Singapore’s Approach to Flexible Work Arrangements: A Historical Institutional and Comparative Analysis

Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) have been increasingly regulated through legislation in many countries. In contrast, Singapore has opted to rely on tripartite guidelines rather than on laws to regulate FWAs. Singapore’s regulatory approach may be perceived to be inadequate, as it lacks the force of law. This paper submits that Singapore’s approach is currently appropriate, based on three lines of inquiry. First, the historical institutional context of Singapore is examined. This paper submits that Singapore’s inherent vulnerabilities as a small state and past crises have shaped institutional practices that prefer a collaborative norm- and/or competency-based regulatory approach, resorting only to legislation where legal obligations and/or enforcement powers are needed to achieve the intended policy impact. In the context of labour and employment regulation, the tripartite approach has demonstrated its ability to achieve intended policy impact collaboratively. Second, the comparative approach is employed to ground Singapore against a broader context. This paper examines the regulatory approaches adopted by Australia and Thailand concerning FWAs and the related issues of the Right to Disconnect and Reasonable Accommodations. While Singapore has not adopted statutory approaches, the function of Singapore’s nonstatutory approach is remarkably similar to those under statutory approaches. Crucially, no system of regulation requires employers to grant employees FWAs. Finally, this paper concludes that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the right regulatory approach is highly contextual. The ultimate success of FWAs hinges on how they are deployed in the respective industries with the appropriate business models. This makes a norm- and competency-based regulatory approach suitable for Singapore.