"Harassment" Under Singapore Law Versus Employee Handbooks: A Tale of Two Definitions

Introduction

The word "harassment" appears frequently in two very different contexts in the Singapore workplace. It features as a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 ("POHA"), and it appears as a defined term in countless employee handbooks and internal corporate policies. Although the same word is used, the legal threshold for harassment under Singapore statute and the threshold under a typical employee handbook are worlds apart. This article examines the gap between these two definitions, and then considers a question of considerable practical importance: can an employer lawfully terminate an employee for "misconduct" under Singapore law where the employee's behaviour, whilst breaching an internal harassment policy, does not come close to the criminal threshold under POHA?

Harassment Under Singapore Law: A High Bar Indeed

Singapore's principal statute governing harassment is the Protection from Harassment Act 2014. POHA creates several distinct criminal offences, each requiring conduct of a genuinely serious nature.

Section 3: Intentionally Causing Harassment, Alarm or Distress. This offence requires an individual or entity, with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress, to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or to make a threatening, abusive or insulting communication, and to actually cause the victim harassment, alarm or distress. Conviction carries a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to six months, or both. A defence of reasonable conduct is available.

Section 4: Harassment, Alarm or Distress (Without Intent). Even where specific intent is not required, the conduct must still involve threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour, or communication that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a person who perceives it. It is a defence for the accused to prove that they had no reason to believe the communication would be perceived by the victim, or that their conduct was reasonable.

Section 5: Fear, Provocation or Facilitation of Violence. This section addresses conduct involving threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended to cause the victim to believe unlawful violence will be used, or to provoke the use of such violence.

Section 7: Unlawful Stalking. POHA also criminalises unlawful stalking, which requires a "course of conduct" involving acts associated with stalking that cause harassment, alarm or distress, where the accused intends or ought reasonably to know this.

The common thread across all of these offences is the requirement for conduct that is threatening, abusive or insulting. The illustrations provided in POHA itself make this clear: they involve scenarios such as loudly and graphically describing a desire for a sexual relationship in an insulting manner, posting vulgar tirades on public websites, brandishing a sword at a bus station, posting abusive comments and personal information of victims online and repeatedly sending subordinates emails with suggestive comments about their bodies. These are not examples of mere rudeness, insensitivity or poor management style. They describe conduct that any reasonable person would regard as seriously objectionable.

Importantly, there is no Singapore legislation that specifically focuses on internal corporate policies. POHA is a statute of general application. There is no stand-alone workplace harassment statute. The Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment, issued by the Ministry of Manpower, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation, expressly links workplace harassment to the POHA framework and defines it as behaviour that "causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". However, tripartite advisories are not legally binding; they serve as guidance for employers and employees.

Harassment Under Employee Handbooks: A Much Lower Bar!

In stark contrast to the statutory position, employee handbooks and internal corporate policies routinely adopt definitions of "harassment" that are far broader and capture conduct that would not remotely satisfy the criminal threshold under POHA. Several real-world examples from Singapore-based employers illustrate this.

Example 1: A Handbook on Protection from Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace defines harassment as "any conduct which could be reasonably taken to coerce, intimidate, cause distress or discomfort, or which could be reasonably considered to create a hostile work environment". "Harassment is taken to include acts of bullying and discrimination". Under this definition, conduct that merely causes discomfort — a far cry from the "threatening, abusive or insulting" standard of POHA — is captured.

This policy can be used to trigger an investigation of senior managers for criticising a junior colleague's work within the hearing of other employees, using a condescending tone or even sending work-related messages outside office hours.  Applying the Handbook, it is possible for such an investigation to conclude that such conduct "could be reasonably taken to have caused distress or discomfort or created a hostile work environment".

Yet it can be said that this is more of a "direct delivery-focused" supervisory style, or providing feedback that is designed to ensure "clarity of expectations, accountability, timely execution and quality of output".

