Employment in Financial Services

All private-sector employers and employees in Singapore are regulated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Legislation such as the Employment Act 1968, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act 1990, and the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 prescribe general employment rights and obligations for both employers and employees, and are supplemented by various tripartite advisories and guidelines. Anti-workplace discrimination legislation is also expected in the second half of 2024.

From the perspective of financial services, financial institutions (FIs) and FI employees are regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). FIs are broadly categorised into four sectors: banking, capital markets, insurance, and payments. Statutes specific to each FI sector also apply. These include the Banking Act 1970, Securities and Futures Act 2001, Trust Companies Act 2005, Financial Advisers Act 2001, Insurance Act 1966, and Payment Services Act 2019. These are supplemented by MAS-issued directions, guidelines, codes, practice notes, circulars and policy statements.

A new Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FMSA) was also passed by Parliament in April 2022, consolidating and enhancing MAS’ powers. The FMSA will be implemented in phases, with the first phase having been implemented on 28 April 2023. This first phase addresses the porting over of provisions under the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act 1970 which relates to the MAS’ general powers over financial institutions, the anti-money laundering / countering of terrorism financing framework, and the Financial Dispute Resolution Schemes framework. The MAS has stated that the remaining phases are targeted for implementation in 2024.

2024 also saw the introduction of the Financial Institutions (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2024. If passed, the bill will enhance, clarify and consolidate MAS’ powers across various acts to investigate, reprimand, supervise and inspect potential breaches and offences.

Contravening legislation (primary or subsidiary) and directions would generally constitute a criminal offence. Contravening advisories, guidelines, codes and practice notes would not generally constitute a criminal offence, but may result in regulatory or administrative consequences such as reprimands, censures or prohibition orders (in the case of MAS) or other administrative actions, such as a curtailment of work-pass privileges (in the case of MOM) – which is significant as work passes are a requirement for employing foreign nationals in Singapore.

The UAE has four different regulators responsible for the authorisation and supervision of banks, insurers, and other financial institutions.

There are two regulators "on-shore" in the UAE, namely, (i) the UAE Central Bank, which is the state institution responsible for banking and insurance regulation, as well as monetary policy, and has authority over all licensed financial institutions in the UAE, including those in the financial free zones; and (ii) the Emirates Securities and Commodities Authorities (ESCA)  that regulates markets, listed companies, and securities brokers.

There are two financial free zones in the UAE, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), who were established as special economic zones with independent jurisdictions through amendment to the UAE Constitution.  Within the free zones, the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) is the regulator of the DIFC and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) is the regulator of the ADGM.

As the DIFC and ADGM free zones have been established as special economic zones in which financial services are conducted, most of the applicable legislation in the UAE which governs financial services is found in the two free zones.  Therefore, unless expressly referenced, the responses for the UAE in this guide consider the position in the DIFC and ADGM only.

The Dubai Financial Services Authority is the financial regulatory body of financial services conducted in or from the DIFC.  The key legislation is the Regulatory Law of 2004, as amended, which is administered by the DFSA and is described as the cornerstone legislation of the regulatory regime.

The ADGM Financial Services Regulatory Authority is the financial regulatory body of financial services conducted in or from the ADGM.  The key legislation is the Financial Services and Markets Regulations (FSMR), which sets out the legislative and regulatory framework for financial services in the ADGM.  The FSMR was modelled on the UK’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other related legislation.

Finally, all employees in the private sector (excluding the two financial free zones) are subject to Federal Decree-law No. 33 of 2021, as amended (the Labour Law).  In the DIFC, employees are subject to DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019, as amended (the DIFC Employment Law) and in the ADGM, employees are subject to the ADGM Employment Regulations 2019 (the ADGM Employment Regulations).  In addition to the employment legislation described above, a number of other laws will be applicable to employees in the UAE, including Federal Decree-law No. 30 of 2021 containing the Penal Code.

Pre-screening measures are only required if the FI employee is going to be involved in the provision of financial services (or other MAS-regulated activities).

