Debated in Parliament on 9 Sep 2024.
Order for Second Reading read.
Minister for Manpower.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".
Sir, before I begin my speech, I just want to acknowledge the presence of our brothers and sisters from the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association as well as representatives from the platform operators here with us in the Gallery today. [Applause.]
Sir, their presence signals the support they need for this Bill to be passed to ensure a sustainable development of the platform economy.
The platform economy has provided opportunities to earn a living for many platform workers who bring convenience to us through their services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, while most of us were safely working from home and observing safe management measures safely in our homes, many platform workers braved the elements and health risks to deliver goods and services and food items to us.
Following the pandemic, there is broad social support that we need to do more for this group of workers who have been left behind. As of 2023, there are around 70,000 platform workers, comprising about 3% of our workforce. However, platform work can be precarious. Let me cite three aspects of this.
First, platform workers generally have modest incomes that can fluctuate from month to month. In 2023, their median earnings were around $1,500 to $2,500 a month.
Second, they are also exposed to risks, such as traffic accidents, due to the amount of time they spend on the roads. Those without sufficient insurance coverage bear the financial risks of getting injured and being unable to work. Many of us in our Meet-the-People Sessions would have come across our residents who work as platform workers who sustained injuries at work and ended up with financial hardships and inability to service their housing loans. In fact, a 2022 poll by the Institute of Policy Studies found that up to a third of food delivery workers have been in at least one accident that required medical care.
Third, platform workers also have less control over their work, compared to typical self-employed persons. For instance, they may not have a say over how much to charge for their services, what tasks to take on, whether they can grow their own base of clients and so on. This is because platform operators control these decisions as part of their business models.
When we say, "Every Worker Matters", we are recognising the inherent value and dignity of these workers, regardless of the work that they do. We are saying as a society that we are taking a stand – that these platform workers also deserve our care, to ensure fairness and equity.
Why should a platform worker who takes the same risks on the road as any other employee working in the delivery or transport sector be denied a fair compensation when they are injured or, worse still, lose their lives at work? Are their lives worth less than other workers in the same sector?
Their work generates revenues for the platform operators. Just as the platform operators pay Central Provident Fund (CPF) and buy workplace insurance for their staff working in their office, should these workers who brave the elements to ensure the revenue stream for the platform operators not get the same level of support and protection?
I am glad that platform operators, workers and the broader society agree that we ought to do more for these workers. This is how we strengthen our social compact and not leave these workers behind as the platform economy continues to evolve and grow.
Therefore, to strengthen protections for those involved in platform work, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) set up the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers (PWAC) in 2021 to review how ride-hail and delivery workers can be better supported in the areas of (a) housing and retirement adequacy; (b) financial protection in the case of work injury; and (c) representation. These are some of the employment rights that employees have today.
The PWAC consulted extensively, including with platform workers, companies, trade associations and academics, and examined international practices. In November 2022, following a year-long process of engagements and deliberations by the PWAC, the Government accepted the PWAC's recommendations. This Platform Workers Bill today will give effect to these recommendations.
This is a good example of how tripartite partners in Singapore have worked closely together to enhance labour standards in a sustainable manner. Through close collaboration and discussions in the PWAC, tripartite partners have extensively and actively engaged key stakeholders, such as platform operators and platform workers, and effectively represented their perspectives in ironing out the policy and implementation details.
There are four key components to the Platform Workers Bill.
First, the scope of entities, including companies and workers covered under the Bill. Second, measures to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers through the CPF system. These involve amendments to the Central Provident Fund Act, or CPF Act. Third, measures to ensure financial protection of platform workers if they get injured at work and to strengthen stakeholders' responsibilities to prevent injuries. These involve amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act. Fourth, the legal framework for representation of platform workers. This involves amendments to the Industrial Relations Act.
These matters also require consequential and related amendments to a wide range of other Acts as well as the Constitution through the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which will be tabled at a later Sitting.
Let me start with the scope.
On the scope of entities covered, in clause 4 of the Bill, a platform operator is defined as an entity that has an agreement with one or more service users to provide platform services and exercises management control over one or more platform workers.
We are covering ride-hail and delivery platform services as around 93% of platform work is concentrated in these services today and because such work is precarious, as I explained earlier. These platform services are set out in the First Schedule of the Bill. We can consider the need to amend the Schedule to cover other platform services in future reviews.
In clause 6 of the Bill, there are two prongs to management control. If both are satisfied, the entity will be deemed a platform operator.
First, platform operators use data from service users, such as consumers, as well as their workers in a highly, if not fully, automated manner to make decisions. For instance, this could be through the use of algorithms that determine the fee that ride-hail drivers will receive for a trip based on data on the demand for rides and supply of drivers at a given time. The use of data in an automated manner to make decisions is a critical point here as it enables a platform operator to scale its operations significantly and quickly as well as impose and rapidly change terms of work for platform workers, with little or no room for negotiation.
This is not a new concept. The European Union's (EU's) directive on improving working conditions in platform work uses the same concept to define a digital labour platform.
Second, platform operators impose requirements, prohibitions or restrictions on their workers. These include imposing rules on how a task should be performed or restricting workers' ability to negotiate their fees with clients for providing the service.
The effect of all these is that platform workers cede some autonomy to platform operators in terms of how they provide services, which makes them resemble employees to an extent. However, unlike employees, platform workers are not given employment rights. This is why we are moving to legislate some rights for platform workers to better support them at work.
Looking internationally, countries have taken different approaches to determine the statutory rights of platform workers.
Countries like Spain, Belgium and Portugal have presumed certain groups of platform workers to be employees, entitling them to employment rights, including fixed hourly wage, sick pay and vacation leave. But this means that they also lose the flexibility they had, such as deciding when and how much to work.
Some countries like Greece have presumed that platform workers are not in an employment relationship, but have given them some rights pertaining to welfare, health and safety, similar to employees.
Others such as the United Kingdom (UK) have left it to the courts to determine whether platform workers are "employees" or "workers" on a case-by-case basis. This led to different classifications for the same worker who may use different platforms to work. The downside of this approach is a lack of clarity for both the workers and companies.
We have decided that it is better for the Government to provide clarity upfront for companies and workers through legislation and to do so in a way that preserves the flexibility that both workers and companies wish to retain for platform work.
We want to better support platform workers by providing them with workplace safety and retirement adequacy. But if platform workers are given the full suite of employment rights, such as sick pay and vacation leave, the nature of the relationship between the platform operators and platform workers will likely change to resemble an employment relationship, with much less flexibility, which neither party wants.
We have thus struck a finely balanced middle ground. Clause 5 of the Bill defines platform workers as individuals who have contracts with and are subject to the management control of a platform operator in their provision of services, but who are not employees of the platform operator, in effect, creating a middle category of workers in between employees and self-employed persons.
Singapore is among the first in the world to take this approach of providing statutory protections for platform workers as a distinct group. This approach preserves the flexibility of platform work that both sides want and achieves our aim of better protecting platform workers.
If the Bill is passed, companies that meet the definition of platform operator must comply with their statutory obligations and provide protections to their platform workers once the Bill comes into effect. The same applies to: (a) new companies; (b) existing companies that change their business models later on; and (c) companies in subcontracting arrangements if the company satisfies the definition of a platform operator vis-à-vis a worker.
Just like how companies today are responsible for assessing whether they are an employer and need to comply with employment laws, companies are also responsible for assessing whether they are a platform operator as they would be the most familiar with their own business models and their relationship with their workers. That said, to support companies, MOM will provide resources such as a checklist for companies to self-assess if they are platform operators. Tripartite partners will also engage the ground to educate companies and relevant workers.
If there is feedback that a platform operator has self-assessed wrongly and did not provide work injury compensation or make CPF contributions to a platform worker, MOM will investigate. If we find out that the company is a platform operator, we will require the platform operator to pay any outstanding CPF contributions or work injury compensation owed to the worker, as we currently do with employers. Additionally, the platform operator may face penalties for not making CPF contributions or not providing work injury compensation in a timely manner for platform workers and for failing to notify MOM that they are a platform operator.
Next, let me talk about supporting housing and retirement adequacy. The Fourth Schedule of the Bill makes amendments to the CPF Act to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers.
Today, platform workers are treated as self-employed persons and are only required to make MediSave contributions of up to 10.5% of their net earnings. To meet their housing and retirement needs, platform workers should also contribute to their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts. The proposed amendments enable platform workers to achieve the same level of housing and retirement adequacy as employees who earn the same amount.
We will do this gradually. Starting in 2025, platform operators will contribute 3.5% of platform workers' net earnings and platform workers will contribute up to an additional 2.5%. This will increase by the respective percentage quantum yearly until 2029. By then, it will bring platform operators' and workers' CPF contribution rates to the same level as employees and employers' contribution rates – by 2029.
For platform workers in the ages of 55 to 65, the timing of the increase will be synchronised to the senior worker CPF contribution rate increases for employees in the same age group. The increased CPF contributions will be mandatory for the cohort of platform workers born from 1995 onwards.
In all our engagements, younger cohorts have indicated the greatest need and desire for CPF contributions as it can help with their housing needs. Many are starting their families and getting their first Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.
Older cohorts can choose to opt in anytime from November onwards, with no deadline. Opt-ins are not reversible. I encourage older platform workers to consider opting in to boost their housing and retirement savings and to benefit from our CPF system.
Overall, platform workers will experience an increase in their total earnings after factoring in CPF contributions from platform operators. Nonetheless, I appreciate that some platform workers will be concerned about reduced take-home pay. The Government will provide support.
First, we will enhance the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support (PCTS) to provide greater support to lower-income platform workers who see an increase in their CPF contributions.
