Round Up Speech at Platform Workers Bill

Senior Minister of State for Manpower Dr Koh Poh Koon, Parliament House

1. Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking all Members for their support for the Platform Workers Bill. Both the Workers’ Party and the Progress Singapore Party have spoken in support of this Bill to give Platform Workers better protection. I thank them for their support.

2. In my opening speech yesterday, I went into some lengths to explain the construct of the Bill and some of the implementation details for CPF contribution, work injury compensation and representation. Members will get a sense of how complex it is to implement the recommendations put forth by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers or PWAC. Mr Xie Yao Quan’s speech before mine gave a very good glimpse into the complexities of the negotiations and sometimes all the arguments that can take place. But eventually we landed on a good set of recommendations. 

3. Before I address the specific questions raised by Members, I thought it is useful for me to help Members of this House understand how we are able to put forth this landmark legislation to help a group of precarious workers that many other countries are still grappling to solve their problems.

4. The platform sector is a very heterogeneous one that is rapidly evolving, and sometimes new ones will come into the scene. A key characteristic is the very dynamic way in which supply and demand of jobs and labour are very quickly matched and the dynamic pricing also serves to incentivise service users and workers to facilitate a match. Platform operators, workers and users interact with one another dynamically as demand and supply, and prices respond and changes rapidly in real time. This allows flexibility that is a feature platform workers desire but also imposes management control on these workers. Multi-homing on various platforms further adds to the complexity.

5. For these reasons, many countries are grappling with the difficulties of putting a legislative frame around a constantly evolving entity.

6. How did we manage to put forth this Platform Workers Bill today that both the governing and opposition Members gave their unanimous support in such a short time over a mere 2-3 years since we started this stream of work? The International Labour Organisation is also interested to understand how we did it, and I will share 3 key ingredients that made this possible:

