Debated in Parliament on 9 Sep 2024.
Debate resumed.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Speaker, I remember during the COVID-19 pandemic period, where on many occasions we had to sit through weeks of quarantine, it was the delivery platform workers that brought food and necessities to our doorsteps.
Today, platform workers provide much appreciated last-mile service, making a difference in terms conveniences in our daily lives; their services widen our dinning and consumption options, and they plug the service gap for those who are less mobile such as our seniors or those that are unwell. Rain or shine, platform workers carry out their work; often under time pressure to fulfil their job orders. There is a lot of daily toil and hard work on their part.
Platform workers are not faceless Singaporeans. They, like the rest of us, also have their ups and downs in life, emotions, angst and anxieties. Like us, they also have families and loved ones and they too want safety, security and better life for themselves and for their families.
At Bukit Panjang where I served, we have a Delivery Riders Support group where we get together regularly such as during festivities, to catch up and to offer each other support and assistances. In my frequent engagements with the platform riders, they will often share with me about what they are going through, the daily challenges that they face as well as their concern on the longer-term stability and security of their work as well as their longer-term livelihoods.
Sir, platform workers merely just want to earn a decent living to support themselves through their hard work, sweat and even at their personal safety. But they also hope that the society would not see them as a forgotten group and also appreciate their fair share of contributions in the service that they provide to the community.
Sir, it is only right that we treat our platform workers as a part of our workforce, providing them the necessary protections such as compensation for work injuries and importantly, housing and retirement adequacy that is so key to one’s life cycle.
They should also have the organised means and representation to collectively negotiate and bargain with the platform operators so as to safeguard the interest of the fellow platform workers.
Sir, I fully support the measures and appreciate the calibrated approach to implement the various changes; including the Government funding support to introduce the PCTS to offset part of the increases in the CPF contribution rates.
Sir, the platform sector is still a relatively new sector. Many of the platform operators are still running operating losses and counting on money from investors to keep the operations going. So, in my view, the sector is still in search of the optimal financial equilibrium and yet to be on a more self-sustaining footing.
With that in mind, can I ask the Senior Minister of State how would the changes envisaged in this Bill impact the overall ecosystem of the platform service? Do we expect the terms of trade between among the stakeholders which are the platform operators, platform workers, consumers and, in the case of food delivery, the F&B operators, do we expect any change in the terms of trade among the stakeholders as a result of this Bill?
As this sector does create employment and income, and also provide useful flexible work arrangements, besides the Platform Workers Bill, how can the Government help to strengthen the resilience and robustness of this sector?
Finally, would the Government also look to support reskilling of the platform workers, whether to continue in their work in the platform service sector or to seek new work opportunities in other sectors. Notwithstanding my questions, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the introduction of the Platform Workers Bill as an important first step in improving the welfare of platform workers.
They are now more than 70,000 platform workers in Singapore as of 2023. This is a significant portion of our workforce and many of them are lower income and have been displaced from the job market in recent years. While platform workers generally enjoy more flexibility than employees, they are also subject to significant management control by platform companies when their supply of services are matched to demand by algorithms.
It is timely that our legislation is now being updated to create a new class of workers distinct from employees and self-employed persons to protect the rights of platform workers.
This Bill recognises the need to ensure equitable pay for our platform workers. We support the change made by the Bill to align the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform companies to those of regular employees and employers for platform workers born on or after 1 January 1995.
This is a step in the right direction which will ensure that younger platform workers have adequate protections for housing and retirement. The opt-in regime for older platform workers also meets the desire of many older platform workers to opt out of CPF contributions on their earnings in order to maximise their take-home pay.
However, in order to ascertain that this change will really benefit the platform workers, we would like to ask the Government if it has gotten commitments from the platform companies that they will not reduce incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset their increased cost from paying employer CPF contribution.
During the Committee of Supply for MOM in 2023, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa had raised the issue of whether platform workers who opt in to CPF contributions will be discriminated against because they are more costly and asked whether measures were put in place to prevent discrimination against those who opt in.
At the time, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon clarified that platform workers would not be covered under the upcoming workplace fairness legislation and that it is not in the interest of the company to discriminate against workers who opt in for CPF because over time, the bulk of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF. However, PSP is concerned that in the short term, there are insufficient protections to prevent Group A workers who opt in for CPF from being discriminated against. We are disappointed that the Bill does not contain provisions to prevent platform companies from discriminating against Group A workers.
PSP proposes that MOM should regularly receive reports from the platform companies on the percentage of jobs that are completed by Group A workers as well as the percentage of Group A workers on their platform. MOM should regularly monitor these data points to ensure that there is no evidence of platforms discriminating against platform workers who may be more costly because they opt in to CPF contributions.
We would like to go further to ask MOM to consider proposing the ultimate safeguard of a minimum base fare per delivery or right share. We propose that platform workers can form platform work associations that functions similarly to trade unions. A minimum base fare could be negotiated between the platform work associations and platform companies as part of the negotiations on the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The PSP's view is that platform company and platform work associations should work towards an appropriate minimum base fare calculated with reference to our proposed living wage of $2,250 per month before CPF contributions for 44 hours of work per week.
While platform workers are viewed by some as independent contractors, the workers, overall compensation is to a large extent determine by the platform companies. As a result, appropriate policy has to be set to ensure that platform workers are compensated fairly for their services.
The 2022 IPS survey Precarity in Platform Work, a study of private hire vehicle drivers and food delivery riders, found that more than 90% full-time private hire vehicle drivers across all age cohorts were worried that they will no longer able to earn enough money because the financial incentives given by platform companies are increasingly being cut or reduced. Employer CPF should not be another reason for platform companies to reduce incentives for platform workers. Hence, once the CPF contribution regime is implemented in 2025, the Government should closely monitor the situation to ensure that platform companies are not reducing incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset the higher labour cost that they need to shoulder by paying CPF contributions for platform workers.
When deliberating this Bill after the First Reading, we were of the view that while equitable pay is important, it is also important to ensure the safety of our platform workers is not compromised by the pressure of work. As such, we are glad that one of the key changes made in the Bill is that platform companies must now pay compensation to platform workers for work injuries at the same scope and level as employees are entitled. The PSP supports these provisions. This is a much better improvement over the voluntary work injury compensation coverage currently provided out of goodwill by platform companies.
We also note that the work safety of platform workers will be further strengthened by the draft code of practice for platform services, which the WSH Council has put up for public consultation last week. Under part 4.5.1 of the code, platform companies should limit the load to be delivered to the capacity of the delivery bag and/or the maximum load weight of the vehicle or active mobility device. The PSP supports this as it will better protect platform workers from being exposed to unsafe situations due to excessive loads.
However, part 4.5.2 of the draft code of practice does not address the fact that platform workers may feel pressured into accepting jobs during unsafe weather conditions, because of the penalties imposed by platform companies on cancellations. The PSP thus proposes that part 4.5.2 of the draft code of practice should be amended to include that platform companies should remove the penalties for workers who reject or cancel orders during bad weather conditions. Such cancellations or rejection of orders should not be included when rating the platform workers' performance. This is not an extraordinary step because there is at least one major platform company, Deliveroo, that does not penalise riders in this way.
We hope that MOM will consider these suggested measures to ensure that this Bill and the code of practice will be more effective in ensuring a safer working environment for platform workers. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the introduction of the Platform Workers Bill as an important first step in improving the welfare of platform workers.
There are now more than 70,000 platform workers in Singapore, as of 2023. This is a significant portion of our workforce, and many of them are lower-income and have been displaced from the job market in recent years.
While platform workers generally enjoy more flexibility than employees, they are also subject to significant management control by platform companies when their supply of services are matched to demand by algorithms. Hence, PSP believes that it is timely that our legislation is now being updated to create a new class of workers distinct from employees and self-employed persons to protect the rights of platform workers.
On equitable pay for our platform workers, PSP supports the change made by the Bill to align the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform companies to those of regular employees and employers, for platform workers born on or after 1 January 1995. PSP believes that this is a step in the right direction, which will ensure that younger platform workers have adequate protections for housing and retirement. The opt-in regime for older platform workers also meets the desire of many older platform workers to opt out of CPF contributions.
However, in order to ascertain that this change will really benefit the platform workers, we would like to ask the Government if it has gotten the commitment from the platform companies that they will not reduce incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset their increased costs from paying Employer CPF contributions?
PSP proposes that MOM regularly obtains data points from platform companies to monitor the percentage of jobs completed by platform workers who opt-in to CPF contributions and ensure there is no evidence of platforms discriminating against these workers.
In addition, PSP would like to propose a minimum base fare which could be negotiated between the platform work associations and the platform companies to ensure that platform workers’ income will not be affected by the increase in the operating costs of platform companies. For example, the PSP’s view is that platform companies and platform work associations should work towards an appropriate minimum base fare, calculated with reference to our proposed living wage of $2,250 per month, before CPF contributions, for 44 hours of work per week.
On the safety of platform workers, PSP supports the provisions that platform companies must now pay compensation to platform workers for work injuries at the same scope and level as employees are entitled to. This is a much better improvement over the voluntary work injury compensation coverage currently provided out of goodwill by platform companies and will reduce the financial risks and income loss, should a platform worker suffer a work-related injury and unable to work.
