Are Queer People Really Not Discriminated In The Singapore Workplace?

A Response To A Cabinet Minister

Photo by Swapnil Bapat on Unsplash

Introduction

At the Singapore Summit Conference in 2018, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung responded to a question about how Singapore can be more inclusive with the following (quoted in full, emphasis my own):

“I thought Singapore is one of the most inclusive place in the world (because exactly what Mr Peeta asked) and because it is deep in our DNA to be inclusive, and take in people of all shapes and sizes, all from everywhere, all backgrounds, and you mentioned LGBTQ.

The fact is they live in Singapore. Peacefully. No discrimination against work, housing, education, they go about their lives, and therefore this is what we are. But however, on the issue of LGBT, it is also an issue of social mores and societal values. The population of Singapore is split in its view when it comes to legislative changes.

So the government’s view has always been, when concerns such an issue, it’s better… We might be the largest animal in the jungle but we are not the jungle. Some things we leave it to society to decide over time.” — Mr Ong Ye Kung[1]

However, what’s interesting to note is that for many, this does not ring true. In fact, a survey conducted by Blackbox Research, revealed that 80% of the 887 people polled agreed that discrimination against LGBTQ people in Singapore still exists. [2]

In this article, we examine some literature on LGBTQ+ discrimination at the workplace. Then, we ask three queer Singaporeans what their experience has been like at their respective companies.

Relevant literature

There has been a proliferation of publications documenting various aspects of living life as a queer person in Singapore in recent years. Here, we will be examining them to determine if LGBTQ+ people are discriminated in the workplace.

a) Discrimination in the hiring process

In Sayoni’s latest book, “Violence & Discrimination Against LBTQ Women in Singapore — Documentation of Human Rights Violations”, several cases of discrimination during the hiring process based on one’s sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and other sexual characteristics (SOGIESC), presented in Chapter 9: Employment were discussed.

Emily, a trans woman, was unable to get work in the hospitality industry and was told it was due to her transition from male to female. [3] This and many other stories, are the basis for the chapter and it is disheartening to hear that even as recently as 5 to 6 years ago (when the research was conducted for the book), that it is prevalent in the workplace.

b) Having one’s body and clothing tightly controlled

In addition, queer women reported that there were “attempts to control their bodies on the several levels: physical appearance, where they are told to conform to gender stereotypes; harassment, sexual or otherwise; and the need for censorship of their views about issues related to SOGIESC, from others and from themselves. — Sayoni” [4]

Grace, a masculine-presenting woman in a corporate job, found that the partners in her office favoured women who dressed in a stereotypically feminine and sexy way, and that she was talked down to because of that. [5]

It is not surprising, having been inculcated since the age of 6, that short hair are for boys and long hair are for girls. Both genders are punished by their respective disciplinary authorities at school, for transgressions as minor as hair length, even if it is 2cm (a little less than an inch) past the ear (for boys).

c) Being passed over for promotions

In an investigative article about local teachers coming out of the closet, an educator was quoted as saying that,

“If you come out, your hopes of being promoted to principal-level are basically dashed. — Anonymous” [6]

This has serious repercussions, because basically, there is no queer representation at any level of leadership in any school. Also, since most teachers fear coming out, students generally do not have positive role models to look up to in the classroom.

c) Bullying at the workplace

Otto Fong caused a national furor by coming out in a blog post 13 years ago. Even though his school, an independent one that has the final say in hiring decisions, stood by him, angry parents harassed the Ministry of Education which told him to take down his blog post and apologise. [7]

Another teacher indicated, in a different article, that because the ministry had no clear stance on the issue, even if the Education Minister had declared that there is no discrimination in work, housing, and employment, if a parent were to file a complaint, there is a fear of how that would be used against them due to the opaque policies involved. [8]

e) Being forced to resign / unfairly fired

Finally, in a lawsuit against his previous employer [9], Lawrence Wee explains in his affidavit [10] why finally tendered his resignation due to intolerable discrimination he had experienced from his superior.

Even though he lost the case [11] due to Singapore being an employer friendly jurisdiction [12], this is one of many incidents that queer people have to face in Singapore when it comes to termination of one’s employment.

