Platform Workers Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Manpower.

4.26 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, before I begin my speech, I just want to acknowledge the presence of our brothers and sisters from the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association as well as representatives from the platform operators here with us in the Gallery today. [Applause.]

Sir, their presence signals the support they need for this Bill to be passed to ensure a sustainable development of the platform economy.

The platform economy has provided opportunities to earn a living for many platform workers who bring convenience to us through their services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, while most of us were safely working from home and observing safe management measures safely in our homes, many platform workers braved the elements and health risks to deliver goods and services and food items to us.

Following the pandemic, there is broad social support that we need to do more for this group of workers who have been left behind. As of 2023, there are around 70,000 platform workers, comprising about 3% of our workforce. However, platform work can be precarious. Let me cite three aspects of this.

First, platform workers generally have modest incomes that can fluctuate from month to month. In 2023, their median earnings were around $1,500 to $2,500 a month.

Second, they are also exposed to risks, such as traffic accidents, due to the amount of time they spend on the roads. Those without sufficient insurance coverage bear the financial risks of getting injured and being unable to work. Many of us in our Meet-the-People Sessions would have come across our residents who work as platform workers who sustained injuries at work and ended up with financial hardships and inability to service their housing loans. In fact, a 2022 poll by the Institute of Policy Studies found that up to a third of food delivery workers have been in at least one accident that required medical care.

Third, platform workers also have less control over their work, compared to typical self-employed persons. For instance, they may not have a say over how much to charge for their services, what tasks to take on, whether they can grow their own base of clients and so on. This is because platform operators control these decisions as part of their business models.

When we say, "Every Worker Matters", we are recognising the inherent value and dignity of these workers, regardless of the work that they do. We are saying as a society that we are taking a stand – that these platform workers also deserve our care, to ensure fairness and equity.

Why should a platform worker who takes the same risks on the road as any other employee working in the delivery or transport sector be denied a fair compensation when they are injured or, worse still, lose their lives at work? Are their lives worth less than other workers in the same sector?

Their work generates revenues for the platform operators. Just as the platform operators pay Central Provident Fund (CPF) and buy workplace insurance for their staff working in their office, should these workers who brave the elements to ensure the revenue stream for the platform operators not get the same level of support and protection?

I am glad that platform operators, workers and the broader society agree that we ought to do more for these workers. This is how we strengthen our social compact and not leave these workers behind as the platform economy continues to evolve and grow.

Therefore, to strengthen protections for those involved in platform work, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) set up the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers (PWAC) in 2021 to review how ride-hail and delivery workers can be better supported in the areas of (a) housing and retirement adequacy; (b) financial protection in the case of work injury; and (c) representation. These are some of the employment rights that employees have today.

The PWAC consulted extensively, including with platform workers, companies, trade associations and academics, and examined international practices. In November 2022, following a year-long process of engagements and deliberations by the PWAC, the Government accepted the PWAC's recommendations. This Platform Workers Bill today will give effect to these recommendations.

This is a good example of how tripartite partners in Singapore have worked closely together to enhance labour standards in a sustainable manner. Through close collaboration and discussions in the PWAC, tripartite partners have extensively and actively engaged key stakeholders, such as platform operators and platform workers, and effectively represented their perspectives in ironing out the policy and implementation details.

There are four key components to the Platform Workers Bill.

First, the scope of entities, including companies and workers covered under the Bill. Second, measures to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers through the CPF system. These involve amendments to the Central Provident Fund Act, or CPF Act. Third, measures to ensure financial protection of platform workers if they get injured at work and to strengthen stakeholders' responsibilities to prevent injuries. These involve amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act. Fourth, the legal framework for representation of platform workers. This involves amendments to the Industrial Relations Act.

These matters also require consequential and related amendments to a wide range of other Acts as well as the Constitution through the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which will be tabled at a later Sitting.

Let me start with the scope.

On the scope of entities covered, in clause 4 of the Bill, a platform operator is defined as an entity that has an agreement with one or more service users to provide platform services and exercises management control over one or more platform workers.

We are covering ride-hail and delivery platform services as around 93% of platform work is concentrated in these services today and because such work is precarious, as I explained earlier. These platform services are set out in the First Schedule of the Bill. We can consider the need to amend the Schedule to cover other platform services in future reviews.

In clause 6 of the Bill, there are two prongs to management control. If both are satisfied, the entity will be deemed a platform operator.

First, platform operators use data from service users, such as consumers, as well as their workers in a highly, if not fully, automated manner to make decisions. For instance, this could be through the use of algorithms that determine the fee that ride-hail drivers will receive for a trip based on data on the demand for rides and supply of drivers at a given time. The use of data in an automated manner to make decisions is a critical point here as it enables a platform operator to scale its operations significantly and quickly as well as impose and rapidly change terms of work for platform workers, with little or no room for negotiation.

This is not a new concept. The European Union's (EU's) directive on improving working conditions in platform work uses the same concept to define a digital labour platform.

Second, platform operators impose requirements, prohibitions or restrictions on their workers. These include imposing rules on how a task should be performed or restricting workers' ability to negotiate their fees with clients for providing the service.

The effect of all these is that platform workers cede some autonomy to platform operators in terms of how they provide services, which makes them resemble employees to an extent. However, unlike employees, platform workers are not given employment rights. This is why we are moving to legislate some rights for platform workers to better support them at work.

Looking internationally, countries have taken different approaches to determine the statutory rights of platform workers.

Countries like Spain, Belgium and Portugal have presumed certain groups of platform workers to be employees, entitling them to employment rights, including fixed hourly wage, sick pay and vacation leave. But this means that they also lose the flexibility they had, such as deciding when and how much to work.

Some countries like Greece have presumed that platform workers are not in an employment relationship, but have given them some rights pertaining to welfare, health and safety, similar to employees.

Others such as the United Kingdom (UK) have left it to the courts to determine whether platform workers are "employees" or "workers" on a case-by-case basis. This led to different classifications for the same worker who may use different platforms to work. The downside of this approach is a lack of clarity for both the workers and companies.

We have decided that it is better for the Government to provide clarity upfront for companies and workers through legislation and to do so in a way that preserves the flexibility that both workers and companies wish to retain for platform work.

We want to better support platform workers by providing them with workplace safety and retirement adequacy. But if platform workers are given the full suite of employment rights, such as sick pay and vacation leave, the nature of the relationship between the platform operators and platform workers will likely change to resemble an employment relationship, with much less flexibility, which neither party wants.

We have thus struck a finely balanced middle ground. Clause 5 of the Bill defines platform workers as individuals who have contracts with and are subject to the management control of a platform operator in their provision of services, but who are not employees of the platform operator, in effect, creating a middle category of workers in between employees and self-employed persons.

Singapore is among the first in the world to take this approach of providing statutory protections for platform workers as a distinct group. This approach preserves the flexibility of platform work that both sides want and achieves our aim of better protecting platform workers.

If the Bill is passed, companies that meet the definition of platform operator must comply with their statutory obligations and provide protections to their platform workers once the Bill comes into effect. The same applies to: (a) new companies; (b) existing companies that change their business models later on; and (c) companies in subcontracting arrangements if the company satisfies the definition of a platform operator vis-à-vis a worker.

Just like how companies today are responsible for assessing whether they are an employer and need to comply with employment laws, companies are also responsible for assessing whether they are a platform operator as they would be the most familiar with their own business models and their relationship with their workers. That said, to support companies, MOM will provide resources such as a checklist for companies to self-assess if they are platform operators. Tripartite partners will also engage the ground to educate companies and relevant workers.

If there is feedback that a platform operator has self-assessed wrongly and did not provide work injury compensation or make CPF contributions to a platform worker, MOM will investigate. If we find out that the company is a platform operator, we will require the platform operator to pay any outstanding CPF contributions or work injury compensation owed to the worker, as we currently do with employers. Additionally, the platform operator may face penalties for not making CPF contributions or not providing work injury compensation in a timely manner for platform workers and for failing to notify MOM that they are a platform operator.

Next, let me talk about supporting housing and retirement adequacy. The Fourth Schedule of the Bill makes amendments to the CPF Act to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers.

Today, platform workers are treated as self-employed persons and are only required to make MediSave contributions of up to 10.5% of their net earnings. To meet their housing and retirement needs, platform workers should also contribute to their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts. The proposed amendments enable platform workers to achieve the same level of housing and retirement adequacy as employees who earn the same amount.

We will do this gradually. Starting in 2025, platform operators will contribute 3.5% of platform workers' net earnings and platform workers will contribute up to an additional 2.5%. This will increase by the respective percentage quantum yearly until 2029. By then, it will bring platform operators' and workers' CPF contribution rates to the same level as employees and employers' contribution rates – by 2029.

For platform workers in the ages of 55 to 65, the timing of the increase will be synchronised to the senior worker CPF contribution rate increases for employees in the same age group. The increased CPF contributions will be mandatory for the cohort of platform workers born from 1995 onwards.

In all our engagements, younger cohorts have indicated the greatest need and desire for CPF contributions as it can help with their housing needs. Many are starting their families and getting their first Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.

Older cohorts can choose to opt in anytime from November onwards, with no deadline. Opt-ins are not reversible. I encourage older platform workers to consider opting in to boost their housing and retirement savings and to benefit from our CPF system.

Overall, platform workers will experience an increase in their total earnings after factoring in CPF contributions from platform operators. Nonetheless, I appreciate that some platform workers will be concerned about reduced take-home pay. The Government will provide support.

First, we will enhance the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support (PCTS) to provide greater support to lower-income platform workers who see an increase in their CPF contributions.

We had previously announced in 2023 that the PCTS would offset 75% of platform workers' increase in CPF contributions in the first year and 50% in the second year. We will enhance this to offset 100% of the increase in 2025. This means that the Government will pay fully for these platform workers' increased CPF contributions and they will have no decrease in their take-home pay in 2025.

We will also enhance the offset in 2026 from 50% to 75%. The offset will taper down gradually thereafter and cease in 2029.

We will also increase the PCTS qualifying income cap from $2,500 to $3,000, in line with the increase in the Workfare Income Supplement qualifying income cap from January 2025. This will allow more platform workers to benefit from PCTS.

Second, we will enhance Workfare for lower-income platform workers. Today, platform workers are treated as self-employed persons for Workfare payments. This means that those who are eligible for Workfare receive Workfare payments annually, at the end of the year, after making their annual CPF contributions. As self-employed persons today, they receive two-thirds of the Workfare payments that employees receive, as they make lower CPF contributions than employees, and 10% of Workfare is paid in cash and 90% goes to their CPF account.

But from 2025 onwards, after this Bill is passed, platform workers will receive Workfare payments monthly, instead of annually, because they will now make CPF contributions on a monthly basis. This will help with their cashflow.

In addition, from 2029 onwards, platform workers who contribute CPF at the same rate now, by then, like an employee, will receive employee-level Workfare, instead of just two-thirds the amount like self-employed persons. This means that they will benefit from higher Workfare payments of up to $4,900 a year, with a higher proportion paid in cash – 40% instead of the 10%, like a self-employed person.

As an illustration, for example, a 35-year-old platform worker earning $3,000 in net monthly income after deduction of allowable expenses, who opts in to increase CPF contributions from 2025, will receive around $2,250 of PCTS over the four-year period between 2025 and 2028, which will offset part of his increase in CPF contributions. He will also receive $18,720 in CPF contributions from the platform operator over a five-year period from 2025 to 2029. Including Workfare payments, the platform worker will receive a total of $23,830 in additional cash and CPF savings for his work from 2025 to 2029.

So, this will be a substantial boost to the retirement adequacy and the ability to afford housing for these workers. All this will be helpful towards their housing mortgage payments and retirement savings.

We have consulted platform operators and platform workers extensively in the design of the computation and collection of CPF contributions from them. We want to ensure that the CPF contribution process is seamless, cost-effective and protects the interest of platform workers. We have aligned generally with the employer-employee model while catering for flexibilities to account for the unique circumstances of platform work. These implementation parameters will apply to all platform workers, including those who have not opted in and only make MediSave contributions.

Let me now talk about how the computation goes about. Amendments to the CPF Act will specify how the computation of CPF contributions for platform operators and workers will be aligned to the employer-employee model in terms of how it is tiered based on age and income, and applied to monthly earnings from each platform. However, unlike employees, platform workers incur work expenses which are not reimbursed, such as fuel cost. Hence, the computation of CPF for platform workers will be based on earnings, less a Fixed Expense Deduction Amount, or FEDA.

Both platform workers and platform operators have provided feedback that they want a simpler and seamless way to compute CPF contribution. To this end, we will use a prescribed FEDA that reflects expenses for the majority of platform workers. The use of FEDA provides significant convenience for both platform workers and the operators, because the platform workers will not have to keep receipts to track and compute actual expenses for their platform work. The platform operators will not have to incur additional operating costs to re-compute the CPF contribution based on actual expenses.

The prescribed FEDA also takes reference from the Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio developed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore for the computation of net earnings for tax purposes. This is based on actual expense ratios, including industry feedback and surveys on workers' expenses, and reflects expenses for the vast majority of platform workers. The use of FEDA will apply for the computation of work injury compensation as well.

Next, let me talk about the collection of CPF. Like in the employer-employee model, the onus is on platform operators to pay both the platform operator and platform worker share of CPF contribution to the CPF Board monthly. During the month, the platform operator may make deductions and refunds to the platform worker based on the applicable CPF contribution rate. It is an offence for platform operators to make a deduction from a platform worker's earnings and not pay it to the CPF Board. This protects the interest of platform workers. Platform operators will be required to reflect the deduction of the platform workers' share of CPF contribution clearly within their earnings slip for transparency and accountability and platform workers can check these contributions in their CPF account.

The Fifth Schedule of the Bill carries amendments to the Income Tax Act to align the tax reliefs and deductions for CPF contributions to the employer-employee model.

Finally, the good news for our platform workers is that the Government will also reimburse platform workers for the platform operator's share of CPF contributions under the Government-Paid Leave Schemes, such as Government-Paid Maternity and Paternity Leave, when platform workers take time away from work to care for their newborns. This is at clause 105 of the Bill, which amends the Child Development Co-Savings Act.

Today, before the Bill is passed, eligible platform workers get reimbursement from the Government for their lost income when they take parental leave. The Government does not reimburse them for any platform operator share of CPF contribution because this is not applicable to them today. They are not getting CPF contributions from the operator to begin with.

But moving forward, for platform workers who are mandated or have opted-in to boost their CPF savings, the Government will also reimburse the platform operators' share of CPF contribution, on top of their lost income, when platform workers seek reimbursement for parental leave. This is part of Government's strong commitment to support parenthood.

Let me now move on to financial protection for work injury. Platform workers' financial protection for work injury is currently inadequate compared to employees in similar sectors, such as logistics. Delivery employees and goods delivery partners both ply the roads to get deliveries to us and are exposed to the same risks.

Some platform operators voluntarily compensate platform workers for work injuries, such as through personal accident insurance. But the coverage is uneven and at lower levels than what employees are entitled to under WICA. It is important that platform workers, like employees, can recuperate and recover from their injuries without worrying about putting food on the table and get back to work in good health.

The Ninth Schedule of the Bill will amend WICA in relation to platform workers and platform operators. Under the amended Act, platform operators will be required to provide work injury compensation to platform workers at the same level of coverage, as employees, comprising reimbursement for medical expenses, income loss compensation for medical leave and hospitalisation leave and a lump sum compensation for permanent incapacity or death.

The same compensation caps and minimum sums for compensation for permanent incapacity or death for employees will now apply to platform workers after the Bill is passed. To assure platform workers of work injury compensation payouts and to ensure platform operators can discharge their liabilities, platform operators will be required to purchase work injury compensation insurance for their platform workers from MOM-designated insurers.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the key features of work injury compensation for platform workers?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. Let me now take Members through the key features of Work Injury Compensation for Platform Workers.

I will focus on three areas: exclusions, what stage of the work is covered under the WICA and which platform is liable in the case of injuries.

First on the exclusions. Given the flexibility of platform work, liability for work injury compensation should be scoped to risks that stakeholders can practically address. As platform workers have the autonomy to choose the vehicle used to perform platform work, under the amended WICA, platform workers will not be eligible for work injury compensation if the injury was caused by their use of an illegally modified vehicle, or if the platform worker was not licensed to operate the vehicle in the first place.

What stage of work will be covered? Some platform workers take platform work as their main job and do this throughout the day, while others do so on a part-time or ad hoc basis. As platform workers do not have fixed working hours or conventional workplaces, the circumstances under which platform workers will be eligible for work injury compensation will be more scoped, compared to employees.

The work injury compensation regime needs to account for the unique features of platform work. In a typical day, a platform worker would log onto the platform app to wait for jobs, before accepting a suitable job. Then, the platform worker would set off to pick up the ride-hail passenger or the item to be delivered and complete the ride or delivery. Hence, we can divide platform services broadly into three stages: waiting for jobs, picking up goods or passengers, delivering and completion of tasks – three stages.

With reference to paragraph 31 of the Ninth Schedule of the Bill, amendments to the WICA specify the work stages of platform services.

Platform workers will be eligible for work injury compensation when they are performing pick-up and delivery of passengers or goods. These are the key activities that take place after a platform job has been accepted. Outside pick-up and delivery, platform workers can wait for jobs or pursue their own activities. It would not be fair to extend platform operators' liability to activities which are not work-related.

Which platform is liable in case of injury? With reference to paragraph 17 of the Ninth Schedule of the Bill, for platform workers injured while performing a job for one platform operator, that platform operator will be liable. That is quite easy to understand.

For platform workers injured while performing tasks for different platform operators at the same time, liability will be confined to one platform operator where possible to simplify claims processing. This will be determined by a prioritisation of the work stages.

First, if the platform worker was performing "pick-up" and "delivery” tasks for different platform operators at the same time, only the platform operator behind the "delivery" task will be liable. This is because the platform worker can still choose to reject jobs during the "pick-up" stage but he or she is committed to fulfilling the job at the "delivery" work stage when the passenger or goods are already with them.

If multiple platform operators are liable, liability will be apportioned based on the platform worker's earnings from each liable platform operator. If the platform worker was performing "delivery" for two platform operators A and B, compensation liability will be apportioned among both platform operators based on the platform worker's earnings with each platform operator over the past 90 days on lookback. For example, if the platform worker earned $1,000 from platform operator A and $2,000 from platform operator B, A will bear one-third of the compensation liability and B will bear two-thirds of the compensation liability.

A platform worker could be performing work in two different platform sectors, meaning, both ride-hail and delivery. Two different sectors: one is fetching passengers, the other one is delivering goods. If a platform worker gets injured while performing a task in a particular platform service, compensation will be based on the platform worker's past earnings from all platform operators that they had worked for in that platform service. The platform worker's compensation will reference his earnings over a lookback period of 90 days before the date of the accident.

Platform workers injured while completing ride-hail and delivery jobs at the same time, that means, both platform services simultaneously, will be compensated based on the earnings from their higher-earning service sector. Scoping platform operators' compensation liability to one platform service facilitates sustainable insurance premiums.

While platform workers will be protected in case of work injuries, platform operators and workers should work together to reduce the possibility of work injuries in the first place and take remedial actions where necessary.

Today, all companies and workers are responsible for safety and health outcomes under the WSH Act. Recognising the unique features of platform work, such as the use of different modes of transport for platform workers, we will introduce separate duties for platform operators and for platform workers through amendments to the WSH Act under the 10th Schedule. This will clarify platform operators' responsibility for the safety and health of platform workers when at work and platform workers' responsibility to cooperate with platform operators on safety measures.

Next, let me talk about enhanced representation. Today, a group of employees who want to represent their fellow employees must register themselves as a trade union and seek mandate to represent their members in negotiations with the employer and to resolve disputes.

For platform work, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, the National Taxi Association and the National Delivery Champions Association have been actively working to understand the challenges that platform workers in the ride-hail and delivery sectors face, and champion their interests. However, as platform workers are not employees, there is currently no legal framework for the representation of platform workers.

While there has been constructive dialogue between the associations and platform operators, tripartite partners agree that the process can be strengthened through a legal framework that sets out the rights and obligations of both platform work associations and platform operators in dealing with each other. Many of the challenges encountered by the platform workers are actually operational in nature and would be better resolved collectively through representative bodies that could work with various stakeholders including mall operators, food and beverage (F&B) chains and so on to find a good solution.

As the framework for employers and employees has worked well in preserving industrial harmony, the Bill largely adopts this framework for platform operators and platform workers. In other words, platform work associations will be analogous to trade unions.

I would like to highlight three important aspects of this framework for platform work associations.

First, we will appoint a Registrar and Assistant Registrars of platform work associations under clause 20 to assess the applications of platform work associations for registration and ensure the responsible administration of platform work associations. Similar to how trade unions may represent employees or employers, platform work associations can represent platform workers or platform operators. Once registered, the platform work associations of platform workers must obtain mandate from their members working with a platform operator to represent them in negotiations with that platform operator.

Second, once a mandate is obtained, a platform work association can work with platform operators to discuss and agree on areas for negotiation. Thus far, companies and associations have raised various areas that they may be interested in negotiating, such as safeguarding the health and safety of workers, how earnings are computed and more. Given that platform work is quite diverse and dynamic, tripartite partners agreed to leave it to each platform work association and platform operator to decide on what to negotiate on, rather than to pre-determine a list of issues that they can or cannot negotiate.

Third, it is important to preserve industrial harmony in Singapore. Therefore, amendments to the Industrial Relations Act under the Sixth Schedule of the Bill will extend existing channels for dispute resolution to platform work associations and platform operators. For instance, disputes can be brought to MOM for conciliation, and if that fails, the dispute can be heard by the Industrial Arbitration Courts.

While platform work associations can organise industrial action just like trade unions, any decision to organise industrial action must be a considered and justified decision. As such, under clause 36(1) of the Bill, a platform work association must not organise or commence industrial action if it has not obtained the consent, by secret ballot, of the majority of members affected by the industrial action. Doing so would be an offence. This is similar to the framework which governs trade unions today.

We recognise that there may be concerns around costs arising from these measures. The Government will put in place measures to manage the impact on stakeholders.

For work injury compensation, the existing open and competitive insurance market for work injury compensation insurance will facilitate sustainable insurance premiums for platform operators based on the claims history and safety records.

Today, there are 26 insurers offering competitive insurance products for the employee regime. We have worked with seven of them to develop operational policies as part of the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network including providing data for more accurate risk assessment, reducing uncertainty for insurers and platform operators.

For CPF, we will pace the increase in CPF contribution over five years and give older platform workers the choice to opt in to higher CPF contributions. We will also introduce the enhanced PCTS for lower-income platform workers.

To mitigate concerns around costs being passed down to platform workers, there will be provisions under the amended CPF Act and WICA that prohibit platform operators from recovering the cost of the platform operators’ share of CPF contributions and work injury compensation from platform workers, similar to existing provisions that apply to employers.

Consumers also have a critical role to play. The introduction of CPF and workplace injury compensation protections will unavoidably lead to some increase in business costs, but I think as a society, if we all believe that we should provide some core protections for our platform workers, we should be prepared to pay just a little bit more to help platform workers secure their future. In fact, our surveys show that many consumers are indeed prepared to do so and I am heartened by this reflection of our strong social compact. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The platform economy has created opportunities for platform workers to earn a living and made life more convenient for many Singaporeans. However, platform work is precarious, so the Government will strengthen protections for platform workers in three areas: first, housing and retirement adequacy; second, work injury compensation and; third, allowing platform work associations to represent platform workers and safeguard their interests.

Firstly, platform workers will be entitled to the same housing and retirement adequacy as employees with the same income. We will gradually increase the CPF contribution rates for platform operators and workers over five years, in order to reduce the impact on platform operators and workers.

Platform workers born in 1995 and later will be required to contribute to their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts. Younger platform workers have expressed interest in making additional CPF contributions to meet their housing needs. Older platform workers may already have their own housing and retirement plans, so they can choose to opt-in. Platform workers' total income, including CPF, will increase.

I understand that some platform workers may still be concerned that their take-home pay will be reduced. To address this, we will provide support to help low-income platform workers. The Government has enhanced the Platform Workers' CPF Transition Support (PCTS), to fully cover the additional CPF contributions required from the platform workers in 2025. This means that the platform workers' take-home pay will not be affected next year.

The subsidy in 2026 will also be increased from 50% to 75% and will be gradually reduced in subsequent years. At the same time, the monthly income ceiling for PCTS has been raised from $2,500 to $3,000, thus benefitting more platform workers.

Secondly, platform operators must provide platform workers with work injury compensation equivalent to employees’. Compensation includes medical expenses, income loss compensation for sick leave and hospitalisation and a one-time compensation for permanent incapacity or death.

Lastly, we will also establish a legal framework to allow platform work associations to represent platform workers, similar to how unions represent employees. Platform work associations will be able to communicate and negotiate with stakeholders, such as platform operators and mall operators, to better address the issues and challenges faced by platform workers.

(In English): If the Bill is passed, we plan for the Bill to take effect from 1 January 2025 as the intention is to allow platform workers to benefit from the protections as soon as possible, while bringing more convenience to platform operators and platform workers by having the increased CPF contribution rates and tax relief computed from the start of the calendar year.

Singapore is one of the first countries to provide statutory protections for platform workers as a distinct group from employees. Many other jurisdictions are similarly grappling with the challenge of how to better protect their platform workers. In this regard, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has reached out to Singapore to better understand our considerations and experiences in making these policy changes. This signals how important this issue is and shows that we are at the vanguard of developing innovative and sustainable ways to better protect these workers.

As Singaporeans, we can all be proud that we are doing this to uplift the social security protections for our platform workers who face precarity due to the nature of platform work. The measures in the Bill will improve their housing and retirement adequacy, provide them with financial protection for work injuries, and enable platform work associations to act as a bridge between platform operators and platform workers so that industrial relations remain stable and conducive to the platform economy.

This would not have been possible without our tripartite partners and the close tripartite collaboration we have in Singapore. I would like to thank the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) for journeying together with us to strengthen our social compact in this new area. Everyone must play their part, including platform operators, platform workers and consumers at large. The Government will also put in place transition measures to support stakeholders in implementing these changes. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

5.11 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill comes to the House on the back of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, recommendations which were approved by the Government in 2022. The Committee's recommendations sought to strengthen protections for platform workers in three areas: adequate financial protection in case of work injury through the Work Injury Compensation Framework provided by WICA, improved housing and retirement adequacy through CPF contributions, and finally, enhanced representation for platform workers. I will first speak on the platform workers space in general, and then on the higher prices for consumers that will most inevitably arise from the legislative changes effected by this Bill.

The second part of my speech will focus on specific queries on the introduction of CPF. Finally, I will end with a few questions on WICA for platform workers and the expectations platform workers ought to have of associations that would bargain for them.

Before I speak on the substantive Bill, it is important to give an overview of the platform workers space and the incomes of our platform workers. In 2023, there were 70,500 platform workers who formed 2.9% of the labour force. The platform industry and how it is regulated, is also diverse. For example, ride-hailing is far more regulated than food delivery, which is comparatively unregulated.

Another significant question concerning platform workers is whether they earn most of their income from platform work, or if such work merely supplements what they earn from their full-time jobs. In a survey done as part of a 2022 Institute of Policy Studies inquiry on platform workers, 46% of respondents earned their income solely from food delivery, while another 27% earned income solely from platform work, including food delivery.

MOM reported that the median gross monthly income of full-time platform-related occupations was $2,000 in 2023, unchanged from 2022. For a better understanding of each sub-category of platform workers, this figure needs to be parsed further so we can understand the median gross monthly income of each category of platform worker as listed by MOM, namely delivery workers, taxi drivers and private hire drivers.

I hope the Ministry can provide this information so we can have an acute understanding of the income situation affecting specific type of platform work. With the cost of living biting Singaporeans at all levels, especially those of lower income, the earnings of most platform workers are precarious.

This view is reinforced by a 2023 DBS study, which showed that platform workers are spending more than they earn and have to tap into their savings as they try to cope with the cost of living. In 2022, the expense-to-income ratio was 107%. This rose in 2023, to 112%. Arising from this, the savings of platform workers fell to 1.7 months' worth of expenses in May 2023, compared to 1.9 months a year before.

This figure of 1.7 months is well below that of DBS Bank's median retail customer, who has savings of 3.5 months' worth of expenses. It is also well below the 12 months' of savings recommended by DBS Bank's Head of Financial Planning Literacy for those with an unstable income stream. Quite simply, many of our platform workers are potentially one major unexpected medical bill or even car repair away from exhausting their savings and sinking into real financial hardship.

The changes proposed by this Bill are aimed at helping platform workers by addressing their income and health-related insecurities. For these reasons, the Workers' Party (WP) supports this Bill, as it seeks to advance regulatory changes that will ultimately better-serve the interests of platform workers.

This House understands, of course, that the changes provided by this Bill must be paid for by someone. For now, there is little clarity on how much of the higher costs will be absorbed by the platform companies. But the Bill will doubtless usher in a period of overall higher prices for customers of platform services.

At a platform workers' dialogue session in 2023, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon remarked, "All the surveys we have done, showed that Singaporeans are prepared to pay up to 10% more to support platform workers."

However, a survey conducted in the first half of 2022, with a sample size of 2,000 respondents by the then-Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) on how much consumers were willing to pay to facilitate better protections for platform workers, revealed more nuanced findings.

The MCI survey noted that four in five consumers were prepared to pay more for food delivery or ride-hailing services if the monies went to better support platform workers. Four in 10 respondents said that they were willing to pay up to 3% more, while three in 10 said that they were willing to pay 4% to 5% more. One consumer said that she was willing to pay a little extra, provided that the increase in costs were transparent and clearly went towards worker protection.

A different survey in September 2022 of 570 respondents found that nine in 10 were prepared to pay more if the monies went towards initiatives to better support platform workers.

Minister – through you, Mr Deputy Speaker – in view of the survey threshold and tolerance of Singaporeans for price rises for platform services arising from this Bill, how much does the Ministry anticipate prices to increase by and how will this be equitably spread between consumers, platforms and platform workers? Specifically, after the implementation of the full CPF amount and WICA, are prices for users of platform services expected to rise by 5% or more, or will it breach the 10% mentioned by the Senior Minister of State?

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a mere technical question, but one I expect has been carefully considered by the tripartite partners, in view of the long period of deliberation, after the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers made its recommendations. Should the price increase be too high for consumers, one cannot rule out the prospect of a demand shock that causes consumers to recoil and reduce overall demand for platform services. If that were to happen, platform workers could find themselves with less work and even lower incomes.

In addition, does the Senior Minister of State expect platform companies to reveal how much of their anticipated price increases are accrued to the CPF and WICA amendments envisaged by this Bill? Or are the algorithms of the platform companies expected to accommodate the increase in prices, with the public unclear about the extent of the price rise that is devoted towards better security for our platform workers? The latter scenario may of course incentivise the prospect of profiteering in the name of regulatory compliance.

The next part of my speech covers questions on the preparations, assumptions and scenarios related to these new protections for workers, which are being brought to this House almost two years after the original recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers.

I will first speak on the compulsory CPF contributions for platform workers aged below 30, with an opt-in regime for platform workers above the age of 30.

In April 2022, I asked the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon about the number of platform workers who contribute to their CPF accounts on their own accord. While the Senior Minister of State did not have the data on hand, it was assessed that only about 45% of platform workers made some contribution to their MediSave accounts.

It is not surprising that most platform workers do not contribute to their CPF accounts. Workers are very concerned about take-home pay. Anything that could reduce that amount is viewed with apprehension as it affects daily life.

At a platform workers' dialogue session on 3 February 2023 involving about 120 workers, several workers raised their fears on whether the recommendations suggested by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers would result in higher costs for platforms, which would then be passed on to workers, to the detriment of their take-home pay.

One worker said, "I hope that it will not be the cost all (passed) over to us, (but) it will be spread across consumers, platforms and ourselves. At the end of the day, if you just say only and, when you implement, the cost come back to us, we are the ones paying the 17%." He was referring to the 17% rate for employers' CPF contributions.

Another worker alleged that the payment rate of the platforms had been decreasing since the announcement of the measures of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers were made and asked, "How can the Government ensure that the platforms eventually don't give us the burden?"

What is clear is that, platform workers are concerned about lower take-home income should platform companies extract the employers' contribution of CPF by adjusting the algorithm, thereby forcing take-home wages downwards. The workers' concerns are in line with the public demand that the anticipated increase in the cost of platform services goes towards helping platform workers.

I have a few queries for the Senior Minister of State on the CPF-related portion of this Bill.

First, with an opt-in age of 30, most platform workers could choose not to participate. Could the Senior Minister of State share the rationale and thinking of why it agreed to the opt-in age of 30, in view of the larger policy objective of addressing housing needs and retirement adequacy of platform workers?

Secondly, for workers who do not opt-in to CPF, will they receive the platform companies' share of the CPF contribution in cash?

Thirdly, based on 2023 MOM data, the median age of resident regular primary platform workers was in the mid-50s. Only 8.4% of such workers were aged 30 and below – 8.4%. Could the Senior Minister of State please tell us why the Ministry did not pursue an opt-out system, instead of an opt-in regime for those above 30 in age?

Opt-out systems, from a behavioural perspective, are far more effective in securing participation to address housing and retirement needs while yet giving choice to platform workers. Platform workers aged 30 to 39 form 10.8% of the total and those aged 40 to 49% form 18.8% of the total. In view of the life cycle of the CPF system and lower contributions received in one's later years, the early working years are important age brackets, during which, our platform workers can grow their CPF accounts to reap the benefits of compound interest in good time.

Considering that full-time employees are not even given the choice of either opting in or opting out, an opt-out system for platform workers does not seem inappropriate or unfair and would be far more effective in getting platform workers to seriously consider taking up CPF.

Fourthly, some platform workers are worried about whether they would be worse off if they opt into CPF as provided by this Bill. They are concerned that it would create a perverse incentive on the part of platform companies to assign more jobs to workers who are not making CPF contributions so as to lower the companies' wage expenditure. The Government needs to address this very real fear of our platform workers.

Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon has previously stated that platform companies must not discriminate when assigning work and MOM would investigate any unfair practices. Without more, my view is that this would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove discrimination as the evidence would lie in the word or, precisely, the algorithms of the platform companies.

It was reported that the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation for Platform Workers (TWG) had drawn up some negotiating principles with the platform companies, for example, (a) that parties would be mutually committed to the operators' business success and workers' welfare; and (b) platform operators need not divulge their proprietary information or negotiate on commercially-sensitive matters.

Can the Senior Minister of State tell us how the Ministry will investigate platform companies? How would the Ministry undertake investigations without access to the platform companies' top-secret algorithms, or does the Bill open the algorithms to scrutiny if discriminatory practices are alleged?