Such employees need to pass a fit-and-proper assessment, referring to the MAS Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria. Criteria to be considered include the employee’s honesty, integrity and reputation; competence and capability; and financial soundness.

In considering the employee’s honesty, integrity and reputation, relevant factors include whether the employee has been the subject of proceedings or investigations (whether criminal or disciplinary) or has been dismissed or asked to resign. MAS’ Circular CMI 01/2011 also sets out MAS’ expectations on due diligence checks, declarations and documentation concerning employees who are expected to be representatives of specific FIs. Among other things, this entails conducting reference checks with the previous employers of the FI’s proposed employees.

In December 2023, MAS issued its response to a May 2021 consultation paper which sought to address issues arising from the recycling of “bad apples” through FIs. In doing so, the MAS noted it will proceed with its proposal to impose mandatory requirements to conduct and respond to reference checks. The anticipated reference check regime will apply to specific groups of employees, with the information to be addressed in reference checks standarised. The MAS will look to consult on the relevant draft notices in this respect in due course, and this will bear watching.

For more senior roles (eg, senior managers, material risk personnel, directors, committee members, chairpersons and key executives), FIs are expected to ensure that they are fit and proper for their roles. MAS’ prior approval may also have to be obtained or notices may have to be made, depending on the licence, registration and role sought. FIs in these sectors are expected to conduct more rigorous checks before seeking MAS’ approval or submitting a notice, with a greater emphasis on considering circumstances that may give rise to a conflict of interest.

In the DIFC, an individual who performs a “licensed function” must be approved in advance by the DFSA.   The roles which fall within the meaning of an authorised person for the DFSA includes someone appointed as:

• the Senior Executive Officer, who has ultimate responsibility for the day-to- day management, supervision and control of one or more (or all) of an authorised firm’s financial services carried on, in or from the DIFC;
• the Finance Officer;
• Compliance Officer;, and
• Money Laundering Reporting Officer. 

Where a firm proposes to appoint an authorised individual, an application to the DFSA must be made in advance; the DFSA will make an assessment of the  individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an authorised individual. The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role, and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

In the ADGM, an individual who performs a “controlled function” must be approved in advance by the ADGM.  A controlled function includes someone appointed as the Senior Executive Officer, Finance Officer, Compliance Officer, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.

Where a firm proposes to appoint someone in a controlled function, an application to the ADGM must be made in advance, The ADGM will make an assessment of  that individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an approved individual.  The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

Reference checks, declarations and other documentation to ensure that the employee is a fit and proper person should be requested. In addition, notices to MAS or MAS’ approval may be required for more senior roles (see question 2).

There should also be an employment contract in place, addressing matters such as individual licences (where required) and continued compliance with all applicable MAS guidelines, notices, advisories and regulations. In drafting these contracts, FIs should take into account MAS’ Guidelines and Advisories, including the Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria, Individual Accountability and Conduct, and (where relevant) Risk Management Practices – Board and Senior Management. Robust confidentiality obligations and other restrictive covenants are also commonplace.

Employees must be provided with an employment contract across the different jurisdictions in the UAE.  This applies to all employees, regardless of whether they work in the financial services industry.

In the DIFC, the DIFC Employment Law requires employers to provide their employees with a written contract that must specify the following:

• the parties’ names;
• the start date;
• the salary and any allowances to be provided to the employee;
• the applicable pay period;
• hours and days of work;
• vacation leave and pay;
• notice to be given by either party to terminate employment; 
• the employee’s job title;
• confirmation as to whether the contract is for an indefinite period or for a fixed term;
• the place of work;
• applicable disciplinary rules and grievances procedures;
• the probation period;
• a reference to any applicable policies and procedures (including any codes of conduct) and where these can be accessed; and
• any other matter that may be prescribed in any regulations issued under the DIFC Employment Law.

In the ADGM, the ADGM Employment Regulations requires employers to provide their employees with a written contract that must specify the following:

• the parties’ names;
• the start date;
• remuneration;
• the applicable pay period;
• hours and days of work; and
• any terms and conditions relating to:
  • vacation leave and pay, national holiday entitlement and pay;
  • sick leave and sick pay;
  • the notice period that either party is required to give to the other in order to terminate employment;
  • the employee’s job title;
  • whether the employment is for an indefinite or fixed term;
  • the place of work;
  • any disciplinary rules or grievance procedures applicable to the employee; and

any other matter that may be prescribed by the employer.