Many others go unreported as there are no laws to protect them. The general sense is that they are fired for seemingly “legitimate” reasons such as shoddy work (even if they had a good record), but because queer discrimination can sometimes be hard to prove, most people just let it go and find other forms of employment.

Three queer interviews

To see if the above literature corroborates, three queer persons were sought out. They were asked how their life at their respective workplaces were and if they agreed with the statements made by the minister.

Case Study 1: Nam*

Nam, a gay man, is currently unemployed, but at most of his previous workplaces, he was pretty much out of the closet.

For him, coming out wasn’t a big announcement he chose to make — his colleagues simply discerned his orientation and let him be. He then got to choose when, and how to inform them.

He mentioned that he came out mostly because he had gotten comfortable enough with his colleagues to let them know about it. In his first job, his team told him that the company celebrates inclusivity and freedom of expression.

He then adds,

“Coming out on my own terms makes me feel like it is my own decision to do so, rather than it being forced out under duress. In all situations, I also don’t make a big deal out of announcing it because I want to be acknowledged for my work. My orientation plays no part in how I contribute to the company and how I should be assessed as both a work individual and team player. — Nam”

In all the places he had worked at, while his orientation was known but not made a big deal, there was one particular workplace where everyone gossiped incessantly behind his back but never asked him directly about it. He only knew about it after someone, now a good friend, spoke to him in a private conversation.

When asked whether he agreed or disagreed with Mr Ong about the latter’s statement that there was no discrimination against LGBTQ people in the workplace, Nam said that he neither agreed nor disagreed.

This was because while in certain industries, where it might be “the norm” to have queer people and that there is little to no discrimination there (e.g. the entertainment industry, hairdressing, cosmetics/cosmetology, fashion, creative agencies), that does not mean that other industries practice the same set of inclusiveness.

A prime example being the military, where once a person declares that one is queer, that person will have a permanent label in their personal record [13]. In that instance, even if there is no discrimination, microaggressions can and might often happen.

He concludes by saying that while Mr Ong may have said what he said to placate and allay the fears that discrimination is not as rampant as we may perceive it to be, it also highlights just how out of touch he is with the ground, adding that,

“Is it different today compared to the yesteryears? Sure you can say that, but to completely say that there is “no discrimination” is akin to just casually sweep it under the rug or not acknowledge its existence altogether, which is still harmful. — Nam”

Case Study 2: Quin*

Quin, who has an evolving sexual orientation, says that she cannot answer my questions about coming out because there is an underlying presumption that coming out is a singular episode, that it’s just being ‘in’ or ‘out’, that there is just a closet or no closet.

And more crucially, that coming out is a sequential process from the closet to the light or outside, but that they do not see the closet as any of those things.

There are many complicated angles to this outing because sometimes one steps out of the closet, then one steps in again, and then one steps out again, depending on the circumstances.

Indeed, she notes, the epistemology of the closet that we know about today is so thoroughly steeped in Western traditions that assumes that being out is good and that it’s progress.

To Mr Ong statements, they note that when the minister is saying something so obviously polemical and rhetorical, that they would rather not disprove what he says.

When he invoked a counterfactual like the above, instead of being pissed off at him, she was glad as it rallied people together, and roused the queer community to articulate their anger when that statement was published.

Case Study 3: Ralph*

Ralph, an agender, gay interviewee, told us that they are out at their current workplace and that they came out to the boss during the interview. They also came out to their colleagues casually within the first week because they prefer to be out at work since they have to be there a large part of the day and wanted to be true to themselves.

In their current position and company, they understand that there are work policies in place that do not allow discrimination and they feel fortunate that their colleagues and bosses have not treated them differently after coming out. Ralph disagrees with Mr Ong and says,

“You have to be lucky or have done extensive research on a company to see if they are not LGBTQ-phobic — both things that I feel put LGBTQ people at a serious disadvantage because why do we have to labor to know if we can work in peace and not have to be fearful of being outed? We need to have policies in place to prevent any discrimination from happening at all. — Ralph”

They wish that in the ideal workplace, that heteronormativity isn’t enforced consciously or subconsciously. They believe that it is important to note that LGBTQ people should be able to contribute at work without having their sexuality/identity being put up for debate or put under scrutiny.

They hope to have it be perfectly “normal” for co-workers to talk about their partners or themselves without fear of harm or prejudice. Also, they point out that companies should also be proactive and have their own policies to protect all their employees.