We had previously announced in 2023 that the PCTS would offset 75% of platform workers' increase in CPF contributions in the first year and 50% in the second year. We will enhance this to offset 100% of the increase in 2025. This means that the Government will pay fully for these platform workers' increased CPF contributions and they will have no decrease in their take-home pay in 2025.
We will also enhance the offset in 2026 from 50% to 75%. The offset will taper down gradually thereafter and cease in 2029.
We will also increase the PCTS qualifying income cap from $2,500 to $3,000, in line with the increase in the Workfare Income Supplement qualifying income cap from January 2025. This will allow more platform workers to benefit from PCTS.
Second, we will enhance Workfare for lower-income platform workers. Today, platform workers are treated as self-employed persons for Workfare payments. This means that those who are eligible for Workfare receive Workfare payments annually, at the end of the year, after making their annual CPF contributions. As self-employed persons today, they receive two-thirds of the Workfare payments that employees receive, as they make lower CPF contributions than employees, and 10% of Workfare is paid in cash and 90% goes to their CPF account.
But from 2025 onwards, after this Bill is passed, platform workers will receive Workfare payments monthly, instead of annually, because they will now make CPF contributions on a monthly basis. This will help with their cashflow.
In addition, from 2029 onwards, platform workers who contribute CPF at the same rate now, by then, like an employee, will receive employee-level Workfare, instead of just two-thirds the amount like self-employed persons. This means that they will benefit from higher Workfare payments of up to $4,900 a year, with a higher proportion paid in cash – 40% instead of the 10%, like a self-employed person.
As an illustration, for example, a 35-year-old platform worker earning $3,000 in net monthly income after deduction of allowable expenses, who opts in to increase CPF contributions from 2025, will receive around $2,250 of PCTS over the four-year period between 2025 and 2028, which will offset part of his increase in CPF contributions. He will also receive $18,720 in CPF contributions from the platform operator over a five-year period from 2025 to 2029. Including Workfare payments, the platform worker will receive a total of $23,830 in additional cash and CPF savings for his work from 2025 to 2029.
So, this will be a substantial boost to the retirement adequacy and the ability to afford housing for these workers. All this will be helpful towards their housing mortgage payments and retirement savings.
We have consulted platform operators and platform workers extensively in the design of the computation and collection of CPF contributions from them. We want to ensure that the CPF contribution process is seamless, cost-effective and protects the interest of platform workers. We have aligned generally with the employer-employee model while catering for flexibilities to account for the unique circumstances of platform work. These implementation parameters will apply to all platform workers, including those who have not opted in and only make MediSave contributions.
Let me now talk about how the computation goes about. Amendments to the CPF Act will specify how the computation of CPF contributions for platform operators and workers will be aligned to the employer-employee model in terms of how it is tiered based on age and income, and applied to monthly earnings from each platform. However, unlike employees, platform workers incur work expenses which are not reimbursed, such as fuel cost. Hence, the computation of CPF for platform workers will be based on earnings, less a Fixed Expense Deduction Amount, or FEDA.
Both platform workers and platform operators have provided feedback that they want a simpler and seamless way to compute CPF contribution. To this end, we will use a prescribed FEDA that reflects expenses for the majority of platform workers. The use of FEDA provides significant convenience for both platform workers and the operators, because the platform workers will not have to keep receipts to track and compute actual expenses for their platform work. The platform operators will not have to incur additional operating costs to re-compute the CPF contribution based on actual expenses.
The prescribed FEDA also takes reference from the Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio developed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore for the computation of net earnings for tax purposes. This is based on actual expense ratios, including industry feedback and surveys on workers' expenses, and reflects expenses for the vast majority of platform workers. The use of FEDA will apply for the computation of work injury compensation as well.
Next, let me talk about the collection of CPF. Like in the employer-employee model, the onus is on platform operators to pay both the platform operator and platform worker share of CPF contribution to the CPF Board monthly. During the month, the platform operator may make deductions and refunds to the platform worker based on the applicable CPF contribution rate. It is an offence for platform operators to make a deduction from a platform worker's earnings and not pay it to the CPF Board. This protects the interest of platform workers. Platform operators will be required to reflect the deduction of the platform workers' share of CPF contribution clearly within their earnings slip for transparency and accountability and platform workers can check these contributions in their CPF account.
The Fifth Schedule of the Bill carries amendments to the Income Tax Act to align the tax reliefs and deductions for CPF contributions to the employer-employee model.
Finally, the good news for our platform workers is that the Government will also reimburse platform workers for the platform operator's share of CPF contributions under the Government-Paid Leave Schemes, such as Government-Paid Maternity and Paternity Leave, when platform workers take time away from work to care for their newborns. This is at clause 105 of the Bill, which amends the Child Development Co-Savings Act.
Today, before the Bill is passed, eligible platform workers get reimbursement from the Government for their lost income when they take parental leave. The Government does not reimburse them for any platform operator share of CPF contribution because this is not applicable to them today. They are not getting CPF contributions from the operator to begin with.
But moving forward, for platform workers who are mandated or have opted-in to boost their CPF savings, the Government will also reimburse the platform operators' share of CPF contribution, on top of their lost income, when platform workers seek reimbursement for parental leave. This is part of Government's strong commitment to support parenthood.
Let me now move on to financial protection for work injury. Platform workers' financial protection for work injury is currently inadequate compared to employees in similar sectors, such as logistics. Delivery employees and goods delivery partners both ply the roads to get deliveries to us and are exposed to the same risks.
Some platform operators voluntarily compensate platform workers for work injuries, such as through personal accident insurance. But the coverage is uneven and at lower levels than what employees are entitled to under WICA. It is important that platform workers, like employees, can recuperate and recover from their injuries without worrying about putting food on the table and get back to work in good health.
The Ninth Schedule of the Bill will amend WICA in relation to platform workers and platform operators. Under the amended Act, platform operators will be required to provide work injury compensation to platform workers at the same level of coverage, as employees, comprising reimbursement for medical expenses, income loss compensation for medical leave and hospitalisation leave and a lump sum compensation for permanent incapacity or death.
The same compensation caps and minimum sums for compensation for permanent incapacity or death for employees will now apply to platform workers after the Bill is passed. To assure platform workers of work injury compensation payouts and to ensure platform operators can discharge their liabilities, platform operators will be required to purchase work injury compensation insurance for their platform workers from MOM-designated insurers.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the key features of work injury compensation for platform workers?
Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. Let me now take Members through the key features of Work Injury Compensation for Platform Workers.
I will focus on three areas: exclusions, what stage of the work is covered under the WICA and which platform is liable in the case of injuries.
First on the exclusions. Given the flexibility of platform work, liability for work injury compensation should be scoped to risks that stakeholders can practically address. As platform workers have the autonomy to choose the vehicle used to perform platform work, under the amended WICA, platform workers will not be eligible for work injury compensation if the injury was caused by their use of an illegally modified vehicle, or if the platform worker was not licensed to operate the vehicle in the first place.
What stage of work will be covered? Some platform workers take platform work as their main job and do this throughout the day, while others do so on a part-time or ad hoc basis. As platform workers do not have fixed working hours or conventional workplaces, the circumstances under which platform workers will be eligible for work injury compensation will be more scoped, compared to employees.
The work injury compensation regime needs to account for the unique features of platform work. In a typical day, a platform worker would log onto the platform app to wait for jobs, before accepting a suitable job. Then, the platform worker would set off to pick up the ride-hail passenger or the item to be delivered and complete the ride or delivery. Hence, we can divide platform services broadly into three stages: waiting for jobs, picking up goods or passengers, delivering and completion of tasks – three stages.
With reference to paragraph 31 of the Ninth Schedule of the Bill, amendments to the WICA specify the work stages of platform services.
Platform workers will be eligible for work injury compensation when they are performing pick-up and delivery of passengers or goods. These are the key activities that take place after a platform job has been accepted. Outside pick-up and delivery, platform workers can wait for jobs or pursue their own activities. It would not be fair to extend platform operators' liability to activities which are not work-related.
Which platform is liable in case of injury? With reference to paragraph 17 of the Ninth Schedule of the Bill, for platform workers injured while performing a job for one platform operator, that platform operator will be liable. That is quite easy to understand.
For platform workers injured while performing tasks for different platform operators at the same time, liability will be confined to one platform operator where possible to simplify claims processing. This will be determined by a prioritisation of the work stages.
First, if the platform worker was performing "pick-up" and "delivery” tasks for different platform operators at the same time, only the platform operator behind the "delivery" task will be liable. This is because the platform worker can still choose to reject jobs during the "pick-up" stage but he or she is committed to fulfilling the job at the "delivery" work stage when the passenger or goods are already with them.
If multiple platform operators are liable, liability will be apportioned based on the platform worker's earnings from each liable platform operator. If the platform worker was performing "delivery" for two platform operators A and B, compensation liability will be apportioned among both platform operators based on the platform worker's earnings with each platform operator over the past 90 days on lookback. For example, if the platform worker earned $1,000 from platform operator A and $2,000 from platform operator B, A will bear one-third of the compensation liability and B will bear two-thirds of the compensation liability.
A platform worker could be performing work in two different platform sectors, meaning, both ride-hail and delivery. Two different sectors: one is fetching passengers, the other one is delivering goods. If a platform worker gets injured while performing a task in a particular platform service, compensation will be based on the platform worker's past earnings from all platform operators that they had worked for in that platform service. The platform worker's compensation will reference his earnings over a lookback period of 90 days before the date of the accident.
Platform workers injured while completing ride-hail and delivery jobs at the same time, that means, both platform services simultaneously, will be compensated based on the earnings from their higher-earning service sector. Scoping platform operators' compensation liability to one platform service facilitates sustainable insurance premiums.