Representatives, senior management employees and other office holders may require MAS’ approval prior to an appointment or assuming an office (see question 2).

In particular, MAS must be notified of the appointment of representatives providing financial advisory services under the Financial Advisers Act 2001 or carrying out regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (dealing in capital markets products, advising on corporate finance, fund and REIT management, product financing, providing credit ratings or custodial services). With some exceptions, they must be at least 21 years old, satisfy minimum academic qualification requirements, and complete prescribed modules of the Capital Markets and Financial Advisory Services examinations.

As noted in question 2 -, employees undertaking certain regulated roles must obtain the pre-approval of the relevant regulatory authority.  The regulators in each case will assess the fitness and propriety of the relevant individual.
 

Employees who are managers and executives or above generally have enhanced responsibilities, particularly regarding corporate governance.

MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct provide that senior managers (ie, those principally responsible for day-to-day management) should be clearly identified, fit and proper for their roles, and responsible for the actions of employees and the conduct of the business under their purview. As for material risk personnel (ie, individuals who have the authority to make decisions or conduct activities that can significantly impact the FI’s safety and soundness, or cause harm to a significant segment of the FI’s customers or other stakeholders), they should be fit and proper for their roles, and subject to effective risk governance, appropriate incentive structures, and standards of conduct.

Subsidiary legislation or other MAS guidelines specific to the FI’s sector also contain corporate governance regulations, prescribing responsibilities to the board of directors, nominating committees, or senior management.

MAS’ Guidelines on Risk Management Practices – Board and Senior Management further states that an FI’s board and senior management are responsible for governing risk within an institution. This includes setting up appropriate risk management systems, stress-testing programmes and business contingency plans.

There are no provisions that lay down enhanced responsibilities for a particular category of employees in the financial services sector.
 

The MAS keeps a register of appointed representatives conducting regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (see question 4) or providing financial advisory services under the Financial Advisers Act 2001. The register is updated based on an FI’s notifications of appointment to the MAS, with prerequisites applying to the appointment of such representatives (see question 4).

There is no public register of authorised individuals.

Disclosure requirements may apply depending on the employee’s role. For example, with some exemptions, financial advisors are required to disclose to the client the remuneration that they receive or will receive for making any recommendations in respect of a particular investment product, or executing a purchase or sale contract relating to a designated investment product on their clients’ behalf.

MAS’ Guidelines on Corporate Governance (applicable to designated financial holding companies, banks, and some insurers) also requires the FI’s board of directors to have a formal and transparent procedure for developing policies on and fixing the remuneration of directors, executives, and key management personnel. A separate remuneration committee made up of non-executive directors must be established to make the relevant recommendations. MAS expects compliance with these guidelines in a manner commensurate with the size, nature of activities and risk profile of the FI. Diverging from the guidelines is acceptable to the extent that FIs explicitly state and explain how their practices are consistent with the policy intent of the relevant principle.

Companies listed on the Singapore stock exchange have similar requirements under MAS’ Code of Corporate Governance, and these also exist in subsidiary legislation applicable to the FI. As for all other non-exempt companies, director and employee remuneration will ordinarily have to be disclosed through publicly available financial statements, under applicable accounting standards.

Apart from the above, there are no strict limits on compensation or requirements to impose deferral, malus or clawback provisions. Employers may include such provisions in their contracts, but should be aware that the enforcement of such provisions may be subject to challenge.

Both the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised entities. In particular, the guidance identifies that the governing body of an authorised entity ought to consider the risk to which the firm could be exposed to as a result of the conduct or behaviour of its employees, and to consider the ratio and balance between fixed and variable remuneration components, the nature of the duties and functions performed by the relevant employees, the assessment criteria against which performance based components of remuneration are to be awarded, and the integrity and objectivity of any performance assessment against that criteria.