*Names have been changed to protect the identity and privacy of the individuals interviewed.

Possible solutions

The following are some possible solutions suggested.

a) Companies should draw up anti-discriminatory policies

Something such as the following would be a good start:

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy

An offer of employment will be subject to the successful completion of a background check. We are an equal opportunity employer. It our policy to afford equal employment and advancement opportunity to all qualified individuals without regard to race, ethnicity, creed, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender, pregnancy, age, disability, parental, family, marital status, or medical condition.

b) The Ministry of Manpower could review its existing anti-discriminatory laws

Currently, the laws in Singapore only cover wrongful dismissal based on discriminatory grounds such as age, pregnancy or family responsibilities, and against discriminatory employment practices. [14]

Extending the laws to cover discrimination of all forms would allow all to have equality before the law.

c) Repealing the colonial-era Section 377A would be very helpful

This would probably take a long time to pass, but if the state does not actively enforce this law that states that sex between men is illegal, then queer people can be much better represented in society.

Due to this law, it seems like very strict censorship laws must be upheld [15], that even a teenage coming out show like Love, Simon, was given a rating of R21 which meant that only those above the age of 21 could watch it, missing the target audience entirely.

As a result, due to a better educated and enlightened populace, there would (hopefully) be less discrimination when one realises that we are all, really, more alike than different.

Bibliography

1. Ong Ye Kung: No discrimination against LGBTs in work, housing & education, Homosexuality in Singapore, YouTube, 14 September 2018, https://youtu.be/wH1M97p2KGo
2. 80% of Singaporeans say LGBTQ community still faces discrimination: survey, Cassandra Wong, Yahoo! News, 16 July 2019, https://sg.news.yahoo.com/80-of-singaporeans-say-lgbtq-community-still-faces-discrimination-survey-090136467.html
3. Discriminatory hiring decisions went unreported, Chapter 9: Employment, Violence & Discrimination Against LBTQ Women in Singapore — Documentation of Human Rights Violations, Sayoni (2018).
4. Ibid
5. Ibid
6. The First Singaporean Teacher To Come Out Did So in 2007. Have Things Changed Since Then?, William Hoo, Rice Media, 10 July 2019, https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-singapore-queer-teachers-have-things-changed/
7. Ibid
8. Why some members of Singapore’s LGBT community prefer life in the shadows, Kok Xinghui, South China Morning Post, 6 February 2019, https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2185099/why-some-members-singapores-lgbt-community-prefer-life
9. Gay man loses case claiming wrongful dismissal, Amir Hussain, Today Online, 29 May 2014, https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/gay-man-loses-case-claiming-wrongful-dismissal
10. Archive of Lawrence Wee’s affidavit to seek equal protection for gay Singaporeans under Article 12 of Constitution, 22 Aug 2013, The Singapore LGBT encyclopaedia Wiki, https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Archive_of_Lawrence_Wee%27s_affidavit_to_seek_equal_protection_for_gay_Singaporeans_under_Article_12_of_Constitution,_22_Aug_2013
11. No right to claim extra pay if ‘forced’ to resign: Court, K.C. Vijayan, 15 August 2014, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/no-right-to-claim-extra-pay-if-forced-to-resign-court
12. Singapore: Court of Appeal confirms employer-friendly approach to constructive dismissal damages, Herbert Smith Freehills, 15 October 2014, https://hsfnotes.com/asiadisputes/2014/10/15/singapore-court-of-appeal-confirms-employer-friendly-approach-to-constructive-dismissal-damages/
13. How Discrimination Kills Gay Men in Singapore, John Lee, 19 November 2017, https://newnaratif.com/research/how-discrimination-kills-gay-men-in-singapore/
14. Legal and punitive measures in place to tackle workplace discrimination, Ministry of Manpower, 28 April 2018, https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/press-replies/2018/0428-legal-and-punitive-measures-in-place-to-tackle-workplace-discrimination
15. This is why we don’t get LGBTQ+ representation in Singapore // LGBT Rights in Singapore, Yu Sheng Teo, Heckin Unicorn, 29 April 2010, https://heckinunicorn.com/blogs/heckin-unicorn-blog/this-is-why-we-dont-get-lgbtq-representation-in-singapore-lgbt-rights-in-singapore