Whatever view one takes of the facts, it is clear that giving sharp feedback to a junior employee about the quality of her work would not meet the threshold for a criminal offence under POHA.  And yet, even if the feedback is justified, it can lead to an internal investigation and a finding of harassment which, in certain industries, can have a far reaching impact on the senior manager involved.  For example, it could lead to a regulator notification that the individual is not “fit and proper” for a licensed role.

Example 2: A Harassment Prevention Policy goes even further, defining harassment as "any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct occurring with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of, or causing alarm or distress to, a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment" and noting that "a single incident can amount to harassment". This policy further includes "bullying", defined as "unwanted behaviour that is either offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting or an abuse or misuse of power that undermines, humiliates, or causes physical or emotional harm to someone", with examples including "constantly criticising someone's work, excluding someone from team social events, constantly putting someone down in meetings or deliberately giving someone a heavier workload than everyone else".

Example 3: A Singapore company's employment contract lists as misconduct includes "making persistent negative comments about the Company, its policies, procedures, colleagues, or leadership in a manner that undermines morale, work culture, or the reputation of the Company" and even "habitual complaining, spreading rumors, or expressing work-related grievances in a disruptive or unprofessional manner".

The difference in threshold is immediately apparent. Under POHA, you must use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Under many employee handbooks, merely causing someone "discomfort", undermining their "dignity", criticising their work repeatedly, or even "habitual complaining" can constitute "harassment" or misconduct. Much of this behaviour, while undesirable, is plainly not illegal under any Singapore statute.

Can "Non-Illegal" Behaviour Ground a Termination for Misconduct?

This brings us to the critical question: can an employer rely on conduct that breaches an internal harassment policy — but which is not illegal under POHA or any other law — as a basis for terminating employment for "misconduct" under Singapore law?

The short answer is: yes, in principle, but subject to important safeguards.

The Nature of "Misconduct" Under Singapore Employment Law

Under section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1968 ("EA"), an employer may, after due inquiry, dismiss an employee without notice on the grounds of "misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his service".

"Misconduct" is not defined in the EA. The Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal state that misconduct "includes but is not limited to theft, dishonest or disorderly conduct at work, insubordination, and bringing the organisation into disrepute". This is plainly a non-exhaustive list. The concept of misconduct is not restricted to behaviour that is criminal or otherwise illegal. Rather, it refers to "actions or conduct that seriously violates the terms of employment", and includes "deliberate disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders, sheer incompetence, and general misconduct".

The Handbook as a Contractual Standard

The starting point is that an employee's conditions of service are defined not only by statute, but also by the employment contract and incorporated policies. Where an employee handbook or code of conduct is contractually incorporated — whether expressly or by reference — its terms form part of the employment relationship. An employer that has clearly communicated its anti-harassment policy and the consequences of breach has a stronger basis for treating a breach of that policy as misconduct.

The Tripartite Advisory itself encourages employers to include in their harassment prevention policies "[a]ctions to be taken against harasser" and states that employers can "educate the harasser that his/her behaviour or conduct is unacceptable and has detrimental effects on others and may be an offence under the law". The sample policy included in the Advisory expressly states that "[a]ny individual, who is found guilty of acts of harassment, shall be subject to corrective or disciplinary action, which may include termination from service".

Thus, there is broad recognition in Singapore's tripartite framework that employers may treat harassment policy breaches as disciplinary matters warranting termination, even where the conduct may not constitute a criminal offence.

The Due Inquiry Requirement

However, dismissal for misconduct — whether or not the behaviour is illegal — must be preceded by due inquiry. The High Court in Long Kim Wing v LTX-Credence Singapore Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 151 established that "due inquiry" means "something more than just the making of inquiries and the conduct of an investigation" and requires "some sort of process in which the employee concerned is informed about the allegation(s) and the evidence against him so that he has an opportunity to defend himself by presenting his position". This includes: (a) clear specification of each allegation of misconduct and the supporting evidence; and (b) a genuine and reasonable opportunity for the employee to respond.

