{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Global Employment Law Guide"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP","Kala Anandarajah"]
[]
[]
[]
["Global Employment Law Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Global Employment Law Guide","index":1,"n_rows":24,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":24,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","Singapore"]
["Lex Mundi Global Employment Law Guide"]
["What are the different categories of employment status (for example, employee, worker, self-employed individuals, etc)?"," The Employment Act 1968 (\" EA \") prescribes rules for different categories of employees, which categories include: \n \n workmen versus non-workmen \n managers and executives versus non-managers and executives \n full-time workers versus part-time workers \n domestic workers versus non-domestic workers \n \n The quantum of salary that an employee of an above-mentioned category earns, may also affect whether certain parts of the EA apply to that employee.  \n In addition, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act 1990 prescribes rules for hiring non-Singaporean employees. Depending on their eligibility, they are permitted to work in Singapore under different types of work passes, e.g. Employment Pass, S Pass, Work Permit, etc. \n There is also the category of self-employed individuals, who may enjoy benefits under the EA , such as maternity or paternity benefits. For completeness, note that self-employed individuals are commonly known as independent contractors, who are not regarded as employees of the principal who engage their services. \n In practice, issues frequently arise as to whether such a person and the relationship in question is truly that of an independent contractor or an employee in the eyes of the law – the latter would cause employer duties on the part of the \"principal\" to arise. \n Whether an employment relationship exists is a question of fact that is determined based on the circumstances of each case. The Singapore courts have ruled that there is no single, general test that is determinative of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor. Instead, the courts have in recent times endorsed the use of a multi-factorial approach which considers a number of non-exhaustive factors that may indicate whether an employment relationship exists, including: \n \n the degree of control that the hirer has over the persons' activities (i.e. whether there are stipulations as to working hours and whether leave and medical benefits are provided) \n whether the hirer provides or owns the factors of productions (i.e. tools, equipment, working place and materials); and \n whether the person shares the business risk with the hirer and the manner of remuneration (i.e. whether there is any sharing of profits or risks and entitlement to overtime pay) \n \n The labels used are not determinative of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor. Hence, where the parties inadvertently or deliberately used a label that does not match the reality of the working relationship, the court will not hesitate to depart from the express wording of the contract and the label used. "]
["Are there different types of employment contracts (for example, fixed-term, indefinite)?","Yes. In Singapore, the most common employment contracts are: (a) fixed-term contracts where contracts expire after a mutually agreed period of time; or (b) indefinite-term contracts that allow parties to terminate the contract after providing notice. The type of employment contract that parties enter into is generally a matter of contractual agreement.\n"]
["What requirements need to be met in order for an employment contract to be valid?","For an employment contract to be valid, the usual principles relating to the formation of a contract must be followed. This means that there needs to be an offer, acceptance and consideration. \nFor foreigners, there is the added consideration of obtaining the proper work passes allowing them to work in Singapore. \nThere are rules in the \nEA setting out restrictions on the employment of children (i.e. less than 15 years of age) and young persons (i.e. less than 16 years of age but not a child).\nThey may only be employed in prescribed circumstances.\n"]
["Are part-time employees afforded the same rights as full-time employees?","The \nEA defines a part-time employee as one who is required to work under an employment contract for less than 35 hours a week. As a corollary, a full-time employee is required to work under an employment contract for more than 35 hours a week. \nUnder the \nEA, part-time employees are generally afforded the same rights as full-time employees subject to modifications. The manner of computation of e.g. payment for work on rest days, overtime pay, holidays, annual leave, sick leave, childcare leave and maternity benefits are modified. The Minister retains power under the \nEA to exclude or modify any or all provisions of the \nEA in their application to any part-time employee.\n"]
["Can employment contracts be assigned?","Employment contracts, being personal contracts, cannot be assigned and novation will be required to transfer an employment contract from one employer to another. The exception to the novation requirement is when pursuant to a transfer of an undertaking or its part thereof from one entity to another, employees are automatically transferred from one entity to another by operation of \nSection 18AEA. In such circumstances, novation is not needed. For completeness, if the transferee entity wishes to provide post-transfer employment terms that are worse off than the pre-transfer employment terms, the transferee employee will need to first obtain the employee's consent.\n"]