Fifthly, under the Bill, the CPF contribution rates for workers and platforms would be increased by a few percentage points each year, until it reaches 20% from platform workers and 17% from platforms later in this decade. To address the fears of workers about falling incomes arising from the imposition of CPF, the Government announced the PCTS at the Committee of Supply debate in March last year. The Government would contribute 75% of the workers' contribution in the first year and this would reduce to 25% in 2027.

A few weeks ago, the Government announced that it would totally offset the first contribution for the year 2025 by 100%, thus subsidising the workers' entire CPF contribution next year. Although, it must be noted that this would be the kick-off year where the workers' contribution is the lowest, at 2.5%. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, in the interest of fiscal transparency, what is the difference between the new fiscal allocation for the PCTS compared to the original PCTS announcement?

I move on to my queries on work injury compensation. I have two broad queries in this regard.

First, it would be important for this House to understand the deliberations of the work injury compensation implementation network for platform companies and workers, on the number of insurers, which I believe was briefly mentioned by the Senior Minister of State in his opening speech, and the cost of premiums to platform companies since there is a legitimate concern that added cost for platform companies with regard to WICA, are likely to be passed on to the consumer.

Have there been difficulties in pricing WICA for platform workers to date and do platform companies have a competitive range of quotes to consider? How many insurers are prepared to offer WICA, particularly since the product is new and the class of platform workers to be covered is far smaller than WICA for employees? With the implementation date for WICA for platform workers a mere three months away, are platform companies aware of how much WICA will cost them, so as to be ready to roll out coverage for platform workers by 1 January 2025?

Separately, Mr Speaker, from the platform workers' perspective, for better work injury compensation, there must be a clear claims and compensation process for platform workers which is also easily understood. It was made known in July 2023 that the compensation from income lost due to work injuries would be based on the worker's average actual earnings in the 90 days before the injury.

Sir, the reality on the ground is that many platform workers receive platform work across many apps or what is sometimes referred to as multi-homing. We see this all the time with platform workers toggling between several devices hosting different platform apps.

Could the Senior Minister of State please tell us whether a WICA claim would cover the 90-day average across all the platform companies a platform worker is registered with and works for no matter the number of jobs accepted over this period? This is important because should a claim only be tied to the platform company, through which a platform worker accepted an assignment when injured, the WICA coverage for the worker may turn out to be very low.

Another point where clarification is needed, is the time frame during which a platform worker is considered at work. For work injury compensation purposes, a platform worker is considered at-work during the pick-up and drop-off of passengers or items, including when they are headed to their vehicles or bikes. At least this is what I understood from the brochure that was circulated by the Senior Minister of State just now.

This means that the eligibility window for work injury claims opens when the platform worker accepts a job through their app and ends when they head to their vehicles or bicycles after finishing delivery. Would there be scope to look at how WICA would apply to the completion of a food delivery job?

Usually undertaken by platform workers on motorcycles or bicycles, the risk profile of such platform workers differs considerably from platform workers who provide ride-hailing services. Intuitively, the injuries sustained from even apparently minor accidents like brushes or side swipes involving two-wheelers can be severe, debilitating and, every so often, fatal.

Can WICA for platform workers accommodate and extend greater protection for our most vulnerable workers? For example, can there be coverage if a food delivery rider completes a job, is in transit on the way home after a food delivery and, God forbids, gets involved in some serious accident?

I believe there is some scope for reviewing the applicability of WICA for food delivery riders and ride-hail platform workers differently, to better protect more vulnerable workers. This is worth consideration precisely because of the unconventional deployment of WICA in the ordinary sense, which is commonly extended to those traditionally classified as employees only. I hope the Ministry can look into this.

Separately, in a Business Times article dated 13 July 2023, it was reported that a ride-hailing driver had a specific query on whether the WICA coverage would extend to platform workers who get into an accident while waiting for the app to assign new jobs. There was no clarity on this point in the article, so it would be helpful if the Senior Minister of State can address this point in the House, too.

Before moving on from this section, the incorporation of WICA for platform workers by way of this Bill does not mean that platform companies have been leaving workers in the lurch. Foodpanda has extended skills upgrading schemes for its workers. A few companies, such as Gojek, offer subsidised premiums if workers take up private insurance. Grab has been providing drivers and delivery partners prolonged medical leave insurance.

However, the varied nature of the platform space and, by extension, the varied and different coverage for work injuries suffered by our workers, means that WICA is necessary to ensure better and consistent basic protection for our most vulnerable workers. To that extent, I agree completely with the Senior Minister of State's explanation on WICA for platform workers.

Finally, an important prong of the changes envisaged by the Bill is representation. As iterated earlier, the tripartite discussions that preceded the Bill acknowledged that the business secrets of platform companies, such as the operational details of their matching algorithms, would be respected.

I believe many people in and out of this House would have heard platform workers speak of riders or drivers allegedly receiving notice of a job in the vicinity, while another driver or rider may not receive the same notice. Naturally, this raises concerns of discriminatory allocation.

Unfortunately, these very algorithms that determine allocation are driven by the business strategies of the platform companies and one can understand that they may be trade secrets. While the House must respect the liberty of private enterprise to the extent possible, equally, it is important for platform companies to both proactively explain as well as publicise to their workers how important decisions, such as job allocation, performance assessment of workers and rates, are decided. A balance has to be struck between respecting business secrecy on one hand and the legitimate concerns of workers on the other.

Ultimately, any new status quo must better level the playing field between platform workers and platform companies to ensure that workers' rights are protected. I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if representation as effected by the Bill could co-exist with the prospect of platform workers sharing their data with an association.

In the UK, a non-profit entity called WorkerInfoExchange helps platform workers access and gain insight from data collected from them at work, with a view to tilting the balance away from big platforms by collecting and pooling the data of platform workers to help them demand fairer conditions. Can the Senior Minister of State confirm if this Bill envisages a platform work association representing platform workers operating in a similar way, given there is an understanding that platform companies will not be expected to reveal the inner workings of their algorithms?

If representation delivers a more level playing field for workers and information, asymmetries between workers and companies are reduced in a real way, more platform workers are likely to be assisted directly, where representation carries weight and bargaining power. This may be an important incentive to get platform workers to seek better representation. Such incentives are needed, given that a survey carried out by Grab, Deliveroo and Foodpanda revealed that 55% of food delivery workers said they are unwilling to pay any fees for representation, suggesting a lack of understanding at what representation can offer or a lack of belief of how representation can benefit them in concrete terms.

To conclude, Sir, the success of this Bill for the Singaporean public will turn on how reasonable the anticipated price rises of platform services will be after the Bill becomes law and whether the increase is equitably distributed between consumers, platforms and workers – bearing in mind that nothing stops any company or service provider from capitalising on significant regulatory changes to profiteer or socialise costs more than it should.

While the Bill represents an improvement in social security and fairer working conditions for our platform workers, its effectiveness hinges on resolving ambiguities and the acceptance of important social responsibilities by not just platform companies and consumers, but platform workers accepting some responsibility for their own security too.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

5.37 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today we are debating a Bill that marks a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to uplift and care for the workers of Singapore. Protecting our platform workers is a cause the Labour Movement has championed for many years. This Bill addresses the unique challenges faced by workers in Singapore's growing gig economy, now widely known as platform workers.

These workers have quietly become indispensable to our daily lives – delivering our food, driving us to our destinations and bringing parcels to our doorsteps. At its core, this Bill seeks to strike a delicate balance. On one hand, it provides our platform workers with the basic protections they deserve. This is a significant win for the more than 75,000 platform workers, who rely on this work for their livelihoods.

For too long, these workers have operated in the grey area, unable to benefit from the protections of the Employment Act and relying on the goodwill of platform companies for insurance coverage. This Bill proposes to provide them with a safety net through mandatory CPF contributions, insurance coverage and the right to formal representation.

On the other hand, this Bill is sensitive to the flexibility that characterises platform work. The objective is not just to protect current workers but to ensure that the gig economy remains a sustainable part of our economy in the long term.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if it is passed, this legislation will be a landmark legislation globally. The cornerstone of this legislative change is Singapore's tripartism. Tripartism is our unique collaboration among the Government, employers and unions. It has long been the bedrock of Singapore's labour relations. It is this spirit of cooperation and dialogue that has enabled us to achieve what many other countries have struggled with: a harmonious and effective approach to regulating and improving the gig economy.

In many countries, efforts to regulate the gig or platform economy have faced significant resistance. In California, for example, platform companies have invested millions in legal battles to overturn legislation protecting platform workers. The situation has similarly been challenging in Europe, where attempts to classify gig workers as employees have been met with stiff opposition from platform companies. However, in Singapore, we have taken a different approach.

By leveraging on our strong tradition of tripartism, we have brought together the Government, unions and platform companies to craft a framework that balances the needs of all parties. This collaborative approach has allowed us to move forward with this bold legislative and policy change, ensuring we protect our workers while maintaining the flexibility and sustainability of the gig economy.

A key feature of the Bill is ensuring that platform workers have access to CPF contributions. This is crucial for helping them build a secure financial future, especially for younger workers who aspire to own their homes and save for retirement. By mandating CPF contributions from both platform companies and workers, we are not just protecting these individuals. We are investing in their future.

While it may be challenging for workers to adapt to a lower take-home pay initially, the PCTS will help alleviate this burden. This phased approach gives workers time to adjust to the new scheme. Workers will also get employers' contributions to the CPF, lending further support for longer-term retirement and housing support. If we care for the workers, we must plan for the longer run.

Currently, mandatory work and injury compensation for platform workers is non-existent. Some platform companies offer insurance but it is not mandated. This leaves workers vulnerable when accidents occur, facing both medical bills and loss of income. Cases of riders suffering injuries resulting in inability to work are not uncommon. Without mandatory workplace injury coverage, they will have to rely on their savings or the goodwill of friends and family to cover their medical expenses and support their households. Such is the precarious situation many delivery riders face. The struggles underscore the urgent need for a standardised, mandated workplace injury compensation scheme that protects all platform workers.

A 2022 survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, further underscores the urgency of this issue, finding that more than a third of delivery riders in Singapore had been in some forms of accident requiring medical attention. Yet without legislative protection, they are left with the financial brunt of such incidents. This Bill will introduce mandatory work injury compensation for platform workers, providing them with the same level of protection as traditional employees under WICA.

Whether it is a delivery rider injured at a job or a private hire driver involved in an accident, platform workers will now have the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are now covered. The Bill also allows for platform workers to be formally represented by associations, giving these associations legal standing to advocate on behalf of workers.

This is welcome news for the labour union-affiliated associations, like the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, the National Delivery Champions Association and the National Taxi Association. With the formal legal backing, these associations can now, more effectively, engage with platform companies to represent and protect their members, ensuring a more balanced playing field for platform workers. And members will also be supported by NTUC's full ecosystem of support and privileges.

Without such representation, platform workers often find themselves voiceless and powerless. In the UK, Uber drivers had to fight a lengthy legal battle to be recognised as workers, rather than independent contractors. The absence of formal representation delayed their access to basic protection for years.

This Bill seeks to prevent such struggles by empowering associations to protect platform workers' rights from the outset. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while this Bill represents a significant step forward, it is important to acknowledge the challenges and trade-offs that come with it. These protections will likely come at a cost, at least in the short term.

Platform companies will need to adjust their business models to comply with these new obligations and some of these costs may, indeed, be passed on to consumers. The Government has come in via the PCTS to help with the transition. This means that short-term price volatility is likely to be mitigated, giving time for the system to adjust. However, we must remember the broader social compact that we are trying to build in Singapore requires contributions from all parties. All of us, platform workers, companies and consumers, must share the responsibility of ensuring that the gig economy remains fair and sustainable for all stakeholders. By working together, we can ensure that these changes benefit not just platform workers, but all of Singapore.

There are a few points I would like to raise for the Ministry's considerations.

The gig economy often involves workers engaging with multiple platforms simultaneously. For instance, a delivery rider might work for different food delivery platforms or even ride-hailing services, as discussed earlier. This can create unique challenges when it comes to applying to WICA.

We have talked about having a look-back period, but invariably, this may lead to disputes among insurance or even companies delaying compensation for workers. To address this, how does the Ministry ensure guidelines are sufficiently clear and robust and there will be a robust arbitration system in place so that the payouts are not unduly delayed?

The Bill primarily focuses on workers engaged in transportation and delivery services. But the gig economy clearly extends beyond these sectors. Platforms offering cleaning services, digital work and nursing services are also significant parts of the gig economy. Could the Ministry clarify its rationale for focusing on transportation and delivery services now? And will there be a periodic review mechanism to update the definition of "platform workers" as the gig economy evolves?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a positive step forward for Singapore. Providing platform workers with the protection they deserve is essential as we build an inclusive society. It also demonstrates that the People's Action Party (PAP) Government is prepared to make bold changes to its policies to improve the lives of Singaporeans. The gig economy offers workers a flexible way to achieve financial independence or sustenance, and we must ensure they are protected from the imbalances of power that exist in this sector.

But our work does not end here. We must continue to listen to the voices of our platform workers and make necessary adjustments to ensure that this Bill achieves its intended outcome. Every worker matters and the Labour Movement stands ready to assist the Government in engaging our platform workers to ensure that this Bill achieves its intent. I look forward to a stronger social compact, ensuring that our society works towards leaving no worker behind. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

5.46 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, own account workers have historically been a key feature of our labour markets, with various occupations ranging from real estate and insurance agents, F&B stall owners at our hawker centres to taxi drivers. In recent years, the rise of digital platforms alongside the proliferation of smartphones and the mobile Internet led to the emergence of a different class of own account workers: those who may not entirely be in control of their own business, such as private hire car drivers and food delivery riders, working for the ubiquitous multi-billion dollar platform companies we see today.

Many of our Sengkang residents work for these platforms in the gig economy, too, and I have spoken to quite a number of them during my Meet-the-People Sessions, house visits and our shopping malls where many of them are waiting for their next delivery pick-up. While the gig economy is often hailed for its flexibility and autonomy, the reality is that with ever-increasing app sophistication and as these platforms grow in scale, the gig economy has evolved in ways that increasingly disadvantage its workers, and such work is often arduous, risky and poorly remunerated. Behind the appeal of flexibility and the promise of independence lies a reality fraught with inadequate protections and financial insecurity.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

As these issues become increasingly apparent, there is an urgent need for legislation to safeguard the welfare and rights of our platform workers. This Bill, in essence, implements the recommendations brought forth by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers to help improve the working conditions and livelihoods of our platform workers, and I believe nobody will disagree with the urgency of addressing some of the pain points faced by our platform workers.

There remains much work to be done, however, and my speech will focus on three areas which I believe we can and should do better to ensure the fundamental sustainability of our platform workers' livelihood in the long term.

First, under the new section 8A, platform operators must now pay CPF contributions to its platform workers, with platform workers' themselves, too, contributing the equivalent of "employee contributions" through a deduction from their remuneration.

Chief among platform workers' concerns is, of course, the reduction in take-home salaries, which can be a sizeable impact, considering the already low average salaries earned by our workers trying their best to feed their families.

Granted, in an announcement on 22 August 2024, MOM announced that the PCTS will be enhanced, such that there will be a 100% offset of the platform workers' share of increase in CPF Ordinary Account and Special Account contributions in 2025, before tapering down gradually from 2026 and easing in 2029.

However, are we being too lenient on the platform companies themselves in not getting them to better support their own platform workers, whom they rely on day in and day out to keep their platforms working? Platform companies' CPF contributions start at 3.5% for workers across all age groups from 1 January 2025, before progressively increasing each year up to a steady state from 1 January 2029 onwards. Today, resident regular primary platform workers aged 60 and over represent the highest percentage of workers by age group at 34.7%, with those aged 50 to 59 representing the next highest percentage at 30.2%.

Using the example of a worker aged between 65 and 70 who is somehow still working and not retired, the difference between the initial 3.5% company contribution rate and the steady state contribution rate of 9% is minimal. Assuming he earns the median income of $2,000 as a worker, the difference is a mere $110 a month. Even if we assume the worker is aged 35 or below, meaning a company contribution rate of 17%, the difference is, again, just $270 a month. Surely, that is not too much to ask of our platform companies.

I fully agree with what Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon said in response to Parliamentary Questions in April 2022, where he noted that while mandatory CPF contributions will increase platform companies' business costs, I quote: "It is no worse off than any other company employing workers in a similar sector, such as in logistics and transport. Besides, platform companies already contribute CPF for their management executives and administrative staff today."

While we want to phase in the workers' contributions over time, given take-home pay concerns, can we not accelerate platform companies' contributions or even mandating that they start contributing their full share of contributions immediately from January 2025?

Second, I wish to reiterate a point I made during the 2022 Committee of Supply debate, where I hope that we can pay a fair wage for our platform workers and ensure that they earn at least our minimum wage equivalent, the local qualifying salary (LQS). While this was at $9.00 per hour back when I made the speech, this has now been raised to $10.50 per hour, based on the latest LQS as announced in Budget 2024.

The 2017/2018 Household Expenditure Survey lists the median household expenditure as $4,906. A DBS survey also suggested that food delivery riders spend $1.12 for every dollar they earn.

While such jobs are advertised as being "flexible" and "ad hoc", many platform workers work long hours to ensure that they have sufficient income, with an Institute of Policy Studies survey reporting that approximately 40% of food delivery riders work over 44 hours a week.

Today, platform workers have to grapple with ever-changing incentive schemes, weather conditions and other factors beyond their control. Allowing them to earn a fair wage that is in line with minimum wage standards goes a long way in providing some degree of support in alleviating the income instability that our platform workers face.

While the nature of the work differs from platform to platform, as long as the principle is abided to, I believe the implementation difficulties are not insurmountable. In China, for example, one of the largest if not the largest market for platform workers, its Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security released additional guidelines earlier this year, stipulating how operators of delivery, ride-hailing, transport and household services platforms should ensure that their workers' salaries match local minimum wages and provide them with time off. This is a further extension of regulations published back in 2021 that already requires operators to meet minimum wage standards and provide social security access to their workers.

Third, perhaps underlying many of the issues faced by our platform workers is a trust deficit between the powerful multi-billion international technology platforms and the thousands of individual platform workers who feel beholden to the platforms they count on to put food on the table for themselves and not just the customers whom they deliver to.

Our platform workers' livelihoods are thus at the mercy of the technology and algorithms behind these platforms, which can sometimes feel like a faceless and merciless machine. One of the residents I met earlier, who cycles to make food deliveries, was even wondering if his lower scores led to him being deployed to "lousy jobs" which involve a long ride to pick up the food and subsequently to deliver them. With the move to introduce CPF contributions for platform workers, there could be concerns, unfounded or otherwise, that algorithms might be programmed to assign more jobs to workers who do not opt in and could better contribute to the platforms' bottom line instead.

Perhaps, in addition to formal union representation, the Government can consider the formation of an "Algorithm Committee" to give platform workers confidence that there is fairness and transparency in how the platforms operate. Such a committee was introduced in Spain, for example, as part of their first Collective Agreement for Platform Workers, and, in China, the authorities have also introduced guidelines since 2021 highlighting that the "strictest algorithm" should not be used as an assessment requirement and delivery time requirements should be appropriately relaxed.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, rather than confining our support for platform workers within the existing framework, I hope the additional points I raised can be given due consideration for future legislative amendments to better enhance the sustainability of our platform workers' livelihoods. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

5.56 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, it has been over a decade of the Labour Movement listening to and representing Singapore's freelancers and the self-employed. NTUC and our affiliate associations – the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and National Delivery Champions Association have worked for years on advocating and planning for this debate today. I would like to give a shoutout to my brothers and sisters in the Gallery, these are the good people, association leaders, unionists, platform owners and operators, who have worked very hard to make this debate happen today.

This landmark Bill, if passed into law, recognises that self-employed gig platform workers are in employee-like work arrangements with platform operators and will allow platform workers, such as our taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and delivery riders, to be formally represented by union-like associations under Singapore's labour laws, and to be accorded, rightfully, fair and even workplace injury insurance, as well as retirement and housing adequacy, alongside all Singaporean employees.

The Labour Movement is no stranger to the ground concerns of our freelance workers and thanks to Singapore's unique style of tripartism, has been representing our workers' rights to the Government and platform taxi companies. Successful negotiations through the tripartite partnership have helped our drivers and riders through challenging times and have created improved worker outcomes in terms of work prospects and working conditions.

In 2010, the National Taxi Association advocated for taxi companies to match MediSave Contributions for our drivers under the "Drive and Save" scheme, and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association replicated this successfully for our private hire vehicle drivers in 2017 with Grab. We also innovated voluntary mediation for disputes with operators and we want to thank our progressive operators for their support. Throughout COVID-19, we protected livelihoods by working with taxi companies to reduce rentals and hold taxi pump prices when fuel prices spiked. Partnering closely with our food court operators, platform companies and the Government, NTUC negotiated on proper rest areas for drivers and riders providing essential services during the COVID-19 restrictions. Earlier this year, NTUC mooted for and co-led a multi-agency workgroup comprising the Government and private sector condominium Management Corporation Strata Titles and mall operators to look into work and safety conditions for our delivery riders.

These working models and Tripartite relationships have been carefully cultivated by our associations to improve the welfare of our workers in the absence of legislation. If Members need proof of this working model, it is visible here at the Gallery with our platform operators seated next to our platform workers.

However, Mr Speaker, there are miles to go before we sleep, and as more Singaporeans choose to be part of the gig economy and as more global players enter this fast-evolving platform industry in Singapore, it is important that our workers' interests and livelihoods stay protected. We listened. And we know that platform workers are stressed about the long-term sustainability of their livelihoods, especially with non-transparent incentives and order mechanisms, app glitches and fluctuating demand/supply. They are worried about unsafe working conditions and the financial burden placed on their families should accidents or even deaths occur. They are aggrieved over the lone voices they have when it comes to their challenges being heard by platform partners and other stakeholders in the course of their daily work.

Unlike the truly self-employed, today’s platform workers are in employee-like work arrangements as they are subjected to their platform operators' management controls and have to adhere to the platforms' rules of engagement. Many a times, our platform workers are left in vulnerable situations especially when their platform partners change their incentive structures and order booking rhythms.

Brother Calvin, not his real name, was once a delivery rider using a power-assisted bicycle (PAB). By targeting peak-hour shifts, he was able to earn a comfortable steady $2,500 a month, and this allowed him the ability to support himself and to take on some long-term financial commitments. But things changed. Despite booking those same peak-hour shifts, fewer orders started coming in. Once, he went for days without even being able to book for the same shifts he once used to be able to get. Seeing that bicycle deliveries had shift slots opened when there are none opened for PABs for the same shifts, he resorted to changing his delivery method from PAB to bicycle. The week-by-week change threw off his cadence in life, and I believe that livelihoods should not be as precarious and fleeting as an unconsulted, unconsented change in a partner platform’s priorities.

Calvin is fortunate that he was nimble enough to leave the industry, but there are scores of others in this industry, who have fully vested their livelihoods and trust in platform apps, finding themselves in a double bind. They are unclear why the rules of engagement on their partner platform have changed, while trying to make ends meet for their families in a job that had promised partnership and a viable means to a livelihood.

Indeed, representation also covers circumstances which may appear trivial to the rest of us, but bear great impact to our drivers and riders. I call it the “cupcake effect”. In my interactions with our delivery riders, many have brought up to me about the hump at most of our public carpark gantries. While most of us cannot recall that hump, and I appreciate how the HDB has put these humps in to slow down cars before the gantry, the hump is a bane to many delivery riders as it causes the cream decoration on cupcakes to be overturned, and drinks to be spilled. Our riders have told us that they often do not know where to bring these grievances to, hence tripartism and formal representation would be critical twin pillars in allowing our platform workers’ voices to be heard.

Mr Speaker, we all have read about tragic stories involving delivery riders losing limbs and lives in unfortunate accidents, and some of us, may have even personally met with their family members in the wake of these unfortunate circumstances. The fact of the matter is that workplace injuries are common in the delivery space and, more often than not, our platform workers leave behind grieving family members, finding themselves even in more precarious financial situations. While we argue that many platform companies do provide basic insurance cover for their drivers and riders, as pointed out, these insurance are often inadequate and are uneven in coverage, many a times, tied towards performance metrics and tiered privilege systems. I ask, should something as basic as insurance be gamified?

Take the tragic example from June 2022, when a 54-year-old food delivery rider lost his life in an accident at the Punggol Waterway Point mall. I attended his wake and what struck me most was the vulnerability of his family. He was the main breadwinner in the family, leaving behind an elderly mother. The National Delivery Champions Association set up a counselling booth with the assistance of the mall to support the riders who witnessed the accident. It was a reminder of how real the dangers is at work for our platform workers. But what happens to the families left behind? Is there enough support for them? Unfortunately, the answer is often no.

Hence, Mr Speaker, I put it to you that work injury insurance not a game, 工伤赔偿不可能当成游戏, and I support the mandating of a WICA-like coverage for our platform workers, akin to that enjoyed by the rest of the Singaporean employees. Work injury insurance should not be tied to whether a worker meets performance targets or has a specific mode of transport. Insurance must cover all workers, at all times, regardless of their activity level or their ranking within a system.

In the same vein, the same must be said of our platform workers’ CPF and housing adequacy. Private hire vehicle brothers Joseph and Gabriel tell me that they find it difficult to maintain a steady stream of income due to the non-transparency of work order rhythms and the fluid nature of a platform's incentive system. They are both family men coping with the rise of business costs out of their control – rentals and petrol mainly – and the volatility of their platform earnings. The pressures are compounded by the demands of their families and long-term commitments.

Our platform workers’ stresses are not unique and is commonly shared by all Singaporeans. The difference is that for most working Singaporeans, they have the certainly in planning and growing a nest egg through CPF contributions. Growing older means higher healthcare costs, growing a family means taking on housing loans.

Gabriel shares that the rental cost of a Toyota Noah that used to cost $80 a day pre-COVID-19 now costs $110. This is a 37.5% increase, but definitely fares have not increased proportionately. Today, he has to drive another one to three extra hours just to maintain his pre-COVID-19 income, but with a good sense of financial literacy and prudency, Gabriel is able to maintain his lifestyle to manage his family’s daily expenses.

However, others might not be as savvy as Gabriel and some are now falling into arrears. Indeed, anecdotally, just as I was receiving feedback from our member drivers on unsustainable low trip and order rates, I have also seen a corresponding higher number of platform workers in arrears for their HDB loans at my Meet-the-People Sessions in the past six months.

These worries and aspirations are not only those belonging to our traditional breadwinners. Our sisters have also often voiced out their needs for long-term financial adequacy for their families and themselves. These are not their real names – sister Farrah, a mum of six; sister Maria a single mum with an adult son; sister Courtney, a single mom with a child with disabilities, have all called for better housing and retirement adequacy. Sister Farrah would like to purchase a flat of her own, sister Maria would like to contribute to her son’s future marital home and sister Courtney would like to provide better therapy services for her special needs child.

Mr Speaker, it is clear that should we recognise our platform workers as employee-like, it is fair that our platform workers are covered by CPF. Our platform operators, as with all the rest of Singapore-based employers, will need to provide their share of CPF as part of their cost of business. This will be critical in ensuring that our platform workers are paid fairly for a sustainable livelihood and be finally on par with the rest of the workforce for the work that they have done. My taxi and private hire vehicle association leaders have a wise saying: "羊毛出在羊身上". The sheep's wool must come from its body.

How would the Ministry ensure that our platform operators pay for their fair share of their platform workers’ CPF, keeping in mind that platform operators need to be sustainable also? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For over a decade, the Labour Movement has been listening to and representing the voices of freelancers and self-employed individuals in Singapore. NTUC and its affiliated National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicle Association and National Delivery Champions Association have been dedicated to promoting and planning this Bill for many years. Through our Tripartite efforts, we are finally able to stand in Parliament today to debate this landmark Bill.

If this Bill is passed, it will be a world first, formally recognising that platform workers can enjoy benefits similar to those of employees. This way, platform workers can enjoy corresponding formal rights through platform associations. More importantly, it will ensure workers receive comprehensive work injury insurance and enhanced retirement and housing security. Once platform workers can enjoy treatment similar to employees, they will be able to benefit from these basic benefits and rights.

We must take more measures to support this growing group in Singapore. NTUC has deep concern for platform workers, and we will continue to safeguard their interests as we have always done, because we cherish every platform worker.

(In English): Mr Speaker, more must be done to support this growing group of Singaporean workers. As I rise in support of the Bill, which the NTUC and the Labour Movement have worked hard to push, I reiterate, as I have on several occasions, the concerns I have with the roll-out.

Given that we agree that platform workers are treated as employee-like, how do we ensure that platforms contribute fairly to CPF and insurance without passing the costs onto workers and end consumers through reduced pay or higher fees? Would MOM be requiring platform companies to provide clear breakdown of fares to both workers and end consumers stating clearly their share of CPF contributions?

Waiting in between bookings and jobs is a regular part of a platform worker’s daily job routine. As long as a platform worker has his or her app on, and has exhibited that they are ready to take on a booking, arguably, this waiting time should also be covered under the work injury insurance.

Given that anecdotally, from our drivers and riders' feedback that real earnings have gone down and drivers need to drive longer hours, can we also extend the PCTS scheme for all drivers even those who earn more than $2,500 today? The coverage can be capped up to $2,500 of their earnings.

Mr Speaker, the time has come for our platform workers to forge their own collective agreement so that their voices are heard, their working conditions improve and their grievances addressed in a timely and fair manner. As employee-like workers, platform workers' retirement and housing adequacy worries must be addressed, by having platform operators pay for their fair share of CPF. As workers working in precarious work conditions, platform workers must be covered adequately by accident and loss of income insurance.

NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers and we will continue, as we have done over the years, to champion their interests, because every platform worker matters. My clarifications not withstanding, I strongly support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

6.13 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill is a comprehensive, even exhaustive, document, numbering some 234 pages, and addressing a wide range of legislative changes meant to enfold platform work better into the jobs landscape of our economy. It makes good-faith efforts to improve the rights and protections for gig workers, and for that reason, it has the support of the WP.

Others have already spoken about various other aspects of the Bill, including enabling such workers to secure representation via workers associations or union equivalents, along with accommodations for workplace health and safety. I will, in my remarks, focus on how the Bill caters specifically to retirement adequacy of such platform workers, which is a principal concern of Part 8 of the Bill.

For context, let me begin with a sketch of the economics of the platform economy. Digitally-oriented business models have been with us for a long time now, of course, having risen to prominence in the run-up to the dot-com boom of the late 1990s. But it was only after the bursting of that bubble that we saw the subsequent emergence of both sharing economy firms such as Airbnb, Uber and WeWork, along with the penetration of incumbent technology giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google into such digital ecosystems and that has ushered in the current generation of platform economies.

The digital economy is now massive and will only continue to grow. Estimates suggest that by 2028, it will grow from the current $12 trillion to $17 trillion worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all global output. In Singapore, the Infocomm Media Development Authority expects a comparable share of the digital economy in our gross domestic product (GDP), with digital businesses outpacing the rate of growth of the overall economy.

Yet the platform economy raises intimate issues of concern for workers in particular. A recent study established that the largest platform companies have been able to churn out twice the growth, profits and market capitalisation than the largest old-school firms operating in the same business, all while doing so with half the number of workers.

What is worse, while some founders and employees at the top end – think of the thousands of well-remunerated tech professionals, not to mention tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma and Mark Zuckerberg – have benefited enormously from the platform economy, tens of thousands of others are barely eking by, on precarious driving, delivery and paid-per-gig jobs.

The present Bill limits itself to a class of workers providing on-demand delivery and ride-hailing services operating on digital platforms. This, in my view, is an appropriate prioritisation, given their relative share of all platform workers.

After all, such workers reside in an awkward intersection of regular wage-earning employees, whose jobs afford sufficient structure for traditional labour protections and the fully self-employed who understand the risky trade-offs of running one's own shop but get to enjoy the potentially large returns from business success or the freedom of being one's own boss. Unlike the self-employed, however, most platform workers cannot decide on how much they charge and many do not do gig work out of choice. They may be responding to, for instance, an unexpected job displacement or an inability to secure more traditional employment.

The new classification of platform workers that will result from Part 1 of the Bill helps ensure that workers in this intermediate no-man's land will be extended proper labour protections. It is already somewhat belated, with jurisdictions such as the UK having recognised so-called "limb (b)" workers in 2021 and the state of California having extended full employee classification to platform workers in 2019, although that has recently been overturned.

But better late than never, although I would hope that the Bill should also consider eventually extending the coverage of the First Schedule to another category of platform workers: those who contribute towards and are paid for their part in a crowdsourced task – otherwise known as crowdworkers. This would include freelancers on Amazon Mechanical Turk or Fiverr, but also cleaners and handymen or performers that heavily rely on platforms to match themselves to work opportunities. Such individuals exhibit many of the same features of employment precarity that on-demand delivery and ride-hailing workers do.

Of course, the experiences of platform workers within this group may well differ, depending on their motivations for seeking work and even the specific platforms on which they operate. While some are reasonably well-off and choose platform work as a helpful supplement to their primary income, most are on the lower end of the income scale and may suffer from significant income volatility, resulting in higher levels of job anxiety. Many have to go into debt to even get started on gig work. This has led some observers to criticise the claims that platform work fosters some special spirit of entrepreneurship as "utopian thinking".

The reality, instead, is that many employees engaged in platform work full-time live very vulnerable economic lives. The majority are bereft of health insurance or retirement plans or social protections, more generally. The flexibility of gig work – often presented as a boon – is often a bane in reality as workers often cease work once they have reached a daily target, which in turn erodes their long-term earnings capability.

A significant number are young – since the higher starting salaries may prove irresistibly attractive, relative to the alternative – but with limited career upside, lifetime incomes often end up lower than with conventional careers. Absent stronger incentives, a majority would either completely opt out of contributions towards CPF or make only minimal contributions to keep their take-home salaries high. As a result, many platform workers fail to squirrel away enough money to support themselves later in life.

Yet there is some evidence that platform workers may actually favour mechanisms that can help them commit, somehow, to increasing their savings, although this is of course tempered by a concern that the possibility of their take-home pay would decrease as a result. This is why it is vitally important to ensure that platform workers have access to a pension plan. In Singapore, this typically means enrolling in the cornerstone of our system of retirement provision, the CPF.

To be clear, the WP has in the past offered measured critiques of the system. Notwithstanding these reservations, we believe that CPF goes some way towards providing for retirees during their sunset years and hence, has a role to play for platform workers as well.

