SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ian Lim, Nicholas Ngo, Angela Chai and Stasia Ong, TSMP Law Corporation
Further Guidance to Shape Employment Norms Businesses can also expect new advisories and guide - lines from the Tripartite Alliance (jointly established by the Ministry of Manpower, the National Trades Union Congress, and the Singapore National Employers Federation). These guidelines are anticipated to shape emerging norms while complementing existing and forthcoming legislation. Particularly anticipated are the upcoming tripartite guidelines on restraint of trade clauses in employment contracts. First announced in 2024, the guidelines are expected to establish norms and guide employers on the inclusion and drafting of restrictive covenant provi - sions. While not intended to drastically alter existing law, they may address specific scenarios involving manual workers, more lowly paid employees, and the treatment of restrictive covenants in termination or retrenchment situations. Accompanying the WFA, a new tripartite advisory on providing reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities is also anticipated. This advisory is expected to illuminate the tension between the WFA’s prohibition against disability discrimination and its provision permitting employers to consider protect - ed characteristics where they constitute genuine job requirements – and where they favour disabled work - ers. Given that disability discrimination comprises a sizeable portion of overseas employment litigation, A discussion on trends and developments in the employment space in Singapore is incomplete with - out an update on the parallel developments in the immigration realm. Singapore, as a city-state, draws heavily on foreign talent to power its workforce at all levels, from manual workers up to the C-suite. But the challenge lies in balancing the need to attract foreign talent with employment rates and fair treatment for local employees. To further refine this balance, Singa - pore has strengthened its legislative framework for the protection of Singaporean employees, namely those who are Singapore citizens or permanent residents. Amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpow - er Act 1980 will empower the Ministry of Manpower to this advisory warrants close attention. Strengthening the Singaporean Core
strategy meetings justified restricting his employment across all markets where Shopee operated. Shortly after that decision, the High Court issued its judgment in MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94 ( MoneySmart ). In that case, the court declined to enforce a non-competition provi - sion against MoneySmart’s former Head of Technol - ogy, holding that there must be a close connection between the activities restrained and the work under - taken by the employee. The lack of such a close con - nection proved fatal. The employer attempted to rely on the doctrine of “blue pencil” severance – under which portions of a clause could be struck out, leaving the remainder enforceable. The court held, though, that that doctrine could not allow the rewriting of a clause to one which was of a different scope altogether, as that would have changed its fundamental character. Neither could that doctrine save the restraint period of 12 months, failing which six months, and failing which three months. The court criticised such cascad - ing clauses (allowed in other jurisdictions) as “plainly unjust” and allowing an employer “multiple bites of the cherry”. Additionally, the court firmly rejected the employer’s attempt to selectively enforce only portions of the non-compete clause’s geographic scope. In this case, MoneySmart could not take its “South-East Asia”-wide restriction and argue that it only wished to enforce this in relation to specific countries. Above all, public policy considerations remain para - mount. The court made it clear that the practice of imposing wide and general restraints that could later support severance should be discouraged. For businesses, the decisions in Shopee and MoneySmart provide a timely reminder that restraint of trade clauses must be drafted “precisely, clearly and unequivocally with respect to the scope of the work of each employee” (as the court in MoneySmart observed), and must also each protect a separate legitimate proprietary interest, not one already safe - guarded through other clauses.
539 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook