Key points at a glance:
- Recent activist surveys claim widespread discrimination against LGBTQ persons.
- They aim to change Singapore’s Workplace Discrimination law to enforce LGBTQ ideology in the workplace.
- Upon closer inspection, these surveys have severe methodological flaws that limit their reliability.
- The rise of academic activism threatens public trust in Singapore’s institutions.
A local study reported that 50% of LGBTQ respondents experienced workplace discrimination or harassment. It is a striking statistic and has been cited to expand legal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) under Singapore’s Workplace Fairness law.
When lawmakers legally recognise SOGI on the basis of systemic discrimination, the same justifications can be used to change policy in education, healthcare, housing, family benefits and access to sex-specific facilities.
With the potential for such broad legal changes, we need to carefully examine whether this study provides robust evidence for its claims.
The Researchers and Their Advocacy
One local study is “Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace” (Ng et al., 2023). Several authors have longstanding involvement in LGBTQ activism:
- Wen Zhi Ng – Hosted activities at Pink Dot through “The Courage Lab”.
- Rayner Kay Tan – Hosted activities at Pink Dot through “The Courage Lab”.
- Daryl Yang – Co-founded the Inter-University LGBT Network, launched at Pink Dot.
- Deryne Sim – Former Pink Dot Organising Committee member and spokesperson.
When researchers are closely associated with a protest movement to change Singapore’s laws, the study’s methodology deserves careful examination.
Importing American Academic Activism?
The survey was adapted from the Employment Experiences Survey developed by the Williams Institute at UCLA, where Deryne Sim completed her Master’s degree in Law and Sexuality. The Williams Institute was designed for legal and political LGBTQ activism, and directly influenced the US Supreme Court to legalise same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges).
Researchers regularly learn from overseas scholarship. However, we should make a distinction between scholarship and academic activism. Scholarship seeks the truth even if it is politically inconvenient. But academic activism weaponises scholarship for political goals. Importing academic activism would reduce Singaporeans’ trust in science, and delegitimize our academic institutions.
How Reliable Is the 50% Figure?
To determine how authoritative this study is, we need to assess whether the study reliably estimates discrimination in Singapore’s LGBTQ population. Several methodological limitations deserve attention.
| Issue | Why It Matters |
| Self-selection bias | Participants were recruited through Pink Dot’s social media channels. Those with negative experiences may have been more likely to participate than those with neutral or positive experiences, making the sample less representative of Singapore’s broader LGBTQ population. |
| High attrition | Nearly 40% of respondents did not complete the survey. Without analysing those who dropped out, it is difficult to determine whether the final sample remained representative. It is possible that respondents dropped out because they felt that workplace discrimination is not part of their experience. |
| Limited verification | The anonymous online survey collected no personal identifiers to verify that respondents work in Singapore, or prevent multiple submissions for the purpose of inflating the numbers. |
| Undefined discrimination | Respondents were not provided with a common definition of “discrimination”, allowing individuals to apply their own interpretations when reporting experiences. |
| Lifetime rather than current experiences | The survey measures lifetime experiences rather than recent incidents, making it impossible to determine whether workplace discrimination is increasing, decreasing, or remains stable over time. While the lifetime discrimination looks alarming, we don’t know whether these experiences are recent or years ago. |
| Discrimination combined with harassment | Sexual harassment is already prohibited regardless of characteristics like sexual orientation. Combining harassment and discrimination into a single statistic is unnecessary when only discussing anti-discrimination legislation. Combining these numbers only inflate the numbers and cause alarm. |
| Self-reported experiences | The findings are based on respondents’ perceptions and cannot independently verify whether reported incidents meet an objective or legal standard of discrimination. |
Do Similar Surveys Confirm the Findings?
Researchers often try to prove the authority of their studies by showing that other studies give the same results. In this case, Pink Dot’s “No One Left Behind” survey and TransgenderSG’s “Challenges Facing Singapore’s Transgender Community” report similar findings and are cited as corroborating evidence.
However, these studies have similar issues with their sampling methods and survey designs.
| Wen Zhi Ng’s “Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace” | Pink Dot’s “No One Left Behind” | TransgenderSG’s “Challenges Facing Singapore’s Transgender Community” | |
| Advocacy Research | ⚠️ | ⚠️ | ⚠️ |
| Self-Selection Bias | ⚠️ | ⚠️ | ⚠️ |
| High Attrition | ⚠️ | ❓ | ❓ |
| Limited Verification of Respondents | ⚠️ | ❓ | ❓ |
| Undefined Meaning of “Discrimination” | ⚠️ | – | – |
| Overly Broad Meaning of “Discrimination” | – | ⚠️ | ⚠️ |
| Lifetime Rather Than Current Experiences | ⚠️ | ⚠️ | ⚠️ |
| Combining Discrimination and Harassment | ⚠️ | ⚠️ | ⚠️ |
| Self-Reported Experiences | ⚠️ | ⚠️ | ⚠️ |
Overly Broad Meaning of “Discrimination”
A key difference between Ng et al. and later surveys by Pink Dot and TransgenderSG is how discrimination is defined.
While Ng et al. leaves the term undefined, the later surveys give overly broad definitions of “discrimination” and “negative experiences.”
The following survey questions define discrimination to classify non-affirmation of SOGI as discrimination, and carry severe implications for freedom of speech and conscience.
| Survey Example | Possible Policy Implication |
| “Ability to bring your whole self to work (e.g. feel pressured to hide sexual orientation / gender identity or present a certain way)” | Employers may be forced to accommodate or affirm the public expression of LGBTQ identities. |
| “Being repeatedly and intentionally misgendered” | Employers may be forced to enforce preferred pronouns. |
| “Repeatedly addressed by my birth name, even when I’ve told them not to” | Employers may be forced to require the use of preferred names. |
| “Attempts to get me to change or reconsider my ‘lifestyle’” | Conversations about values may increasingly be treated as workplace misconduct or discrimination. |
| “Forced to use either the toilets for my assigned sex at birth or the unisex ones” | Employers may be forced to provide transgender persons access to opposite-sex toilets. |
Broadening the definition of discrimination naturally increases the number of experiences counted. This may help explain why later surveys reported higher rates than Ng et al. (2023):
- Ng et al. (2023): 50%
- Pink Dot (2024): 70%
- TransgenderSG (2021): 100%
If these survey examples are recognised as part of discrimination statistics, then the only solution is to enforce LGBTQ ideology in the workplace and stifle freedom of speech and conscience.
From Research to Law
The recommendations in these surveys include changes to Singapore’s laws like:
- recognise sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) as protected characteristics;
- require employers to recognise preferred names and pronouns;
- govern access to sex-specific facilities based on gender identity;
- extend employment-related benefits to same-sex couples; and
- introduce mandatory LGBTQ inclusion training.
As a cautionary tale, in the United States in 2024, it was unlawful for employers to refuse to use employees’ preferred pronouns or prohibit preferred bathrooms.
A Higher Evidential Standard
Research used to shape law should be held to a high evidential standard. Policymakers should ask whether survey samples are representative, whether key terms are appropriately defined and whether the survey recommendations actually cause more good or harm.
In a global climate of eroding institutional trust, alarming headline statistics should not drive public policy. And we need to be cautious about relying on the claims of academic activism.