While platform workers will be protected in case of work injuries, platform operators and workers should work together to reduce the possibility of work injuries in the first place and take remedial actions where necessary.
Today, all companies and workers are responsible for safety and health outcomes under the WSH Act. Recognising the unique features of platform work, such as the use of different modes of transport for platform workers, we will introduce separate duties for platform operators and for platform workers through amendments to the WSH Act under the 10th Schedule. This will clarify platform operators' responsibility for the safety and health of platform workers when at work and platform workers' responsibility to cooperate with platform operators on safety measures.
Next, let me talk about enhanced representation. Today, a group of employees who want to represent their fellow employees must register themselves as a trade union and seek mandate to represent their members in negotiations with the employer and to resolve disputes.
For platform work, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, the National Taxi Association and the National Delivery Champions Association have been actively working to understand the challenges that platform workers in the ride-hail and delivery sectors face, and champion their interests. However, as platform workers are not employees, there is currently no legal framework for the representation of platform workers.
While there has been constructive dialogue between the associations and platform operators, tripartite partners agree that the process can be strengthened through a legal framework that sets out the rights and obligations of both platform work associations and platform operators in dealing with each other. Many of the challenges encountered by the platform workers are actually operational in nature and would be better resolved collectively through representative bodies that could work with various stakeholders including mall operators, food and beverage (F&B) chains and so on to find a good solution.
As the framework for employers and employees has worked well in preserving industrial harmony, the Bill largely adopts this framework for platform operators and platform workers. In other words, platform work associations will be analogous to trade unions.
I would like to highlight three important aspects of this framework for platform work associations.
First, we will appoint a Registrar and Assistant Registrars of platform work associations under clause 20 to assess the applications of platform work associations for registration and ensure the responsible administration of platform work associations. Similar to how trade unions may represent employees or employers, platform work associations can represent platform workers or platform operators. Once registered, the platform work associations of platform workers must obtain mandate from their members working with a platform operator to represent them in negotiations with that platform operator.
Second, once a mandate is obtained, a platform work association can work with platform operators to discuss and agree on areas for negotiation. Thus far, companies and associations have raised various areas that they may be interested in negotiating, such as safeguarding the health and safety of workers, how earnings are computed and more. Given that platform work is quite diverse and dynamic, tripartite partners agreed to leave it to each platform work association and platform operator to decide on what to negotiate on, rather than to pre-determine a list of issues that they can or cannot negotiate.
Third, it is important to preserve industrial harmony in Singapore. Therefore, amendments to the Industrial Relations Act under the Sixth Schedule of the Bill will extend existing channels for dispute resolution to platform work associations and platform operators. For instance, disputes can be brought to MOM for conciliation, and if that fails, the dispute can be heard by the Industrial Arbitration Courts.
While platform work associations can organise industrial action just like trade unions, any decision to organise industrial action must be a considered and justified decision. As such, under clause 36(1) of the Bill, a platform work association must not organise or commence industrial action if it has not obtained the consent, by secret ballot, of the majority of members affected by the industrial action. Doing so would be an offence. This is similar to the framework which governs trade unions today.
We recognise that there may be concerns around costs arising from these measures. The Government will put in place measures to manage the impact on stakeholders.
For work injury compensation, the existing open and competitive insurance market for work injury compensation insurance will facilitate sustainable insurance premiums for platform operators based on the claims history and safety records.
Today, there are 26 insurers offering competitive insurance products for the employee regime. We have worked with seven of them to develop operational policies as part of the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network including providing data for more accurate risk assessment, reducing uncertainty for insurers and platform operators.
For CPF, we will pace the increase in CPF contribution over five years and give older platform workers the choice to opt in to higher CPF contributions. We will also introduce the enhanced PCTS for lower-income platform workers.
To mitigate concerns around costs being passed down to platform workers, there will be provisions under the amended CPF Act and WICA that prohibit platform operators from recovering the cost of the platform operators’ share of CPF contributions and work injury compensation from platform workers, similar to existing provisions that apply to employers.
Consumers also have a critical role to play. The introduction of CPF and workplace injury compensation protections will unavoidably lead to some increase in business costs, but I think as a society, if we all believe that we should provide some core protections for our platform workers, we should be prepared to pay just a little bit more to help platform workers secure their future. In fact, our surveys show that many consumers are indeed prepared to do so and I am heartened by this reflection of our strong social compact. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The platform economy has created opportunities for platform workers to earn a living and made life more convenient for many Singaporeans. However, platform work is precarious, so the Government will strengthen protections for platform workers in three areas: first, housing and retirement adequacy; second, work injury compensation and; third, allowing platform work associations to represent platform workers and safeguard their interests.
Firstly, platform workers will be entitled to the same housing and retirement adequacy as employees with the same income. We will gradually increase the CPF contribution rates for platform operators and workers over five years, in order to reduce the impact on platform operators and workers.
Platform workers born in 1995 and later will be required to contribute to their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts. Younger platform workers have expressed interest in making additional CPF contributions to meet their housing needs. Older platform workers may already have their own housing and retirement plans, so they can choose to opt-in. Platform workers' total income, including CPF, will increase.
I understand that some platform workers may still be concerned that their take-home pay will be reduced. To address this, we will provide support to help low-income platform workers. The Government has enhanced the Platform Workers' CPF Transition Support (PCTS), to fully cover the additional CPF contributions required from the platform workers in 2025. This means that the platform workers' take-home pay will not be affected next year.
The subsidy in 2026 will also be increased from 50% to 75% and will be gradually reduced in subsequent years. At the same time, the monthly income ceiling for PCTS has been raised from $2,500 to $3,000, thus benefitting more platform workers.
Secondly, platform operators must provide platform workers with work injury compensation equivalent to employees’. Compensation includes medical expenses, income loss compensation for sick leave and hospitalisation and a one-time compensation for permanent incapacity or death.
Lastly, we will also establish a legal framework to allow platform work associations to represent platform workers, similar to how unions represent employees. Platform work associations will be able to communicate and negotiate with stakeholders, such as platform operators and mall operators, to better address the issues and challenges faced by platform workers.
(In English): If the Bill is passed, we plan for the Bill to take effect from 1 January 2025 as the intention is to allow platform workers to benefit from the protections as soon as possible, while bringing more convenience to platform operators and platform workers by having the increased CPF contribution rates and tax relief computed from the start of the calendar year.
Singapore is one of the first countries to provide statutory protections for platform workers as a distinct group from employees. Many other jurisdictions are similarly grappling with the challenge of how to better protect their platform workers. In this regard, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has reached out to Singapore to better understand our considerations and experiences in making these policy changes. This signals how important this issue is and shows that we are at the vanguard of developing innovative and sustainable ways to better protect these workers.
As Singaporeans, we can all be proud that we are doing this to uplift the social security protections for our platform workers who face precarity due to the nature of platform work. The measures in the Bill will improve their housing and retirement adequacy, provide them with financial protection for work injuries, and enable platform work associations to act as a bridge between platform operators and platform workers so that industrial relations remain stable and conducive to the platform economy.
This would not have been possible without our tripartite partners and the close tripartite collaboration we have in Singapore. I would like to thank the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) for journeying together with us to strengthen our social compact in this new area. Everyone must play their part, including platform operators, platform workers and consumers at large. The Government will also put in place transition measures to support stakeholders in implementing these changes. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
*Question proposed.*
Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill comes to the House on the back of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, recommendations which were approved by the Government in 2022. The Committee's recommendations sought to strengthen protections for platform workers in three areas: adequate financial protection in case of work injury through the Work Injury Compensation Framework provided by WICA, improved housing and retirement adequacy through CPF contributions, and finally, enhanced representation for platform workers. I will first speak on the platform workers space in general, and then on the higher prices for consumers that will most inevitably arise from the legislative changes effected by this Bill.
The second part of my speech will focus on specific queries on the introduction of CPF. Finally, I will end with a few questions on WICA for platform workers and the expectations platform workers ought to have of associations that would bargain for them.
Before I speak on the substantive Bill, it is important to give an overview of the platform workers space and the incomes of our platform workers. In 2023, there were 70,500 platform workers who formed 2.9% of the labour force. The platform industry and how it is regulated, is also diverse. For example, ride-hailing is far more regulated than food delivery, which is comparatively unregulated.
Another significant question concerning platform workers is whether they earn most of their income from platform work, or if such work merely supplements what they earn from their full-time jobs. In a survey done as part of a 2022 Institute of Policy Studies inquiry on platform workers, 46% of respondents earned their income solely from food delivery, while another 27% earned income solely from platform work, including food delivery.
MOM reported that the median gross monthly income of full-time platform-related occupations was $2,000 in 2023, unchanged from 2022. For a better understanding of each sub-category of platform workers, this figure needs to be parsed further so we can understand the median gross monthly income of each category of platform worker as listed by MOM, namely delivery workers, taxi drivers and private hire drivers.
I hope the Ministry can provide this information so we can have an acute understanding of the income situation affecting specific type of platform work. With the cost of living biting Singaporeans at all levels, especially those of lower income, the earnings of most platform workers are precarious.
This view is reinforced by a 2023 DBS study, which showed that platform workers are spending more than they earn and have to tap into their savings as they try to cope with the cost of living. In 2022, the expense-to-income ratio was 107%. This rose in 2023, to 112%. Arising from this, the savings of platform workers fell to 1.7 months' worth of expenses in May 2023, compared to 1.9 months a year before.
This figure of 1.7 months is well below that of DBS Bank's median retail customer, who has savings of 3.5 months' worth of expenses. It is also well below the 12 months' of savings recommended by DBS Bank's Head of Financial Planning Literacy for those with an unstable income stream. Quite simply, many of our platform workers are potentially one major unexpected medical bill or even car repair away from exhausting their savings and sinking into real financial hardship.
