from 1 April 2025, eligible employees will have six weeks of shared parental leave to share between them and their spouse. Employees are eligible if they are working fathers with a Singapore citizen child who are lawfully married to the child’s mother (who qualifies for Government-paid maternity leave).

Further, and with effect from 1 April 2026, eligible employees will have ten weeks of shared parental leave to share between them and their spouse. Each parent is allocated half the amount of shared parental leave by default (i.e., three weeks per parent for a child born between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026 and five weeks per parent for a child born from 1 April 2026) but can reallocate their share of the shared parental leave to each other.

These changes are a significant increase from the current entitlement for eligible working fathers to share up to four weeks of their wife’s Government paid maternity leave entitlement.

September

On 10 September 2024, the Platform Workers Bill was passed in Singapore Parliament. Following from this, the Platform Workers Act 2024 (“Platform Workers Act”) came into effect on 1 January 2025 and seeks to strengthen protections and benefits for platform workers.

Platform operators are now liable to compensate platform workers for work injury and diseases contracted while providing a platform service. For example, a platform operator is now liable to pay compensation for personal injury caused to a platform worker by an accident arising out of and in the course of the platform worker's provision of a platform service. A platform operator is also liable to pay compensation for diseases contracted by platform workers while providing a platform service, including occupational diseases specified for that occupation.

To improve platform workers' housing and retirement adequacy, the CPF contributions rates for platform workers will also gradually be aligned with that of employees.

October

On 14 October 2024, in the case of Dabbs, Matthew Edward v AAM Advisory Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 260, the Singapore High Court considered, amongst other issues, the key issue of whether the claimant’s summary dismissal was valid. The relevant Executive Service Agreement (“ESA”) contained a provision which provided that the employing entity, AAM Advisory Pte Ltd (“AAM”) shall be entitled to summarily terminate employment if the employee “is guilty of any gross default or misconduct in connection with or affecting the business of the Company or any Group Company, including any fraud or material dishonesty, or conducts himself in a manner materially prejudicial to any member of the Group or is guilty of conduct tending to bring himself, the Company or any Group Company into serious disrepute”. The ESA was silent on what amounts to “gross default or misconduct”. Appendix A of AAM’s handbook titled “Disciplinary Procedure & Guidelines” provided that “[a]ny misconduct of a sufficiently serious nature may be deemed to be gross misconduct” and set out a list of non-exhaustive examples of gross misconduct. However, the Court was of the view that the Disciplinary Procedure & Guidelines lacked binding effect as they were not incorporated into the ESA. Nevertheless, the Court found that the Disciplinary Procedure & Guidelines were relevant extrinsic materials to aid in the contractual interpretation of the phrase “gross misconduct” in the ESA.

As the ESA contained an entire agreement clause, the Court clarified that the parol evidence rule applies to prevent the admission of any extrinsic evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the contract. In this regard, the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) allows extrinsic evidence to be admitted if it is to be used merely to aid in interpreting a term of the contract. Extrinsic evidence sought to be admitted for the purpose of contractual interpretation must be relevant, reasonably available to all the contracting parties, and relate to a clear or obvious context. In this case, as the Court was of the view that the Disciplinary Procedure & Guidelines met the requirements for extrinsic evidence to be admissible, the Court referred to the Disciplinary Procedure & Guidelines in interpreting the meaning of “gross misconduct” under the ESA. In doing so, the Court found that there were sufficient grounds for the claimant’s summary dismissal, and the manner in which the summary dismissal was carried out was justified.

November

On 12 November 2024, the Workplace Fairness Bill was read for the first time in the Singapore Parliament and has since been passed in Parliament on 8 January 2025.

The MOM has expressed that the Workplace Fairness Bill is a proactive step to reinforce existing fair and harmonious workplace norms amidst Singapore’s demographic shifts and economic headwinds. The purposes of the Bill are:

to protect individuals from discrimination by employers on the ground of protected characteristics;
to establish fair employment practices;
to ensure that citizens of Singapore and permanent residents of Singapore are fairly considered for employment opportunities and continue to form the core of the workforce in Singapore, with foreigners as a complement; and
to preserve harmonious workplace relations in Singapore.

Significantly, the Workplace Fairness Bill seeks to protect against workplace discrimination by prohibiting adverse employment decisions (such as those related to hiring, promotion and dismissal) on the grounds of any protected characteristic. The protected characteristics are: age; nationality; sex; marital status; pregnancy; caregiving responsibilities; race; religion; language ability; disability; and mental health condition.

It is not discrimination if the protected characteristic is a genuine requirement of a job. As an illustration, an employer can consider if a job seeker is fluent in a particular language for the role of an interpreter.

Employers will also be required to develop a process to inquire into employee grievances, review such grievances, and inform the employee of the outcome of their review.

December

The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements (“Tripartite FWA Guidelines”) came into effect from 1 December 2024.

The Tripartite FWA Guidelines provide for three categories of Flexible Work Arrangements (“FWAs”):

Flexi-Place: Employees may request to work flexibly from different locations aside from their usual office location (e.g., working from home);
Flexi-Time: Employees may request to work flexibly at different working hours to their contractual work hours with no changes to their total working hours or workload;
Flexi-Load: Employees may request to work flexibly with different workloads and commensurate remuneration (e.g., switch from a full-time position to a part-time position with pay prorated accordingly).

Employers should implement a process for employees to make their requests.

In assessing whether an FWA request should be granted, the Tripartite FWA Guidelines provide that employers should consider the impact of FWAs on the employee’s workload and performance, as well as the impact on the requesting employee’s team and clients (where relevant).

Employers should evaluate each FWA request on a case-by-case basis and may refuse a request so long as the reasons for rejection are linked to legitimate business considerations and can be justified. Examples of legitimate business considerations include if the FWA is impractical due to the nature of an employee’s job role, if granting the FWA request leads to significance costs for the employer, or if granting the FWA is detrimental to productivity or output.

2025 Outlook

We continue to anticipate various developments and changes in the employment law landscape in 2025, including the following:

Further to the introduction of the first Workplace Fairness Bill on 12 November 2024, the MOM has indicated that there will be a second Bill to introduce the procedural rights and processes for individuals to make private claims under the new workplace fairness legislation. Consideration is likely to be given to expanding the ambit of the existing Employment Claims Tribunals. The MOM has indicated that the second Bill will be tabled in Parliament at a later date in 2025.
Following from the definition of protected characteristics as set out in the Workplace Fairness Bill, it is expected that employers in Singapore will implement clearer policies and processes to ensure that their employment practices are non-discriminatory. Employers should ensure, in particular, that line managers and human resources personnel are sufficiently trained on the legislative requirements and any applicable internal policies and processes.
As the Platform Workers Act came into force on 1 January 2025, platform operators are reminded to ensure that their existing practices are compliant with legislative requirements and to implement processes to enable requisite records to be kept.
As announced in August 2024, increased Government-paid paternity leave and shared parental leave is coming into force for eligible employees from 1 April 2025.
As announced by the MOM in 2024, it is expected that a set of guidelines on the use of non-compete provisions in employment contracts will be issued in 2025. In this regard, it is envisaged that the imposition of non-compete provisions will come under greater scrutiny and employers are encouraged to give more thought on the necessity of subjecting employees to post-employment non-compete obligations.
With the introduction of the Tripartite FWA Guidelines with effect from 1 December 2024, it is likely that employers will encounter an increase in the number of employees submitting requests for FWAs. Employer should ensure that they have a clear process for assessing and evaluating each FWA request.