Consequently, the WP is in favour of the stipulations in the Bill that will encourage such workers to enrol with the system. The proposed enhanced PCTS embedded into the Fifth Schedule certainly offers a welcome alternative to encourage participation in the higher-contribution Group A, at least up till 2028. The Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has further suggested that the default be set as an opt-out rather than an opt-in regime.

This has much to be commended. Behavioural scientists have documented how a bias towards the status quo, coupled with inertia, tends to lead individuals to stay with pre-selected defaults. This has also been demonstrated, specifically, when it comes to saving behaviour.

Hence, if we believe that it is truly beneficial to nudge our platform workers towards greater savings for retirement, applying an opt-out default would be no less constraining on their freedom of choice while encouraging welfare-enhancing behaviour.

That said, as my hon friend Louis Chua has already and my friend Gerald Giam will, point out, the scheme could nevertheless give rise to unintended consequences as well. Platform companies may tweak their algorithms to deprioritise job allocations for those who are contributing more to CPF or they may choose to blatantly reduce the salaries of those who sign onto the scheme. Here, I raise the possibility of another possible unintended consequence, related to how those under 30 years of age are automatically enrolled in Group A.

While I can guess at the Government's motivation behind insisting that the young be automatically placed in Group A – it ensures that those who will benefit most by starting their retirement saving early do so and, as Senior Minister of State Koh earlier said, older workers may already have some savings plan in place – this may nevertheless inadvertently lead to discrimination against their hiring since they are now also more costly. This may further exacerbate youth unemployment, which – like elsewhere in the world – is already more than twice as high as the adult unemployment rate.

This concern has already been flagged by some of our younger platform workers. The counter-argument that suggests that the number of workers not on the scheme is likely to be small – and hence, discrimination is not possible since most workers would be covered – does not hold up to the data. Only a fraction of around 7% of platform workers are indeed below 30 years of age. And the belief that such a discriminatory strategy would not hold up in the longer run also does not address how a sizeable group of youths could nevertheless face discrimination in the meantime.

Nor should we be content with the claim that younger workers – being fitter, more resolute or more efficient – are naturally more attractive hires. After all, we are well aware of the weaker bargaining power of employees with less experience in the workplace, which may well predispose them to accepting otherwise lower wages than they deserve.

One strategy to preclude this, without throwing the baby of retirement adequacy out with the bathwater of potential discrimination, is to ensure that the impending Anti-Discrimination Bill, which, last I heard, is due to be debated in Parliament this year, includes provisions that would make such unsavory practices illegal, notwithstanding the challenges of proving discrimination in practice that the Leader of the Opposition has pointed to.

Separately, one is left to wonder what the Government's Plan B is, should the enhanced PCTS fail to deliver the sort of sign-up rates that we all hope for. After all, while the lock-in into Group A for older workers who exercise the CPF scheme option is assured by clause 4(3) of the Fourth Schedule, such inevitability may well end up discouraging workers from signing up in the first place. These workers will nevertheless face retirement adequacy issues and hence, it strikes me as valuable to monitor the rate of sign-up as well as develop a strategy for encouraging participation in the event that the enhanced PCTS alone remains insufficient as an incentive.

Mr Speaker, I will close with a practical suggestion. For platform workers that do enrol as Group A workers, it would be useful for the Government to work with platform providers themselves to ensure the accurate reporting of earnings in much the same manner that employers are currently obliged to accurately declare salary information for wage-earning employees. This would facilitate retirement planning and submissions to CPF, but it may call for some automated transfer of aggregated monthly earnings data since platform workers' earnings are transactions-based. These data should, of course, also be open to audit, ideally by a truly independent third party.

Sir, platform workers are an important constituency of Sengkang, the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) I represent. While I support the enhanced protections being made available to them, I, like my WP colleagues, caution against an excessively sanguine attitude to platform providers, to the detriment of our hardworking gig workers. We must make gig work work for their retirement.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

6.27 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is timely and I welcome the augmented support for platform workers to ensure that they have sufficient financial compensation in the event of work injuries, receive CPF contributions on par with employees and are protected with representation by worker associations.

First, about the injuries incurred in the course of work. I appeal to the Ministry to extend this protection beyond physical injuries. Just like employees in the services industries, including the healthcare and security sectors, our platform workers require protection against verbal threats and psychological abuses.

This Bill does not address this prevalent issue but it is not uncommon to hear stories about platform workers being verbally abused for being delayed due to weather or traffic conditions. Private hire vehicle drivers get berated for various reasons by passengers. This can affect them emotionally or worse, financially, as they may be given bad reviews even though they are not at fault or for situations beyond their control. We may need to look into provisions for platform workers to be protected from threats, abuse and unfair reviews given by unreasonable customers.

I am most assured that platform workers will receive matching CPF contributions based on the amounts they earn, whether they work for a single or multiple platforms. This will help them move towards better housing and retirement adequacy. However, I am still very much concerned about their income progression and the stresses they face due to the volatility and unpredictable nature of their earnings, which are dependent on seasonal demand.

There is a limit to how many orders or trips one can do a day, due to supply and demand factors, road conditions and physical human limits. As these riders grow older or reach other milestones in life, how can we ensure their income goes up in tandem with inflation and/or be able to meet the expenditure needs for major life events? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There is a limit on how many orders or trips one can do a day. This is due to supply and demand factors, road conditions and physical limits. As these riders grow older or reach other milestones in their life, how can we ensure their income goes up in tandem with inflation and/or able to meet the expenditure needs for major life events?

(In English): Presently, food delivery and ride hailing companies have tiered systems for benefits. Payment incentives are provided for a number of rides at each tier. Those in the higher tier also have priority in booking shifts and getting orders. These incentives are not fixed and companies can always drop these incentives at their own discretion. There is no protection in terms of their stability of income. What more can we do to ensure that their incomes do not fall even if they are working just as hard? How do we ensure that their incomes rise over the years to keep up with inflation? At the same time, how can we balance this with keeping with the cost of such services affordable to the majority of our consumers?

Finally, we want to help platform workers transition to careers in other fields if they so desire. It is important that they can have career mobility and employability. How do we ensure the career mobility of our platform workers? For platform workers who may at some point decide to move on from being a platform worker and find a more stable employment, the Government may wish to consider providing more support for platform workers to attend trainings, with some form of allowance or income support. Such support should be a permanent feature and not ad hoc.

Last month, the Government announced the new SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme, which will provide up to $6,000 over six months to those who have made involuntarily unemployed. May I seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State if platform workers can qualify for this scheme?

In conclusion, the Bill is a step in the right direction to provide more protection for this group of workers and I wish to state my strong support for the Bill.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

6.34 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, I remember during the COVID-19 pandemic period, where on many occasions we had to sit through weeks of quarantine, it was the delivery platform workers that brought food and necessities to our doorsteps.

Today, platform workers provide much appreciated last-mile service, making a difference in terms conveniences in our daily lives; their services widen our dinning and consumption options, and they plug the service gap for those who are less mobile such as our seniors or those that are unwell. Rain or shine, platform workers carry out their work; often under time pressure to fulfil their job orders. There is a lot of daily toil and hard work on their part.

Platform workers are not faceless Singaporeans. They, like the rest of us, also have their ups and downs in life, emotions, angst and anxieties. Like us, they also have families and loved ones and they too want safety, security and better life for themselves and for their families.

At Bukit Panjang where I served, we have a Delivery Riders Support group where we get together regularly such as during festivities, to catch up and to offer each other support and assistances. In my frequent engagements with the platform riders, they will often share with me about what they are going through, the daily challenges that they face as well as their concern on the longer-term stability and security of their work as well as their longer-term livelihoods.

Sir, platform workers merely just want to earn a decent living to support themselves through their hard work, sweat and even at their personal safety. But they also hope that the society would not see them as a forgotten group and also appreciate their fair share of contributions in the service that they provide to the community.

Sir, it is only right that we treat our platform workers as a part of our workforce, providing them the necessary protections such as compensation for work injuries and importantly, housing and retirement adequacy that is so key to one’s life cycle.

They should also have the organised means and representation to collectively negotiate and bargain with the platform operators so as to safeguard the interest of the fellow platform workers.

Sir, I fully support the measures and appreciate the calibrated approach to implement the various changes; including the Government funding support to introduce the PCTS to offset part of the increases in the CPF contribution rates.

Sir, the platform sector is still a relatively new sector. Many of the platform operators are still running operating losses and counting on money from investors to keep the operations going. So, in my view, the sector is still in search of the optimal financial equilibrium and yet to be on a more self-sustaining footing.

With that in mind, can I ask the Senior Minister of State how would the changes envisaged in this Bill impact the overall ecosystem of the platform service? Do we expect the terms of trade between among the stakeholders which are the platform operators, platform workers, consumers and, in the case of food delivery, the F&B operators, do we expect any change in the terms of trade among the stakeholders as a result of this Bill?

As this sector does create employment and income, and also provide useful flexible work arrangements, besides the Platform Workers Bill, how can the Government help to strengthen the resilience and robustness of this sector?

Finally, would the Government also look to support reskilling of the platform workers, whether to continue in their work in the platform service sector or to seek new work opportunities in other sectors. Notwithstanding my questions, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

6.38 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the introduction of the Platform Workers Bill as an important first step in improving the welfare of platform workers.

They are now more than 70,000 platform workers in Singapore as of 2023. This is a significant portion of our workforce and many of them are lower income and have been displaced from the job market in recent years. While platform workers generally enjoy more flexibility than employees, they are also subject to significant management control by platform companies when their supply of services are matched to demand by algorithms.

It is timely that our legislation is now being updated to create a new class of workers distinct from employees and self-employed persons to protect the rights of platform workers.

This Bill recognises the need to ensure equitable pay for our platform workers. We support the change made by the Bill to align the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform companies to those of regular employees and employers for platform workers born on or after 1 January 1995.

This is a step in the right direction which will ensure that younger platform workers have adequate protections for housing and retirement. The opt-in regime for older platform workers also meets the desire of many older platform workers to opt out of CPF contributions on their earnings in order to maximise their take-home pay.

However, in order to ascertain that this change will really benefit the platform workers, we would like to ask the Government if it has gotten commitments from the platform companies that they will not reduce incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset their increased cost from paying employer CPF contribution.

During the Committee of Supply for MOM in 2023, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa had raised the issue of whether platform workers who opt in to CPF contributions will be discriminated against because they are more costly and asked whether measures were put in place to prevent discrimination against those who opt in.

At the time, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon clarified that platform workers would not be covered under the upcoming workplace fairness legislation and that it is not in the interest of the company to discriminate against workers who opt in for CPF because over time, the bulk of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF. However, PSP is concerned that in the short term, there are insufficient protections to prevent Group A workers who opt in for CPF from being discriminated against. We are disappointed that the Bill does not contain provisions to prevent platform companies from discriminating against Group A workers.

PSP proposes that MOM should regularly receive reports from the platform companies on the percentage of jobs that are completed by Group A workers as well as the percentage of Group A workers on their platform. MOM should regularly monitor these data points to ensure that there is no evidence of platforms discriminating against platform workers who may be more costly because they opt in to CPF contributions.

We would like to go further to ask MOM to consider proposing the ultimate safeguard of a minimum base fare per delivery or right share. We propose that platform workers can form platform work associations that functions similarly to trade unions. A minimum base fare could be negotiated between the platform work associations and platform companies as part of the negotiations on the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The PSP's view is that platform company and platform work associations should work towards an appropriate minimum base fare calculated with reference to our proposed living wage of $2,250 per month before CPF contributions for 44 hours of work per week.

While platform workers are viewed by some as independent contractors, the workers, overall compensation is to a large extent determine by the platform companies. As a result, appropriate policy has to be set to ensure that platform workers are compensated fairly for their services.

The 2022 IPS survey Precarity in Platform Work, a study of private hire vehicle drivers and food delivery riders, found that more than 90% full-time private hire vehicle drivers across all age cohorts were worried that they will no longer able to earn enough money because the financial incentives given by platform companies are increasingly being cut or reduced. Employer CPF should not be another reason for platform companies to reduce incentives for platform workers. Hence, once the CPF contribution regime is implemented in 2025, the Government should closely monitor the situation to ensure that platform companies are not reducing incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset the higher labour cost that they need to shoulder by paying CPF contributions for platform workers.

When deliberating this Bill after the First Reading, we were of the view that while equitable pay is important, it is also important to ensure the safety of our platform workers is not compromised by the pressure of work. As such, we are glad that one of the key changes made in the Bill is that platform companies must now pay compensation to platform workers for work injuries at the same scope and level as employees are entitled. The PSP supports these provisions. This is a much better improvement over the voluntary work injury compensation coverage currently provided out of goodwill by platform companies.

We also note that the work safety of platform workers will be further strengthened by the draft code of practice for platform services, which the WSH Council has put up for public consultation last week. Under part 4.5.1 of the code, platform companies should limit the load to be delivered to the capacity of the delivery bag and/or the maximum load weight of the vehicle or active mobility device. The PSP supports this as it will better protect platform workers from being exposed to unsafe situations due to excessive loads.

However, part 4.5.2 of the draft code of practice does not address the fact that platform workers may feel pressured into accepting jobs during unsafe weather conditions, because of the penalties imposed by platform companies on cancellations. The PSP thus proposes that part 4.5.2 of the draft code of practice should be amended to include that platform companies should remove the penalties for workers who reject or cancel orders during bad weather conditions. Such cancellations or rejection of orders should not be included when rating the platform workers' performance. This is not an extraordinary step because there is at least one major platform company, Deliveroo, that does not penalise riders in this way.

We hope that MOM will consider these suggested measures to ensure that this Bill and the code of practice will be more effective in ensuring a safer working environment for platform workers. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the introduction of the Platform Workers Bill as an important first step in improving the welfare of platform workers.

There are now more than 70,000 platform workers in Singapore, as of 2023. This is a significant portion of our workforce, and many of them are lower-income and have been displaced from the job market in recent years.

While platform workers generally enjoy more flexibility than employees, they are also subject to significant management control by platform companies when their supply of services are matched to demand by algorithms. Hence, PSP believes that it is timely that our legislation is now being updated to create a new class of workers distinct from employees and self-employed persons to protect the rights of platform workers.

On equitable pay for our platform workers, PSP supports the change made by the Bill to align the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform companies to those of regular employees and employers, for platform workers born on or after 1 January 1995. PSP believes that this is a step in the right direction, which will ensure that younger platform workers have adequate protections for housing and retirement. The opt-in regime for older platform workers also meets the desire of many older platform workers to opt out of CPF contributions.

However, in order to ascertain that this change will really benefit the platform workers, we would like to ask the Government if it has gotten the commitment from the platform companies that they will not reduce incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset their increased costs from paying Employer CPF contributions?

PSP proposes that MOM regularly obtains data points from platform companies to monitor the percentage of jobs completed by platform workers who opt-in to CPF contributions and ensure there is no evidence of platforms discriminating against these workers.

In addition, PSP would like to propose a minimum base fare which could be negotiated between the platform work associations and the platform companies to ensure that platform workers’ income will not be affected by the increase in the operating costs of platform companies. For example, the PSP’s view is that platform companies and platform work associations should work towards an appropriate minimum base fare, calculated with reference to our proposed living wage of $2,250 per month, before CPF contributions, for 44 hours of work per week.

On the safety of platform workers, PSP supports the provisions that platform companies must now pay compensation to platform workers for work injuries at the same scope and level as employees are entitled to. This is a much better improvement over the voluntary work injury compensation coverage currently provided out of goodwill by platform companies and will reduce the financial risks and income loss, should a platform worker suffer a work-related injury and unable to work.

PSP also supports the draft Code of Practice for Platform Services, especially Part 4.5.1, which limits the load to be delivered, because it will better protect platform workers from being exposed to unsafe situations due to excessive loads.

However, PSP suggests that Part 4.5.2 of the draft Code of Practice be amended. Platform workers may feel pressured into accepting jobs during unsafe weather conditions because of the penalties imposed by platform companies on cancellations. PSP thus proposes that platform companies remove the penalties for workers who reject or cancel orders during bad weather conditions. Such cancellations or rejection of orders should not be included when rating the platform worker’s performance. It is taking a leaf from major platform companies, such as Deliveroo, that do not penalise riders in this way.

PSP calls on the Government to urge platform workers to form platform work associations and work with platform companies to improve working conditions of platform workers, especially in bad weather conditions, to ensure a safe and fair working environment for all platform workers.

(In English): Notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions made in my speech, the PSP supports the Bill. For country for people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

6.56 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, ever since platform operators entered the Singapore market about a decade ago, starting with Uber and Grab in 2013, our workforce ecosystem has experienced a paradigm shift. These platform operators and platform workers have become an integral part of our society today and in the foreseeable future, with services offered ranging from transport, delivery services and even parcel and logistics management.

It is, therefore, important that we protect the interests of the platform workers to avoid what some researchers have called “precaritising workers”, leading to the exploitation of labour, unfair treatment of workers, and expanding and enduring inequalities.

However, governments around the world have found it difficult to confer protection on platform workers, given that they could be classified as independent contractors. Yet, the platform operators also set the performance markers, the remuneration, the specific jobs and even the routes platform workers are to take by their policies and algorithms. Platform workers may be penalised if they were to decline work assigned to them by the platform. This is not unlike an employee in some regards.

Conversely, platform workers bear all the risks of performing the services for the platforms: the risks of accidents, loss of income and even injury on the job to meet the platform’s requirements for service. They also bear the cost of the fuel, the rental fees, the insurance premiums and damages to third parties when there are accidents. It seems like a lose-lose situation for platform workers because they are considered independent contractors where they are beneficial to the platform operators, but subject to restrictions imposed by the platform operators as though they were employees.

I am, therefore, heartened to see that MOM has worked with various stakeholders and the tripartite partners to come up with this Bill to ensure that the platform workers’ rights are being protected. NTUC and the Labour Movement, including myself and my fellow labour Members of Parliament, and Parliamentary colleagues, such as Dr Tan Wu Meng, have been lobbying for changes to protect the rights and interests of freelancers, including platform workers. In my personal view, this is a landmark and watershed piece of legislation. It is a landmark and watershed for three reasons.

First, it is the first time in history that we have a specific legislation protecting freelancers and, in this case, vulnerable platform workers. This is definitely not an easy endeavour, but we have chosen to take the less trodden path, to do it because it is the right thing to do.

Second, we are creating a new hybrid category of "workers" through this piece of legislation: not exactly employees in an employment relationship nor fully an independent contractor as they will enjoy certain "employment" rights.

Third, we are also allowing them to be represented by platform work associations similar to unions. These are all issues which many unions and jurisdictions are trying to grapple with and many have yet to achieve such a similar breakthrough in terms of scale and impact.

As raised in this House in 2017, one form of protection is allowing them to have collective representation to ensure their voices are heard. While NTUC has created several associations for platform workers to be collectively heard, these associations lack the right to formally represent their members in any disputes with platform operators.

This Bill will allow platform workers to band together collectively to represent their viewpoints, watch for any unfairness and to negotiate with platform operators. To provide effective representation, platform work associations under the Bill, need to carry out elections, secret ballots and delegates' conferences on a regular basis, much like how trade unions today are required to do so under the Trade Unions Act.

However, unlike trade unions, platform work associations will face an uphill task when trying to organise their members and getting them together. This is due to the nature of the platform workers and the platform work industry being hyper-fluid in nature, where workers can join or leave the platform without necessarily terminating the agreement with the platform operator. Conversely, platform workers can join new platforms or new platform workers can start doing platform work without too much of a hassle and restrictions in place. Further, platform workers, by their nature, also work all over Singapore without any fixed workplace.

This hyper-fluidity and de-localised work location create problems not seen in traditional trade unions. One issue relates to the conduct of secret ballots and the need for fiscal in-person votes. It is relatively straightforward for trade unions to conduct in-person secret ballots given that most workplaces are fixed. This is not the case for platform work.

I would, therefore, ask the Senior Minister of State to consider allowing platform work associations to use digital voting for secret ballots. This will enable platform work associations to reach out effectively to their members and facilitate their participation, rather than just a restricted number who manage to come on-site to vote. The use of digital voting must be safeguarded with methods to ensure transparency and security of the results and that votes remain secret. If successful, this could well be a model for digital voting in trade unions as well.

Mr Speaker, I observed that in this Bill, many details were prescribed in subsidiary legislation. As the idiom goes, the devil is in the details. I, therefore, ask MOM to work with our tripartite partners and various stakeholders when finalising the subsidiary legislation, to make the Platform Workers Act effective and useful for all stakeholders and partners.

This Bill, as currently tabled, only looks to cover platform workers who fall under the ride-hail and delivery worker categories. As the platform worker space is constantly evolving, we may see an increase in the types of platform work. Cleaners, coaches, professional caregivers and even utility workers, such as plumbers, electricians and general builders, may one day utilise platforms to find and schedule work.

To what extent will the Ministry be looking to expand the scope of the future Act to cover these platform operators to ensure that these workers are also protected? I would like to also take this opportunity to clarify five points with the Senior Minister of State on the proposed Bill.

One, section 2 of the Bill provides the definition of earnings and excludes special expenses from being classified as earnings. As earnings directly affects the quantum of CPF contributions that platform workers would get, both from their own contributions as well as the platform operators' contributions, would the Senior Minister of State clarify what are some examples of these special expenses which would be excluded in their nature?

Two, how would MOM determine there was an industrial action by platform workers, given that platform workers are free to choose whether or not to work for any reason as well as when to work and which platform operator to work for, all on their own volition?

Three, under the proposed Bill, workplace safety and health requirements will be imposed on both platform operators and platform workers. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, how platform workers would be prosecuted for breach of their workplace safety and health duties and what are the circumstances to consider if there was a breach of such duties that warrant prosecution?

Four, under the Bill, section 13(4) denotes that there are different classes of platform operators and platform workers. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what classes of platform workers there may be?

And fifth, lastly, does agreement in section 5(1)(a) of the Platform Workers Bill refer specifically to the defined platform work agreement or does it include a broader range of agreements since the term platform work agreement is not used in section 5(1)(a)?

In conclusion, we stand on the cusp of ushering in a new age for our workers, one which will see Singapore as a pioneer in ensuring that all workers have a place within this nation, not only those who are employees. We must continue to ensure that platform workers, along with all workers, are afforded the dignity and security they so rightfully deserve. Together, we can and shall forge a path that ensures prosperity and equity for all and, in doing so, we shall not only uplift our platform workers but also fortify the very foundations of this nation, its people and our future.

NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers. We will continue to champion their interests because every platform worker matters. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

7.06 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, my speech today will focus on strengthening workers' rights in Singapore, particularly with regard to trade unions, platform work associations and the representation framework for ride-hailing and delivery service workers introduced in the Platform Workers Bill.

Sir, unions in Singapore play an important role in advocating for the interests of workers. I would like to acknowledge the many unionists who work hard advocating for fair treatment, better working conditions and improved wages for their members. Over 99% of trade union members in Singapore are represented through the NTUC and its affiliates; and 58 out of 61, or 95% of employee trade unions in Singapore are affiliated with NTUC, underscoring the near total monopoly that the NTUC has over the Labour Movement in Singapore.

The NTUC has declared that they have a symbiotic relationship with the PAP. This relationship is frequently highlighted during union meetings and rallies. The NTUC May Day Rally in 2024, for example, included a chant led by NTUC President, which concluded with, "Majulah NTUC, Majulah PAP, Majulah Singapura".

The NTUC Secretary-General and many PAP leaders, including the Prime Minister and Senior Minister, joined in this chant on the big stage, pumping their fists in the air. Many PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) and PAP branch chairpersons serve as advisers to NTUC-affiliated unions. The NTUC announced in 2017 that, where possible, all PAP MPs, which include Cabinet Ministers, would be appointed as advisers in the unions, professional associations and guilds under NTUC.

As at 2017, there were 71 PAP MPs who were advisers to unions. It should be noted that many union advisers are there not only in an advisory capacity, but are involved in the governance of the union. Many unions affiliated to the NTUC have a council of advisers, which for several industry unions also has the power to suspend the Executive Committee.

PAP leaders frequently argue that this symbiotic relationship has helped Singapore navigate crises and build a nation. However, this close alignment also presents significant challenges to the independence of unions. The primary mission of unions is to advocate for workers' rights, ensure fair treatment and negotiate for better working conditions. Yet when union leaders are also PAP members, a potential conflict of interest arises.

Can they fully advocate for workers' interests when those interests may conflict with their Government policies or the PAP's political agenda? They may feel pressured to support the policy, even if they sincerely believe that it compromises the needs of the workers they represent. This could lead to a muted union advocacy, where political alignment takes precedence over workers' rights.

Over time, the deep entrenchment of PAP influence within unions could lead to the perception that unions are not independent bodies representing workers, but extensions of the PAP's political machinery. If workers believe their interests are being subordinated to the political interests of the PAP, or the political objectives of the PAP, unions may lose their ability to effectively mobilise and advocate for workers.

Furthermore, an overly-close relationship between the PAP and unions risks creating groupthink, where union leaders are less inclined to challenge prevailing policies or explore alternative solutions. This may limit unions' ability to openly express workers' grievances or discuss innovative policies that could benefit workers, employers and the economy.

Such a situation would lead to a loss of dynamism in labour policy-making, reducing the possibility of new and better approaches from emerging. The risk of this alignment may be particularly pronounced in the event of a significant political shift in Singapore. If the PAP were to lose power, unions aligned with the PAP might struggle to work with the new Government.

Additionally, these politically aligned unions may lose the support of workers who voted for the new administration, potentially weakening their effectiveness. It is crucial that key institutions in Singapore, including the trade union movement, are not beholden to one political party. Conversely, it will be equally undesirable for 95% of unions to become instruments of opposition against a newly-elected government, as this could undermine its ability to govern effectively and act in the best interests of workers and citizens alike.

The International Labour Organization (ILO), which supports tripartite cooperation between governments, employers and workers, insists that unions must maintain independence to effectively represent their members' interests. ILO's Convention No 87, on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, which the Singapore Government has not ratified, stresses that workers and employers organisations must be independent from public authorities and free from government control or interference. While collaboration with the government can be beneficial, unions must have the freedom to challenge policies that do not serve workers' best interests, without fear of political repercussions.

Turning to the Platform Workers Bill, Mr Speaker, I support this legislation, which seeks to enhance the representation of private hire drivers and delivery riders. These workers form a growing segment of our economy and their voices must be heard. However, the Bill imports many of the regulatory restrictions currently faced by unions. The platform work associations, much like NTUC-affiliated unions, already operate under significant NTUC control.

The National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association, all have current or former PAP MPs as advisers. Their constitutions grant NTUC the power to appoint members of the Council of Advisers, who play a key role in overseeing the actions of the Executive Committees. The Council of Advisers has the authority to suspend the Executive Committees elected by members. This mirrors the power the NTUC exerts over many of the affiliated unions, limiting their independence.

Furthermore, the Registrar of platform work associations —

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Christopher de Souza.

7.13 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): If I may, Mr Speaker, a Point of Order.

I listened very carefully to Mr Gerald Giam's speech for the first 10 minutes. I humbly and respectfully submit to the Chair that the first 10 minutes had nothing to do with the Platform Workers Bill that is being debated today. It was predominantly an attack against the NTUC. And that is why the hon Member, halfway through his speech says, "I now turn my focus to the Bill", when actually, the focus should have been, from the onset, about the Bill.

So, I want to raise this as a Point of Order. This is not part of the Bill and Mr Giam's speech about attacking the NTUC, in my humble view, in my capacity as a Member of this House, is completely off tangent. With respect.

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam, I was actually about to ask you the relevance of it and then you made reference to the current Bill. And I am waiting to hear you talk about the current Bill. The Member, Mr Christopher de Souza, has raised a relevant point, so I would expect that the rest of your speech should cover what this Bill is about.

If it is on another matter, you can certainly raise it, but not on occasion of this debate.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, it is in relation to the provisions in the Bill, which you will understand why when I explain further.

Mr Christopher de Souza: If I may, will the Member concede that the first half of his speech had little to do with the Bill and was a rather opportunistic manoeuvre to attack NTUC? I sat down, I listened very carefully, I studied the Bill – and this was all about an attack on NTUC, which is unfair. It is opportunistic and it goes beyond the agenda of what we are debating today – which is a specific legislation to advance the protection and the future of platform workers.

So, would Mr Giam agree with me that the first half of his speech is actually fairly irrelevant? Through you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam, would you like to respond to Mr de Souza?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Certainly, Mr Speaker. As I said earlier, Sir, the first part of my speech is relevant to what I am going to be talking about in the Bill. I think it is important to set the background for why I am going to argue some of the points that I will be talking about in a while.

Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: If I may. So, thus far, am I correct to say, if my understanding is correct, that thus far, there has not been a specific reference to any provision of the Bill in Mr Giam's speech and it was predominantly an attack on NTUC and the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC?

Surely, Mr Giam can agree with me on that based on what he has said as recorded in Hansard.

I raise this as a Point of Order because we cannot, Mr Speaker, be using Parliament and legislation to craft political speeches that go well beyond the ambit and the scope of the legislation that we are debating. So, I raise this as a matter of principle, not as a matter of politics.

Mr Speaker: It is a valid point by Mr de Souza, Mr Giam. In fact, you are already at the halfway point of your 20-minute speech. Leader.

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I, too, have a clarification for Mr Giam, which is this: is it Mr Giam's position that unions have to be independent of and not associated with political parties?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: In fact, yes. Sorry, Mr Speaker, with your permission?

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Giam, go ahead.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To answer the Leader, yes, exactly, that is what I will be coming to. So, I would really appeal to both the Leader and Mr de Souza to listen to the rest of my speech because the first part of my speech is a preamble to what I am going to be talking about and it is relevant to what I will be talking about in a while.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: If I may just make this clarification since Mr Giam is going to proceed with the rest of his speech on the basis that unions and political parties have to be independent and separate. In fact, anyone who knows anything about democracies will know that in many of the democracies in the world, unions and political parties actually have a close relationship.

The UK Labour Party, which is currently now in power, is very closely associated with their trades union congress. In fact, their trades union congress actually has contributed to the political party, as I understand it. In the US, the unions are also closely associated with some political parties. That is also the case in Canada.

If one were to do the simple exercise of just googling unions and politics or unions and political parties, you will actually see that there is a very clear explanation as to why unions and politics are very closely involved.

So, if Mr Giam is going to proceed with his speech on the basis that they must be independent and neutral, he must also understand that that is not the case in democracies around the world.

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, the Leader raises this point about unions and their affiliation with political parties. I have studied about what the situation is in the UK, to some degree. Indeed, many unions in the UK support the Labour Party, but it is not the same as them being symbiotic with the Labour Party. They reserve the right to state their own positions and there are times when they have their own different positions from the party, including in their public statements. So, it is not the same degree of symbiotic relationship as what NTUC has with the PAP.

I wanted to come to this point later, but since the Leader has brought this up, I would like to state for the record that the WP supports the tripartite dialogue between employers, unions and the government of the day, but not with any particular political party, not an explicit alignment with any political party.

I believe that unions must be independent and non-partisan. They must represent their workers without fear or favour in front of their employers, the government and the ruling party. I believe that unions which are independent from political parties will be in a better position to negotiate for their workers regardless of the political situation.

Sir, if I may continue with my speech, please?

Mr Speaker: Relating to this Bill.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Of course.

Furthermore, the registrar of platform work association has the authority to refuse registration of a new platform work association if there is already an existing one for that platform service or even to cancel the registration of an existing platform work association under similar conditions.

Given that NTUC-affiliated platform work associations are likely to be registered first, this could limit the formation of alternative platform work associations, thereby restricting workers' choices. Platform workers should instead have the freedom to choose to join or form the association that best represents their interests.

The Bill proposes that recognition of a platform work association would require a majority vote from platform workers eligible to participate in the recognition process. However, I am concerned that in some cases, the percentage of workers voting could be low and a platform work association might gain recognition even with limited support from the overall workforce. This could result in representation that does not fully reflect the will of the majority of platform workers in the sector.

Clause 40 of the Bill allows the platform work association's executive committee to bind all members to a collective agreement without the need for ratification by the members. This could result in workers being bound by agreements negotiated by representatives chosen by only a small fraction of their peers. We must ask whether this truly serves the interests of the workers or simply expedites the process at the cost of their collective voice.

The WP has long opposed moves to make unions less independent. In 2004, Mr Low Thia Khiang opposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act that allowed union leaders to conclude collective agreements with employers without seeking union members' ratification. That amendment was eventually passed by Parliament and the same provision is now mirrored in the Platform Workers Bill, raising similar concerns about the erosion of workers' rights to have a direct say in agreements that affect them.

The Bill also requires platform companies to contribute employers' CPF payments to their workers. This is a positive step towards improving platform workers' long-term financial security. I support the PCTS scheme, which will cushion the effects of CPF deductions from workers' earnings. However, there is a risk that platform companies might reduce their overall payments to compensate for the increased CPF contributions. This could result in workers being worse off salary-wise. This is a concern highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition earlier as well.

It is important that the Government monitors this closely and ensures that safeguards are in place to prevent such unintended consequences so that the platform workers truly benefit from the CPF contributions without suffering a reduction in take-home pay.

Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to once again acknowledge the efforts of unionists who have dedicated themselves to advancing the rights and welfare of workers in Singapore. My proposals to ensure the independence of workers and platform work associations are not aimed at diminishing their work, but rather to enhance their ability to advocate freely for the workers they represent.

By ensuring that unions and platform work associations are not beholden to any political party or the Government, unionists will have the autonomy to fully pursue the interests of their members, challenge government policies that do not align with workers' needs and introduce innovative solutions to improve wages and working conditions.

Ultimately, an independent union movement will not only strengthen the Labour Movement but also create a dynamic and resilient workforce for Singapore's future. [Applause.]

7.25 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam, I request that you refer to Standing Order 50. This is with reference to the relevance of the topics that you talked about. This also applies to every Member. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, just to put on record, I think the remarks you made at the end, with respect, are critical because I distinctly recall in this House not too long ago, I believe it was a Budget speech, and the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza did not speak about the Budget, but went on to advise the Government or PAP to make a decision on the 4G leadership.

So, I think the salutary message you provided at the end is important because it cannot be just accusations made at the opposition, but I think some PAP Members ought to reflect on themselves.

Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for mentioning my name. We are debating a specific Bill today with several provisions and several clauses. I think it is completely our aim to get this Bill passed in order to protect platform workers. So, we have a Bill, we have an agenda today.

When it comes to a Budget debate, Members have free rein to discuss what they want, in addition to the Budget, the objectives, the values, the future they want to see for Singapore. And at that time, I was concerned because we had a position that there would be a 4G leadership transition. Deputy Prime Minister Heng, in his selflessness, decided to step aside and I was concerned for the country that we needed leadership.