The changes proposed by this Bill are aimed at helping platform workers by addressing their income and health-related insecurities. For these reasons, the Workers' Party (WP) supports this Bill, as it seeks to advance regulatory changes that will ultimately better-serve the interests of platform workers.
This House understands, of course, that the changes provided by this Bill must be paid for by someone. For now, there is little clarity on how much of the higher costs will be absorbed by the platform companies. But the Bill will doubtless usher in a period of overall higher prices for customers of platform services.
At a platform workers' dialogue session in 2023, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon remarked, "All the surveys we have done, showed that Singaporeans are prepared to pay up to 10% more to support platform workers."
However, a survey conducted in the first half of 2022, with a sample size of 2,000 respondents by the then-Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) on how much consumers were willing to pay to facilitate better protections for platform workers, revealed more nuanced findings.
The MCI survey noted that four in five consumers were prepared to pay more for food delivery or ride-hailing services if the monies went to better support platform workers. Four in 10 respondents said that they were willing to pay up to 3% more, while three in 10 said that they were willing to pay 4% to 5% more. One consumer said that she was willing to pay a little extra, provided that the increase in costs were transparent and clearly went towards worker protection.
A different survey in September 2022 of 570 respondents found that nine in 10 were prepared to pay more if the monies went towards initiatives to better support platform workers.
Minister – through you, Mr Deputy Speaker – in view of the survey threshold and tolerance of Singaporeans for price rises for platform services arising from this Bill, how much does the Ministry anticipate prices to increase by and how will this be equitably spread between consumers, platforms and platform workers? Specifically, after the implementation of the full CPF amount and WICA, are prices for users of platform services expected to rise by 5% or more, or will it breach the 10% mentioned by the Senior Minister of State?
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a mere technical question, but one I expect has been carefully considered by the tripartite partners, in view of the long period of deliberation, after the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers made its recommendations. Should the price increase be too high for consumers, one cannot rule out the prospect of a demand shock that causes consumers to recoil and reduce overall demand for platform services. If that were to happen, platform workers could find themselves with less work and even lower incomes.
In addition, does the Senior Minister of State expect platform companies to reveal how much of their anticipated price increases are accrued to the CPF and WICA amendments envisaged by this Bill? Or are the algorithms of the platform companies expected to accommodate the increase in prices, with the public unclear about the extent of the price rise that is devoted towards better security for our platform workers? The latter scenario may of course incentivise the prospect of profiteering in the name of regulatory compliance.
The next part of my speech covers questions on the preparations, assumptions and scenarios related to these new protections for workers, which are being brought to this House almost two years after the original recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers.
I will first speak on the compulsory CPF contributions for platform workers aged below 30, with an opt-in regime for platform workers above the age of 30.
In April 2022, I asked the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon about the number of platform workers who contribute to their CPF accounts on their own accord. While the Senior Minister of State did not have the data on hand, it was assessed that only about 45% of platform workers made some contribution to their MediSave accounts.
It is not surprising that most platform workers do not contribute to their CPF accounts. Workers are very concerned about take-home pay. Anything that could reduce that amount is viewed with apprehension as it affects daily life.
At a platform workers' dialogue session on 3 February 2023 involving about 120 workers, several workers raised their fears on whether the recommendations suggested by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers would result in higher costs for platforms, which would then be passed on to workers, to the detriment of their take-home pay.
One worker said, "I hope that it will not be the cost all (passed) over to us, (but) it will be spread across consumers, platforms and ourselves. At the end of the day, if you just say only and, when you implement, the cost come back to us, we are the ones paying the 17%." He was referring to the 17% rate for employers' CPF contributions.
Another worker alleged that the payment rate of the platforms had been decreasing since the announcement of the measures of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers were made and asked, "How can the Government ensure that the platforms eventually don't give us the burden?"
What is clear is that, platform workers are concerned about lower take-home income should platform companies extract the employers' contribution of CPF by adjusting the algorithm, thereby forcing take-home wages downwards. The workers' concerns are in line with the public demand that the anticipated increase in the cost of platform services goes towards helping platform workers.
I have a few queries for the Senior Minister of State on the CPF-related portion of this Bill.
First, with an opt-in age of 30, most platform workers could choose not to participate. Could the Senior Minister of State share the rationale and thinking of why it agreed to the opt-in age of 30, in view of the larger policy objective of addressing housing needs and retirement adequacy of platform workers?
Secondly, for workers who do not opt-in to CPF, will they receive the platform companies' share of the CPF contribution in cash?
Thirdly, based on 2023 MOM data, the median age of resident regular primary platform workers was in the mid-50s. Only 8.4% of such workers were aged 30 and below – 8.4%. Could the Senior Minister of State please tell us why the Ministry did not pursue an opt-out system, instead of an opt-in regime for those above 30 in age?
Opt-out systems, from a behavioural perspective, are far more effective in securing participation to address housing and retirement needs while yet giving choice to platform workers. Platform workers aged 30 to 39 form 10.8% of the total and those aged 40 to 49% form 18.8% of the total. In view of the life cycle of the CPF system and lower contributions received in one's later years, the early working years are important age brackets, during which, our platform workers can grow their CPF accounts to reap the benefits of compound interest in good time.
Considering that full-time employees are not even given the choice of either opting in or opting out, an opt-out system for platform workers does not seem inappropriate or unfair and would be far more effective in getting platform workers to seriously consider taking up CPF.
Fourthly, some platform workers are worried about whether they would be worse off if they opt into CPF as provided by this Bill. They are concerned that it would create a perverse incentive on the part of platform companies to assign more jobs to workers who are not making CPF contributions so as to lower the companies' wage expenditure. The Government needs to address this very real fear of our platform workers.
Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon has previously stated that platform companies must not discriminate when assigning work and MOM would investigate any unfair practices. Without more, my view is that this would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove discrimination as the evidence would lie in the word or, precisely, the algorithms of the platform companies.
It was reported that the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation for Platform Workers (TWG) had drawn up some negotiating principles with the platform companies, for example, (a) that parties would be mutually committed to the operators' business success and workers' welfare; and (b) platform operators need not divulge their proprietary information or negotiate on commercially-sensitive matters.
Can the Senior Minister of State tell us how the Ministry will investigate platform companies? How would the Ministry undertake investigations without access to the platform companies' top-secret algorithms, or does the Bill open the algorithms to scrutiny if discriminatory practices are alleged?
Fifthly, under the Bill, the CPF contribution rates for workers and platforms would be increased by a few percentage points each year, until it reaches 20% from platform workers and 17% from platforms later in this decade. To address the fears of workers about falling incomes arising from the imposition of CPF, the Government announced the PCTS at the Committee of Supply debate in March last year. The Government would contribute 75% of the workers' contribution in the first year and this would reduce to 25% in 2027.
A few weeks ago, the Government announced that it would totally offset the first contribution for the year 2025 by 100%, thus subsidising the workers' entire CPF contribution next year. Although, it must be noted that this would be the kick-off year where the workers' contribution is the lowest, at 2.5%. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, in the interest of fiscal transparency, what is the difference between the new fiscal allocation for the PCTS compared to the original PCTS announcement?
I move on to my queries on work injury compensation. I have two broad queries in this regard.
First, it would be important for this House to understand the deliberations of the work injury compensation implementation network for platform companies and workers, on the number of insurers, which I believe was briefly mentioned by the Senior Minister of State in his opening speech, and the cost of premiums to platform companies since there is a legitimate concern that added cost for platform companies with regard to WICA, are likely to be passed on to the consumer.
Have there been difficulties in pricing WICA for platform workers to date and do platform companies have a competitive range of quotes to consider? How many insurers are prepared to offer WICA, particularly since the product is new and the class of platform workers to be covered is far smaller than WICA for employees? With the implementation date for WICA for platform workers a mere three months away, are platform companies aware of how much WICA will cost them, so as to be ready to roll out coverage for platform workers by 1 January 2025?
Separately, Mr Speaker, from the platform workers' perspective, for better work injury compensation, there must be a clear claims and compensation process for platform workers which is also easily understood. It was made known in July 2023 that the compensation from income lost due to work injuries would be based on the worker's average actual earnings in the 90 days before the injury.
Sir, the reality on the ground is that many platform workers receive platform work across many apps or what is sometimes referred to as multi-homing. We see this all the time with platform workers toggling between several devices hosting different platform apps.
Could the Senior Minister of State please tell us whether a WICA claim would cover the 90-day average across all the platform companies a platform worker is registered with and works for no matter the number of jobs accepted over this period? This is important because should a claim only be tied to the platform company, through which a platform worker accepted an assignment when injured, the WICA coverage for the worker may turn out to be very low.
Another point where clarification is needed, is the time frame during which a platform worker is considered at work. For work injury compensation purposes, a platform worker is considered at-work during the pick-up and drop-off of passengers or items, including when they are headed to their vehicles or bikes. At least this is what I understood from the brochure that was circulated by the Senior Minister of State just now.
This means that the eligibility window for work injury claims opens when the platform worker accepts a job through their app and ends when they head to their vehicles or bicycles after finishing delivery. Would there be scope to look at how WICA would apply to the completion of a food delivery job?
Usually undertaken by platform workers on motorcycles or bicycles, the risk profile of such platform workers differs considerably from platform workers who provide ride-hailing services. Intuitively, the injuries sustained from even apparently minor accidents like brushes or side swipes involving two-wheelers can be severe, debilitating and, every so often, fatal.