1. First, and most important, Tripartism. Singapore is able to come up with this innovative and landmark piece of legislation because of the close working relationship and trust amongst the tripartite partners.
   1. It is a relationship that is forged through the crucible of time, one in which we have weathered the various crises together over the decades. It allows us to adopt a collaborative approach to seek win-win solutions, and enables us to nimbly adapt and adjust to the fast evolving nature of the platform landscape.
   2. This is something that is unique and special here in Singapore that is not necessarily the case in many other countries. The Director General of the International Labour Organisation Mr Gilbert Houngbo has shared his admiration for the unique tripartism we have in Singapore when I met him in Geneva and he is keen to learn more about how our Tripartism actually works.
   3. What is so unique about our Tripartism?
   4. We must understand that there is a natural tension between the interests of businesses and workers which stems from the competing goals of maximising profits on one side and securing fair treatment and compensation on the other.
   5. It is quite easy for a government to be pro-business.
   6. It is also quite easy for a government to be pro-worker.
   7. But it is very difficult for a government to be both pro-worker and pro-business at the same time.
   8. Close relationships between unions and political parties are perfectly normal in all functioning democracies. This usually takes the form of the union either forming a party on its own, or funding and supporting one party.
   9. A cornerstone of our strong Tripartism is the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and the NTUC as well as our respect for the employers.
   10. The symbiotic relationship of the PAP and NTUC has allowed us, as a ruling Party, to run a government that is both pro-worker and pro-business at the same time.
   11. Tripartism undergirds the industrial harmony and economic success of Singapore. Other countries try to emulate us. But they cannot, because unlike us, they do not have the symbiotic relationship between unions and the governing party, and so, they do not have the tripartism that we have.
   12. What is dangerously clear to us now, is that the Workers’ Party will seek to dismantle this.
   13. When the Workers’ Party attacks the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and the NTUC and Mr Gerald Giam said “I believe that unions must be independent and nonpartisan”, he is in effect saying that the Workers’ Party will not align itself with any unions or form any relationship with any unions.
   14. The Tripartism that we have in Singapore today which many other countries want to emulate, only exists because of the close relationship and the mutual respect between the PAP and the NTUC. You dismantle this and everything falls apart.
   15. So all workers and employers should sit up and take notice. Because if a WP Leadership wants to destroy Tripartism as it stands here today.
   16. The Workers’ Party will kill Tripartism. And in its place will be a more adversarial form of relationship and systems that we see happening elsewhere.
   17. But here’s the irony:
   18. David Marshall was the founding chairman of the Workers’ Party. When David Marshall mooted the idea of forming a “political party whose membership is exclusively confined to members of trade unionists” and started the Workers’ Party in 1957, the founding executive committee members of the party comprised 20 trade unionists and 10 non-unionists!
   19. Mr Gerald Giam and the Workers’ Party are completely ignorant about how the WP started as a party of Unionists! Some of these information was obtained from their own website. Clearly, the Workers’ Party is no longer a pro-worker party. Unions have long been a part of the Workers’ Party’s history. Somehow along the way, they lost the trust and the relationship with the unions. So now, Mr Gerald Giam says, like a bit of a toxic ex-boyfriend, because I can’t have a relationship with unions, no one else should have as well. There should be no love between the political party and the unions.
   20. Fortunately for Singapore, tripartism under the PAP government is strong. To NTUC and our unions, I say solidarity forever. And the PWAC, which comprises tripartite representatives, was able to negotiate and come up with a balanced set of recommendations which we are now legislating through this Bill. I thank the members of the PWAC for their efforts that made this possible. 
2. Second, a strong and dedicated team of civil servants at MOM. Beyond the recommendations of the PWAC, members can appreciate the very complex implementation mechanisms and operational processes that insurers, platform operators, CPF Board and MOM will need to put in place to ensure the seamless and smooth execution of CPF collection, an effective work injury compensation claims regime and a workable representation framework.
   1. My MOM colleagues have worked closely with the platform operators, our tripartite partners NTUC and SNEF, as well as various agencies, taking their feedback and worked through various policy and operational constructs to address the complex nature of work in the platform sector.
   2. Mr Xie Yao Quan’s speech just now characterises some of these challenges in coming up with very detailed implementation details. Sometimes I look at my officers and say, the kind of mental gymnastics that they do to come up with all these implementation details, deserves an Olympic medal. I want to put on record my thanks to all of them for their dedication and commitment to strengthen the support and protections for our platform workers.
3. Third, Singaporeans at large. Various surveys have shown that Singaporeans are prepared to pay more to give these platform workers better protection. The percentages may vary across different surveys and different time points. But the key thing is this: this Bill we are enacting today is a declaration of our social compact, recognising that “Every Worker Matters”, means that platform workers also deserve to be treated fairly and equitably. I thank Singaporeans for standing in solidarity with these workers who have done so much for us, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

7. Sir, this is a very challenging legislation and the policy solutions may not be perfect. We will have to make trade-offs and accept that not all the issues and gaps in the platform space can be fully addressed through this legislation alone. But the status quo of leaving these platform workers vulnerable would not be a right thing to do. It would have been far easier to do nothing or perhaps take the easier approaches adopted elsewhere that unfortunately do not address the unique features of the platform work space.

8. This government is taking the approach of enacting legislation to define platform workers as a distinct category of workers because we believe it is necessary and the right thing to do for this group of precarious workers.

9. In legislating, we seek to preserve the key characteristics of the platform economy to ensure it can still function effectively, even as we seek to reduce the precarity of platform workers. All stakeholders including consumers will need to play a part.

10. I would like to make an observation on the considerations raised by Members. Some Members have expressed concerns that the introduction of the Bill will raise prices. On the other hand, there have also been calls to do more for platform workers, to provide even more protections for them. For example, to extend work injury compensation coverage to platform workers travelling to and from home or waiting for jobs. But this will further drive up the costs of protections that society will have to bear.

11. I raise this observation to make the point that where we have landed at in this Bill today, is a careful balance of the interests of the various stakeholders involved, to provide platform workers with the protection they need, while making sure that the platform economy continues to be sustainable.

12. With this principle in mind, I will now address the queries and concerns raised by broad themes. Some of the questions raised by Members have already been addressed in my speech yesterday, so I will not cover them here.

13. I will start by addressing questions related to the first set of amendments on the definition of terms and scope of entities and workers covered under the Bill.  