So, I stood here and gave one of the most difficult speeches of my political career – which is that I had hoped that the 4G leadership would come together and choose a man or woman to take us forward. How is that not in concert with the Budget?

Budget is finance. It is also about different Ministries, education, finance, defence and all of that. But without key leadership, Budgets are nothing.

So, what I humbly said, when I made that speech, I think in 2021 or 2022, I cannot remember, about needing to choose a solid, formidable 4G leader was completely consistent with what we were debating for in terms of passing the Budget.

An attack on NTUC, for I think 70% of the speech of Mr Giam, on a Bill that is meant to advance the welfare, the prospects, the future, the protection, the medical care, the CPF of platform workers is no comparison. [Applause.]

That is political opportunism – and I state this as a matter of principle, not as a matter of politics. I put principle first, before politics, Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I think the record will speak for itself and I think Mr Giam has explained why his subject matter, which Mr Christopher de Souza has taken objection to, is connected to the Bill. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Most certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the record will speak for itself. I enjoin Mr Pritam Singh, the respectable Leader of the Opposition and Mr Giam to pick up my speech of 2021 or 2022, I cannot remember, it was during COVID-19, where I had made my position very clear that we need to choose the 4G leader.

So, the record will speak for itself and, please, Members, you can make your own decision whether what I said is in concert with the Budget that we were meant to pass and what Mr Giam has said today, the hon Member, is in concert with an attack on NTUC or support on the Bill. The record will speak for itself.

Mr Speaker: Mr Heng Chee How.

The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Because Mr Gerald Giam in his speech spoke about the role of union leaders and then he spoke about the NTUC and the symbiotic relationship with the PAP. So, I must respond to that.

Mr Giam thanked our union leaders for taking good care of our workers. We thank him for that. At least he acknowledges that.

But I think in saying that, then you must also give due respect to our union leaders. They are not stooges. [Applause.] Their hearts are in the right place. They do all this for their fellow workers. That is what they are doing this for.

And you acknowledge that. And all our unions are doing that. And every union that is affiliated to the NTUC chooses to do that. And the NTUC has a symbiotic relationship with the PAP so that we can convey the views and the needs of the workers to our political partner, so that when they become the ruling party, when they win the trust of Singaporeans and have the mandate to be the ruling party, that the interests of workers in this country will always be taken care of, be given great priority.

You look at the track record of the PAP. For all these years that it has been in government, what has it delivered for this country? What has it delivered for the workers? Has it sold out the workers? Has it embarrassed our union leaders?

So, you are talking about some theoretical construct. Look at the results. Look at the context in which we are debating today. This very Bill that your party is supporting, where does this come from? This comes from a symbiotic relationship where both sides are trying to undermine and throw the workers under the bus? No. You supported it because it is good for the workers.

Is this the only thing that is good for the workers? No. We have decades of track record. Why do you think the workers will support their unions who affiliate themselves to the NTUC? It is because we work for the workers. So, when we say every worker matters, NTUC means it. And that goes to also when we go into a symbiotic relationship – we do so for the sake of the workers.

So, I just wanted Mr Giam to know, you are entitled to your views, certainly, but what I wanted to say is can we at least deal with the facts? And we are not forming this yesterday. The Leader of the House has earlier also stated that a close relationship, you can call it what you like, a partnership, an alliance, between political parties and trade unions, is not uncommon. And they do not do this out of stupidity. They do this because it serves the interests of the constituents that they represent, concurrently. That is what they do.

And the recommendations that Mr Giam makes, be very careful, Mr Speaker, because on the one hand he says that this is good to work for the workers and so on. On the other hand, you look at some of the recommendations he makes, is it more likely or less likely for those tripartite partners in the context in which Mr Giam has promoted, likely or less likely to come to some sensible agreement that can then be implemented for the good of the workers? And if it is not, then it just goes round and round, and we can tear our hair out, beat our chest and we say we love the workers; but their lot is not going to get better. So, I say be very, very careful.

I once saw a poster, I think it is available on YouTube. It shows some water, it shows a snake, head reared above the water with a fish in the mouth. And the slogan says, caring snake saves fish from drowning. So, we must be very, very careful. What exactly are we recommending? If we care for that fish in there, let us do something practical.

This is my heartfelt response: be fair to our union leaders, be fair to our unions, be fair to the NTUC. NTUC is not expecting the WP to support us, but at least be fair. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank Senior Minister of State Heng for his heartfelt exposition. And I did acknowledge the hard work of unionists at both the start and the end of my speech. And I am not questioning the commitment or the work of unionists, but I am addressing the systemic constraints that they face.

I believe that many unionists are trying their level best to be able to advocate for workers that they represent, but they face many restrictions in doing so because of the controls that the Government, through the NTUC and other legislations, place on the unions. So, I believe that my proposals for union independence are meant to empower unionists and platform work association leaders to act freely in the best interests of their workers.

And I would just like to address a point that Mr Christopher de Souza kept bringing up, that the first part of my speech was irrelevant. I hope that after listening to the rest of my speech, he would acknowledge that the first part of my speech was an important preamble to what I was going to explain in the later part of my speech. I believe it was a policy point that I was putting forward on behalf of the WP.

And I just wonder why is it that every time the WP brings up a valid policy point, or very often when the WP brings up a valid policy point, we are accused of politicking and making political speeches. Whereas when the PAP talks about something different, it becomes a relevant policy point. I think that there is a need to be fair as well to us.

Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I think I have been in this House long enough for people to know that I put principles above politics. First point.

Second point, I listened very carefully to what Mr Giam was saying for I think 60% or 70% of his speech – and it was essentially an attack on the NTUC and by extension, an attack on the NTUC's symbiotic relationship with the PAP. And I do not think one can disagree with that because at about the 60th or 70th percent mark of the speech, the hon Member says, now I turn my focus to the Bill. What was the hon Member's focus prior to that?

So, no, I am not standing here as a point of order to make a political point. I am not that type of person. I am governed by principles and my point is that the hon Member went beyond the line on this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Speaker, as you know I am a first-term Member of Parliament, so perhaps for my edification, yourself or perhaps the Leader of the House would be willing to share whether the Budget is a time for Members to be able to raise any matters of concern for the broad nation?

Ms Indranee Rajah: I will just say this – which is that that is an ample demonstration of how when you are on a particular topic, then you make a side-step and say this is about something else; and then we have another side-step and say this is about something else. So, I think the short point to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is that this is about the Platform Workers Bill. Let us keep this to the Platform Workers Bill.

Mr Speaker: To Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, regarding Budget Statements, if I refer all to Standing Order 89, some sub-sections there which tells you what you can talk about; and then for Committee of Supply debate, this will be covered under Standing Order 93. Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I spent quite a large part of my career in the trade unions and I think there is no more passionate group of people in fighting for the rights of workers than union leaders.

I would just like to share a point of information. The hon Member Mr Gerald Giam said that he studied the trade unions relationship in the UK. I am not sure if he realises that the trade unions in the UK actually pay an annual fee to the Labour Party. In return, they elect 13 out of 39 members of the National Executive Committee and 50% of delegates to the Labour Party Conference. So, why is it that they can have a formal relationship and we cannot in Singapore?

The New Democratic Party in Canada was founded in 1967 by who? By the Canadian Labour Congress. So, they have a long working relationship. It is encapsulated in the New Democratic Party's constitution as well.

So, political relationship and affiliations between trade unions and political parties are a natural partnership because for trade unions to want to achieve something, they do so through political means. Some of course choose to be independent, that is great. But across the democratic world, there are many, many examples of good, strong working relationships between political parties and trade unions. And there are also many trade unions that choose through their history to form political parties to advocate for the rights of their workers.

So, I am not sure what part of the relationship or history that he has seen in the UK that proves this otherwise.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I just want to reiterate again that nothing in this proposed Bill, in the legislation proposed in this Bill, has any clauses that are related to how a union ought or not ought to be affiliated to any political party.

And since Mr Giam did go to great extent to talk about affiliation between unions and parties, let me just quickly read from the archives of the National Library. It says, after the PAP split its left wing to set up the Barisan Socialist, the Singapore Trades Union Congress also split into two rival factions: the NTUC and the Singapore Association of Trade Unions or SATU. SATU was aligned with the Barisan Socialist and the Barisan Socialist in 1988 folded into the WP.

So, I think maybe the WP should think about changing its name because if you feel so averse about being associated with workers, you might want to think about something else.

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for that information. Can I assume that taking the statements of the Leader of the House, Senior Minister of State Koh and Mr Alex Yam together, that if the PAP were to ever lose power, the NTUC would therefore become an instrument of opposition against the new government?

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: The short answer – I cannot speak on behalf of the NTUC, but how I would see it is this. It would be entirely up to the workers and the trades union congress to decide whether to have any political party that they support and if so, which one.

What I can say is that the PAP would do its very utmost not to have to give them a reason to think that we would never support them, or that as a government, we would not do our very best for the workers and the trades union congress. So, I would not venture into all these hypothetical questions – and you can see that Mr Giam is venturing more and more into the political realm.

I would just bring the debate back to this. This is about platform workers. This is about our gig workers. This is about people who do not have much protection and who need protection, and we are trying to get this Bill passed so that they can have that protection.

The WP obviously wishes to – I mean, let us all be quite frank. We all know that next year, there has to be a general election. Well, by next year, there has to be a general election. It may be this year, it may be next year, but we all know that by next year there has to be one. And we also know that whenever a general election appears or is round the corner, the political rhetoric ramps up.

The political parties can slug it out amongst themselves, but do not put the platform workers in the middle of this. Do not make them the pawns or the beating bags for this.

We have a Bill to pass. Let us focus on this Bill, because with this Bill, we can do better for our workers, our gig workers, and protect them.

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, most importantly, we have supported this Bill. So, we are not putting the platform workers in any disadvantaged position by opposing this Bill. We are supporting this Bill.

On the point that the Leader raises that it would be up to the NTUC or the workers of that day which party they want to support – how can that be? Because the NTUC has embedded its party members in different areas of the unions! How would they be able to change that if the PAP is so deeply embedded inside the unions?

In any case, I think the whole thrust of what the Leader, Senior Minister of State Koh and Mr Yam had said earlier on is that the NTUC is aligned to the PAP and there is nothing usual in the world. So, we expect that the NTUC would continue to be aligned with the PAP, even after the PAP loses power. It is not an issue of just theoretical grandstanding but this is an issue of institutional continuity – are we going to have a situation where any new government that comes to power is completely jammed up?

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I really hope not to have to belabour this point, but it is a simple point. Trade unions elect their own leaders. If they have leaders today who are members of the PAP or vice versa, it does not mean that that will always be the case.

But the point that Mr Giam is missing is that the trade unions have a mind of their own. They have leadership. They know what to do. And they will act in a way that they think is best for their unions and for their workers.

So, at the appropriate time, they will have their elections. They will choose their leaders. You do not know whether they may or may not be affiliated with the PAP, whatever it is. But at the end of the day, it is the unions who choose their leaders and it is the unions who choose whether or not they are affiliated with or work with or have a symbiotic relationship with a political party. That is entirely up to the trade unions, and we should let them continue to do and decide for themselves as they think best.

But at the end of the day, it comes back to this. We have a Bill to pass and let us pass this Bill so that we can confer rights and protections on our platform workers.

Mr Speaker: Let us come back to the debate on the Platform Workers Bill. Mr Yip Hon Weng.

7.48 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few weeks ago, two elderly male Yio Chu Kang residents came to see me at my Meet-the-People Session. Both were food delivery riders. They asked for my help to appeal a fine imposed by LTA for riding their personal mobility devices on the pedestrian area at Ang Mo Kio Hub. I asked them why they chose to ride on the pedestrian path, knowing that it was against the law. They said they were in a hurry to complete their deliveries. More importantly, they feared for their safety on the main road. With the bus interchange nearby and large vehicles frequently turning into Ang Mo Kio Hub, they felt unsafe riding alongside traffic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe many Members here have encountered similar cases at their Meet-the-People Sessions. This situation highlights the complex realities platform workers face daily. They are often caught between the need to earn a living and the need to comply with regulations.

My two elderly residents, like many other platform workers, do not earn much. They are deeply concerned about the unpredictable nature of their earnings, often affected by fluctuating platform algorithms. I also appealed to the Social Service Office for financial assistance on their behalf. However, a more sustainable solution lies in creating a predictable and reliable income stream for these workers. This should be coupled with workplace safety and healthcare insurance to give them greater peace of mind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Platform Workers Bill is indeed a step in the right direction. The provisions on mandatory CPF contributions, insurance coverage and dispute resolution mechanisms are commendable. Nevertheless, I have a few clarifications regarding the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to address the welfare of platform workers, starting with their long-term career development. Many platform workers see their current work as a temporary solution rather than a sustainable career path. The physical demands of delivery work and its potential impact on long-term health is a reality we must acknowledge. This is especially pertinent for platform workers in their senior years.

We need to create opportunities for them to upgrade their skills and transition to new careers. This empowers platform workers to explore alternative job opportunities within or outside the gig economy.

While the Bill addresses immediate concerns, what is the long-term vision for the sector? Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why certain long-term measures, such as continuous skills upgrading programmes, were not included in this Bill? What are the potential consequences for our future workforce if we do not address these critical aspects now?

Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, our platform workers need better mental health support. Platform work often involves long hours, isolation and pressure to meet demanding targets. This can significantly impact mental well-being, especially when earnings are volatile. We must champion greater mental health support for platform workers. This includes access to affordable counselling services and peer support networks.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must protect workers against threats and abuses. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for riders to encounter verbal abuse, especially when delays occur.

My two elderly residents shared their experiences of such incidents. They can be emotionally distressing and financially detrimental, as negative reviews can directly impact their income. We should consider incorporating provisions within the Bill or formulating guidelines to protect platform workers from such abuses, ensuring their safety and well-being while on the job.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, our platform workers must have access to inclusive dialogue. Ensuring that platform workers have a stronger voice in policy-making, especially in areas that directly impact them, is critical. We need to create more platforms where platform workers can openly share their experiences, concerns and give suggestions. This will allow them to actively contribute to discussions on policies that affect their livelihoods.

This Bill is a positive step with the introduction of the platform work associations, giving workers a stronger voice. However, these associations should also have the legal powers to take action against abusive customers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now turn to the broader policy implications and potential implementation issues of the Bill. As we navigate the complexities of regulating the platform economy, we should learn from the experiences of other leading global cities.

Can the Senior Minister of State share how this Bill compares with similar regulations in other jurisdictions? What lessons were drawn from international examples? Also, what guided the Ministry's decision to adopt or not adopt certain approaches seen in other countries? How do these choices reflect Singapore's unique labour market dynamics and specific challenges?

Can the Ministry also share insights into potential unintended consequences, such as increased operational costs for platform companies leading to a reduction in earning opportunities for workers? What measures are in place to mitigate these risks? How were these considerations balanced during the drafting of the Bill? Will this Bill significantly impact transport and food costs for residents? While we should be prepared to contribute to a stronger social compact and support our platform workers, it is important for the Government to provide clear insights into the potential cost implications.

This will also help consumers to calibrate their expectations. This will also enable relevant organisations and Ministries to proactively prepare and implement support measures for those with genuine needs.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, many of us use the services of platform workers – whether it is booking a Grab ride, ordering Foodpanda, or receiving online shopping deliveries. We enjoy these conveniences from the comfort of our homes with just a few clicks on our phones. Their work provides us with ease in our hectic lives.

The gig economy has transformed our work landscape, offering flexibility while presenting challenges our traditional labour laws were not designed to address.

As we continue to navigate these uncharted waters, we must strike a balance between preserving the flexibility that attracts individuals to this sector and at the same time providing essential protections that safeguard their well-being and livelihoods.

This Bill represents a promising first step towards achieving this balance. I urge the Ministry to consider the proposals I have raised today.

We must prioritise mental health support, ensure robust protection against threats and abuses, and foster inclusive dialogue to empower workers to participate actively in shaping policies that affect them.

Furthermore, we need to address long-term career development, particularly for older and senior workers, by providing avenues for skills upgrading and facilitating transitions to more sustainable career paths.

I also urge the Senior Minister of State to provide clarity on how this Bill compares with international regulations, elaborate on potential unintended consequences and mitigation strategies, and commit to continuous engagement with stakeholders throughout the implementation process.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a significant catalyst for positive change. But it is just one piece of the puzzle. For it to truly succeed, we need a national shift towards recognising and respecting the dignity and value of work for our platform workers. We must actively promote a culture of respect for all workers. There should be targeted initiatives to educate the public about the crucial role platform workers play in our economy and foster greater respect. Businesses must treat platform workers as valued partners, providing them with appropriate facilities and access to amenities to improve their working conditions.

Lastly, we must find opportunities to publicly recognise and celebrate the efforts of platform workers and other service workers through awards and appreciation events.

Mr Speaker, Sir, every hardworking individual should be treated with dignity, regardless of their circumstances – whether they are making ends meet, between jobs, or working on the side. This echoes the sentiments expressed by President Tharman during his campaign, where he emphasised the importance of respect for all members of the Singapore society.

It also aligns with our Prime Minister's call for a "reset" in our social compact, urging us to strengthen our sense of collective responsibility and build a more inclusive and cohesive nation.

I began my speech with the story of my two elderly personal mobility device riders. Their plight highlights the need for not only legislative protection but also a fundamental shift in societal attitudes. With this Bill, they will feel greater security knowing they have insurance coverage – a safety net we hope they never have to use. They will feel more at ease navigating the roads, knowing they will not be unfairly penalised or subjected to abuse from impatient customers.

Ultimately, we must foster a society where platform workers' contributions are recognised, their voices are heard, and their well-being is prioritised. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the true measure of a just, kind and compassionate society – one that values the dignity and contributions of every individual. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.

7.58 pm

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Members of the House and platform industry colleagues in the Gallery, I support the Platform Workers Bill.

The Bill recognises a unique group of self-employed workers that earn a precarious living doing gig jobs. They are the freelance delivery workers, private hire vehicle drivers and taxi drivers whose earnings and welfare depend on ride-hail and delivery platform operators that price and auto-assign jobs using algorithms.

Over the last decade, ride-hail and delivery platform businesses have stabilised and grown. Many have transcended growth goals and are prioritising larger profit margins.

The Bill is thus well-timed. As it is built on recommendations from the Tripartite Advisory Committee and Workgroup, the Bill effects purposeful and substantive change to worker protection and shapes for the better our social compact in the context of the platform economy and workforce.

If well-implemented, the Bill can guide platform operators to strike the right balance between business profit-making and their duties towards platform workers. By outlining the responsibilities of platform operators towards the work safety and long-term financial security of their platform worker base, the Bill also addresses the precariousness of platform work and boosts platform workers' ability to build sustainable livelihoods.

The Bill also recognises the right of platform workers to form and be represented by platform work associations. The Bill is a landmark in labour laws because it accords registered platform work associations with union-like powers to negotiate with platform operators on work areas such as fair treatment, sustainable earnings and work safety.

Nevertheless, because how much a platform worker earns depends on how many and what type of jobs the platform assigns, platform workers have shared with NTUC and its affiliated associations – National Delivery Champions Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association, and National Taxi Association – their hopes for the Bill to establish norms. What norms?

Like other working people, platform workers care about: being treated with fairness and openness; being appropriately remunerated for their efforts and being accorded the autonomy to manage their work, specifically how tasks are performed, the scope and pace of work, and the scheduling and location of work.

However, in a space where the known unknown is uncertainty, before this Bill, many platform workers had looked to the future with despair. Indeed, over the last decade, NTUC and its affiliated associations have been engaging the Government, platform operators and other stakeholders on the concerns and issues facing platform workers. The Bill is thus a commendable response by the Government to allay some uncertainties of “pay-per-job” work – where jobs, wages and the work environment are in constant flux and where the worker must cede much control of how, when, and where to work to a black box of algorithms and bots.

To provide platform workers with peace of mind, I would like to seek clarity in three areas of the Bill. Before I proceed, I declare my interest as a Labour Movement representative and Executive Secretary of National Delivery Champions Association.

First, I appreciate that the Bill seeks to moderate platform operators’ profit-seeking behaviour and turn the spotlight on workers’ health and safety.

An Institute of Policy Studies 2022 poll found that one in three food delivery workers have been in at least one accident that required medical attention, and accident risks increased for those who worked longer hours and earned more.

The proposed amendments to the WSH Act sets out platform operators’ role and responsibilities. Having similar duties as employers under the WSH Act means that platform operators must flag out platform work risks and take steps to mitigate them.

The Bill also assigns to platform operators, financial responsibility for injury, incapacity or death of a platform worker associated with performing a platform job. By putting a price tag on work risks, concurrent amendments to WICA could motivate platform operators to value worker safety as they value profitability.

Platform operators wield wide-ranging control over platform workers’ pay, based on principles and algorithmic decisions that are a black box to platform workers. For instance, platform operators might neglect to consider or downplay the risk of injury when assigning an order to a platform delivery worker. Imagine delivering 80 packets of chicken rice or 36 litres of bottled water in a single delivery order and what is worse, realising there are four flights of stairs or a 10-minute walk to reach the customer. Platform delivery workers, regardless of age or fitness, can relate to these horrors.

We also hear of platform workers feeling compelled to work excessive hours such as 14- to 16-hour days on end without breaks, to unlock incentive targets. Such unrealistic targets drive platform workers to take unnecessary risks to their health and safety that also impact customers and the public.

To protect platform workers, the law must institute clear guardrails for platform operators to abide by. These guardrails must require operators to adopt a worker-centric viewpoint when reviewing their algorithms, work practices, and workflows. To this end, operators must take a serious look at how their policies and targets might end up risking workers’ health and safety and must take reasonable steps to mitigate these risks.

The amended WSH Act also stipulates a code of practice for platform operators; the code is now open for public feedback. This code should reflect the industry guardrails that I mentioned earlier and set a clear tone to demarcate and clamp down on unacceptable practices by platform operators. I urge tripartite partners to take bold steps to call out what is clearly unacceptable: no more policies that require workers to work extended hours non-stop; no more back-breaking loads or unsafe weight limits that exceed workers’ device capacity.

The law must also protect platform workers from being penalised if they take reasonable steps to safeguard their safety and health. Workers must be allowed to slow down or pause travel on roads in unsafe conditions; they must be empowered to decline jobs that are too heavy or large for them or their devices to carry. Platform operators must be held accountable if their policies penalise workers for abiding by safety practices.

The laws must ultimately address the risks to life and limb that platform workers face daily. As practices evolve, there must also be avenues for workers to report unsafe practices or penalties imposed by operators that discourage safe practices. Workers must have access to a whistle-blowing hotline; and tripartite partners must continue to work closely to review and update the code of practice to address emerging risks.

Thus, I would like to know if the Ministry has plans to ensure the implementation of guardrails to address the risks posed to workers’ safety and health by platform policies and practices.

Second, the Bill directs platform operators to translate part of their economic gain into social value. This matters because platform economy has grown in scale, size and workforce participation.

I appreciate the amendments to the CPF Act as these changes would boost platform workers’ social security and ability to finance housing and retirement needs. To recap, from 1 January next year, platform operators must contribute to the provident funds of platform workers who are born on or after 1995 as well as those who opt-in to the CPF scheme.

I also appreciate the raised income threshold as well as the higher percent Government support for the PCTS scheme that would benefit more platform workers to larger extent. A platform worker who opts in to the CPF scheme and is a CPF Transition Support Scheme and Workfare Income Supplement recipient would gain from higher overall income and cash pay-out.

Nonetheless, platform workers are concerned about platform operators restricting allocation of jobs, suppressing fares, or raising charges to minimise the operators’ CPF outlay for platform workers onboard the CPF scheme.

Platform workers attribute their low trust of platforms to the fact that many platform operators seem to be only making half-hearted attempts at issuing rate sheets and statements for jobs and earnings that promise clarity and transparency but are neither clear nor transparent. Protocols for job allocation are oftentimes vague. The low-trust is further compounded by glitches that disrupt operators’ apps – sometimes, for extended periods. Whenever such situations happen, platform workers are forced to double-up as platform operators’ helpdesk in facing angry customers and merchants while trying but often failing to get help from operators. More crucial, platform workers worry about digital disruptions undermining their livelihoods.

Platform workers thus ask that the Ministry establish safeguards that build on the Bill. These safeguards should hold platform operators responsible for ensuring that platform workers understand how they are being paid so that platform workers can make informed decisions on their work arrangements. Why should platform workers be left guessing and speculating how much they can earn each time they take a job? This breeds a sense of insecurity and deep anxiety over their livelihoods and the welfare of their dependents. Platform operators must also be held accountable for the integrity of app transactions and the knock-on impact of app disruptions to platform workers’ livelihoods.

A constructive approach could have three priorities.

One, is to require platform operators to participate in Singapore’s AI governance testing framework, AI Verify. Today, no platform operators are listed as AI Verify foundation members.

Mr Speaker, via AI Verify, organisations would apply standardised tests to validate their AI systems’ performance against internationally aligned AI ethics principles of transparency, explainability, repeatability, safety, security, robustness, fairness, data governance, accountability, human agency and oversight, inclusive growth, and societal and environmental well-being. This matters because the quality of platform workers’ lives and livelihoods much depend on the fair and smooth functioning of platform algorithms. Thus, securing platform operators’ commitment to periodically validate their AI systems against a national framework gives platform workers greater assurance that these black box AI systems are fair, unbiased and safe.

Two, is to require platform operators to provide some income protection for active platform workers who lose the opportunity to earn during extended platform app outages. We would feel distressed if our work devices crash. While we can take comfort that we are paid on the clock while awaiting IT help, platform workers are paid by the job and the impact of app disruption can go beyond inconvenience and into financial hardship. Some active platform workers were especially hard-hit during platform app outages; their earnings were locked in the app and they struggled to cover their families’ daily expenses.

The Land Transport Authority’s (LTA's) move to introduce standards for managing operational disruptions for all taxi and ride-hail operators is a positive step because it assigns responsibility and accountability to platform operators. How might the Ministry build on the Bill as well as LTA’s standards to ensure that when technology fails, platform operators continue to uphold the social compact and are consistent in providing some income protection to active platform workers?

Three, is an "ask" for platform operators to extend to platform workers, a copy of the terms of services between the platform worker and the platform operator. Platform workers should also be informed on how platforms price fees and earnings. Knowing what each platform pays on average allows platform workers to better plan their work arrangements and finances.

The introduction of the CPF scheme into the platform work-stream marks the maturing of the platform economy. Platform operators must be less like startups and more like established firms. The Bill’s oversight should thus extend to affirming fairness and transparency in how platform operators engage, deploy and compensate platform workers – right at the outset when parties enter a contract.

Recapping – the Bill can empower platform workers to opt-in to the CPF scheme by elevating trust in the system. How so? One, by requiring platform operators to periodically validate their AI systems to ensure fairness. Two, by providing platform workers with some income protection in event of extended platform app outage. And three, by requiring platform operators to extend to platform workers, the terms of services and its updates as well as information that would help workers to better grasp how much they can expect to earn based on their work effort.

Platform operators are aware that investors hold fast to unicorn aspirations and expect platforms to deliver faster growth, better return on capital and higher profit margins regardless of the Bill’s implications. In turn, platform workers are aware of the competing pressures upon platform operators that could erode the worker share of the economic pie.

Platform workers have shared with our associations their worries of platform operators diffusing the cost of Bill compliance among platform workers under the cloak of less-than-transparent earnings statement and/ or brute force implementation.

Therefore, last month, the NTUC announced its intention to register platform work associations that represent taxi drivers, private hire vehicle drivers and platform delivery workers should this Bill be passed. This Bill accords the right of voice to platform workers. The Bill also vests in platform work associations the right to Act on behalf of platform workers who are platform work association members. This is a milestone.

In this regard, platform work associations would undertake to advance the livelihoods of associations’ members. Platform work associations would also undertake to establish the first principles to anchor bipartite and tripartite discussions with platform operators and other stakeholders.

It is thus in the interests of both platform operators and platform workers to proactively seek out and collaborate with or join a platform work association that is balanced and progressive in mindset and approach. Having the right relationships in place from the get-go is crucial to building up platform workers’ trust in the platform work system. This is because issues that arise during platform rides and/or deliveries can be surfaced, addressed and acted on by platform operators, in collaboration with the platform work association.

I value the Ministry’s efforts to consult the other tripartite stakeholders in the crafting of the Bill. Does the Ministry plan to re-introduce tripartite set-ups that can facilitate discussions between the sectoral platform work association and platform operators on livelihood issues impacting the sector and its workers? These issues could range from inconveniences arising from infrastructure challenges such as delivery-unfriendly properties to protecting platform workers against work-related harms such as the handling of passengers who insist on vaping in the vehicle or who refuse to belt up.

In conclusion, technology without guardrails can dehumanise work and the worker. NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers. We champion their interests because every platform worker matters. This Bill is testament.

The Bill recognises that platform work has gone from experimental dabbling to an everyday affair; platform work is also both a career and a community for individuals of different life stages and ages.

Indeed, the Bill is significant because it heralds work and social protections that have impact on the lives and livelihoods of this precarious group of workers. As important, the Bill sets the stage for industrial relations to take root in a new economy and where sustainable development and win-win-win outcomes for workers, operators, and society, can spring forth under the auspices of tripartism and collaboration; so that all can play their part in building a fair social compact and resilient workforce.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

8.13 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to give effect to the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers.

Platform workers, from our ride hailing drivers to our food delivery and package delivery riders, play an essential role in point-to-point transport, and in ensuring that food and goods reach our doorsteps promptly and in good condition. Well, we do want our cupcakes to come with the cream and the toppings intact. However, their job often places them in dangerous situations that can compromise their safety and well-being.

My speech today will touch on the importance of ensuring that our platform workers are well and properly covered by insurance, and the need to ensure that they have good workplace safety and health outcomes.

Sir, platform workers today lack an adequate insurance coverage. According to the 2022 report by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, the typical coverage for death or total permanent disability of platform workers provided by platform operators lies largely in the $10,000 to $30,000 range. This pales in comparison to the limit of $289,000 for employees under the WICA.

I, therefore, fully support the Bill's proposal to provide all platform workers with the same work injury compensation coverage as employees. In the event of an unfortunate accident, a food delivery rider working for a platform should not have to face poorer insurance outcomes than a comparable food delivery employee employed inhouse by a restaurant. It is the right thing to do and I am glad that we are removing this unfair and artificial distinction.

Beyond coverage by WICA while at work, we should recognise that many of our platform workers spend substantial periods of time on the road waiting for or travelling to destinations to seek their next job. To them, this is time spent at work. Yet, the definition of workplace under section 2 of WICA does not include such waiting or travelling periods. If platform workers get injured during such time, they will not be covered by WICA.

Sir, the International Labour Organization's position is that there should be recognition of some of the time that a worker spends on call. I urge the Ministry to consider including such waiting time under WICA in order to fully cover the range of work activities by a platform worker.

In addition to adequate insurance coverage, we must also move upstream to mitigate the risk of platform workers getting into an accident in the first place. Platform workers enjoy the ability to work in a flexible environment that best caters to their life's circumstances. But this comes with some downsides. To earn a decent wage, they spend long hours, often on the roads and, sometimes, in treacherous weather conditions.

One key concern for platform workers is road safety. The report by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers found that from January 2021 to October 2022, there were eight work-related traffic fatalities among platform workers. Earlier, the Senior Minister of State also cited a 2022 study by the Institute of Policy Studies, which found that one in three food delivery workers has been in at least one accident that required medical attention. That same survey also found that around 44% of drivers reported worsening health levels since they started driving.

Sir, our platform workers want to be responsible road users. They want to earn a decent living and return home safely to their loved ones. To enhance protection for our platform workers, we need to implement measures that prioritise their safety and well-being. One such measure is to ensure that all delivery workers have access to proper training on road safety and the safe handling of packages to prevent injuries. Platform operators must also provide adequate safety equipment, such as reflective vests and helmets, to protect delivery workers while on the job.

More importantly, platform operators must not penalise platform workers for reporting work incidents, such as road traffic accidents. Platform workers should be allowed to prioritise their own safety without having to fear that they would be subject to unfair disincentives or penalties.

Sir, I have been lobbying for more to be done to safeguard the safety and health of our platform workers since 2021. This includes the need to review incentive structures which may lead platform workers to rush to meet targets and risk getting into an accident. I, therefore, fully support the provisions in this Bill which make clear that platform operators have a duty to provide measures to safeguard the safety of platform workers who work for them.

I call on all platform operators to take concrete steps to mitigate the risks to the safety and health of their platform workers. While I can understand that platform operators may not be in control of the physical environment that platform workers operate in, but operators can and should set policies that influence and drive platform workers' behaviours. Operators must be required to ensure that the design of their reward and incentive policies do not inadvertently induce their platform workers towards unsafe behaviours, such as driving long hours or rushing to complete jobs.

Sir, it is good that the WSH Council is working with tripartite partners to establish an Approved Code of Practice for Platform Services. The code will address safety concerns in platform work and provide clarity on the reasonably practicable measures that operators can take to fulfil their WSH duties.

However, the current draft code still allows flexibility for platform operators to set incentive targets that may be unreasonable and potentially unsafe. I, therefore, ask for the code to codify what would be deemed as a safe incentive and reward structure so that operators do not set unrealistic incentive targets.

I also call on the tripartite workgroup to study the best practices in other countries, such as Australia, where a series of reforms passed earlier this year will allow employee-like workers in the gig economy to enjoy similar workplace protection as regular employees. According to news reports, Australia started on this journey after a spate of road fatalities involving gig workers. The local government there is seeking to put in place minimum safety standards for gig workers. I am confident that there will be parallels from which we in Singapore can learn.

Sir, beyond what the Government and platform operators can do, we can all play a part in helping to keep our platform workers safe as merchants and as consumers. As consumers, we can be patient with our delivery workers when there are genuine reasons for delays. They are trying their best and many of them are braving weather conditions and obstacles to reach us in good time.

As ride-hailing customers, we should be upfront and declare when we have young children travelling with us. NTUC has received feedback from private hire vehicle drivers that some customers do not declare when they have accompanying children below the age of seven. Only taxis can ferry such passengers without a child seat. So, by failing to declare, it leads to a wasted trip for our platform workers. The customer also feels frustrated and it is an unpleasant experience for everyone involved.

As merchants and senders, we can pack our food and goods properly and honestly declare to the platform the correct weight and size of the item that we intend to send.

Sir, the work to improve the WSH outcomes for our platform workers will not end once this Bill passes Parliament. In fact, it signals the next mile in the Labour Movement's effort to improve the lives of our brothers and sisters in the gig economy. The Labour Movement has and will continue to champion the interests of our platform workers because every platform worker matters. And we mean it. Sir, I support the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

8.24 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, today, we discuss a landmark Bill, the Platform Workers Bill, which creates a new legal framework and amends laws, such as WICA, WSH Act, CPF Act and Industrial Relations Act.

