This op-ed was originally published in The Straits Times on 29 December 2025.
Written by Sugidha Nithiananthan and Caitlin C. Fernandez.
A TikTok video showing a young man’s experience navigating the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) has been viewed more than 120,000 times, prompting comments about how daunting the process can be for employees. The man talks about the lack of information on the ECT process, how tedious preparing for it was, and the length of time the process took.
The video has struck a chord at a time when Singapore has passed new laws aimed at strengthening workplace fairness—laws that now provide avenues for employment discrimination disputes to be resolved through the ECT.
2025 has been a transformative year for workplace fairness in Singapore. Parliament passed the Workplace Fairness Act in January and the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Act (WFDRA) in November, extending legal protection against discrimination and channelling such disputes to the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for mediation and to the ECT for adjudication by a judge, where mediation fails.
Claims of discrimination will be heard by the ECT, designed as a low-cost and expedited alternative to court proceedings. The WFDRA expands its jurisdiction to claims of up to $250,000 and bars external lawyers, ostensibly to level the playing field for employees.
But while these new laws are a big step forward, there is still some way to go to protect all employees and cover all forms of discrimination in the workplace. In addition, how these laws are implemented matters. If the process is too complex for the people it aims to protect, the law risks falling short of its promise.
Some cases heard by the ECT, however, suggest the process is far from evenly balanced. Take the case of Eva*, who was locked in a dispute with her employer at the ECT over maternity benefits. During the hearing, her employer was represented by a legally trained intern it had appointed. The result was a markedly uneven contest—where the employer made multiple claims, requested more documentation and significantly prolonged the process.
This was extremely stressful for Eva, who had just given birth and had also started a new job. Fortunately, a union officer supported her with critical guidance.
Eva was ultimately successful in her hearing at the ECT, but her experience demonstrates how the process can be complicated and prolonged by allowing legally trained employees—or even the employer’s in-house lawyer—to represent a party. This gives employers an obvious, unfair advantage.
The WFDRA does not eliminate this loophole, which employers can continue to exploit to their advantage. Claims for discrimination are harder to establish than cases like simpler contractual claims that are heard by the Small Claims Tribunal, and the presence of a lawyer acting for the employer can make a huge impact on the employee’s case.
Eva’s case and that of the young man in the video demonstrate that while the ECT was designed to provide a fast, accessible path to justice, for many employees, the process can be cumbersome, legalistic, and time-consuming. It reflects the reality that the ECT still operates within the State Courts system and is governed by technical procedural rules.
Employees must prepare and present evidence in prescribed ways. They need to understand what evidence is relevant, gather documents, obtain written witness statements and compile bundles of documents for the hearing.
Multiple sets must be prepared and properly served. Documents in foreign languages must be translated. Audio and video files must be formally transcribed and submitted on physical media such as DVDs. Errors during any step of the process can lead to delays or the exclusion of evidence.
The hearing is no less demanding. Parties must deliver opening statements, cross-examine witnesses and make closing submissions. While judges guide the proceedings, the parties are responsible for proving their case, and effective cross-examination and advocacy require planning and skill.
Discrimination claims add a further layer of difficulty. Unlike salary or maternity benefits disputes, discrimination is often harder to prove. Many employees are unsure what constitutes admissible evidence or how to establish a discriminatory employment decision. Without guidance, they are left to navigate a complex process largely on their own.
While lawyers understand what “relevant” evidence is, the average lay employee is unlikely to know what is the precise nature of correctly presented evidence, what is a persuasive statement and what is effective cross-examination.
These procedural challenges are compounded by a structural reality: the power imbalance between employers and employees. Employers have access to legal advice, human resource specialists, internal documents and institutional knowledge. Employees, by contrast, are typically individuals acting alone, often without the resources or confidence to seek professional advice.
This imbalance is present from the earliest stages of dispute resolution. Ari*, a mother of two, was dismissed from her job. During her pregnancy, her employer changed the bonus criteria in a way that denied her a quantum that colleagues with similar performance received. She took her case to the TADM for mediation.
At the mediation session, Ari faced her former supervisor and a human resources representative. She was outnumbered and overwhelmed. Her account of events was challenged, and her credibility questioned. In the end, she was offered a settlement. But without access to advice or support, Ari had no way of knowing whether the offer was fair, or whether she should accept it.
Ari’s experience is far from unique. Many employees in similar situations feel the odds are stacked against them. This imbalance cannot be wished away. It requires deliberate measures to level the playing field so that employees can participate meaningfully in mediation and hearings.
We therefore suggest four ways to strengthen the ECT process as a legal platform for employees to effectively seek redress for cases of discrimination.
First, close the loophole. Prohibit employers from being represented by legally trained employees, even those within the human resources department. The intention behind the prohibition of legal representation in the ECT should not be allowed to be circumvented by this loophole.
Second, support for employees should be broadened beyond unions. The WFDRA already recognises that unions can play a constructive role by allowing them to represent members. This recognition should be extended to other groups, such as non-governmental organisations and pro bono bodies with relevant expertise.
Relatedly, employees are technically allowed to have support persons present, but this is not widely understood. TADM and ECT staff should proactively inform employees of this option.
Allowing informed support persons to assist employees during mediation and hearings, even if they are not formal representatives, can make a critical difference. As Ari’s case shows, even limited guidance would help an employee understand whether a settlement is reasonable or not, and whether their rights are being compromised.
Third, provide clear, practical advice and guidance to parties. Employees need help, not only with the administrative steps of the filing of the case, but also with understanding what evidence is required and how to present their case effectively.
Such help can be provided by court staff and other relevant organisations. The Ministry of Manpower and the ECT could work together with community groups to create a pool of trained support persons who can provide assistance on a pro-bono basis or at very low cost.
Finally, technical requirements should be reviewed and modernised. Processes such as requiring evidence to be submitted on DVDs are outdated and add unnecessary friction to an already challenging process.
The WFA and WFDRA are intended to protect and empower employees who are in a vulnerable position vis-a-vis their employers, offering an alternative to the false choice between tolerating discrimination and quitting a job.
For these laws to deliver on their promise to people like Ari and Eva, the dispute resolution process must be genuinely accessible and fair. Loopholes, power imbalances and procedural barriers must be addressed so that fairness exists not just in law, but also in practice.
Sugidha Nithiananthan is the Director of Advocacy and Research, and Caitlin C. Fernandez is the Senior Research Executive at AWARE.
Photograph by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash.
