On 8 February 2025, the Singapore Parliament enacted the Workplace Fairness Act 2025, which is the first legal framework against workplace discrimination in Singapore. This comment builds on existing scholarship by focusing on the social implications that might result from three legal characteristics of the WFA: (a) the lack of provisions against conduct that would amount to indirect discrimination in other jurisdictions; (b) that sexual orientation and gender identity are not listed as protected characteristics; and (c) the explicit legalisation of discrimination against relatives and associates. Overall, I argue that while the WFA is a valuable addition to the employment law regime in Singapore, the law needs to be more sensitive to the socio-political consequences that could result from its legal operation.

As it is in medicine, so it is in law: the rules for when one can give legally valid consent to medical treatment differ for minors and adults. This paper analyses Singapore’s first judgment concerning medical decision-making by and on behalf of mature minors: a Family Court decision on Gillick competence in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. This paper also discusses its implications for medical practice and critiques the age of majority in Singapore.