This Bill represents extensive discussions and aims to provide platform workers with financial protection covering work injuries, housing and retirement adequacy. At the same time, it ensures platform operators can continue to thrive, preserving jobs for workers and services for consumers.

The Bill is a result of Singapore's unique tripartite model, involving cooperation among the Ministry, unions representing workers and businesses. Hence, I want to extend my gratitude to everyone who has worked tirelessly on this Bill – our brothers and sisters from our NTUC unions representing the workers, many of them here today, spending hours with us, the workers, the team at the Ministries, the businesses and our team from the PAP who have been holding many discussions with our platform workers, including in Pasir Ris-Punggol, where we, too, held discussions with our platform workers. This Bill reflects what we can achieve by working together and our values of protecting our workers.

Mr Speaker, the gig economy has expanded rapidly over the past few years, with the number of platform workers in Singapore growing from 70,500 in 2020 to 88,400 in 2022, driven by technology and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this growth also highlights the disparity in power between platform workers and platform operators. While this imbalance may not be malicious, we need to rebalance the dynamics to ensure fairness for all parties.

Mr Speaker, I want to share the story of Mr T from Pasir Ris East, a father of four who was involved in a hit-and-run accident while on a delivery job just a month ago. His limited insurance coverage left him without compensation for his injuries or damage to his bike. Now on hospitalisation leave, he has lost his income and faces medical and repair bills.

This situation reflects the reality for many of our platform workers, who lack proper recourse for injury compensation despite their vital role in keeping the gig economy running. This Bill seeks to address such vulnerabilities.

Beyond injury compensation, platform workers often struggle with retirement and housing adequacy. One resident in Pasir Ris, a father of three in his 30s, lives in a rental flat because he lacks sufficient CPF savings to afford a home.

A 2023 DBS study found that platform workers' expense-to-income ratio has risen to 112%, meaning they are spending more than they earn. Without a fair wage structure, many workers face financial insecurity, especially regarding housing and retirement. This Bill aims to provide long-term security for platform workers.

Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I have several clarifications.

Firstly, on the definition of platform operators, how will companies assess if they are platform operators? Will MOM provide guidance on this?

Secondly, on CPF contributions, how will CPF contributions be computed for our platform workers? Will it be based on gross earnings or net earnings? With platform workers using different modes of transport, how will expenses be factored in?

Thirdly, on PCTS, will it support be based on gross or net income? Will it be disbursed annually, daily or monthly?

Fourthly, on work injury compensation, how will this apply if the platform worker's vehicle is found to be faulty or modified?

Lastly, and most importantly, wage and career progression for our platform workers.

Mr Speaker, let me elaborate further on the definition of platform operators. I support the Bill's focus on ride-hailing and delivery services as these workers are more akin to employees than self-employed individuals. However, more clarity is needed on how companies will determine whether they fall under the definition of platform operators. Additionally, we must be proactive in identifying industries where similar power imbalances may emerge and take steps to protect the workers in those sectors.

Secondly, let me touch on CPF and the retirement support mechanisms. I recently spoke to Mr Toh Kian Seng, a 62-year-old platform worker, who welcomed mandatory CPF contributions, recognising the long-term benefits for retirement despite the short-term reduction in take-home pay. However, younger workers may not share this perspective he said, as they may at times prioritise short-term earnings over long-term savings. Therefore, we must ensure a smooth transition to mandatory CPF contributions, with adequate support mechanisms in place.

How will CPF contributions be calculated? Will it be based on gross or net earnings? How will differing expenses for operating various vehicles, such as bicycles, motorbikes and cars, be factored into the calculations?

PCTS is a crucial mechanism to support platform workers during the transition for CPF contributions. With the income cap for PCTS raised to $3,000, will the support be based on gross or net income? The platform workers need cash to support their families’ monthly expenses. I urge the Ministry to provide this support on a monthly basis to help workers manage their monthly expenses. I also seek clarification on whether Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) eligibility and payouts will be based on gross or net income for our platform workers.

Will part-time platform workers be eligible for CPF contributions, PCTS and WIS, too? One worker in Pasir Ris raised a valid concern about his employer discovering additional CPF contributions and he was worried his employer will suspend him for moonlighting, even though he simply wanted to supplement his income. These workers need assurance and some guidelines on this matter.

Fourthly, on the issue of work injury compensation, given that the platform operator is not responsible for the choice of transportation of the platform workers, what happens if a platform worker's vehicle is found to be faulty or illegally modified? While motor vehicles undergo annual inspections, the situation is less clear for personal mobility devices and bicycles. Minor modifications, such as installing brackets or baskets to carry loads, which would increase the weight of personal mobility devices above 20 kilogrammes, should not disqualify workers from compensation.

On duty of care, both platform operators and workers share responsibility for safety. Should platform operators be required to monitor workers' behaviour, such as unsafe driving, or insist on proper insurance coverage? In Mr T’s case, I was surprised that Mr T only had limited third-party insurance covering only third-party fire and theft. His limited third-party insurance was deemed acceptable by the platform operator, for someone that spends hours on the road. This raises questions about the adequacy of such insurance and the operator's duty to ensure its associates are sufficiently covered under insurance.

While this Bill addresses important protections for our platform workers, it does not tackle wage stagnation or career progression for our platform workers. With over 70,000 platform workers in Singapore, how can we ensure their wages keep pace with inflation and rising costs?

Comparatively, the Police Force has only 15,000 full-time officers, and the number of teachers of 30,000 is less than half that of platform workers. So, this is a sizeable chunk of our workforce.

Other freelancers often see wage growth with experience, but platform workers are "price takers" with little control over their earnings. For many platform workers, their current wage could represent their wage ceiling. Unless they work longer hours or platform operators raise the prices, wages will stagnate and even decrease as workers age or seek better work-life balance. With inflation, real wages will quickly decline over time.

Additionally, when PCTS ends in 2029, platform workers will bear the full cost of CPF contributions, further reducing their take-home pay. In a tight labour market like ours in Singapore, we need to consider how to create opportunities for our platform workers to transition into other industries or roles if they wish to do so. Can we also provide more training support for platform workers to explore opportunities in other growth industries if they wish to do so? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Allow me to share the story of a family from my ward, Pasir Ris East. Recently, I met Mr T, a father of four school-going children. A month ago, when Mr T was doing deliveries, he was hit by a vehicle in a hit-and-run incident. He suffered serious injuries and was hospitalised for two weeks. Unfortunately, his insurance was limited to only third-party fire and theft, which meant that he could not receive any compensation for his injuries or any damage to his vehicle.

Today, Mr T is still on hospitalisation leave and is unable to work, lost his source of income, has several follow-up medical appointments and the worst thing is that he must bear his own medical bills and vehicle repair costs.

Another story that I wish to share is about another one of my Pasir Ris residents, a husband in his 30s who has three school-going children. Although both husband and wife have been platform workers for five years, they still live in a rental flat because they do not have sufficient CPF or cash savings to make the downpayment for their own house, let alone think about retirement.

According to a DBS study in 2023, the expense-to-income ratio for platform workers has risen to 112%, meaning they spend more than what they earn. Without a fair wage structure, our platform workers will continue to face financial difficulties for their housing and retirement.

Therefore, this Bill is the best way to provide our platform workers with some form of financial protection, covering work injury, housing and retirement adequacy. At the same time, it ensures that platform operators can continue to thrive, preserve jobs for workers and provide services for consumers.

Although I support this Bill, I would like to seek some clarifications.

First is on the definition of platform operators. How will companies determine whether they are platform operators? Will MOM provide any guidance on this?

Second is on CPF contributions. How will CPF contributions be calculated for platform workers? Will it be based on gross income or net income? With platform workers using different modes of transport such as cycling or driving a car, how will the different mode of expenses be considered?

Third is on the Platform Worker CPF Transition Support (PCTS). Will the PCTS be based on gross or net income? Will it be given annually or monthly?

Fourth is on Work Injury Compensation. How will this be provided if the platform worker's vehicle is found to be modified?

Finally, and most importantly, is salary and career progression for our platform workers. While this Bill deals with important safeguards, it does not address the issues of wage stagnation or career progression for platform workers. For most platform workers, their salaries will not increase unless they work longer in a day or if the platform operators raise their prices. In fact, their salaries will most likely decline as they grow older or need more time to look after their families. This is before the inflation rate is considered. In addition, when the assistance from PCTS ends in 2029, platform workers have to bear the full cost of CPF contributions, thus reducing their take-home pay.

Mr Speaker, there are many job opportunities in Singapore especially in the growth industries which has opportunities for career advancement. How can we give our platform workers the opportunity to switch to other industries, if they want to try out new careers?

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, this Bill is an important step towards protecting workers, ensuring their financial security and rebalancing the needs of all stakeholders. However, several areas require clarifications to ensure a smooth implementation. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.

Resumption of Debate on Question [9 September 2024], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Manpower].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

12.31 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the Platform Workers Bill seeks to strengthen protections for platform workers. I stand in support of the Bill.

I thank the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for conducting a public consultation on the proposed changes and for publishing its responses to the feedback received. I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the scope of platform services covered under the Bill. Currently, the Bill only covers self-employed persons who work with platform operators to provide two types of services, namely, delivery or ride-hail services. It does not cover self-employed persons who work with platform operators to provide other types of services. I understand that the Bill already protects more than 90% of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms through its coverage of delivery or ride-hail services.

That said, the number of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms to provide other types of services is also growing. These services include domestic cleaning, beauty, therapeutic and caregiving services. For example, when a domestic cleaning platform acquired a local cleaning company with 60 employees in 2021, it announced that it would be adding 1,000 more workers to its platform within one year. A chief executive officer (CEO) of a medical and caregiving platform service reported that between 2018 and 2021, the company observed a 10 times growth in demand for homecare, which would translate into a spike in the caregivers using its platform.

Given that the Bill already covers 90% of workers, can the Senior Minister of State share the rationale for not going further and covering all platform services? Is there a principled difference between workers on delivery or ride-hail services platforms compared to platforms of other services?

Will the Ministry look into expanding the definition of "platform operators" and "platform workers" in the Bill to cover all types of platform services at a later date? If so, does the Ministry have a timeline for reviewing the scope of the definition?

In light of the rising number of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms to provide other types of services, I urge the Government to extend the protections under this Bill to cover all types of platform services.

My second point is on remedies available for platform workers who encounter discrimination and unfair dismissal. I welcome the announcement of platform work associations which will have legal mandate to represent platform workers to address issues like fairer payment terms. While this is a good step, it may not go far enough to protect platform workers from unfair dismissal or discrimination by the platform operators.

Platform workers are not employees and do not receive the protections afforded by the Employment Act, the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, the Workplace Fairness Legislation and the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). This Bill does not appear to prohibit platform operators from unfairly removing a platform worker from the platform service or making decisions which discriminate against the platform worker.

Food delivery riders have complained about being unfairly penalised, warned or suspended for food spillage or other customer complaints. Private hire vehicle drivers have complained about wrongful forfeiture of incentives and wrongful removal from the platform.

The lack of a low-cost dispute resolution mechanism in the Bill, such as the equivalent of filing a claim at Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) or a mediation request at TAFEP, means that platform workers may have little or no viable options to dispute the platform operator's decision to remove or discriminate against the platform worker. This would result in a loss of income to the platform worker and this will, in turn, affect their housing and retirement adequacy.

Can the Senior Minister of State share whether the Ministry looked into the need for mechanisms for recourse against unfair dismissal and discrimination? If so, what were the considerations for excluding these mechanisms from this Bill? Will the Ministry study the possibility of including these mechanisms in the future?

My third and final point is on the transparency of decision-making by platform operators. Regulators in other states have introduced policies to make more transparent decision-making by platform operators. For example, in April 2024, the European Parliament adopted the Platform Work Directive, which required platforms to provide workers with written information about the automated monitoring and decision-making systems that it uses. For platform workers, this could mean transparency over key factors, such as the distance, destination and share of tips received, how their rating was derived, which, in turn, affects the jobs assigned to them and the amount that they earn.

Can the Senior Minister of State share if the Ministry looked into the necessity of introducing similar provisions under this Bill? If so, can the Senior Minister of State share why these provisions were not included? If such provisions were not studied, will the Ministry consider looking into provisions which require platform operators to improve the transparency of their decision-making systems and processes? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.

12.36 pm

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. According to the latest labour force report by MOM, in 2023, there were 70,500 platform workers in Singapore. These are our taxi drivers, private-hire car drivers and delivery workers. They make up a significant population in our workforce. Under the proposed Platform Workers Bill, platform workers will now gain rights and legal protection they did not enjoy before. I support this landmark change.

On this Bill, I will speak on and raise clarifications around three key areas of the Bill, namely: one, the implications of Central Provident Fund (CPF); two, workplace injury compensation; and three, the scope of this Bill.

Sir, introducing CPF contributions for platform workers aligns with the comprehensive social security system that has long been in place for employees. CPF ensures that workers have a safety net to meet future needs. It encourages workers to start saving for a home at a younger age, sets aside a fund for healthcare and facilitates long-term financial planning for retirement. The change for platform workers brings them closer to par with employees, which is a good thing.

I also welcome the enhancements to the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support (PCTS), where the Government will fully cover platform workers' CPF payments in the first year. This means that platform workers’ take-home pay will not be impacted in 2025. Hopefully, this will alleviate the worries of workers about reduction in take-home pay and encourage more workers to opt in for CPF.

While the introduction of CPF coverage for platform workers is promising and should be commended, there are potential downside risks that should be addressed.

First, mandating CPF contributions may unintentionally frame platform work as a viable, long-term career path for younger workers. However, it is important to acknowledge that platform work rarely offers long-term development. Unlike employees, platform workers do not have the same access to continuous learning or promotion opportunities. This limits their career progression, especially when they are often isolated from professional networks and not levelling up their skills over time.

Additionally, platform workers do not have the full benefits that employees enjoy. Platform work is subject to market forces and can be an unstable source of income. It is preferably not a long-term career plan for all, especially for people in the early stages of their working life.

Yet, full-time platform workers who want to switch careers often find it difficult to leave this line of work. On one hand, platform workers may be willing to spend their time upskilling and applying for jobs. But that time could be spent completing gigs to make more money. Simply put, upskilling comes at a cost. It is a luxury to some platform workers, a luxury most cannot afford.

Contrast this with lower-wage employees in sectors under the Progressive Wage Model (PWM). The PWM maps out a clear career pathway for wages to increase. Employees are required to attend training to improve their productivity and skills. Platform workers do not benefit from such structured support. Unlike lower-wage employees, there is no incentive to improve their skills within their ecosystem. Even if they do secure a job, it may be difficult for platform workers to get used to a more traditional working environment.

After all, while platform work offers for more flexibility and autonomy, traditional employees are usually under direct supervision at the workplace. Transitioning to this can be challenging and may discourage platform workers from seeking or staying in traditional employment.

We therefore need to proactively support our platform workers, especially the younger ones, to find and remain in a stable job. The Government currently has a range of support measures catered to lower-wage workers and unemployed individuals. These include the Workfare Skills Support Scheme and the Career Conversion Programmes. More recently, during the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also announced the Jobseeker Support scheme, recognising the difficulties faced by the involuntarily unemployed. Perhaps, we can introduce tailored programmes to address the opportunity cost that platform workers face. Or could the Government calibrate existing schemes so that more are incentivised to prepare themselves for a long-term career.

Sir, we also need to ensure that the introduction of CPF does not give rise to discrimination against CPF contributing workers or result in undesirable profiteering behaviour. As these concerns have already been explored in detail by hon Members of the House yesterday, I will not be repeating them here. Instead, I would like to ask three clarifying questions.

First, how will the Government ensure that a platform worker's CPF contribution status is never a relevant factor in a job-matching algorithm?

Second and related to this, will the Government consider regulating the assignment of jobs by platform operators? Such regulation could come in the form of clear guidelines to ensure that there is no discrimination against CPF-contributing workers. These guidelines could be developed jointly with platform work associations, platform operators and the Government. Full transparency on how jobs are assigned will be key to ensuring fair and objective job allocation and maintaining the trust between platform operators and platform workers.

And third, platform workers are rightly concerned that platform operators might react to the need to make CPF payments by increasing the commission collected from them or reducing their incentives and bonuses. The introduction of CPF may therefore risk further shrinking the take-home pay of workers in the long run. in light of this, it would be helpful if the Government can share how it envisions this playing out in the long-term and how this risk will be mitigated.

Moving on from CPF, the Bill also covers workplace injury compensation for platform workers. This is a positive inclusion. Safety is a big concern for delivery riders, especially those who use bicycles or e-bikes. Long hours, rushing to complete orders on time and harsh weather conditions put them at a heightened risk of accidents. Similarly, ride-hail drivers face a higher risk of accidents than regular motorists, simply because they are on the road for longer. It is only right that we look after their safety and that we should be comprehensive in our approach.

Beyond addressing workplace injuries, we should also strive to support the overall health and well-being of platform workers to prevent serious injuries. This Bill does not provide platform workers with benefits common to employees, such as sick leave or annual leave. After all, platform workers are not employees.

As touched upon earlier, platform workers, especially younger ones, aged 30 and below, for whom CPF contributions will become compulsory, may worry about their reduced take-home pay. To compensate, they might work longer hours which, by the way, also limits significantly any time for exercise. They then fall ill eventually. After taking time off to recover, they may feel pressured to work even harder to make up for lost time, further adding stress and harming their physical and mental well-being. Over time, this creates a vicious cycle of overwork and exhaustion.

The issue of annual leave and medical benefits for platform workers has been brought up by other hon Members of Parliament (MPs) in the past. I note that Senior Minister of State Koh has shared the reasons for excluding these other benefits in his opening speech yesterday. I certainly understand the need to strike a fine balance. Yet, the risk of burnout remains real. I hope that the Government can carefully consider the inclusion of these benefits in future iterations of the Act or study specific measures to address this gap so that we take better care of platform workers.

Mr Speaker, harassment is yet another issue that drivers and delivery riders face. Platform workers may have to deal with unreasonable behaviour from platform users. For instance, if a restaurant takes too long to prepare food, the delivery rider may be unfairly blamed for the delay and receive lower ratings. Miscommunications between ride-hail drivers and passengers may also occur, such as when the pick-up point is in an unfamiliar spot or is difficult to locate.

These frustrations may result in disagreements, which have the potential to escalate. In 2023 alone, there were more than 200 reported cases of abuse against taxi and private-hire drivers. Ride-hail drivers have to maintain a minimum overall rating to keep their account and be eligible for incentives and bonuses. This is essential for their livelihood. It makes them less likely to retaliate or defend themselves when facing verbal abuse, for fear of poor reviews or complaints. Women drivers are also vulnerable to sexual harassment from passengers.

Yet, platform workers are not protected against harassment under the proposed Bill. They have no recourse. In comparison, some workers in other industries have protections in place. Security officers, for example, are protected from assault and harassment under the Private Security Industry Act. Such protections being legislated sends a strong signal that harassment will not be tolerated.

Given that harassment is a real risk in platform work, will the Government consider including protections from harassment in a future iteration of the Act?

Platform workers deserve to feel safe and have sufficient recourse in the event of harassment. In the healthcare sector, the Tripartite Framework for the Prevention of Abuse and Harassment in Healthcare was launched last December. The framework sets out, I quote, "a standardised, zero-tolerance policy against all forms of abuse and harassment towards healthcare workers".

If not through legislation, I hope that the Government could at least consider modifying and applying such a framework to platform workers too. In doing so, platform operators and platform work associations can collaborate to improve reporting and prevent situations that lead to abuse and harassment.

Let me now briefly touch on the scope of this Bill before I conclude.

I am heartened to know that platform workers will be supported in their retirement planning and in having workplace injury compensation. Under the proposed Bill, "platform service" means a service specified in the First Schedule that is provided through a platform, digital or otherwise, by a platform operator exercising management control in respect of the provision of that service by platform workers.

The meanings of platform service, platform operator and platform worker are drafted broadly enough to potentially apply to a wide range of services, such as caregiving services and cleaning services. However, based on the First Schedule, the two platform services covered in the Bill are limited to delivery service and ride-hail service for now.

There are other platform workers who need to be safeguarded. As an example, I would like to call particular attention to locum nurses, especially those who find work through caregiving platforms. Locum nurses would fall within the definition of platform workers, as they are similarly subject to the management control of platform operators. They help plug the gap of providing home nursing services, especially with our ageing population.

All providers of caregiving services deserve to be recognised; so do other platform workers who provide services that keep us all going. They should be entitled to having their rights, protections and representation provided for. If the Government is considering expanding the scope of the Act in future to provide for more platform workers, it would be helpful to understand the timeline for such amendments.

Mr Speaker, I am glad that we are taking an active step towards looking after the under-served in our workforce. The proposed Bill aims to close the gap between platform workers and their counterparts in a traditional workplace. As we roll out the new measures, I hope that this is just the start of broader efforts to scale up protections and uplift more platform workers. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.

12.50 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I rise today in support of our platform workers, who represent a sizeable and growing segment of our workforce and who have become essential to the convenience we often take for granted in our daily lives.

We have heard throughout this debate stories and statistics about the vulnerabilities platform workers face. This Bill seeks to address those vulnerabilities, providing platform workers with baseline protections and hope for a more secure future.

This debate is close to my heart because there are many platform workers living in my constituency, Woodlands. Indeed, when COVID-19 struck, our community centres (CCs) in Woodlands had the longest lines for Temporary Relief Fund grants in the whole country.

Mr Speaker, any reforms must consider the lived experience and needs of those directly affected, that is, the platform workers.

In truth, there is no one face of a platform worker. Our platform workers are a very diverse group with different situations and needs. Some turned to platform work after many failed attempts to land another job. Some turned to platform work to have the flexibility to manage their own time, to accommodate caregiving responsibilities, or simply to have more time with their families. For others, platform work is a side gig to a full-time job to boost their incomes. We have students, working part-time to supplement their family incomes, to pay for school or for additional pocket money.

We have those who struggle to make a decent income, living day-to-day on whatever income they make on any given day. We have heard several times of how for many platform workers, their expenses exceed their income. But we also have what I call the "chiongsters", who have mastered exactly where and when they should be active on which platform to generate the most income.

The two-wheeler segment is very different from the four-wheeler segment and the no-vehicle segment, and within the two-wheeler segment, the motorbike segment is different from the bicycle segment.

So, we must consider all these differences in designing and implementing these reforms. But I hope we can all agree on two basic tenets.

First, platform work should remain part of the landscape. It offers opportunities for thousands of Singaporeans who need or prefer to have the flexibility of setting their own schedules. As an industry, the platform economy must remain sustainable even if there may be some failures or consolidations among the operators.

Second, all workers, employee or self-employed, high-income or low-income, should be treated fairly and with dignity and should have basic protections and a secure future. All workers should be treated fairly and with dignity.

The question before us therefore is not just how to protect these workers, but how to balance their need for flexibility with the need for fairness, security and dignity.

It is clear from this Bill that the Government has captured this balance. This Bill proposes much-needed reforms, including mandatory CPF contributions, extending Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) and requiring platform operators to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety and health of their platform workers. These measures are not about taking away flexibility but about ensuring that in their pursuit of a livelihood, platform workers are not left without a safety net, because flexibility should not mean insecurity. Flexibility should not mean insecurity.

The Bill recognises that the reforms are important, but so is the real financial impact on platform workers, platform operators and potentially consumers.

Thus, for example, the Bill staggers contribution rates over five years and is supplemented by the PCTS, enhanced a few days ago to fully cover the increase in platform workers' CPF contributions in 2025.

Similarly, a balanced approach will need to be adopted in the proposed safety codes so that they protect the safety and health of platform workers without taking away the flexibility and autonomy that some platform workers want, considering their own personal situations, for example, on scheduling and work hours, or stifling innovation on the part of the platform operators even while they meet the new regulatory requirements.

Mr Speaker, I would like to add my views regarding the concerns that these protections could lead to increased costs for platform operators and that some of these costs might be passed on to consumers or even to the platform workers themselves.

It may be expedient to place the burden on one party – specifically, for the platform operators to absorb all the costs. But a quick look at the numbers in the public domain suggest this could be untenable.

One ride-hailing platform operator, for example, charges 10% commission on trip fares. That means their revenues are 10% of the fares. With the fixed expense deduction ratio of 60% for drivers, the employers' contribution, which is 17% of the platform worker's income, would be 6.8%, or two thirds of the topline of the platform operator. Therefore, having the platform operator bear the full employers' contribution would mean reducing their revenue to about 3% of what it used to be.

Then, there are the WICA payments, plus the cost of compliance for all the new regulations. Is there enough left for this to be sustainable for the platform operator to bear all these costs?

So, yes, there will be costs and yes, some of these costs may indeed likely to be passed on. But let us not forget that we as a society benefit from the services these workers provide. It is only fair that the responsibility of ensuring their protection is shared among all stakeholders – the Government, platform operators and consumers. This will not be an easy balance, but this Government has shown that it will not shy away from doing the right thing. In this case, doing the right thing is making sure that our platform operators, who do so much for us, are not left behind without a safety net.

The Bill also provides a legal framework for platform work associations to represent platform workers. With the enactment of new laws, the platform work associations will play an important role in representing platform workers on these new laws and more broadly, giving platform workers a voice.

In considering the scope for what the platform work associations will intervene in, the associations should take a comprehensive approach, going beyond focusing on the new benefits, health and safety standards as well as prices and incentives schemes to address other things that impact platform workers' rights, well-being and long-term sustainability, including support in improving working conditions, resolving disputes with platform operators and customers, including abuse and harassment, training and career development, and promoting respect, dignity and societal recognition for the contributions of platform workers to society.

On speaking up for workers in their grievances, food delivery riders in Woodlands told me of a particular customer in Woodlands who frequently buys alcohol on the weekends. Every single time, he will report spillage or breakages, resulting in penalties for many, many delivery riders. They have even filed police reports. Yet, the platform has ignored their complaints and they feel there is no way for them to fight back.

Other delivery riders have told me about orders that are too heavy for one rider or stacked orders that force them to go in opposite directions and are impossible to complete within the time limit while private hire drivers have told me about how the cleaning fee given to them for cleaning their vehicles when a passenger throws up in the car barely goes to cover the actual cost of cleaning, let alone the loss of income for the period during which the driver cannot take on passengers while airing the car to eliminate odours.

These may sound like small things to us, but these small things add up and have a real impact on the lived experiences of platform workers and their feelings of fairness, respect and dignity. Platform work associations have a role to play in effecting positive changes in their lives.

Mr Speaker, the provisions of the Bill are both bold yet balanced and therefore should be supported by this House. What is probably more important is how we are going to go about implementing the provisions in a way that is inclusive for all stakeholders, engenders trust and advances long-term benefits for society as well as for the platform workers.

To that end, I have a few questions for the Senior Minister of State.

First, CPF contributions. Given the differences in CPF contribution rates by income and by age, how will the withholding of the platform worker's contribution by the platform operators work? Will it be standardised across all platform operators? Will consideration be given for minimising the burden on the platform worker while balancing efficiency? For example, will the platform operators withhold the maximum rate for everyone even if the platform worker consistently earns below the income thresholds for the maximum rate?

Second, while the phased implementation and enhanced PCTS will greatly help in mitigating the immediate burden on platform workers, will the Senior Minister of State be open to temporary relief measures or adjustments to contribution requirements in future for lower-income platform workers who simply cannot cope under the lower take-home pay?

Third, on WICA. What are the expected WICA costs? How will it take into account the different risk profiles of different platform worker segments? What will be the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that platform companies are full complying with new workplace safety and health codes and workplace injury compensation regulations? At the same time, how do we avoid a system of spurious claims?

Fourth, cost and cost sharing. How will the Senior Minister of State ensure that any passing on of costs to consumers by the platform operators is done in a way that is transparent and does not inadvertently create opportunities for profiteering, as well as in a way that is efficient, especially as the staggered roll-out of CPF contributions would lead to several rounds of this?

Fifth, representation. What is the scope of representation that will be undertaken by the platform work associations?

Sixth, financial literacy. Will the Government provide financial literacy programmes or advisory services to help platform workers understand the long-term benefits of CPF contributions and plan for their retirement?

Seventh, innovation. How can we ensure that Singapore remains a hub for innovation in the platform economy? How can the Government encourage platform companies to invest in technology to make platform work safer and more efficient and to develop new services that bring more value to the economy and can help to offset any share of the costs of this Bill that they may incur? How can the Government explore how technology can help platform workers to better track their working hours, manage their CFP contributions and access support services.

Finally, monitoring effectiveness. How will the Government monitor the effectiveness and impacts of these policy changes, including the take-up rate for CPF contributions, the impact on the number of gig jobs, the impact on flexibility for platform workers, the impact on business sustainability for platform operators and the impact on consumer cost? How will the Government ensure that these reforms genuinely improve the lives of platform workers without unintended consequences? What are the longer-term metrics, for example, for home ownership? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Malay community is disproportionately represented among platform workers. Like those from other races, some become platform workers because they could not find another job, or another job that will pay them more. But many become platform workers, and remain platform workers, because they value the flexibility that the job allows for them to spend more time with their families, or to fulfil caregiving responsibilities for their children or aged parents.

A common issue among platform workers is that they have very little CPF. I often hear people say that they prefer to manage their own money and save on this own, that they don’t want their money locked away. Some say that they don’t make enough to set aside money in CPF.

For older workers who have paid off their housing loans, or workers who have spouses or other family members who have CPF, it is perhaps not such an issue. But for others, especially the younger workers looking to start or grow their families, they cannot leverage on CPF to buy a flat or to hold on a flat. Which make it that more difficult.

I met a resident in a desperate financial situation. Her husband, who was the sole breadwinner as a food delivery rider had recently passed away from illness, and she was on the verge of losing the HDB flat she lived in with her four young children. The arrears had started accumulating when he fell sick. Her late husband could not work and his medical treatments drained their savings as he had no insurance. Because he had not been making regular CPF contributions, he had not kept up with his Home Protection Scheme (HPS) payments, and the cover had lapsed.

In this one example, you see all the vulnerabilities of being a platform worker, with no protections for healthcare, housing or insurance. This should not be the case, and we should all support this Bill that gives platform workers these basic protections. The employer contribution of CPF, at 17%, significantly increases the amount of CPF available for housing, and will help platform workers save for a house more quickly or save for retirement. Thus, it is important to improve understanding of the long term benefits of CPF and how it works, among platform workers in our community.

Like Woodlands resident Mr K, in his 50s. He became a food delivery rider after he suffered a stroke. While he recovered from his stroke, he and his employer mutually agreed that it was best he leave the company. For him, food delivery has given him a lifeline to continue to earn a living, where he could work when he felt up to it and stop when he couldn’t. Because of his brush with a major health condition, he has been making CPF contributions of $200 a month since he started work as a food delivery rider. It’s for my future he said, if I cannot work anymore, or if anything happens to me again. Part of his CPF goes to paying for Medishield. He knows it’s important. Mr K looks forward to the proposed amendments, in particular the employer CPF contribution, WICA, and the prospect of greater representation.

I asked Mr K: will you like your son to work in the gig economy? The young generation is different, he said. They will have more opportunities, more options.

And this is what we must never stop striving for. More opportunities, more options, for workers, especially the young, in our community, who have a long career ahead of them. Even while we provide much needed protection and security for the platform workers of today, we must ensure that we do not stop providing opportunities for all workers to gain new relevant skills in the fast changing economy of tomorrow. Because the ultimate job security is employability. We must also ensure that we must press on in providing more flexible work arrangements within traditional employment, that can better accommodate family and caregiving needs, so the gig economy is not the only option for flexibility. It is and must remain an option, but not the only option.

So, we must continue to revisit our labour policies and processes from time to time. We must continue to improve financial literacy in our community. We must make sure that our policy making is inclusive and the voices of our community are represented.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as we move forward together and forge our new social compact, we must not lose sight of the values that define us as a nation: fairness, justice and care for one another. Platform workers deserve the same dignity, respect, protections as any other worker, and this Bill is an important step in ensuring that.

Let us not only support the livelihoods of our gig workers but also secure their futures. For the delivery rider who rides through the rain to bring you your dinner, for the private hire vehicle driver who works late into the night to support his family, this Bill is about giving them the security they need without taking away the flexibility they value. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.

1.08 pm

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Platform Workers Bill.

This Bill rightfully acknowledges the crucial role platform workers play and seeks to address some of the issues they face. It is worth emphasising the significance of their role in Singapore's economy.

During the pandemic lockdown, they became essential to our daily lives, ensuring the continuity of services and even boosting Singapore's productivity. When the circuit breaker was in place, our food delivery riders and companies were at the forefront, delivering tens of thousands of food orders all over Singapore, especially for those who were in quarantine. Not only did these workers alleviate the difficulty of individuals in quarantine, these unsung heroes also ensured that food and beverage (F&B) businesses stayed afloat, by continuing with their takeaway businesses. This Bill before the House recognises them and formalises them as key players in our economy.

Sir, allow me to share some benefits of this legislation. This Bill is an important milestone for the community of platform workers because the various associations currently representing them would be able to negotiate collectively for them, better represent them in disputes and provide them with better support services.

It signals a positive shift, one that recognises not just their contributions but their rightful place within our economic framework. By strengthening worker protection, this Bill paves the way for a more stable and satisfied workforce, with expected outcomes, such as enhanced productivity and reduced turnover in sectors heavily reliant on gig and platform-based work.

In my view, this new legislation also benefits employers. For businesses and business owners, this Bill can lead to better relationships between businesses and their platform workers, as the regulations provide clearer guidelines on rights and responsibilities. This could result in higher worker satisfaction and loyalty.

There is also legal certainty. By formalising the rights and obligations of platform workers and operators, the Bill reduces legal ambiguities. Businesses can operate with more confidence, knowing they comply with regulations, which can help avoid potential legal disputes.

Furthermore, businesses which comply with the new regulations might gain a better reputation among consumers and workers, who value fair treatment and worker protection. This could attract more customers and better performing workers to the respective platforms. The regulation of platform operators also ensures a level playing field, preventing unfair practices and promoting healthy competition within the digital economy. This will stimulate innovation and improve efficiency among platform service providers. This Bill also can lead to the development of new business models and services within the gig economy, contributing to the diversification of Singapore's economy.

Sir, I now turn to some clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. My concern is that compliance with the new regulations might increase operational costs for platform operators. This could lead to higher costs for consumers and will reduce margins for businesses, potentially impacting the competitiveness of Singapore-based platforms.

