Koh Poh Koon
Singapore
“In 2025, for walk-in patients, the median and 95th percentile doctor consultation waiting times were eight minutes and 72 minutes respectively. However, the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track waiting times by peak versus off-peak hours, but it is likely that 95th percentile waiting times happened during peak hours.”
“The offences and penalties for importing, supplying or abusing SPS products are similar to those in the MDA, to ensure similar level of deterrence. Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout that summarises the changes in legislative penalties for key offences.”
“So, if you are a Singaporean student, you will expect that there will be some subsidies to the fees. The third question on how can the public, who may want to seek psychological care, know who is legitimate.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his question on audiologists. In general, a qualified audiologist in Singapore needs a higher level of certification because a diploma level may not be quite enough to perform the task. So, we will look and see whether there is a way to actually find an in-between.”
“We are starting with registration to give formal recognition to those who are practising in higher risk sub-sectors in psychology and making sure that the quality, the standards and the support is given to them to deliver the care that the clients and the patients need.”
“It takes a bit of, not just system change in the providers, in the doctors and the care teams, but also, a gradual shift in the mindset of our population as well. So, it is something that we have to continue to do. There is no magic bullet to this and it is not something we can achieve overnight. 12.15 pm”
The complete record
Every one of 1,209 lines we hold for Koh Poh Koon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 25.
“Ms Hazel Poa and Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about the need to address concerns on the housing and retirement needs of Platform Workers. In principle, Platform Workers of the same age and income level as employees should be able to achieve a similar level of retirement adequacy through their CPF savings, if they have worked for the same number of years. However, unlike employees, Platform Workers only make MediSave contributions on their own and do not receive CPF contributions from the Platform Companies today. Hence, the Committee recommended aligning CPF contribution rates by Platform Companies and Platform Workers with that of employers and employees respectively. This will help Platform Workers build up their savings in their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts, on top of their MediSave Accounts. It also ensures a level playing field for all companies operating in the same field in Singapore and allows Platform Workers to receive similar basic protections as employees. This alignment will be gradually phased in, starting from the second half of 2024. It will be mandatory for the cohort of Platform Workers below 30 years old in the year of implementation, meaning those born in or after 1995. In fact, a study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) 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 have plans to buy a house. One of the Platform Workers IPS spoke to as part of their studies last year was Hamza. He had to fork out a large amount of cash for his new house just when he first switched to private hire driving.”
“30 pm Here in Singapore, instead of simply designating Platform Workers as employees or leaving it to the Courts to decide on a matter of policy, we have taken a carefully considered Tripartite approach to provide three specific areas of legislated protections for our Platform Workers. Over the course of a wide-ranging segment of engagements by the Advisory Committee that lasted for over a year, Platform Workers and Platform Companies emphasised that the flexible nature of platform work was a key feature of the ecosystem that should be preserved. Platform Workers desire the flexibility to choose when and how much they want to work. Platform Companies need the flexibility to efficiently match the supply and demand of labour to meet consumer needs. Simply designating Platform Workers as employees would constrain this flexibility and autonomy that both the company and the workers desire. Our approach strengthens the protections for Platform Workers while retaining the advantages of platform work, so that the platform system can remain sustainable in the longer term. This is our unique tripartite approach. Since the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations, we have made good progress working through complex issues with our key stakeholders, including tripartite partners, Platform Workers and Platform Companies. Let me share some updates. We started a new Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network (PWIN) to look into how the existing Work Injury Compensation system for employees can be adapted to reap its benefits, such as adequate coverage and expeditious claims, while taking into consideration the unique nature of the platform work.”
“Mr Chairman, in today's challenging economic climate, senior workers and platform workers require stronger safety nets for their housing and retirement needs and better protections for their livelihoods. The proportion of Self-Employed Persons (SEPs) has remained steady at about 8% to 10% of the resident workforce. However, with the rise of platform-enabled work, platform workers have become a fast-growing group of SEPs. Several Members, including Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Yeo Wan Ling, highlighted the need to reduce the risks that platform workers face during the course of their work and made suggestions on how to better support them. Indeed, the Government recognises the precarious nature of platform work. Unlike typical SEPs, platform workers are subject to management control by platform companies and tend to have modest incomes. This is why in November last year, the Government accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers in full. CPF contributions to Special and Ordinary Accounts, enhanced representation and also work injury compensation for platform workers will commence from the second half of 2024. Other countries are also looking at ways to protect their Platform Workers. In Spain, the Government passed the Riders’ Law in 2022 that recognises food delivery riders working for digital platforms as employees. The US Labour Department proposed a rule that would make it easier for platform workers to be considered as employees, with the same access to benefits and federal labour protections. While the UK has no Platform Worker-specific legislation, their courts have ruled on the status of Platform Workers’ status using the case law approach. 4.”
“Sir, I think the consultation with tripartite partners is that it is very hard to have an actual cap. Depending on the circumstances, there may well be true, justifiable reasons to vary the amount of salary reduction to be paid or to be deducted from the worker. For example, in a severe economic downturn, employers may have to cut cost significantly to save jobs. And in the instance, it may be preferable even for the migrant worker to continue to be in employment rather than to lose his job and be repatriated. So, I think this is something which has to be negotiated between the employer and the employee and have written consent, and to be notified to MOM. And if there are disputes regarding that, this is where further reconciliation and investigation by MOM can take place.”