The Proportionality Requirement

More recently, the Employment Claims Tribunal in JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1 emphasised that employers must now prove not only that the alleged misconduct is true on a balance of probabilities, but also that the misconduct, if proven, is sufficient to warrant termination. The Tribunal noted that "misconduct dismissals are qualitatively different from terminations for business re-organisation or neutral contract expiries: they speak to trust, character, and future employability". Accordingly, dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct.

This proportionality requirement is crucial when the "misconduct" in question is a breach of an internal harassment policy for relatively minor behaviour. Where the employer's own practice shows that "comparable conduct ordinarily attracts warnings or reduced bonuses — rather than termination — the absence of a careful inquiry into why the present case warranted a different outcome will weigh against a conclusion that just cause or excuse existed". Likewise, "[m]ere breach of company policy does not necessarily warrant a misconduct dismissal".

The Alternative: Termination With Notice

It is also critical to understand that under Singapore law, an employer does not need to establish misconduct to bring an employment relationship to an end. Singapore's employment framework is broadly "at will" — either party can terminate the contract at any time by giving the contractual notice or paying salary in lieu of notice, without providing any reason. A dismissal with notice is "presumed not to be wrongful". This means that an employer who finds that an employee's behaviour, whilst not rising to the level of serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal, is nonetheless unsatisfactory or incompatible with the company's culture can simply terminate with notice.

However, where the employer chooses to label the termination as one for "misconduct", it crosses a line that triggers the due inquiry and proportionality safeguards. As the Tribunal in JGP v JGQ put it: "if the employer wishes to keep matters at the level of contractual election (ending the bargain on notice with no accusation), it may do so without triggering the s 14(1) safeguard; but once it crosses the line into alleging misconduct, the safeguard travels with that choice".

Conclusion and some practical implications

Several practical lessons emerge from this analysis:

• Employers may set standards higher than the law. There is nothing impermissible about an employer adopting an anti-harassment policy that captures conduct falling below the criminal threshold of POHA. In fact, the tripartite partners actively encourage this. A well-run workplace should aspire to standards of civility and professionalism that go well beyond the minimum imposed by criminal law.

• Breach of policy can constitute misconduct. Where an employee handbook or code of conduct is contractually incorporated, a breach of that handbook can constitute "misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service" within the meaning of s 14(1) EA. The misconduct need not be illegal.

• But dismissal must be proportionate. Not every breach of a harassment policy justifies summary dismissal. Where the conduct is relatively trivial — a curt email, an ill-judged remark, a single instance of sharp criticism — termination for misconduct is likely to be disproportionate and may be found to be wrongful. Warnings, counselling, training, or redeployment may be the appropriate response for less serious breaches.

• Due inquiry is mandatory. Regardless of the severity of the policy breach, an employer who wishes to dismiss for misconduct must conduct a proper due inquiry in Sinapore, giving the employee notice of the allegations and a genuine opportunity to respond.

• Termination with notice avoids the misconduct trap. If an employer simply wishes to end the relationship without affixing the stigma of a misconduct dismissal, it may terminate with notice without needing to establish any ground at all. This is often the pragmatic course where the behaviour in question is undesirable but not sufficiently serious to warrant a misconduct finding.

• Employees should understand the difference. Employees who receive a misconduct finding for behaviour that is not illegal under Singapore law should understand that the illegality of the behaviour is not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether the behaviour breaches the contractual standards set by their employer, and whether the disciplinary response is proportionate.

In sum, the gap between "harassment" as defined by Singapore law and "harassment" as defined by employee handbooks is real and significant. POHA demands seriously objectionable conduct — threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour that causes genuine alarm or distress. Employee handbooks routinely capture far more minor behaviour — causing discomfort, undermining dignity, or failing to maintain a collegial tone. Both definitions serve legitimate purposes, but they operate in fundamentally different domains. Employers are entitled to hold their employees to higher standards than the criminal law demands, and to treat breaches of those standards as disciplinary matters. But they must do so fairly, proportionately, and with proper process. The law of misconduct termination in Singapore is not a blunt instrument — it requires the punishment to fit the offence.