["What rights do employees have (to object, to severance), if any, when the company they work for is transferred as a going concern?","When a company is transferred as a going concern, \nSection 18A EA becomes applicable.\nSection 18A EA seeks to preserve the respective employment agreements of all persons, who fall within the \nEA, such that their employment will be automatically transferred to the transferee company. The transfer of employment does not break the continuity of employment and the terms of employment would be the same as that which were provided when the employees were employed by the transferor company.\nEmployees do not enjoy a statutory right to object to the transfer if offered, though they may refuse, and e.g. resign if they do not want to join the transferee company. In such cases, the law does not treat this as a redundancy situation, and hence the question of severance payments does not arise. However, for employees who are not offered a role, or where there is no role to be offered, such employees are effectively being terminated arising from the transfer. In such cases, the law assumes that such termination will be a redundancy. While there is no law mandating employers to make severance payments, in practice the Ministry of Manpower (\"\nMOM\") strongly encourages employers to do so. Hence, not paying the same can cause employee unhappiness to arise and disputes may arise that complicate the transaction.\nSection 18A EA will apply when there is a \"transfer of an undertaking\". As clarified in the \nMOM Guidelines, this provision would apply to an organization that is being restructured. A restructuring can involve, a merger, takeover, sale of parts of the company or the setting up of a subsidiary company. However, a restructuring involving a transfer of assets only, or a transfer of shares would not trigger the operation of \nsection 18A. (See Question 7)\nIn any event, for a sale of shares, the employment terms will, in practice, be the same following a change of control of employers, and thereafter be subject to mutual consent if the employer wishes to vary the employment terms to become worse off than the employment terms pre-sale.\n"]
["Do you have statutory rights for employees on change of control of an employer? If so, please give the statute.","Assuming the change of control involves a sale of shares and the contracting parties (i.e. the employer and employee) remain the same, this will not be caught under \nSection 18A EA. There are no specific statutory rights for employees pertaining to a change of control of an employer.\n"]
["In what circumstances can employers unilaterally change the terms of employment, and what remedies (if any) are afforded to an employee?","The rules of contract variation apply when changing the terms and conditions of employment contracts. This means that strictly, the employee needs to agree to the change in terms, and the employer needs to provide consideration. Otherwise, the variation is arguably invalid. \nPractically, this would not be an issue if the employee gains a benefit and does not suffer a detriment arising from the change in terms. In such circumstances, the terms can be changed unilaterally. \nIf the variation is invalid, the employee can potentially commence a claim under the \nEmployment Claims Act 2016 (\"\nECA\"). If the employee resigns, he can potentially allege constructive dismissal and commence a claim under the \nECA. Whether or not this may succeed will depend on the facts of the case.\n"]
["Is your jurisdiction an employment-at-will jurisdiction? What are the employer’s termination rights?","Singapore has been described as an employment-at-will jurisdiction, but the employment landscape has changed drastically over the years to become more employee-friendly. We have observed increased litigation by employees who seek to enforce their employment rights. In this regard, the employer has to be extremely cautious when exercising its termination rights, lest the employee alleges unfair dismissal.\nEmployers have various termination rights under the \nEA. The employer has the right to terminate an employment contract by giving the employee the length of notice set out under the employment contract, so long as the length of the notice period complies with the minimum prescribed by the\n EA. The employer can terminate the employment contract without waiting for the expiry of the notice, by paying salary in lieu of that notice. The employer can also terminate the employment contract without notice if the employee wilfully breaches a condition of the employment contract. The employer may also terminate an employee without notice on the grounds of misconduct inconsistent with the conditions of his service, but only after conducting a due inquiry. However, the recent climate has seen employers' termination rights being increasingly contested.\n"]