“Sir, on his first question, I do not have the exact number per se but just to clarify that the 3% cited for notification of salary reductions does not necessarily mean that they are all illegal or in violation, because there could well be genuine reasons why these reductions take place. For example, if the worker is underperforming and the employer rationalises the salary to be paid to a non-performing worker in lieu of retrenchment or firing the worker, which would have been the only other recourse that is left. So, I just want to make clear the point that the 3% notification does not mean that there has been absolute violations. As I said in the later part of my reply, in the same time frame of 2019 to 2022, the administrative financial penalties were meted out to 27 employers per year. So, that gives the Member a sense of the gravity of the problem, which in the grand scheme of things, is a very small number of employers that has been taken to task. I did not catch the second clarification. Perhaps the Member can specify that again.”
“When applying for Work Permits (WPs), employers are required to declare key salary terms, including the basic and fixed monthly salary, offered to prospective Work Permit Holders (WPHs). Employers are allowed to revise the salary downwards, provided they have obtained the worker’s written agreement and have notified the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). This is to provide flexibility for instances where the worker’s performance fell below expectation and cannot justify the salary paid. Workers can check their latest salary as declared by their employers to MOM through the MyMOM portal on MOM’s website. MOM is also working on sending a push notification to workers via the SGWorkPass app to inform workers of any salary changes in a timely manner. From 2019 to 2022, MOM was notified of salary reductions affecting an average of about 3% of non-domestic WPHs each year. Where there is a dispute over salary reduction from the amount stated in the in-principle approval letter, the employer is required to show documented evidence of the worker’s consent and that he had notified MOM beforehand. Otherwise, the original declared salary holds and the employer will be required to make good any salary shortfall, regardless of the reason for the salary reduction. If the employer reduces the worker’s salary without their consent or does so before informing the Controller, they are liable to a fine of up to $10,000 per worker. From 2019 to 2022, administrative financial penalties were imposed on an average of 27 employers per year.”
“Sir, I appreciate the Member's concern about the power imbalance, but I do not think using job facilitation as a mechanism to create a balance in the relationship is going to be effective. What we need to do is, if there are kickbacks being conducted, if the workers feel that they have been victimised, then they ought to report it to MOM so that we can do the necessary investigations and take employers to task.”
“Sir, the Member had raised a similar question in 2019 and the position of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) remains unchanged. Job-matching initiatives should be initiated and led by the respective industries to ensure that they meet employers’ and workers’ hiring needs and are sustainable. Currently, most employers and workers work with existing employment agencies for their job matching needs. If the cleaning and waste management industry assesses that a sector-specific job facilitation system is necessary, MOM would be happy to work with the relevant industry representatives on their proposal.”
“So, it is something that the agencies together with the experts have to study, to make sure that in trying to experiment something new, we do not introduce dangers to our own shores and create more problems in our ecosystem and biodiversity.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for sharing his views. We are aware that there have been efforts in different parts of the world to try and look at seaweed cultivation as a means of commercially providing substrates either for pharmaceutical use or for consumption. But in looking at whether seaweed is suitable here, we have to first depend on commercial assessments to see whether this is something that industry players think is viable. Just for information, as I said in my main reply, we are looking at whether there is enough local consumption demand to generate that commercial interest. And secondly, whether that really meets our nutritional goals. On the first point, broadly speaking, seaweed is not really a widely consumed item in Singapore as compared to the other food types like vegetables. In fact, the annual volume of imported seaweed has been less than 1,000 tonnes, compared to vegetables where we have to import 544,000 tonnes per year. So, in terms of the commercial viability and the local demand, it may well be a commercial calculation that there is really no big demand here. The second thing is on experimentation of seaweed cultivation at the coastal area. Here, we have also got to be very careful. What is suitably grown in other coastal areas in other parts of the world may well be different here because the water temperature is different, the water nutrients are different, the kind of biodiversity here is also different and we do have to understand by introducing a certain variety of seaweed or sea grass here, how they can impact the biodiversity and the micro ecosystem here, that can impact also the other type of organisms like fish.”
“The simple reason is that street hail taxis actually work on a different business model as opposed to a platform model because in the street hail model, the taxi driver is essentially renting the taxi from the taxi companies. The taxi driver decides how he wants to pick up passengers, where he wants to pick up, he can deny working for the day, if he chose to, with no penalties levied by the taxi company. It is more of a rental and rentee kind of relationship. In fact, in a street hail engagement, the passenger pays to the taxi driver directly. The money does not pass through any app platform, it does not go through the taxi company and there is no commission being levied on the amount of fare that the passenger pays to the taxi driver through a street hail. In that sense, the degree of management control is less and perhaps non-existent in this case. And that is why in the deliberation, the committee recommended that platform companies that exert a certain degree of management control on these supposed group of self-employed workers will then need to provide these workers with some degree of basic protection which includes work injury compensation as well as retirement and housing adequacy.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Liang for working with the committee in the lead-up to the announcement by helping us to also provide avenues to engage to workers. Indeed, these are early days since the recommendations were announced. The early sensing from different stakeholders, workers, companies and consumers showed that it is a positive set of recommendations that is much welcomed. The workers basically welcome the fact that they will now – when it is implemented – have better work injury compensation, much better than they had today under WICA. But, of course, the details of implementation are not fully out. So, there are some concerns about whether it will be effectively implemented. For the platform companies, they have put out statements to say that recommendations are fair and balanced and they welcome the changes that will enhance the protection given to these group of workers. So, on the whole, this is very much welcomed. Our surveys before the release also showed that consumers in various surveys, between 70% and 90% are prepared to pay up to 10% more in prices to make sure that these workers have the adequate protection, so long as the price increase that they pay for goes directly to helping these workers address their income retirement, their retirement adequacy as well as their ability to have housing adequacy. Generally, the public, the companies and the workers themselves all welcome this set of recommendations. Specific to the comment that the Member raised about Grab's statement expressing that – excluding street hails from these recommendations would create an unlevel playing field. I would say that, in fact, including street hail into this recommendation would cause an uneven playing field instead.”