14. Many Members have suggested expanding the scope of the Bill to cover other platform services beyond that of the ride-hail and delivery services. As I have earlier explained, the Bill will account for the vast majority of platform workers doing work that is precarious. That said, I would like to assure Members we will certainly review the scope of the Act in the future as the platform landscape continues to evolve.

15. Mr Patrick Tay had a query on the meaning of “agreement” in clause 5(1)(a) of the Bill. Clause 5(1) sets out the conditions that must be met for the purposes of determining if an individual is a platform worker. The “agreement” in clause 5(1) will become a “platform work agreement” only when that individual satisfies all conditions to be a platform worker. Mr Tay also sought clarification on the meaning of “special expenses” in the definition of “earnings” in the Bill. “Special expenses” include payments meant to reimburse the expenses of platform workers when providing the platform service. An example would be the reimbursement of costs that platform workers may incur for cleaning services if a customer makes a mess in the vehicle. Such expenses will not attract CPF contributions as they are not meant to add to platform worker earnings.

16. Mr Neil Parekh had a query on how existing contracts will be affected and how conflicts between the Bill and platform work agreements will be resolved. When the Bill comes into force, obligations on the platform operator or platform worker under the Act will supersede existing contractual provisions that are less favourable. This means that even if existing agreements are not revised or the platform operator does not enter into any new agreement with the platform worker, the Act will supersede any existing platform work agreement. Therefore, it is in the interest of platform operators to go through existing agreements or enter into new agreements with their platform workers to reflect the new obligations under the Act.

17. Let me move on to clarifications regarding the second set of amendments to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers through the CPF system.

18. Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have expressed concerns about the impact of increased CPF contributions on platform workers’ take-home pay. Overall, platform workers will experience an increase in their total earnings, after factoring in CPF contributions from platform operators. Platform workers can use their Ordinary Account contributions in lieu of cash to pay for their housing loans. Furthermore, the Government is providing the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support or PCTS. As mentioned in my speech yesterday, we have enhanced PCTS to offset 100% and 75% of the year-on-year increase in the first and second year respectively. Mr Pritam Singh’s remark that the 100% PCTS offset applies to the lowest increase is not true, as the increase in each year is up to 2.5% points. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked whether PCTS can be extended to all platform workers who earn more than $2,500, for up to the first $2,500 of their earnings. The PCTS is targeted at lower-income platform workers, to provide them monthly support in the transition period when they see a decrease in take-home pay, as they would have less disposable income for their daily expenses. As announced earlier, the qualifying income cap has been increased to $3,000 a month. The median income of a platform worker ranges from $1,500 to $2,500 a month so more than half of platform workers should meet the income criteria for PCTS. These enhancements to the PCTS have increased the estimated total budget for PCTS by close to 60%.

19. Mr Sharael Taha asked if part-time platform workers would be covered by the CPF provisions and eligible for PCTS and Workfare Income Supplement. The CPF provisions do apply to part-time platform workers, and neither PCTS nor Workfare eligibility is dependent on whether the worker is working part-time or full-time as a platform worker. This is in line with the flexible nature of platform work because the worker can choose the number of hours he or she wants to work.

20. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we would consider reducing the phase-in of CPF contribution rates from five years to three years and Mr Louis Chua asked to introduce the full increase for platform operators immediately. Mr Gan, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Jamus Lim also suggested making the CPF scheme compulsory for older cohorts of platform workers, or making older cohorts opt out of CPF contributions rather than opt in. Underlying their suggestions is the sentiment that CPF contributions are very important for all platform workers. I share this sentiment. However, there are pertinent considerations behind the proposed construct.