["Are there remedies for dismissal without cause or wrongful termination?","Section 14 EA provides a statutory remedy. It entitles prescribed employees to, after unsuccessful mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management, lodge a claim under the \nECA with the Employment Claims Tribunal (\"\nTribunal\") if he or she considers that he \"has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer\". The claim limit is S$20,000 (or S$30,000 if the employee goes through the\n Tripartite Mediation Framework or mediation assisted by their unions). The employee may commence a claim for reinstatement in his or her former employment, or compensation. In the former, the \nTribunal may direct the employer to reinstate the employee in the employee's former employment and to pay the employee an amount equivalent to the wages that the employee would have earned if the employee had not been dismissed. In the latter, the Tribunal may direct the employer to pay an amount of wages as determined by the Tribunal as compensation. The compensation is for the employee's loss of income and the harm caused to the employee by the employer from the wrongful dismissal. The quantum can be affected by any aggravating or mitigating factor that the Tribunal considers relevant to the wrongful dismissal concerned. \nAggrieved employees can also commence a claim in the civil courts.\n"]
["Are there protections for whistleblowers?","There is whistleblower protection for breaches of the \nWorkplace Safety and Health Act 2006 (\"\nWSHA\"). An employer who dismisses an employee for providing assistance to any public authority in any inspection or investigation under the \nWSHA is guilty of an offense and liable to be punished with a fine, imprisonment, or both.\nThere are no explicit protections for whistleblowers of non-compliance with the \nEA. However, the \nMOM Guidelines provide that an employer who punishes and dismisses an employee for whistleblowing may be considered to have wrongfully dismissed the employee. The employee has the right to lodge a claim with the\n ECT for the reinstatement of his employment and/or compensation for the wrongful dismissal.\n"]
["Do employees have a right to privacy? If so, what are the remedies for a breach?","Employees do not have a right to privacy in Singapore. However, employers owe a duty of confidentiality in respect of the employee's personal information under the law of confidence and an aggrieved employee may seek injunctive relief and/or damages for a breach of confidence. \nIn addition, employees' personal data is also protected under the \nPersonal Data Protection Act 2012 (\"\nPDPA\"). Under the \nPDPA, an employer is not permitted to collect, use or disclose personal data of its employees without their consent unless it falls within one of the exceptions under the \nPDPA. In this regard, there is an exception in the \nPDPAwhich allows employers to collect, use and disclose personal data that is reasonable for the purpose of entering into, managing or terminating employment relationships without prior consent.\nEmployees also have the right to obtain access and request corrections to their personal data held by the employer.\n"]
["Are employees afforded any anti-discrimination protection?","The \nConstitution of the Republic of Singapore provides that all Singaporeans shall not be discriminated against on grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth in, amongst others, the carrying on any trade, profession, vocation or employment.\nThere is also specific legislation prohibiting discrimination on certain grounds including pregnancy status or age. For instance, the\n Child Development Co-Savings Act 2001 and the \nEmployment Act 1968 provide maternity protection for pregnant employees if they are dismissed without sufficient cause or retrenched. The \nRetirement and Re-employment Act 1993 requires employers to offer re-employment for employees who are due to retire up to the prevailing re-employment age and any variation of the terms of re-employment must be based on reasonable factors.\nAside from the above, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (\"\nTAFEP\") has published the \nTripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, in which \nTAFEP stipulates fair employment principles to prevent workplace discrimination. While the said guidelines do not have the force of law, the \nMOM is a constituent member of \nTAFEP and non-compliance may result in stricter scrutiny and possible curtailment of work pass privileges. \nOn a related note, Singapore's first \nWorkplace Fairness Legislation (\"\nWFL\") which is slated to be passed in the second half of 2024 seeks to enhance protection against discrimination and provide assurance that workers can report grievances without fear of retaliation. When enacted, the \nWFL will complement, not replace, the existing \nTripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. This will clearly give employees more bite as they allege discrimination or other unfair practices. Hence, it is critical that employers review its processes for alignment with the existing \nTripartite Guidelines and the forthcoming changes. Where discrimination leads to dismissal of or resignation by the employee, it can form the ground of Section 14 wrongful dismissal claim as set out in our response to Question 10 above.\n"]