“We look forward to continuing our engagements with platform workers, platform companies and insurers as we work towards implementing these recommendations.”
“I note that The Business Times article which the Member probably referred to – that was published on 24 November – stated that GIA Chief Executive Officer Mr Ho Kai Weng said, " GIA members firmly believe financial protection for platform workers can be efficiently achieved through the existing solutions compared to the WICA-based solution." That is the crux of the supplementary question asked by the hon Dr Tan Wu Meng. That is, if it was so viable, why did the insurers and platform companies not suggest this earlier when there were workers who were injured or suffered death while on the job. Our discussions with insurers showed it was not possible to do so in a cost-effective way. But given the confidence that GIA has on the efficiency of existing products and policies that they have and the public statements by various platform companies that platform workers deserved protection for injuries incurred in the course of their work, I would suggest that GIA members work closely with platform companies to offer financial protection and compensation for these workers at the level of WICA as soon as possible by the first quarter of next year, hopefully, using their existing products while maintaining the cost of premiums at parity with WICA insurance products. This will provide better coverage for the workers in the interim and keep costs manageable for platform companies and consumers while we work on implementation details of WICA for this group of workers by the end of 2024. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate that the committee's recommendations are fair to both platform companies and workers and take a balanced approach to strengthening platform workers' financial protection in case of work injury in a sustainable manner.”
“Thus, GIA's suggestion would result in higher business costs to platform companies, especially since regardless of the type of insurance, platform companies will need to purchase insurance that covers all platform workers, and this includes precisely the group that Dr Tan said – those who only do one hour of work a day on the platform. GIA's statement is in contrary to what insurers have advised the committee. GIA also suggested that platform workers could rely on MediShield Life coverage for medical expenses due to work injury. Again, let me reiterate the principle that platform workers should receive the same level of coverage for work injury compensation as employees. Given that employees are covered for up to $45,000 in medical expenses for work injuries by their employers, there is no reason why platform workers should have to rely on MediShield Life which they pay for using their own MediSave, and consequently, pay part of the medical bills using their MediSave or out-of-pocket cash if they suffer a work injury. GIA's suggestion is essentially asking platform workers to pay for their own medical expenses. For these reasons, GIA's proposal is not a viable alternative to the advisory committee's recommendation of requiring platform companies to provide the same scope and level of compensation as employees under WICA. It will lead to either unsustainable premiums for platform companies while work injury compensation for platform workers, they are far below the level of entitlements by employees under WICA.”
“GIA's suggestion of using only existing prolonged medical leave insurance or group personal accident insurance in place of WICA would relegate this to private insurance policy whose terms and conditions are dictated by the insurer without a clear mechanism to adjudicate disputes. I appreciate why insurers would want more flexibility in how they compensate claims. But to ensure fairness to workers and companies, I do not think we should be leaving it to insurers to be the final arbiter of any disputes in work injury claims. There could well be a conflict of interest in such a scenario. In the committee's engagement with different groups of platform workers and looking at some of the surveys and studies conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), there is feedback from workers that when they want to claim injury claims from some of these insurers as a result of group personal accident insurance policies they were protected under, they often have to jump through hoops. And some of them find it very difficult to actually get the claims settled. There were some who told us that they gave up filing claims because it was so onerous and they had no place to turn to. In our engagements with insurers, we were also told that offering prolonged medical leave insurance and group personal accident insurance at the same level of coverage as WICA would result in higher insurance premiums for platform companies, compared to an insurance policy based on the committee's recommended approach. This is not surprising since the scope of coverage for these policies is much wider, on a 24/7 basis.”
“Such insurance policies provide 24/7 coverage and compensation, regardless of whether an injury happen in the course of work. They also use fixed payouts, unlike the WICA mechanism where compensation amount varies based on the worker's total earnings. While we welcome platform companies to go above and beyond by providing 24/7 coverage for their workers, the Government should not require them to do so, to provide coverage for injuries that are not as a result of work. Similarly, it would not be right to provide a fixed payout to injured platform workers when platform workers are a diverse group, ranging from those who engage in casual work – perhaps only infrequently and a short number of hours a day – to those who do it on a more full-time basis, on a daily basis. The Platform Workers Advisory Committee recommended that compensation for platform workers should vary based on workers' earnings, the same way that WICA operates today for injured employees. This is fair to the platform worker and platform company as the amount of compensation would depend on the extent of income lost by the worker due to the injury at work. Dr Tan Wu Meng asked if GIA's suggestions will weaken WICA. I just want to reassure the Member that MOM will ensure that companies do not misclassify workers in order to skirt the requirements under WICA. But indeed, one other important aspect of WICA is that under this legal framework, there is an established mechanism under which companies and workers who object to the insurers' assessment of the claim, can file a dispute. MOM will then oversee a dispute resolution process, to adjudicate and settle the claim. This ensures that claims are resolved fairly in accordance with the WICA framework, without prejudice to the company or the worker.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I believe the hon Member must be referring to the statement made by GIA to a Business Times article on 24 November 2022. Let me just explain that today, some platform companies do provide platform workers with compensation for work injuries, but the coverage is uneven across different platforms and at much lower levels than what employees are entitled to under the WICA. For example, platform companies' coverage for death or permanent disability is largely in the $10,000 to $30,000 range, compared to employees' entitlement under WICA of up to $289,000. That is a significant difference in the magnitude of coverage. This is why the Platform Workers Advisory Committee recommended requiring platform companies to provide the same scope and level of work injury compensation as employees' entitlement under WICA. This recommendation is both fair to the employers and to the platform workers. Employers meaning the platform companies. It is fair to platform workers because they receive the same work injury compensation protection as other workers exposed to the same job risks, such as employees in related sectors like logistics. It is fair to platform companies because they only need to cover platform workers if they are injured in the course of work. If, for example, the platform worker was injured while running personal errands, the platform company is not responsible to provide compensation. This is no different from employers' responsibility towards their employees under WICA and ensures a level playing field across different companies. On the other hand, GIA has suggested requiring companies to purchase prolonged medical leave insurance and group personal accident insurance, in place of WICA.”