1. The five-year phase-in period was a careful decision we made considering the take home pay impact on platform workers, the cost impact on platform operators, and the possible costs that could be passed on to consumers. These are also concerns raised by various members in their speeches. A 5-year phase in period will allow any impact to the various stakeholders to be moderated and allows time for the market to adjust to a new equilibrium.
2. For platform workers who wish to achieve higher CPF contributions earlier than 2029, they can make voluntary CPF contributions to all three CPF accounts between 2025 and 2028 and benefit from tax relief.
3. The decision to allow older platform workers to choose whether to participate in the increased CPF contributions by opting in recognises that they may already have existing plans to finance their housing and retirement needs. Some may have already finished paying for their home loans. Older platform workers in many of our engagement sessions expressed preference for the choice to opt in.
4. We respect these preferences that older platform workers have expressed to us. This is why we have allowed older cohorts to opt in, rather than including all by default and requiring them to opt out. The opt in arrangement allows platform workers to carefully consider their needs and plans before consciously choosing to increase their CPF contributions. If it is on an opt out basis, there may be some who might only realise later that their CPF contributions increased and will want to withdraw. This would be administratively onerous on both the platform workers and platform operators. Nonetheless, I do encourage older platform workers to make a conscious decision and take the active step to choose increased CPF contributions from the start, especially if they are servicing a housing loan or want to build up their savings for retirement.
5. Further, a study by the Institute for Policy Studies found that younger Platform Workers expressed stronger preference for additional CPF contributions to help meet their housing needs, as they were more likely to have housing obligations, or plans to buy a house. Younger cohorts would also benefit more from the compounding of interest given the longer runway for accumulation.
6. Members would appreciate that platform work is a very heterogeneous space. Different individuals participate in platform work for various reasons and to various extents. Some do it full time as their main source of income; others do it part-time to supplement their other sources of income. Yet others do it ad-hoc to get some pocket money. Platform workers have given feedback that they prefer a choice to decide if they want to contribute CPF based on their different needs.
7. Hence we set the mandatory contribution for CPF to begin for those who are born on or after 1995. It respects the autonomy of the platform workers while ensuring that on a cohort-basis over time, a majority of platform workers will have mandatory CPF contributions.
8. Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Jamus Lim asked about how we plan to encourage platform workers to opt in, or to help strengthen their financial literacy. The Government is working with partners, including NTUC and the Institute for Financial Literacy or IFL, to ensure that platform workers are aware of the benefits of opting in to the increased CPF contributions. IFL will also offer holistic financial literacy guidance for platform workers.

21. Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Pritam Singh, and Mr Jamus Lim spoke about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions.

1. Let me reassure the members that we have been actively engaging the potential platform operators, and they are supportive of making CPF contributions for their platform workers. 
2. There was a suggestion to police or audit the platform operator’s algorithm to ensure that it does not result in discrimination against platform workers who opt in for CPF. There are two challenges with this suggestion – First, an algorithm is quite dynamic, responding to real time changes in demand and supply for platform services. Any audit will be reactive and of limited utility. The moment you get the algorithm and audit it, something has changed in the next one hour, and you will always be chasing the tail. Second, algorithms are proprietary knowledge. If we force platform operators to reveal such knowledge, this may drive them away and bring about a loss of platform worker jobs, which is not our desired outcome for these workers.
3. So how will we address this issue? Platform work associations will have the legal mandate to represent the interest of the platform workers. If there are instances of possible discriminatory practices by any platform operator, the platform work associations can take this up with the relevant operators, and where necessary inform MOM. This provides a channel for the platform workers, through the platform work associations, to communicate and negotiate with the platform operators. Similar to the trade union space, this can be done in a way that seeks to achieve win-win outcomes and preserves the harmonious relationship between the platform workers and platform operators in this fast evolving industry.
4. In addition, because of the cohort-based approach, an increasing proportion of platform workers will be covered by mandatory CPF contributions as the years go by. Over time, all the younger workers who take on platform work will have mandatory CPF contributions. Therefore, it is in the interest of platform operators to treat all platform workers fairly, regardless of whether they opt-in or are in the mandatory cohort.
5. Finally, the platform work sector is a very competitive and fluid one, where consumers and platform workers can easily switch platforms depending on what they feel works best for them. It is therefore also in the interest of platform operators to treat all workers fairly from the perspective of worker retention.

22. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the CPF contribution rates for platform workers aged above 55. As mentioned, the contribution rates set out in the schedule of the Bill are subject to the CPF contribution rate increases for employees in the same age group. Mr Ang will be pleased to know that we remain committed to implementing the 2019 recommendation by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers to align the CPF contribution rates for employees aged above 55 to 60 to those of employees aged 55 and below.

23. Mr Sharael Taha asked how expenses will be factored in for platform workers who use multiple modes of transport. The Fixed Expense Deduction Amount to be applied will be based on the mode of transport for the specific job in question. As you heard from Mr Xie Yao Quan’s speech earlier, 20% if you are walking, 35% if you are riding a motorbike and 60% if you are driving.

24. Next, I will cover the clarifications regarding the third set of amendments to ensure financial protection of platform workers if they get injured at work, and to strengthen stakeholders’ responsibilities to prevent injuries.

25. Mr Pritam Singh asked about the cost impact of work injury compensation insurance premiums on platform operators. Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling sought clarifications on the work injury compensation process for cases where multiple platform operators are involved. There was also a suggestion for a centralised insurance system to minimise disputes over which platform operator is liable for the claim. While I agree with the need for fair and expeditious compensation, a monopolistic approach is not the best way to provide for platform workers’ insurance needs. In comparison, allowing platform operators to purchase work injury compensation insurance in an open and competitive market facilitates sustainable premiums. The open market allows platform operators to negotiate insurance rates with insurers of their choice, and a competitive market facilitates sustainable premiums based on claims history. As with employers, platform operators’ insurance premiums will account for the risks in the sectors they operate in, which Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about. This will be based on indicators such as payroll size and number of workers. The new work injury compensation insurance market will be led by insurers from the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network as first-movers, and we welcome other players to join the market as well.

26. Nevertheless, we agree with Members that it is important for platform workers to receive compensation in a timely manner, so they can recuperate and recover from a work injury with peace of mind. An injured platform worker only needs to inform the platform operator he is working for of the incident and his injury details. The rest of it will be taken care of by the Platform Operator on the backend. The Platform Operator(s) will file a work injury report to MOM and the Platform Operator’s insurer will be notified to process the work injury compensation claim. Platform Workers no longer have to do everything by themselves, there is now a proper process to do this. The Platform Worker will be notified of the work injury compensation claim case reference number and the insurer processing the claim.

27. As with the employee regime, insurers and platform operators will be required to follow operational timelines for the processing of claims expeditiously, and the same dispute resolution mechanisms will apply. If multiple platform operators are liable, MOM will appoint the insurer of one of those platform operators to process the claim for timely payouts to the platform worker.

28. Ms Jean See asked about plans to augment the Bill to protect platform workers against the unintended consequences of safety regulations. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested regulating the working hours of platform workers. Mr Melvin Yong suggested for platform workers to have training for road safety and safe load management, and to codify incentive structures. From our engagements, platform workers value the flexibility to determine how long and when to work, which helps them accommodate personal commitments. The proposed Bill should not alter the flexible nature of platform work that is a key feature of platform work which both the workers and the platform operators desire. Nevertheless, we agree this should not be at the cost of personal safety and health of platform workers. Hence, amendments to the Workplace Safety and Health Act will empower platform workers to prioritise safety and prevent platform operators from penalising them for doing so. Platform operators need to review and address the safety and health risks arising from platform work, as with other companies in other sectors.

29. This will be put into practice through the Approved Code of Practice for Platform Services, which MOM and the Workplace Safety and Health Council are consulting the public on. Developed with tripartite partners, platform operators and platform workers, the Approved Code of Practice will codify how platform operators and platform workers can collectively address safety concerns in platform work, including fatigue management and support platform workers’ access to safety training. It includes what Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested, that platform operators should not penalise platform workers who were unable to complete the job for valid reasons.

30. With these in place, we should allow the industry to take ownership and work on its safety practices. Intervening to micromanage the incentive structures and algorithms of platform operators or the working hours of platform workers risks jeopardising the flexibility and sustainability of platform work.

31. Next, I will address questions on the fourth set of amendments on the legal framework for representation of platform workers. I will also speak on how some of the suggestions raised by members are more suited to be taken up by platform work associations in negotiations with platform operators.

