Earlier this month, The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) published a Disability Trends report – outlining statistics aiming to capture the state of disability inclusion in Singapore. The report compared current statistics with that of the past 5 – 10 years on a range of various topics – from employment, to education, to public perceptions of persons with disabilities.
The MSF/NCSS report contained several interesting points that are worth commenting on – particularly around the finding showing a “Drop in “positive attitudes” towards Persons with disabilities in the workplace, and findings that show the need to foster inclusion in everyday mainstream shared spaces.
Drop in “Positive Attitudes” Towards Persons with Disabilities in the Workplace
One of the findings that was most highlighted in the news media was the statistics showing that the percentage of persons without disabilities in the workplace reporting “positive attitudes” towards persons with disabilities dropping significantly from 59.6% in 2019 to 50.6% in 2023.
The MSF/NCSS report did not elaborate on the reasons behind this decrease in positive sentiments, nor did it go into all the specifics on the metrics used to constitute what renders as “positive attitudes”. However, some of the other findings in the report provide and imply some interesting food for thought.
For example, the report noted that this decrease in persons without disabilities reporting “positive attitudes” in the workplace towards persons with disabilities were particularly larger for persons with invisible/non-apparent disabilities such as autism and intellectual disability.
This begs the question of why this might be the case. Again, the report does not elaborate, but such findings could very well suggest the need for more protocols in Singapore workplaces that reduce incidents of miscommunication and misunderstandings between employees with and without disabilities.
For example, one potential reason for the larger decrease in “positive attitudes” towards persons with more invisible or non-apparent disabilities could very well be due to the nature of such disabilities being non-apparent. For instance, if you are a person without disability and you do not know your colleague has a disability, the chances of you running into incidents of misunderstandings with your colleague is likely to be higher compared to if you know that your colleague has a disability. This is not to say that persons with visible and apparent disabilities do not run into misunderstandings with non-disabled individuals. However, generally speaking, the nature of the misunderstanding tends to be qualitatively different – especially around the topic of disclosure of disability.
People with disabilities – whether visible/apparent or invisible/non-apparent disabilities – often face the unfair burden of having to decide when it is safe to disclose our disabilities – yet this is especially the reality for persons with invisible/non-apparent disabilities. Many people with more visible and apparent disabilities such as wheelchair or white-cane users cannot hide their disabilities – at least in an in-person interview or at the workplace. However, for individuals with more invisible or non-apparent disabilities, especially those who can mask their disabilities better, the debate on when it is safe to disclose their disabilities is a common and at times constant thought at work.
To be clear, many of us persons with disabilities want to disclose our disabilities, particularly to seek particular reasonable accommodations that we need to do our work well. However, as we outlined in a two-part report published earlier this year, persons with disabilities often encounter attitudinal barriers in doing so – whether it be a lack of workplace policies protecting persons with disabilities in requesting for reasonable accommodations or hostile work environments.
Why the MSF/NCSS findings show the need for Reasonable Accommodation Protocols in Law
This is why we at DPA have been fighting hard for the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) to contain protocols such as protocols to assure reasonable accommodation in the workplace. Reasonable accommodations are essential and necessary modifications that persons with disabilities need to do our work. Reasonable accommodations by definition do not cause an undue burden to the employer, as there are practical criteria that can be in place to assist employers in determining whether an accommodation request is reasonable – criteria such as availability of funding and technical assistance in the financing and implementation of the accommodation, size of the company, size of the workplace, etc.
By recognising reasonable accommodations in the WFL, and by including such practical criteria in law for employers to follow, we can build an employment landscape in Singapore that is align with international best standards, while putting in place systems in Singapore workplaces that can assist both (1) employers in objectively assessing accommodation requests, while (2) assuring as many persons with disabilities receive the necessary accommodations to participate and thrive in the workforce as possible. This is a win-win situation that is both practical and outcomes-based.
Many countries, understanding the importance of reasonable accommodations and reasonable accommodation protocols, have enshrined such protocols into law – Singapore has yet to do so. Some of such countries have even enshrined or strongly advised some form of what is known as the interactive process – a process where employers are required or strongly advised to hold a dialogue with the employee requesting reasonable accommodation where the employer has to explain to the person requesting the accommodation why they can or cannot provide the accommodation requested according to such afore-mentioned criteria. The interactive process is also where if an accommodation cannot be provided, the employer has to discuss if alternative options or a compromise can be reached.
Reasonable accommodation protocols in the workplace thus help to build structured communication channels between employer and employee with disabilities and between employees with and without disabilities – thus likely to reduce incidents of miscommunication and misunderstanding, which will better prospects in reducing negative attitudes towards persons with disabilities in the workplace.
This will help persons with all types of disabilities – whether those with invisible or non-apparent disabilities or those with more visible and apparent ones. For instance, the report highlights that a significant decrease in “positive attitudes” was also present for people with sensory disabilities – though not as large of a decrease for people with disabilities such as autism or intellectual disability.
In our research and conversations, we have also received accounts from persons with sensory disabilities such as from D/deaf/hard-of-hearing individuals noting how the denial of reasonable accommodations such as the accommodation to communicate via written communications led not only to difficulty in performing their duties, but also to misunderstandings and miscommunications with their colleagues and supervisors.
It is worth noting, as the MSF/NCSS report highlights, that the overall employment rate for persons with disabilities during the same period has risen – from 28.2% in 2018/2019 to 32.7% in 2022/2023. The report further shows that the median incomes of persons with disabilities have risen over the same time period.
Thus, the findings showing a decrease in “positive attitudes” in the workplace in light of the increasing employment rate during the same period is a strong case on how Singapore needs to more intentionally structure its workplaces to enhance relations between individuals with and without disabilities including through building more channels that can strengthen and foster clear communication between persons with and without disabilities. Mainstreaming reasonable accommodation protocols is thus a viable way to accomplish this.
