Platform Workers Bill

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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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.]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?