Examinations (see question 4) and continuing education requirements apply to certain employees in the capital markets services, financial advice and insurance sectors.

The DFSA General Rulebook requires authorised entities to ensure that the Senior Executive Officer, Compliance Officers, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer, must complete a minimum of 15 hours of continuing professional development in each calendar year.  This continuing professional development must be relevant to the employee’s role and professional skill and knowledge, and consist of structured activities, such as courses, seminars, lectures, conferences, workshops, web-based seminars or e-learning, which require a commitment of 30 minutes or more.  The employee must also ensure that they maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that these requirements have been met.

The FSRA General Rulebook requires an authorised entity to ensure that its directors and senior managers are fit and proper and its guidance suggests that whether any training has been untaken or is required should be considered.  In addition, an authorised entity should satisfy itself that an employee continues to be competent and capable of performing the role, has kept abreast of market, product, technology, legislative and regulatory developments that are relevant to the role, through training or other means, and is able to apply this knowledge.

Generally, MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct emphasises the importance of reinforcing standards of proper conduct among all employees, while employees conducting regulated activities must remain fit and proper for their roles under MAS’ Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria.

Guidelines, codes, directions, notices and legislation in relation to corporate governance and risk management (including those mentioned in questions 5 and 6) should also be considered.

In the DIFC, the DFSA General Rulebook provides that authorised individuals must adhere to six principles, as follows:

• Principle 1 – Integrity
• Principle 2 – Due skill, care and diligence
• Principle 3 – Market conduct
• Principle 4 – Relations with the DFSA
• Principle 5 – Management, systems and control
• Principle 6 – Compliance
   

In the ADGM, the FSRA General Rulebook provides that authorized individuals must adhere to eleven principles, as follows:

• Principle 1 – Integrity
• Principle 2 – Due skill, care and diligence
• Principle 3 – Management, systems and control
• Principle 4 – Resources
• Principle 5 – Market conduct
• Principle 6 – Information and interests
• Principle 7 – Conflicts of Interest
• Principle 8 – Suitability
• Principle 9 – Customer assets and money
• Principle 10 – Relations with regulators
• Principle 11 – Compliance with high standards of corporate governance

Forms need to be submitted to the MAS when an individual ceases to act as a representative in regulated activities or financial advisory services. Depending on the FI, the MAS may also have to be informed of appointments or changes of representatives, directors, chief executive officers, and other key officeholders (see questions 2 and 4).

MAS notices are also required for the reporting of misconduct for employees who are representatives of certain capital market service providers, financial advisers, and insurance broking staff. Examples of reportable misconduct include acts involving fraud, dishonesty or other offences of a similar nature, and non-compliance with regulatory requirements. Specific declaration forms and timelines may apply depending on the FI. An FI may also be required to submit updates on cases where investigations have not concluded or disciplinary action was not taken, or submit a declaration that there was no misconduct reported in a given calendar year.  

While not specific to financial services employees, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 requires any person with knowledge, or reasonable grounds to suspect, that any property is being used in connection with criminal activity to file a Suspicious Transaction Report with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. MAS notices concerning the prevention of anti-money laundering and incidents of fraud emphasise this obligation.

Both the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook provide that where an authorised firm requests the withdrawal of an authorised individual, they must provide to the regulator details of any circumstances in which they consider the individual is no longer fit and proper.  Where the individual is to be dismissed or has requested to resign, the firm must provide to the regulator a statement of the reason, or reasons, for the dismissal or resignation.

In addition, the DFSA and FSRA General Rulebooks contain broad obligations on any authorised firm to report to the regulator if it becomes aware of a range of occurrences, including any matter which could have a significant adverse effect on the authorised firm’s reputation, or a matter in relation the authorised firm which could result in serious adverse financial consequences to the financial system or to other firms, or a significant breach of a rule by the authorised firm or its employees.

MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct provide that appropriate policies, systems and processes should be put in place to enforce expected conduct, including transparent investigation and disciplinary procedures, formal whistleblowing programmes, and a process for the reporting and escalation of issues to senior management on any issues related to employee conduct. Anti-workplace discrimination legislation is also expected in 2024.