PSP also supports the draft Code of Practice for Platform Services, especially Part 4.5.1, which limits the load to be delivered, because it will better protect platform workers from being exposed to unsafe situations due to excessive loads.
However, PSP suggests that Part 4.5.2 of the draft Code of Practice be amended. Platform workers may feel pressured into accepting jobs during unsafe weather conditions because of the penalties imposed by platform companies on cancellations. PSP thus proposes that platform companies remove the penalties for workers who reject or cancel orders during bad weather conditions. Such cancellations or rejection of orders should not be included when rating the platform worker’s performance. It is taking a leaf from major platform companies, such as Deliveroo, that do not penalise riders in this way.
PSP calls on the Government to urge platform workers to form platform work associations and work with platform companies to improve working conditions of platform workers, especially in bad weather conditions, to ensure a safe and fair working environment for all platform workers.
(In English): Notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions made in my speech, the PSP supports the Bill. For country for people.
Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Speaker, ever since platform operators entered the Singapore market about a decade ago, starting with Uber and Grab in 2013, our workforce ecosystem has experienced a paradigm shift. These platform operators and platform workers have become an integral part of our society today and in the foreseeable future, with services offered ranging from transport, delivery services and even parcel and logistics management.
It is, therefore, important that we protect the interests of the platform workers to avoid what some researchers have called “precaritising workers”, leading to the exploitation of labour, unfair treatment of workers, and expanding and enduring inequalities.
However, governments around the world have found it difficult to confer protection on platform workers, given that they could be classified as independent contractors. Yet, the platform operators also set the performance markers, the remuneration, the specific jobs and even the routes platform workers are to take by their policies and algorithms. Platform workers may be penalised if they were to decline work assigned to them by the platform. This is not unlike an employee in some regards.
Conversely, platform workers bear all the risks of performing the services for the platforms: the risks of accidents, loss of income and even injury on the job to meet the platform’s requirements for service. They also bear the cost of the fuel, the rental fees, the insurance premiums and damages to third parties when there are accidents. It seems like a lose-lose situation for platform workers because they are considered independent contractors where they are beneficial to the platform operators, but subject to restrictions imposed by the platform operators as though they were employees.
I am, therefore, heartened to see that MOM has worked with various stakeholders and the tripartite partners to come up with this Bill to ensure that the platform workers’ rights are being protected. NTUC and the Labour Movement, including myself and my fellow labour Members of Parliament, and Parliamentary colleagues, such as Dr Tan Wu Meng, have been lobbying for changes to protect the rights and interests of freelancers, including platform workers. In my personal view, this is a landmark and watershed piece of legislation. It is a landmark and watershed for three reasons.
First, it is the first time in history that we have a specific legislation protecting freelancers and, in this case, vulnerable platform workers. This is definitely not an easy endeavour, but we have chosen to take the less trodden path, to do it because it is the right thing to do.
Second, we are creating a new hybrid category of "workers" through this piece of legislation: not exactly employees in an employment relationship nor fully an independent contractor as they will enjoy certain "employment" rights.
Third, we are also allowing them to be represented by platform work associations similar to unions. These are all issues which many unions and jurisdictions are trying to grapple with and many have yet to achieve such a similar breakthrough in terms of scale and impact.
As raised in this House in 2017, one form of protection is allowing them to have collective representation to ensure their voices are heard. While NTUC has created several associations for platform workers to be collectively heard, these associations lack the right to formally represent their members in any disputes with platform operators.
This Bill will allow platform workers to band together collectively to represent their viewpoints, watch for any unfairness and to negotiate with platform operators. To provide effective representation, platform work associations under the Bill, need to carry out elections, secret ballots and delegates' conferences on a regular basis, much like how trade unions today are required to do so under the Trade Unions Act.
However, unlike trade unions, platform work associations will face an uphill task when trying to organise their members and getting them together. This is due to the nature of the platform workers and the platform work industry being hyper-fluid in nature, where workers can join or leave the platform without necessarily terminating the agreement with the platform operator. Conversely, platform workers can join new platforms or new platform workers can start doing platform work without too much of a hassle and restrictions in place. Further, platform workers, by their nature, also work all over Singapore without any fixed workplace.
This hyper-fluidity and de-localised work location create problems not seen in traditional trade unions. One issue relates to the conduct of secret ballots and the need for fiscal in-person votes. It is relatively straightforward for trade unions to conduct in-person secret ballots given that most workplaces are fixed. This is not the case for platform work.
I would, therefore, ask the Senior Minister of State to consider allowing platform work associations to use digital voting for secret ballots. This will enable platform work associations to reach out effectively to their members and facilitate their participation, rather than just a restricted number who manage to come on-site to vote. The use of digital voting must be safeguarded with methods to ensure transparency and security of the results and that votes remain secret. If successful, this could well be a model for digital voting in trade unions as well.
Mr Speaker, I observed that in this Bill, many details were prescribed in subsidiary legislation. As the idiom goes, the devil is in the details. I, therefore, ask MOM to work with our tripartite partners and various stakeholders when finalising the subsidiary legislation, to make the Platform Workers Act effective and useful for all stakeholders and partners.
This Bill, as currently tabled, only looks to cover platform workers who fall under the ride-hail and delivery worker categories. As the platform worker space is constantly evolving, we may see an increase in the types of platform work. Cleaners, coaches, professional caregivers and even utility workers, such as plumbers, electricians and general builders, may one day utilise platforms to find and schedule work.
To what extent will the Ministry be looking to expand the scope of the future Act to cover these platform operators to ensure that these workers are also protected? I would like to also take this opportunity to clarify five points with the Senior Minister of State on the proposed Bill.
One, section 2 of the Bill provides the definition of earnings and excludes special expenses from being classified as earnings. As earnings directly affects the quantum of CPF contributions that platform workers would get, both from their own contributions as well as the platform operators' contributions, would the Senior Minister of State clarify what are some examples of these special expenses which would be excluded in their nature?
Two, how would MOM determine there was an industrial action by platform workers, given that platform workers are free to choose whether or not to work for any reason as well as when to work and which platform operator to work for, all on their own volition?
Three, under the proposed Bill, workplace safety and health requirements will be imposed on both platform operators and platform workers. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, how platform workers would be prosecuted for breach of their workplace safety and health duties and what are the circumstances to consider if there was a breach of such duties that warrant prosecution?
Four, under the Bill, section 13(4) denotes that there are different classes of platform operators and platform workers. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what classes of platform workers there may be?
And fifth, lastly, does agreement in section 5(1)(a) of the Platform Workers Bill refer specifically to the defined platform work agreement or does it include a broader range of agreements since the term platform work agreement is not used in section 5(1)(a)?
In conclusion, we stand on the cusp of ushering in a new age for our workers, one which will see Singapore as a pioneer in ensuring that all workers have a place within this nation, not only those who are employees. We must continue to ensure that platform workers, along with all workers, are afforded the dignity and security they so rightfully deserve. Together, we can and shall forge a path that ensures prosperity and equity for all and, in doing so, we shall not only uplift our platform workers but also fortify the very foundations of this nation, its people and our future.
NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers. We will continue to champion their interests because every platform worker matters. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Speaker, my speech today will focus on strengthening workers' rights in Singapore, particularly with regard to trade unions, platform work associations and the representation framework for ride-hailing and delivery service workers introduced in the Platform Workers Bill.
Sir, unions in Singapore play an important role in advocating for the interests of workers. I would like to acknowledge the many unionists who work hard advocating for fair treatment, better working conditions and improved wages for their members. Over 99% of trade union members in Singapore are represented through the NTUC and its affiliates; and 58 out of 61, or 95% of employee trade unions in Singapore are affiliated with NTUC, underscoring the near total monopoly that the NTUC has over the Labour Movement in Singapore.
The NTUC has declared that they have a symbiotic relationship with the PAP. This relationship is frequently highlighted during union meetings and rallies. The NTUC May Day Rally in 2024, for example, included a chant led by NTUC President, which concluded with, "Majulah NTUC, Majulah PAP, Majulah Singapura".
The NTUC Secretary-General and many PAP leaders, including the Prime Minister and Senior Minister, joined in this chant on the big stage, pumping their fists in the air. Many PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) and PAP branch chairpersons serve as advisers to NTUC-affiliated unions. The NTUC announced in 2017 that, where possible, all PAP MPs, which include Cabinet Ministers, would be appointed as advisers in the unions, professional associations and guilds under NTUC.
As at 2017, there were 71 PAP MPs who were advisers to unions. It should be noted that many union advisers are there not only in an advisory capacity, but are involved in the governance of the union. Many unions affiliated to the NTUC have a council of advisers, which for several industry unions also has the power to suspend the Executive Committee.
PAP leaders frequently argue that this symbiotic relationship has helped Singapore navigate crises and build a nation. However, this close alignment also presents significant challenges to the independence of unions. The primary mission of unions is to advocate for workers' rights, ensure fair treatment and negotiate for better working conditions. Yet when union leaders are also PAP members, a potential conflict of interest arises.