Can WICA for platform workers accommodate and extend greater protection for our most vulnerable workers? For example, can there be coverage if a food delivery rider completes a job, is in transit on the way home after a food delivery and, God forbids, gets involved in some serious accident?
I believe there is some scope for reviewing the applicability of WICA for food delivery riders and ride-hail platform workers differently, to better protect more vulnerable workers. This is worth consideration precisely because of the unconventional deployment of WICA in the ordinary sense, which is commonly extended to those traditionally classified as employees only. I hope the Ministry can look into this.
Separately, in a Business Times article dated 13 July 2023, it was reported that a ride-hailing driver had a specific query on whether the WICA coverage would extend to platform workers who get into an accident while waiting for the app to assign new jobs. There was no clarity on this point in the article, so it would be helpful if the Senior Minister of State can address this point in the House, too.
Before moving on from this section, the incorporation of WICA for platform workers by way of this Bill does not mean that platform companies have been leaving workers in the lurch. Foodpanda has extended skills upgrading schemes for its workers. A few companies, such as Gojek, offer subsidised premiums if workers take up private insurance. Grab has been providing drivers and delivery partners prolonged medical leave insurance.
However, the varied nature of the platform space and, by extension, the varied and different coverage for work injuries suffered by our workers, means that WICA is necessary to ensure better and consistent basic protection for our most vulnerable workers. To that extent, I agree completely with the Senior Minister of State's explanation on WICA for platform workers.
Finally, an important prong of the changes envisaged by the Bill is representation. As iterated earlier, the tripartite discussions that preceded the Bill acknowledged that the business secrets of platform companies, such as the operational details of their matching algorithms, would be respected.
I believe many people in and out of this House would have heard platform workers speak of riders or drivers allegedly receiving notice of a job in the vicinity, while another driver or rider may not receive the same notice. Naturally, this raises concerns of discriminatory allocation.
Unfortunately, these very algorithms that determine allocation are driven by the business strategies of the platform companies and one can understand that they may be trade secrets. While the House must respect the liberty of private enterprise to the extent possible, equally, it is important for platform companies to both proactively explain as well as publicise to their workers how important decisions, such as job allocation, performance assessment of workers and rates, are decided. A balance has to be struck between respecting business secrecy on one hand and the legitimate concerns of workers on the other.
Ultimately, any new status quo must better level the playing field between platform workers and platform companies to ensure that workers' rights are protected. I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if representation as effected by the Bill could co-exist with the prospect of platform workers sharing their data with an association.
In the UK, a non-profit entity called WorkerInfoExchange helps platform workers access and gain insight from data collected from them at work, with a view to tilting the balance away from big platforms by collecting and pooling the data of platform workers to help them demand fairer conditions. Can the Senior Minister of State confirm if this Bill envisages a platform work association representing platform workers operating in a similar way, given there is an understanding that platform companies will not be expected to reveal the inner workings of their algorithms?
If representation delivers a more level playing field for workers and information, asymmetries between workers and companies are reduced in a real way, more platform workers are likely to be assisted directly, where representation carries weight and bargaining power. This may be an important incentive to get platform workers to seek better representation. Such incentives are needed, given that a survey carried out by Grab, Deliveroo and Foodpanda revealed that 55% of food delivery workers said they are unwilling to pay any fees for representation, suggesting a lack of understanding at what representation can offer or a lack of belief of how representation can benefit them in concrete terms.
To conclude, Sir, the success of this Bill for the Singaporean public will turn on how reasonable the anticipated price rises of platform services will be after the Bill becomes law and whether the increase is equitably distributed between consumers, platforms and workers – bearing in mind that nothing stops any company or service provider from capitalising on significant regulatory changes to profiteer or socialise costs more than it should.
While the Bill represents an improvement in social security and fairer working conditions for our platform workers, its effectiveness hinges on resolving ambiguities and the acceptance of important social responsibilities by not just platform companies and consumers, but platform workers accepting some responsibility for their own security too.
Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today we are debating a Bill that marks a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to uplift and care for the workers of Singapore. Protecting our platform workers is a cause the Labour Movement has championed for many years. This Bill addresses the unique challenges faced by workers in Singapore's growing gig economy, now widely known as platform workers.
These workers have quietly become indispensable to our daily lives – delivering our food, driving us to our destinations and bringing parcels to our doorsteps. At its core, this Bill seeks to strike a delicate balance. On one hand, it provides our platform workers with the basic protections they deserve. This is a significant win for the more than 75,000 platform workers, who rely on this work for their livelihoods.
For too long, these workers have operated in the grey area, unable to benefit from the protections of the Employment Act and relying on the goodwill of platform companies for insurance coverage. This Bill proposes to provide them with a safety net through mandatory CPF contributions, insurance coverage and the right to formal representation.
On the other hand, this Bill is sensitive to the flexibility that characterises platform work. The objective is not just to protect current workers but to ensure that the gig economy remains a sustainable part of our economy in the long term.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if it is passed, this legislation will be a landmark legislation globally. The cornerstone of this legislative change is Singapore's tripartism. Tripartism is our unique collaboration among the Government, employers and unions. It has long been the bedrock of Singapore's labour relations. It is this spirit of cooperation and dialogue that has enabled us to achieve what many other countries have struggled with: a harmonious and effective approach to regulating and improving the gig economy.
In many countries, efforts to regulate the gig or platform economy have faced significant resistance. In California, for example, platform companies have invested millions in legal battles to overturn legislation protecting platform workers. The situation has similarly been challenging in Europe, where attempts to classify gig workers as employees have been met with stiff opposition from platform companies. However, in Singapore, we have taken a different approach.
By leveraging on our strong tradition of tripartism, we have brought together the Government, unions and platform companies to craft a framework that balances the needs of all parties. This collaborative approach has allowed us to move forward with this bold legislative and policy change, ensuring we protect our workers while maintaining the flexibility and sustainability of the gig economy.
A key feature of the Bill is ensuring that platform workers have access to CPF contributions. This is crucial for helping them build a secure financial future, especially for younger workers who aspire to own their homes and save for retirement. By mandating CPF contributions from both platform companies and workers, we are not just protecting these individuals. We are investing in their future.
While it may be challenging for workers to adapt to a lower take-home pay initially, the PCTS will help alleviate this burden. This phased approach gives workers time to adjust to the new scheme. Workers will also get employers' contributions to the CPF, lending further support for longer-term retirement and housing support. If we care for the workers, we must plan for the longer run.
Currently, mandatory work and injury compensation for platform workers is non-existent. Some platform companies offer insurance but it is not mandated. This leaves workers vulnerable when accidents occur, facing both medical bills and loss of income. Cases of riders suffering injuries resulting in inability to work are not uncommon. Without mandatory workplace injury coverage, they will have to rely on their savings or the goodwill of friends and family to cover their medical expenses and support their households. Such is the precarious situation many delivery riders face. The struggles underscore the urgent need for a standardised, mandated workplace injury compensation scheme that protects all platform workers.
A 2022 survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, further underscores the urgency of this issue, finding that more than a third of delivery riders in Singapore had been in some forms of accident requiring medical attention. Yet without legislative protection, they are left with the financial brunt of such incidents. This Bill will introduce mandatory work injury compensation for platform workers, providing them with the same level of protection as traditional employees under WICA.
Whether it is a delivery rider injured at a job or a private hire driver involved in an accident, platform workers will now have the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are now covered. The Bill also allows for platform workers to be formally represented by associations, giving these associations legal standing to advocate on behalf of workers.
This is welcome news for the labour union-affiliated associations, like the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, the National Delivery Champions Association and the National Taxi Association. With the formal legal backing, these associations can now, more effectively, engage with platform companies to represent and protect their members, ensuring a more balanced playing field for platform workers. And members will also be supported by NTUC's full ecosystem of support and privileges.
Without such representation, platform workers often find themselves voiceless and powerless. In the UK, Uber drivers had to fight a lengthy legal battle to be recognised as workers, rather than independent contractors. The absence of formal representation delayed their access to basic protection for years.
This Bill seeks to prevent such struggles by empowering associations to protect platform workers' rights from the outset. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while this Bill represents a significant step forward, it is important to acknowledge the challenges and trade-offs that come with it. These protections will likely come at a cost, at least in the short term.
Platform companies will need to adjust their business models to comply with these new obligations and some of these costs may, indeed, be passed on to consumers. The Government has come in via the PCTS to help with the transition. This means that short-term price volatility is likely to be mitigated, giving time for the system to adjust. However, we must remember the broader social compact that we are trying to build in Singapore requires contributions from all parties. All of us, platform workers, companies and consumers, must share the responsibility of ensuring that the gig economy remains fair and sustainable for all stakeholders. By working together, we can ensure that these changes benefit not just platform workers, but all of Singapore.
There are a few points I would like to raise for the Ministry's considerations.
The gig economy often involves workers engaging with multiple platforms simultaneously. For instance, a delivery rider might work for different food delivery platforms or even ride-hailing services, as discussed earlier. This can create unique challenges when it comes to applying to WICA.
We have talked about having a look-back period, but invariably, this may lead to disputes among insurance or even companies delaying compensation for workers. To address this, how does the Ministry ensure guidelines are sufficiently clear and robust and there will be a robust arbitration system in place so that the payouts are not unduly delayed?
The Bill primarily focuses on workers engaged in transportation and delivery services. But the gig economy clearly extends beyond these sectors. Platforms offering cleaning services, digital work and nursing services are also significant parts of the gig economy. Could the Ministry clarify its rationale for focusing on transportation and delivery services now? And will there be a periodic review mechanism to update the definition of "platform workers" as the gig economy evolves?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a positive step forward for Singapore. Providing platform workers with the protection they deserve is essential as we build an inclusive society. It also demonstrates that the People's Action Party (PAP) Government is prepared to make bold changes to its policies to improve the lives of Singaporeans. The gig economy offers workers a flexible way to achieve financial independence or sustenance, and we must ensure they are protected from the imbalances of power that exist in this sector.