["Are there statutory rights to vacation, medical leave and parental leave? Have there been any changes to leave benefits in the past 12 months? Is there any proposed legislation that employers should be aware of that will impact leave benefits?"," Annual leave: \n Employees who have served an employer for a period of at least 3 months are statutorily entitled under the EA to 7 days of paid annual leave for the first 12 months of continuous service with the same employer, with 1 additional day for each subsequent 12 months, up to a maximum of 14 days of paid annual leave. Employees who have served an employer for a period of at least 3 months but less than 12 months are entitled to paid annual leave in proportion to the number of completed months of service in that year. \n Medical leave: \n Employees who have served an employer for a period of not less than 6 months are statutorily entitled under the EA to 14 days of paid outpatient leave and 60 days of paid hospitalization leave less the number of days of paid outpatient leave taken for each year. For employees who have not served an employer for a period of 6 months, their sick leave entitlements are as follows: \n \n Employees who have completed 3 months of service are entitled to 5 days of paid outpatient leave and 15 days of hospitalization leave; \n Employees who have completed 4 months of service are entitled to 8 days of paid outpatient leave and 30 days of hospitalization leave; and \n Employees who have completed 5 months of service are entitled to 11 days of paid outpatient leave and 45 days of hospitalization leave. \n \n Parental leave: \n Both female and male employees are entitled to parental leave in Singapore. \n Female employees who give birth or are expected to give birth to a Singaporean baby and are lawfully married to the child's father are entitled to 16 weeks of paid maternity leave. Otherwise, any female employees who do not meet the above requirements but fall within the scope of the EA would be entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave. The said employees must have worked for the employer for at least 3 continuous months to enjoy the paid maternity leave. \n From 1 January 2024, Male employees who have worked for an employer for at least 3 continuous months have a child who is a Singaporean and is lawfully married to the child's mother between conception and birth are entitled to 4 weeks of paternity leave. \n Aside from maternity and paternity leaves, employees who are parents to a Singaporean child below the age of 7 years old are entitled to 6 days of childcare leave each year. Employees who are parents to a non-Singaporean child below the age of 7 years old are entitled to 2 days of childcare leave each year. These employees must have worked for the employer for at least 3 continuous months to be eligible for childcare leave. "]
["Are restrictive covenants recognized and, if so, what are reasonable restrictions as to geography, duration and scope of activity?","Restrictive covenants found in employment agreements are prima facie void unless the employer can establish that there is a legitimate proprietary interest to be protected and that the restrictive covenants are reasonable in the interests of the parties and the interests of the public. The issue of reasonableness is largely fact-driven and will depend on how long the restraint is, what geographic area is being covered, the scope of the restrictive covenant, and the purpose that is sought to be protected. The nature of the industry and the job description and seniority of the employee may be taken into account as well. Any restrictive covenants found to be unreasonably wide may be struck down.\n"]
["Can employees be terminated for refusing to sign a restrictive covenant? What serves as consideration for a restrictive covenant?","Employees cannot be terminated for cause simply for refusing to sign a restrictive covenant. The contractual rules relating to consideration will apply to a restrictive covenant or any agreements containing the same. If an employee is already under a subsisting employment agreement, fresh consideration is required for a separative restrictive covenant to be binding on the employee.\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction require contributions to a pension or retirement scheme?","The Central Provident Fund (\"\nCPF\") is a social security scheme to enable Singapore Citizens (\"\nSC\") and Singapore Permanent Residents (\"\nSPR\") to set aside funds for their retirement as well as address healthcare, educational and homeownership needs. Employers of \nSCs or \nSPRs are required to make monthly contributions to their employees' \nCPF accounts. The rate of contribution will depend on which age bracket the employees belong to and, additionally, for \nSPRs, the year by which they received their \nSPR status. Such rates may be revised periodically depending on factors such as the financial climate.\nFrom 1 January 2024, the \nCPF ordinary wage (\"\nOW\") ceiling which limits the amount of \nOW that attracts \nCPF contributions in a calendar month for all employees was increased from S$6,300 to S$6,800. This \nCPF OW ceiling is set to increase further to S$7,400 on 1 January 2025 and S$8,000 on 1 January 2026.\nThe \nCPF contribution rate for older workers aged 55 years and above was also increased on 1 January 2024.\n"]
["Are certain benefits mandated by your jurisdiction?","Yes. The \nEA is the key legislation in Singapore that sets out the basic benefits that must be provided to all types of employees under a contract of service, other than domestic workers, seafarers, statutory board employees and civil servants. Such benefits include a minimum number of paid annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave, childcare leave, etc.\nThere are also other employment-related legislation such as that of the \nChild Development Co-Savings Act 2001 which provides for benefits such as maternity leave, childcare leave, infant care leave and adoption leave.\n"]