Can they fully advocate for workers' interests when those interests may conflict with their Government policies or the PAP's political agenda? They may feel pressured to support the policy, even if they sincerely believe that it compromises the needs of the workers they represent. This could lead to a muted union advocacy, where political alignment takes precedence over workers' rights.
Over time, the deep entrenchment of PAP influence within unions could lead to the perception that unions are not independent bodies representing workers, but extensions of the PAP's political machinery. If workers believe their interests are being subordinated to the political interests of the PAP, or the political objectives of the PAP, unions may lose their ability to effectively mobilise and advocate for workers.
Furthermore, an overly-close relationship between the PAP and unions risks creating groupthink, where union leaders are less inclined to challenge prevailing policies or explore alternative solutions. This may limit unions' ability to openly express workers' grievances or discuss innovative policies that could benefit workers, employers and the economy.
Such a situation would lead to a loss of dynamism in labour policy-making, reducing the possibility of new and better approaches from emerging. The risk of this alignment may be particularly pronounced in the event of a significant political shift in Singapore. If the PAP were to lose power, unions aligned with the PAP might struggle to work with the new Government.
Additionally, these politically aligned unions may lose the support of workers who voted for the new administration, potentially weakening their effectiveness. It is crucial that key institutions in Singapore, including the trade union movement, are not beholden to one political party. Conversely, it will be equally undesirable for 95% of unions to become instruments of opposition against a newly-elected government, as this could undermine its ability to govern effectively and act in the best interests of workers and citizens alike.
The International Labour Organization (ILO), which supports tripartite cooperation between governments, employers and workers, insists that unions must maintain independence to effectively represent their members' interests. ILO's Convention No 87, on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, which the Singapore Government has not ratified, stresses that workers and employers organisations must be independent from public authorities and free from government control or interference. While collaboration with the government can be beneficial, unions must have the freedom to challenge policies that do not serve workers' best interests, without fear of political repercussions.
Turning to the Platform Workers Bill, Mr Speaker, I support this legislation, which seeks to enhance the representation of private hire drivers and delivery riders. These workers form a growing segment of our economy and their voices must be heard. However, the Bill imports many of the regulatory restrictions currently faced by unions. The platform work associations, much like NTUC-affiliated unions, already operate under significant NTUC control.
The National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association, all have current or former PAP MPs as advisers. Their constitutions grant NTUC the power to appoint members of the Council of Advisers, who play a key role in overseeing the actions of the Executive Committees. The Council of Advisers has the authority to suspend the Executive Committees elected by members. This mirrors the power the NTUC exerts over many of the affiliated unions, limiting their independence.
Furthermore, the Registrar of platform work associations —
Yes, Mr Christopher de Souza.
If I may, Mr Speaker, a Point of Order.
I listened very carefully to Mr Gerald Giam's speech for the first 10 minutes. I humbly and respectfully submit to the Chair that the first 10 minutes had nothing to do with the Platform Workers Bill that is being debated today. It was predominantly an attack against the NTUC. And that is why the hon Member, halfway through his speech says, "I now turn my focus to the Bill", when actually, the focus should have been, from the onset, about the Bill.
So, I want to raise this as a Point of Order. This is not part of the Bill and Mr Giam's speech about attacking the NTUC, in my humble view, in my capacity as a Member of this House, is completely off tangent. With respect.
Mr Giam, I was actually about to ask you the relevance of it and then you made reference to the current Bill. And I am waiting to hear you talk about the current Bill. The Member, Mr Christopher de Souza, has raised a relevant point, so I would expect that the rest of your speech should cover what this Bill is about.
If it is on another matter, you can certainly raise it, but not on occasion of this debate.
Sir, it is in relation to the provisions in the Bill, which you will understand why when I explain further.
If I may, will the Member concede that the first half of his speech had little to do with the Bill and was a rather opportunistic manoeuvre to attack NTUC? I sat down, I listened very carefully, I studied the Bill – and this was all about an attack on NTUC, which is unfair. It is opportunistic and it goes beyond the agenda of what we are debating today – which is a specific legislation to advance the protection and the future of platform workers.
So, would Mr Giam agree with me that the first half of his speech is actually fairly irrelevant? Through you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Giam, would you like to respond to Mr de Souza?
Certainly, Mr Speaker. As I said earlier, Sir, the first part of my speech is relevant to what I am going to be talking about in the Bill. I think it is important to set the background for why I am going to argue some of the points that I will be talking about in a while.
Mr de Souza.
If I may. So, thus far, am I correct to say, if my understanding is correct, that thus far, there has not been a specific reference to any provision of the Bill in Mr Giam's speech and it was predominantly an attack on NTUC and the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC?
Surely, Mr Giam can agree with me on that based on what he has said as recorded in Hansard.
I raise this as a Point of Order because we cannot, Mr Speaker, be using Parliament and legislation to craft political speeches that go well beyond the ambit and the scope of the legislation that we are debating. So, I raise this as a matter of principle, not as a matter of politics.
It is a valid point by Mr de Souza, Mr Giam. In fact, you are already at the halfway point of your 20-minute speech. Leader.
Mr Speaker, I, too, have a clarification for Mr Giam, which is this: is it Mr Giam's position that unions have to be independent of and not associated with political parties?
In fact, yes. Sorry, Mr Speaker, with your permission?
Yes, Mr Giam, go ahead.
To answer the Leader, yes, exactly, that is what I will be coming to. So, I would really appeal to both the Leader and Mr de Souza to listen to the rest of my speech because the first part of my speech is a preamble to what I am going to be talking about and it is relevant to what I will be talking about in a while.
Leader.
If I may just make this clarification since Mr Giam is going to proceed with the rest of his speech on the basis that unions and political parties have to be independent and separate. In fact, anyone who knows anything about democracies will know that in many of the democracies in the world, unions and political parties actually have a close relationship.
The UK Labour Party, which is currently now in power, is very closely associated with their trades union congress. In fact, their trades union congress actually has contributed to the political party, as I understand it. In the US, the unions are also closely associated with some political parties. That is also the case in Canada.
If one were to do the simple exercise of just googling unions and politics or unions and political parties, you will actually see that there is a very clear explanation as to why unions and politics are very closely involved.
So, if Mr Giam is going to proceed with his speech on the basis that they must be independent and neutral, he must also understand that that is not the case in democracies around the world.
Mr Giam.
Sir, the Leader raises this point about unions and their affiliation with political parties. I have studied about what the situation is in the UK, to some degree. Indeed, many unions in the UK support the Labour Party, but it is not the same as them being symbiotic with the Labour Party. They reserve the right to state their own positions and there are times when they have their own different positions from the party, including in their public statements. So, it is not the same degree of symbiotic relationship as what NTUC has with the PAP.
I wanted to come to this point later, but since the Leader has brought this up, I would like to state for the record that the WP supports the tripartite dialogue between employers, unions and the government of the day, but not with any particular political party, not an explicit alignment with any political party.
I believe that unions must be independent and non-partisan. They must represent their workers without fear or favour in front of their employers, the government and the ruling party. I believe that unions which are independent from political parties will be in a better position to negotiate for their workers regardless of the political situation.
Sir, if I may continue with my speech, please?
Relating to this Bill.
Of course.
Furthermore, the registrar of platform work association has the authority to refuse registration of a new platform work association if there is already an existing one for that platform service or even to cancel the registration of an existing platform work association under similar conditions.
Given that NTUC-affiliated platform work associations are likely to be registered first, this could limit the formation of alternative platform work associations, thereby restricting workers' choices. Platform workers should instead have the freedom to choose to join or form the association that best represents their interests.
The Bill proposes that recognition of a platform work association would require a majority vote from platform workers eligible to participate in the recognition process. However, I am concerned that in some cases, the percentage of workers voting could be low and a platform work association might gain recognition even with limited support from the overall workforce. This could result in representation that does not fully reflect the will of the majority of platform workers in the sector.
Clause 40 of the Bill allows the platform work association's executive committee to bind all members to a collective agreement without the need for ratification by the members. This could result in workers being bound by agreements negotiated by representatives chosen by only a small fraction of their peers. We must ask whether this truly serves the interests of the workers or simply expedites the process at the cost of their collective voice.
The WP has long opposed moves to make unions less independent. In 2004, Mr Low Thia Khiang opposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act that allowed union leaders to conclude collective agreements with employers without seeking union members' ratification. That amendment was eventually passed by Parliament and the same provision is now mirrored in the Platform Workers Bill, raising similar concerns about the erosion of workers' rights to have a direct say in agreements that affect them.
The Bill also requires platform companies to contribute employers' CPF payments to their workers. This is a positive step towards improving platform workers' long-term financial security. I support the PCTS scheme, which will cushion the effects of CPF deductions from workers' earnings. However, there is a risk that platform companies might reduce their overall payments to compensate for the increased CPF contributions. This could result in workers being worse off salary-wise. This is a concern highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition earlier as well.
It is important that the Government monitors this closely and ensures that safeguards are in place to prevent such unintended consequences so that the platform workers truly benefit from the CPF contributions without suffering a reduction in take-home pay.
Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to once again acknowledge the efforts of unionists who have dedicated themselves to advancing the rights and welfare of workers in Singapore. My proposals to ensure the independence of workers and platform work associations are not aimed at diminishing their work, but rather to enhance their ability to advocate freely for the workers they represent.