“Companies are required to report their employees’ injuries to MOM to facilitate expeditious processing of work injury compensation claims and ensure that the injured employees receive the necessary compensation. Platform workers are currently not covered by mandatory work injury compensation requirements, so platform work injury data is not reported to the Ministry. The Government has accepted recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, including strengthening financial protection in case of work injury. Upon implementation of the work injury compensation framework for platform workers, the reporting of work injuries for platform workers will be mandated.”
“Mr Speaker, let me add a supplement to what the Member is asking. I think in adjudicating some of the compensation quantums, the Minister for Manpower will objectively look at the facts of the case because each case is different. There are cases in which the employer may have to bear some responsibility, and there are cases in which also the employee himself or herself has got to bear part of the responsibility for, perhaps, not communicating, or not performing, or not indicating his or her interest to further the re-employment contract. So, in that sense, we take into account a myriad of factors: performance of the employee, years of service and including other aspects of the job scope, what were the terms of re-employment that were being offered, whether it was a fair description of the job that a person can meaningfully carry on. The health status of the employee also has to be looked into, because certain jobs will require a certain degree of medical fitness to continue. Therefore, it is not a one-size-fits-all type of calculation on the compensation amount. I hope that kind of gives the Member a sense of how we look at it in terms of the matrix. But the quantum would vary from case-to-case.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. In fact, for this Employment Assistant Payment (EAP), the amount has been something that has been determined and a tripartite consensus is in the guidelines. There is a fixed formula which is used; so, it is not something that we just pluck a number out of thin air. Let me just briefly say that for those who are aged 63 to less than 65.5 years old, the number of months of salary payable is 3.5 months and for those who are 65.5 years old to less than 68 years old, in the formula, it provides for two months of salary payable. But for each of these quantum, there is a certain minimum and maximum that is stipulated in the formula. If the Member is keen, she can look up the website where all the information is available. And as for updates, I think the Tripartite Committee is still looking at how we can translate the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) into legislation. Right now, the discussion is ongoing. So, again, there are no immediate updates at this moment, but at a suitable juncture in time when the discussions are more final, we will provide an update to the Members of the House.”
“So, it shows that more employers are prepared to employ older workers, and more older workers are also flexible enough and prepared to take on jobs and continue in the employment. But as it is, there will always be a few cases a year, who will find that they have either a mismatched expectation between the employment terms they seek or for which employers may still have misunderstanding about how they can better employ older workers. This is where our work will continue. There are many avenues in which workers can seek redress. One, of course, is through their union representative in their company. Two, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) is always there as a neutral party to receive any complaints from employees, or senior workers about the terms of disengagement, or any of the re-employment terms that they may feel is unfair. And finally, there is always MOM. We have an open email. They can write to us if they find that they are denied unjustifiably of re-employment opportunities.”
“Sir, I think the Ministry will continue to engage both employers and continue our public education to remind employees of their responsibilities and also to share the wider public as employees, what their rights are and what are the avenues for appeals or adjudication may be. That effort will be an ongoing one. It is not going to be something that we can do in a short period of time, because sometimes this messaging does take a while to percolate. And unfortunately, I think that sometimes until a person reaches a point where he or she faces that dilemma or the issue, some people may not be open to seek information or receive educational materials, when the thing comes. We are working actively through the unions who are representatives within the companies to also be a bit of a gatekeeper on how employers take care of the older workers within the company. This tripartite effort will continue to be played out over the many years to come. I would like to share with Mr Giam that in Singapore, our elder workers' labour force participation is actually not that bad. Let me just share a few numbers. The employment rate of residents aged between 55 and 64 has increased from 61.2% in the year 2011 to 69% in 2021. For those aged 65 to 69, it has also increased from 35.2% in 2011 to 49% in 2021. This is comparable to those of the top three Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. So, while Mr Giam may have anecdotally encountered residents who do have grievances, or perhaps, are not aware of their rights and find that they have been disadvantaged, the fact is that over the last many years, the labour force participation rates in our older workforce has actually increased.”