One, will there be any Government support measures and assistance to help these businesses? Two, does this Bill apply to all types of platform services, including those that are emerging or certainly are less common? Three, are there any exemptions for certain types of platforms or services and, if so, what are the criteria for these exemptions? Four, how will the Bill affect existing contracts between platform operators and workers? Will there be a transition period for compliance? Five, what happens if a current platform work agreement conflicts with the provisions of the Bill? I recognise that effective implementation and enforcement of the Bill’s provisions may require significant additional resources to ensure that all platform operators comply with the regulations. Six, how does the Ministry hope to ensure the seamless execution of these new regulations? Lastly, are there any plans for a separate division within MOM to address the needs of the gig economy for the long term?

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, this Bill has my strong support.

Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

1.14 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The number of Singapore platform workers in Singapore fell from 88,400 to 70,500 last year, accounting for 2.9% of our resident labour force. These figures reflect a return to pre-pandemic 2019 levels, suggesting that we may be observing a steady-state situation for platform work in Singapore.

However, despite this decline, platform operators and workers continue to have a disproportionately large impact on both our economy and society. The services they provide remain essential to many aspects of daily life and it is in this context that the Platform Workers Bill takes on heightened significance.

The merit of this Bill lies in its balance. It alleviates cost pressures on our platform operators which might otherwise lead to reduced job opportunities or, in a worse case, business closures. At the same time, it ensures that our platform workers receive basic employment protections, such as income security and workplace safety.

(In English): The Bill, however, adopts an exclusive definition of platform services currently limited to delivery and ride-hailing services. As such, I would like to raise an essential clarification. With other emerging and growing platform services, such as cleaning and caregiving that may either presently or in the near future meet the same defined criteria, what process or mechanism is in place to potentially expand the coverage of the Bill to these sectors? The evolution of the platform economy means that new types of services will inevitably emerge. It is essential that we anticipate this by ensuring the flexibility of the Bill to respond to future developments.

The second point I wish to address concerns the requirements placed on platform operators to provide work injury compensation insurance and ensure that platform workers require adequate training. These are crucial protections, but platform workers often provide their services across multiple operators, which raises a key question. Is there a national mechanism that coordinates insurance coverage and training across operators? Without such coordination, we risk unnecessary duplication of costs which will likely be passed on to both platform operators and, eventually, consumers. A centralised or coordinated approach could help streamline these processes, reducing costs for all stakeholders while ensuring that platform workers are adequately protected.

I now turn to the potential impact of the Platform Workers Bill on our broader workforce. The Bill has the potential to level the playing field between platform operators and traditional employers by ensuring that platform workers receive equitable protections and CPF contributions. This will support their housing and retirement adequacy. While the impact on employment preferences may be varied, some platform workers might choose to transition back to more traditional employment sectors for better long-term career prospects.

To facilitate this transition, can the Government consider expanding the scope of existing programmes like WSG's Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs) as well as the Mid-Career Pathways Programmes administered by the Singapore Business Federation to create an accelerated, effective pathway for platform workers seeking new opportunities in traditional sectors and supporting their career transition? Currently, these programmes already offer structured training, salary support and job placement assistance, which could be adapted to the needs of platform workers looking to reskill and move back into traditional roles.

Can we help our platform workers transition more efficiently by pre-identifying CCPs that platform workers can tap into since there are over 100 CCPs available today? These could be focused on adjacent roles, such as transport and logistics, or even retail and F&B, which can offer opportunities for those seeking new career options.

Importantly, can these programmes be tailored to more workplace-based training and less classroom-based training? This hands-on training element will help ramp up the onboarding process and ensure a fast and efficient transition into new roles and helping close the manpower gaps that some sectors are currently experiencing.

Finally, I wish to address the economic implications of the Bill, particularly for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The additional costs imposed on platform operators, such as the requirements for insurance and CPF contributions, will inevitably lead to higher service costs. This is particularly concerning for smaller businesses, which may already be operating on tight margins and lack the resources to absorb such costs internally. Based on the recent Singapore Business Federation National Business Survey, nearly half of businesses remain uncertain about their future prospects, with 33% of SMEs and 24% of large companies reporting declining performance over the last year.

The increased costs resulting from the Bill are likely to affect SMEs more acutely, as they often rely on platform services due to their limited ability to manage their functions inhouse. Will the Government be actively monitoring SMEs on the ground to ensure that any cost increases resulting from the Platform Workers Bill are effectively managed? Additionally, can the Government collaborate with trade associations and businesses to explore comprehensive support mechanisms, such as subsidies, tax relief or any other measures to help alleviate cost pressures and maintain the competitiveness of SMEs in this challenging landscape? At the same time, will enhanced measures be put in place to ensure that businesses do not resort to unnecessary price hikes, thus protecting consumers from unjustified cost transfers while maintaining fair pricing practices?

Sir, the Platform Workers Bill represents an important milestone as we seek to create a more equitable framework for both platform workers and operators. Although the Bill has been years in the making, it reflects Singapore’s ability, agility and responsiveness in adapting to the evolving needs of our workforce and business environment.

I commend the tripartite partners for their collaborative efforts in shaping a Bill that seeks to balance the interests of all stakeholders. As we move forward, I encourage continuous engagement among the Government, businesses and workers to ensure that the Bill remains adaptable to a rapidly changing landscape of the platform economy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the questions I have raised and the recommendations I have made, I express my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.

1.22 pm

Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Platform Workers Bill provides long overdue support to workers in the gig economy and I stand in support of this new piece of legislation. I do, nonetheless, have some questions for the Senior Minister of State on the scope of the Bill and on potential future developments.

First, I note that the First Schedule of the Bill restricts the definition of “platform services” to only delivery and ride-hail services. As the Association of Women for Action and Research, or AWARE, has pointed out in its response to the public consultation on this Bill, the Bill excludes other types of services that are delivered via online platforms. Some examples of these include beauty and grooming services, caregiving services and house cleaning services. These types of platform services will not fall within the definition set out in the First Schedule of the proposed Bill.

Accordingly, workers in these categories of services will not be covered by the protective measures outlined in the Bill today. Platform workers in the delivery and ride-hailing sectors tend to be male, whereas a greater proportion of workers in the areas of beauty, grooming, caregiving and cleaning services tend to be female. So, if we consider the framing of the Bill from this perspective, it appears that a good number of female platform workers may not actually be able to benefit from the protections offered by this new law.

So, my first clarification for the Senior Minister of State is why these types of platform workers have been excluded from the scope of the Bill? I would also like to ask if there are future plans to include a wider range of platforms for the delivery of services within the ambit of this Bill. This is a point that has been raised by a number of Members, and I join them, too, in raising my concerns.

My second clarification has to do with the term “human intervention on a regular or routine basis,” as set out in clause 6 of the Bill. Could the Government clarify what the threshold would be for human intervention that is considered to be “regular or routine”, such that this type of intervention would remove the platform concerned from the scope of the Bill?

My next set of questions has to do with gender and other imbalances in the gig economy, especially where digital platforms are concerned. AWARE’s submission, which I referred to earlier, makes important points about the functionality of platform services which the present Bill does not seem to overtly address. Ride-hail platforms, for example, generally prioritise job assignments based on driver ratings. This is something that is determined by both the platform’s algorithms and by client reviews. The theory here is that workers will be incentivised to provide good service so as not to achieve poor ratings. On the flip side of things, platform workers may not themselves be adequately protected from harassment and discrimination if unfair complaints are made by malicious customers. The hope, presumably, is that these kinds of grievances can be taken up by platform work associations, which are provided for in Part 3 of the Bill. I seek the Government’s confirmation that this an area that platform work associations will be actively looking into.

The next point I would like to make is that while we may assume that platforms are gender-blind and merely match customers and workers in the most efficient way, the design of these platforms can inadvertently result in gender imbalances being perpetuated. To put it another way, digital labour platforms are built using real-world data, but we must not forget that the real world is itself full of biases and imbalances.

For example, if workers have unpredictable caregiving responsibilities and need to suddenly cancel their work assignments because of these responsibilities, they may accordingly be penalised by platforms which operate by automatically allocating tasks to workers. Similarly, if ride-hail or delivery workers choose to decline jobs that take place late at night or in areas where they feel it is unsafe to work, they will lose out on potential job opportunities.

Algorithms, of course, are built in such a way that where there is less supply, the prices charged to consumers are much higher. So, there is an opportunity to earn more if you take on work that other people either do not want to do or cannot do. This leads to a situation where workers who are either willing to put themselves at risk or who perhaps feel that they can handle these risks better, well, they have the potential to earn more than others who do not. Given that women still tend to take on the lion’s share of caregiving responsibilities in society and given that women are also a group who may be exposed to higher levels of risks when working alone in remote areas or late into the night, the overall outcome is then a situation where gender pay imbalances can continue to be perpetuated even in the realm of platform work.

AWARE recommends that it be mandated that algorithms and rating systems be designed in a gender-sensitive way. This is one possible solution but the more fundamental issue, to me, is in basically ensuring that platform workers are treated equitably and are not unfairly penalised for things like caregiving responsibilities and for prioritising their own safety. The Platform Workers Bill being debated today does not seem to address this specific point, but I hope that the Government will advocate for this when dealing with platform operators.

The next point I would like to make is a broader one. While the Bill today addresses the problems faced by certain types of platform workers, let us not forget that there are other specific communities which are also made up of a large number of freelancers. As I have mentioned previously in this House, and other Members have as well, in the arts, according to the latest Singapore Arts Plan, at least one-third of the workforce operates on a self-employed basis. Again, it is a well-known fact that this is higher than the national average, which stands at less than one in five. In fact, in many research reports and articles, artists are often referred to as the “original gig economy workers.”

Admittedly, platform workers are not exactly the same as arts freelancers, certainly in the way that they have been defined for the purposes of the Bill today, but the two groups do face similar stresses. Arts freelancers often worry about retirement adequacy, they have little to no bargaining power when negotiating contracts, they are not entitled to protection under the Employment Act and WICA, they have little recourse when contractual disputes occur because it can be costly and time-consuming to pursue legal action and they may not have access to work insurance coverage. This is all information and feedback that is well-known to the Government through its many engagement sessions over a number of years with the arts community.

And there are examples that we can draw from in jurisdictions that have enacted specific laws to protect freelancers like this. In New York City, the “Freelance Isn’t Free Act” protects the entitlement of freelancers to written contracts, timely and full payment and provides protection from retaliation for individuals who exercise their rights under the law. In Illinois, also in the United States (US), the Freelance Worker Protection Act offers similar safeguards. Closer to home, in Korea, the Artist Welfare Act seeks to protect artists’ job security and rights in areas, such as contractual arrangements and work injury compensation.

So, while I welcome and support the Platform Workers Bill, I would also like to take the opportunity today to ask the Senior Minister of State if this important piece of legislation can be seen as a step towards providing better workplace conditions for a wider group of self-employed individuals and, in particular, those in the arts community?

The usual argument that is applied here is that freelancers are expected to make sacrifices in exchange for flexibility, but these kinds of views are so much harder to sustain in a post-COVID world. Now even workers in traditional employer-employee relationships seek more personal autonomy and flexible work arrangements.

The very Bill that we are debating today, recognises that certain types of freelancers do require legislative help in safeguarding their rights; and these are rights that we would normally see being protected only in traditional employer-employee relationships.

And so, my final clarification is this: would the Senior Minister of State consider extending legislative protection to more groups of freelancers in the future and in particular, to the arts community, which itself can also be quite a vulnerable group?

Notwithstanding these clarifications I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman.

1.30 pm

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill is essential to acknowledge the profound impact of the digital economy on the global labour market. In Singapore, the rise of platform work has underscored the urgency of addressing new challenges in ensuring decent working conditions, fair wages, comprehensive social security coverage, and robust workers' rights.

The rapid expansion of platform based work has necessitated a re-evaluation of our existing framework to safeguard the interests of these workers who are increasingly becoming important in our economy.

The labour movement warmly welcomes the Ministry of Manpower's initiative to strengthen protections for platform workers via the introduction of the CPF contributions and WICA coverage similar to employees. These moves represent a significant milestone, emerging from years of advocacy and collaborative efforts with the Labour Movement and the tripartite partners, to address key issues and develop a mutually agreeable approach to platform work in Singapore.

While this legislative step is indeed a positive advancement, it is important to recognise that there is still room for further improvement. We must continue to refine our strategies and policies to ensure that the evolving needs of platform workers are met with the utmost fairness and efficiency.

Mr Speaker, the Labour Movement is notably pleased to see the implementation of the CPF Transition Support Scheme, which signifies a crucial step forward in supporting low-wage platform workers. This initiative, set to fully offset the increase in CPF contributions to the Ordinary and Special Accounts in 2025 and, gradually taper off until 2029, is an important measure to ensure that these workers are not unduly burdened by the changes in CPF contribution requirements.

Platform workers, particularly those in lower-income brackets, face unique challenges in securing their financial future. The Labour Movement has consistently advocated for measures that protect their interests, ensuring that they receive fair treatment and support in navigating these changes. The CPF Transition Support Scheme reflects the responsiveness of MOM and the CPF Board (CPFB) to the feedback provided by our Associations.

This phased approach is particularly significant as it allows platform workers time to adapt to the new contribution structure while still securing the benefits that come with enhanced CPF contributions. The Labour Movement views this as a positive development that underscores the importance of collaborative dialogue between government bodies and worker representatives in shaping policies that are both fair and sustainable.

The Labour Movement also warmly welcomes enhancements to the WIS scheme, particularly the shift from annual to monthly disbursements for eligible platform workers. This change, alongside the eventual alignment of CPF contribution rates between platform workers and employees, ensures that platform workers will receive the same level of WIS benefits as traditional employees, including higher WIS amounts and a larger proportion of the supplement in cash.

These adjustments are particularly beneficial for low-wage workers, addressing both their immediate financial needs and long-term financial security. The transition to monthly WIS payments is a significant step for low-wage platform workers, who often face unpredictable income patterns due to the nature of gig work.

By receiving WIS on a monthly basis, these workers will have a more consistent and reliable source of income, helping them to better manage their day-to-day expenses and financial planning. These enhancements not only provide immediate financial relief but also contribute to the workers’ long-term financial well-being by bolstering their CPF savings, which are essential for retirement.

Mr Speaker, without CPF contributions, many may find themselves without sufficient savings to support themselves in their later years, particularly if they rely on platform work as their main source of income.

Opting into CPF not only helps build a safety net for the future but also provides immediate benefits such as access to healthcare, housing, and other essential needs. Platform workers who opt in this scheme will benefit from CPF contributions from platforms of up to 17% of their earnings. Given the importance of securing their financial future, it is essential that the government steps up its efforts to encourage platform workers in this age group (30 years old and above) to opt into CPF.

The Government must recognise the unique challenges and concerns that platform workers face and ensure that the CPF system is viewed as a vital component of their financial planning. This requires a multi-faceted approach that includes comprehensive educational campaigns and targeted outreach programs to help platform workers understand the long-term benefits of CPF contributions.

There is a genuine concern that these workers may be offered fewer job opportunities or lower earnings if they choose to participate fully in the CPF system. To mitigate these fears, the government should collaborate closely with platform operators to ensure that CPF participation does not lead to any form of disadvantage for workers. By implementing policies that protect platform workers from potential discrimination and by engaging in clear communication with both workers and operators, the government can create an environment, where opting into CPF is seen as the best choice.

This will not only help platform workers secure a better financial future but also contribute to a more stable and equitable labour market. The time to act is now, and the government must lead the way in making CPF participation a priority for all platform workers. Platform workers face constant pressure to work longer hours just to earn a living and this means that many platform workers find it challenging to invest time and resources in personal development and career growth.

This lack of progression not only affects their current financial stability but also hampers their ability to transition into more sustainable and fulfilling careers. The Government has a crucial role to play in addressing these challenges. There should be a more comprehensive strategy aimed at improving the career prospects of platform workers who wish to move beyond gig work.

This includes providing targeted upskilling programs and career transition support. By offering vocational training and educational opportunities tailored to the needs of platform workers, the government can help them acquire new skills and qualifications that are in demand in other sectors. Additionally, creating pathways for mentorship and career counselling can assist these workers in navigating the job market and identifying potential career opportunities.

For example, take Geylang Serai resident Mr. Naseer, who left his job as an operations manager November last year. Since then, he has struggled with unemployment and relied on ad hoc security gigs and occasional platform work to support his family.

Despite his efforts, the limited career progression in platform work made it difficult for him to build a stable future. However, with the support of the Greenlane initiative through Focus Area 4 under M3, Mr. Naseer secured a new job in April this year as a customer operations manager and remains optimistic about his future. This story highlights the importance of targeted support programs that can help workers like him make the transition from platform work to more stable and rewarding careers.

Investing in these programs not only benefits the individuals directly but also contributes to a more resilient and dynamic workforce overall.

Some platform workers are still unsure, especially in relation to their working conditions and terms imposed by platform operators. It is thus important that this Bill empowers platform workers to voice their concerns about fairer payment terms and incentive-based policies, their workplace health and safety, and fairer and more transparent penalty policies by platforms.

To our platform workers: our Associations, such as the National Taxi Association (NTA), National Private Hire Vehicles Associations (NPHVA) and National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA), have been working hard to improve your welfare behind the scenes. We now have the power to speak up and take action to protect you. We can negotiate for fairer treatment by platforms. When you have grievances with platforms, we can step in to support you. We cannot do this on our own, but we can do it together. Join us to make your voices count.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Labour Movement warmly welcomes the recognition of the challenges faced by the platform workers through the implementation of initiatives, such as the PCTS and WIS Support scheme. These measures are a significant step forward in acknowledging and addressing the issues of employee protection within the gig economy.

However, we must recognise that the more comprehensive efforts are needed to address the broader clarity face by platform workers. NTUC deeply cares for our platform workers, especially those who are lower-wage roles, and is committed to make a tangible difference in their lives. We believe that encouraging younger workers to actively opt in into the CPF system, enhancing job prospects through targeted upskilling and career development programmes, are crucial steps in this process. By doing so, we can help platform workers navigate the evolving job market and secure more stable and fulfilling careers.

Speaker, Sir, the Labour Movement, comprising unionists, association leaders and NTUC, have worked hard with the tripartite partners to bring this Bill to fruition. Without tripartism and symbolic relationship with the People's Action Party (PAP), this will not be possible. We have seen examples of other countries, where the unions, companies and government cannot agree on the protection needed for platform workers. In the end, the platform workers are the ones who suffer.

Today, we are proof that Singapore's model of tripartism works to achieve progressive pro-worker outcomes. Together, we can build a more equitable and resilient workforce, ensuring no one is left behind in the face of economic change. With NTUC and our associations, let us continue to listen to the voice of our platform workers to not only address the immediate challenges faced by the platform workers, but also pave the way from a brighter and more secure future for all.

NTUC will continue to champion their interests because every platform worker matters. Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Syed Harun.

1.45 pm

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe, without exception, all of us have been acquainted personally with the ease of a platform service. With the click of a button, we have our food delivered to our doorstep. Another click books our trip to or from home. And yet another click could ensure a timely parcel delivery or a quick retrieval of important documents.

The platform service is so efficient, straightforward and with an interface that is easy to use that often, we have come to rely on it as part of our daily lives.

The process is seamless and almost automatic. The service platform also allows us to get what we want, when we want it and how we want it. We also felt its special utility during the COVID-19 pandemic, to go "contactless" and that the delivery can be made without human contact or much further instruction. We specify the need, make the order and hey presto, it appears at our doorstep. We decide the destination and agree on the payment and the ride arrives and sends us to the destination with much fuss or kerfuffle.

So easy it is to use a platform service that sometimes, we forget the human in the loop, which is why I feel this Bill and the Platform Workers Act is overdue.

Platform workers often choose such gig jobs for flexibility of time but this need for flexibility also sometimes arises from a function of their harsh life circumstances and not necessarily by way of their preferred choice. It comes with challenges, including job insecurity, social isolation, irregular work hours and long days. Any injury or illness, a family emergency or unexpected vehicular breakdown can have a very direct impact on our platform workers and without the same sense of safety net and security salaried workers have and are protected for.

Because in platform work it is suggested that the more you work the more you earn, it is also tempting to work more and more such that the platform worker, at least, in the moment, may consider disregarding his own safety, health and welfare to make that delivery or service count and bring that additional dollar back home.

Add that to the contactless nature of how platform services work, that a delivery that can almost feel automatic and be bereft of any human interaction, the lack of collective bargaining power that platform workers have to put their welfare first in this line of work and an imbalance of power and control between platform companies and workers, it really puts us on the path of potentially dehumanising our platform workers if we leave things be as they are.

Mr Speaker, that is why the Platform Workers Bill and future Act is important, to protect the dignity of work and ensure a more fair and equitable support structure for our platform workers. To that end, I thank the MOM for looking into this very important area for platform workers alongside the unions, employers and other tripartite partners. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill gives due weight and attention towards platform workers. Many of them work hard and are often drenched in perspiration just to earn a living, sometimes disregarding the risks to their own health and safety.

When a platform service relies on an algorithm without any direct human involvement; when there is lesser human interaction, either between the service users, the platform workers or the platform operators; and when a service can be accepted or fulfilled in a contactless way or without human contact; we can easily forget about having compassion for the platform workers behind these services.

Sometimes, as consumers, we might pay more attention on getting our orders fulfilled through the platform’s application, without thinking about the circumstances, fatigue and hardship experienced by platform workers who are also challenged by traffic or weather conditions, as well as the time pressure to fulfil the service.

This Bill focuses specifically on the basic needs of platform workers. It zooms in on compensation for work injuries in line with WICA standards, enhances their CPF contribution and provides for the establishment of a representative body for platform workers.

This is key in enhancing the well-being of the platform workers, especially for the lower income group. It further reinforces the emphasis and responsibility of platform operators so that they show more concern towards the needs of this sector, in terms of the workers’ rights, employment, safety and health issues.

This Bill also specifically focuses on addressing concerns and dealing with their long-term insecurities as platform workers, so that it is equal to and aligned with workers in other industries.

I hope this the first of many concrete measures for our platform workers to raise awareness on the importance of platform workers in our economy, thus showing our appreciation for the hard work and determination they show every day to earn a living. It is a very important step to provide justice and equality to our platform workers.

(In English): Mr Speaker, before I end, I have two clarifications for the purposes of this Bill.

First, as also mentioned and similar to the points raised by hon Member prior, relating to the wide definition of the meaning of platform service, operator and the worker, I note that the First Schedule only specifies delivery and ride-hail services today. However, based on the meaning of platform service and platform operator, it does cover a broad definition that can be applied today to other types of services that may use similar platforms, but are not yet articulated in the First Schedule.

These could include household cleaning services, counselling, psychology and caregiving services, or even possibly overlap with certain professional services, such as home nursing and medical services, some already available through mobile applications. These platform services allow for ready provision of such services, have a platform operator already exercising management control of the particular service and also engage workers or professionals providing that service.

Is it envisioned, as technology further evolves, and more of such services can and will be delivered and made accessible through platform-based services, that the workers or professionals providing that specific service be considered as platform workers too under this Bill?

This is because such workers or professionals, like their delivery and ride-hailing services counterparts, may opt for a flexible work arrangement, not wish to be tied to a traditional brick-and-mortar employer or institution and may well fall under the remit of a platform worker as we define it in this Bill today.

Second, Mr Speaker, there would be some anxiety of workers, employers and users alike regarding the eventual implementation of Act.

For platform workers, there are concerns about how CPF contributions could impact, especially in the short to medium term, how much they will bring home each month in real terms to support their needs and their families.

For employers or platform operators, there are concerns about costs associated with the regulatory requirements from CPF contributions, WICA and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act.

The costs of business will likely increase and ensuring their platforms and systems transit to the new model of engagement with their workers will require some time and effort.

Lastly, for users, at the last mile, it is also unclear how it will impact delivery charges and whether the availability of such services will be affected in the short term. In this regard, I hope the Ministry can assure members, platform workers, employers and the public on the forward steps to be taken to ameliorate these concerns such that the transition to effecting this Bill, which I believe remains an important pillar for our platform workers, is done smoothly.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, I rise in support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

1.54 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Platform Worker Bills. First, I wish to declare my interest as the CEO of Strides Premier, a company that hires out limousines, private hire cars and taxis.

New technology has created new jobs and platform work is one of them. Today, over 70,000 platform workers in Singapore are working very hard every day to provide essential services and they deserve our support.

However, many platform operators in Singapore are still struggling financially. In 2023, last year, Grab reported a loss of $485 million and Delivery Hero, the parent company of Foodpanda, lost 2.3 billion euros. These figures highlight the uncertainties faced by platform workers, who have little control over their financial security. I am heartened to see that sections 16 to 18 of the Bill prioritise payments to platform workers over most other debts if a platform operator goes bankrupt. Without this protection, many workers would be left vulnerable and unable to recover what is rightfully theirs.

The most notable part of the Bill is Part 3, which paves the way for the formation of platform work associations. NTUC has already announced its intention to register a new platform work association with MOM, which will formally represent platform workers and dissolve the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, National Delivery Champions Association and the National Taxi Association, which has the longest history. These new associations will give platform workers a voice, a place where their concerns are heard and their needs are addressed. This is a significant milestone for a group that has often felt unheard and they can now be more appropriately represented by the new platform work associations.

I recall knowing one particular taxi driver who used to deliver for GrabFood. For some reasons, he was banned from the GrabFood platform. When he switched to becoming a taxi driver, he found himself banned from GrabCar and GrabTaxi platforms as well, even though these services were not directly linked to GrabFood platform. In this case, I had to appeal on his behalf. With the new platform work associations, platform workers like him will have someone to turn to. Platform workers will be better protected, no longer left to fend for themselves.

If the Platform Worker Bill is passed, platform workers will also be required to contribute to their CPF accounts. While this may mean a slight drop in their take-home pay, it ultimately secures their future with higher overall earnings from the CPF contributions to the platform operators. The CPF contributions will help in their housing and retirement needs. Thus, I applaud the Government's initiative to offset 100% of the increase in CPF contributions to the Ordinary and Special Accounts for low-income platform workers in 2025, making this transition smoother for those who need it most.

I also commend the move to keep CPF contribution rates consistent for platform workers below 65 from 2025 to 2027 as mandated in the Fourth Schedule. This is a positive departure from the current practice, where employers contribute less for those aged 55 to 65 compared to younger workers. Many of us, especially those in this House, agree that the 60s today are the new 50s. People are healthier, active and can contribute just as much as their younger counterparts. This is one of the reasons why MOM is raising the retirement age. I urge MOM to consider raising the employer's CPF contribution rates for all Singaporean employees aged 55 to 65 to match those below 55, aligning with the standards MOM imposed on platform operators.

There was once an argument that older workers between 55 and 65 were less productive, making them less attractive hires. However, with the tight labour market and no significant drop in the productivity for this age group, most employers no longer consider lower CPF contribution rates for the older workers as a critical factor in hiring decisions. I urge MOM to stand firm in protecting our older workers by raising their employer's CPF contribution rates, ensuring that they receive the same respect and support as their younger colleagues. Perhaps, the Government Service, being the largest employer in Singapore, can take the lead.

Let us return to our platform workers. Currently, they are paid based on their productivity. Whether it is a 30-year-old or a 65-year-old private hire driver, their job is to safely transport passengers from point A to point B. Similarly, whether food is delivered by a younger platform worker or an older one, the service remains the same. Age should not dictate the value of their work.

So, why should platform operators contribute less to older platform workers' CPF after 2027 when their productivity per job basis remains unchanged? I urge MOM to consider maintaining the platform operator's CPF contribution rate for platform workers below 65, even beyond 2027.

For those above 65, some may argue that they are more prone to workplace injuries, potentially leading to higher insurance costs. In such cases, a slightly lower CPF contribution rate might be justified, but we should always strive to balance fairness with practicality. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] If the Platform Workers Bill is passed, it will be a historic turning point, providing better protection for 70,000 platform workers. To safeguard platform workers' housing and retirement needs, those under 30 will need to contribute to their CPF while platform operators must also make employer's CPF contributions for platform workers. Although platform workers' take-home pay will decrease, however, with the addition of CPF contributions from the platform operators, they will have more CPF funds to buy a home and accumulate more savings for retirement.

Additionally, the Bill requires platform operators to purchase workplace injury compensation insurance for platform workers to better protect their interests if work-related injuries happen. However, the cost will ultimately be borne by someone. Will platform operators transfer this increased cost to consumers? In other words, will private hire car fares increase? Will food delivery fees be raised as a result? These are important issues we must pay attention to.

Especially in Singapore, most platform operators are still operating at a loss and are struggling to become profitable. Therefore, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what specific measures can be taken to curb platform operators from raising prices and passing on the increased cost to consumers?

Furthermore, platform operators may also reduce benefits for platform workers in order to lower their operating cost. If this happens, platform workers will be affected and will not be able to enjoy the protection they deserve. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, how can we ensure that platform workers do not lose their rightful benefits because of the free market forces?

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have four further clarifications.

Firstly, does the Bill empower the new platform work associations to negotiate with taxi companies that are not platform operators? If so, can the new platform work associations also negotiate with private hire car rental companies, which are prevalent and currently not regulated by the Land Transport Authority (LTA)?

Secondly, how many platform workers are non-Singaporeans? While private hire car and taxi driving is limited to Singaporeans, many delivery workers are permanent residents (PRs). Will the platform work associations represent these PRs?

Thirdly, section 39(4) states that at least two-thirds of the officers of every registered platform work association must be active platform service providers. Why two-thirds? Should this proportion not be higher, given that the associations are meant for platform workers? In addition, should officers of these platform work associations be required to work a minimum number of hours each month to better stay connected and relevant to the platform workers?

Fourthly, the Ninth Schedule amends the WICA 2019 to mandate platform operators' liability for work injury compensation. This is particularly beneficial to food delivery workers, who currently lack insurance coverage. However, for platform drivers, injuries from road accidents could be covered under a car insurance policy if the driver is not at fault. How would MOM advise platform drivers on whether to claim through their car insurance or the work injury compensation insurance for road accidents?

Despite my above clarifications and suggestions, I firmly support the Bill. This is about recognising the hard work and contributions of platform workers and giving them the protection and respect they deserve.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

2.05 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the Bill. Our platform workers perform important services utilised by many Singaporeans and residents. They should be accorded similar protections and benefits as employees in similar wage bands. The proposals in the Bill are greatly welcomed since they will help boost their retirement and housing adequacies and get the necessary compensation and representation.

I am heartened that many of the suggestions, feedback and appeals by my Parliamentary colleagues and me to improve the welfare of platform workers over the past few years have been incorporated into this Bill.

For example, in May 2021, I had requested the Ministry through a written Parliamentary Question to enact legislation to require companies hiring platform workers to recognise them as employees so that they can get the corresponding benefits and cover them for personal accident insurance.

Hence, I am delighted with the Ministry's decision to gradually align CPF contribution rates of platform workers with employees and require platform operators to purchase work injury compensation insurance for their platform workers. My residents in Fernvale will certainly be delighted to know that this law will be passed in Parliament. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I do understand that the five-year period for the CPF changes is intended to help the platform operators and the platform workers adjust over time, but I hope that the Ministry would consider shortening this timeframe from five to three years. Three years should be enough for all to adapt and allow platform workers to start accumulating more CPF savings earlier.

In addition, among platform workers born before 1995, a significant proportion would be beneficiaries of the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme. Due to their age, their income, compared to fellow workers, may not be as high. Hence, the Government can consider letting them join the CPF scheme so that they can benefit and be given the WIS as additional income.

On behalf of platform workers, I would like to thank the government. From 2029, all eligible platform workers will receive full employee WIS, up from the two-thirds of employees' WIS presently.

(In English): Next, I would like to raise an issue not covered in this Bill but which I hope can be included in a future amendment Bill.

For normal employees, work cannot exceed 44 hours a week and total overtime cannot exceed 72 hours in a month. However, there seems to be no such regulations for platform workers. There is a risk of platform workers being overworked and not being adequately paid for the additional hours or compensated for higher risks of working while fatigued.

Will the Ministry consider looking into this and implementing measures to ensure that platform workers are adequately protected?

At the Sitting in July 2021, I had asked MOM to consider mandatory breaks for drivers of private hire cars to mitigate health and safety concerns relating to driver fatigue from continuous driving. As drivers are paid for the number of trips they make, I am also deeply concerned about the dangers of overwork for such platform workers.

I hope the Ministry will consider looking into the use of technology to support the drivers to take a short break if the need arises, if they are tired and reduce the safety risks to themselves and others, including their families.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight an issue in our current driving framework. For taxi services, the taxi driver must be aged 30 and above and be a Singapore Citizen. However, for GrabHitch driver-partner services, PRs and those aged below 30 are allowed to provide driving services.

On the surface, GrabHitch is a social car-pooling service which allows all drivers to give a lift to riders heading the same way. In practice, this may be a loophole which enables foreigners and younger, less experienced drivers to provide driver services. How will the authorities check and ensure that the drivers are genuine social drivers? Rooting out unqualified persons would help protect the livelihoods of our genuine platform workers. Will MOM investigate this discrepancy?

Last but not least, there have been cases of foreigners coming to Singapore to do delivery work. How would the Ministry tighten the regulations and increase enforcement to ensure that these illegal workers do not encroach upon the livelihoods of our local platform workers, depress their wages and, if accidents were to happen to them, and others.

I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.

2.11 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill represents a crucial step in safeguarding the physical and financial well-being of our platform workers, especially our dedicated delivery riders, who will be the focus of my speech.

Our delivery riders are not just workers. They are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, and even grandparents. In my conversations with them, I have learned about their tireless efforts and the sacrifices they make. Many endure long hours on the road, at times, 12, 15, or even 18 hours a day, driven by a profound commitment to provide for their families and secure a better future for their children. One rider proudly shared with me that his two children are students in schools running the Integrated Programme, with one in junior college and the other in secondary school, both working hard to succeed.

These children are not only their parents' motivating force and hope, but they are also the next generation of Singapore. It is thus our collective responsibility to safeguard the wellbeing of these hardworking individuals who are devoted to their families and play a pivotal role in building our nation.

One of the most pressing concerns we must address is the safety of our delivery riders. The extended hours they work are not just gruelling, they pose significant risks on the road. Fatigue from long hours is a serious safety hazard that increases the likelihood of accidents. To mitigate this, it is essential for the Government and platform operators to work together to enhance safety guidelines.

In many industries, shift workers are provided with mandatory breaks, shift limits and other safety protocols. Implementing similar safeguards for delivery riders could significantly reduce the dangers they face on the road and ensure their safety as they carry out their work.