By ensuring that unions and platform work associations are not beholden to any political party or the Government, unionists will have the autonomy to fully pursue the interests of their members, challenge government policies that do not align with workers' needs and introduce innovative solutions to improve wages and working conditions.
Ultimately, an independent union movement will not only strengthen the Labour Movement but also create a dynamic and resilient workforce for Singapore's future. [Applause.]
Mr Giam, I request that you refer to Standing Order 50. This is with reference to the relevance of the topics that you talked about. This also applies to every Member. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, just to put on record, I think the remarks you made at the end, with respect, are critical because I distinctly recall in this House not too long ago, I believe it was a Budget speech, and the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza did not speak about the Budget, but went on to advise the Government or PAP to make a decision on the 4G leadership.
So, I think the salutary message you provided at the end is important because it cannot be just accusations made at the opposition, but I think some PAP Members ought to reflect on themselves.
Mr de Souza.
I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for mentioning my name. We are debating a specific Bill today with several provisions and several clauses. I think it is completely our aim to get this Bill passed in order to protect platform workers. So, we have a Bill, we have an agenda today.
When it comes to a Budget debate, Members have free rein to discuss what they want, in addition to the Budget, the objectives, the values, the future they want to see for Singapore. And at that time, I was concerned because we had a position that there would be a 4G leadership transition. Deputy Prime Minister Heng, in his selflessness, decided to step aside and I was concerned for the country that we needed leadership.
So, I stood here and gave one of the most difficult speeches of my political career – which is that I had hoped that the 4G leadership would come together and choose a man or woman to take us forward. How is that not in concert with the Budget?
Budget is finance. It is also about different Ministries, education, finance, defence and all of that. But without key leadership, Budgets are nothing.
So, what I humbly said, when I made that speech, I think in 2021 or 2022, I cannot remember, about needing to choose a solid, formidable 4G leader was completely consistent with what we were debating for in terms of passing the Budget.
An attack on NTUC, for I think 70% of the speech of Mr Giam, on a Bill that is meant to advance the welfare, the prospects, the future, the protection, the medical care, the CPF of platform workers is no comparison. [Applause.]
That is political opportunism – and I state this as a matter of principle, not as a matter of politics. I put principle first, before politics, Mr Pritam Singh.
Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, I think the record will speak for itself and I think Mr Giam has explained why his subject matter, which Mr Christopher de Souza has taken objection to, is connected to the Bill. Thank you.
Mr de Souza.
Most certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the record will speak for itself. I enjoin Mr Pritam Singh, the respectable Leader of the Opposition and Mr Giam to pick up my speech of 2021 or 2022, I cannot remember, it was during COVID-19, where I had made my position very clear that we need to choose the 4G leader.
So, the record will speak for itself and, please, Members, you can make your own decision whether what I said is in concert with the Budget that we were meant to pass and what Mr Giam has said today, the hon Member, is in concert with an attack on NTUC or support on the Bill. The record will speak for itself.
Mr Heng Chee How.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Because Mr Gerald Giam in his speech spoke about the role of union leaders and then he spoke about the NTUC and the symbiotic relationship with the PAP. So, I must respond to that.
Mr Giam thanked our union leaders for taking good care of our workers. We thank him for that. At least he acknowledges that.
But I think in saying that, then you must also give due respect to our union leaders. They are not stooges. [Applause.] Their hearts are in the right place. They do all this for their fellow workers. That is what they are doing this for.
And you acknowledge that. And all our unions are doing that. And every union that is affiliated to the NTUC chooses to do that. And the NTUC has a symbiotic relationship with the PAP so that we can convey the views and the needs of the workers to our political partner, so that when they become the ruling party, when they win the trust of Singaporeans and have the mandate to be the ruling party, that the interests of workers in this country will always be taken care of, be given great priority.
You look at the track record of the PAP. For all these years that it has been in government, what has it delivered for this country? What has it delivered for the workers? Has it sold out the workers? Has it embarrassed our union leaders?
So, you are talking about some theoretical construct. Look at the results. Look at the context in which we are debating today. This very Bill that your party is supporting, where does this come from? This comes from a symbiotic relationship where both sides are trying to undermine and throw the workers under the bus? No. You supported it because it is good for the workers.
Is this the only thing that is good for the workers? No. We have decades of track record. Why do you think the workers will support their unions who affiliate themselves to the NTUC? It is because we work for the workers. So, when we say every worker matters, NTUC means it. And that goes to also when we go into a symbiotic relationship – we do so for the sake of the workers.
So, I just wanted Mr Giam to know, you are entitled to your views, certainly, but what I wanted to say is can we at least deal with the facts? And we are not forming this yesterday. The Leader of the House has earlier also stated that a close relationship, you can call it what you like, a partnership, an alliance, between political parties and trade unions, is not uncommon. And they do not do this out of stupidity. They do this because it serves the interests of the constituents that they represent, concurrently. That is what they do.
And the recommendations that Mr Giam makes, be very careful, Mr Speaker, because on the one hand he says that this is good to work for the workers and so on. On the other hand, you look at some of the recommendations he makes, is it more likely or less likely for those tripartite partners in the context in which Mr Giam has promoted, likely or less likely to come to some sensible agreement that can then be implemented for the good of the workers? And if it is not, then it just goes round and round, and we can tear our hair out, beat our chest and we say we love the workers; but their lot is not going to get better. So, I say be very, very careful.
I once saw a poster, I think it is available on YouTube. It shows some water, it shows a snake, head reared above the water with a fish in the mouth. And the slogan says, caring snake saves fish from drowning. So, we must be very, very careful. What exactly are we recommending? If we care for that fish in there, let us do something practical.
This is my heartfelt response: be fair to our union leaders, be fair to our unions, be fair to the NTUC. NTUC is not expecting the WP to support us, but at least be fair. [Applause.]
Mr Giam.
Sir, I thank Senior Minister of State Heng for his heartfelt exposition. And I did acknowledge the hard work of unionists at both the start and the end of my speech. And I am not questioning the commitment or the work of unionists, but I am addressing the systemic constraints that they face.
I believe that many unionists are trying their level best to be able to advocate for workers that they represent, but they face many restrictions in doing so because of the controls that the Government, through the NTUC and other legislations, place on the unions. So, I believe that my proposals for union independence are meant to empower unionists and platform work association leaders to act freely in the best interests of their workers.
And I would just like to address a point that Mr Christopher de Souza kept bringing up, that the first part of my speech was irrelevant. I hope that after listening to the rest of my speech, he would acknowledge that the first part of my speech was an important preamble to what I was going to explain in the later part of my speech. I believe it was a policy point that I was putting forward on behalf of the WP.
And I just wonder why is it that every time the WP brings up a valid policy point, or very often when the WP brings up a valid policy point, we are accused of politicking and making political speeches. Whereas when the PAP talks about something different, it becomes a relevant policy point. I think that there is a need to be fair as well to us.
Mr de Souza.
I think I have been in this House long enough for people to know that I put principles above politics. First point.
Second point, I listened very carefully to what Mr Giam was saying for I think 60% or 70% of his speech – and it was essentially an attack on the NTUC and by extension, an attack on the NTUC's symbiotic relationship with the PAP. And I do not think one can disagree with that because at about the 60th or 70th percent mark of the speech, the hon Member says, now I turn my focus to the Bill. What was the hon Member's focus prior to that?
So, no, I am not standing here as a point of order to make a political point. I am not that type of person. I am governed by principles and my point is that the hon Member went beyond the line on this Bill.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Mr Speaker, as you know I am a first-term Member of Parliament, so perhaps for my edification, yourself or perhaps the Leader of the House would be willing to share whether the Budget is a time for Members to be able to raise any matters of concern for the broad nation?
I will just say this – which is that that is an ample demonstration of how when you are on a particular topic, then you make a side-step and say this is about something else; and then we have another side-step and say this is about something else. So, I think the short point to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is that this is about the Platform Workers Bill. Let us keep this to the Platform Workers Bill.
To Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, regarding Budget Statements, if I refer all to Standing Order 89, some sub-sections there which tells you what you can talk about; and then for Committee of Supply debate, this will be covered under Standing Order 93. Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Speaker, I spent quite a large part of my career in the trade unions and I think there is no more passionate group of people in fighting for the rights of workers than union leaders.
I would just like to share a point of information. The hon Member Mr Gerald Giam said that he studied the trade unions relationship in the UK. I am not sure if he realises that the trade unions in the UK actually pay an annual fee to the Labour Party. In return, they elect 13 out of 39 members of the National Executive Committee and 50% of delegates to the Labour Party Conference. So, why is it that they can have a formal relationship and we cannot in Singapore?
The New Democratic Party in Canada was founded in 1967 by who? By the Canadian Labour Congress. So, they have a long working relationship. It is encapsulated in the New Democratic Party's constitution as well.
So, political relationship and affiliations between trade unions and political parties are a natural partnership because for trade unions to want to achieve something, they do so through political means. Some of course choose to be independent, that is great. But across the democratic world, there are many, many examples of good, strong working relationships between political parties and trade unions. And there are also many trade unions that choose through their history to form political parties to advocate for the rights of their workers.