But our work does not end here. We must continue to listen to the voices of our platform workers and make necessary adjustments to ensure that this Bill achieves its intended outcome. Every worker matters and the Labour Movement stands ready to assist the Government in engaging our platform workers to ensure that this Bill achieves its intent. I look forward to a stronger social compact, ensuring that our society works towards leaving no worker behind. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Deputy Speaker, own account workers have historically been a key feature of our labour markets, with various occupations ranging from real estate and insurance agents, F&B stall owners at our hawker centres to taxi drivers. In recent years, the rise of digital platforms alongside the proliferation of smartphones and the mobile Internet led to the emergence of a different class of own account workers: those who may not entirely be in control of their own business, such as private hire car drivers and food delivery riders, working for the ubiquitous multi-billion dollar platform companies we see today.
Many of our Sengkang residents work for these platforms in the gig economy, too, and I have spoken to quite a number of them during my Meet-the-People Sessions, house visits and our shopping malls where many of them are waiting for their next delivery pick-up. While the gig economy is often hailed for its flexibility and autonomy, the reality is that with ever-increasing app sophistication and as these platforms grow in scale, the gig economy has evolved in ways that increasingly disadvantage its workers, and such work is often arduous, risky and poorly remunerated. Behind the appeal of flexibility and the promise of independence lies a reality fraught with inadequate protections and financial insecurity.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
As these issues become increasingly apparent, there is an urgent need for legislation to safeguard the welfare and rights of our platform workers. This Bill, in essence, implements the recommendations brought forth by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers to help improve the working conditions and livelihoods of our platform workers, and I believe nobody will disagree with the urgency of addressing some of the pain points faced by our platform workers.
There remains much work to be done, however, and my speech will focus on three areas which I believe we can and should do better to ensure the fundamental sustainability of our platform workers' livelihood in the long term.
First, under the new section 8A, platform operators must now pay CPF contributions to its platform workers, with platform workers' themselves, too, contributing the equivalent of "employee contributions" through a deduction from their remuneration.
Chief among platform workers' concerns is, of course, the reduction in take-home salaries, which can be a sizeable impact, considering the already low average salaries earned by our workers trying their best to feed their families.
Granted, in an announcement on 22 August 2024, MOM announced that the PCTS will be enhanced, such that there will be a 100% offset of the platform workers' share of increase in CPF Ordinary Account and Special Account contributions in 2025, before tapering down gradually from 2026 and easing in 2029.
However, are we being too lenient on the platform companies themselves in not getting them to better support their own platform workers, whom they rely on day in and day out to keep their platforms working? Platform companies' CPF contributions start at 3.5% for workers across all age groups from 1 January 2025, before progressively increasing each year up to a steady state from 1 January 2029 onwards. Today, resident regular primary platform workers aged 60 and over represent the highest percentage of workers by age group at 34.7%, with those aged 50 to 59 representing the next highest percentage at 30.2%.
Using the example of a worker aged between 65 and 70 who is somehow still working and not retired, the difference between the initial 3.5% company contribution rate and the steady state contribution rate of 9% is minimal. Assuming he earns the median income of $2,000 as a worker, the difference is a mere $110 a month. Even if we assume the worker is aged 35 or below, meaning a company contribution rate of 17%, the difference is, again, just $270 a month. Surely, that is not too much to ask of our platform companies.
I fully agree with what Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon said in response to Parliamentary Questions in April 2022, where he noted that while mandatory CPF contributions will increase platform companies' business costs, I quote: "It is no worse off than any other company employing workers in a similar sector, such as in logistics and transport. Besides, platform companies already contribute CPF for their management executives and administrative staff today."
While we want to phase in the workers' contributions over time, given take-home pay concerns, can we not accelerate platform companies' contributions or even mandating that they start contributing their full share of contributions immediately from January 2025?
Second, I wish to reiterate a point I made during the 2022 Committee of Supply debate, where I hope that we can pay a fair wage for our platform workers and ensure that they earn at least our minimum wage equivalent, the local qualifying salary (LQS). While this was at $9.00 per hour back when I made the speech, this has now been raised to $10.50 per hour, based on the latest LQS as announced in Budget 2024.
The 2017/2018 Household Expenditure Survey lists the median household expenditure as $4,906. A DBS survey also suggested that food delivery riders spend $1.12 for every dollar they earn.
While such jobs are advertised as being "flexible" and "ad hoc", many platform workers work long hours to ensure that they have sufficient income, with an Institute of Policy Studies survey reporting that approximately 40% of food delivery riders work over 44 hours a week.
Today, platform workers have to grapple with ever-changing incentive schemes, weather conditions and other factors beyond their control. Allowing them to earn a fair wage that is in line with minimum wage standards goes a long way in providing some degree of support in alleviating the income instability that our platform workers face.
While the nature of the work differs from platform to platform, as long as the principle is abided to, I believe the implementation difficulties are not insurmountable. In China, for example, one of the largest if not the largest market for platform workers, its Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security released additional guidelines earlier this year, stipulating how operators of delivery, ride-hailing, transport and household services platforms should ensure that their workers' salaries match local minimum wages and provide them with time off. This is a further extension of regulations published back in 2021 that already requires operators to meet minimum wage standards and provide social security access to their workers.
Third, perhaps underlying many of the issues faced by our platform workers is a trust deficit between the powerful multi-billion international technology platforms and the thousands of individual platform workers who feel beholden to the platforms they count on to put food on the table for themselves and not just the customers whom they deliver to.
Our platform workers' livelihoods are thus at the mercy of the technology and algorithms behind these platforms, which can sometimes feel like a faceless and merciless machine. One of the residents I met earlier, who cycles to make food deliveries, was even wondering if his lower scores led to him being deployed to "lousy jobs" which involve a long ride to pick up the food and subsequently to deliver them. With the move to introduce CPF contributions for platform workers, there could be concerns, unfounded or otherwise, that algorithms might be programmed to assign more jobs to workers who do not opt in and could better contribute to the platforms' bottom line instead.
Perhaps, in addition to formal union representation, the Government can consider the formation of an "Algorithm Committee" to give platform workers confidence that there is fairness and transparency in how the platforms operate. Such a committee was introduced in Spain, for example, as part of their first Collective Agreement for Platform Workers, and, in China, the authorities have also introduced guidelines since 2021 highlighting that the "strictest algorithm" should not be used as an assessment requirement and delivery time requirements should be appropriately relaxed.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, rather than confining our support for platform workers within the existing framework, I hope the additional points I raised can be given due consideration for future legislative amendments to better enhance the sustainability of our platform workers' livelihoods. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Mr Speaker, it has been over a decade of the Labour Movement listening to and representing Singapore's freelancers and the self-employed. NTUC and our affiliate associations – the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and National Delivery Champions Association have worked for years on advocating and planning for this debate today. I would like to give a shoutout to my brothers and sisters in the Gallery, these are the good people, association leaders, unionists, platform owners and operators, who have worked very hard to make this debate happen today.
This landmark Bill, if passed into law, recognises that self-employed gig platform workers are in employee-like work arrangements with platform operators and will allow platform workers, such as our taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and delivery riders, to be formally represented by union-like associations under Singapore's labour laws, and to be accorded, rightfully, fair and even workplace injury insurance, as well as retirement and housing adequacy, alongside all Singaporean employees.
The Labour Movement is no stranger to the ground concerns of our freelance workers and thanks to Singapore's unique style of tripartism, has been representing our workers' rights to the Government and platform taxi companies. Successful negotiations through the tripartite partnership have helped our drivers and riders through challenging times and have created improved worker outcomes in terms of work prospects and working conditions.
In 2010, the National Taxi Association advocated for taxi companies to match MediSave Contributions for our drivers under the "Drive and Save" scheme, and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association replicated this successfully for our private hire vehicle drivers in 2017 with Grab. We also innovated voluntary mediation for disputes with operators and we want to thank our progressive operators for their support. Throughout COVID-19, we protected livelihoods by working with taxi companies to reduce rentals and hold taxi pump prices when fuel prices spiked. Partnering closely with our food court operators, platform companies and the Government, NTUC negotiated on proper rest areas for drivers and riders providing essential services during the COVID-19 restrictions. Earlier this year, NTUC mooted for and co-led a multi-agency workgroup comprising the Government and private sector condominium Management Corporation Strata Titles and mall operators to look into work and safety conditions for our delivery riders.
These working models and Tripartite relationships have been carefully cultivated by our associations to improve the welfare of our workers in the absence of legislation. If Members need proof of this working model, it is visible here at the Gallery with our platform operators seated next to our platform workers.
However, Mr Speaker, there are miles to go before we sleep, and as more Singaporeans choose to be part of the gig economy and as more global players enter this fast-evolving platform industry in Singapore, it is important that our workers' interests and livelihoods stay protected. We listened. And we know that platform workers are stressed about the long-term sustainability of their livelihoods, especially with non-transparent incentives and order mechanisms, app glitches and fluctuating demand/supply. They are worried about unsafe working conditions and the financial burden placed on their families should accidents or even deaths occur. They are aggrieved over the lone voices they have when it comes to their challenges being heard by platform partners and other stakeholders in the course of their daily work.
Unlike the truly self-employed, today’s platform workers are in employee-like work arrangements as they are subjected to their platform operators' management controls and have to adhere to the platforms' rules of engagement. Many a times, our platform workers are left in vulnerable situations especially when their platform partners change their incentive structures and order booking rhythms.