Whistleblowing

In the DIFC, whistleblowing is addressed both by the DFSA, who introduced its regulatory regime for whistleblowing in 2022 through amendment to its Regulatory Law 2004, as well as the more general obligations contained in the Operating Law of the DIFC Authority.

Under the Regulatory Law, any person who makes a qualifying disclosure to a specified person is entitled to protection under the law.  Similar provisions are contained in the Operating Law.

The disclosure may be made internally within the company, for example, to a director, officer or any person in a management position of the relevant company, or any person designated by that company to receive the disclosure of such information; or externally, for example, to the Registrar, Financial Services Regulator, Office of Data Protection, or criminal law enforcement agency in the UAE.

The qualifying disclosure must relate to the disclosure of information made in good faith, that relates to a reasonable suspicion that a regulated entity, or any of its employees or officers, has or may have, contravened a provision of legislation administered by the DFSA, or has engaged in money laundering, fraud, or other financial crime.

A person making a protected disclosure shall not be subject to any civil or contractual liability for making the disclosure, nor shall they be dismissed or otherwise suffer a detriment or disadvantage in connection with making the disclosure. 

The corresponding DFSA module sets out the DFSA’s expectations that companies should implement appropriate written policies in order to facilitate the reporting of any regulatory concerns by whistleblowers, and to assess, and, where appropriate, escalate regulatory concerns reported to it. 

The ADGM published Guiding Principles on Whistleblowing in December 2022, which whilst non-binding, were designed to assist entities and individuals in the ADGM in establishing whistleblowing frameworks and ensure that potential whistleblowers were encouraged to speak up and were fairly treated when they did so.  In March 2024, the ADGM announced a public consultation on proposals for a whistleblowing framework, which will lead to the introduction of Whistleblower Protections Regulations and amendments to the Employment Regulations.

Harassment

Harassment is not dealt with in the regulatory framework outlined above, but is contained in the applicable employment legislation.

Depending on the employee concerned, the MAS may have to be notified of an employee ceasing to hold an office or to act as a representative (see questions 2, 4 and 11). Termination-related benefits and remuneration may also require disclosure (see question 7).

Apart from this, there are no industry-specific rules or protocols applicable to terminations. Singapore’s Employment Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, of general application to all employers, also prescribe rules concerning notice periods, the timing of final payments, and circumstances in which a termination may be wrongful, among other things.

As noted in question 7, the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised persons.  In this regard, both sets of guidance provide that where an authorised entity provides discretionary payouts on termination of employment (either by way of severance payments, or other payments, such as “golden parachutes”), these should be subject to appropriate limits or shareholder approval.  In addition, they should be aligned with the firm’s overall financial status and performance.

Singapore law in relation to post-termination restrictive covenants is of general application and not specific to the financial services sector. Such restraints are prima facie void, but may be valid and enforceable if they are reasonable (both in the interests of the parties and the public), and if they go no further than what is necessary to protect a party’s legitimate proprietary interest.

The Singapore Courts have recognised that an employer has legitimate proprietary interests in its trade connections (commonly protected by restraints against the solicitation of clients or customers); the maintenance of a stable, trained workforce (commonly protected by restraints against the poaching of employees); and its confidential information and trade secrets (commonly protected by confidentiality restraints). This is not a closed list.

Non-competition clauses are however relatively more difficult to enforce as compared to other restrictive covenants, and they may not be enforceable at all under Singapore law as it presently stands if an employer’s legitimate proprietary interests are already covered by other restraints. Even then, it may still be possible for the employer to obtain an ex parte interim injunction for non-competition though.

Guidelines on restrictive covenants are also expected to be released in the second half of 2024, which will look to shape norms and provide employers and employees with guidance regarding the inclusion and enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment contracts. 

The DFSA and FSRA Rulebooks do not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in both free zones to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector.  In addition, whilst the courts in both the DIFC and ADGM will award injunctive relief, there is no similar right in the federal courts.  This means that the enforceability of an injunctive order outside of the geographic scope of the two free zones is uncertain.