“Sir, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received about 80 re-employment disputes annually between 2016 and 2021. About 90% of the disputes were amicably resolved through the mediation process including instances where the employee subsequently withdrew his or her appeal. The remaining 10% were either escalated to the Minister for Manpower for a decision on unreasonable denial of re-employment, or to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) for disputes over re-employment terms, or quantum of employment assistance payment. On average, about 10 cases a year are decided by the Minister or the ECT. Of these, 60%, or about six cases, were dismissed due to lack of merit, for example, the employee failed to meet the re-employment eligibility criteria due to unsatisfactory work performance or the employer was able to prove that there were no suitable vacancies for re-employment. The other 40%, or about four cases a year, were found to be substantiated and resulted in compensation to the employee from the employer. There was only one such case involving a public sector employer in 2018. To avoid disputes over re-employment, employers and employees should refer to the Retirement and Re-employment Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees. Employers should engage senior employees as early as possible to discuss possible re-employment arrangements. Senior employees should also be open to alternative jobs and reskilling opportunities to improve their long-term employability.”
“Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 to 6 together, please?”
“Madam, the committee is still proceeding with its work and we do hope to finish the work towards the end of the year. Like I said, the work is a complex one because it involves discussing with many different stakeholders. The workspace for platform workers is a very diverse one. There are different types of archetypes and profiles of people who are engaged in platform work. Platform companies also serve a diverse segment of consumers. So, I hope Members will give us the space and the time to continue to engage widely and discuss with the stakeholders.”
“If they are not clear in their terms of employment, they can seek clarification with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) to make sure that they understand the terms of the employment and what they are signing up for. This is the approach that MOM will take. There is no one-size-fits-all test to be sure whether the engagement is a contract for service or a contract of service. We look at the relationship of the engagement.”
“By providing some form of equal principle in terms of protection using WICA, we hope to actually cover some of the vulnerabilities of this segment of workers, to make sure that if they are injured or suffered a death in the course of their work, some financial compensation that is commensurate with the kind of work they do, will be provided for them as well. The Member's third question on what happens if companies were to reclassify employees as gig workers and therefore, attempting to circumvent some of the benefits or rights that employees enjoy. I think, in this case, there is no single test that is able to be used to check whether a worker has been reclassified. What is important is to look at the nature of the engagement between the company and the worker. For example, if the company, by the nature of the work that this person is doing, has to provide a workplace, has to provide equipment, has to provide the kind of jobs to be given to this worker and there is an expectation for the worker to perform – certain KPIs, for example – in that case, that relationship is more akin to an employer-employee relationship. The company would then be expected to provide employee benefits to this worker under the Employment Act. It does not matter whether this person is a full-timer or a part-timer or whether, in the contract, the company claims that this person is self-employed. So, in adjudicating such disputes, we will look at the nature of the engagement and the relationship between the worker and the company, to make a judgement. Workers who take on any employment with any company should look closely at the terms of contractual agreement they sign with the company before they actually engage with that company.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his three clarifications. Indeed, the issues he raised are also issues that the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers has been deliberating on. Certainly, every death at work is one death too many. We have been working very closely with employers, including platform companies, to make sure that some of these safety measures at work are looked into. As I have said in my main reply, the Workplace Safety and Health Workgroup is looking at this and will announce more measures when ready. The Member's first question on why is it that WICA is applicable for flexible work arrangements but not for workers who are working flexibly as gig workers. The underlying reason is because gig workers, by definition, are self-employed persons and self-employed persons are not covered under the Employment Act. Having said that, the Advisory Committee, having consulted widely, is looking at this issue from the perspective that self-employed workers in the gig economy may be subject to management controls by the algorithms in the platforms, in which case, they are somewhat a little bit more employee-like. And, therefore, we are looking closely to see whether WICA can be applied also to gig workers, to provide them a lot more financial protection when they are injured in terms of their work. The Advisory Committee is also taking a look at the principle of a gig worker, if he is injured at work providing services to people, but what if the nature of work is similar to another worker doing delivery work as an employee. In that sense, in principle, there should be no differentiation whether the person's life is worth more or less, just because he is being engaged in a different form of employment.”
“Since January 2021, there have been five fatal work-related traffic accidents involving food and goods delivery platform workers. The Workplace Safety and Health Council is working with platform companies to review work processes to enhance the safety of platform workers on the road to prevent accidents. More details will be shared when ready. In parallel, the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers is looking at strengthening financial protection in case of work injury for delivery persons, private hire car drivers and taxi drivers. The Advisory Committee has been engaging platform companies and platform workers on the provision of financial protection to platform workers who are injured at work. Such protection is provided currently to employees under the Work Injury Compensation Act. The implementation of such a work injury financial protection framework would require the mandatory reporting of work injuries to ensure platform workers receive the necessary compensation.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together, please?”
“That may well be an issue of communication and how she understood what the resident has said to her. The point I want to make here is that as parliamentarians making speeches here, let us be clear about the facts before we make statements in Parliament and not to tarnish the reputation or the efforts of agencies on the ground who work very hard to make sure that the gaps are closed, to make sure that the system actually addresses the needs of our residents and patients. Thank you, Sir.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is not impossible for us to encounter residents or even patients who sometimes are not really aware of how they can seek help. This case does illustrate that this patient could not quite understand why he needs to go and see the medical social worker and perhaps that could be the reason why he did not turn up for his appointment. As a result of that, he did not get the subsidies much earlier than he would have. But the point that is at stake here is that it is not wrong for Ms He to actually appeal for her resident and also, to speak up on behalf of the resident who needs help. And through that process, the resident gets connected to CPF Board and is able then to receive more subsidies and subsequently through the intervention of the medical social worker, get more subsidies than he would have otherwise. But the issue here is that Ms He used this case as an example in her speech and made broad sweeping statements about how we behave as a society when this case has not actually been dealt with by the agency concerned because she made the speech two working days after the appeal was given to the agency. If she had waited for the appropriate response by CPF Board, which reached her on 16 March, she would have known that this patient has received adequate help, that the system actually works, instead of saying so in her speech, that as a society, we had failed this resident. That is the point I was trying to make. As regard to her point about the fact that she did not say that the doctors had to cut down the medication dosages, I think I have quoted her in a speech before that that the patient has requested for their medication dosages to be cut down because they cannot afford to pay for their dosages in full.”
