Search

The Unintended Consequences of Singapore’s Mandatory Work-From-Home and Flexible Work Arrangement Programme

In 2024, Singapore introduced the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR), requiring all employers to formally consider and respond to employee requests for Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs). While companies are not obligated to approve these requests, they must evaluate them fairly and provide a response within two months. If employees feel their requests were unfairly denied, they can escalate their complaints to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair & Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP).

At first glance, this policy appears to be a step toward a more progressive and employee-friendly workplace. However, a crucial question arises: Was this policy even necessary when work flexibility was already well-supported through other means? Or is this a case of unnecessary regulatory overreach, making it harder for businesses to operate efficiently?

Work Flexibility Was Already Embedded in Singapore’s Labor Policies

Before the introduction of mandatory FWA policies, Singapore already had a robust system of work flexibility benefits in place:

Annual Leave – Employees receive a minimum of 7 days of paid annual leave after one year of service, increasing up to 14 days for those with eight or more years of service.
Childcare Leave – Parents with children under 7 years old receive 6 days of paid childcare leave annually; parents with children aged 7-12 receive 2 additional days of extended childcare leave.
Infant Care Leave – Parents of children under 2 years old are entitled to 12 days of unpaid infant care leave per year.
Maternity and Paternity Leave – Mothers receive 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, while fathers are entitled to 2 weeks of paid paternity leave.
Compassionate Leave – Though not legally mandated, many companies provide 2-5 days of paid leave for bereavement or family emergencies.
Medical and Hospitalization Leave – Employees are entitled to 14 days of paid outpatient sick leave and up to 60 days of paid hospitalization leave annually, including the 14 days of outpatient sick leave.

This existing framework already provides employees with substantial flexibility and time off to manage personal and family needs. Many progressive companies further enhanced their benefits by offering FWAs or WFH options, using them as a competitive advantage to attract and retain talent.

So the question remains: Was it necessary to mandate FWAs across the board, or was this “gold-plating” – adding regulations that increase compliance costs without significantly improving employee well-being or productivity?

Pros of the Mandatory WFH and FWA Programme

There are undeniable benefits to implementing flexible work arrangements more broadly:

1. Better Work-Life Balance and Employee Retention

Employees, particularly those with caregiving responsibilities, benefit from greater control over their schedules. This can lead to higher job satisfaction and lower turnover rates, which ultimately benefits employers.

2. A Larger Talent Pool

Organizations that support FWAs may be able to tap into a broader workforce, including parents re-entering the job market, individuals with disabilities, and professionals seeking non-traditional work hours.

3. Potential Productivity Gains

Certain roles—particularly knowledge-based work—can see productivity improvements when employees have autonomy over how and where they work. Remote work can reduce commuting time and allow for more focused work environments.

The Challenges and Unintended Consequences of Mandatory FWAs

While the policy has benefits, the one-size-fits-all approach has created significant challenges for businesses:

1. Operational Constraints for Critical Sectors

Many industries cannot offer FWAs due to the nature of their work. Jobs in healthcare, logistics, public transport, construction, and retail require employees to be physically present.

Employees in government agencies, where WFH is largely impractical due to security and operational concerns, have still been filing FWA requests, creating unnecessary administrative work.
Sectors critical to Singapore’s economy—such as manufacturing and public infrastructure—now struggle with attracting workers who expect flexibility that simply cannot be provided.

2. Rising Administrative Burden and Costs

Businesses now have a legal obligation to formally process every request for FWAs. Even when employers cannot approve such arrangements, they must document and justify their decision, leading to increased paperwork and potential disputes.

SMEs, in particular, are struggling, as they have limited HR resources to handle the added complexity.
Time spent on processing FWA requests takes away from more pressing business concerns, especially in a challenging global economy where survival is already difficult.

3. Flexibility Doesn’t Always Mean Productivity

The premise behind FWAs is that employees should have flexibility if they can maintain or improve their productivity. However, in reality, not all employees use FWAs effectively:

Some employees do not perform as efficiently in remote or flexible settings, leading to productivity losses that employers cannot always address due to new employment discrimination laws.
Employers face greater difficulty in denying FWAs, even for underperforming employees, as doing so could be perceived as unfair treatment, making HR decisions more legally complex.

4. The Loss of Employer Differentiation in the Job Market

Before the policy, companies that offered WFH or FWAs stood out in the job market, using flexibility as a strategic advantage to attract top talent. Now that FWAs are mandated for all, employers lose this competitive edge—while those in industries that cannot offer FWAs are unfairly penalized in talent attraction.

5. The Impact on Singapore’s Competitiveness

One of the biggest concerns is whether this policy is making Singapore less competitive in the global economy:

Countries with more business-friendly employment laws may become more attractive for international firms deciding where to invest or set up operations.
Local businesses struggling with compliance and administrative costs may become less competitive, particularly against regional competitors that have fewer labor constraints.

A Call for a Data-Driven Approach

While the intent behind this policy was to enhance workplace flexibility and employee well-being, its success cannot be measured by intentions alone. A truly data-driven evaluation is needed to assess its real-world impact—both positive and negative.

Has productivity improved or declined in companies implementing FWAs?
How many FWA requests were granted, rejected, and disputed, and what were the outcomes?
Have certain industries faced disproportionate challenges, particularly SMEs and essential sectors that cannot offer FWAs?
Has Singapore’s overall competitiveness been affected by this policy in attracting and retaining talent?

Without this data, we risk shaping future labor policies based on perception rather than reality.

A Well-Intended Policy—But Was It Necessary?

Singapore has long prided itself on evidence-based policymaking—yet the mandatory FWA programme feels more like a sweeping, one-size-fits-all solution than a measured response to an identified problem.

With a strong existing framework of flexible work benefits already in place, was it necessary to regulate FWAs at the expense of business flexibility?

A data-driven review is crucial to ensure that this policy truly benefits both employees and employers—not just in theory, but in practice.

Only then can we ensure that Singapore remains both a worker-friendly nation and a globally competitive economy.