32.Mr Patrick Tay asked how MOM would determine when platform workers have undertaken industrial action. Industrial action refers to an act that limits or restricts the performance of tasks by platform workers, which is carried out with the intention to further a work dispute with a platform operator. For instance, if a group of platform workers intentionally turn off their apps with the intent to compel a platform operator to agree to their terms of negotiation, we will consider them to be undertaking industrial action. In contrast, a platform worker will not be regarded as undertaking industrial action if he shares information on better terms offered by a competing platform operator and suggests that other platform workers switch operator to enjoy the better terms. In the second scenario, there is no intent by the platform workers to further a work dispute with a platform operator.

33. Mr Tay also suggested allowing platform work associations to use digital voting for secret ballots since platform workers have no fixed workplaces. We agree that platform workers may not have fixed workplaces or fixed schedules, and hence a different way of conducting ballots may be needed. Hence, we accepted the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation of Platform Workers. MOM will conduct electronic voting for secret ballots for recognition. To ensure the security and integrity of the voting process, we will implement strong safeguards including secure authentication systems.

34. Mr Ang Wei Neng sought clarification on whether platform work associations can negotiate with private hire car rental companies and taxi companies and represent permanent residents. The new legal framework allows platform work associations to represent platform workers and such platform workers can include permanent residents. Remember we said there was a two-pronged assessment of who is a platform operator. So if private hire car companies and taxi companies do not fulfil the definition of platform operator, and are therefore not platform operators, they are not covered under the framework. But associations or societies can continue to engage such companies outside of the legislative framework, which is already the case today. Mr Ang also queried on the requirement that at least two-thirds of the officers in a platform work association must be active platform workers, and whether officers should be required to work a minimum number of hours each month to better stay connected and relevant to the platform workers. In general, the representation framework for platform work sector is modelled after that of the trade union space, which has worked well and contributed to Singapore’s industrial harmony over the years. The two-thirds requirement is, for example, the same as that in the trade union space. On the point on having a fixed work hour eligibility criteria for officers, we have not set this requirement as we recognise that platform workers may not have a regular schedule every month.  

35. Ms Jean See asked for the introduction of tripartite set-ups between sectoral platform work associations and platform operators. Mr Pritam Singh, Ms See and Mr Louis Ng also suggested to require platform operators to make information on its algorithm and earnings transparent to platform workers, or to validate their algorithms against AI Verify for fairness and safety. Ms See further suggested requiring platform operators to provide some form of income protection for platform workers if there is an outage in their app platform. Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Leong Mun Wai had various suggestions on introducing minimum earnings for platform workers.

36. We agree that the law should set basic standards on platform work in terms of transparency. For example, we will require platform operators to keep records of and provide their workers with earnings slips. These earning slips must also state that they are for platform workers, so that platform workers know that they are platform workers and are aware of their rights. These requirements are specified in clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill respectively. Related to this, Mr Patrick Tay sought clarification on the different classes of platform workers mentioned in clause 13(4). To clarify, clause 13(4) will provide the Government with the flexibility to set different record retention periods for different groups of platform workers, for example, based on the type of platform services they provide. Having said that, we currently have no plans to set different record retention periods.

37. On the broader points made by the various MPs asking for more regulatory requirements and minimum earnings, we should be mindful of the risks of overregulation that is impractical and counterproductive. As mentioned earlier, algorithms may be proprietary, and regulating platform operators’ use of algorithms will impose significant compliance costs and affect the economic viability of platform operators. Potential entrants to this space may also be deterred from the market due to the fear of excessive regulatory burden. Platform operators also need the flexibility to decide how to remunerate platform workers, in order to balance the demand and supply of services while keeping prices manageable for consumers. We should avoid being too heavy handed with regulation, which could stifle the innovation and sustainability of the platform economy, and lead to poorer outcomes for platform workers themselves.

