Does resignation need approval in Singapore?

In almost every founder circle in Singapore, some version of the same story appears. An employee walks into a manager’s office, tenders a resignation, and hears the phrase, “I do not approve your resignation.” Everyone leaves the room confused and tense. The employee wonders whether they are truly free to go. The manager feels cornered by the sudden loss of capacity. The founder hears about it a few days later and realises there is not just an operational gap, but a cultural one.

Underneath the drama, the legal position is far simpler. Under Singapore’s Employment Act and the Ministry of Manpower’s guidance, employers cannot reject an employee’s resignation as long as the employee has followed the contractual rules for notice or salary in lieu. Employees have the right to resign at any time, provided they honour the notice terms. It is an offence for an employer to prevent an employee from leaving once those conditions are met. The law is clear that resignation is not a favour a company grants. It is a choice the employee makes within a contractual framework.

The language that companies use, however, often muddies this reality. Many internal templates use phrases like “accepting” or “approving” a resignation. The words sound as if managers have discretionary power to decide whether a resignation counts. In practice, what matters is much more basic. The employee issues a notice to terminate the employment contract. The employer acknowledges that notice. That is all. The legal weight sits with the notice itself, not with whether a manager likes or dislikes the decision.

This is why written notice is so important. A resignation does not need to be dramatic. It can be a short letter, a clear email, or a formal template provided by HR. What matters is that it is written, dated, and tied explicitly to the employment contract. Once that written notice has been served, the notice period begins. A manager who refuses to sign the letter, ignores the email, or claims that they have not “approved” anything cannot undo the fact that notice has been given. Their cooperation is useful for administration, not for legality.

The real engine behind resignation in Singapore is the notice period, not the idea of approval. Every employment contract should specify how long that notice period is. When an employee resigns, they either serve that full period or pay salary in lieu of notice, depending on what has been agreed. If the contract does not spell it out, the Employment Act provides default minimums based on length of service. Someone who has worked for less than six months may only need to give one day of notice, while a long serving employee can be required to give several weeks. All of this is part of a predictable framework that both sides can read and understand.

For founders and senior leaders, the implication is stark. The day an employee tenders a valid written resignation, your relationship with them enters a wind down phase. You can negotiate details, such as whether they stay a bit longer to finish a project, whether you put them on garden leave, or whether you mutually agree to shorten the notice. What you cannot do is pretend that the resignation does not exist until you have personally approved it. You can ask for flexibility. You cannot insist that your approval is a legal precondition.

From the employee’s side, this is often where stress rises. An employee might hear a manager say, “You cannot resign until we find a replacement,” or “I will not accept this until next quarter.” In the moment, it can feel as if the entire future rests on that one person’s mood. In reality, the employee’s power comes from clarity and documentation. You send a clear written resignation that states your last working day based on the notice clause. You keep records of that letter or email, whether that means a delivery receipt, a signed copy, or an acknowledgment from HR. You continue to perform your duties and help with handover during the notice period, so that no one can accuse you of misconduct or abandonment of post. Once you have done those things, the law supports your right to leave.

If an employer still tries to block your departure, that behaviour moves from emotional pressure into potential violation. Threatening to blacklist you, refusing to process your exit paperwork, or withholding pay for work already done are not legitimate tools for “approving” or “rejecting” a resignation. They are signs that you may need to escalate the matter to the Ministry of Manpower or seek independent legal advice. The legal framework exists precisely because the power balance between employee and employer can feel uneven in day to day interactions.

Founders often point to edge cases to justify a tougher stance. One common example involves foreign workers. Employers of work pass holders must cancel the pass within a fixed period after the last day of employment, and that responsibility sits on the company side. Some leaders misread this as extra control over resignation. In reality, it is an administrative duty, not a veto power. The employee still has the same right to resign with notice. If anything, the employer has a stronger obligation to manage timelines well so that the foreign employee is not left in immigration limbo.

Another source of confusion is the question of withdrawing a resignation. Here, the power balance changes. Once an employee has resigned, they do not have an automatic right to reverse that decision. Whether a withdrawal is accepted depends on the employer. A company can decide that the resignation stands and proceed with its hiring and transition plans. For employees, this is a reminder that resignation is not a casual tool. Tendering “just to test whether they will fight to keep me” is a risky move. For founders, it is a reminder to treat every resignation as real, and to design your systems so that you are not dependent on last minute change of heart.

Then there is the topic of shortening or waiving notice. The law allows notice to be modified by mutual agreement, and many companies exercise that flexibility. A founder might let a trusted leader leave earlier to help them catch a critical opportunity in another firm. They might also keep someone on garden leave, where the employee stays on payroll but does not actively work or access sensitive information. None of these arrangements alter the fundamental principle that resignation does not require approval. They are simply variations in how both sides choose to handle the notice period for practical reasons.

Once you understand the legal baseline, the more interesting conversation is cultural, not technical. If you lead a company as if people are assets that must be held until you release them, the way you talk about resignation will reflect that. Every exit will feel like a personal betrayal that must be punished or controlled. Managers will insist on “approving” resignations, not because the law demands it, but because they are afraid of what the departure reveals about capacity, succession planning, or morale.

If you treat people as adults who choose to work with you and can also choose to leave, the legal position becomes an ally, not an enemy. You know that anyone can resign at any time, provided they pay attention to notice. Instead of wasting energy on control, you invest in resilience. You build documentation so that knowledge is not trapped in one person’s head. You cross train team members so that the loss of one engineer or one account manager does not paralyse the whole operation. You keep a modest hiring pipeline warm, even when you are not actively scaling, because you know that replacements will be needed sooner or later.

Employees watch closely how you handle exits. If they see colleagues punished for resigning, they learn to hide their intentions. They send out CVs quietly. They interview on leave days. They drop their resignation letters only when they already have a signed offer elsewhere and cannot be persuaded to stay. That is how you end up with short notice surprises that truly hurt. By trying to “approve” resignations through pressure, you inadvertently shorten your own runway to respond.

On the other hand, if people see that resignation is treated as a normal milestone in a career and not as treason, they behave differently. An employee might tell you months in advance that they are exploring options. They might share what is pulling them away, whether it is a different industry, a new geography, or simply a role you cannot provide. They might agree to help hire and onboard their replacement, documenting processes and relationships in a way that strengthens your company long after they have gone. You still lose them, but you gain something that compounds over time: a reputation as a place where careers are taken seriously and exits are not weaponised.

For founders, the quiet truth behind the question “Does resignation need approval in Singapore” is that the law has already answered it. No, you do not get to approve or reject someone’s decision to leave if they have respected their contractual obligations. You get to design how your company responds. You get to decide whether your systems can survive turnover. You get to decide whether your managers are coached to manage notice periods with professionalism or driven by panic and ego. You get to decide whether leaving your company is a story people tell with gratitude or with relief.

For employees, the same truth is empowering. You are not a passenger waiting for your boss to stamp your exit. You are a party to a contract. When you are ready to move on, your responsibility is to understand your notice period, to resign in writing, to keep records, and to honour your obligations during that notice. When you do those things, you are not asking for approval. You are exercising a right that the law recognises and that healthy companies respect.

In the end, the line between control and respect is clear. The legal framework in Singapore protects an employee’s freedom to leave, within predictable rules. The companies that thrive are the ones that accept this reality early and build their culture, processes, and leadership behaviour around it. The question is not whether resignation needs approval on paper. The question is whether, in your organisation, people feel safe to make that choice without fear, and whether you are building a business that can keep moving even when someone walks away with a signed letter and a clear last day.