Balancing safety with economic needs is also critical. I understand that some riders may be concerned about limits on their working hours due to the urgency of providing for their families and the uncertainty of securing jobs. Platform work does not always guarantee a consistent income as earnings depend on the availability of jobs in specific locations and time slots. Those who do not earn enough during their shift may feel compelled to extend their working hours to make up the gaps in income. However, those extra hours could just lead to a devastating loss of a breadwinner due to a preventable accident.

To address both safety and economic stability, I am pleased that the Bill includes legally binding duties for platform operators, specifically an insertion into the WSH Act 2006, section 12A. This requires platform operators to take necessary measures to ensure the safety and health of their workers, including measures to prevent exposing them to hazards arising from the platform operator's arrangements and processes. The number of consecutive hours riders are allowed to work and how incentives are given are part of these arrangements.

It is important that the Government and the industry continue to work closely to clarify how these provisions will be implemented, enforce them rigorously and review them regularly to safeguard our workers on the road.

Beyond safety, the Bill also ensures financial security for our workers through mandatory savings via CPF. This is a very welcome development. From the delivery workers I have spoken with, there is genuine appreciation for this provision. It offers a structured approach to savings, provide financial security for those with young families and those who may not have the means or knowledge to save adequately on their own.

Many riders who are also breadwinners often prioritise and are very willing to spend on their family's present needs, leaving little for their own retirement. This initiative is a step towards securing their future and gifting them peace of mind in their later years. I sincerely hope more workers above 30 will choose to opt into the programme, for their long-term financial well-being.

The Platform Workers Bill stands out not only for its comprehensive safety and financial provisions but also for the collaborative process behind its creation. While other countries have taken steps to address platform worker rights, Singapore's Platform Workers Bill excels in its comprehensive approach to challenges such as retirement adequacy, work safety and insurance, and collective representation.

This achievement is rooted in Singapore's distinctive approach to tripartism, which brings together the voices of workers, employers and the Government to shape policies. Thanks to the tireless efforts of our tripartite partners: MOM, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), we are able to introduce a Bill that safeguards platform workers in a balanced and efficient manner.

In contrast, we can observe the challenges of a different approach in California. In 2020, the introduction of Assembly Bill 5, also known as AB5, which aimed to reclassify platform workers as employees, was swiftly challenged by platform companies through Proposition 22, a measure that exempted platform operators from AB5's requirements. This led to a prolonged legal battle that lasted years and concluded in July 2024 with Proposition 22 being held in favour of platform operators.

The process not only incurred significant legal costs for both employers and unions, but also delayed the much-needed protections for workers. Singapore's collaborative tripartite model, on the other hand, enables a smoother roll-out of protections, avoiding prolonged conflicts and ensuring that all stakeholders are engaged from the start.

In conclusion, the Platform Workers Bill reflects Singapore's deep commitment to fairness, safety, and the well-being of our platform workers. It also stands as a testament to our unique tripartite approach, where Government, employers, and unions work in concert to create balanced and effective policies.

This Bill not only protects the livelihoods of our workers but also secures their future, offering them the dignity and peace of mind they deserve. Mr Speaker, I strongly support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

2.19 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Sir, let me start with a quick story. A couple of years ago, I had a meeting at a platform operator’s headquarters office in Singapore. And the person I was meeting suggested to let us meet at the staff cafeteria. So, I went to the staff cafeteria, and I remembered being blown away. It was a very nice cafeteria, offering a full range of wholesome meals to staff; there was also an espresso machine and freshly brewed coffee and even beer, for after office hours, I presume. All the creature comforts were there. And it was lunch time when I visited, so the whole cafeteria was lively, teeming with employees, lots of laughter and conversations and energy, and everyone was just enjoying themselves and having a good time in this staff cafeteria.

I recall looking at this and thinking about the delivery riders who were waiting for orders at the fast-food outlet at the CC in my constituency. And I recalled thinking, both groups of workers are working for the same platform company, contributing to the platform company, so why is the difference in perks, benefits and experience so large? And I recall thinking that this does not feel fair, it does not feel right, and we got to change this somehow.

Therefore, I am so glad that the Platform Workers Bill is finally before this House. If passed, it will be a great leap forward for the rights and protection of platform workers in Singapore. Platform workers deserve rights and protection under our laws. And I am glad that there is broad political consensus on this fundamental point – indeed, both the Workers' Party (WP) and Progress Singapore Party (PSP) support the Bill and agree with the Government on this fundamental point.

The Platform Workers Bill has been described as a "landmark" Bill. I agree. But the Bill is landmark not only for what it will achieve – for the rights and protection of platform workers, if passed. It is also landmark for how we are able to achieve it in the first place, make the Bill possible in the first place, because of who we are, and how we work. It is landmark for how we are able to achieve the Bill in the first place because of who we are and how we work.

And tripartite is who we are. And tripartism is how we work. This landmark Bill is only possible because of our unique tripartism in Singapore.

There are so many innovative and groundbreaking features in this wide-ranging piece of legislation. Take for example, the Work Injury Compensation framework for platform workers. It is a major innovation.

Senior Minister of State Koh circulated this nifty A3-sized brochure in his opening speech yesterday to summarise the framework, but let us think about it. The principles and the basic mechanism of Work Injury Compensation for platform workers that this brochure so neatly summarises are thoughtful, measured, balanced, very carefully crafted. It must have taken months and months of hard work, by tripartite partners, by a competent Government, working closely with an NTUC who is all about creating better lives for workers, with platform workers themselves, and with platform operators, insurers and other business stakeholders.

Or take for example, the Fixed Expense Deduction Amount that this Bill provides for. It is another major innovation. Those elegant mathematical factors that crystallise the costs on a platform worker to perform platform work, so as to provide a simple and elegant way for everyone to determine net earnings from platform work – so, for example, 20% of earnings for a walker, 35% for a delivery rider on personal mobility device and 60% for a private hire vehicle driver in a car. These Fixed Expense Deduction Amount factors and the whole concept of Fixed Expense Deduction Amount itself, they are another major innovation.

But they did not drop from the sky. Rather, they are borne of what must, again, have been months and months of hard work, of respectful, collaborative consultations between Government, NTUC, platform workers, and platform operators. I can imagine putting five platform workers, operator representatives, union leaders and Government representatives in the same room and asking them to try to agree on this Fixed Expense Deduction Amount values. And between the five of them, there would probably be six different views, and ask them to come back the next day, there may yet be another three or four different views.

So, these must have been tough conversations. But with our unique model of tripartism, we got it done. And so, our unique model of tripartism in Singapore made this landmark Bill possible. And I say, we should celebrate and applaud this achievement by our unique tripartism in Singapore.

And yes, there will be challenges and key issues to implementing the Bill, as has been discussed extensively in this debate. There will certainly be challenges, but I am confident that if we continue to rely on our unique tripartism and work through our unique tripartism, we can – and we will – overcome all these challenges.

Indeed, I would like to put to this House that beyond the challenges, and as much as arriving at this Bill is, in itself, a great leap forward for platform workers' rights and protection in Singapore, the centre of gravity of our efforts to advance and secure the rights and protection of platform workers, in their best interests will lie in the road ahead, and no less through the way in which we operationalise and realise the collective bargaining that this Bill will empower platform workers to engage in.

So, the real work lies ahead.

This Bill deliberately and wisely avoids making any prescription on the scope of this collective bargaining. Platform workers, through platform work associations, and platform operators will have full flexibility to determine the scope of this collective bargaining. It is my hope that pay, specifically fair pay, will be a key issue that our tripartite partners will pick up and address in the collective bargaining going forward.

And I have two suggestions.

First, I hope that we can forge a basic consensus, and crystallise and enshrine a basic principle, on what should constitute Fair Pay for platform work. And I like to suggest this principle: that a platform worker should be, on average, no worse off than a local employee receiving protection and assurance on wage floors under the Local Qualifying Scheme (LQS) Wage Schedule regime.

This means:

(a) that a "full-time" platform worker, working up to 44 hours per week, should earn, on average, at least $1,600 a month net of all costs, on par with current LQS;

(b) a "part-time" platform worker, working up to 35 hours per week, should earn, on average, at least $10.50 per hour, again net of costs; and

(c) a "super garang" platform worker, pulling beyond 44 hours per week, and to hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh's point, should be remunerated for what is essentially "overtime", at a level that is, on average, at least on par with overtime pay as prescribed by the LQS Wage Schedule. So, for example, those platform workers who work 78 hours per week, or 11 hours per day for seven days of the week, should earn, on average, taking reference from the LQS Wage Schedule at least $2,000 net of all costs.

And if we apply the Fixed Expense Deduction Amount framework and gross up these net earnings for costs, this would translate to just over $16 an hour in gross takings – in other words, what a platform will pay the worker, for a delivery rider on a PMD doing food delivery as a side hustle, for example, or $5,000 a month in gross takings for a private hire vehicle driver who pulls 11 hours per day every day on the road. Compared to the comments that have been offered by a major operator recently that its base fare is, I quote, "benchmarked to the F&B sector" and "something like $1,400", I think we are quite some way off the mark today.

The key is also to make these earnings more stable, more consistent week to week, month on month, around the agreed average, so as to reduce the precarity of pay for platform work. It is only fair.

It will not be easy to achieve and we will not be able to wait for another Institute of Policy Studies survey or the annual survey by MOM to tell us how we are doing on fair pay for our platform workers. To achieve this, we really need a monitoring and calibration logic cycle that is as dynamic as the algorithms that are assigning gigs, churning out jobs, putting out fares and incentives.

Indeed, we will probably need to bake the whole logic of fair pay into the operating algorithms of platform operators for this to really work. The task will be fraught with complexities: there are the vagaries of supply and demand in the gig economy; there are variances in the base fare and incentive structures across time and across operators; there are various types of platform work to begin with and there are other complexities to work through.

But a basic principle that we can all agree on, around what constitutes fair pay for platform work, will become a north star that can guide and anchor everyone, all stakeholders, as we work through these complexities. So, we should do it, because it is right for our platform workers. And we can do it, I believe, because we have our unique model of tripartism in Singapore.

My second suggestion is this. Let us not stop at pay but let us also champion and advance pay progression for platform work. It is often said that platform work provides "almost zero" prospects of career advancement and pay progression. I say, let us harness the collective bargaining structure for platform work that this Bill will enable to break these boundaries, to break that whole mental model. And let us contemplate and work towards, through collective bargaining, a future where we can provide some skills ladder, job ladder and pay ladder for various types of platform work. It will be challenging and there is no precedent around the world.

But if there is anywhere in the world that can take a shot at this and do this, it is in Singapore, with our unique model of tripartism. And if we can get it done, it will be truly innovative and groundbreaking for platform workers and the platform work economy in Singapore. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Platform Workers Bill aims to provide platform workers with appropriate rights and protections under our laws. Platform workers deserve to have rights and protections. However, this Platform Workers Bill did not come about by chance, but rather as a result of our unique Tripartite model, which has made this Platform Workers Bill possible.

Looking to the future, we must also rely on our unique Tripartite model to continue to advocate for the rights and protections of platform workers and allow the legal effects of this Bill be maximised in practice. By doing this, the income, welfare and lives of platform workers will improve continuously.

(In English): Sir, to conclude, ultimately, this Bill is not only pro-worker but also, in my mind, pro-business and pro-consumer. It is about the ethos of business that we want in Singapore – businesses that do well by doing good and doing right. It is also about the Singaporean consumer supporting fair and sustainable trade practices. It is about an ever fairer economy and an ever fairer and more just society in Singapore. And underpinning all these, it is about strengthening our unique model of tripartism in Singapore and strengthening our social compact.

I am hopeful that all stakeholders – platform workers, platform operators and consumers – will embrace the Platform Workers Bill in this spirit and forge ahead in the tough road of implementation ahead of us with that same spirit, to continue advancing and securing the rights and protection of platform workers in Singapore in the months and years ahead.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.

2.35 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking all Members for their support for the Platform Workers Bill. Both the WP and the PSP have spoken in support of this Bill to give platform workers better protection. I thank them for their support as well.

In my opening speech yesterday, I went into some length to explain the construct of the Bill and some of the implementation details for CPF contribution, work injury compensation and representation. Members will get a sense of how complex it is to implement the recommendations put forth by the Advisory Committee for Platform Workers – and Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech just before mine, gave a very good glimpse into the complexities of the negotiations and, sometimes, all the to-ing the fro-ing, all the arguments that can take place. But eventually, we landed on a good set of recommendations.

Before I address the specific questions raised by Members, I thought it is useful for me to help Members of this House understand how we are able to put forth this landmark legislation to help a group of workers who are precarious, when many other countries are still grappling to solve their problems.

The platform sector is a very heterogeneous one that is rapidly evolving and, sometimes, new ones will come onto the scene as well. A key characteristic is the very dynamic way in which supply and demand of jobs and labour are very quickly matched, and dynamic pricing also serves to incentivise service users and workers to facilitate a match. Platform operators, workers and users interact with one another dynamically as demand/supply and prices respond and change rapidly in real time. This allows flexibility and is a feature platform workers desire but it also imposes management control on these workers. Multi-homing on various platforms further adds to the complexity.

For these reasons, many countries are grappling with the difficulties of putting a legislative frame around a constantly evolving entity. How did we manage to put forth this Platform Workers Bill today, that both the governing and opposition Members have given their unanimous support to, in such a short time, over a mere two to three years since we started this stream of work? The International Labour Organization (ILO) is also interested to understand how we did it. I will share three key ingredients that made this possible.

First, and most important, tripartism. Singapore is able to come up with this innovative and landmark piece of legislation because of the close working relationship and trust amongst the tripartite partners. It is a relationship that is forged through the crucible of time, with which we had weathered various crises together over the decades. It allows us to adopt a collaborative approach to seek win-win solutions and enables us to nimby adapt and adjust to the fast-evolving nature of the platform landscape.

This is something that is unique and special here in Singapore that is not necessarily the case in many other countries. The Director-General of ILO Mr Gilbert Houngbo has shared his admiration for the unique tripartism we have here in Singapore when I met him in Geneva and he is keen to learn more about how our tripartism actually works.

But what is so unique about our tripartism? We must understand that there is a natural tension between the interests of businesses and workers which stems from the competing goals of maximising profits on the one side, and securing fair treatment and compensation on the other. It is quite easy for a government to be pro-worker. It is also quite easy for a government to be pro-business. But it is very difficult for a government to be both pro-worker and pro-business at the same time.

Close relationships between unions and political parties are perfectly normal in all functioning democracies. This usually takes the form of the union either forming a party on its own or funding and supporting one party.

A cornerstone of our strong tripartite relationship is the symbiotic relationship between PAP and NTUC as well as our respect for the employers. The symbiotic relationship of PAP and NTUC has allowed us, as the ruling party, to run a government that is both pro-worker and pro-business at the same time.

Tripartism undergirds the industrial harmony and economic success of Singapore. Other countries try to emulate us, but they cannot because, unlike us, they do not have the symbiotic relationship between unions and the governing party, and so they do not have the tripartism that we have.

What is dangerously clear to us is that the WP will seek to dismantle this. When the WP attacks the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC and Mr Gerald Giam said, and I quote, "I believe that unions must be independent and non-partisan", he is, in fact, saying that the WP will not align itself with any union or form any relationship with any union.

The tripartism that we have in Singapore today, which many other countries want to emulate, only exists because of the close relationship and the mutual respect between the PAP and NTUC. You dismantle this and everything falls apart. So, all workers and employers should sit up and take notice because the WP leadership wants to destroy tripartism as it stands here today. The WP will kill tripartism, and in its place will be a more adversarial form of relationship and system that we see happening elsewhere.

But here is the irony. David Marshall was the founding Chairman of the WP. When David Marshall mooted the idea of forming a "political party whose membership is exclusively confined to members of trade unions" and started the WP in 1957, the founding executive committee members of the party comprised 20 trade unionists and 10 non-unionists.

Mr Gerald Giam and the WP are completely ignorant about how the WP started as a party of unionists. And some of this information was obtained from their own website. Clearly, the WP is no longer a pro-worker party. Unions have long been a part of WP's history. Somehow, along the way, they lost the trust in their relationship with the unions. So, now, Mr Gerald Giam says, like a bit of a toxic ex-boyfriend, because I cannot have a relationship with unions, no one else should have as well; there should be no love between any other political party and the unions.

Fortunately, for Singapore, tripartism under the PAP Government is strong and, to NTUC and our unions, I say "Solidarity Forever". [Applause.]

And the Advisory Committee for Platform Workers (PWAC), which comprises tripartite representatives, was able to negotiate and come up with a balanced set of recommendations which we are now legislating through this Bill. So, I thank the members of PWAC for their efforts that made this possible.

The second ingredient is a strong and dedicated team of civil servants at MOM. Beyond the recommendations of PWAC, Members can appreciate the very complex implementation mechanisms and operational processes that insurers, platform operators, CPF Board and MOM will need to put in place to ensure seamless and smooth execution for CPF collection, an effective work injury compensation claims regime and a workable representation framework.

My MOM colleagues have worked closely with the platform operators, our tripartite partners NTUC and SNEF as well as various agencies, taking their feedback and working through various policy and operational constructs to address the complex nature of work in this sector.

Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech just now characterised some of these challenges in coming up with very detailed implementation details. Sometimes, I look at my officers and I think, the kind of mental gymnastics that they do to come up with all these implementation details, deserves an Olympic medal.

I want to put on record my thanks to all of them for their dedication and commitment to strengthening the support and protections for our platform workers.

The third are Singaporeans at large. Various surveys have shown that Singaporeans are prepared to pay a little bit more to give these platform workers better protection. The percentages may vary across different surveys taken at different time points, but that is not the main thing. The key thing is this: this Bill we are enacting today is a declaration of our social compact. Recognising that "every worker matters" means that platform workers also deserve to be treated fairly and equitably.

I thank Singaporeans for standing in solidarity with these workers who have done so much for us, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sir, this is a very challenging legislation and the policy solutions may not be perfect. We will have to make trade-offs and accept that not all the issues and gaps in the platform space can be fully addressed through this legislation alone. But the status quo of leaving this group of workers – these platform workers, who are vulnerable – would not be the right thing to do. It would have been far easier to just do nothing or perhaps take the easier approaches adopted elsewhere that unfortunately do not address the unique features of the platform workspace.

This Government is taking the approach of enacting legislation to define platform workers as a distinct category of workers because we believe it is necessary and the right thing to do for this group of precarious workers. In legislating, we seek to preserve the key characteristics of the platform economy to ensure it can still function effectively, even as we seek to reduce the precarity of platform workers. All stakeholders, including consumers, will need to play a part.

I would like to make an observation on the considerations raised by Members. Some Members have expressed concerns that the introduction of the Bill will raise prices. On the other hand, there have also been calls to do more for platform workers to provide even more protections for them. For example, to extend work injury compensation coverage to platform workers travelling to and from home or waiting for jobs; but this will further drive up the costs of protections that society will have to bear.

I raise this observation to make the point that where we have landed at this Bill today is a careful balance of the interests of the various stakeholders involved to provide platform workers with the protection they need while making sure that the platform economy continues to be sustainable.

With this principle in mind, I will now address the queries and concerns raised by broad themes. Some of the questions raised by Members have already been addressed in my speech yesterday, so I will not cover them here again. I will start by addressing questions related to the first set of amendments on the definition of terms and scope of entities and workers covered under the Bill.

Many Members have suggested expanding the scope of the Bill to cover other platform services beyond that of the ride-hail and delivery services. As I have earlier explained, the Bill will account for the vast majority of platform workers doing work that is precarious. That said, I would like to assure Members we will certainly review the scope of the Act in the future, as the platform landscape continues to evolve.

Mr Patrick Tay had a query on the meaning of "agreement" in clause 5(1)(a) of the Bill. Clause 5(1) sets out the conditions that must be met for the purposes of determining if an individual is a platform worker. The "agreement" in clause 5(1) will become a "platform work agreement" only when an individual satisfies all conditions to be a platform worker.

Mr Tay also sought clarification on the meaning of "special expenses" in the definition of "earnings" in the Bill. "Special expenses" include payments meant to reimburse the expenses of platform workers when providing the platform service. An example would be the reimbursement of costs that platform workers may incur for cleaning services if a customer makes a mess in the vehicle. Such expenses will not attract CPF contributions as they are not meant to add to the platform worker's earnings.

Mr Neil Parekh had a query on how existing contracts will be affected and how conflicts between the Bill and platform work agreements will be resolved. When the Bill comes into force, obligations on the platform operator or platform worker under the Act will supersede existing contractual provisions that are less favourable. This means that even if existing agreements are not revised or the platform operator does not enter into any new agreement with the platform worker, the Act will supersede any existing platform work agreement. Therefore, it is in the interest of platform operators to go through existing agreements or enter into new agreements with their platform workers to reflect the new obligations under the Act.

Let me move on to clarifications regarding the second set of amendments to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers through the CPF system.

Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have expressed concerns about the impact of increased CPF contributions on platform workers' take-home pay. Overall, platform workers will experience an increase in their total earnings after factoring in CPF contributions from the platform operators. Platform workers can use their Ordinary Account contributions in lieu of cash to pay for their housing loans. Furthermore, the Government is providing the PCTS. As mentioned in my speech yesterday, we have enhanced the PCTS to offset 100% and 75% of the year-on-year increase in the first and second year respectively.

Mr Pritam Singh's remark that the 100% PCTS offset applies to the lowest increase is not true as the increase in each year is up to 2.5% points. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked whether the PCTS can be extended to all platform workers who earn more than $2,500, for up to the first $2,500 of their earnings. The PCTS is targeted at lower-income platform workers to provide them with monthly support in the transition period when they see a decrease in their take-home pay as they would have less disposable income for their daily expenses. As announced earlier, the qualifying income cap has been increased to $3,000 a month. The median income of a platform worker ranges from $1,500 to $2,500 a month, so more than half of platform workers should meet the income criteria for the PCTS. These enhancements to the PCTS have increased the estimated total budget for the PCTS by close to 60%.

Mr Sharael Taha asked if part-time platform workers would be covered by the CPF provisions and be eligible for the PCTS and Workfare Income Supplement. The CPF provisions do apply to part-time platform workers, and neither PCTS nor Workfare eligibility is dependent on whether the worker is working part-time or full-time as a platform worker. This is in line with the flexible nature of platform work because the worker can choose the number of hours he or she wants to work.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we would consider reducing the phase-in of CPF contribution rates from five years to three years and Mr Louis Chua asked to introduce the full increase for platform operators immediately. Mr Gan, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested making the CPF scheme compulsory for older cohorts of platform workers or making older cohorts opt out of CPF contributions rather than opt in.

Underlying their suggestions is the sentiment that CPF contributions are very important for all platform workers. I share the same sentiment. But there are pertinent considerations behind the proposed construct that we have put forth.

The five-year phase-in period was a careful decision we made, considering the take-home pay impact on platform workers, the cost impact on platform operators and the possible costs that could be passed on to consumers. These are also concerns raised by various Members in their speeches. A five-year phase-in period will allow any impact to the various stakeholders to be moderated and allows time for the market to adjust to a new equilibrium.

For platform workers who wish to achieve higher CPF contributions earlier than 2029, they can make voluntary CPF contributions to all three accounts in their CPF between 2025 and 2028, and benefit from tax relief for these additional voluntary contributions.

The decision to allow older platform workers to choose whether to participate in the increased CPF contributions by opting in recognises that they may already have existing plans to finance their housing and retirement needs. Some may have already finished paying their home loans. Older platform workers in many of our engagement sessions expressed preference for the choice to opt in.

We respect these preferences that older platform workers have expressed to us. This is why we have allowed older cohorts to opt in, rather than including all by default and requiring them to opt out.

The opt-in arrangement allows platform workers to carefully consider their needs and plans before consciously choosing to increase their CPF contributions. If it is on an opt-out basis, there may be some who might only realise later that their CPF contributions increased and will want to withdraw. This would be administratively onerous on both the platform workers and platform operators.

Nonetheless, I do encourage older platform workers to make a conscious decision and take the active step to choose increased CPF contributions from the start, especially if they are servicing a housing loan or want to build up their savings for retirement.

Furthermore, a study by the Institute of Policy Studies found that younger platform workers expressed stronger preference for additional CPF contributions to help meet their housing needs as they were more likely to have housing obligations or plans to buy a house. Younger cohorts would also benefit more from the compounding of interest, given the longer runway for accumulation.

Members would appreciate that platform work is a very heterogeneous space. Different individuals participate in platform work for various reasons and to various extents. Some do it full-time as their main source of income, others do it part-time to supplement their other sources of income. Yet others do it ad hoc to just get some pocket money.

Platform workers have given feedback that they prefer a choice to decide if they want to contribute CPF, based on their different needs. Hence, we set the mandatory contribution for CPF to begin for those who are born on or after 1995. It respects the autonomy of the platform workers while ensuring that on a cohort basis over time, a majority of platform workers will have mandatory CPF contributions.

Ms Mariam Jaafar and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about how we plan to encourage platform workers to opt in or to help strengthen their financial literacy. The Government is working with partners, including NTUC and Institute for Financial Literacy (IFL) to ensure that platform workers are aware of the benefits of opting in to the increased CPF contributions. IFL will also offer holistic financial literacy guidance for platform workers.

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions. Let me reassure Members that we have been actively engaging the potential platform operators and they are supportive of making CPF contributions for their platform workers.

There was a suggestion to police or audit the platform operators' algorithm to ensure that it does not result in discrimination against platform workers who opt in for CPF. There are two challenges with this suggestion.

First, an algorithm is quite dynamic, responding to real-time changes in demand and supply for platform services. Any audit will be reactive and of limited utility. The moment you get the algorithm and audit it, something has changed in the next one hour and you will always be chasing the tail. Second, algorithms are proprietary knowledge. If we force platform operators to reveal such knowledge, this may drive them away and bring about a loss of platform worker jobs, which is not our desired outcome for these workers.

So, how will we address this issue? Platform work associations will have the legal mandate to represent the interest of the platform workers. If there are instances of possible discriminatory practices by any platform operator, the platform work association can take this up with the relevant operators and, where necessary, inform MOM. This provides a channel for the platform workers, through the platform work associations, to communicate and negotiate with the platform operators. Similar to the trade union space, this can be done in a way that seeks to achieve win-win outcomes and preserves the harmonious relationship between the platform workers and platform operators in this fast evolving industry.

In addition, because of the cohort-based approach, an increasing proportion of platform workers will be covered by mandatory CPF contributions over time, as the years go by. Over time, all the younger workers who take on platform work will have mandatory CPF contributions. Therefore, it is in the interest of platform operators to treat all platform workers fairly, regardless of whether they opt-in or are in the mandatory cohort.

Finally, the platform work sector is a competitive and fluid one, where consumers and platform worker can easily switch platforms depending on what they feel works best for them. It is therefore also in the interest of platform operators to treat all workers fairly from the perspective of worker retention.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the CPF contribution rates for platform workers aged above 55. As mentioned, the contribution rates set out in the schedule of the Bill are subject to the CPF contribution rate increases for employees in the same age group. Mr Ang will be pleased to know that we remain committed to implementing the 2019 recommendation by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers to align the CPF contribution rates for employees aged above 55 to 60 to those of employees aged 55 and below.

Mr Sharael Taha asked how expenses will be factored in for platform workers who use multiple modes of transport. The Fixed Expense Deduction Amount to be applied will be based on the mode of transport for the specific job in question. As you heard from Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech earlier, 20% if you are walking, 35% if you are riding a motorbike, 60% if you are driving.

Next, I will cover the clarifications regarding the third set of amendments to ensure financial protection of platform workers if they get injured at work and to strengthen stakeholders’ responsibilities to prevent injuries.

Mr Pritam Singh asked about the cost impact of work injury compensation insurance premiums on platform operators. Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling sought clarifications on the work injury compensation process for cases where multiple platform operators are involved. There was also a suggestion for a centralised insurance system to minimise disputes over which platform operator is liable for the claim.

While I agree with the need for fair and expeditious compensation, a monopolistic approach is not the best way to provide for platform workers’ insurance needs. In comparison, allowing platform operators to purchase work injury compensation insurance in an open and competitive market facilitates sustainable premiums. The open market allows platform operators to negotiate insurance rates with insurers of their choice and a competitive market facilitates sustainable premiums based on claims history. As with employers, platform operators’ insurance premiums will account for the risks in the sectors they operate in, which Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about. This will be based on indicators such as payroll size and number of workers. The new work injury compensation insurance market will be led by insurers from the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network as first-movers. We welcome other players to join the market as well.

Nevertheless, we agree with Members that it is important for platform workers to receive compensation in a timely manner, so they can recuperate from a work injury with peace of mind. An injured platform worker only needs to inform the platform operator he is working for of the incident and his injury details. The platform operator will file a work injury report to MOM and the platform operator’s insurer will be notified to process the work injury compensation claim. The platform worker will be notified of the work injury compensation claim case reference number and the insurer processing the claim.

As with the employee regime, insurers and platform operators will be required to follow operational timelines for the processing of claims expeditiously, and the same dispute resolution mechanisms apply. If multiple platform operators are liable, MOM will appoint the insurer of one of those platform operators to process the claim for timely payouts to the platform worker.

Ms Jean See asked about plans to augment the Bill to protect platform workers against the unintended consequences of safety regulations. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested regulating the working hours of platform workers. Mr Melvin Yong suggested for platform workers to have training for road safety and safe load management and to codify incentive structures.

From our engagements, platform workers value the flexibility to determine how long and when to work, which helps them accommodate personal commitments. The proposed Bill should not alter the flexible nature of platform work that is a key feature of platform work that both the workers and the platform operators desire.

Nonetheless, we agree this should not be at the cost to personal safety and health of platform workers. Hence, amendments to the WSH Act will empower platform workers to prioritise safety and prevent platform operators from penalising them for doing so. Platform operators need to review and address the safety and health risks arising from platform work, as with companies in other industries.

This will be put into practice through the Approved Code of Practice for Platform Services, which MOM and the WSH Council are consulting the public on. Developed with tripartite partners, platform operators and platform workers, the Approved Code of Practice will codify how platform operators and platform workers can collectively address safety concerns in platform work, including fatigue management and support platform workers’ access to safety training. It includes what Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested – that platform operators should not penalise platform workers who were unable to complete the job for valid reasons.

With these in place, we should allow the industry to take ownership and work on its safety practices. Intervening to micromanage the incentive structures and algorithms of platform operators or the working hours of platform workers risks jeopardising the flexibility and sustainability of platform work.

Next, I will address questions on the fourth set of amendments on the legal framework for representation of platform workers. I will also speak on how some of the suggestions raised by members are more suited to be taken up by platform work associations in negotiations with platform operators.

Mr Patrick Tay asked how MOM would determine when platform workers have undertaken industrial action. Industrial action refers to an act that limits or restricts the performance of tasks by platform workers, which is carried out with the intention to further a work dispute with a platform operator.

For instance, if a group of platform workers intentionally turn off their apps with the intent to compel a platform operator to agree to their terms of negotiation, we will consider them to be undertaking industrial action. In contrast, a platform worker will not be regarded as undertaking industrial action if he shares information on better terms offered by a competing platform operator and suggests that other platform workers switch operator to enjoy the better terms. Because in the second scenario, there is no intent by the platform workers to further a work dispute with a platform operator.

Mr Tay also suggested allowing platform work associations to use digital voting for secret ballots since platform workers have no fixed workplaces. We agree that platform workers may not have fixed workplaces or fixed schedules and hence a different way of conducting ballots may be needed. Hence, we accepted the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation of Platform Workers. MOM will conduct electronic voting for secret ballots for recognition. To ensure the security and integrity of the voting process, we will implement strong safeguards including secure authentication systems.

Mr Ang Wei Neng sought clarification on whether platform work associations can negotiate with private hire car rental companies and taxi companies and represent permanent residents, or PRs. The new legal framework allows platform work associations to represent platform workers and such platform workers can include PRs. Remember we said there is a two-pronged assessment of who is a platform operator – so, private hire car companies and taxi companies that do not fulfil the definition of platform operators and are therefore not platform operators, are not covered under the framework. But associations or societies can continue to engage such companies, which is already the case today.

Mr Ang also queried on the requirement that at least two-thirds of the officers in a platform work association must be active platform workers, and whether officers should be required to work a minimum number of hours each month to better stay connected and relevant to the platform workers. In general, the representation framework for platform work sector is modelled after that of the trade unions, which has worked well and contributed to Singapore’s industrial harmony over the years. The two-thirds requirement is, for example, the same as that in the trade union space. On the point of having a fixed work hour eligibility criterion for officers, we have not set this requirement as we recognise that platform workers may not have a regular schedule every month.

Ms Jean See asked for the introduction of tripartite set-ups between sectoral platform work associations and platform operators. Mr Pritam Singh, Ms See and Mr Louis Ng also suggested to require platform operators to make information on its algorithm and earnings transparent to platform workers, or to validate their algorithms against AI Verify for fairness and safety. Ms See further suggested requiring platform operators to provide some form of income protection for platform workers if there is an outage in their app platform. Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Leong Mun Wai had various suggestions on introducing minimum earnings for platform workers as well.

We agree that the law should set basic standards on platform work in terms of transparency. For example, we will require platform operators to keep records of and provide their workers with earning slips. These earning slips must also state that they are for platform workers, so that platform workers know that they are platform workers and are aware of their rights. These requirements are specified in clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill respectively.

Related to this, Mr Patrick Tay sought clarification on the different classes of platform workers mentioned in clause 13(4). To clarify, clause 13(4) will provide the Government with the flexibility to set different record retention periods for different groups of platform workers, for example, based on the type of platform services they provide. Having said that, we currently have no plans to set different record retention periods.

On the broader points made by the various MPs asking for more regulatory requirements and minimum earnings, we should be mindful of the risks of overregulation that is impractical and counter-productive. As mentioned earlier, algorithms may be proprietary, and regulating platform operators’ use of algorithms will impose significant compliance costs and affect the economic viability of platform operators. Potential entrants may also be deterred from the market due to the fear of excessive regulatory burden. Platform operators also need the flexibility to decide how to remunerate platform workers, in order to balance the demand and supply of services while keeping prices manageable for consumers. We should avoid being too heavy handed with regulation, which could stifle the innovation and sustainability of the platform economy, and lead to poorer outcomes for platform workers themselves.

Instead of the blunt tool of regulation, it is better to focus on the outcomes and empower stakeholders to negotiate for their interests. This is why we are empowering platform work associations to negotiate with platform operators for better outcomes and to balance the relationship between platform workers and platform operators. Platform work associations will be well placed to represent the interests of platform workers and negotiate a sustainable and mutually agreed solution at the individual platform operator level that takes into consideration all parties’ circumstances. Platform work associations and platform operators are also free to establish and participate in tripartite platforms as needed, similar to how trade unions and employers interact today.

