If your hiring form still asks for a headshot and your interview guide includes “Tell me about your family,” it’s time for a kopi break and a rethink. Singapore’s Workplace Fairness Act 2025 (WFA) resets the ground rules for recruitment. The landmark law will take effect in 2027, but the message is already clear: judge candidates on merit, not on protected characteristics. The practice, however, takes a little finesse. Here’s a brisk, Singapore flavoured guide to staying compliant without losing your hiring mojo.

What’s out of bounds now?

Under the WFA, employers will be restricted from asking for, or using, information about protected characteristics in hiring or employment decisions. That includes age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language ability, disabilities, and mental health conditions. If a question is likely to reveal any of the above, it doesn’t belong in your job ad, application form, or interview script.

Think about the classics that should now be retired. “What’s your age or date of birth?” “Are you married — planning to have kids?” “What’s your race or religion?” “Do you have any disabilities?” “What’s your nationality or PR status?” “Please upload a recent photo.” Even coded lines like “youthful team culture” or “native speaker” are red flags; they can act as proxies for age, language and nationality.

Singapore examples make this concrete. A boutique fitness studio looking for “young, energetic instructors” is asking for trouble; the right way is to specify the real requirement: “Able to lead back to back high intensity classes and demonstrate safe lifting techniques up to 15kg.” A fintech touting for a “native Mandarin speaker” should reframe to “Business level written and spoken Mandarin to service PRC clients; assessment includes a practical writing task.”

There will be narrow exceptions — for example, a bona fide occupational requirement or a legal mandate — but even then, the question must be targeted at the necessity.  Hiring a female attendant for a women’s spa changing area to protect privacy can be justifiable; fishing questions about marital plans are not.

Can you penalise candidates for skipping sensitive fields?

Short answer: no, not for fields that would reveal protected characteristics.  If an applicant leaves “marital status” or “number of children” blank, rejecting them would likely be discriminatory. If you truly need certain information for a legal reason — say, a government reporting obligation — explain the legal basis and the consequences in neutral terms, and keep that data segregated with tight, need to know access.

On the flip side, you can treat an application as incomplete if the candidate skips fields that are genuinely tied to the job. A pharmaceutical sales role requiring a specific HSA recognised qualification can insist on a licence number. A Changi based operations role that runs a rotating night shift can ask for availability for that pattern. The test is simple: does the field measure an inherent requirement or is it a proxy for a protected trait?

Picture two scenarios. A restaurant group bins an application because the candidate didn’t disclose her religion — that’s risky. A hospital declines to proceed because the candidate won’t provide a valid practising certificate — that’s appropriate.

Do you need to change your hiring forms and interview guides?

Almost certainly. Most organisations should begin reviewing and stripping out questions that solicit protected characteristics and rebuild around objective, job related criteria. Start by removing fields like age/date of birth, marital status, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, medical or mental health declarations, and photos. Then pivot to competencies and inherent requirements.

A before and after snapshot makes it clear. Before: “Upload a headshot; indicate your age bracket; list religion; describe caregiving obligations; confirm marital status.” After: “Confirm Class 3 licence; indicate availability for 12hour rotating shifts; outline experience with ISO 27001 audits; state salary expectations within the advertised range.”

Don’t forget the human layer. Train interviewers to avoid drifting into “culture fit” chitchat that becomes code for age, nationality, or family status. Replace “Where are you originally from?” with “Tell us about a time you worked across different markets and cultures.” Replace “Any plans to start a family?” with “This role involves regional travel of up to eight nights a month — are you able to meet that requirement with or without reasonable accommodation?”

Finally, signal your grievance process to applicants and employees. A clear, non retaliatory channel for raising concerns is part of a healthy, compliant hiring ecosystem.

Age and language: can you still ask?

Age and language ability are protected characteristics under the WFA. That doesn’t mean you can never touch the topics; it means you must frame them around lawful, job specific needs.

For age, avoid asking for date of birth or setting arbitrary caps (“Under 30 only”). If there’s a legal threshold — for instance, a statutory minimum age for certain security roles — ask the legality or capability question instead: “Are you legally permitted to perform door security duties under the Private Security Industry regime?” For roles with physical demands, ask about the function, not the person: “Able to perform confined space duties with or without reasonable accommodation?”

For language, only require a specific language where it is genuinely necessary. A Jurong logistics firm serving Japanese principals can require business level Japanese to read bills of lading and negotiate terms; a Bugis based call centre serving Mandarin only customers can assess Mandarin proficiency with a practical exercise. Avoid proxies with baked in bias like “native speaker,” “accent free,” or “local school alumni.” Be precise: “Able to draft and negotiate commercial contracts in Japanese at business level; assessment includes a 15minute drafting test.”

The practical playbook

Treat this as a cleanup and a tuneup ahead of the enforcement of the WFA in 2027. Audit your job ads, application forms, ATS fields and interview scripts. Retire anything that elicits protected characteristics. Rebuild around inherent job requirements and objective competencies. Where a statutory exception truly applies, document the rationale, collect only what’s necessary, and segregate access. Communicate salary ranges and selection criteria clearly, and upskill hiring managers to run structured, bias resistant interviews.

Done right, this isn’t box ticking — it’s good business. You’ll widen your talent pool, reduce legal exposure, and present a brand that feels modern, fair and very much Singapore 2025: practical, diverse and performance driven. As we like to say, same same but better — hire for what matters, leave the rest at the door.

For more information on this article, please contact Jennifer Chih

“The information provided in this page is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. We do not warrant its accuracy or completeness or accept any liability for any loss or damage arising from any reliance thereon. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, the legal landscape is constantly evolving, and the details of any given case may change over time.”