“The other observation I wish to make is that when Ms He made her statement lamenting where we stood as a society, it was before the agencies even had a chance to consider the appeal. Ms He submitted the appeal to the CPF Board on 24 February 2022. She made her speech two working days later on 28 February 2022 before CPF Board even had a chance to look at the appeal or furnish a response. For avoidance of doubt, let me clarify that I have no issues at all with Ms He raising the issue of costs of medications. Members of Parliament can and should raise the concerns important to their residents here in Parliament. The part that is of concern to me is that Ms He cited Mr H's case in support of a statement characterising our society as one that does not look after seniors, even before the facts of the case were determined and established, and before the agencies have had a chance to respond. Having regard to the facts outlined above, that is not a fair characterisation and it is also not fair to the agencies on the ground. It is understandable that members of the public may sometimes not be aware of the many different avenues and means in which Government agencies render assistance to them. However, as Members of Parliament, we can give them the assurance that in our society, those in need will always be provided for. As this case has shown, this Government has made provisions and set in place systems of appeal so that residents that like Ms He's resident, Mr H, need not worry. We will continue to review and update our system and processes as the needs evolve. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“It is unfortunate that when Ms He raised this issue in Parliament, she phrased it in the following way, and I quote, "After all, what does it say about us as a society that our seniors come and tell us as a matter of course that they have requested for their medication dosages to be cut down because they cannot afford to pay in full for dosages that doctors have prescribed to them to treat their medical ailments?" Her statement was cast as an indictment on our society and the picture painted was one of a society where seniors are forced to cut down on their necessary and essential medication dosages, simply because they cannot afford it. Implicit is also the suggestion that this state of affairs is due to a government that is not in touch with the ground or is uncaring. However, as seen from the facts which I have outlined above, this is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true. As a government, we are very much concerned and look out for those who have difficulties with medical costs and the system is designed to cater for the needs of those who are in need: the elderly, the low income and the vulnerable. In this case, had the resident gone to see the medical social worker in September 2021 as originally arranged, it would have been determined that he is eligible for MAF assistance and he would have received the 62.5% subsidies much earlier. We do not know the reason why he did not go to see the medical social worker at that time, but the key point to note here is that there is a system in place to help patients like Mr H. And the system is operating as it should have and the agencies did their part.”
“Following Ms He's appeal to CPF Board on behalf of Mr H on 24 February 2022, his MediSave withdrawal limits for the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) has been raised from the current $700 per year to $800 per year with effect from March 2022. And this higher limit would apply for his entire lifetime. In addition, he can utilise a further $300 a year from his MediSave under the Flexi-MediSave scheme. The CPF Board had, in fact, replied to Mr H on 16 March 2022, with a copy forwarded to Ms He. So, Ms He Ting Ru should already know that CPF Board had accorded flexibility to her resident when she gave a clarification in Parliament on 4 April 2022 and subsequently sent the details of this resident to me via an email on 5 April 2022. Hence, there is flexibility in our system to meet the needs of this resident. Sengkang Polyclinic also reached out to Mr H to arrange for him to see a MSW on 14 April 2022 and has since accorded Mr H MAF subsidies of 62.5% for the three non-standard drugs. His next medical appointment at Sengkang Polyclinic is in August 2022, next month. Should his doctor assess then that he requires other MAF drugs to manage his condition, he will automatically receive 62.5% subsidies for these drugs as well. If he still has difficulties paying for his medical bills, the medical social worker is able to further assist him to apply for MediFund assistance. I should emphasise that while the drugs are non-standard, he would have been eligible for MAF if he had gone to see the medical social worker in September 2021 as arranged. Mr Deputy Speaker, having provided these factual clarifications, may I just make a few more additional observations.”