So, I am not sure what part of the relationship or history that he has seen in the UK that proves this otherwise.
Senior Minister of State Koh.
Mr Speaker, I just want to reiterate again that nothing in this proposed Bill, in the legislation proposed in this Bill, has any clauses that are related to how a union ought or not ought to be affiliated to any political party.
And since Mr Giam did go to great extent to talk about affiliation between unions and parties, let me just quickly read from the archives of the National Library. It says, after the PAP split its left wing to set up the Barisan Socialist, the Singapore Trades Union Congress also split into two rival factions: the NTUC and the Singapore Association of Trade Unions or SATU. SATU was aligned with the Barisan Socialist and the Barisan Socialist in 1988 folded into the WP.
So, I think maybe the WP should think about changing its name because if you feel so averse about being associated with workers, you might want to think about something else.
Mr Giam.
Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for that information. Can I assume that taking the statements of the Leader of the House, Senior Minister of State Koh and Mr Alex Yam together, that if the PAP were to ever lose power, the NTUC would therefore become an instrument of opposition against the new government?
Leader.
The short answer – I cannot speak on behalf of the NTUC, but how I would see it is this. It would be entirely up to the workers and the trades union congress to decide whether to have any political party that they support and if so, which one.
What I can say is that the PAP would do its very utmost not to have to give them a reason to think that we would never support them, or that as a government, we would not do our very best for the workers and the trades union congress. So, I would not venture into all these hypothetical questions – and you can see that Mr Giam is venturing more and more into the political realm.
I would just bring the debate back to this. This is about platform workers. This is about our gig workers. This is about people who do not have much protection and who need protection, and we are trying to get this Bill passed so that they can have that protection.
The WP obviously wishes to – I mean, let us all be quite frank. We all know that next year, there has to be a general election. Well, by next year, there has to be a general election. It may be this year, it may be next year, but we all know that by next year there has to be one. And we also know that whenever a general election appears or is round the corner, the political rhetoric ramps up.
The political parties can slug it out amongst themselves, but do not put the platform workers in the middle of this. Do not make them the pawns or the beating bags for this.
We have a Bill to pass. Let us focus on this Bill, because with this Bill, we can do better for our workers, our gig workers, and protect them.
Mr Giam.
Sir, most importantly, we have supported this Bill. So, we are not putting the platform workers in any disadvantaged position by opposing this Bill. We are supporting this Bill.
On the point that the Leader raises that it would be up to the NTUC or the workers of that day which party they want to support – how can that be? Because the NTUC has embedded its party members in different areas of the unions! How would they be able to change that if the PAP is so deeply embedded inside the unions?
In any case, I think the whole thrust of what the Leader, Senior Minister of State Koh and Mr Yam had said earlier on is that the NTUC is aligned to the PAP and there is nothing usual in the world. So, we expect that the NTUC would continue to be aligned with the PAP, even after the PAP loses power. It is not an issue of just theoretical grandstanding but this is an issue of institutional continuity – are we going to have a situation where any new government that comes to power is completely jammed up?
Leader.
Mr Speaker, I really hope not to have to belabour this point, but it is a simple point. Trade unions elect their own leaders. If they have leaders today who are members of the PAP or vice versa, it does not mean that that will always be the case.
But the point that Mr Giam is missing is that the trade unions have a mind of their own. They have leadership. They know what to do. And they will act in a way that they think is best for their unions and for their workers.
So, at the appropriate time, they will have their elections. They will choose their leaders. You do not know whether they may or may not be affiliated with the PAP, whatever it is. But at the end of the day, it is the unions who choose their leaders and it is the unions who choose whether or not they are affiliated with or work with or have a symbiotic relationship with a political party. That is entirely up to the trade unions, and we should let them continue to do and decide for themselves as they think best.
But at the end of the day, it comes back to this. We have a Bill to pass and let us pass this Bill so that we can confer rights and protections on our platform workers.
Let us come back to the debate on the Platform Workers Bill. Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Speaker, Sir, a few weeks ago, two elderly male Yio Chu Kang residents came to see me at my Meet-the-People Session. Both were food delivery riders. They asked for my help to appeal a fine imposed by LTA for riding their personal mobility devices on the pedestrian area at Ang Mo Kio Hub. I asked them why they chose to ride on the pedestrian path, knowing that it was against the law. They said they were in a hurry to complete their deliveries. More importantly, they feared for their safety on the main road. With the bus interchange nearby and large vehicles frequently turning into Ang Mo Kio Hub, they felt unsafe riding alongside traffic.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe many Members here have encountered similar cases at their Meet-the-People Sessions. This situation highlights the complex realities platform workers face daily. They are often caught between the need to earn a living and the need to comply with regulations.
My two elderly residents, like many other platform workers, do not earn much. They are deeply concerned about the unpredictable nature of their earnings, often affected by fluctuating platform algorithms. I also appealed to the Social Service Office for financial assistance on their behalf. However, a more sustainable solution lies in creating a predictable and reliable income stream for these workers. This should be coupled with workplace safety and healthcare insurance to give them greater peace of mind.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Platform Workers Bill is indeed a step in the right direction. The provisions on mandatory CPF contributions, insurance coverage and dispute resolution mechanisms are commendable. Nevertheless, I have a few clarifications regarding the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to address the welfare of platform workers, starting with their long-term career development. Many platform workers see their current work as a temporary solution rather than a sustainable career path. The physical demands of delivery work and its potential impact on long-term health is a reality we must acknowledge. This is especially pertinent for platform workers in their senior years.
We need to create opportunities for them to upgrade their skills and transition to new careers. This empowers platform workers to explore alternative job opportunities within or outside the gig economy.
While the Bill addresses immediate concerns, what is the long-term vision for the sector? Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why certain long-term measures, such as continuous skills upgrading programmes, were not included in this Bill? What are the potential consequences for our future workforce if we do not address these critical aspects now?
Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, our platform workers need better mental health support. Platform work often involves long hours, isolation and pressure to meet demanding targets. This can significantly impact mental well-being, especially when earnings are volatile. We must champion greater mental health support for platform workers. This includes access to affordable counselling services and peer support networks.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must protect workers against threats and abuses. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for riders to encounter verbal abuse, especially when delays occur.
My two elderly residents shared their experiences of such incidents. They can be emotionally distressing and financially detrimental, as negative reviews can directly impact their income. We should consider incorporating provisions within the Bill or formulating guidelines to protect platform workers from such abuses, ensuring their safety and well-being while on the job.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, our platform workers must have access to inclusive dialogue. Ensuring that platform workers have a stronger voice in policy-making, especially in areas that directly impact them, is critical. We need to create more platforms where platform workers can openly share their experiences, concerns and give suggestions. This will allow them to actively contribute to discussions on policies that affect their livelihoods.
This Bill is a positive step with the introduction of the platform work associations, giving workers a stronger voice. However, these associations should also have the legal powers to take action against abusive customers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I now turn to the broader policy implications and potential implementation issues of the Bill. As we navigate the complexities of regulating the platform economy, we should learn from the experiences of other leading global cities.
What lessons were drawn from international examples? Also, what guided the Ministry's decision to adopt or not adopt certain approaches seen in other countries? How do these choices reflect Singapore's unique labour market dynamics and specific challenges?
Will this Bill significantly impact transport and food costs for residents? While we should be prepared to contribute to a stronger social compact and support our platform workers, it is important for the Government to provide clear insights into the potential cost implications.
This will also help consumers to calibrate their expectations. This will also enable relevant organisations and Ministries to proactively prepare and implement support measures for those with genuine needs.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, many of us use the services of platform workers – whether it is booking a Grab ride, ordering Foodpanda, or receiving online shopping deliveries. We enjoy these conveniences from the comfort of our homes with just a few clicks on our phones. Their work provides us with ease in our hectic lives.
The gig economy has transformed our work landscape, offering flexibility while presenting challenges our traditional labour laws were not designed to address.
As we continue to navigate these uncharted waters, we must strike a balance between preserving the flexibility that attracts individuals to this sector and at the same time providing essential protections that safeguard their well-being and livelihoods.
This Bill represents a promising first step towards achieving this balance. I urge the Ministry to consider the proposals I have raised today.
We must prioritise mental health support, ensure robust protection against threats and abuses, and foster inclusive dialogue to empower workers to participate actively in shaping policies that affect them.
Furthermore, we need to address long-term career development, particularly for older and senior workers, by providing avenues for skills upgrading and facilitating transitions to more sustainable career paths.
I also urge the Senior Minister of State to provide clarity on how this Bill compares with international regulations, elaborate on potential unintended consequences and mitigation strategies, and commit to continuous engagement with stakeholders throughout the implementation process.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a significant catalyst for positive change. But it is just one piece of the puzzle. For it to truly succeed, we need a national shift towards recognising and respecting the dignity and value of work for our platform workers. We must actively promote a culture of respect for all workers. There should be targeted initiatives to educate the public about the crucial role platform workers play in our economy and foster greater respect. Businesses must treat platform workers as valued partners, providing them with appropriate facilities and access to amenities to improve their working conditions.
Lastly, we must find opportunities to publicly recognise and celebrate the efforts of platform workers and other service workers through awards and appreciation events.