Brother Calvin, not his real name, was once a delivery rider using a power-assisted bicycle (PAB). By targeting peak-hour shifts, he was able to earn a comfortable steady $2,500 a month, and this allowed him the ability to support himself and to take on some long-term financial commitments. But things changed. Despite booking those same peak-hour shifts, fewer orders started coming in. Once, he went for days without even being able to book for the same shifts he once used to be able to get. Seeing that bicycle deliveries had shift slots opened when there are none opened for PABs for the same shifts, he resorted to changing his delivery method from PAB to bicycle. The week-by-week change threw off his cadence in life, and I believe that livelihoods should not be as precarious and fleeting as an unconsulted, unconsented change in a partner platform’s priorities.
Calvin is fortunate that he was nimble enough to leave the industry, but there are scores of others in this industry, who have fully vested their livelihoods and trust in platform apps, finding themselves in a double bind. They are unclear why the rules of engagement on their partner platform have changed, while trying to make ends meet for their families in a job that had promised partnership and a viable means to a livelihood.
Indeed, representation also covers circumstances which may appear trivial to the rest of us, but bear great impact to our drivers and riders. I call it the “cupcake effect”. In my interactions with our delivery riders, many have brought up to me about the hump at most of our public carpark gantries. While most of us cannot recall that hump, and I appreciate how the HDB has put these humps in to slow down cars before the gantry, the hump is a bane to many delivery riders as it causes the cream decoration on cupcakes to be overturned, and drinks to be spilled. Our riders have told us that they often do not know where to bring these grievances to, hence tripartism and formal representation would be critical twin pillars in allowing our platform workers’ voices to be heard.
Mr Speaker, we all have read about tragic stories involving delivery riders losing limbs and lives in unfortunate accidents, and some of us, may have even personally met with their family members in the wake of these unfortunate circumstances. The fact of the matter is that workplace injuries are common in the delivery space and, more often than not, our platform workers leave behind grieving family members, finding themselves even in more precarious financial situations. While we argue that many platform companies do provide basic insurance cover for their drivers and riders, as pointed out, these insurance are often inadequate and are uneven in coverage, many a times, tied towards performance metrics and tiered privilege systems. I ask, should something as basic as insurance be gamified?
Take the tragic example from June 2022, when a 54-year-old food delivery rider lost his life in an accident at the Punggol Waterway Point mall. I attended his wake and what struck me most was the vulnerability of his family. He was the main breadwinner in the family, leaving behind an elderly mother. The National Delivery Champions Association set up a counselling booth with the assistance of the mall to support the riders who witnessed the accident. It was a reminder of how real the dangers is at work for our platform workers. But what happens to the families left behind? Is there enough support for them? Unfortunately, the answer is often no.
Hence, Mr Speaker, I put it to you that work injury insurance not a game, 工伤赔偿不可能当成游戏, and I support the mandating of a WICA-like coverage for our platform workers, akin to that enjoyed by the rest of the Singaporean employees. Work injury insurance should not be tied to whether a worker meets performance targets or has a specific mode of transport. Insurance must cover all workers, at all times, regardless of their activity level or their ranking within a system.
In the same vein, the same must be said of our platform workers’ CPF and housing adequacy. Private hire vehicle brothers Joseph and Gabriel tell me that they find it difficult to maintain a steady stream of income due to the non-transparency of work order rhythms and the fluid nature of a platform's incentive system. They are both family men coping with the rise of business costs out of their control – rentals and petrol mainly – and the volatility of their platform earnings. The pressures are compounded by the demands of their families and long-term commitments.
Our platform workers’ stresses are not unique and is commonly shared by all Singaporeans. The difference is that for most working Singaporeans, they have the certainly in planning and growing a nest egg through CPF contributions. Growing older means higher healthcare costs, growing a family means taking on housing loans.
Gabriel shares that the rental cost of a Toyota Noah that used to cost $80 a day pre-COVID-19 now costs $110. This is a 37.5% increase, but definitely fares have not increased proportionately. Today, he has to drive another one to three extra hours just to maintain his pre-COVID-19 income, but with a good sense of financial literacy and prudency, Gabriel is able to maintain his lifestyle to manage his family’s daily expenses.
However, others might not be as savvy as Gabriel and some are now falling into arrears. Indeed, anecdotally, just as I was receiving feedback from our member drivers on unsustainable low trip and order rates, I have also seen a corresponding higher number of platform workers in arrears for their HDB loans at my Meet-the-People Sessions in the past six months.
These worries and aspirations are not only those belonging to our traditional breadwinners. Our sisters have also often voiced out their needs for long-term financial adequacy for their families and themselves. These are not their real names – sister Farrah, a mum of six; sister Maria a single mum with an adult son; sister Courtney, a single mom with a child with disabilities, have all called for better housing and retirement adequacy. Sister Farrah would like to purchase a flat of her own, sister Maria would like to contribute to her son’s future marital home and sister Courtney would like to provide better therapy services for her special needs child.
Mr Speaker, it is clear that should we recognise our platform workers as employee-like, it is fair that our platform workers are covered by CPF. Our platform operators, as with all the rest of Singapore-based employers, will need to provide their share of CPF as part of their cost of business. This will be critical in ensuring that our platform workers are paid fairly for a sustainable livelihood and be finally on par with the rest of the workforce for the work that they have done. My taxi and private hire vehicle association leaders have a wise saying: "羊毛出在羊身上". The sheep's wool must come from its body.
How would the Ministry ensure that our platform operators pay for their fair share of their platform workers’ CPF, keeping in mind that platform operators need to be sustainable also? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For over a decade, the Labour Movement has been listening to and representing the voices of freelancers and self-employed individuals in Singapore. NTUC and its affiliated National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicle Association and National Delivery Champions Association have been dedicated to promoting and planning this Bill for many years. Through our Tripartite efforts, we are finally able to stand in Parliament today to debate this landmark Bill.
If this Bill is passed, it will be a world first, formally recognising that platform workers can enjoy benefits similar to those of employees. This way, platform workers can enjoy corresponding formal rights through platform associations. More importantly, it will ensure workers receive comprehensive work injury insurance and enhanced retirement and housing security. Once platform workers can enjoy treatment similar to employees, they will be able to benefit from these basic benefits and rights.
We must take more measures to support this growing group in Singapore. NTUC has deep concern for platform workers, and we will continue to safeguard their interests as we have always done, because we cherish every platform worker.
(In English): Mr Speaker, more must be done to support this growing group of Singaporean workers. As I rise in support of the Bill, which the NTUC and the Labour Movement have worked hard to push, I reiterate, as I have on several occasions, the concerns I have with the roll-out.
Given that we agree that platform workers are treated as employee-like, how do we ensure that platforms contribute fairly to CPF and insurance without passing the costs onto workers and end consumers through reduced pay or higher fees? Would MOM be requiring platform companies to provide clear breakdown of fares to both workers and end consumers stating clearly their share of CPF contributions?
Waiting in between bookings and jobs is a regular part of a platform worker’s daily job routine. As long as a platform worker has his or her app on, and has exhibited that they are ready to take on a booking, arguably, this waiting time should also be covered under the work injury insurance.
Given that anecdotally, from our drivers and riders' feedback that real earnings have gone down and drivers need to drive longer hours, can we also extend the PCTS scheme for all drivers even those who earn more than $2,500 today? The coverage can be capped up to $2,500 of their earnings.
Mr Speaker, the time has come for our platform workers to forge their own collective agreement so that their voices are heard, their working conditions improve and their grievances addressed in a timely and fair manner. As employee-like workers, platform workers' retirement and housing adequacy worries must be addressed, by having platform operators pay for their fair share of CPF. As workers working in precarious work conditions, platform workers must be covered adequately by accident and loss of income insurance.
NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers and we will continue, as we have done over the years, to champion their interests, because every platform worker matters. My clarifications not withstanding, I strongly support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill is a comprehensive, even exhaustive, document, numbering some 234 pages, and addressing a wide range of legislative changes meant to enfold platform work better into the jobs landscape of our economy. It makes good-faith efforts to improve the rights and protections for gig workers, and for that reason, it has the support of the WP.
Others have already spoken about various other aspects of the Bill, including enabling such workers to secure representation via workers associations or union equivalents, along with accommodations for workplace health and safety. I will, in my remarks, focus on how the Bill caters specifically to retirement adequacy of such platform workers, which is a principal concern of Part 8 of the Bill.
For context, let me begin with a sketch of the economics of the platform economy. Digitally-oriented business models have been with us for a long time now, of course, having risen to prominence in the run-up to the dot-com boom of the late 1990s. But it was only after the bursting of that bubble that we saw the subsequent emergence of both sharing economy firms such as Airbnb, Uber and WeWork, along with the penetration of incumbent technology giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google into such digital ecosystems and that has ushered in the current generation of platform economies.
The digital economy is now massive and will only continue to grow. Estimates suggest that by 2028, it will grow from the current $12 trillion to $17 trillion worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all global output. In Singapore, the Infocomm Media Development Authority expects a comparable share of the digital economy in our gross domestic product (GDP), with digital businesses outpacing the rate of growth of the overall economy.
Yet the platform economy raises intimate issues of concern for workers in particular. A recent study established that the largest platform companies have been able to churn out twice the growth, profits and market capitalisation than the largest old-school firms operating in the same business, all while doing so with half the number of workers.
What is worse, while some founders and employees at the top end – think of the thousands of well-remunerated tech professionals, not to mention tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma and Mark Zuckerberg – have benefited enormously from the platform economy, tens of thousands of others are barely eking by, on precarious driving, delivery and paid-per-gig jobs.