It is thus not surprising but disappointing that when the WFL was introduced last month in Parliament, reasonable accommodations were not even mentioned in the bill, and we hope that Members of Parliament (MPs) will at the very least debate this gap in the WFL during the debate on the WFL in January 2025.
Other important takeaways: Ensuring inclusion in mainstream spaces
Perhaps one of the more pertinent findings from the MSF/NCSS report was the section showing that persons without disabilities who had contact with persons with disabilities at least twice in the past year reported higher proportions of positive public attitudes across disability types, compared to persons without disabilities who had no contact with persons with disabilities at all.
This is a timely reminder and should guide how we think and design disability policy in Singapore. The government and other leaders in the public, private, and people sector should design policies to foster spaces from the get-go where persons with and without disabilities participate in various aspects of life together. On the other hand, policies need to be intentionally designed to avoid unintentional segregation.
This is why DPA in the past two years has been advocating for a more accessible and inclusive SkillsFuture. According to our research and conversations with persons with disabilities – barriers remain in the SkillsFuture system – whether it be course materials not in accessible formats, or persons with disabilities facing difficulty in attaining reasonable accommodations. For a number of such individuals, the denial of reasonable accommodations resulted in them either not being able to participate or complete particular courses. While the Enabling Academy is important, it is also only available to persons with disabilities. Thus, in pursuance of the goal of fostering more shared spaces for both persons with and without disabilities, it is important to ensure the SkillsFuture system itself is optimally accessible and inclusive.
Findings from the MSF/NCSS report suggests the need for improvement as well. For example, the report notes that 21.6% of persons with disabilities aged 18 – 64 participated in training programmes in the past year. However, the report shows that this is lower than (approximately half) the training participation rate for the resident labour force (43.5%).
Additionally, while it is encouraging that the report shows that out of those who participated in training programmes, a majority were satisfied, the statistics do show some room for improvement. For instance, the report showed that 60.6% reported having equal opportunities as their peers to pursue courses/training programmes that they want, but this shows that 4/10 of persons with disabilities do not feel they have equal opportunity to their peers to pursue courses/training programmes that they want. More importantly, the report is not clear if “training programmes” also includes that of the Enabling Academy.
As outlined, while the Enabling Academy is important, it is also important to make sure that persons with disabilities do not feel restricted to the courses just found in the Enabling Academy but feel that they have access to courses also offered in the SkillsFuture system itself. Thus, it is encouraging that a majority of persons with disabilities who attended training programmes were satisfied with and felt well-supported during training. However, it will be important to disaggregate the data according to those who attended mainstream training programmes, and those who attended courses part of the Enabling Academy. This is important to measure if Singapore is making progress to ensure that mainstream training programmes such as programmes found through the SkillsFuture system are optimally accessible to persons with disabilities – in pursuance of the goal of optimising inclusion in as many mainstream spaces.
Finally, it will be interesting to know a bit more about the data pertaining to the barriers persons with disabilities face in not participating in training programmes. The MSF/NCSS report lists eight reasons, but the wording of the reasons is interesting. Below are the reasons listed in the MSF/NCSS report:
- My disability makes it difficult for me to attend trainings (61.6%)
- My health situation makes it difficult for me to attend training (41.3%)
- I do not require/am not interested in attending such training programmes (26.0%)
- I have difficulty travelling to the location of the training programme (14.9%)
- The training provider may not be able to accommodate my specific needs/Venue of the trainings are not accessible (14.0%)
- Timings are not suitable for me (13.0%)
- Not able to afford the training financially (12.0%)
- I am not able to find programmes which I am interested in (10.0%)
It is unclear if respondents were given such options to choose from or if the data collection means provided respondents the choice to answer open-endedly. Further elaboration would be interesting and necessary to understand the barriers faced by respondents.
For example, it would be interesting to know what respondents meant by their disability making it difficult for them to attend training. Does this mean with or without reasonable accommodations? For the 14% of respondents who noted that the training provider may not be able to accommodate them, it would be interesting and necessary to know the reason for this – i.e. did they attempt to enrol in the course only to be denied reasonable accommodation, or based on previous experiences in schools or workplaces, they have come to assume that reasonable accommodations will not be provided?
Additionally, currently there is no law in Singapore requiring training providers of such life-long training programmes to provide reasonable accommodations. If there was such a law in place, or if reasonable accommodation protocols are more integral to life-long learning systems such as SkillsFuture, how much of the 14% of those who are unsure they would be accommodated or the 61% of those who noted disability as the “main reason” would participate in training programmes or express more interest/likelihood in participating in training programmes? If (for instance) more trainings are offered remotely, what percentage of the 14% who noted travel as a barrier, the 13% who noted time as a factor, the 14% who are unsure if they would be accommodated, or the 61% who noted their disability as the “main reason” would participate in training programmes or express more interest/likelihood in participating in training programmes?
These are important questions that we hope an elaboration of the findings may be able to shed some light on.
—
Overall, the MSF/NCSS report presents several important indicators that are necessary to monitor the inclusion of persons with disabilities in Singapore. For instance, as we noted in our report on achieving fairness in employment, to achieve “gainful employment” as one of the goals of the 2030 Enabling Masterplan (EMP2030), the employment rate cannot be the only indicator to measure “gainful employment”. It is thus encouraging that some of the indicators we recommended monitoring were featured in the MSF/NCSS report. As outlined, it will be interesting and important to find out more about particular metrics featured in the MSF/NCSS report and we look forward to more of such findings being introduced going forward.