["Is it permitted to have a mandatory retirement age in your jurisdiction?","Yes, the minimum retirement age in Singapore is 63 years old. Employers are not permitted to dismiss an employee, who is either an \nSC or \nSPR on the grounds of age if the employee is below the minimum retirement age. Any contract providing for a mandatory retirement age below 63 years old or the prevailing retirement age will be void to the extent that it is less favorable.\nFrom 1 July 2022, the Singapore government raised the minimum retirement age to 63 years and the re-employment age to 68 years. In this regard, the Singapore government intends to raise the retirement and re-employment further, albeit progressively, to 65 and 70 years respectively by 2030 to support older workers who wish to continue working.\n"]
["Is it possible to cease pension or insured benefits (income continuance/disability insurance, healthcare, life assurance, etc.) when work continues beyond retirement age?","Employers are not permitted to cease pension or insured benefits when an employee, who is an \nSC or \nSPR, continues working beyond the minimum retirement age. Employers must continue to contribute to their employees' \nCPF accounts. Likewise, statutory benefits such as those under the \nEAcontinue to apply.\nUnder the \nRetirement and Re-employment Act 1993, employers must offer to re-employ employees who meet the eligibility requirements for re-employment and are due to retire up to the re-employment age of 68 years old. Any variation of the terms of re-employment must be based on reasonable factors such as the employee's productivity, performance, duties and responsibilities and the wage system such as the seniority system applicable to the employee.\nIf re-employment is not offered because the employer is unable to find a suitable vacancy in its establishment despite making reasonable attempts to do so in accordance with the \nTripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees, the employer must either transfer the re-employment obligation to another employer with the employee's consent or make an Employment Assistance Payment to the employee.\n"]
["Can an employer make the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for its employees? Are there exceptions that an employer must make? If an employee simply does not want to get the vaccine (without another reason like disability or religious reason), can an employer terminate the employee’s employment?","No. COVID-19 vaccination remains voluntary in Singapore and employers cannot compel employees to be vaccinated.\nA potential exception is where vaccination is a necessary measure to ensure the safety and health of employees at work. Relevant considerations as to whether it is necessary to include the nature of the industry, the Government's position on whether workers in that particular industry need to be vaccinated, the employee's specific role, and alternatives such as whether that employee is able to perform his or her role remotely and without substantial exposure to COVID-19, etc.\nIn doing so, the employer will also be complying with: (i) its duties under the WSHA, which requires it \"to take, so far as is reasonably practicable, such measures as are necessary to ensure the safety and health of employees at work\"; and (ii) its duty of care under common law for ensuring workplace safety.\nIn a case where vaccination is a necessary measure and the employee refuses (not out of disability or religious reasons), then potentially the employer may terminate the employee. This will be a very fact-dependent inquiry.\n"]
["Can an employer require that employees return to work in the office (absent government order to shut down)? If an employee refuses to return to the office, can the employer terminate the employee’s employment?","Yes, employers may require employees to return to work in the office. As of 13 February 2023, the government-mandated \nSafe Management Measures (\"\nSMMs\") implemented to combat the spread of COVID-19 were fully lifted. As such, employers can require employees to return to work in the office without having to implement any \nSMMs.\nOn a related note, \nMOM strongly encourages employers to continue offering flexible working arrangements (\"\nFWAs\") such as telecommuting and staggered work hours to employees and to promote \nFWAs as a permanent feature of the workplace, to help employees achieve better work-life harmony and to enhance productivity.\nIn this regard, the \nTripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements (\"\nFWAs\") which seek to ensure fair and practical consideration of \nFWA requests, are expected to be published in 2024. These guidelines will build upon the Tripartite Standard on FWAs, which delineates best practices for offering flexible work and managing \nFWA requests. As such, employers are encouraged to adopt the current \nTripartite Standard on FWAs to facilitate a smoother transition and compliance with the forthcoming \nTripartite Guidelines on FWAs.Should an employee refuse a lawful direction to return to the office, it may be considered misconduct. Should the employer, following a due inquiry, determine that there is misconduct that is inconsistent with the fulfillment of the employee's service, the employer may then terminate the employee's employment.\n"]