Correction: The original article overstated the status and likely contents of proposed Singapore restraint-of-trade guidelines. In particular, it asserted a second-half 2026 release and described possible duration limits, low-wage exclusions, retrenchment treatment and legal effects as though they were settled. Those claims were not supported by published primary material. This replacement separates confirmed official statements from speculation.

Status as at 15 July 2026: MOM, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation have discussed tripartite guidance on restrictive clauses in employment contracts. No final guideline text, confirmed issue date or detailed rules have been published.

What MOM has actually announced

The official timeline is important:

  1. 21 April 2023: MOM said the tripartite partners were developing guidelines. It also stated their position that restraints should be used only where genuinely needed to protect legitimate business interests, should be reasonable, and should generally be avoided for lower-paying jobs.
  2. 6 and 29 February 2024: MOM said the guidelines were being finalised and targeted for the second half of 2024.
  3. 7 January 2025: after that target had passed, MOM said it was discussing with NTUC and SNEF how and when restrictive clauses could and should be used, based on established court principles. It said more details would be available in due course.
  4. 3 March 2026: MOM’s Committee of Supply speech again said discussions were continuing, that any guidelines would be based on established principles articulated by the courts, and that an update would come in due course.

The March 2026 speech did not say that the guidelines would be issued in the second half of 2026. It did not publish a salary threshold, maximum duration, geographical rule, special rule for retrenchments, enforcement mechanism or commencement date.

What has not been confirmed

Until an official document is published, it is not responsible to state that the proposed guidelines will:

  • ban non-competes for employees below a particular salary;
  • create fixed three-, six- or twelve-month limits;
  • automatically void restraints following retrenchment;
  • prescribe particular countries or geographical limits;
  • apply retrospectively to existing contracts;
  • carry specified penalties or work-pass sanctions;
  • be legally binding or merely advisory; or
  • be given a particular evidential weight by the courts.

Some of those subjects may ultimately be addressed, but the tripartite partners have not published their final choices. MOM’s 2023 observation that employers should generally avoid restraint clauses for lower-paying jobs is a policy position, not a published numerical cut-off or automatic rule of invalidity.

What law applies while the proposals remain pending?

The current law remains the common-law doctrine applied by the Singapore courts. In the employment context, restraint-of-trade clauses are prima facie void and unenforceable. An employer must first establish a legitimate proprietary interest. If it does, the restraint must also be reasonable between the parties and in the public interest.

Potential legitimate interests include trade secrets or confidential information, special customer connections and, in appropriate circumstances, a stable and specially trained workforce. The clause must protect the interest rather than merely prevent ordinary competition.

Reasonableness is assessed on the actual facts, including the employee’s duties and access, prohibited activities, geography and duration. There is no general rule that a six-month clause is valid or that a twelve-month clause is invalid. The drafting and evidence must show a close connection between the restriction and the interest requiring protection.

What [2024] SGHC 94 shows

In MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94, the High Court restated the two-stage test and refused to continue interim injunctions enforcing a non-compete.

The employer failed to establish its asserted legitimate proprietary interests. Because a separate confidentiality clause already protected confidential information, the employer had to identify an interest over and above that protection. The court also rejected the stable-workforce argument on the evidence: the relevant industry had not been shown to be small and specialised, and the employee had not been shown to have received the kind of extensive specialised training relied upon.

The clause was also too broad. It was not properly confined to the employee’s former type of work, extended geographically beyond the markets connected with that work, and contained cascading twelve-, six- and three-month periods. The court found the scope of activity, geography and duration unreasonable.

The decision does not create a universal permitted duration. It illustrates why role-specific drafting and evidence matter. It also confirms that courts will not freely rewrite an excessive covenant: severance is governed by the limited “blue pencil” test.

How employers can prepare without guessing

  1. Audit current clauses. Identify non-compete, non-solicitation, non-dealing, confidentiality and garden-leave provisions and the roles to which they apply.
  2. Identify the interest. Record the exact trade secret, customer connection or other recognised proprietary interest said to require protection.
  3. Match scope to evidence. Restrict activities, customers, territory and duration no further than the role and risk justify.
  4. Avoid indiscriminate templates. Seniority or salary alone does not prove access to a protectable interest, while a job title alone does not justify a blanket prohibition.
  5. Review lower-paying roles carefully. MOM has expressly said employers should generally avoid such clauses where the role is unlikely to connect with legitimate proprietary interests and the effect on livelihood is greater.
  6. Improve information controls. Mark, limit and record access to genuinely confidential material. Contract language is a poor substitute for actual controls.
  7. Seek advice before enforcement. An injunction application requires close analysis of validity, breach, evidence, urgency and the balance of convenience.

Guidance for employees

A signed restraint should be reviewed, not presumed valid or ignored. Do not take or use the former employer’s confidential material. Before accepting a competitor role or approaching customers or colleagues, obtain advice on the actual clause and facts. If a former employer threatens enforcement, preserve the contract and correspondence and respond promptly. MOM states that employees affected by allegedly unreasonable or unjustified clauses may approach their union, TAFEP or MOM.

How to monitor the status accurately

Use primary sources rather than forecasts. MOM’s newsroom, speeches, parliamentary answers and official list of tripartite guidelines should be checked for a published document. Any future article should quote the final title, publication date, scope, commencement arrangements and legal status from the official release rather than infer them.

Primary sources

Accurate as at and last reviewed: 15 July 2026.

Other Related Posts