Kui Bao (Johnathan) Lee outlines how Singapore law applies to medical leave monitoring, including what employers should consider
A recent policy at Singapore-based firm Certis has brought renewed attention to how companies verify medical leave.
Media reports described procedures that required employees to remain at their registered home addresses, with requests for live location sharing or video calls if found elsewhere. Two employees were dismissed after being discovered overseas while on leave.
Certis has since announced it will discontinue live location tracking and review its policies in collaboration with the Union of Security Employees.
The Ministry of Manpower reiterated that sick leave should not be discouraged, and employers should prioritise communication and trust.
The situation has prompted some HR teams to revisit their own verification protocols. While interest in curbing misuse remains, approaches involving monitoring or tracking raise legal and employee relations questions.
To examine these considerations in detail, HRD Asia spoke with Kui Bao (Johnathan) Lee, an advocate and solicitor at Fong & Fong LLC.
When medical leave policies cross the line
Medical leave verification isn’t inherently problematic—until it is. Lee explains that many issues arise when HR policies drift beyond reasonable boundaries or are rolled out without proper legal alignment.
"Medical leave verification policies should align with broader employment policies, particularly those governing due inquiry and disciplinary action," he says.
"Even if a verification process reveals irregularities suggesting possible abuse of medical leave, employees must be afforded the opportunity to respond to or dispute those findings."
Under the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA), employers can collect personal data without consent for employment-related matters. But that doesn’t mean carte blanche.
"You must inform the employee of the purpose of collecting, using, or disclosing the personal data on or before doing so," Lee notes.
Problems often arise when companies request too much. "Verifying whether a medical certificate was issued by a clinic may fall within this threshold," he explains.
"But seeking additional information, such as the specific medical condition involved, may not be considered reasonably necessary."
Lee urges employers to be cautious. "What if a mistake was made during the verification process? Would a dismissal based on such findings be legally defensible?"
Is tracking sick employees ever justifiable?
As companies look for ways to confirm medical leave is genuine, some consider tracking employees’ locations. But Lee warns that this can be a legal and ethical minefield.
"Verification seeks to confirm whether an employee is genuinely unwell. Location tracking, on its own, doesn’t prove anything about their medical condition," he says.
He stresses that live location data is personal data under Singapore law, and collecting it requires clear justification.
"Whether a reasonable person would consider it appropriate to request live location data from an employee on medical leave is highly fact-specific."
He adds: "Has the employee repeatedly failed to submit required medical certificates? Have there been credible reports of the employee engaging in strenuous activity despite claiming to be unfit for work?" Without such context, surveillance measures may be disproportionate.
More importantly, these methods can undermine relationships. "Surveillance or tracking should not be used where a less invasive option would suffice," says Lee.
"These practices may be seen as overly invasive and damaging to trust."
How far is too far? The legal test for monitoring
If suspicions do arise, Lee encourages HR to take a conservative stance. "Monitoring should not be the default response," he says.
"It should be considered only where there are special circumstances that reasonably justify such action."
That includes situations where medical certificates appear dubious or social media contradicts the employee’s stated condition. But even then, the investigative response must be measured.
"Employers must favour the least intrusive means necessary," Lee explains.
He reiterates the legal standard that underpins these decisions. "Would a reasonable person consider the collection of evidence and the extent of the investigations to be appropriate in the circumstances?"
If the answer is uncertain, HR should pause and reconsider.
Build trust through transparency, not enforcement
Policy rollout matters just as much as policy content. For simple measures, such as verifying a clinic’s certificate, transparency can go a long way.
"These checks are generally uncontroversial, provided employees have been informed that such checks may be conducted as part of the company’s standard protocol," says Lee.
The stakes are higher when it comes to surveillance. "What safeguards and limits has the business put in place to protect the employee’s privacy? How are these parameters communicated to the employee before monitoring is carried out?" he asks.
Lee encourages HR to be proactive: "Employees should understand not only what is being implemented, but why, and how such processes are designed to protect both the organisation and its people."
Above all, policy design should reflect how it would be perceived. "Would a reasonable person consider the purpose, means, and methods outlined in the policy to be appropriate in the circumstances? If the honest answer is likely no, then the policy should be reviewed."
Low-risk alternatives to location tracking
For companies concerned about leave abuse, there are more practical and less legally risky alternatives to surveillance.
"Visual inspection of medical certificates can reveal irregularities such as blurred text, mismatched dates, or recurring formats," Lee explains.
Verification with the issuing clinic is also a reliable first step.
Social media is another possible source. "Public social media posts by the employee during their medical leave may, in some cases, contradict their stated condition," says Lee.
"As these are publicly shared, employers may rely on them, cautiously and contextually, as part of a broader inquiry."
In litigation contexts, employers sometimes retain private investigators, but this comes with caution. "That’s typically done under legal advice to ensure admissibility and compliance with local privacy laws," he explains.
Even when evidence emerges, fairness must remain at the centre. "Employees are given a fair opportunity to explain themselves when confronted with specific facts," says Lee.
"This principle of fairness strengthens the employer’s position."
Wellness checks: When managers get involved
Some organisations empower managers to visit employees on leave to check on their well-being. This isn’t illegal, but Lee says structure is vital.
"Wellness checks may be conducted by the employee’s direct manager, ideally accompanied by a peer or union representative," he says.
"The presence of a peer or representative provides support to the employee and serves as an independent witness."
Importantly, the purpose should never be disciplinary. "The primary objective should be the health and welfare of the employee, not surveillance or disciplinary action," he warns.
If unusual behaviour is observed, it should not be acted on immediately. "Where something unusual is observed, the manager (and accompanying witness) should be instructed to take clear and contemporaneous notes," he says.
These safeguards reduce risk and help uphold trust in HR processes.
If the policy backfires, pause before reacting
Even well-designed policies can spark backlash. If a medical leave monitoring policy draws criticism, Lee urges CHROs to be careful with their next move.
"It is crucial that CHROs refrain from committing to specific facts or legal positions until the relevant facts are established," he says.
"In such cases, it would be both prudent and strategic to temporarily suspend implementation of the policy, pending a thorough review by legal counsel."
If challenged, employers should be able to explain why the policy exists and what protections are in place.
"Ideally, CHROs should have proactively identified and addressed foreseeable legal and non-legal objections during the development of any medical leave monitoring policy," says Lee.
Ultimately, how an organisation handles these moments reflects its culture. "Trust and transparency aren’t just good practice, they are your legal and reputational safeguards," he concludes.