“She said in her speech on 28 February 2022 and I quote, "While these systems are in place to prevent abuse – and quite rightly so – we must also ask ourselves and continue to ask ourselves important questions: who we are as a people and what values do we stand for?" This seems to suggest that the system has failed the patient and left him to struggle, such that he even asked for a reduction of the dosages of medication – something that would not be in line with what doctors professionally would do. Having checked the facts with MOH colleagues, I felt that I should update this House to close the matter. For medical confidentiality reasons, I will use the initials of this patient and refer to this resident as Mr H. I understand that her resident, Mr H is receiving medical treatment at Sengkang Polyclinic to manage multiple chronic medical conditions and currently, has no outstanding bills with Sengkang Polyclinic. On 8 September 2021, Mr H had visited Sengkang Polyclinic where he declined his doctor's recommendation to increase the dosage of his medication to manage his chronic condition due to affordability concerns. I want to confirm with Ms He that at no time was there a suggestion to cut the dosage of his medication and his medication dosage has not been reduced. His doctor had done the right thing and referred him to see a medical social worker to assess his financial ability and eligibility to receive Medication Assistance Fund (MAF) subsidies for three Mr H's drugs. However, Mr H did not follow up with the medical social worker.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to update this House on the clarification I sought from Ms He Ting Ru sometime back. Sir, on 4 April 2002, I sought clarification from Ms He Ting Ru on an anecdote she shared in her speech during the debate on the Budget Statement on 28 February 2022, in which she said and I quote, "After all, what does it say about us as a society that our senior residents come to us and tell us as a matter of course that they have requested for their medication dosages to be cut down because they cannot afford to pay for the full dosages that doctors have prescribed to them to treat their medical ailments?" She clarified on the same day after checking her records that a resident sought her assistance at her Meet-the-People Session to appeal for an increase in his MediSave claimable limits because he was, I quote, "prescribed various medications for these chronic conditions, which despite the various subsidies and claims of MediSave available to him, he was unable to avoid paying in full as there remained a residual cash payment that he was required to make." I asked Ms He to forward the details of this resident to me so that I could check and ensure that the necessary support and assistance were rendered to him. On 5 April 2022, the day after the clarification in Parliament, Ms He sent me a copy of the Meet-the-People Session letter dated 24 February 2022 which she sent to CPF Board, requesting for the MediSave claimable limit to be raised by a further $500 a year. It must be noted that Ms He submitted the appeal to CPF Board on 24 February 2022 but she made her speech in Parliament on 28 February 2022, just two working days later before the CPF Board had a chance to consider the appeal and furnish a reply.”
“Sir, in my main reply, I did say that the Committee is considering some potential mechanism like a phase-in period. That is probably one way to actually ease the industry into this transition of some CPF contribution, so that the immediate impact on both consumers, platform workers and the business costs of the companies can be managed over time. This is something that the Committee will engage further with the companies and the workers before landing on a fixed recommendation.”
“Sir, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, I do not have the actual data. Because at this moment, some of them are doing this only as a very small segment of their working life. So, they could be working on a very casual basis. Thus, they may not, actually, make contributions to CPF, if they are not working in this job as a full-time platform worker. We are trying to get data from CPF and the platform companies to see if we can get a better sense of it. But our assessment is that probably around 45% or thereabout, are making some CPF contributions. At best, it is probably about half of them doing so. We hope to get clearer data when we engage with the drivers, riders as well as the platform companies.”
“Sir, the Member asked an important question. We did say that this is a job with low barriers to entry and, unfortunately, I do not think the companies themselves track such data, such as what is the status of this person's jobs before, during or after they join platform work. Because, it is just as simple as downloading an app, getting a simple sign-up and they can start to engage in this kind of work. I think the challenge is in getting this data. We will try to do some surveys on this but I think it is very hard for us to get very, very accurate data on how many percentage of them are ex-offenders. Not all of them will also engage in this full-time. Some of them are doing it as a supplement. As I have said, the landscape is very diverse and the challenge is to get a true fix. At one point in time, we may get a single snapshot on how many ex-offenders are working in platform work, but they could easily exit the next day. And more may come on the day after. This is where, whatever intervention we design, we need to have that flexibility to cater to the evolving needs of this group of workers. Upstream intervention, including the Yellow Ribbon project, would be very important to make sure that ex-offenders, before they are re-integrated into society, are already given some degree of skills-training to allow them to, from the outset, look for jobs that are able to sustain them for the longer term and have employers who are prepared to take them on as employees so that there is perhaps less impetus for them to enter platform work as the job of choice when they get out into the rest of society. I think it takes all stakeholders, including the Singapore Prison Service, including employers who are enlightened, to engage and work with ex-offenders.”
“My sense is that it is a very disparate group: some could be younger; some could be older; some could be more educated; some, because of their physical conditions, realise they need to transit to something that is less physically demanding. I think it is a broad spectrum, the point being that we need many different things to meet the different needs of different groups of people. It is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all solution, nor a fixed archetype.”
“Sir, the Member rightly pointed out some of the concerns that the Committee is deliberating on. These are the concerns of some of the workers themselves: the fear of autonomous vehicles replacing their jobs and also, for the riders at least, it being such a physically demanding career, there is a question of how they can sustain this over a long period of time and make it a lifelong career. Also, the risk of being injured any day and once you cannot physically subject yourself to that kind of toil anymore, the income would be impacted. On the other hand, the workers do value the flexibility and autonomy, to some extent, that they have. It is also a job with low barriers to entry and allows them quick access to ready cash to tide over a period of need. So, there are pros and cons. And the Committee would continue to consult and engage our stakeholders. In terms of encouraging the workers to then look at a career transition, this is something that we have already put in place – some measures and schemes to support them. Ultimately, it is also helping them to raise their awareness of what would make a sustainable career and help them to acquire the skills that are necessary to transit into a sector that may be of interest to them. Skills upgrading is still core to the whole endeavour. But I think this is a complex issue. The demographics are quite widespread. Different segments of people, different needs. So, I do not think there is a one-size-fits-all strategy that will cater to all and appeal to all of them. I think we need to look at this from a multi-pronged perspective. Therefore, in answer to the first question posed, on what are the demographics of the 8% who may have made the transition, I do not have the full data.”