38. Instead of the blunt tool of regulation, it is better to focus on the outcomes, and empower stakeholders to negotiate for their interests. This is why we are empowering platform work associations to negotiate with platform operators for better outcomes and to balance the relationship between platform workers and platform operators. Platform work associations will be well placed to represent the interests of platform workers and negotiate a sustainable and mutually agreed solution at the individual platform operator level that takes into consideration all parties’ circumstances. Platform work associations and platform operators are also free to establish and participate in tripartite platforms as needed, similar to how trade unions and employers interact today. Beyond getting help from platform work associations, I would add that platform workers do have the choice to switch platforms, if they feel that they have been treated unfairly, or even when the app of one platform operator is facing technical issues. This is common sense and is what the workers are already doing today.

39. I will move on to the concerns raised on the impact of this Bill on stakeholders. Many Members have raised clarifications on the impact of this Bill on platform operators, platform workers and consumers.

40. Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Mariam Jaafar have raised several concerns on whether the costs of these platform work protections will be passed to platform workers and customers. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi spoke about assuaging the concerns of platform workers, platform operators and customers as we implement the Bill, and Mr Neil Parekh requested Government assistance or incentives to help businesses make this transition.

41. On the impact to workers, I have elaborated at length on the measures to prevent the passing of costs to workers. I will not repeat the points here except to add that ultimately, market competition is an important self-regulating force. It bears repeating that platform work associations will play an important role in representing the interests of platform workers and these workers will also have the choice to switch platforms if they feel that costs are unfairly passed on to them.

42. On the impact to platform operators, the Government has been working closely with companies who have stepped forward to seek advice on how to implement CPF and work injury compensation regimes for platform workers. We will continue to do so through existing structures. This is the first time we are defining platform operators in legislation and we understand companies may have questions on whether they meet the definition of a platform operator. An example of a question, which Ms Usha Chandradas raised, is on the threshold of human intervention in the use of data that would define an entity as exercising management control over a worker. Put another way, the intent of clause 6(1)(b) of the Bill is to capture entities where automation of the use of data for a specified purpose is the primary mode of operation. That said, I would like to highlight that whether an entity is exercising management control and the broader question of whether it is a platform operator is fact-dependent and companies should do their own due diligence checks to see if they fit the bill. MOM will provide support to companies to determine whether they are likely to be a platform operator, including through a self-assessment checklist. Companies can also approach MOM if they still require further advice on their specific circumstances. 

43. As Ms Mariam Jaafar pointed out, as a society, all stakeholders should be prepared to do our part for platform workers to receive protections they need. The Government has provided generous transition support through the PCTS and will monitor work injury compensation insurance premiums. Platform operators will need to consider how best to manage the costs. Consumers too will have a role to play.

44. I should emphasise that the costs arising from providing platform workers with basic protections are no different in nature from the business costs that other employers are already incurring to provide CPF and work injury compensation to their employees. Thus, it is a levelling up of what platform operators ought to have been paying, if they are to ensure basic protections for platform workers like what other employers have been doing for employees all along. Introducing CPF and work injury compensation for platform workers therefore ensures that platform operators who derive their sources of revenue from the hard work and risks taken by the platform workers, provide them with basic rights and protections. It will also ensure a level playing field for companies operating in Singapore to compete fairly in terms of business costs.  

45. How do employers in non-platform sectors typically deal with these costs of providing protections to their employees? It is part and parcel of running a business, so they build these costs into their overall operating cost, and decide how to price their services based on a range of factors – costs, profitability and market competition. This is what keeps prices manageable. It would be disingenuous to reflect and charge these costs through a separate fee component. Platform operators should think carefully before doing so, because as I said, the market is a competitive one. Such a move would be tantamount to passing the costs entirely to customers. Customers have a choice to switch to other platforms where costs are shared more equitably, or even stop using such platform services altogether and switch to other alternatives.

46. The costs incurred by platform operators on work injury compensation and CPF can also be audited. Platform Work Associations can work with platform operators to regularly publish these data so workers and consumers can clearly see how the costs are shared across stakeholders to counter any claims of profiteering or loading of costs onto workers.

47. Finally, I will address the concerns on other issues, such as the welfare and longer-term career paths for platform workers, which are not included in the scope of this Bill.

48. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Ong Hua Han and Ms Usha Chandradas spoke about protecting platform workers from abuse and unfair reviews, with Mr Yip suggesting to provide mental health support for platform workers. Let me be clear that we have zero tolerance for abusive behaviours towards our platform workers. In this respect, the Protection from Harassment Act protects all individuals, including platform workers, from threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Perpetrators may be prosecuted for offences under the Act. With these existing protections in place, we do not need to introduce additional protection for platform workers in this Bill. Platform work associations can also work with platform operators on measures to deal with abusive customers, including blacklisting such customers and making available avenues of redress for platform workers who have been given unfair reviews.   

49. Just like anyone else, platform workers who need mental health support can tap on mental health services in community care settings such as the Community Outreach Team which offers basic emotional and psychological support. Those facing job transitions can also seek no-cost assistance from Workforce Singapore’s (WSG) employment-focused peer support groups. Platform work associations also play an important role as they are often the first port of call for platform workers when they are faced with challenges, and I would encourage them to do more in this regard.

50. Mr Ong Hua Han also sought clarification on this Bill excluding other benefits such as annual leave and medical benefits. For annual leave and medical benefits, we must recognise that these are relevant for employees where working hours and duties are fixed, whereas platform workers enjoy more flexibility compared to employees. Platform workers and platform companies are keen to retain this flexibility, rather than be deemed as employees. Thus, the Bill has focused on protections such as CPF, work injury compensation and representation, which we feel will help platform workers be better protected, while maintaining the flexibility they desire.

51. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for the number of platform workers who are non-Singaporeans. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether we will take action against foreigners illegally providing platform services. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA), only foreigners with valid work passes are allowed to work in Singapore. Foreign employees can only work in the occupation stated in their work passes. Foreign employees who provide platform services may face prosecution under the EFMA.

52. Ms Pereira spoke about the volatility and unpredictable nature of income earned in platform work. She and many other Members such as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ong Hua Han and Mr Mark Lee also raised the need to support platform workers in upgrading their skills and transiting to other careers. This Bill is intended to protect those who have chosen to make platform work their occupation, especially those who face precarity because of their fluctuating incomes. At the same time, as members have pointed out, platform workers can also consider other forms of employment and we will support them. There are measures in place to support platform workers who wish to transit to other sectors. For example, platform workers can tap on the Jobs and Skills Centres for career coaching and advice. From early 2025 onward, platform workers above 40 years of age can also tap on the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance to pursue eligible full-time training programmes such as the Full-time SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme to support mid-career transitions into sectors with good employment opportunities. They will receive a monthly training allowance computed as 50% of their average monthly income and capped at $3,000 a month, over a lifetime cap of 24 months. However, the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme will not be open to platform workers, to answer Ms Pereira’s question. The scheme is targeted at employees who became unemployed due to involuntary reasons such as retrenchment and dismissals, and platform workers are not included as they are not employees.

53. Ms Usha Chandradas asked whether legislative protection will be extended to freelancers, particular those in the arts community who can also be a vulnerable group. While this is outside the scope of the Bill, we take the points that MP has raised, and will consider how this group may be better supported.

54. Mr Speaker, in closing, I would again like to express my appreciation to Members of the House who have expressed their support for the Bill. Let me recap what this Bill seeks to do. Platform workers face volatility, and their incomes are subjected to the market forces of demand and supply. This is a feature of the platform sector, and while we cannot change this, we can close the gaps in protections faced by platform workers, and the sooner we do so the better.

55. This could not have been done without strong tripartite dialogue and support. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record our thanks and appreciation to our Tripartite partners for journeying together with us to build a fairer and more inclusive society. Ms Rachel Ong and Mr Desmond Choo have aptly contrasted the acrimonious path that some overseas jurisdictions took in regulating platform work with our own tripartite approach. I cannot agree more. The tripartite system of close collaboration and dialogue between the Government, the labour movement, and businesses, has led us to a framework that balances the needs of all parties in a way sustainable for the platform ecosystem. The result is a legislation that will allow platform workers to benefit from improved housing and retirement adequacy, coverage for work injury compensation and representation. Platform operators too will benefit, from a more engaged workforce and better industrial relations.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.