The present Bill limits itself to a class of workers providing on-demand delivery and ride-hailing services operating on digital platforms. This, in my view, is an appropriate prioritisation, given their relative share of all platform workers.
After all, such workers reside in an awkward intersection of regular wage-earning employees, whose jobs afford sufficient structure for traditional labour protections and the fully self-employed who understand the risky trade-offs of running one's own shop but get to enjoy the potentially large returns from business success or the freedom of being one's own boss. Unlike the self-employed, however, most platform workers cannot decide on how much they charge and many do not do gig work out of choice. They may be responding to, for instance, an unexpected job displacement or an inability to secure more traditional employment.
The new classification of platform workers that will result from Part 1 of the Bill helps ensure that workers in this intermediate no-man's land will be extended proper labour protections. It is already somewhat belated, with jurisdictions such as the UK having recognised so-called "limb (b)" workers in 2021 and the state of California having extended full employee classification to platform workers in 2019, although that has recently been overturned.
But better late than never, although I would hope that the Bill should also consider eventually extending the coverage of the First Schedule to another category of platform workers: those who contribute towards and are paid for their part in a crowdsourced task – otherwise known as crowdworkers. This would include freelancers on Amazon Mechanical Turk or Fiverr, but also cleaners and handymen or performers that heavily rely on platforms to match themselves to work opportunities. Such individuals exhibit many of the same features of employment precarity that on-demand delivery and ride-hailing workers do.
Of course, the experiences of platform workers within this group may well differ, depending on their motivations for seeking work and even the specific platforms on which they operate. While some are reasonably well-off and choose platform work as a helpful supplement to their primary income, most are on the lower end of the income scale and may suffer from significant income volatility, resulting in higher levels of job anxiety. Many have to go into debt to even get started on gig work. This has led some observers to criticise the claims that platform work fosters some special spirit of entrepreneurship as "utopian thinking".
The reality, instead, is that many employees engaged in platform work full-time live very vulnerable economic lives. The majority are bereft of health insurance or retirement plans or social protections, more generally. The flexibility of gig work – often presented as a boon – is often a bane in reality as workers often cease work once they have reached a daily target, which in turn erodes their long-term earnings capability.
A significant number are young – since the higher starting salaries may prove irresistibly attractive, relative to the alternative – but with limited career upside, lifetime incomes often end up lower than with conventional careers. Absent stronger incentives, a majority would either completely opt out of contributions towards CPF or make only minimal contributions to keep their take-home salaries high. As a result, many platform workers fail to squirrel away enough money to support themselves later in life.
Yet there is some evidence that platform workers may actually favour mechanisms that can help them commit, somehow, to increasing their savings, although this is of course tempered by a concern that the possibility of their take-home pay would decrease as a result. This is why it is vitally important to ensure that platform workers have access to a pension plan. In Singapore, this typically means enrolling in the cornerstone of our system of retirement provision, the CPF.
To be clear, the WP has in the past offered measured critiques of the system. Notwithstanding these reservations, we believe that CPF goes some way towards providing for retirees during their sunset years and hence, has a role to play for platform workers as well.
Consequently, the WP is in favour of the stipulations in the Bill that will encourage such workers to enrol with the system. The proposed enhanced PCTS embedded into the Fifth Schedule certainly offers a welcome alternative to encourage participation in the higher-contribution Group A, at least up till 2028. The Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has further suggested that the default be set as an opt-out rather than an opt-in regime.
This has much to be commended. Behavioural scientists have documented how a bias towards the status quo, coupled with inertia, tends to lead individuals to stay with pre-selected defaults. This has also been demonstrated, specifically, when it comes to saving behaviour.
Hence, if we believe that it is truly beneficial to nudge our platform workers towards greater savings for retirement, applying an opt-out default would be no less constraining on their freedom of choice while encouraging welfare-enhancing behaviour.
That said, as my hon friend Louis Chua has already and my friend Gerald Giam will, point out, the scheme could nevertheless give rise to unintended consequences as well. Platform companies may tweak their algorithms to deprioritise job allocations for those who are contributing more to CPF or they may choose to blatantly reduce the salaries of those who sign onto the scheme. Here, I raise the possibility of another possible unintended consequence, related to how those under 30 years of age are automatically enrolled in Group A.
While I can guess at the Government's motivation behind insisting that the young be automatically placed in Group A – it ensures that those who will benefit most by starting their retirement saving early do so and, as Senior Minister of State Koh earlier said, older workers may already have some savings plan in place – this may nevertheless inadvertently lead to discrimination against their hiring since they are now also more costly. This may further exacerbate youth unemployment, which – like elsewhere in the world – is already more than twice as high as the adult unemployment rate.
This concern has already been flagged by some of our younger platform workers. The counter-argument that suggests that the number of workers not on the scheme is likely to be small – and hence, discrimination is not possible since most workers would be covered – does not hold up to the data. Only a fraction of around 7% of platform workers are indeed below 30 years of age. And the belief that such a discriminatory strategy would not hold up in the longer run also does not address how a sizeable group of youths could nevertheless face discrimination in the meantime.
Nor should we be content with the claim that younger workers – being fitter, more resolute or more efficient – are naturally more attractive hires. After all, we are well aware of the weaker bargaining power of employees with less experience in the workplace, which may well predispose them to accepting otherwise lower wages than they deserve.
One strategy to preclude this, without throwing the baby of retirement adequacy out with the bathwater of potential discrimination, is to ensure that the impending Anti-Discrimination Bill, which, last I heard, is due to be debated in Parliament this year, includes provisions that would make such unsavory practices illegal, notwithstanding the challenges of proving discrimination in practice that the Leader of the Opposition has pointed to.
Separately, one is left to wonder what the Government's Plan B is, should the enhanced PCTS fail to deliver the sort of sign-up rates that we all hope for. After all, while the lock-in into Group A for older workers who exercise the CPF scheme option is assured by clause 4(3) of the Fourth Schedule, such inevitability may well end up discouraging workers from signing up in the first place. These workers will nevertheless face retirement adequacy issues and hence, it strikes me as valuable to monitor the rate of sign-up as well as develop a strategy for encouraging participation in the event that the enhanced PCTS alone remains insufficient as an incentive.
Mr Speaker, I will close with a practical suggestion. For platform workers that do enrol as Group A workers, it would be useful for the Government to work with platform providers themselves to ensure the accurate reporting of earnings in much the same manner that employers are currently obliged to accurately declare salary information for wage-earning employees. This would facilitate retirement planning and submissions to CPF, but it may call for some automated transfer of aggregated monthly earnings data since platform workers' earnings are transactions-based. These data should, of course, also be open to audit, ideally by a truly independent third party.
Sir, platform workers are an important constituency of Sengkang, the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) I represent. While I support the enhanced protections being made available to them, I, like my WP colleagues, caution against an excessively sanguine attitude to platform providers, to the detriment of our hardworking gig workers. We must make gig work work for their retirement.
Ms Joan Pereira.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is timely and I welcome the augmented support for platform workers to ensure that they have sufficient financial compensation in the event of work injuries, receive CPF contributions on par with employees and are protected with representation by worker associations.
First, about the injuries incurred in the course of work. I appeal to the Ministry to extend this protection beyond physical injuries. Just like employees in the services industries, including the healthcare and security sectors, our platform workers require protection against verbal threats and psychological abuses.
This Bill does not address this prevalent issue but it is not uncommon to hear stories about platform workers being verbally abused for being delayed due to weather or traffic conditions. Private hire vehicle drivers get berated for various reasons by passengers. This can affect them emotionally or worse, financially, as they may be given bad reviews even though they are not at fault or for situations beyond their control. We may need to look into provisions for platform workers to be protected from threats, abuse and unfair reviews given by unreasonable customers.
I am most assured that platform workers will receive matching CPF contributions based on the amounts they earn, whether they work for a single or multiple platforms. This will help them move towards better housing and retirement adequacy. However, I am still very much concerned about their income progression and the stresses they face due to the volatility and unpredictable nature of their earnings, which are dependent on seasonal demand.
There is a limit to how many orders or trips one can do a day, due to supply and demand factors, road conditions and physical human limits. As these riders grow older or reach other milestones in life, how can we ensure their income goes up in tandem with inflation and/or be able to meet the expenditure needs for major life events? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There is a limit on how many orders or trips one can do a day. This is due to supply and demand factors, road conditions and physical limits. As these riders grow older or reach other milestones in their life, how can we ensure their income goes up in tandem with inflation and/or able to meet the expenditure needs for major life events?
(In English): Presently, food delivery and ride hailing companies have tiered systems for benefits. Payment incentives are provided for a number of rides at each tier. Those in the higher tier also have priority in booking shifts and getting orders. These incentives are not fixed and companies can always drop these incentives at their own discretion. There is no protection in terms of their stability of income. What more can we do to ensure that their incomes do not fall even if they are working just as hard? How do we ensure that their incomes rise over the years to keep up with inflation? At the same time, how can we balance this with keeping with the cost of such services affordable to the majority of our consumers?
Finally, we want to help platform workers transition to careers in other fields if they so desire. It is important that they can have career mobility and employability. How do we ensure the career mobility of our platform workers? For platform workers who may at some point decide to move on from being a platform worker and find a more stable employment, the Government may wish to consider providing more support for platform workers to attend trainings, with some form of allowance or income support. Such support should be a permanent feature and not ad hoc.
Last month, the Government announced the new SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme, which will provide up to $6,000 over six months to those who have made involuntarily unemployed. May I seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State if platform workers can qualify for this scheme?
In conclusion, the Bill is a step in the right direction to provide more protection for this group of workers and I wish to state my strong support for the Bill.
PAPERCUTS