Parliament house
A new law will be introduced for Parliament’s consideration later this year to streamline the enforcement of civil judgments, announced Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Law Eric Chua on 2 March 2026 while speaking during a parliamentary debate. He said:
…. we have been studying ways to streamline the enforcement of civil judgments, as mentioned by Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Gabriel Lam and Mr Alex Yeo.
We received feedback that the time, the effort and the cost of enforcing judgments can be disproportionate to the judgment sum, leaving some judgments unenforced. This is undesirable. We aim to simplify the enforcement process, therefore, to be more effective, efficient and affordable.
We intend to do this by: one, giving the Court greater powers to identify a judgment debtor’s assets and means; two, by introducing new enforcement modes to deter and punish non-compliance with Court orders; and three, creating new Civil Judgment Enforcement Officers to assist parties with enforcing their civil judgments.
We have been consulting with relevant stakeholders, including the Bar and the Judiciary, and aim to introduce a Bill later this year.
– Parliament reports, 2 March 2026
TWC2 welcomes this proposal. We have seen how difficult it is for our clients, despite winning their cases at the Employment Claims Tribunal and being issued with money orders in their favour, to actually get payment. Many give up along the way which surely is a disgrace to Singapore’s reputation for rule of law.
Some recent cases have been written up on this website, for example, Young woman meets toothless tiger. We also have a recent research report, Sweet victory, bitter outcome, looking more deeply into how this affects workers.
We hope a new law is passed as quickly as possible, and the mechanism for implementation is set up soon after. Moreover, whatever system is set up, it should be expeditious, and not just less costly. Migrant workers have a difficulty that Singaporeans do not face; they find themselves facing administrative limits to their length of stay in Singapore and to their options for finding new employment, whereas Singaporeans have a right of stay.
Salary insurance scheme
TWC2 has long proposed that Singapore should set up a salary insurance scheme where it is mandatory for all employers to purchase an insurance policy over salaries. It would parallel the currently mandatory work injury compensation insurance.
Naturally, there will have to be limits to the cover and safeguards against abuse. It should not be difficult to have a rule that an insurance payout is only triggered when an employee has won a judgement under the Employment Act in a court or at the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT). If, 30 days after the court/tribunal order is issued and the employer has not paid, then the insurer should step in and pay the court-ordered amount. Perhaps we can set a maximum payout limit similar to the cap applicable to ECT claims ($30,000).
Of course, we should be watchful of moral hazards; the insurance scheme should not be a reason for debtor employers to get off scot-free. A new law imposing criminal penalties for deliberately failing to pay up would still be needed. Furthermore, TWC2 believes that after the insurer has paid the employee, the insurer should be able to pursue the employer for reimbursement. In effect, the employer’s obligation to pay should not be extinguished, but the right of recovery under the judgement order is transferred from employee to the insurer (laws may be needed to make this clear). Insurers have far greater means to discover assets belonging to an employer than an individual employee, and be far more persistent in their pursuit.
Additionally, any employer or any director of a company with a bad record may find it hard to purchase insurance cover in future. The premium he or she faces can act as a scalable deterrent.
TWC2 has always felt that on many migrant labour issues, ranging from recruitment to exploitative terms of employment, and now to recovery of unpaid salaries, the criminal justice or even the civil justice approach should not be the sole or even the main approach. There are limits to how effective the criminal and civil justice approach can be. We are glad to see that the government is recognising that the current civil justice mechanisms for enforcement of court orders is far short of ideal. Strengthening it with more laws, as currently mooted – though details remain understandably scarce at this early stage – can improve the situation but may still not be enough because of cost and time demanded of parties. For example, it’s hard to see how any new idea relying on the justice system can cope with a situation where the employer has declared bankruptcy, has no asssets, and is unable to pay owed salaries despite court orders.
We need to complement these approaches with systemic change. A well-designed wage insurance scheme will likely prove an efficient and effective adjunct.