Beyond getting help from platform work associations, I would add that platform workers do have the choice to switch platforms, if they feel that they have been treated unfairly, or even when the app of one platform operator is facing technical issues. This is how most people would operate today anyway – you arbitrage between the rates of different apps and switch from one to the other, and if one is not working, go to the next one. So, this is commonsense and people are already doing that today.

I will move on to the concerns raised on the impact of this Bill on stakeholders. Many Members have raised clarifications on the impact of this Bill on platform operators, platform workers and customers.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Mariam Jaafar have raised several concerns on whether the costs of these platform work protections will be passed to platform workers and customers. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi spoke about assuaging the concerns of platform workers, platform operators and customers as we implement the Bill and Mr Neil Parekh requested Government assistance or incentives to help businesses make this transition.

On the impact to workers, I have elaborated at length on the measures to prevent the passing of costs to workers. So, I will not repeat the points here, except to add that ultimately, market competition is an important self-regulating force. It bears repeating that platform work associations will play an important role in representing the interests of platform workers and these workers will also have the choice to switch platforms if they feel that costs are unfairly passed over to them.

On the impact to platform operators, the Government has been working closely with the companies who have stepped forward to seek advice on how to implement CPF and work injury compensation regimes for platform workers. We will continue to do so through existing structures. This is the first time we are defining platform operators in legislation and we understand companies may have questions on whether they meet the definition of a platform operator. An example of a question, which Ms Usha Chandradas raised, is on the threshold of human intervention in the use of data that would define an entity as exercising management control over a worker.

Put another way, the intent of clause 6(1)(b) of the Bill is to capture entities where automation of the use of data for a specified purpose is the primary mode of operation. That said, I would like to highlight that whether an entity is exercising management control and the broader question of whether it is a platform operator is fact-dependent and companies should do their own due diligence checks to see if they fit the bill.

MOM will provide support to companies to determine whether they are likely to be a platform operator, including through a self-assessment checklist. Companies can also approach MOM if they still require further advice on their specific circumstances.

As Ms Mariam Jaafar pointed out, as a society, all stakeholders should be prepared to do our part for platform workers to receive protections they need. The Government has provided generous transition support through the PCTS and will monitor work injury compensation insurance premiums. Platform operators will need to consider how best to manage the costs. Consumers, too, will have a role to play.

I should emphasise that the costs arising from providing platform workers with basic protections are no different in nature from the business costs that other employers are already incurring to provide CPF and work injury compensation to their employees today. Thus, it is a levelling up of what platform operators ought to have been paying, if they are to ensure basic protections for platform workers like what other employers have been doing for their employees all along.

Introducing CPF and work injury compensation for platform workers, therefore, ensures that platform operators who derive their sources of revenue from the hard work and risks taken by the platform workers, provide them with basic rights and protections. It will also ensure a level playing field for companies operating in Singapore to compete fairly in terms of business costs.

How do employers in non-platform sectors typically deal with these costs of providing protections for their employees? Well, it is part and parcel of running a business, so they build these costs into their overall operating cost and decide how to price their services based on a range of factors – costs, profitability and market competition. This is what keeps prices manageable. It would be disingenuous to reflect and charge these costs through a separate fee component.

Platform operators should think carefully before doing so, because, as I said, the market is a competitive one. Such a move would be tantamount to passing the costs directly to customers. Customers have a choice to switch to other platforms where costs are shared more equitably or even stop using such platform services altogether and switch to other alternatives.

The costs incurred by platform operators on work injury compensation and CPF can also be audited. Platform work associations can work with platform operators to regularly publish these data, so workers and consumers can clearly see how the costs are shared across stakeholders to counter any claims of profiteering or loading of these costs onto the workers themselves.

Finally, I will address the concerns on other issues, such as the welfare and longer-term career paths for platform workers, which are not included in the scope of this Bill.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Ong Hua Han and Ms Usha Chandradas spoke about protecting platform workers from abuse and unfair reviews, with Mr Yip suggesting to provide mental health support for platform workers. Let me be clear that, we have zero tolerance for abusive behaviours towards our platform workers. In this respect, the Protection from Harassment Act protects all individuals, including platform workers, from threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Perpetrators may be prosecuted for offences under the Act. With these existing protections in place, we do not need to introduce additional protection for platform workers in this Bill. Platform work associations can also work with platform operators on measures to deal with abusive customers, including blacklisting such customers and making available avenues of redress for platform workers who have been given unfair reviews.

Just like anyone else, platform workers who need mental health support can tap on the mental health services in community care settings, such as the Community Outreach Team, which offers basic emotional and psychological support. Those facing job transitions can also seek no-cost assistance from Workforce Singapore's (WSG's) employment-focused peer support groups. Platform work associations can also play an important role, as they are often the first port of call for platform workers when they are faced with challenges and I would encourage them to do more in this regard.

Mr Ong Hua Han also sought clarification on this Bill excluding other benefits, such as annual leave and medical benefits. For annual leave and medical benefits, we must recognise that these are relevant for employees where working hours and duties are fixed; whereas platform workers enjoy more flexibility compared to employees. Platform workers and platform companies are keen to retain this flexibility, rather than be deemed as employees. Thus, the Bill has focused on protections, such as CPF, work injury compensation and representation, which, we feel, will help platform workers be better protected, while maintaining the flexibility they desire.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for the number of platform workers who are non-Singaporeans. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether we will take action against foreigners illegally providing platform services. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA), only foreigners with valid work passes are allowed to work in Singapore. Foreign employees can only work in the occupation stated in their work passes. Foreign employees, who provide platform services, may face prosecution under the EFMA.

Ms Pereira spoke about the volatility and unpredictable nature of income earned in platform work. She and many other Members, such as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ong Hua Han and Mr Mark Lee, also raised the need to support platform workers in upgrading their skills and transiting to other careers. This Bill is intended to protect those who have chosen to make platform work their occupation, especially those who face precarity because of their fluctuating incomes.

At the same time, as Members have pointed out, platform workers can also consider other forms of employment. We will support them. There are measures in place to support platform workers who wish to transit to other sectors. For example, platform workers can tap on the Jobs and Skills Centres for career coaching service and advice. From early-2025 onwards, platform workers above 40 years of age can also tap on the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance to pursue eligible full-time training programmes, such as the full-time SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme to support mid-career transitions into sectors with good employment opportunities. They will receive a monthly training allowance computed as 50% of their average monthly income and capped at $3,000 a month, over a lifetime cap of 24 months.

However, the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme will not be open to platform workers, to answer Ms Pereira's question. The scheme is targeted at employees who became unemployed due to involuntary reasons, such as retrenchment and dismissals, and platform workers are not included as they are not employees.

Ms Usha Chandradas asked whether legislative protection will be extended to freelancers, particular those in the arts community who can also be a vulnerable group. While this is outside the scope of this Bill, we take the points that the Member of Parliament has raised and will consider how this group may be better supported.

Mr Speaker, in closing, I would, again, like to express my appreciation to Members of the House who have expressed their support for the Bill. Let me recap what this Bill seeks to do. Platform workers face volatility and their incomes are subjected to the market forces of demand and supply. This is a feature of the platform sector. And while we cannot change this, we can close the gaps in protections faced by platform workers and the sooner we do so, the better.

This could not have been done without strong tripartite dialogue and support. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record our thanks and appreciation to our tripartite partners for journeying together with us to build a fairer and more inclusive society. Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Desmond Choo have aptly contrasted the acrimonious path that some overseas jurisdictions took in regulating platform work with our own tripartite approach.

I cannot agree more. The tripartite system of close collaboration and dialogue between the Government, the Labour Movement, and businesses, has led us to a framework that balances the needs of all parties in a way sustainable for the platform ecosystem. The result is a legislation that will allow platform workers to benefit from improved housing and retirement adequacy, coverage for work injury compensation and representation. Platform operators, too, will benefit from a more engaged workforce and better industrial relations. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

3.25 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Senior Minister of State Koh just now said that if the WP comes to power, we will not form any relationship with any union. This is not true and it is ridiculous for any governing party to not seek good relations with unions, when it is crucial for any government to work with unions and employers for the good of workers and the economy.

What we are calling for is a key reform to untether the NTUC from the PAP and free up unionists to be independent advocates for workers in Singapore. An independent NTUC will be a stronger voice for workers as they will be better able to fight for workers' rights without fear or favour.

I call for independent unions, not mindlessly confrontational unions. It is important for unions to work with the government of the day, but they should maintain their independence from the Government and should not be subordinated to it. This will benefit Singaporean workers and strengthen our country's institutions regardless of the political situation.

This is not about politics. It is about getting the best possible deal for Singaporean workers and for Singapore.

And lastly, Senior Minister of State Koh mentioned ILO. ILO's Convention No 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, stresses that workers and employer organisations must be independent from public authorities, meaning the government, and free from government control or interference. This is found in Article 3(1), Article 3(2), Article 5, Article 8(2) and Article 11.

Instead of having a symbiotic relationship with the PAP, the NTUC should declare a symbiotic relationship with the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Tan.

3.27 pm

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Desmond Tan): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe yesterday, my colleague Mr Heng Chee How had addressed the point about independence and respect for the unions. I would like to, once again, reiterate some of the points that was brought up by Mr Gerald Giam. In fact, he has repeatedly used the words "independent" and "non-partisan". The unions must be independent and non-partisan to be effective, that to represent our workers without fear and favour, unions have to be independent and non-partisan. And that they would, then, be in a better place to represent their workers and to negotiate. Then, he also went on to say that to be able to better advocate for workers they need to— he said said that unions are trying their best to advocate for workers, but they face restrictions to do so because of the Government and legislation.

So, I would like to ask Mr Gerald Giam whether he has personal experience or data points or even anecdotes to suggest that actually, today, the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC has caused our unions or union leaders to face restrictions or not to be able to speak up without fear of favour.

Because I would like to suggest that yesterday, after your speech, I received so much feedback from many of our union leaders. That is because whatever you said does not represent their experience on the ground.

So, I will make two points in response to what you have just said. The first point I want to say is that the relationship between PAP and NTUC – the symbolic relationship – is an equal partnership. Our union leaders are elected by the workers to represent them. It is not a subordinate relationship between PAP and NTUC. So, that is a very important point I need to make known to you.

And in fact, one of the union leaders wrote to me quickly to ask, where does Member Gerald Giam feel that there are any restrictions for the union leader to speak up. So, I think that is the question that I hope Mr Gerald Giam can address.

Maybe I can also highlight one of the posts by the Building Construction And Timber Industries Employees' Union, or BATU – so, do not just hear from me. It talked about the labour MPs and the relationship in the union, it said "the privilege of working closely with PAP MPs and Cabinet Ministers over the years as council advisers is apparent. Their involvement has been instrumental in helping us advocate for policies that address the needs of workers and improve their livelihoods. This collaboration has allowed us to shape practical solutions for the challenges faced in our industries."

So, the whole idea of this symbiotic relationship is not to control the unions, but rather, we want to be able to serve, to listen, to be close to the ground so that we can better support and better speak up for the workers and better represent our workers in Parliament or even outside.

The second point I want to address is about independence and being non-partisan. One of the union leaders, who is also in the central committee, wrote this passionately in his post after hearing the Member's speech. He said this, let me quote, "I am heartened by the impassioned response from Brother Heng Chee How. On numerous occasions, I have discussed concerns of teachers without fear or favour with the STU advisors." And that is from Mike Thiruman from the Singapore Teachers' Union, or STU.

And he went on to say that, "as unionists of unions affiliated with NTUC Singapore, we have never flinched from raising our concerns and advocating for our members' rights for better wages and for better work prospects and welfare. It would be foolhardy to think that unionists are not independent."

So, please have a care, give some respect to our unionists and union leaders on the ground. They have a mind of their own. They choose to be affiliated to the NTUC and to the PAP because of the results we have delivered, because of the outcomes we have delivered for workers and for many years, because "Every Worker Matters". [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I reiterate once again what I said yesterday that I appreciate the hard work that many unionists are putting in to try and speak up for workers.

But what I am talking about is not so much that the unionists are not speaking up. What I am saying is that there are institutional constraints on them that prevent them from being able to really push forward a lot of the policies. Because if in the current set-up where the unions are, what I feel, subordinate to the PAP, the unions will only be able to push through their policies if their policies align with the PAP's priorities. They will not be able to override what the PAP wants to do.

And can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether he can cite any instance where the NTUC has taken a public position that is contrary to the Government policy in recent times?

Mr Desmond Tan: I asked the hon Member about his personal experience and data, and he has not been able to cite those.

So, whatever he claims, he might have read it in other countries. I am not denying that that is your opinion and that is your view. But I would like to suggest that we do not make those assumptions for Singapore, because of what other people are practising or because of what you read as a theory of how unions can work with the ruling party.

Our colleagues have mentioned yesterday that is not uncommon that unions across the world are aligned to political parties. We have gone through the years and worked very hard to make sure that we build this symbiotic relationship as a strong foundation built on trust. And we are not about to give it up just because the Member has some theoretical framework and he suggests that it is better for unions to be independent of the ruling party.

On the Member's questions about whether we have policies where we have differed from what the Government suggests, I would gladly say that NTUC has been pushing for many policies that, even over the years, the Government has not accepted, but we will continue to do so. The SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme is one very good example. Member Patrick Tay has been raising it for 14 years. The Government did not agree at the start, but finally, they did. [Applause.]

Maybe the Member imagines that these policies come from the labour MPs. But no, let me assure the Member that these policies, ideas and suggestions came from the workers and the union leaders because they best represent their workers. They know what they need. And our job as labour MPs is to represent them.

Sometimes, the Government will listen to us and implement immediately. Sometimes, it takes more time. And sometimes, we differ. That is the nature of it, but we will never flinch and we will never refrain ourselves from speaking up or have any fear or favour when doing so.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.

3.35 pm

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I want to clarify the Member's question about ratifying ILO Conventions. We do not ratify Convention C87 because we require registration of unions. And that is to guard against what we call "yellow unions", unions that might be acting on behalf of employers to the detriment of employees, and also we to ensure the officers in the union were not convicted for criminal breaches of trust because these are necessary to maintain the trust. The tripartite relationship is built on trust so that there is trust between the tripartite partners involved in negotiations.

And just so that the Member is aware, there are actually quite a number of countries that have ratified, but it might also be useful for the Member to know that countries like the US and New Zealand have also not ratified this particular convention that the Member raised.

I listened to the Member's roundabout defence of why unions need to be independent and all, and the WP will or will not seek relationship – I am very confused. Does WP want to build relationship with unions or not?

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Yes.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: So, is the Member saying that his relationship with the unions is a transactional one, not built on mutual win-win and a symbolic relationship?

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I think the Senior Minister of State is having difficulty seeing anything between the dichotomy of full symbiosis and full confrontation with unions. We are calling for a third way, which is independent unions with tripartite dialogue, to work towards achieving win-win outcomes for both workers and employers. So, it is this approach that we are trying to take. We are not trying to say that we do not work with unions at all or we are in full relationship and symbiosis with unions. There is a third way in between.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, just a final clarification on what he said. Because I am very confused on why the WP is called "Workers' Party", if they are not really so pro-unions to begin with. In their website, I was just reading from here, the website says, "Marshall announces the idea of forming a party for workers while addressing the delegates of the army, civil service unions at a conference and he said, 'We can evolve a plan where we can create a political party whose membership is exclusively confined to members of trade unions'."

So, the history of the WP is to be a party for trade unions. How can you not be in a relationship that is closely intertwined when you want to be a party for trade unions? I do not understand where you start from.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

3.38 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond to Senior Minister of State Koh. The only reason I do so is because he made a remark in his concluding address on WP leadership. So, obviously, I have to stand up. I second what my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, has said but let me just state some points very clearly.

One, I reject, and the WP will reject, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon's comments on the WP entirely and his characterisation of harmonious industrial relations between workers, employers and the government of the day as being something the WP does not agree with.

Two, on the Senior Minister of State's historical analysis of the WP, I think it disregards an important fact that more than 60 years have elapsed, and the political situation has changed dramatically and significantly. This is not just true for the WP, it is also true for the PAP.

But since the Senior Minister of State is on history, let me refer to evidence of what I believe my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, was thinking about when he was talking about an independent NTUC, through the eyes of history. I am referring to a publication of NTUC, titled "50 years of the Labour Movement in Singapore", October 1966, "NTUC's cooperation: Not one way traffic": "At an NTUC delegates conference, Ho See Beng, now Secretary-General, reminded the Government and employers that the NTUC's cooperation in the task of economic development was not a one-way traffic. He took issue with the with Government leaders, particularly the Prime Minister, for speaking unendingly of labour's obligations while hardly touching on labour's rights and major grievances."

I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can raise a single example of where an NTUC Secretary-General or a deputy secretary-general has spoken out against a 3G or 4G leader to defend the rights of workers.

I am not suggesting that this is the gold standard or the test. It is not the test. But this comes to the heart of what people see and believe to be a conflict of interest. And when NTUC delegates are saying "Majulah PAP", I think people are entitled to question, "Do you speak for the party first or do you speak for workers first?" [Applause.]

So, it is a simple point. The point is not about moving Singapore in a direction where employers, employees, workers, Government fight each other to the detriment of our society and our economic growth. That is not the point. And I think we have been waylaid down that rabbit hole and we have got to just come back to the central point that was being made by Mr Gerald Giam.

Party interests cannot be more important than the interest of our workers and a symbiotic relationship does not mean that the NTUC is neutered or cannot openly speak out in the interest of workers. And I think Minister of State Desmond Tan has shared where the NTUC has spoken out, and I have no reason to believe that NTUC rank and file workers did not speak out. That is something I have to say, because I know some of them and I have to say I have to thank them for their service for our workers.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I do not want to prolong this, but I think it is important for Mr Singh to realise that the fact that we are even debating this legislative Bill today is a proof point of how the tripartite relationship that PAP and NTUC has endured for the last 60 years or more has allowed us to make this Bill a possibility today.

So, just because the WP lost the relationship with worker unions long ago does not mean that because we can preserve relationship for 60 years that there is something wrong with the symbiotic relationship.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I am not going to respond to that point, but just to say that there is no question of losing a relationship in any way.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

3.42 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. This is a completely different point.

Senior Minister of State Koh, if I heard correctly, indicated that the reasons for not defaulting to an opt-out rather than an opt-in approach for the CPF system was due to extra administrative costs that will be borne by the Government as well as platform companies and also the possibility of a diminished choice. Again, I am happy to stand corrected if I misheard.

If what I did hear was true, I find this puzzling because after all, there is certainly no loss of choice either from opting out or opting in, that is the nature of opting. And there are indeed already Government schemes, pension schemes, such as CPF LIFE, where opting out is the default. More generally, I suppose, what I should be asking is: are we allowing the possibility of some additional administrative costs to be the basis for us not ensuring that the retirement adequacy of our platform workers is actually made more secure?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I understand the Member's positioning, to try and ensure as much protection as possible is given to platform workers. But having had deep conversations with our platform operators and the platform workers themselves, the desire on both sides is to make sure that administrative costs are reduced, the burden is reduced and choice is given to the workers.

So, from a theoretical perspective, the Member may be right – put them in and then those who want to get out, can apply to get out. But the operators who have to bear onboarding costs, these are real costs. To put everybody on the system in the beginning will require system enhancements, put everybody in and making sure that everyone is onboarded and then subsequently, if a majority or a large number, or whichever number it may be, chooses to opt out, there will be an additional cost to process those people who want to get out.

Whereas, if you let people decide that they want to come in, then the operator only needs to do it one time and process the onboarding cost for that worker coming onto the system. That is why in our construct, we disallow people from opting out thereafter, once they opt in, so that the operator only does one time of onboarding and does not have to keep flipflopping workers in and out.

Opting out as a default is also a challenge because some workers may then choose to be out of one operator but not the other, and it becomes very messy for the operators to track whether this worker is on which system.

So, I think for administrative ease and for simplicity of operating a very complex system with many combinations of worker preferences to begin with, we have decided, together with the operators and also the desire of the workers, to go for an opt-in system.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just a quick point about the theoretical nature of the system, I would just emphasise that this is not theoretical at all. Systems around the world, public policy systems, including what I have just cited – CPF LIFE – along with the UK's Nudge Unit have already used opt-out systems as a default, as a mechanism, to encourage what is ultimately in the welfare of the individuals.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I call that a theoretical argument because if the Member takes the effort to talk to the platform operators, he will realise that the practical considerations and the challenges are real.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State, which we have gathered from our conversation with the platform workers. That is why I had two recommendations in my speech yesterday: one is to introduce a base fee; two is to take cancellations and rejections of orders during bad weather out of the performance of the workers.

I understand what the Senior Minister of State said just now about not micromanaging the situation, but can I get a sense or a commitment whether the Government will encourage these two issues to be brought up in a negotiation at the platform work associations. That is one question.

One more question is regarding CPF contribution. I think currently, the rule is rather onerous. Once you opt in, you cannot opt out. Is it possible for the Government to consider that maybe the platform worker, after they have opted in, whether they can reconsider the decision after a certain period, maybe on an annual basis?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his suggestions. Obviously, anything is possible. But we have to take the approach of what is practical, how easy it is to implement and what cost it will be to the system overall.

Whether there can be, for example, a base fee, that is something that the operators have to decide on whether that is something financially viable for them to do. We leave it to the platform work associations and operators to decide on the scope of negotiation, because it can differ from platform to platform. Some platforms may be prepared to offer that but, for other platforms, their business model and the cost structure may not allow that to happen.

So, I think rather than have a one-size-fits-all regulation, we allow representation to take place so that from an association to an individual operator's business model basis, they can scope out what works best for them and decide even on the scope that they are prepared to discuss. It may well be that some operators will have different models that they have agreed on with the operators and they can see that as a way of advantage to attract more workers who like that kind of arrangements to work for them as well. This also maintains a competitive landscape among the different operators.

But I would say also on the other aspect of opting in and out, whether it is time-dependent or a black-out period, whichever the construct may be, there will be quite a lot of challenges to implement because a particular platform worker could have been registered with several apps. If they are on several apps and they choose to opt in and out, each time they make a decision, it is not just one operator that has to make system changes and incur administrative costs, all the apps that this person has signed up with, even if it is an app that he uses very infrequently, would have to then also reflect that same CPF opt-in or opt-out status.

So, as a system, it becomes very complicated and the cost is not borne by just one operator, it will be borne by quite a number of operators. I think the complex nature of this work is such that people can sign up for an app and not use it for a long time, but suddenly can use it again for a few months in a row. So, the very difficult nature of this sector is such that we try to keep things as simple as possible and reduce the overall cost burden.

As I said in my speech, the solutions that we propose may not be 100% perfect, but the fact is that this legislation aims at providing the basic protections that will level up the protection for this group of workers, for it to be at least as close to being on par as possible with other employees working in a similar sector and also earning a similar income. In terms of achieving retirement adequacy and housing adequacy, we think this is a good base to start from. For any other operational benefits and challenges that may come along the way, we created the representation framework to allow negotiations and discussions to take place on a bilateral basis.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Senior Minister of State Koh, on the Bill proper, the first question pertains to the costs and how the costs will be distributed amongst platform operators, workers and we know the contribution of the Government. So, it is actually the flow-through, which is a bit more of a concern.

I think Member Mariam Jaafar today spoke about how different platform companies have their own models – some 0% and they will charge platform fees and so on, for example. So, there is a concern that for some platforms, there will be an incredible flow-through of these costs to the consumers; others, less so.

Does the Government have any expectation of how it is going to manage the situation such that platform operators do not willy-nilly just proceed and transfer all these costs accordingly to the consumer? That is my first question.

The second question is pertaining to WICA. My understanding is there is some concern about the cost of WICA for platform companies. As I iterated in my speech with three months to go before the introduction of WICA for platform workers, is there some landing insofar as how these premiums are priced, in view of the varied nature of the platform space? Some clarity on that would be helpful because if WICA is very expensive, then one can imagine what the cost for the consumer would be.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the questions.

On the first question of cost transfer or pass-through to stakeholders, the thing that we think would be important to guard against any excessive cost increase or profiteering would be to make sure that the sector continues to remain competitive. So long as it is not monopolistic, there will be competition – competition for drivers, riders and competition also for customers. When that dynamic competition takes place, each platform will have to make sure that the cost that they are prepared to flow through, whether it is to the driver or to the customers, will have to be something that remains attractive to them both. Otherwise, they will lose either the share of available labour or they will lose the share of the available market. So, that is one.

But many of the things that we talked about – cost of CPF on operators and cost of WICA on operators – these are numbers that can be audited. For example, because now all platform workers will need to at least pay MediSave and those who opt-in or are mandated will have to pay CPF to their Ordinary and Special Accounts, which means that at the backend, we will know, by working backwards, what is the total wage cost that a particular operator with a particular load of workers will be paying for CPF or their wages. In that case, we can then determine the true wage costs for each operator and can audit and see if there is some evidence of profiteering.

On the WICA costs, based on our engagement with insurers through the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Network, where we work with five or seven insurers to start with, their estimate is that the cost of WICA for platform workers will not be too much higher compared to the current WICA costs for drivers in the logistics or transport sector, for example.

It may be slightly higher because, today, there is no actuarial data, so everyone is pricing a little bit more conservatively. But I think, over time, with real world data, and now that we know who is a platform worker once the Bill comes to pass, the true incident rate of injuries and the severity of injuries being reported will allow more accurate actuarial data and claims history to be established over time. So, insurers then will have some real data to make some adjustments to the insurance premium that they charge.

In a competitive market, if there are more than five, seven, maybe even more insurers who are prepared to come in – today, there are 26 operating in the employee WICA space – if a certain number of them also continue to participate in this for platform workers, we think the competitive premiums will continue to keep the market viable in terms of cost to operators. Again, that part of the cost is also auditable, to determine how much it costs operators to put forth WICA compensations.

A lot of people may think that WICA is charged on a per individual basis. But actually, the insurers look at this on a total wage cost basis. So, it is based on what the company is paying in terms of wages to their workers and the premium is calculated as such. So, it is irrelevant how many platform workers actually work for a particular platform company. What is more relevant is how much they are actually paying for the cost of wages to these workers that determines the WICA cost that they are paying in terms of premiums.

So, I think we should probably give the market some time to come to an equilibrium. But the initial sensing from the insurers is that it will not be excessively much higher, compared to what WICA is today for employees of the same sector.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I listened very carefully to what Mr Gerald Giam had to say. My understanding is if the WP becomes the government of the day, then "we, the Workers' Party", according to Mr Gerald Giam, will partner unions. Yet, Mr Giam says that you do not want NTUC to be tethered to the Government or PAP.

I do not think you can have your cake and eat it. We do not use the word "tethered". We use the words "partnership", "alliance", "solidarity" and "equal partnership". We do not use the word "tethered". Point number one.

Point number two about Mr Gerald Giam's insinuations, that there is a suggestion that NTUC is subordinate to the PAP's interests when it comes to Labour Movement negotiations and trajectories, this is completely inaccurate. Let me share with the Member my personal experience.

In the middle of COVID-19, we had multiple difficulties with the occupancy rates in hotels. I had the privilege of being the advisor to the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union, or FDAWU. They were down one quarter occupancy rate, half occupancy rate. We met with them multiple times. Never in the meetings was there a subordinate-and-elder relationship. It was about how we get our workers in their jobs through the pandemic, secure and get Singapore's economy afloat. We worked hand in hand, in solidarity. Point number two.

So, on two points, I disagree with the hon Member Gerald Giam, from personal experience.

Number three, where was the partnership between PAP and NTUC formed? It was in the crucible of fire. We were fighting the communists. Mr Lee Kuan Yew represented the Postal Workers' Union. And why should we not rely on such trust, solidarity, mutual respect, equality, mutual relationship in advancing Singapore's cause? Why unravel that? It makes no sense, except if you dissect Mr Giam's position as being completely political.

So, woe to those who disregard the past, especially if they seek to lead the future. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I will be quick. When I say "tether" or "untether", what I mean is that NTUC and PAP should be separate, independent organisations and should not be pledging symbiosis to each other – that is all I mean.

And what he says about it not being a subordinate relationship, can I ask the Member why is there then a need for the platform work associations to have a council of advisors which has the power to dismiss the executive council? Why are these council advisors appointed by the NTUC and why do they all happen to be PAP members or PAP MPs even?

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: If I may, Sir, tripartism is a bedrock of Singapore's economy – the employers, the Government, the employees. Do you seek to unravel that?

I have been an MP for a number of years. When I go overseas, people ask: why are your unions not fighting against your government? It is a misnomer overseas. But here, it is something special. My answer to the hon Member Mr Giam is that, please, do not seek to unravel a secret formula, a good formula that we have in Singapore which is tripartism between the Government, the employers and the employees.

The only conclusion I can draw, in my limited human mind, is that Mr Giam is a making a political point, whereas in my humble priority, it is Singapore that remains the priority.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, we have sat here and heard about the arguments about the independence of NTUC from the two parties. I think it may be useful for a third party to come in and say a few words, and also to demonstrate that there are benefits of having a third party in this Parliament.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, just confine it to this debate and not start a new one.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes, of course, of course. I think this is broad enough.

First of all, I must speak out in support of the WP, what Members Gerald Giam and the Leader of the Opposition and the other Members have said. I do not think the opposition is not in support of tripartism. In fact, no political party who aspires to run the country one day, would not want the support of the trade unions. Tripartism is a given. Everybody will want to cultivate that tripartism.

And we understand. All of us know history, that trade unions in other countries and by nature of their organisation, they must have the political power to institute change in a country. So, as a result, trade unions will want to be affiliated with political parties. And, of course, the opposition, whether it is the WP – of course, I cannot speak for the WP too much – but the PSP, for example, we would welcome, we want to cultivate the most harmonious and the best working relationship with trade unions.

However, I think the issue here that we are trying to push, trying to clarify or trying to stress, is that the nature of the relationship between the NTUC and our Government is more than what we have seen in the world today. [Interruption.]

It is more than what we see in the world today, for example, what I am trying to say is, can you find another trade union in the world where the trade union chief is a Minister. Are there any countries? Please, if there are, tell me.

So, as a result, you cannot deny our impression. No opposition, few opposition politicians are being given appointments in NTUC and all that. So, we do not really understand the exact decision-making process there. But from the structure that you can see from the outside, if the NTUC Secretary-General is a Minister or a former Minister and there are many leaders in the NTUC who come from the ruling party, I think we are entitled to think that the independence of NTUC ought to be better than this.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan See Leng.

4.06 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to participate in this debate because the Senior Minister of State is doing such a great job in wrapping up, but I feel compelled to intervene in the last couple of discussions on the role of tripartism.

I would appeal to Members on both sides of the House to again spare a thought about the unique position, the unique model that we have, the very special model that we have here in Singapore.

In Singapore, we do things differently. We are a tiny red dot. We have been able to move, we have been able to progress so well. This approach is fundamentally built on trust, on collaboration and a shared commitment to finding win-win solutions.

Through our decades of strong tripartite relationship between the unions, SNEF and the Government, collectively, we do not just talk, we do not just debate. We act. Together, we have robust discussions, we push back, we have intense debate behind the scenes. When we formulate ideas, we turn them into actions and we overcome challenges as one united people. This unique approach is one of our greatest strengths.

Take, for instance, it was just barely two plus years ago, when we went through the crisis of our generation, COVID-19. When the crisis hit, the partners acted swiftly to address tough issues like cost-cutting measures, retrenchments. This is in stark contrast to many other countries where tensions flared. Our unions worked collectively with SNEF to share the burden, negotiating wage cuts, saving jobs. And the unions, NTUC, even administered the Self-employed Persons Income Relief Scheme, or SERS. This collaboration helped prevent deeper disruption. It protected not just our lives, but our livelihoods.

That is what is unique about our tripartism – that it works and it is a very, very unique, yet a true partnership.

The Government plays a key moderating role, of course, balancing the interests of both workers and businesses to ensure that all decisions, when they are taken, are made for the long-term good of everyone.

Let me reiterate this. I know you keep talking about independence, independence, independence. Behind closed doors, the tripartite partners do not always agree. Heated discussions happen behind closed doors on many, many issues – the raising of retirement age, or even the upcoming workplace fairness legislation. I am sure we will have another very intense debate during that time. The Leader of the Opposition is already smiling at me, probably thinking, "You better watch it." [Interruption.]

Mr Pritam Singh: I always smile at you.

Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you. We are ready.

But we all work hard. We all work hard to reach a consensus, knowing that collectively we are always working for Singapore's shared interests. And as I have said yesterday, not just for you, but for your children, for your grandchildren and hopefully, for your great-grandchildren.

To quote Dr Robert Yap, the former President of SNEF, he once shared an anecdote with me when I just joined the Government. And I thought that resonated and illustrated very well. He said it at a meeting with a foreign counterpart. The foreign counterpart commented to Dr Robert Yap, the then President of SNEF, saying that he was lucky because Singapore's unions were weak because they do not strike.

SNEF's view, his response to this foreign counterpart's comment was, actually, no, the unions here are strong because they get what they want without striking. This is the strength of our system. Our outcomes, our positive outcomes are achieved through negotiation – not confrontation, not open confrontation. [Applause.]

To paraphrase the late US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: do you throw away your umbrella in a thunderstorm because you are not getting wet? Members of the House, the lack of open confrontation, your so-called being more independent, does not mean that our unions are weak. It shows the power of positive collaboration in delivering results without disruption.

I urge all Members of the House, we are here to help our platform workers. We are here and we have just finished and heard the wrap-up speech of Senior Minister of State Koh on how we can help our platform workers better, taking into consideration all of the comments, the suggestions, the opinions of Members of the House. Let us not detract ourselves from this Bill. I hope that you do not judge NTUC or SNEF by what you think the relationship between unions, employers and the Government should be. But look at the record, look at the outcomes, the positive outcomes that tripartism has delivered for Singapore through the decades. Together, we have protected jobs, we have created stability, we have ensured prosperity for our workers, our businesses.

I hope we can continue to use this platform to support sustained tripartism as our competitive advantage, because by working hand-in-hand, we are not just navigating today's challenges, we are also securing a better, a brighter, a more secure future for Singapore and Singaporeans. I hope that is the legacy that we must preserve. [Applause.]

4.14 pm

Mr Speaker: We have had a long debate and I think all the clarifications have been asked and answered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The First to Eighth Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ninth Schedule –

The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Koh.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister, I beg to move the amendment* to Ninth Schedule standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

The amendments to clause 13 are required for the consistency across section 31(a) and section 31(1b) of the Work Injury Compensation Act to require both a designated employer's insurer and a designated platform operator's insurer to provide insurance.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 182, line 8: to leave out "pay" and insert "provide".

Amendment agreed to.

The Ninth Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Tenth Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.19 pm until 4.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]