Commentary: Why 'You suggest, you do lah!' is the wrong response to an employee who speaks up

Commentary: Why 'You suggest, you do lah!' is the wrong response to an employee who speaks up Workers are silent because they are wondering “What will happen to me if I say something?”, says Associate Professor Victor Seah of the Singapore University of Social Sciences. SINGAPORE: “You suggest, you do lah!” This snap reaction from a manager, told to me by an employee during a recent research interview, speaks volumes about the potential downside of speaking up at work. This appears to be something that many Singapore workers resonate with, judging by recent online reactions to a leadership expert’s comment that Singaporeans do not speak up at work because they are “smart” enough to suss out if it’s safe to do so. This in turn raises questions: Do Singaporeans really not speak up at work and is it better to stay silent? DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPEAKING UP Not all speaking up is the same. In research, scholars distinguish between different forms of speaking up at work, otherwise known as “employee voice behaviours”. For instance, there is “promotive voice” which is forward-looking by nature and involves suggestions of improvements. There is also the “prohibitive voice” that is more preventive, with employees raising concerns about problems. These differ not just in content, but in their motivations, perceived risks and consequences. To answer whether it is risky to speak up, we also need evidence. Many of us would have anecdotes about workers who were penalised for saying “something wrong” but anecdotes, compelling as they are, can only take us so far. To truly understand employee voice in Singapore, it is best to rely on data built on sound research methods and clear measurement. Critically, this means being explicit about which type of voice we are measuring. Lumping all forms of speaking up together obscures important differences in why people speak up, and why they stay silent. The importance of evidence becomes clear when we consider the longstanding idea that Singapore’s “Asian culture” discourages speaking up, emphasising harmony and respect for authority. But culture alone is rarely a complete explanation. There is evidence that show differences not just between Asian and Western societies, but also within Asia itself, and even within organisations. SPEAKING UP SELECTIVELY When we look at available data, a nuanced picture emerges: Singapore workers do speak up, but selectively. One area where employees have been more vocal is workplace safety and health. In 2025, about 1,700 reports of unsafe workplace practices were made through the Ministry of Manpower’s SnapSAFE anonymous reporting portal, a 13 per cent increase from 2023. Many of these reports came from workers and members of the public. When the issue is clear, the consequences of not speaking up are severe, and reporting is protected or anonymous, Singapore workers are willing to speak up. Elsewhere though, employee voice remains constrained. For example, a 2025 survey by the women’s advocacy wings of the People’s Action Party and the National Trades Union Congress found that stigma remains a primary concern for one in three workers when asking for flexible working arrangements. This is despite formal guidelines on flexible work being put in place since December 2024 – a sign that while policy may create permission, more needs to be done to nudge changes. This also shows that workers are silent not because they lack views or are bound by cultural conditioning. More often, they are making situational risk calculations: What will happen to me if I say something? WHAT CAN BE DONE The challenge then is not to ask employees to be braver, but to make speaking up less risky to begin with. When organisations clarify the kind of voice they value, measure it properly, and design the conditions that support it, speaking up stops being a gamble and starts becoming part of how work gets done. Organisations and leaders who genuinely want employees to speak up should first be precise about the type they want to encourage. A start-up might focus on promotive voice where employees are encouraged to pitch bold ideas, while a hospital might emphasise prohibitive voice where patient safety risks are flagged. Each requires different approaches and faces different barriers. A worker empowered to suggest a creative solution may not hesitate, but the same person could be reluctant to report wrongdoing if they are unsure of support. Organisations should tailor their approach to each type of speaking up because motivations and deterrents vary. Second, measure properly. Organisations seeking to understand employee voice should use well-tested and reliable measures. Psychological safety is a key antecedent across many forms of voice, and Harvard’s Amy Edmondson’s seven-item scale has been validated over decades of research. There is a need to be cautious of eye-catching claims and new frameworks that promise simplicity. For example, one survey claimed that Singapore workers felt the least psychologically safe in Southeast Asia but defined psychological safety narrowly as employees’ willingness to share mental health struggles with their colleagues. Good measurement also requires sound data practices: guaranteeing anonymity, surveying more than once a year, and ensuring input from a representative sample (not just the loudest voices). Finally, leaders and organisations need to design the conditions that make speaking up possible. This requires a mindset shift. Just as workplaces invest in workstations, equipment and training, they must invest in the psychological and structural conditions that make speaking up possible. This includes leaders modelling openness to criticism, rewarding candour rather than punishing it, providing safe channels such as confidential reporting mechanisms where needed, and responding to suggestions with support instead of “You suggest, you do lah!”. Ultimately, staying silent can feel like self-preservation in the short term – workers avoid extra tasks and potential backlash, while companies avoid rocking the boat. But in the long run, habitual silence can leave problems festering and good ideas unheard, hurting both individual careers and company performances. Victor Seah is Director of Behavioural Insights Centre of Excellence at the Singapore University of Social Sciences.