If you teach yoga in Singapore, there is a good chance your working arrangement falls into one of two categories: employment or independent contracting. On the surface, these may look similar. You show up, teach classes, receive payment. But the contractual arrangement underpinning the working relationship is fundamentally different, and those differences come into play when there are changes in the relationship.
In an earlier post in this series, we looked at why studio contracts matter and what they control. This post goes deeper into the threshold question beneath every studio contract – are you an employee or an independent contractor (and why this distinction matters)?
Two labels, two different risk profiles
Employees work under a contract of service. In Singapore, this typically means they are entitled to certain statutory protections: notice periods for termination, restrictions on unfair dismissal in some cases, contributions to the Central Provident Fund (CPF), and access to benefits such as paid leave and medical coverage. The Employment Act provides certain minimum standards that employment contracts cannot fall below or contract out of. An employee who is terminated without proper notice or without valid reason may have grounds to challenge that decision, whether through the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) or through legal channels.
Independent contractors work under a contract for services. They trade security for flexibility, at least in theory. Contractors are not covered by most provisions of the Employment Act. They are not entitled to CPF contributions from the studio. They have no statutory protections around termination. If the contract says the relationship can end immediately, or on one week’s notice, then it can. Contractors are expected to manage their own taxes, their own insurance, and their own retirement planning. In return, they are supposed to have greater autonomy – freedom to set their own schedules, to work for multiple studios, to control how they deliver their services.
The distinction matters most when things change. An employee entitled to statutory protections might have recourse if terminated without cause or without adequate notice. A contractor is entitled to only what the contract provides. If the contract says termination can happen immediately, the teacher’s income stops with almost no notice. There is no appeal process, no requirement for the studio to justify the decision, and no compensation beyond what the contract explicitly states.
When the label does not match reality
In practice, many contracting arrangements blur these lines. A teacher may be labelled a freelancer but have little actual freedom. The studio may dictate exactly when she teaches, what she wears, how she structures her classes, and how she communicates with students. She may be required to attend meetings, follow studio policies, and adhere to codes of conduct that look identical to those imposed on employees. Yet because the contract calls her an independent contractor, she receives none of the statutory protections that employees enjoy.
This creates risk, not just for the teacher, but also for the studio. If MOM investigates and determines that the actual working relationship resembles employment – based on factors such as the degree of control exercised by the studio, the regularity of work, the exclusivity of the arrangement, the teacher’s integration into the studio’s operations, and the level of financial dependency – then the studio may be required to reclassify the teacher as an employee. This can trigger obligations to pay backdated CPF contributions, to provide statutory benefits, and potentially to defend against wrongful dismissal claims.
But this reclassification process is uncertain, and often occurs only after the working relationship has already ended. For the teacher, this means that during the working relationship, she had neither the autonomy of a true contractor nor the protections of an employee.
The practical consequences
The classification question is not an abstract or academic issue, but determines actual outcomes in relation to pay, benefits, and termination.
Pay. Employees typically receive a fixed salary or a guaranteed minimum, even if class attendance fluctuates. Contractors are often paid strictly per class taught, or based on attendance numbers. If a class is cancelled due to low sign-ups, or if the studio decides to consolidate schedules, the contractor simply earns less that month. There is no safety net.
Benefits. Employees may receive CPF contributions that build towards housing eligibility and retirement, health coverage, and paid leave. Contractors receive none of this unless they arrange it themselves. Over time, this gap compounds. A teacher who works as a contractor for 5 years may find that she has accumulated far less in retirement savings than an employee doing identical work, simply because of how the relationship was classified.
Termination. Employment contracts in Singapore often allow termination during a probationary period – typically 3 to 6 months – without cause and with minimal notice. After probation, termination may require one month’s notice or payment in lieu. However, contracts often list broad grounds for immediate termination: “serious misconduct”, “failure to meet performance standards”, or “conduct inconsistent with studio values”. These terms are vague enough to cover almost anything. For contractors, the position is starker. Contracts may allow either party to end the relationship with one week’s notice, or even with no notice at all. There is no requirement to provide a reason. There is no entitlement to severance.
Employment does not automatically mean security
It is worth noting that not all employment relationships provide real security either. Short probation and notice periods, broad termination clauses, and vague performance standards can limit the practical protections that employees enjoy. A contract might define acceptable grounds for dismissal so broadly (for example, as mentioned above, “failure to meet studio standards”, “conduct inconsistent with studio values” etc), that almost any reason suffices. In such cases, the label ’employee’ provides some statutory baseline, but does not guarantee stability.
The key point is this: for the same teaching work, an employee and a contractor face very different outcomes when, for example, schedules change, complaints arise, or the studio decides to move in a different direction. Treating the 2 contracting arrangements as interchangeable, and/or assuming that being called a freelancer simply means more flexibility, or that being an employee automatically means security, is common but misconceived.
What to look for
Teachers need to understand not just the label on their contract, but what that label permits and what it prevents. Before signing, ask yourself: does the contract allow immediate termination? Does it guarantee any minimum number of classes or hours? Does it require CPF contributions? Does it restrict where else I can teach? Does it impose conduct standards that extend beyond class time?
These questions matter more than whether the contract calls you an employee or a contractor. The substance of the relationship is what determines outcomes when issues arise. And if the substance of your working life looks little or nothing like the label on your contract, that gap itself is something worth understanding.
This post is part of an ongoing series on legal resources for yoga teachers in Singapore. A comprehensive toolkit covering this topic and more is coming soon!
The information in this article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal advice. Laws and regulations may change, and the information provided may not reflect the most current legal developments. For advice specific to your circumstances, please consult a qualified lawyer. No solicitor-client relationship is created by reading this content.