Mr Speaker, Sir, every hardworking individual should be treated with dignity, regardless of their circumstances – whether they are making ends meet, between jobs, or working on the side. This echoes the sentiments expressed by President Tharman during his campaign, where he emphasised the importance of respect for all members of the Singapore society.
It also aligns with our Prime Minister's call for a "reset" in our social compact, urging us to strengthen our sense of collective responsibility and build a more inclusive and cohesive nation.
I began my speech with the story of my two elderly personal mobility device riders. Their plight highlights the need for not only legislative protection but also a fundamental shift in societal attitudes. With this Bill, they will feel greater security knowing they have insurance coverage – a safety net we hope they never have to use. They will feel more at ease navigating the roads, knowing they will not be unfairly penalised or subjected to abuse from impatient customers.
Ultimately, we must foster a society where platform workers' contributions are recognised, their voices are heard, and their well-being is prioritised. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the true measure of a just, kind and compassionate society – one that values the dignity and contributions of every individual. I support the Bill.
Ms Jean See.
Mr Speaker, Members of the House and platform industry colleagues in the Gallery, I support the Platform Workers Bill.
The Bill recognises a unique group of self-employed workers that earn a precarious living doing gig jobs. They are the freelance delivery workers, private hire vehicle drivers and taxi drivers whose earnings and welfare depend on ride-hail and delivery platform operators that price and auto-assign jobs using algorithms.
Over the last decade, ride-hail and delivery platform businesses have stabilised and grown. Many have transcended growth goals and are prioritising larger profit margins.
The Bill is thus well-timed. As it is built on recommendations from the Tripartite Advisory Committee and Workgroup, the Bill effects purposeful and substantive change to worker protection and shapes for the better our social compact in the context of the platform economy and workforce.
If well-implemented, the Bill can guide platform operators to strike the right balance between business profit-making and their duties towards platform workers. By outlining the responsibilities of platform operators towards the work safety and long-term financial security of their platform worker base, the Bill also addresses the precariousness of platform work and boosts platform workers' ability to build sustainable livelihoods.
The Bill also recognises the right of platform workers to form and be represented by platform work associations. The Bill is a landmark in labour laws because it accords registered platform work associations with union-like powers to negotiate with platform operators on work areas such as fair treatment, sustainable earnings and work safety.
Nevertheless, because how much a platform worker earns depends on how many and what type of jobs the platform assigns, platform workers have shared with NTUC and its affiliated associations – National Delivery Champions Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association, and National Taxi Association – their hopes for the Bill to establish norms. What norms?
Like other working people, platform workers care about: being treated with fairness and openness; being appropriately remunerated for their efforts and being accorded the autonomy to manage their work, specifically how tasks are performed, the scope and pace of work, and the scheduling and location of work.
However, in a space where the known unknown is uncertainty, before this Bill, many platform workers had looked to the future with despair. Indeed, over the last decade, NTUC and its affiliated associations have been engaging the Government, platform operators and other stakeholders on the concerns and issues facing platform workers. The Bill is thus a commendable response by the Government to allay some uncertainties of “pay-per-job” work – where jobs, wages and the work environment are in constant flux and where the worker must cede much control of how, when, and where to work to a black box of algorithms and bots.
To provide platform workers with peace of mind, I would like to seek clarity in three areas of the Bill. Before I proceed, I declare my interest as a Labour Movement representative and Executive Secretary of National Delivery Champions Association.
First, I appreciate that the Bill seeks to moderate platform operators’ profit-seeking behaviour and turn the spotlight on workers’ health and safety.
An Institute of Policy Studies 2022 poll found that one in three food delivery workers have been in at least one accident that required medical attention, and accident risks increased for those who worked longer hours and earned more.
The proposed amendments to the WSH Act sets out platform operators’ role and responsibilities. Having similar duties as employers under the WSH Act means that platform operators must flag out platform work risks and take steps to mitigate them.
The Bill also assigns to platform operators, financial responsibility for injury, incapacity or death of a platform worker associated with performing a platform job. By putting a price tag on work risks, concurrent amendments to WICA could motivate platform operators to value worker safety as they value profitability.
Platform operators wield wide-ranging control over platform workers’ pay, based on principles and algorithmic decisions that are a black box to platform workers. For instance, platform operators might neglect to consider or downplay the risk of injury when assigning an order to a platform delivery worker. Imagine delivering 80 packets of chicken rice or 36 litres of bottled water in a single delivery order and what is worse, realising there are four flights of stairs or a 10-minute walk to reach the customer. Platform delivery workers, regardless of age or fitness, can relate to these horrors.
We also hear of platform workers feeling compelled to work excessive hours such as 14- to 16-hour days on end without breaks, to unlock incentive targets. Such unrealistic targets drive platform workers to take unnecessary risks to their health and safety that also impact customers and the public.
To protect platform workers, the law must institute clear guardrails for platform operators to abide by. These guardrails must require operators to adopt a worker-centric viewpoint when reviewing their algorithms, work practices, and workflows. To this end, operators must take a serious look at how their policies and targets might end up risking workers’ health and safety and must take reasonable steps to mitigate these risks.
The amended WSH Act also stipulates a code of practice for platform operators; the code is now open for public feedback. This code should reflect the industry guardrails that I mentioned earlier and set a clear tone to demarcate and clamp down on unacceptable practices by platform operators. I urge tripartite partners to take bold steps to call out what is clearly unacceptable: no more policies that require workers to work extended hours non-stop; no more back-breaking loads or unsafe weight limits that exceed workers’ device capacity.
The law must also protect platform workers from being penalised if they take reasonable steps to safeguard their safety and health. Workers must be allowed to slow down or pause travel on roads in unsafe conditions; they must be empowered to decline jobs that are too heavy or large for them or their devices to carry. Platform operators must be held accountable if their policies penalise workers for abiding by safety practices.
The laws must ultimately address the risks to life and limb that platform workers face daily. As practices evolve, there must also be avenues for workers to report unsafe practices or penalties imposed by operators that discourage safe practices. Workers must have access to a whistle-blowing hotline; and tripartite partners must continue to work closely to review and update the code of practice to address emerging risks.
Thus, I would like to know if the Ministry has plans to ensure the implementation of guardrails to address the risks posed to workers’ safety and health by platform policies and practices.
Second, the Bill directs platform operators to translate part of their economic gain into social value. This matters because platform economy has grown in scale, size and workforce participation.
I appreciate the amendments to the CPF Act as these changes would boost platform workers’ social security and ability to finance housing and retirement needs. To recap, from 1 January next year, platform operators must contribute to the provident funds of platform workers who are born on or after 1995 as well as those who opt-in to the CPF scheme.
I also appreciate the raised income threshold as well as the higher percent Government support for the PCTS scheme that would benefit more platform workers to larger extent. A platform worker who opts in to the CPF scheme and is a CPF Transition Support Scheme and Workfare Income Supplement recipient would gain from higher overall income and cash pay-out.
Nonetheless, platform workers are concerned about platform operators restricting allocation of jobs, suppressing fares, or raising charges to minimise the operators’ CPF outlay for platform workers onboard the CPF scheme.
Platform workers attribute their low trust of platforms to the fact that many platform operators seem to be only making half-hearted attempts at issuing rate sheets and statements for jobs and earnings that promise clarity and transparency but are neither clear nor transparent. Protocols for job allocation are oftentimes vague. The low-trust is further compounded by glitches that disrupt operators’ apps – sometimes, for extended periods. Whenever such situations happen, platform workers are forced to double-up as platform operators’ helpdesk in facing angry customers and merchants while trying but often failing to get help from operators. More crucial, platform workers worry about digital disruptions undermining their livelihoods.
Platform workers thus ask that the Ministry establish safeguards that build on the Bill. These safeguards should hold platform operators responsible for ensuring that platform workers understand how they are being paid so that platform workers can make informed decisions on their work arrangements. Why should platform workers be left guessing and speculating how much they can earn each time they take a job? This breeds a sense of insecurity and deep anxiety over their livelihoods and the welfare of their dependents. Platform operators must also be held accountable for the integrity of app transactions and the knock-on impact of app disruptions to platform workers’ livelihoods.
A constructive approach could have three priorities.
One, is to require platform operators to participate in Singapore’s AI governance testing framework, AI Verify. Today, no platform operators are listed as AI Verify foundation members.
Mr Speaker, via AI Verify, organisations would apply standardised tests to validate their AI systems’ performance against internationally aligned AI ethics principles of transparency, explainability, repeatability, safety, security, robustness, fairness, data governance, accountability, human agency and oversight, inclusive growth, and societal and environmental well-being. This matters because the quality of platform workers’ lives and livelihoods much depend on the fair and smooth functioning of platform algorithms. Thus, securing platform operators’ commitment to periodically validate their AI systems against a national framework gives platform workers greater assurance that these black box AI systems are fair, unbiased and safe.
Two, is to require platform operators to provide some income protection for active platform workers who lose the opportunity to earn during extended platform app outages. We would feel distressed if our work devices crash. While we can take comfort that we are paid on the clock while awaiting IT help, platform workers are paid by the job and the impact of app disruption can go beyond inconvenience and into financial hardship. Some active platform workers were especially hard-hit during platform app outages; their earnings were locked in the app and they struggled to cover their families’ daily expenses.