“The Workfare Skills Support Scheme and SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package are also available to them. Sir, at the height of the pandemic and the circuit breaker, these delivery riders helped maintain our quality of life by risking themselves to meet our needs. Singaporeans have called for more to be done for this group of precarious workers. These are often the forgotten heroes during the pandemic. So, even as we gradually ease into the endemic phase of our fight against COVID-19, let us not forget the needs of this group of precarious workers. The Committee’s work is still ongoing. As it continues to consult widely and facilitate deeper discussions, we will take in the feedback from platform workers and platform companies. The Committee aims to provide practicable and sustainable recommendations and is considering an appropriate phase-in period to allow the industry to adjust.”
“They ask the question – as the ones who are bringing in revenue for the companies, risking themselves on the roads – why are they not given some of these basic things that employees working for the companies in the office actually also enjoy. But at the same time, the Committee is also aware that some platform workers are concerned about the impact on their take-home earnings. This somehow also suggests that platform workers are not as well-paid, as some recent surveys have tried to portray. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the profile and longer-term career prospects of platform workers. In 2021, the majority of those who depended on platform work as their main job were older residents aged 50 and over, although delivery workers tended to be slightly younger, with the majority aged below 40. This is not surprising, as riders have to maintain a certain level of physical fitness and toil for many hours a day covering long distances in order to keep their earning levels high, as I had earlier described. The majority, or around 80% of those whose main job is a platform worker, view it as their preferred job. In 2021, 8% of those who depended on platform work as their main job switched to work primarily as an employee – a slight increase from the 5% to 6% in recent years. We will continue to support platform workers to actively plan their careers and strengthen their employability, while respecting the preference of many to continue in platform work. For those looking for employment opportunities, Workforce Singapore and NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute offer career matching services, including career coaching, employability workshops and job fairs.”
“An independent ethnographic study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) on delivery riders found that riders who are keen to earn an income of more than $4,000 a month would likely need to work more than 10 hours a day, for six to seven days a week, cycling at least 60 kilometres to 70 kilometres a day and not reject any assigned orders. They need to maintain long and disciplined hours at work and must certainly be physically fit. There is significant physical and mental stress imposed on these workers. While the surveys differ in their emphasis and findings, the one consistent feedback they note is that platform workers do experience greater uncertainty and would appreciate some aspects of what employees enjoy, such as the benefit of CPF contributions and work injury compensation. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about how mandatory CPF contributions for platform workers could be implemented. Without prejudging the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations, if this is implemented, we will develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure compliance. Today, platform workers already make mandatory CPF contributions out of their own earnings, although at a lower level of contribution, compared to an employee. The Committee is mindful that if mandatory CPF contribution for platform workers is introduced, platform companies will also have to start making contributions. While this will increase their business costs, it is no worse off than any other company employing workers in a similar sector, such as in logistics and transport. Besides, platform companies already contribute CPF for their management executives and administrative staff today, a point which many of these riders whom I engage with, make as well.”
“Sir, platform workers face unique conditions at work. They are subject to management control and are not able to set their own fees or remuneration, unlike the typical freelancers that we know. However, compared to employees, they receive lower job protections. To address this, the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers was convened in September last year to look into three key areas of concern, namely: enhancing housing and retirement adequacy, providing financial protection in the event of work injury and strengthening representation. Since it was convened, the Committee has actively engaged stakeholders through dialogues as well as a public consultation paper. To date, we have reached out to more than 20,000 platform workers and received about 1,200 submissions from them. To Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman’s question, more than half of these submissions touched on CPF contributions, of which, 55% indicated support for the idea of mandatory CPF contributions to platform workers. Housing was the most commonly cited reason for wanting CPF contributions, followed by retirement. This is not surprising, as platform workers today only make CPF contributions to their MediSave Accounts for their healthcare needs. In the coming months, we will continue with our engagement efforts and encourage all stakeholders, including platform workers, to share their views. The Committee is also aware that other surveys on platform work were commissioned and published recently, some of which were commissioned by the platform companies. These surveys vary in methodology and some have much smaller numbers of respondents. Some of these surveys also did not capture the management controls and challenges that the platform workers face.”
“Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 1 to 4, please?”
“So, I think we will try all our means to help this patient get access to the care that he or she needs. And I would appreciate if Ms He Ting Ru can send me the details of this patient.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Ms He Ting Ru for adding more context to the anecdote that she shared in the speech. I note that she has referred this resident of hers, who has issues with out-of-pocket charges, to CPF for further assistance. Might I suggest that, actually, that might not be the correct place for referring the patient for further help. Let me just give some background. In 2021, after we enhanced MediSave to allow $700 per year of claims, we note that, in our database, about nine in 10 of patients who used MediSave for their Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) or chronic medical conditions actually do not reach the limit. So, this particular resident may well have fallen out of the scheme, or it could be one where the medications are more unique and special. I raise this because I was a little bit concerned that in the Member's speech, the Member made this claim that the patients choose to cut down on the dosages and I thought that would not be medically sound. Because most doctors would not reduce a dose of medication. They may reduce the duration but, certainly, not the dosage. In this case, I think if this patient has residual out-of-pocket costs that he or she is unable to bear, may I suggest the Member perhaps may send me the details of this patient. We can take a look and see how we can actually bring the resources that he or she might not be aware of, because there could be alternative medications, there could well be more subsidised medications in our polyclinics. In fact, if this patient is elderly, 75% of our outpatient charges are already subsidised. If the elderly patient is in the Merdeka or Pioneer Generations, he will get at least a further 50% or 25%, depending on whether Pioneer or Merdeka Generation subsidies.”