The Land Transport Authority’s (LTA's) move to introduce standards for managing operational disruptions for all taxi and ride-hail operators is a positive step because it assigns responsibility and accountability to platform operators. How might the Ministry build on the Bill as well as LTA’s standards to ensure that when technology fails, platform operators continue to uphold the social compact and are consistent in providing some income protection to active platform workers?
Three, is an "ask" for platform operators to extend to platform workers, a copy of the terms of services between the platform worker and the platform operator. Platform workers should also be informed on how platforms price fees and earnings. Knowing what each platform pays on average allows platform workers to better plan their work arrangements and finances.
The introduction of the CPF scheme into the platform work-stream marks the maturing of the platform economy. Platform operators must be less like startups and more like established firms. The Bill’s oversight should thus extend to affirming fairness and transparency in how platform operators engage, deploy and compensate platform workers – right at the outset when parties enter a contract.
Recapping – the Bill can empower platform workers to opt-in to the CPF scheme by elevating trust in the system. How so? One, by requiring platform operators to periodically validate their AI systems to ensure fairness. Two, by providing platform workers with some income protection in event of extended platform app outage. And three, by requiring platform operators to extend to platform workers, the terms of services and its updates as well as information that would help workers to better grasp how much they can expect to earn based on their work effort.
Platform operators are aware that investors hold fast to unicorn aspirations and expect platforms to deliver faster growth, better return on capital and higher profit margins regardless of the Bill’s implications. In turn, platform workers are aware of the competing pressures upon platform operators that could erode the worker share of the economic pie.
Platform workers have shared with our associations their worries of platform operators diffusing the cost of Bill compliance among platform workers under the cloak of less-than-transparent earnings statement and/ or brute force implementation.
Therefore, last month, the NTUC announced its intention to register platform work associations that represent taxi drivers, private hire vehicle drivers and platform delivery workers should this Bill be passed. This Bill accords the right of voice to platform workers. The Bill also vests in platform work associations the right to Act on behalf of platform workers who are platform work association members. This is a milestone.
In this regard, platform work associations would undertake to advance the livelihoods of associations’ members. Platform work associations would also undertake to establish the first principles to anchor bipartite and tripartite discussions with platform operators and other stakeholders.
It is thus in the interests of both platform operators and platform workers to proactively seek out and collaborate with or join a platform work association that is balanced and progressive in mindset and approach. Having the right relationships in place from the get-go is crucial to building up platform workers’ trust in the platform work system. This is because issues that arise during platform rides and/or deliveries can be surfaced, addressed and acted on by platform operators, in collaboration with the platform work association.
I value the Ministry’s efforts to consult the other tripartite stakeholders in the crafting of the Bill. Does the Ministry plan to re-introduce tripartite set-ups that can facilitate discussions between the sectoral platform work association and platform operators on livelihood issues impacting the sector and its workers? These issues could range from inconveniences arising from infrastructure challenges such as delivery-unfriendly properties to protecting platform workers against work-related harms such as the handling of passengers who insist on vaping in the vehicle or who refuse to belt up.
In conclusion, technology without guardrails can dehumanise work and the worker. NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers. We champion their interests because every platform worker matters. This Bill is testament.
The Bill recognises that platform work has gone from experimental dabbling to an everyday affair; platform work is also both a career and a community for individuals of different life stages and ages.
Indeed, the Bill is significant because it heralds work and social protections that have impact on the lives and livelihoods of this precarious group of workers. As important, the Bill sets the stage for industrial relations to take root in a new economy and where sustainable development and win-win-win outcomes for workers, operators, and society, can spring forth under the auspices of tripartism and collaboration; so that all can play their part in building a fair social compact and resilient workforce.
Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to give effect to the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers.
Platform workers, from our ride hailing drivers to our food delivery and package delivery riders, play an essential role in point-to-point transport, and in ensuring that food and goods reach our doorsteps promptly and in good condition. Well, we do want our cupcakes to come with the cream and the toppings intact. However, their job often places them in dangerous situations that can compromise their safety and well-being.
My speech today will touch on the importance of ensuring that our platform workers are well and properly covered by insurance, and the need to ensure that they have good workplace safety and health outcomes.
Sir, platform workers today lack an adequate insurance coverage. According to the 2022 report by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, the typical coverage for death or total permanent disability of platform workers provided by platform operators lies largely in the $10,000 to $30,000 range. This pales in comparison to the limit of $289,000 for employees under the WICA.
I, therefore, fully support the Bill's proposal to provide all platform workers with the same work injury compensation coverage as employees. In the event of an unfortunate accident, a food delivery rider working for a platform should not have to face poorer insurance outcomes than a comparable food delivery employee employed inhouse by a restaurant. It is the right thing to do and I am glad that we are removing this unfair and artificial distinction.
Beyond coverage by WICA while at work, we should recognise that many of our platform workers spend substantial periods of time on the road waiting for or travelling to destinations to seek their next job. To them, this is time spent at work. Yet, the definition of workplace under section 2 of WICA does not include such waiting or travelling periods. If platform workers get injured during such time, they will not be covered by WICA.
Sir, the International Labour Organization's position is that there should be recognition of some of the time that a worker spends on call. I urge the Ministry to consider including such waiting time under WICA in order to fully cover the range of work activities by a platform worker.
In addition to adequate insurance coverage, we must also move upstream to mitigate the risk of platform workers getting into an accident in the first place. Platform workers enjoy the ability to work in a flexible environment that best caters to their life's circumstances. But this comes with some downsides. To earn a decent wage, they spend long hours, often on the roads and, sometimes, in treacherous weather conditions.
One key concern for platform workers is road safety. The report by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers found that from January 2021 to October 2022, there were eight work-related traffic fatalities among platform workers. Earlier, the Senior Minister of State also cited a 2022 study by the Institute of Policy Studies, which found that one in three food delivery workers has been in at least one accident that required medical attention. That same survey also found that around 44% of drivers reported worsening health levels since they started driving.
Sir, our platform workers want to be responsible road users. They want to earn a decent living and return home safely to their loved ones. To enhance protection for our platform workers, we need to implement measures that prioritise their safety and well-being. One such measure is to ensure that all delivery workers have access to proper training on road safety and the safe handling of packages to prevent injuries. Platform operators must also provide adequate safety equipment, such as reflective vests and helmets, to protect delivery workers while on the job.
More importantly, platform operators must not penalise platform workers for reporting work incidents, such as road traffic accidents. Platform workers should be allowed to prioritise their own safety without having to fear that they would be subject to unfair disincentives or penalties.
Sir, I have been lobbying for more to be done to safeguard the safety and health of our platform workers since 2021. This includes the need to review incentive structures which may lead platform workers to rush to meet targets and risk getting into an accident. I, therefore, fully support the provisions in this Bill which make clear that platform operators have a duty to provide measures to safeguard the safety of platform workers who work for them.
I call on all platform operators to take concrete steps to mitigate the risks to the safety and health of their platform workers. While I can understand that platform operators may not be in control of the physical environment that platform workers operate in, but operators can and should set policies that influence and drive platform workers' behaviours. Operators must be required to ensure that the design of their reward and incentive policies do not inadvertently induce their platform workers towards unsafe behaviours, such as driving long hours or rushing to complete jobs.
Sir, it is good that the WSH Council is working with tripartite partners to establish an Approved Code of Practice for Platform Services. The code will address safety concerns in platform work and provide clarity on the reasonably practicable measures that operators can take to fulfil their WSH duties.
However, the current draft code still allows flexibility for platform operators to set incentive targets that may be unreasonable and potentially unsafe. I, therefore, ask for the code to codify what would be deemed as a safe incentive and reward structure so that operators do not set unrealistic incentive targets.
I also call on the tripartite workgroup to study the best practices in other countries, such as Australia, where a series of reforms passed earlier this year will allow employee-like workers in the gig economy to enjoy similar workplace protection as regular employees. According to news reports, Australia started on this journey after a spate of road fatalities involving gig workers. The local government there is seeking to put in place minimum safety standards for gig workers. I am confident that there will be parallels from which we in Singapore can learn.
Sir, beyond what the Government and platform operators can do, we can all play a part in helping to keep our platform workers safe as merchants and as consumers. As consumers, we can be patient with our delivery workers when there are genuine reasons for delays. They are trying their best and many of them are braving weather conditions and obstacles to reach us in good time.
As ride-hailing customers, we should be upfront and declare when we have young children travelling with us. NTUC has received feedback from private hire vehicle drivers that some customers do not declare when they have accompanying children below the age of seven. Only taxis can ferry such passengers without a child seat. So, by failing to declare, it leads to a wasted trip for our platform workers. The customer also feels frustrated and it is an unpleasant experience for everyone involved.
As merchants and senders, we can pack our food and goods properly and honestly declare to the platform the correct weight and size of the item that we intend to send.
Sir, the work to improve the WSH outcomes for our platform workers will not end once this Bill passes Parliament. In fact, it signals the next mile in the Labour Movement's effort to improve the lives of our brothers and sisters in the gig economy. The Labour Movement has and will continue to champion the interests of our platform workers because every platform worker matters. And we mean it. Sir, I support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Speaker, today, we discuss a landmark Bill, the Platform Workers Bill, which creates a new legal framework and amends laws, such as WICA, WSH Act, CPF Act and Industrial Relations Act.
This Bill represents extensive discussions and aims to provide platform workers with financial protection covering work injuries, housing and retirement adequacy. At the same time, it ensures platform operators can continue to thrive, preserving jobs for workers and services for consumers.
The Bill is a result of Singapore's unique tripartite model, involving cooperation among the Ministry, unions representing workers and businesses. Hence, I want to extend my gratitude to everyone who has worked tirelessly on this Bill – our brothers and sisters from our NTUC unions representing the workers, many of them here today, spending hours with us, the workers, the team at the Ministries, the businesses and our team from the PAP who have been holding many discussions with our platform workers, including in Pasir Ris-Punggol, where we, too, held discussions with our platform workers. This Bill reflects what we can achieve by working together and our values of protecting our workers.
Mr Speaker, the gig economy has expanded rapidly over the past few years, with the number of platform workers in Singapore growing from 70,500 in 2020 to 88,400 in 2022, driven by technology and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this growth also highlights the disparity in power between platform workers and platform operators. While this imbalance may not be malicious, we need to rebalance the dynamics to ensure fairness for all parties.
Mr Speaker, I want to share the story of Mr T from Pasir Ris East, a father of four who was involved in a hit-and-run accident while on a delivery job just a month ago. His limited insurance coverage left him without compensation for his injuries or damage to his bike. Now on hospitalisation leave, he has lost his income and faces medical and repair bills.
This situation reflects the reality for many of our platform workers, who lack proper recourse for injury compensation despite their vital role in keeping the gig economy running. This Bill seeks to address such vulnerabilities.
Beyond injury compensation, platform workers often struggle with retirement and housing adequacy. One resident in Pasir Ris, a father of three in his 30s, lives in a rental flat because he lacks sufficient CPF savings to afford a home.
A 2023 DBS study found that platform workers' expense-to-income ratio has risen to 112%, meaning they are spending more than they earn. Without a fair wage structure, many workers face financial insecurity, especially regarding housing and retirement. This Bill aims to provide long-term security for platform workers.
Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I have several clarifications.
Firstly, on the definition of platform operators, how will companies assess if they are platform operators? Will MOM provide guidance on this?
Secondly, on CPF contributions, how will CPF contributions be computed for our platform workers? Will it be based on gross earnings or net earnings? With platform workers using different modes of transport, how will expenses be factored in?
Thirdly, on PCTS, will it support be based on gross or net income? Will it be disbursed annually, daily or monthly?
Fourthly, on work injury compensation, how will this apply if the platform worker's vehicle is found to be faulty or modified?
Lastly, and most importantly, wage and career progression for our platform workers.
Mr Speaker, let me elaborate further on the definition of platform operators. I support the Bill's focus on ride-hailing and delivery services as these workers are more akin to employees than self-employed individuals. However, more clarity is needed on how companies will determine whether they fall under the definition of platform operators. Additionally, we must be proactive in identifying industries where similar power imbalances may emerge and take steps to protect the workers in those sectors.
Secondly, let me touch on CPF and the retirement support mechanisms. I recently spoke to Mr Toh Kian Seng, a 62-year-old platform worker, who welcomed mandatory CPF contributions, recognising the long-term benefits for retirement despite the short-term reduction in take-home pay. However, younger workers may not share this perspective he said, as they may at times prioritise short-term earnings over long-term savings. Therefore, we must ensure a smooth transition to mandatory CPF contributions, with adequate support mechanisms in place.
How will CPF contributions be calculated? Will it be based on gross or net earnings? How will differing expenses for operating various vehicles, such as bicycles, motorbikes and cars, be factored into the calculations?
PCTS is a crucial mechanism to support platform workers during the transition for CPF contributions. With the income cap for PCTS raised to $3,000, will the support be based on gross or net income? The platform workers need cash to support their families’ monthly expenses. I urge the Ministry to provide this support on a monthly basis to help workers manage their monthly expenses. I also seek clarification on whether Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) eligibility and payouts will be based on gross or net income for our platform workers.
Will part-time platform workers be eligible for CPF contributions, PCTS and WIS, too? One worker in Pasir Ris raised a valid concern about his employer discovering additional CPF contributions and he was worried his employer will suspend him for moonlighting, even though he simply wanted to supplement his income. These workers need assurance and some guidelines on this matter.
Fourthly, on the issue of work injury compensation, given that the platform operator is not responsible for the choice of transportation of the platform workers, what happens if a platform worker's vehicle is found to be faulty or illegally modified? While motor vehicles undergo annual inspections, the situation is less clear for personal mobility devices and bicycles. Minor modifications, such as installing brackets or baskets to carry loads, which would increase the weight of personal mobility devices above 20 kilogrammes, should not disqualify workers from compensation.
On duty of care, both platform operators and workers share responsibility for safety. Should platform operators be required to monitor workers' behaviour, such as unsafe driving, or insist on proper insurance coverage? In Mr T’s case, I was surprised that Mr T only had limited third-party insurance covering only third-party fire and theft. His limited third-party insurance was deemed acceptable by the platform operator, for someone that spends hours on the road. This raises questions about the adequacy of such insurance and the operator's duty to ensure its associates are sufficiently covered under insurance.
While this Bill addresses important protections for our platform workers, it does not tackle wage stagnation or career progression for our platform workers. With over 70,000 platform workers in Singapore, how can we ensure their wages keep pace with inflation and rising costs?
Comparatively, the Police Force has only 15,000 full-time officers, and the number of teachers of 30,000 is less than half that of platform workers. So, this is a sizeable chunk of our workforce.
Other freelancers often see wage growth with experience, but platform workers are "price takers" with little control over their earnings. For many platform workers, their current wage could represent their wage ceiling. Unless they work longer hours or platform operators raise the prices, wages will stagnate and even decrease as workers age or seek better work-life balance. With inflation, real wages will quickly decline over time.
Additionally, when PCTS ends in 2029, platform workers will bear the full cost of CPF contributions, further reducing their take-home pay. In a tight labour market like ours in Singapore, we need to consider how to create opportunities for our platform workers to transition into other industries or roles if they wish to do so. Can we also provide more training support for platform workers to explore opportunities in other growth industries if they wish to do so? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Allow me to share the story of a family from my ward, Pasir Ris East. Recently, I met Mr T, a father of four school-going children. A month ago, when Mr T was doing deliveries, he was hit by a vehicle in a hit-and-run incident. He suffered serious injuries and was hospitalised for two weeks. Unfortunately, his insurance was limited to only third-party fire and theft, which meant that he could not receive any compensation for his injuries or any damage to his vehicle.
Today, Mr T is still on hospitalisation leave and is unable to work, lost his source of income, has several follow-up medical appointments and the worst thing is that he must bear his own medical bills and vehicle repair costs.
Another story that I wish to share is about another one of my Pasir Ris residents, a husband in his 30s who has three school-going children. Although both husband and wife have been platform workers for five years, they still live in a rental flat because they do not have sufficient CPF or cash savings to make the downpayment for their own house, let alone think about retirement.
According to a DBS study in 2023, the expense-to-income ratio for platform workers has risen to 112%, meaning they spend more than what they earn. Without a fair wage structure, our platform workers will continue to face financial difficulties for their housing and retirement.
Therefore, this Bill is the best way to provide our platform workers with some form of financial protection, covering work injury, housing and retirement adequacy. At the same time, it ensures that platform operators can continue to thrive, preserve jobs for workers and provide services for consumers.
Although I support this Bill, I would like to seek some clarifications.
First is on the definition of platform operators. How will companies determine whether they are platform operators? Will MOM provide any guidance on this?
Second is on CPF contributions. How will CPF contributions be calculated for platform workers? Will it be based on gross income or net income? With platform workers using different modes of transport such as cycling or driving a car, how will the different mode of expenses be considered?
Third is on the Platform Worker CPF Transition Support (PCTS). Will the PCTS be based on gross or net income? Will it be given annually or monthly?
Fourth is on Work Injury Compensation. How will this be provided if the platform worker's vehicle is found to be modified?
Finally, and most importantly, is salary and career progression for our platform workers. While this Bill deals with important safeguards, it does not address the issues of wage stagnation or career progression for platform workers. For most platform workers, their salaries will not increase unless they work longer in a day or if the platform operators raise their prices. In fact, their salaries will most likely decline as they grow older or need more time to look after their families. This is before the inflation rate is considered. In addition, when the assistance from PCTS ends in 2029, platform workers have to bear the full cost of CPF contributions, thus reducing their take-home pay.
Mr Speaker, there are many job opportunities in Singapore especially in the growth industries which has opportunities for career advancement. How can we give our platform workers the opportunity to switch to other industries, if they want to try out new careers?
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, this Bill is an important step towards protecting workers, ensuring their financial security and rebalancing the needs of all stakeholders. However, several areas require clarifications to ensure a smooth implementation. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand in support of the Bill.
Senior Minister of State Koh.
PAPERCUTS